Philosophy Now Forum

A poor person is at greater risk on the road because they have to pay more attention to the police since being involved with the police at any level can represent an existential risk just as much as traffic problems, more so in some cases.

More generally, things that are fairly minor to people who are at least somewhat well-off can be disastarous to the poor. I would guess that the knowledge of this fact, by itself, could be an extra source of stress.

The poor who have been given low credit scores will pay higher interests than financially stable individuals with high credit scores.

The poor have to give most of their money to a landlord even if they could afford a mortgage of the same amount because they never have enough Extra to afford a down payment.

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 4:06 pm A poor person is at greater risk on the road because they have to pay more attention to the police since being involved with the police at any level can represent an existential risk just as much as traffic problems, more so in some cases.

This is an idiotic post.

An apple costs the same for the rich as the poor.

Credit requires assets. If you are poor, you cannot afford credit the same way you cannot afford the apple.

This should not presume that we should not help the poor, rather that the argument is irrational.

>An apple costs the same for the rich as the poor.

That's the wrong measurement. It's a much higher percentage of the poor's discretionary income. You've got to account for opportunity cost.

>Credit requires assets. If you are poor, you cannot afford credit the same way you cannot afford the apple.

Which is fine if how you get money is fair. The system is not fair.

>This should not presume that we should not help the poor, rather that the argument is irrational.

Most positions that are wrong are wrong because they left something out.

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 12:25 am

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 4:06 pm A poor person is at greater risk on the road because they have to pay more attention to the police since being involved with the police at any level can represent an existential risk just as much as traffic problems, more so in some cases.

This is an idiotic post.

An apple costs the same for the rich as the poor.

Credit requires assets. If you are poor, you cannot afford credit the same way you cannot afford the apple.

This should not presume that we should not help the poor, rather that the argument is irrational.

The apple actually costs MORE because energy in time (== "power") determines one's relative ability to purchase something. [Edit: energy by itself is also different but relating this issue with 'power' (as energy x time) reveals the issue with better clarity]

The cost is also not always monotized. Those who are poor who come from poor families also require a greater effort to get ahead for lacking a kind of foundation to grow from, whether that be good parents, good environment, etc. Even the nature of whether one gets to work while going to school without requiring to pay rent is an advantage distinction that contributes to whether one can succeed better or not.

Also, alot of the issues that are blamed on cultural and genetic environmental issues are actually poverty related but get falsely treated as racial discrimination.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 3:56 am

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 12:25 am

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 4:06 pm A poor person is at greater risk on the road because they have to pay more attention to the police since being involved with the police at any level can represent an existential risk just as much as traffic problems, more so in some cases.

This is an idiotic post.

An apple costs the same for the rich as the poor.

Credit requires assets. If you are poor, you cannot afford credit the same way you cannot afford the apple.

This should not presume that we should not help the poor, rather that the argument is irrational.

The apple actually costs MORE because energy in time (== "power") determines one's relative ability to purchase something. [Edit: energy by itself is also different but relating this issue with 'power' (as energy x time) reveals the issue with better clarity]

The cost is also not always monotized. Those who are poor who come from poor families also require a greater effort to get ahead for lacking a kind of foundation to grow from, whether that be good parents, good environment, etc. Even the nature of whether one gets to work while going to school without requiring to pay rent is an advantage distinction that contributes to whether one can succeed better or not.

Also, alot of the issues that are blamed on cultural and genetic environmental issues are actually poverty related but get falsely treated as racial discrimination.

I don't think this narrative is helpful. The apple costs the same whether you are rich or poor. To pay for the apple requires money and acquiring money "generally" requires effort. The effort required depends on many things; it may require more effort if you are the child of a single mother in a poor neighborhood vs the child of Bill Gates. Hence the idea behind Rawls "veil of ignorance"; trying to arrange initial conditions so that the situation of the single mother isn't as challenging.

