Wage Slavery? The poor are poor because....

[Maoville1]

They're poor because they're moochers who're living on the government teat! They should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

That's a myth you fox news reject.

[Bythibus]

*sigh* NSG has an obsession with absolute terms. It is not worthless, it is just not an absolute measurement. IQ is actually a pretty good indicator of one's facilities, as it's divided up into sections based on different areas of logic. (i.e spacial, arithmatic, etc.)

The issue comes when one tries to put more weight on what the IQ actually holds, which is nothing more than a recommendation sticker.

IQ also has nothing to do with education, you know, that stuff that tends to get you better jobs.

It has everything to do with it. Your IQ is an indicator of your response to the education you've received. That the poor have low IQ scores is an indicator that our education system is incredibly lacking in poor areas, just like all the other low test scores indicate.

Seriously, IQ is nothing but a glorified SAT test that's not a legal requirement and has over a century of development. It's not an end all be all indicator of anything, but it sure as hell helps paint a picture of the situation.

[European Socialist Republic]

They're poor because they're moochers who're living on the government teat! They should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

That's a myth you fox news reject.

Oh really? The poor are living like kings! They even have a refrigerator and a microwave!
http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/z ... in-america

[Bezombia]

That's a myth you fox news reject.

Oh really? The poor are living like kings! They even have a refrigerator and a microwave!
http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/z ... in-america

You literally just linked to a satire and used it legitimately.

There is not a facepalm gif long enough to express the sheer amount of facepalming I just performed.

[Nervium]

Oh really? The poor are living like kings! They even have a refrigerator and a microwave!
http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/z ... in-america

You literally just linked to a satire and used it legitimately.

There is not a facepalm gif long enough to express the sheer amount of facepalming I just performed.

ESR is a real life socialist...

[Bezombia]

You literally just linked to a satire and used it legitimately.

There is not a facepalm gif long enough to express the sheer amount of facepalming I just performed.

ESR is a real life socialist...

In that case 9/10 satire could have been better.

[Bythibus]

ESR is a real life socialist...

In that case 9/10 satire could have been better.

He almost had me until I realized what the URL actually said...

And the sound of the autoplay voice.

[The Liberated Territories]

Because the poor are stupid.

...

What? Poor people have generally lower IQs.

What the fuck do you know about being poor?

This is making me way angrier than it should, but Jesus Christ.

Nothing. But everyone knows the poor tend to not be bright or unable to provide anything of value to the world. What does my knowledge of being poor have to do with this?

Why attempt to fix a problem that is tied in with the capitalist system, when we could ignore it to ensure maximum productivity for all?

[European Socialist Republic]

You literally just linked to a satire and used it legitimately.

There is not a facepalm gif long enough to express the sheer amount of facepalming I just performed.

ESR is a real life socialist...

Does no one here read my sig?

[Bezombia]

In that case 9/10 satire could have been better.

It fooled you, didn't it?

It probably wouldn't have if NS wasn't filled to the brim with people that would actually say stuff like that.

[Indira]

Because there are rich people. Poverty is a relative term anyway. A person who is poor by American standards isn't so poor by African standards for example

[Bythibus]

What the fuck do you know about being poor?

This is making me way angrier than it should, but Jesus Christ.

Nothing. But everyone knows the poor tend to not be bright or unable to provide anything of value to the world. What does my knowledge of being poor have to do with this?

Why attempt to fix a problem that is tied in with the capitalist system, when we could ignore it to ensure maximum productivity for all?

Because you're wrong in assuming that ignoring it could ensure maximum productivity.

[Bezombia]

ESR is a real life socialist...

Does no one here read my sig?

I know the feeling, but apparently I am not innocent of this either....

[Bythibus]

ESR is a real life socialist...

Does no one here read my sig?

Implying your signature has value to me.

Back to the coal mines, welp. I need a new yacht!

[Threlizdun]

What the fuck do you know about being poor?

This is making me way angrier than it should, but Jesus Christ.

Nothing. But everyone knows the poor tend to not be bright or unable to provide anything of value to the world. What does my knowledge of being poor have to do with this?

Because you clearly know nothing about the poor if you presume they are less intelligent than other classes. The poor recieve inferior education; they are not less intelligent. If you honestly believe they provide nothing of value to the world then you have no understanding of either sociology or basic economics. Do you presume resources gather themselves and all manual labor is automated? This is Rand level separation from reality here if you don't understand what would happen if the poor weren't there.

Why attempt to fix a problem that is tied in with the capitalist system, when we could ignore it to ensure maximum productivity for all?

Because most of us are neither sociopaths who ignore human suffering nor idiots that presume suffering is conducive to productivity.

[Chestaan]

What the fuck do you know about being poor?

This is making me way angrier than it should, but Jesus Christ.

Nothing. But everyone knows the poor tend to not be bright or unable to provide anything of value to the world. What does my knowledge of being poor have to do with this?

Why attempt to fix a problem that is tied in with the capitalist system, when we could ignore it to ensure maximum productivity for all?

I'll ignore the first part because it's such a load of bollocks.

