Forum Post: Countering the "If you're poor why do you have tech" argument.
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 22, 2011, 6:53 a.m. EST by TH3W01F
(180)
from Ottawa, ON
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
While we shouldn't answer to trolls, many who oppose OWS will try to use that argument as a way to slam the OWS. However there are counter-arguments that dispel this incendiary type of attack that I will share with you.
First keep in mind that they are using what's known as a strawman argument. It is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position, twisting his words or by means of [false] assumptions.
In this case, the straw man is to assume that because one has tech, one is rich.
This of course disregards to how cheap technology is, or the reasons behind having such technology in the first place. The camera phones and Ipods, and laptops are now in truth a necessity in this modern age.
The reasons behind can be put in three categories
1) If one doesn't have access to technology, they fall in what is known as the digital divide. What this digital divide means is the inequalities between individuals, households, business, and geographic areas at different socioeconomic levels in access to information and communication technologies (ICTs) and Internet connectivity and in the knowledge and skills needed to effectively use the information gained.
To put is in clearer terms, No computer? No access to the net, can't job search, can't get new skills to get new jobs, can't get ahead!! We are in the era of information and those doing this claim that we are hypocrites are obviously unaware how NOT having a computer these days handicaps you.
2) The claim that technology is expensive is dubious at best. While large brand names like apple have rather expensive hardware, many other companies don't. Same as with the OS. Many sport an open-source hardware. Thus reducing the cost of said contraption. There is also the factor that the hardware itself may be refurbished, therefore halving the costs (and supporting local technicians to boot).
3) The fact that the hardware wasn't bought for the protest, but already available. Much like the tools of the peasantry turned into weapons, the tools of the common man in this century support the movement. Most people arguing about the tools of this century fail to see them as tools at all but a toy. Computers aren't toys. They are tools.
Of course, while reasoning with some will be as if you are wrestling with the proverbial pig in his pen. But in truth, each troll is an opportunity to show that you are a reasonable Human being and that you're not doing what you do on a whim!!
W01F
The "accusation" that they throw at protestors is even stupider than that.
It goes like this:
"You hate corporations, but you have tech"
Response:
First off, we never said we "hate corporations".
We've said we hate corruption.
We've said we think corporations have too much influence in government.
We've never said we hate corporations.
Beyond that. This is the world we live in right now. We use technology to further our movement.
Saying we should not do this is only a way to try to invalidate us and is simply an ad hominem attack, another form of logical fallacy.
I think people see the technology as an example of the "latte" factor in people's lives. Those extras we buy that can add up to real savings if we cut them out. You'r right of course, the hardware isn't that expensive, and it's available in employment offices, libraries, and even in some businesses to use free for job searches and applications.
Lets be honest though, just considering two extras, if you smoke and have a smart phone data plan you're probably spending $2500 to $3000 dollars a year on them. Not a lot of money unless you are poor, then it is part of your latte factor.
I found that saves a lot of time to use this cartoon - I donno the origin - I'd love to credit. I think you'd like the 3rd panel http://edgeoforever.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/cartoon-of-the-day/
Great! Needs to be right here on the page:
Would be even cooler presented as "The Anti-OWS Bingo Game" or "The Anti-OWS Talking Point Drinking Game"
GET A JOB! Drink!
I don"t think I can drink that much without risking alcohol poisoning
LOL even with the image of the comic here, several posters in the thread continue making the argument in frame one.
Too funny.
Hilarious. The guy in panel 5 nearly made me spew my drink out.
You guys are missing the whole point. There is an immense economic inequality apparent across the entire planet that OWS and other Occupy movements everywhere are attempting to address by pointing at those who create and perpetuate it. The technology is not the problem, it is how it is sometimes used to the detriment of the majority of people. It's not that corporations are bad, but a percentage have taken control of governments worldwide to advance their greedy agendas in spite of how many die because of it. It is insane and must stop. Don't get caught up in ridiculous side arguments that are meant to throw you off track.
