Pulp Fiction is the Greatest Film Ever, Anyone who doesn't agree is a Republican
@ Jirin
“I agree that educational systems need to place more emphasis on critical thinking and debate, all this standardized testing has made it more and more about fact memorization,”
Amen
@ Jirin
“I agree that educational systems need to place more emphasis on critical thinking and debate, all this standardized testing has made it more and more about fact memorization,”
Amen
I have a master’s degree and I’m still poor :(
You had a part time job in which you worked 12 hour shifts?
That doesn’t really add up… But alright.
It’s easy to say the reason people are poor is decision making. It’s easy to provide a fallacious example, and top it with another one. I mean yeah, it’s probably unpleasant to stand in the cold for a bus, bend over a lot and listen to loud music late at night, but when the end result is a fucking Master’s degree it’s not a tough choice to make.
It’s a lot harder to sit in front of someone that actually has made some bad choices, but still gets shit pay for an incredibly difficult job and tell them it’s their fault.
Perspective is a funny thing and I’m pretty certain the removal from that reality clouds a lot of people’s vision.
Or, in other words…
You wouldn’t do that job in that retail store now, would you?
Because it’s not necessary for you to. But it’s necessary for someone to [in this system]. To devalue that work merely because you have a perception of wasted opportunity is not only misanthropic, it’s borderline fascistic.
“I’d like to see Wu Yong work a day at my office…”
I’d be fine if we just switched pay scales.
Wasn’t it Guiliani that joked we should all give homeless people Canadian quarters so they’ll all go to Canada.
What a wonderful guy, eh?
No one in the Republican ballot will be getting my vote, that’s for sure.
Lol. 15 year olds can’t vote, Dude.
Yeah, the problem I have with a lot of people who call themselves Republican is that they freeload off the society they live in but are completely oblivious to it. If they’re successful, they think they did it themselves. How retarded is that? And I’m supposed to vote for someone who actually thinks this? As Elizebeth Warren says, everything is connected and no one lives in a bubble. If you become successful, it’s because of a lot of other factors beyond how great you think you are. There’s always got to be someone to pick up the garbage, deliver the mail, teach the children, pave the roads. To diminish those professions is to completely ignore the fact that without them, you never would’ve become successful to begin with.
I’d be fine if we just switched pay scales.
I might be okay with that… I’m only a recent graduate, so I don’t get paid all that much. I’m just amused by your conception of what it’s like to work in an office.
Anyway, Wu, the fact of the matter is that not all poor people are struggling working men with hearts of gold. Not all poor people are lazy, either. I have no idea what the proportions of smart to stupid poor people are, but I’ve come across examples of both. It doesn’t sound like Jirin’s trying to act like all poor people are stupid, but it sounds like you’re trying to say that all poor people are totally victims of circumstance. And I think that poor people, just like everyone else in the world, come in shades of smart and stupid. Some people are poor because of bad decisions, and some people are poor because of the terrible capitalist system. I think that’s what Jirin thinks, too.
Being the son in an upper-middle-class family who paid for me to go to college which enabled me to have this office job now makes me very thankful, and I have no pretenses of having really done anything to deserve it. Yeah, I worked hard in college, and I was always working a part time job, but my parents paid for me to go to college, and that’s where it ends. The rich get richer. :/
“I might be okay with that…”
Really? If a dishwahser works 40 hours a week for 52 weeks they’ll make about $9500 in net income a year.
Still willing?
“Anyway, Wu, the fact of the matter is that not all poor people are struggling working men with hearts of gold. Not all poor people are lazy, either. I have no idea what the proportions of smart to stupid poor people are, but I’ve come across examples of both. It doesn’t sound like Jirin’s trying to act like all poor people are stupid, but it sounds like you’re trying to say that all poor people are smart. "
Uhhh… can you can show me once where I used the words, “smart,” “stupid,” or “heart of gold”…
I never mentioned personality, or intelligence. It actually physically frightens me that someone would read that out of what I said. How you got that is well beyond me.
I’m discussing dialectics.
The proposition was made that poor people are sometimes, usually or mostly poor because of decision making.
I’m merely attempting to point out that, even if that is true, it’s to still ignore the reality of what these jobs are, and (worse) to ignore the reality of what being a person caught in that system means.
It’s lessening the value of humanity based on their relative ability to advance upon financial gains. Humanity is not economics. We should be disgusted to see the comparison being made.
[Just on a personal level, most of the poor people I know aren’t very nice people. I just don’t take that as an opportunity to claim their financial status is of no concern to anyone because they talk about drinking more than they talk about the barrier point between Capitalism and Socialism.]
@bijou alexanderplatz: Actually I’m 16, about to turn 17. Here’s a funny way to think about that: (skip to the 1:25 mark)
“The proposition was made that poor people are sometimes, usually or mostly poor because of decision making.
I’m merely attempting to point out that, even if that is true, it’s to still ignore the reality of what these jobs are, and (worse) to ignore the reality of what being a person caught in that system means.”
Perhaps Jirin and Drunken can both admit that despite varying levels o what they may take to be “individual responsibility” there exist certain structural explanations for why poor people tend on a whole to stay poor which are far more meaningful than any single individual choice or moral disposition.
My pop cultural image of a smart poor person:
Curtis Francis really seems like a Tea Party guy to me, all bluster and ignorance with no compassion for his follow man.
Screaming ‘boot straps’ doesn’t work in this day and age ‘cause no one can claim their 40 acres and mule, can’t go snag some of that abundant farmland, grab that American dream. There’s is no more available farmland and the American Dream will put one in a lifetime of debt.
Most people can work on “Get By” nowadays, because “Succeed” is hoarded by the entitled rich.
Look at the political process, how much money does it cost to run for office? Even the middle-class is priced out of trying to make a difference as a representative of the people.
So Curtis, learn something about what this country has become because of greed, and remember that the United States of America is supposed to be a Union where we All work together for the betterment of all.
Really? If a dishwahser works 40 hours a week for 52 weeks they’ll make about $9500 in net income a year.
Oh, are you a dishwasher? Never mind, then. That kind of work is just so beneath me!
Yes, I think there are definitely systemic problems that cause poor people to get poorer. But I’m just trying to point out that you can’t make blanket statements and act like all poor people are totally victims of circumstance and are poor through no fault of their own, which is definitely what you’re implying, Wu.
Well, Wu was just reacting negatively to the idea that poor people are poor because of bad life choices. The problem with these over-simplified arguments is that they overlook any kind of systemic or structural reasons for people’s economic conditions and puts it all on the moral worth of the individual.
The idea that anyone can make it so long as they work hard enough is a fallacy. Sure, some people do. But the vast majority don’t. Despite its fantasies about itself as a land of opportunity, the U.S. today has less class mobility than any western country in the world. What does that tell you? Sure, people make choices and decisions, but not as they please and under circumstances that have been imposed upon them (I’m paraphrasing a persona non grata around here with this btw)
“PULP FICTION IS THE GREATEST FILM EVER, ANYONE WHO DOESN’T AGREE IS A REPUBLICAN”
Well, here’s something to really bake your noodle:
I don’t think Pulp Fiction is the greatest film ever.
I am not a Republican in the slightest.
Take your time, let that mind-shattering concept settle in before trying to give a coherent response.
Some people are poor because they were born into poverty and have no opportunities. Some people are poor because of bad decisions on their own part. Some people are poor because of undiagnosed mental conditions. Some people are poor because of habit despite their opportunities (‘decision’ making but not so self-aware). Some poverty is systemic, some is endemic, some is psychological, some habitual, some chosen. Some people purposefully move off the grid, so that the economic measurements of ‘poverty’ no longer apply to their circumstance.
So if we’re looking at the concept of poverty and hunger and trying to figure out ways of combatting it, we need to focus on the areas of poverty that are systemic, because those are the only fixable areas that will help gradually change things such as endemic, psychological, or habitual poverty. This is not making a judgment call on the generalized or essential nature of poverty. Basically, a poor person cannot make the choice to be not poor when situated in systemic poverty, but we cannot get every person who does have an opportunity to take it.
In the case of a dishwasher making $9500 in net income a year, it’s more than possible for that person to work and apply their lifestyles and habits in such a manner as to fight their way out of poverty, all other things being equal. But if we start breaking down anecdotal narratives of, the dishwasher has a chronic illness from birth defect, the dishwasher is a gambling addict, the dishwasher lives in a community where the $9500/year job is one of the only jobs available and the local education system doesn’t communicate well to his marginalized culture in order to inform him how best to budget his $9500 in a method that is sustainable and allows for savings toward educating himself further to gain a skill-based job that offers better, we’re talking about different issues despite their interconnectedness.
It’s the connection between these issues that makes them difficult to resolve, and as a result people focus on the connections as if they are some sort of purposeful overall design: ‘we force poor people to take on crippling debt so that they can be enslaved to it,’ the Scrooge McDuck narrative, or ‘we have a rich consumer culture poor suffer from because they attempt to participate in it by taking on unwise debt’, the nobody-forced-a-malnourished-kid-to-buy-an-iPhone narrative. Life is more complicated than narrative, so unfortunately not all rich people are Scrooge McDucks and not all poor people are postmodern Oliver Twists, “Plz sir, i can haz moar?!”
—PolarisDiB
I didn’t think that Jirin’s argument was over-simplified. He said that some people are poor because of the system, but some people are poor because of bad choices, and that we should distinguish between the two. In my experience, I’ve known a bunch of people who are downwardly mobile – they’ve been given everything by their middle-class families, but refuse to put it to work because they are lazy or otherwise just don’t want to. And that is totally different from people who just didn’t have any opportunity to begin with and are forced to work multiple terrible jobs just to stay afloat and don’t have any time to get ahead because they have to work so many hours to pay rent. And that’s what Jirin’s saying.
Some people are poor because they were born into poverty and have no opportunities. Some people are poor because of bad decisions on their own part. Some people are poor because of undiagnosed mental conditions. Some people are poor because of habit despite their opportunities (‘decision’ making but not so self-aware). Some poverty is systemic, some is endemic, some is psychological, some habitual, some chosen. Some people purposefully move off the grid, so that the economic measurements of ‘poverty’ no longer apply to their circumstance.
Thank you for saying what I’m trying to say a million times more eloquently and coherently than I ever could, Polaris!!
“The idea that anyone can make it so long as they work hard enough is a fallacy.”
Yep. In my experience, it’s usually the people who work the hardest that make the least money and struggle the most. People that I know who are rich or are well to do don’t know the meaning of actual work.
Hmmm… what is the meaning of actual work, Santino? And are the well-to-do people you know heirs or did they make their own money?
They’re not heirs, they just came from families with opportunity. They were born into an upper middle class environment that promoted and rewarded laziness: party and screw off and perform the minimal amount of effort necessary and you’ll be fine.
Contrast that with the migrant farm worker who’s busting his ass in the strawberry fields just to support himself and his family. Sorry Charlie but as Ari said, success and effort are not always related.
“Yep. In my experience, it’s usually the people who work the hardest that make the least money and struggle the most. People that I know who are rich or are well to do don’t know the meaning of actual work.”
…. Sigh
Some people are rich because they were born into wealth and are given every opportunity. Some people are rich because of good decisions on their own part. Some people are rich because of a type A attitude that drives their every endeavor. Some people are rich because they lucked out, had one good investment or won the lottery or something. For some people, things like finance and investment come naturally (‘decision’ making but not so self-aware), others are pumped up trust fund babies. Some richness is systemic, some is endemic, some is psychological, some habitual, some chosen. Some people purposefully move off the grid because they consider that to be a rich, independent lifestyle.
" They were born into an upper middle class environment that promoted and rewarded laziness: party and screw off and perform the minimal amount of effort necessary and you’ll be fine."
And many people that I know were born into an upper middle class environment that promoted and rewarded laziness: party and screw off and perform the minimal amount of effort necessary and you’ll be fine — and now don’t have jobs and are marching in Occupy Wall Street events and complaining about The Man.
Anecdotal case study: not the essence of accuracy.
“success and effort are not always related.”
And one real, not snarky or ironic question I have is, what economic model do you believe best promotes meritocracy?
—PolarisDiB
I’m sure there are rich people that work as hard as a day laborer. I just haven’t met any of them. lol
_My point here is that I find it suspect to try to excuse one group for being poor over another and feeling the need to assign blame. In my opinion, it doesn’t really matter who is to blame. What matters is that there are people out there struggling and it’s our duty as a society to have a safety net. _
There I agree. I only differ in that, once you’re in the safety net, I think it’s your responsibility to take the initiative to climb back up to the wire.
You had a part time job in which you worked 12 hour shifts?
That doesn’t really add up… But alright.
Length depended on the store. Small clothing stores were 3-4 hours. A CVS or a Shaws was 5-8 hours. A Sears was 9-12 hours two days in a row. I ended up with an average of about 30 hours per week. (But, right after Christmas it got up to 50-60, right before Christmas I had barely any work at all.)
You wouldn’t do that job in that retail store now, would you?
Because it’s not necessary for you to. But it’s necessary for someone to [in this system]. To devalue that work merely because you have a perception of wasted opportunity is not only misanthropic, it’s borderline fascistic.
Right, and the reason I don’t have to do that job now is that I got myself an education. Everybody right now who is working a crappy job has the opportunity to either get a better job, or get themselves the education to get a better job. If they choose not to do so, they stay right where they are. It doesn’t take Ivy League prices to get a professional certification, and anyone can get an education loan who didn’t destroy their own credit rating by living beyond their means.
Do you even know what fascism is? Fascism is, if they quit the job they get murdered.
What you’re saying is an insult to every person who has ever been born poor and worked their way out of poverty: You’re devaluing their accomplishments by attributing them to blind luck. If somebody is born poor and ends up doing well for themselves it’s because they worked hard.
Is it harder for people born poor than people born rich? Absolutely, and that’s a serious problem, but equalizing education is going to solve that problem a lot faster than dictating wages and handing things out.
Despite its fantasies about itself as a land of opportunity, the U.S. today has less class mobility than any western country in the world.
A: Statistics?
B: Again, education gaps. We need better education available to everyone, period. Education is a prerequisite for democracy.
But if we start breaking down anecdotal narratives of, the dishwasher has a chronic illness from birth defect, the dishwasher is a gambling addict, the dishwasher lives in a community where the $9500/year job is one of the only jobs available and the local education system doesn’t communicate well to his marginalized culture in order to inform him how best to budget his $9500 in a method that is sustainable and allows for savings toward educating himself further to gain a skill-based job that offers better, we’re talking about different issues despite their interconnectedness.
Small Q, are you implying a gambling addiction is the same as not having opportunities available in your community? Gambling addiction is something, IMO, the individual is responsible for. But you’re right, lack of information about opportunities is a big culptrit. Again, it’s an issue of education.
I’m also against people giving jobs to their friends and family members, that’s a serious problem.
Yep. In my experience, it’s usually the people who work the hardest that make the least money and struggle the most. People that I know who are rich or are well to do don’t know the meaning of actual work.
You’re talking about people born rich. I agree. That has nothing to do with people who worked their way up to being rich.
Take two people born poor. One of them goes to medical school, sweats long hours on little sleep and completes their degree. Now they get a cushy situation because they invested their time and energy into acquiring skills. The other one now works harder and makes a lot less money, because he didn’t invest his time into acquiring valuable skills. He works harder, but provides a lot less value. Shouldn’t compensation have more to do with value than just ‘sweat quotient’?
^ The gambling statement is to point out but one measly point amongst the broad line that is the culpability spectrum (or false dichotomy, what have you). Gambling is an addiction so is both an issue of personal responsibility and the type of thing that requires some social support network to combat. Addiction is defined as a disease for a quite important reason, but the addict always has made a choice at some point in the addiction narrative. Addiction thus is defined as such once it no longer is a matter of choice, once the addict can no longer control his or her own judgment on the matter.
—PolarisDiB
@ Polaris -
“what economic model do you believe best promotes meritocracy?”
I have no idea. But even if the system that we have in this country is the best at promoting meritocracy (best when compared to everything else that’s out there), it doesn’t mean it’s perfect or that it’s immune from criticism. As others have said, moving up the ladder in this country has become much more difficult than it has in the past. It’s still sort of chilling to think that this generation could be the first generation that actually makes less money than the previous generation.
@ Jirin -
“There I agree. I only differ in that, once you’re in the safety net, I think it’s your responsibility to take the initiative to climb back up to the wire.”
I completely agree. My mother fell into that safety net and thank God she climbed her way out. If she had stayed on welfare and not taken personal responsibility, I would not be where I am today. But likewise, I would not be where I am today had it not been for that safety net that caught my mom when she fell.
“Everybody right now who is working a crappy job has the opportunity to either get a better job, or get themselves the education to get a better job.”
But you do acknowledge that people with degrees can work shitty jobs? There are people out there with master’s degrees working at Starbucks, right? Especially in this economy. You must know this.
“Shouldn’t compensation have more to do with value than just ‘sweat quotient’?”
It should. This is why it’s insane that a teacher makes less than a Wall Street investor. Because one clearly is providing something valuable while the other…well…anyways….
I’d like to asidely point out that this discussion is probably the best thing to come from any type of affiliation with Pulp Fiction.
Drunken Father Figure of Old
LOL I’d like to see Wu Yong work a day at my office! And please bring some of those $50 double cut lamb rib chops in a fresh mint sauce for our business lunch!! I’ve been missing those lately…
Anyway, the obvious answer is to euthanize the poor.