"DESTROY POOR PEOPLE": The rich man's agenda?

[Strange]

Not that tired old Shibboleth again...

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/myl/languagelog/archives/003775.html

[Ophiolite]

Wrong is wrong.

[Strange]

Except when it isn't. How do you get to say something is "wrong" when it has been a standard part of the language since ... well, the start of the language.

 

The evidence is against you on this one. (And this is a science forum, after all.)

[Nittany Jones]

Well, if there is good there is bad too. Everything exist in pair with their opposites, such as happy and sad, big or small. similarly rich cannot exist without poor. If everyone is equal how can you tell who is rich or poor? Your thoughts is good, even I sometimes like to think the same way but that's only in imagination, when I really think about it, if everyone becomes rich it will be more chaotic than ever.

[CharonY]

What percentage of the population is actually involved in physical labour? less than 0.3%?

 

If you are talking about manual labour, in the USA, according to the BLS 17% work in service (including e.g. nurses, chefs, janitors, etc), 9% in maintenance and construction, 12% in production, to give some examples. There are more groups that I have not gone through, but even with those we are closer to 30% rather than 0.3%. While some of these jobs may or are already automated (which is the reason why production is so low), it would require quite a bit of tecnological advances to be able to replace that many jobs. Also, the replacement may not always be cost effective.

 

As others, I fail to see how getting rid of the base would result in in any kind of benefit. After the inevitable collapse of the economic system (after all, people with lower income put most of their money into the economy) the few remaining rich (deserving is certainly not something I would put in) would be left with some rather uncomfortable toilet paper.

[Phi for All]

When wealthy people acknowledge that workers are an essential, respected, valued part of the system, and treat them accordingly, the disparity between incomes isn't as much of a problem. Far-sighted leaders know they need to protect their investments by helping everyone share in the economy, rather than short-sightedly focus on profit alone.

 

But when any single group starts thinking their part of the system is more important, that's when trouble starts. Right now, I think there are far too many wealthy people who think their corporations deserve to be treated like people, and the average worker is just a hot-swappable component rather than a person.

[iNow]

There are more groups that I have not gone through, but even with those we are closer to 30% rather than 0.3%.

Using those numbers, he was only off by a factor of more than 100 (at minimum, since the actual number is quite likely above 50% of populace involved in manual labor). Surely, such an inaccuracy in the premise could have no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the conclusion. [/sarcasm]

[Phi for All]

And unfortunately, trying to argue that the wealthy are out to "get" the poor, or that wealth should be redistributed mandatorily, plays right into the hands of the spin doctors the wealthy can afford to hire. It changes the media discussions from "The top 1% have been swindling the rest slowly over the last fifty years" to "People who haven't earned a lot of money want to take yours because they think that's fair".

[Sorcerer]

Using those numbers, he was only off by a factor of more than 100 (at minimum, since the actual number is quite likely above 50% of populace involved in manual labor). Surely, such an inaccuracy in the premise could have no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the conclusion. [/sarcasm]

 

Without people managing those who do manual labour it would never get done. Without people effectively managing those who do manual labour it is done less efficiently.

 

Efficiency is gained by those who devote their time to researching better tools for doing the labour and also by those who educate the labourers on the most effective way to do their labour.

 

Those who invest their money into facilitating and expanding these processes help with manual labour.

 

Manual labour may be the backbone, but there's a body and a brain, I've never see a backbone of much function by itself. Maybe the larvae of Tunicates come close.....

Edited January 5, 2016 by Sorcerer

[Strange]

 

Without people managing those who do manual labour it would never get done. Without people effectively managing those who do manual labour it is done less efficiently.

 

Sometimes, the best person to manage those people are those actually doing the work. Anarcho-syndicalism rules!

[dimreepr]

The world is a better place when liberal and conservative (rich and poor) thinking/practice is in balance; unfortunately the pendulum continues to swing between one extreme and the other, with an occasional/brief period of relative balance.

 

The problem is every country has its own pendulum and is out of sequence with every other country, maybe one day the world will synchronise, we can but hope.

[DimaMazin]

Why not have a world where you are ONLY allowed to live if you are rich, beautiful, and happy?

 

Everyone dies when he/she is poor enough for it.

[Sorcerer]

 

Sometimes, the best person to manage those people are those actually doing the work. Anarcho-syndicalism rules!

Without seeing a working example, I would say that only individual ie self employed people could effectively do this and even then they would benefit from a 3rd party/broker/agency connecting them with clients, but have greater freedom on what they share of their wages that 3rd party gained. That 3rd party could have many clients themselves though.

