on a scale of 1-10 [Archive] - MacRumors Forums

dukebound85

Apr 4, 2009, 10:05 PM

Bottom line is smart hard working people doesn't matter where you come from will come out out on top if you avoid the vices and stay out of trouble.

thats a lil naive

the schools the poor go to are not near the same level in opportunities and quality education that those who live in better areas receive. that it makes it much harder

likewise, thos in poor families do not have the convience on focusing soley on school, athletics, what have you as their family situation may require them to help out the family fincailly

bottom line: the environment you live in has a pretty significant impact on opportunities to become successful

there are just as many smart (iq wise at least),hardworking people in poor families as in more well to do. however, those that are well to do certianly have a much much higher success rate in life in financial terms

dukebound85

Apr 4, 2009, 10:10 PM

That is the exact same situation that I am in with my parents and school. I guess we are stuck with that "in between" financial situation where we don't get help from either side. :( ugh

every school has merit based scholarships you know so fam finances dont even play into it

mactastic

Apr 4, 2009, 10:52 PM

Finding the threshold is the individual's level key.
That's true of any corrupting influence. Center court Lakers tickets? Hot prostitutes? A new wing for your Alaskan villa? Enough cash to stuff a freezer with? Most people have one or more of these kinds of weaknesses, all it takes is someone with the motive and means to find and exploit them...

every school has merit based scholarships you know so fam finances dont even play into it
Yeah, it's almost as if these two just didn't "want it" bad enough. I mean, the opportunity was there and all, they must just have been too lazy to make something of what was available to them, and are now simply complaining about how it's all someone else's fault, rather than taking personal responsibility for their decisions...

;)

jmann

Apr 4, 2009, 10:54 PM

every school has merit based scholarships you know so fam finances dont even play into it

That is true, and I probably could have gotten a few, but I was too lazy to apply. I guess I reap what I sew. :)

Schtumple

Apr 4, 2009, 10:55 PM

Money is not evil; it's impossible for it to be. The love of money is evil. Money is a necessity in the world we live in, just like food and water.

I do love that somewhere along the line, someone, somewhere, managed to wiggle that into society, we technically don't need money, but it's just become a part of society.

.Andy

Apr 4, 2009, 11:00 PM

I'd says it's relative importance for happiness and contentment are about a 3. Our perception is much higher though.

Gelfin

Apr 4, 2009, 11:28 PM

I do love that somewhere along the line, someone, somewhere, managed to wiggle that into society, we technically don't need money, but it's just become a part of society.

We technically very well do. The kind of specialization required for any modern society demands an abstract language of valuation. I have no idea if you are considering a specific alternative or just hand-waving, so I won't get into a long preemptive diatribe.

We don't necessarily need the beast that global finance has become in exactly the form it has taken, or even to follow the same basic rules, but if we threw out money today, we'd have to turn around and invent it again tomorrow.

srl7741

Apr 4, 2009, 11:30 PM

how corrupt is money?

1 if I understand the question right?

rhsgolfer33

Apr 5, 2009, 02:41 AM

every school has merit based scholarships you know so fam finances dont even play into it

Yeah, thats it. Have you ever tried to get a merit based scholarship from a public university? Its nearly impossible and they generally give very few. Its far easier to get help if you're poor, being stuck in the middle is almost worse.

Back on topic, I don't think money itself is corrupting, the power extremely large amounts of it brings can be. I know quite a few people that most Americans would consider rich (I wouldn't, but thats a different matter) and they are all good, honest, very hard working people, and I've come to believe that most people who are wealthy are. Its a few of the very wealth who don't give back to their communities and act in ignorant, entitled ways, that give a bad name to anyone making more than $250k a year.

mactastic

Apr 5, 2009, 10:36 AM

Yeah, thats it. Have you ever tried to get a merit based scholarship from a public university? Its nearly impossible and they generally give very few. Its far easier to get help if you're poor, being stuck in the middle is almost worse.
Have you ever tried to pull yourself out of grinding intergenerational poverty by your own bootstraps? It's nearly impossible, and generally very few manage to do it. It's far easier to do well in life if your parents are well off.

Just sayin...

rhsgolfer33

Apr 5, 2009, 01:14 PM

Have you ever tried to pull yourself out of grinding intergenerational poverty by your own bootstraps? It's nearly impossible, and generally very few manage to do it. It's far easier to do well in life if your parents are well off.

Just sayin...

I'd imagine the odds of pulling yourself out of intergenerational poverty are about the same as getting a non-athletic merit based scholarship from any public university in California, nearly impossible. ;)

Certainly its far easier do well if you have parents in the middle class, I'm not implying life is easier for someone who is poor, but financial aid for college isn't one of those areas where the middle class has it better. I've applied for financial, I'm middle class, but guess what, the lovely FAFSA expects my parents to contribute anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of their income every year its filled out, its a major joke. It doesn't take into account the true cost of any externalities, such as being self-employed (funding your own retirement without the help of any employer contributions, pensions, etc), paying for healthcare, etc. Its absolutely not a fair measure, especially in the state of California where incomes are higher but so are costs, and it essentially screws anyone who makes above the average of the entire United States. This is basically why I refuse to go to public college in California, lack of merit based scholarships and the necessity of the FAFSA for pretty much everything other than athletic scholarships (and the fact that major public colleges in southern California have like 30,000 students).

techfreak85

Apr 5, 2009, 01:15 PM

Money isn't corrupt, it's what you do with it that counts.

money makes people corrupt.

dukebound85

Apr 5, 2009, 01:18 PM

Yeah, thats it. Have you ever tried to get a merit based scholarship from a public university? Its nearly impossible and they generally give very few. Its far easier to get help if you're poor, being stuck in the middle is almost worse.

