|
It's immoral to pay someone more than what they're worth, and some people aren't worth the money necessary to keep them alive. Better to spend money imprisoning the poor rather than give them money, that way we have the inherent cruelty of Americans satisfied, and the poor won't starve in the street. That is the minimum amount of cruelty Americans will tolerate as a solution to this problem.
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 21:37 |
|
|
Actually, without sarcasm, I think a significant degree of cruelty is inherently manifest within the Puritanical/Calvinist belief system that has traditionally dominated America. I think that the concept of sin and the warping of scripture - particularly the disgusting prosperity gospel - has allowed the belief that those who don't work due to disability, work slavish hours or slavish wages or are poor in general, are more deserving of scorn in place of sympathy. That's certainly a view I'd ascribe to most elected representatives. The crab mentality goes part and parcel with this belief, along with "gently caress you, got mine", regardless of any actual work involved. Frankly, I think that Christian beliefs towards the "righteousness of work" is as much a contributing factor behind why we won't see stronger social safety nets not tied to employment as simple greed. It'd be interesting to compare and contrast the labor rights and employment rights laws in secular social democracies with hard-right religious plutocracies like America.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:I think that the concept of sin and the warping of scripture - particularly the disgusting prosperity gospel - has allowed the belief that those who don't work due to disability, work slavish hours or slavish wages or are poor in general, are more deserving of scorn in place of sympathy. I was talking to my boss the other day about what people deserve. His point of view is that everyone gets exactly what they deserve, their bad choices made them poor and that's what they deserve. I told him that my mom has no teeth because she's never had health insurance and did not have money or time to see a dentist. I asked him if he believes that my mother deserves to be toothless even though she's worked harder than I've ever worked. I'll let you guess what he said... edit: he later apologized (because it's a terrible and ridiculous thing to say), but he said "now that you're doing well you can afford to fix her teeth for her". He didn't seem to understand how I could think other people, who don't have successful kids to take care of them, should be helped. ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 22:17 on May 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Paris Hilton isn't toothless, why didn't your mom work as hard as she did to become a millionaire who could afford good dental care.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:
It's also ascribed to Spanish colonial endeavors who were not Puritan by any definition.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Only dupes oppose a higher minimum wage because it will supposedly hurt businesses. The reason our wage structure is constructed this way is because it's cruel to those at the bottom, and we as Americans are a cruel and vicious people. Any excuse we can get to vent our collective hate at each other we'll take with gusto. Look at the Baltimore and Ferguson riots, most people think the cops are doing the right thing there by blithely ignoring Constitutional criminal procedure (source: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2015/most_see_baltimore_riots_as_criminal_not_protest). Why do you all think that is? It's because we need to see our supposed inferiors suffer. Poor whites don't get as badly hurt by the cops as blacks, because they understand their place under their boss's boot heel. They understand that they'll work like dogs all their lives to retire in poverty, as is their place in American society. To do otherwise would upset the natural order of things. Poverty is an economic sin, and those sins deserve to be punished. It's not about 'protecting our businesses' or 'motivation to work', it's about making sure everyone who deserves to suffer does. That's why those right-wing governors quote Scripture before passing crazy restrictions on food stamps, like banning fish during Lent. If you can frame a GMI as a punishment for being poor, it'l pass our Congress with flying colors regardless of any economic pain it might introduce. Phrasing anything as 'aid' or 'help' will only kill its chances of getting implemented.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Paris Hilton isn't toothless, why didn't your mom work as hard as she did to become a millionaire who could afford good dental care. drat, that's a good point. If she had decided to work hard to become a millionaire instead of choosing to work hard to feed her children she'd have a full set of teeth. What a stupid oval office!
