Revolution is in the Air

On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 07:38:41 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 6/21/2016 9:03 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 12:50:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 6/21/2016 11:50 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/21/2016 10:55 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/21/2016 9:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/21/2016 2:45 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 23:27:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 6/20/2016 5:22 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 23:14:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


You had been arguing (or at least assuming) that those
with the most
money are those that have worked hardest. You've now
switched to saying
the extreme wealthiest didn't inherit all their
wealth. Those are very
disparate points.

I was illustrating the point that contrary to popular
propaganda ~90%
of the top tier did not inherit their money. If one
doesn't inherit
money then how does one get it?

Hmm. One could get it by taking Dad's inheritance,
gambling it on
either stocks or huge real estate developments,
especially after
incorporating several different companies to handle
matters. If, say, a
huge (huge!) real estate investment tanked, that
corporation could go
into bankruptcy, shielding the bulk of the individual's
money and making
it available for other huge (huge!) gambles. Do this
often enough,
while hiring enough guys who were really savvy, and some
gambles should
pay off. One should be able to "get it" - more money,
that is. Our
taxes and other laws help this strategy.

Compare that to (say) a recent legal immigrant, coming
here from a poor
agricultural country. He won't have the starting capital
- he might
have inherited a shovel or a cobbler's hammer. He's much
more likely to
have to do WORK, of the sweat-pouring-down variety, and
he's unlikely to
benefit from tax breaks of the same magnitude as the guy
who inherited a
big starter fund.

Why in the world would one worry about someone who
illegally enters
the country? After all he/she is, technically, a criminal.

Did you somehow confuse the words "legal" and "illegal"? I
said nothing about illegal immigrants. Your prejudices are
showing.

Your illustration is enlightening. But why are those
fools pushing
those wheelbarrows? Possibly because that is all that
they know how to
do. I worked with some of those people. Hard workers,
and little
education, and no imagination beyond Saturday night at
the Pub.

I'm a descendant of those guys. One was mechanically
gifted enough to
(for example) build his own lathe from scratch and could
quote the Bible
and other literature at length. Another spoke several
languages and was
one of the most literate guys in his neighborhood. Both
those guys
worked like hell in hellish conditions, lived in tiny
abodes, and never
had real opportunities to advance. Once was killed in a
mill accident
in circumstances that would be illegal today.

Certainly. And I've got a friend who was raised on a hard
scrabble
farm in Saskatchewan, left home at 16, never having
finished high
school, and went to work, initially as a labourer for a
guy that
erected silos. Today he gets $1,200 a day as a drilling
superintendent
on offshore drilling rigs. He is semi retired now but
tells me that he
still gets e-mail from a number of companies asking
whether he would
like to come back to work.

Were they fools? They left near-starvation conditions in
Europe and bet
the farm (literally) that they could do better for their
families in
America. It must have taken tremendous courage to
abandon all and
strike out for a new country. But what they found was
hot, heavy and
uncertain labor.

And very likely a lot more money than they ever had "back
home".

You could read about this. For a fictionalized version
try _Out Of This
Furnace_ by Bell.

I don't need to read about it.

Your writings show that you most certainly do. You give
examples of people who got rich despite difficult
beginnings. If, as it seems, you're implying that everyone
should be able to do that, you need to read that book. You
have no idea what some people are up against.

More than that, the fundamental point is that those who
have tons more
excess money should not begrudge a truly progressive tax
structure.
It's cruel and unthinking to justify regressive taxes on
the assumption
that poverty = laziness.

And I never said that. I equated working hard (meaning
"not easy;
requiring great physical or mental effort to accomplish or
comprehend
or endure", with "getting ahead" as some call it. And for
every
example of someone slaving away carrying a hod I can serve
up an
example of someone why started out with nothing and ended
up rich.

Simple population figures prove you wrong, John. The poor
in this country greatly outnumber the rich.



Oh, is our culture so different or special in that regard?

Different or special? Depends what you're comparing it to, I suppose.
Do we really need to look at the counts?

If so,
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...tates_2010.png

Yes, terrible, terrible.

But other charts show that auto ownership in the U.S. is 809/1000 and
that the average numbers of autos is 2.06/family and that ~20% of U.S.
families have 3 or more autos.

This is poverty?



As with all government 'statistics' it's skewed. ( c.f.
actual unemployment hovering around 20% with official rates
at 4.5%).

Years ago I came across a book, in a second hand book shop, entitled
"How to understand Government numbers", or some such title, which
explained how numbers used by the government are calculated. One of
the things I learned from reading the book was that most government
numbers really aren't related to reality. Unemployment is, or was, for
example, based on the percentage of the "the work force" who were out
of work. Which didn't include, for example, collage students trying to
get a summer job, kids with their newspaper route, housewives wanting
to work part time, etc.