I had my ENTIRE university tuition paid for by merit scholarships:rolleyes:
Yes, I went to a large public university as well

thing is though, you have to work hard for them and also apply for them.

So many people don't even apply for scholarships. Combine that with the fact so many people don't achieve the grades to get the merit scholarships is not the school's fault. It is very possible

I agree it's easier to get money if poor. Why? because their family can't assist for their education. A well off family has greater means to assist

However, people complaining about "oh im an average white boy from a middle class family and I can't get any aide" is a lame argument because there is aide to be given. Granted, you may not be getting a ton of federal grants but if you work hard in chool, there are scholarships availiable. Heck even if you are working part time, your company may have scholarships to give you, as my financial institutions. people need to learn to look for these opportunities and then apply to them. why some people who take no action and then cry about how they have no scholarships is a bewilderment to me

and for the record, i am a white boy from a middle class family. however, my parents didnt pay a dime towards my education so i had to look everywhere else to afford school

Have you ever tried to pull yourself out of grinding intergenerational poverty by your own bootstraps? It's nearly impossible, and generally very few manage to do it. It's far easier to do well in life if your parents are well off.

Just sayin...

I agree. All about the opportunities your environment gives you. If you are well off, there's so many more doors and the resources to succeed than if you are poor

rhsgolfer33

Apr 5, 2009, 01:33 PM

I had my ENTIRE university tuition paid for by merit scholarships:rolleyes:
Yes, I went to a large public university as well

Granted I was valedictorian in hs and then Summa Cum Laude in college in mechanical engineering

point is, you have to work hard for them and also apply for them.

I agree it's easier to get money if poor. Why? because their family can't assist for their education. A well off family has greater means to assist

Yeah, I have them, at a private college, they give out $16 million in them a year, there are 3000 students, I get half of my tuition paid for. Competing for a merit scholarship at a school like UCLA or a huge Cal State school like Cal State University Northridge is extremely difficult. They don't give out many because they don't have much funding to provide undergrads, I've competed for them, others I know have competed for them, but the only people I've ever met one person with a "merit" scholarship at a public university in California were athletes. I know someone who is in mensa, he's 21, he's absolutely brilliant when it comes to computer engineering and math, he's also a recent (ie in his teens) immigrant from a european nation who's family lives in a two bedroom apartment because only his father can work, applied for merit scholarships (mind you, he graduate Valedictorian as well with like a 4.5 gpa, has all his immigration stuff in order), applied for financial aid, nothing. The universities here tend to give the merit scholarships out to financial somewhat less well off families as well. My girlfriend was Valedictorian in high school, admitted to almost every UC school in California, applied for scholarships, not one offer.

All the people I know at college work hard, none of them have merit aid unless they're at a private college. Luckily there are other ways to fund it, I apply for accounting scholarships to fund any summer courses I need, no word on the most recent one yet, however. You can probably get some money if you're middle class, but its a lot harder to get than if you're below middle class and aid only requires a FAFSA.

Plenty of middle class families can't assist with funding education, that's why Federal aid should be available to them as well, not only impoverished students. Its far far more difficult as a middle class student, who's parents aren't contributing any money to college but still write you off as a dependent, to get aid, and it shouldn't be.

dukebound85

Apr 5, 2009, 01:37 PM

You can probably get some money if you're middle class, but its a lot harder to get than if you're below middle class and aid only requires a FAFSA.

I agree, you can get some major Pell grant sums if your family is not that well off

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe the FASFA even takes into account if your family has multiple children going to college at the same time

Doesn't Obama have that proposed program for college assistance as well?

rhsgolfer33

Apr 5, 2009, 01:43 PM

I agree, you can get some major Pell grant sums if your family is not that well off

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe the FASFA even takes into account if your family has multiple children going to college at the same time

You know I don't know really, I'm an only child so I never had to consider that, plus I stopped filling out the FAFS after the first few times yielded absolutely nothing, may as well spend the time studying, lol.

I think we agree somewhat in principle, more aid needs to be available to people of the middle class. I'm certainly not saying its easy to be poor, far from it, I'm lucky to have grown up with what I have and I certainly wouldn't want to give it up. My argument is that the financial aid system currently in place is pretty unfair to middle class students who's families still can't afford to contribute. Its unfortunate that the FAFSA doesn't take into account much other than what your house is worth and what you and your parents reported on a tax return. Unfortunately, I've never been eligible for Pell grans, a middle class income in an area where the mean housing price was above $600k is pretty different from middle class income in many other places in America.

mactastic

Apr 5, 2009, 01:44 PM

I'd imagine the odds of pulling yourself out of intergenerational poverty are about the same as getting a non-athletic merit based scholarship from any public university in California, nearly impossible. ;)
You just have to want it bad enough, right? :p

I mean, seriously, it's the exact same argument people make when complaints are raised about statements that anyone can pull themselves out of poverty if they work hard enough. Sure, you can. And you can also get merit-based non-athletic scholarships to any public university in California.

It's just funny to watch people complain about how poor people don't have the right work ethic to get into the middle class, and then turn around and complain that they deserve access to scholarships that they just didn't work hard enough to get.

