PDA

View Full Version : World's richest woman says poor should have less fun, work harder


*JR*
Sep 1st, 2012, 03:54 PM
http://www.trbimg.com/img-503f8f88/turbine/la-fi-mo-richest-woman-20120830-001/600

(Hey bitch, you could @ least afford to go to a fat farm) :help:

Gina Rinehart, the world's richest woman, says people who are jealous of the wealthy should work harder. (Twitter / August 30, 2012)

By David Lazarus (LA Times)

August 30, 2012, 9:31 a.m.

Just in case you were beginning to think rich people were deeply misunderstood and that they feel the pain of those who are less fortunate, here's the world's wealthiest woman, Australian mining tycoon Gina Rinehart, with some helpful advice.

"If you're jealous of those with more money, don't just sit there and complain," she said in a magazine piece. "Do something to make more money yourself -- spend less time drinking or smoking and socialising, and more time working." Yeah, let them eat cake.

Rinehart made her money the old-fashioned way: She inherited it. Her family iron ore prospecting fortune of $30.1 billion makes her Australia's wealthiest person and the richest woman on the planet.

"There is no monopoly on becoming a millionaire," she said by way of encouragement.

"Become one of those people who work hard, invest and build, and at the same time create employment and opportunities for others." Boom. Almost too easy.

Why are people poor? Rinehart blamed what she described as "socialist," anti-business government policies, and urged Australian officials to lower the minimum wage and cut taxes.

"The millionaires and billionaires who choose to invest in Australia are actually those who most help the poor and our young," she said. "This secret needs to be spread widely."

And now it's out there. Thank you, rich people. We're not worthy. :o

KournikovaFan91
Sep 1st, 2012, 04:44 PM
She needs to exercise harder :tape:

Barktra
Sep 1st, 2012, 04:51 PM
:tape:

saint2
Sep 1st, 2012, 04:56 PM
Minimum wage in Australia is more than avarage pole makes. Unemployment is reasonably low. How is it even possible to "be poor" in Australia ?

_summer
Sep 1st, 2012, 05:00 PM
She needs to exercise harder :tape:

lol

Sammo
Sep 1st, 2012, 05:15 PM
http://www.trbimg.com/img-503f8f88/turbine/la-fi-mo-richest-woman-20120830-001/600



MY EYESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!1!!! :hysteric:

Wigglytuff
Sep 1st, 2012, 05:21 PM
How is she any different from most of America's rich, and fox news. With the clear expectional of the group patriotic millionaires, a group of wealthy people who want to pay MORE in taxes.

Mikey.
Sep 1st, 2012, 06:12 PM
This woman is a crazy bitch anyway. :lol: I remember hearing in the news recently she was trying to stop her children inheriting any of the money.

Minimum wage in Australia is more than avarage pole makes. Unemployment is reasonably low. How is it even possible to "be poor" in Australia ?

The cost of living is actually quite high as well. :shrug:

Mary Cherry.
Sep 1st, 2012, 06:20 PM
"If you're jealous of those with more money, don't just sit there and complain," she said in a magazine piece. "Do something to make more money yourself -- spend less time drinking or smoking and socialising, and more time working." Yeah, let them eat cake.

I can think of certain people who are guilty of this tbh, except they spend a lot of their time breeding as well. Having 5 kids by the time you're 25 isn't exactly going to help your financial situation.

moby
Sep 1st, 2012, 06:27 PM
She has a point. For every poor person who's a victim of circumstances and bad luck, there are a few who are just deadbeats.

Wigglytuff
Sep 1st, 2012, 06:30 PM
This woman is a crazy bitch anyway. :lol: I remember hearing in the news recently she was trying to stop her children inheriting any of the money.



The cost of living is actually quite high as well. :shrug:

WHAT?? and why? she can't take it with her?

Mikey.
Sep 1st, 2012, 06:34 PM
WHAT?? and why? she can't take it with her?

I meant inheriting it from a trust set up by her father before he died.

pov
Sep 1st, 2012, 07:26 PM
Why must people with an agenda twist things. The woman said:"people who are jealous of the wealthy should work harder" I agree with her.

And as for her earning it by inheriting it - so what? By the account given her father earned the money through savvy business. "As a child, Hancock showed a keen interest in mining and prospecting and discovered asbestos at Wittenoom Gorge at the age of ten. He staked a claim at Wittenoom in 1934 and began mining blue asbestos there in 1938 with the company Australian Blue Asbestos.

People act like being poor makes one noble or virtuous. It doesn't.

Wigglytuff
Sep 1st, 2012, 07:31 PM
I meant inheriting it from a trust set up by her father before he died.

Oh!! She wants the money for herself while she is still alive even though she has more money than she could spend in 4 lifetimes?

$uricate
Sep 1st, 2012, 07:31 PM
http://www.trbimg.com/img-503f8f88/turbine/la-fi-mo-richest-woman-20120830-001/600

(Hey bitch, you could @ least afford to go to a fat farm) :help:

Gina Rinehart, the world's richest woman, says people who are jealous of the wealthy should work harder. (Twitter / August 30, 2012)

By David Lazarus (LA Times)

August 30, 2012, 9:31 a.m.

Just in case you were beginning to think rich people were deeply misunderstood and that they feel the pain of those who are less fortunate, here's the world's wealthiest woman, Australian mining tycoon Gina Rinehart, with some helpful advice.

"If you're jealous of those with more money, don't just sit there and complain," she said in a magazine piece. "Do something to make more money yourself -- spend less time drinking or smoking and socialising, and more time working." Yeah, let them eat cake.

Rinehart made her money the old-fashioned way: She inherited it. Her family iron ore prospecting fortune of $30.1 billion makes her Australia's wealthiest person and the richest woman on the planet.

"There is no monopoly on becoming a millionaire," she said by way of encouragement.

"Become one of those people who work hard, invest and build, and at the same time create employment and opportunities for others." Boom. Almost too easy.

Why are people poor? Rinehart blamed what she described as "socialist," anti-business government policies, and urged Australian officials to lower the minimum wage and cut taxes.

"The millionaires and billionaires who choose to invest in Australia are actually those who most help the poor and our young," she said. "This secret needs to be spread widely."

And now it's out there. Thank you, rich people. We're not worthy. :o

Won't this just make the rich richer and the poor poorer? :shrug:

For every entrepeneur making a mint from this there will be a hundred workers underneath them being exploited for even less money.

Not everyone can be rich, there are always people who will suffer to make others rich.

Wigglytuff
Sep 1st, 2012, 07:33 PM
Why must people with an agenda twist things. The woman said:"people who are jealous of the wealthy should work harder" I agree with her.

And as for her earning it by inheriting it - so what?

So she is lazier and has worked less than anyone she is critizing.

pov
Sep 1st, 2012, 07:56 PM
So she is lazier and has worked less than anyone she is critizing.
:facepalm: There's an old school jam that says "think it ain't illegal yet." That someone inherits money doesn't mean they're lazy. But even if she is, that's irrelevant. Lazy can be good food. But it's tweaked to be lazy and then complain about the wealth of others.

Plus the money was earned by a man who applied himself well. That he gave a lot of what he generated to his daughter doesn't change that. What? If someone is born poor and earns millions their inheritors shouldn't appreciate the effort that generated the money. And again her comment was aimed at those who are jealous of the rich. If she'd really said what the OP posted in the title that would be another thing.

BTW those posting on here acting like they're poor are clueless. You may not be wealthy but you aren't poor.

Dav.
Sep 1st, 2012, 08:04 PM
I come from a very conservative family (although I am not myself) that has benefited from recent tax laws, but could never understand the defense of disproportionally taxing the poor over the wealthy.

I also find her comments to be fairly ironic considering her form of inheritance. ;)

Nicolás89
Sep 1st, 2012, 08:20 PM
:facepalm: There's an old school jam that says "think it ain't illegal yet." That someone inherits money doesn't mean they're lazy. But even if she is, that's irrelevant. Lazy can be good food. But it's tweaked to be lazy and then complain about the wealth of others.

Plus the money was earned by a man who applied himself well. That he gave a lot of what he generated to his daughter doesn't change that. What? If someone is born poor and earns millions their inheritors shouldn't appreciate the effort that generated the money. And again her comment was aimed at those who are jealous of the rich. If she'd really said what the OP posted in the title that would be another thing.

BTW those posting on here acting like they're poor are clueless. You may not be wealthy but you aren't poor.

I atually agree with this.

*JR*
Sep 1st, 2012, 08:35 PM
Why must people with an agenda twist things. The woman said:"people who are jealous of the wealthy should work harder" I agree with her.

If anyone "twisted" her meaning, it was the headline writer. And while I often post my own as a thread title, this one was close enough to her message to go with "as is". (Seems that she has a "then let them eat cake" attitude).

Now lets take the "... should work harder" part. IF many Western societies did not pursue an economic "race to the bottom", @ least working harder would be a fairer trade between personal time and more assets.

But the relatively well paid manufacturing jobs that let Henry Ford tell his fellow industrialists a century ago (to justify his paying the then princely wage of $5 a day) "... so they can afford to buy my cars" (and of course, what the others made, like Edison's phonographs) have disappeared; OR have newer workers paid far less than those they replace earned, adjusted for inflation.

Now more and more countries that had a "we're all in it together" ethos send those jobs to the lowest wage places they can find (or make "bid down", to not be out of the running). And it isn't just manufacturing, but service jobs too. Try calling tech support for your PC if you doubt that. (And even if lets say Apple keeps that function here, see where a Mac is made). :shrug:

Melly Flew Us
Sep 1st, 2012, 08:41 PM
maybe instead of talking smack she should do some proper work herself.

mary-antoinette has been reborn - bring back the guillotine.

Mrs. Dimitrova
Sep 1st, 2012, 08:42 PM
Says the woman who inherited her money. :lol:

Certinfy
Sep 1st, 2012, 09:00 PM
Would rather be poor than look like a fat piece of shit like her.

Julian.
Sep 1st, 2012, 09:12 PM
She is seriously such an embarrassment for us Aussies :sobbing:

Edward.
Sep 1st, 2012, 11:00 PM
Why must people with an agenda twist things. The woman said:"people who are jealous of the wealthy should work harder" I agree with her.

And as for her earning it by inheriting it - so what? By the account given her father earned the money through savvy business.

People act like being poor makes one noble or virtuous. It doesn't.

So he got rich selling a dangerous mineral that has killed countless people all around the world.

Well, thanks a lot, fat bitch's daddy!

Onslow
Sep 1st, 2012, 11:01 PM
How is she any different from most of America's rich, and fox news. With the clear expectional of the group patriotic millionaires, a group of wealthy people who want to pay MORE in taxes.

they are hypocrites :smash:

6Io4sqsB8f8

Bijoux0021
Sep 1st, 2012, 11:30 PM
Says the woman who inherited her money. :lol:
This.

PhilePhile
Sep 1st, 2012, 11:42 PM
Why must people with an agenda twist things. The woman said:"people who are jealous of the wealthy should work harder" I agree with her.

And as for her earning it by inheriting it - so what? By the account given her father earned the money through savvy business.

People act like being poor makes one noble or virtuous. It doesn't.

:lol:. I think she is just being defensive. Hint: she did not "work hard" in obtaining her assets. :p

Wigglytuff
Sep 2nd, 2012, 12:14 AM
:facepalm: There's an old school jam that says "think it ain't illegal yet." That someone inherits money doesn't mean they're lazy. But even if she is, that's irrelevant.

clearly you are not taking your own advice.

look at her and say with a straight face that she aint lazy? think man, use your brain (if you have one)

and yes if you inherit your fortune and you sit around all do day eating and talking about how lazy poor people are, you are 100000X lazier than even the panhandler, because he has to move around at some point. :wavey:

Wigglytuff
Sep 2nd, 2012, 12:20 AM
BTW those posting on here acting like they're poor are clueless. You may not be wealthy but you aren't poor.

this needed its own post.

NO ONE in this thread has said they are poor. in fact in all my years posting here I have never read a single post where someone claimed to be impoverished. so you can not play this game where you pretend someone said something they did NOT say and attack them for it. before you are so quick to attack, i suggest you learn to read what people have ACTUALLY said and respond to that. :rolleyes:

Wigglytuff
Sep 2nd, 2012, 12:25 AM
they are hypocrites :smash:


you need a dictionary.

http://patrioticmillionaires.org/

7b682jzn_B0

dp50xpZXk5E

Sam L
Sep 2nd, 2012, 12:47 AM
BTW those posting on here acting like they're poor are clueless. You may not be wealthy but you aren't poor.

The difference is none of us, at least most of us, aren't saying "the poor should have less fun, work harder". This woman has a lot of personal issues with family and I don't think she's a happy woman despite her wealth. That's why a comment like that doesn't surprise me. It says more about her than anyone else.

