No it’s not . Marx was a product of his time. And in his time he witnessed the very worst abuses unfetted capitalism can produce ( i.e. the whole depressing Dickensian London scene ). He wasn’t a stupid man and his ideas weren’t completely batty. He just failed to realize that society would step in to curb the worst abuses without resorting to revolution. It’s doubtful Marx ever imagined a society quite like ours today. Which is no fault of Marx, really. He was visionary and his ideas do have some power ( otherwise they wouldn’t have become so prevalent ). He just failed to grasp the whole universe of possibilities.
As for my own view on this topic, well I’ll just state that my views aren’t too far from ExTank’s. What’s arguable for me ( and I have equivocal views on all of the below ) is just to what extent equality of opportunity is available ( at least in the U.S. ), whether income inequality can get extreme enough to impair that equality of opportunity, and whether remedial efforts are warranted for people that are victims of dumb luck.
This is a very important concern in countries which depend on democratic action for economic adjustment. The truly poor are a minority, and are definately not affluent enough, nor have the resources, to hae a significant impact on politics. Those of us who do have the resources must continue to strive to eliminate stark poverty, homelessness, etc.
Because if we don’t, meritocracy, equality of opportunity, and the democratic process itself breaks down completely. This is far more than a simple “market failure” but a total “human failure.”
While I still do not advocate altruism as a rule for individuals, I must admit that the case for altruistic political/economic decisions is very strong in a country which presumes the equality of mankind (and women, too, if you think I didn’t mean that :)). Once a person reaches a certian level of poverty–and certainly if they were born into it-- there truly is no meritocratic escape (not to mention other means, even out-and-out theft).
I remain ambivalent about the other extreme–whether a person can become too wealthy. I suppose if we consider the government as a corrective force instead of an active force then any person or legal entity who can compete with the government on an economic scale is a potential threat. I am ambivalent because I’m not sure how a person could currently become that wealthy without violating a number of laws which they would cerainly get called on.
Which then makes me wonder–can a government get too wealthy, and how the hell do we curb that? sigh
Let me see if I can address some of Number Six’s points without hijacking this into a “hunger in America” thread.
First, your post claims that 9% of those households who receive food aid have children who have missed meals. 9% of the small minority of households who receive food aid is awful small. Assuming that the poverty rate is 12%, and that all of them receive food aid, that is only about 1% of the US who ever misses a meal. But if 99% of the population isn’t hungry, the question might be asked what it is about the 1% that makes them hungry when we give food away for free.
You then go on to cite that there can be serious effects from mild undernutrition. OK - what are those effects, at what levels do they occur, and what is their incidence in the US population? Saying it can happen ain’t the same as showing that it does. As previously posted, poor people are more obese than middle class or rich people. Maybe they are making the wrong choices in what they eat (or give to their children), but not having food available is not the cause of obesity in my universe.
You stated:
Prove it, please.
My point about me being eligible for food stamps and not collecting was, in part, to show that being considered ‘at risk’ of being hungry or poor or disadvantaged or whatever you like to call it is not the same as being hungry. I have never missed a meal because I was too poor to buy food. I have never met anyone in the US who missed a meal because they were too poor to buy food. I have met people who missed meals from spending their money on things other than food. This is, in my opinion, a different issue.
I am finding the argument of “income inequality leads to social unrest” interesting. Is the opinion of other posters that people who are not poor experience the emotions that would lead them to try to redistribute wealth? Was Robin Hood hungry, in other words? Or was he simply envious?
Again my thanks to all who are posting. Excellent stuff!
I have no idea what would motivate individuals to desire the redistribution of wealth because there are so many different justifications for it. I certainly know why a few don’t want to, though!
I don’t believe there is a general opinion on how income inequality itself would or does cause social unrest. IMO, it is the inability to better one’s station in life which does this, perhaps even exclusively.
I would also take issue with the idea that we have unlimited wants and needs. Even for the very richest, there is a limit to how much one person can spend on goods and services before they become a burden. That is why Bill Gates has a savings account; because his wants and needs are not unlimited. They are indefinite, but they are not infinite.
Well, every econ book I’ve seen has used infinite, but I suppose the semantic distinction is petty.
The idea is just that no person can ever satisfy all their needs or wants. The size of their bank account only covers part of it; the time to enjoy one’s stuff is also a factor. Besides which, even if a person’s bank account expanded indefinitely that still wouldn’t mean a person’s wants are ever completely satisfied; it just means that their cost is less than what the person makes.
And no, the semantic distinction is not petty. If people’s wants and needs were infinite, everyone’s bank account would always be at zero (there’s always something else to buy…!)
Insofar as Erica isn’t buying something at a given moment, simply staying put and enjoying the goods she’s got, her needs and wants for material goods have temporarily stopped. They may begin again at any time, and change from time to time; her needs are undefined. But our very lives are finite. How could something within them be infinite, let alone our desire for material goods?
I don’t have data, but I do have experience. I grew up in a really poor part of town. Where I grew up, people drank powdered milk, government surplus cheese and anything else was paid for with food stamps. My family was pretty poor, as well. I know what it is like to have a bare cupboard. It isn’t pretty.
Malnutrition sucks. Shakiness, meaness and difficulty concentrating can happen after just one missed meal. This is especially lame if you are a kid in school. I remember that they used to give us snacks (a handful of pretzles and some orange juice) on standardized test days so that the hungry among us could pay attention for at least those few hours. Hunger is an all-consuming force. It takes over your mind. Why don’t you try skipping lunch every day for a week? Does your work quality go down? Now substitute a good dinner for the sort of things they give you from free food bins- onion soup mix, powdered milk, and cans of bread crumbs. Try making meals from the food that no one else can use. Do you get sick eventually? Oops- that is a day off work! That means even less food! And it doesn’t take too long to get fired if you keep going that route.
sigh. Yep. Thats it- the poor are too stupid to eat well. See? They are all fat. I bet they use all their food money on candy bars.
First off, in a family where all the adults work, spending time to cook a meal is a luxery. Few people have the energy to, after a day at work, spend a long time cooking. This is especially true if the cook is also needed for other things- like child rearing. Sadly, healthy fast food is expensive. Opening a can of beans and franks is not. When I was growing up canned fruit was considered a treat for special occasions. Fresh fruit was nearly always out of the question. I know we have had this debate before- but trust me on this one. Nutrition is not cheap.
and the stuff that they give you at food banks is 90% fat laden reject food.
I have. Heck, I still do, but that is a different point. Many times, I said “Mom, what is for dinner?” and she said “We don’t have any food here, and I don’t have any money”, and that was that. We would try our best to mooch off friends and families until the first of the month. When we couldn’t, I went to school and scarfed down my free lunch, not knowing how long it would have to last me.
I no longer consider myself poor (I have no money, but I in college and this will not be my permanent situation.) I advocate income redistribution because I have seen the ravages of poverty. I got out of my social situation, but most of the people I grew up with didn’t. Most of them never had a chance. Something about that just doesn’t settle right.
This is simply not what is meant by wants and needs. Time alone is one such example[sup]*[/sup]. There are plenty of intangible things that we desire. Justice, peace, love… all these are desires humans have; they all have a certain cost which isn’t necessarily expressed in dollars and cents.
I suppose the best way to say it is that human wants and needs are apparently limitless. At any one moment a person has finite wants. To satisfy those wants will only bring about new wants. A human being can never be completely satisfied.
The key word is “temporarily.” Are you saying she wants her enjoyment to stop?
Stop thinking material goods. Besides which, the idea is one can never be completely and pemanently satisfied. As far as any individual is concerned, perfect complacency is permanently out of reach. Pick whatever word you would like for this situation.
::checks cupboard::
I dunno. Some people go for that “austere” look.
I have, as well as even. Both while working, and while my mom was working when I was growing up.
*[sub]One certainly does purchase time, and that can mean with money or it can mean other things. Purchasing an automatic coffee grinder, a microwave, instant noodles, TV dinners, an automobile… all these things save time in bucketloads. How much free time would you have if you had to walk to and from work every day? If you had to cook everything on a stove? If you had to garden for your own food? We also “sell” time, that is, some things are more important than simple free time, like working in the first place, like caring for a child, etc. Some of these things explicitely involve money, some don’t really involve money at all. The definition of “economics” in my econ book here states this: “a way of thinking about the causes and consequences of scarcity.”[/sub]
In my mind, Happiness and Necessity are relative terms. You measure where you stand by comparing yourself to people around you. A very interesting survey in this regard can be found in the book, “The Monochrome Society” by Amitai Etzioni.
The survey was carried out over three decades. People in several countries in the early sixties were asked to categiorize themselves as: Very Happy, Happy etc… and the researchers found that the percentages in each category were about the same in developing as well as developed countries.
Carrying out the same survey in the nineties people in developing and third world countries were markedly less happy with their lifestyle than their counterparts in the developed countries.
The researchers attribute this difference to the advent of television and the ability for a global comparison.
What that means is that people are only happy in comparison. And just a little bit of inward soul-searching could perhaps convince us of the validity of this argument. In such a case I would not be happy if I had warm clothing and enough to eat… I would want your Jaguar too.
If 1% of the people in the US are hungry, that makes between 2.6 million people. Hardly an insignificant problem. However, the actual number is closer to 4% of housholds (4.2 million, see the link below), which tranlates into one out of every 25 households having at least one member who has suffered from hunger.
Scroll down to “Food Expenditure And Consumption Patterns Of Food Stamp Households” and you’ll see that people on foodstamps tend to buy less junk food and more nutritional food than those not on foodstamps.
The link above provides ample evidence.
Have you ever seen a homeless person on the street? Do you think these people get all the food they need? I have students in my class every year who don’t get breakfast (other than what I feed them) if they are late to school. I have students whose sole source of food most days is their free breakfast and lunch, which is only available for half the year.
I don’t doubt that you’ve always had enough to eat, despite being eligible for food stamps. This does not mean that everyone on food stamps does get enough to eat, or that everyone who is eligible for food stamps knows this and knows how to apply for them. Anecdotal evidence makes for a good way to illustrate a point, but it is a logical fallacy to generalize from that anecdotal evidence.
Number six, that is a biased source and I very much doubt it as it goes against my perception. As I have mentioned in other threads, you can eat a healthy diet on $3 a day with no effort and probably you can feed a child a healthy diet on $2 a day or less. That is in DC which is a ather expensive part of the country. If working a regular job, with food stamps and other government programs, a child is going hungry I have to question very seriously the people responsible for that child. As has been pointed out, often when you see TV programs about the “hungry” poor, you see obese people.
I am not saying there are no hungry children, but I am saying, the fault can probabl;y be put squarely on the persons responsible for those children and government help is unlikely to change that.
When you see children who are uncared for it is usually because the parents or guardians neglect them. I do not buy even for a minute that societal conditions force children to go hungry in the US.
And I would add one more thing: If you cannot afford to provide your children with a decent upbringing (for whatever reason) maybe you should not have children.
**
The sources of the information on the page I linked were the USDA and the Tufts University School of Nutrition.
My perception differs from yours.
I very much doubt it as it goes against my perception.
I very much doubt it as it goes against my perception.
I agree. There are hungry people in the US.
Free school breakfast. Free school lunch. Food stamps. WIC. AFDC. Surplus food distribution. This is government assistance feeding children, and it makes a huge difference to those served.
**
That is the definition of neglect.
I very much disagree as it goes against my perception.
I agree completely. People who cannot properly tend to their children’s needs should not have children. Shoulds are irrelevant. The reality is that there are people who bring children into the world that they cannot or do not support. Some of these children go hungry.
If we agree with sailor’s analysis of the situation, then income inequality isn’t the real problem facing staving kids, it is the parents of those kids.
Sailor, nice way to tie that thread in, huh? My mind does work in devious ways. For the record I begin the experiment tonight. 60 days on the poor man’s diet, and I’ll tally up the costs. Nothing like research science!
Yes, its also called ‘keeping up with the Jones’. The 25" TV in your living room was perfectly fine until you saw the neighbors having a 50" projection TV delivered.
The problem with income inequity goes beyond simply neighbor envy. It’s not that big a deal if the majority of the population has to drive 10 yr old Buicks to work while a small percentage drive SUVs.
The problem with government handouts (and thats what all these really are) is that they have to be paid for with taxes. And taxes ALWAYS end up being paid for by the poor and middle classes. These services are useful because they provide a safety net that keeps the poor from dying in the streets. Unfortunately, they don’t solve the problems that created the poor in the first place.
. Marx was a product of his time. And in his time he witnessed the very worst abuses unfetted capitalism can produce ( i.e. the whole depressing Dickensian London scene ). He wasn’t a stupid man and his ideas weren’t completely batty. He just failed to realize that society would step in to curb the worst abuses without resorting to revolution. It’s doubtful Marx ever imagined a society quite like ours today. Which is no fault of Marx, really. He was visionary and his ideas do have some power ( otherwise they wouldn’t have become so prevalent ). He just failed to grasp the whole universe of possibilities.
Nothing like research science!