this post was submitted on
143 points (68% like it)
262 up votes 119 down votes
shortlink:

Conservative

unsubscribe11,583 readers

169 users here now

Conservatism (conservare, "to preserve") is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports minimal and gradual change in society.

RULES:

• Abstain from submitting memes if there are more than two on the front page of this forum.
• Be respectful and avoid making insults or engaging in personal attacks.
• Do not engage in social conservative bashing. This is a subreddit for fiscal and social conservatism.
• Do not submit an image of something you can easily write in a self post.
• The above rules will be enforced at the discretion of the moderators. Do not make complaints about "unfair" moderation in favor of conservatives.
• Report users who disregard these guidelines.

(Failure to comply with these guidelines will result in removal of comments or posts and possibly a ban. Do your best to be a great enrichment to the community.)

A subreddit for conservative news, information, and discussions.

(Note: This subreddit is primarily focused on American Conservatism.)

Want Flair? - Click the "edit" button above the subreddit description to assign your own flair.

Related subreddits

Factions:
Republican
Social Conservative
Paleoconservative
Monarchism
New Right

Single Issues:
ProLife
Gun Politics
SPLC
Capitalism

People:
Mitt Romney
Paul Ryan
Rand Paul
Ron Paul

Non-US Conservatives:
UK Conservative
Euro Conservatism

Featured Subreddit: /r/Monarchism

a community for
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

142
143

The $50 Lesson (i.imgur.com)

submitted ago by tylewis22Libertarian

all 54 comments
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]coldnoodle 18 points19 points ago

Every week, I get the same $50 lesson.

[–]TuckerTheCat 45 points46 points ago

A more appropriate analogy would be that the man says that he'll pay her $50, then deduct $10 to contribute towards a fund that assists the homeless.

It's just... no Democrat argues that 100% of your income should be taxed. And I don't think solving the homeless problem is as easy finding menial jobs for all of them. A significant number of the homeless are mentally ill, physically disabled, veterans... or all three. In cases like that, it's generally not their fault that they are homeless. Society failed them, and society ought to help them out.

Come on /r/Conservative, stop upvoting garbage like this. Believe it or not this subreddit is far more intellectually stimulating than /r/politics, I come here to get away from strawman arguments and dumb memes.

[–]cosmo120 14 points15 points ago

This is supposed to be a lesson in baisc human nature, not actual numbers and percentages applied in the real world. It is easy for 'activist' liberals to say, "I will feed the homeless!" No you asshole, you are not feeding the homeless the taxpayers are; you are just doling out other people's profits as you see fit all while making a hefty paycheck yourself. You are much less likely to give away your money if you earned it through hard labor.

Ok, there are mentally ill, physically disabled and veterans but today that is not the majority of government beneficiaries. Have you ever noticed food stamp advertisements or advertisements for medicare or whatever? They tout the fact that "it's easy to get government aid! Here's how you do it!" We are currently creating a welfare state in which more and more people who are perfectly capable of working are receiving aid. As a general rule of thumb the government is terribly inefficient. Do you think that the loopholes that do exist are being patched up as fast as possible? Consider this situation: A woman decides to have many children. Because she lives in a low income household she receives a check for each child. These checks pile up and do you really believe that someone as manipulative as that on the system is spending those checks responsibly to provide for her children? Loopholes like this are abundant and nothing is being done to patch them because the government is spending your money. What do they care if they spend it inefficiently?

[–]jh64487Social Democrat 7 points8 points ago

The majority are mentally (16%) or under 18 (39%). On top of that an additional 11% are veterans. That's 66% right there that I challenge you to say don't need support. That's pure numbers. http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/facts/Whois.pdf

If you broke it down further you'd probably see that 10% or less are actually able to work adults who just aren't willing to go find work. I studied this a bit in college and was frankly shocked that the number of able and unwilling was so low and yet was so largely represented in the conservative view of homeless.

