EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 3:51 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 9:39 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20604
Location: Southeastern US
Fosgate wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Fosgate wrote:
Those...plural.


Which ones? There seem to be several options. Only income or the various modified versions. :razz: :razz:


Just one option--the portion of society whose demand is satisfied benefits.


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

Quote:
Quote:
rue on both counts. However, like your scenario involving untaxable income...


...show the significant flaws in this concept.


Quote:
We don't have to stop at income.


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

Quote:
Quote:
Hard to say. It would depend on where he fell on that subjective curve. In the end, all it boils down to is what class gets the most bang for their buck with their votes.


That is the problem with the current situation in that money is buying the election process for the sole benefit of those with money now and not society as a whole. This concept would only serve to worsen the situation.


Quote:
I don't think so. It would effectively put the middle class on par with the upper crust.


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.

Quote:
Quote:
Teaching is but one factor in the graduation rates and the rates do not show a level of effciency of teaching as a whole.


Oh, you mean teaching specifically.


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

Quote:
Well, teaching is not necessarily inefficient, if that's what you mean. However, the education process of which it is a part is and lends to teachers themselves not being compensated like "everyone thinks" they should be. That's what I mean when I get into student/teacher ratios and teacher capability itself. I'm not talking about just teachers in any case.


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?


Quote:
Quote:
Which still leaves no explanation for the low pay scales compared to value to society.


See above.


Yes, as it still leaves the question unanswered.

Quote:
Quote:
No, it's perfectly objective.


It cannot be as the value is based on subjective criteria. The income is not the value to society but you choose it to be modified by other subjective means.


Quote:
I guess that's where we differ then. What better indicator is there? Is there one or more than one at all?


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

Quote:
Quote:
Of course it's a factor, but folks are compensated for the value of their work regardless of how much they apply themselves.


But NOT in relation to the value to society just in relation to what some are willing to pay and others will accept partly for the love of the type of work.


Quote:
Supply and demand isn't supply and demand because they're rooted in human wants, needs, and propensities?


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.

Quote:
Quote:
No, it reflects the value of one's contribution toward meeting demand.


Both of which have nothing to do with the value to the society since demand or seeking compensation are unrelated to society and the value to it.


Quote:
You've lost me now. If society isn't the one with demands and therefore granting value to that which is demanded, then who is?


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.

Quote:
Quote:
There was less waste in the process, that's for sure. As for the benefit, well, I really can't say that our level of health is any better or worse today.


So you are saying the compensation rate does not equate to better or worse level of health, which means there is no more value to society for the increased compensation today as compared to previous times?


Quote:
Not when it comes to general health, no. If we're talking about living longer, which is what is ultimately valued, then yes.


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

Quote:
Quote:
As are many laws, but they are what they are because that's what we want them to be. One can take it all the way back to the constitution if they want, but that was written by men putting their own subjective thoughts to paper all the same.


So that is a "yes" on the purely subjective aspect then?


Quote:
Yes. It's the way of ethics and morals, isn't it? Then again, I'm not one to refrain from doing anything simply due to the fact that it can't be done objectively, especially when objectivity seems a long time coming.


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

Quote:
Quote:
Why? Because someone or something says so?


No, because a LOT of someones and some very important things say so.


Quote:
I know alot of someones saying stuff because it's said in some things that are supposedly important, but I'm not necessarily following along.


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.

Quote:
Quote:
Not if they fall on the curve in such a way that maximizes their voting potential.


How can it maximize their voting potential when income is the determination?


Quote:
If their income falls at or near the soft cap of the curve, then their voting potential is maximized.


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

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
No, no exclusion of the poor.


Except when they have no reported income that is?


Ever...in their life? Remember, we're not going strictly by the last tax return.


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.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It represents the weighting factor of the vote, the quality of the vote remains the same.


If a vote has more weight without that weight representing a higher quality it is only a form of discrimination based on income.


Yes, it is.


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

Quote:
Quote:
So essentially the more income you have, the more votes you can cast, up to the point where you max out the number of votes anyone can cast?


Exactly.


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.

Quote:
Quote:
So how does a drug dealer making 1 million per year benefit society more than a teacher making 40K per year exactly?


I can't say that they necessarily do not, but there's a reason such activity is illegal. I'm pretty sure the negatives outweigh the benefits regardless. :razz:


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.

Quote:
Quote:
Good question. I don't have all the answers, but I do have some suggestions.


It appears to be a higher level of complexity with the sole intent of preventing certain voters from being able to participate in electing officials and voicing their official opinion on issues based only on their wealth or lack thereof.


Quote:
Certainly can appear that way. My intent is to keep government from being mismanaged and going broke.


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?