First of all, not everyone supporting OWS is poor. The 1% is the ultra-rich. There could even be a few slightly rich folks among us. It does cater heavily to those who are underprivileged, but even many folks in what can be called the middle class these days are not so privileged. Many of the folks that complain that taxes are so high that they can't survive are just as underprivileged as the people they complain about, only that they are putting more of a right-wing spin on things.
Stupid argument. Compare my tech to his tech.
I have a smartphone that cost €400. He has a personal assistant that costs €60,000 a year.
I have a car that cost €4500. He has a yacht that cost €2 million.
I have a computer that gives me access to the internet. He has the ear of politicians willing to censor that internet.
Yep, his tech vs my tech. We are so much richer, aren't we!
Are you saying you are poor?
No. In fact, if he invented a cure for cancer, then I'd be happy that he benefits from that. However, when people say 'give the money to the rich person because he's the one that knows how to use it', I can only say, that's dumb. You see, the rich are getting richer, even during recessions, they profit relative to the rest of us. At some point, it's not about being productive, like producing products, it's about paying other people to be productive, lots and lots of them, and taking a small profit from each one.
Look, there are two elements to the economy, the zero-sum and the non-zero sum. In the zero sum, one persons profit is another person's loss. Now when we mention this, economists argue that actually, this is a good thing, because in the markets, if you gamble and win, you only take money from another gambler! So tough luck on them. That is seen as some kind of check and balance, so that the whole system doesn't go under. Bad choice, bad karma. Simple as. When you then draw their attention back to the fact that in real life, losers are not 'gamblers', but just ordinary people, who happen to invest in the wrong company with their labour (the company went bust), or were unfortunate enough to get ill - then the economist will remind us that actually, it's not really a zero-sum game, that actually investors increase value for everybody. They create more money and more jobs than existed before. While this is true of some parts of the economy, it's not true of all, and it still does nothing to balance the problem of the stacked dice or the losers who never gambled.
You are going way off topic. You are not poor, and so how does your counter of the argument apply? "If you're POOR why do you have tech". It has nothing to do with variations in level of spending.
No, the problem is saying that only poor people can be offended by the gross inequalities in society. It's not hypocrisy to support a better distribution of wealth, it's called having a social conscience, whether you are wealthy or not wealthy.
I'm not wealthy, by any stretch, but I'm not as poor as some either, though I grew up in extreme poverty.
If you are living in a first world country there is no way you lived in extreme poverty. More like poverty. The western world has a slightly warped view as what it means to be poor.
And yes, that problem you state is completely irrelevant to the argument given by OP, but i will entertain it anyway. You own a car, smart phone and computer. I would say you are able to support yourself. Do you think you are entitled to some of this 'wealth'? If so, what makes you think you deserve it?
People also have a warped view of a 'country's wealth'. A country's wealth is the spending capabilities of its government, not the total combined wealth of all citizens. It is essentially capitalistic, remember (private profits).
Durka You obviously have no concept of poverty in Western countries either. I used to put drinks mats in my shoes to try to cover the holes in the bottom of the shoe, but even so, I still had leather soled feet because the mats would slip and I'd essentially be walking barefoot. All my socks had holes in the bottom because the same; age - 12 years. One more thing, I was 15 years old before I finally found out what it meant not to be hungry all the time. It's the extreme in the Western world and I'm not going to start making comparisons with third world countries, because that is pointless.
The OPs arguments were several and they countered the basic criticism that people representing the interests of the poor were not themselves poor. My point, which is still valid despite your moronic reply, is that you do not have to be poor to oppose the inequalities in society.
I think that deciding on my 'wealth' on the basis of whether I own a car, a smart phone and a computer is also quite ridiculous.
What I know is that I went to university, obtained a first class honours degree, won a prize for the best grades in my year, but still did not have the money to continue my education to Masters level, which would have required an additional £14,000 for the one year (yes, UK) course that I was offered a place on (LSE). I knew people with much poorer grades who went on to do a Masters and were not even interested in academia, but parents paid and it meant they didn't have to decide on work for another year.
