poverty and unisured numbers up

[304065]

Superman,

It figures that you would try to turn a tragedy like the Triangle fire to your own ends. That fire, which happened down in Washington Square, just a few blocks from here, killed 145 people due to overcrowding and unsafe working conditions.

You left out Child Labor Laws: as you are probably aware from your indoctrination, Child labor was another horrific practice of the US Industrial period. Child labor laws were passed in the teens, but the Supreme Court declared them unconstitutional, and it really wasn't until the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (a NEW DEAL?) that you had codification of basic workers' rights.

Because you cannot consciously carry on with the losing argument you've started, you now claim that WE would have opposed such regulations. Uhh, I don't remember saying that, do you guys? If you're going to put words in my mouth could you at least use my style?

The fact is that nobody here disputes (much) such things as workplace rules, OSHA standards, etc. There have been debates about whether they should be applied to small businesses the same as large (really comes down to ability to afford compliance costs), but reasonable people could differ if there were any to differ with here.

But the minimum wage has little to do with that. Are you going to answer the economic argument that as the cost of labor increases, the demand for labor falls, or substitutes for labor become more attractive relatively (e.g. robotics, which are high-capital-cost, but you can run them 24x7 and they don't come back from lunch DRUNK)?

Or do we need "alternatives to the "survival of the fittest" economy?"

What, a Kibbutz? A Commune? A Yurt?

[joeclarke]

Originally posted by john_cramer
Or do we need "alternatives to the "survival of the fittest" economy?"

What, a Kibbutz? A Commune? A Yurt?

We have had the odd chat about the odd thing and tend to disagree on many finer points of social policy and international affairs. We come much closer to common ground in the sphere of this thread.

I'm sure that'll make your day... ahem.

I think that there are opportunities for productive middle ground on the subject of social welfare. But I really believe that such middle ground has to be completely detached from cynicism in order to be effective. In otherwords - built around the assumption that people always do the best that they can with what they have.

Quit trying to cram everyone into the same capitalistic model - some people don't fit that mold and you can't shape them using capitalistic reward mechanisms. Accept that they exist and give them comfort.

Most systems are built in a Pavlovian style that only perpetuates the poverty that neither the government, the affluent or the poor wish to perpetuate.

[304065]

Quit trying to cram everyone into the same capitalistic model - some people don't fit that mold and you can't shape them using capitalistic reward mechanisms.

Uh huh.

What are "capitalistic reward mechanisms?"

Capitalism, unlike "planned economies" that have to be imposed AT THE BARREL OF A GUN, wasn't just created out of whole cloth by a bunch of 15th Century Italians, you know!

"Smithian" concepts such as scarcity of precious resources and their market-based allocation weren't created in 1776 just to fill up the pages of Wealth of Nations.

Those concepts are INHERENT IN NATURE.

Demand- The actual need for physical things such as shelter and food. Try supressing THAT for more than 24 hours, you'll get a good lesson in the underpinnings of capitalism.

Competition- the fact is, there are only so many Bison roaming the plains. Even fewer are the slow ones that can be easily killed without exertion of too much energy (see "Demand, above") You want one, you better be faster, smarter, or a better shot.

Innovation- why take the bison down with an obsidian knife when you can blow its brains out with a .40 Sharps Buffalo Rifle?

The virtue of CAPITALISM is that is harnesses these FUNDAMENTAL characteristics of human existence within the confines of an economic system. Add a private property system to reduce the cost of defending one's surplus and you've got an economic allocation system that WORKS.

It IS "survival of the fittest" in pinstripes. Which is also what makes it so much fun.

Nobody here can cite a SINGLE example of an "alternate" system that works. The reason they fell is the reason they never worked, e.g., they needed too much repression of human nature.

And try THIS thought out on your Kantian brain! EVERYBODY "fits into" the Capitalist framework, they just don't do it very well!

Well, in the velt, the lion that is injured in a fight with hyenas doesn't last very long. Here in compassionate capitalism, we try to correct the problem and get the lion back in the hunt. But it was never intended to dwell there forever.

Let's get down to what this is REALLY all about, which is the desire of people to salve their conscience about being competitive by unconsciously encouraging those who are damaged by capitalism to remain down forever. And the worst part of it is, they don't do it with THEIR OWN MONEY!

Have you ever noticed that? Have you ever seen that most of the so-called "altruists" here have a great plan for how to spend everybody else's income?

Weekend Reading Assignment: Adam Smith and Ayn Rand (except for We The Living, it's too short.

[304065]

Oddly, I agree with some of your post.

Why "oddly?" Just because I grew up in Maricopa County doesn't mean you always have to disagree.

