Even rich became wealthy with the support of poor or somebody. Had somebody refuse to help him/her. He/she won't be wealthy so I remind the wealthy people not to forget the way up. All I can say is, you've been listening to Obama too much.
305 days ago | Side: Do we have moral obligation to help the poor
No man is an island. If there was no third world, the West would not be able to produce everything that it does. If there was no lower class, business would falter and fail. If there was no one but one rich person, what would their riches matter for? The point is valid.
304 days ago | Side: Do we have moral obligation to help the poor
That was mostly meant as a joke. However, those that are rich clearly have done something great for themselves otherwise anyone could get rich and that is not the case.
304 days ago | Side: Do we have moral obligation to help the poor
Unless there was an exceptionally low social mobility in a society. That would imply that simply by being born rich, you are very likely to remain rich. If only America was a country with very low social mobility ...
302 days ago | Side: Do we have moral obligation to help the poor
America does not have an exceptionally low social mobility.
302 days ago | Side: Do we have moral obligation to help the poor
302 days ago | Side: Do we have moral obligation to help the poor
Then how do you explain how one's inheritance is great? One's father's inheritance was great? At some point, there had to be some hard work and earning. Yes, if your parents are rich, you are able to afford great private education and pursue most anything you want. But its not like there are no opportunities for worse off people.
294 days ago | Side: Do we have moral obligation to help the poor
"If there was no third world, the West would not be able to produce everything that it does. If there was no lower class, business would falter and fail." Im going to take this theory and propose a scenario: If everybody in the world had a large amount of wealth, what would happen? Several things would occur: the price of menial labor would go sky high, because implicit in your line of thinking(and therefore this scenario), the wealthy do not specialize in menial jobs. Then, the wealthy would learn to specialize in menial jobs while simultaneously using their money to invest in labor saving technology, because consistent with reality, all business owners like to save money. In the end, the wealthy would STILL be just as rich, but instead of helping bring the poor out of poverty, they would simply BECOME a new "lower class" which consists of highly skilled and paid menial laborers. T
303 days ago | Side: Do we have moral obligation to help the poor
That's called inflation. Instead of reducing inequality, and benefiting the poor, nothing would change, except you'd put an extra zero after every price.
302 days ago | Side: Do we have moral obligation to help the poor
The answer is no. We have no obligations whatsoever because we have free agency. Morally, I suppose it would be good to support the poor, however no one should be forced to do so, as that would go against our freedom.
Can you give me an example of how poor people help other people get richer? I mean..., as it stands, your debates makes a lot of claims but provides no supporting evidence.
305 days ago | Side: Do we have moral obligation to help the poor
"I mean..., as it stands, your debates makes a lot of claims but provides no supporting evidence." That's everywhere, especially in the religion debates set up by atheists. I'm surprised you've only pointed it out now.
305 days ago | Side: Do we have moral obligation to help the poor
Can you give me an example of how poor people help other people get richer? The fact that the "poor" or low income majority contribute to the middle and upper class' income seems to me self evident. It is the working class who manufacture, distribute, sell and then indeed purchase the majority of goods that are mass produced in factories owned by millionaire industrialists. The profits from this business are then handed into the pockets of the industrialist and all the wealthy share holders. Additionally, middle and high income earners are often employed in management posts. Who do they manage? Those on lower incomes. Without the "poor" majority the wealthy minority wouldn't be nearly so wealthy.