That inequality in the system had nothing to do with merit. The opportunities for the wealthy are far greater than for even middle class families. Fact. These are very typical inequalities.
Fact is, this subject (poverty and inequality) is way too complex to sum up in a sentence or two. The attitude that protest about wealth distribution is just down to envy and laziness, or a 'give me everything' mentality is ignorance of the worst kind. People are sick of being devalued and then being told to they do not even have the right to complain about it.
My grumble has always been that many people are talented in certain ways, but that if you are talented in business, you are rewarded much more than someone with a different talent, but who e.g. works the same or more hours.
For example, as a sector, 'women's jobs' are paid disproportionately less. That's a disgrace, frankly. It is all about the value that we put on different kinds of labour. It's not about 'getting a job'. Many people are part of a sector of society called the 'working poor'.
It's not about rewarding innovation. Many of the greatest innovations have been achieved by 'workers' and the profit of that innovation is then taken wholly by the company, who owns the patent or copyright, having paid only for the labour that goes into the innovation, and not based on the amount of benefit or value it has in the market. People are not therefore paid the 'market value' for their labour. Many people earn their businesses many times their salary through their work, and while the owners enjoy the benefit of other people's labour, we are all told, well, you are free to do the same, which just isn't true. Many many people try to start up businesses and fail, having sunk their life savings into the project. It's not even about whether they are providing a valuable service or whether are working in a saturated market, but because their overheads are so damn high to begin with because their only access to capital is via banks who demand a high return and premiums.
There's no way I'm going to discuss someone who feels the necessity to call someones reply "moronic". Oh and here's a tip: Take a break from university, work for two years, and then obtain your masters degree. Some of us have to do that instead of complaining over wealth inequalities. Wealth inequality is not an unethical concept. It's when this inequality extends to situations such as yours during youth. That is poverty, but not 'extreme poverty', so don't try to exaggerate your experiences to gain the moral high ground.
People are not paid by how 'talented' are. People are paid by how much their talent worth. Hell, i have a friend who is extremely talented at video gaming. Is it wrong that he does not get paid the same as a talented doctor for the same hours? No.
It is possible for anyone. People have to have the common sense to conduct market research and thereby invest in a profitable outcome. Anyone with that 'talent' CAN do it. Oh and if your business is a sound investment, loans are available from the bank. There is no need to dip into savings. I don't understand why someone would essentially spend all their money on the CHANCE it would return.
You seem to be darting around specific points and thereby labeling circumstances such as wealth inequality as unjust. In my opinion it is neither envy nor laziness, but jealousy which leads people to believe that another person's financial superiority is unjust.
Once again, I am ending this here as it is clear you cannot conduct yourself in both a civil and mature manner as an adult.
Do you not find it even a little ironic that in this world, the decision-makers have decided that the most valuable work of all is, wait for it, decision-making!!!!!! Animal Farm ring a bell?
You are fairly young, I can see. Because you have all the theory and none of the experience. Many people sink their life savings into businesses. And I'm not talking the large capital projects, where people very experienced in one field branch out - I'm talking about the guy or woman who has dreamed of having their own retail outlet, picks up a rent on a property that has no footfall, but cannot afford anything else, and then spend 2 years trying to make everything work, and then has to give up. This happens to most people setting up a business. Fact. It's not easy to go up against established players, who have managed to find the best locations, have years of experience etc. On the larger scale, it's very difficult to compete in many fields for the same reason. And that is when corporations start to accumulate an unfair advantage over competitors or new entrants to the wealth creating field. Of course, many people manage to make enough to get by. But many don't. That's the market, and I'm not expecting it to be fair. I'm simply saying that the way the market decides about our social values is dangerous.
Do you know what makes a civilisation? It's not a free market. It's insitutions that are given the task of protecting elements of the social fabric, often elements that would disintegrate if they were opened to the free market, or end up serving only a few, such as health and education. Already these fields are plagued by inequalities, but they create some kind of universal service. Why do we need that? Because we all pay taxes, that's why. And taxpayers want to see a return in the way of services and an element of fairness.
