You don't consider an injustice that a less-skilled and less-deserving person can just inherit wealth, I do.

Why? It's not an injustice. It's sucks. Yes, there are people who probably would do more good with that money. But that's far different from an injustice. It's an injustice, IMO, that a less-skilled person has so many arbitrary impediments to acquiring wealth.

You don't consider an injustice that a less-skilled and less-deserving person can just inherit wealth, I do.

Why? It's not an injustice. It's sucks. Yes, there are people who probably would do more good with that money. But that's far different from an injustice. It's an injustice, IMO, that a less-skilled person has so many arbitrary impediments to acquiring wealth.

As I said, it depends on how you see things. I don't see how a system where one kid can have so many privileges and opportunities against another kid simply based on the family they were born in as just and rational. If we define as "justice" that nobody should be in a better position than another if they have not earned it in some way, then isn't what I described unjust? How can a baby have *earned*, in any way, better feeding, housing, healthcare, education, entertainment, opportunities than another baby? That guy was raised from birth to be a future boss. My sister and me were raised to be future employees, barring some amazing development that would allow us to become bosses, which relatively rarely(not never) happens.

To go further, a poor kid in a thirld-world country isn't even as privileged as my and my sister were - he's raised to work in sweatshops and fields. All that simply because of the country and family you happened to be born in(and let's not go again over "rags to riches" anecdotes, yes *we know* they happen, we've seen "Slumdog Millionaire" and "Pursuit of Happiness", doesn't change the general picture). We just accept all that because that's what happens. But I fail to see any justice or logic in it. It's just the way it is right now.

Now, if you're going to say "but some are also born more attractive/intelligent/able bodied than others, is that injustice too"? The way I see it, that's nature. Some being born more intelligent than others is always going to happen and we can't fix that(barring some developments in genetics or something like that). The most we can do is help everyone fullfill their full potential. What I described above though, is societal injustice. I don't see them being on the same level.

I don't see how a system where one kid can have so many privileges and opportunities against another kid simply based on the family they were born in as just and rational.

How would it be fair to restrict what people do with their assets after death? It's not that THEY were born with the privileges, it's that someone worked to provide his offspring those assets.

Quotes doesn't work for me like it use to (sorry)

Here are some of my belated replies...

... Luddite...

... Luddites...

The fault of the Luddites, their error, was not securing ownership of a share of the company they worked for, so that when their labor became redundant, they would still continue to benefit and therefore embrace the improvements rather than fear them.

Goliath Forge, on 03 August 2016, said:

The other thing I think is the saying, "In order for someone to win, someone has to lose."

"It is not enough to succeed. Others must fail." -- Gore Vidal

Not so important (nor good advice) if the emphasis is cooperation.

Milton Waddam, on 03 August 2016, said:

Why would anyone serve? On Star Trek there are a lot of people that do menial jobs. Why?

I'm guessing because they need money...

Starfleet isn't civilian. Ensign, please review Season 1 Episode "Learning Curve" of Start Rek VoYaGer.

braindigitalis, on 05 August 2016, said:

In reality, I think it's more likely that the minority would try and assert dominance over the majority, and still want more, better, bigger, faster. The sad fact of the matter is deep down I know I'm right about this as it's the human condition to not care about others outside you own small world and family unit...

It is true, I have met such people. Some have a change of heart later in life, but others, well, we'll just have to install Empathy-Synthesizers in them if we have to, damn it!

Alternatively (and what I prefer), is that each generation of voters keep themselves well-informed so as to avoid ever becoming taken-advantage-of.

SeraphLance, on 05 August 2016, said:

Unemployment has floated between 5 and 10 percent for at least the last hundred years (outside of the Great Depression), with no clear trend in any direction. Were your fears true, surely we'd see a clear positive trend?

The population keeps rising, so the saying "unemployment is steady at 5%" is a misnomer. The total number of unemployed people grow each year.

JohnnyCode, on 20 Sept 2016, said:

How can you work without a profit? You would literally work for free...

