Kevin O'Leary is kind of a dick

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Because, that is, of course, the only two options.

Buying fair trade goods is not possible in Ark2's world?

I buy everything fair trade. Everything I buy, the previous owner willingly sells it to me in exchange for money without the use of any other forms of coersion.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I think at some point you have to just stop feeling bad for being relatively rich in the world. You don't have to be a jerk about it like O'Leary, but really you do what you can and call it a day.

Also, I think there is a discussion about foreign aid in here and it being useless, but I would urge you to read the 2014 Gates Annual Letter: http://annualletter.gatesfoundation.org/

I hated Bill for creating all the Microsoft crap (and it's all crap... ), but damn he is really impressing me in his retirement. It's good to see one of those 85 people (#2) take on this issue of global poverty by the horns.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You going for the logical fallacy trifecta today? Two posts and we've already seen a strawman argument and a false dilemma. What's your next move, champ?

If you disagree with my position, then I am more than welcome to debating it. I don't pretend to be infallible when it comes to my opinions and if presented with a reasonable argument that makes sense, I am very open to changing my opinion on virtually anything. So far you have provided nothing.

D.A. has mentioned fair trade goods, but I fear that this is only really an option for commodities of which the country producing them has a comparative advantage. For commodities where a country's only advantage is a low cost of labour, I am not sure how this is an actual solution.

[Knalus]

Let's look at those 85%. I'm curious.

Carlos Slim. #1. Made his fortune. Earned it.

Bill Gates. #2. Made his fortune. Earned it.

Warren Buffett. #3. Made his fortune as well. Lives in a modest house in Omaha. Earned it.

Lilane Bettencourt. Richest woman. Owns 30% of L'Oreal, which her father founded. An heir. Didn't "Work hard to build her wealth"

The Waltons. Many of them are on the list. Their father built Walmart. They inherited it. Did not "Work hard to build their wealth"

John and Jaqueline Mars. Inherited Mars candy. In 1999. They did not build the company. Did not "Work hard to build their wealth"

For every name that you recognize as someone who worked hard and earned their money, there is someone that inherited it. For every philanthropist out there that is in the top 85, there is a Russian magnate who scooped up their wealth during the break-up of their country.


Also, I find it ironic that O'Leary says what he does. Not because he's cheering for these guys, but because these 85 guys make him look like a joke. And half of them didn't even work for it, while HE did. And hard. If HE can't crack the top 85, who can?

[nik-]

It's also interesting that Gates and Slim are also massive philanthropists and that Buffett plans to give it all away.

Also that the Walton kids have turned their company into one of the most disgusting cases of pure greed and coercion on the planet.

[rubecube]

Looking at the Forbes' list of richest people in the world, it would appear that 75% of the people on that list are white. With white people only accounting for around 10% of the entire global population, I don't understand how people don't think race is a huge factor in wealth accumulation.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Well the alternative would be to start demanding fairer waged and better social programs that would allow for Canadians to purchase fair trade/fair labour goods. It's pretty easy to throw your hands up and say "Welp, nothing I can do" and then continue to vote for political parties that encourage wealth disparity, or refuse to get involved on various forms of political advocacy that I might advocate for different lifestyles.

This isn't directed at you, but I'm still amazed that people will harp about how socialism "doesn't work" while still advocating the thoroughly debunked myth of trickle down economics.

The problem isn't the amount of money they have in their pockets, it is the power that money has to influence and that is not something we can control by demanding they get paid more. As you give them more money, the buying power of that money will decrease and I doubt it would translate to a higher standard of living in the long run. You have to think about it this way... you pay them "fair" wages, product prices increase, people in the west demand more money, and as a result, the overall balance stays the same. Changing the numbers doesn't change the system.

And I would never say that socialism can't work, but it definitely depends on a lot of capital to maintain socialism. Things like universal health care and democracy are extremely expensive to maintain. How many people would be willing to give that up to be more fair to people thousands of miles away?

The problem is that most Westerners live well above their actual labour output (even a lot of our poor do this relatively speaking) . There can't be rich people in the world if there are not poor people. As it is, even the middle-lower classes in Western society take in more than they produce on average. Any type of wealth distribution on a global scale would mean not just a drastic change to the ultra-rich, but also to the middle class. Is the middle class in Canada willing to see a standard of living change to be on par with a place like Mexico, just so a place like Bangladesh can have theirs raised to that level? It's not going to happen.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Looking at the Forbes' list of richest people in the world, it would appear that 75% of the people on that list are white. With white people only accounting for around 10% of the entire global population, I don't understand how people don't think race is a huge factor in wealth accumulation.

Rich people usually live in rich countries. Rich countries are usually full of white people. It's not really about race, it's about numbers.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Rich people usually live in rich countries. Rich countries are usually full of white people. It's not really about race, it's about numbers.

Sorry I am late to the party, but why are rich countries "full of white people" and not "full of non-white people"?

[troutman]

Hard to understand how anyone "earns" billions of $. That is such an immense number.

These fortunes depend on placing an idea or a product successfully into a huge market.

IIRC, Sting earns $60K US per day for Every Breath You Take. One song. Probably wrote it in a day. And this is peanuts to what the billionaires bring in.

May only be $2K per day:
http://www.rttnews.com/2249110/sting...-you-take.aspx
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sting-all-this-time/

[Tinordi]

Fundamental ignorance of priviledge in this thread. The average CP poster most likely came from a decent family, with a decent amount of focus on school, probably played sports, had their parents drive them, never really had to worry about much. That life is your reference case and therefore it's easy to understand why you can't understand how may others got a raw deal with early childhood stress, depressed parents, no direction or encouragement. That's the role of priviledge that you didn't earn or deserve, you just got it over someone else. Sure it's systemic and it's not meant to make people feel guilty; but it is here in this discussion to get people to think critically and understand that maybe even though we all have a story of how we pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps there are people with no bootstraps at all.

THe plight of the working poor is one of the most depressing developments of the last 25 years. In a time of significant affluence there are millions of people working the rear end of jobs and working their asses off doing it with no light at the end of the tunnel.

For all of these anecdotes about brothers Karamazov that materialize their own Kia dealership empire from sweat and hard work there are thousands of others that never get ahead, are chronically unhealthy, under-educated, left to fend for themselves. These anecdotes are the fibres of the warm blanket of ignorance we wrap ourselves in. Meanwhile we simultaneously holler and scream at the suggestion that we pay more taxes of develop better state sponsored systems like say funded day care. The fend for yourself mantra will just NOT get these people ahead. No amount of hectoring, rationalizing or judgement will help them.

This blog post went viral describing the life of the working poor by a working poor person, it went viral a while back so you may have seen it. Highly highly worth it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-...b_4326233.html

I make a lot of poor financial decisions. None of them matter, in the long term. I will never not be poor, so what does it matter if I don't pay a thing and a half this week instead of just one thing? It's not like the sacrifice will result in improved circumstances; the thing holding me back isn't that I blow five bucks at Wendy's. It's that now that I have proven that I am a Poor Person that is all that I am or ever will be. It is not worth it to me to live a bleak life devoid of small pleasures so that one day I can make a single large purchase. I will never have large pleasures to hold on to. There's a certain pull to live what bits of life you can while there's money in your pocket, because no matter how responsible you are you will be broke in three days anyway. When you never have enough money it ceases to have meaning. I imagine having a lot of it is the same thing.

Poverty is bleak and cuts off your long-term brain. It's why you see people with four different babydaddies instead of one. You grab a bit of connection wherever you can to survive. You have no idea how strong the pull to feel worthwhile is. It's more basic than food. You go to these people who make you feel lovely for an hour that one time, and that's all you get. You're probably not compatible with them for anything long-term, but right this minute they can make you feel powerful and valuable. It does not matter what will happen in a month. Whatever happens in a month is probably going to be just about as indifferent as whatever happened today or last week. None of it matters. We don't plan long-term because if we do we'll just get our hearts broken. It's best not to hope. You just take what you can get as you spot it.

I am not asking for sympathy. I am just trying to explain, on a human level, how it is that people make what look from the outside like awful decisions. This is what our lives are like, and here are our defense mechanisms, and here is why we think differently. It's certainly self-defeating, but it's safer. That's all. I hope it helps make sense of it.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by fotze

Sting makes $21MM/year for that song? Maybe someone can buy it so we don't have to hear it again.

Checked my facts - it was more like $2K per day, or $730,000.00 per year.