Quote:
The MS Delta is what happens when the poor have as much a voice in governing their communities as the middle and upper classes. That's the flaw with our current system.


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:
Quote:
Obviously, we're not going to begin taxing profits from illegal activities.


We already do. Tax evasion is how they convicted Al Capone and there are tax stamps sold to cover income which is not reported due to the legality.


Quote:
I meant that we're not going to legalize drugs. At least, I don't think so.


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:06 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5778
Location: USA
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Fosgate wrote:
Just one option--the portion of society whose demand is satisfied benefits.


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


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

Quote:
Quote:
We don't have to stop at income.


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


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?

Quote:
Quote:
I don't think so. It would effectively put the middle class on par with the upper crust.


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.


Weighting curve. Not. Linear. 8)

Quote:
Quote:
Oh, you mean teaching specifically.


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


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

Quote:
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?


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.


Quote:
Quote:
See above.


Yes, as it still leaves the question unanswered.


Did I hit it yet?

Quote:
Quote:
Supply and demand isn't supply and demand because they're rooted in human wants, needs, and propensities?


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.


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.

Quote:
Quote:
You've lost me now. If society isn't the one with demands and therefore granting value to that which is demanded, then who is?


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.


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

Quote:
Quote:
Not when it comes to general health, no. If we're talking about living longer, which is what is ultimately valued, then yes.


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


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?

Quote:
Quote:
Yes. It's the way of ethics and morals, isn't it? Then again, I'm not one to refrain from doing anything simply due to the fact that it can't be done objectively, especially when objectivity seems a long time coming.


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


I mean with our current level of knowledge and technology. Remember the jar containing a vacuum? 8)


Quote:
Quote:
I know alot of someones saying stuff because it's said in some things that are supposedly important, but I'm not necessarily following along.


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.


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

Quote:
Quote:
If their income falls at or near the soft cap of the curve, then their voting potential is maximized.


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


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.

Quote:
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.


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?

Quote:
Quote:
Yes, it is.


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


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

Quote:
Quote:
Exactly.


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

Quote:
Quote:
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.


I don't think I'm getting through to you on this weighting thing.

Quote:
Quote:
Certainly can appear that way. My intent is to keep government from being mismanaged and going broke.


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?


Quote:
The MS Delta is what happens when the poor have as much a voice in governing their communities as the middle and upper classes. That's the flaw with our current system.


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.


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

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


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!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 5:48 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20604
Location: Southeastern US
Fosgate wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Fosgate wrote:
Just one option--the portion of society whose demand is satisfied benefits.


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


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


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.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
We don't have to stop at income.


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


Now that would be discrimination.


Economic discrimination would not be "real" discrimination why?

Quote:
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.


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

Quote:
Or should I say, the flaw that will eventually become obvious?


As opposed to the flaws in these options?

Quote:
Quote:
I don't think so. It would effectively put the middle class on par with the upper crust.


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.


Quote:
Weighting curve. Not. Linear. 8)


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

Quote:
Quote:
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?


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.


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

Quote:
It's not always due to system inefficiencies. In the case of teachers and medical support however, I believe it is.


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

Quote:
Quote:
Supply and demand isn't supply and demand because they're rooted in human wants, needs, and propensities?


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.


Quote:
They apparently have value to those that demand them.


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.

Quote:
I don't think we have the same idea of what constitutes value.


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

Quote:
Illegalities and consequences aside, this scenario still fits the model I'm describing.


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

Quote:
Quote:
You've lost me now. If society isn't the one with demands and therefore granting value to that which is demanded, then who is?


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.


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


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.

Quote:
Quote:
Not when it comes to general health, no. If we're talking about living longer, which is what is ultimately valued, then yes.


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


Quote:
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?


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



Quote:
Quote:
I know alot of someones saying stuff because it's said in some things that are supposedly important, but I'm not necessarily following along.


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.


Quote:
Societies decide who has what rights.


Yes, that is correct.

Quote:
You say that I am fortunate simply because it complies with what everyone else decided at some point.


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

Quote:
Quote:
If their income falls at or near the soft cap of the curve, then their voting potential is maximized.


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


Quote:
How many people get lucky?


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

Quote:
You think it's enough to sway an election? I don't think so.


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?

Quote:
You think we'll ever have so many poor that we'll vote our government into insolvency? I do.


No, I do not.

Quote:
Quote:
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.


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?


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.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Yes, it is.


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


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


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

Quote:
Quote:
Exactly.


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.


Quote:
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.


Why use a false choice fallacy?

Quote:
Quote:
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.


I don't think I'm getting through to you on this weighting thing.


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.

Quote:
Quote:
Certainly can appear that way. My intent is to keep government from being mismanaged and going broke.


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?


