<p>
</p>
<p>No one has said that except you.</p>
<p>I think it points to the weakness in your argument that you are resorting to distorting what others have said.</p>
<p>There are poor people in our society for one simple reason; there are rich people in society.</p>
<p>There is a set amount of wealth. It is wealth because it is limited and fairly scarce. Now, hypothetically, say you took the 312ish million US citizens and spread a certain amount of wealth amongst them evenly. Okay. However, a certain small amount of the population has far more wealth. So, in our demonstration, give those small number more wealth. From where? Well, there’s only a set amount, so some of the other people lose wealth.</p>
<p>For someone to gain wealth, another person or persons lose wealth. Think of capitalism as a pyramid; for however many rich people there are, there have to be so many more poor people.</p>
<p>One person can move up, sure, but that causes downward motion for others (whether those others are of a lower or higher wealth). That’s the way wealth works. If there are going to be rich people, there are going to be poor people.</p>
<p>Want to eliminate poverty? Eliminate great wealth.</p>
<p>Want your society to have rich people? It’ll have poor people, too.</p>
<p>BillyMc, I sincerely hope you are a child (not a parent).</p>
<p>That’s not the way the world works! When you go out and create value, it’s not a taking from somebody else; it’s a real net gain for you and the world.</p>
<p>To the OP: Here’s my best suggestion. Print out your essay, save it away, and read it when your own kids are in the midst of their high school years. It’s just a prediction, but I believe you’ll find that parents have less control over their kids’ work ethic (and other traits) than you could possibly believe. In fact, you don’t even need to wait until high school.</p>
<p>Here’s a quick thought experiment for you: What explains the incredible differences that can be seen among kids from the same family? Even twins that you may know?</p>
<p>Think about it.</p>
<p>
How do you create value?</p>
<p>Are you a student or a parent?</p>
<p>
Hardly matters. Me telling you I’m a student will likely just result in a condescending attitude, when I’m quite interested in hearing your examples of wealth being created.</p>
<p>Never mind. Let me assume that you’re a student.</p>
<p>Find a biography of Henry Ford, read it, and see if you think it might be possible that in the process of becoming a rich man, he created value for all of society, directly lifted the fortunes of many others, and carried incredible numbers of needy people on his shoulders. Generations later, we still benefit from a man like this.</p>
<p>If you think that it’s impossible for a man to create value, why would you even want an education? Do you believe that those who teach you are creating value?</p>
<p>Think about it.</p>
<p>
I didn’t say there wasn’t a way to improve society. However, Henry Ford did not create wealth. Those people who bought his cars exchanged money for them, thus allowing him to amass money. They became somewhat less rich while he became much more rich. He payed his workers the $5 day (causing the Dodge brothers to sue), thus making him less wealthy and them more so. The money moved, but the wealth was not created.</p>
<p>Think about it. But first, do some reading so that you’ll have some background for your thoughts.</p>
<p>
I could say the same to you.</p>
<p>Ford Sells Cars</p>
<p>Ford’s wealth: UP
Individual consumer’s wealth: down a little, as a fraction of the whole</p>
<p>Ford Pays His Workers</p>
<p>Ford’s wealth: Down
Individual worker’s wealth: up, as a fraction of the whole</p>
<p>Dodge Brothers Sue Ford</p>
<p>Ford’s wealth: Down
Dodge brothers’ wealth: Up
Lawyers’ wealth: Up (to a lesser degree)</p>
<p>Telling me to think and read doesn’t do anything to refute my points.</p>
<p>BillyMc: Your understanding of economics is naive. Successful new businesses create wealth not just for themselves but for the economy as a whole. Read this: [Ask</a> the Harvard MBA Is global economics a zero-sum game?](<a href=“http://www.asktheharvardmba.com/2008/05/03/is-global-economics-a-zero-sum-game/]Ask”>http://www.asktheharvardmba.com/2008/05/03/is-global-economics-a-zero-sum-game/)</p>
<p>Or, you can read the relevant wikipedia article:
<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum</a></p>
<p>Scroll down to the “Non-Zero Sum” part and it discusses economics.</p>
<p>Economics is not a “zero-sum game” as you are saying it is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Based on our conversation, I can certainly understand why that would be your perception of adults. Give us another ten years; I guarantee that we will be much smarter when you check up on us around 2020.</p>
<p>
I’m trying to understand how my climb out of poverty caused anyone else to become poorer. I worked low level jobs and saved diligently and put myself through college. It took a really long time. Then I was able to get better jobs and was no longer “poor”. Who got a downward move because of this and how would that happen?</p>
<p>
Some economic theories claim that it is not. Others, however, do.</p>
<p>The Wikipedia article you referenced said that there is a fractional gain in trade, due to the perception that the thing being traded for is better. This, however, is wrong on a few counts. (1) If the trade is acceptable to both parties as being fair, then it is not extra wealth that makes one value what is being received, but the particular need for that thing, making it merely more valuable to that person. It is one-time psychological value that can at worst be soon reversed and at best last for a while, but merely for that person or the other future benefactors of that good. (2) If the trade is unfair, it is still wealth passes from one side to another.</p>
<p>
Again, you seem to think that my age plays a role in this economic discussion. I’m generally not in the practice of receiving condescension, except there’s something about this website that makes it prevalent. If it makes you feel better, plenty of older people have said the things I’m saying.</p>
<p>
Your salary came from your company of employment, which received its money from its customers, who received their money from their employers (or other means). When you were paid, you decreased the monetary supply of the company. However, you helped the company gain that money from the customers. I didn’t say it made anyone poor, just that the money had to come from somewhere.</p>
<p>Think, if you print money, what happens? The rest of the money goes down in value a little bit proportionally to how much you printed. What happened in the gold rush? Gold had been extremely valuable. Even after more was put on the market, an ounce of gold was still valuable, just less so.</p>
<p>Does everyone here honestly believe that the billionaires can stay billionaires and the millionaires can stay millionaires and all poor people still have a way to collectively rise out of poverty if they just work hard enough?</p>
<p>Either equality will come through voluntary social change precipitated by social organization and policies, or it will come through change precipitated by high levels of technology. But when there are no poor, there will be no rich. Or at least not in the current sense of the word.</p>
<p>Time for us to give up, sylvan, arcade, and others. We are talking to a wall.</p>
<p>
Well, you did suggest that in order for some to go up, others have to go down. I don’t know much about economics, but it seems to me that you are discounting the fact that money is not the only thing in which value resides. Suppose I go out and procure some paints and canvas at a fairly cheap cost, then I make some nice paintings which I sell for $X. I now have money, and the person who bought the paintings has an object with value $X, which did not exist before. Didn’t I “create” something of wealth which was not previously there?</p>
<p>I haven’t studied education enough to have a theory I can generalize to all or even most students. I can just talk about myself, so that’s what I’ll do.</p>
<p>My parents took almost no interest in my education. As a small child my mom did work with me on reading and math, because I was behind in both-- I had undiagnosed LDs. She even went so far as to hire my second grade teacher to tutor me over the summer to get me up to speed for 3rd grade. When the LDs were diagnosed she tried to get the accommodations for me that the dr recommended but the school told her no and she gave up-- while that frustrates me, I don’t blame her because I know she just didn’t know that there were rights she could fight for. </p>
<p>That was the extent of their interest in my education. They stopped trying there, or even taking an interest. School was never talked about, unless to yell at me for my grades in math. I was made to feel guilty if I needed something for a project or if I needed help with something, I often failed assignments because my parents refused to buy items needed for projects. It was made clear that my education was my responsibility and my parents would have nothing to do with it. That has continued today-- I am a senior in college, have never changed my major, and my parents still have to ask what it is I am studying. They didn’t save money for college and while they hoped I would go, making that happen was not something they were personally invested in. And they made it a very difficult environment for me while I was living at home in terms of studying. I didn’t have a quiet place to work or any way to get to the library or anything. And they certainly never enforced homework time or made me turn off the video games. I was allowed to do whatever I wanted whenever I wanted. My mom stopped being aware of when and what I had for homework when I stopped having to have my assignment book signed in elementary school. It was don’t ask, don’t tell.</p>
<p>All that said, I have never been an apathetic student. Ever. I have always loved learning, and even though I haven’t always loved school, I always wanted to learn and was willing to do the work. I feel like there is really nothing my parents could have done to take that away from me, that is just a part of who I am and it has very little to do with them. This makes me doubt the assumption that in every kid there is a potential to be a dedicated learner that is dependent upon the parents to bring it out. My parents tried for those first couple of years-- literally, like the first two, and that was it. I can count on one hand the number of genuinely good teachers I’ve had, I can think of maybe two in my entire academic career that I found particularly inspiring or motivating. I am skeptical that the ideal of an intrinsically motivated student that we compare the so-called lazy slackers to is something that is THAT externally cultivated.</p>
<p><em>When I look at students who are receiving “free/reduced price” lunch they always seem to have a brand new i-pod.</em></p>
<p>It’s unfortunate that people who receive free or reduced price lunch or use food stamps in the grocery store are very often judged in this way. I’ve heard it often from people who can’t seem to put themselves in others’ shoes.</p>
<p>Just because someone is paying with food stamps while wearing Uggs or diamond earrings or using the latest iPod does not mean they are scamming or lazy. Perhaps they had a solid long-term job last month - are they supposed to sell those Uggs for food? Go out looking shabby? Maybe grandparents bought the kid the iPod.</p>
<p>Come on. Situations are often more transient, less straightforward than what one can see in front of them.</p>
<p>@Emaheevul07, I am happy to hear that you continue to learn and appreciate your parents. It’s apparent that your parents sincerely care about you. The onset of birth until the age of six is a critical period because the brains of young children are more active than those of young adults. Simple parent to child interaction such as talking to each other establishes a stronger foundation for learning. Ipods and greedy attention certainly are not going harvest a cultivated brain. What will is an array of new experiences and loving care. </p>
<p>I don’t know enough about you personally, but your parents probably did interact with you and actively love you. She pursued in your best interest: “As a small child my mom did work with me on reading and math, because I was behind in both-- I had undiagnosed LDs. She even went so far as to hire my second grade teacher to tutor me over the summer to get me up to speed for 3rd grade. When the LDs were diagnosed she tried to get the accommodations for me that the dr recommended but the school told her no and she gave up-- while that frustrates me, I don’t blame her because I know she just didn’t know that there were rights she could fight for.” At and early age you did see the value of an education and your parents supported you, even if it wasn’t all direct interaction. This helped develop your foundation for where you are today.</p>
<p>The essence of this debate returns to the nature vs nurture question. Of course a synergy of factors including parenting, society, and friends affect the turnout of children and their academic motivation. And not everyone has the same ability biologically. </p>
<p>Society is a large influence, but I honestly believe parents can influence their children to be passionate about something other than immediate gratification at an early age. I have also attended both public schools and a competitive private prep school, and there is an obvious difference in parent standards and the outcomes of their children. We collected a higher percentage of students accepted to prestigious public universities than did local public high schools (private ones too for financial reasons). I attended school with children from both schools and I am familiar with the different parenting styles. </p>
<p>I still hold fast to what I said originally: “If a mother or father cannot discipline their children for more than immediate gratification, he or she is crippling their child. If you come home to your child after a long day of work and just fall sleep on the couch in front of the TV, you are lazy, selfish, and irresponsible.” I wrote this because I personally know a small handful of students/dropouts who said this is how they were raised most of the time. One of them, a close friend actually, told me neither of his parents ever taught him to read, and he wasn’t able to until the 4th grade. Even if you are the provider, this isn’t enough. Doesn’t anyone see a tragedy in not attending an infant, even if they are tired from their financial responsibility? It is very simplified, but it reminds me of Harry Harlow’s experiment with rhesus monkeys: [YouTube</a> - harry harlow & rhesus monkeys - development](<a href=“- YouTube”>- YouTube)</p>
<p>I read Nickel and Dimed and I think these are many of the types of people who should opt against having children. It is their right, but if they can’t afford to spend adequate time with their children, they are being irresponsible. I personally have never wanted children and never plan on having them. I love to spend time with children and I care about their successes, enough that I prefer to devote myself to a related career. Theoretically, if I had children I would be a stay-at-home mother. Parenting, from my college girl understanding, is the largest sacrifice a person can make. Also one of the greatest sources of love.</p>