Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Roy and Fred

Expand Messages
  • roy_langston
    ... So? Were you laboring under an erroneous apprehension that that was somehow relevant? Low-productivity workers with poor skills, work habits, and/or etc.
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 27, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" <harrypollard@...> wrote:

      > You said in your reply to Fred:
      >
      > "> A worker who has bad work habits (always arrives late) and has difficulty
      > following instructions will have a low wage even with all barriers gone."
      >
      > "Bingo! And there are actually quite a few such workers. So THEY WILL STILL BE POOR, and Harry's claim of an end to poverty is refuted."
      >
      > When one refers to poverty, it is involuntary poverty that is the question. So obvious as not to require the adjective.

      So? Were you laboring under an erroneous apprehension that that was somehow relevant? Low-productivity workers with poor skills, work habits, and/or etc. don't "volunteer" to be poor. They just don't have it in them to earn enough money to not be poor, and that also means not enough to pay the market rent for access to opportunity.

      > If someone in a free society wants to live off scraps gleaned from garbage cans that is his business.

      And if they don't, but don't have what it takes to compete with the most productive for the good land, you claim that means they have "volunteered" to be poor, and in fact INTEND to be poor.

      Grotesque.

      > The problem concerns those who want to live a worthwhile existence but must scrape by on barely enough to survive.

      Which LVT alone doesn't fix.

      > Of course, they get welfare and would under your scheme of exemptions,

      No, they wouldn't under my scheme of exemptions, as I have already proved to you multiple times, and you always ignore.

      > but that merely hides the situation - doesn't end it.

      Actually, the UIE _does_ effectively end it.

      -- Roy Langston
    • Harry Pollard
      Roy, There is so much you don t know, but you are so busy preening yourself, declaring your rightness while asserting you have proved something when you
      Message 2 of 4 , Feb 28, 2013
      • 0 Attachment

        Roy,

         

        There is so much you don’t know, but you are so busy preening yourself, declaring your rightness while asserting you have proved something when you haven’t that you are unlikely to learn anything.

         

        A major result of full collection of Rent is that wages of those at the bottom of the heap will rise from subsistence. There should be a shortage of labor as a consequence of freeing land from speculation and releasing it to the market.

         

        Wages generally will rise.

         

        Among your sillies is the idea that low ability people should be able to compete for good land – presumably higher rent land. You said:

         

        “And if they don't, but don't have what it takes to compete with the most productive for the good land, you claim that means they have "volunteered" to be poor, and in fact INTEND to be poor.”

         

        The “good land” doesn’t supply a free lunch. It enables more able people to do things not possible on lower rent land. But, if the user is not able to take advantage of the good location, he will rapidly go broke. Including the people you are worried about.

         

        Less able people in a Georgist society will not need welfare help of any kind. They will have a reasonably good life with the possibility of saving against contingencies. If they work hard, they will be able to live well.

         

        With present land speculation and rack-rents they must work hard for subsistence level wages – to which is added welfare of various kinds.

         

        When land speculation and rack-renting is ended, welfare will be unnecessary – including your much touted “exception”.

         

        Unfortunates and those who encounter bad luck will easily be handled by private charity something not possible now..

         

        Harry

         

        From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of roy_langston
        Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:16 PM
        To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Roy and Fred

         

         

        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard" wrote:

        > You said in your reply to Fred:
        >
        > "> A worker who has bad work habits (always arrives late) and has difficulty
        > following instructions will have a low wage even with all barriers gone."
        >
        > "Bingo! And there are actually quite a few such workers. So THEY WILL STILL BE POOR, and Harry's claim of an end to poverty is refuted."
        >
        > When one refers to poverty, it is involuntary poverty that is the question. So obvious as not to require the adjective.

        So? Were you laboring under an erroneous apprehension that that was somehow relevant? Low-productivity workers with poor skills, work habits, and/or etc. don't "volunteer" to be poor. They just don't have it in them to earn enough money to not be poor, and that also means not enough to pay the market rent for access to opportunity.

        > If someone in a free society wants to live off scraps gleaned from garbage cans that is his business.

        And if they don't, but don't have what it takes to compete with the most productive for the good land, you claim that means they have "volunteered" to be poor, and in fact INTEND to be poor.