 

I think under a large scale cooperative venture that individual management would cause inefficiencies from bureaucracy to multiply exponentially. Too many cooks spoiling the broth so to speak. Delegating decisions to a representative would be vastly more efficient.

 

There's also the problem that the means of production isn't owned by the workers, so they only have their labour as a collective bargaining tool. It isn't uncommon for a labourer to become a manager, but merit should be the deciding factor, democracy votes idiots in like Hitler and Bush. The guy who was smart enough to make the company, has the merit to make the choice of manager (or delegate that to someone he feels has the merit to do so, like an employment agency).

The guy running the ball bearing machine at a car manufacturing plant doesn't necessarily have any knowledge about any other step in the production line, he lacks the knowledge to make an informed choice as to who would be best to manage all steps. To make it work, everyone would basically have to be trained how to be a manager to understand who would manage them best.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Sorcerer

[John Cuthber]

 

Without people managing those who do manual labour it would never get done.

OK, so agriculture never started and we are all still apes living in trees.

That's sorted that out and you can stop posting now.

[Strange]

Without seeing a working example, I would say that only individual ie self employed people could effectively do this

 

BBC Radio 4 "In Business: Companies without Managers"

"Who's your boss? Peter Day explores how three different companies, in three different countries, do business without managers. Who hires and fires? And how do you get a pay rise? He asks how these radical organisations emerged, and whether other companies may follow their lead."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b066zvyh

[Phi for All]

The world is a better place when liberal and conservative (rich and poor) thinking/practice is in balance; unfortunately the pendulum continues to swing between one extreme and the other, with an occasional/brief period of relative balance.

 

The problem is every country has its own pendulum and is out of sequence with every other country, maybe one day the world will synchronise, we can but hope.

 

I disagree, if by balance you mean an even split between the two. I think most of our problems today can be traced to either conservative fears, or exploitation of conservative fears for profit. We're almost balanced now in the US, if the voting records are an indication, and I don't think we're anywhere near a "better place". I think we're neck-deep in corporate control of our news sources, our politicians, and our public revenue.

[dimreepr]

 

I disagree, if by balance you mean an even split between the two. I think most of our problems today can be traced to either conservative fears, or exploitation of conservative fears for profit. We're almost balanced now in the US, if the voting records are an indication, and I don't think we're anywhere near a "better place". I think we're neck-deep in corporate control of our news sources, our politicians, and our public revenue.

 

 

I think England was close to balance when we started the NHS just like I think America was when it abolished slavery.

 

Today I would suggest England and America is subject to extreme conservatism.

Balance doesn’t always mean an even split, sometimes one side weighs heavier than the other.

Edited January 5, 2016 by dimreepr

[Phi for All]

 

 

I think England was close to balance when we started the NHS just like I think America was when it abolished slavery.

 

Today I would suggest England and America is subject to extreme conservatism.

 

It's not just extreme conservatism. It's also the manipulation of extreme conservative fears. It's profitable to make people think terrorists are going to kill your family if you don't take strong measures. If our news sources were reliable, we might hear discussion about why we continue to react to terrorism in a way that grows terrorism. But they're owned by people who make a lot of profit when we're not well informed.

 

As a businessperson, I can see the signs of a successful model for business growth in the way the US handles terrorist actions. If you asked me what I would do to brand market ISIS as a problem to be solved with our services, I would turn the narrative towards their foreign religion, something that will resonate with the market and make the problems practically unsolvable, to build our business more quickly. I would use bombs on small cells rather than a more surgical method (my client's base will love the slogan "You bomb us, we'll bomb the SHIT out of you!"). I would do just about everything we're doing now, to ensure that terrorism as a problem to be solved continues to grow and be a problem we can control the profits from. I'd also use the opportunity to get rid of a bunch of old ordinance I sold them last time, so they can ask for more money for newer weapons.

 

The rest is easy, hoodwinking an uninformed public so they don't notice that my client helped start the problem in the first place.

[dimreepr]

 

It's not just extreme conservatism. It's also the manipulation of extreme conservative fears.

 

 

So not a lot of liberal thinking, my link suggests liberals are often wrong but not, I think, when it comes to fear.

[Strange]

Of course, the best way to destroy the poor people is to make them rich. The best way of doing that is to have democracy, freedom and education (especially for women).

[Phi for All]

Of course, the best way to destroy the poor people is to make them rich. The best way of doing that is to have democracy, freedom and education (especially for women).

 

And the way to create more poor people is to slowly take away part of their income and give it to the rich. Do that for thirty years, fight against any kind of help or education, and you got yourself a bunch of united states that are anything but united, will oddly prefer status quo to progress, and will be so afraid of losing their jobs completely that they'll keep letting you take their money away.