Quote:
The MS Delta is what happens when the poor have as much a voice in governing their communities as the middle and upper classes. That's the flaw with our current system.


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.

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


Quote:
They can't in my proposed system.


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.

Quote:
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.


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:24 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5778
Location: USA
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Economic discrimination would not be "real" discrimination why?


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

Quote:
Quote:
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.


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


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.

Quote:
Quote:
Or should I say, the flaw that will eventually become obvious?


As opposed to the flaws in these options?


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?

Quote:
Quote:
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.


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


I'd call it a good enough start.

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


I agree that the cause is moot.

Quote:
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.


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.

Quote:
Quote:
I don't think we have the same idea of what constitutes value.


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


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? =D>

Quote:
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.


What, we can't keep things legal?

Quote:
Quote:
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?


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.


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

Quote:
Quote:
You say that I am fortunate simply because it complies with what everyone else decided at some point.


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


Trust me, there'll never be enough of folks like me. :razz: O:)

Quote:
Quote:
How many people get lucky?


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.


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

Quote:
Quote:
You think it's enough to sway an election? I don't think so.


But you think the poor have enough voters to sway an election.


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

Quote:
Those who are born into money are by definition lucky are they not?


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

Quote:
Quote:
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?


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.


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

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


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


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

Quote:
Quote:
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.


Why use a false choice fallacy?


Because, in this instance, it was so fun. :razz:

Quote:
Quote:
I don't think I'm getting through to you on this weighting thing.


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.


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

Quote:
Quote:
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.


Not numbers but weight in votes.
[/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!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 7:29 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20604
Location: Southeastern US
Fosgate wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Economic discrimination would not be "real" discrimination why?


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


That would be a very basic disagreement.

Quote:
Quote:
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.


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


Quote:
But I'm not eliminating voters.


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

Quote:
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.


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

Quote:
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.


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.

Quote:
Quote:
Or should I say, the flaw that will eventually become obvious?


As opposed to the flaws in these options?


Quote:
Aww come on now. You don't always wait until you have a perfect system (on paper) in order to move forward, do you?


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

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

Quote:
Quote:
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.


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


Quote:
I'd call it a good enough start.


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.

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


I agree that the cause is moot.


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

Quote:
Quote:
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.


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.


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.

Quote:
Quote:
I don't think we have the same idea of what constitutes value.


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


Quote:
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? =D>


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

Quote:
Quote:
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.


What, we can't keep things legal?


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.

Quote:
Quote:
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?


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.


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


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

Quote:
Quote:
You say that I am fortunate simply because it complies with what everyone else decided at some point.


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


Quote:
Trust me, there'll never be enough of folks like me. :razz: O:)


Of that we are truly thankful. :razz: :twisted:


Quote:
Quote:
How many people get lucky?


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.


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


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" -

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You think it's enough to sway an election? I don't think so.


But you think the poor have enough voters to sway an election.


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


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?

Quote:
Quote:
Those who are born into money are by definition lucky are they not?


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


It all equates to being lucky though.

Quote:
Quote:
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?


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.


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


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.

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


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


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


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

Quote:
Quote:
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.


Why use a false choice fallacy?


Quote:
Because, in this instance, it was so fun. :razz:


That is as good an explanation as any, I suppose :-k

Quote:
Quote:
I don't think I'm getting through to you on this weighting thing.


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.


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


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.

Quote:
Quote:
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.


Not numbers but weight in votes.


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.


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:05 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20604
Location: Southeastern US
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 7:07 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 7957
Location: Cape Breton Npva Scotia
SiberD wrote:
Opps, took it out of context a little, eh?

The article you posted does seem like something you would ascribe to though. How to you feel about his assertion that people who are either too dumb or ignorant would be better, and more patriotic, not to vote at all?



Looking at how well our under-educated ancestors did in creating this continent while voting for their elected officials, I figure the more leaders we have the less likely it is that nation building can succeed when weighed against the debt load America carries today.

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:58 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 7:59 pm
Posts: 1348
Donnie Mac Leod wrote:
SiberD wrote:
Opps, took it out of context a little, eh?

The article you posted does seem like something you would ascribe to though. How to you feel about his assertion that people who are either too dumb or ignorant would be better, and more patriotic, not to vote at all?



Looking at how well our under-educated ancestors did in creating this continent while voting for their elected officials, I figure the more leaders we have the less likely it is that nation building can succeed when weighed against the debt load America carries today.



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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:30 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5778
Location: USA
Been a little busy lately. Be back soon.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:50 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 7957
Location: Cape Breton Npva Scotia
I guess eugenics will be the next attribute that would be offered as having the right to vote because you were selectively chosen to be a voter by genetic worth.