HeninFan_2008
Sep 2nd, 2012, 03:16 AM
She has a point. For every poor person who's a victim of circumstances and bad luck, there are a few who are just deadbeats.

She looks like a deadbeat to me.

woosey
Sep 2nd, 2012, 04:35 AM
she should be pitied.

debby
Sep 2nd, 2012, 11:56 AM
I can think of certain people who are guilty of this tbh, except they spend a lot of their time breeding as well. Having 5 kids by the time you're 25 isn't exactly going to help your financial situation.

That's a stupid statement. :weirdo:

I feel concerned yes because my mother had all of her kids (4) at 25. So that's why I am going to answer.
I think it's too easy to say thay. Really. Life is not that simple like :

- grow up
- going to school
- passing high school, going to the university
- get a job
- getting married, having a family


No, life doesn't happen like that. I am not going to tell you my mom's life.
But let's say that she had a horrible childhood, really horrible. Whatever and she got accidentally preggo at 16, and refused to have an abortion (understandable). My father stayed with her.
Yeah they had 4 kids young, so what? We all have a stable life, we are happy. Actually I think my parents are UNLUCKY. Being a housewife with 4 kids is actually a full-time job, yet she has been refused some welfare to help me. The social worker even believed she lied about my condition (deaf) to get money. :weirdo:
And my father has been working for 30 years at the same place, and he is underpaid as he is doing the same job as engineers there, but as he doesn't have the required degrees, he can't ask for a better wage....



So I would never judge anyone for wanting kids at a young age, I think it's alright, and there's nothing wrong with that. Of course, if it's like 10 kids.... it's a different matter. But it's a rare case, given the kids/woman rate nowadays, I doubt you can encounter many families with 5 kids at 25.
Also what's wrong with breeding? It's admirable. I would never thank my mom enough because she spent so much time looking after me, and now I have a great life, able to talk, and such... Not sure if I could have been there with absent parents.

About that woman : lol she is so disgusting omg. Does she believe poor people are lazy? No this world is unfair. Many people are working their asses off but they are still poor. Life is unfair anyway.

Beat
Sep 2nd, 2012, 02:02 PM
it would be one thing if this woman was a once poor, self-made millionaire. alas, she's not ...

So I would never judge anyone for wanting kids at a young age, I think it's alright, and there's nothing wrong with that.

no, mary cherry's comment wasn't stupid.
there is something wrong with that if your life is not stable, you're basically a child yourself and you don't really want children, they just happen to you. if you're putting children into this world, make sure you can somehow provide them with everything they need.

Minimum wage in Australia is more than avarage pole makes. Unemployment is reasonably low. How is it even possible to "be poor" in Australia ?

is this a serious question? there are even poor and homeless people here in switzerland, as shocking as it might seem to you. there's always someone falling through the social grid somewhere.

debby
Sep 2nd, 2012, 02:20 PM
no, mary cherry's comment wasn't stupid.
there is something wrong with that if your life is not stable, you're basically a child yourself and you don't really want children, they just happen to you. if you're putting children into this world, make sure you can somehow provide them with everything they need.

Who are you to judge them? Are you judging my parents then?

...

I can't.

There are young parents who are way more mature than 30yo parents with a stable life who happen to starve their kids or whatnot. I think I had a very happy life, even a happier one than some who have parents who are both working.

Mr.Sharapova
Sep 2nd, 2012, 02:34 PM
http://www.trbimg.com/img-503f8f88/turbine/la-fi-mo-richest-woman-20120830-001/600

(Hey bitch, you could @ least afford to go to a fat farm) :help:

Gina Rinehart, the world's richest woman, says people who are jealous of the wealthy should work harder. (Twitter / August 30, 2012)

By David Lazarus (LA Times)

August 30, 2012, 9:31 a.m.

Just in case you were beginning to think rich people were deeply misunderstood and that they feel the pain of those who are less fortunate, here's the world's wealthiest woman, Australian mining tycoon Gina Rinehart, with some helpful advice.

"If you're jealous of those with more money, don't just sit there and complain," she said in a magazine piece. "Do something to make more money yourself -- spend less time drinking or smoking and socialising, and more time working." Yeah, let them eat cake.

Rinehart made her money the old-fashioned way: She inherited it. Her family iron ore prospecting fortune of $30.1 billion makes her Australia's wealthiest person and the richest woman on the planet.

"There is no monopoly on becoming a millionaire," she said by way of encouragement.

"Become one of those people who work hard, invest and build, and at the same time create employment and opportunities for others." Boom. Almost too easy.

Why are people poor? Rinehart blamed what she described as "socialist," anti-business government policies, and urged Australian officials to lower the minimum wage and cut taxes.

"The millionaires and billionaires who choose to invest in Australia are actually those who most help the poor and our young," she said. "This secret needs to be spread widely."

And now it's out there. Thank you, rich people. We're not worthy. :o

She has worked hard herself it seems :tape: I mean look at her, she's a mess with the whole anorexia and not having time to eat thing.

saint2
Sep 2nd, 2012, 02:36 PM
is this a serious question? there are even poor and homeless people here in switzerland, as shocking as it might seem to you. there's always someone falling through the social grid somewhere.

Context. She said "poor people should work harder" , so it means she said it about working people, not homeless and unemployed. Isn't having a job in AUS
enough to provide you decent life ?

debby
Sep 2nd, 2012, 02:37 PM
Context. She said "poor people should work harder" , so it means she said it about working people, not homeless and unemployed. Isn't having a job in AUS
enough to provide you decent life ?

No. Like everywhere.

Sean.
Sep 2nd, 2012, 02:45 PM
Less work, more gym! ;)

Mary Cherry.
Sep 2nd, 2012, 03:08 PM
That's a stupid statement. :weirdo:

I feel concerned yes because my mother had all of her kids (4) at 25. So that's why I am going to answer.
I think it's too easy to say thay. Really. Life is not that simple like :

- grow up
- going to school
- passing high school, going to the university
- get a job
- getting married, having a family


No, life doesn't happen like that. I am not going to tell you my mom's life.
But let's say that she had a horrible childhood, really horrible. Whatever and she got accidentally preggo at 16, and refused to have an abortion (understandable). My father stayed with her.
Yeah they had 4 kids young, so what? We all have a stable life, we are happy. Actually I think my parents are UNLUCKY. Being a housewife with 4 kids is actually a full-time job, yet she has been refused some welfare to help me. The social worker even believed she lied about my condition (deaf) to get money. :weirdo:
And my father has been working for 30 years at the same place, and he is underpaid as he is doing the same job as engineers there, but as he doesn't have the required degrees, he can't ask for a better wage....



So I would never judge anyone for wanting kids at a young age, I think it's alright, and there's nothing wrong with that. Of course, if it's like 10 kids.... it's a different matter. But it's a rare case, given the kids/woman rate nowadays, I doubt you can encounter many families with 5 kids at 25.
Also what's wrong with breeding? It's admirable. I would never thank my mom enough because she spent so much time looking after me, and now I have a great life, able to talk, and such... Not sure if I could have been there with absent parents.

About that woman : lol she is so disgusting omg. Does she believe poor people are lazy? No this world is unfair. Many people are working their asses off but they are still poor. Life is unfair anyway.

tl;dr

My point was, as someone else in this thread said earlier, some people are just deadbeats.

debby
Sep 2nd, 2012, 03:12 PM
tl;dr

My point was, as someone else in this thread said earlier, some people are just deadbeats.

Too bad because you would have been less ignorant about young parents. Are you a deadbeat yourself? ;)

Mary Cherry.
Sep 2nd, 2012, 03:19 PM
Too bad because you would have been less ignorant about young parents. Are you a deadbeat yourself? ;)

I spoke about people that I know of. That's not being ignorant, that's just sharing my own opinion on what I've seen first hand.

And no, I definitely don't share the deadbeat lifestyle.

debby
Sep 2nd, 2012, 03:31 PM
Well.

I don't think age is the right criteria, for starters. Maturity yes.
It's much more about parenting than only incomes IMO. If you are young, struggling at the end of every month, with kids, but you are a wonderful parent, ready to sacrifice your well-being for your kids, they can be alright. That's the truth.

Of course, it's always much better to have money to raise kids, but I think it's too simplistic to say that 25 yo with a few kids should not complain and such. It's more complex than that.

Age + money =/= maturity, good parenting.
That's just my point. ;)

Talula
Sep 2nd, 2012, 04:07 PM
Well.

I don't think age is the right criteria, for starters. Maturity yes.
It's much more about parenting than only incomes IMO. If you are young, struggling at the end of every month, with kids, but you are a wonderful parent, ready to sacrifice your well-being for your kids, they can be alright. That's the truth.

Of course, it's always much better to have money to raise kids, but I think it's too simplistic to say that 25 yo with a few kids should not complain and such. It's more complex than that.

Age + money =/= maturity, good parenting.
That's just my point. ;)

Well, that's the theory, but if you look at the dross on the streets of Britain it ain't the practice!

Mary Cherry.
Sep 2nd, 2012, 04:17 PM
Well, that's the theory, but if you look at the dross on the streets of Britain it ain't the practice!

Exactly.

debby
Sep 2nd, 2012, 04:30 PM
Well, that's the theory, but if you look at the dross on the streets of Britain it ain't the practice!

Exactly.

Ok, then my parents are the scum for having kids so young. Some of my friends are scum. RME.


Way to make stupid generalizations. NEWS FLASH : some parents, with an income, at 30 yo, can be terrible parents. :weirdo:

Serenus Christ
Sep 2nd, 2012, 04:47 PM
She may have inherited her fortune but she is an extremely smart business woman and knows a lot about the mining industry.. She has been pretty much doubling her net worth each year since 1992.

Beat
Sep 2nd, 2012, 05:03 PM
Who are you to judge them? Are you judging my parents then?

what? no. i don't know your parents. it was a general observation. like mary cherry said, we are able to observe our environment and deduct our opinions. and yes, i do judge some of these people. don't pretend you never do. obviously you do judge me, otherwise you wouldn't have badrepped me. silly.

Mynarco
Sep 2nd, 2012, 05:19 PM
I can think of certain people who are guilty of this tbh, except they spend a lot of their time breeding as well. Having 5 kids by the time you're 25 isn't exactly going to help your financial situation.

Agree, and not only applied to young people actually. There are loads of old men (in HK) marrying young women from the mainland, having 2-3 kids AT LEAST, while relying on welfare or having an unstable source of income. These groups of people know well another baby means another burden and still they are doing it

debby
Sep 2nd, 2012, 07:04 PM
what? no. i don't know your parents. it was a general observation. like mary cherry said, we are able to observe our environment and deduct our opinions. and yes, i do judge some of these people. don't pretend you never do. obviously you do judge me, otherwise you wouldn't have badrepped me. silly.

Well I used my parents example in the post you quoted, that's why.

Oh yeah, here we go. Judging people. Well then, you judge people without knowing them, their situation, etc. I judged your answer, not you as a person. Huge difference.
I don't judge people because they wanted to have kids while still young (still convinced the age thing is a WEAK argument) or because they don't have that much money.

It sounds like rich people or people with two wages can have kids. It's quite disturbing. Some rich people are actually bad parents.

Anyway I don't even understand why kids are a factor in people being poor. It's by no means the #1 reason as to why poor people are poor. Non sense.

PhilePhile
Sep 2nd, 2012, 07:17 PM
...
Why are people poor? Rinehart blamed what she described as "socialist," anti-business government policies, and urged Australian officials to lower the minimum wage and cut taxes.

"The millionaires and billionaires who choose to invest in Australia are actually those who most help the poor and our young," she said. "This secret needs to be spread widely."

... :o

NOTE: From the quote, she did not said or implied that the "poor should have less fun, work harder".

Slow day *JR*? Or just being naughty? :lol:

However, Rinehart's response is typical of the well-to-do people. Simply because they would be no worse off and more likely better off by such suggested policy. Any side effects of such policy will mainly be the poor's burdens.

Expat
Sep 2nd, 2012, 07:29 PM
Debby I am not sure how it works in France but in America stats show that 96% of people can avoid poverty by following just 3 things
1) Finishing High school (i.e 18 years)
2) Not having children before they are married
3) Once they have children stay married.

On the other hand poverty is well over 50% for women who are teenaged unwed mothers.

saint2
Sep 2nd, 2012, 07:52 PM
No. Like everywhere.

How does the bread cost in OZ then ?

Unless thay have horrendous prices, I just can't imagine someone who earns aussie wages AND being poor (NOTE- im talking about people who are unmaried, have no children and don't have a credit to pay- otherwise, sorry, being poor is their choice).

Mynarco
Sep 2nd, 2012, 07:56 PM
If you cannot even make your ends meet, just don't think about having children - easy, and there's nothing wrong with that. Also nowadays HK young professionals (yes, even professionals) cannot afford having children without properly doing their math. I guess the poor people should do the same

Mary Cherry.
Sep 2nd, 2012, 08:45 PM
Ok, then my parents are the scum for having kids so young. Some of my friends are scum. RME.


Way to make stupid generalizations. NEWS FLASH : some parents, with an income, at 30 yo, can be terrible parents. :weirdo:

Way to completely ignore what we were saying. Bore off.

bobito
Sep 2nd, 2012, 08:59 PM
My sister is a nurse responsible for a trauma ward. I somehow doubt that Gina Rinehart is 1500000 times richer than her because she works 1500000 times harder. This is a bit rich (pardon the pun) coming from a woman who inherited a fotune.

The reality all too often is that even the self made rich are not wealthy because they worked so much harder, they are rich because they lied and cheated, ripped people off and stabbed them in the back.

Chris 84
Sep 2nd, 2012, 09:06 PM
Debby I am not sure how it works in France but in America stats show that 96% of people can avoid poverty by following just 3 things
1) Finishing High school (i.e 18 years)
2) Not having children before they are married
3) Once they have children stay married.

On the other hand poverty is well over 50% for women who are teenaged unwed mothers.

this is one of the stupidest things i've ever heard. what you really mean is that people are disproportionately better off if they stay in school, don't have kids before marriage and then stay married once they have kids. in actual fact, marriage has nothing to do with wealth, except that when people have money they are more likely to get married, thereby totally skewing your stats.

finishing high school is all well and good, but if you're born into poverty then very often you have to start working earlier. given the state of the economy at the moment and the number of uni students who can't get jobs atm (never mind just school students), there are no guarantees right now whatsoever regarding education.

back to the point....it is ridiculous to say that working harder will make you wealthier. plenty of people work their backsides off to support a family, or to support themselves, but if they are getting minimal pay then it doesn't really matter how hard they work. anyway, rinehart is hardly in a position to say such things. she might work hard (i dunno), she might be a very good businesswoman (she seems to be), but she was totally loaded without lifting a finger. i wonder if she'd be a billionaire if her father had been a binman and her mother unemployed.

saint2
Sep 2nd, 2012, 09:18 PM
back to the point....it is ridiculous to say that working harder will make you wealthier. plenty of people work their backsides off to support a family, or to support themselves, but if they are getting minimal pay then it doesn't really matter how hard they work

How can you not support yourself for aussie money ? I need to see their prices, BC it sound riddiculous for me. And for family, if you can't afford it, don't have it.

lee station
Sep 2nd, 2012, 09:54 PM
as long as you have the strength, you can work, work more, have fun, rest, work some more and do a back flip

Wigglytuff
Sep 2nd, 2012, 10:28 PM
Debby I am not sure how it works in France but in America stats show that 96% of people can avoid poverty by following just 3 things
1) Finishing High school (i.e 18 years)
2) Not having children before they are married
3) Once they have children stay married.

On the other hand poverty is well over 50% for women who are teenaged unwed mothers.

10th grade social studies: correlation does not equal causation. These three things are CORRELATED w/ poverty rates but only having a college eduction is causal. The rest are only correlations not causations. For example, lack of education results in both unplanned pregnancy, having children out of wedlock when young. But having a child out of wedlock will not make bill gates daughter poor. However, if someone is under educated or uneducated they may not have the knowledge to use birth control effectively, this is particularly true in red states that offer abstinence only education.

One reason for the mobility gap may be the depth of American poverty, which leaves poor children starting especially far behind. Another may be the unusually large premiums that American employers pay for college degrees. Since children generally follow their parents’ educational trajectory, that premium increases the importance of family background and stymies people with less schooling.

At least five large studies in recent years have found the United States to be less mobile than comparable nations. A project led by Markus Jantti, an economist at a Swedish university, found that 42 percent of American men raised in the bottom fifth of incomes stay there as adults. That shows a level of persistent disadvantage much higher than in Denmark (25 percent) and Britain (30 percent) — a country famous for its class constraints.

Meanwhile, just 8 percent of American men at the bottom rose to the top fifth. That compares with 12 percent of the British and 14 percent of the Danes.

Despite frequent references to the United States as a classless society, about 62 percent of Americans (male and female) raised in the top fifth of incomes stay in the top two-fifths, according to research by the Economic Mobility Project of the Pew Charitable Trusts. Similarly, 65 percent born in the bottom fifth stay in the bottom two-fifths.

By emphasizing the influence of family background, the studies not only challenge American identity but speak to the debate about inequality. While liberals often complain that the United States has unusually large income gaps, many conservatives have argued that the system is fair because mobility is especially high, too: everyone can climb the ladder. Now the evidence suggests that America is not only less equal, but also less mobile.

John Bridgeland, a former aide to President George W. Bush who helped start Opportunity Nation, an effort to seek policy solutions, said he was “shocked” by the international comparisons. “Republicans will not feel compelled to talk about income inequality,” Mr. Bridgeland said. “But they will feel a need to talk about a lack of mobility — a lack of access to the American Dream.”

While Europe differs from the United States in culture and demographics, a more telling comparison may be with Canada, a neighbor with significant ethnic diversity. Miles Corak, an economist at the University of Ottawa, found that just 16 percent of Canadian men raised in the bottom tenth of incomes stayed there as adults, compared with 22 percent of Americans. Similarly, 26 percent of American men raised at the top tenth stayed there, but just 18 percent of Canadians.

“Family background plays more of a role in the U.S. than in most comparable countries,” Professor Corak said in an interview.

Skeptics caution that the studies measure “relative mobility” — how likely children are to move from their parents’ place in the income distribution. That is different from asking whether they have more money. Most Americans have higher incomes than their parents because the country has grown richer.

Some conservatives say this measure, called absolute mobility, is a better gauge of opportunity. A Pew study found that 81 percent of Americans have higher incomes than their parents (after accounting for family size). There is no comparable data on other countries.

Since they require two generations of data, the studies also omit immigrants, whose upward movement has long been considered an American strength. “If America is so poor in economic mobility, maybe someone should tell all these people who still want to come to the U.S.,” said Stuart M. Butler, an analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

The income compression in rival countries may also make them seem more mobile. Reihan Salam, a writer for The Daily and National Review Online, has calculated that a Danish family can move from the 10th percentile to the 90th percentile with $45,000 of additional earnings, while an American family would need an additional $93,000.

Even by measures of relative mobility, Middle America remains fluid. About 36 percent of Americans raised in the middle fifth move up as adults, while 23 percent stay on the same rung and 41 percent move down, according to Pew research. The “stickiness” appears at the top and bottom, as affluent families transmit their advantages and poor families stay trapped.

While Americans have boasted of casting off class since Poor Richard’s Almanac, until recently there has been little data.

Pioneering work in the early 1980s by Gary S. Becker, a Nobel laureate in economics, found only a mild relationship between fathers’ earnings and those of their sons. But when better data became available a decade later, another prominent economist, Gary Solon, found the bond twice as strong. Most researchers now estimate the “elasticity” of father-son earnings at 0.5, which means that for every 1 percent increase in a father’s income, his sons’ income can be expected to increase by about 0.5 percent.

In 2006 Professor Corak reviewed more than 50 studies of nine countries. He ranked Canada, Norway, Finland and Denmark as the most mobile, with the United States and Britain roughly tied at the other extreme. Sweden, Germany, and France were scattered across the middle.

The causes of America’s mobility problem are a topic of dispute — starting with the debates over poverty. The United States maintains a thinner safety net than other rich countries, leaving more children vulnerable to debilitating hardships.

Poor Americans are also more likely than foreign peers to grow up with single mothers. That places them at an elevated risk of experiencing poverty and related problems, a point frequently made by Mr. Santorum, who surged into contention in the Iowa caucuses. The United States also has uniquely high incarceration rates, and a longer history of racial stratification than its peers.

“The bottom fifth in the U.S. looks very different from the bottom fifth in other countries,” said Scott Winship, a researcher at the Brookings Institution, who wrote the article for National Review. “Poor Americans have to work their way up from a lower floor.”

A second distinguishing American trait is the pay tilt toward educated workers. While in theory that could help poor children rise — good learners can become high earners — more often it favors the children of the educated and affluent, who have access to better schools and arrive in them more prepared to learn.

In other words personal choices and responsibilty have a huge say, but society is not blameless:

Legancy programs that account for 25% or more of ivy league admissions (I.e. kids who didn't earn admission but got in because a close relative attended the school) these are spots that could go to poor students who actually earned it

Nursery university, the track that allows well off parents to train their children from birth to attend ivy league by sending them to feeder preschools, that then go to feeder schools, and high schools.

So a person born in the bottom 10% has to swim against all that, with what is usually a mediocre support system.

Wigglytuff
Sep 2nd, 2012, 10:44 PM
I spoke about people that I know of. That's not being ignorant, that's just sharing my own opinion on what I've seen first hand.

And no, I definitely don't share the deadbeat lifestyle.

Actual, that's classic ignorance. "I don't know so I'm going to judge you based on a stereotype I made up. "

That seems completely ignorant

Wigglytuff
Sep 2nd, 2012, 10:46 PM
My sister is a nurse responsible for a trauma ward. I somehow doubt that Gina Rinehart is 1500000 times richer than her because she works 1500000 times harder. This is a bit rich (pardon the pun) coming from a woman who inherited a fotune.

The reality all too often is that even the self made rich are not wealthy because they worked so much harder, they are rich because they lied and cheated, ripped people off and stabbed them in the back.

Two words

Mitt.
Romney.

GoofyDuck
Sep 2nd, 2012, 10:49 PM
she's right about not smoking and drinking alcohol makes a big difference in your wallet.

saint2
Sep 2nd, 2012, 10:56 PM
she's right about not smoking and drinking alcohol makes a big difference in your wallet.

Actually this is BS. I smoke, I avarage 5 beers per day, I don't earn big money, and I am able to afford not only my addictions but also my hobbies (music CDs and biking). While I know people who are earning bigger money than me, and they are in debts. Reasons ?

- I don't have a family to feed
- I don't have a car.

These are spending cancers...

Mary Cherry.
Sep 2nd, 2012, 11:01 PM
Actual, that's classic ignorance. "I don't know so I'm going to judge you based on a stereotype I made up. "

That seems completely ignorant

I've said nothing about anyone/anything else. I gave my opinion on what I've seen first hand.

And I've already mentioned this, you must be ignorant of my other posts.

Sammo
Sep 2nd, 2012, 11:45 PM
Says the woman who inherited her money. :lol:

Pathetic isn't it?

ranfurly
Sep 3rd, 2012, 12:17 AM
Gina,

your mouth is more tolerable when it has a pie wedged in it buddy.

wta_zuperfann
Sep 3rd, 2012, 12:43 AM
~ sell all you have and give to the poor ~

~ it will be easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God ~





Too bad people like her and Romney never bother to live by that.

Mforensic
Sep 3rd, 2012, 01:04 AM
Actually this is BS. I smoke, I avarage 5 beers per day, I don't earn big money, and I am able to afford not only my addictions but also my hobbies (music CDs and biking). While I know people who are earning bigger money than me, and they are in debts. Reasons ?

- I don't have a family to feed
- I don't have a car.

These are spending cancers...

You said it....spending cancers! Smoking and drinking on a daily basis. I'd love to do your autopsy to see that nice bumpy, yellow-brown liver, and see those blackened shriveled lungs, just waiting for the tar and puss to pour out.

ahh....just another day at the office.

*JR*
Sep 3rd, 2012, 01:23 AM
...

The causes of America’s mobility problem are a topic of dispute — starting with the debates over poverty. The United States maintains a thinner safety net than other rich countries, leaving more children vulnerable to debilitating hardships.


Good article, and next time plz acknowledge the writer (here, NY Times journalist Jason DeParle, the husband of Deputy White House Chief of Staff Nancy Ann DeParle). Jason is especially good because he focuses on class, not race.

Unlike the late IL Governor Otto Kerner (head of the LBJ appointed Kerner Commission, whose 1968 report on the causes of urban unrest in America began: “Our Nation Is Moving Toward Two Societies, One Black, One White — Separate and Unequal”).

In other words, language that played right into the hands of those populists willing to adopt racism for political gain, like George Wallace. As this is not the US Political Thread, I'm curious how much liberals in Europe, etc. unintentionally help the nationalist parties, by throwing such "collective white guilt" @ non-elites.

Wigglytuff
Sep 3rd, 2012, 01:51 AM
~ sell all you have and give to the poor ~

~ it will be easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God ~





Too bad people like her and Romney never bother to live by that.

its not just the act of being rich, but what you do with your wealth. Mitt thinks he can give 10% of whatever part of his income he is not hiding in Switzerland, and them treat the less well off like animals(and we see how they treat animals) he's done.

compare if you will to
Teddy
FDR
John, Robert and Ted Kennedy

When you see old footage and you see how the look at, talk to and interact with the poor, the middle class it is NOTHING like how Mitt does.