Here's another sweet bit from that link: "Declining wages have put housing out of reach for many workers: in every state, more than the minimum wage is required to afford a one- or two-bedroom apartment at Fair Market Rent."

Do feel free to look for other sources, I'm just saying, facts is facts.

Edit: by the way, the reason they are so encouraging with current TAMP advertisements is because it used to be significantly more burdensome to collect food stamps, requiring a lot more hoop jumping and paper work so people often wouldn't even bother. They're trying to get people enrolled because it's better than a) starving or b) relying on begging rather than looking for work.

It's the same with the radio ads for veterans who have been victims of abuse in the military. they're simply trying to encourage people to use the resource to get help.

[–]Drakes_Taint 3 points4 points ago

The majority are mentally (16%) or under 18 (39%). On top of that an additional 11% are veterans. That's 66% right there that I challenge you to say don't need support

Those groups most likely overlap, your 66% figure is total BS.

"Declining wages have put housing out of reach for many workers: in every state, more than the minimum wage is required to afford a one- or two-bedroom apartment at Fair Market Rent."

I find this incredibly hard to believe, and I think it is probably most often repeated by people who don't pay their own rent (I saw this repeated a lot over at /r/OWS). Minimum wage is $7.25, so lets assume a home with one income earner working 40 hours week (8 hours a day). Using 20 working days per month, they earn $1160 a month. Thats not a lot, but it should certainly be enough to pay for a one or two bedroom apartment. In my city, that would rent a 3-BR house reasonably close to downtown.

I think that expecting someone to support a family on minimum wage is incredibly difficult, but lets not pretend that $1160 can't pay for a 1-BR apartment. Random Google Source, which shows that in the US a 1-BR costs $922 downtown, or $708 if you don't need to live downtown.

[–]astrangefish 3 points4 points ago

"Those groups most likely overlap, your 66% figure is total BS."

The 16% mentally ill stat represents "single adults." That means 16% plus 39% equals 55%. That's over half of the homeless population right there not even including veterans or assuming all 11% of them are mentally ill.

But the rest are probably just lazy no-good swindlers, huh? Fuck those guys?

And if he was being "misleading" by saying 66% then we've got a pot and kettle situation because your suggestion that a minimum wage earner could so easily afford a home doesn't account for utilities, gas, food, insurance, other living expenses, and maybe a trip to the hospital (like, literally just the trip to the hospital itself. How much does it cost to ride in the ambulance? Isn't something like a thousand bucks?).

[–]Drakes_Taint -2 points-1 points ago

But the rest are probably just lazy no-good swindlers, huh? Fuck those guys?

Straw man much? Also, I believe your first paragraph is agreeing with me, yes?

because your suggestion that a minimum wage earner could so easily afford a home doesn't account for utilities, gas, food, insurance, other living expenses, and maybe a trip to the hospital (like, literally just the trip to the hospital itself. How much does it cost to ride in the ambulance? Isn't something like a thousand bucks?).

Straw man much? Care to point out where I said a minimum wage earner could easily afford a home? Or were you just desperately trying to take this out of context:

I think that expecting someone to support a family on minimum wage is incredibly difficult, but lets not pretend that $1160 can't pay for a 1-BR apartment

[–]jh64487Social Democrat 1 point2 points ago

You're ignoring your own initial arguments. We've already proven the majority are not just lazy fucks out of hand, regardless of the assumption of overlap. So now that's done, on to the next point.

You're ignoring the fact that this is not steady income, even though it isn't taxed. That means that homeless man is NOT taking home a full paycheck each week. If he managed to find a steady job then it would probably be taxed, which means he'd take a hit. He may barely be able to afford an apartment, but any physical illness will put him on the street again, and he'll have to sacrifice utilities or food. God help him if he has a family.

The point of this was not a financial debate on the exact costs a homeless person would have to meet to rent a 1 bdr apt (though I feel you haven't fully thought through the costs of living for a month in a US city). It was to encourage you to get away from this mentality that the homeless are all lazy good for nothing's just leeching off society. this simply isn't borne out by statistics. Most people WANT to get off welfare and food stamps, and we liberals are simply trying to help them get there.

