Equality?

[steelish]

Now you've offended me.
It was not my intension. My point was there is a parental school of thought that seeks to teach children from a very early age the importance of work by saying if you dont do this work you dont get that material reward. There's no argument about the work-reward relationship but personally I dont think there's anything wrong with letting children be children and letting them learn values slowly as they grow. There are many people who work in this world for principles higher than personal gain and the reason you should do that chore may be because mom does not have time rather than because the kids earns some candy money.

That may not have been your intent, but you did so just the same. We were allowed to be kids. We played, we had friends. We also earned money when we saw something in the store we wanted but my mother could not afford. My mother raised four kids by herself. My father left when I was 9. We did what we could as we got old enough to do things to earn a touch of money. Mowing a yard for a neighbor, weeding my grandfather's 16 acre vegetable garden, etc.

What are you advocating Kendal? Blindly paying them to sit around and do nothing,
First I would define who "them" are and not tar all unemployed with the same brush. I would then take different approaches with the different types of "them". Yes there are some that do not
want to work but I think there are more options than continue paying or stop paying. In UK a lot of "them" are working in the black economy and welfare payments is extra money. That type of "them" are clearly criminals.

You defined "them" previously. You're statement was: "What are you advocating steelish. Stopping welfare for those who wont work. What do you think they will do... quietly starve to death."

while they create future generations who will live the same way?
I am sure there are many who would be offended by that remark. What makes you say this. Will the son of the wife beater grow up to be a wife beater. There are plenty of cases where children want to be the exact opposite and parents serve as cautionary tales rather than role models.

There might be many offended. I never said EVERYONE who is raised on welfare continues the tradition. However, many do. I see it. I have family members who live it. My aunt raised four girls on her own. She was on welfare due to Lupus. She couldn't work. My mother helped when she could. So did all of us kids. Two of her children worked hard in school and went on to college. Two decided to sit around and do nothing although they are able-bodied. They live on welfare. They are raising kids of their own. Some of their kids seem to have the same mindset as their mothers.

I've seen this hundreds of times, and it is so true; Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime.
Care to explain how the man you taught to fish lives if you dont give him a fishing rod or there are no fish (jobs) in the (employment) river. These maxims are all very good but they are rather simplistic.

Not so. It's an analogy. You're taking it so literally.

What I got allowance for was the hard jobs that were considered something "above and beyond".
The lesson is still the same - material reward for hard work. I used to enjoy (hard) work because it meant I was doing my bit in the family team and to show I was a big boy even though I wasn't. I enjoyed making a difference and leaving my mark .... ie I come yard dirty... I go yard clean.

When I speak of allowance for the other "jobs" I did I am saying I simply learned the value of a dollar..........whereas those who grow up on welfare or get things handed to them rarely learn the lesson.
Nothing wrong with that but there are values higher than the almighty dollar that motivate some people to work without needing personal material gain. In my life people have given (handed) me "things". I repay those people by giving to others in return. And again I dispute the claim that children follow in the footsteps of the parents.

Seems as if you and I will go round and round. See above explanation.

[DuncanONeil]

I am unable to agree with you. That thing we receive at no cost to ourselves is not valued.
That's rather a sweeping statement. I value love, oxygen and nature but did not work or pay for them. I know what you are saying but this is another one of those proverb type statements which have some truth but are not entirely valid.

The last sentence is quite true. But one must always analyze "proverbs". In the sense we are speaking neither oxygen nor nature are "given" to you. Love is a very unique entity. As a monopole construct it is nearly worthless and often frustrating. To be truly effective it must be given away, to be returned. And as that dipole construct it gains its true measure of value.

I have seen this personally. There exist scholarships that are available without biased requirements. More a reward for service rendered. More along the lines of deferred compensation. But you did work for it!
I do not know the american scholarship system and am also unsure if I understand your point correctly. Personally I do not think the principle - you only get what you work for - is the only principle at work. Often the benefits we received are not the fruits of our labor but the legacy of our parents. I had a good education but did not work for it in the sense you may be implying. The result of that education is an awareness of obligations and my duty to give to my children the same or better than what I received. I do not teach my kid he has to do this to get that. I teach him we do this because it is the right thing to do, it is our way, it is what makes us who we are.

In some respects that is correct. I suppose I was mostly considering the last eight years of school. I did consider the cost issue. I worked in the high school to pay a portion of my tuition. I worked in college as well, though many of us do. My scholarship was a result of taking a specific job that if I completed the job I earned a set sum to assist with college.
But back to elementary school, all school actually, if you do not work and apply yourself as a student everything is wasted. The learning is not a total washout but we do graduate students from high school that can not read.

Let's not forget the country benefits from education. and the government is repaid with the higher taxes paid on the higher wages the educated get. The Chinese work bloody hard but China is poorer than USA. The better education in America creates better skilled workers who create better technologies which increase national wealth. The tax the government receives from it's higher paid better skilled workforce is more than from poorly educated and low paid Chinese. I believe education should be free for all. It is not a cost, it is an investment and a bloody good one at that.

First, there is no way that education can be free. Here education is not within the authority of the Congress. They should not be involved! Yes education is an investment. An investment in the future. But not for the nation, that is a corollary. Education is an investment in self! Perhaps in your statement it is true that America has a better education, but in my estimation the education in America sucks!

The concept you present of a company head and professionals is apples and oranges.
I agree. Steelish introduced the climb up the corporate ladder point. I moved focus away because the number of people who succeed without education is small compared to the people for whom it would be impossible to succeed without education. The apples dont matter compared to the oranges.

Yes few make it to the top. That is because there are FEW at the top. The difference between having an idea, a good work ethic, and drive to build a company and becoming a doctor or a lawyer are different tracks. To equate them is to diminish humanity a bit I might think. Or it presents an overdependence on formal education to provide all the answers.

