-I have a phone–again, a necessity: I’ve got serious health problems and my boyfriend needs it because he’s on call.
-Built my own computer because it was cheaper than buying a new one; bought the parts with my grant money as I needed it for school.
-No car (and no buses in my town at all; we walk everywhere).
-No cable.
-The TV and VCR are four years old; no stereo–we listen to our music on a portable CD player hooked up to cheap computer speakers.
-Appx. 80% of my clothes I’ve had for years; 10% came from thrift stores, and the rest were ‘finds’.
-We live in a 12x15 foot room in a residential hotel for which we pay $400/month. Apartments here are expensive, require exhorbitant deposits, and most don’t allow pets. No a/c, we don’t have our own bathroom, and I cook with an electric frying pan and the microwave.
-Because we can’t get an apartment, we have a $60/month storage bill.
-Ramen! The working poor’s best friend. Too much sodium, too many calories, and not enough protein, but it fills your belly. Once a month I “splurge” on fresh produce.
-I’m on Medicare, but I have a $100 deductible and a 20% co-pay, which means I have to save up just to see a doctor. No dental insurance at all. No life insurance.
So no new ideas as to how to tackle poverty? Just some of the tired old redistribution of wealth arguments?
Focusing the topic on the USA for a moment, the founding principles of this nation are the right to ‘Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness’, not the right to some arbitrary standard of living that I and others of the tax-paying breed will pay for.
People do not have some intrisic right to any particular standard of living. We do have a right to pursue any standard of living, but no guarantee is attached.
FTR, my ideas had no more to do with the “redistribution of wealth” than does the Bush taxcut for the rich–scheduled to make happy millionaires near you over the next ten years.
I have yet to see anyone provide any argument at all on why–politics aside–we shouldn’t be cutting the payroll taxes of the working poor, vs. giving fatcats further taxcuts.
I have yet to see anyone successfully demonstrate that a gradual rise in the minimum wage towards its real 1960s level will create a large unemployment problem.
I have yet to see anyone explain why–politics aside–it is more important for our taxes to subsidize agriculture than to subsidize daycare or, for that matter, healthcare, for working families at the low end of the income spectrum.
Brutus, you can’t dismiss these ideas as “redistributive” because in each case there is already a redistributive mechanism taking place. Taxcuts for the rich redistribute money–to the rich. Agricultural subsidies–though I’m not necessarily wholly against them, and though they do still serve a percentage of small family farms–redistribute money to the relatively prosperous (and make our free trade stance abroad very hypocritical). Keeping the minimum wage artificially low at a time when workers’ productivity has risen (and without taking inflation into account) is also redistributive.
You market buffs don’t seem to realize that there all kinds of ways in which the market doesn’t always do what it’s said to do.
Take a look at this NYT article, Patient Deaths tied to Lack of Nurses
*"A recent report in Pennsylvania found 50 percent less nursing care available to patients today than in 1980, Ms. Aiken said.
Several factors contribute to the nursing shortage. Hospital mergers, and the ensuing cost-cutting and heavy workloads have prompted many nurses to leave the profession. The American Hospital Association recently called on its members to make recruiting and retaining nurses a priority."*
Now in Econ 101 you’ll learn that if there’s more demand for nurses the market will respond by compensating them properly–not by cutting jobs and increasing workload. Here’s just a single example of how higher productivity is forced, but, because the resulting savings go to profits rather than to higher wages, there is no gain in efficiency. Quite the contrary in this case.
Why didn’t the market work as it ought to haved done? Because the HMOs have too much power; they’re manipulating the market in their own interests (just as Enron manipulated the market during the California power crisis).
Here’s another and very different example:
Here you’ll see that the FCC is intervening because market forces aren’t working to provide the new digital technology on television sets.
" Almost four years after the transition to digital television began, the three commissioners voting in the majority said that market forces had failed to move it along in a timely fashion and that the government had to step in."
So basically the broadcast industry is forcing the government to impose a requirement on the electronics industry.
Brutus, no one is saying that there is a “right” to a particular standard of living.