        Grotesque.

        > The problem concerns those who want to live a worthwhile existence but must scrape by on barely enough to survive.

        Which LVT alone doesn't fix.

        > Of course, they get welfare and would under your scheme of exemptions,

        No, they wouldn't under my scheme of exemptions, as I have already proved to you multiple times, and you always ignore.

        > but that merely hides the situation - doesn't end it.

        Actually, the UIE _does_ effectively end it.

        -- Roy Langston

      • dwspain8
        Well said Harry, sounds to me like a pure note right on key. DS
        Message 3 of 4 , Feb 28, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Well said Harry, sounds to me like a pure note right on key.

          DS


          > Roy,
          >
          >
          >
          > There is so much you don't know, but you are so busy preening yourself,
          > declaring your rightness while asserting you have proved something when you
          > haven't that you are unlikely to learn anything.
          >
          >
          >
          > A major result of full collection of Rent is that wages of those at the
          > bottom of the heap will rise from subsistence. There should be a shortage of
          > labor as a consequence of freeing land from speculation and releasing it to
          > the market.
          >
          >
          >
          > Wages generally will rise.
          >
          >
          >
          > Among your sillies is the idea that low ability people should be able to
          > compete for good land - presumably higher rent land. You said:
          >
          >
          >
          > "And if they don't, but don't have what it takes to compete with the most
          > productive for the good land, you claim that means they have "volunteered"
          > to be poor, and in fact INTEND to be poor."
          >
          >
          >
          > The "good land" doesn't supply a free lunch. It enables more able people to
          > do things not possible on lower rent land. But, if the user is not able to
          > take advantage of the good location, he will rapidly go broke. Including the
          > people you are worried about.
          >
          >
          >
          > Less able people in a Georgist society will not need welfare help of any
          > kind. They will have a reasonably good life with the possibility of saving
          > against contingencies. If they work hard, they will be able to live well.
          >
          >
          >
          > With present land speculation and rack-rents they must work hard for
          > subsistence level wages - to which is added welfare of various kinds.
          >
          >
          >
          > When land speculation and rack-renting is ended, welfare will be unnecessary
          > - including your much touted "exception".
          >
          >
          >
          > Unfortunates and those who encounter bad luck will easily be handled by
          > private charity something not possible now..
          >
          >
          >
          > Harry
          >
          >
          >
          > From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
          > Of roy_langston
          > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:16 PM
          > To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Roy and Fred
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:LandCafe%40yahoogroups.com> , "Harry
          > Pollard" wrote:
          >
          >> You said in your reply to Fred:
          >>
          >> "> A worker who has bad work habits (always arrives late) and has
          > difficulty
          >> following instructions will have a low wage even with all barriers gone."
          >>
          >> "Bingo! And there are actually quite a few such workers. So THEY WILL
          > STILL BE POOR, and Harry's claim of an end to poverty is refuted."
          >>
          >> When one refers to poverty, it is involuntary poverty that is the
          > question. So obvious as not to require the adjective.
          >
          > So? Were you laboring under an erroneous apprehension that that was somehow
          > relevant? Low-productivity workers with poor skills, work habits, and/or
          > etc. don't "volunteer" to be poor. They just don't have it in them to earn
          > enough money to not be poor, and that also means not enough to pay the
          > market rent for access to opportunity.
          >
          >> If someone in a free society wants to live off scraps gleaned from garbage
          > cans that is his business.
          >
          > And if they don't, but don't have what it takes to compete with the most
          > productive for the good land, you claim that means they have "volunteered"
          > to be poor, and in fact INTEND to be poor.
          >
          > Grotesque.
          >
          >> The problem concerns those who want to live a worthwhile existence but
          > must scrape by on barely enough to survive.
          >
          > Which LVT alone doesn't fix.
          >
          >> Of course, they get welfare and would under your scheme of exemptions,
          >
          > No, they wouldn't under my scheme of exemptions, as I have already proved to
          > you multiple times, and you always ignore.
          >
          >> but that merely hides the situation - doesn't end it.
          >
          > Actually, the UIE _does_ effectively end it.
          >
          > -- Roy Langston
          >
          >
          >
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.