What logical fallacy does the RW phrase "No Poor Person ever gave me a job" violate?

[HughBeaumont]

OK, so I'm not really up on logical fallacies or putting the example above with it's proper error. I would think "Appeal to Money", but isn't there a stronger one? I've been hearing this stupid phrase a lot lately and I'm just thinking "a) a poor person doesn't really have the capability of giving you a job and b) does that assume all people who have the capability of giving you a job are, by proxy, rich?"

http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/

[SpiralHawk]

1. Well, real Christains KNOW what Jehovah says about the poor

Too bad the republicon so-called christians do not have a clue...

Deuteronomy 15:7, 11
If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.

[SpiralHawk]

3. ReBagliCon Faux Christians probably face eternal damnation

Psalm 12:5
"Because of the oppression of the weak and the groaning of the needy, I will now arise, says the LORD, I will protect them from those who malign them"


Proverbs 14:31
He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.

[Deep13]

6. That's an easy one: no true Scotsman fallacy. nt

[ejpoeta]

11. that might just mean to slap them instead of punch them.

yes it's sarcasm. we only listen to the parts we like. and anything having to do with helping others doesn't give us as much as the ones having to do with giving us money.

[valerief]

2. No rich person ever got rich without the work of a lot of not-rich people.

Not your answer but a fact nonetheless.

[Xenotime]

24. Exactly. The weathy got their money by standing on the backs of the poor.

[NoGOPZone]

56. "When a man tells you he got rich through hard work, ask him: 'Whose?' " - Don Marquis nt

[notadmblnd]

4. Yes, poor people do give us jobs

It may be indirectly, but they do generate jobs.

[HughBeaumont]

10. True. Without their disposable income, no one would HAVE business.

A fact that the TeaDouchers, Taxophobes and corporate apologists seem to forget.

I always wondered . . . if I was a CEO, what would be in it for me, and speaking of fellow board members and the CEO community, to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs in the form of workers who have money to spend on MY products or services? What would be in it for me to eradicate my consumer base by firing my workers by the thousands???

[ejpoeta]

12. we are finding out right now what happens when the workers don't have money

to spend on the products. no one buys the products and the company loses money. so they cut the workers wages and lay people off. that'll help. help the downward spiral that is.

[notadmblnd]

14. Not only that but the entire legion of social services employees

have jobs because there are poor people. Charity workers have jobs because there are poor people. Child care providers have jobs because there are poor people. I am a child care provider and my piddly income may be subsidised by a social service entity, however, the mother does pay out of pocket for those services too.

[surrealAmerican]

25. They're not looking at the big picture.

Each CEO wants their company to be the only company who makes this decision, leaving the employees from all those other companies to be their customers.

[madmom]

34. Because they already have enough to live on everything else is just gravy. If

they get more they can live better, but they don't NEED it.

[Deep13]

5. It doesn't really say anything.

If it is in response to a suggestion to tax the rich, then it is an effort to change the subject. Of course no poor person ever offered you a job. We were talking about the rich. No one is suggesting making them all poor and there is no reason to suppose that they will need anymore paid help from me just because they are even richer now.

[raccoon]

9. Great response. And not all rich people offer anybody jobs.

For myself, most of my jobs have been with state/county government.

[Cosmocat]

7. Give ???

think about that a second ...

That aside, false frame ... REAL numbers show that 2% of the sainted "small business owners" are in the top bracket ... Seriously, it is a complete LIE about small business owners suffering because of the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, like the "death tax" effected small farm owners (it didn't) ...

VERY few "small" business owners show $250,000 in taxable income on their returns ...

[BurtWorm]

8. That's the psychobagger fallacy

Made when a debater wears teabags stapled to his beanie.

[Liberal In Texas]

13. ...and no poor person outsourced a job to China or India.

[Igel]

44. I'll disagree.

The motive for outsourcing is to keep prices down. The reason to keep prices down is to target particular market segments.

I bought a food processor a few years ago. I looked at prices. I got an expensive not-made-in-China one and paid for that privilege. We had the money for it and I didn't feel like helping China's military.

When I got the toaster oven my wife wanted we didn't have money to pay the price differential. We got just about the cheapest we find. One of the reasons it was cheaper is that it was made in China.

When poor people opt for three appliances made in China instead of two made in the US, they are effectively instructing the manufacturer, "Please outsource those manufacturing jobs: I want cheap even if it means outsourced rather than more expensive and made domestically." They are increasing that particular market segment, allowing it to be profitable for the manufacturer at a lower price point.

No poor person ever decided, "I think I'll outsource that job." Few rich people have made that decision, either. It's usually the folk in the middle, but that doesn't play into class warfare. Nonetheless, the outsourcers don't make their decisions in a vacuum.

[valerief]

15. I don't think people get to be billionaires without the help of the govt either. nt

[fasttense]

16. It's called a lie.

And the person who says it doesn't know what he/she/it is talking about.

I have known 3 people who have started successful small businesses on their last Unemployment Checks. They each employ anywhere from 3 to 8 people.

[slackmaster]

17. Red Herring, possibly Appeal to Scorn depending on the context.

It's a distraction.

[Shrek]

18. It's not a fallacy as stated

It's just a statement that's either true or false, depending on the speaker's employment history. You could just as easily say

"No tornado ever destroyed my home"

and it would be logically equivalent.

The statement has to be incorporated into an argument of some kind to be fallacious.

[coti]

46. Correct. It needs a conclusion based on the premise to qualify

as an invalid argument.

There's no conclusion.

In other words, what was the point the person was trying to make with the statement?

[Shrek]

53. And for that matter, we don't even know that it's a premise

A statement that concise could just as easily be a conclusion, depending on how the argument is formulated.

[Zambero]

19. And no poor person ever outsourced someone else's job

He or she that giveth can also taketh away!

[sadbear]

20. I just respond that I've never worked for a wealthy person

The only small business owners I know are middle class.

[EstimatedProphet]

21. No rich person ever gave them a job either

These Randroid idiots talk as if there's billionaires in the business of giving people work, as if there are job trees that they go out and harvest jobs from. It's stupid on its face.

So the answer to the question, realistically, is ALL LOGICAL FALLACIES. False premises cannot lead to a true conclusion.

[Igel]

45. But haven't you set up a straw man?

Perhaps the intent is to promote adulation of the rich, but all the claim says is that "poor people don't hire workers"--probably not intended to mean the person who actually makes the decision but the person ultimately responsible for authorizing the signing of the pay checks.

Most of my employers have been middle class or upper middle class. None have been poor.

In some cases they've been corporations. Most of them have been reasonably rich, with upper-middle-class agents acting on behalf of the legal entity.

[EstimatedProphet]

52. No, I'm really not. Here's why:

The "rich people give people jobs" line is a complete lie. There is only one thing that creates an actual job: demand for a service or product. That's it. There's no way to create meaningful jobs that last without demand. The proof of this is simple - start a business where people pay you to cut off their own limbs with a chainsaw. Dump as much money into it as you want, and see how long it lasts. No demand=no business=no jobs.

Middle/Upper middle/Wealthy people may do the hiring and the paying, but they will never be able to actually create a job ex nihilo like they claim they can. Not for anything like what any of us mean by "job". You can "create" a job for a kid by having him mow your lawn, but that's not the kind of job anyone ever means when they talk about job creation. The "rich create jobs" bit is just a distortion.

[harun]

22. It's a statement of their worship of rich people, and pure nonsense.

They want a society where one's worth and the services they can receive are based solely on their ability to make more money for the rich.