Can you imagine Mitt pushing through an unpopular civil rights act that would benefit mainly blacks in the early 1960's?

of course not. and thats the problem. not that he is rich but that he cares ONLY about the rich.

égalité
Sep 3rd, 2012, 01:58 AM
Yeah, all those people working two minimum wage jobs in order to pay their rent and feed their children are clearly not working hard enough.

Wigglytuff
Sep 3rd, 2012, 02:26 AM
Yeah, all those people working two minimum wage jobs in order to pay their rent and feed their children are clearly not working hard enough.

:worship: :worship: :worship:

ranfurly
Sep 3rd, 2012, 03:07 AM
Actually this is BS. I smoke, I avarage 5 beers per day, I don't earn big money, and I am able to afford not only my addictions but also my hobbies (music CDs and biking). While I know people who are earning bigger money than me, and they are in debts. Reasons ?

- I don't have a family to feed
- I don't have a car.

These are spending cancers...

Must be shit tobacco and cat-piss beer.

sarcasm aside

car's arent a cancer..

...for many it's a necessity,

..besides, I can't wait to have a family/children where a portion of what I earn goes onto providing them. for many, children bring happiness and enrich many peoples lives, and forgo "luxuries" to put their kids first.

time to creep out of the snow globe mate.

Dani12
Sep 3rd, 2012, 04:34 AM
Hah, she may have lost 9b of her fortune :lol:

debby
Sep 3rd, 2012, 05:51 AM
Debby I am not sure how it works in France but in America stats show that 96% of people can avoid poverty by following just 3 things
1) Finishing High school (i.e 18 years)
2) Not having children before they are married
3) Once they have children stay married.

On the other hand poverty is well over 50% for women who are teenaged unwed mothers.

:lol:
Others handled your post perfectly. I know someone who has done all of those, yet she is not exactly safe at every end of the month (like "oh I am not worried, it's safe" but like "ewwww we have to eat rice and pasta, we need to be tight on money"). I don't see what marriage has to do with poverty :confused:
I am not pro-marriage (nor against it either), I don't want to get married. But I guess I will eventually do if I have kids, not before. So as I have finished high school, but 2 is likely to not happen, does it mean I will be poor? I hope not !

Way to completely ignore what we were saying. Bore off.

Actually, it seems you don't know what/how to answer me since you never replied to one of my posts with actual arguments. I guess you are ignorant on the subject...

And for family, if you can't afford it, don't have it.

Families are now for rich people. :)
There's a difference between not being able to afford a family AND not having much money left because you have a family. This is not rocket science !

Expat
Sep 3rd, 2012, 07:55 AM
this is one of the stupidest things i've ever heard. what you really mean is that people are disproportionately better off if they stay in school, don't have kids before marriage and then stay married once they have kids. in actual fact, marriage has nothing to do with wealth, except that when people have money they are more likely to get married, thereby totally skewing your stats.

you think there is no difference between a single mother raising kids alone and a married couple raising kids? it is rare that a teenaged single mother alone earns that much that she can raise children without living off food stamps.

finishing high school is all well and good, but if you're born into poverty then very often you have to start working earlier. given the state of the economy at the moment and the number of uni students who can't get jobs atm (never mind just school students), there are no guarantees right now whatsoever regarding education.

again high school is free even if you are poor. poor family dynamics is not something the govt can control though. it comes from personal responsibility.



back to the point....it is ridiculous to say that working harder will make you wealthier. plenty of people work their backsides off to support a family, or to support themselves, but if they are getting minimal pay then it doesn't really matter how hard they work. anyway, rinehart is hardly in a position to say such things. she might work hard (i dunno), she might be a very good businesswoman (she seems to be), but she was totally loaded without lifting a finger. i wonder if she'd be a billionaire if her father had been a binman and her mother unemployed.
If you are getting minimum pay 2 sets of hands getting 40 hours minimum pay raising kids goes much further than a single mother living off welfare benefits.


but personal responsibility is a lost cause here.

saint2
Sep 3rd, 2012, 05:01 PM
Families are now for rich people.
There's a difference between not being able to afford a family AND not having much money left because you have a family. This is not rocket science !

May sound harsh, but if you are poor AND decide to make a family, you are hurting not only yourself, but also your children. If you are decided to have a family anyway, you will HAVE to work harder AND have less money for yourself.
This is not rocket science.

Wigglytuff
Sep 3rd, 2012, 06:12 PM
May sound harsh, but if you are poor AND decide to make a family, you are hurting not only yourself, but also your children. If you are decided to have a family anyway, you will HAVE to work harder AND have less money for yourself.
This is not rocket science.

Good thing you were not advising Bill Clinton's mother. Or J.K. Rowling's mother or oprahs mother. (but hilters mother would have had the ok, sorry to Godwin this but it's the first name that comes to mind)

You are not only harsh but you are wrong, if you feel you would make a good able and educated parent you should not be deterred from having kids because you are not a millionaire or if you are a woman not married to a man. :wavey:

saint2
Sep 3rd, 2012, 06:29 PM
Good thing you were not advising Bill Clinton's mother. Or J.K. Rowling's mother or oprahs mother. (but hilters mother would have had the ok, sorry to Godwin this but it's the first name that comes to mind)

I don't care if you are mother of Albert Einstein, or Jesus Christ. My point stands correct.

You are financially limited and deciding to make children-> you basically double your monthly spending -> you are poor by your own fault.

Mary Cherry.
Sep 3rd, 2012, 06:34 PM
Actually, it seems you don't know what/how to answer me since you never replied to one of my posts with actual arguments. I guess you are ignorant on the subject...

I didn't ask for your life story so why should I comment on it?

Chris 84
Sep 3rd, 2012, 06:54 PM
you think there is no difference between a single mother raising kids alone and a married couple raising kids? it is rare that a teenaged single mother alone earns that much that she can raise children without living off food stamps.

again high school is free even if you are poor. poor family dynamics is not something the govt can control though. it comes from personal responsibility.



If you are getting minimum pay 2 sets of hands getting 40 hours minimum pay raising kids goes much further than a single mother living off welfare benefits.


but personal responsibility is a lost cause here.

marriage isn't relevant. a couple bringing up kids don't have to be married. naturally, it is more likely that a couple will be better off financially than a single mother. but marriage has little to do with anything.

high school might be free (although in many countries, the high schools that are best suited to leading you to having a good career are not) but if a family is struggling to put food on the table then that family or that child may feel pressure to pull out of school and start working.

and of course minimum wage pays better than benefit. but plenty of people CAN'T get work, no matter how hard they try. moreover, a couple working minimum wage might work exceptiuonally hard and still be poor. you can be rich without doing any work and poor whilst doing plenty of work. in short, working hard doesn't guarantee anything. of course working hard is better than living on benefits, but some people have no choice.

Wigglytuff
Sep 3rd, 2012, 06:55 PM
I don't care if you are mother of Albert Einstein, or Jesus Christ. My point stands correct.

You are financially limited and deciding to make children-> you basically double your monthly spending -> you are poor by your own fault.

Right because J.K. Rowling is poor :smash: (she was once on welfare and had a kid), except for the fact that she is now a multi billionaire and one of the richest women ever. Far from your point standing, it shows how little you understand how the world really works (and ironically helping to disprove your point that wealth = qualified parents because at some point, even though they gave you an apartment, they failed to give you much more important skills like critical thinking and empathy).

saint2
Sep 3rd, 2012, 06:58 PM
Right because J.K. Rowling is poor (she was once on welfare and had a kid), except for the fact that she is now a multi billionaire and one of the richest women ever.

OK. My mistake. You may also pray that your child will have one-in-a-million talent, then spend 20-30 years in poverty, and THEN, enjoy the life. Sounds reasonable for me.

Far from your point standing, it shows how little you understand how the world really works (and ironically helping to disprove your point that wealth = qualified parents because at some point, even though they gave you an apartment, they failed to give you much more important skills like critical thinking and empathy).

I've never used a phrase "quality parents". Im just saying that having a kid while being finanncialy limited= financial suicide for you and your kid.

Number19
Sep 3rd, 2012, 07:08 PM
So, let me get this straight. Rich people complain about poor people because they are poor, meanwhile they make superfluous amounts of money and pay shit wages. So, the rich actually make the poor. Then have the audacity to complain about the poor and the economy. Despite we live in a consumer based economy, But they don't pay enough for consumers to consume more. So, essentially they are complaining about problems they create.

Takers are never satisfied are they.

So, what's the point of making superfluous amounts of money to be a jealous, unhappy, whiny, bitter ugly (on the inside;)) people. When is it ever enough?

Most people don't care about being stinking rich like these whiny people. They just want enough to be free-er and less burdened. And more importantly not made to feel they are burden. Which people like this with comments like this do.

Not everybody has the same personality traits, or IQ do be in those positions and do those things. And nobody earns those things. It just there. Much to their chagrin these things also don't make you better or superior being.

tenn_ace
Sep 3rd, 2012, 07:09 PM
someone needs to introduce her to a good plastic surgent

Wigglytuff
Sep 3rd, 2012, 07:12 PM
OK. My mistake. You may also pray that your child will have one-in-a-million talent, then spend 20-30 years in poverty, and THEN, enjoy the life. Sounds reasonable for me.



I've never used a phrase "quality parents". Im just saying that having a kid while being finanncialy limited= financial suicide for you and your kid.

And before you start telling people you don't know, if they should have kids because they are poor, you should know SOMETHING about having kids. Like how much they cost, a baby does not cost the same as an adult. Why would you even think that? (again showing that despite buying you a condo, they didn't get you critical thinking skills.)

http://www.babycenter.com/baby-cost-calculator

Depending on the choices a parent makes a child can cost very little for the first few years (breast feeding vs formula, cloth diapers vs disposable, ect)

For example, if we decide to have a child, our costs would be minimal because we would be breast feeding and since I run my business from home, no child care costs. So we would not have to be rich, and hopefully we would be able to teach our children better lessons that to talk about what they don't understand.

debby
Sep 3rd, 2012, 07:17 PM
I don't care if you are mother of Albert Einstein, or Jesus Christ. My point stands correct.

You are financially limited and deciding to make children-> you basically double your monthly spending -> you are poor by your own fault.

Sorry I am going to be harsh.

Easy to say that when your parents bought you an apartment.

I think it's a disgusting point to make that to say poor people should not have kids. If they spend all their money for their kids, what's wrong with that? As long as the kids are alright and healthy... I don't think we should judge them. I don't want to have kids right now, anyway I am single, and I want to be settled down with a nice dude before having kids anyway. But if one day, let's say I fall pregnant despite one of us getting unemployed, I don't think it's that easy to decide an abortion. I think I would be ready to sacrifice myself for the kids.

My parents taught me these values. For years, even now, when I want to buy them an expensive thing just to make them happy, they are like "no keep your money for yourself, you are super nice, but please, have a safe future ... you are our daughter, it's normal we want you to be safe, don't worry about us" even if they spent so much money for my education and such. I am not listening to them, so I buy them that thing, and they are super happy, kissing me and such. But I know they didn't expect me to be like that.
I got hit by a car, and I could have died (the speed was quite high, it would have killed most of people, I have been super lucky), so the insurance gave me 7000 €. They never asked me one euro of it. Noooooothing.

But I can't help it. Even if I would be extra-tight on money, I would still want to buy them some stuff because I love them so much. I think that's the case of many parents whose money is quite tight. And they can be wonderful parents.


So my point is :

- Poor parents can be awful parents.
- Rich parents can be awful parents.
- Poor parents can be wonderful parents.
- Rich parents can be wonderful parents.

Better if you are not tight ENOUGH to NOT be able at all to feed your kids and to make them happy.... Then, who are we to judge if they need credits to pay their car ? if they don't eat enough to make their kids happy? Don't you think your approach is quite simplistic ?

I didn't ask for your life story so why should I comment on it?

Then I should not care about your own experience in the streets of England.

See ?

This is bullshit.

Everyone has experience. I think it's good to bring it up. I am not denying that some teenagers are not suited at parenting due to their young age (what you were implying to), but I don't think we should make this case about ALL teenagers parents. That's SO wrong as I know amazing teenagers parents including my parents. They had all of their kids (4) at 25. This is much more than money.... don't you agree ?

So I don't think your experience should be disregarded, but neither mine should be.

saint2
Sep 3rd, 2012, 07:18 PM
And before you start telling people you don't know, if they should have kids because they are poor, you should know SOMETHING about having kids. Like how much they cost, a baby does not cost the same as an adult. Why would you even think that? (again showing that despite buying you a condo, they didn't get you critical thinking skills.)

BC I know live situation of some couples with kids. And I know my situation. Mine is way better (no, its NOT BC my parents bought me an appartament), despite having less money.


For example, if we decide to have a child, our costs would be minimal because we would be breast feeding and since I run my business from home, no child care costs. So we would not have to be rich, and hopefully we would be able to teach our children better lessons that to talk about what they don't understand.

Oh, you are NOT poor. You bought a car*, wich I wouldn't be able to afford in my life...

*- sorry babe, you went on personal level, so I can too.. :devil:

Wigglytuff
Sep 3rd, 2012, 07:33 PM
BC I know live situation of some couples with kids. And I know my situation. Mine is way better (no, its NOT BC my parents bought me an appartament), despite having less money.




Oh, you are NOT poor. You bought a car*, wich I wouldn't be able to afford in my life...

*- sorry babe, you went on personal level, so I can too.. :devil:

Ok, I can't work with you if you don't know how to think critically (it's a shame parents didn't buy that for you), or know how the world works, (few people in America buy a car outright, and we didn't either. ) No we are not poor, but we are not rich either, far from it. We have enough. But it's not money that makes us who we are, it's what we do and how we show compassion and empathy for others.

debby
Sep 3rd, 2012, 07:37 PM
Ok, I can't work with you if you don't know how to think critically (it's a shame parents didn't buy that for you), or know how the world works, (few people in America buy a car outright, and we didn't either. ) No we are not poor, but we are not rich either, far from it. We have enough. But it's not money that makes us who we are, it's what we do and how we show compassion and empathy for others.

+1

saint2
Sep 3rd, 2012, 07:46 PM
Ok, I can't work with you if you don't know how to think critically (it's a shame parents didn't buy that for you), or know how the world works, (few people in America buy a car outright, and we didn't either. )

So you put yourself a debt for a car ??? Congratulations. I'd prefer to spend money you wasted on beer

No we are not poor, but we are not rich either, far from it. We have enough. But it's not money that makes us who we are, it's what we do and how we show compassion and empathy for others.

Then good for you. I've never said that money is something I value in my life, wich is not. I just said that I couldn't afford having a family without sacrafices, and yes, without downgrading myself to what you call "poor". And many brainless people who are having children would be better off without it.

And still insulting my parents ? Well, they bought a car and a university education for my younger bro. Since they knew I can't drive a car and there is no way I'd finnish good college, they bought me a home, but thats all I got from them. Im not living on my parents money.

debby
Sep 3rd, 2012, 07:50 PM
So you put yourself a debt for a car ??? Congratulations. I'd prefer to spend money you wasted on beer

What :o :o :o :o A car is 1565644x more useful than beer.


Then good for you. I've never said that money is something I value in my life, wich is not. I just said that I couldn't afford having a family without sacrafices, and yes, without downgrading myself to what you call "poor". And many brainless people who are having children would be better off without it.

1/ Then you might not be made to be a parent. Most of parents are making sacrifices for their kids.

2/ Brainless. Wow. Classy :yeah: Way to respect people who actually are less selfish than you to make their kids happy before themselves.

And still insulting my parents ? Well, they bought a car and a university education for my younger bro. Since they knew I can't drive a car and there is no way I'd finnish good college, they bought me a home, but thats all I got from them. Im not living on my parents money.

My parents didn't pay my uni education nor a car for me.
Still I am feeling super grateful to them.

Guess you were quite spoiled....

Mary Cherry.
Sep 3rd, 2012, 08:21 PM
Then I should not care about your own experience in the streets of England.

See ?

This is bullshit.

Everyone has experience. I think it's good to bring it up. I am not denying that some teenagers are not suited at parenting due to their young age (what you were implying to), but I don't think we should make this case about ALL teenagers parents. That's SO wrong as I know amazing teenagers parents including my parents. They had all of their kids (4) at 25. This is much more than money.... don't you agree ?

So I don't think your experience should be disregarded, but neither mine should be.

So why jump on my post in the first place? I know you like having a go at people for no reason but really, your wasting your own time.

debby
Sep 3rd, 2012, 08:24 PM
So why jump on my post in the first place? I know you like having a go at people for no reason but really, your wasting your own time.

:unsure: Because I disagreed and thought it would be nice to bring up my own view on the subject ? You know, for an actual debate.

Please just stop it :facepalm: I don't know what your problem is with me, I have none with you, I even PM'ed you the other day, but I am that way with everyone if I disagree with them, hoping to have a fair debate. And usually they answer, not in a lame way like you are doing, by avoiding the real subject. You posted in this thread, you should expect people to actually quote you if they disagree with you on something. Not everyone agrees with you.

Mary Cherry.
Sep 3rd, 2012, 08:41 PM
:unsure: Because I disagreed and thought it would be nice to bring up my own view on the subject ? You know, for an actual debate.

Please just stop it :facepalm: I don't know what your problem is with me, I have none with you, I even PM'ed you the other day, but I am that way with everyone if I disagree with them, hoping to have a fair debate. And usually they answer, not in a lame way like you are doing, by avoiding the real subject. You posted in this thread, you should expect people to actually quote you if they disagree with you on something. Not everyone agrees with you.

Unless you have seen the people I was talking about, how can you comment on them? The same way I didn't comment on what you were yapping on about. If someone from Britain were to post and (god forbid) defend the Jeremy Kyle generation then I would happily continue the debate with them.

Also, what PM? The last contact you had with me was spamming my Twitter sharing all those problems you supposedly don't have with me. I blocked you and it all ended rather nicely.

Good day.

debby
Sep 3rd, 2012, 08:55 PM
Unless you have seen the people I was talking about, how can you comment on them? The same way I didn't comment on what you were yapping on about. If someone from Britain were to post and (god forbid) defend the Jeremy Kyle generation then I would happily continue the debate with them.

Also, what PM? The last contact you had with me was spamming my Twitter sharing all those problems you supposedly don't have with me. I blocked you and it all ended rather nicely.

Good day.


I already went to England.

I know teenage parents who are awesome parents, so I think your claiming is unfair to them. Generalizations are always unfair. Age =/= being mature.

Oh please. I sent you a PM, hoping to make up with you. What problems? Wtf ? I was just talking about TWAT... whatever.

*JR*
Sep 3rd, 2012, 09:20 PM
....it is ridiculous to say that working harder will make you wealthier. plenty of people work their backsides off to support a family, or to support themselves, but if they are getting minimal pay then it doesn't really matter how hard they work.

Spot on! :rocker:

delicatecutter
Sep 3rd, 2012, 10:32 PM
I love you Robyn. :sobbing:

égalité
Sep 3rd, 2012, 10:52 PM
So you put yourself a debt for a car ??? Congratulations. I'd prefer to spend money you wasted on beer



Then good for you. I've never said that money is something I value in my life, wich is not. I just said that I couldn't afford having a family without sacrafices, and yes, without downgrading myself to what you call "poor". And many brainless people who are having children would be better off without it.

And still insulting my parents ? Well, they bought a car and a university education for my younger bro. Since they knew I can't drive a car and there is no way I'd finnish good college, they bought me a home, but thats all I got from them. Im not living on my parents money.

In the U.S., unless you live in an urban area, it's excessively difficult/inconvenient not to have a car. Public transportation doesn't even pass by my apartment on Sundays and only comes once an hour from 7:45AM to 8PM on other days. It doesn't even come early enough for me to get to the calculus class I teach on time. :help: I got into a car accident last week and I'm practically stranded in my apartment because I have no car. And I live in a college town so cab prices are ridiculously inflated to take advantage of all the drunk freshmen who need rides back to their dorms. You can forget walking. Things are so spread out and there are no sidewalks for the most part. This is just the way suburbia is engineered. Cars aren't a waste, they're a necessity.

Wigglytuff
Sep 3rd, 2012, 11:39 PM
In the U.S., unless you live in an urban area, it's excessively difficult/inconvenient not to have a car. Public transportation doesn't even pass by my apartment on Sundays and only comes once an hour from 7:45AM to 8PM on other days. It doesn't even come early enough for me to get to the calculus class I teach on time. :help: I got into a car accident last week and I'm practically stranded in my apartment because I have no car. And I live in a college town so cab prices are ridiculously inflated to take advantage of all the drunk freshmen who need rides back to their dorms. You can forget walking. Things are so spread out and there are no sidewalks for the most part. This is just the way suburbia is engineered. Cars aren't a waste, they're a necessity.

It's one of those statements that's so ignorant it shocks the mind.

Sean.
Sep 4th, 2012, 12:40 AM
Some of the people in this thread are extraordinarily closed minded. :rolleyes:

Nicolás89
Sep 4th, 2012, 01:17 AM
A car is a necessity in most parts of the world. :shrug:

And I can't at some people trying to sound intelligent with their sarcastic responses.

dybbuk
Sep 4th, 2012, 02:13 AM
In the U.S., unless you live in an urban area, it's excessively difficult/inconvenient not to have a car. Public transportation doesn't even pass by my apartment on Sundays and only comes once an hour from 7:45AM to 8PM on other days. It doesn't even come early enough for me to get to the calculus class I teach on time. :help: I got into a car accident last week and I'm practically stranded in my apartment because I have no car. And I live in a college town so cab prices are ridiculously inflated to take advantage of all the drunk freshmen who need rides back to their dorms. You can forget walking. Things are so spread out and there are no sidewalks for the most part. This is just the way suburbia is engineered. Cars aren't a waste, they're a necessity.

THIS THIS THIS THIS. Where I live now I don't have a car and I have no problem, most things I need are within walking distance, and anything else I can catch the bus or a taxi.

But where I'm originally from you can't survive without a car. In my hometown there is a very small general store, one restaurant and a gas station. There is no public transportation of any kind. All this means there is a limited amount of goods you can possibly walk and get, and a very limited amount of jobs. You HAVE to leave the town to get anything more than basic supplies and to get better jobs. As there is no public transportation, this of course means you must have a car.

What would saint in his infinite wisdom say to these people? For them to just move? So much easier said than done. To walk on the side of the highway for twenty miles to the next biggest town? In rural areas in very large countries, you simply cannot survive without a car.

young_gunner913
Sep 4th, 2012, 03:07 AM
How did her father make so much money? Fucking pigs?

ranfurly
Sep 4th, 2012, 03:17 AM
http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/haha-you-are-poor.jpg

Mynarco
Sep 4th, 2012, 04:05 AM
I think it's a disgusting point to make that to say poor people should not have kids.

I just can't agree with you here. Not that I think they would be bad parents (they can be really supportive to their children, doing all they can to them and still falling short) I just believe it's also the adults' responsibility to ensure the kids being financially protected.


Unless you have seen the people I was talking about, how can you comment on them? The same way I didn't comment on what you were yapping on about. If someone from Britain were to post and (god forbid) defend the Jeremy Kyle generation then I would happily continue the debate with them.

Jeremy Kyle :lol: those "people" being interviewed up there are just ridiculous :tape:

hdfb
Sep 4th, 2012, 06:13 AM
Minimum wage in Australia is more than avarage pole makes. Unemployment is reasonably low. How is it even possible to "be poor" in Australia ?

Cost of living is really expensive in Australia!

ranfurly
Sep 4th, 2012, 09:44 AM
I just can't agree with you here. Not that I think they would be bad parents (they can be really supportive to their children, doing all they can to them and still falling short) I just believe it's also the adults' responsibility to ensure the kids being financially protected.




Jeremy Kyle :lol: those "people" being interviewed up there are just ridiculous :tape:

Jeremy Kyle needs to cut the shit and winding them up and just go straight to sterilisation.

I've never seen so many people with bad haircuts on that show.

God Forbid that going platinum blonde and then regrowth underneath is a fashion statment.

Looks more like a fucking mince and cheese pie.

Wigglytuff
Sep 4th, 2012, 11:13 AM
I just can't agree with you here. Not that I think they would be bad parents (they can be really supportive to their children, doing all they can to them and still falling short) I just believe it's also the adults' responsibility to ensure the kids being financially protected.




Jeremy Kyle :lol: those "people" being interviewed up there are just ridiculous :tape:

I also reject the notion that parents have to prove every goddamned thing for their children from apartments to cars. This creates spoiled, ignorant arrogant children who remain such well into what should adult hood.

Parents should save for their own retirement first. They should not be obligated to "ensure the kids being financially protected" beyond the 18th year. Buy your own car and your own apartment. Learn the value of earning your own way in the world, just like mom and dad had to. I disagree with the notion that giving your children things they can and should pay for themselves in adulthood is either a must or a good thing.

Mynarco
Sep 4th, 2012, 02:05 PM
I also reject the notion that parents have to prove every goddamned thing for their children from apartments to cars. This creates spoiled, ignorant arrogant children who remain such well into what should adult hood.

Parents should save for their own retirement first. They should not be obligated to "ensure the kids being financially protected" beyond the 18th year. Buy your own car and your own apartment. Learn the value of earning your own way in the world, just like mom and dad had to. I disagree with the notion that giving your children things they can and should pay for themselves in adulthood is either a must or a good thing.

I am not talking about giving everything for their kids after adulthood, I am talking about those parents who are even struggling to bring home the bacon because of having too many kids. Also the cost of bring up the kids till age 18 can already be hefty (At least this is the situation in HK), these things should be taken consideration when deciding whether having children is a good idea

Mary Cherry.
Sep 4th, 2012, 02:39 PM
I already went to England.

I know teenage parents who are awesome parents, so I think your claiming is unfair to them. Generalizations are always unfair. Age =/= being mature.

Oh please. I sent you a PM, hoping to make up with you. What problems? Wtf ? I was just talking about TWAT... whatever.

So you went to UK as a tourist and visited a bunch of council estates in the north of England as part of your trip? For the umpteenth time, I'm specifically talking about people I know of. This is not generalising. I have not once said "young parents are bad parents". Plenty of people around here do nothing but eat, sleep, drink and breed and live off of benefits. They are deadbeats. These are the shitty people that I'm talking about.

I also know some other young parents who aren't deadbeats but I haven't mentioned them because they're not relevant to this thread. They live a normal life.

Also, that PM was a joke. "I'm disappointed in you. Bla bla bla." Bore off.

debby
Sep 4th, 2012, 03:50 PM
I just can't agree with you here. Not that I think they would be bad parents (they can be really supportive to their children, doing all they can to them and still falling short) I just believe it's also the adults' responsibility to ensure the kids being financially protected.

Do you realize you can be poor AFTER feeding your kids and not being able to save anything for your retirement or to get an expensive credit for a house ?
It's not all black and white, that's just what I am saying.
So I think it's extremely unfair to deny them the right to be parents. My parents only had one wage together, yet we all have been happy, my brothers and I. It simply is not all black and white. Sure, it's better to have a financial situation quite comfortable. But .. yeah.

Also contraception is expensive in some places (luckily, here, the pill is free), so the chances to fall pregnant for poor people are higher.


I also reject the notion that parents have to prove every goddamned thing for their children from apartments to cars. This creates spoiled, ignorant arrogant children who remain such well into what should adult hood.

Parents should save for their own retirement first. They should not be obligated to "ensure the kids being financially protected" beyond the 18th year. Buy your own car and your own apartment. Learn the value of earning your own way in the world, just like mom and dad had to. I disagree with the notion that giving your children things they can and should pay for themselves in adulthood is either a must or a good thing.

:worship:

At the highschool I went to, I was discussing with a girl. We were just hitting 18 years old, so the legal age to have the drive license (I know it's 16 in the US but here it's 18).
The girl asks me if I have a car, I say no it's too expensive, if I have the drive license at least, I say no again (it's really expensive here, like over than 1000 € ) and that I don't have the traffic code either because it's too expensive, my parents couldn't afford to pay it for me while they were not able to do so for my brothers.
And that bitch, she said "OMG THEY ARE SO STINGY UGH my father paid my drive license and he even bought me a new car, I love him, your parents are so selfish blablabla" . I know it's bad but if we were not INSIDE the school, under the nose of a supervisor, I would have punched her. :lol:
Can't stand these spoiled people. :rolleyes:

So you went to UK as a tourist and visited a bunch of council estates in the north of England as part of your trip? For the umpteenth time, I'm specifically talking about people I know of. This is not generalising. I have not once said "young parents are bad parents". Plenty of people around here do nothing but eat, sleep, drink and breed and live off of benefits. They are deadbeats. These are the shitty people that I'm talking about.

I also know some other young parents who aren't deadbeats but I haven't mentioned them because they're not relevant to this thread. They live a normal life.

Also, that PM was a joke. "I'm disappointed in you. Bla bla bla." Bore off.

Well, it's better to have welfare than nothing at all in the country. That would be a catastrophe otherwise.
Anyway, my point about England is that I saw these people. England is not different from France, we also have these deadbeats like you call them.
It's still a minority.

Ok then, we agree on that. ;)

I am not going to comment the content of the PM, but really? REALLY ? That's quite low to say that on a thread that everyone can read especially that I said nice things in the PM, in the hope we would make up and to laugh it off in the future on Twitter and TF.

Ok so it's over. As for now, I will only answer people in relation to the debate like the cost of living in some countries, not parenting and such. ;) Sorry for the out-topic.

Expat
Sep 4th, 2012, 03:56 PM
marriage isn't relevant. a couple bringing up kids don't have to be married. naturally, it is more likely that a couple will be better off financially than a single mother. but marriage has little to do with anything.
in an idealized world maybe. but in the real world if a guy is unwilling to marry you after he gets you pregnant most likely he will be shacking up with another girl in 5 years time and the girl would be on to her third baby daddy with a set of half siblings. sure there are exceptions. must have hit close to home for you to react in such a way.

debby
Sep 4th, 2012, 03:59 PM
in an idealized world maybe. but in the real world if a guy is unwilling to marry you after he gets you pregnant most likely he will be shacking up with another girl in 5 years time and the girl would be on to her third baby daddy with a set of half siblings. sure there are exceptions but its pretty rare. must have hit close to home for you to react in such a way.

You were talking about getting married before having kids. ;)

Expat
Sep 4th, 2012, 04:02 PM
You were talking about getting married before having kids. ;)

basic biology. there is a gestation period between conception and delivery. plenty of time to get married or get an abortion.

debby
Sep 4th, 2012, 04:10 PM
basic biology. there is a gestation period between conception and delivery. plenty of time to get married or get an abortion.

Isn't that a bit... extreme ?

Also, what about these women who get pregnant, and they are planning on getting married... Alas he cheats on her or doesn't want anymore so he runs away, or whatever.
Problem the woman is 5-6 months pregnant and she felt the baby moving. She already loves her child.

Or... you can get married AFTER the delivery too. I don't think marriage is mandatory, there are people who don't really care about it, I know some couples who are parents but not married... :shrug:

Anyway, 50% of marriages end up on a divorce so I don't see the big deal about the marriage.

Mynarco
Sep 4th, 2012, 04:11 PM
Do you realize you can be poor AFTER feeding your kids and not being able to save anything for your retirement or to get an expensive credit for a house ?
It's not all black and white, that's just what I am saying.
So I think it's extremely unfair to deny them the right to be parents. My parents only had one wage together, yet we all have been happy, my brothers and I. It simply is not all black and white. Sure, it's better to have a financial situation quite comfortable. But .. yeah.

Also contraception is expensive in some places (luckily, here, the pill is free), so the chances to fall pregnant for poor people are higher.


No one is to deny their right of being parents, BUT you must say there are some people who think it would be an easy way out producing kids left and right and living off welfare. And it's just everyone's responsibility to look at your account before doing something that can affect your whole life, your partner's and your kid's.

You can reread my posts in previous pages to see my stance)

debby
Sep 4th, 2012, 04:16 PM
No one is to deny their right of being parents, BUT you must say there are some people who think it would be an easy way out producing kids left and right and living off welfare. And it's just everyone's responsibility to look at your account before doing something that can affect your whole life, your partner's and your kid's.

You can reread my posts in previous pages to see my stance)

Sure, it's always better ;) if we have the choice, it's better to ensure we have enough money. That's a consensus on which everyone can agree I guess.

Wigglytuff
Sep 4th, 2012, 04:40 PM
in an idealized world maybe. but in the real world if a guy is unwilling to marry you after he gets you pregnant most likely he will be shacking up with another girl in 5 years time and the girl would be on to her third baby daddy with a set of half siblings. sure there are exceptions. must have hit close to home for you to react in such a way.

Stereotypes do not a logical argument make.

Novichok
Sep 4th, 2012, 05:26 PM
in an idealized world maybe. but in the real world if a guy is unwilling to marry you after he gets you pregnant most likely he will be shacking up with another girl in 5 years time and the girl would be on to her third baby daddy with a set of half siblings. sure there are exceptions. must have hit close to home for you to react in such a way.

Such bullshit. :tape: :lol:

Expat
Sep 4th, 2012, 06:19 PM
some stats for america:
73% of african american kids are born out of wedlock and of those 59% mothers have kids from more than one father (59/73)~80%
29% of white americans kids are born out of wedlock and of those 22% mothers have kids from more than one father (22/29)~76%
53% of hispanic kids are born out of wedlock and of those 35% mothers have kids from more than one father (35/53) ~66%

across races if you have a kid out of wedlock and subsequently you have multiple kids it is more likely that they belong to different fathers than the same guy.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_01.pdf#table15

http://www.parentdish.com/2011/04/04/multiple-partner-fertility/

NoppaNoppa
Sep 4th, 2012, 06:23 PM
I agree. Work, work, work. That is receipe of success :wavey:

debby
Sep 4th, 2012, 06:33 PM
some stats for america:
73% of african american kids are born out of wedlock and of those 59% mothers have kids from more than one father (59/73)~80%
29% of white americans kids are born out of wedlock and of those 22% mothers have kids from more than one father (22/29)~76%
53% of hispanic kids are born out of wedlock and of those 35% mothers have kids from more than one father (35/53) ~66%

across races if you have a kid out of wedlock and subsequently you have multiple kids it is more likely that they belong to different fathers than the same guy.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_01.pdf#table15

http://www.parentdish.com/2011/04/04/multiple-partner-fertility/

That doesn't mean we SHOULD get married. :shrug:

Expat
Sep 4th, 2012, 06:37 PM
Jeremy Kyle :lol: those "people" being interviewed up there are just ridiculous :tape:

jeremy kyle beats anything on maury easily.:lol::lol::lol:

MaBaker
Sep 4th, 2012, 07:56 PM
What about being filthy rich and not doing anything? Perfect.

delicatecutter
Sep 5th, 2012, 12:41 AM
Thanks for the badrep debby. I didn't even say anything to you in this thread. :rolleyes:

ranfurly
Sep 5th, 2012, 04:11 AM
Thanks for the badrep debby. I didn't even say anything to you in this thread. :rolleyes:

Probably because you are poor.

PhilePhile
Sep 5th, 2012, 06:45 AM
In the U.S., unless you live in an urban area, it's excessively difficult/inconvenient not to have a car. Public transportation doesn't even pass by my apartment on Sundays and only comes once an hour from 7:45AM to 8PM on other days. It doesn't even come early enough for me to get to the calculus class I teach on time. :help: I got into a car accident last week and I'm practically stranded in my apartment because I have no car. And I live in a college town so cab prices are ridiculously inflated to take advantage of all the drunk freshmen who need rides back to their dorms. You can forget walking. Things are so spread out and there are no sidewalks for the most part. This is just the way suburbia is engineered. Cars aren't a waste, they're a necessity.

It's one of those statements that's so ignorant it shocks the mind.


The numbers are from 2008. I think the Americans are a bit more economical now.

http://thumbnails.visually.netdna-cdn.com/the-us-work-commute-by-the-numbers_50291102e4db4.gif

Rocketta
Sep 5th, 2012, 08:47 AM
in an idealized world maybe. but in the real world if a guy is unwilling to marry you after he gets you pregnant most likely he will be shacking up with another girl in 5 years time and the girl would be on to her third baby daddy with a set of half siblings. sure there are exceptions. must have hit close to home for you to react in such a way.

eh, speak for yourself not everyone believes in marriage or cares about marriage and no it doesn't mean the guy won't be around later. You act like a marriage certificate means some extra incentive to stay around. It does not and men walk away from wives just as much as girlfriends. What matters is committment. If you have a kid with someone who lacks true committment he probably won't stay around, it you have a kid with someone that has committment they will stay around. BTW, stay around doesn't mean living together because a kid can have both parents in their lives but not in the same house.

If someone is mature and ready to have a child their bank account should only be one minor aspect they need to look at. Food, love and attention... that's what children need to be happy and successful.. not expensive cribs, clothes or carseats. If society is not paying living wages that allows someone to work and pay for daycare... that's not the woman's fault nor should she be punished by society telling her it's wrong for her to want children with is everyone's God given right. So not only poor people suppose to live in poverty, they are suppose to do so by themselves with no children until they somehow make more money?? Really? That's just dumb. Even the ones who made mistakes at a young age and had kids have a right to have a loving family and if people really worried about poor people being able to afford children they would concentrate on the inequity of wages instead of choices that every adult has the right to make.

