Author Topic: the Squirrel and the Grasshopper  (Read 276 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

guest18

  • Guest
Re: the Squirrel and the Grasshopper
« Reply #15 on: May 07, 2018, 03:58:51 pm »
This is partially true. But I would counter that the Left in turn takes zero consideration of the fact a number of people who are poor are that way because of their own actions and irresponsibility, for which they ought to be held to account.
This is more an argument against those who collect welfare without working than against those who are collecting a higher minimum wage. Because people who get minimum wage are working, often doing important work, and are just not paid a living wage for their labour.
You yourself have bragged about being an overpaid civil servant who was basically useless but collecting a lot of money for it. Wouldn't it make sense to distribute some of the extra wages from the useless like yourself to those who would clean your toilet for you so that they can survive comfortably as well?

Is this position evidence of a radical far left agenda?
Like Like x 4 View List

Offline cybercoma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2956
Re: the Squirrel and the Grasshopper
« Reply #16 on: May 07, 2018, 04:14:47 pm »
   Squirrels are hard done by because the rest of the critters depend on them. Yet no critter depends upon squirrels except predators. Certainly not grasshoppers.
 
The proper metaphor would be if the squirrels had the vast majority of other critters packing away nuts for them. You could say, the squirrels are dependent on them even! Only for the squirrels to turn their noses up at the other critters when they dare ask for a larger share of the stockpile that they put together for the squirrels through their own hard work.
Like Like x 1 Funny Funny x 1 View List

Offline Peter F

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 153
  • Location: I'd rather be in Quebec...
Re: the Squirrel and the Grasshopper
« Reply #17 on: May 07, 2018, 04:22:48 pm »
 :D    Perhaps somebody wrote a novel like that, maybe.
"Never take on the role of management"
-- C.A.W. Shop Steward's manual.

Offline Peter F

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 153
  • Location: I'd rather be in Quebec...
Re: the Squirrel and the Grasshopper
« Reply #18 on: May 07, 2018, 04:33:37 pm »
oh I know! Mouseland!
"Never take on the role of management"
-- C.A.W. Shop Steward's manual.

guest4

  • Guest
Re: the Squirrel and the Grasshopper
« Reply #19 on: May 07, 2018, 05:46:42 pm »
That does not mean that, like the left, I absolve everyone of personal responsibility for a situation of their own creation.

Wouldn't it be something if you could make an argument about anything without taking these constant swipes at "the left".   Methinks you are as much of a troll as fed up, albeit a better speller.

 
  How could you possibly know which of those I am?

His modus operandi is to take a quick scan of someone, pick out a single characteristic and slot them into some labelled bucket.  At that point he knows everything about them: financial fitness and behavior, political beliefs, work ethic, private thoughts and religious devoutness.  It's fast, simple and requires no thought while enabling his feeling of superiority and victimhood.
Like Like x 2 Winner Winner x 2 View List

Offline cybercoma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2956
Re: the Squirrel and the Grasshopper
« Reply #20 on: May 07, 2018, 06:43:15 pm »
Superiority and victimhood. No wonder modern conservative come off as completely mental.
Funny Funny x 1 View List

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: the Squirrel and the Grasshopper
« Reply #21 on: May 07, 2018, 06:44:37 pm »
Very nice. So do I. The difference between me and you is where we draw our lines.

While acknowledging the more of one we have the more damage to the theory/workability of the other.

Quote
Are you serious? You absolve the right of all personal responsibility for a situation of their own creation.

Sorry? When did I do that? Where did I do that?

Quote
I'm a lefty SJW, by the way, and I do not absolve everyone of personal responsibility of their own creation.

The point is that a substantial portion of these people are that way not because they were oppressed or because of disability but because of being lazy and stupid. I know some of them. I'm sure you know some too. And that has to be taken into account. Ideally (which is impossible) I'd like to see society look after those who are really poor like the disabled who can't work, and I mean give them a decent life, while giving the other kind the bare minimum. That's not to punish them but out of fairness to those who did all the hard stuff to acquire skills and get good jobs - and out of acknowledgement that human behavior requires incentives for self improvement.

Quote
oh, the productive to the non-productive meme. You're being held back by bottom-feeders like me.

This is not exactly a unique idea. It's common throughout economic theory. It goes back to that same human behavioural model which says the more incentive people have to work harder, to acquire more skills, to improvise and take risks, etc., the more they will do it. High taxation takes some of that incentive away.

Quote
The more you claim to produce (and I don't believe you produce a fuckin thing - but maybe others do it for you) the more the state takes to give useless mouths like me.  You should try living on welfare sometime. Or maybe try reducing your income to a level where you get a gst rebate. It isn't the life of Riley.

This goes back to a theory of mine (not exactly rocket science) which is that your level of generosity depends on your economic security. Take my friend, who is a manager for the government making $100k+ a year with a guaranteed indexed pension. She's quite generous. Then there's me. I actually earn more than her but my earnings are far from secure, and could end any time. I also get virtually no pension except what I can save up for. Thus I feel considerably less generous than she does.

And I came perilously close to welfare years ago. I worked as a bus boy, a cleaner, a security guard, a clerk at an all-night gas bar, and other charming jobs. I bused it everywhere because I couldn't afford a car or the insurance for it until after I turned 40. So don't give me any crap about how I'm some pampered, spoiled, entitled person selfishily hording my wealth. I know damn well what it's like to be poor and I don't want to be poor again. That's why while others take vacations down south every winter I put mine into my stocks and bonds. That's my future pension.

"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: the Squirrel and the Grasshopper
« Reply #22 on: May 07, 2018, 06:50:49 pm »
This is more an argument against those who collect welfare without working than against those who are collecting a higher minimum wage.

It's an argument against income redistribution except for those in genuine need. It's based on the well-founded economic theory that the less incentive people have to acquire skills and get ahead, the less people will do either. Which means taking a lot of tax off those who do well is a disincentive to them, while giving more to people in low skilled jobs is a disincentive to them. Bad policy all around. If I had been able to make a decent living as a security guard I wouldn't have worked so hard to acquire enough skills to get something better. It wasn't a bad job, after all. I spent all night reading and watching movies. The twelve hour weekend shifts were kinda long, though.

Quote
Because people who get minimum wage are working, often doing important work, and are just not paid a living wage for their labour.

Who gets minimum wage for an important job? Minimum wage is an indication of minimum skills and abilities.

Quote
You yourself have bragged about being an overpaid civil servant who was basically useless but collecting a lot of money for it.

No. You're paraphrasing according to your own ideological grievances with me. I was a civil servant. I was doing absolutely essential work using a variety of skills. When i left I was managing a national taxation program that dealth with hundreds of thousands of people every year. But I was overpaid, as far as I was concerned. That's because I worked for most of my life in the private sector. I knew how easy we had it compared to that.
"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: the Squirrel and the Grasshopper
« Reply #23 on: May 07, 2018, 06:54:20 pm »
How could you possibly know which of those I am?

I said most of you. I didn't say YOU. I said nothing whatsoever about YOU.

"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum

Offline JMT

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3462
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba
Re: the Squirrel and the Grasshopper
« Reply #24 on: May 07, 2018, 09:28:46 pm »
I said most of you. I didn't say YOU. I said nothing whatsoever about YOU.

Well, FYI, I always prepare.  IT doesn't mean that I think others that don't should starve.

Offline Peter F

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 153
  • Location: I'd rather be in Quebec...
Re: the Squirrel and the Grasshopper
« Reply #25 on: May 08, 2018, 06:47:08 am »
While acknowledging the more of one we have the more damage to the theory/workability of the other.

Sorry? When did I do that? Where did I do that?

The point is that a substantial portion of these people are that way not because they were oppressed or because of disability but because of being lazy and stupid. I know some of them. I'm sure you know some too. And that has to be taken into account. Ideally (which is impossible) I'd like to see society look after those who are really poor like the disabled who can't work, and I mean give them a decent life, while giving the other kind the bare minimum. That's not to punish them but out of fairness to those who did all the hard stuff to acquire skills and get good jobs - and out of acknowledgement that human behavior requires incentives for self improvement.

This is not exactly a unique idea. It's common throughout economic theory. It goes back to that same human behavioural model which says the more incentive people have to work harder, to acquire more skills, to improvise and take risks, etc., the more they will do it. High taxation takes some of that incentive away.

This goes back to a theory of mine (not exactly rocket science) which is that your level of generosity depends on your economic security. Take my friend, who is a manager for the government making $100k+ a year with a guaranteed indexed pension. She's quite generous. Then there's me. I actually earn more than her but my earnings are far from secure, and could end any time. I also get virtually no pension except what I can save up for. Thus I feel considerably less generous than she does.

And I came perilously close to welfare years ago. I worked as a bus boy, a cleaner, a security guard, a clerk at an all-night gas bar, and other charming jobs. I bused it everywhere because I couldn't afford a car or the insurance for it until after I turned 40. So don't give me any crap about how I'm some pampered, spoiled, entitled person selfishily hording my wealth. I know damn well what it's like to be poor and I don't want to be poor again. That's why while others take vacations down south every winter I put mine into my stocks and bonds. That's my future pension.
I see. Your future pension is dependant upon the well being of your investments and you feel the great threat to your investments is government largesse to those who don't deserve it. I suggest that the great threat to your investments isn't the poor, uneducated, lazy, non-taxpayers, but corruption and fraud of the corporations you invest in. See 2008 for one example, or Norcom or a hundred other companies that lied cheated and stole every dime the company had.  It ain't us poor folks sucking up the welfare thats the threat to your future well-being.
  Me, on the other hand have no investments of any kind. I too worked as a busboy and labourer and gas-station attendant and a nobody in the Navy and on an oil rig and on merchant ships. Outside of the Navy, none of that work was permanent so there were periods of Pogey and sometimes welfare and sometimes sweet **** all. Finally as a low level seasonal flunky for the government. Invested nothing and saved nothing. Almost every dime I ever earned was due to government generosity. Now I am retired on a government pension of 1200 bucks a month and am surprised that your government pension is so meaningless that it doesn't even factor into your pension plans.  And yet, I donate money !   So much for your theory of generosity.
   My main point: Your future well being, by your own admission (investments) is entirely dependant upon others doing the right thing with your money. You have no control over it, other than to withdraw whats left and try somewhere else. Yet you see the poor and the unskilled and a rise in minimum wages and immigrants/refugees as the great threat to your future well being. 
 
"Never take on the role of management"
-- C.A.W. Shop Steward's manual.
Like Like x 1 Winner Winner x 2 View List

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12477
Re: the Squirrel and the Grasshopper
« Reply #26 on: May 08, 2018, 10:12:29 am »
I mean, do we as a society really want people dying in the streets?   

Yes.  "Right to work" laws reward the bosses with as many boats as he needs and the workers need to improve themselves if they want to get to that level.  Government handouts and legal protections just encourage them to leech off of the bosses.

That is someone's narrative, anyway.

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12477
Re: the Squirrel and the Grasshopper
« Reply #27 on: May 08, 2018, 10:14:24 am »
Peter F. is to be commended for bringing another lame allegory to a lame allegory fight.

 

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: the Squirrel and the Grasshopper
« Reply #28 on: May 08, 2018, 11:33:31 am »
Well, FYI, I always prepare.  IT doesn't mean that I think others that don't should starve.

Well FYI I DON'T think others who don't should starve. That doesn't mean I think they should be eating steak either.
"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: the Squirrel and the Grasshopper
« Reply #29 on: May 08, 2018, 11:49:21 am »
I see. Your future pension is dependant upon the well being of your investments and you feel the great threat to your investments is government largesse to those who don't deserve it.

Not precisely, but given my marginal tax rate is 53% high taxes most definitely have an impact on my future security.

Quote
I suggest that the great threat to your investments isn't the poor, uneducated, lazy, non-taxpayers, but corruption and fraud of the corporations you invest

More like the great threat is investment fraud and screwing with the investment system, which happens a lot more than people like to acknowledge. But you spread your investment out, watch what's happening, react quickly, and hope for the best.

Quote
Me, on the other hand have no investments of any kind. I too worked as a busboy and labourer and gas-station attendant and a nobody in the Navy and on an oil rig and on merchant ships. Outside of the Navy, none of that work was permanent so there were periods of Pogey and sometimes welfare and sometimes sweet **** all. Finally as a low level seasonal flunky for the government. Invested nothing and saved nothing.

Why? You had the same opportunities as I did, didn't you? I was working as a busboy at sixteen, having dropped out of high school in grade 9.

Quote
Now I am retired on a government pension of 1200 bucks a month and am surprised that your government pension is so meaningless that it doesn't even factor into your pension plans.  And yet, I donate money !   So much for your theory of generosity.

Oh I donate lots of money. I donate money to my brother with mental health issues by buying him furniture and a computer and paying for a condo for him to live in, and to my sister by paying off her debts and giving her the down payment for a car, and to several charities. And I pay a shitload of money to the government so it can help poor people.

However, unlike my friends, my future is not secure. Which is why she shrugs at things that anger me. She has no fear for the future with the high indexed pension she'll be getting, not to mention income from a triplex she owns and rents out.

But I squirrel money away, as much as I can, for the winter. And I resent the government continually upping my taxes by saying I'm not paying enough, in order to buy votes. You, meanwhile, are impoverished, but donate money. Is that generosity or just a continuing indication that money is not something you've ever been very good in budgeting or handling?

My concern is not the poor taking my money but the government encouraging poverty and discouraging investment, innovation, and self-improvement in order to win votes. I don't want to give bigger salaries to no-skill workers or give them bigger welfare cheques. I want them to be retrained so they can contribute to the tax base rather than being a drain on it.

"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum