Social Security Alternative

[Sava]

yeah John, but I'm too lazy to wade through all the other crap...

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Sava
Lazy

But I've also realized that many times its not worth arguing with people on a lot of issues because they're so stubborn, it's impossible to change their minds.

I seem to remember you saying you are too arrogant to change your mind.

[Spiffor]

Sorry Sava for not answering your post regarding SS precisely, but the precise modalities of SS in the US are unknown to me.
My answer was basically that using banks to pay the retirees might postpone the inevitable crisis, but will not avoid it eventually.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Absolutely not, nor you have any fact proving the opposite, since the very notion of deserving is a subjective one

Then its total speculation.

I believe most people who make a living work diligently for it. What I don't believe (and if you read my previous post you'll understand why) is that rich people are inherently more hardworking than poor people, and vice versa.

I think you would find that rich people are generally more hardworking and intelligent than poor people. Sure, there are some who are not, but there are always exceptions to the rule.

For the majority of people, i.e those who aren't exceptionnaly bright or dumb, the most important explanation to your class-belonging is birth and its followings. It is not the only explanation factor, but only the most important one.

It depends which stage of their life they are in.

The consequence is that most people do NOT deserve the class to which they belong.

Thats a pretty vague statement. Its like saying that most people do not deserve the eye color they are born with. You can't control who is born into which class, any more than you can control what color your eyes will be.

Now there are variations within a class : a rather hardworking worker will make more money than an unmotivated worker (and will deserve it), and an bright executive will have much more success than the standard trade-school graduate who went there because Dad really insisted (he'll also deserve it).
However, with the same motivation to do the job, you'll notice the unmotivated worker gets much less money than the guy who came from the trade-school. THAT is what I call not deserving

I'm not following you. Are you saying the unmotivated worker is undeserving? If so I agree.

You could say : "this worker should have done some good studies, and he wouldn't be getting so little money now", which would be right. However, when you look at the population of a school of this kind, you'll notice there are less than 5% of students who come from the working class, and these people are extremely motivated.

Now you seem to be saying that the working class is extremely motivated.

Let me ask you this question : do you think people born from the working class are generally more lazy and stupid than the people coming from the middle/upper class ? Or do you think the social origin plays a significant role in education, and then carreer and income ?

Of course social origin plays a significant role, but in the long term I believe that a good genetic inheritance can overcome these handicaps.

"While a good environment cannot contribute much toward really overcoming the character handicaps of a base heredity, a bad environment can very effectively spoil an excellent inheritance, at least during the younger years of life. Good social environment and proper education are indispensable soil and atmosphere for getting the most out of a good inheritance."

[Spiffor]

Clarification of previous, badly worded statements :

Originally posted by Caligastia
I'm not following you. Are you saying the unmotivated worker is undeserving? If so I agree.

Not quite. I compared 2 unmotivated people : one being a worker who doesn't do more than he's ordered, and the other one being a graduate from a trade-school, only because Dad really insisted.
These people deserve not to earn as much as hardworking people within their class. BUT, the unmotivated worker doesn't deserve to earn less than the unmotivated exec, even though he DOES earn less. In this comparison, either the worker didn't deserve to be poorer, or the exec didn't deserve to be richer.

Now you seem to be saying that the working class is extremely motivated.

No, I am talking about the very few individual students in trade-schools who were born in the working class. All these particular students are exceptionnaly motivated, and had to fight against the odds to enter in this kind of place.
I'm not saying the working class is motivated or unmotivated as a whole, because motivation is mostly an individual matter (even if your social environment shape it partly).
However, I am saying that you absolutely don't need the same motivation to enter an excellent school or an excellent carreer depending where you come from. When you had luck with your birth, an average motivation will lead you to a situation an average person-who-hadn't-the-same-luck-at-birth could never reach.

When I say "birth", I mean "Birth and all its followings, i.e education, acquaintances & relations, financial pressure etc."

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Not quite. I compared 2 unmotivated people : one being a worker who doesn't do more than he's ordered, and the other one being a graduate from a trade-school, only because Dad really insisted.
These people deserve not to earn as much as hardworking people within their class. BUT, the unmotivated worker doesn't deserve to earn less than the unmotivated exec, even though he DOES earn less. In this comparison, either the worker didn't deserve to be poorer, or the exec didn't deserve to be richer.

Look at it this way: Don't the parents of the exec deserve to spend the money they earned on their child? If the child chooses to be slothful and waste its opportunities then what can you do? The parents did their best.

No, I am talking about the very few individual students in trade-schools who were born in the working class. All these particular students are exceptionnaly motivated, and had to fight against the odds to enter in this kind of place.

I get the feeling that a "trade school" means something different to me than it does to you. When I think of a "trade school" I think of a school that teaches things like welding, auto mechanics and carpentry. This kind of school would have almost 100% working class students.

However, I am saying that you absolutely don't need the same motivation to enter an excellent school or an excellent carreer depending where you come from. When you had luck with your birth, an average motivation will lead you to a situation an average person-who-hadn't-the-same-luck-at-birth could never reach.

That's just the way it goes. How are you going to change it? If you work hard and earn a lot of money from that, why shouldn't you be able to spend that money on your children?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Caligastia
I get the feeling that a "trade school" means something different to me than it does to you. When I think of a "trade school" I think of a school that teaches things like welding, auto mechanics and carpentry. This kind of school would have almost 100% working class students.

You're completely right. I used a direct translation of the French word (which was a bad idea ). I mean management-school, commerce schools, MBA etc. The kind of place where you learn to be an executive or a director.

That's just the way it goes. How are you going to change it? If you work hard and earn a lot of money from that, why shouldn't you be able to spend that money on your children?

I don't want to hinder parents to give the best they can give to their children... The series of posts just intended to show that there can be richer people who are less deserving than poorer people.
It has to do with the social security and David Floyd's threadjack :

- DF is against SS because he considers it steals money from people who deserve it
- Thus he means the rich deserve to be rich because they're smart and hardworking, and the poor are lazy and too stupid to save money (this is somewhat close to my knowledge of the American Dream)
- I try to prove rich people aren't necessarily superior to poor people, and in fact the corelation between the individual quality of someone and his fortune is weak.
- I try to prove the birth is a very significant part of someone's forutne. I consider ideologically that a civilized society must fight against birth-inequality with the available means.
- My point is : SS is good, because it fights against this kind of birth inequality.

[DanS]

"- DF is against SS because he considers it steals money from people who deserve it"

To be fair, as I understand it, DF is against SS because he considers it steals money from people, whether they deserve the money or not.

If somebody doesn't deserve the money that they have, that doesn't make stealing that money right.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Spiffor
You're completely right. I used a direct translation of the French word (which was a bad idea ). I mean management-school, commerce schools, MBA etc. The kind of place where you learn to be an executive or a director.

I thought so.

I don't want to hinder parents to give the best they can give to their children... The series of posts just intended to show that there can be richer people who are less deserving than poorer people.
It has to do with the social security and David Floyd's threadjack :

- DF is against SS because he considers it steals money from people who deserve it
- Thus he means the rich deserve to be rich because they're smart and hardworking, and the poor are lazy and too stupid to save money (this is somewhat close to my knowledge of the American Dream)

But SS does steal money from those who deserve it, and not just the rich either. Also you can't deduce from what he said that he thinks "the rich deserve to be rich because they're smart and hardworking, and the poor are lazy and too stupid to save money" because you yourself agree that there are at least some rich people who deserve to be rich, so there are definitely deserving people who are having SS money stolen from them.

- I try to prove the birth is a very significant part of someone's forutne. I consider ideologically that a civilized society must fight against birth-inequality with the available means.

How do you fight against "birth-inequality"? Its inherent. We all have different inborn abilities.

- My point is : SS is good, because it fights against this kind of birth inequality.

How does it fight against "birth-inequality"? The only people it helps are those who are too stupid to put aside money for their retirement. Everyone else suffers because they could get a much better return on their money if they invested it elsewhere.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Caligastia
The only people it helps are those who are too stupid to put aside money for their retirement. Everyone else suffers because they could get a much better return on their money if they invested it elsewhere.

Wrong, it also helps those who had an accident in their life which required enormous money, those who have been crooked by corporate America and the likes (are all those poor buggers who have been fecked by Enron stupid ? I don't think so), those who'd have invested money in a bad investment, those who spend too much money for the good of their children, etc. etc.
Plus, I don't think the people not articulate with investment and long-term placing should die from poverty once they reach old age. But that is purely ideological, I understand you think otherwise as a member of the AECCP.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Wrong, it also helps those who had an accident in their life which required enormous money, those who have been crooked by corporate America and the likes (are all those poor buggers who have been fecked by Enron stupid ? I don't think so), those who'd have invested money in a bad investment, those who spend too much money for the good of their children, etc. etc.
Plus, I don't think the people not articulate with investment and long-term placing should die from poverty once they reach old age. But that is purely ideological, I understand you think otherwise as a member of the AECCP.

I think you are confusing SS with unemployment benefits and nationalised health.

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by David Floyd

David, are you saying that a senior who can't pay for thier medicine is greedy!

Yes, they are greedy in that they see what someone else has and determine to take it through force. That's an example of greed, in my opinion.

In retrospect, though, greed might not be the right word. Theft is much more like it.

Another example of greed is the determination that legal taxation needed to establish minimal standards of living is the same thing as theft.

I have grandparents too, but I don't use them as an excuse for Social Security. If you care about your grandmother that much, you'll help her out - that's what family is for.

What is your recommendation to those people who only had children with Down's Syndrome or autism, those grandparents whose adult children were killed in foreign wars, etc. ? Starvation?

How is it fair that the rich don't help people who need the money the most.

It's fair because they worked hard and earned the money, and now it is theirs. It's wrong to force them to give it up, although there are many examples of rich people giving greatly to charitable causes.

This is complete, unadulterated manure. You have completely ignored that the rich have been given the opportunity to create/maintain their wealth at the sufferance of the poor, by having the poor buy into the artificial system that allowed them to become rich. The poor are ust as responsible for the opportunities the rich receive as are the rich themselves.

For example, land ownership is an arttificial system. If the poor chose to disregard the concept of land ownership, then real estate would have no value, and there would be no wealth attached to land. It is the fact that the poor accept the concept of ownership of land that allows the rich to own land. Taking some of the value of this artificial construct and returning it to the people who enable it in the first place is much like paying a royalty fee. The same applies to income and capital gains taxes. Paying taxes is the price you pay for having the poor accept the entire system of wealth and income.