[billlll]

23. error

Wrong forum

[ThomWV]

26. No poor person ever gave you a butterfly either, so what?

[EOTE]

27. Poor people probably provide more jobs than rich people do.

Maybe not directly, but poor people have a far higher marginal utility of the dollar. That means that a far greater proportion of the money that goes to poor people gets put directly back into the economy. Rich people will save that same money, thus doing nothing to stimulate the economy. The fact that we're still debating the merits of voodoo economics is sick.

[HughBeaumont]

31. I don't even get why there's still an argument for it either.

It's stunning to me that anyone STILL BUYS this supply-side bullshit, especially considering the 10-year result of this crapcake theory we are and still going through. Were 2 jobless recoveries just not enough to convince anyone that this does not WORK?

[EOTE]

32. People have an insanely short memory, I guess.

It failed during the Reagan admin too. Same crap, different peddler.

[On the Road]

40. Yes, This Recession is a Vindication of Supply-Side Critics

It may be true that under certain economic conditions, there is a shortage of available capital and that that expanding that will result in more investment and more jobs.

But right now there are trillions of dollars sloshing around the world economy now looking for a good return, and no one is investing it. The whole reason all these expensive stimulus packages were necessary is that the supply side is NOT doing what supply-siders claim it always does.

[Lorien]

43. Yep. A poor person's dollar goes right back into the American economy

while a rich person's millions go to overseas bank accounts and global investments.

[Igel]

47. "thus doing nothing to stimulate the economy"

"Thus doing nothing to stimulate the economy" is a false statement.

The top 5% of earners is responsible for something like 30% of demand, esp. big ticket items. Give somebody making $15k a year an addition $2k, odds are it'll go to his landlord or grocery store or cheap clothes or MacDonald's and not for a new AC unit, new car, domestically-produced clothing, washing machine, or things of that kind.

People who are poor put more of their money back into circulation, but not into manufacturing jobs. Into agricultural jobs and overseas jobs or low-end services. What kind of job do you want? Flipping burgers and picking lettuce?

Meanwhile, the money that the "rich" put in the bank accounts accounts for liquidity and is loaned out for investment--and that money also has a multiplier effect, even if it's not typically counted. If there's a shortage of deposits then banks have less to lend; if nobody buys stocks, then the prices go down and additional stock offerings raise less money for investment. The banking crisis of late 2008 was a liquidity crisis. Given that and doubts about the stock/bond markets as viable means of raising money, I can't blame businesses for hanging on to their cash, i.e., self-ensuring their future liquidity.

Then there's the fact that most small businesses take a bit of hefty investing by the proprietor. If the owner invests a bundle of his own money it's a lot easier to make a go of it than if he invests borrowed money: That 8% profit may not be enough to live on if he's paying 4% interest on his capital. Typically a lot of growth comes from investment in small businesses at the end of a recession (earlier investment tends to produce poor people). We haven't seen that kind of investment so far.

[EOTE]

57. It's a very true statement.

The money that the rich put into savings does nothing to stimulate the economy. And given the current state of the economy, the rich are putting more and more of their money into savings. Once again, I refer you to the marginal utility of the dollar. There's no doubt that if you give a bunch of millionaires and billionaires a few extra million that some of that money will make its way back into the economy. That's not the point. The point is, if you have X amount of money, that money will do far more to stimulate the economy if it's provided to people on the lower end of the income scale.

Then you say this: "Give somebody making $15k a year an addition $2k, odds are it'll go to his landlord or grocery store or cheap clothes or MacDonald's and not for a new AC unit, new car, domestically-produced clothing, washing machine, or things of that kind." Which is an ignorant statement if I've ever heard one. You act as if spending by the poor doesn't stimulate the economy as much as spending by the rich when in fact it's the exact opposite. Due to the multiplier effect, spending by the poor has a far greater stimulative effect.

And yeah, all that money the rich have been putting into their accounts has done wonders for liquidity and investment. Banks are just going crazy trying to decide how to lend out all that money.

I never thought I'd hear such a pathetic defense of Reaganomics on DU.

[slampoet]

28. Means Their Parents were born RICH, otherwise the First poor person giving you a job would be MOM

Or DAD telling you to take out the trash and paint the fence.


For the record at least 17-18 poor people gave me jobs BEFORE i turned 15 and got my first actual check with a W2.

Looking after pets
Mowing lawns
picking up apples
picking strawberries
painting houses
building sheds

[EC]

29. A lot of poor people give poorer people jobs

like shoveling snow, raking leafs, roofing, all sorts of work for food etc...when there are needy the poor are usually the ones stepping up to help by giving them some work...

[geek tragedy]

30. No one 'gives' anyone a job.

A job is a relationship--you provide that person with valuable services, and they compensate you for it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. Noboby "gives" jobs. They negotiate for labor. They aren't handing out favors.

[grahamhgreen]

35. What rich person ever let you sleep on their couch? nt

[Winterblues]

36. I just reply by saying "You can't be that stupid"

and walk away :shrug:

[jgraz]

38. Which is also a logical fallacy

They totally can be that stupid.

[HughBeaumont]

42. "No True Republican"

:rofl:

[jgraz]

37. I believe that's the Head Up the Ass fallacy.

Specifically, argumentum ad rectum.

[Lance_Boyle]

39. You don't violate a fallacy, you commit one.

A fallacy violates logic.

[Lorien]

41. This poor person regularly hires workers

I have physical limitations that force me to hire laborers to do various chores around the house. What's more, when I have work it's generally the working classes who are the ones purchasing the products that I design. Without them I have no job.

[uncommon]

48. Poor people create jobs - they buy goods and services - without selling goods and services, the

wealthy business owners would have NOTHING.

[Canuckistanian]

49. No poor person ever laid me off, either

Or cut my pay and benefits. Or fired me and rehired me on contract. Or gave my job to someone overseas.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

50. It would appear to be a false premise....

The false premise being that the government should provide support only to persons who can create jobs, and since people living below the poverty level don't typically own businesses that offer employment ("no poor person ever gave me a job" is a synecdoche), the speaker is assuming the the government is pursuing an illogical policy by providing support to poor people.

One could respond to the speaker with either one of two counter-arguments:

a) Point out to the speaker that support provided to poor people goes directly into the economy (por people buy clothing, groceries, etc) and that really does create jobs.

b) Invite the speaker to go screw himself.

Since the speaker is likely a Teabagging asshole, I would recommend Response B.

[librechik]

54. +heh n/t

[zipplewrath]

51. Redundancy

Barely qualifies as a logical fallacy. More likely it is closer to a non sequitur depending upon the context in which it is stated. It is roughly the same as declaring that "ice has to be cold". Yeah, kinda the definition of ice. It doesn't really answer many questions. Unless someone asked for "hot ice" that is.

"No poor person ever gave me a job" is an odd sort of statement of fact. No pigs have flown out of my ass either, but I'm not sure the relevance of such a statement.

[Orsino]

55. Red herring.

We shouldn't let the very rich rule us, as they do not seek our company.

If we want more people to be able to prosper, we need to legislate that way.

[sakabatou]

58. Sweeping generalization

[begin_within]

59. The rich create poverty by taking more than their share.

That's the essence of capitalism anyway, diverting too much of the flow of money in your direction, taking too big of a chunk out of the pie, siphoning off more for yourself by underpaying people who are working for you/with you on whatever it is your organization does. That's the essential purpose of capitalism, to gain at someone else's expense. Poverty is an inevitable byproduct of capitalism. So to denigrate poverty is to denigrate the byproduct of what you are doing, and by extension denegrating yourself.

[TrogL]

60. It's a non-sequiter

I've never worked for a rich person.

My jobs have been with various governments or companies with minority stockholders.

The correct response is "your point?"

[chrisa]

61. Thought-terminating cliché. It's also a platitude.

There's no real argument there. Just a platitude that in itself doesn't make much sense.