The lesson? If you could write one hit song, you could be set for life. Come up with a new Birthday song.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The problem isn't the amount of money they have in their pockets, it is the power that money has to influence and that is not something we can control by demanding they get paid more. As you give them more money, the buying power of that money will decrease and I doubt it would translate to a higher standard of living in the long run. You have to think about it this way... you pay them "fair" wages, product prices increase, people in the west demand more money, and as a result, the overall balance stays the same. Changing the numbers doesn't change the system.

And I would never say that socialism can't work, but it definitely depends on a lot of capital to maintain socialism. Things like universal health care and democracy are extremely expensive to maintain. How many people would be willing to give that up to be more fair to people thousands of miles away?

The problem is that most Westerners live well above their actual labour output (even a lot of our poor do this relatively speaking) . There can't be rich people in the world if there are not poor people. As it is, even the middle-lower classes in Western society take in more than they produce on average. Any type of wealth distribution on a global scale would mean not just a drastic change to the ultra-rich, but also to the middle class. Is the middle class in Canada willing to see a standard of living change to be on par with a place like Mexico, just so a place like Bangladesh can have theirs raised to that level? It's not going to happen.

Not sure I agree with your first paragraph but the rest of the post I completely agree with. As North Americans, we feel entitled to our various forms of leisure and consumption, and we're not about to give that up for the benefit of someone we can't put a face to. I guess what irks me is the same thing that irks me about the climate change discussion. You have a lot of people that deny there is a problem or say there's nothing that can be gone, which is just a cop out for "there's nothing I actually want to sacrifice to fix the problem."

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Sorry I am late to the party, but why are rich countries "full of white people" and not "full of non-white people"?

My theory is that because white people originated in colder areas where survival often depended on acquiring resources from other regions. After several technological advances, this manifested itself into colonialism, which in turn evolved into modern day capitalism.

[Locke]

Haha! Hard work? People know that real life isnt one long 'Rudy' montage right?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

</snip>

There was actually a good post on Cracked a while back about the psychological impacts of growing up poor and how poor people are very often doomed to stay poor because of the way their brains are conditioned.

There's also a growing amount of literature on mental illnesses and disabilities like depression and adult ADHD that can contribute to poor financial-planning and spending decisions, and the lack of resources these people have to correct their behaviours.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

My theory is that because white people originated in colder areas where survival often depended on acquiring resources from other regions. After several technological advances, this manifested itself into colonialism, which in turn evolved into modern day capitalism.

Except that ignores the numerous indigenous cultures that lived in much harsher climates than the Northern Europeans.

[GirlySports]

The problem is corruption. Ok you demand companies to pay higher wages for workers. Well that includes management in those places too and they're going to take the money. One person cannot personally manage every branch in the world and in those places, the branch manager will take those increased wages from the workers. I know that in Asia the 'manager' has much more power in that culture than the 'manager' here.

If I tell you I'm a bank manager of some branch in the SW you'd think nothing of it. But if I go to China and tell them I'm a bank manager, they would think I have immense power.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

The problem is corruption. Ok you demand companies to pay higher wages for workers. Well that includes management in those places too and they're going to take the money. One person cannot personally manage every branch in the world and in those places, the branch manager will take those increased wages from the workers. I know that in Asia the 'manager' has much more power in that culture than the 'manager' here.

If I tell you I'm a bank manager of some branch in the SW you'd think nothing of it. But if I go to China and tell them I'm a bank manager, they would think I have immense power.

This is true, but why are North American companines agreeing to do business with these corrupt types? Put your captial into companies that treat their employees like human beings.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

My theory is that because white people originated in colder areas where survival often depended on acquiring resources from other regions. After several technological advances, this manifested itself into colonialism, which in turn evolved into modern day capitalism.

You should check out Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond.

Jared Diamond convincingly argues that geographical and environmental factors shaped the modern world. Societies that had had a head start in food production advanced beyond the hunter-gatherer stage, and then developed religion --as well as nasty germs and potent weapons of war --and adventured on sea and land to conquer and decimate preliterate cultures. A major advance in our understanding of human societies, Guns, Germs, and Steel chronicles the way that the modern world came to be and stunningly dismantles racially based theories of human history.

http://www.amazon.ca/Guns-Germs-Stee.../dp/0393317552