... then the servant replied to the master "How can someone profit without work!" :D

I'll explain later.

conquestor3, on 19 Sept 2016, said:

In fact, Chinese workers are getting too expensive for dirt cheap manufacturing, and companies are starting to outsource to Indonesia/India instead. That's how the free market works...

mikeman, on 19 Sept 2016, said:

You work hard and you buy your 2nd house, while they work harder and can't buy the iPhone they're making with their own hands. Awesome, right?

The education of certain "concepts", en masse, is the only vaccination/antidote in preventing exploitation. People tend to get this education of 'ideas' far too late in life (myself included; otherwise I could have retired a long time ago [and made games in my spare time :)]).

samoth, on 19 Sept 2016, said:

I didn't mention them, that's right. But there is not enough server capacity to host a post containing everything that I'm upset with.

:lol: :D

grumpyOldDude, on 20 Sept 2016, said:

Extreme right -> brutal capitalism... Example; NY, LA...

Sounds like a John Carpenter dystopia: Escape from NY (good movie), Escape from LA...

Alpheus, on 19 Sept 2016, said:

So is the solution to the wealth gap is to do away with loans (including things like credit cards) and work toward deflation? How much inflation can there be for it to be considered "good"?

It can be temporarily good if it followed a few conditions such as, being tethered to population growth and, being partially-debt-free. If you are simply looking to reverse the "damage", then all future inflation would have to be partially debt-free and applied retroactively to all current inflation-based loans. Central Banks are close to being forced to implement this kind of policy, but only because it is fast becoming a necessity (out of desperation), not because they are benevolent. If the majority of voters understood these concepts, they wouldn't have to wait for Central Banks to do the right thing. A far better solution than any of these is to have a completely new system of credit. The technology to make it possible now exists. Tangible money has served its purpose. The next step in economic evolution is just around the corner.

When she was sending out resumes to find a better job, he found out through his connections in the industry and basically threatened her to stop because "he will decide when she's going to go, not her". He also fired her husband(and his nephew) that was working in the same factory shortly after they were married and she got pregnant.

Sounds like two different causes for lawsuits. You mentioned pay in Euros, so assuming somewhere in the EU. The first cause would be wrongful termination, the second for discrimination because of the pregnancy or of family status which are both protected across the EU.

Did anyone keep email or any paper trail for either?

Please. Those cases against employers almost never succeed, and the employee will get in more trouble than the employer in the long run. She didn't want any more trouble. She held her head down, because now she has a family to feed, and barely any financial security from our parents, which just live off their modest pensions.

(And besides, the "warning" was verbal, so what was she going to do with it anyway, assuming she would be willing to go for a lawsuit.)

What? What country is this? In the EU (i know it varies by country) but its generally next to impossible to fire someone without a strong case (gross misconduct/stealing) after 2 years of employment. And certainly if you are fired you get it in writing, everytime. Verbal warnings without a witness don't mean shit.

Firstly, she needs to get legal advice, again this is probably free on her salary, nobody needs to know of this.

She should continue to apply for other jobs and relocate if necessary. There is nothing her current employer can do about this.

1200 euro per month is less than bar work (maybe not in eastern / southeastern Europe).

Also, if he threatened her she should have filed an assault charge.

Once any legal proceedings have begun it would be impossible to be fired and if she fear's her employer she probably wouldn't even have to work during this period.

She has a strong case of harassment and would not have any problem finding other work.

I don't think anyone is condoning immoral behaviour or suggesting that life is fair but your going to find arseholes everywhere. There are laws to protect people from abuse, use them.

She has a strong case of harassment and would not have any problem finding other work.

Or... she would now have a reputation in her industry for suing her employers, making her basically unemployable. Who would hire someone who might sue them? Remember how this guy found out she was shopping around for other jobs? Industry connections, at least some of whom will be more loyal to him than her. It's not even guaranteed that she would win, especially if this guy has good lawyers. Being wealthy, he probably does.

This isn't as simple as you're making it out to be. It's really easy to say "it's against the law, sue," but not everyone is in a position where that's a practical option. In some cases, going to the law is "the nuclear option" that takes yourself down along with everyone else. Some employers know this and take advantage of it. That is, by the way, exactly how some bosses are able to get away with sexual assault, too - they know the employee needs the job, and when they don't, they know that if the employee does something about it they'll lose the job, make themself unemployable, and probably be re-traumatized by the whole experience (police, courtroom, media attention) of trying to do something about it.

