Liberals vs Conservatives, Who's Smarter?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So everyone should make about the same amount of money? Not everyone takes the same risks. Some people take more risks then others, they should be rewarded when they do so.

Risk takers are venture capitalists and insurance companies. Both are usually able to handle such risks. Let's leave it up to them then. If you can't handle risk you shouldn't take it. I don't think it's responsible. That said, I'm willing to accept that risk takers should be compensated. What I'm opposed to is people who are so compensated from such activities that they don't have to work (retirees the exception).

I think we should have incentives to do well, when everyone is paid the same, that removes one of the incentives to work harder. Income disparity isn't a bad thing, not when the total wealth increases, as has been the case in the US. Everyone is richer, although some benefit much more then everyone else.

Incentives to work I'm all for. We don't need to give people incentive to work over 35 hours a week though, I don't think that's healthy. But if you want to give people incentives for taking risks that is going to take away from the incentives to work. I believe that people can be compensated for saving for their retirement, in this way, they are actually compensated for work, but savings is created for investment.

Depends, once again on how you define poverty. Is it a bad thing that some people are poor. Yes. Is it a problem that some people are unable to afford the necessities of life? Yes. Is it a problem that some people are poorer then other people? No.

why? That's authoritarian to me.

Now the next question, is should the government be the solution to the problem? If so, how should the government act in order to best help these people. Is it best to act directly, or indirectly through monetary policy?

Let's just stick to whether they should for now.

Again, it depends on whether we are speaking of the same thing. Yes, the government should not be responsible for ensuring that everyone has the same amount of income. Income disparity is not a problem, it is a benefit.

Benefit? Risk is compensated for. Work is compensated for. Is there any other reason why income disparity should exist?

No, not to income disparity. The only way you can do that is to make everybody poorer, and that is a bad solution. Income disparity isn't a problem. What they want is a better standard of living, and that is what is happening. Really would you rather be able to live better, or rather that you and your neighbour make exactly the same amount?

I prefer to make exactly the same amount as my neighbor. I think this is fair. I assume that my neighbor works just like I do, and I would not feel quite right, if I lived better than him/her. Furthermore, I don't beleive that because I am compensated more that I deserve more.

And about everyone becoming poorer I think that's wrong. I don't think it is important for people to be as rich as they are. I think that things go just fine with less income disparity. I don't know why you think otherwise, so I can't really comment. Do you want to explain?

Look up that word again. 'Ministrations', include by definition helping the person.

I think you mean is the main reason to help the poor is to preach to them?



When you minister someone you provide them assistance in times of hardship.

What I meant was that when the Church helps the poor that they hope that the poor will join the church. Am I correct. So when people are poor it's easier to get converts, no?

[Guynemer]

Poll is invalid.

Where are the options for professional degrees?

[Kidlicious]

to the conservative here. I wish there were as few of you in the real world as there are here at poly, but thanks for hanging here with us.

[SlowwHand]

It's called the voice of reason, and you're welcome.

[Ben Kenobi]

Risk takers are venture capitalists and insurance companies.

The guy who starts his own business takes a risk. The guy who goes back to school to get a better job takes a risk. The guy who quits his job for another takes a risk, etc.

They are all risking what they have for the prospects of something better.

Both are usually able to handle such risks. Let's leave it up to them then. If you can't handle risk you shouldn't take it. I don't think it's responsible. That said, I'm willing to accept that risk takers should be compensated. What I'm opposed to is people who are so compensated from such activities that they don't have to work (retirees the exception).

That's what happens. Risktakers are rewarded, if the risk pays off then they make much more then they would have otherwise. If they fail, they lose what they have put into and sacrificed for.

Incentives to work I'm all for. We don't need to give people incentive to work over 35 hours a week though, I don't think that's healthy.

Great. Some people smoke some people drink. Some people work more then 35 hours a week. That is what it takes to get ahead and make something of yourself. I don't see how a 40 hour a week work schedule is unhealthy.

There will be always incentives for those willing to work harder and longer, which is why they have overtime benefits, but the other one is that those willing to work longer get more done.

But if you want to give people incentives for taking risks that is going to take away from the incentives to work.

No. Risks are a part of work. I'm surprised you think that they are not correlated with one another. You have to work hard to make a gamble pay off.

why? That's authoritarian to me.

