The Scarcity Trap

[Sparko]

No. I am arguing that our tight restrictions on itinerant workers are ridiculous when it causes businesses to go under. If no one here wants the jobs, and itinerant workers do, why would we let these small businesses fail? As far as I know, in Vermont, it is not about the pay. It is about the work. No one here wants the jobs...not the salary level. They are temporary, seasonal jobs that are manually intensive. It does not attract most American workers.

If nobody wants the work, then maybe the pay isn't good enough to attract them. If the pay is so bad that only illegal workers will do it, then there is a problem with the company. Liberals are always talking about how Companies are screwing over the workers and need to pay at least $15/hour minimum wage to flip burgers and share their profits with the employees instead of lining their pockets.

If these farms can't afford to pay enough for American workers to do the work, then they should go out of business.

And I said nothing about "Mexican" workers. The itinerant workers we usually have in Vermont hail from many places. They are not predominantly Mexican.

Sorry Carp, but your wiggling won't work here. The thread where you said that was about illegals and it was in response to a post by Seer about illegal immigrants. You even mentioned them not being let in by Trump. Here it is in context:

Let me give you a real world consequence. About ten of my sons friends had good paying jobs in roofing and construction a few years back - not one of them have those jobs any more, they were all taken by legal and illegal aliens. Today their jobs pay much less (Home Depot and such). The immigrants live 15-20 people to an apartment (which I know first hand since it happens in my neighborhood) - and will work for less than minimum and pool their money. Now if you are a contractor you may not want to hire such people, but if your competition does you have little choice. So not only does this take away jobs for our working poor, it suppresses wages in general. This, again, is the fault of both parties.

An example is not a argument, Seer, as I've said before. Here in Vermont, itinerant workers are the lifeblood of many of our farms. When the workers were not permitted in under Trump, many farms went under because they could not find the labor they needed to survive.

That too is not an argument - it is merely an example. A thorough argument would be had by looking at immigration affects across the country. You should do that, turning to sites OTHER than the usual right-wing, anti-immigrant sites. Look at the data from Pew Research and the Brookings Institute. You might be surprised by what you find.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post552812

[carpedm9587]

You seem to think I have it out for the poor.

No. But I do think you have a naive, or at least slanted, view of the life of the poor.

I don't. I have no problem with the poor getting a handout when they need it. My problem is with people assuming they are useless and can't pick themselves off the ground and need help constantly like they are crippled or something. Most poor people have the ability to succeed if they want to.

Can you back up this claim with any data?

I did. My friends did.

Examples are not arguments

The town my dad grew up in was a coal mining town, where people were poor but they worked hard. There were some though that just sat on their rear ends and expected the government to hand them a check every month. I could have done the same, but instead, I left and put myself through school and now have a decent job. I am not rich by any means. You are probably rich compared to me, you have a college degree and your own business and employees. So for you to lecture me on how to treat poor people is condescending and foolish.

Seer, I cam from a family of five children living in a three-bedroom house with one toilet and my dad was a truck driver and then a machinist. We were never hungry, but that was about it. I paid for my own college with grants and loans and a lot of hard work. I turned out to have a talent for teaching, worked for others for most of my life, and started my company 10 years ago. I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination, but I would be considered in the top 5% (for now) for income and retained wealth. I also spent much of my life volunteering and working with many programs for the poor and for people with disabilities. Your language keeps focusing on "sitting on their butts." You repeat it over and over again. I find almost nothing in your posts about those who truly need assistance to dig out, and those who never can (except the opening sentence to your post here, which you've occasionally said in other places).

I know the poor span the spectrum from the truly needy to those who take advantage of the system. I also know that even among those who "take advantage of the system," many of them have long since been conditioned to believe they are in a hopeless situation and they've given up. I've helped many such families turn the corner and change that perspective. But it takes time, and effort, and work to make it happen. The data on what happens when positive support is given to the poor - when they have basic needs met and can focus on lifting themselves out of poverty, is readily available.