Personally, I believe changing the way we deal with harassment/sexual assault/rape (which can happen across class, race, and even gender) as a society is more important than closing a loophole on a few "freeloaders" to satisfy an ideology not even all of us hold to.

It can be temporarily good if it followed a few conditions such as, being tethered to population growth and, being partially-debt-free. If you are simply looking to reverse the "damage", then all future inflation would have to be partially debt-free and applied retroactively to all current inflation-based loans. Central Banks are close to being forced to implement this kind of policy, but only because it is fast becoming a necessity (out of desperation), not because they are benevolent. If the majority of voters understood these concepts, they wouldn't have to wait for Central Banks to do the right thing. A far better solution than any of these is to have a completely new system of credit. The technology to make it possible now exists. Tangible money has served its purpose. The next step in economic evolution is just around the corner.

Would you have been for the Treasury printing a platinum trillion-dollar coin to avoid default if the debt-ceiling had not been raised? Are you for printing a trillion-dollar platinum coin just for the sake of bring down the debt?

Alpheus, on 21 Sept 2016, asked:

Would you have been for the Treasury printing a platinum trillion-dollar coin to avoid default if the debt-ceiling had not been raised? Are you for printing a trillion-dollar platinum coin just for the sake of bringing down the debt?

Do you know the story about the king and his inventor of the game of chess?

Debt to a Central Bank is similar to that, only there is no 64th square limit, or indeed, any limit.

Alpheus, on 21 Sept 2016, asked:

Would you have been for the Treasury printing a platinum trillion-dollar coin to avoid default if the debt-ceiling had not been raised? Are you for printing a trillion-dollar platinum coin just for the sake of bringing down the debt?

Do you know the story about the king and his inventor of the game of chess?
Debt to a Central Bank is similar to that, only there is no 64th square limit, or indeed, any limit.

I do not. Feel free to expound on the story and its direct relation and correlation to my question. :)

I don't see how a system where one kid can have so many privileges and opportunities against another kid simply based on the family they were born in as just and rational.

Your entire notion that everybody should be equal is not rational.

People are not equal, and they will never be, no matter how much you wish for it. I'm not talking about money. I'm talking about ability, about attitude. And yes, it's not their fault, but their parents'. But the issue is not about having more money, it's about caring.

You object that some people grow up with parents that have more money, and you make the allegation that the poor kids don't have a chance because they are poor and will always be poor because they're poor, and it's all the fault of the kids who have parents with more money.

At no point do you consider that people from families with money still earn their lives.

At no point do you consider the very real possibility that the "underprivilegued" kids are not in any way as able as the others. The typical proletarian gives a shit about whether his kid fares well in school, and of course the overwhelming majority of them which isn't accidentially gifted in a magical way like Mozart doesn't fare well. Because, surprise, unless you are the kinda one in a billion chance superhuman, you do not simply know everything and learn everything from nowhere. It takes care and feeding.

It's even more pronounced in "people with migration background" as they're nowadays called (used to be you called them just "foreigners"). Although admittedly, it is slowly getting better. Two decades ago, it was "normal" that these kids didn't understand a word. Because, you guess it, their parents still didn't care to learn the local language after living in that place for 10-15 years (and some don't care after 35 years either). Those people still exist, of course, but at least there are meanwhile some others, too. Silverline at the horizon, if you will.
So, how do you expect a child that doesn't understand a word in school to graduate? How do you expect that child to become anything but either a social parasite, or a criminal? It's not like they have much of a choice, do they. And no, it's not because of money. It's because of "I give a fuck".