PS - I think povery can be defined in terms on the minimum needed to live ie shelter, food, health etc. The country must provide this minimum life support no matter how undeserving the recipients may be. Above that minimum - okay that's a different kettle of apples.

Did you see the posting regarding the standard of living of the "poor" in the USA?

[Kendal]

But one must always analyze "proverbs".
I cannot really analyse fortune cookies, proverbs, bumper stickers, tea leaves or whatever. Yes there is some truth in them but it is far from the whole truth.

I suppose I was mostly considering the last eight years of school. I did consider the cost issue.
Well maybe this is why we all differ. You are talking from your personal background, steelish is talking from the basis of hers and I am not talking from my own personal background just the values and principles I was taught to believe in.

if you do not work and apply yourself as a student everything is wasted
I said children do work - doing schoolwork. Steelish talked about work meaning doing chores for cash to learn the value of a buck and importance of hard work. Yes of course if they dont apply themselves as student then the education is not entirely wasted but they are not making the most of the opportunity but is this the same work as cash for chores.

First, there is no way that education can be free. Here education is not within the authority of the Congress. They should not be involved!
By free I mean at zero financial cost to student or family. Governments (local-national) should pay for it and have a degree of say in educational matters. My view is obviously different to yours on this one.

Education is an investment in self! Perhaps in your statement it is true that America has a better education, but in my estimation the education in America sucks!
Better than China - but thats not saying much is it. As for Europe-America comparison I'm sure that would be a hot potato (we won't even agree on how to pronounce that word). Everybody benefits from education. The student from better job and pay. The government from more tax and more manageable citizens (unlikely to riot). The country from increased wealth, better products and services etc.

Yes few make it to the top. That is because there are FEW at the top.I am talking percentage. What percent of CEOs in America don't have a degree and also what percent of high earners are in jobs where you can succeed without a degree. The number of people steelish is talking about who made it to the top without education is few both in number and percent.

The difference between having an idea, a good work ethic, and drive to build a company and becoming a doctor or a lawyer are different tracks.
I agree mostly but not entirely. I think back in the days of Henry Ford and the like you would be right but in todays world I am not so sure. Yep a Henry Ford today could probaby have a good garage and be moderately successful but I doubt he could have the same level of success. The difference between now and then is the higher level of technology and knowledge needed. I am not sure on this one but suspect I am right.

Did you see the posting regarding the standard of living of the "poor" in the USA?
I briefly looked but the moment I saw stats on TV and house ownership I knew my defintion of poor was very different from what was being discussed. By poor I mean eating out of trash cans or not enough to give your kids healthy diets.


PS Steelish - If this topic is to be discussed in terms of your personal family background you make it impossible for me to respond without running the risk of offending you again. I am in effect silenced.

[steelish]

I am unable to agree with you. That thing we receive at no cost to ourselves is not valued.
That's rather a sweeping statement. I value love, oxygen and nature but did not work or pay for them. I know what you are saying but this is another one of those proverb type statements which have some truth but are not entirely valid.

Sorry, but I just had to comment on this, because in my view, you are being facetious. Love, oxygen and nature are things that exist in nature yet cannot be confined, whereas beef (food stuffs), goods and such can be confined and as such, sold by those with the means to confine them. You know this. I know this. We cannot live as the American Indians did years ago, hunting for what we needed and free-roaming, following our food source.

Clothing is manufactured, and as such, has to be purchased. During purchase, people use money that they have earned. If they do not earn it, they receive it either through entitlement programs, or gifts. The same goes for other things that are "manufactured" including food, a/c and heat, water sources, fuel (electricity, gas, oil, etc.), and almost anything needed in which to live upon. Such is life.

[Kendal]

Yes they were poor examples I agree. I did not want to spend much thought debunking proverbs. People using proverbs to support their argument in a political discussion always seems to me like those the Southern lawyers who quote the scriptures to prove their case - it's makes for good drama and showmanship but is a load of hogwash. This is why politicians steer clear of them - they get nailed.

Anyhow back to the point. You claim people do not value that which is obtained at no cost to themselves.

- Do you value this website - you did not pay for admission.
- Do you value the posts and posters on here for which you have given thanks.
- Does the hungry man value the food from the soup kitchen or bed at the hostel.
- Does the hitchhiker value the ride he gets.
- Do people go intro stampede mode at stores when the word "free" is mention.
- Did you value your allowance - (the one you got without having to work for it)
- Do people value the sermom and service they get at the church.
- Will you value the wedding ring you get(got)
- Are all of the above definable and finite products, services and commodities.

I think the answer to all of the above is Yes. And all were obtained for FREE.

[Kendal]

I can add another to the list. The gifts we receive at Christmas. The Santa Klaus the Dutch brought to America from Europe gave gifts to all equally. Americans introduced the naughty and nice list - the concept that if the kid did not work, did not do as he was told then he would not get the (same)material reward of a gift. The work ethic is at being taught even with Santa in America. The Europeans follow the principle that all are equal in love and all shall receive the same. The lazy boy shall receive the same gift as the hard working boy for they are loved equally by the parents, Jesus and God. And some would say the bad boy is loved more - because he has strayed the furthest and it is the love and charity that shall bring him back.

I dont want to debate whether American or European Santa is right but hope we can agree they are different and follow different principles when it comes to giving and who is deserving.

[steelish]

Yes they were poor examples I agree. I did not want to spend much thought debunking proverbs. People using proverbs to support their argument in a political discussion always seems to me like those the Southern lawyers who quote the scriptures to prove their case - it's makes for good drama and showmanship but is a load of hogwash. This is why politicians steer clear of them - they get nailed.

Anyhow back to the point. You claim people do not value that which is obtained at no cost to themselves.

- Do you value this website - you did not pay for admission.