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 4:39 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 7:59 pm
Posts: 1348
Donnie Mac Leod wrote:
I guess eugenics will be the next attribute that would be offered as having the right to vote because you were selectively chosen to be a voter by genetic worth.


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

It's scientific fact. :-


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 5:12 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 7957
Location: Cape Breton Npva Scotia
mothy wrote:
Donnie Mac Leod wrote:
I guess eugenics will be the next attribute that would be offered as having the right to vote because you were selectively chosen to be a voter by genetic worth.


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

It's scientific fact. :-



Glad I eat wildmeat & spring fed well water. However the point is no man or leader should seek eugenic type controll over the masses.

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 7:34 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20604
Location: Southeastern US
mothy wrote:
Donnie Mac Leod wrote:
I guess eugenics will be the next attribute that would be offered as having the right to vote because you were selectively chosen to be a voter by genetic worth.


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

It's scientific fact. :-


No, it is ignorance of scientific fact in favor of ignorant assumptions. ](*,) :shock:

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:45 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5778
Location: USA
Quote:
Quote:
But I'm not eliminating voters.


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


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

Quote:
Quote:
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.


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


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

Quote:
Quote:
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.


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.


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.

Quote:
Quote:
Aww come on now. You don't always wait until you have a perfect system (on paper) in order to move forward, do you?


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


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

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


Nor do I.

Quote:
Quote:
I'd call it a good enough start.


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.


I'll accept that it isn't perfect. :razz:

Quote:
Quote:
I agree that the cause is moot.


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


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

Quote:
Quote:
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.


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'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.

Quote:
Quote:
What, we can't keep things legal?


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.


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

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


But increased total cost does not equal increased compensation per doctor as there are more doctors


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.

Quote:
and those doctors are also living longer.


Stands to reason. They're part of society.


Quote:
Quote:
Trust me, there'll never be enough of folks like me. :razz: O:)


Of that we are truly thankful. :razz: :twisted:


Me too, actually! :shock: :razz:

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


Is not beating the odds not called luck?


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

Quote:
I have seen too many instances where luck has made the difference between survival and elimination in business.


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

Quote:
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.


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

Quote:
This is why Napoleon is quoted as saying, "I do not want a good General, I want a lucky one" -


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

Quote:
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?


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

Quote:
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?


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?

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


It all equates to being lucky though.


Quote:
Yes, a challenge others may not face because they were lucky enough to be born in a wealthier area


You think luck has anything to do with being lucky?

Quote:
, 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.


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.

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


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


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

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


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.


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

Quote:
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.


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

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:29 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20604
Location: Southeastern US
Quote:
Quote:
But I'm not eliminating voters.


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


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


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.

Quote:
Quote:
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.


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


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


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.

Quote:
Quote:
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.


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.


Quote:
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.


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.

Quote:
Quote:
Aww come on now. You don't always wait until you have a perfect system (on paper) in order to move forward, do you?


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


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


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

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


Quote:
Nor do I.


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.

Quote:
Quote:
I'd call it a good enough start.


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.


Quote:
I'll accept that it isn't perfect. :razz:


Less than "not perfect" given the data.

Quote:
Quote:
I agree that the cause is moot.


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


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


Under numerous circumstances which is still continued to be ignored.

Quote:
Quote:
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.


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.


Quote:
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.


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.

Quote:
Quote:
What, we can't keep things legal?


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.


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


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.

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


But increased total cost does not equal increased compensation per doctor as there are more doctors


Quote:
But the doctors are making more, despite being in larger number.


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.

Quote:
I submit that their services are of higher quality now than it once was and that this contributes significantly to compensation.


And you have evidence of this where?

Quote:
Quote:
I have seen too many instances where luck has made the difference between survival and elimination in business.


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


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.

Quote:
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.


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


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.


Quote:
Quote:
This is why Napoleon is quoted as saying, "I do not want a good General, I want a lucky one" -


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


So luck does make of break a plan? :eh:

Quote:
Quote:
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?


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


Evidence of this claim?

Quote:
Quote:
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?


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?


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.

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


It all equates to being lucky though.


Quote:
Quote:
Yes, a challenge others may not face because they were lucky enough to be born in a wealthier area


You think luck has anything to do with being lucky?


Does that not follow definition-wise?

Quote:
Quote:
, 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.


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?


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

Quote:
I mean, it can't possibly be as simple as folks generally not giving a rat's ass, can it?


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

Quote:
Naw, that would be too simple. There must be another explanation. I hear there are statues that bleed too. Those must be miracles.


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

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


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


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


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

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


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.


Quote:
False choice fallacy?


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

Quote:
At any rate, this can be averted by empowering the middle class...now.


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.

Quote:
Quote:
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.


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


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


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group