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:lol you could have just answered in the affirmative. That's not work? When does it become work, when you pay someone else to do it? It's funny how the wage system has set up this convenient self-referential definition of work, but I guess that's how you get people defending things like low wages (because the its proof of the worthlessness of the poor) or the gender pay gap (because once you define things that women are expected to do like maintain a home and raise children as "not work" then well see of course women don't get promoted: they don't want to work)
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:Lot's of people are throwing stats and math and charts around, and talking about studies (and linking relatively few), so when this study came across my news feed, I immediately thought of this thread and would like to see what your opinions are on what it has to say (or its methods, etc.) since there are people in here who seem to be willing to argue from a more (or alleged) deeper understanding of things than the average person. That's a position paper. =/
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Because this is loving pathetic, you actually think these things are completely arbitrary. Industries that don't have geographically localized natural resources needed to function usually develop where infrastructure already exists from those that do, or in regions that possess qualities that allow them to attract top talent or regions that already have top talent. You're a loving moron, you don't need natural resources to be a center of technology. I already raised 3 great examples that have basically no natural resources yet have become major technology centers despite that. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. CERN is not located in the middle of French wine country because you need lots of grapes to run particle accelerators you loving dipshit asdf32 posted:Human capital or resources. Not all geographic areas have these. You're wrong on both counts. None of those cities have significant quantities of natural resources. "Human capital" doesn't mean anything as a prerequisite, centers of knowledge tend to develop it all on their own even when they're very small. I suppose in your mind Los Alamos was a bustling metropolis long before it was the site of the Manhattan Project
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 08:24
|
|
|
Congrats on arguing aggressively that you have no idea why rural West Virginia is poorer than Manhattan. I do have some idea.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Congrats on arguing aggressively that you have no idea why rural West Virginia is poorer than Manhattan. I do have some idea. Turns out depending on resource extraction leads to an unhealthy economy.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
Prime location for shipping raw materials to Europe and the associated development of major financial exchanges. But I don't see what this has to do with the fact that e.g. West Virginia coal miners create enough wealth for capitalists to be entitled to have at least a living wage returned to them. Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Turns out depending on resource extraction leads to an unhealthy economy. Yeah exactly. Appalachia and the South create plenty of wealth, but our economy is set up such that the benefits of resource extraction accrue only to a tiny minority of those born into ownership of the land or the financial institutions that handle exchange. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:22 on May 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 17:20
|
|
asdf32 posted:I do have some idea. 
|
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Congrats on arguing aggressively that you have no idea why rural West Virginia is poorer than Manhattan. I do have some idea. That's not what we're talking about, try reading the thread again Your claim was that natural resources or historically large populations are required to become a center of technological development, but that is wrong because there are countless counterexamples. Your attempt to strawman is meaningless.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:That's not what we're talking about, try reading the thread again You haven't provided a single counter example that was actually correct.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
If you build a city adjacent to a mountain hex, you can build the Observatory City Improvement that gives +50%
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You haven't provided a single counter example that was actually correct. Seriously, what the hell are you actually arguing? I think your contributions to this discussion could be summed up in the rather trite observations that "My gut tells me federal minimum wage should be $12" and "factors of production have something to do with economic geography". Yeah, really profound man. Your intellectual contributions just tower over those of everyone else here. asdf32 posted:Congrats on arguing aggressively that you have no idea why rural West Virginia is poorer than Manhattan. I do have some idea. 
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You haven't provided a single counter example that was actually correct. Rural West Virginia has tons of natural resources.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You haven't provided a single counter example that was actually correct. In what way? Seriously, you are really bad at this "debate and discussion" thing. "Nuh-uh" is the kind of response that just makes you look like a moron. Are you really arguing that a place like Los Alamos became a technological center because of its nearby natural resources? Which ones, and why? None of what you're saying makes any sense and I'm beginning to think that you're incapable of forming a coherent counterargument.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Rural West Virginia has tons of natural resources. But they're poor, and poverty is always the fault of the poor. Probably for living in a place with no natural resources that anyone outside of West Virginia would want.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:In what way? Seriously, you are really bad at this "debate and discussion" thing. "Nuh-uh" is the kind of response that just makes you look like a moron. Silicon Valley is situated next to both a historic population center and one of the best engineering schools in the entire world. It also has a climate so beautiful that the in the 19th century people moved there because they thought it had literal healing power. Tuscon is also a historic population center, and also has a climate that makes it easy to attract talent. The climate and geography of the region is uniquely suited to the aeronautics and optics research that dominates the high tech industry there. Los Alamos is a stupid loving example because it was a military base that was purposely built in the middle of nowhere at high expense so they had a safe and secret place to develop the atomic bomb.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Los Alamos is a stupid loving example because it was a military base that was purposely built in the middle of nowhere at high expense so they had a safe and secret place to develop the atomic bomb. It's as if concerted government intervention can create a sustainably positive economic environment! 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:It's as if concerted government intervention can create a sustainably positive economic environment! Los Alamos isn't an economic environment its a government facility.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 02:26
|
|
Jarmak posted:Los Alamos isn't an economic environment its a government facility. Hey, I've been busy, but your line of thinking would seem to suggest that Detroit would be larger than Atlanta and Bremen wealthier than Berlin, and yet these are not the case, so the evidence would seem to suggest that crude determinism is idiotic.