Actually, I did...in the form of the internet service in my home. I could not access it without that.

- Do you value the posts and posters on here for which you have given thanks.

Yes, and they probably (likely) had to pay for internet access as well. If they didn't, then they had to find a way to get somewhere to have a computer with internet access.

- Does the hungry man value the food from the soup kitchen or bed at the hostel.

I would hope so...because SOMEONE payed for it.

- Does the hitchhiker value the ride he gets.

I would hope so...for the same reason. It wasn't free. The driver put gas in his car. He's putting mileage on his car. I would hope the hitchhiker appreciates it.

- Do people go intro stampede mode at stores when the word "free" is mention.

Hmmmm...must be a UK thing. Stores in the US don't give away FREE things.

- Did you value your allowance - (the one you got without having to work for it)

I never got an allowance for doing nothing. I could have sworn I've already made that point clear.

- Do people value the sermom and service they get at the church.

I'm sure they do. They put on their Sunday best (clothing they purchased with churchgoing in mind) and drive (gas, mileage) to church. But then, that's not free is it.

- Will you value the wedding ring you get(got)

I'm pretty sure my husband paid for it.

- Are all of the above definable and finite products, services and commodities.

Yes, they are.

I think the answer to all of the above is Yes. And all were obtained for FREE.

No, not free. I think I've established that. Just because someone benefited from a couple of them and did not have to pay directly for them does not make them free.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. Someone, somewhere has to pay for it.

[Kendal]

steelish - Duncan said -

"That thing we receive at no cost to ourselves is not valued"

I disputed that. You disputed me on the basis somebody down the line paid for it. Somebody else paying is not YOU (ie ourselves) paying is it. It is therefore no cost to you - which is what Duncan meant.

Pick an apple off the tree or pluck a flower on open public land. And saying this site is not free because you have to pay for connection. You could go to public library and use their computer. If you want to go to the ridiculous extreme you pay for the food you eat and without that food you could not visit the site because you would be dead from starvation.

If one trie to defend proverbs one will get a tough time. Better one leaves proverbs and fortune cookies out of serious discussions.

PS - Nothing in life is free is another one of these glib maxims. If a country was governed by proverbs we would be in a worse mess than we already are.

[Thorne]

- Do you value this website - you did not pay for admission.

As steelish said, I pay through my ISP fees, but the real value in a site such as this is in the effort we all put into making it interesting and relevant. I would hope my own modest efforts have added to that value for others as well as myself.

- Do you value the posts and posters on here for which you have given thanks.

Every poster here has some value. Naturally, I value some higher than others, and I do give thanks when they are deserved. In other words, poster should have to earn their thanks!

- Does the hungry man value the food from the soup kitchen or bed at the hostel.

I'm sure he does, just as (as noted in your next post) we value gifts which we are given. But if our hungry man is given that gift every day, there will come a point where he will view it not as a gift but as an entitlement, and when the soup kitchen closes down he will rant about his rights being taken away.

- Does the hitchhiker value the ride he gets.

Same as above.

- Do people go intro stampede mode at stores when the word "free" is mention.

I'm sure they do, but the cost of that "free" item is spread out over the cost of everything else we buy, so it's not actually free, is it?

- Did you value your allowance - (the one you got without having to work for it)

Like steelish (and I expect, like most who received an allowance) I didn't get an allowance for doing nothing. I earned it. As I grew older and was able to do more, I received a larger allowance. Then, in order to cement my understanding of the value of my efforts, when I got old enough to have a job, I was expected to pay a percentage of my pay as 'room and board'. In retrospect, at least, the lessons I learned were far more valuable than the money I paid.

- Do people value the sermom and service they get at the church.

Apparently, though I have difficulty understanding why. But then, they've put a lot of time and effort into maintaining their church, in some form or another.So again, it's not 'free'.

- Will you value the wedding ring you get(got)

You don't just 'get' a wedding ring. You have to invest a tremendous amount of time and energy, both physical and emotional. And the future costs are even higher. And if you're as lucky as I am, it will all be worth it. If you can even think that the receipt of a wedding ring is 'free' your value system may be seriously flawed.

Paying money for something is not the only way to pay for it. After all, money is just a placeholder, a way of showing how much work we've done to earn what we are buying. Gifts received generally come from expenditures in emotional bonds. Even charity comes at a cost to someone. Being the recipient of charity should make you feel grateful to those providing it, but can also be humbling to a degree, knowing that you must rely on the charity of others. But those who have come to rely on charity, and have lost that gratitude, are the ones who make it so hard for people like me to see the 'value' in giving that charity. When charity is no longer viewed as a gift but as a right, it ceases to become charity. And it no longer has any value to society.

[Kendal]

You guys are trying to nail every example with very obscure reasoning because you are clinging to the principle you have to work for everything you get. I am not disputing the value of slogans and ethics like this but they should not be seen as the sort of global laws of the universe both of you make out. There are other principles involved like charity and the responsibility of the strong to help the weak. It is not as simple as the 1:1 direct relationships you make out. Much of what I have and have been given is the legacy of our fathers. I have lived in peace and security not because of my work but because 2 generations gave their tommorow so I could have my today. I help those less fortunate than myself because it is the right thing to do. I hope should they be able one day they will in turn help somebody. If not - so be it - I do what I must. I cannot look the other way and recite some proverb to the hungry man. I see nothing wrong in giving those at the bottom of the economy a leg up so they can in turn do the same for others. And if some are them are just parasites on society - so be it - I am not going to refuse to water the garden because there may be some weeds in there amonst the flowers. We will just have to agree we are from different cultures with different social values.

[steelish]

steelish - Duncan said -

"That thing we receive at no cost to ourselves is not valued"

I disputed that. You disputed me on the basis somebody down the line paid for it. Somebody else paying is not YOU (ie ourselves) paying is it. It is therefore no cost to you - which is what Duncan meant.

