Mort-Hog has put it best.

No, I haven't. Jipe and Spork have made the best posts so far.

As for the poor choose to be poor argument, it's basically true, at least in America/Canada etc. I mean, it might be really hard, but it's possible for ANYONE in America to succeed and become wealthy. There are no restrictions or anything. The only restriction is what you as a person are capable of achieving. I believe this is the best thing to go on. After all, people should get what they deserve, and they shouldn't deserve things just "because". All it takes is alot of motivation and determination for even the most unfortunate person. Of course, For some people it is a lot harder then others to rise up. But the point is, if they really want it bad enough, poor people don't have to be poor. Now, in third world countries of course it's a different picture.

its not so much an active choice as it is a lack of motivation. They can pull themselves up, its just that they can't see beyond trhe present and know no better. Public education is a complete, total, abysmal failure when it comes to teaching business. I learned nothing regrading investing except the basics of how to buy stocks in High school economics class. I didn't learn how to REALLY invest in school, I'm learning it now on my own. Poor people never learn it. I'm not a financial guru yet, but I can see the differences between how the rich think and how the poor think, and the sad truth is, the poor bring it upon themselves. Lots of rich people have started on the bottom and have built their empires by their own work, so it can be done.

Like I said earlier, the poor stay poor b/c they buy things that have no real appreciative value (like cars, clothes, etc.) instead of buying things that appreciate and generate cash flow on their own. (like real estate) The rich own a lot of assets and few liabilities. The poor and middle class tend to own lots of liabilities and few assets. This is why when poor people win the lottery, they are often broke again soon.

In America in 2005, there is no excuse for anyone to be poor their whole life. There are a ton of opportunities available, you just have to get off your a** and look for them.

I am in favor of a moderate democratic socialist society.

No, you don't understand, the man is holding them down! At least according to Mort et al. It's all an illusion created by the EVIL RICH. All poor are robin hoods, and would jump on any opportunity, if it was just presented to their poor souls!

Of course they aren't lazy! Of course they aren't stupid. I have a question though, if they work and make money, where does that money go? Do they have too many kids? Do they gamble? Are they irresponsible? Are they just lazy and have no real will to move up?

There is PLENTY of money for education out there. If you say otherwise I dare say you are blind. That is all they need to do. But no, they do stupid things and screw up their lives. Of course, the world needs losers to do petty jobs, so they fill that niche quite well!

In the end, I want you to tell my why the poor stay poor. Why they don't further pursue education. What exactly Mort is stopping them from improving their lives? Is there a rich man standing at the doors of a community college saying "YOU SHALL NOT PASS"? Is there a rich man at the post office blocking letters for financial aid? No, there is not. Some people are poor because dangit, they are stupid or lazy, maybe both. Not everyone jumps on opportunity.

(This applies only to the US of A)

education in and of itself isn't the answer either. Even if you graduate with honours and get a great job, you still are working and are paying taxes until you retire. The more you work, the more you are taxed. I know lots of highly educated people that still live paycheck to paycheck, just one step ahead of going broke. they are in debt (bad consumer debt) over their head and they are struggling. The true rich don't need jobs b/c they have a consistant positive cashflow. The rich have their assets do the work for them.

Why do they have so much debt? I mean, that money is going twoard something. What are they buying? And I know it's not food, utilities, and mortage only. The debt just isn't self-creating.

Education for the sake of getting a good job is not education. Getting a good job (and I assume that when most of you use this term you mean a high-paying job, or at least a sufficiently-paying job, and paying referring specifically to money) will not ensure happiness or survival. Let's drop the charade kids.

they buy cars, clothes, luxury items. They may own a boat, a flashy car, a big house, just to impress their friends. They try to create the illusion of wealth when they have no real weath to back it up. Ever hear of the expression "Keeping up with the joneses"? That's more or less what it is.

They pay off the debt, or worse, they just pay interest on that debt. After they start doing that, they are in a trap and it's very difficult to get out.

What you must realize that there is two kinds of debt. There is good debt (investment debt) and bad debt (consumer debt). Investment debt is good b/c you go into debt on things that make you money on a constant basis, so you get a steady rate of return. This is free money to go along with what you get on your paycheck. Investment debt is necessary b/c w/o borrowing (and going into debt) you probably couldn't afford to buy a duplex, 3-plex, 4-plex, or any other property that can give you income in form of rent.


Consumer debt is credit card debt. You buy things and run up a lot of debt on things that depreciate to almost no value when you take them home. This is bad b/c you have more to pay for, but no increase in money to alleviate the increased burden.

