How to put an end to poverty

So, it was wrong to give you a job at minimum wage, even though you went on quickly to earn more? But it is wrong for others to follow your path?

The wal mart CEO gets $10 per employee, enough to pay one shifts taxes at min wage if they spread it out. If the CEO is greedy, what is government?

 

I've never been employed by a moral, rich person. No such thing exists.

 

Did you get paid for your work? Did you voluntarily agree to the terms of the employment agreement? What's the problem?

 

I compare it to being a "slave". Funny, you should ask. The slave can work, or starve. Not much of a choice. Simply "existing" versus thriving, are entirely different things. When the corporate fat cat owns everything, and the people that are left, effectively become slaves to the Titans, and so they offer only survival, versus thriving. They do that in the form of slave labor wages, high costs of living, and fear. So....the victim of the tyranny, "volunteers" to "work" said slave labor wage, versus starving. The Titan "pays" him just barely enough to simply exist, and "allow" him just enough, to keep him working, for HIM (the Titan), and generating profit, for HIM. That's called tyranny, and it's the entire formula of the "corporation" in a nutshell.

Do you see the problem now?

 

I've worked for several "corporate titans" and I have never felt like a slave. I feel that my skills are valued and I am more than fairly compensated. And I am free to leave any time I wish to move to a better opportunity.

 

Well, apparently, your experience with corporate Titans has been somewhat different then mine but, apparently you know someone. Oh, and you can't always leave to find a "better opportunity". They've got that one covered too. Ever hear of "no compete" clauses in jumble of paperwork they MAKE you sign, before the offer you that wonderful, said corporate postion? In case you haven't, it basically says that they'll sue you, if you leave for that "better opportunity" and it's one of their 'competitors'. Good luck trying to leave and gain similar employment without doing it through one of their 'competitors'. So, no, you're incorrect in that assertion.

 

I have always had excellent relationships with my employers. I come with skills that they value, and a winning attitude. I have no sympathy for those who sit around and complain about how bad the company is, or how they are "owed" something. You are owed nothing but a paycheck and whatever else is contained in the employment offer you accepted.

Sure you can. You can quit your job today and walk away.

I'm not sure what industry you work in, but typically a NCC enters the picture when you are working in a sensisitve industry like new technology, IP, etc., or when you sell your company. I have been asked to sign one NCC in my career: I declined but they hired me anyway. I still had to sign a NDA which is no big deal. In fact, I'm under about half a dozen NDAs now.

Then don't work for one of their competitiors. Or decline the stipulation and negotiate. I can guaratee you McDonalds won't give a crap if you quit to go work a Burger King.

Again, you and you alone are responsible for the choices you make. Don't want to be constrained by a NCC? Then go somewhere else. Nobody owes you anything.

 

Your fabricated notion that agreeing to give a guy a job is an injustice... rather than possession of the legal power to deprive him of opportunities to have a job, opportunities that he would otherwise have had.

 

You jumped in on a reply I made to RWAF and invoked injustice I was stating my opinion that the employee/employer relationship is based on mutual agreement, hence my query. I did not mean to attribute the position to you that "giving a guy a job is an injustice." However, your cryptic declaration left me with little understanding of your actual position.

 

But in fact, it is based on third party duress. Hence the injustice.

 

What duress?

 

Poverty could be ended if there were a collective agreement that the government should use the technological machine capacity we have today to produce the 3 essential needs of humans which are: food, clothing and shelter. And that just as healthcare is now a right of the people, and shall be provided, so shall these 3 basic needs. The people can decide what the minimum standard should be, and then both government and the people can work together to assemble a new infrastructure. That infrastructure could also include solar energy and vertical stack farming, as well as biofuel production from nonedible vegetation. We could have a 21st century evolution if we could free ourselves from the slavery of totalitarian capitalism which has become an unsustainable system.

This construct is entirely possible, and the only thing preventing it, is an unwillingness on the part of the 5% megarich to allow the 95% majority to build such an infrastructure. The whole pyramid scheme Capitalist system is what they prefer, since they are at the pinnacle and enjoy 80% ownership of all the resources and production, leaving the other 95% of the world to divide and squabble over who gets the remaining 20%. Soon, in the very near future, if this collusion and monopolizing continues, which is exactly what Adam Smith the father of capitalism warned against, then there may be a situation so dire as to be like that during the reign of the French "Sun King", Louis the XIV. Do we have to wait until that level of disparity exists before people of the world unite? I say NO!. We have the capability NOW!. We need someone like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, to reject the capitalist system as it currently exists and use their wealth to begin construction of at least the early models of this new infrastructure, and we need our government to create the job opportunities and training to help those of us who are willing to participate in this great endeavor.

 

If you can't get people to work at an easy job what makes you think they are going to be farmers?

Solar energy is a big waste. The poor can't afford that expense either.

Adam smith was a capitalist. He warned against they very thing you are calling for. Next time use Marx.

 

And the birth rate is going down.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-teenage-birth-rate-low-government-report-shows-020117315.html

And we rank 147 out of 224 countries in our over all birth rate. (1 being highest birth rate). which puts us in the bottom 1/3 when it comes to making babies.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2054rank.html

So obviously since we are on such a downward path we should shake things up eh?

 

Make the safety net tied to working based on your ability to work I'm disabled in a wheelchair with bad eyesight so I might work behind a desk or something, if you don't work your out of the system and get nothing save charity there will be no other public safety nets. I would add two more things to the three noted personal hygiene and education (not college but certifications and trade diplomas after High School). If I'm taking care of and can get some pocket money the government can do this plan its fine by me take care of me that is what a government is for.

 

This doesn't apply to you then. Farming would be inefficient for you. You would be better off with the cash it takes to stack farm the ghetto and put solar panels up. A negative I come tax and repeal of causes of action against employers for people now covered by ADA would go further for you I think.

 

I could work, I work now Busking (sidewalk performing) and can make jewelry (learned that in Brazil under someone) and can manage ledgers and my business interests I'm not useless in a farm I could oversee work hours or maybe work at the cafeteria or what else is offered doing a sitting job. And I could still do these other things to make money for myself. And I would favor doing hydroponic farming which might allow me to do a technical skill job in it.

 

I have no idea what birth rates have to do with my post to which you responded. I would rather be the protypical poor person in the US than the one in China or Ethiopia or India or anywhere that has a higher birth rate.

 

He is talking about urban stack farming. It is a physically demanding way to produce food at great cost.

 

The forcible removal of people's rights to liberty by government, for the unearned profit of owners of privileges like land titles, IP monopolies, etc.

 

You didn't write the song or record it you have no right to make copies and sell it to unjustly enrich yourself. Go create something of your own.

 

"You didn't invent the letters of the alphabet or the words you are using, so you have no right to make copies."

See how completely absurd and dishonest your absurd, dishonest filth is when taken literally?

Of course I have a right to make copies of songs: the right to liberty. If people didn't have a right to copy -- and change and add to -- others' ideas, we'd never have got out of the caves. You know this.

LOL! If I can sell something others are free to copy, I'd say I'll have justly earned anything I can get for it. That's the free market for you!

LOL! Unlike you, I have created things of my own, and have made actual money from IP.

 

Letters and alphabets are not copyright protected they are utilitarian not creative.

Lets get that IP from you ROy, share it with the rest of the class I want to see what I can get for your work.

Without IP laws we lose our global trade advantage no one would make
Movies or pharmaceuticals etc... It is all way out there.

 

Sorry bout that but the OP was suggesting that reducing births would end poverty. Of course its better to be here than in poor countries with high birth rates. The point is that it is specifically because they are doing better than other countries that they are having fewer babies.

This is counter-intuitive because what happens when you feed and take real good care of two rabbits; you get lots and lots of rabbits right? People are different because they plan for the future and when they face poverty and hopelessness they have more children in the hopes that at least a few may survive and do better than themselves. In countries where there is a positive hope for the future and a sense of security even poor people tend to have only a few children (more than their affluent counterparts in said country but less than in countries where they are ignored) and pool all their resources into giving those few children the best chance possible to succeed.

So if we decide to disregard the poor completely we are likely to get more of them.

 

The eugenicists in the last century were at least consistent in their arguments & solutions. The modern progressives have a conflict in their ideals they will not address. They agonize over the plight of the poor, yet hate the overpopulation of the planet, & the way evil mankind is destroying the environment. Yet their solution is to provide breeding grounds for the 3rd world poor, & import them to the responsible countries so they can disrupt any balance that nature has brought with responsible human management. They claim to love the earth, yet promote policies that destroy it. It is hypocrisy. They love neither the earth, nor the people they promote. Their policies are ruinous to both. They punish responsible behavior, & reward corruption.