Pick an apple off the tree or pluck a flower on open public land. And saying this site is not free because you have to pay for connection. You could go to public library and use their computer. If you want to go to the ridiculous extreme you pay for the food you eat and without that food you could not visit the site because you would be dead from starvation.

If one trie to defend proverbs one will get a tough time. Better one leaves proverbs and fortune cookies out of serious discussions.

PS - Nothing in life is free is another one of these glib maxims. If a country was governed by proverbs we would be in a worse mess than we already are.

It matters not to me which one of you said it. My point is that I value the things you mentioned/listed. BTW - I never said "Nothing in life is free". What I said is "There's no such thing as a free lunch. Someone, somewhere has to pay for it."

My other point is that there are people out there who value only that which they will never have to pay for...(their concept of "free" is skewed)

Like this woman
or these people
Oh wait, what about this?

[steelish]

You guys are trying to nail every example with very obscure reasoning because you are clinging to the principle you have to work for everything you get. I am not disputing the value of slogans and ethics like this but they should not be seen as the sort of global laws of the universe both of you make out. There are other principles involved like charity and the responsibility of the strong to help the weak. It is not as simple as the 1:1 direct relationships you make out. Much of what I have and have been given is the legacy of our fathers. I have lived in peace and security not because of my work but because 2 generations gave their tommorow so I could have my today. I help those less fortunate than myself because it is the right thing to do. I hope should they be able one day they will in turn help somebody. If not - so be it - I do what I must. I cannot look the other way and recite some proverb to the hungry man. I see nothing wrong in giving those at the bottom of the economy a leg up so they can in turn do the same for others. And if some are them are just parasites on society - so be it - I am not going to refuse to water the garden because there may be some weeds in there amonst the flowers. We will just have to agree we are from different cultures with different social values.

No. What we are saying is there is great value in being a productive citizen if you have the ability to do so. To be able-bodied, yet choose to do nothing to contribute to society and instead to live off the efforts of your fellow man is WRONG.

[DuncanONeil]

But one must always analyze "proverbs".
I cannot really analyse fortune cookies, proverbs, bumper stickers, tea leaves or whatever. Yes there is some truth in them but it is far from the whole truth.

Everything can be analyzed! You have said so yourself in other posts. Am I now to conclude that only those things you favor deserve analysis? By implication failure to analyze puts you in a position of, alternately, blindly accepting or blindly dismissing data.

I suppose I was mostly considering the last eight years of school. I did consider the cost issue.
Well maybe this is why we all differ. You are talking from your personal background, steelish is talking from the basis of hers and I am not talking from my own personal background just the values and principles I was taught to believe in.

Here you are expressing that which has been clear in a lot of your writings, you assume. Neither I nor Steelish are capable of being so cavalier with our values and principles as you seem to think people are capable. Those are an ingrained part of all of us. What you are referring to, improperly I think, to a discussion based on values and principles leavened with personal experience.

if you do not work and apply yourself as a student everything is wasted
I said children do work - doing schoolwork. Steelish talked about work meaning doing chores for cash to learn the value of a buck and importance of hard work. Yes of course if they dont apply themselves as student then the education is not entirely wasted but they are not making the most of the opportunity but is this the same work as cash for chores.

Yes! It is the same!

First, there is no way that education can be free. Here education is not within the authority of the Congress. They should not be involved!
By free I mean at zero financial cost to student or family. Governments (local-national) should pay for it and have a degree of say in educational matters. My view is obviously different to yours on this one.

I have some small concerns of the input of government but as I said, very clearly Congress has no authority to intrude on the prosecution of education. I am very aware that such in not the case in all nations but it is here! The post high school level of education is divided between state schools and private schools. It is clear that the state schools are getting significant support from the state. If the state so chooses to do fine. But the Feds need to take their ball and go home. Lets include the teachers unions in that, they are weakening education as we speak.

Education is an investment in self! Perhaps in your statement it is true that America has a better education, but in my estimation the education in America sucks!
Better than China - but thats not saying much is it. As for Europe-America comparison I'm sure that would be a hot potato (we won't even agree on how to pronounce that word). Everybody benefits from education. The student from better job and pay. The government from more tax and more manageable citizens (unlikely to riot). The country from increased wealth, better products and services etc.

See in this we largely agree! I would defy you to find anyone who would not. The argument arises in execution.
Government (in case it is not yet clear the preceding word in that form refers to the Feds) and teacher unions are an impediment to good education. As a result we are losing our educated base.

Yes few make it to the top. That is because there are FEW at the top.I am talking percentage. What percent of CEOs in America don't have a degree and also what percent of high earners are in jobs where you can succeed without a degree. The number of people steelish is talking about who made it to the top without education is few both in number and percent.

That is really an apocraphyl statement. With 31 million companies in the US employing over 500 people determining such a data set is a large task. Especially including positions below the CEO. But even so we are looking at a set of the US that encompasses a mere 10% of the country. Even a small percent of them is significant. Nobody gives two thoughts about youth that seek to be major league football players and that data set is, in total, only about 850 people nationally! Much smaller than the business community! And it is way easier to start a new business than a new football team.

The difference between having an idea, a good work ethic, and drive to build a company and becoming a doctor or a lawyer are different tracks.
I agree mostly but not entirely. I think back in the days of Henry Ford and the like you would be right but in todays world I am not so sure. Yep a Henry Ford today could probaby have a good garage and be moderately successful but I doubt he could have the same level of success. The difference between now and then is the higher level of technology and knowledge needed. I am not sure on this one but suspect I am right.

1900 or now it is not the knowledge that makes success. It is the idea and drive. Even the Wright brothers did not do all of their airplanes themselves. Even today I do not need all the knowledge. I do need to know how to find it though. That is where the drive comes in.

