Are the Poor Getting Poorer?

[Falkomagno]

[BigBallinStalin]

I just view the government as the natural place to hold such functions.

Now don't get me wrong I am talking about an ideal, well functioning, government, certainly not the US one (nor many others including my own countrys').

I think there HAS to be a reorginisation of the incentives for politicians and people in power.

My own pet theory is to abandon democracy and have government positions filled like any other job: Employ the best person of the job. Strip away all political affiliations, and just get the work (managing a country) done aas efficiently and effectively as possible.

You would still hold general elections, but you wouldn't vote for people, you should never vote for people. You'd vote for your ideals: Left, right, conservative, liberal. The people who are employeed in government then operate in a way that meets the desires of the population (for example say there was an overwhleming left sentiment: Taxes are higher, there is more public spending etc; say there is more right sentiment: Taxes are lower and goverment spending is restrained; say there is massive liberal support: AoG gets to marry! etc etc).

How would you implement 57% liberal, 6% libertarian, 23% conservative, and 14% other into public policy?


And how would one determine which politician is best for representing these politician stances? Seems like the politician would have to align himself with a particular political stance, and now we're back to where we started...

[BigBallinStalin]

Besides, purchasers of Indian and Chinese products are providing some of the world's poorest people with better opportunities. Either they sweat and toil in the fields making very little money (and/or live by subsistence farming), or they sweat and toil in factories.

So, if you advocate against purchasing those foreign products, you're unintentionally forcing these poor people to work in the fields for lower wages. Where's the compassion with that cause?

I hate this reasoning - Do you think it is ok to use poor communities for toxic waste dumps and E-waste recycling plants also? Do you think the carcinogens that are released into the poorer communities are fair and equitable compensation? The communities that have little to no participation with destructive consumption patterns are the ones who invariably have to pay the costs -


Economic Imperialism at its finest -

Sounds like government failure on their part to ensure that the working conditions are great for the Chinese factory workers. If we want to rail on our government to ensure safety conditions, why not rail on their government to do the exact same thing? Why immediately blame "capitalism," "economic imperialism," or "consumer choice" instead?

But most importantly, how true is your stance? How bad are working conditions in China and India? Does your statement accurately describe the entire manufacturing sector of both countries?

And also, compared to what? If we use the US as a standard, then sure, working conditions in India and China are terrible, but that's similar to imposing this modern US standard on the US 100 years ago, and then demanding the 100 years past to suddenly implement modern day technology to improve working conditions... You're ignoring economic reasons which prevent the capability of implementing US-level working conditions in poor countries.

[BigBallinStalin]

The poor people in significantly poorer countries need money. Whether or not they work in relatively poor working conditions--compared to the standards of the most highly developed economies in the world, it doesn't change the basic fact that they demand higher wages.

Merely espousing that a buyer of Chinese imports supports inhumane sweat shops and economic imperialism still overlooks the mutually beneficial exchange between the buyer and the poor person in China. That rhetoric of my opponents ignores the implications of restricting trade, causing unemployment in Chinese manufacturing, and forcing many poor people to work for significantly lower wages in the fields.

What kind of future is that? You people wish to cast millions into a worse situation because of your moral standpoint which ignores the reality of the implications. That's inhumane. That's having no compassion for your fellow human beings. I'd understand if my opponents just said, "Well, I'm an ultra-nationalist, so it doesn't matter what happens foreigners." (which is unforgivable, but understandable).

[Lootifer]

I just view the government as the natural place to hold such functions.

Now don't get me wrong I am talking about an ideal, well functioning, government, certainly not the US one (nor many others including my own countrys').

I think there HAS to be a reorginisation of the incentives for politicians and people in power.

My own pet theory is to abandon democracy and have government positions filled like any other job: Employ the best person of the job. Strip away all political affiliations, and just get the work (managing a country) done aas efficiently and effectively as possible.

You would still hold general elections, but you wouldn't vote for people, you should never vote for people. You'd vote for your ideals: Left, right, conservative, liberal. The people who are employeed in government then operate in a way that meets the desires of the population (for example say there was an overwhleming left sentiment: Taxes are higher, there is more public spending etc; say there is more right sentiment: Taxes are lower and goverment spending is restrained; say there is massive liberal support: AoG gets to marry! etc etc).

How would you implement 57% liberal, 6% libertarian, 23% conservative, and 14% other into public policy?


And how would one determine which politician is best for representing these politician stances? Seems like the politician would have to align himself with a particular political stance, and now we're back to where we started...