|
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Silicon Valley is situated next to both a historic population center and one of the best engineering schools in the entire world. It also has a climate so beautiful that the in the 19th century people moved there because they thought it had literal healing power. 1) A school is not a natural resource, I didn't expect to have to take you back to 2nd grade yet here we are 2) Other places with better climates and better access to other "natural resources" exist, yet they didn't become Silicon Valley. quote:Tuscon is also a historic population center, and also has a climate that makes it easy to attract talent. The climate and geography of the region is uniquely suited to the aeronautics and optics research that dominates the high tech industry there. Obviously you've never been to Tucson if you think that the climate there "makes it easy to attract talent". First and foremost, Tucson is a technology center because some politicians put a university there in the 1800s, and a school is not a natural resource. Noticing a trend yet? quote:Los Alamos is a stupid loving example because it was a military base that was purposely built in the middle of nowhere at high expense so they had a safe and secret place to develop the atomic bomb. "I don't like this example because I don't have a good counterargument" is not a counterargument. The trend that you should be seeing here is that technological centers pop up wherever we want them to and they're not limited by natural resources. The superconducting supercollider wasn't being built in Texas because the protons there are cleaner or whatever dumbfuck reason you'd probably imagine, the decision was based on the cheapness of the land in that part of the world, aka the lack of natural resources actually made that spot desirable. This is the opposite of what you keep saying.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:1) A school is not a natural resource, I didn't expect to have to take you back to 2nd grade yet here we are You mean a school built because of the gold rush? QuarkJets posted:2) Other places with better climates and better access to other "natural resources" exist, yet they didn't become Silicon Valley. The military built the huge VA facility in Tucson because its uniquely dry climate was comfortable for victims of WW1 gas attacks, there's a thriving retirement community there for similar reasons of favorable dry climate. Also if you don't think having the combination of some of the largest open expanses and the driest climate in the US is beneficial to optics research I don't know what the gently caress. Also the school was built there because it was the capital at the time founding the University of Arizona was being organized and debated. QuarkJets posted:"I don't like this example because I don't have a good counterargument" is not a counterargument. The trend that you should be seeing here is that technological centers pop up wherever we want them to and they're not limited by natural resources. The superconducting supercollider wasn't being built in Texas because the protons there are cleaner or whatever dumbfuck reason you'd probably imagine, the decision was based on the cheapness of the land in that part of the world, aka the lack of natural resources actually made that spot desirable. This is the opposite of what you keep saying. This example isn't an example of anything we're talking about, the government builds research facilities in loving space, they're not under any sort of economic or competitive pressure. Cheap land is a resource edit: Stop trying to pretend that the only thing that counts toward geographic determination is what you can dig out of the ground. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 03:19 on May 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
Southern Arizona's dryness is conducive to optics research, yes. The presence of a research university in Tucson and not, say, Yuma, or Lake Havasu, is apparently irrelevant. The reason the primary research university was there and not, say, Tempe or Yuma or Flagstaff, is because it's magic, not because of silly political facts that have no relation to the environment for optics like "it was the capital during the land-grant period" or "they established teaching colleges, not research universities, in Tempe and Flagstaff, because the money and power was in Tucson." It's a goddamn coincidence that it's there, and no, nobody loving moves to Tucson because of the lovely tolerable climate. Have you ever been to Tucson? It's intolerable, and I grew up there. And you admit it's just a political fact that doesn't have much to do with geography or natural resources that placed serious optics research in Tucson (as opposed to the hundreds of equally dry places throughout the American West). Tucson has a tech industry that isn't optics because of those contingent political facts producing a lot of college grads in the city, not because of anything special or magic about Tucson (it is the coolest city in southern Arizona, which is cold comfort if you've ever been to Tucson). If optics tech is really the only case you have it's really a kind of weak argument. Contingent historical facts from a century and a half ago shouldn't determine whether some place is valuable enough to get a living wage today. Sorry, Moscow, you happened to not be where anyone rich cared to build things in the 19th century, so you can suck it. No, just pay everyone everywhere a living wage. People in Bumfuck, Arkansas deserve a living wage just as Tucsonans or San Franciscans do.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The military built the huge VA facility in Tucson because its uniquely dry climate was comfortable for victims of WW1 gas attacks, there's a thriving retirement community there for similar reasons of favorable dry climate. Also if you don't think having the combination of some of the largest open expanses and the driest climate in the US is beneficial to optics research I don't know what the gently caress. Tucson doesn't have a "uniquely" dry climate, it's actually always been a bit wetter than most of the desert in which it is located. But way to go on conveniently discounting 100k square miles of just as dry or drier desert. There were many other towns and cities in that region well-suited to the exact same kind of technological development, so what was unique about Tucson and not Yuma, Phoenix, etc.? The existence of a university doesn't count, since the university's location was decided by politics quote:Also the school was built there because it was the capital at the time founding the University of Arizona was being organized and debated. BZZT, wrong again. The grant for the school wasn't even created until long after the capital had already moved quote:This example isn't an example of anything we're talking about, the government builds research facilities in loving space, they're not under any sort of economic or competitive pressure. That's the point that you keep failing to grasp! We're able to bring knowledge and learning to anywhere in the globe, we can put a world-class innovation center wherever the gently caress we want. quote:Cheap land is a resource But apparently remoteness (Los Alamos) isn't, in your opinion. Also, you've basically just circled around and agreed with my original point regarding this: on the left posted:Yes, a large part of it is that certain places are naturally inferior. They are geographically suited for economic activity that is worth less (agriculture instead of international trade or technology development), and have to compete with better positioned states when it comes to building industry. No amount of policy expertise is going to turn Des Moines into Manhattan. We managed to take a region whose only natural attribute was "lovely" and turn it into a center of technology development. That proves that policy can turn any place into a center of technology development.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You mean a school built because of the gold rush? Surely a divine act of providence.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
New York, London, Tokyo, Tucson: All global cities that truly belong on a list together.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
How is city formed? How town get bigger?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
Japan, well-known for its incredible value in natural resources, and Tokyo, well-known for having been continuously a gigantic city, rather than being a tiny fishing town that ended up a metropolis because the daimyo who ended up on top at the end of the Sengoku Jidai decided to use it as his headquarters.