Did you see the posting regarding the standard of living of the "poor" in the USA?
I briefly looked but the moment I saw stats on TV and house ownership I knew my defintion of poor was very different from what was being discussed. By poor I mean eating out of trash cans or not enough to give your kids healthy diets.

This is why when a discussion of any of the "poor", "middle class", or "rich" come up I need a definition. Not so much because things but because there are so many assumptions. The category of "poor" you infer (not define) are infinitesimal. Not to say they are to be ignored. But we need to know what we are talking about. The lifestyle of the officially poor in the US puts the normal life style of some Europeans to shame. No wonder so many want to come here if the poor can live so well. Much of that stuff I did not have growing up, but then a bunch of it did not exist either. I still felt poor though we were, according to the stats, not.

PS Steelish - If this topic is to be discussed in terms of your personal family background you make it impossible for me to respond without running the risk of offending you again. I am in effect silenced.[/QUOTE]

Sounds like a cop out to me!!

[steelish]

PS Steelish - If this topic is to be discussed in terms of your personal family background you make it impossible for me to respond without running the risk of offending you again. I am in effect silenced.

If I cannot draw from my own experiences and knowledge of a subject, from where then?

I was offended by your accusations, not your argument.

[DuncanONeil]

yes they were poor examples i agree. I did not want to spend much thought debunking proverbs. People using proverbs to support their argument in a political discussion always seems to me like those the southern lawyers who quote the scriptures to prove their case - it's makes for good drama and showmanship but is a load of hogwash. This is why politicians steer clear of them - they get nailed.

Anyhow back to the point. You claim people do not value that which is obtained at no cost to themselves.

- do you value this website - you did not pay for admission.

i do not value the website nearly as much as i value the people and discussions in which i engage! The people have inestimable value, the site itself not nearly as much.

- do you value the posts and posters on here for which you have given thanks.

see above

- does the hungry man value the food from the soup kitchen or bed at the hostel.

no! He values not being hungry for a while.

- does the hitchhiker value the ride he gets.

perhaps? The true measure of said valuation is subject to the situation. On would have to presume that gratitude and value are synonymous.

- do people go intro stampede mode at stores when the word "free" is mention.

more likely greed than value!

- did you value your allowance - (the one you got without having to work for it)

a free, unencumbered allowance? Most kids do not value such. They perceive it as a gift or right.

- do people value the sermom and service they get at the church.

completely different animal! Not definable nor finite.

- will you value the wedding ring you get(got)

this is a quid pro quo! Something that both parties have worked for.

- are all of the above definable and finite products, services and commodities.

no!

i think the answer to all of the above is yes. And all were obtained for free.

000000000

[DuncanONeil]

Except even the naughty kids get Xmas gifts.
And the naughty - nice thing is not about "the concept that if the kid did not work ... he would not get the (same)material reward of a gift."

I can add another to the list. The gifts we receive at Christmas. The Santa Klaus the Dutch brought to America from Europe gave gifts to all equally. Americans introduced the naughty and nice list - the concept that if the kid did not work, did not do as he was told then he would not get the (same)material reward of a gift. The work ethic is at being taught even with Santa in America. The Europeans follow the principle that all are equal in love and all shall receive the same. The lazy boy shall receive the same gift as the hard working boy for they are loved equally by the parents, Jesus and God. And some would say the bad boy is loved more - because he has strayed the furthest and it is the love and charity that shall bring him back.

I dont want to debate whether American or European Santa is right but hope we can agree they are different and follow different principles when it comes to giving and who is deserving.

[DuncanONeil]

The library would never let you on this site!
Can;t wait to see what you have to say to me on the subject!

steelish - Duncan said -

"That thing we receive at no cost to ourselves is not valued"

I disputed that. You disputed me on the basis somebody down the line paid for it. Somebody else paying is not YOU (ie ourselves) paying is it. It is therefore no cost to you - which is what Duncan meant.

Pick an apple off the tree or pluck a flower on open public land. And saying this site is not free because you have to pay for connection. You could go to public library and use their computer. If you want to go to the ridiculous extreme you pay for the food you eat and without that food you could not visit the site because you would be dead from starvation.

If one trie to defend proverbs one will get a tough time. Better one leaves proverbs and fortune cookies out of serious discussions.

PS - Nothing in life is free is another one of these glib maxims. If a country was governed by proverbs we would be in a worse mess than we already are.

[DuncanONeil]

I can remember two allowances I received in my youth. In elementary school a nickle credit at the local grocery I used on return to school from lunch.
In high school $3 per week, however, I was expected to buy my own lunch from that sum.

As steelish said, I pay through my ISP fees, but the real value in a site such as this is in the effort we all put into making it interesting and relevant. I would hope my own modest efforts have added to that value for others as well as myself.


Every poster here has some value. Naturally, I value some higher than others, and I do give thanks when they are deserved. In other words, poster should have to earn their thanks!


I'm sure he does, just as (as noted in your next post) we value gifts which we are given. But if our hungry man is given that gift every day, there will come a point where he will view it not as a gift but as an entitlement, and when the soup kitchen closes down he will rant about his rights being taken away.


Same as above.


I'm sure they do, but the cost of that "free" item is spread out over the cost of everything else we buy, so it's not actually free, is it?


Like steelish (and I expect, like most who received an allowance) I didn't get an allowance for doing nothing. I earned it. As I grew older and was able to do more, I received a larger allowance. Then, in order to cement my understanding of the value of my efforts, when I got old enough to have a job, I was expected to pay a percentage of my pay as 'room and board'. In retrospect, at least, the lessons I learned were far more valuable than the money I paid.