Why is it authoritarian if some people make more then other people. Some people work 60 hours in a week. Shouldn't they make more then someone who chooses to work 20?

Authoritarian to me is to insist that everyone should make the same amount of money, irrespective of the amount that they work. I think it's great that if I work harder and do better then I will make more then I do now. I would hate to live in a world, where I couldn't advance no matter how hard I worked.

Benefit? Risk is compensated for. Work is compensated for. Is there any other reason why income disparity should exist?

That is the source of income disparity. Some people are willing to be bigger risktakers, and others are willing to work longer and harder hours then other people.

I prefer to make exactly the same amount as my neighbor. I think this is fair. I assume that my neighbor works just like I do, and I would not feel quite right, if I lived better than him/her. Furthermore, I don't beleive that because I am compensated more that I deserve more.

I don't believe I work as hard as other people. I believe that they ought to be compensated more then me for the work that they do. I hope that one day I will be in that position where I am making more then I am.

And about everyone becoming poorer I think that's wrong.

Is there a way to ensure that everyone makes the same amount of money without taking money from those who have it to give to those who don't? That creates a disincentive to work.

I don't think it is important for people to be as rich as they are. I think that things go just fine with less income disparity. I don't know why you think otherwise, so I can't really comment. Do you want to explain?

If I have the skills and talent to be a doctor, and I put in the 10 years of school, then I should make more then someone who works as a labourer. The way you would have it is the doctor would be paid the same as the garbageman.

I think that it is great that some people can make more money then other people. Why is it a bad thing if people get rich?

What I meant was that when the Church helps the poor that they hope that the poor will join the church. Am I correct. So when people are poor it's easier to get converts, no?

So we turn someone out unless they praise the Lord? No, the way it works is that we help people, no questions asked. Then they ask us why we care about them to help them when they have nothing to give back.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The guy who starts his own business takes a risk. The guy who goes back to school to get a better job takes a risk. The guy who quits his job for another takes a risk, etc.

None of these people create large disparities in income. The guy who starts his own business gets the capital from the venture capitalists or the bank if he needs it.

They are all risking what they have for the prospects of something better.

Sure. And they deserve something better. All of them. Not just some of them.

That's what happens. Risktakers are rewarded, if the risk pays off then they make much more then they would have otherwise. If they fail, they lose what they have put into and sacrificed for.

The amount of compensation isn't large unless they are already rich, and then the risk doesn't have to be big.

Great. Some people smoke some people drink. Some people work more then 35 hours a week. That is what it takes to get ahead and make something of yourself. I don't see how a 40 hour a week work schedule is unhealthy.

Paying people enough to "make something of themselves" for 35 hours is better than requiring them to work more to make the same thing of themselves (to use similar terms). That's as easy as 1 + 1 = 2.

There will be always incentives for those willing to work harder and longer, which is why they have overtime benefits, but the other one is that those willing to work longer get more done.

I think that you missed my point. I would never want people to not get paid for work. The thing I oppose is that people have to work too many hours. Believe it or not, people like to have time off to be with their family or friends. If they are working a lot of hours it's because they have to. No one wants to spend a lifetime working.

No. Risks are a part of work. I'm surprised you think that they are not correlated with one another. You have to work hard to make a gamble pay off.

No. Work is how you pay your bills. You don't risk your income that goes to pay your bills. Risk is a part of being rich. It's justification, and not very good justification.

Why is it authoritarian if some people make more then other people. Some people work 60 hours in a week. Shouldn't they make more then someone who chooses to work 20?

Some people don't work and are still rich. That's the issue, not how much people work.

Authoritarian to me is to insist that everyone should make the same amount of money, irrespective of the amount that they work. I think it's great that if I work harder and do better then I will make more then I do now. I would hate to live in a world, where I couldn't advance no matter how hard I worked.

Income disparity has very little to do with how hard people work. There are masses of people who work extremely hard and never advance. Income disparity is the result of personal wealth and skills.

That is the source of income disparity. Some people are willing to be bigger risktakers, and others are willing to work longer and harder hours then other people.

Both are incorrect. People do not take large risks relatively speaking. Risk is usually spread out so that no one person takes an amount of risk that is not tolerable to them. The amount of return that you get is most determined by the amount that you can risk.