|
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
on the left posted:New York, London, Tokyo, Tucson: All global cities that truly belong on a list together. We're talking about places where major technological innovations happen. As Jarmak accurately pointed out, Tucson is a city with world-class optics R&D, among other things. If you're talking about cities where groundbreaking research occurs, Tucson definitely belongs on that list. As do countless other cities that are relatively small and unknown if not for the research programs (often publicly funded) that turned those cities into places where groundbreaking research occurs. Bringing education and cutting-edge research opportunities to a region has never been limited by that regions access to "natural resources" (a list which apparently includes "no natural resources" for some loving reason) But for some reason we need to make sure that towns in backwater Mississippi don't have access to adequate education because they're full of poor people and probably don't have any natural resources anyway (lol)
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:How is city formed?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:But for some reason we need to make sure that towns in backwater Mississippi don't have access to adequate education because they're full of poor people and probably don't have any natural resources anyway (lol) Mississippi is in a quantum superposition of having no natural resources and natural resources, whichever is most convenient at the moment for explaining the geologically deterministic reason why it is poor.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
Just Worldism is a trip. Government interference can't create wealth in a region that's divinely ordained to be poor. Eh, government-built schools and world-class research institutions, you say? Those are natural resources that spring up wheresoever the Lord chooses to reward the morality of the inhabitants with His favor.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:We're talking about places where major technological innovations happen. As Jarmak accurately pointed out, Tucson is a city with world-class optics R&D, among other things. If you're talking about cities where groundbreaking research occurs, Tucson definitely belongs on that list. As do countless other cities that are relatively small and unknown if not for the research programs (often publicly funded) that turned those cities into places where groundbreaking research occurs. Bringing education and cutting-edge research opportunities to a region has never been limited by that regions access to "natural resources" (a list which apparently includes "no natural resources" for some loving reason) The amusing thing is you keep wanting to attribute the optics research industry in Tuscon solely to the presence of a university who's only time ever cracking double digits in rankings is on Playboy's "party school" list.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 06:27
|
|
|
Clearly the University of Arizona does so much optics research today because that party school just happened to be built next to a rich vein of optics research deposits that were discovered and mined in the 20th century. I think it was a drunken frat boy who, while skinny-dipping, found the first pebbles of optical research that had washed up in the lake, which was the first clue to the unimagined scientific wealth locked away under the earth. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:37 on May 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 06:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 21:37 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:The amusing thing is you keep wanting to attribute the optics research industry in Tuscon solely to the presence of a university who's only time ever cracking double digits in rankings is on Playboy's "party school" list.  The University of Arizona produces some of the biggest and best mirrors in the world. They are one of the few universities that even offers a degree in optical engineering. Most of the best telescopes in this solar system had University of Arizona alumni working on the optics. Even if you weren't completely wrong on this, you still haven't even tried to explain the huge discrepancy between per capita research in Tucson versus the other large cities in the region. Why doesn't Yuma has tons of badass optical science research? It has all of the same resources as Tucson has had, the only real difference is that Tucson has a huge university with a world-renowned optical sciences department. If you're going to discredit that, then what's the real reason? Are the photons in Tucson just extra pure or some poo poo? Jarmak posted:only time ever cracking double digits in rankings is on Playboy's "party school" list. 1) Ranked 30th nationwide in R&D by the NSF 2) Has had 3 faculty win Nobel Prizes in Physics, all employed by the College of Optical Sciences 3) Ranked 86th worldwide by the ARWU Jesus dude, you're not having a very good day
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 10:02
|
|