"Hard-Working American" Myth

[Bay Area]

yep let's see


$400 flat screen
$150 xbo360
$160 =$40 games x 4 a year
$100= blu ray player
$200 $20 dvd x10 a year
$125 jordans
$720 $60 cable x12 months
$912= $5 pack cigs at every other day

$2767 that the poor could of had in a savings account, now add anotheer $2000 the year after and $2000 the year after that.

Holy cow in 3 years of not buying shit that they don't need the poor could have $6767 in savings!!!!

Now do you see how the poor screw themselves over..

Cable and a flatscreen are necessary in order to stay up to date on current events. If its not paying for cable and a TV, then its an Internet connection and a Laptop. Either way, this "connection" to the rest of the humans on the globe is a necessity. How do you expect the poor to rise out of their situation living in a dark cave in the jungle?

The x box 360 is a one time cost. God forbid the poor have some sort of entertainment. The xbox also plays DVDs. Used games go for as little as $15 each.

Blue Ray and Jordans, again a one time cost. Assuming you are getting new Jordan's every 6 months.. that's what $250 every year. Not a lot of money poor or no. And the average poor person is not wearing Jordans or smoking cigs. So where are these "savings" you are referring to?

 

[kpt018]

OK... So maybe you don't get the Hardest Work Award. But maybe you get the Longest Hours Award and/or the Biggest Sacrifice of Personal Time Award. Why is the differentiation so difficult for some to make?

Or if a lawyer told me that his/her work was more complex than the work of a jack-hammer operator I would agree with him/her wholeheartedly.

Well, "hardest" has multiple meanings. Once you define it, it's very easy to differentiate. And that's all I said.

To be fair, you make a good point in this regard - there are plenty of elitists in accounting/lawyer/doctor professions (probably in others too). But most of them know blue collar guys work very hard - many of us went to school to avoid a career doing that kind of work! My parents would always tell me, "do you want to break your ass 7 days a week and have nothing to show for it"?

If you told me that a construction worker burns more calories then me at work, has a more dangerous job and is more physically taxing, I would agree with him/her wholeheartedly.

 

[kpt018]

yep let's see


$400 flat screen
$150 xbo360
$160 =$40 games x 4 a year
$100= blu ray player
$200 $20 dvd x10 a year
$125 jordans
$720 $60 cable x12 months
$912= $5 pack cigs at every other day

$2767 that the poor could of had in a savings account, now add anotheer $2000 the year after and $2000 the year after that.

Holy cow in 3 years of not buying shit that they don't need the poor could have $6767 in savings!!!!

Now do you see how the poor screw themselves over..

This is just a distraction from the real discussion.

When people are discussing the poor, no one is talking about people who spend foolishly into poverty. The discussions are about income. You could have just as easily given an example about a multi-millionaire who went broke because of bad investments or an ex pro-athlete who went broke.

We are talking about people who are poor because they don't make enough money to support themselves and their families.

Anyway, are they not considered poor to you unless they live in a shack and are starving? Obviously we are also talking about relative poverty here.

 

[Bay Area]

This is just a distraction from the real discussion.

When people are discussing the poor, no one is talking about people who spend foolishly into poverty. The discussions are about income. You could have just as easily given an example about a multi-millionaire who went broke because of bad investments or an ex pro-athlete who went broke.

We are talking about people who are poor because they don't make enough money to support themselves and their families.

Anyway, are they not considered poor to you unless they live in a shack and are starving? Obviously we are also talking about relative poverty here.

The real issue is why in the hell have wages stayed stagnate over the decades, while the top percentile earnings have skyrocketed. Notice how CableandThanos dances around this issue. You want to say production of the low wage worker doubled over the decades due to technology...fine. But explain why wages have flatlined, while company profits and top management earnings have increased 1000 fold. It is pure rape...there is no other way to put it.

Spoiler

 

[kpt018]

The real issue is why in the hell have wages stayed stagnate over the decades, while the top percentile earnings have skyrocketed. Notice how CableandThanos dances around this issue. You want to say production of the low wage worker doubled over the decades due to technology...fine. But explain why wages have flatlined, while company profits and top management earnings have increased 1000 fold. It is pure rape...there is no other way to put it.

Yeah, I posted a very similar graph from the BLS in another thread (the trend still holds if you post older data too). I think income inequality is growing and is a major problem and should be a key issue in the upcoming elections. As you and I have pointed out, it's especially concerning that workers are more productive, yet get a smaller share of the profits. It's a bad trend.

 

[panamaican]

This is just a distraction from the real discussion.

When people are discussing the poor, no one is talking about people who spend foolishly into poverty. The discussions are about income. You could have just as easily given an example about a multi-millionaire who went broke because of bad investments or an ex pro-athlete who went broke.

We are talking about people who are poor because they don't make enough money to support themselves and their families.

Anyway, are they not considered poor to you unless they live in a shack and are starving? Obviously we are also talking about relative poverty here.

I think the point is that all of those items are examples of poor choices.

Even if you need a tv to watch the news, you can buy a cheaper one. You don't need cable either since every major tv station has news on 2x a day. $125 sneakers are a bad choice when you can buy $50 sneakers, even if you're only buying them 2x a year (another bad choice - once a year should be plenty). The video game and dvd stuff is obviously unnecessary. It's entertainment and there's always cheaper entertainment.

Individually, none of those things are problematic. As a group they hurt your long term economic success. Even if it's just $2k a year, in 10 years that's $20k and a decent down payment on a house (probably more than you need in many cases) which is a major step towards economic freedom.

And we do frequently point to athletes who spend their way back into poverty as examples of how bad decision making can ruin you economically. Why should it be any less true when you're going from a little to something better than it is when you're going from a lot to a little.

 

[CableandThanos]

Cable and a flatscreen are necessary in order to stay up to date on current events. If its not paying for cable and a TV, then its an Internet connection and a Laptop. Either way, this "connection" to the rest of the humans on the globe is a necessity. How do you expect the poor to rise out of their situation living in a dark cave in the jungle?

The x box 360 is a one time cost. God forbid the poor have some sort of entertainment. The xbox also plays DVDs. Used games go for as little as $15 each.

Blue Ray and Jordans, again a one time cost. Assuming you are getting new Jordan's every 6 months.. that's what $250 every year. Not a lot of money poor or no. And the average poor person is not wearing Jordans or smoking cigs. So where are these "savings" you are referring to?

This is the most pathetic response I have ever seen. CABLE IS NEEDED TO STAY IN CONTACT WITH THE WORLD?

Yea I guess they can't spend .50 cents on a newspaper, or watch the news in the breakroom at work.

I can see you are either trolling or stupid, no further contact will be made with you. If you think like this, I'm surprised you have made it this far in life.

 

[CableandThanos]

I think the point is that all of those items are examples of poor choices.

Even if you need a tv to watch the news, you can buy a cheaper one. You don't need cable either since every major tv station has news on 2x a day. $125 sneakers are a bad choice when you can buy $50 sneakers, even if you're only buying them 2x a year (another bad choice - once a year should be plenty). The video game and dvd stuff is obviously unnecessary. It's entertainment and there's always cheaper entertainment.

Individually, none of those things are problematic. As a group they hurt your long term economic success. Even if it's just $2k a year, in 10 years that's $20k and a decent down payment on a house (probably more than you need in many cases) which is a major step towards economic freedom.

And we do frequently point to athletes who spend their way back into poverty as examples of how bad decision making can ruin you economically. Why should it be any less true when you're going from a little to something better than it is when you're going from a lot to a little.

but but but they gotta spend $60 a month on cable, so they can have human contact, and they gotta sPend $900 a year on smokes. And they gotta buy games and movies, how else do you entertain yourself.