I don't believe I work as hard as other people. I believe that they ought to be compensated more then me for the work that they do. I hope that one day I will be in that position where I am making more then I am.

Why would you not be working harder now, and be working harder latter?

Is there a way to ensure that everyone makes the same amount of money without taking money from those who have it to give to those who don't? That creates a disincentive to work.

It doesn't at all. Usually the people with the lowest wages work the hardest. People work because they have to, not because they want to.

If I have the skills and talent to be a doctor, and I put in the 10 years of school, then I should make more then someone who works as a labourer. The way you would have it is the doctor would be paid the same as the garbageman.

I think doctors are paid just fine. I want the gargagemen to be paid more. The question is why shouldn't they get paid more.

I think that it is great that some people can make more money then other people. Why is it a bad thing if people get rich?

Because you want people to be rich and people to live in poverty. You haven't seperated the two.

So we turn someone out unless they praise the Lord? No, the way it works is that we help people, no questions asked. Then they ask us why we care about them to help them when they have nothing to give back.

You're avoiding the issue.

[Ben Kenobi]

None of these people create large disparities in income. The guy who starts his own business gets the capital from the venture capitalists or the bank if he needs it.

I don't see why creating large disparities in income is a bad thing. Clearly if small profits are good why are large profits bad?

Paying people enough to "make something of themselves" for 35 hours is better than requiring them to work more to make the same thing of themselves (to use similar terms). That's as easy as 1 + 1 = 2.

So why is it unhealthy for them to work longer then 35 hours a week? People should be allowed to work as long as they want, and they should be compensated for their commitment.

I think that you missed my point. I would never want people to not get paid for work. The thing I oppose is that people have to work too many hours. Believe it or not, people like to have time off to be with their family or friends. If they are working a lot of hours it's because they have to. No one wants to spend a lifetime working.

I agree, but it's not up for us to decide, and one size does not fit all. If a single guy like me with no family of my own wants to climb the ladder for 60 hours, where's the problem?

No. Work is how you pay your bills. You don't risk your income that goes to pay your bills. Risk is a part of being rich. It's justification, and not very good justification.

It is it's own reward. You take a risk, work your butt off and make more, or you do nothing and make what you do now, you don't lose or gain. You seem to be under the impression that work and risk are completely unrelated.

Some people don't work and are still rich. That's the issue, not how much people work.

What is 'work'? What's the difference between pushing papers for someone else or pushing papers for yourself?

Income disparity has very little to do with how hard people work. There are masses of people who work extremely hard and never advance. Income disparity is the result of personal wealth and skills.

I don't dispute that, but all other things being equal the disparity is do to the amount of time that people work. Someone who puts in 60 hours should make more then someone who puts in 20.

Both are incorrect. People do not take large risks relatively speaking. Risk is usually spread out so that no one person takes an amount of risk that is not tolerable to them. The amount of return that you get is most determined by the amount that you can risk.

Yes, it takes money to make money, but generally the folks who are willing to take bigger risks at each step will see more career advancement.

Why would you not be working harder now, and be working harder latter?

I don't work 60 hours, and my skills are less then many others. Why should I expect to receive the same compensation? They've earned it.

It doesn't at all. Usually the people with the lowest wages work the hardest. People work because they have to, not because they want to.

Ok, let's try this again.

If you get paid 10 dollars an hour to produce so much a day, do you have any incentive to increase the amount you make if you have hit the maximum?

I think doctors are paid just fine. I want the gargagemen to be paid more. The question is why shouldn't they get paid more.

They shouldn't be paid as much as a doctor. They aren't risking as much as a doctor does to obtain training in the first place.

Secondly, we should pay every profession by which the market can bear. If garbagemen are in high demand, then sure they will be paid more, and vice versa. If garbagemen are paid too much, then garbage collection becomes unprofitable. If they are paid too little, then there will be no collectors.

Because you want people to be rich and people to live in poverty. You haven't seperated the two.

No, I don't. I want everyone to have the essentials in life, such as food and shelter. Will it happen? No. But that isn't a fault of the rich man who makes more then anyone else.

You're avoiding the issue.

No, the way it works is that we help people, no questions asked.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I don't see why creating large disparities in income is a bad thing. Clearly if small profits are good why are large profits bad?

