EnviroLink Forum

The portion who demand others are denied the same right to vote?





No, we could add race, creed, and religion just for kicks.





I don't see how that would happen since income can be much higher in the latter than the former and income was the primary criteria.



I thought that would be a given when "graduation rates" was mentioned in relation to low teacher salaries.



This makes no sense to me at all. Teachers are not paid in relation to the value to society because there is an ineffeciency somewhere in the education process, but compensation is supposedly due to the meeting of demand. How is that so if so many unrelated and unknown factors cause the compensation to be lowered?




Yes, as it still leaves the question unanswered.





There is no objective indicator of value to society which can easily be quantified. That is the problem with this concept.





That still does not relate to the value to society. There is some significant demand for addictive drugs, which has no value to society of which I am aware.





Demand and compensation are unrelated to the value to society. Slaves had a monetary value at one time, but they did not have a positive value TO the society. Value by part of the society is far different than value to the society.





You have not shown a causual relationship between higher compensation to living longer.





If it cannot be done objectively, by definition objectivity should never come. Subjective beliefs are not relative to the person.





That is your right. It is fortunate there are not those who would seek to curtail your right because someone views them as having a higher value than you.





If they are lucky they get an increased voting potential and if not they do not get to vote ... sounds fair to me .... not.



Those born into poverty have very little chance of breaking out of the constraints of poverty, so yes many would have a lifetime impact from being born into poverty just because they were unlucky.



How is that better than discrimination due to race, creed, color, sex, age, or national origin?



Which makes the upper class the ones who decide based on their increase votes and the protections granted the other classes eventually disappear along with their rights. Sounds like a giant step or twelve backward to me.



If INCOME is the deciding factor legality will quickly change because those who have the money will make the laws moreso than now and those laws concerning how to make lots of money will change.





The small percentage of poor who vote have mismanaged the government? Most of the people who make the laws are in the upper ranges of income are they not?



Only if the poor are as numerous as the middle and upper class, which is not the case now, but would be in your scenario.





Not unless the rich could get even richer by doing it once they get the majority of the votes.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

The portion who demand others...what? Lost ya.



Now that would be discrimination. I've offered risk. That didn't seem to work for you either. How about level of education? Surely you're not positively stuck on the current system and the flaw IT has. Or should I say, the flaw that will eventually become obvious?



Weighting curve. Not. Linear.



Sorry, I translated "teaching" to mean the "education process".



I'm proposing a reason why teacher salaries are low. I'm saying that compensation should be a reflection of the product offered and demanded. I'm generally in agreement with you that there are professions that aren't monetarily compensated as much as they should be. It's not always due to system inefficiencies. In the case of teachers and medical support however, I believe it is.




Did I hit it yet?



They apparently have value to those that demand them. I don't think we have the same idea of what constitutes value. Illegalities and consequences aside, this scenario still fits the model I'm describing.



Indeed. I see now that we're operating with two distinctly different definitions of what constitutes value. Mine is amoral. Is yours?



Sometimes you don't have to. You don't think the higher relative compensation today of doctors and medical support personnel has anything to do with humans living longer vs. a century ago?



I mean with our current level of knowledge and technology. Remember the jar containing a vacuum?




Societies decide who has what rights. You say that I am fortunate simply because it complies with what everyone else decided at some point.



How many people get lucky? You think it's enough to sway an election? I don't think so. You think we'll ever have so many poor that we'll vote our government into insolvency? I do.



Are you suggesting that our educational system isn't robust enough to effectively and, as equally as it can, impart knowledge to all classes of individuals?



The person decides, for themselves, how much influence they wish to have in governing themselves.



If the weighting was such, sure. We could invert it, giving all the power to the poor. Then everywhere would look like the MS delta.



Foresight. You think there'll be a snowball's chance in hell later on? Ah well, it's probably too late anyway.



They can't in my proposed system. That is, unless we suddenly have inordinately more rich in this country than we have already. I don't see it going that way, however.

_________________
TANG SOO!

Are denied the same right to vote. You have been proposing that the opinion of some voters should carry more weight or even be counted when other votes are not based on income have you not? That is the denial of the same right to vote of those who are not allowed to have their vote counted as the others are.



Economic discrimination would not be "real" discrimination why?



Moreso than the tack you are taking with the attempt to eliminate voters from the system.



As opposed to the flaws in these options?





With more weight given to higher rather than lower incomes, which is by definiiton above that of the middle class.



Yet you are claiming the income is an accurate determination of value to the society and thus voter quality?



The cause is moot if the compensation is not reflective of the value to society, which makes income inaccurate for such a determination.





The drugs do have value to the addicts but not to society which was the supposed reason for making the determination of value based on income or demand or any other subjective criteria.



Clearly not, as you seem to ignore the instances which negate the model and continue as if there were no flaws.



Only if the model is not of value TO the society but merely of monetary value to someone.





If yours is amoral then it is clearly not the value TO the society which is being used as a measure. Clearly only monetary gain is important in your model, which should take us quickly back to the age of the Robber Barons where monetary gain was all important to the Barons and at the expense of the rest of society.





No, I do not. The increased compensation of the doctors does not correspond with a similar increase in life span. Nor does the compensation of the support personnel show a similar increase as does the doctors.

http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/his/e_prices1.htm

1900

Life expectancy: 47.3 female, 46.3 male

Occupation Income

Average of all Industries $ 438/year

State and Local Government Workers $ 590/year

Public School Teacher $ 328/year

Building Trades 37 ¢/hour
Working week: 48.3 h.

Medical/Health Services Worker $ 256/year


1990

Life Expectancy: Male 73.1 Female 79.1(1997) ~165% increase


Occupation Income

Wages per Full-Time Employee $ 23602/year 5389% increase

State and Local Government Workers $ 24818/year

Public School Teacher $ 23653/year 7211% increase

Building Trades $ 25504/year

Medical/Health Services Worker $ 17593/year 6872% increase
127% increase over the average







Yes, that is correct.



You are fortunate that someone like yourself did not curtail your rights as you now propose to do to others.





Quite a few. Sucess in small business is largely based on luck. Of course the inverse of how many get unlucky is about the same too. In one case luck increases the voting potential and in the other it reduces it all with no objective criteria.

http://www.incomediary.com/went-bankrup ... h-millions



But you think the poor have enough voters to sway an election. Those who are born into money are by definition lucky are they not?



No, I do not.



No, not a chance. Education in areas with money is much better than areas without out. Areas with low economic bases do not have the resources to teach much less overcome the need for the student to leave school to provide support for themselves and/or their families.



How can they do that? Magic? The criteria of income wrongly assumes income level is always a choice and it is not.





Why use a false choice fallacy?



Yes, but I do not accept the concept of weighting based on income would not lead to those with higher income gaining more weight while those with less income would see their weighting lost.





Only if the poor are as numerous as the middle and upper class, which is not the case now, but would be in your scenario.[/quote]

Foresight. You think there'll be a snowball's chance in hell later on? Ah well, it's probably too late anyway.





Sure they can. Your system eliminates the lowest tiers so the precedent is set. All they have to do is slowly shave more weight off the lower incomes and add it to the upper incomes until the upper incomes have sufficient weight to do what they wish.



Not numbers but weight in votes.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Ahh I get it. All discrimination is bad. I disagree.



But I'm not eliminating voters. The middle class would, by far, gain the most power. The rich would have a bit more, vote by vote, but would be easily overwhelmed by sheer numbers of the middle class. The poor would still have a significant say nationally and, as you dropped from state to local, more and more depending on demographics of the area.



Aww come on now. You don't always wait until you have a perfect system (on paper) in order to move forward, do you? If a solution is required tomorrow and there's no way you can come up with something that's 100% effective by then, what do you do?



I'd call it a good enough start.



I agree that the cause is moot.



Why, yes, demand does originate in the specific individuals that want something. But then, we'll still have things that are illegal despite the demand for them. The model still works.



I agree that it isn't perfect. I do not agree that it'll never work even with some tweaking. I'm am but one mind here. If the idea originates and dies there, I accept its fate. And really, where else am I going to get a polite, reasonable, and comprehensive challenge than Wayne Stollings?



What, we can't keep things legal?



To me, it would appear that the years get more expensive as one gets older. Is that not also a fair assessment?



Trust me, there'll never be enough of folks like me.



I'm not much into this luck thing, sorry. Risk is risk, odds are odds.



In areas that are predominately poor, sure. It's gradually becoming that way nationally.



Born with a silver spoon in their mouth, blessed, favored, etc. I'll stick with fortunate.



Which is but one challenge the poor have in governing themselves.



Alright, how often does it have to be? Always?



Because, in this instance, it was so fun.



It wouldn't if we were careful, from the start, in applying the curve.

[/quote]

They'd be handily overwhelmed by the middle class. There simply isn't enough of the "rich" and they wouldn't have substantially more weighting anyway.

_________________
TANG SOO!

That would be a very basic disagreement.





Yes, you would when you said no income no vote and you would when you count one person's vote more heavily than anothers.



If you ignore the trend of the shrinking middle class continuing or even accelerating as the wealthy vote gains more and more weight.



Really? The references do not give that impression. The MS delta region has a higher percentage of people in the lower income brackets, but not an overwhelming majority of poor. That has been the example of what this "solution" would change. To do so would by definition reduce the input of the lower economic classes even more than we have today.