Like I say its mostly just a poorly thought out pet idea because I loath the idea of individuals in politics.

If people voted for ideals and policy rather than marketing, mudslinging and personalities I think the world would be in a far better place.

[natty dread]

The poor people in significantly poorer countries need money. Whether or not they work in relatively poor working conditions--compared to the standards of the most highly developed economies in the world, it doesn't change the basic fact that they demand higher wages.

Merely espousing that a buyer of Chinese imports supports inhumane sweat shops and economic imperialism still overlooks the mutually beneficial exchange between the buyer and the poor person in China. That rhetoric of my opponents ignores the implications of restricting trade, causing unemployment in Chinese manufacturing, and forcing many poor people to work for significantly lower wages in the fields.

What kind of future is that? You people wish to cast millions into a worse situation because of your moral standpoint which ignores the reality of the implications. That's inhumane. That's having no compassion for your fellow human beings. I'd understand if my opponents just said, "Well, I'm an ultra-nationalist, so it doesn't matter what happens foreigners." (which is unforgivable, but understandable).

It seems to me the rich 1st world countries have a vested interest in keeping the poor 3rd world countries poor. (Hey, what ever happened to the 2nd world? You know, the one where mario goes swimming?)

[Phatscotty]

the poor are richer than they ever have been before.

48% of poor people own homes in America. Our shit works. Get it through your head and leave my country alone ya big story telling over-exaggerating meanie!

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest tossed,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

[natty dread]

Our shit works.

Lol no it doesn't.

[Phatscotty]

Our shit works.

Lol no it doesn't.

Right. Everyone flocks to.......Finland.....

I suppose if our system didn't work, then we wouldn't have millions of poor people risking their lives to get here. Right?

x a billion

[natty dread]

Why is your country in an economic crisis right now? Is it because your "shit works"?

[Phatscotty]

Why is your country in an economic crisis right now? Is it because your "shit works"?

The same reason your continent is in worse than an economic crisis. Europe on fire is also a large factor that can make our problems worse. wtg

The cause in both of our cases is living beyond our means/debt





Our shit works for the poor. Don't tangle my statements although I'm beginning to think that's all you can do. A lot of our poor own homes. Most of our poor do not stay poor. Most of our poor are not starving.

[spurgistan]

Our shit works.

Lol no it doesn't.

Right. Everyone flocks to.......Finland.....

I suppose if our system didn't work, then we wouldn't have millions of poor people risking their lives to get here. Right?

x a billion

If Finland were north of Mexico, Finland would have very high immigration rates.

[natty dread]

The same reason your continent is in worse than an economic crisis.

My "continent"?

Funny how you're not saying anything about my country.

Most of our poor are not starving.

Ok... this again. The rich are rich enough to own fucking small countries, and when the poor are "not starving" it means they're suddenly not poor?

Hey, let those bankers and rich guys and politicians take everything they want. As long as the rest of us are "not starving" it's good enough.

If Finland were north of Mexico, Finland would have very high immigration rates.

We already have anyway. Lots of people immigrate to finland, mostly from 3rd world countries like Somalia, etc...

[heavycola]

The issue really isn't whether poor families have more income than they did 20 years ago, or rich people for that matter - it's the increasing size of the gap between them. Income inequality is the insidious poison in our systems, not poverty per se:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/fina ... world.html

[thegreekdog]

The issue really isn't whether poor families have more income than they did 20 years ago, or rich people for that matter - it's the increasing size of the gap between them. Income inequality is the insidious poison in our systems, not poverty per se:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/fina ... world.html

At the risk of getting my ass kicked by heavycola and/or people who love heavycola...

If, in the United States, the vast majority of the poor live a relatively happy, healthy, and wealthy lifestyle, especially compared to others, why is an increasing gap between rich and poor in the United States a problem?

[natty dread]

If, in the United States, the vast majority of the poor live a relatively happy, healthy, and wealthy lifestyle, especially compared to others, why is an increasing gap between rich and poor in the United States a problem?

An increased wealth gap means a disproportionately (did I spell that right?) large amount of wealth is centered on a very small group of people. If that wealth was more evenly spread among the population, it would bring a healthier economy - the people at the lower end of the wealth scale are, after all, more likely to spend their money rather than hoard it and sit on it.

[thegreekdog]

If, in the United States, the vast majority of the poor live a relatively happy, healthy, and wealthy lifestyle, especially compared to others, why is an increasing gap between rich and poor in the United States a problem?

An increased wealth gap means a disproportionately (did I spell that right?) large amount of wealth is centered on a very small group of people. If that wealth was more evenly spread among the population, it would bring a healthier economy - the people at the lower end of the wealth scale are, after all, more likely to spend their money rather than hoard it and sit on it.

Okay, I can buy that (I feel like I asked that question before and you gave the same answer).

So, if we want to get the people at the lower end of the wealth scale to have more money, and thus spend more money, how do we best go about doing that? Before you answer, consider that raising tax rates on the super wealthy are going to encourage more hoarding.

[natty dread]

If, in the United States, the vast majority of the poor live a relatively happy, healthy, and wealthy lifestyle, especially compared to others, why is an increasing gap between rich and poor in the United States a problem?

An increased wealth gap means a disproportionately (did I spell that right?) large amount of wealth is centered on a very small group of people. If that wealth was more evenly spread among the population, it would bring a healthier economy - the people at the lower end of the wealth scale are, after all, more likely to spend their money rather than hoard it and sit on it.

Okay, I can buy that (I feel like I asked that question before and you gave the same answer).

So, if we want to get the people at the lower end of the wealth scale to have more money, and thus spend more money, how do we best go about doing that? Before you answer, consider that raising tax rates on the super wealthy are going to encourage more hoarding.

I'm not sure, and I'm no expert on the subject, but I would probably suggest something like a carrot & stick approach - give the super wealthy a choice to either create a lot more jobs, or to pay more in taxes...

[thegreekdog]

If, in the United States, the vast majority of the poor live a relatively happy, healthy, and wealthy lifestyle, especially compared to others, why is an increasing gap between rich and poor in the United States a problem?

An increased wealth gap means a disproportionately (did I spell that right?) large amount of wealth is centered on a very small group of people. If that wealth was more evenly spread among the population, it would bring a healthier economy - the people at the lower end of the wealth scale are, after all, more likely to spend their money rather than hoard it and sit on it.

Okay, I can buy that (I feel like I asked that question before and you gave the same answer).

So, if we want to get the people at the lower end of the wealth scale to have more money, and thus spend more money, how do we best go about doing that? Before you answer, consider that raising tax rates on the super wealthy are going to encourage more hoarding.

I'm not sure, and I'm no expert on the subject, but I would probably suggest something like a carrot & stick approach - give the super wealthy a choice to either create a lot more jobs, or to pay more in taxes...

To simplify - the "job-creating rich people" are those that create income through business operations. On the other hand the "hoarding rich people" are those that create income through investments. If BBS were dead, he'd be spinning in his grave based on that characterization (considering that the hoarders are ostensibly investing in companies that have business operations). In any event, assuming that's how we characterize those people, the "job creating rich people" are already paying more tax comparatively to the "hoarding rich people." And if you impose a more stringent tax on the "hoarding rich people" they will just hoard more.

[natty dread]

To simplify - the "job-creating rich people" are those that create income through business operations. On the other hand the "hoarding rich people" are those that create income through investments. If BBS were dead, he'd be spinning in his grave based on that characterization (considering that the hoarders are ostensibly investing in companies that have business operations). In any event, assuming that's how we characterize those people, the "job creating rich people" are already paying more tax comparatively to the "hoarding rich people." And if you impose a more stringent tax on the "hoarding rich people" they will just hoard more.

Don't base the tax on just income... tax both income and capital.

[thegreekdog]

To simplify - the "job-creating rich people" are those that create income through business operations. On the other hand the "hoarding rich people" are those that create income through investments. If BBS were dead, he'd be spinning in his grave based on that characterization (considering that the hoarders are ostensibly investing in companies that have business operations). In any event, assuming that's how we characterize those people, the "job creating rich people" are already paying more tax comparatively to the "hoarding rich people." And if you impose a more stringent tax on the "hoarding rich people" they will just hoard more.

Don't base the tax on just income... tax both income and capital.

Inb4 BBS rage.

[PLAYER57832]

Our shit works for the poor. Don't tangle my statements although I'm beginning to think that's all you can do. A lot of our poor own homes. Most of our poor do not stay poor. Most of our poor are not starving.

Nope, POOR people here do not own their own homes. They rent, usually with section 8 assistance or are homeless.

We HAD eradicated at least childhood hunger in the early 80's, but then cutbacks began.. precisely when the economy was doing well, by-the way! (so pretty much disabuses your claims of "we cannot afford this".. its NOT about affording, its about pushing people down and refusing to help neighbors.. truly, it is).

AND.. now, the real problem is that the middle class is shrinking. That our poor are not universally starving on the streets is a GOOD thing, but that so many are moving into those ranks should absolutely be worrisome.

