free forum make a forum for free message boards free forum hosting free phpbb forum phpbb create free forum

ameliarose · Joined: 17 Feb 2011 Posts: 24

So in my opinion everything is to be gained from those who have less. People learn from one another and just because a person has less money, resources, property, etc. does not mean they don't have experiences that will teach. Also I don't think a person should assume that a person with less really has less. It depends on what you mean less. In many situation the person who has more material items may have less culture, family, tradition, friends or insight. I think that if everyone has more and less it just depends on how less is defined. There is always something to gain from others whether it is knowledge, care, insight, or material objects part of being a human is taking away from other peoples experiences.

tillyalexander · Joined: 07 Sep 2011 Posts: 12

I agree with Amelia's point. Like Shari said earlier, America is an economically driven country that lives off of fast-paced production and quick fixes to simple problems. And while some other countries nearby my not have the power that we kind of have, they definitely do have more than us in many ways. The first two examples that come to mind are women presidents and recycling/resourcefulness. A few Latin American countries have had women presidents over the last couple of years in their democracies. Granted, you could argue that some of the governments are so young (even compared to America) and that they're not stable. But what does that say about us as a country? We haven't elected any women presidents.
On the idea of recycling and resourcefulness, I think that many other countries in the world that aren't supported (could be another verb like controlled) by such an economic base tend to be more resourceful and less driven by western consumerism. By having less, they consume less and reuse more. Instead of this being an important part of American culture, I would argue that the need to reduce and reuse to save the planet had to become a fad before it was taken seriously.
In these two ways, I think that so much can be gained from those who may appear to have less.

sarahsmith · Joined: 20 Oct 2011 Posts: 3

I think that any answer to this question really depends on what we mean by the word "less." I think that the last question Ava asked in class today was something about whether money was the only form of value? If this is true, then people who have less are just people who have less money, fewer possessions, or a lower economic status. But if they only have less money/economic value, that doesn't mean that they don't have a lot to offer. Like Amelia and Tilly were saying...we have a lot to gain from those who have less. There is nobody in this world who has NOTHING. If a person has less of one thing, then they still have a lot of something else. So by that standard, we have something to gain from everyone— whether its monetary gain, knowledge, point of view...anything!

JasonJeong · Joined: 20 Oct 2011 Posts: 13

There are many things we can gain from people who have less. Like everyone said, resourcefulness, insight, values, or whatever can be gained from anyone including those who have less. Of course, it is up to individuals' decisions to gain something or not. And even if one decides not to gain anything from people who have less, I don't think it's always bad.

yamsham · Joined: 31 Mar 2011 Posts: 26

There's two ways one can look at this. i feel like the moral things we can leanr has already been fairly argued by the previous posts. As far as looking at it through the eyes of economics/buisness/capitalism (which are three things i am not particularly in love with), the US can gain a lot from those who have less because they work really hard just to get food on the table, stakes like that make people want (more like need) to work harder and create more product. if i were a buisnessman i wouild probably be more excited in getting a bunch of new workers who had less because a) i know they'll work extra hard cause they need the money, and b) i can probably get away with paying them less, cause they don't know the difference. I find it gross that people think this way but it's an angle that is definately looked at when considering the immigration debate.

Kayla Dalton · Joined: 23 Oct 2011 Posts: 4

I absolutely agree with a lot of what has been said so far, and I don't want to be too repetitive, so I'll just add this since we've been talking so much about American culture. Having "more" is a huge part of the American dream; having more money, a bigger house, more cars, more toys, whatever it is the ideal is always to have more of it, and to go back to what "yamsham" said (i have no idea who that is...) corporate or big company employers are looking for people who will work more for less so that the employer can keep more. Which is an interesting dilemma because we talked the other day about how skilled and/or rich immigrants are much more welcomed than unskilled immigrants or refugees. In theory, unskilled workers from much lower economic statuses who are willing to take those poorly paying jobs should be the ones we want to take in as opposed to skilled workers who will be fighting for better jobs and better pay that could be taken away from other Americans trying to get that job. We talked about how very few Americans take low paying physical jobs because they expect to be paid better than minimum wage. So that's what I was thinking about when Ava posted that question.

tess · Joined: 07 Sep 2011 Posts: 13

less is a very open ended adjevtive, but reading people"s post it's been mostly taken mean finatial means. It's pretty interesting to think about the question if it meant just power, (and money may be a reflection of that) but with power, once you have some, it's easier to take more. It relates to Kayla's point about labor. Once you have power it's easier to take power from someone with less.

Free Forum