The issue is not how large profits should be, but how much they should be taxed and redistributed. So you have to choose between the two. It would be great if you could alleviate poverty and allow rich people to keep all their income, but you can't.

So why is it unhealthy for them to work longer then 35 hours a week? People should be allowed to work as long as they want, and they should be compensated for their commitment.

We are coming at it from two different angles. You are concerned about people being able to be ahead of other people, and I am concerned with people not having to work so many hours. We aren't getting anyway. A society where people are at different socioeconomic levels is not a good thing to me. It create division within the society. It creates an elite class that tends to have it's own interests.

I agree, but it's not up for us to decide, and one size does not fit all. If a single guy like me with no family of my own wants to climb the ladder for 60 hours, where's the problem?

Have you worked 60 hours a week? I have. No one likes to do that, unless their work is oiling up supermodels or something.

It is it's own reward. You take a risk, work your butt off and make more, or you do nothing and make what you do now, you don't lose or gain. You seem to be under the impression that work and risk are completely unrelated.

When you have to work you don't really have a choice unfortunately. You are at risk. No one is compensated for that unfortunately. You lose your job you are screwed. Now take someone who makes their income by risking their income (not work), they purposefully take risks that they can easily afford to take. So I don't see what you are getting at.

What is 'work'? What's the difference between pushing papers for someone else or pushing papers for yourself?

When you push your own papers you can't spend time with your family and friends and you have sore feet and a headache. When someone else pushes papers for you you spend all day on the golf course talking about how lazy your workers are.

I don't dispute that, but all other things being equal the disparity is do to the amount of time that people work. Someone who puts in 60 hours should make more then someone who puts in 20.

Your being a bit obtuse now. We are talking about redistributing income. We aren't really talking about redistributing peoples income who choose to work a bit of overtime. Sure they will have to pay a share, but not a large share.

Yes, it takes money to make money, but generally the folks who are willing to take bigger risks at each step will see more career advancement.

Career advancement? Are you talking about paying for college? I've said already, that we agree on that point. People should be compensated for education. That said, if they are lucky enough to bring in tons of cash for their skills they should be taxed higher. That's very different from them not being compensated for their education.

I don't work 60 hours, and my skills are less then many others. Why should I expect to receive the same compensation? They've earned it.

You are confusing skills and work, and missing the point again. At first, you just said that your neighbors work harder than you, but that you hope to work harder in the future. I just didn't get that.

Ok, let's try this again.

If you get paid 10 dollars an hour to produce so much a day, do you have any incentive to increase the amount you make if you have hit the maximum?

$10/hr. Come on now. We aren't talking about such a small wage. Let's assume you are paid a decent wage. Why would you not put out good quality work in the first place?

They shouldn't be paid as much as a doctor. They aren't risking as much as a doctor does to obtain training in the first place.

Secondly, we should pay every profession by which the market can bear. If garbagemen are in high demand, then sure they will be paid more, and vice versa. If garbagemen are paid too much, then garbage collection becomes unprofitable. If they are paid too little, then there will be no collectors.

I didn't say that the garbage man should be paid the same amount. Second, garbage collection is government contracted work. It doesn't become unprofitable because of wage levels.

No, I don't. I want everyone to have the essentials in life, such as food and shelter. Will it happen? No.

Yes! There is no reason for poverty. It is a solvable problem. That is precisely the claim I'm calling you on, and you have not addressed it in the least. You can easily end proverty by redistributing income.

But that isn't a fault of the rich man who makes more then anyone else.

Correct, it is not any one mans fault. It is, however, the fault of conservatives.

[Ben Kenobi]

The issue is not how large profits should be, but how much they should be taxed and redistributed. So you have to choose between the two. It would be great if you could alleviate poverty and allow rich people to keep all their income, but you can't.

Sure you can. If poverty is absolute poverty, then as standards of living go up, you can have the rich man keep his income, and lower the poverty rate.

If the poverty rate is defined as income disparity, then no, it's not possible because no matter how you redistribute the wealth there will always be a group that has less then other people.

Unless of course you mandate that everyone should make the same amount of money.

We are coming at it from two different angles. You are concerned about people being able to be ahead of other people, and I am concerned with people not having to work so many hours.