Certainly its far easier do well if you have parents in the middle class, I'm not implying life is easier for someone who is poor, but financial aid for college isn't one of those areas where the middle class has it better. I've applied for financial, I'm middle class, but guess what, the lovely FAFSA expects my parents to contribute anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of their income every year its filled out, its a major joke. It doesn't take into account the true cost of any externalities, such as being self-employed (funding your own retirement without the help of any employer contributions, pensions, etc), paying for healthcare, etc. Its absolutely not a fair measure, especially in the state of California where incomes are higher but so are costs, and it essentially screws anyone who makes above the average of the entire United States. This is basically why I refuse to go to public college in California, lack of merit based scholarships and the necessity of the FAFSA for pretty much everything other than athletic scholarships (and the fact that major public colleges in southern California have like 30,000 students).
I'm well aware of the issues with financial aid at public universities. However, I would submit that public universities already offer financial aid in that their tuition costs are far lower than they would be if taxpayers weren't subsidizing the university to start with. Private college tuitions are much more reflective of actual cost to have facilities and professors around to instruct you.

IOW, be glad you don't have to pay $35,000/year to go to a UC.

On a related note, if your grades are good enough (ie. you wanted it bad enough) why not go to a private university where much more financial aid is available to middle class people? It's been a while now, but back when one of my sisters went to a private university, she only paid $6,000/year in tuition after all financial aid was factored it. My other sister, with remarkably similar grades, chose to go to a UC, and ended up paying about 50% more in tuition only 3 years later. My parent's income didn't change significantly in that time either.

And, of course, if you're really sore about the whole thing, you can wait until you turn 24; at which point the FAFSA folks stop considering your parents income in their calculation. You'll get a much better deal if you hold out for a few years. Go to a community college and save even more money.

Come on! Want it bad enough! ;)

rhsgolfer33

Apr 5, 2009, 02:08 PM

You just have to want it bad enough, right? :p

I mean, seriously, it's the exact same argument people make when complaints are raised about statements that anyone can pull themselves out of poverty if they work hard enough. Sure, you can. And you can also get merit-based non-athletic scholarships to any public university in California.

It's just funny to watch people complain about how poor people don't have the right work ethic to get into the middle class, and then turn around and complain that they deserve access to scholarships that they just didn't work hard enough to get.

I'm well aware of the issues with financial aid at public universities. However, I would submit that public universities already offer financial aid in that their tuition costs are far lower than they would be if taxpayers weren't subsidizing the university to start with. Private college tuitions are much more reflective of actual cost to have facilities and professors around to instruct you.

IOW, be glad you don't have to pay $35,000/year to go to a UC.

On a related note, if your grades are good enough (ie. you wanted it bad enough) why not go to a private university where much more financial aid is available to middle class people? It's been a while now, but back when one of my sisters went to a private university, she only paid $6,000/year in tuition after all financial aid was factored it. My other sister, with remarkably similar grades, chose to go to a UC, and ended up paying about 50% more in tuition only 3 years later. My parent's income didn't change significantly in that time either.

And, of course, if you're really sore about the whole thing, you can wait until you turn 24; at which point the FAFSA folks stop considering your parents income in their calculation. You'll get a much better deal if you hold out for a few years. Go to a community college and save even more money.

Come on! Want it bad enough! ;)

I'm with you on the first thing, you can't complain that impoverished people don't work hard enough and then complain you didn't get any merit aid you didn't even bother to write an essay for.

Yeah, UC schools are fairly well price, but considering its supposed to be at tuition free system (which it is, they just charge you a $10k in mysterious "fees.") It is still difficult for most middle class families to afford at around $20k with room and board. Cal States are a cheaper alternative, but many students seem to look down on them for some unknown reason.

That is basically why I go to a private college, I've been paying less then I would at a UC, granted I have to live at home, but its still about $4k a year cheaper. I didn't even have great high school grades, like a 3.4, but got a little lucky. Know it comes down to grad school, but its all essentially merit funding and tuition remission for out of state students, so I should be set on that with my current GPA (stupid GMAT test will really determine it though). Plus I'll finally be able to declare myself independent on the FAFSA, meaning my $5k a year income makes me ultra-poor. :D

Community college is alright, I take classes there as well because its only $20 a unit and if I go over 17 units at my private college they charge me like $900 per unit. I suppose its good for general education, but I'm somewhat skeptical about how well it prepares you for upper division courses, the classes just seem too forgiving at the community college I attend, but it is cheap, which is certainly a good thing.

And I definitely want it bad enough for graduate school, the possibility of student loans is enough for me to pull a 3.9+ and a 700+ on the GMAT, haha. I want some more of that merit aid dammit.

Schtumple

Apr 5, 2009, 02:24 PM

We technically very well do. The kind of specialization required for any modern society demands an abstract language of valuation. I have no idea if you are considering a specific alternative or just hand-waving, so I won't get into a long preemptive diatribe.

We don't necessarily need the beast that global finance has become in exactly the form it has taken, or even to follow the same basic rules, but if we threw out money today, we'd have to turn around and invent it again tomorrow.

I agree, I'm just saying money was worked in there at some point, imagine life without money, everyone was equal. Oh jesus, communism, don't tell the USA I said that, wait, it's not the 80's...

mactastic

Apr 5, 2009, 02:41 PM

I'm with you on the first thing, you can't complain that impoverished people don't work hard enough and then complain you didn't get any merit aid you didn't even bother to write an essay for.
My point exactly.

Yeah, UC schools are fairly well price, but considering its supposed to be at tuition free system (which it is, they just charge you a $10k in mysterious "fees.") It is still difficult for most middle class families to afford at around $20k with room and board. Cal States are a cheaper alternative, but many students seem to look down on them for some unknown reason.
I went to a Cal State school after a stint at a community college. No reason to look down on it IMHO.

And yes, it is more difficult to afford schools in parts of California when the costs of living here are higher than elsewhere. Of course, the same argument could be made for increasing food stamp benefits or welfare. If you're going to argue for one, you really ought to be arguing for all benefits to be indexed to local costs of living.

That is basically why I go to a private college, I've been paying less then I would at a UC, granted I have to live at home, but its still about $4k a year cheaper. I didn't even have great high school grades, like a 3.4, but got a little lucky. Know it comes down to grad school, but its all essentially merit funding and tuition remission for out of state students, so I should be set on that with my current GPA (stupid GMAT test will really determine it though). Plus I'll finally be able to declare myself independent on the FAFSA, meaning my $5k a year income makes me ultra-poor. :D
A friend of mine is about to get his doctorate from MIT. Got his undergraduate degree from Stanford. National merit scholar. Top-notch grades. Family income solidly in the middle class. He's got no school debt. In fact, every time I talk to him, he's got some research project underway that the university is funding him to do.

He wanted it bad enough.

Community college is alright, I take classes there as well because its only $20 a unit and if I go over 17 units at my private college they charge me like $900 per unit. I suppose its good for general education, but I'm somewhat skeptical about how well it prepares you for upper division courses, the classes just seem too forgiving at the community college I attend, but it is cheap, which is certainly a good thing.
For general education requirements, community college is an excellent value. Whether it prepares you for upper division courses or not is debatable, but I know plenty of people (myself included) who managed to make the leap. And again, if you want it bad enough, all universities offer tutoring and writing labs and all kinds of other assistance for those who feel unprepared for the rigor of upper division coursework. Lower division work at a community college is no excuse for poor performance on upper division courses.

And I definitely want it bad enough for graduate school, the possibility of student loans is enough for me to pull a 3.9+ and a 700+ on the GMAT, haha. I want some more of that merit aid dammit.
Good luck...

Harmush

Apr 5, 2009, 06:07 PM

whats wrong with the system in place, is that its not real.. all those crooked bankers lending out too much to line their own pockets at the end of the day. Whats all this "I promise to pay the barer on demand the sum of ...." on all our british notes. What does that mean? that piece of paper isn't worth a penny.
its a prison that everyone is in, if they like it or not, its the only thing you can;t escape and too be truly free of it. you have to have lots of it. isn't that corrupt enough?

No1451

Apr 5, 2009, 06:17 PM

Would be interesting to see a world without money, but it would have to be replaced by some form of invented/abstract valued item.

Money won't disappear anytime soon, not unless a really excellent dictator takes over and gives the country a makeover.

As for the initial question about what money does to people, well terrible things.

CalBoy

Apr 5, 2009, 06:41 PM

Would be interesting to see a world without money, but it would have to be replaced by some form of invented/abstract valued item.

And what do you think money is exactly? ;)

Money won't disappear anytime soon, not unless a really excellent dictator takes over and gives the country a makeover.

Money (or any other form of wealth measurement device that serves in the same capacity as money) can not be eliminated unless the problem of scarcity is permanently dealt with.

The only real way to eliminate scarcity is to have an unlimited supply of every type of good, service, and resource. Since that isn't possible, money is here to stay.

money makes people corrupt.

I wouldn't say so.

Money serves as a catalyst to encourage the corruption that festers in some people. Money in and of itself isn't going to make anyone corrupt, what matters is how they react to the stimulation of money and its abundance (or lack thereof).

For example, alcohol cannot be said to make people alcoholics. What makes someone an alcoholic is an addictive personality and a propensity for relying on alcohol more than the average person.

The same is true for money. Greed, for some people, is a difficult emotion to control. However that doesn't make money the culprit.

rhsgolfer33

Apr 5, 2009, 07:05 PM

My point exactly.

I went to a Cal State school after a stint at a community college. No reason to look down on it IMHO.

And yes, it is more difficult to afford schools in parts of California when the costs of living here are higher than elsewhere. Of course, the same argument could be made for increasing food stamp benefits or welfare. If you're going to argue for one, you really ought to be arguing for all benefits to be indexed to local costs of living.

A friend of mine is about to get his doctorate from MIT. Got his undergraduate degree from Stanford. National merit scholar. Top-notch grades. Family income solidly in the middle class. He's got no school debt. In fact, every time I talk to him, he's got some research project underway that the university is funding him to do.

He wanted it bad enough.

For general education requirements, community college is an excellent value. Whether it prepares you for upper division courses or not is debatable, but I know plenty of people (myself included) who managed to make the leap. And again, if you want it bad enough, all universities offer tutoring and writing labs and all kinds of other assistance for those who feel unprepared for the rigor of upper division coursework. Lower division work at a community college is no excuse for poor performance on upper division courses.

Good luck...

I'm good with Cal State, had I not got scholarships at the school I currently attend I would have been at CSUN or the new campus then, CSUCI.

Of course they all should be indexed to local cost of living, as much as I despise government welfare, I understand its necessity. Its ridicoulous to think that a person on welfare in Ohio could get by on the same amount in LA or SF.

Yeah, Doctorates are great, the funding involved, even at many public schools, is awesome. I'm a strong believer that if you want something bad enough, you can make it happen, it might not happen the way you planned or at the time you planned, but if you really really want it and work hard for it, in all likelihood it will happen. Will it be hard? Probably. But almost anything worth doing it life is fairly difficult.