No, but I see more flaws introduced than eliminated in this case. The problem of money buying elections is not eliminated it is increased.



I do not support a change just to try something different, especially when the change increases known problems.





Not even close when your statements contradict each other to this degree. You have a belief and seem to wish to ignore the problems with it by assuming it is either objective or good enough when it is neither.



Yet you still cling to the belief that compensation is reflective of the value to society when that is shown to be inaccurate?



No, it does not because it ignores all of the wants which have no value to society, which is why they are made illegal, in the attempt to continue assuming that meeting wants is equal to value to the society. This is beyond flawed logic when the belief ignores too much data.





I like to think there are others just a polite, reasonable and comprehensive as I and also others which are moreso.



Yes, and more things would become legal as the weight of the voting changed. Child labor laws, for example, since we have seen politicians recently suggest the janitors at poor schools could be replaced by students, which would give them experience. Environmental laws would be another area of change. The poor areas would be even more prone to be polluted than the present time.





But increased total cost does not equal increased compensation per doctor as there are more doctors and those doctors are also living longer.





Of that we are truly thankful.






Is not beating the odds not called luck? I have seen too many instances where luck has made the difference between survival and elimination in business. Not every good idea or plan succeeds and part of the cause is bad luck. Not every bad idea or plan fails and part of the cause is good luck. This is why Napoleon is quoted as saying, "I do not want a good General, I want a lucky one" -



You do not think the increasing poverty rate and the increasing wealth of the rich means the middle class, which you seem to believe is acceptable in voting decisions, is not being converted into poor people? If they are a value to society when they are middle class what fundamental change occurs to make them no longer a value other than the fact a rich person had probably cut their job to help retain corporate assets and continue paying dividends?



It all equates to being lucky though.





Yes, a challenge others may not face because they were lucky enough to be born in a wealthier area, but it is not just a challenge for the poor since it is not just the poor who govern. Most elected officials are not poor.





To infringe on what is a basic human right, yes it would have to be always.





That is as good an explanation as any, I suppose





Not when we have the rich getting richer and the rest of us getting poorer now. If there is any increase in voting power for the rich the trend would not change.





You miss the fact that more of the middle class is falling into the poor class while the rich are just getting richer. That is enough to skew the voting power now, not to mention how that trend could be accelerated by increased voting power.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Since the Delta was used as a reference I looked for some data. I believe this is a bit outdated so the poverty levels have probably increased given the national rate is now over 14%.

http://www.deltadirections.org/delta_re ... index.html

In the Mississippi Delta poverty levels are significantly higher than national averages (18.5% in the Delta vs. 13.2% nationwide).

Mississippi ranked 50th among all US states with regard to income in 2001; Coahoma County per capita personal income was $19,041 in 2000.

Failure of the educational system (de facto segregation: private white schools and black public schools) with African American children receiving poor or virtually no education; low level of literacy (69% of the population are between 0 and 44 years of age, with approximately 40% of school age).

Lack of job skills beyond those required for basic manual labor.

Decreasing agricultural jobs with farm mechanization; loss of small farms.

Decreasing manufacturing jobs with factories moving to other countries such as Mexico or work moving to China with NAFTA or globalization of trade.

In 2005, the RN shortage in the Delta community was 23.4%, whereas the average shortage in the US was approximately 13%.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

_________________
I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

Life is a time capsule we strive to fill with precious memories.

It does not take leaders but a guide and that is the christ in his teachings.

Been a little busy lately. Be back soon.

_________________
TANG SOO!

_________________
I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

Life is a time capsule we strive to fill with precious memories.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E14MCRYsWgg

It's scientific fact.

_________________
I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

Life is a time capsule we strive to fill with precious memories.

No, it is ignorance of scientific fact in favor of ignorant assumptions.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

No income no vote was stated tongue in cheek. Counting one person's vote more than another is not eliminating votes.



And if I ignore the trend of the lower class continuing to grow, its growth perhaps accelerating, under the current system?



I didn't communicate that point clearly. What I meant to say was that the more poor an area has, the less sway the poor would lose in the election process. Though still, yes, the input would remain reduced overall.



How so? More heavily weighting the middle class tempers the issue you describe. It would empower third party candidates like never before.



Nor do I.



I'll accept that it isn't perfect.



Shown to be "inaccurate" under certain circumstances. Sounds like par for the course with anything.



I'm not ignoring it. I'm simply lending it the consideration it deserves. I accept that there will be demand for that which can be destructive. Society, at the same time it demands, recognizes that which is ultimately destructive and takes action accordingly.