305 days ago | Side: Do we have moral obligation to help the poor
You still have not answered the question. You just state that it is self evident. Then you go on and make more claims about the rich and the middle class. You finally end up with two claims about the poor that I don't agree with. To summarize those two claims, the poor work for the managers. Without the poor, the wealthy would not be so wealthy. First of all, there are plenty of people working for managers that pull in 6 figures. Then there are those that pull in some decent 5 figures. The rest, are unskilled laborers. In many instances, unskilled laborers can be replaced by more efficient machines that cost less to run because they don't require medical insurance, lunch breaks, etc. These machines can sometimes go 24/7. Let me put it another way. If those unskilled laborers are so valuable to enriching people, why aren't they paid more to motivate them to keep doing so? If anything, the poor suck up valuable resources that could be better spent ;)
305 days ago | Side: Do we have moral obligation to help the poor
the poor work for the managers I'm not sure how you can dispute this claim. The wealthy managers or business owners do not work for the poor. The employees are poorer than the employers. An employer (who is wealthy) makes his money from the work done by his employees (who are less wealthy), not vice versa. You have tried to claim that the rich work for the rich; "there are plenty of people working for managers that pull in 6 figures." Compared to how many people work for those who "manage" or employ them on less than £20,000 I'm not sure "plenty" is an accurate modifier. I apologise if I'm being unclear, but I can't see how I can answer the question any clearer without sounding ridiculously patronising. In many instances, unskilled laborers can be replaced by more efficient machines Until they are, these unskilled labourers are essential to the running of the business. A profit could not be made without them. These labourers should therefore receive a share in the profits that they have contributed to, as in a Co-operative run business. why aren't they paid more to motivate them to keep doing so? Because they don't need high payment for motivation. Working for a little is better than working for none, which is the ultimatum employers offer unskilled workers. Either you work for the minimum wage, or you don't work at all and receive nothing. the poor suck up resources that could be better spent On the upper classes diamond shoes and fatter wallets perhaps?
305 days ago | Side: Do we have moral obligation to help the poor
What I'm saying is that those people who are valuable, people who truly enrich people, get paid handsomely to keep doing that. If you enrich your boss and he rewards you with 6 figures, you are not poor by any stretch of the imagination. If all you do is wash dishes, and you tell the owner, "Hey! You are getting rich off of my labor. Without me, you're nothing, you wouldn't be so rich." Then he would laugh in your face, fire you and buy a dishwasher. If your salary places you in the "poor" category, then you are replaceable because you lack the skills necessary to enrich someone. In other words, there's a boat load of unskilled laborers willing to do you job. Why pay you more when I could get someone else just as unskilled? Working for a little is better than working for none, which is the ultimatum employers offer unskilled workers. Either you work for the minimum wage, or you don't work at all and receive nothing. When I talk about the poor sucking up resources, I mean that the land that is used to house them could be used for other things. Also, less people on the planet means less global warming. That's just 2 examples. There are more. ;)
305 days ago | Side: Do we have moral obligation to help the poor
If all you do is wash dishes, and you tell the owner, "Hey! You are getting rich off of my labor. Without me, you're nothing, you wouldn't be so rich." Then he would laugh in your face, fire you and buy a dishwasher. And who would load the dishwasher, another poor person? And when that poor person complains, you find anther one? What if all the poor complained? Then the employer would have to concede that actually he does need poor people to contribute to his business and generate wealth. To simplify further: - I am arguing that poor employees are necessary to produce wealth for employers. -You are arguing that they can be replaced by another worker. By acknowledging that they need to be replaced you are conceding that they are needed. If you didn't have anyone to wash the dishes, you'd have a lot of dirty dishes and unhappy customers in your restaurant! Also, less people on the planet means less global warming When it is rich industrialists who commission carbon dioxide producing factories to generate wealth for themselves it seems ironic that the poor should be culled to reduce global warming... And perhaps the land where they live could become a private swimming pool or shopping centre?
305 days ago | Side: Do we have moral obligation to help the poor
Actually, when an unskilled laborer gets the boot, the next person up the chain gets the job. The logic is that the next person up the chain has a lot more to lose if he refuses to pick up the slack. Let me put it another way..., if there existed some other alternative, don't you think it would have been done by now? ;)
305 days ago | Side: Do we have moral obligation to help the poor
Actually, when an unskilled laborer gets the boot, the next person up the chain gets the job. The logic is that the next person up the chain has a lot more to lose if he refuses to pick up the slack. This might be the case when the job is something small and quick as in the "washing up" example we've been running with, but if the job is all the more time consuming (irrespective of how skilled it is) then it cannot then be shifted onto someone else who already has other responsibilities. An unskilled or semiskilled job can still be a full time job. if there existed some other alternative, don't you think it would have been done by now? "If it was going to happen it would have happened" is not a sustainable argument - do you truly believe (in a general sense) that whatever could be done has already been done? If everyone had that attitude nothing would ever progress. I have already pointed out the Co-operative business model as a contemporary example of an "alternative", which involves making the workers share holders. Workers owning the means of production is an alternative to the current system that I am very much in favour of. To put it bluntly: alternatives do exist.
305 days ago | Side: Do we have moral obligation to help the poor
Co-operative business model Do you mean the model Russia was following before they gave up on it? ;)
305 days ago | Side: Do we have moral obligation to help the poor
No. I mean the business model used by one of the largest business groups in the UK. A very real success... http://www.co-operative.coop/corporate/aboutus/ I don't believe this model goes all the way, but it's certainly heading in the right direction.
305 days ago | Side: Do we have moral obligation to help the poor
If people are going to down-vote can they please dispute. The essence of debating is not to simply assert "you're wrong" but to explain why.
303 days ago | Side: Do we have moral obligation to help the poor
I'll give it a shot, as someone who's been in business in one form or another for the better of 15 years. I hire you for a.... name any bullshit job... ah stripping and waxing floors. i pay you $8 an hour. Really as it stands I'm already ripping you off, because $8 an hour isn't even a living wage. But, fuck you! I know you have no options or you wouldn't be coming to me to strip floor for $8.00. My sales people win a contract to strip and and re-wax all the major shopping malls in the entire state. Now, I bill the malls a rate of $24 an hour. I pay you $8. Now, you could come back at me and ask for $10, but fuck you. I'm not too impressed with your work and there's a long line of people out the door willing to do it for $8 (because they need the money). Now, you can get together with your buddies and tell me that you're going to Unionize and I'll just fire all of your asses (remember the long line of people out the door). See, the bottom line is I'm the one with all the power and what can you really do about it? Now, I guess you think I'm going to pay your health insurance. But the least I can do is to be honest about it. And quit playing this bullshit game, like I didn't get anything off you. Of course, I got something off you. I made a million dollars stripping every mall in the state. I didn't strip a single floor myself. You did all the work. Now, I'm in Palm Springs playing golf and you will never be able to retire, because you're working for $8.00.
293 days ago | Side: Do we have moral obligation to help the poor
You say that as though I would disagree. ;) You're just proving my point. If the going rate is $8.00 an hour..., why should I (as an employer) pay more? If you are not worth more than $8.00 an hour..., why should I pay you more? As an employee, it is MY responsibility to make myself worth more. If I cannot make myself more valuable..., why am I entitled to just demand more? Let me put it another way..., Do we have a moral obligation to create a union in order to shaft the employer and extort more money than we are worth? If the answer is, "Yes." Then why should I go to school? Why should I try to better myself? Why should I bother making myself more valuable when all I have to do is join a union (gang) and let the union negotiate (steal) more money for me? If the rich are obligated to help the poor, then why should I accept any responsibility for taking care of myself? People who join a union are making money off the backs of hard working, potentially rich, people. Are you saying that stripping and waxing floors is harder work than being in business, in one form or another, for the better part of 15 years? If that's the case, then why don't those workers quit and create their own business? The fact that stripping and waxing floors is physically hard work, means nothing. I have known entrepreneurs. And I have seen their hair turn gray before my eyes. Being a business owner is NOT and easy job. If it was soooo easy, more people would do it. If stripping and waxing floors was sooo hard, there wouldn't be a large labor pool to pick from. But..., whatever ;)
293 days ago | Side: Do we have moral obligation to help the poor
I'm just putting it back in perspective and keeping it honest. The implied argument is that the rich have not benefited from the poor and that's simply bullshit. Someone asked how the rich have benefited from the poor. I gave you an example. I'm not saying pay them $10 or $12, but be honest enough to admit when you're deriving an income from the efforts of others.
293 days ago | Side: Do we have moral obligation to help the poor
Granted..., but the poor have to come to the table as well and be honest enough to admit when they are deriving income from the efforts of their employer. I mean, honestly..., don't you think that the employer did some work in getting his customers to sign on the dotted line? If the poor were capable of getting people to sign on the dotted line, they wouldn't need the rich. The only thing we seem to be arguing about is what should laborers get paid. And I side with market forces setting the labor cost. But that's just me ;)
293 days ago | Side: Do we have moral obligation to help the poor
We are agreed on that point. It's quite honestly a lot of people working together, but there seems to be a tendency for some to say "well, I did all the work". Like a car dealer that sold 3,000 cars last year. Well, really he may have sold 2 himself. The rest were sold by his staff, but he bought the lot, paid for the advertising, inventory, and so on. And, no, his pee-ons couldn't have done that on their own. Neither could he have sold 3,000 cars on his own. Nor would he be a particularly good businessman if he tried to. It's all a collaborative effort. But I often hear very specific "how have the rich benefited from the poor?" And I just told you.
293 days ago | Side: Do we have moral obligation to help the poor
But, the question is a moo point. You've heard of a moo point, right..., it means that it's like a cow's opinion..., it doesn't matter. Because people might just as well ask, "How have the poor benefited from the rich?" The original question is meant to be a rhetorical question designed to play on your emotions in order to extract more money from the rich and give it to the poor. The question is not a question based on logic but rather based on emotion. The question is disingenuous because it completely ignores the other side of the equation and only presents a half truth. The tactic employed is to get people, who are too lazy to think things through to their logical conclusion, to agree that the poor should be paid more money than market forces dictate they are worth. The purpose of the question, "How have the rich benefited from the poor?" is to get those lazy thinkers to think things through ;)
293 days ago | Side: Do we have moral obligation to help the poor
It depends how moral a person is, and that defines their moral obligations.
305 days ago | Side: Do we have moral obligation to help the poor
4. To do nothing would be the equivalent of allowing a child to die in a preventable situation, what action should the ordinary first would citizen take?
303 days ago | Side: Do we have moral obligation to help the poor
.............................................................................................................
303 days ago | Side: Do we have moral obligation to help the poor
I believe that having less than somebody else does not entitle you to what the other guy has. I do believe that should the other guy CHOOSE to entitle you to his possessions, (i.e. charity) then that is legitimate. I also believe that charity is most effective when it is done personally. What i mean by this is you should know the person or organization you are giving to very well, so you can make the right call on who deserves your charity. The question one should ask himself before giving his poseesions away should be this: Who will make the most of what you give them?Giving to a money vacuum, like a drug addict, will not improve things long term. Giving to a productive friend who has fallen on hard times is well worth the investment long term.
303 days ago | Side: Do we have moral obligation to help the poor
We have a moral obligation to act as we would reasonably expect others to act towards us. That means being kind, being respectful, and helping those in need. Obviously, we have no legal obligation to be moral, it is not our responsibility to do so, but that's not to say it's not our duty.
302 days ago | Side: Do we have moral obligation to help the poor
yes we have have the moral obligation to help the poor and needy peoples because we all are human being and it is the duty of every citizen of our country to help those person which r in need that why we are INDIAN and a good human being with the ability to make other and own life better.it is our sole motte of life. at last i wanted to say"when the 'good' is followed and 'bad' is rejected then only we can make our society a better place where we live".
293 days ago | Side: Do we have moral obligation to help the poor
|