The market is fundamentally an opportunity for some invididuals to exploit the ingenuity and labour of other individuals. That is it, in a nutshell. Yes, we all gain in terms of having products to buy, but the real benefit in terms of wealth creation is funnelled into the pockets of a very very small percentage of the population. That's the problem.
Oh, and by the way, envy is the same as jealousy. I look forward to your next reply. :)
No way? Well you did anyway - four paragraphs. Cheers, fella.
I worked for several years trying to save money, but saving £14,000 from my disposable income living in London was extremely difficult. I raised about £4000, but then we started a family, and that money went to that. That's real life, mate. Complaining over wealth inequalities - you've got a cheek. I'll complain until my dying day, the system fucking sucks you moron. It's not tracking the talent, for a start.
Exaggerate my experiences? You really are a fucking turd. The experiences were what they were, no exaggeration needed. And it was something that stays with you, something you have to figure out, lest you have a chip on your shoulder. It's more a case of just seeing things as they are and not taking it personally, which I think I've managed pretty well. I've also managed to step out of that stituation, which the rest of my family have not been able to do. My mum died an alcoholic at a young age, and my dad was never interested. I've had plenty of shit to deal with and it's not exaggeration. My mother's situation was impossible - extremely low earnings, three kids. She was pretty though, and didn't have a problem getting a man to buy her drinks all night! That was her escape. Killed her in the end. Left five kids motherless, two of which were still in their teens. My step father died of cancer. These are not all problems caused by poverty, but they are exasperated by poverty. And these are not things you just 'shrug off'. It's not a sob story either, it's just life. But you do not have the right to say 'don't try to exaggerate your experiences'. In fact, you show a massive arrogance in doing so.
People are not paid by how much their talent is worth. Absolutely no fucking way. People's talents are exploited, some more so than others. Many people have invented or created things that have benefited many people and seen no return over and above their salary because the firm they work for 'owns' the discovery.
I am quite happy to see reward based on how much you really benefit the world and others. However, the market has no way of identifying the value of it's product or someone's labour over and above its 'marketable value'. Many products are fairly pointless, but it's nevertheless possible to create a market for them. That is a huge problem if we are lacking resources in important fields while having an excessive market in 'trinkets' or 'frivolities'. To achieve meaningful change in the world, you have to get more people who are doing pointless things to do meaningful things. Most people I've asked have answered that they would prefer to be doing more meaningful work. So why are the opportunities so limited?
No, what you are saying is that people talented at running a business or managing investments should be the ones to profit the most, and anyone else attached to maintaining that disproportionate reward (i.e. consultants, lawyers, accountants and lobbyists).
You exaggerated your experience because you labeled your situation as EXTREME poverty. Have you ever witnessed poverty on a global scale?
I lived in London briefly and finding the living expenses atrocious, i moved.
Forgive the wikipedia copy-paste. It explains it better than i ever could. "Both jealousy and envy begin as intrapsychic phenomena; that is, individuals first feel these emotions and then choose whether, or how, to express them. Although jealousy originates from a positive attachment to another, envy stems from resentment and begrudging." Therefore envy is by no means the same as jealousy.
People are exploited, yes - i never said they weren't. Exploitation is widespread, immoral and should be corrected.
All I'm going to say is i think that you have a childish and narrow minded view on the world. By your repeated insults, incessant rambling, inability to address particular arguments and arguably childish behaviour it becomes clear to me why you think the system hasn't benefited you.
Well, in this context, they mean the same thing. Positive attachment to another is jealousy towards anothers affections. Not exactly the context we are talking about, is it. Jealous of someone else's wealth, envious of someone else's wealth - they mean the samet thing, so stop being a poop and cede the point.
Clear to you and not clear to anyone else. Who is standing behind stupid comments? I have clarified each of my points. Call them rambling, but I at least address the point.