You're right, I know many people who've transfered from CC to Berkeley, UCLA, etc. They all did fine, they've said they didn't feel prepared for the level of work, but they're all pulling solidly above 3.0's. In reality its probably an easier transition from high school to community college to a four year than it is straight from high school to a four year. I don't think there is really any excuse for poor performance on any work, you're paying thousands of dollars to go to anyone of these schools, you might as well learn the material and get A's for those dollars. High school, eh, whatever, it was free, once I started paying for school, however, that's when I really started working.

Thanks, I'll need the luck, especially for the GMAT.

And what do you think money is exactly? ;)

Money (or any other form of wealth measurement device that serves in the same capacity as money) can not be eliminated unless the problem of scarcity is permanently dealt with.

The only real way to eliminate scarcity is to have an unlimited supply of every type of good, service, and resource. Since that isn't possible, money is here to stay.

Not to mention transaction costs associated with using anything other than a monetary system. Can you imagine trying to barter and how much of a pain it would be? You want to trade two oranges for three apples, but the guy with the apples doesn't want the oranges, so you have to either find someone who wants oranges and has apples, or get somebody else involved in a three, four, five, etc way trade. Money makes it easy, everyone wants it, everyone accepts it, and it reduces transaction costs.

It would be cool if we had, like, seashells or something as money though, like an ancient native american culture, that might be fun (or a pain in the ass).

iJohnHenry

Apr 5, 2009, 07:37 PM

Money has been reduced to a unit of work. And it's being degraded every day.

hulugu

Apr 5, 2009, 10:35 PM

...That's like asking "On a scale of 1-10, how corrupt is a toaster?"

Well, if there's any truth to Battlestar Galactica toasters are probably a 9 on the corrupt scale.

Counterfit

Apr 5, 2009, 11:57 PM

Well, if there's any truth to Battlestar Galactica toasters are probably a 9 on the corrupt scale.

That's why I only use toaster ovens. They're only a 4.5.

hulugu

Apr 6, 2009, 12:01 AM

That's why I only use toaster ovens. They're only a 4.5.

Really, I've always thought that toaster ovens were evil. Rather than helpfully launching the bagel up, toaster ovens require you to reach into that burning maw and save your food before it burns everything to a cinder. I've burned myself more times on either the glass or the lip of the oven than by a regular toaster. The only thing more evil than toaster ovens are food processors. Those things terrify me.

63dot

Apr 6, 2009, 01:34 AM

If you believe in what the Bible and perhaps other religious teachings say, then at first glance, one can say money is evil. But the love of it, others say, is what is what is evil. Heck, maybe the truth is a little of both as it can be hard to take one extreme stance or the other on this one. This is a hard philosophical issue which has plagued human kind since the inception of money. Is it possible for money to co-exist with humans, and most if not all of us, not to be tempted into corruption if we have considerably more than we need?

I think that it is as harder for rich man to get into heaven than for, let's say a camel, to go through the eye of a needle. So one can say only the love of money is evil, or in another argument that the love of crack cocaine is evil, but with the evidence of what we know to be human nature, few can handle lots of either. I truly have to say I am glad that I am not a rich person. I don't think I, or anybody I have ever met, could handle too much money, but if there is somebody who can run counter to the temptations of too much money *ie-more than one's needs, then so be it.

I am not willing to trade my soul for money and it's not the master I want to serve and it's the only master besides God. No mention of being a master to pride, violence, hatred, or any other ill of society. They all stem from the master we call money, but what was commonly referred to as "riches" in ancient Israel as other mediums were used besides just coinage including raw metal, gems, and salt but nonetheless valid money for the time. Heck, and I am far to dumb or lazy to work like a dog and be a Donald Trump to get anywhere close to being money's bitch. :)

mactastic

Apr 6, 2009, 02:07 PM

The only thing more evil than toaster ovens are food processors. Those things terrify me.
Ever used a mandoline? :p

hulugu

Apr 6, 2009, 02:55 PM

Ever used a mandoline? :p

No, but I can play a few licks on a guitar.

Gelfin

Apr 6, 2009, 04:40 PM

I agree, I'm just saying money was worked in there at some point, imagine life without money, everyone was equal. Oh jesus, communism, don't tell the USA I said that, wait, it's not the 80's...

Yeah, that was one of the options. Please do not mistake me for one of my countrymen who would automatically demonize Marx sight unseen and label communism a great evil as a matter of lingering Cold War jingoism. On the other hand, do not mistake me for the opposite, a typical entitled Western college student who tumbles at the feet of Marxism out of a combination of ignorant idealism and youthful contrarianism.

My personal critique of Marxism well exceeds the boundaries of topicality in this thread, but in short I take the paraphrased Churchillism that "capitalism is the worst economic system except for all the others" quite a bit more seriously than the tongue-in-cheek expression might itself imply. In my view, Marx had many of the failings of capital precisely right. It is his proposed solution that is deeply wanting.

None of this has anything to do with whether or not we need money. Of course we do. To suggest otherwise is just silly. No communist economy has even attempted to do away with money. Ditching the abstraction of currency is far less realistic than even elimination of central government. There are only two ways to eliminate money: first, return to an isolationist tribalism that can sustain itself on barter alone, or second, eliminate scarcity. A return to tribalism is preposterous beyond consideration, and a post-scarcity economy (if this is not an oxymoron) is so alien to us I doubt we can even discuss it profitably.

Harmush

Apr 6, 2009, 04:42 PM

Money has been reduced to a unit of work. And it's being degraded every day.

