On 2/9/2012 11:15 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/8/2012 7:20 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:15:04 -0800, Hawke
wrote:
On 2/7/2012 7:35 PM, Schweik wrote:
The problem is that when you say POOR PEOPLE you are really saying
that they are in the lowest 15% of the population. However that
doesn't really mean anything if you have a hand phone, TV, computer,
housing, enough to eat, does it really mean that he is poor?.
Or are you simply saying that they are poor in relation to the posh
American life style. I remember considerable discussion on this group
about "My dishwasher stinks". Is a dish washer really an important
accessory to life. Does it mean that the lack there of is an
indication that you are poor?
The fact that someone else has a yacht, houses in Bermuda and Aspen
and two cars in the garage simply means that they are better off then
the poor people but isn't really meaningful when you talk about the
"Poor People".
Is it really meaningful to bitch because, although one has all the
amenities to live comfortably, that he is somehow deprived because he
doesn't have the house in Aspen?
Or is that simply jealousy?
The fact that someone else has more or less then I do is immaterial to
a discussion of whether I am rich or poor.
If someone having more or less than you is immaterial to whether you are
rich or poor then what is? Because having a lot of material things or
the means to buy them is what means a person is rich and an absence of
material things is what makes one poor. If that's not the case then what
is it that distinguishes rich and poor?
Hawke
I can only assume that you are deliberately misconstruing everything
that deviates from your side of the discussion.
But, lets say get personal. You have written, I believe, that you have
an income from investments of around 40 - 50,000 dollars and that you
live on a 5 acre place in N. California.
Does this mean that everyone with more then $50,000 a year is rich?
Or, that anyone who owns more then 5 acres is rich?
To communicate people have to agree on what things mean. With a lot of
people you get a lot of different ideas of what things mean. Ask what
socialism means and you get a lot of different answers. Ask what is rich
and you also get a lot of different answers. I would suggest that we
would stipulate that rich is what is commonly accepted as rich in our
society.
There is no commonly accepted meaning, and even if there were, that
doesn't mean it's usable.
Most people think pro athletes, entertainers, and successful
businessmen, are rich.
That's not defining "being rich".
But usually it depends on where you are that
determines what you think rich is. Mitt Romney doesn't think the 370,000
a year he makes from speaking events is very much. I think most people
disagree with him.
Compared to executives earning millions, and many lawyers and doctors
and other professionals earning $500,000 and more, it isn't very much.
If we look at what the average man makes it's about 43K a year according
to the 2006 census. Also, the census says that 1.93% of all households
earned more than 250K a year. In my book, I'd say anyone making that
kind of money is rich. Other people say it's wealth that matters not
income. I agree. Warren Buffet and Bull Gates don't earn that much
income but they are the wealthiest men in the country. So I would say
wealth is a lot better measure than income for determining who is rich.
If I own a $10 million dollar house and nothing else, and earn just
enough money to pay for property taxes, utilities and enough left over
to buy myself some dog food, am I rich?
But all things are relative. Compared to those guys I'm in poverty.
Compared to a Latin American peasant I'm rich. So it all depends on what
we are talking about and that we agree on what things mean.
There is no agreement, and there never will be as long as extremist
liars like you are in on the discussion.