Edit: out of curiousity, where do you live and how many homeless people do you see there. The studies cited were focused on the major cities, which are more expensive than minimum wage can make affordable.

[–]Drakes_Taint -2 points-1 points ago

...what are you on about?

I never argued any of those things. Did you reply to the correct user?

[–]jh64487Social Democrat 2 points3 points ago

slightly, it's also a response to the overall thread I guess. long day, I'm sort of rambling. The point was your figure assumes that his wage is steady and also isn't taxed. It also doesn't take into account utilities and food and any medical or financial emergencies which may arise. This is what creates homelessness. It also doesn't take into account families, which represent 33% of the population. here, read this to: http://www.endhomelessness.org/pages/snapshot_of_homelessness

The other bits I think were more aimed at the original comment I responded to. Sorry for the rambles.

[–]Drakes_Taint 0 points1 point ago

The point was your figure assumes that his wage is steady and also isn't taxed. It also doesn't take into account utilities and food and any medical or financial emergencies which may arise

Yes. Because I was responding directly to the claim that a minimum wage job could not equal one months rent. I think it is fair to assume 160 hours a month for our fictional minimum wage earner, don't you? Food and utilities were not included because that was not the claim I was responding to, so I don't see how that is relevant. I have never claimed that minimum wage could pay for any of this, why do you continue this straw man?

It also doesn't take into account families, which represent 33% of the population

Again, how is any of this relevant to anything I said? Saying "minimum wage for a months work is greater than monthly rent for a 1-BR" implies nothing about supporting a family.

The point of this was not a financial debate on the exact costs a homeless person would have to meet to rent a 1 bdr apt (though I feel you haven't fully thought through the costs of living for a month in a US city)

Then why did you (falsely) claim that minimum wage could not cover an apartment (discounting all other living costs)? Your claim was factually incorrect, which I demonstrated.

It was to encourage you to get away from this mentality that the homeless are all lazy good for nothing's just leeching off society

...seriously, WTF? Can you show me where I said anything remotely resembling this?

out of curiousity, where do you live and how many homeless people do you see there. The studies cited were focused on the major cities, which are more expensive than minimum wage can make affordable.

In a major American city with a higher-than-average homeless population. You?

[–]astrangefish -1 points0 points ago

You can imagine my desperation.

How does my first paragraph agree with you? I wasn't straw manning so much as I was responding to what I thought you were trying to imply. If I misinterpreted you then I apologize.

[–]Drakes_Taint 0 points1 point ago

The 16% mentally ill stat represents "single adults." That means 16% plus 39% equals 55%. That's over half of the homeless population right there not even including veterans or assuming all 11% of them are mentally ill.

You agree that the numbers don't add up to 66%. Therefore you agree with me.

If I misinterpreted you then I apologize

Okay.

[–]astrangefish 0 points1 point ago

I'm saying that 66% is not total BS and that my 55% stat is still over half.

So what's your angle?

[–]Drakes_Taint 0 points1 point ago

I'm saying that 66% is not total BS and that my 55% stat is still over half.

..See, you just admitted that it is BS though. Your 66% figure is predicated on each of those groups being mutually exclusive. Mentally ill and veteran status have X% of overlap, meaning your number is (by definition) less than 66%. Thats it. That is all I was pointing out before you started this straw man about me hating the homeless.

So what's your angle?

To point out two factual errors and not be attacked as some sort of homeless-person-hating-monster. Whats yours?

[–]floydian239Centrist 0 points1 point ago

That leaves about $200 dollars at the end of the month, but you still need to take food, water, electricity, and other expenses into account. By your own cited website it says that money for food comes out to be an average of $244.64 a month, with $195.55 a month for utilities. Transportation to get to the minimum wage job costs money too.

