Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yes, but that do occupy a class of people within society.
Like I said. It tends to go in most social-science circles
Upper
Middle
Working
Lower(I forgot the term previously)
Under
But you will just dismiss this because it comes from social sciences and therefor isnt valid.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Im starting to think you dont. There is an under-class, they are called homeless and Refugees.

Says the bro that can't draw a straight line from ACA risk elimination and car/life insurance.

So, because someone makes a life choice(Like Smoking, or Running for long periods of time) they have to pay more? Cause remember Medical science cant predict everything or how much medical care you need.
But good for another insult. Keep insulting my intelligence, that will indear me to you.

One huge problem (at least here in the USA) is how many poor people are poor because they are too lazy to go out and get a damn job. They just sit on their asses and eat, sleep, drink (often alcoholic beverages, don't ask me how they afford them), watch TV, play video games, and make more of themselves. And the government just enables them to do so through benefits programs like food stamps and welfare. Makes me wonder how much better our economy would be if these people would just get a job. Doesn't have to be a hard job, maybe just flipping burgers or digging ditches or something, but at least they would be productive. And I do realize that there are people with disabilities who can't work, so I'm not complaining about them. The categorically lazy ones are the ones I have a problem with. The government just provides a gravy train for them while I slave away to keep my rent paid and my stomach full. Some of these people even have more kids on purpose just to get more benefits. Even worse, some of these people are foreign nationals, who have no business being here if they won't at least earn their keep. I suspect that some of them come over here from their third-world homes just to live off our benefits. People used to come to America for freedom, now they come here for free stuff. I have nothing against foreigners (indeed, some of my friends and coworkers are from other nations), but lazy people of all types are just dragging this country down. I am truly sorry if this sounds like hate speech, but I am sick and tired of seeing this, and I know I'm not the only one. And I bet it is not just a problem in America, but a lot of countries with similar benefit programs. I guess it's just human nature. /rant

P.S. I have no problem with people who have jobs getting benefits if they need a little extra help. It is hard to earn a living in this economy, especially for families with more than 2 kids.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So, because someone makes a life choice(Like Smoking, or Running for long periods of time) they have to pay more? Cause remember Medical science cant predict everything or how much medical care you need.
But good for another insult. Keep insulting my intelligence, that will indear me to you.

I can only assume you mean endear. But what do I know.

And yes. You should be held responsible for your life choices. Are you fething kidding me?

 ZergSmasher wrote:
One huge problem (at least here in the USA) is how many poor people are poor because they are too lazy to go out and get a damn job. They just sit on their asses and eat, sleep, drink (often alcoholic beverages, don't ask me how they afford them), watch TV, play video games, and make more of themselves. And the government just enables them to do so through benefits programs like food stamps and welfare. Makes me wonder how much better our economy would be if these people would just get a job. Doesn't have to be a hard job, maybe just flipping burgers or digging ditches or something, but at least they would be productive. And I do realize that there are people with disabilities who can't work, so I'm not complaining about them. The categorically lazy ones are the ones I have a problem with. The government just provides a gravy train for them while I slave away to keep my rent paid and my stomach full. Some of these people even have more kids on purpose just to get more benefits. Even worse, some of these people are foreign nationals, who have no business being here if they won't at least earn their keep. I suspect that some of them come over here from their third-world homes just to live off our benefits. People used to come to America for freedom, now they come here for free stuff. I have nothing against foreigners (indeed, some of my friends and coworkers are from other nations), but lazy people of all types are just dragging this country down. I am truly sorry if this sounds like hate speech, but I am sick and tired of seeing this, and I know I'm not the only one. And I bet it is not just a problem in America, but a lot of countries with similar benefit programs. I guess it's just human nature. /rant

P.S. I have no problem with people who have jobs getting benefits if they need a little extra help. It is hard to earn a living in this economy, especially for families with more than 2 kids.

Please tell me you are joking? You do realize the wel-fare queen is a myth right?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Yes, but that do occupy a class of people within society.
Like I said. It tends to go in most social-science circles
Upper
Middle
Working
Lower(I forgot the term previously)
Under
But you will just dismiss this because it comes from social sciences and therefor isnt valid.

No, I dismiss it because it doesn't make sense.

Working is just a synonym for Middle Class. At best, it describes a subsection of the middle class, but its not its own distinct class. Working class people get paid similar wages and have a similar standard of living to the Middle Class. Therefore they are Middle Class.