But as long as our country has the mentality that "poor people are lazy," that's not going to happen.

[Sparko]

No. But I do think you have a naive, or at least slanted, view of the life of the poor.

From me, a guy who grew up poor. Right. slanted.

Can you back up this claim with any data?

Yeah me and my dad, and my aunts and uncles, my grandpa, the coal miners in my dad's down, and every single other person who climbed out of poverty and made a decent life for themselves, including 80% of the NFL and NBA probably.

Examples are not arguments

Except they are. They are MY argument. My evidence that you are wrong. I lived the life. My friends and family lived it.

Seer,

Look closer.

I cam from a family of five children living in a three-bedroom house with one toilet and my dad was a truck driver and then a machinist. We were never hungry, but that was about it. I paid for my own college with grants and loans and a lot of hard work. I turned out to have a talent for teaching, worked for others for most of my life, and started my company 10 years ago. I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination, but I would be considered in the top 5% (for now) for income and retained wealth.

So then YOU are an example and evidence of what I have said too. Great. And I would consider the top 5% as rich. Nobody who is rich ever thinks they are because there is always more.

Rags to riches, The Carp story.

I also spent much of my life volunteering and working with many programs for the poor and for people with disabilities. Your language keeps focusing on "sitting on their butts." You repeat it over and over again. I find almost nothing in your posts about those who truly need assistance to dig out, and those who never can (except the opening sentence to your post here, which you've occasionally said in other places).

I never said that all poor people sit on their butts. I also mentioned that I am all for those who need a helping hand. But Carp, there are those who take advantage of the system. Who are too lazy to work. Here is another example: My aunt. She worked for the county clerks office, doing licenses, deeds, and stuff like that. Mostly computer work. She went on complete disability, claiming her eyes were too bad to use the computer. Guess what she does now? She sits at home on her computer posting crap to facebook. Do you think she deserves to be on disability? If she can use her computer at home she sure can use it earning money at a job she already had. There are a lot more like her out there. Those are the people I am talking about who could pick themselves out of poverty if they wanted to.

If someone is truly disabled I have no problem with them receiving disability. There are many who deserve it. And many who steal it from them.

I know the poor span the spectrum from the truly needy to those who take advantage of the system. I also know that even among those who "take advantage of the system," many of them have long since been conditioned to believe they are in a hopeless situation and they've given up. I've helped many such families turn the corner and change that perspective. But it takes time, and effort, and work to make it happen. The data on what happens when positive support is given to the poor - when they have basic needs met and can focus on lifting themselves out of poverty, is readily available.

But as long as our country has the mentality that "poor people are lazy," that's not going to happen.

Not all are lazy. But many are. We need better checks and balances.

[carpedm9587]

From me, a guy who grew up poor. Right. slanted.

I cannot explain why, Sparko. Just telling you what I am reading from you.

Yeah me and my dad, and my aunts and uncles, my grandpa, the coal miners in my dad's down, and every single other person who climbed out of poverty and made a decent life for themselves, including 80% of the NFL and NBA probably.

Not exactly a peer-reviewed study, Sparko.

Except they are. They are MY argument. My evidence that you are wrong. I lived the life. My friends and family lived it.

Look closer.

So then YOU are an example and evidence of what I have said too. Great. And I would consider the top 5% as rich. Nobody who is rich ever thinks they are because there is always more.

Rags to riches, The Carp story.

I was never in rags, and will never be rich. I'm comfortable, and a lot of luck (as well as effort) went with that.

I never said that all poor people sit on their butts. I also mentioned that I am all for those who need a helping hand. But Carp, there are those who take advantage of the system. Who are too lazy to work. Here is another example: My aunt. She worked for the county clerks office, doing licenses, deeds, and stuff like that. Mostly computer work. She went on complete disability, claiming her eyes were too bad to use the computer. Guess what she does now? She sits at home on her computer posting crap to facebook. Do you think she deserves to be on disability?

Not based on this information. I don't know the rest of her situation. And, again, an example is not an argument. No one said that people who "game the system" don't exist. They will always exist. You do the best you can to control for them, but you don't stop helping people who need it because some people game the system. You design the system so the odds of being gamed are reduced.

If she can use her computer at home she sure can use it earning money at a job she already had. There are a lot more like her out there. Those are the people I am talking about who could pick themselves out of poverty if they wanted to.

If someone is truly disabled I have no problem with them receiving disability. There are many who deserve it. And many who steal it from them.

Not all are lazy. But many are. We need better checks and balances.

On that we agree. But sometimes "many" is treated as "most." I would disagree with that.

[Sparko]

I cannot explain why, Sparko. Just telling you what I am reading from you.

Maybe it is because of YOUR bias?

Not exactly a peer-reviewed study, Sparko.

Who cares Carp? This is not a scientific journal. This is a discussion site. I don't see you referring to peer-reviewed studies. This is just another one of your methods of dismissing other people.

I was never in rags, and will never be rich. I'm comfortable, and a lot of luck (as well as effort) went with that.

If you are in the top 5% of the country, then you are more than comfortable.

Not based on this information. I don't know the rest of her situation. And, again, an example is not an argument.

Except examples ARE parts of arguments, Carp. They always have been. They inform on a person's view and position. This is another of your methods of dismissing people with a cutsey saying. Like "Technique #1" - it is short-hand for "I reject your view because I want to"

No one said that people who "game the system" don't exist. They will always exist. You do the best you can to control for them, but you don't stop helping people who need it because some people game the system. You design the system so the odds of being gamed are reduced.

Where did I say to stop helping people who need it? I specifically said I am all for helping people who need it a couple of times now. Maybe you are not reading what I am saying?

On that we agree. But sometimes "many" is treated as "most." I would disagree with that.

Maybe you are reading it that way.

[carpedm9587]

Maybe it is because of YOUR bias?

What do you think is my bias with respect to this issue?

Who cares Carp? This is not a scientific journal. This is a discussion site. I don't see you referring to peer-reviewed studies. This is just another one of your methods of dismissing other people.

It's my way of not taking a position if I do not have adequate evidence to hold the position.

If you are in the top 5% of the country, then you are more than comfortable.

I suppose it depends on your perspective.

Except examples ARE parts of arguments, Carp. They always have been. They inform on a person's view and position. This is another of your methods of dismissing people with a cutsey saying. Like "Technique #1" - it is short-hand for "I reject your view because I want to"

In my experience, personal anecdotes are the weakest form of argument, which is why I don't really consider them arguments. They adopt a position of "my experience defines how the world works." Or they shift that to one or two other people. They blind us to the possibility that a wider set of data would show that is actually not the "usual" experience. The recent discussion with Mossrose is an excellent case in point. Her experience was so negative, and she found others with similar experiences to band with, the fact that this is not what the wider data shows about the Canadian healthcare system is not one she can even consider. I have sympathy for her experience. I do not think any of us should be basing wider views on that narrow a set of data.

The same is true here. If you consider that dismissive, so be it. It is how I try to function, and I will call it on those who try to make an argument using a string of anecdotes.

"Technique #1" is simply a shorthand way of saying something I have been saying multiple times: the argument has no validity to it. It's a tautology.

Where did I say to stop helping people who need it? I specifically said I am all for helping people who need it a couple of times now. Maybe you are not reading what I am saying?

First, that "you" was a collective you - not specifically about Sparko. And yes, I am reading what you are saying. It is usually a brief acknowledgement that there are poor people that need help, and then an extensive post on all of the "fakers" out there gaming the system. The latter occupies more of your post, so it leaves the impression that it is what you think predominates.

Maybe you are reading it that way.

That is entirely possible.

[Sparko]

What do you think is my bias with respect to this issue?

you stated it in the OP and in the arguments you have made to me.

It's my way of not taking a position if I do not have adequate evidence to hold the position.

