The Instigator
en-oy
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Voiceless
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Really Rich People Should Assist the Homeless In Getting Jobs

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
en-oy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/10/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,958 times Debate No: 66686
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (54)
Votes (2)

 

en-oy

Pro

Round 1
Acceptance

Round 2
State your argument

Round 3
Rebuttals
Voiceless

Con

I accept this debate.

As Con, I believe that really rich people SHOULD NOT assist the homeless in getting jobs.

I will state why in the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
en-oy

Pro

I believe due to the resources and connections rich and/or famous people have access to, they should feel more obligated to help bring homeless or unemployed people work. More jobs are always available if people make them. For someone who makes upwards of a million dollars a year, they have more than enough money to live in luxury while still assisting people in need.

I think a great way to assist homeless or unemployed people, instead of giving them handouts and enabling them to freeload, which some [not all] do, would be to give them menial labor such as picking up litter by roadsides. This has been used as a job for people who owe community service but it is also a perfect job for those who have no work and are desperate for employment. They would be improving the surroundings of everyone in their city in exchange for an income. Another task that could be given is cleaning up local buildings. I know most cities have those areas where things are just starting to look run down; weeds are poking through cement, buildings are accumulating moss, sidewalks are crumbling. This could be a good fixer upper project for people in need of money.

Where do the rich people come in? They could start an obligation charity for people like themselves. While I don't think this idea would ever take off, it's nice to speculate. If a group of popular and rich people could come together and start a charity for employment, they could save tons of families in need of an income. If the average homeless person is making no money, not including those who perform and collect tips, getting a job could turn their life around. Even an annual 10K could be the difference between having a roof over their head. If John Doe makes ten million annually, what is he really spending it all on? If he took a million dollars and donated it to an employment system giving people jobs to restore their city, he would not only be helping clean up the city, but also changing lives in the process. If each person was being paid minimum wage and working enough hours to make 10K, that's 100 people who are getting their lives back by paid community service. This isn't including additional millions donated by other overpaid celebrities.

And what does a hundred peoples' happiness cost them? That extra vacation house on the other side of the U.S? make a few cuts. They'll live.

I think what it all comes down to is people complaining that celebrities earned their money like everyone else. Let's be honest, a lot of celebrities are swimming in cash because they were in the right place at the right time. They earned their money? No, people liked them and threw their money away on them. I know there are a lot of Americans who break their backs working day in and day out and come out making a thousandth of what most celebrities make. I'm not suggesting it's anyone's right to take rich people's money, I just think it all comes down to selfishness. Rich people are often times too selfish to care about the fact that people are dying because they don't have what said rich person would consider pocket change.
Voiceless

Con

I think that creating more jobs for people is the government's responsibility. Celebrities don't owe anything to lower income families. Yes, it would be nice. Yes, it would probably help. No, they should not be obligated to assist those who are less fortunate. They're not the gods of distributing money just because they have a lot. Honestly, there's not much they can do. If they paid minimum wage for people then the homeless would end up living paycheck to paycheck as well. What if the rich person happened to stop being rich, that would suddenly leave a lot of people without their jobs? I think a lot of this is just anger over high income opportunities. If people were really so upset over them making more money, you'd think that they'd stop giving their money up to them. Homeless people is not rich people's responsibility.
Debate Round No. 2
en-oy

Pro

Living paycheck to paycheck would be a much better life than living with NO paycheck. People will never stop giving up their money to celebrities. Celebrities are their source of entertainment; from actors to singers to authors our entertainment relies on these people. Americans value entertainment and overpay to get it. The mass of money people make by giving America a means to pass the time is more than they need. A high ranking fire fighter makes about 100k a year; much higher than the average annual income. This requires 72 hours a week of high stress work and overnight time away from home. The average fire fighter makes 45k, closer to the average American income. Fire fighting has been rated as the third most stressful job as of 2014 with a rated stress score of 60.45.

Compared to these statistics, what kind of stress does a celebrity live under? While they lose a lot of privacy and being famous can have its downsides, the whole lifestyle of people loving them, getting paid to do what they love, and living in the lap of luxury is not a negative experience.

What I'm saying is, I'm not mad at famous or rich people for having money but I think for those who don't spread the wealth, they're being selfish. If the same John Doe I used in my previous example were to put another 5 million in a mutual fund with a 12% interest rate [average] , that would build up 600k in one year that could be used exclusively for donating to charity or helping people with work. Setting aside another mutual fund [or using the same one] and putting the same amount in, John Doe could make enough money every year to live in extreme comfort for the rest of his life at 600k annually. He could make even more if he were to add more to it initially or leave the accumulated money in it to accrue even more interest until he lost his job or stopped earning an income from whatever his high-paying job was. Your argument on that matter is therefore invalid.
Voiceless

Con

Voiceless forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
54 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
First , I don't collect social security, I don't need it All the money I put in there has been spent by the likes of YOU. And all the corrupt freeloaders that are your henchmen in crime.
Posted by Voiceless 2 years ago
Voiceless
Yup. I'm done.
Posted by en-oy 2 years ago
en-oy
Can you guys just shut up? There's a difference between debating and arguing. Seriously, I'm so sick of getting notifications about this stupid argument. Agree to disagree, yes?
Posted by Voiceless 2 years ago
Voiceless
If you collect social security, you are a freeloader.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
We paid into social security, remember.By force, but paid nonetheless. That was my money all those years. Do you realize that ?It was put into a lock box , put aside for retirement, until the DEMOCRAT Johnson removed the lock and spent 30,000,000,000,000.00 of it on the great freeloader society .Those people got money they NEVER earned. If you cannot see the difference then there is no hope for you to ever be an honorable person.
Posted by Voiceless 2 years ago
Voiceless
As soon as you collect social security, you are just another freeloader.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
The health for veterans has been in all budgets. But government id lousy at seeing it gets to the right people. You can make government your god, but don't say I am wrong not wanting them to be my god.And you know nothing about what I do for people. Government wastes about 80% of the money they bring in And YOU are for that waste. That is the difference between me and you. You are childish in your thinking.I do understand that YOU are an enabler of government bad behavior. Because YOU will not open your eyes to the truth.
Posted by Voiceless 2 years ago
Voiceless
No one can chop down a tree without an ax no matter how hard they try.

Welfare is that ax that somebody needs.

You are that person that sees a person who died of starvation sprawled on the sidewalk and you say "How disgusting."

There is not need to argue with you. I find that you are in no mood to open your eyes.

I just hope that they are not sewn shut.

Maybe one day you'll understand.
Posted by Voiceless 2 years ago
Voiceless
The health of veterans is actually in the healthcare budget.

They take everything, but not with guns drawn.
They take everything and show these people what it's like to have nothing.
Do you know what it's like to have nothing?

The difference between me and you is that I don't mind helping people by reaching into my pocket.
The difference between me and you is that I know what it's like to be without.
The difference between me and you is that I believe in a world where everyone helps.
The difference between me and you is that I care for the well being of everyone.
The difference between me and you is that I see a person in need and actually feel something.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
During Katrina we saw two different class of people .In New Orleans, the freeloaders gathered in that stadium and waited for government to " rescue" them. The people in Mississippi , where the brunt of Katrina hit, rolled up their slieves, took out the chainsaws and went to work. Yet the freeloaders got all the media attention.

Just like you want to be patted on the back because you " care" about the poor with other peoples money.That's pathetic.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by gomergcc 2 years ago
gomergcc
en-oyVoicelessTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con Forfeiture after a weak argument
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
en-oyVoicelessTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture