> Yeah, a year or two. That is a much different situation than the poor are in.
And this is the problem...you think the situation is the same. So do a lot of other well meaning people. They think that the poor are not making the decisions you would make so they must be stupid or not capable of reason somehow. But the fact is, facing hunger in a year is much, much different than facing hunger next week. Having some sort of built up human capital, be it a degree or work experience or connections or whatever is much different than having none of those things to fall back on. Having connections, be it family or friends, that can help you out in a pinch is much different than everyone you know balancing on the razor's edge too.
Missing a payment on your car in a month or two if you lose your job and making uncomfortable decisions is much different than not being able to eat or put gas in your car and leads to much different calculations.
It is the myth that we are all in the same boat that allows us to vilify those stupid poor people who can't just do what needs to be done to get themselves out of their situation.

You can make 20k flipping burgers at McDonalds. 20k is enough to build up a safety cushion. I'm a big fan of Dave Ramsey's, I listen to his show, and couples with a family income of ~40k call in literally every day having paid down ALL of their debt and built up a 3-6 month emergency fund (cash!). If they are willing to indebt themselves deeply, they have the same 'year or two' that I'd have if I indebted myself deeply. I have friends who have accomplished this, on 40k/year. Granted, the cost of living in the midwest is fairly low, but wages are also lower than elsewhere (our local McDonalds pays $9.50/hr starting, Wal-Mart is in the same ballpark).

> Perhaps they can, but at what cost?

I know exactly what it feels like. We were not in a good financial situation when we got married. Beans & rice, rice & beans. But we dug ourselves out and bought a modest house. No, we didn't go to movies, on vacations, or out to eat; we didn't have high end smartphones (even 'good' -- mine had a cracked screen), nice cars (we drove rustbuckets), remotely up-to-date PCs, or decent clothes (I wore my clothes to the point that they began to shred). I regularly caulked our brittle siding and tarred our aging roof to keep the water out, bondo'd our cars, and fixed their myriad mechanical problems with shitty, nearly free Harbor Freight tools. So yes, they can, and at a cost that I know and that I've paid myself.

>I've seen people making 100k+ spend so foolishly that they are effectively 'pushing for nothing' (zero or negative net assets).

Me too. But you mistake 'spending on consumption (enjoyment of their time)' with working for nothing. That's not nothing -- they are getting value for their money and time. That's not saving but I am talking about being in a situation where you have to transact with someone or lose everything. Very, very different.

Not different at all. If that fool loses his job, he'll lose every last thing he has, because he doesn't own it and the bank will take it back. Yes, his path to homelessness was more comfortable, but he'll end up in the same place.

> threatening another with imprisonment if they don't remit a significant portion of their income to that class -- are you OK with that?

* Yes, because if they are like your friends above and they truly get themselves into trouble, they'd have that guarantee as well.*

If they don't want that guarantee (I don't), should they have option to opt-out? Personally, I find the idea of forcibly taking from one person to give to another abhorrent. Especially when you will send the person to prison if the resist the taking, and to their grave if they resist the prison. I love charities, I give to charities, and I think they're a great solution. I'm proud to live in an area with extremely high charitable giving (Grand Rapids, MI), and I love to be a part of that. I do not love being forced into it, and if a government wants to implement something like that, it should be done at a more local level (certainly no higher than the state), so that the people effected by the decision have a greater voice in it.

>professionals are only partially paid based on the profit they generate.
Partially, in this case, makes all of the difference.
> labor demand vs. labor supply, just like everyone else's

Except the poor. Sure their labor is more plentiful and therefore cheaper, but cost of that labor is depressed because __their bargaining position, their best alternative to a negotiated agreement, is negative__. That is a big weight on the scale.

Not sure what you're trying to say here: __ .... __.

> it is actually asking them to work for exactly what their labor is worth
Again, it isn't because of the 'or else' chip on the scale. Besides, should we accept jobs in our society that don't pay enough to support the maintenance of the capital it uses? We don't offer to subsidize the cost of ink for a printing press or gas for a logistics company, why should we subsidize the cost of human labor?

No, we should not subsidize the cost of the labor. Exactly my point. Many professionals work 60+ hours/week, and even at crap jobs like McDonalds, 60+ hr/week pays $30k+, which is ample income to support a person.