SPLIT TOPIC: American society: the poor the unemployed

Because I completely agree with you that that people's own habits (especially being financially foolish) tend to keep a lot them poor, I will not comment on that aspect of your last two posts.

I, do however, continue be stuck on my "there will come a point in which the wealthy will need to redistribute income for their own good" thoughts.

CTK wrote: I think we have a long way to go before that point. I mean, the reason for much of the uprising that occurs in Africa is due to outright blatant theft. Countries like the US send billions of $$$ in aid, and rather than it going to the people who need it, it goes to the dictators and warlords running the country. That's a deep topic in itself but right now I just don't see that happening to the US. People here for the most part have means to sustain themselves, as well as guns etc.

Folks who do study criminal behavior, psychology and political science argue that it is often the subjective perception of "unfairness" that causes people to rise up and grab someone's Iphone or be part of crowd that surrounds a mansion/castle while armed.

While I agree that taxing the nation's most successful until they leave the country is self-defeating, the impatient, violent people do have a way meeting each other, and occasionally get along well enough to generate some really good news footage on BBC.

During the late 80s and early 90s, a lot this footage came out of Central America.

Because I was merely a younger version of the guy I am now, I traveled to El Salvador with a group of economics majors in 1992 to see what all of the fuss was about, and participate in hypothetical discussions of how "we would develop the country" ......all while consuming copious amounts of the country's products: coffee, tropical fruit and marijuana.

--to be continued---

Btw, don't worry, I am remaining on topic.

You have just saved me much typing.

Basically, what I was going to say was:

Here I'd gone down to El Salvador just following a drawn out civil war over class issues, and was expecting to see Che's point of view.

But I didn't.

Instead, I saw a bunch of poor, uneducated farmers who were growing things that could be grown by anyone in the region for just as cheaply.

While being driven around by a tour guide who sympathized with the peasants, I was told "Over the past few days we have seen how the poor live in my country, Today, we are going drive through one of the neighborhoods of oppressors."

However, while I expected to get a drive through Scarsdale, I instead got a tour of Levittown!

Because there were no "truly wealthy" in the country, the poor hated those people who sold their products to United Fruit and the coffee producers: Mid-level people who earned the equivalent of 50k in today's dollars, and had scraped together enough to get a house with a functioning toilet and perhaps air conditioning.

Yet, to them, this represented extreme wealth. ....they afterall, were working 12 hours a day, living in huts, and (except in cases where US AID had educated them about "germs" enough to dig a well!) drinking from streams that were also sewers.

I large part me thought: "At this moment, I am not seeing oppression. At this moment, the ruling party is not shooting these people in the streets. At this moment, giving these people money would help very little. These people are completely illiterate and need education. These people need someone to dig them a well. These people need tractors and the skills to repair them. The age of the water buffalo is over, and these people got left behind."

"The ruling party is trying to move the country into the modern age, and doesn't seem to be living particularly extravagantly as it does so. These "rich people" are the only ones bringing any new money into this economy"

Yet I also understood the poor's point of view: They wanted what others had. They wanted what they felt they "deserved".

....and all the little supply and demand charts in the world, and macro economic classes in world weren't going to make them change their minds.

And if "land and wealth redistribution" didn't happen quickly, the poor were clearly going to send the country into another era of completely self-defeating civil war.

To make a long story short: I concluded that the "rich Levittown residents" were completely screwed. As a result of their ability to figure out how to escape the slums, they would always be hated, and the poor majority was going to consistently vote in a way that kept the country stuck.

Moral of the story:

In a democracy, the rich had better figure out a way to appease the poor.

....even if the poor deserve to be poor, and play a marginal role producing products of little value.

As I see it, if things get worse the wealthy of the US can either dismantle our democracy [With the help of the US and under Ronald Reagan the ARENA party systematically attempted this]

.

.

OR

.

.

.

throw the other classes some carrots (like health care, etc.) to keep them quiet.

------------------------------------------

Currently in the US, the poor are doing the exact opposite of the above.

Instead of blaming the rich, they are blaming immigrants.

Somehow America's native born believe that they are exempt from world economics, and that somehow "Jose" is to blame because he will work for less (and perhaps harder) than them.

.....of course, it makes no sense.

Perhaps after a while they will get their acts together, and to blame people whom they believe to be evil and rich.

.....barring things like slavery, that will make no sense either.

Correct: None of the social classes in america speak with one voice.

....all attribute different factors for their success or failure.

It is quite annoying to hear the rich speak of their status as if no one else helped them get all of that money, and they somehow have a skill set that warrants annual pay of 20 million.

Other rich will admit they were simply in the right place at the right time.

Still other rich know that they are able to profit because of miserable working conditions and low pay in other countries, and even seem to feel some genuine guilt about benefitting from it ....often expressed by a donation to the country they have plants in.

I want BG to comment on my El Salvador trip.

Not sure what you want me to say.

I think health care needs to be massively reformed. I think minimum wage needs to be almost doubled. I think executive pay needs to be tethered to the lowest paid worker. I think there needs to be a new bracket for the super rich. I think we need to dramatically cut defense spending.

I'd bet most "rich" people are more like him and less like Gordon Gekko,

and I'd "bet" the exact opposite. Hmmm.

but to BG that is of no consequence as they have more than others, and regardless of how they got where they are do not deserve all they have. It's silly

just skip your dumbass and false generalizations, ok? it wastes precious server space.

As most generalizations are. But the problem is that if the poor are simply provided subsidies with no education or training on how to manage limited resources, those resources may very well be wasted (at the very least utilized imprudently). Perhaps it is a bit naive to think if the poor are provided with TOOLS to pull themselves out of poverty they may do so. You refer to opportunities - again, I do not grasp what those may be. The creation of illusory jobs?

@Domino

"if the poor are simply provided subsidies..."

I never argued this. I'll recap for you.

For starters:

I think health care needs to be massively reformed. I think minimum wage needs to be almost doubled. I think executive pay needs to be tethered to the lowest paid worker. I think there needs to be a new bracket for the super rich. I think we need to dramatically cut defense spending.

@WN31

....at some level doesn't there need to be poor so that their can be rich?

Probably, I haven't spent enough of my life reading economic treatises. But there's poor and then there's poor.

I am suggesting, as a very rough beginning baseline, that if you work full time for minimum wage, you should be able to afford to have kids, and not be threatened with bankruptcy if you get sick or injured.

Minimum wage isn't $6-whatever b/c of some all-knowing free market process. That's what it is b/c that's the lowest that business lobbyists could get our "representatives" in congress to agree to. Similar to how executives aren't paid $20M a year or whatever b/c that's what the glorious unfettered (except when aided by government giveaways) market dictates, but actually b/c that's what the CEOs are able to convince the boards (who strangely consist of other CEOs) to pay them.

I am not arguing socialism. I am not arguing communism.

I am arguing that what we accept today as "acceptable quality of life" for our poorest workers is inadequate to say the least.

Our society can do better. It won't bankrupt us. It won't change the almightly American Way. In fact it might, just might, make us stronger and more competitive.

How many rich people do you know?

Dude, if you knew where I was from and where most of my friends work. Let me just put it this way, I'll be surprised if you know more bankers than I do.

You continually demonize the rich & make hapless victims out of the poor, and don't really explain why....

Nope, that's just how you read it because you're defensive and you refuse to ask pointed questions.

We've been over this about 800 times. I will defend any claim I make. I am purposely thoughtful with my words.

What do you think would happen if we were to "pay more" for poor people w/o addressing the underlying causes of poverty cycles?

Who said anything about no addressing that? Oh wait, that's another one of your useless assumptions about my viewpoint.

Please. Where in this country can you make $15,000 a year (minimum wage) and not be absolutely scraping by?

you are merely asking that the subsidy come from private industry rather than the government

This is an entirely relative statement. Your starting point presupposes that absolute maximum corporate profit is the most important factor in society.

It's not.

If our corporate structure means that minimum wage HAS to be $15,000 a year in order for us to be functional, then we need to do better, as a society.

domino wrote: In very many parts of this country, you CAN work full time for minimum wage AND afford to have kids. Unfortunately, the DECISION to live in one of the most expensive areas in the country limits your ability to live on minimum wage. Even further limits the OPTION of having children. Again, why should these DECISIONS be subsidized?

In an attempt to avoid this conversation, I made my carpenter be childless and live in Ohio.

...I agree with you that poor's choices about where they live and whether to have children should involve me much less than they do presently.

He isn't doing anything to "keep himself poor"

He works pretty hard.

He's pretty smart.

He shows up on time everyday and can make built-in bookshelves with the best of them.....

He knows how do do more than put seeds in the ground and then have water buffalo pull a plow.

Besides trade schools, what should be available to this guy?

health insurance?

a low interest loan so he can buy a small apartment?

a low interest loan from the federal small business association so he can launch a small cabinet building business?

BG and CTK-

It is your turn. Please state what, if anything, you would do to help the previously described carpenter.

Besides trade schools, what should be available to this guy?

health insurance?

a low interest loan so he can buy a small apartment?

a low interest loan from the federal small business association so he can launch a small cabinet building business?

I was imagining him as living off 40k in really good years, and 10k in bad ones. This year is a bad one.

I also imagined that he spent 1k out of pocket seeing MDs and taking prescriptions every year to "not have kidney stones".

....but 4k in the years in which he ended up with kidney stones anyway.

His other major expenses are his apartment, his 10 year old pick up truck, food, and new blades for his saws.

He doesn't have much luck with the women, so he gets off pretty cheap there.