I just showed a way to save almost $3000 a year and people are talking like it is impossible.


People do know that it can be both issues right It can be that wages needed to be higher, but also the poor need to make better decisions.

AND GUESS WHICH ONE THE POOR CAN CONTROL-THEM MAKING BETTER DECISIONS. THEY CAN'T CONTROL GETTING A RAISE, BUT THEY CAN CONTROL THEIR SPENDING.

 

[kpt018]

I think the point is that all of those items are examples of poor choices.

Even if you need a tv to watch the news, you can buy a cheaper one. You don't need cable either since every major tv station has news on 2x a day. $125 sneakers are a bad choice when you can buy $50 sneakers, even if you're only buying them 2x a year (another bad choice - once a year should be plenty). The video game and dvd stuff is obviously unnecessary. It's entertainment and there's always cheaper entertainment.

Individually, none of those things are problematic. As a group they hurt your long term economic success. Even if it's just $2k a year, in 10 years that's $20k and a decent down payment on a house (probably more than you need in many cases) which is a major step towards economic freedom.

And we do frequently point to athletes who spend their way back into poverty as examples of how bad decision making can ruin you economically. Why should it be any less true when you're going from a little to something better than it is when you're going from a lot to a little.

That's fine and I don't disagree that those are poor spending choices. Although, the stress of being poor can lead to bad financial decisions (was it you that made a thread about it). I'll refrain from generalizing and just say that this is not at the heart of the debates for ME.

 

[CableandThanos]

The real issue is why in the hell have wages stayed stagnate over the decades, while the top percentile earnings have skyrocketed. Notice how CableandThanos dances around this issue. You want to say production of the low wage worker doubled over the decades due to technology...fine. But explain why wages have flatlined, while company profits and top management earnings have increased 1000 fold. It is pure rape...there is no other way to put it.

Spoiler

First and foremost, let me make it clear that I believe both, companies could pay more and we, as workers/people/consumers need to make better choices.

I am just arguing from the side of just because a company makes more money (from technology) doesn't mean that we are all working harder and deserve more money.

Again, My lab bought a $100,000 machine that cuts blood work time in half. I can't run into my bosses office and say, because a machine is getting work out faster, I need a raise?

 

[kpt018]

First and foremost, let me make it clear that I believe both, companies could pay more and we, as workers/people/consumers need to make better choices.

I am just arguing from the side of just because a company makes more money (from technology) doesn't mean that we are all working harder and deserve more money.

Again, My lab bought a $100,000 machine that cuts blood work time in half. I can't run into my bosses office and say, because a machine is getting work out faster, I need a raise?

No, but if the machine allowed you to treat/service twice as many patients and your boss turned to you and said you need to work 10 more hours to handle the ability to serve more patients and you need to get certified on how to use the machine, you would probably have a good case for getting a raise (or at least getting paid for the extra hours worked).

 

[CableandThanos]

That's fine and I don't disagree that those are poor spending choices. Although, the stress of being poor can lead to bad financial decisions (was it you that made a thread about it). I'll refrain from generalizing and just say that this is not at the heart of the debates for ME.

I just want people, not you, but others


to admit that even with low wages, we find ways to screw ourselves over.

It can be both issues, but some people want to act like that mean old companies are not paying enough (some may, some may not). It could be enough to live on if we make better decisions.

If we are going to look at a problem (poor people struggling) then lets look at all the issues effecting them.

The only one they can control is their decision making, if they get a raise great, but until then, they/we all need to make better decisions, especially when times are lean.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

yep let's see


$400 flat screen
$150 xbo360
$160 =$40 games x 4 a year
$100= blu ray player
$200 $20 dvd x10 a year
$125 jordans
$720 $60 cable x12 months
$912= $5 pack cigs at every other day

$2767 that the poor could of had in a savings account, now add anotheer $2000 the year after and $2000 the year after that.

Holy cow in 3 years of not buying shit that they don't need the poor could have $6767 in savings!!!!