Or perhaps, cleaner, while students cleaning up their own mess just might work out fine.



But the doctors are making more, despite being in larger number. I submit that their services are of higher quality now than it once was and that this contributes significantly to compensation.



Stands to reason. They're part of society.




Me too, actually!



So long as you're not buying into the notion that there are nonquantifiable forces at play. That's my job.



Luck doesn't make the difference, it just describes the outcome.



No, part of the cause is chance and chance alone.



Oh he got his luck alright, just not the form he was hoping for.



I'm sure. I'm not as concerned with that as I am the existing poorer classes multiplying on their own.



The fact that they their contributions were no longer valuable enough to be further compensated by that particular employer? Am I to assume this particular person is so unlucky that they cannot find a job within a reasonable amount of time either without falling into poverty?





You think luck has anything to do with being lucky?



Other than the area being poor, is there a more valid reason why schools in poor areas are in the state that they're in? I mean, it can't possibly be as simple as folks generally not giving a rat's ass, can it? Naw, that would be too simple. There must be another explanation. I hear there are statues that bleed too. Those must be miracles.



A basic human right decided that it is such by who, exactly? Sounds like something that can be changed.



False choice fallacy? At any rate, this can be averted by empowering the middle class...now.



You're concentrating too hard on the weighting and not hard enough on sheer numbers of votes.

_________________
TANG SOO!

Actually, it does if you weight it enough. If my voted is weighted twice that of yours and we disagree my one vote neutralizes your vote and gives me one additional vote. That essentially liminates your vote.





Or perhaps not, since the concern was supposedly how the poor HAS voted to give themselves benefits, not that they may vote those benefits at some time in the future.





But the example was supposed to show how the poor HAD created a problem, which clearly is not the case since there are not a majority of poor there. It seems to be a cse where the non-poor seem to have thrown the poor under the bus so to speak. The inequality in education and training I found referenced would only come about with the majority non-poor voting to limit the resources spent on education for the poor.





Except the middle class is getting smaller, and in your example of the Delta has thrown the poor under a bus in many ways.





So how would your plan increase the educational spendign for the poor in the Delta, which was your example. The vote of the poorer members is supposed to be diluted in your plan, which would seem to only maintain the lack of resources to improve the society as a whole.





Less than "not perfect" given the data.





Under numerous circumstances which is still continued to be ignored.





Except that negates the premise of your statements concerning compensation being equal to demand beign filled which in turn is equal to a benefit to society. The more caveates which must be included the more flawed the plan.





As long as you did not mind the injuries and lack of real education resulting from this plan. It shows a clear lack of understanding of the larger picture in favor of a knee-jerk reaction.





Please give me the evidence to support this claim. The income in 1900 compared to that in 1990 for a GP MD would be a good step in this case.



And you have evidence of this where?



No, it does make the difference. The survival or elimination of the business is the description of the outcome. Luck, either bad or good has been the reason for the outcome.





Yes it is. If you have the best business plan in the world and sufficient capital for twice more than the average growth curve for a business of this type, but a simple act of bad luck can offset all of the planning and preparation and kill that business. If you have a business that is isolated because a freak storm causes a landslide which cannot be cleared for months after you have exhausted your capital and closed your business, what is the cause other than chance that the business failed.




So luck does make of break a plan?



Evidence of this claim?



No, you can accept the facts that in a bad economy you may not get a job regardless of how hard you try due to being unlucky enough to have lost a job if several million jobs have disappeared nationwide. How long can you survive without income? Compare this time frame to the number of people who have exhausted all of their unemployment benefits even with the extensions.





Does that not follow definition-wise?



Racial bigotry is often the basic reason. Economic bigotry is another.



Yes, if you can afford to send your children to a private school why support a public school for the poor minorities?



Just as claiming those who are poor are so because they really want to be based on a pure assumption.



In our society it can be changed by the agreement of the majority of the state legislators in 2/3 of the states.





What false choice? The rich are gaining wealth while the rest of us are losing wealth.



How is the middle class NOT empowered compared to the poor now? You claim the poor are voting things for themselves when they are NOT a majority, which makes the claim false. Proposing to correct the situation on such a false claim does not make the situation as it was claimed.



Weighting toward the higher incomes while the sheer numbers are mostly falling in income level refutes what I am saying in what fashion?

http://articles.businessinsider.com/201 ... z1kXFftrVw


As the middle class in America continues to be slowly wiped out, the number of working poor continues to increase. Today, nearly one out of every three families in the United States is considered to be "low income".

Millions of American families are finding that they can barely make it from month to month even with both parents working as hard as they possibly can. Blue collar American workers from coast to coast are having their wages decreased at a time when it seems like the cost of virtually every monthly bill is going up.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein