Naw, I’ve got him memorized. Or not. Is that where I’m getting that 1920’s poverty level stuff from? I was thinking I’d read it in, The Federal Subsidy Beast by Brian Finegan. Hmmm.
Here’s a quote on welfare spending from the linked book.
[Edited by UncleBeer on 01-11-2001 at 04:06 PM]
You forgot to say “Will somebody please think of the children!” Heh heh…I couldn’t help myself.
Marc
@aynrandlover
on another thread you agreed with me at making accounting and personal finance mandatory in high school. wouldn’t that impact the economics of classes?
but then of course, i wrote ECONOMIC WARGAMES to help make a classless society. i want EVERYBODY to THINK LIKE A CAPITALIST. i’m an ultra-rightwing techno-marxist. ROFL!
Dal Timgar
**
Ford had a high turnover rate at his factories. To lower his turnover rate and create a more efficent factory he raised wages.
Marc
dal_timgar,
Hey we have similar goals:D. I want everyone to think like an economist:D.
No, but in Parliament of Whores he uses that Cato Institute study to make the point you jokingly made: There’s no poverty in the US.
While humorous, it’s not true, as the second link points out. I wouldn’t tolerate 75 cents of every dollar I donate going to administrative costs at a charity I donate to; they’d lose my donation. We shouldn’t tolerate it from the government.
I think there’d be a lot fewer people opposed to government social programs if there wasn’t the incredible waste that you cite. I don’t think government has to be necessarily a bad thing, but disbursement of monies could be done way better, and with a lot less overhead.
dal timgar—I don’t think it would, actually, because I don’t think it is possible to maintain capitalism without a group that is disadvantaged, and yet I still feel capitalism is the best economic system.
Techno-marxist…hahaha. Nice!
Uncle Beer & Necros…IIRC I thought(what was required by law) up to 90% of a non-profit organization’s intake could be spent internally and only 10% needed to go toward the charitable cause. Anyone know about this?
well I agree it anit just the ferderal govt. Most charitible organizations in my area actually contract out. In other words, someone raises the funds and gives the charity like 10-25% of the actual take on the deal. Yeah, it sucks, I know, but its not just the govt, all organizations have extremely high admistrative costs, even private charities.
As for the OP not only do you have to define Poverty you have to define working. If I am a small buisiness owner Is the Governmewnt going to Declare for me what wages I’m going to pay? If so it’s going to stiffle innovation severly. On the otherhand Is the Government going to make up the shortfall from what the small buisiness owner wants to pay? In that case why would I go and get a manual labor job for 30k a year when my friend can start a Computer game testing company, pay me minumum wage, and let the Government make up the difference(with me buying enough of the company’s product with the governments money to pay for me to get payed the minimum wage in the first place). Like most Socialist-ish ideas it’s good in theory, but in practice would create so many holes for people to not work hard that the production of the country would seriously drop.
First of all, no one has the right to have children. Secondly, 40 hours a week is less than 24% time working. Even if we allow for eight hours of sleep a day, that’s still less than 36%. Now, if someone can spend one third of his waking hours working, and still make enough to support himself, that’s great. But I really don’t see this as a basic human right. I’d say that someone should spend 60 hours a week working before they have a right to public support.
jmullaney
I think that you are assuming that there is no benefit to having more than just one’s survival needs provided for. The fact that the movie industry grossed about $10 billion last year argues against that assumption. Also, if half the people are working full-time to support everyone, wouldn’t it be better to have everyone working half-time?
I don’t think you’re thinking this through fully. For this to slow down the economy, the poor people must be paying money for what the rest produce. If they are paying money, they must have money to start with. If they have money, they must have gotten it from someone. If they got money from someone, they must be adding value to that person’s life (unless, I suppose, they stole the money).
How does redistributing the wealth help? To give the poor any money, you have to take it away from the rich. Say the rich have a profit margin of 10%. Without redistribution, they get all of their wealth. Now suppose you come along and take $10,000 away from the rich and give it to the poor. The poor then give it to th rich to pay for what the rich poroduce. Now instead of keeping $10,00, the rich only get $1,000 (their profit margin). How does this help the rich?
I remember seeing something on the History Channel (maybe Discovery channel?) about this. His idea (according to the show) was to pay higher wages but also to get his employees to work a lot harder. He also expected to get the best people since everyone wanted to work for him. Capitalism at work.
To address the OP, sounds like Socialism to me. Ideally in a free market people make what they are worth. To pay someone a ‘living wage’ just to show up and do nothing 40 hours a week is an insult to those who earn their pay. I would be in favor of subsidized job training for the working poor so the could earn a ‘living wage’.
Ok a little tid bit about that 50% of the people in the economy working: First the offical population of the US is about 275 million (the real number, counting illegals is probably closer to 300). Given that, the current labor force is roughly 110 million. Therefore, not even half of the population is working, in fact, not even close to that!!!
I know, thats not that important to the overall argument, but it is a useful fact to keep in mind nonetheless:D.
Don’t make me hurt you.
Let’s take a look at the disadvantaged in this capitalist country vs. the disadvantaged in other non-capitalist countries. Wow, our disadvantaged seem to have a much higher standard of living.
Marc
Anyone that can take some friendly ribbing is ok in my book.
Marc
Yeah what we need is a good comunist revolution in this country so the lefties can apprecitate how good we really have it huh:D.
Price of living varies greatly from place to place. I was able to live working about 6 months a year at seasonal jobs, making less than $5000 a year, in Greenville, Texas. How? I lived in an all-bills-paid efficiency apartment that cost me $250 a month rent. I ate a lot of ramen. I walked to one job, the other I was able to catch rides to. I did not rely on government aid at all, and I had disposable income to spend on ‘luxuries’ like video games, used books, and marijuana. I continued to live there after I got a job in Dallas that paid $22,000 a year, and had a lot more luxuries, my friends thought of me as being well-off (well, actually I moved across the hall to a bigger, $265/month apartment). I continued to live there when I got a job that paid about $53,000 a year, including stock options. Ate out every day, didn’t keep any food in the apartment, spent a lot of money on luxuries, dating, and drugs and alcohol. I’d probably still be living there and commuting 50 miles a day if I hadn’t met my wife.
Now I only drive 16 miles to work, but I am always broke about a week before I get my paycheck. I pay $995 a month rent, true, the apartment is about 4 times bigger than my old one but it’s still a big jump up, even considering it’s split with my wife. My standard of living is not that much better than it was when I was making less than $5000 a year.
MGibson-- Yeah, I know. The “working poor” in China have always made me feel like a damn tycoon. 
I wonder what happened to gadarene? He seems to have left his own post!
It does bother me in some way that economic clsses in society must exist, but I don’t feel they need to be permanent(which is why I don’t lose any sleep over it). There is this idea that our economic class “system” is more than just a system, its a caste! Once you are born into it you never leave. I don’t know that anyone here has explicitely said that, but there’s no reason for a living wage if working stiffs can get out of their current station in life (which I think they can since I’ve seen it happen and have done it myself). So long as we keep using money, capitalism will continue to be the best system for increased quality of living and opportunity.
[/wild-ass speculation]
I’m starting to come around to the other side in this debate. If I can test video games at my friend’s house and have the gov’t pay me, then I’m all for socialism:)
A radical view, in the original context, to “go to the root”.
The “work ethic” is a crock of shit. Period.
To whom do we pay our rewards? To the garbageman, policeman, factory workers in deadly dull, repetitive occupations. The coal miner? To the people we absolutely have to have in order to function? Not hardly.
Or to the salesman, entreprenuer, stock/bond broker, middle management suck up, who spend their time trying to convince you to wipe yer butt with Charmin rather than Scott.
We have known for years that we are creating a system that simply will not have use for workers. We have hailed devices that will “save labor”, “free” us from demeaning, mind destroying labor. (Of course, a robot doesn’t unionize, works twenty four hour days and retires directly to the scrap heap.)
So what were we planning to do with the leftover workers?
Well, sneer at them with contempt for their “laziness”, maybe tip them a couple bucks to park our BMW’s. You work in an office? Look around, tell me how many of the people you see in front of you contribute one iota to the well being of their fellows.
Drive through the suburbs, through the smug jungle of two-three car garages, and tell me, how many of these people do any good for anybody save themselves?
Ah, but they work, so they deserve to have their children eat better than their neighbors, and it is clear that their children certainly deserve less than yours, after all, you were a crucial part of the negotiations between GreedCo and MammonCorp.
Do you really believe that any one human being can possibly deserve to personally own a billion dollars? Well, he worked for it, didn’t he? Did he? Did he squat-walk down a row of lettuce in the sun for ten-twelve hours?
As long as one child in America hasn’t enough, can’t get first rate medical care, can’t find the joy and wonder of having a mind honed on education, we are a lie and a sham.
“I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just” – Thomas Jefferson
Right on, Tom! Eat the rich!
Comfort the afflicted! Afflict the comfortable!