Low income families
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-01-2015, 04:09 PM
RE: Low income families
(02-01-2015 12:44 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Not having endured poverty, I struggle to understand the claims made by socialists, they seem to blame the wealthy for their plight, they seem to blame a government which encourages economic prosperity, encourages business and industry (which in turn creates jobs and income).

In my country NZ we have free childcare and massively subsidised medical care for all. School is free, unless you choose to spend thousands each year on private schools. Our universities are subsidised and interest free loans are offered by the government as well and financial support to students of poor families in order to pay for courses and accommodation. Our jobless get given money for not working, our jobless mothers get given money to support their children (without limit to how many children a jobless, partnerless mother chooses to have), The government provides free advice and support to help the jobless find jobs, they provide free skills training and even subsidise some jobs.

And yet we get ridiculous claims that a wealthy CEO earning top dollar and driving a company into prosperity is greedy and is the cause of poverty. Claims that an unskilled extra to Hobbit movies should get profit share in the movie takings rather than be paid a wage for time rendered.

Anyway, what sparked this post is me reading a recent article about keeping your kids up with reading books during the summer holidays http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/articl...=11381374.
They talk about how some kids are advantaged by being brought into libraries and taking out many books.
Quote:"You've got those parents, you see them in the libraries and their kids are checking out 20 books at a time - they are the ones that are really going to move quickly and do well over summer,"
BTW that's my family, actually we take out about 40 or so books a week, we read to the kids each night, get our 6 year old to read to us. And often see our 6 year old excited and reading on her own, going through the stack of books.

Now in NZ, library membership is free. Taking books out is free.

Here's the offending claim in the article
Quote:Low-income families are mostly affected by holiday reading loss because of limited access to books and other learning materials.
Libraries are FREE, did I forget to mention that?
So why are these low income families not taking books home for their kids to read?


When you have free childcare and subsidised universities and and subsidised medical care you have a head start from the moment you take your first breath in life. That's not the way it is i the US. Free child care???? OMG. I can't imagine what that would have been like.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes dancefortwo's post
05-01-2015, 04:16 PM
RE: Low income families
(05-01-2015 04:09 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  When you have free childcare and subsidised universities and and subsidised medical care you have a head start from the moment you take your first breath in life. That's not the way it is i the US. Free child care???? OMG. I can't imagine what that would have been like.

Such "free" services are neither unconditional nor universally accessible.

Obviously still a huge improvement in quality of life from nearly every perspective, but an actual level playing field they do not make.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-01-2015, 08:37 PM
RE: Low income families
Quote:Do you think it is the company's responsibility to share the profits?

I'm not saying they should "share" their profits. I'm saying they should pay their employees more.

Quote:What about when a company goes belly up? What then?

The shareholders lose out and those employed lose their jobs.
Shareholders hold that risk (of losing their money) because they do get a share of the company profit (well not always but in theory). Employee's are contracted to set work for set prices. They do not take the risk of losing their money and so they do not have a share in equity. I'm not saying shareholders don't deserve to earn a higher return, I'm saying that the amount of money paid to employees is not equal to the work they do and they deserve to be paid more.

Quote:If the rich feel they have surplus money and want to give to charity, shouldn't it be up to them to decide what charity they are to give to?

You're mistaking charity for 'getting what is deserved'. It's offensive actual and fuck you.

Quote:If they are giving money to the workers (above the value of the service provided) then that is a form of charity.

I agree, I'm not saying employees should get paid more than they are worth, I am saying that they are currently not getting wages that correctly reflect the value of the work they do.

Quote:Business is business, charity is charity, they are not the same thing.

I never said they weren't.

Quote:Who is it that deems when a person is rich enough? Who is it that deems how excess money ought to be spent?
When you go shopping, don't you look for bargains? Don't you look for value for money? It's only natural to pay market rates for things, why should a business pay higher than that, unless of course they see some benefit in it for the business.

I'm not saying they should pay higher than what they are valued at, I am saying they are under valued.

Quote:It's the CEO's job to make the business profitable. If charity is to be given then each shareholder/owner can choose how to spend their own personal profits however they feel they want to.

Which is a fantasy land dream because people are inherently greedy.

Quote:It's not a businesses responsibility to address the social economic gap. It's a business responsibility to continue and grow and to turn a profit. Dealing with social issues is the government responsibility.

Wrong. It is businesses responsibility because they are large players in our society and are part of society and so should help to improve it. Businesses should consider stakeholders and not just shareholders.

If you are walking along and you see someone about to jump off a bridge and you're the only person around you have a moral obligation to help stop that person from jumping. I don't think any decent person would disagree with this. Business is the same, it can't be in it simply for profits, it needs to have a larger more moral approach.

Quote:If workers want a better lot in life they need to work for it, perhaps spend more time getter further education, perhaps starting up their own business, perhaps investing themselves.

And this is where the "I've never been in poverty" comes into play.
You don't understand because you've never been there.

We're both from New Zealand so this'll make it easier but I'll give you an example of why it's so hard to get out of poverty.

Take my situation. I earn $15.02 an hour. I don't have any set hours I'm on call until a full time position opens up. I get paid tonight for the 45.5 hours I worked in the last 2 weeks. I can't physically work any more than that because if they don't have a spot for me to fill they don't have a spot for me to fill...

45.5 * 15.02 = $683.41. I worked over New Years so I get some stat days bonus so my taxable income is actually $794.80.
$794.80 - $94.80 (tax) - $95.28 (student loan repayments) = $604.64 (for 2 weeks)
$604.64 - $240 (2 weeks rent, 2 weeks power, 2 weeks internet) = $364.64
$364.64 - $5 (life insurance I have to have) - $10 (2 weeks of keeping debt collectors off my back) - $50 (2 weeks of paying off my q-card) - $20 (2 weeks personal loan repayments) = $279.64 left.
$279.64 - $220 (for 2 weeks food) = $59.64.

That $59.64 will realistically be spent on either a) food b) going out with friends or c) making q card repayments.

Now you tell me, investing costs $30 per investment (ie: If I buy 20 shares of company X I have to pay the broker $30 to make that purchase for me PLUS the money for the actual shares) and so of the $59.64 only $29.64 of that would actually be available for investing. Where am I suppose to invest my $29.64 that would allow it to double its money so I get my $30 back and actually make a profit on my investment to make it worthwhile?

You also have to take into account you never know when a bug is gonna fly into your ear and you're going to have to visit the doctor. That's another $90. Where do I get that $90 from?

What if I had to drive to work or take the bus? $59.64 - $20 gas. Not including maintenance, wof, rego.

What if I was a dad and had children? If I had children WINZ would have to "top me up" I couldn't raise a kid for $59.74 for 2 weeks. School's starting, how would I be able to pay for school fees, uniform, school supplies. What if he/she was a teenager and needed one of those fancy graphics calculators? There goes $20 of the $59.74.



With me, I flat, I have a fair amount of debt but at least my debt is manageable (ie: I'm not paying interest on my q card because I pay it off on time) and I will be debt free some time this year. I live in crappy Hamilton (so much cheaper compared to when I lived in Wellington) and so my expenses are so low. My rent is $88 ffs.. $88!! so cheap. I will be able to pay off my debt and start saving. I'm smart, I have the know how and desire to start my business and I will get out of being poor (or I will get poorer but we'll see). But what you have to realize is that small changes could drastically effect someone in a situation like me. Such as having a kid. I'm never gonna have kids (thank god I'm gay as fuck) but someone might accidentally knock some girl up and BAM stuck with a kid.
They can no longer pay off debt or save because all their money goes into raising this kid.


When you have a system that is built on "oh WINZ will just top you up" you're doing something drastically wrong. I'm not saying everyone should be "rich", I just believe that everyone should be able to work to support themselves.

Somewhere along the line wages stagnated, the rich got richer and the poor for poorer. I'm not objective to the rich get richer, I just don't think it should be at the expense of honest hard working people getting poorer.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-01-2015, 09:27 PM
RE: Low income families
(12-01-2015 08:37 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:Do you think it is the company's responsibility to share the profits?

I'm not saying they should "share" their profits. I'm saying they should pay their employees more.
If they can't get enough people, they will either look abroad, lower their requirements or offer more money as further incentive.
If enough people are willing to work for the money and conditions on offer then they are paying market rates.
Why would they pay more than that?

(12-01-2015 08:37 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:If they are giving money to the workers (above the value of the service provided) then that is a form of charity.

I agree, I'm not saying employees should get paid more than they are worth, I am saying that they are currently not getting wages that correctly reflect the value of the work they do.
If the company is getting the amount of appropriate employees that they need then they are paying the market rates. They are paying what the workers are worth.
It's a supply and demand thing.

(12-01-2015 08:37 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  I'm not saying they should pay higher than what they are valued at, I am saying they are under valued.
How to you come to this conclusion? How do you assess what a worker is worth?

By the way I see it, if you are willing to work for $15 per hour then that is what you are worth. If you then go and find another company that is willing to pay you $20 per hour then that is what you are worth and I miss out on employing you because I am only offering $15. If the other companies are getting all the quality workers and I struggle to entice people then perhaps I need to offer more.

(12-01-2015 08:37 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:It's the CEO's job to make the business profitable. If charity is to be given then each shareholder/owner can choose how to spend their own personal profits however they feel they want to.

Which is a fantasy land dream because people are inherently greedy.
Yes, so the conditions of the CEO's employment ought to include a bonus or share enticement where-as the success of the business ties into his/her financial gain.

(12-01-2015 08:37 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:It's not a businesses responsibility to address the social economic gap. It's a business responsibility to continue and grow and to turn a profit. Dealing with social issues is the government responsibility.

Wrong. It is businesses responsibility because they are large players in our society and are part of society and so should help to improve it. Businesses should consider stakeholders and not just shareholders.
Yeah well. It's easy to tell people what they should do, but this expectation will certainly lead you to disappointment.

(12-01-2015 08:37 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  If you are walking along and you see someone about to jump off a bridge and you're the only person around you have a moral obligation to help stop that person from jumping. I don't think any decent person would disagree with this. Business is the same, it can't be in it simply for profits, it needs to have a larger more moral approach.
Yeah, I'm not much for moral expectations. It's all subjective right?
A business isn't a person. A business cannot have moral beliefs. The owners may or may not implement a "give back" policy. It's their money, its up to them.

(12-01-2015 08:37 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:If workers want a better lot in life they need to work for it, perhaps spend more time getter further education, perhaps starting up their own business, perhaps investing themselves.

And this is where the "I've never been in poverty" comes into play.
You don't understand because you've never been there.
I've been a "poor" student, recent graduate before. I didn't get money given to me by my parents. My first car was worth less than $1,000 dollars, had a terrible paint job, was pretty well rusted. I lived off the dole for a year because I found it hard finding a job. Was flatting, was not saving, actually my first job after Uni was at KFC on minimum wage. It took up 20 hours a week of my time and I earned about $20 per week more than I did on the dole, but I had extra expenses e.g. car costs, clothes etc.
But really that wasn't being "poor". I had an education, I was young and dependent free. The future offered potential for me.

(12-01-2015 08:37 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Take my situation.
Yes, sounds similar to me when I got out of Uni.
Great that you got an education. That's a great ticket out of poverty.
The real problem is when they don't get an education that can lead to a decent job. Maybe they don't apply themselves at school, maybe they were needed to earn money for the family from a young age and couldn't then put time into education. Maybe they had religious ideals and got pregnant young and couldn't have an abortion. I guess there are lots of reasons but once you get to the age that you need to pay your own way, then you will find that things become tough. You need to make the most of being a young dependent while you can. NZ is great because even poor can go to University. Govt will subsidise and will give you interest free loan to pay for fees and accommodation and living costs. You come out with a great big debt but they only get you to pay back at an affordable rate. Otherwise they let you sit on the debt without having to pay it back.

I think you are relatively young, your lot will improve, your wages will get better, I doubt that your future will be one of poverty. I could be wrong of course.

(12-01-2015 08:37 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  They can no longer pay off debt or save because all their money goes into raising this kid.
Yeah NZ pays more for people to have kids. But that stops the mother getting a job or education. Wise people could consider holding off on having kids until they are financially and career wise in a position to do so. I didn't start having kids until I was 35.

(12-01-2015 08:37 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Somewhere along the line wages stagnated, the rich got richer and the poor for poorer. I'm not objective to the rich get richer, I just don't think it should be at the expense of honest hard working people getting poorer.
How does a person get rich at the expense of the working people getting poorer?
I understand the churches can get the poor to give them money so the church leader gets rich at their expense.
But lets say we have a doctor earning $150K how is this at the expense of the poor? Or a CEO earning $5mill how is that at the expense of the poor? These people are getting paid market rates. The value of the doctor or CEO is independent of the value of the KFC cook. The KFC cook gets paid what an unskilled laborer is willing to work for.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: