Equality?

[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.

[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!