Why do poor people have children?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by AlevelBiologist
Socialism is the ideology behind redistribution of wealth, behind the national/government ownership of all good sales and service provision. And yes, capitalism does define people into different groups: people who work hard and people who do not. Businesses / "CEOs" make their money by providing good services that people pay for: that is the contribution they make. Having many independent companies (opposed to one government socialist fiasco) means that customers can go to who provides the best service at the best price, encouraging competition within business, and thus cheaper, better quality products for the consumer, public-owned services takes away the incentive to improve the service. I also find it ironic how you say that everyone should work and benefit from the fruits of their labour. Socialism's benefits system takes away the incentive to work, and having equal money for all is ridiculous; it does not represent "fruits of their labour" at all. But again drives people away from more academically demanding jobs.
It is stealing. Why is it selfish to want to keep money that one has worked hard for, when it is not selfish to not work, or not get an education and get menial work (100% always their fault, by the way) but instead take money (via welfare benefits) from gard working people.
The bottom line is that capitalism rewards work, and socialism rewards laziness.
It is stealing. Why is it selfish to want to keep money that one has worked hard for, when it is not selfish to not work, or not get an education and get menial work (100% always their fault, by the way) but instead take money (via welfare benefits) from gard working people.
The bottom line is that capitalism rewards work, and socialism rewards laziness.
Bro, stick to your A levels, and to biology.
Original post by inhuman
Bro, stick to your A levels, and to biology.
Because I'm right.
Original post by AlevelBiologist
Because I'm right.
No if you were right I would have told you to consider swapping courses
Original post by inhuman
No if you were right I would have told you to consider swapping courses
Well why don't you give your arguments then and stop stalling
Original post by AlevelBiologist
Socialism is the ideology behind redistribution of wealth, behind the national/government ownership of all good sales and service provision. And yes, capitalism does define people into different groups: people who work hard and people who do not. Businesses / "CEOs" make their money by providing good services that people pay for: that is the contribution they make. Having many independent companies (opposed to one government socialist fiasco) means that customers can go to who provides the best service at the best price, encouraging competition within business, and thus cheaper, better quality products for the consumer, public-owned services takes away the incentive to improve the service. I also find it ironic how you say that everyone should work and benefit from the fruits of their labour. Socialism's benefits system takes away the incentive to work, and having equal money for all is ridiculous; it does not represent "fruits of their labour" at all. But again drives people away from more academically demanding jobs.
l
It is stealing. Why is it selfish to want to keep money that one has worked hard for, when it is not selfish to not work, or not get an education and get menial work (100% always their fault, by the way) but instead take money (via welfare benefits) from gard working people.
The bottom line is that capitalism rewards work, and socialism rewards laziness.
l
It is stealing. Why is it selfish to want to keep money that one has worked hard for, when it is not selfish to not work, or not get an education and get menial work (100% always their fault, by the way) but instead take money (via welfare benefits) from gard working people.
The bottom line is that capitalism rewards work, and socialism rewards laziness.
You’re not right actually. Socialism is the first stage of Communism, which is a stateless, moneyless, and classless society, so Socialism is merely the stage of the workers gaining ownership of the means of production, the government doesn’t come into it at all. This “socialist” state you are talking about is State Capitalism, effectively State-sanctioned Capitalism, the worst kind. Socialism/Communism doesn’t have a benefits system, nor is the wealth spread equally. It is first spread according to need, then according to how hard you work. All must work, save for housewives, students, and the disabled. How is that laziness? It is fairness. All work, all benefit. A Socialist government wouldn’t have to “sell” anything, due to the abolition of markets.
Who are we to judge? Most of us havent even experienced love
Original post by AlevelBiologist
Well why don't you give your arguments then and stop stalling
Exactly - you’ve been active, but won’t respond. Keep to your A Levels bro
Original post by frankielogue
Exactly - you’ve been active, but won’t respond. Keep to your A Levels bro
I have not responded because your ideology is childish. Abolishing the markets is anti-entrepreneurism and defeats what you are trying to do. I have not responded because all of my original points still stand strong and you are making a fool of yourself.
Why tell me to "stick to my A levels"? I have worked in the House of Commons and for all you know I could have been taking G&P A level so stop eith the childish comments.
Original post by AlevelBiologist
I have not responded because your ideology is childish. Abolishing the markets is anti-entrepreneurism and defeats what you are trying to do. I have not responded because all of my original points still stand strong and you are making a fool of yourself.
Why tell me to "stick to my A levels"? I have worked in the House of Commons and for all you know I could have been taking G&P A level so stop eith the childish comments.
Why tell me to "stick to my A levels"? I have worked in the House of Commons and for all you know I could have been taking G&P A level so stop eith the childish comments.
I’m sorry, but that is complete and utter rubbish. I rebutted all of your points, and you are just throwing random insults along the lines of Communism being ‘childish’, that is stupid. Of course Communism is anti-business, but it is not anti-entrepreneurism because everyone has to work, right? So therefore if one wanted to, one could work as an inventor, just as they may now, but they won’t be faced with poverty if they fail.
Original post by catholicgirl
I don't understand why people who can barely afford to look after themselves will then bring children into the world who will grow up with a low standard of living.
Are you really a Catholic? If so why does your religion forbid contracpetion? This is scandaloys in terms of popilation copntrol and the misery it causes in some of the poorest countries in the world.
Original post by AlevelBiologist
on. And yes, capitalism does define people into different groups: people who work hard and people who do not.
Original post by AlevelBiologist
The bottom line is that capitalism rewards work.
The bottom line is that capitalism rewards work.
Is that why it's the working class who work the hardest, do the most difficult jobs and who have given you everything you have available to you from your clothes to your computer ,yet get hardly anything for it? Is that why the working class are pitted at the bottom thanks to capitalism's class system and are constantly exploited for their labour and have to work in poor conditions? Is that why people are born into millions without even doing anything? Yay capitalism and its many contradictions.
Original post by AlevelBiologist
I also find it ironic how you say that everyone should work and benefit from the fruits of their labour. Socialism's benefits system takes away the incentive to work
I also find it ironic how you say that everyone should work and benefit from the fruits of their labour. Socialism's benefits system takes away the incentive to work
The fact a 'benefits system' as well as things like 'charities' even have to exist in capitalist society shows how poor of a system it really is. It all comes down to unequal distribution of resources. In a true socialist society, 'benefits' would no longer exist, everyone would have work available, everyone would be looked after adequately without having to rely on a pittance. The disabled would no longer be discriminated against economically just for having the misforture of being disabled.
Aspects of the welfare state were granted thanks to working class struggles won in the past, same with many worker rights, NHS, etc. It's all there thanks to the work of many socialists fighting for things which no capitalist state was granting them.
Original post by AlevelBiologist
Socialism is the ideology behind redistribution of wealth, behind the national/government ownership of all good sales and service provision. And yes, capitalism does define people into different groups: people who work hard and people who do not. Businesses / "CEOs" make their money by providing good services that people pay for: that is the contribution they make. Having many independent companies (opposed to one government socialist fiasco) means that customers can go to who provides the best service at the best price, encouraging competition within business, and thus cheaper, better quality products for the consumer, public-owned services takes away the incentive to improve the service. I also find it ironic how you say that everyone should work and benefit from the fruits of their labour. Socialism's benefits system takes away the incentive to work, and having equal money for all is ridiculous; it does not represent "fruits of their labour" at all. But again drives people away from more academically demanding jobs.
It is stealing. Why is it selfish to want to keep money that one has worked hard for, when it is not selfish to not work, or not get an education and get menial work (100% always their fault, by the way) but instead take money (via welfare benefits) from gard working people.
The bottom line is that capitalism rewards work, and socialism rewards laziness.
It is stealing. Why is it selfish to want to keep money that one has worked hard for, when it is not selfish to not work, or not get an education and get menial work (100% always their fault, by the way) but instead take money (via welfare benefits) from gard working people.
The bottom line is that capitalism rewards work, and socialism rewards laziness.
What is the concept of working hard? I think many people have been brainwashed by this concept and to think that some people are rubbish while others are great.
For example, you have a bricklayer who works about 60 hours a week (10 hours for 6 days). He performs physical activities of laying bricks for 10 hours every day. He gets paid a "fair" wage of £15 per hour. In a week, he gets £900 (without tax) and in the year, he gets £46,800.
Another person, a banker, does 60 hours a week as well. His job is not as physical demanding as our bricklayer friend, but he gets paid about £70,000. What is his job, investment banking. He has to look at where the money is and invest it accordingly, thereby making his employer's and their clients more money.
With your concept of fair wage, is it fair that the bricklayer gets paid more than £20,000 less than the banker, when he does more physical activities and shaves years off his life because of his job?
The concept that capitalism rewards hard work is not very true. What it does is to widen the gap between those who control the levers of the economy and the wage-slaves.