Am not sure i agree. Its not a unit of work, because all those kids who work 17 hour shifts in a dirty sweat shop get **** all, and someone who sits and smokes cigars and sells oil makes **** loads. Unfair, yeah?

dukebound85

Apr 6, 2009, 04:52 PM

Money has been reduced to a unit of work. And it's being degraded every day.

true

when i buy something, i think of how long i need to work to pay for that lol

rhsgolfer33

Apr 6, 2009, 05:04 PM

true

when i buy something, i think of how long i need to work to pay for that lol

I do the same for items bigger than what I purchase everyday. Food I don't think much about, but a pair of jeans, iPod, etc, I reduce to "man, I worked 20 hours to pay for this pair of jeans."

skunk

Apr 6, 2009, 05:06 PM

If your jeans cost you 20 hours' work, you're either spending a ridiculous amount on them or seriously undercharging for your time...

rhsgolfer33

Apr 7, 2009, 12:32 AM

If your jeans cost you 20 hours' work, you're either spending a ridiculous amount on them or seriously undercharging for your time...

$210 for a good pair of jeans isn't unheard of...

I don't pay that because I buy all of them vintage, so I probably should rephrase that: "Man, these jeans would have cost mean 20 hours of work, but here they're only 5 hours."

I'll save $200+ jeans for when they only cost me an hour. :p

mactastic

Apr 7, 2009, 10:55 AM

$210 for a good pair of jeans isn't unheard of...
Wouldn't it be elitist in the extreme to pay $210 for a pair of jeans?

Eraserhead

Apr 7, 2009, 11:56 AM

$210 for a good pair of jeans isn't unheard of...

Maybe, but not if you earn $10.50 an hour. Well that is unless you wear them for 15 years - or are a fool.

Wouldn't it be elitist in the extreme to pay $210 for a pair of jeans?

+1

63dot

Apr 7, 2009, 12:00 PM

Wouldn't it be elitist in the extreme to pay $210 for a pair of jeans?

I wouldn't really call that being elitist anymore than the environmentalists who pay more for a hybrid Prius than a traditional and but otherwise similar gasoline car for thousands less.

If you want your jeans to be made by union workers and not child labor in the third world, they pretty much cost anywhere from $80 dollars on up. The hard thing is that while most of us don't want to support child labor in China, few of us make enough to afford jeans that are not that.

That has been my main issue. I try to buy something that can support my country or make a statement against China (human rights issues), like a pair of Lucky Brand Jeans made in the USA, or Levi's made in Mexico or the USA, but it's not in my budget.

That being said, I don't really think the Chinese goods, especially jeans, are all that inferior. What is inferior is that country's human rights record. I buy some of my goods, at extra cost, made in countries that have better human rights records, like the US, South Korea, and Japan, but still do have quite a few things made in China. I afford as many non-Chinese items that my checkbook can take and do with fewer goods overall. For the middle class down to the poor, that's the best we can do to make a statement.

zap2

Apr 7, 2009, 12:00 PM

Wouldn't it be elitist in the extreme to pay $210 for a pair of jeans?

What if they were jeans where the 210 goes to orphans....with diseases!
:p

But yea, 210 is to much for me(for jeans)

rhsgolfer33

Apr 7, 2009, 03:03 PM

Wouldn't it be elitist in the extreme to pay $210 for a pair of jeans?

Even if they're made in Los Angeles by non-sweatshop labor often from fabric of US origin (sometimes from Italy)? They're not made on an assembly line and large portions of the process are done by hand.

As 63dot said, its no more elitist than paying an extra $5000-$7000 for a hybrid. I like clothing and I don't have to run up credit card debt to buy what I like, so what does it matter if the jeans are $40 or $200? I own cheap jeans (ie H&M brand) and expensive jeans (ie Earnest Sewn), I don't pay $200 for them because they're fairly easy to find vintage or on sale for less that $100, but paying that much certainly wouldn't make me an elitist, it would make me a guy that really likes jeans. I've paid over $200 for a suit that I wear maybe 5 times a year, I easily wear a pair of jeans that many times per month, so the Citizens I'm wearing now that I've had for well over a year cost me less than $4 each time I wore them that year (assuming I actually paid $200, which I did not, I paid $60, so they cost about $1 each time I wore them this year); in contrast my suit probably cost $20 a wear each time I've worn it in the last two years.

I don't have a problem paying a good amount of money for something I wear often, it makes sense to get something nice if you wear it often. I wouldn't pay $1000 for an Armani suit because I only wear suits a few times a year, $200 for jeans I use almost twice a week isn't too bad.

mactastic

Apr 7, 2009, 05:20 PM

Even if they're made in Los Angeles by non-sweatshop labor often from fabric of US origin (sometimes from Italy)? They're not made on an assembly line and large portions of the process are done by hand.
Well, the way I see it, a latte costs about three times as much as a cuppajoe. To many in this country, latte-drinkers are the epitome of elitist. Lattes are not made on an assembly line, and large portions of the process are done by hand as well.

I pay about $30 for my Levis. That means these jeans you speak of cost about 7 times more than the jeans worn by "real Americans"; and are thus worthy of the title 'elitist'.

I didn't make up the rules, I just play by them...

63dot

Apr 7, 2009, 05:43 PM

I didn't make up the rules, I just play by them...

I used to play by them until I voted Green Party this year. :)

hulugu

Apr 7, 2009, 05:46 PM

Well, the way I see it, a latte costs about three times as much as a cuppajoe. To many in this country, latte-drinkers are the epitome of elitist. Lattes are not made on an assembly line, and large portions of the process are done by hand as well....

The people who call lattes a produce of elitism are fools. It's espresso coffee with steamed milk. I make them at home using a simple coffee maker and a little copper pan.