Saying they are distinct is silly because Class is based on wage and standard of living, not type of employment.

 cincydooley wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So, because someone makes a life choice(Like Smoking, or Running for long periods of time) they have to pay more? Cause remember Medical science cant predict everything or how much medical care you need.
But good for another insult. Keep insulting my intelligence, that will indear me to you.

I can only assume you mean endear. But what do I know.

And yes. You should be held responsible for your life choices. Are you fething kidding me?

So, a Life choice =/= denied the right to medicine or stuff that can save your life?
Cause let me tell you this, alot of the athletes I know, go to the doctor way more then me, and arguably "Big" person. Should they pay more?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Yes, but that do occupy a class of people within society.
Like I said. It tends to go in most social-science circles
Upper
Middle
Working
Lower(I forgot the term previously)
Under
But you will just dismiss this because it comes from social sciences and therefor isnt valid.

No, I dismiss it because it doesn't make sense.

Working is just a synonym for Middle Class. At best, it describes a subsection of the middle class, but its not its own distinct class. Working class people get paid similar wages and have a similar standard of living to the Middle Class. Therefore they are Middle Class.

Saying they are distinct is silly because Class is based on wage and standard of living, not type of employment.

Well I say no. alot of people, specifically social sciences, are moving away from that understanding.

Yeah. If you are in a dangerous line of work or are an athlete at risk for certain injuries you should pay more. You are a higher risk.

If you're an obese smoker you're damn right you should pay more than these athletes you're claiming go to the Doc more than you.

 cincydooley wrote:
If you're an obese smoker you're damn right you should pay more than these athletes you're claiming go to the Doc more than you.

My Athlete friends went to the docter way often then me. It was always runners knee, and injury from working out, or something. Heck, my Roommate The hulk went every week and needed medicine for his damaged knees from running to much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah. If you are in a dangerous line of work or are an athlete at risk for certain injuries you should pay more. You are a higher risk.

So, you should pay more for medical care, because your are in a dangerous line of work?
Guess who is often in the dangerous line of work? The Working Class, those who make less.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
If you're an obese smoker you're damn right you should pay more than these athletes you're claiming go to the Doc more than you.

My Athlete friends went to the docter way often then me. It was always runners knee, and injury from working out, or something. Heck, my Roommate The hulk went every week and needed medicine for his damaged knees from running to much.

Which are all small and comparatively inexpensive issues when compared to heart disease, diabetes, or cancer.

There's a reason many insurance providers subsidize gym membership costs these days. Fit and healthy people are cheaper to take care of than obese slobs that don't take care of themselves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
If you're an obese smoker you're damn right you should pay more than these athletes you're claiming go to the Doc more than you.

My Athlete friends went to the docter way often then me. It was always runners knee, and injury from working out, or something. Heck, my Roommate The hulk went every week and needed medicine for his damaged knees from running to much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah. If you are in a dangerous line of work or are an athlete at risk for certain injuries you should pay more. You are a higher risk.

So, you should pay more for medical care, because your are in a dangerous line of work?
Guess who is often in the dangerous line of work? The Working Class, those who make less.

No. Said dangerous jobs often pay VERY well.

My friend is a Tower. He could very well get hit by a Car any moment
He gets paid like IDK, 50,000 a year.
Not much TBH.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, so the freedom to make a choice, something our country if founded on, means you are supposed to pay MORE then other people.

Thats not an example of a particularly dangerous job. A better example would be something like a power line inspector, a construction worker, or a crane operator.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Thats really the main problem with trying to set any poverty benchmark. It is entirely dependent on the specific areas, you can't have any one or even multiple levels. You have to have hundreds of poverty levels to even begin to cover the US.

This is also why "living wage" falls flat on its face, you cannot define it.

Where do you get this stuff?

There are cost of living indices for every state, and within each of those you have rural and major city indices.

 sebster wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Thats really the main problem with trying to set any poverty benchmark. It is entirely dependent on the specific areas, you can't have any one or even multiple levels. You have to have hundreds of poverty levels to even begin to cover the US.

This is also why "living wage" falls flat on its face, you cannot define it.

Where do you get this stuff?

There are cost of living indices for every state, and within each of those you have rural and major city indices.

Which is a large reason why a national minimum wage makes zero sense.

For once we agree Cincy, it will do more harm then good.

1.... I should point out, the "Middle class" is very much defined in economic terms, and usually this wage is from 40-250k per year. This is also pretty synonymous with the term Working Class, because people earn their money through their wages and work, rather than dividends and stock options.