I don't consider 35 hours to be a long work shift. I'm sorry. I know people who work close to twice that.

We aren't getting anyway. A society where people are at different socioeconomic levels is not a good thing to me. It create division within the society. It creates an elite class that tends to have it's own interests.

Ah, finally. Class warfare. Please, define for me how much money you have to make to be considered 'elite'. I don't buy into the distinctions because it's never clearly articulated.

Have you worked 60 hours a week? I have. No one likes to do that, unless their work is oiling up supermodels or something.

I used to treeplant. 60 hours a week, and at the end of the day you sleep in a tent. Why do it? You make more then you can in any similar span without a commitment beyond the summer. You can pay off your school that way.

Did I want to work 60 hours? No. Did I want to be paying off my school for the next 20 years? No. So it was a choice. I made the choice that paying for my school was the best option available.

When you have to work you don't really have a choice unfortunately. You are at risk. No one is compensated for that unfortunately. You lose your job you are screwed. Now take someone who makes their income by risking their income (not work), they purposefully take risks that they can easily afford to take. So I don't see what you are getting at.

There's no distinction. How did he get that income in the first place. Chances are he worked for it. People like to use their money in different ways, it means that this person is willing to work and risk the money that he worked so hard to make on the chance that he could make more by investing the money rather then spending it on stuff.

When you push your own papers you can't spend time with your family and friends and you have sore feet and a headache. When someone else pushes papers for you you spend all day on the golf course talking about how lazy your workers are.

Really. When I work in an office, I'm pushing other people's paper and at the end of the day I go home.

When I'm pushing my own paper, I'm working for myself. I wondered if you would get my point I was making. I'm curious where you got this idea that the bigwigs were lazy? Envy? I don't understand it. They took risks to get there, many put their houses up and their families livelihood to get to where they are. Had they guessed wrong they would not be where they are, pushing their own paper and working for themselves.

Your being a bit obtuse now. We are talking about redistributing income. We aren't really talking about redistributing peoples income who choose to work a bit of overtime. Sure they will have to pay a share, but not a large share.

Right, I'm being obtuse. You are saying that people who make more money should be forced to give money to people who make less money. What if I work 60 hours and my neighbour works 20. Is it right that he gets the same amount of money as I do, and gets paid for 40 hours? I'd be very upset. This is why income redistribution doesn't work. Some people choose to work harder then others, and ought to be compensated for doing so.

Career advancement? Are you talking about paying for college?

I'm talking about choosing to be an entrepreneur and to work for yourself.

I've said already, that we agree on that point. People should be compensated for education.

Education in general? Or education that lets them take a better job. I think the market does a pretty good job at rewarding those who have degrees, in fields of high demand and punishes those who choose degrees in fields where demand is not so high.

That said, if they are lucky enough to bring in tons of cash for their skills they should be taxed higher.

Why? You are saying that we should tax doctors higher because they have skills that are very much needed. If their skills are that much in demand, we should encourage them to be doctors, and get more people to be doctors. Do you really think that the poor guy just starting out his education is going to be happy at the end if through taxation, he makes as much as he would had he not gone to school at all?

You are confusing skills and work, and missing the point again. At first, you just said that your neighbors work harder than you, but that you hope to work harder in the future. I just didn't get that.

Ask yourself why that might be the case. It's not hard to figure out.

$10/hr. Come on now. We aren't talking about such a small wage. Let's assume you are paid a decent wage. Why would you not put out good quality work in the first place?

The question is a valid one. Is there an incentive to increase the rate of your production? Oh, and 10 USD is more then most jobs that I have had have paid. Small wage? That's pretty decent if you ask me.

I didn't say that the garbage man should be paid the same amount.

You said we should correct income disparity. Why shouldn't we pay garbagemen the same as everyone else?

Second, garbage collection is government contracted work. It doesn't become unprofitable because of wage levels.

Someone has to pay. I think you'd balk if you found out they were making 100k a year to pick up garbage on your own dime.

Yes! There is no reason for poverty. It is a solvable problem. That is precisely the claim I'm calling you on, and you have not addressed it in the least. You can easily end proverty by redistributing income.

No, you can't not by how you have defined poverty as income disparity. If you mean the absolute shortages, yes it can be alleviated. Can it be eliminated? No.