A clear example is in the UK, where the powerful people i.e. bankers, consultants and CEOs have earned more in recent years, while the wage-slaves of teachers, civil servants, bus drivers etc have seen their wages stagnate or even reduce. Yet, people claim that we are in a "fair" society. Please wake up!
The big problem we have today is that many people have this aspirational goal of wanting to reach the top that they will defend a flaw economic system; just because they want it to be there, when they eventually reach there.
That is an overall-classes motive to get children. From this point of view you have to accuse every single one with this attitude.
Would rather say, they are too stupid and/or too careless to prevent children.
Original post by NotNotBatman
They enjoy sex, which leads to children.
Would rather say, they are too stupid and/or too careless to prevent children.
Original post by 999tigger
Are you really a Catholic? If so why does your religion forbid contracpetion? This is scandaloys in terms of popilation copntrol and the misery it causes in some of the poorest countries in the world.
First of all don't question my faith because you don't know me. Secondly, Catholicism does not 'forbid' anything. We are all given free will and the dogma (rules and principles) set out in the Bible and by the church are just a GUIDE.
Original post by Kallisto
That is an overall-classes motive to get children. From this point of view you have to accuse every single one with this attitude.
Would rather say, they are too stupid and/or too careless to prevent children.
Would rather say, they are too stupid and/or too careless to prevent children.
Or can't afford it?
In the 19th century, when children could sell their labour, poor families were essentially like a commodity, subject to the same laws of supply and demand as any other. When there was a great demand for labour, family sizes increased; when an inevitable crash occurred, sizes dropped through starvation and recklessness. In any case, maximising the size of your family was a good investment in your future.
I think that this culture has subsisted, and poorer families continue to have larger families for the same reason (and a multitude of others of course) or perhaps just unconsciously, like a tradition of sorts. The thing is, if you can only rely on yourself to produce the means of having a larger family (i.e. generate more disposable income) like the OP suggests and you're already on the lowest rung of society, then you're doomed essentially - life becomes like a vicious cycle. Having kids does somewhat give you more opportunity, no?
I think that this culture has subsisted, and poorer families continue to have larger families for the same reason (and a multitude of others of course) or perhaps just unconsciously, like a tradition of sorts. The thing is, if you can only rely on yourself to produce the means of having a larger family (i.e. generate more disposable income) like the OP suggests and you're already on the lowest rung of society, then you're doomed essentially - life becomes like a vicious cycle. Having kids does somewhat give you more opportunity, no?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by NotNotBatman
Or can't afford it?
Another reason, yes. Are contraceptives really so expensive for poor people? I didn't know that.
Original post by Artyom17
Is that why it's the working class who work the hardest, do the most difficult jobs and who have given you everything you have available to you from your clothes to your computer ,yet get hardly anything for it? Is that why the working class are pitted at the bottom thanks to capitalism's class system and are constantly exploited for their labour and have to work in poor conditions? Is that why people are born into millions without even doing anything? Yay capitalism and its many contradictions.
The fact a 'benefits system' as well as things like 'charities' even have to exist in capitalist society shows how poor of a system it really is. It all comes down to unequal distribution of resources. In a true socialist society, 'benefits' would no longer exist, everyone would have work available, everyone would be looked after adequately without having to rely on a pittance. The disabled would no longer be discriminated against economically just for having the misforture of being disabled.
Aspects of the welfare state were granted thanks to working class struggles won in the past, same with many worker rights, NHS, etc. It's all there thanks to the work of many socialists fighting for things which no capitalist state was granting them.
The fact a 'benefits system' as well as things like 'charities' even have to exist in capitalist society shows how poor of a system it really is. It all comes down to unequal distribution of resources. In a true socialist society, 'benefits' would no longer exist, everyone would have work available, everyone would be looked after adequately without having to rely on a pittance. The disabled would no longer be discriminated against economically just for having the misforture of being disabled.
Aspects of the welfare state were granted thanks to working class struggles won in the past, same with many worker rights, NHS, etc. It's all there thanks to the work of many socialists fighting for things which no capitalist state was granting them.
Computer programming is on of the highest paid jobs
Original post by Artyom17
Is that why it's the working class who work the hardest, do the most difficult jobs and who have given you everything you have available to you from your clothes to your computer ,yet get hardly anything for it? Is that why the working class are pitted at the bottom thanks to capitalism's class system and are constantly exploited for their labour and have to work in poor conditions? Is that why people are born into millions without even doing anything? Yay capitalism and its many contradictions.