Apparently, though I have difficulty understanding why. But then, they've put a lot of time and effort into maintaining their church, in some form or another.So again, it's not 'free'.


You don't just 'get' a wedding ring. You have to invest a tremendous amount of time and energy, both physical and emotional. And the future costs are even higher. And if you're as lucky as I am, it will all be worth it. If you can even think that the receipt of a wedding ring is 'free' your value system may be seriously flawed.

Paying money for something is not the only way to pay for it. After all, money is just a placeholder, a way of showing how much work we've done to earn what we are buying. Gifts received generally come from expenditures in emotional bonds. Even charity comes at a cost to someone. Being the recipient of charity should make you feel grateful to those providing it, but can also be humbling to a degree, knowing that you must rely on the charity of others. But those who have come to rely on charity, and have lost that gratitude, are the ones who make it so hard for people like me to see the 'value' in giving that charity. When charity is no longer viewed as a gift but as a right, it ceases to become charity. And it no longer has any value to society.

[DuncanONeil]

Perhaps you are unwilling to surrender your idea that free things can be valued.
Very little in life is simple but in this forum we perforce restrict ourselves to short periods of time. Forcing short answers.
You mentioned something specific; "Much of what I have and have been given is the legacy of our fathers. I have lived in peace and security not because of my work but because 2 generations gave their tommorow so I could have my today." That kind of thought process leads me to believe there is personal aspect to the comment. If not you are way better than most. The vast majority of this country are unable to see what you just said. Some even with such a person in their family. The sad fact is that for most people history begins the day they are born.

The only real difference I can see is that you are of the opinion that people value free things and Steelish, Thorne, and I do not so opine.
Much of the past hour I have been thinking on this charitable works issue. It also has two aspects. My expending something as simple as my time and effort to assist someone through "something" is not quite the same as going over to the local homeless jungle and handing out "stuff". I am a volunteer in an organization, known to save a life of two each year. I still can see the difference in putting yourself out there and just handing out "stuff". I just can't think of a better way to phrase it!

You guys are trying to nail every example with very obscure reasoning because you are clinging to the principle you have to work for everything you get. I am not disputing the value of slogans and ethics like this but they should not be seen as the sort of global laws of the universe both of you make out. There are other principles involved like charity and the responsibility of the strong to help the weak. It is not as simple as the 1:1 direct relationships you make out. Much of what I have and have been given is the legacy of our fathers. I have lived in peace and security not because of my work but because 2 generations gave their tommorow so I could have my today. I help those less fortunate than myself because it is the right thing to do. I hope should they be able one day they will in turn help somebody. If not - so be it - I do what I must. I cannot look the other way and recite some proverb to the hungry man. I see nothing wrong in giving those at the bottom of the economy a leg up so they can in turn do the same for others. And if some are them are just parasites on society - so be it - I am not going to refuse to water the garden because there may be some weeds in there amonst the flowers. We will just have to agree we are from different cultures with different social values.

[TantricSoul]

There seems to be some interesting "facts" (loose definition imho) presented in this thread and in my opinion some balance is in order. However I will attempt to leave out the propaganda

I believe that this data might be relevant:

On any given night in America, anywhere from 700,000 to 2 million people are homeless, according to estimates of the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty.

According to a December, 2000 report of the US Conference of Mayors:

* single men comprise 44 percent of the homeless, single women 13 percent, families with children 36 percent, and unaccompanied minors seven percent.
* the homeless population is about 50 percent African-American, 35 percent white, 12 percent Hispanic, 2 percent Native American and 1 percent Asian.

According to the 1996 National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients (NSHAPC):

* single homeless individuals in 1996 reported an average income of $348 during the last 30 days, about 51 percent of the 1996 federal poverty level of $680/month for one person.
* 28 percent said they sometimes or often do not get enough to eat, compared with 12 percent of poor American adults.
* 44 percent did paid work during the past month.
* 21 percent received income from family members or friends.
* 66 percent of the homeless have problems with alcohol, drug abuse, or mental illness.
* 22 percent have been physically assaulted.
* 7 percent have been sexually assaulted.
* 38 percent say someone stole money or things directly from them.
* 30 percent have been homeless for more than two years.

of course this was pre-recession...

[TantricSoul]

found this interesting tidbit ... and I would place it on equal par with some of the "facts" offered in this thread so far...

The only CEO of the top-50, whose education is listed as n/a is Martin
J Sullivan, the CEO of AIG, and despite my best efforts, I couldn't
find where (or whether) he went to college. However, if he hasn't gone
to college (which I doubt, I think that his full biography is just
unavailable online) he is the only one of those top-50. I have checked
for the other 49, and they all *graduated* from college.

Hmmm .. AIG ... really now where have I heard that recently?

[TantricSoul]

From the moderators point of view this thread has been an interesting exchange of point and counterpoint, at least a decent representation of differing "debate" styles...

What I have not witnessed recently is any personal attacks.
Thank you.

[Kendal]

Steelish - To be able-bodied, yet choose to do nothing to contribute to society and instead to live off the efforts of your fellow man is WRONG.
Personally I believe that although they may be able bodied they are not able minded. You appear to lay all the blame at their door. Yes they must share the blame but in my view so must society. Perhaps I have got this wrong but you seemed to be suggesting welfare should be stopped which would in effect cut of their only means of survival (ie food shelter etc not tv sets). This seems harsh in the extreme to me and I think would not save the taxpayer when they all end up in jail.

I would like to analyze * winks at Duncan * what went wrong because clearly something has. And address that problem. Yes its not easy to fix - but at least we should be trying. The USA can land a man on the moon and a missile on a dime the other side of the world. I think the problem of poverty and employment can be solved.