Correct, it is not any one mans fault. It is, however, the fault of conservatives.

So because we don't believe that we should be forced to give money to the poor, that means we are in favour of poverty.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Sure you can. If poverty is absolute poverty, then as standards of living go up, you can have the rich man keep his income, and lower the poverty rate.

Are you living in the 60's. There's been no increase in the standard of living for the last 3 decades for most people. The rich have gotten richer, but the poor haven't.

If the poverty rate is defined as income disparity, then no, it's not possible because no matter how you redistribute the wealth there will always be a group that has less then other people.

The poverty rate is not defined that way. I said that poverty exists because of income disparity. That's not defining it. It's claiming a relationship. I think you're being obtuse.

I don't consider 35 hours to be a long work shift.

That's because you have an authoritarian nature.

Ah, finally. Class warfare. Please, define for me how much money you have to make to be considered 'elite'. I don't buy into the distinctions because it's never clearly articulated.

it's silly to talk about an amount of income you make. You're income comes mostly from owning things, instead of working, and you no longer identify yourself with the working class. You look down on them.

There's no distinction. How did he get that income in the first place. Chances are he worked for it.

I smell something, and it aint roses. People who don't have to work either inherited money, or they are retired.

When I'm pushing my own paper, I'm working for myself. I wondered if you would get my point I was making. I'm curious where you got this idea that the bigwigs were lazy? Envy? I don't understand it. They took risks to get there, many put their houses up and their families livelihood to get to where they are. Had they guessed wrong they would not be where they are, pushing their own paper and working for themselves.

I know what human nature is. People are lazy if they can be, that includes poor people who I assume to be the same as rich people. I'm not the only one who believes this. I think this is a very common opinion. You're own Adam Smith held it in fact.

I'm talking about choosing to be an entrepreneur and to work for yourself.

Well you have to borrow the money and get investors. And yes, they get paid a pretty penny for taking the risk for you. Making sure these people get paid well is not as important as reducing poverty.

Education in general? Or education that lets them take a better job. I think the market does a pretty good job at rewarding those who have degrees, in fields of high demand and punishes those who choose degrees in fields where demand is not so high.

Great! Punishment. So authoritarian.

Why? You are saying that we should tax doctors higher because they have skills that are very much needed. If their skills are that much in demand, we should encourage them to be doctors, and get more people to be doctors. Do you really think that the poor guy just starting out his education is going to be happy at the end if through taxation, he makes as much as he would had he not gone to school at all?

People will become doctors because it is better than collecting garbage, not because of high taxes.

The question is a valid one. Is there an incentive to increase the rate of your production? Oh, and 10 USD is more then most jobs that I have had have paid. Small wage? That's pretty decent if you ask me.

An the answer is that you will put out quality work if you are a good worker, and it is not dependent on your pay. Indeed, just because you have a tax to pay you will not produce lower quality work. Please tell me you don't believe otherwise.

You said we should correct income disparity. Why shouldn't we pay garbagemen the same as everyone else?

Because it doesn't take as much education to be a garbage man. It is dirty work though, and according to Adam Smith, dirty work draws more of a wage. This is of course because people do not like dirty work.

No, you can't not by how you have defined poverty as income disparity. If you mean the absolute shortages, yes it can be alleviated. Can it be eliminated? No.

No one defines poverty like that BK. I don't know why you assume that people are using the term like that.

So I will reiterate the point. Poverty (the fact that people don't have enough money for what they need) is a solvable problem. It's a problem that conservatives do not want to solve, because they are authoritarian.

So because we don't believe that we should be forced to give money to the poor, that means we are in favour of poverty.

Exactamundo. I don't claim that it is impossible for the rich to own the means of production so why do you claim that it is impossible to reduce poverty?

[Agathon]

Well, looks like I've missed the thread of conversation here.

If you want to continue the argument in a more serious tone, Ben, you can PM me. No pressure.

[Ben Kenobi]

Just jump right in Agathon. I haven't forgotten your points even if I am talking to Kidicious.

[b etor]

oh, i voted i have a huge banana cuz i will get some of that stuff eventually.

[Patroklos]

People will become doctors because it is better than collecting garbage, not because of high taxes.