The fact a 'benefits system' as well as things like 'charities' even have to exist in capitalist society shows how poor of a system it really is. It all comes down to unequal distribution of resources. In a true socialist society, 'benefits' would no longer exist, everyone would have work available, everyone would be looked after adequately without having to rely on a pittance. The disabled would no longer be discriminated against economically just for having the misforture of being disabled.
Aspects of the welfare state were granted thanks to working class struggles won in the past, same with many worker rights, NHS, etc. It's all there thanks to the work of many socialists fighting for things which no capitalist state was granting them.
The fact a 'benefits system' as well as things like 'charities' even have to exist in capitalist society shows how poor of a system it really is. It all comes down to unequal distribution of resources. In a true socialist society, 'benefits' would no longer exist, everyone would have work available, everyone would be looked after adequately without having to rely on a pittance. The disabled would no longer be discriminated against economically just for having the misforture of being disabled.
Aspects of the welfare state were granted thanks to working class struggles won in the past, same with many worker rights, NHS, etc. It's all there thanks to the work of many socialists fighting for things which no capitalist state was granting them.
Original post by Wired_1800
What is the concept of working hard? I think many people have been brainwashed by this concept and to think that some people are rubbish while others are great.
For example, you have a bricklayer who works about 60 hours a week (10 hours for 6 days). He performs physical activities of laying bricks for 10 hours every day. He gets paid a "fair" wage of £15 per hour. In a week, he gets £900 (without tax) and in the year, he gets £46,800.
Another person, a banker, does 60 hours a week as well. His job is not as physical demanding as our bricklayer friend, but he gets paid about £70,000. What is his job, investment banking. He has to look at where the money is and invest it accordingly, thereby making his employer's and their clients more money.
With your concept of fair wage, is it fair that the bricklayer gets paid more than £20,000 less than the banker, when he does more physical activities and shaves years off his life because of his job?
The concept that capitalism rewards hard work is not very true. What it does is to widen the gap between those who control the levers of the economy and the wage-slaves.
A clear example is in the UK, where the powerful people i.e. bankers, consultants and CEOs have earned more in recent years, while the wage-slaves of teachers, civil servants, bus drivers etc have seen their wages stagnate or even reduce. Yet, people claim that we are in a "fair" society. Please wake up!
The big problem we have today is that many people have this aspirational goal of wanting to reach the top that they will defend a flaw economic system; just because they want it to be there, when they eventually reach there.
For example, you have a bricklayer who works about 60 hours a week (10 hours for 6 days). He performs physical activities of laying bricks for 10 hours every day. He gets paid a "fair" wage of £15 per hour. In a week, he gets £900 (without tax) and in the year, he gets £46,800.
Another person, a banker, does 60 hours a week as well. His job is not as physical demanding as our bricklayer friend, but he gets paid about £70,000. What is his job, investment banking. He has to look at where the money is and invest it accordingly, thereby making his employer's and their clients more money.
With your concept of fair wage, is it fair that the bricklayer gets paid more than £20,000 less than the banker, when he does more physical activities and shaves years off his life because of his job?
The concept that capitalism rewards hard work is not very true. What it does is to widen the gap between those who control the levers of the economy and the wage-slaves.
A clear example is in the UK, where the powerful people i.e. bankers, consultants and CEOs have earned more in recent years, while the wage-slaves of teachers, civil servants, bus drivers etc have seen their wages stagnate or even reduce. Yet, people claim that we are in a "fair" society. Please wake up!
The big problem we have today is that many people have this aspirational goal of wanting to reach the top that they will defend a flaw economic system; just because they want it to be there, when they eventually reach there.
Amazing points.
Original post by AlevelBiologist
Computer programming is on of the highest paid jobs
I’m sorry but that’s really irrelevant to the point that @Artyom17 was trying to make.
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 5 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Posted 6 minutes ago
Do I need to sign the back of my own photo for a provisional driving licence?Last reply 8 minutes ago
Amazon Project management apprenticeship 2024Last reply 9 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 10 minutes ago
Student finance for Pre-Settlement Status applicant for BSc NursingLast reply 11 minutes ago
Official: University of Nottingham A108 2024 Entry Applicant threadLast reply 11 minutes ago
DWP EO Job Centre Work Coach - March 2024Last reply 11 minutes ago
Cambridge Land Economy 2024-2025 Postgrad AdmissionsLast reply 13 minutes ago
Official Cardiff University Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 13 minutes ago
Woodhouse College applicants 2024Last reply 14 minutes ago
Part Time or Distance Learning Funding if I didn't complete first degreeTrending
Last reply 7 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 7 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