Yes, I know Starbucks has convinced people to pay $3.00 for one, but that's their business model (well that and creating drinks like the Frappuchino).

As for $200+ jeans, okay. I don't really see either of these as products of elitism. In sub-Saharan Africa, sure, but in the United States we spend exponential amounts of money on all sorts of trifles and gewgaws.

Rather, the people who are elitist are those who think that because they can afford to purchase a gold-plated toilet they've been anointed by god and are thus smarter better people. Elitism isn't just having a few cool things, it's an attitude wherein a few or a dozen lucky moments means you're above everyone.

Gelfin

Apr 7, 2009, 06:02 PM

I make them at home using a simple coffee maker and a little copper pan.

Ooooooo, well laaaaaah tee dah look at mister fancy steaming his milk in a copper pan. You know how many more times your hoity-toity copper pan costs than a used soda can? Freaking elitists.

rhsgolfer33

Apr 7, 2009, 08:00 PM

Well, the way I see it, a latte costs about three times as much as a cuppajoe. To many in this country, latte-drinkers are the epitome of elitist. Lattes are not made on an assembly line, and large portions of the process are done by hand as well.

I pay about $30 for my Levis. That means these jeans you speak of cost about 7 times more than the jeans worn by "real Americans"; and are thus worthy of the title 'elitist'.

I didn't make up the rules, I just play by them...

Thats great, but its a latte, sure, paying $5 for something you're going to consume and leave in the trash in less than 30 minutes is somewhat dumb (but judging by how many Starbucks there are the average American certainly does it fairly often). Jeans last for years, like I said, the pair I'm wearing now has been in my closet for atleast one year and probably closer to two. Is it really elitist to spend $200 on a piece of clothing that lasts for years? By that line buying an iPod would be elitist; its price higher than mp3 players of average quality and in many cases lasts only a few years. Personally, I probably use a pair of jeans more than my iPod, so why is paying a similar price elitist? I wear "expensive" jeans for similar reasons to why I use an iPod (or an Apple computer); they fit better, look better, last just as long or longer than all other jeans, and additionally they are made by unionized workers in America, not in some sweatshop in China. I buy iPods (and Apple computers for that matter) because the software is more functional, they look better (especially in comparison to a Zune), and they're made by a company that I like. They're both overpriced, but buying either one doesn't make me an elitist. I've never paid more than $60 for a pair of jeans, would I? Yes, but like I've said, I buy most of my stuff vintage (which is quite good for the environment), at Loehmans or Nordstrom Rack, or on sale at a department store.

I suggest you take a look around at the jeans people wear, many "real Americans" wear jeans that cost far more than Levi's. You're probably not "up" on jeans too much so you probably wouldn't notice what brands others are wearing, but I can tell you from walking around in the LA area, there are almost as many LA residents in middle class areas in jeans that cost $200 as there are in Levi's, especially young people. Walking around most college campuses around here I see as many pairs of $40 Levi's as I do $200 Sevens or True Religions. Also, I guess since anything priced more than average is elitist, most American's are elitists, since I'm sure almost every middle class person in this country owns at least one item that costs more than a similar item of average quality does.

I'd been interested in hearing the rules regarding what is and isn't elitist. I certainly wouldn't consider someone who buys $200 jeans by default to have the attitude or belief that they are considered members of the elite (according to Wikipedia, "a select group of people with outstanding personal abilities, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes"). Though some people who purchase $200 jeans might consider themselves members of the elite, I doubt its because of the jeans they purchase.

63dot

Apr 7, 2009, 09:45 PM

I'd been interested in hearing the rules regarding what is and isn't elitist. I certainly wouldn't consider someone who buys $200 jeans by default to have the attitude or belief that they are considered members of the elite (according to Wikipedia, "a select group of people with outstanding personal abilities, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes"). Though some people who purchase $200 jeans might consider themselves members of the elite, I doubt its because of the jeans they purchase.

I don't think your jeans are elitist.

What strikes me at elitist are more things of attitude which often, but not always, goes with high priced items, but across all sections in one's life. I think it's OK to have nice jeans, or in my case, shoes that are functional and not total junk. I know a person who likes good musical instruments but is otherwise very poor and has a humble existence.

An elitist would have the best of everything (clothes, car, education, house) but have them in such a way so they could look down on others. If you go around wearing your jeans and say, "I look sexy and have the best jeans on the block", then that's elitist. But if you wear them in support of non-sweatshop labor, or are trying to help your country by buying something from your country, or are opposed to certain nations' attitudes towards Tibet, then that's not elitist.

Pretty much the only good things, above average that I have, are the few pairs of shoes, but I never judge them against other people's shoes and make myself look better than others. Also part of why I get a certain quality level of shoe is that I need higher arches. The terrible, dirt cheap shoes I used to wear are not an option these days, but is still better than having nothing. I only have three pairs right now so I don't think I am in snobville. :)

Cave Man

Apr 7, 2009, 10:05 PM

girls=evil

According to Mamma (http://content7.flixster.com/question/39/26/27/3926277_ori.gif), girls are the Devil!

How's USNY treating you? I'm sure you're ready to come back.

dukebound85

Apr 7, 2009, 10:11 PM

How's USNY treating you? I'm sure you're ready to come back.

Ready to come back to Colorado? Very much so lol

I'm not liking the difference in culture, scenery, government that I am used to back in the west. Plus it rains a bit too much for my liking lol. By a bit too much, I mean like 4/5 days it seems

drewsof07

Apr 7, 2009, 10:14 PM

Well, the way I see it, a latte costs about three times as much as a cuppajoe. To many in this country, latte-drinkers are the epitome of elitist. Lattes are not made on an assembly line, and large portions of the process are done by hand as well.