Duncan - Everything can be analyzed! You have said so yourself in other posts
Correct - but suggesting I analyse a proverb is for me not relevant to a serious discussion on equality and equal opportunit

Neither I nor Steelish are capable of being so cavalier with our values and principles as you seem to think people are capable. Those are an ingrained part of all of us.y.
Steelish no work no reward views are the result of her parents teachings. Your similar view is based on what you had to do to get to college. My views are based on the output of my education ie my schooling. Both your views are based on what you had to do to get your education.

Yes! It is the same!
Then when I pointed out to steelish that kids do work - they do homework - you agree with me.

I have some small concerns of the input of government
In the UK the national government exercises little control over education other than what is in law (eg every day shall start with an act of worship). Control is linked to funding. So a private school will be self funded and controlled. State schools are run and funded by local government who share control with the school itself. I think it fair control and funding are loosely linked. I appreciate the USA is probably different but I am not talking about how it is as much as how I think it ought to be in both UK, USA.

See in this we largely agree! I would defy you to find anyone who would not. The argument arises in execution.
My point was I believe education should be free and paid for by government (local/national) with help from industry and elsewhere. Students should be able to go as far as their ability not pocket allows. I accept we cannot afford it but nevertheless it is the goal I would strive for and direction I would aim for.

Other issues - teacher unions etc - are other matters. As I said before, if governments were efficient they mostly probably could offer better education and health without extra burden to taxpayer. Problem is they are not.

With 31 million companies in the US employing over 500 people determining such a data set is a large task
I dont think we need to survey all 31 million. There are ways to get stats with sampling. For the poverty stats quoted they didn't run around homes counting TV sets did they. Please - it is possible to get stats and ballpark estimates.

1900 or now it is not the knowledge that makes success.
The more complex the product, market and business environment the more complex the skill set needed to be successful.

This is why when a discussion of any of the "poor", "middle class", or "rich" come up I need a definition.
It must be possible to work out the minimum needed to support a healthy life. Food, shelter, hygene etc. I am pretty sure it's not that hard to work out. This for me is subsistance level and that is a minimum a government must provide.

Sounds like a cop out to me!!
Correct, it is! I do not want to comment on her personal backgound because that is not the topic and because I do not want her to be offended, which she undoubtably would be.

[TantricSoul]

If your interested in who is going hungry in America...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111601598.html

[TantricSoul]

Who is in need of medical care in America ...

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/hinsure.htm
I know these links aren't as entertaining as Youtube

[Kendal]

I believe that this data might be relevant:
Thanks - Yes facts won't be accurate but they do put us in the ballpark. For me not having a home meets my defintion of poor. I can go along with them living in hostels but if we are talking about on the streets then that problem must be addressed.

The only CEO of the top-50, whose education is listed as n/a is Martin J Sullivan, the CEO of AIG
AIG is probably different because it is a hard sell business and I bet (dont know) that guy came through sales to the top.

Hmmm .. AIG ... really now where have I heard that recently?
Nice one lol. If he did come through sales then it is not coinicidence. It was pushing to maximize sales no matter the risk that caused the crash.

What I have not witnessed recently is any personal attacks
Sorry I didn't know we were supposed to do that.

PS - Duncan
The concept is expressed on war memorials throught England. It comes from the epitaph on the memorial to the Indian and Allied soldier who halted the Japanese advance into Indian.

"When you go home tell them of us and say
For your tomorrow we gave our today."

It is believed the author took it from the Greek poet who wrote after the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC:

"Go tell the Spartans, thou that passest by,
That faithful to their precepts here we lie."

See what you get with a decent education. You get to built words from dead poets into posts. Almost as bad as using everyday proverbs but less obvious.

[steelish]

Steelish - To be able-bodied, yet choose to do nothing to contribute to society and instead to live off the efforts of your fellow man is WRONG.
Personally I believe that although they may be able bodied they are not able minded. You appear to lay all the blame at their door. Yes they must share the blame but in my view so must society. Perhaps I have got this wrong but you seemed to be suggesting welfare should be stopped which would in effect cut of their only means of survival (ie food shelter etc not tv sets).

Oh yes, you most definitely have that wrong. I never suggested "stopping" welfare. What I am suggesting is to make the system better. Weed out those who take advantage and have the ability to hold a job and choose not to. To enable those who want to work, yet don't have the skills (either because they dropped out of school or some other reason).

No one that I know of wants to "punish" those who truly need welfare in order to spite those who do not.

[DuncanONeil]

Steelish - To be able-bodied, yet choose to do nothing to contribute to society and instead to live off the efforts of your fellow man is WRONG.
Personally I believe that although they may be able bodied they are not able minded. You appear to lay all the blame at their door. Yes they must share the blame but in my view so must society.

Which comment can be interpreted as; "If they do not have a job it is not their fault"

Perhaps I have got this wrong but you seemed to be suggesting welfare should be stopped which would in effect cut of their only means of survival (ie food shelter etc not tv sets). This seems harsh in the extreme to me and I think would not save the taxpayer when they all end up in jail.

Your assumption is predicated on a total lack of charity. Something you have espoused in earlier posts.

I would like to analyze * winks at Duncan * what went wrong because clearly something has. And address that problem. Yes its not easy to fix - but at least we should be trying. The USA can land a man on the moon and a missile on a dime the other side of the world. I think the problem of poverty and employment can be solved.

Thank you for the shout out. The only way that poverty can be eliminated is for everyone to have and make the same. In any other combination those with less will either be considered poor, or consider themselves poor.

Duncan - Everything can be analyzed! You have said so yourself in other posts
Correct - but suggesting I analyse a proverb is for me not relevant to a serious discussion on equality and equal opportunit

If it comes up as part of the discussion it becomes part of the discussion. You trivialize it by refusing to consider it.