As to the second part, because the utility of the poor matters? A society is efficient if it maximises the overall utility of all members of society, how can you hope to that if you completely write off such a huge section of society?

[European Socialist Republic]

Does no one here read my sig?

Implying your signature has value to me.

Back to the coal mines, welp. I need a new yacht!

I don't think so.

Now into the state-owned mapple syrup mines, you filthy capitalist pig-dog, or else you won't receive any socialized medicine, eh!

[The Liberated Territories]

Nothing. But everyone knows the poor tend to not be bright or unable to provide anything of value to the world. What does my knowledge of being poor have to do with this?

Why attempt to fix a problem that is tied in with the capitalist system, when we could ignore it to ensure maximum productivity for all?

Because you're wrong in assuming that ignoring it could ensure maximum productivity.

Why? There is a fixed rate of wealth that can be distributed from top to bottom, and if even half of the bottom doesn't intend to improve themselves except by spending money on frivolous things in a consumer-drone like fashion, it becomes worthless to even consider redistribution as a valid method of ending poverty. That is only a parcel of it. Since the system encourages consumerism, there is only so much we could do.

[Bythibus]

Implying your signature has value to me.

Back to the coal mines, welp. I need a new yacht!

I don't think so.

Now into the state-owned mapple syrup mines, you filthy capitalist pig-dog, or else you won't receive any socialized medicine, eh!

Jokes on you, I've trained my body to fight your commie diseases by living in the woods for ten years.

Because you're wrong in assuming that ignoring it could ensure maximum productivity.

Why? There is a fixed rate of wealth that can be distributed from top to bottom, and if even half of the bottom doesn't intend to improve themselves except by spending money on frivolous things in a consumer-drone like fashion, it becomes worthless to even consider redistribution as a valid method of ending poverty. That is only a parcel of it. Since the system encourages consumerism, there is only so much we could do.

Right. Uh-huh. Do go on, you're such an original speaker...

[Threlizdun]

Because you're wrong in assuming that ignoring it could ensure maximum productivity.

Why? There is a fixed rate of wealth that can be distributed from top to bottom, and if even half of the bottom doesn't intend to improve themselves except by spending money on frivolous things in a consumer-drone like fashion, it becomes worthless to even consider redistribution as a valid method of ending poverty. That is only a parcel of it. Since the system encourages consumerism, there is only so much we could do.

You are correct in stating social welfare alone will not end poverty and inequality. It is ridiculous however to not recognize that social welfare is capable of alleviating some of the damage present. Poverty is not conducive to productivity. Poverty lessens skillsets and education, increases alienation and social tension, lessens physical and mental health, and leads to a rise in criminal activity. All of these things are greatly detrimental to productivity.

[The Liberated Territories]

Nothing. But everyone knows the poor tend to not be bright or unable to provide anything of value to the world. What does my knowledge of being poor have to do with this?

Why attempt to fix a problem that is tied in with the capitalist system, when we could ignore it to ensure maximum productivity for all?

I'll ignore the first part because it's such a load of bollocks.

As to the second part, because the utility of the poor matters? A society is efficient if it maximises the overall utility of all members of society, how can you hope to that if you completely write off such a huge section of society?

So, a huge section of society are starving people who cannot afford basic amenities? Tell me more. Nevermind the poorest of the poor are probably better well off in America, Canada, or England than Zimbabwe, Haiti, or Ethiopia.

[Kushlantis]

http://tinyurl.com/oqbbljz

Hard work in a capitalist setting does not equal wealth.

http://tinyurl.com/98pbq73

CEOs steal pay from workers. "Then why do the poor continue to work for them." In America, and all across the world, it is engraved in citizen's minds to work or die.

The poor are poor because of the rich.

[Unitaristic Regions]

Where in the poll is the 'birth' option?

[The Liberated Territories]

Why? There is a fixed rate of wealth that can be distributed from top to bottom, and if even half of the bottom doesn't intend to improve themselves except by spending money on frivolous things in a consumer-drone like fashion, it becomes worthless to even consider redistribution as a valid method of ending poverty. That is only a parcel of it. Since the system encourages consumerism, there is only so much we could do.

You are correct in stating social welfare alone will not end poverty and inequality. It is ridiculous however to not recognize that social welfare is capable of alleviating some of the damage present. Poverty is not conducive to productivity. Poverty lessens skillsets and education, increases alienation and social tension, lessens physical and mental health, and leads to a rise in criminal activity. All of these things are greatly detrimental to productivity.

Why then, would that be preferable? Even today America enjoys the benefits from a mostly unregulated free market that existed for both the first thirty years of the last century to the last twenty or so years (nevermind all the cronyism in between). Poverty is not conductive, I agree, but neither is spending trillions on anti-poverty programs that do not alleviate poverty (e.g. since Johnson's Great Society programs have been enacted, poverty has only increased). Rather, instead of limiting the market's ability to help society progress through extensive programs who cause as much problems as they fix, I think it would be more beneficial to do things like cut the taxes on the poor by giving the people a window wide enough for their obese asses to fit through, if they desire.

[Nervium]

Where in the poll is the 'birth' option?

It's not always correct, I mean some people just tumble by sheer bad luck into poverty.