Out of the goodness of their hearts I am sure

[Ben Kenobi]

Are you living in the 60's. There's been no increase in the standard of living for the last 3 decades for most people. The rich have gotten richer, but the poor haven't.

Real wages are the same. Standard of living has increased. Couple reasons for this.

1. Things get cheaper over time. Yes in real terms you make as much as you did then, but you can afford more because things are much cheaper.

2. Compensation is greater. Compensation does not equal wages. Say your employer provides a health plan, where you had none. That is an improvement in your standard of living.

The poverty rate is not defined that way. I said that poverty exists because of income disparity. That's not defining it. It's claiming a relationship. I think you're being obtuse.

So if we eliminated income disparity, we eliminate poverty?

Poverty in absolute terms has nothing to do with income disparity. When you are too poor to afford things like a roof over your head and food, the problem is not that people are making more money then you.

That's because you have an authoritarian nature.

Ask anybody. Is a 35 hour work week a long one?

it's silly to talk about an amount of income you make. You're income comes mostly from owning things, instead of working, and you no longer identify yourself with the working class. You look down on them.

I asked a question. How much money do you need to be elite? I am curious. Everyone throws around terms like 'working class' and insists that there are classes of people without really wanting to define those classes.

I smell something, and it aint roses. People who don't have to work either inherited money, or they are retired.

First off there are other possibilities as to why someone is not working as much as he would like. But go on. It's all because of inherited money.

Why is inherited money a bad thing. Shouldn't we encourage people to be thrifty enough to pass their wealth down to their children, to ensure they have a better life then they had?

I know what human nature is. People are lazy if they can be, that includes poor people who I assume to be the same as rich people. I'm not the only one who believes this. I think this is a very common opinion. You're own Adam Smith held it in fact.

Oh, I don't dispute some are lazy. Adam Smith would insist that unless there are incentives for production it is in the worker's interest to do as little work as possible. Hence the need to reward those who are more productive.

Well you have to borrow the money and get investors. And yes, they get paid a pretty penny for taking the risk for you. Making sure these people get paid well is not as important as reducing poverty.

How would you propose to reduce the poverty of those who can't afford food or a roof over their head? I have no problem helping those people. It's helping the lower 20 percent, irrespective of standard of living that bothers me. Particularly when they have a better standard then I do.

Great! Punishment. So authoritarian.

Fact of life. The market doesn't treat all degrees as equally valuable. You can say that they reward degrees in high demand, but the converse is that they punish those with degrees in low demand.

People will become doctors because it is better than collecting garbage, not because of high taxes.

No, people become doctors because they want to serve people, they have the skills and dedication to get through the school, and because they will advance their position in society. If you don't compensate them for their sacrifices you get a shortage of doctors, which benefits no one.

Just as we have here in Canada. You folks have a better system, here we have to wait 6 months for basic surgery because of this shortage.

An the answer is that you will put out quality work if you are a good worker, and it is not dependent on your pay. Indeed, just because you have a tax to pay you will not produce lower quality work. Please tell me you don't believe otherwise.

When I work for myself, the incentive is to produce the highest quality of work so that I get more work. When I am working for other people, there is no incentive to do more then what is expected.

If I work twice as hard as other people, and get paid the same, what does that tell me? I'm wasting my time. I agree people should do more then what is expected out of personal character, but that runs contrary to human nature.

Because it doesn't take as much education to be a garbage man. It is dirty work though, and according to Adam Smith, dirty work draws more of a wage. This is of course because people do not like dirty work.

Supply and demand. Doesn't mean they get paid the same, and there is nothing wrong with the fact that they get different wages.

So I will reiterate the point. Poverty (the fact that people don't have enough money for what they need) is a solvable problem. It's a problem that conservatives do not want to solve, because they are authoritarian.

We've been fighting the war on poverty for some time now. Yet there are still poor people. I am saying it can be alleviated, but I do not believe it can be entirely eliminated. It's an ongoing problem.

I don't know where that means we refuse to solve the problem.

I've been defining need in two regards, food and shelter. What is your definition of poverty Kid? What are the essentials of life?

Exactamundo. I don't claim that it is impossible for the rich to own the means of production so why do you claim that it is impossible to reduce poverty?

Where do I make that claim? As I said, poverty can be reduced, I only question whether it can be eliminated.