'Income' doesn't count relief which is roughly twice my
annual income. And the denominator includes 'people' not
'workforce'.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...michael-tanner

p.s. This is not news. It's just worse now;
http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-027.html

Years and years ago I had an Airman 2nd class, called "Junior",
working for me that had a girlfriend in the local town who used to, he
bragged, buy his beer on Saturday night.

Now Junior was a celebrated beer drinker and one day I asked him what
kind of job his girlfriend had to be able to support his drinking
habits. Junior says, "she don't work". It turned out that she wasn't
married and had three kids and her "Aid to unwed mothers" was enough
money to support herself and the kids and still leave enough left over
to support Junior's Saturday night forays in the local beer gardens.

When a State Legislator proposed a change in the "relief" laws to
limit Aid to Unwed Mothers to a single child as, he said, while he'd
give the benefit of the doubt to these poor women and accept that the
first out of wedlock child was a surprise, he reckoned that by the
second they should have figured out what was the cause of this problem
and so the second and subsequent child must have been deliberate.

The newspapers reported that protesters had gathered from miles
around, some from as far away as New York City, to protest this
inhumane treatment of these poor women.

--
cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 15:02:06 -0700 (PDT), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most
Humble Philosopher" wrote:

On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 5:08:31 PM UTC-4, W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
On 06-22-2016 19:00, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher wrote:
Poor people in America must feed the car before their stomach.

The bus is not an option. The bicycle is not an option. Walking is not an option.

Bull. Plenty of people ride the bus. Those that are healthy enough and
smart enough know that the bicycle is faster, but most ride the bus.


I turned back because the bus didn't come. Everybody else did the same. Depending on the bus would get you fired. Riding a bike is practical to get to the liquor store. Riding on the sidewalk doesn't get you very far. Walking is out of the question.

You must live in a horrible country. Auto ownership in primitive
little Thailand is less then 1/4 what it is in America (The land of
the free and the brave) and people seem to be able to get to work
here.

In Singapore it is 1/8th the U.S. ownership and they get to work on
time. In Indonesia it is 1/11th and they get to work.

Obviously "youse guys" are lacking something. Intestinal fortitude?
--
cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 04:14:16 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Thu, 23 Jun 2016 05:51:30
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 12:08:51 +0200, "W. Wesley Groleau"
wrote:

On 06-22-2016 04:03, John B. wrote:
But other charts show that auto ownership in the U.S. is 809/1000 and
that the average numbers of autos is 2.06/family and that ~20% of U.S.
families have 3 or more autos.

This is poverty?

The official U.S. government definition of poverty is ten times the
income of the World Bank definition.

http://Wesley.Groleau.Site/2015/07/27/poverty/


I'm not sure that is an accurate number as it as it seems to be based
on an arbitrary number of dollars which isn't a realistic gauge.

I remember my grandfather telling stories about when he worked as a
carpenter for one dollar a day. Later I asked my grandmother whether
this was true about the $1.00 a day. She assured me that the story was
true and one could live pretty well.... when 10 lb. of potatoes cost
fourteen cents.

In fact, realistically, I'm not sure exactly how one does define
"poverty". Is it when you only have one car? In Los Angeles that might
be correct, unless they have improved public transportation remarkably
since I lived there. In New York, if you live on Manhattan Island, I
suspect that one can get along quite well with no car at all.

The best measures I've seen are those based on the number of hours
necessary to work to afford the basic necessities of life, whatever
those may be in the society you live.
This is far more realistic than a set number of dollars, pounds, yen,
or whatever, for a specific grocery list.

Yes, but what are the necessities of life? 2 cars per family, a
dishwasher, 48" TV and 10 bicycles :-)

Or enough to eat?

BUT, considering that "The United States is the most obese country in
North America with 35% of its population having a body max index of
over 30.0 Nearly 78 million adults and 13 million children in the
United States deal with the health and emotional effects of obesity
every day."

Perhaps "enough to eat" is not the perfect criteria :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On 06-23-2016 00:51, John B. wrote:
In fact, realistically, I'm not sure exactly how one does define
"poverty". Is it when you only have one car? In Los Angeles that might

So then I'm poor, even though I eat better than half the world's population?

--
Wes Groleau

On 06-23-2016 05:14, Phil W Lee wrote:
The best measures I've seen are those based on the number of hours
necessary to work to afford the basic necessities of life, whatever
those may be in the society you live.

"Basic necessities" to some people means clean water. To many
Americans, it means car, gasoline, TV, internet, cell phone, gym
membership, lawnmower, washing machine, etc. ad nauseum.

--
Wes Groleau

On 06-23-2016 00:02, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher wrote:
You live in America or you never visit the ghetto?