I can phrase it another way. I believe that IQ is generally correlated with economic success. The apple does cost the idiot more but it may be more challenging for the idiot to earn money to buy the apple.

Totally agree with the very important point you make regarding poverty vs racial discrimination. I don't fully comprehend why some people can seem to understand this.

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 4:06 pm A poor person is at greater risk on the road because they have to pay more attention to the police since being involved with the police at any level can represent an existential risk just as much as traffic problems, more so in some cases.

The reason the poor are a greater risk on the road is because they are in such a hurry to get to the welfare office to pick up their unearned money unlike the privileged who have to work for their money and take their time driving to work.

Where do these "poor" people get their cars?

Kayla wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 5:26 pm More generally, things that are fairly minor to people who are at least somewhat well-off can be disastarous to the poor. I would guess that the knowledge of this fact, by itself, could be an extra source of stress.

Just where are these, "poor," for whom things are so, "disastrous?"

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 4:04 pm

I don't think this narrative is helpful. The apple costs the same whether you are rich or poor. To pay for the apple requires money and acquiring money "generally" requires effort. The effort required depends on many things; it may require more effort if you are the child of a single mother in a poor neighborhood vs the child of Bill Gates. Hence the idea behind Rawls "veil of ignorance"; trying to arrange initial conditions so that the situation of the single mother isn't as challenging.

I can phrase it another way. I believe that IQ is generally correlated with economic success. The apple does cost the idiot more but it may be more challenging for the idiot to earn money to buy the apple.

Totally agree with the very important point you make regarding poverty vs racial discrimination. I don't fully comprehend why some people can seem to understand this.

What's with your believed correlation between IQ and economic success? How did you detemine this? How can this be significant with respect to inheritance?

I think if we had a strict requirement that people were to contribute EQUAL energy input to each and every trade, inheritance would not need to exist. Intellect has no relationship to one's fortunes since one can be 'successful' wealthy without a need to think at all....they just need a world/environent that favors them for whatever reason.

If you are correct, then there is no need for ANY inheritance.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 7:35 pm

Kayla wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 5:26 pm More generally, things that are fairly minor to people who are at least somewhat well-off can be disastarous to the poor. I would guess that the knowledge of this fact, by itself, could be an extra source of stress.

Just where are these, "poor," for whom things are so, "disastrous?"

Money is just a form of 'energy'. We either have energy predefined by nature, like a piece of coal, that represents energy NOT founded by human intervention, OR energy one trades things with through some form of labour. If you are 'poor', we understand this to mean that you LACK the means of owning (having power over something as though it were one's 'own') and that what is left is to how much energy you have based merely on your physical body (as one's 'own', that cannot be denied).

But we live in a world that permits DECEPTION via the market place. That is, we permit/accept behavior where one can intentionally trade a cheap product or service for something MORE than a 'fair' trade by seller's capacity to hide information about its real value of the trade. This allowance permits one to believe that it is alright to demand of the poor MORE energy out than what they are given in fair trade. "Profit" is the energy over and above all expenses of any business transaction. As such, the profiteer gains MORE energy for less merely due to their relative position in power.

If a person is poor, they may lack the input energy needed to do some form of work (output energy) that one who is wealthy has. The wealthier can also utilize what powers of 'ownership' they hold in the form of tools that enable one to multiply their energy output with less input than the same that would be required of the poorer one.

There are a lot of advantages that many who are relatively powerful dismiss as trivial (and often presume all others also have with severe ignorance.) They tend to ignore the collective details that contributed to their bias in power that is granted to them by mere luck of what their parents GAVE them for free.

The majority are always more relatively 'poor' because the overall energy supply is fixed (conserved). The ONLY way one can be wealthier over another is if they have an imbalanced means of access to energy supply. So why do you act so surprised at what Kayla suggested?