Also, real estate is not always an asset. Large houses may be nice to own, but you're not going to make any money by renting them.

This is b/c Rent < Mortgage, so you would lose money on that property.

properties like apartment buildings or duplexes are assets b/c you can rent them out and get more than what you are paying b/c there are multiple tenants and therefore multiple rents. Here's how it works:

Rent ● number of units = monthly cashflow for that property.

Since monthly cashflow is probably greater than the mortgage that you have to pay on that property, you pay the monthly mortgage with it and pocket the remainder. That's free money in your pocket, and the really cool part is you didn't have to do any extra work to get it. It's self-sustaining as long as you have tenants. If you don't have tenants, your money-making asset becomes a money-eating liability b/c you pay the mortgage out of your own money instead of having your tenants pay it for you via rent. See how this works?

That does not mean you're doomed to failure just because you were born into poverty. America does provide loads of opportunities to succeed. You just have to grab them. Rarely will opportunity come to you, you have to go and get it.

I don't have control over my life? I cannot make decisions that will impact my economic standings? Yes, I do not have control over what the employer pays me...to a point. I can either pack my stuff and leave or plead for a raise.

Of course not - no one said anything of the sort. But statistically speaking it is many times harder to succeed if you are born into a poor family. Do people "make it out"? Of course. But your mistake lies in assuming that everyone else who remains poor is that way solely because of their conscious decisions. Nobody is denying that ambition, motivation, and personal choices are key factors - but you cannot ignore the part that chance plays.


Right, this is fairly obvious, although "loads of opportunities" is certainly debatable. As your income level decreases so do your opportunities - it's common sense. Those of you who are repeating "education, education, education" over and over like a broken record while simultaneously supporting values that decrease the quality of education for others are either not thinking clearly or just plain mean-spirited.

On one hand you are insisting that it's possible for someone to make something of themselves if they just try hard enough, because "the opportunities are out there," and at the same time you're lobbying for tax cuts that result in decreased budgets for school systems everywhere around the country. And which systems are hurt most? The ones that need money desperately. Just a question: how many of you were educated in the Chicago Public School system? How many were brought up in Detroit's inner city?

I am an extremely dedicated and self-motivated individual, but I realize that my academic success is not purely based on my will to succeed, but also on things that were out of my control. I did not choose to be born in a particular suburb north of Chicago where I received a high quality education - I could just as easily have been born in Cabrini Green and struggled through a school system rife with corruption, inadequate funding, and bad teachers. And that's if I managed to survive until age 18, what with the gang wars, drug dealers, and regular drive-by shootings.


I think what Mort-Hog meant to say was, "You don't have complete control over your life." This much should be obvious from my posts.

Think about it this way: imagine someone told you that your goal was to climb a mountain and reach the top. You start out halfway up with a decent amount of supplies, while someone else starts at the bottom with nothing but a small coil of rope and some granola bars. Obviously it is still statistically possible for both of you to reach the top, but who is more likely to do it?

Shall I go on? What if, after a few hours of climbing, you happen upon a small trail that switchbacks up the mountain side and instead of having to continue scaling sharp rocks with your hands and feet, you can simply walk upwards hundreds of feet on that nice little trail? What a stroke of luck! And entirely unattributable to ambition and motivation, but rather due completely to chance. Imagine that.

So now, not only did you start halfway up the mountain, but you happened to stumble upon a trail that led you almost to the top. Now once you've reached the peak, you look below and see the other person still struggling near the bottom. "What's the matter?" you ask. "What's stopping you from getting up here? Obviously you're just not trying enough." And then you proceed to make the mountain even steeper, because you enjoy your view and you have "earned" it, and would rather keep it to yourself.

Incidentally, it seems to me that Pagewizard speaks like any business student would. I find it somewhat difficult to fault him, because if you sit in on almost any other business class in any college in the United States, you are likely to find the same attitude, over and over again. And why not? Business, especially in America, is built on the bedrock of individual responsibility.

And you know what? Capitalism definitely has its merits. Markets are beautiful things to watch in action - supply and demand, competition, etc. But some of the key assumptions of economic thought are just ridiculous - the consumer is perfectly rational? Everyone starts on an equal footing? The last one is especially laughable, as I hope my extended analogy shows. It is unfortunate that business education in this country seems to revolve around the "repeat it enough times and it becomes true" philosophy. Does that method of teaching scare anyone else?

One last thing: if any of you are attending college currently, are you receiving any sort of financial assistance in the form of a merit or need-based scholarship? Because if you are, and you're trying to argue for individual responsibility and "pulling one's self up by one's bootstraps," don't you see that as being just a little bit hypocritical?

I sure do love the dog-eat-dog the-poor-aren't-human-too compassionless people our great capitalism has bred.

Very well presented, Jipe. By the way, though, merit scholarships are given to an individual because he or she has worked hard and demonstrated some sort of excellence. They are awards, much like riches acquired by victors. The individual responsibility simply brought an extra benefit . . .

As for riches to rags stories, that is a wrong way to look at the opportunities of capitalism. People shouldn't expect to work hard and simply break out of all former problems. Luck is a major factor; the dealing of chance favors only a portion of the determined.

One principle that people forget is that the safest basic investment is to save your money. Many of the lower class in America do not like this idea. They want to live in the present. They like the idea of lottery tickets. GOLD IS AROUND THE CORNER! JUST SCRATCH THE CARD! IGNORE THE 0.000001 CHANCE OF A SUBSTANTIAL WIN!

I have heard stories of poor people who worked menial jobs for years, with long hours. They saved their money and lived within their means and eventually either bought a small business (gas station, convenience store) or supported their children through community college or trade schools. They did not try to jump the social ladder to fortune. They basically raised their standard of living and saved for a better life down the road. This is capitalism in progress, but many Americans in a situation as mentioned would not take this gradual, goal-based route.

I am not like my parents. My parents would rather I be all on my own. I mean I work for every dime for college education. I'm not an idiot. I recognise I do need financial help. College tuitions are quite high. I have no problems with merit-based scholarships and financial aid from government(s).

Education is big. Any type of education is good. The more you are informed, the more chances you have of not being caught off guard or in a crunch. Yes, life will throw curveballs and mean sinkers. That's how things have ALWAYS happened. It sucks. I'm not blind to that either. And if you need help, then seek it out. Americans are charitable despite our seemingly selfish attitude. I just don't want you living off of subsidies.

Actually I really want more people like JDKNITE188 described. People who try to save and invest their money for ill fortunes that might occur. It's nothing overly complicated. Just some good thinking on one's behalf.

I do know that not all businesses are equal. Not everyone is in the same economic brackets. Although socialism tries to force everyone in the same economic bracket. I'm no business major. And the consumer is NOT rational. Some of my family can attest to this.

I was going somewhere with this post...bah. I can't think much now. -_-

That's un unfair comparison. We're talking apples and oranges here.




While I will agree that upbringing is a major contributor as to how you will live your life, it is not what sets it in stone. You have poor people rising up to the top and generating wealth, but even in rich families you have the ones that grow up and carelessly lose the family fortune through irresponsibility.

Also, RE: school funding cuts are not really an issue here.
I believe that the educational system should be scrapped and completely revised. We are training our children to be business workers instead of business owners. I don't care how many computers you have in the classroom or how big your school budget is, things are not going to change until we teach our children in the inner cities that yes, there is a better life, and yes, they can attain it if they are willing to go out there and try.

the problem is that savings accounts are slooooooooooow. You will be saving most of your life to get a worthwhile ammount, and after inflation takes its toll your investment capital will be worth a lot less in tommorrow's dollars.

These people try to play it safe. Granted, they are safe, but the returns are small. For big returns, you have to take calculated risk.

For serious investing, f*** the savings account. You can't keep up with inflation, so borrow the money instead. The only time I would use a savings account would be short-term so i could use the money as collateral to help leverage a loan from the bank.

....I have travelled. A lot. Western Europe, alright, doesnt count as world poverty hotspot. Eastern Europe, not too bad, but that's the closest I've come to abject poverty, unless you want to count Mississippi, Alabama, or Central Florida.

The consumer being rational assumption is a tenet of Adam Smith style Capitalism, which is pretty much dog-eat-dog, not socialism.

Adam Smith stated that humans are by nature: rational, capable, and self-interested. This self-preservation would in the long-run have a positive impact on the larger economy as a person would find his own niche in the market and exploit it. With ruthless capitalism, which is *almost* what America has aside from a few miserable Great Society programs, Adam Smith declared that there should be no welfare. The market would weed out the weak and allow only the prosperous to survive. Talk about belief in the protestant work ethic.

Anyways, I'm still a bit riled over the fact that I'm working my *** off for 40 hours a week, going to school, and not having the same quality of life as people in Europe. Why do Americans feel it's a bad thing for me to take a vacation?

No one has ever been on their deathbed and said, "Dammit! I wish I spent more time at work!" No. I want more life in this life.

I am unsure of this myself. Perhaps we've developed a constant work state of mind. Perhaps this is an effect of ruthless capatalism. We never stop to rest in order to gain a dollar or try to out do the next guy. Americans are materialistic. I follow that trend a little myself. I would hypothesize that this isn't the working American's belief rather than a "white-collar" belief. The white-collars have brought about a notion that taking vacations would only hurt the company and your paycheck. So the brass of American Corporations are tricking the worker into working day in and day out...to make the VP's stock go a little higher.

Okay, I'm going to attempt to take the discussion in a new direction....

Socialism was once said to be the transition between Capitalism (and dictator economies like it) and Communism. We've all see this fail horribly as the economic communities (countries) who have tried to go to communism have never been able to make it over that last 'hump' to communism. That last 'hump' being that of giving up money in the 'intracommunity' (hehe, I think I just coined a new word). When you get down to the heart of it, the biggest difference between the Capitalist and Communist economic systems is money. Thus leading me to my theory that the only way to get to true Communism is to first achieve true Capitalism. Once then, all you need is a unified goal. This goal would be a general principal of changing our drive from the assertainment of wealth to a drive for the assertainment of knowledge and self growth (as individuals and as a community). In this day in age, this is becomming more and more possible as any low paying job could now be replaced by robots or some other automated system. Knowledge of new ideas would be given freely (not sold for 3 payments of $39.95) so that we may advance our species at a rate never seen before! [in deeper but louder voice]"This does not have to be but a mere dream, my brethren. This could become OUR reality. [louder] We must stand up together and cry out in one voice, 'We accept OUR goal! We accept our responsibilty to humanity! We will not go quitely into the night or be vanquished by the terrany of greed! This is OUR goal! This is OUR vision! We are the United...Humans...of Earth!"

:em321:

payed for by the united humans of earth [uhe] society for a newer, better, cleaner future.

I'm a fascist. (Seriously)

Ever been to Mexico? Ever been to the villages? the people there are poor b/c they simply have NOTHING. That's Poverty.

But of course, they're poor because they choose to be poor.

If they only had the proper motivation...

Or education!

...No, but just because I've never been there doesnt mean I dont believe it exists.

that's different. In those poor villages, there's not much they can do b/c there is no opportunity. Here in America, it's different.

No, it isn't. A ghetto is a ghetto.

Paragraphs.

How so? Did you completely miss the post that someone made about "Ghetto" life? Please, tell me that at age 8 you were dreaming of owning your own investment firm so that I can walk 2 blocks from my campus and tell the ghetto children that they just need to find the motivation so they can get their parents off crack cocaine, if their parents are alive. These kids see drugdealing as a respectable business. The education they receive in school is minimal, what with the school being so afraid, and usually rightfully so, of students carrying weapons or doing hard drugs out the back door.

How is it any different?

Everyone can't be a business owner, because then all the business owners would have no workers, and thus no products. Without workers and products, business owners would become the workers, or else they would have no business to speak of. At this point they cease to be owners, and, lacking the education to be business workers, would fail. There would be little (if any) profit, and the economy would fall to pieces.

There are not enough resources in the world that everyone can be a billionaire, and if, say, it so happened that everyone suddenly became a billionaire, then all that wealth would lose its value and everyone would have very little. Capitalism is based on centralized ownership of all the wealth, communism strives for everyone to have equal ownership. Capitalism at its ideal state (where everyone gets a piece of the pie) is just communism.

i accidently voted capitalism:o i'm a socialist!

socialist, scince I live in australia and we never had the "communist=evil people that have nukes and neeed to be taken down" thing that you yanks went through (and still are going through in some slight form) so we do not have the stigma on any socialistic things.

Yeah riiiiight. You were just voting how you really thought. :p

...

Wow, how ignorant. That's not why I dislike socialists--it's because seeing it in practice, the economies using it are failing most of the time. Slowly, but still failing.

Mort--please, do tell me our poverty rates compared to other countries'. Keep in mind that it must be a SET poverty rate, not just what the specific country has it set at (I think ours is less than 27,000, somewhere around there, you're in poverty).

poverty rates are set to a level that represents the lower level of that nation.

But I hardly call <27000 poverty in America. In almost all places in America, one person can live on 20,000 a year, if not less. I've seen families of 3 live on 20,000 a year, which is quite a stretch, but it's happened.

Yes, I am completely aware of that. Mine was a rhetorical question. I very well knew they put themselves in that debt, so my education point stands.

And seriouisly, I was harsh in that post, and no one wants to even flame it, and Alpha1 gets all the attention . There are clear logical flaws no one wants to point out! I put them there to further the question, of course, heh heh...

Capitalist. Although education should be accessible to poor people.