Now do you see how the poor screw themselves over..

First off...where in the hell are Cigs 5 bucks a pack? They are almost 10 dollars up here (with tax).

And I don't know anyone who buys 20 DVDs a year...let alone 10. Everyone I know streams movies of Apple TV or a similar device.

I agree that many people dig themselves into debt by making poor financial choices, but you also have to factor in unexpected costs, such as medical expenses. (even with adequate coverage, co pay and such can be expensive), and car mechanic fees etc.

 

[kpt018]

I just want people, not you, but others


to admit that even with low wages, we find ways to screw ourselves over.

It can be both issues, but some people want to act like that mean old companies are not paying enough (some may, some may not). It could be enough to live on if we make better decisions.

If we are going to look at a problem (poor people struggling) then lets look at all the issues effecting them.

The only one they can control is their decision making, if they get a raise great, but until then, they/we all need to make better decisions, especially when times are lean.

Of course people make bad financial decisions, rich, middle class and poor. Unfortunately (or fortunately) the more wealth you have, the more you can withstand and rebound from poor decisions.

I know one wealthy business owner who loses hundreds of thousands in the market each year (he is a gambler, really doesn't know what he's doing). But he lives in a castle, literally. His life style doesn't change one bit, other then the stress of "losing".

A guy supporting a family on $20k a year may not be able to pay rent if he buys an xbox or flat screen tv as you've pointed out.

There are lots of middle class folks who had their 401ks demolished in the recession, moved to low interest low risk funds and missed out on the rebound. The ones close to retirement are going to have to work longer. They won't starve, but they won't move to Florida and hang out on the beach until they can build their savings back up. Bad financial planning means stalling retirement.

I have no interest in how people spend their money (or invest it). IMO, we need more folks who can buy an xbox or a flat screen tv in order to have a strong economy, don't you?

 

[CableandThanos]

No, but if the machine allowed you to treat/service twice as many patients and your boss turned to you and said you need to work 10 more hours to handle the ability to serve more patients and you need to get certified on how to use the machine, you would probably have a good case for getting a raise (or at least getting paid for the extra hours worked).

That;s the issue, the machine just speeds up the time for the patients we do have, it doesn't mean we are magically going to get more patients.

It frees up time for the staff to do other things, paper work, education training, helping another worker out, etc.

It also frees me up to watch hours of basketball and TV at night. I understand that not everyone has a job like I do. But even your retail workers, They have plenty of goofing off time (I worked retail, movie theaters, UPS, road construction, when I was 16-21).

When I was 19 I worked construction, my job was to watch for any of the concrete that we were digging up, to go out onto the road. If some went out there, I grabbed it off the street.Now I made decent money, and while I was working we found out that we got some sort of new contract and that we had made a ton of money off another job that we weren't expecting to make as much. So, even though I had jack shit to do with it, should I have gotten more money to watch for rocks in the street?

I have a friend who works at a factory, he gets like $9 an hour to sit there and watch the assembly line. If something falls off, he picks it up. That's it.

Now let's say that through technology, or better advertising, or new contracts that the company makes more money this year, Should he get some?

I am asking logically and reality wise, not morally or wishful thinking.

Also at what cut off point is it to much profit. How much can a company make but you start complaining about wanting a raise? If my company makes 5 million profit and they give me a $1 raise, what if they only make 2 million next year, do I still get a raise?

Also is this just for big companies or mom and pop? if mom and pop sanders are making $800,000 to a mil a year, are we complaining that they make to much money and we need a raise?

 

[panamaican]

That's fine and I don't disagree that those are poor spending choices. Although, the stress of being poor can lead to bad financial decisions (was it you that made a thread about it). I'll refrain from generalizing and just say that this is not at the heart of the debates for ME.

I may have. It's certainly true that poverty leads to flawed decision making (not just in the other direction as more commonly referenced)) and that the economics of poverty are different from the economics of abundance in terms of how people evaluate certain decisions.

But some of these things fall outside that scope. Of course, that's not even a real problem. It's an inevitability of life. No matter how much we redistribute wealth or prop up the poor, there will always be relative poverty and it's accompanying shortcomings. The key is to separate out true economic hardship from relative hardship and address only the former.

 

[kpt018]

That;s the issue, the machine just speeds up the time for the patients we do have, it doesn't mean we are magically going to get more patients.

It frees up time for the staff to do other things, paper work, education training, helping another worker out, etc.

It also frees me up to watch hours of basketball and TV at night. I understand that not everyone has a job like I do. But even your retail workers, They have plenty of goofing off time (I worked retail, movie theaters, UPS, road construction, when I was 16-21).

When I was 19 I worked construction, my job was to watch for any of the concrete that we were digging up, to go out onto the road. If some went out there, I grabbed it off the street.Now I made decent money, and while I was working we found out that we got some sort of new contract and that we had made a ton of money off another job that we weren't expecting to make as much. So, even though I had jack shit to do with it, should I have gotten more money to watch for rocks in the street?

I have a friend who works at a factory, he gets like $9 an hour to sit there and watch the assembly line. If something falls off, he picks it up. That's it.

Now let's say that through technology, or better advertising, or new contracts that the company makes more money this year, Should he get some?

I am asking logically and reality wise, not morally or wishful thinking.

Also at what cut off point is it to much profit. How much can a company make but you start complaining about wanting a raise? If my company makes 5 million profit and they give me a $1 raise, what if they only make 2 million next year, do I still get a raise?

Also is this just for big companies or mom and pop? if mom and pop sanders are making $800,000 to a mil a year, are we complaining that they make to much money and we need a raise?

I think we are off track here (or maybe I am). What is your main point? I can't argue with your examples, obviously I don't care if companies do or don't give merit raises. Are we discussing MW or just income inequality in general?

 

[kpt018]

I may have. It's certainly true that poverty leads to flawed decision making (not just in the other direction as more commonly referenced)) and that the economics of poverty are different from the economics of abundance in terms of how people evaluate certain decisions.

But some of these things fall outside that scope. Of course, that's not even a real problem. It's an inevitability of life. No matter how much we redistribute wealth or prop up the poor, there will always be relative poverty and it's accompanying shortcomings. The key is to separate out true economic hardship from relative hardship and address only the former.

I can get on board with that but it will depend on what you mean by "true economic hardship". Are we only helping people who are homeless or starving?

 

[CableandThanos]

I have no interest in how people spend their money (or invest it). IMO, we need more folks who can buy an xbox or a flat screen tv in order to have a strong economy, don't you?

I have total interest.

When I see ebt card holders buying $8 Digiorno pizzas instead of $2 tonys pizzas, I get pissed. We all are paying for their food and they don't even have the decency to try and make a proper decision about how best to feed their family. When I take my blind mom down to the Welfare center to try and get insurance and I pull up in the parking lot and 80% of the cars in the parking lot are nicer than mine, yet people are inside begging for money for their kid, that pisses me off.

When I hear the ladies at my work talk about how the company needs to pay them more money, yet you ask them what they do all day while they are off from work and they say, watch my soaps, etc. I ask why none of them are taking college courses or on line courses and they say they are to old (30 to 50 yr old women). My place will pay for them to go to school, yet they don't try and lift a finger to better themselves, but they sit around bitching about wanting more money.

When I see the same women eat out everynight, , and half of them smoke, but none of them put anything in their 401k, I get pissed. Because these will be the same slobs yelling about how social security isn't enough for them to live on, and how they need more money.

 

[CableandThanos]

I think we are off track here (or maybe I am). What is your main point? I can't argue with your examples, obviously I don't care if companies do or don't give merit raises. Are we discussing MW or just income inequality in general?

I think we all went in all sorts of directions with the conversation LOL