[Burnin' oil]

* * * * NEWSFLASH * * * * *
This just in - Tony the Turbo admits worshipping Satan. In a recent thread T the T stated that he was crazy, desired to be called crazy and claimed to worship Satan. Neighbors that do not know Terrible Tony say they are not suprised at the development. Film at 11:00 . . .

[fintstone]

I tend to agree with the libertarian Neal Boortz's take on this topic:

HERE WE GO AGAIN WITH THIS "LIVING IN POVERTY" NONSENSE

Get out your hanky...it's time once again to feel sorry for all of the supposed Americans "living in poverty." The Census Bureau reported yesterday that the number of Americans living in poverty has risen. As a matter of fact, they are saying that 35.8 million people are now living below the poverty line. On top of that, they're now saying 12.9 million children are living in poverty. Quick...we must elect The Poodle! How can this be allowed to stand! Wait a minute! Forget The Poodle ... let's rush Hillary in there! She cares so much about the children! More money must be confiscated from those that earned it in order to "lift people out of poverty." Nonsense.

Actually, the truth is, there is no poverty in America. If you get beyond the biased media's hysterical headlines, let's apply a little common sense. First of all, according to the government, you could have a net worth of over ten million dollars, own two houses, have three cars and because you only earned a few thousand dollars in income last year, you would be living in poverty. Does Terreeeeza Heinz-Kerry draw a salary? Maybe she's living in poverty too.

It's a fact, folks. When the government measures poverty they're only concerned with paychecks, not with what you have already earned. The government doesn't look at your bank accounts, your balance sheets or that jewelry hanging around your neck. Only your paychecks.

Let's say you are a remarkably successful stock broker. You decide to take a year off and travel the country in your $800,000 Blue Bird Wanderlodge motor home. Guess what? For that year, our government says you're "living in poverty."

Why is it so? It started back during the LBJ "Great Society" years. Johnson wanted to create a method of measuring poverty that would provide a continued excuse for expanding the scope and nature of Johnson's war on poverty programs. That method of measuring poverty -- by only counting income -- is still alive today, and it is still being used by government hacks as a reason for ever more government and ever more government spending.

The average American defined as "poor" by the federal government enjoys a higher standard of living than the average European; not the average poor European ... the average European. It's a scam, folks. A scam to enable more government. If a person has a roof over their head, food in their cupboard, a television set, a washer and dryer, a microwave, air conditioning and a car. Sorry folks, but that ain't poverty. Just more leftist fantasies and imagined "emergencies" designed to create the need for more government. With very rare exception, there is not a single person living in so-called "poverty" in America whose own decisions have not led to their situation.

Poverty is a choice. It's a behavioral disorder. Poverty, my friends, is a mental disease.

[Moneyguy1]

Drivel.

[fintstone]

Truth

[fintstone]

I am one that was pretty close to the government's definition of "in poverty" last year when I was laid off from work for 8 months...Things were a little tighter than usual, but I was still able to take a week trip to Hawaii, a week to LA, a week to San Diego, a weekend in Las Vegas, and 2 weeks to Asheville NC. Bought a well-massaged Supertec engine, A new, top-of-the-line computer, 2 new digital cameras. Still had the 2 new Lexus, the Porsche, and the 4-Runner as well as the large 4 bedroom, 3 bath, 3 car garage in the best part of town. Kept my daughter in college and in the dorm without her having to even work part time. Gave me time to partially remodel my house and my vacation house.....Poverty is soooo cruel! The real punishment was going back to work.

[CamB]

5 mins of reading Ayn Rand and I want to put a hot poker in my eyes. Frankly, while libertarianism is a beguiling concept it just wouldn't ever work (IMHO). So I get irritated reading her "facts" about human behaviour and incentives (while she leaves out a whole lot of other facts)...

Anyways, back to topic:

John - Nobody here can cite a SINGLE example of an "alternate" system that works. The reason they fell is the reason they never worked, e.g., they needed too much repression of human nature.

Nobody is trying to find an alternative system - it appears to me that those who think there is a problem would: (a) like it to be acknowledged, and (b) make sure that funding is not removed (ie tax cuts for those who don't need it) from people who need assistance.

The only people offering up a new system are the "give the poor nothing" ones.

Fint, that article states - As a matter of fact, they are saying that 35.8 million people are now living below the poverty line. On top of that, they're now saying 12.9 million children are living in poverty.

Do you (and the author) really think that a significant portion of 35.8 million people are actually rich? Bob said it - "drivel" - as is the completely unsupported suposition "The average American defined as "poor" by the federal government enjoys a higher standard of living than the average European; not the average poor European ... the average European.'