Places I lived for more than a year include Oregon, California,
Wisconsin, New York, Oklahoma, Indiana.

Places I lived for more than two months include the above and
Philippines, Spain, Peru, Mexico.

More than a week: Turkey, Canada, U.K.

More than a day: Netherlands, Iceland, Hong Kong, every U.S. state but
Alaska.

Places I've been in full or nearly full buses: San Diego, Los Angeles
area, Fort Wayne (IN), Syracuse (NY), Philippines, Peru, U.K., Spain,
Mexico, Turkey

Places I've been in full or nearly full trains: U.K., Toronto, Mexico,
Spain, Turkey

--
Wes Groleau

On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:23:11 +0200, "W. Wesley Groleau"
wrote:

On 06-23-2016 05:14, Phil W Lee wrote:
The best measures I've seen are those based on the number of hours
necessary to work to afford the basic necessities of life, whatever
those may be in the society you live.

"Basic necessities" to some people means clean water. To many
Americans, it means car, gasoline, TV, internet, cell phone, gym
membership, lawnmower, washing machine, etc. ad nauseum.

And in some places the term "support my daughter as she is accustomed"
can be a very important criteria.
--
cheers,

John B.

On 6/23/2016 5:23 AM, W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
On 06-23-2016 05:14, Phil W Lee wrote:
The best measures I've seen are those based on the number
of hours
necessary to work to afford the basic necessities of life,
whatever
those may be in the society you live.

"Basic necessities" to some people means clean water. To
many Americans, it means car, gasoline, TV, internet, cell
phone, gym membership, lawnmower, washing machine, etc. ad
nauseum.


ad nauseum indeed. Well put, sir.

MEGO when younger types complain of poverty while holding a
several hundred dollar telephone and the chains of monthly
service charges. Cable television service etc are seen as
'necessities'!

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 6/23/2016 5:21 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/23/2016 5:23 AM, W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
On 06-23-2016 05:14, Phil W Lee wrote:
The best measures I've seen are those based on the number
of hours
necessary to work to afford the basic necessities of life,
whatever
those may be in the society you live.

"Basic necessities" to some people means clean water. To
many Americans, it means car, gasoline, TV, internet, cell
phone, gym membership, lawnmower, washing machine, etc. ad
nauseum.


ad nauseum indeed. Well put, sir.

MEGO when younger types complain of poverty while holding a several
hundred dollar telephone and the chains of monthly service charges.
Cable television service etc are seen as 'necessities'!

I am impressed with people that own a lawnmower in my area since so few
people mow their own lawn.

The smart phone thing is where people waste an enormous amount of money.
I wince at the $95/month I pay for four smart phones on AT&T's network,
but I know people spending $250 for the same service. Plus I think about
when I was in college and the long distance phone charges were probably
$15 per month in 1970's dollars, plus $15 per month for the landline,
split two or four ways. So $25 per month per person in 2016 dollars
doesn't seem like a lot for phone service.

I keep a VOIP landline at home, but the cost is only $1.25 per month,
thanks to Obihai and Google Voice http://www.obihai.com/tutorial1.

On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 04:56:50 -0700 (PDT), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most
Humble Philosopher" wrote:

On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 2:03:10 AM UTC-4, vito wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 22:04:54 -0700 (PDT), "Wise TibetanMonkey, Most
Humble Philosopher" wrote:


The bicycle empowers them.

To do what?? Will they begin to grow their own food ... again. Free
food put their farmers out of business. Mankind came out of Africa.
why are those who passed thru Europe and Asia so much wealthier? Why
do they have domestic elephants and horses and wheels? Because they
were stressed and necessity is the mother of invention. Same goes
here. Why work if you don't have to? Look how far India has come in
just a century. Butlook deeper and you will find a vernier of wealth
over same oldsame old. Because the wealthy are selfish? NO! Because
they adopted Euro economic customs and the poor did not. Peace Corps
was a good idea. Hand outs are not.

I'm sure you are not an enthusiast of sustainable development but a man on a bicycle is sustainable. A man in a car is a polluter.

How so sustainable? Do you mean that cyclists fornicate more and thus
produce increasing numbers of little cyclists while automobile drivers
do not?

But it is Europe that pays for a failed Africa. Hordes of Africans wash ashore everyday.

But it is not "failed Africa".

Firstly the washed ashore "Africans" are essentially all from northern
Africa, and thus constitute a minority on the continent and secondly,
within recent memory, all countries in Africa have gained their
freedom from their "Colonial Masters" and thus enjoy Freedom.

But people like you are obsessed with "progress" and they probably find it in Europe. Same for Mexicans, right?

Progress, as you use it, is a term meaning getting better and if you
have ever visited Mexico you would know that Mexicans today are much,
much, better off than, say 20 years ago.
--
cheers,

John B.