 

The downside, of course, is that your workers will be too poor to afford your products. Oh well, they should have worked harder.

[iNow]

Without people managing those who do manual labour it would never get done. Without people effectively managing those who do manual labour it is done less efficiently.

Both of these assertions are rather trivially wrong.

 

Efficiency is gained by those who devote their time to researching better tools for doing the labour and also by those who educate the labourers on the most effective way to do their labour.

Sure, that might be ONE way that efficiency is gained, but interestingly those same steps might also result in lost efficiencies. Generalities and oversimplifications like this don't help.

 

Those who invest their money into facilitating and expanding these processes help with manual labour.

Sometimes, sure, but not always.

 

What point are you trying to make here, exactly?

Edited January 6, 2016 by iNow

[Sorcerer]

OK, so agriculture never started and we are all still apes living in trees.

That's sorted that out and you can stop posting now.

The pedantry is strong with this one. OK, without people delegated people managing multi-skilled labour processes the inefficiencies would make otherwise simple production logistics unsustainable when put in direct competition with those managed efficiently.

Both of these assertions are rather trivially wrong.

 

Sure, that might be ONE way that efficiency is gained, but interestingly those same steps might also result in lost efficiencies. Generalities and oversimplifications like this don't help.

 

Sometimes, sure, but not always.

 

What point are you trying to make here, exactly?

There's always exceptions, but these would be the normal outcomes, wouldn't they? I mean I know you can min/max calculus on this, but that's quite taxing, I know the burden of proofs on me, but what's the basis of your disagreement?

 

The point is that everyone contributes and everyone benefits, and it is a system that facilitates growth by having a selective pressure for those who use the best strategies. Profit split unevenly is better than no profit split evenly.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Sorcerer

[iNow]

I mean I know you can min/max calculus on this, but that's quite taxing, I know the burden of proofs on me, but what's the basis of your disagreement?

Short answer: Reality

 

Long answer: You are correct that organization and guidance can often help with production, productivity, and efficiencies, but wrong to assert as you have that this is something that can only come from managers/supervisors/bosses, especially since instructions from those folks are so often wrong/misguided/off-track and since self-organization and efficiency gains are so often realized organically at the worker level.

 

Supplemental: Those in leadership roles are rather often not in those roles due to skill or ability, but your position inherently demands that be the case.

[Lyudmilascience]

1% of the world wakes up every morning to rollicking wealth.

The other 99%-5 billion people- die a bit more every day as they struggle on with life.

 

Tow pretty straightforward solutions here:

 

1.carpet Bomb the poor and the unhappy off the face of the earth, send them all to la la land, with the objective of not only finally helping them out of the dreary cycles of their unfruitful lives, but also open up vast new space and resources for the Deserving Remnant one percent.

 

2.Share all around, even up the wealth gap a bit.

 

 

A world full of ONLY RICH PEOPLE- PARADISE?

When you think about it, casting aside all morals for a moment, does that not seem like the ideal answer to ever problem in mankind?

After all, rid the planet of the poor, the hungry and the sick, and you get rid of 99% of humanity's woes altogether. You never found a rich dude who was sick, poor, or sad.

 

So going on to envision a world where EVERYBODY was a multi millionaire, EVERYBODY was happy, etc...isnt that humanities ultimate dream?

We seem indeed to have come to a Great Final Impasse. The Rich vs The poor. The contrast, the gap between the two classes has never been so clear cut, nor floating away from each other as rapidly as this point in history. Is this, then the time to cut the rich boat afloat for good? Sever the line between the two for good, completely closing out the one group from the other?

 

Why not have a world where you are ONLY allowed to live if you are rich, beautiful, and happy?

 

A world of that kind would be a world full of happiness.

 

Your thoughts?

I think that carpet bombing the poor is very unethical yes there will be more space but many times the poor are the moral ones because they have learned empathy.

taking the wealth from the rich is difficult and dangerous, they usually have guns and protection.

I would love a world for of rich and happy people but i do not think that is possible, there will always be a need foe factory workers which are usually low wage unless its in japan, there will still be disease, there will be less incentive to work for many people if everyone was independently wealthy, I know that money and status are one of the only things that motivates me. I also think that other then people unmotivated to work and certain positions not being filled because no body wants to do them there will also be people that want drama that like bad situations because they want someone to comfort them and they will still create a bad enviorment for others, there will still be greedy people and they will put skinny models in advertizing to make other people feel bad, so even if everyone was rich not everyone will be happy. I had a friend that moved here from the same country i was born in and most people see how grate america is and become happyer but she started feeling depressed because she had nothing to complain about and she didnt like that much change she tried to find things to complain about because she likes attention. it must have been something in her childhood.