Si vis discussiōne, para factum.

liberalsoul:

rightsided:

liberalsoul:

rightsided:

liberalsoul:

rightsided:

And then he added “And no one who crashes his car into the river, and leaves a girl for dead in the front seat should have to be punished for it.”

Okay so people who work 1, 2, maybe 3 jobs should live in poverty? Is that what you’re saying?

Notice I didn’t attack what he said, but in stead I attacked the man.

Okay, sure. But did you get what your followers got from that?
“If you’re getting paid minimum wage, you need to learn a skill like everyone else who’s not living in poverty.”
Seriously?

Inability to earn does result from a lack of human capital, as Adam Smith described it,

“Fourthly, of the acquired and useful abilities of all the inhabitants or members of the society. The acquisition of such talents, by the maintenance of the acquirer during his education, study, or apprenticeship, always costs a real expense, which is a capital fixed and realized, as it were, in his person. Those talents, as they make a part of his fortune, so do they likewise that of the society to which he belongs. The improved dexterity of a workman may be considered in the same light as a machine or instrument of trade which facilitates and abridges labor, and which, though it costs a certain expense, repays that expense with a profit.

My followers statement is not entirely wrong.

That’s true. It helps if you have talent, and I’m sure there are many people who could learn one or two to get out of poverty. I make money on my personal skill. But I needed a college education to get here. Without being born in the right family with all the right privileges, I’d probably be a minimum wage worker living in poverty; I have no other talents.
This system is set up so the rich stays rich and the poor stays poor. It’s harder than you think to pick yourself up from poverty and learn a skill or trade.

Bill Gates.

rightsided:

liberalsoul:

rightsided:

liberalsoul:

rightsided:

And then he added “And no one who crashes his car into the river, and leaves a girl for dead in the front seat should have to be punished for it.”

Okay so people who work 1, 2, maybe 3 jobs should live in poverty? Is that what you’re saying?

Notice I didn’t attack what he said, but in stead I attacked the man.

Okay, sure. But did you get what your followers got from that?

“If you’re getting paid minimum wage, you need to learn a skill like everyone else who’s not living in poverty.”

Seriously?

Inability to earn does result from a lack of human capital, as Adam Smith described it,

“Fourthly, of the acquired and useful abilities of all the inhabitants or members of the society. The acquisition of such talents, by the maintenance of the acquirer during his education, study, or apprenticeship, always costs a real expense, which is a capital fixed and realized, as it were, in his person. Those talents, as they make a part of his fortune, so do they likewise that of the society to which he belongs. The improved dexterity of a workman may be considered in the same light as a machine or instrument of trade which facilitates and abridges labor, and which, though it costs a certain expense, repays that expense with a profit.

My followers statement is not entirely wrong.

That’s true. It helps if you have talent, and I’m sure there are many people who could learn one or two to get out of poverty. I make money on my personal skill. But I needed a college education to get here. Without being born in the right family with all the right privileges, I’d probably be a minimum wage worker living in poverty; I have no other talents.

This system is set up so the rich stays rich and the poor stays poor. It’s harder than you think to pick yourself up from poverty and learn a skill or trade.