Gender: Male Location: Kicking pigs out of the screen.
I'm talking about much poorer, third world nations. It isn't better there because they don't have the resources. You're talking about other developed nations. Which is why I was talking about the poorest. Which only proves my point further because stronger and more prosperous nations have more access to food, money, education, etc.
People who are wealthier do have access to better healthcare as I said. While people have to wait for HMO's or other policies or other doctors who may not treat them, if you have the resources you can have an on call Dr. 24/7 who will treat you at any time. They only cost about 4k a year, good investment.
You clearly don't know much about poverty, and it's clear you know little about money. I know plenty about both from experience and studies. Poverty is a mindset. There are certain behaviors poor people do that keep them poor. In your mind money is all about "luck" and somehow people are entitled to certain things over others. I'm not ranting, only discussing. You want to put moral implications and mix your own views/problems into these debates. You had no counters to any previous points you only threw in a moral debate about the issue of money. People will and will continue to do what ensures their own survival even if it comes at a cost to others. This should be obvious as we have only a limited amount of resources for an unlimited amount of wants and demands. Yes. Really, and what have you done for this cause. How have you contributed to solving this issue? Or is typing on a screen about the most I'm going to see?
__________________
Stompin' Time!!!
Props to SK
Last edited by Tha C-Master on Aug 15th, 2011 at 10:28 PM
WOO! everyone cheer! blind individualism can give you a health care system better than that of Kenya or Zaire!
ffs, not even worth looking up a facepalm image...
you do realize the clear implications of what you are saying is that socialized, public health care is stronger and more fit for first world nations? right? you get that this is the direct extension of the logic you have presented?
you are absolutely correct, I have no personal experience with poverty, nor do I have any insight into human behaviour and motivation, and I think the only way to achieve personal wealth is through luck
boy do you have my number
[SPOILER - highlight to read]: I currently live in poverty, and as to the other 2, I'm getting an MA in human psychology and neuroscience... so that is math I'm sure you can do.
at least you don't make assumptive, sweeping generalizations about people in an attempt to solve the cognitive dissonance their rational points might cause you to experience.
btw, can you name a single study in which it is shown that people in poverty are motivated to have more children as a form of long term care? like I'm serious here. One study. A STUDY.
__________________ yes, a million times yes
Last edited by tsilamini on Aug 15th, 2011 at 10:39 PM
You should let me talk to him. I've never know anything remotely close to poverty in my entire life. Proof of my work ethic and innate brilliance. He'll have to accept my argument, from infancy I was strong and knew how to play the market.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
Gender: Male Location: Kicking pigs out of the screen.
No you have to work smart too. Working hard alone won't do it. Digging ditches is hard work for most people to do with their bare hands. Won't get them anywhere though. You also have to change your mindset.
Many poor people who won the lottery or became athletes/musicians ended up broke in short order. There have been many broke people given large (relative) sums of money and end up broke. There was this show on Oprah and a homeless guy was given 1 million to see what he would do with it. He was broke in a month. It's all he knew how to handle.
You're just getting worked up about this... . I understand it may be a tough subject for some, but this isn't about me or you per se, it's about the discussion (which has gotten a tad off topic).
I have to disagree. Ideally it would be, but it comes at a cost. Money. Who can afford all of this? Where do we draw the line? How many do we help out? For what reasons? Extents? What about social security and the other things we have going on here like welfare?
I'm sure you did. So did I. Worse off than you most likely. Doesn't really matter what degree you get though; it matters what you do with them. Many people get plenty of degrees and end up more or less in the same soup they grew up in. I'm not like most people who started out poor, because I made my own success, so I obviously know there are *exceptions* to that rule.
Oh and of course we're talking about in general. I don't have the time to go on a case by case issue when it comes to problems like poverty or wealth. This is the general discussion forum. We're talking about general topics, and people in general, and from this comes generalities. Much like thread titles such as this:
"The Rich get richer yadda yadda yadda".
Threads like this go on all the time criticizing certain groups, and lately groups with money. They are all generalizations, and we're talking about general things. I have been on both sides. I know from studies *and* experience what people do on both ends. I know poorer people are more likely to have more kids, to gamble more, abuse alcohol more, not plan, not save, not care, etc. I have people in my own family who do it for God's sake. They simply lack the ambition and don't think they can do any better. I chose to wait on any possible kids and focus on my future and work smart *and* hard, and make sacrifices they thought were crazy or over the top, or that they tried to dissuade me from doing, like investing capital and starting up companies. Even people who grew up and lived with me took a totally different path.
I also know middle class people. Like my old school friends from way back when. Many are smart, or book smart, like you, but many of them also don't care to do much more than average, and some are just outright lazy. On the computer instead of doing things. Their parents would ask me to hire them or find them work in the past, and anything I brought to them they had an excuse on why they couldn't do it. Things like that. It just came to be that they simply didn't care and nothing was going to change that.
Then I met the wealthy people. They were more driven, cared more about their goals, and were less likely to have kids young because they knew they would get in the way. They wanted to make their money work for them because it was better and had more tax advantages.
Needless to say people have different mindsets.
Oh and the children thing. The nasty secret is people have kids for their own benefit, they're not motivated by society. People who live in agricultural societies have more kids because they want more help on the farm. In those countries children are cheaper and seen as an asset. Whereas in developed countries they are seen more as a luxury and a liability.
People do have more kids in places that are poorer. Poorer areas have higher mortality rates due to more crime and less *gasp* healthcare. So they have more kids to ensure that some will live on, and take care of them. People also get married for this reason. To have someone "take care of them" when they're older.
Also in poorer countries it's an absolute given that you take care of your parents and family. Here in America we have a lot of people come from other countries and you'll notice that people who are foreign and come from poorer countries have a stronger "family" mindset. That is because they grew up in lack and had to depend on each other. The US was like this around a century or more ago. Family lived very close and didn't isolate.
After World War 2 the economy increased and we had "baby boomers" during this time housing became significantly cheaper because it was the beginning of cookie cutter suburban homes (similar to the assembly line for automobiles). This allowed people to move out younger and travel more for jobs. This is where the "if you live at home past 25 you're a loser" came from. Many people in other parts of the world live at home for longer ages. A trend showing up here again since the economy is bad.
In other countries taking care of parents was a return on their investment because they "took care of you"; this practice still goes on in poorer areas, like in my hometown Mississippi, where they have many kids in hopes that one might not be a loser so they can take care of them. As we know though, monkey see, monkey do...
Not to mention those who have kids for government support. Again drawing from the resources without putting anything back in. You're making it seem like I'm against helping people when in fact I like to. Many who complain about the problem rarely do anything themselves about it.
__________________
Stompin' Time!!!
Props to SK
Last edited by Tha C-Master on Aug 15th, 2011 at 11:29 PM
Gender: Male Location: Kicking pigs out of the screen.
Way to ignore my post.
I'll have to look those up. It's not like I just have a binder full of papers whenever someone asks me to show them "studies". Especially on something that is blatantly true. Old people clearly can't take care of themselves forever, and they obviously expect someone to do it. Hint: It's their kids.
well, again, I, as a profession, study human behaviour.
we can either talk about why I don't trust biased, anecdotal, opinions or why I'm more apt to trust well researched, peer-reviewed studies if you want. Or I can just list 4-5 cognitive biases that make anything you might feel sort of irrelevant... /shrug...
but yes, in the long run, if you don't provide evidence that I think is meaningful, I will probably ignore that point
Gender: Male Location: Kicking pigs out of the screen.
Re: "rich get richer...yadda-yadda-yadda
Well most of your posts are obviously opinions about my opinions. I have no problem posting them (like I have in the past), but most of this discussion is an opinion.
I doubt you will ignore anything you feel apt to respond to. I said a lot more in that post than the fact people have kids in poorer areas with an expectation that their kids help them. Much more. Which is why I said what I said.
It's a no trainer the worse the economy the more people move back in with their kids, especially as people live longer and care becomes more expensive. People who don't have money expect their kids to take care of them, and poor people have many kids as an investment in the future.
One thing to post. Being a billionaire means a lot less than it did almost 30 years ago, just like a million dollars isn't what it used to be. And with the number of options and tech available it is becoming easier for people to become more successful younger.
__________________
Stompin' Time!!!
Props to SK
Last edited by Tha C-Master on Aug 15th, 2011 at 11:42 PM
ok, but here is the thing, considering we don't live in agricultural villages, and infant mortality is exceptionally low, having a child is actually an economic burden rather than a gain in labour for people.
considering this glaring fact, and the fact I don't think poor people are stupid enough to miss it, I don't see how your idea can possibly be true.
Thus, I'd like even something remotely convincing that it is true.
which point of mine would you like me to back up? I do my best to only reiterate things that are empirical or based on such. I can dig up nation-by-nation comparisons of health care, or studies on the cognitive biases created by cognitive dissonance, comfirmation bias, attributional error, etc, if you want as well.
also, if you are really interested I can give you why I would think poor people have more babies, but I'm not sure of the relevance
Gender: Male Location: Kicking pigs out of the screen.
I just said that in the beginning if you read my mammoth post.