Neither I nor Steelish are capable of being so cavalier with our values and principles as you seem to think people are capable. Those are an ingrained part of all of us.y.
Steelish no work no reward views are the result of her parents teachings. Your similar view is based on what you had to do to get to college. My views are based on the output of my education ie my schooling. Both your views are based on what you had to do to get your education.

Again you are slightly off point. My views did not come about as a result of my earning a place in College. In fact the opposite is true. My views showed that I could earn a way into college. There is a school of thought that explains values; "What you are is where you were when!", Morris Massey.

Yes! It is the same!
Then when I pointed out to steelish that kids do work - they do homework - you agree with me.

And that is supposed to prove what?

I have some small concerns of the input of government
In the UK the national government exercises little control over education other than what is in law (eg every day shall start with an act of worship). Control is linked to funding. So a private school will be self funded and controlled. State schools are run and funded by local government who share control with the school itself. I think it fair control and funding are loosely linked. I appreciate the USA is probably different but I am not talking about how it is as much as how I think it ought to be in both UK, USA.

I note you left the unions out completely!! True I am not intimately conversant with the school system in the UK. But funding comes with strings. Strings from the Government are called mandates. Basically, you take our money you do it our way! Just that economic strings the administration is spreading and pulling in as many areas of the country as possible. Control of the schools should be community based, unfortunately the teacher unions have usurped that role as well!

See in this we largely agree! I would defy you to find anyone who would not. The argument arises in execution.
My point was I believe education should be free and paid for by government (local/national) with help from industry and elsewhere. Students should be able to go as far as their ability not pocket allows. I accept we cannot afford it but nevertheless it is the goal I would strive for and direction I would aim for.

The money is not what we agreed on. It was the goal and outcome of education. The funding is a Pandora's box especially if it comes from Government or is controlled by the union.

Other issues - teacher unions etc - are other matters. As I said before, if governments were efficient they mostly probably could offer better education and health without extra burden to taxpayer. Problem is they are not.

Nor are they flexible or risk takers. The are by nature pedantic and hidebound. Teacher unions are merely myopic!

With 31 million companies in the US employing over 500 people determining such a data set is a large task
I dont think we need to survey all 31 million. There are ways to get stats with sampling. For the poverty stats quoted they didn't run around homes counting TV sets did they. Please - it is possible to get stats and ballpark estimates.

Still requires a huge amount of time and capital to accomplish.

1900 or now it is not the knowledge that makes success.
The more complex the product, market and business environment the more complex the skill set needed to be successful.

Again the assumption that a single person requires all the knowledge to accomplish the task at hand. I had a contract to deal with. I did not like to focus nor terms of the contract. I read and wrote amendments to the contract. Then I called my lawyer in. Having done what I did we cleared the project in about an hour. It would have taken longer than that to explain my position to the lawyer. Plus the time for him to codify and put to paper the discussion. I am not a lawyer yet I was able to accomplish a law task on my own with a post consult with an expert. This is what I said in the previous message.

This is why when a discussion of any of the "poor", "middle class", or "rich" come up I need a definition.
It must be possible to work out the minimum needed to support a healthy life. Food, shelter, hygene etc. I am pretty sure it's not that hard to work out. This for me is subsistance level and that is a minimum a government must provide.

So basically what you are saying here is that it is the responsibility of the Government to GIVE you;

• a house
• 2,000 calories of food per day
• bath soap
• sampoo
• manicure
• pedicure
• haircut
• free transport to work

That "etc" is real hard to deal with! As well as subsistence, That is as varied as the definition of poor!

Sounds like a cop out to me!!
Correct, it is! I do not want to comment on her personal backgound because that is not the topic and because I do not want her to be offended, which she undoubtably would be.

She already told you such would not be the case!

[DuncanONeil]

You felt slighted by what I said? I was complimenting you!

I believe that this data might be relevant:
Thanks - Yes facts won't be accurate but they do put us in the ballpark. For me not having a home meets my defintion of poor. I can go along with them living in hostels but if we are talking about on the streets then that problem must be addressed.

The only CEO of the top-50, whose education is listed as n/a is Martin J Sullivan, the CEO of AIG
AIG is probably different because it is a hard sell business and I bet (dont know) that guy came through sales to the top.

Hmmm .. AIG ... really now where have I heard that recently?
Nice one lol. If he did come through sales then it is not coinicidence. It was pushing to maximize sales no matter the risk that caused the crash.

What I have not witnessed recently is any personal attacks
Sorry I didn't know we were supposed to do that.

PS - Duncan
The concept is expressed on war memorials throught England. It comes from the epitaph on the memorial to the Indian and Allied soldier who halted the Japanese advance into Indian.

"When you go home tell them of us and say
For your tomorrow we gave our today."

It is believed the author took it from the Greek poet who wrote after the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC:

"Go tell the Spartans, thou that passest by,
That faithful to their precepts here we lie."

See what you get with a decent education. You get to built words from dead poets into posts. Almost as bad as using everyday proverbs but less obvious.

[DuncanONeil]

If your interested in who is going hungry in America...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111601598.html

I suspect articles like this are written for emotional reaction.

The material I originally presented (for Kendal's consumption as well) actually does encompass nearly everyone in the nation as the data comes from the census.

But on to the food issue mentioned here. From the same source, the census.
"As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middleclass children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higherincome children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

While the poor are generally wellnourished, some poor families do experience hunger, meaning a temporary discomfort due to food shortages. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 13 percent of poor families and 2.6 percent of poor children experience hunger at some point during the year. In most cases, their hunger is shortterm. Eightynine percent of the poor report their families have "enough" food to eat, while only 2 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat."

And even the term "often" can be called into question, as can "enough". Understand I am not dismissing but trying to reach a more concrete level of terms and understanding of the issue itself.
As for one of the criteria, skipping meals, I can report that I regular skip meals. Yet would I report that I go hungry? No! And I skip meals EVERY day!