Revolution is in the Air

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.


--
- Frank Krygowski

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?

Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen
six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual
expenditure twenty pound ought and six, result misery.
Charles Dickens, David Copperfield, 1849

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

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?


--
- Frank Krygowski

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


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:12:36 -0400, 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.

Sorry about that. I can only argue that when I hear Usians talk about
"immigrations" the word "illegal" is so commonly applied that I guess
I over looked your use of an uncommon word.

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.

Ah, assumptions. No certainly not. What I am arguing is that it is
possible to better oneself. And, I might say, apparently your
ancestors believe the same thing. After all they didn't go back to
where they came from, did they.

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.

Of course they do, but that statement is very misleading. After all,
if 99% of the population has an income of, say $100,000 a year and one
guy has an income of $101,000, then the "poor" outnumber the rich.

"Poor" people in the U.S., from what I read, are people that only have
one car per family and perhaps only a 36 inch TV. Poor people in other
countries starve to death.
--
cheers,

John B.

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?

--
cheers,

John B.

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/

--
Wes Groleau

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%).

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

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.

--
Wes Groleau

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.
--
cheers,

John B.