I didn't make up the rules, I just play by them...

And what about greeting cards? Highway robbery I tell you! Spending $5 on a piece of thick paper and trying to find words that someone else wrote to express the way I feel. :mad:

mactastic

Apr 7, 2009, 10:57 PM

Thats great, but its a latte, sure, paying $5 for something you're going to consume and leave in the trash in less than 30 minutes is somewhat dumb (but judging by how many Starbucks there are the average American certainly does it fairly often). Jeans last for years, like I said, the pair I'm wearing now has been in my closet for atleast one year and probably closer to two. Is it really elitist to spend $200 on a piece of clothing that lasts for years? By that line buying an iPod would be elitist; its price higher than mp3 players of average quality and in many cases lasts only a few years. Personally, I probably use a pair of jeans more than my iPod, so why is paying a similar price elitist? I wear "expensive" jeans for similar reasons to why I use an iPod (or an Apple computer); they fit better, look better, last just as long or longer than all other jeans, and additionally they are made by unionized workers in America, not in some sweatshop in China. I buy iPods (and Apple computers for that matter) because the software is more functional, they look better (especially in comparison to a Zune), and they're made by a company that I like. They're both overpriced, but buying either one doesn't make me an elitist. I've never paid more than $60 for a pair of jeans, would I? Yes, but like I've said, I buy most of my stuff vintage (which is quite good for the environment), at Loehmans or Nordstrom Rack, or on sale at a department store.

I suggest you take a look around at the jeans people wear, many "real Americans" wear jeans that cost far more than Levi's. You're probably not "up" on jeans too much so you probably wouldn't notice what brands others are wearing, but I can tell you from walking around in the LA area, there are almost as many LA residents in middle class areas in jeans that cost $200 as there are in Levi's, especially young people. Walking around most college campuses around here I see as many pairs of $40 Levi's as I do $200 Sevens or True Religions. Also, I guess since anything priced more than average is elitist, most American's are elitists, since I'm sure almost every middle class person in this country owns at least one item that costs more than a similar item of average quality does.

I'd been interested in hearing the rules regarding what is and isn't elitist. I certainly wouldn't consider someone who buys $200 jeans by default to have the attitude or belief that they are considered members of the elite (according to Wikipedia, "a select group of people with outstanding personal abilities, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes"). Though some people who purchase $200 jeans might consider themselves members of the elite, I doubt its because of the jeans they purchase.
Relax. I'm mocking the idea of calling someone elitist for their choice on the quality scale, not you for buying some specialty pair of jeans. It's as stupid an argument when it's about jeans as it is when it's about lattes or volvos or sushi or orange juice. But did that stop people from using it? Nope.

And what about greeting cards? Highway robbery I tell you! Spending $5 on a piece of thick paper and trying to find words that someone else wrote to express the way I feel. :mad:
Don't even get me started on the arugula. Terribly elitist. What, iceberg isn't good enough for you, mister fancy pants?:eek::p

rhsgolfer33

Apr 7, 2009, 11:04 PM

I don't think your jeans are elitist.

What strikes me at elitist are more things of attitude which often, but not always, goes with high priced items, but across all sections in one's life. I think it's OK to have nice jeans, or in my case, shoes that are functional and not total junk. I know a person who likes good musical instruments but is otherwise very poor and has a humble existence.

An elitist would have the best of everything (clothes, car, education, house) but have them in such a way so they could look down on others. If you go around wearing your jeans and say, "I look sexy and have the best jeans on the block", then that's elitist. But if you wear them in support of non-sweatshop labor, or are trying to help your country by buying something from your country, or are opposed to certain nations' attitudes towards Tibet, then that's not elitist.

Pretty much the only good things, above average that I have, are the few pairs of shoes, but I never judge them against other people's shoes and make myself look better than others. Also part of why I get a certain quality level of shoe is that I need higher arches. The terrible, dirt cheap shoes I used to wear are not an option these days, but is still better than having nothing. I only have three pairs right now so I don't think I am in snobville. :)

Exactly! I like jeans, yeah, they're expensive sometimes, but I would never look down on someone just because they don't have expensive jeans. I buy the jeans I do because I like them and because they support a manufacturing industry in America, specifically in my home state, that doesn't use sweatshop labor and pays a decent wage. I also think they fit and look better, sometimes H&M's jeans do too, I happen to own 3 pairs of those as well (at $40), though I tend not to buy them any more, in part due to where they're made and the conditions which in all likelihood they're made under.

I think every American in the middle class has one area in which they happen to splurge at least occasionally, mine happens to be jeans. I think, this being an Apple board, that many of us probably have quite a few things that are better than average. I know that I'm certainly lucky to be able to afford to own an Apple computer, an iPod, etc, especially in light of the price of a comparable PC, but again, I don't look down on somebody because they can't afford to use an Apple (if they chose to use Windows is another matter ;)), that would certainly make me an elitist.

Thanks for the support 63! I think you've got me beat on the shoes front, I believe I only have two pairs, but I like them, so thats ok. :)

Relax. I'm mocking the idea of calling someone elitist for their choice on the quality scale, not you for buying some specialty pair of jeans. It's as stupid an argument when it's about jeans as it is when it's about lattes or volvos or sushi or orange juice. But did that stop people from using it? Nope.

Who said I wasn't relaxed ... I'm relaxed... ;)

As long as you're mocking. Tone is somewhat difficult to perceive over this forum. Might I suggest the use of a smiley :p