[fintstone]

Cam
I have spent a lot of time in Europe and spent a lot of time being poor. I believe it to be a fact. The only thing the average European had more than the poor American was more vacation. My definition of "poor" (not the government's), would not include having 2 cars, a microwave, a large color TV, a VCR, cablevision, a computer, internet access, etc. I lived quite well for many years under the "poverty level" and never suffered. It is just a matter of living within one's means. Most folks that I know in that tax bracket spend a lot of time in casinos, spend a lot of money on alcohol, cigarettes, illegal drugs, etc or choose to have many children or marry several times..owing child support each time. They make their choices and then have to pay for them.

[CamB]

I disagree with the blanket statement about 2 cars, etc etc (I would expect that it isn't the case based on $20k pa for four people). I don't live in the US though, so I don't know for certain.

So we are back to the same problem - you want to take away money, I want them to be educated.

Specifically, I expect you would love to take away the "gambling, alcohol, cigarettes, drugs" money, rationalising that this is the "surplus" they have.

I put it to you that without education, at least some of the money currently being spent on food and accommodation would move to the vices listed.

If you have been poor, what got you out of it (you seem to be doing quite nicely now, so you are a long way out, and it seems to be from working hard )?

[fintstone]

Cam
The first 12 years of education is free in the US. In many states, college is free if you maintain good grades. Anyone who joins the miltary can go to college for free. There are more college loans, funds, grants, and scholarships than you can count.

[CamB]

How "free" is it though? In NZ it i free too - there is equal access and (more or less) opportunity but completely unequal outcomes.

That wasn't actually what I meant - what I meant was educating people who are poor as to how to better spend their money. This would take care of a certain percentage of those below the poverty line and struggling. We both believe that life choices can impact poverty - I am in favour of helping people make better choices (a carrot rather than a stick).

In regards to education, I'm actually quite cynical. You can't magic up higher paid jobs just because there are more people with higher qualifications --> it is stating the obvious but if everyone had college degrees the pay would be no different across the board. In NZ, we have some pretty useless courses available for young people which accomplish little other than getting them a certificate and using up another 12 months of their life. I'm talking about the sort of qualification that would be better replaced by working 3 months in the industry in question.

[fintstone]

Cam
free=$cost $0

There is no problem regarding too many educated people. Too many are too lazy to do squat. People don't spend unwisely because they don't know any better....it is because they are lazy, selfish, undisciplined, and know that the government will always bail them out.

[fintstone]

Cam
There is no finite, set number of good jobs. Smart, educated, hard- working people will find a way to be successful. The rest will find a way to fail.

[CamB]

There is a finite number of good jobs, unless you consider minimum wage to be a good job. And minimum wage and a family in the US pretty much guarantees severe poverty.

lazy, selfish, undisciplined, and know that the government will always bail them out.

Let's just disagree - I think this is a(n acceptable) minority. You think it is a serious problem not worth your tax dollars.

[fintstone]

Cam
There have always been more jobs in the US than there were people to fill them. When I only made minimum wage..I worked 2 or 3 jobs and still made enough to take care of my family and invest. When I decided that I was unhappy with long hours and low pay...I went to college and increased my worth.

It is a pretty set formula. Disallowing for a major physical or mental handicap..all one has to do is:

Get a job and work hard. Never leave the job you are in until you have another better one. Put in the extra effort or hours as necessary. Laws of economics dictate that as long as you provide service to your employer that is more valuable than your wages, you will be employed. If unemployed, don't just whine...make yourself more employable....if your local area has high unemployment...move to an area where work is plentiful.

Go to school and learn as much as possible. If you perform a bit above average, you will find it easy to find funding for school. Don't be a boob and select a degree in basketweaving. Ensure your education will lead to a good job. Statistic are easy to find to help you decide.

Don't get married until you can afford to do so. Don't have children until you can afford to do so. Attempt to be a bit selective in marriage so you do not end up supporting two families.

Don't borrow money that you cannot pay back. Save a little every month for the future. Stay away from substances or passtimes that are addictive and expensive (until you can afford them).

Seems simple to me. I have never seen it fail.

[CamB]

It is simple! And its good!

Unfortunately, it is a "simple" that evades a large portion of the population (plus there are those who genuinely suffer bad luck).

People aren't all disciplined, or rational, or even smart --> all of these are needed to succeed under your "simple". People screw up, and I don't want them to be destitute if they do.

[fintstone]

Most of the population understand what it takes to get ahead...but it is just too much effort.
When you screw-up, you just have to work a little harder to make up ground. If you screw-up over and over..and do nothing different to change your fate....you deserve what you get. Why punish that guy who is motivated enough to work two jobs and go to school to help out the lazy bum who didn't bother. Rewarding poor behavior or performance encourages it.