2. Cincey is quite right... the cost for most people who ALREADY had insurance pre-ACA has gone up.

3. Healthy people are cheaper to insure than unhealthy. Trust me, a prescription for Motrin, a knee brace or whatever for "runner's knee" is a whole helluva lot cheaper to insure than the drugs used to treat lung cancer, or to pay for bypass surgery....

Those last two are quite often the result of living an unhealthy lifestyle. And it really should be more expensive for people who have made those choices. However, I think there's a limit to how expensive that "expensive" should be, and it has to do with the associate risk pool that insurance companies have.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
For once we agree Cincy, it will do more harm then good.

Then I change my stance. This is the last thing I want.

National minimum wage for all. Let's do this.

 sebster wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Thats really the main problem with trying to set any poverty benchmark. It is entirely dependent on the specific areas, you can't have any one or even multiple levels. You have to have hundreds of poverty levels to even begin to cover the US.

This is also why "living wage" falls flat on its face, you cannot define it.

Where do you get this stuff?

There are cost of living indices for every state, and within each of those you have rural and major city indices.

Yes, there are cost of living indices for every little area.

You'd also have to legislate a living wage for each of these individual areas, it would have to fluctuate on a yearly basis because this kind of thing is very volatile, and you'd have to consider each individual employee's living situation and dependents. Every individual person would basically have his own living wage.

This would be a nightmare to legislate and keep track of.

Not to mention there's very little concurrence on what, exactly, this mythical living wage should allow one to buy or how many people it should support.

 cincydooley wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
For once we agree Cincy, it will do more harm then good.

Then I change my stance. This is the last thing I want.

National minimum wage for all. Let's do this.

Honest Talk, do you just play contrarian to me?
Cause I do that alot too.

There is also no factoring in of commute. Do you base it on where the person lives or works? What happens if there is a severe discrepancy?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
For once we agree Cincy, it will do more harm then good.

Then I change my stance. This is the last thing I want.

National minimum wage for all. Let's do this.

Honest Talk, do you just play contrarian to me?
Cause I do that alot too.

Being honest will get me a vacation.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
For once we agree Cincy, it will do more harm then good.

Then I change my stance. This is the last thing I want.

National minimum wage for all. Let's do this.

Honest Talk, do you just play contrarian to me?
Cause I do that alot too.

I'm sure he's being funny that time.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Thats really the main problem with trying to set any poverty benchmark. It is entirely dependent on the specific areas, you can't have any one or even multiple levels. You have to have hundreds of poverty levels to even begin to cover the US.

This is also why "living wage" falls flat on its face, you cannot define it.

Where do you get this stuff?

There are cost of living indices for every state, and within each of those you have rural and major city indices.

Yes, there are cost of living indices for every little area.

You'd also have to legislate a living wage for each of these individual areas, it would have to fluctuate on a yearly basis because this kind of thing is very volatile, and you'd have to consider each individual employee's living situation and dependents. Every individual person would basically have his own living wage.

This would be a nightmare to legislate and keep track of.

This sort of information is already kept and used in all sorts of things. Once you have the computer systems and databases set up to track & analyze data, it's not all that hard to manage at all, especially if you're not trying to micromanage it on a scale down past the zip code level. The nightmare is designing the formulas and computer systems in the first place, but again, that data is largely already in existing systems.

 cincydooley wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
For once we agree Cincy, it will do more harm then good.

Then I change my stance. This is the last thing I want.

National minimum wage for all. Let's do this.

Honest Talk, do you just play contrarian to me?
Cause I do that alot too.

Being honest will get me a vacation.

Ok then, PM me. Cause I honestly have alot of respect fo you cause you do what most people dont and challenge me.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Thighs are only so cheap because they're viewed almost as a byproduct. You saying the value of the breast is included in the whole bird is a gross oversimplification.

It isn't an oversimplification. It's the fething reality of the situation. If you want to eat cheaper, then buying the less valuable parts of the chicken is better, and your idea of buying the whole chook is wrong (let alone your idea about buying whole chooks and then only keeping the breast meat...)

Which brings me back to my earlier point - people need to stop thinking they know how poor people should spend their money. Unless you live in that situation, you're probably oblivious to a whole bunch of stuff. And even if you do live in that situation, the circumstances of poverty change so much from person to person, city to city that advice needs to be very limited.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Saying they are distinct is silly because Class is based on wage and standard of living, not type of employment.

Class is defined by factors which extend beyond the economic, that's why we call it a socioeconomic concept, and type of employment is one of the biggest because the sort of work that you do has a huge impact on the sort of people you regularly interact with.

Can I use the "You don't know what its like" argument next time someone from Europe tries to tell Americans how we should run our constitutional rights and laws?