Equality?

[DuncanONeil]

Which comment can be interpreted as; "If they do not have a job it is not their fault"
Not sure if we have wires crossed here. You and steelish seem to be implying that it is the fault of the lazy able bodied man that he has no work. I do not disagree he carries blame but I ask why does this man have such low morale and self esteem having been through the education system. I think we need to address the problem of what made him that way as well as what to do with him now he is that way.

It is not the job of the "education system" to impart morale and self esteem. It is the job of the education system to educate. Further you assume that this person made it through the education system. There is a good chance that what made him that way occurred to him outside of the education system.

Your assumption is predicated on a total lack of charity. Something you have espoused in earlier posts.
Correct. I do not believe in reliance on charity. Government should take care of those in need and charity should provide extra (not minimal) help. I would not want the street full of beggars harrassing people because government does not take care of them. That's what Victorian England was like.

In previous Kendal message you espoused charity. Now you appear to forsake charity. Which is it?
It appears here that you favor FORCED charity over and above VOLUNTARY charity.
I must disagree the second is by far the better charity than the former. Especially when the former rapidly becomes viewed as a right!

This is a culture difference. Americans pay low wages to service staff such that a tip is not an extra, it is a necessity. I hate American tipping culture. America talks about how much foreign aid it gives. If you look at the stats. America is way down in government aid. BUT the stats are skewed because in other countries it is the governments who give aid whereas in America is mostly through private aid organisation.

I am sorry but you are going to have to support that claim. It is probable that one can find a data set to support such a claim but how the data is compared is important. It seems entirely possible that we can have a lesser share and yet still provide a greater sum than others.
The only group that have a lower set wage are wait staff and farm workers. With respect to wait staff if you think such results in low wages for them you would in large part be in error.
In Government aid you are in error. of the top ten donor countries the US is on top 40% above second place, in dollars. In the UN the nations agreed to donate 0.7% of GDP, almost all fail in that goal!

Anyhow - as I see it. We cut off the man's welfare to save taxpayer expense. The man is reduced to sending his kids onto the streets to beg to feed his family. The taxpayer can then walk past the starving kid or the man with "will work for food" sign and drop his tax dollar savings into the tin cup.

Proof the "man" is lazy!

In any other combination those with less will either be considered poor, or consider themselves poor
I disagree and dont think in a world of millionaires the man with one mercedes when all else have two would meet any definition of poverty. I am talking about the basic necessities to support life. Food, health, shelter. I have said this many times now but for some reason you dont grasp it. Poverty can be defined well enough.

It does not matter!! Presume your desire comes to fruition. The scenario you posit is in fact a description of a poor man!
I know you are speaking of subsistence level versus an undisclosed level of rich. But you also favor making that subsistence level cease to exist. But it matters not, if they do not have exactly the same as all others they will be deemed poor!! That is indisputable. Yes poverty can be defined, but said definition is flexible. Poverty in the US is not the same as poverty in Botswana! Nor is poverty the same in Luxembourg as in the US, Their per capita income is twice the US

If it comes up as part of the discussion it becomes part of the discussion. You trivialize it by refusing to consider it.
From my side I did not trivialise it - it was trivial before I got to it. If I talk about red herrings do red herrings become part of the discussion or would they be considered off topic.

Depends

My views showed that I could earn a way into college.
Yes you could but there are many who could not. I think we should be working to a system where you should not have to. Our views are different.

Yes our views are different! But you choose to only consider your views just because they are your views. Currently education is free through high school. Such a good job is done in that arena that colleges are forced to offer remedial courses to their students so they can understand the material. I could posit that extension of free schooling would have the same result on a college education it has had on elementary and high school. Also who says everyone needs college?

And that is supposed to prove what?
That kids can learn ethics from school as well as from sweeping floors at home.

But they learn no such thing from schools. In fact in majority they learn that the world OWES them. A living, a life, anything they desire.

I note you left the unions out completely!!
Correct. The topic is equality, equal opportunity and the importance of education in making opportunity more equal. If you want to start a new thread about unions I will be happy to contribute in that thread.

Not a new subject. not a new thread. we were discussing education and the (bad) influence of the teacher unions is appropo.

Again the assumption that a single person requires all the knowledge to accomplish the task at hand.
No of course that is impossible. I am not suggesting the CEO does all. I was told when I was at uni that uni teaches you just one thing - how to think. UK and USA are different. In USA college is like job training. You study what you what to do for career and employers hire the people with matching degrees. In the UK the college degree means the person can think and can be taught. It's like officer training and covers principles and methods used in all areas of business and industry. When I hire somebody - I look for degree because I know I can train them. If they do not have the degree I am taking more chance I will be wasting my time. The degree just reduces risk and time for me. Maybe I am wrong - but many others think the same. Ask somebody with HR experience in major corporations.

That may be your understanding but it is wrong! The job of a student is to learn how to.
So the pare is more important than the person. Wonder how you would react to the Japanese system? Parents bust their butts to get the kid into the right kindergarten, elementary and high school. The kids work their butts off in school. The neighbor kid in Yokohama was routinely up until midnight doing her school work as a preteen. All of these efforts were aimed at getting into a "good" university. For the student that was the goal. For all intents and purposes the university years were a vacation before starting work.

So basically what you are saying here is that it is the responsibility of the Government to GIVE you;
Shelter (can be shared), food, soap, shampoo yes. Haircut maybe. (you can have a free government hair salon and employ a jobless barber). Manicure and pedicure no but nail clippers yes. Soap,shampoo, toilet paper etc are hygene products. If you dont provide the basics because you want to save taxpayers money you wont when my kids get lice in their hair and end up at the doctors using healthcare tax dollars or your kids come home with my kids lice in their hair.

That is silly! You are proposing communes. There is no individuality in this. Nor freedom.

( the problem is you have to provide me with shampoo not give me cash else I spend the cash on beer and my kids get lice)

She already told you such would not be the case!
It does not matter what she told me. The topic is equality not steelish childhood.

You felt slighted by what I said? I was complimenting you!
Actually I smiled because you clearly missed the famous "our tommorow for your today" quote and principle. As a result you ended up with a wrong assumption and conclusion. This is an example of why you do not see my point. I do not expect you to share my view but I do hope you understand it.

If you were quoting somebody you should have done that rather than make them your words.