It reminds me of idiots who complain about poor people who get tax returns and then buy their children an xbox game... because this is the only time they will have that lump sum of money. They really expect poor children to completely go with out and I guess only get lumps of coal in their stockings because that's all the parents can afford. No luxury or hobbies or entertainment for them they only make $10/hour.... those things are earned clearly not by hard work but by salary... so the asshole who sits on his ass all day at work 'deserves' to have children, go to the movies, eat ice cream, etc... But Joe the janitor is irresponsible if he wants to do any of those things. :rolleyes:

Rocketta
Sep 5th, 2012, 08:51 AM
sorry people get killed too easily on bicycles...I'll take public transportation no problem but no way am I biking on major roads to go anywhere. :help:

Thanos
Sep 5th, 2012, 09:30 AM
http://www.imaginethis3d.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/gina-jabba-separated-at-birth.jpg

ranfurly
Sep 5th, 2012, 09:57 AM
If someone is mature and ready to have a child their bank account should only be one minor aspect they need to look at. Food, love and attention... that's what children need to be happy and successful.. not expensive cribs, clothes or carseats. If society is not paying living wages that allows someone to work and pay for daycare... that's not the woman's fault nor should she be punished by society telling her it's wrong for her to want children with is everyone's God given right. So not only poor people suppose to live in poverty, they are suppose to do so by themselves with no children until they somehow make more money?? Really? That's just dumb. Even the ones who made mistakes at a young age and had kids have a right to have a loving family and if people really worried about poor people being able to afford children they would concentrate on the inequity of wages instead of choices that every adult has the right to make.

I agree with most of your' post, apart from the bolded part.

Being financially secure is a major draw-card mate,

People who are responsible and thought proactive will have kids when they are financially secure to have children.

The love, compassion, time, commitment...all that jazz is incidental, because every human should be gifted that,

There is good choices, and then there is bad choices, and unfortunately, people make choices to have children, when really, they themselves are not fully equipped, financially too breed, and to be honest, living and having very little can have an effect on other dynamics of bringing up children.

Living in countries which have a good welfare nests are not an incentive to breed like rabbits (certainly a many people here in NZ could take a lesson in that)

I don't believe in god given rights, god given rights went out the window along time ago when it should come to raising children, people are at the mercy of their own decisions in raising kids, if they choose to do so in financial hardhip and poverty, then they shouldn't expect the state to pay for them...(ideally)

...thats in an ideal world.

canuckfan
Sep 5th, 2012, 03:36 PM
Jabba is at it again:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19487985

Yes people, we would she take example from Africans willing to work for 2$ a day. :silly:

Rocketta
Sep 5th, 2012, 05:31 PM
I agree with most of your' post, apart from the bolded part.

Being financially secure is a major draw-card mate,

People who are responsible and thought proactive will have kids when they are financially secure to have children.

The love, compassion, time, commitment...all that jazz is incidental, because every human should be gifted that,

There is good choices, and then there is bad choices, and unfortunately, people make choices to have children, when really, they themselves are not fully equipped, financially too breed, and to be honest, living and having very little can have an effect on other dynamics of bringing up children.

Living in countries which have a good welfare nests are not an incentive to breed like rabbits (certainly a many people here in NZ could take a lesson in that)

I don't believe in god given rights, god given rights went out the window along time ago when it should come to raising children, people are at the mercy of their own decisions in raising kids, if they choose to do so in financial hardhip and poverty, then they shouldn't expect the state to pay for them...(ideally)

...thats in an ideal world.

One of your main misconceptions is that all poor people are living off of the government which is extremely untrue.

and two it's clear you don't have children yet. Children don't care if their meals consist of chicken thighs instead of steaks as long as their parents show them love and attention. Whether or not a person can afford to pay for college, or buy a house, or rent an apartment so all their children have their own room is a function of what society determines what wages are for work and not some lack of morality or responsibility of people who choose to have a family.

In a perfect world, everyone would have the chance to wait to have children until their economics and maturity meet some preconceived level. We don't live in that society. Some people are not ready to have children but their finances is only one small part of that. A sixteen year old having a baby is not more of a blight on the character of the person just because her parents are poor and can't provide financial help than the sixteen year old who parents have the financial means to help their daughter. The first sixteen year old may have to get WIC or Food stamps and the second sixteen year old may not but they both made the same mistake. One is not worse than the other because of finances.

I ask again, "If a wife stays at home and raises her kids and her husband pays all the bills", why is she deemed to work in the home but if a poor woman stays home and raises her kids being supported by the government is deemed to be lazy, shiftless and does no work? So raising kids is work if you have money, but I guess if your poor your kids require no work and must raise themselves?? It's really all :bs:

There are rich people who should never procreate despite having all the money in the world and there are poor people who should not procreate but the least of the reasons is their bank account.

delicatecutter
Sep 5th, 2012, 06:01 PM
Probably because you are poor.

LOL she should like me then!

Gangstress
Sep 5th, 2012, 07:59 PM
I know where she is coming from. Why should I feel guilty because I have money?

meyerpl
Sep 5th, 2012, 08:43 PM
WHAT?? and why? she can't take it with her?Perhaps she realizes that leaving large sums of money to your kids is a good way to fuck them up for life? Look what happened to her.

ranfurly
Sep 5th, 2012, 10:10 PM
One of your main misconceptions is that all poor people are living off of the government which is extremely untrue.

and two it's clear you don't have children yet. Children don't care if their meals consist of chicken thighs instead of steaks as long as their parents show them love and attention. Whether or not a person can afford to pay for college, or buy a house, or rent an apartment so all their children have their own room is a function of what society determines what wages are for work and not some lack of morality or responsibility of people who choose to have a family.

In a perfect world, everyone would have the chance to wait to have children until their economics and maturity meet some preconceived level. We don't live in that society. Some people are not ready to have children but their finances is only one small part of that. A sixteen year old having a baby is not more of a blight on the character of the person just because her parents are poor and can't provide financial help than the sixteen year old who parents have the financial means to help their daughter. The first sixteen year old may have to get WIC or Food stamps and the second sixteen year old may not but they both made the same mistake. One is not worse than the other because of finances.

I ask again, "If a wife stays at home and raises her kids and her husband pays all the bills", why is she deemed to work in the home but if a poor woman stays home and raises her kids being supported by the government is deemed to be lazy, shiftless and does no work? So raising kids is work if you have money, but I guess if your poor your kids require no work and must raise themselves?? It's really all :bs:

There are rich people who should never procreate despite having all the money in the world and there are poor people who should not procreate but the least of the reasons is their bank account.

You and I are going on two different paths, it's going to get murky.

I'm a little more intolerant to this than you are, but I respect your opinion.

However my point still stands, it's the responsibility of the people at hand to be secure financially in whatever means they believe before they have children, because the state shouldn't be a means to an end for people who rely on it,

Yes I am talking about people on state welfare, as far as people who can't get it, well that's another kettle of fish, I live in a country where it is possible for everyone to receive it.

Love, care, attention only goes so far, in this world it does, maybe not in the Kalahari where they are still primitive and nomadic.

No one expects the 2 audis out the back and T-Bone steak every night on the fine Noritake Dinnerware, thats not what being financially stable is about.

We have welfare for a reason, and it's unfortunate that many children live through poverty,

fortunately our government is tightening up one hell of alot on mums who foal too often and expect a hand out from the state, I don't see why we should continue to support this lifestyle, just becasuse it is? because thats the way the cookie crumbles? get off.

Like I said, it's choices, and if people make a poor decision (a very important decision) of keeping a child with no outlets, then you're at the mercy of your own stupidity.

ranfurly
Sep 5th, 2012, 10:19 PM
LOL she should like me then!

I dunno mate, she's a frog!

*JR*
Sep 5th, 2012, 10:58 PM
World's Richest Woman's New Idea: Wages of $2 a Day :speakles:

Gina Rinehart, gaffe magnet?
By Kate Seamons, Newser Staff
http://www.newser.com/story/153495/worlds-richest-womans-new-idea-wages-of-2-a-day.html

Posted Sep 5, 2012 11:14 AM CDT

(Newser) – Gina Rinehart, that charming Australian billionaire who last week advised the world's "jealous" poor to stop whining and drinking so much, is back with more priceless advice. The world's richest woman, who amassed her family fortune via iron-ore mining, thinks Australia's struggling mining industry should look to Africa for inspiration. There, miners "are willing to work for less than $2 per day."

In a video recorded for the Sydney Mining Club, she explains that "Africans want to work. Such statistics make me worry for this country's future. Indeed, if we competed at the Olympic Games as sluggishly as we compete economically, there would be an outcry." PM Julia Gillard responded today, saying, "It's not the Australian way to toss people ... a $2 gold coin and then ask them to work for a day." Amusingly, the BBC notes that Rinehart is believed to make about $611 a second.

(Maybe Gina is really an internet troll) :tape:

pov
Sep 5th, 2012, 11:48 PM
:haha: at there being 10 pages on this topic. People are truly pressed. :lol:

Nicolás89
Sep 6th, 2012, 01:16 AM
:haha: at there being 10 pages on this topic. People are truly pressed. :lol:

Lol you're so fake!

ranfurly
Sep 6th, 2012, 01:53 AM
I think the important thing to realise is that Gina is a credit to the Australian Nation, knight her I say!! knight her!

Wigglytuff, don't be pressed.

After all, Selling Iron ore is a much bigger draw card than Tea.

Instead of coming in here barking like a pomeranian, get your arse out on the streets and sell that Leaf!

Rocketta
Sep 6th, 2012, 02:57 AM
You and I are going on two different paths, it's going to get murky.

I'm a little more intolerant to this than you are, but I respect your opinion.

However my point still stands, it's the responsibility of the people at hand to be secure financially in whatever means they believe before they have children, because the state shouldn't be a means to an end for people who rely on it,

Yes I am talking about people on state welfare, as far as people who can't get it, well that's another kettle of fish, I live in a country where it is possible for everyone to receive it.

Love, care, attention only goes so far, in this world it does, maybe not in the Kalahari where they are still primitive and nomadic.

No one expects the 2 audis out the back and T-Bone steak every night on the fine Noritake Dinnerware, thats not what being financially stable is about.

We have welfare for a reason, and it's unfortunate that many children live through poverty,

fortunately our government is tightening up one hell of alot on mums who foal too often and expect a hand out from the state, I don't see why we should continue to support this lifestyle, just becasuse it is? because thats the way the cookie crumbles? get off.

Like I said, it's choices, and if people make a poor decision (a very important decision) of keeping a child with no outlets, then you're at the mercy of your own stupidity.

Please explain what being financial stable is all about. :confused:

Also, don't know about in your country but there are several different ways the government helps the poor in the US and most of it has nothing to do with people not working. There are millions of the working poor. Who work just as hard as any other individual who due to big business collusion can't make a living wage and require the help from the government. So what stability are they suppose to gain first before being allowed to procreate exactly? You only focus on people who don't work and get cash from the government but that is only one type of government subsidy of the poor. Most people receiving these subsidies go to work every day, pay their bills when they can and still require a subsidy but according to you they are the ones doing something wrong.... which is what exactly? :confused:

ranfurly
Sep 6th, 2012, 04:58 AM
Please explain what being financial stable is all about. :confused:

In light of this situation we are discussing, having the stability financially to afford to bring up children, in varying circumstances.

Also, don't know about in your country but there are several different ways the government helps the poor in the US and most of it has nothing to do with people not working. There are millions of the working poor. Who work just as hard as any other individual who due to big business collusion can't make a living wage and require the help from the government. So what stability are they suppose to gain first before being allowed to procreate exactly? You only focus on people who don't work and get cash from the government but that is only one type of government subsidy of the poor. Most people receiving these subsidies go to work every day, pay their bills when they can and still require a subsidy but according to you they are the ones doing something wrong.... which is what exactly? :confused:

No no no.....I am focussing on are people who make irresponsible decisions to have a child when they are not in a situation to do so.

It's yourself who is bringing in other groups, the people who are in an unfortunate position and making it appear that I believe they don't deserve a dime, get that out of your' head, I did say before I agreed with you didn't I? then you go of on a tangent.

People are happy to lend a hand Rocketta, just don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Lost in abit of translation I think you are, though look foward too another paragrapgh on the plight and struggles of America's hard done by...

Rocketta
Sep 6th, 2012, 07:46 AM
In light of this situation we are discussing, having the stability financially to afford to bring up children, in varying circumstances.



No no no.....I am focussing on are people who make irresponsible decisions to have a child when they are not in a situation to do so.

It's yourself who is bringing in other groups, the people who are in an unfortunate position and making it appear that I believe they don't deserve a dime, get that out of your' head, I did say before I agreed with you didn't I? then you go of on a tangent.

People are happy to lend a hand Rocketta, just don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Lost in abit of translation I think you are, though look foward too another paragrapgh on the plight and struggles of America's hard done by...

Happy to ablige! :hatoff:

I've asked several times what is your definition of being prepared to have children? What is the criteria? What is your criteria of financial stable? The original quote of this thread is about poor people so why wouldn't I talk about poor people who work and need a hand from the government? Did you not insinuate that if someone needs help from the government it was irresponsible to have children? So please clarify what you mean by financially stable to raise children or in a position to raise children?

