SPLIT TOPIC: American society: the poor the unemployed

whynot_31 said:

I think anti-poverty advocates are lying to me when they state that the US can (and should) attempt to provide one worker with $30k a year.

I don't think such studies are concluding that, "everyone should make $30,000 a year".

I think they're pointing out what it takes to afford the bare minimum of a decent life (literally: the poverty line) given our current conditions.

I don't think our congresscritters, or many of those of us of privilege (me and those who were raised in situations like mine or better), think about such things. Nor do they even really care.

Mandating pay raises is NOT the way I would go about improving the lives of those near poverty or working for minimum (unlivable) wage so I understand the risks due to globalization.

Cool The Kid said:

But we can't talk about how to address poverty w/o looking at economic constraints... i.e., tax revenue + programs, how to create jobs, and what the US is or isn't doing to create or capitalize on every opportunity available in the global playing field.

And we can't address it before we truly understand current conditions for these masses of people we're trying to help.

Such understandings help us realize there are massive flaws in our society that don't require raising taxes, mandating salaries, or attacking shareholders.

You feel the poverty line is too low, and that people are "owed" a living wage, regardless of whether they earn it or the jobs or federal money are there to support such a program

Not correct. At all.

into tax shelters there's really not a ton we can do...

1. Yes, yes there is a lot we can do, actually.

2. they're already in tax shelters.

Labor & capital are free flowing and if we as Americans don't provide labor at a good value point we will (and to a large degree ARE) be shut out.

The free market strikes me as largely a myth, so I don't have the faith in it that you do.

Your two paragraph diatribe about complacency, entitlement, crying and sob stories perfectly encapsulates why discussions like this one are so important.

Namely:

1. The impossible factors facing someone who's born poor in this country, no matter how hard they work.

2. MANY of these factors are completely in our control as a nation, are independent of globalization or Evil Unions, and worse, are actually preferred by corporations and the privileged class as a whole.

Are you trying to convince us that it sucks to be poor? If so, your mission wasn't necessary.

Yes, most people would tell you it sucks to be poor.

More significantly I think most people believe, like CTK, that being poor is largely due 'entitlement', lack of initiative, uncontrollable globalization issues, or whatever explanation one prefers.

THAT is what I am getting at. I do not think our congresscritters, our middle, upper middle and upper classes, or the multitudes of talking heads on tv (where a majority of the country gets its news) really know what is asked of today's poor or impoverished.

I mean: $10,000/year.

You want America to be able to have wages that are higher than the rest of the world?

Is that sarcastic?

No, as I stated repeatedly in my previous post.

Like CTK, I'm getting dizzy from the circles of this conversation.

...and I don't even blame them for their poverty.

good luck.

...see ya

CTK, while you are correct that our ship is sinking beneath global seas, i.e. that we will earn a proportionately smaller share of worldwide income if our labor cost remains expensive as compared to that of other countries, your analysis ignores the other reality: that an entirely disproportionate share of the wealth we do earn goes to an increasingly tiny portion of our society.

Financial consultants, lawyers, bankers and corporate CEO's siphon huge amounts of money off the top; tax evading corporations do likewise. Little or none of that cash "trickles down" to the poor or even to the working class.

Why is it necessary for the rich to become richer while the hourly wage is cut in the name of "productivity"? Why not tax the bejesus out of those who profit from low hourly wages? Fear that business will leave the country?

I don't see all of the CEO's, consultants, bankers and lawyers packing themselves off to live in Islamabad, do you? I think they'd stay right here and continue to run businesses, while maybe for the first time in a long time earning a fairer (i.e. lesser) share of the pie.

Also, our workers' wages would be a lot more competitive with those of other countries if their health care were provided free of charge by the federal government, a la Canada, and thus thee workers did not have to demand higher wages in order to cover those costs.

Same thing with retirement benefits.

I am traveling to Cleveland by car this weekend, and will gladly take photos of what happens when America is too expensive.

Youngstown is always sobering.

Newsflash: America is but one place to do buisiness.

Yes, the high paid professionals can't leave, but they don't generate the production and service jobs needed by our present array of poor people.

(I believe the Ayn Rand stuff is for CTK, not me). I am pretty moderate, and even considered left in the south.

That said, regulations may be able to reel in the worst of the banks, but isn't going to address the much larger issue of making America a cheaper place to do business.

We've been avoiding facing the truth about our competitiveness for 30 years.

How do you feel about income redistributing Wall Street types, who take from everyone else and redistribute the wealth to themselves and to Maserati dealers?

whynot_31 said:

good luck.

...see ya

Exactly.

Globalization or manufacturing companies seeking third world labor costs is only part of the story about why it's so hard to make it in this country if you're born poor.

Those things I mentioned are all things that are largely within the control of Americans, whether it's lawmakers or the electorate. And are all things that could go a LONG way towards improving the lives of the poor or dis-empowered.

...I've seen no progress toward reducing the other costs (health care, taxes, transportation, exec pay, etc),

I mean, Obama passed a pretty big health insurance bill last year. It improves coverage and attempts to control costs.

Had we gotten single-payer or a public option, we would have made even more progress towards one of the single biggest costs for Americans. A cost that has risen exponentially over the past two decades. (Strangely, health insurance industry profits have sky rocketed too. Hmmm.)

But the insurance industry, Republicans, the Obama administration and a significant chunk of Democrats chose not to pursue these cost controlling measures.

Not to mention the high percentage of Americans who mistakenly thought attempts to lower costs on the least efficient health care system in the developed world was somehow related to socialism, or more comically, wanted to "keep the government out of my medicare!"

Not to mention the miserably inefficient factors described in this article.

(The second article describes how we might fix runaway costs of private medicine described in the first)

Also, I completely agree with your most recent post. Well said.

1. No one firm can cut salaries and bonuses "first", without risking losing its best people to the competition.

2. The government does not have the power to implement an across the board cut, and -at this point- they are able to stop any "millionaires tax" from being implemented.

Obama missed his opportunity to do something about bonuses during the 2007-08 banking crisis. He should have said that any bankers that worked on mortgage backed securities desks or that in any way structured, sold or derived any income from the sale or trade of ABS that contained mortgage securities was ineligible to recieve ANY bonus if the bank accepted TARP funds. He should have then required caps on all bonuses of 50% of salary for a period of 3 years after TARP repayments for all bankers. The balance of the bonus pools for banks should have been set aside in a fund to which would have been shared proportionally by the states most affected by the forclosure crisis.

Unfortunately, when you have bankers making deals with bankers to save themselves, things like punishing the people who screwed up aren't really high on the list of priorities.

whynot_31 said:

I believe citizens and government have become merely players in the game; they are not "shot callers".

I think the Haves in this country are playing with fire.

You cannot indefinitely pay people $7/hr (or worse), give them ever more expensive and less useful health care, worse public transportation options, financial crises, retirement debacles, fewer government services, miserable public education, etc etc etc etc etc and expect everyone to keep playing along.

What we are headed towards is untenable, if we're not beyond that point already.

I think Americans, especially congresscritters and the wealthier among us, think political and social unrest is unthinkable.

I think they should start thinking otherwise.

(And I'm not talking about the Tea Party, comprised mostly of the middle class, which was readily coopted by a major political party and starting sucking at the Koch Brothers teat.)

Depends... are you relying on public transportation? Walking?

Surely you're not... gasp... driving?

Where is the car currently parked? In a truck loading zone, perhaps?

whynot_31 said:

Nah.

Case in point.