I think it is quite disingenious to do the 'think of the starving kids in Africa' to invalidate the experiences of poverty of people in the Western world. I'm assuming that's your gist, i.e. on a global scale. Poverty will always be relative, and the differences between the lowest 5% and the other 95%, and especially the top 25% are really quite extreme. The problems of inequality are as big a problem in the western world as they are between the developed and the developing world. To blind yourself to that is really to have your head up an ostrich arse!
But you are right, on a global scale, poverty takes on another dimension. The world's 1400 billionaires (not counting even millionaires) have a combined wealth of $2.8 trillion. That's enough people to fit on a cross-channel ferry, or just slightly less than the people that live in the Institute where I work. And that's wealth, not even earnings. Meanwhile, one third of the world's population live on less than $2 a day.
Finally, the system has benefitted me, up to a point, if you mean I had the opportunity to benefit from my own endeavours to get a good education. But opportunities were also limited there too by the lack of wealthy parents.
Kids in the UK now, with the new fees system, are set to leave their bachelor education with a £70,000 debt. They haven't even started work yet and they have this albatross around their neck. It's equivalent to a small mortgage. My debt was considerably less, but still a significant debt. The effects are accummulative. It begins the 'credit' lifestyle even before they've picked up their first paycheck, in many cases. That's an obscence disgrace. And you really think we cannot come up with a better system? And you call me narrow-minded!
It's all relative. The 1.6 billion people on the planet who don't even have electricity want what YOU have. Or even an eighth of what you have.
Looking into the near future the argument itself is changing.
Africa and China are booming markets for mobile technologies. And as societies gain access to information those countries will see a boom in their economy as well. Many previously 3rd world countries are going to enter the information age very rapidly in the near future. And as the saying goes, knowledge is power.
As for the U.S. we have the opportunity and capacity to move beyond raw information into an ethical age if the information is applied correctly.
Well, I'm poor and a computer moron. I used to know a lot about electronics, but that was back in the days of capacitors and vacuum tubes.
I fail to understand what your statement brings to the discussion, can you elaborate?
I'm an avid supporter of OWS and a part time OWS activist, part time only because I have to work and have some medical problems. Many decades ago I thought of myself as something of a technical wiz, but somehow, when I wasn't looking, it all got past me, and now I feel like just the opposite, a complete technical moron.
You don't need to be. In fact I got just the thing for you.
http://www.certiport.com/Portal/desktopdefault.aspx?tabid=669&roleid=101
Now I gave you the tools to be certified and no longer be a "Technical Moron". No need to thank me, you can thank yourself by taking that course and change your lot in life.
People forget the scam of Y2K and what that was really about. The brainwashing of America that was indirectly created by government and the tech corporationsthat the world was going to end if everyone did not update their computers. Now that everyone was on the same page they worked to sell everyone of the lastest phones, internet, etc so that there would be a day that we could not function in society without them. You can be poor and still get a computer, internet, phone since new technology replaces the old technology so fast the people practically give their old stuff to the poor or someone in need of it very easily.
We don't have a choice these days if you wish to survive today.
Only in America would someone ever own electronic devices such as these and still maintain the assumption that they are poor.
it's a false argument dude. don't let it get to you. do you think it cost $4.16 for a gallon of milk in mexico? hell no it doesn't. economics are relative. the tech argument is just some clever little trolls.
You don't need to own one. You can always go to the library. For free. that's what people who can't afford a computer do. Just pointing out that you don't need a computer, nothing more.
Not the computer or cell phone that's expensive anyhow, it's paying for the connection every month.
Sir, your argument is faulty, and here's why:
What you basically said is as if one is applying for a job in construction, they don't need to know how to use a hammer. This is ludicrous.
Library computer time is limited and doesn't enable a user to master basic things like emails, learning to use an office suite or any software that would make them more capable in a job. And let's just face it, what employer these days would hire anyone without software skills?
When I interview people for a job, computing skills are not that important. Almost anyone can learn enough computing skills to accomplish most jobs in an hour or two, even for someone who needs to use a computer all day like a receptionist. The things I look for are things like interpersonal and social skills because those are much, much harder to teach and ultimately much more valuable. When I see "knowledgeable of Microsoft Office" on a resume it means next to nothing to me.
I hope you realize that you will be left in the dust of your competitors, whom will have taken the time to select people who do know what they are doing.
You can teach people basic computer skills in a very short amount of time. You cannot teach interpersonal skills. I own a dental practice so they never use Office anyways. It is industry-specific software. Anyone with average intelligence or better can learn it after a day or so. You cannot teach someone to be personable, friendly, or have good looks for that matter.
Kindly name that software so we may know that you're telling the truth.
Dentrix. All my front end staff, assistants, and hygienist learned it with no problem whatsoever. I even taught my mother to use it in case I ever need a receptionist in a pinch.
"And let's just face it, what employer these days would hire anyone without software skills?"
I don't have a dog in this fight, but the answer to your question depends on the type of job you are looking for. Lots of jobs don't require computer skills (two of my kids have such jobs. And the guy who did the drywall in my house didn't seem to need any computer skills. I read once that Aristotle Onassis ran his whole shipping empire with just a spiral notebook and a pencil. Maybe apocryphal, but where there's a will there's a way, and all that).
I disagree with your statement as well (regarding limited computer time). Although you bring up an interesting point. The computers are still available to the public. I will add that since I have not been to a public library in quite some time, I would not be surprised if the tech was old. Old tech is better than no tech...
as a cook in nyc i make 70-80k/yr without software skills. i use the"limited" time on computers at the free library. there is no time limit. some stay here for hours. also, you can go to any apple store and get the same with no time limit. the library actually offers free instruction in email and other basic computer skills. there are countless jobs everyday on craigslist that require no "software skills". you are an idiot. please go away.
Ok smartguy, what restaurant do you work at? And which library do you use? And internet time at an apple store? Ooooh suuuure that would enable you to learn about the Microsoft Office suite.
Sorry not buying a word you're saying.
[Removed]
Not a troll, but I completely disagree. My great grandparents would probably feel wealthy if they could have access to everything today's "poor" take for granted. It's just that your PR sucks. You all come off like a bunch of whining babies. There are things on this site I can support, but I can't help myself when I read posts like this.
You just made your own logical fallacy in that first paragraph! Can you find it?
Can you spot the whole purpose of my post?
I can. Still, the fact remains that you make a logical fallacy which weakens your post and adds a quirky ironic twist when you take the tone of a teacher and proceed to educate us on how we should keep our eyes peeled for informal fallacies. It's almost cute. In the first paragraph you make a fallacy, and in the second you advocate for fallacy awareness.
Meh.
Poor in America isn't poor in 3rd world countries. There's a huge difference in quality of life, tell you that much. You have tech because you manage money poorly. End.
Est-tu sure que tu sais de quoi tu parles?
I don't know what's worse. That the US has the highest mortality cause by obesity. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mor_obe-mortality-obesity Or that they also have the highest deaths by starvation. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mor_lac_of_foo-mortality-lack-of-food
You're not a Canadian. Tu aurais répondu à ma question si tu l'avais été, sale menteur!
I can't respond to your question in french, I can only read it. I was raised in Alberta.
Sorry, but I do not believe you.
News flash. Not everyone in Canada speaks fluent French. Actually, most of them don't.
[Removed]
I think the point is that millions of people around the world don't have the luxury of any of those items. 1.6 billion on the planet don't even have electricity, much less a device to participate in the information age. We aren't the suffering masses here.
This a joke; anybody that can afford a laptop, a monthly cellular bill, and an IPad is rich by world standards.
These kids really ain't got a clue.
Ptsss everyone in the world has cellphones.
Other countries don't live in mud huts like you're led to believe.
Kindly prove that most OWS supporters have all these goods.
prove that most OWS supporters have cellphones?
And laptops and ipods/iphones/ipads. Kindly prove your claim.
Well I don't have an iphone/ipad :\