why that was nice

[mcsoul 10+ year member]

You will have to chop your own penis off for your gender reassignment and give your sister a falcon punch. We're not paying nor will we sacrifice a perfectly good grandma for your Jerry Springer family shenanigans.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

only because you have a preestablished history of working and making a ton more money than Juan will ever hope to earn.
I'm sorry flip but you and Juan aren't competing

flip > Juan

I competed with the Juans of the world for that restroom cleaning job. I'd compete with him again if I needed funds.

Adam Smith thinks you should be obliged:
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

I disagree with adam smith. There is no logical reason why the rich should give to the poor. He is thinking we have an obligation to ensure people don't starve to death because it is of little inconvience. Animals will vomit and shit on food to keep other animals from eating it. Adam Smith is referring to a moral obligation, not something based on logic.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

I competed with the Juans of the world for that restroom cleaning job. I'd compete with him again if I needed funds....and no other options..which is highly unlikely unless i try crack and like it

you forgot part.. but i fixed it.

I disagree with adam smith. There is no logical reason why the rich should give to the poor. He is thinking we have an obligation to ensure people don't starve to death because it is of little inconvience. Animals will vomit and shit on food to keep other animals from eating it. Adam Smith is referring to a moral obligation, not something based on logic.

Is this improvement in the circumstances of the lower ranks of the people to be regarded as an advantage or as an inconveniency to the society? The answer seems at first sight abundantly plain. Servants, labourers, and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole.

No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

and animals also act altruistically in both the common usage and as well from a socio-biological definition ..

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

you forgot part.. but i fixed it.

No, you didn't. Yes, I may have a master's degree in a field where there is a shortage. Yes, I may have ultra secure employment. However, I don't for a second take any of it for granted. I attempt to be prepared, at all times, to be willing to mop floors, pick cabbage, etc to maintain. I may have more options than most, but I have seen people in better situations than me working at Wendy's. And it had nothing to do with drugs.

Is this improvement in the circumstances of the lower ranks of the people to be regarded as an advantage or as an inconveniency to the society? The answer seems at first sight abundantly plain. Servants, labourers, and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole.

No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged.

I do not believe it is the responsibility of people to ensure the happiness of society. And **** man, you keep posting the same shit over and over. While it does have some relevancy to the subject matter, it requires you to believe certain ways about human nature. We obviously disagree with the constitution of human nature. Thus, quoting sources who posit a differing OPINION on the basis of human nature makes no sense.

and animals also act altruistically in both the common usage and as well from a socio-biological definition ..

Sometimes animals are selfish and sometimes they are not...kind of like people. Why must we legislate what you feel is a moral obligation?

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

holding it true that it isnt important that the masses maintain a minimal level of satisfaction is as foolish as believing that you'll be back scrubbing toilets.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

holding it true that it isnt important that the masses maintain a minimal level of satisfaction is as foolish as believing that you'll be back scrubbing toilets.

I guess you haven't seen too many Ivy MBAs working in banking here in TN. They were wiped out. I know a guy with a MBA from Vanderbilt working at Wendy's. Sure he will only be there temporarily, but such falls from stardom do indeed happen. If your city/town/state has not had such issues, consider yourself lucky.

Who's responsibility is it that the masses are enabled to maintain a certain ( but not specific, at least in your posts) level of satisfaction? You say minimal dietary requirements...well people survived during the Holocaust (oh gasp!!11 I am not supposed to reference that) without eating every day. People survived during transatlantic ocean voyages without eating every day. So what, specifically, is this minimal level of satisfaction and how do we measure to ensure that they are indeed satisfied?

 

[jmanpc 5,000+ posts]

Juan still stole my damn iPod.

Deport his sorry ***.

 

[85_blazer 10+ year member]

my friends mom just told me a story that she know an illegal mexican who bought sum guys identification and now he gets this guys child support taken out of his checks!! lmao

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

Furthermore, satisfaction tends to rise with satisfaction. After a year of eating the minimal food for survival, one may want to eat every day. How do we deal, in your opinion, with ever increasing wants? Currently, we limit this with price, but according to you it is society's obligation to continue to cater to ever-increasing wants (in order for the masses to be satisified). Furthermore, when does a trifling inconvience become a major inconvience. How is that point measured and who determines it?

 

[oldschoolboomer 10+ year member]

Juan is a hard worker. He wants to work for a big company. He wants to bring his cultural disregard for safety policies and get himself hurt. Then he wants to claim Dr. Smith is insensitive to his pain so he can transfer to Dr. Montemayor. Then he wants to complain that the company isn't treating him like visiting royalty so he hires attorney Rodriguez. Then he collects a nice settlement and goes back to Mexico. As a result, worker Jones doesn't get a pay increase because comp rates increased so Juan can be the king of his little town in Mexico.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

Juan is a hard worker. He wants to work for a big company. He wants to bring his cultural disregard for safety policies and get himself hurt. Then he wants to claim Dr. Smith is insensitive to his pain so he can transfer to Dr. Montemayor. Then he wants to complain that the company isn't treating him like visiting royalty so he hires attorney Rodriguez. Then he collects a nice settlement and goes back to Mexico. As a result, worker Jones doesn't get a pay increase because comp rates increased so Juan can be the king of his little town in Mexico.

No Juan is a hard worker. You are just mad.

 

[oldschoolboomer 10+ year member]

I just speak from many experiences as an employer of almost 400 Juans.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

I just speak from many experiences as an employer of almost 400 Juans.

Your anecdotal evidence doesn't matter. Only quotes from Adam Smith seem to matter.

 

[oldschoolboomer 10+ year member]

pince pendecos. maricones! me mucho trabajos vatos locos!