It's your way of dismissing something you don't want to listen to.

I suppose it depends on your perspective.

You mean the perspective of the other 95% of the country?

In my experience, personal anecdotes are the weakest form of argument, which is why I don't really consider them arguments. They adopt a position of "my experience defines how the world works." Or they shift that to one or two other people. They blind us to the possibility that a wider set of data would show that is actually not the "usual" experience. The recent discussion with Mossrose is an excellent case in point. Her experience was so negative, and she found others with similar experiences to band with, the fact that this is not what the wider data shows about the Canadian healthcare system is not one she can even consider. I have sympathy for her experience. I do not think any of us should be basing wider views on that narrow a set of data.

When we are discussing "poor people" and you make a comment about how clueless I am, I think me using my personal examples and that of my family is highly relevant to support my "expertise" on the matter. I don't recall anyone doing any scientific studies of my knowledge on poverty, but when they do, you will be the first to know.

[carpedm9587]

you stated it in the OP and in the arguments you have made to me.

When I answer a question like that, you scream "dodge."

It's your way of dismissing something you don't want to listen to.

No.

You mean the perspective of the other 95% of the country?

In part. How much I make does not reflect how much is given to charity, or funneled to help people around me in need. That has always been a high priority for me.

When we are discussing "poor people" and you make a comment about how clueless I am, I think me using my personal examples and that of my family is highly relevant to support my "expertise" on the matter. I don't recall anyone doing any scientific studies of my knowledge on poverty, but when they do, you will be the first to know.

Your bonafides are duly acknowledged, for your experience. The rest of your posts suggest that your grasp of the larger impoverished community is naive. You are clearly not clueless, but I think you have a very simplistic model that does not allow for the enormous variation there is poor communities and poor people.

[Sparko]

When I answer a question like that, you scream "dodge."

fine by me.

In part. How much I make does not reflect how much is given to charity, or funneled to help people around me in need. That has always been a high priority for me.

How much you give to help others has no effect on whether you are rich or not. If anything, being able to give so much away to charity confirms you have more money than you need and are rich.

Your bonafides are duly acknowledged, for your experience. The rest of your posts suggest that your grasp of the larger impoverished community is naive. You are clearly not clueless, but I think you have a very simplistic model that does not allow for the enormous variation there is poor communities and poor people.

And your rich-guy patronizing opinion of poor people is noted and hand-waved away in a dismissive gesture that rogue06 could probably represent well with one of his gifs.

[carpedm9587]

fine by me.

How much you give to help others has no effect on whether you are rich or not. If anything, being able to give so much away to charity confirms you have more money than you need and are rich.

Sparko, we don't all just give out of our excess. Some of us give a bit deeper than that. My "top 5%" was based on my annual income. Not what my family and I live on. In any event, that's as far as I want to go discussing my finances. You are welcome to your impression. I probably should not have brought it up.

And your rich-guy patronizing opinion of poor people is noted and hand-waved away in a dismissive gesture that rogue06 could probably represent well with one of his gifs.

The position that recognizes some people need the boost to get themselves out of a hole, especially in light of what we know about the cognitive impacts of hunger and poverty, is no "patronizing" Sparko. It simply recognizes a reality. The position that poor people are generally lazy, however...? That one is not patronizing either. It's just insulting.

[Sparko]

Sparko, we don't all just give out of our excess. Some of us give a bit deeper than that. My "top 5%" was based on my annual income. Not what my family and I live on. In any event, that's as far as I want to go discussing my finances. You are welcome to your impression. I probably should not have brought it up.

relax, I am mostly pulling your chain.

The position that recognizes some people need the boost to get themselves out of a hole, especially in light of what we know about the cognitive impacts of hunger and poverty, is no "patronizing" Sparko. It simply recognizes a reality. The position that poor people are generally lazy, however...? That one is not patronizing either. It's just insulting.

I am just dismissing your view like you did mine.

I already said and I say again... I have no problem with helping people who need it. Especially the disabled.