There definitely is a language barrier because my previous paragraph is not about how the working poor need assistance but about how needing assistance doesn't automatically preclude you from being stable and an equal contributor to society as well as a good parent/parents.

debby
Sep 6th, 2012, 12:07 PM
LOL she should like me then!

Please the shade was obvious in your first post in the thread. Anyway, I don't like you. I rarely bad rep you, and I did so because the shade was obvious. :)

I dunno mate, she's a frog!

What exactly does it mean ? :tape: Nothing against my country I hope ?

miffedmax
Sep 6th, 2012, 05:00 PM
Hard work and talent does not always translate into financial success. In my business dealings, I've met a lot of wealthy people, and many of them are clueless, lazy fucks who happened to be in the right place at the right time. Some of them have the ethics of a rutting weasel. And some got there by the dint of hardwork and expertise.

But it's absurd for anyone--let alone somebody who inherited their wealth--to imagine that everyone who believes in things like a graduated income tax is somehow "jealous" and that simply "working harder" will net you wealth. You can put in double shifts at McDonald's from now until the day you die, but if that's the only work you can find you will never escape life at the poverty level. And even worse, the way the US education system is devolving, you won't even be able to afford to continue your education and move up to a higher level within your organization (i.e. become a manager of the store or a franchisee) or move on to other opportunities.

Timariot
Sep 9th, 2012, 10:42 AM
Sure, there are people in developing countries who would work for $2 a day. Those countries are not typically models of stability and welfare. Those people also can't afford the products built from raw materials they extract. The companies they work for make profit only because there are better-paid people in other countries who can afford them. If EVERY country had workers paid $2 a day, then the companies they work for couldn't exist.

You would expect that rich people, who handle large amounts of money daily, would have better grasp of economics than the poor, but amazingly this is often not the case.

*JR*
Sep 9th, 2012, 01:24 PM
Sure, there are people in developing countries who would work for $2 a day. Those countries are not typically models of stability and welfare. Those people also can't afford the products built from raw materials they extract. The companies they work for make profit only because there are better-paid people in other countries who can afford them. If EVERY country had workers paid $2 a day, then the companies they work for couldn't exist.

You would expect that rich people, who handle large amounts of money daily, would have better grasp of economics than the poor, but amazingly this is often not the case.

I agree with everything you said, and want to thank :eek: Gina for speaking so openly here. Forget even the inherited wealth issue, she would still be advocating a Dickensian society even if she had started from nothing. As I've often said here and elsewhere, society is interdependent. But what happens is that those on the top rungs maintain the status quo "because they can", allowing just enough trickle-down and others moving up the ladder to keep ppl in line. :oh:

"Keep telling the have-nots to STFU and comply and their kids may get ahead, add a dash of the common folk not being able to afford lobbyists etc, and add a dash of divide-and-conquer based on issues like race". Thus the energy they have for political activism is tied up in things that don't threaten the "established order". Even Labour PM's like Julia Gillard (who peddle the narcotic of "so your kids can get ahead") are complicit here, though a Tory like John Howard was worse. :rolleyes:

Gina101
Sep 10th, 2012, 10:45 AM
Despite what everyone thinks about her size, which is completely irrelevant to the point of her interview, she sint actually saying anything bad?
She is advising people who are unemployed to get out there, work hard, and earn a living, why is she getting shot down for that?
Unless you are incredibly lucky, and inherit all this money, you got to be in it to win it. Do poor people think we should work our as**s off and feel sorry for them, and provide for them?
Sorry, but I agree with this lady, I don't think she is being a snob at all.

Keadz
Sep 10th, 2012, 11:41 AM
She is just lives in another world, obviously quite used to getting what she wants.

She has fought her own family for money for just about the last two decades. Even resorted to accusing her step mother of killing her father. Currently being sued by 2 of her daughters over access to inheritance.

Here is her interesting attempt at a poem on Australia's future.

Our Future

The globe is sadly groaning with debt, poverty and strife

And billions now are pleading to enjoy a better life

Their hope lies with resources buried deep within the earth

And the enterprise and capital which give each project worth

Is our future threatened with massive debts run up by political hacks

Who dig themselves out by unleashing rampant tax

The end result is sending Australian investment, growth and jobs offshore

This type of direction is harmful to our core

Some envious unthinking people have been conned

To think prosperity is created by waving a magic wand

Through such unfortunate ignorance, too much abuse is hurled

Against miners, workers and related industries who strive to build the world

Develop North Australia, embrace multiculturalism and welcome short term foreign workers to our shores

To benefit from the export of our minerals and ores

The world's poor need our resources: do not leave them to their fate

Our nation needs special economic zones and wiser government, before it is too late

She has bought her way into being a major shareholder in Fairfax media, (our more left leaving/central media). Fortunately her attempt at getting influence over editorial content has been rejected so far.

Overall she is a gigantic embarrassment who was born into wealth. She has been successful in running her business, but it can't be too hard to sell some resources somebody has gone to the effort of finding and leaving for you. She has comprehensively failed in raising a family, arguably a larger indicator of success. Unfortunately for us and fortunately for everybody else, despite her threats of moving investment elsewhere, well over 3/4's of her wealth is based here...particularly Western Australia. She is pretty much stuck.

Timariot
Sep 10th, 2012, 01:21 PM
Despite what everyone thinks about her size, which is completely irrelevant to the point of her interview, she sint actually saying anything bad?
She is advising people who are unemployed to get out there, work hard, and earn a living, why is she getting shot down for that?


I dunno, maybe because she thinks that people should "work hard" for $2 a day so they get as rich as her?

Rocketta
Sep 10th, 2012, 01:26 PM
Despite what everyone thinks about her size, which is completely irrelevant to the point of her interview, she sint actually saying anything bad?
She is advising people who are unemployed to get out there, work hard, and earn a living, why is she getting shot down for that?
Unless you are incredibly lucky, and inherit all this money, you got to be in it to win it. Do poor people think we should work our as**s off and feel sorry for them, and provide for them?
Sorry, but I agree with this lady, I don't think she is being a snob at all.

She wasn't just talking about unemployed she was talking about the poor saying they need to work harder so not to be poor except there is no direct correlation between how hard you work and wealth no matter how much the wealthy tries to sell that lie. Like miffedmax pointed out earlier no matter how hard you work at McDonald's you will not be wealthy. I'll use my hubby who works very hard and some times he comes home bone tired and can barely make to the couch before he's out like a light. It's not even possible for him to work harder on most days and i guarantee you the $10/hour that they pay him at Wal-mart is NEVER going to get him wealth. But he IS poor and I'm almost positive he works harder than that bitty in the OP. :rolleyes: Did you actually read the article? :confused:


"If you're jealous of those with more money, don't just sit there and complain," she said in a magazine piece. "Do something to make more money yourself -- spend less time drinking or smoking and socialising, and more time working." Yeah, let them eat cake.

Rinehart made her money the old-fashioned way: She inherited it. Her family iron ore prospecting fortune of $30.1 billion makes her Australia's wealthiest person and the richest woman on the planet.

"There is no monopoly on becoming a millionaire," she said by way of encouragement.

"Become one of those people who work hard, invest and build, and at the same time create employment and opportunities for others." Boom. Almost too easy.

DeucesAreWild
Sep 10th, 2012, 05:48 PM
Despite what everyone thinks about her size, which is completely irrelevant to the point of her interview, she sint actually saying anything bad?
She is advising people who are unemployed to get out there, work hard, and earn a living, why is she getting shot down for that?
Unless you are incredibly lucky, and inherit all this money, you got to be in it to win it. Do poor people think we should work our as**s off and feel sorry for them, and provide for them?
Sorry, but I agree with this lady, I don't think she is being a snob at all.

I agree also. I believe you work hard, use your money responsibly, and you can create the kind of life you want.
I think you can find in all walks of life people that have built themselves and their families up from nothing.
And having done so with less opportunities than are enjoyed in the world today. That is most especially true in countries like Australia, Germany, USA, UK, and Canada. I think it is too easy and unproductive to be jealous of what others possess instead of focusing on your own talents and skills.

$uricate
Sep 11th, 2012, 11:10 AM
I agree with everything you said, and want to thank :eek: Gina for speaking so openly here. Forget even the inherited wealth issue, she would still be advocating a Dickensian society even if she had started from nothing. As I've often said here and elsewhere, society is interdependent. But what happens is that those on the top rungs maintain the status quo "because they can", allowing just enough trickle-down and others moving up the ladder to keep ppl in line. :oh:

"Keep telling the have-nots to STFU and comply and their kids may get ahead, add a dash of the common folk not being able to afford lobbyists etc, and add a dash of divide-and-conquer based on issues like race". Thus the energy they have for political activism is tied up in things that don't threaten the "established order". Even Labour PM's like Julia Gillard (who peddle the narcotic of "so your kids can get ahead") are complicit here, though a Tory like John Howard was worse. :rolleyes:

This is all so true.

The problem is that hardly anyone sees it, except of course those on the top looking down ;)

edificio
Sep 11th, 2012, 08:23 PM
Despite what everyone thinks about her size, which is completely irrelevant to the point of her interview, she sint actually saying anything bad?
She is advising people who are unemployed to get out there, work hard, and earn a living, why is she getting shot down for that?
Unless you are incredibly lucky, and inherit all this money, you got to be in it to win it. Do poor people think we should work our as**s off and feel sorry for them, and provide for them?
Sorry, but I agree with this lady, I don't think she is being a snob at all.

Your reading and analytical skills are deficient. You think she has anything but contempt for you and other people who work for a living? Do you not think unemployed people want to get jobs, want to work hard, and want to earn a living? They do. Millions of people are looking for work and cannot find it.

Then you use some ridiculous phrase, "you got to be in it to win it," and don't even realize how dumb that sounds. If someone gets several jobs at minimum wage, works hard, and pays bills, do you really think they are anything but the working poor? You do not get ahead in society at minimum wage, you pay the bills that you can while others get deferred. You are not able to send your children to college. You probably cannot even help them with minor expenses if they somehow get to college, especially if you have more than one child. Then, even if your kid goes to college, s/he is probably saddled with student loan debt, making it difficult to get ahead in the future. This woman inherited wealth and with the right advisors and cut-throat mentality made more money off that wealth. She did not get a job and work hard. What tripe.

As for you, feeling sorry for poor people does not help them. Helping poor people to develop skills and further their education will help them find work that does more than pay necessary bills (room and board) is what is needed. But, apparently, you want to live in a society in which you contribute nothing to the general goodwill, because you've already got yours and you don't mind seeing people suffer in poverty. Dickensian society is right. Just put some perfume on a hanky and hold it under your nose so you don't have to smell the unwashed masses. Rather, helping poor, less fortunate and/or less well-educated people to find work that pays a living wage makes for a better society at large, and as far as I can tell you live in a larger society.

She's a heartless woman. I hope you are not.

Williamsser
Sep 11th, 2012, 11:28 PM
http://ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/jay-z-music-fest.png

Jay-Z: Vilifying Entire 1 Percent Is Un-American

http://newsone.com/2035126/jay-z-occupy-movement/

We might have 99 problems, but the 1-percenters aren’t one. At least according to multi-millionaire business mogul and part-owner of the Brooklyn Nets, Shawn ‘Jay-Z’ Carter.

Long lambasted for his lack of interest in the Occupy Wall Street Movement, including the questionable move to sell ‘Occupy All Streets’ t-shirts without donating any proceeds to the movement from which the slogan was derived, the hip-hop legend finally opens up about the reason he didn’t throw his considerable weight behind the issues of corporate greed and capitalistic dishonesty:

NY Daily News reports:

“What’s the thing on the wall, what are you fighting for?” Jay-Z told The New York Times in a wide-ranging interview.

The Brooklyn-born hip-hop king said he made his feelings clear to Russell Simmons, who was a full-throated supporter of the Zuccotti Park demonstrators.

“I’m not going to a park and picnic — I have no idea what to do,” Jay-Z said, recalling a conversation with Simmons about joining the movement.

“I don’t know what the fight is about. What do we want? Do you know?”

“I think all those things need to really declare themselves a bit more clearly because when you just say that ‘the 1 percent is that,’ that’s not true,” he said.

“Yeah, the 1 percent that’s robbing people, and deceiving people, these fixed mortgages and all these things, and then taking their home away from them, that’s criminal, that’s bad.

“Not being an entrepreneur. This is free enterprise. This is what America is built on.”

$uricate
Sep 12th, 2012, 12:49 AM
The main issue here is that not everyone in the world can be a billionaire.
For every billionaire there are thousands of low paid workers making them.
She is trying to insinuate that everyone can make it if they try.
Not true.

For every rich person there are lots of poor people making them rich.

So everyone can be a billionaire?

No. It's all about percentages.

Every extra bit of income the super-rich make takes away from somebody else.

Her comments are both naive and pathetic.