[–]Drakes_Taint -1 points0 points ago

True. I was responding to this claim:

more than the minimum wage is required to afford a one- or two-bedroom apartment at Fair Market Rent

That claim is false. I wasn't arguing that living on minimum wage was easy.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]yep45Constitutionalist 21 points22 points ago

Jesus people, you are reading too much into this story. Its just supposed to be a story about how working for money is better than being handed it. And here you have people delving into the tax code and how its obviously not parallel to this story!

[–]samuelbtLiberal 2 points3 points ago

You just want everyone to got to rainbowland ya commie!

[–]vbdevil 5 points6 points ago

Its an analogy. An analogy is supposed to explain one's beliefs. Its okay for them to be picked apart because they are often too simple.

[–]sisterofshane 0 points1 point ago

No, it's an anecdote. Those are SUPPOSED to be simple and relatable.

And yep45, the story is about how when you actually EARN your money, you are less inclined to just "give" it all away. It's easy as the President to "give", because you don't actually earn it.

[–]astrangefish 5 points6 points ago

The story is about how, apparently, Republicans are commonsensical and self-sufficient and how, also apparently, liberal Democrats think it's okay to take money from people who work and give it to lazy people.

But that's not how liberals think. So the anecdote is useless.

If the anecdote was accurate, the homeless man in the story wouldn't have legs, or he he'd be mentally disabled, or he'd been really down on his luck and the little girl wanted to do something nice and unselfish for somebody.

That's a liberal. At least, I'm a liberal and that's me. I can make anecdotes about how conservatives don't care about people and are selfish and ignorant and jingoistic and how liberals are compassionate and informed and worldly.

Things aren't that simple though, sisterofshane. So when someone writes this up and intends for it to be somehow insightful ... well, it's not. There is zero insight in this lesson. Dumbing an argument down as dumb as it can be and then reducing the other side's argument to the absurd doesn't help clear things up for anybody.

[–]vbdevil 5 points6 points ago

I earn my money and I have no issue with giving it for a cause. Anecdote or analogy, its overly simplified and that is why it is flawed.

[–]SecondSpitter 3 points4 points ago

So many of you are reading way too far into this and it's comical.

The reasoning here has nothing to do with tax code, or just about anything anyone has brought up against the notion of this anecdote.

The point of the story is that if you work hard and make money, you have all the opportunity in the world to give it to homeless people or anyone else in need. The little girl does chores and makes money; she has every right to give that money away because it is HERS. However, the ambitious goal of hers once she is president would forcibly legislate everyone in the country to be as self righteous as she is and give away their hard earned money to help homeless people and others in need. It is not up to the government to decide what is fair and not fair with what I decide to do with my money. The little girl should strive to be personally charitable as opposed to legislating her charitability to everyone in the nation.

[–]inoffensive1 3 points4 points ago

So many of you are reading way too far into this

I get told this by conservatives all the time. Should I be concerned that I think too much? Am I just socially retarded and therefore should excuse myself from further public discourse?

If hard work were the key to wealth, my grandmother would own Microsoft.

[–]SecondSpitter -1 points0 points ago

Thinking too much is great for serious, global, influential issues. For a small anecdote which does not influence policy? Not so much.

Also, nowhere did I say that hard work is the key to wealth. But if your hard work results in wealth, then you personally have every right to give your money to whomever you would like, even Granny Gates.

[–]1000Steps 19 points20 points ago

Stop Fucking Posting This!

[–]samuelbtLiberal 0 points1 point ago

I could have sworn I had already seen this.

[–]420foy 14 points15 points ago

Probably because you wouldn't hire a homeless guy?

[–]our_fearless_leader 3 points4 points ago

I think that this is a major problem and the exact reason why the girl would have to do the work. The girl who is well kept and the people probably trust would be hired whether or not she is capable of performing the required tasks, while the homeless man who is possibly unable to properly groom himself or wash his clothes regularly and may be to a good deal of people "Sketchy looking" and thus not trusted would only get bad looks and be chased away if he tried to take the job which he is very capable of performing the required tasks.