[quote="Scott Mayers" post_id=474271 time=1601772651 user_id=11118]
[quote=RCSaunders post_id=474229 time=1601750153 user_id=16196]
[quote=Kayla post_id=474068 time=1601655996 user_id=5286]
More generally, things that are fairly minor to people who are at least somewhat well-off can be disastarous to the poor. I would guess that the knowledge of this fact, by itself, could be an extra source of stress.[/quote]
Just where are these, "poor," for whom things are so, "disastrous?"
[/quote]

Money is just a form of 'energy'. We either have energy predefined by nature, like a piece of coal, that represents energy NOT founded by human intervention, OR energy one trades things with through some form of [i]labour[/i]. If you are 'poor', we understand this to mean that you LACK the means of owning (having power over something as though it were one's 'own') and that what is left is to how much energy you have based merely on your physical body (as one's 'own', that cannot be denied).

But we live in a world that permits DECEPTION via the market place. That is, we permit/accept behavior where one can intentionally trade a cheap product or service for something MORE than a 'fair' trade by seller's capacity to hide information about its real value of the trade. This allowance permits one to believe that it is alright to demand of the poor MORE energy out than what they are given in fair trade. "Profit" is the energy over and above all expenses of any business transaction. As such, the profiteer gains MORE energy for less merely due to their relative position in power.

If a person is poor, they may lack the input energy needed to do some form of work (output energy) that one who is wealthy has. The wealthier can also utilize what powers of 'ownership' they hold in the form of tools that enable one to multiply their energy output with less input than the same that would be required of the poorer one.

There are a lot of advantages that many who are relatively powerful dismiss as trivial (and often presume all others also have with severe ignorance.) They tend to ignore the collective details that contributed to their bias in power that is granted to them by mere luck of what their parents GAVE them for free.

The majority are always more relatively 'poor' because the overall energy supply is fixed (conserved). The ONLY way one can be wealthier over another is if they have an imbalanced means of access to energy supply. So why do you act so surprised at what Kayla suggested?
[/quote]

*just want to add one little thing here. There are two ways to increase resources, for oneself or generally, acquisition and efficiency.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 1:14 am

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 4:04 pm

I don't think this narrative is helpful. The apple costs the same whether you are rich or poor. To pay for the apple requires money and acquiring money "generally" requires effort. The effort required depends on many things; it may require more effort if you are the child of a single mother in a poor neighborhood vs the child of Bill Gates. Hence the idea behind Rawls "veil of ignorance"; trying to arrange initial conditions so that the situation of the single mother isn't as challenging.

I can phrase it another way. I believe that IQ is generally correlated with economic success. The apple does cost the idiot more but it may be more challenging for the idiot to earn money to buy the apple.

Totally agree with the very important point you make regarding poverty vs racial discrimination. I don't fully comprehend why some people can seem to understand this.

What's with your believed correlation between IQ and economic success? How did you detemine this? How can this be significant with respect to inheritance?

I think if we had a strict requirement that people were to contribute EQUAL energy input to each and every trade, inheritance would not need to exist. Intellect has no relationship to one's fortunes since one can be 'successful' wealthy without a need to think at all....they just need a world/environent that favors them for whatever reason.

If you are correct, then there is no need for ANY inheritance.

https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content ... search.pdf

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:05 pm

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 1:14 am

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 4:04 pm

I don't think this narrative is helpful. The apple costs the same whether you are rich or poor. To pay for the apple requires money and acquiring money "generally" requires effort. The effort required depends on many things; it may require more effort if you are the child of a single mother in a poor neighborhood vs the child of Bill Gates. Hence the idea behind Rawls "veil of ignorance"; trying to arrange initial conditions so that the situation of the single mother isn't as challenging.

I can phrase it another way. I believe that IQ is generally correlated with economic success. The apple does cost the idiot more but it may be more challenging for the idiot to earn money to buy the apple.

Totally agree with the very important point you make regarding poverty vs racial discrimination. I don't fully comprehend why some people can seem to understand this.

What's with your believed correlation between IQ and economic success? How did you detemine this? How can this be significant with respect to inheritance?