People in agricultural societies do that. And we in America used to do that. As we had cheaper housing and more money, we moved out at younger ages and traveled more. This is the reason poorer people have a more "family" mindset, because they were expected to take care of the family more because they had less. Rich foreigners don't live 15 to a house. They live by themselves. Or with a spouse and a kid. Now people are at home longer because of the bad economy. Just like they were before.
I already said in my mammoth post that in those societies kids are an asset or capital good, because kids are cheaper (feed them the crops they pulled and then give them hand me down clothes). In richer countries you have college, school, healthcare, and all the other dick measuring purchases that people do here.
People who are poor don't realize that having kids set them back, and many don't care. They rely on "God" and the government, or someone else to bail them out. Many have kids because they just don't care about birth control, they're into the moment and don't plan. I've talked to many people like this. Poor people tend to be less educated, and while they know "kids cost money" they don't plan it out to see how much. They also don't realize that the real cost is the opportunity cost from having so many kids as it limits your options and stems your potential when you have them too young or unprepared. Not to mention the time consumption.
Here are a few articles/studies/whatever I found while quickly browsing I didn't read through all of them, but they seemed close enough:
Uh-oh, am I sensing some tears about American health care? Guess what: if we had fewer minorities in America, we might be able to afford universal health care. Just look at Mexifornia if you want to see what happens when you let large amounts of non-whites congregate and form sub-societies subsidized by the tax dollars of white Americans. Then again, health care in America could work if we had less government collusion in the system to keep the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries making billions.
__________________ Ask me about my "obvious and unpleasant agenda of hatred."
Gender: Male Location: Kicking pigs out of the screen.
As a very successful black man, I'm *so* offended. Lol.
I don't care what the color is myself. If a person isn't doing anything, they shouldn't get anything for not contributing.
Btw most welfare recipients are white, and so are most mortgage defaulters. Although percentage wise it is smaller, they definitely do play their part.
Also fat people cost more in insurance and we subsidize that, just like we subsidize other things.
__________________
Stompin' Time!!!
Props to SK
Last edited by Tha C-Master on Aug 16th, 2011 at 01:43 AM
The plurality, based on race demographic, is actually African American. meaning, despite African American's representing less than 20% of America's population, that demographic still has more actual numbers on Welfare than any other race dem.
And, to be fair, you'd have to do a per capita comparison, not a plurality comparison. That's because over 70% of Americans are "white" so it makes the number very misleading.
Regardless, the number is wrong.
But, to be fair, per capita, iirc, it goes like this: African American, Native American, Hispanic, White, Asian.
I love the response, "they can't help being fat."
I can understand having a genetic predisposition to sickle cell anemia, lactose intolerance, etc. But not to putting too much food in your stomach.
Seriously? The feeling of hunger comes from your brain all kinds of things influence your brain, including genetics. There's a thing called Prader-Willi syndrome that apparently causes a constant feeling of hunger, no matter what.
Obviously this doesn't apply to most fat people and even a person who is more hungry than normal holds most of the responsibility for their health on an issue where they have so much influence but, well, yeah, there are totally genetic influence there.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
Nope about what I said. White people still make up about 40% which is significant. So do blacks. Hispanics don't as much (probably because they live together instead of spreading out). Regardless the comment was in response to the comment above me which was blaming minorities. White people also made up the most mortgage defaulters as well. So everyone played their part.
And yes that is a pathetic excuse. That's the habit of losers though. It's always someone else's fault and it's all about "luck".
Luck:
Laboring
Under
Correct
Knowledge.
Unless you're winning the lottery I wouldn't plan on relying on luck. Growing up rich gives you a "step up", however that was planning on the parents part, so that wasn't luck on them.
__________________
Stompin' Time!!!
Props to SK
Last edited by Tha C-Master on Aug 16th, 2011 at 03:01 AM
you actually quite missed the point (I thought some smartass might try and miss the point on purpose).
Regardless of the feeling of hunger or satiety, you can still prevent your obesity almost 100% of the time because it requires you to take a voluntary action in order to create the obesity.
However, there's nothing you can do to prevent sickle cell anemia or lactose intolerance (the kind that is genetic).
Case-in-point: even without a thyroid, you can still prevent obesity through careful diet. So even the falsely used excuse (read: they lie) of "I have a thyroid problem" is still not good enough of an excuse.
Are you trying to say that because you have to physically put food into your mouth, which is a conscious action, there is no good excuse for being fat?
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
KMC Community Forums
Aug 15th, 2011 10:19 PM
. I understand it may be a tough subject for some, but this isn't about me or you per se, it's about the discussion (which has gotten a tad off topic).