This is not just "some idea" of mine, by the way. It's what I've seen myself when teaching first aid at a junior high, and it's what one of the teachers told me "off the record" there: Some kids you just can't help.
That was on a day when we went to a gambling den to find a boy who couldn't be bothered to go to school because, you know, skool sux. I'm not sure how he got into that place because it's totally illegal for a 12 year old to be there, or for the owner to let him in. But apparently, that's not a problem in a constitutional democracy, the law is rather a guideline than something that's binding. At least as long as neither the owner of that location nor the parents of the kid give a shit.
Try and figure the trouble that I would have faced if my parents had ever caught me skipping school and going to a gambling den. That's unimaginable. And here, there you have the difference between the kids that get a privilegued job and those that don't. It's not money. It's parental care.

On the other hand side, people who don't have wealthy parents and who deliver a mere minimum very easily get very big privilegues here. I had to pay for my university studies myself, and I worked during all that time to earn my life and pay my studies. Not because we were poor, but because I was not elegible for governmental founding, and my father thought it was necessary for a young man to learn the value of money and how hard it can be to earn a living. I've done everything, got my hands real dirty, at the construction site, as care worker, and later as nurse. So don't you tell me about being privilegued. That being said, no, it wasn't a bad time, and in hindsight I believe my father made a wise decision back then.

Several from my highschool took up Bafög after graduating, which is a kind of governmental sponsorship. The basic qualification was, you had to be admitted to university (not really hard!), and your parents had to earn less than so-and-so much per month -- which ruled me out (that's regardless of whether your parents actually pay for you or not, by the way -- if they don't, then you are just unlucky).

The precise rules about what you get and what you have to pay back have changed about a dozen times during the years, and I don't know what they are now. But back then, you would get a generous monthly pay which was easily sufficient to live without needing to work, for up to one year longer than the regular study time. Longer than that if you had a good excuse. This was officially a "loan", but you did not have to pay any interest, and you only had to pay back 50% of the loan 10 years after leaving university. Which, in summary, means of course you were basically given around 100k for free.

You guess right, my comrades laughed at me because I, the stupid fool, had to work for my living, and nobody gave me the equivalent of a small apartment just like this. Fuck me, the capitalist pig.

asking for numbers/data while giving improbable excuses to a common scenario.

Hahaha yes, that's typical :)

If you want "numbers", just take a day off from work and go to the next social assistance office. Just look how many people have no trouble sitting there in the morning when you'd think they should be at work. You will be surprised how many people have that time -- after all, you had to take a day off to see them!

Go to a social housing site (but leave your wristwatch and your cell phone at home) and just have a careful look. You don't get the impression that it's poor people who live here. Not from the size of their plasma TVs anyway, or from their washing machine or kitchen machine brands. Heck, half of them have a bigger TV than I have.

I could tell you of a tenant (not in a social housing, but living from welfare anyway). One of those people who complain that they only get 364 euros per month which isn't enough for living. Except that's not for living but for cinema, cigarettes, and drugs. For living, they get extra, and the welfare office pays the rent, the TV, and the refridgerator. And, of course, the washing machine.
Because yeah, they're valuable human beings, and they must have the same privilegues as someone who is working.

So this guy orders his washing machine. He wants a Miele (well... of course, only the best), which costs over 800€. The guy at the social care office gives him a Bauknecht for under 300€. Incidentially, I see him on his way home (...let's say from the grocer, although something else is more likely) the day the machine is delivered, and he tells me: "Look, these fuckers will see how long this machine will last", he picks up a couple of cobblestones, and "washes" them. I can't believe what I see. Machine is broken after this special treatment, of course (you're not surprised, are you).
So he laughs and tells me "See, if they had bought the Miele right away, it would have been cheaper", and off he goes to the social care office again. I'm angry, quite obviously (since it's my tax money that is being burned) and call the social care office.
Social worker tells me: "Uh huh, well, do you have any evidence he did that on purpose? Uh huh, he told you, you watched him do it. Aright. Did anyone else see it, I mean, do you have a witness?". -- I'm stumped. The machine is not just somehow broken, it's anihilated, there are scratches from heavy rocks on the metal and rock splinters all over. And that fucking socialist tells me "Oh well, without evidence, you know, or a witness, I guess there's not much we can do". End of story, they bought him a Miele.

Dude, really, we totally need to give that type of human more money. It's so rewarding, and it surely turns them into better humans.