I think if we had a strict requirement that people were to contribute EQUAL energy input to each and every trade, inheritance would not need to exist. Intellect has no relationship to one's fortunes since one can be 'successful' wealthy without a need to think at all....they just need a world/environent that favors them for whatever reason.

If you are correct, then there is no need for ANY inheritance.

https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content ... search.pdf

Many falsely presume that the major thing that poor people lack is 'education'. The underlying issue regarding the education of the poor is about lacking parents who are sufficiently educated. Correlation of intellect and poverty are coinciding accidents that occur but are NOT the cause of one being poor. Poverty is technically a default of the human condition (and other animals, if you were to relate 'wealth' as the capacity of some species to live far beyond their means.)

People require having something GIVEN to them in real value to trade prior to being able to trade. The "Get-a-job" mantra more often places the burden on the POTENTIAL employee as though they have the literal power to make someone hire them. But if one is poor, they lack even the major things that get people a foot in the door. For males, most specifically, they are also expected to have had that car that your parents likely gave you at your 16th birthday.

Where normal families give 'allowances' to their kids, the poor lack this. In fact, even if a poor kid got a job during high school, most poor families (including extended community of friends, etc) would usually require paying rent and their other living expenses. This DEFEATS the mentality of such kids given they can't even learn to handle their own money.

Poor kids are shunned away from those with money (like allowances) because they cannot 'cover' for them and are not expected to. In contrast, in a 'ghetto' (here, I mean any environment of those in poverty), are obligated with strong force to cover for their other unfortunate peers they are left with. This means, that where some lucky guy in the hood MIGHT just get a job, he is expected to spread-the-wealth which further SUCKS their wallet dry quickly. The only ones who could get out of such a situation, they are required to turn away from all those who are poor LIKE THEM because of this. But they are also shunned by the wealthier unless they are absurdly subservient to those who are even willing to pay them half of the minimum wage rate. They are pushed to work under the table where they can in many of these cases without a choice. [You don't require actual third-world exploitation to enslave the poor who are trying hard to get into the work place. They are isolated and are more often ONLY given an opening BY those who exploit.]

One can be a genius in such families and still require giving up too much blood and toil for pennies that those better off never experience. And their own lack of understanding of these poor itself is due to a lack of 'education' given they cannot fathom people do not have the same background as themselves. If it is presumably easy to get a McJob for them, they falsely presume it is AT LEAST as 'easy' for others with extreme ignorance.

Poor people who succeed are often NEW people (immigrants) because they come with a fresh vigour and appreciation of a system better than their own AND have certain strong advantages of 'community' among those they were helped to get here. This means they can live in trusted groups which presents a strong means of supports that poor people 'established' here are ISOLATED from each other. That is, the ghetto-effect imposes you GROW TOGETHER or SUFFER ALONE. Poverty isolates those who attempt to escape it if they won't share everything they earn IMMEDIATELY....since others around you are desperate and denying them this puts you in relative danger. Certainly, you'll lose the support of friends if you are the only one eating at McDonalds while your friends or family are sitting there hungry.

If you then argue that this is just life, then this is precisely what the gangs are 'accepting' and who then act within these communities to make things even more difficult.

Poverty is NOT due to some lack of education. In fact, all that this would do is to assure they are able to intellectually recognize how they are being exploited, that the only means to fight back is to BE more forceful and potentially violent, something that then just justifies further why someone would fear hiring them.

You need a type of starter kit in real terms to get a fair start. Those who often DO get favored without this are due to relatively shallow features, like whether one is physically/genetically endowed. A pretty girl might get 'saved' by some rich guy, for instance; a guy might be tall enough to play basketball with the hopes of getting on a winning team.

Basically, intellect within the poor, is at best secondary to luck alone, and why you get more realistic gambling and addiction problems. You need an 'infrastructure' with a lot of details most people outside of poverty can't or are just not willing or able to intellectually realize are absolute prerequisite necessities.