If you add in "lack decent healthcare", then you find that a LOT of people are truly on the verge of being poor. "On the verge", in that no matter what they have .. no matter the size of the house, the investments they have, the income, it just takes one big illness to turn them truly poor. The only cutoff their is that those nearer the top are more likely to have insurance and those at the very very top do make enough that they don't need insurance.

[PLAYER57832]

If, in the United States, the vast majority of the poor live a relatively happy, healthy, and wealthy lifestyle, especially compared to others, why is an increasing gap between rich and poor in the United States a problem?

An increased wealth gap means a disproportionately (did I spell that right?) large amount of wealth is centered on a very small group of people. If that wealth was more evenly spread among the population, it would bring a healthier economy - the people at the lower end of the wealth scale are, after all, more likely to spend their money rather than hoard it and sit on it.

Okay, I can buy that (I feel like I asked that question before and you gave the same answer).

So, if we want to get the people at the lower end of the wealth scale to have more money, and thus spend more money, how do we best go about doing that? Before you answer, consider that raising tax rates on the super wealthy are going to encourage more hoarding.

I'm not sure, and I'm no expert on the subject, but I would probably suggest something like a carrot & stick approach - give the super wealthy a choice to either create a lot more jobs, or to pay more in taxes...

To simplify - the "job-creating rich people" are those that create income through business operations. On the other hand the "hoarding rich people" are those that create income through investments. If BBS were dead, he'd be spinning in his grave based on that characterization (considering that the hoarders are ostensibly investing in companies that have business operations). In any event, assuming that's how we characterize those people, the "job creating rich people" are already paying more tax comparatively to the "hoarding rich people." And if you impose a more stringent tax on the "hoarding rich people" they will just hoard more.

Actually the REAL "job creators" are the average people who go out and buy stuff, USE the services and pay for them.. and it really doesn't matter, for this measure (alone... in other ways it absolutely DOES matter) if the money comes from taxpayer assistance or other forms of income. What mattes is how the money is speant.

[thegreekdog]

Actually the REAL "job creators" are the average people who go out and buy stuff, USE the services and pay for them.. and it really doesn't matter, for this measure (alone... in other ways it absolutely DOES matter) if the money comes from taxpayer assistance or other forms of income. What mattes is how the money is speant.

Well yes, there has to be demand for products; there also needs to be supply. I'm certainly not suggesting that the poor do not play a part in the economy, because they do and should. However, I'll put more stock in a business directly and actually creating jobs.

[BigBallinStalin]

The poor people in significantly poorer countries need money. Whether or not they work in relatively poor working conditions--compared to the standards of the most highly developed economies in the world, it doesn't change the basic fact that they demand higher wages.

Merely espousing that a buyer of Chinese imports supports inhumane sweat shops and economic imperialism still overlooks the mutually beneficial exchange between the buyer and the poor person in China. That rhetoric of my opponents ignores the implications of restricting trade, causing unemployment in Chinese manufacturing, and forcing many poor people to work for significantly lower wages in the fields.

What kind of future is that? You people wish to cast millions into a worse situation because of your moral standpoint which ignores the reality of the implications. That's inhumane. That's having no compassion for your fellow human beings. I'd understand if my opponents just said, "Well, I'm an ultra-nationalist, so it doesn't matter what happens foreigners." (which is unforgivable, but understandable).

It seems to me the rich 1st world countries have a vested interest in keeping the poor 3rd world countries poor. (Hey, what ever happened to the 2nd world? You know, the one where mario goes swimming?)

lol, they changed the terms. Now, "1st world" is "developed countries," "2nd world" is "lesser developed countries/developing countries," and "3rd world" is "developing countries," and the countries we don't talk about are "undeveloped countries."

But you're right in that the 1st world countries do have a vested interest in keeping the poor 3rd world countries poor, but that's largely unattainable. With increased trade, increased labor productivity, and the increased wages and opportunities, over time, these "3rd world" or developing countries experience increases in their standard of living, GDP per capita, (objectively measured) quality of life, etc. As their wages increase, they can command a higher purchasing power, and yada yada.

We see this happening in China and India, who in response to their rising prosperity, outsource companies to much less developing countries.

The biggest inhibitor is the local governments themselves. If the US is successful in applying pressure to "3rd world" countries, then maybe those countries will remain "3rd world," but that's a difficult case to make because the variables involved are numerous, are from other sources (other than local government, US government, US corporations), and are difficult to separate in influence.