[–]420foy 2 points3 points ago

Precisely. Well said.

[–]sweetmoses 19 points20 points ago

So many things wrong with this story:

  1. There's no such thing as a 100% tax rate.

  2. Annual income below $11,170 isn't eligible for federal taxation, so the girl would be able to collect the $50 completely tax free.

  3. Even assuming (in LaLaLand) the highest tax rate possible at 35% was applicable (and no deductions were taken), she would have to pay $17.50 in taxes.

  4. We spend (give or take a few points) about 30% of federal taxes on entitlement programs that the homeless man could receive aid from. So of that $17.50, about $5.25 would go to these programs including SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and all welfare programs.

  5. The homeless man could easily be mentally or physically handicapped or an addict, as many of America's homeless are, in which case he wouldn't be able to perform the job even if he wanted to.

So if you ask the girl to do your chores for $50 and suggest she gives the homeless man $5.25, which is actually much closer to reality, she'd probably say yes. And if you wanted to stick to present day reality on planet Earth where she hasn't made anywhere near enough money for society to ask her to pay taxes, she wouldn't be expected pay the homeless man anything.

[–]Slippery-when-wet 6 points7 points ago

Relax it's an analogy.

[–]sweetmoses 1 point2 points ago

Not a very realistic one though. FTFY

[–]samuelbtLiberal 1 point2 points ago

Relax it's an unrealistic analogy

Actually FTFY

[–]sweetmoses 0 points1 point ago

Thank you kindly fine sir.

[–]matty25Conservative 0 points1 point ago

I bet you're a real peach to be around at parties.

[–]AdvocateForLucifer 0 points1 point ago

Yeah, he's a liberal, so clearly he's going to be high/drunk the whole time, and waste away his time and money instead of working.

[–]jh64487Social Democrat 15 points16 points ago

Who's going to transport the homeless man to this dude's house?

How will the homeless man learn about this job opening? More importantly, in a suburban society, how will he learn of, and travel to, enough 50$ jobs to actually escape poverty and homelessness.

Will the homeless man be arrested by the police or assaulted by concerned neighborhood members when he shows up?

What if the reason the man is homeless is because he is chronically ill, or mentally unhealthy (16% of homeless).

as cute as this is /s please take a moment to look at the demographics that make up the US homeless population. I'd think you'd be surprised to learn that 39% of them are under 18, and 40% of the men are veterans, 33% have families, and a certain amount actually do work but the work does not afford them the ability to provide themselves shelter (like what would happen in this example). It seems that a significant proportion are also victims of abuse, either physical or sexual. It's worth a read, and perhaps even more research. It's certainly an issue worthy of more thought than such a glib little story will develop.
http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/facts/Whois.pdf

[–]tarmaccModerate 6 points7 points ago

Could someone explain to me why this was down voted, I'm honestly curious about the reasoning.

[–]Saffy21Libertarian Conservative 0 points1 point ago

Oh, this brightened up my day.

[–]JohnnyBeagle 1 point2 points ago

Because we know that all poor people are lazy.....

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]nissykayo -2 points-1 points ago

I wouldn't pay the average homeless guy $50 to pull weeds in my yard. I'd rather just give a few bucks to a little girl that came to my door collecting donations for the food bank or something. Just sayin'.

[–]dummyhead 2 points3 points ago

You're getting downvoted, but it's a pretty valid point. I think most homeless people would have a hard time finding any meaningful employment. I would imagine most people would rather not employ the homeless or destitute, It's a very real social stigma. I've known people who've lived in shelters and would CONSTANTLY be looked over for menial minimum wage jobs simply because they lived in the shelter. Certainly depending on my business, I likely wouldn't hire a homeless person either TBH. If it requires customer contact it would to much of an issue of chasing away customers to be worth it.

[–]shenpenConservative -2 points-1 points ago

I am fairly sure it is from the didnthappen.txt but still a funny and original story.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 10282 on app-157 running 8e56ab8.