But there is a “right” to use a democratic political process to make sure that the majority of people benefit from the society’s prosperity in as just a manner as possible. We already have the highest incarceration rates in the free world. We already have a government that has, to a very great extent, devolved into a plutocracy–beholden to the interests of the wealthy and powerful. What’s being discussed are ways in which a democracy can work to alleviate levels of poverty that no free country either should or needs to force its citizens to tolerate.
If you have no ideas to contribute, that’s one thing. But let’s not confuse things by criticizing “redistribution” when in fact the government is presiding over redistribution to the rich on an ongoing basis.
BTW, the conceptual difference between “absolute” and “relative” poverty that I described above is relevant to this discussion of how poor people are in the US. Absolute poverty means real levels of sub-subsistence living. As I said above, I think the US is #13 in that category though I can’t remember where I read that statistic and it might be wrong.
Here btw, for veterans of globalization debates and Krugman buffs is Paul’s latest. Usually he’s been very critical of those who argued that the “free trade” way of doing globalization was not the right way to go about it. He looks to be having a change of heart.
threemae, to respond to some of the points that you raise, I guess that shooting from the hip, I would define poverty in a somewhat elastic/culturally relative way. Specifically, I would define poverty as the condition that exists wherein the person afflicted lacks the means to survive in, or must struggle to survive in the culture in which they live.
In some places, that may mean that they do not have a mule, or a plow. In the USA, it may mean that they are unable to pay rent/utility bills regularly.
To go in to what that means to me (and respond to your questions that seem to be implying that things are not so bad for me after all):
[ul]
[li]I do not have cable.[/li][li]I do have a TV. It was a gift from a wealthy relative when I got married 6 years ago.[/li][li]I bus to work.[/li][li]My clothing is at the “rags” stage. It is a major budgetary event for me to go to the thrift store and spend ten bucks or so on used clothing. [/li][li]I have a radio; it was purchased for around $5 at a garage sale.[/li][li]I am posting from work (so do not won the computer that I am typing on).[/li][li]No health insurance.[/li][li]I think that if I were hit by a car crossing the street today, that the ambulance would not refuse to take me, but I think that this is simply because they are not allowed to do so (or was this your point?). That said, assuming that the driver lacked insurance, and I was out of work because of this, I would literally be ruined. Specifically, my utilities would first be shut off, and I would eventually be evicted (I don’t have a spare month or two or rent hanging around).[/li][li]There are specific times of the month when part of my food budget relies on the fact that my second job (working in a restaurant) feeds me while I am there.[/li][li]I sleep on a decade old futon on the floor, and while it is not a straw matt filled with fleas, I am not sure that I would exactly define it as relative comfort.[/li][li]I do have the heady luxury of a flushing toilette.[/li][/ul]
All of that said, the point is well made that before one gets too caught up in how horrible things are, it is important to have somewhat of a global perspective. It is true that I am not living in a cardboard box and fighting rats for food, and that (for the moment) I enjoy good health.
However, I think that this line of reasoning is somewhat suspect as well. The fact remains that with the wealth and resources available to us, there are still many (about 11.8% of the population) that are living in a standard that is far below that available to a technological society.
And so, to bring the debate around a bit, I would suggest that we discard out of hand the notion that things are not that bad and admit that there is indeed a very real problem here. I would like to suggest that we think about possible solutions
Are you truly unaware that the working poor pay taxes just as you do? Payroll/income taxes, rent taxes, sales taxes?
I’ve already suggested one thing that would help: low-cost housing. To yet, no one has argued against this proposition, so I’ll consider it acceptable. The argument that the minimum wage needs to be raised to the 1960s equivalent is, I think, just and fair.
So there are two ways to fight the poverty of the working poor–any other ideas?
I guess that to your suggestions I would add the following:
[ul]
[li]An immediate redefinition of the federally determined poverty level such that it more inline with the actual cost of living, specifically so that the so-called working poor more easily qualify for housing assistance/Medicare/food stamps and the like.[/li][/ul]
Yes. * Cut our taxes, * and shift that tax burden to those better able to pay it.
I definitely agree with Squish about afforable housing. That’s a big issue in this area, in large part because Asheville’s economy is so heavily based on tourism, i.e., fairly low-paying service sector jobs. At the same time, lots of retirees and snowbirds buy second homes up here, driving up real estate costs. Not a happy combo.
My big issue is health insurance. I’m currently working full-time, but my employer doesn’t provide health insurance. I make too much to qualify for Medicare, but too little to buy my own insurance. It’s a scary situation. In my fantasy, the U.S. would go to a national health care system. However, as that’s not likely to happen, I’d like to see the states provide some kind of subsidized health insurance for the working poor. I’m willing and able to kick in up to $30-$40 a month in health insurance, but I can’t afford more than that.
BinaryDrone, why I agree in principle, I’m afraid that would spark more protests from the middle class along the lines of “why should my taxes pay for that!” (they always forget, as I pointed out to Brutus, that the working poor pay taxes also.)
LonesomePolecat: it really would be great, wouldn’t it, if the corporations paid their fair share? 
They pay much less income tax. In fact I just ran the numbers on Quicken’s site a family of 4 earning $30,000 would pay no federal income tax and no California state tax.
Gazpacho, that’s because of “Daddy’s little tax deductions.” Try a single man or woman making less than $15-20,000 a year.
Gazpacho, it’s not exactly a surprise to find that poor people pay less income tax than rich people. It is after all a tax on income. Why don’t you try to figure out what percentage of a poor person’s income goes to taxes (sales, income, payroll) vs. what percentage of, say, Martha Stewart’s income goes to taxes. Then tell us who you think most needs a taxcut.
And let’s not forget that a payroll taxcut to the working poor benefits the economy more than a taxcut to the already grossly consuming elite of which Stewart is a part.
Ack–hit “submit” too soon. Working 40 hours a week at minimum wage nets $10,920. Total federal and Arizona state income taxes (based on a single man of 26, my boyfriend’s age): $472. Doesn’t seem like a whole lot–until you consider that that’s more than one month’s rent.
No cable TV.
I have a TV set purchased at a pawn shop. I also have a VCR bought at a thrift shop. Also have a stereo consisting of components bought at thrift shops, pawn shops and yard sales. Radios? Yes, several.
A car? Yes, a battered '91 Ford Escort that has a major breakdown at least once a year and usually costs several hundred dollars to repair. And a car is pretty much necessary in my town; public transportation is perfectly wretched here.
My clothes are all at least two or three years old, some as much as seven or eight, much of it purchased at thrift stores. I did buy some new underwear a few months ago, so I guess I’m living in the lap of luxury.
Computer is a Frankenstein Macintosh cobbled together from several different non-working machines bought at yard sales and thrift stores as well as components purchased on Ebay. ISP is a cutrate provider, but I endure frequent disconnections and problems signing on. I also use computers at the library and the computer at work. (Ain’t supposed to, but fuck 'em.)
Health insurance is an HMO through my employer. Sometimes can’t afford the co-payment. Haven’t been to a dentist in years. I work for the state which has generous leave policies, so if I were struck by a car I could be out of work for as much as four months without a loss of income. Too much onger than that and I might end up homeless. If I ended up physically immobilized and needed home nursing or a nursing home, I have no idea what I could do.
Haven’t been to the movies in years; I rent videos occasionally but borrow many from the library.
Am I hungry? Well, sometimes I live for days on end on canned soup, bread and powdered milk. When working part-time I eat a lot of fast food due to lack of time. Sometimes folks at work treat me to lunch (whatever gods there may be, bless 'em), sometimes I get a good meal from relatives.
I have a mattress and boxsprings with quilts and blankets, no bedsheets.
Yes, I have a flush toilet, but if you live anywhere near a big city in America you’re pretty much required to have one.
Eight or nine months a year, I have maybe $500 a month to live on after rent and bills are paid. I work part time when I can, but health problems usually prevent me from keeping it up for more than three or four months.
Savings? Zero. I do try to put money aside, but emergency expenses (e.g. car repairs, back and leg trouble requiring visits to the chiropracter, etc.) eat it up and usually leave me farther in debt at the end of the year.
I might add that back and leg troubles have me in living in the very real fear that I may end up in a wheel chair with little more than Social Security disability for financial support.
In winter, I don’t heat my apartment from the furnace. I use eyes on the gas stove, and wear sweaters and long underwear. I only turn on the air conditioner when the heat is in the high 90’s and the humidity is unbearable. Every minute it runs I worry about the electric bill.
If I were 20 and looking forward to the possibility of moving on to better things, all this would not be so terrible. But I’m pushing 50 and it doesn’t look like things are going to get much better for me.
And there are millions of people like me across the country.
I don’t deny that living in a wealthy society confers benefits on me that I would not have if I lived in a place like the Philipines or Nigeria, e.g. in a poorer society I wouldn’t even have a good public library to supply me with reading material and videos. Even so, the fact is that I struggle through from one month to the next and constantly live with the fear of not having enough money to support myself decently in my old age.
So if I have a broken leg, I shouldn’t complain because someone somewhere else has two broken legs? And the guy with two broken legs shouldn’t complain because someone somewhere else is a quadriplegic?
Survival is for cockroaches. I want to live.
One point which I’m not sure has been reiterated enough is that us greedy, capatilist-opressor pigdogs have a right to our money and land.
One way to free up money would be to scale back the U.S. military 90%, keep our nuclear missle silos, and tactfully point out that both of the surviving occupants of an invading army’s country will not need a nite-light for nocturnal urination once we are done with them.
Put me on the list for “the poor SHOULDN’T always be with us, dammit!”, but there are many things we could do that are worse than the problem.
We could sterilize everyone on welfare (my Mom’s idea).
We could go the Libertarian route, and let the successful work, learn skills, get higher-paying jobs, and end up owning the company they used to sweep floors for, while the unsuccessful are forced to sell their vital organs on e-Bay and starve in the streets.
(That was comic exageration, folks)
Hmm. Could we have an organ bank, where people could trade pieces of themselves as colateral, to be foreclosed upon and sold to the rich if the situation merited it? I mean, I don’t really need both kidneys, do I?
The payroll tax cut was $300 per person. So the poor got much more of a percentage tax cut than the rich.
I think that you will find that Martha pays a much much higher percentage of her income on taxes than the poor.
"I think that you will find that Martha pays a much much higher percentage of her income on taxes than the poor.
"
I think you are way wrong about that. In addition to payroll taxes–paid as a percent of income–the poor pay taxes on any food they eat in a restaurant, the gas they put in their car, the clothes that they buy (in most states), and many other necessaries that they must buy for themselves (e.g., blankets, shampoo, space heater, paper etc.). Since their income is small they spend most of their disposable income on these things, and, depending where they live sales tax on those items is about 5-10%.
So unless Martha, a billionaire, spends most of her after-tax income on consumption (rather than, say, socking away a few mill on the odd insider stock tip 
) I think we can be confident that she a lesser percentage of her income in taxes than does our working poor person.
Now about that $300 income (not payroll) tax cut.
Okay, I don’t know what Martha gained from the taxcut but the estimated income tax savings for Prez Bush was over $20,000; Powell could save as much as $1 million, O’Neill (whose income is over $60million) about $3 million.
As for the estate tax, Rumsfeld stands to save between $27 and $120 million.
Source:
http://www.thenation.com/special/20010625chart.mhtml
Yeah, that $300 for the poor guy is righteous bucks ;).
wow, as a late comer here, id like to thank all of you for teaching me a thing or two about this stuff. Also id like to commend you on your lack of name calling and mockery and the like. Just think if old G.W. read this maybe he borrow a few ideas?
p.s. that 300 bucks for the poor guy is the absolute low end of scale too, i have to say, that money went to the exact oposite place it should have.
Welcome, Hootnholla. I’m afraid that you’ll find the SDMB addictive; lots of people here who can actually think.
What do you mean by “not a socialist”?
http://dsausa.org/archive/Docs/Ehren.html
I’m not challenging your assertion that she is a liberal - it is possible, if uncommon, for someone to be both a liberal and a socialist - I just wonder where “not a socialist” came from.