Why is systemic poverty intractable?

People are not “given As or Fs”. They earn them based on their ability and performance in demonstrating their knowledge of the curriculum. What the left-wing types on this board seem to not understand is that for an economy to be successful, it needs smart, knowledgeable, entrepreneurial people to actually build and run things successfully. Bill Gates should not earn the same as some kid in the mailroom because a kid who organizes the mail does not create as much wealth as someone who founds and manages a multibillion dollar company that employs thousands of people.

Of course, the right-wing Ayn Rand followers don’t seem to understand is that for an economy to be successful, it needs smart, knowledgeable, entrepreneurial people to actually build and run things successfully. If you have vast numbers of people without the basic ability to educate and train themselves due to lack of resources and infrastructure and crippling economic conditions, they will never be able to maximize their potential to contribute to the economy.

I had asked a question a long time ago whether communities, cities, or even entire countries were poor because they were populated by lazy, stupid, shiftless, uneducated violent jerkoffs or if the people become that way from living in poor conditions. It’s really a combination of both and creates a vicious circle of systematic poverty. The opposite holds true as well. As a community becomes more educated and more successful economically, outsiders are more willing to invest in it and add to it’s economic growth.

Detroit is a perfect example. As businesses and opportunity leaves Detroit, so too does most of the talent and brainpower. As the population becomes less educated and less sophisticated, they continue to be swayed into voting for corrupt and incompetent leaders who get elected on populist promises but make the situation worse through self-serving or ill-conceived policies.

IMEIO, if a society wants an economic Floor, a point no member falls below … then they must install an economic Ceiling, a point no member can rise above.

C’mon, if we’re ALL rich, who cleans the chamber pots?

If everyone is smart, knowledgeable, and entrepreneurial, who is left to do jobs that no one wants to do? Or can’t do?

A society only has a limited number of niches for individuals to occupy. This is basic ecology. Find me a society where everyone has a high-paying job, where everyone gets to do exactly what they want to do and what they are trained to do, where everyone earns an “A” and no one earns an “F”, and you will have a society where there isn’t poverty. But there is no such place in the universe. Even in communist societies there are people are worse off than others because of disability, lack of family and connections, and bad luck (getting blacklisted).

Is that just an assertion, or can you make your case?

Why can’t you have an economic floor without an economic ceiling?

I can make a case, but be warned, it won’t be very good [grin]. We’ll need to assume that at any given point in time, there is a finite amount of wealth. Let’s say 100 jelly beans and 10 people. If we give 20 jelly beans to 5 people, 5 people get none. But if we say “No way, Jose” and require that each person gets at least one jelly bean, then the 5 can only have 19 each.

Now, at the next point in time we have 200 jelly beans. The five are still limited to having 39 each if we hold the minimum at 1. Typically some sociopathic liberal/commie McGovernik will come along and demand that the other five get 2 as a minimum, thus the five we love only get 38. Next cycle we’ll have 4 and 56, then 8 and 72, … , 64 and 76 and the next cycle everybody gets 80 each at which time what’s the point, everybody has to clean their own chamber pots.

So, yeah, it’s just an assertion … I can’t make the case.

The truth is, y’all don’t. Economic disparity in America has reached ridiculous proportions. 20% of your population owns over 80% of the wealth. What do the other 80% benefit from that state of affairs, exactly ? How about the 60% who, collectively, own less than 8% ?

Over the last 40 years, the average household income of the country has barely ticked upwards (in fact, factoring inflation, it has decreased for well over half of the population). For the upper 1%, it has near quadrupled. Oh, and their taxes have been lowered a healthy 37% since 1992.
Again, how exactly does the rest of the country benefit from this shameless, albeit evidently well rewarded, greed ?

Before, 5% owned everything … and if you were born to the 95%, you would never be allowed to own anything. Today, someone born to the 80% can, through hard work and luck, become one of the 20%. It’s an experimental concept, and so far so good.

Erm, no. You’re wrong. Unless you’re talking about a long, *long *time before which would of course be entirely irrelevant (not to mention factually wrong - non-nobles controlled quite a bit of wealth as of the 17th century Europe). But speaking of America, the last time income inequality was anywhere close to what it’s now was in 1928. But then again, the 1% did have to pay much higher taxes then.
IOW, your experiment is regressing.

Besides, the “American Dream” of climbing the socio-economic ladder by dint of work and luck… isn’t exactly American any more, is it ? The same is true of every Western country now that we’ve all dealt with our royalty epidemic. Fact is, it’s more true outside of the US these days, since in them heathen godforsaken soshulist countries the super rich are actually made to give away some of their economic power, and don’t hold nor gain as much of it in the first place anyway. Socio-economic mobility is lower in the US than in the UK & Scandiwegia (much lower compared to, say, the Netherlands), and declining. As well, economists have observed a direct, negative relationship between wealth disparity and intergenerational mobility.

So, again, how does the country benefit from unbridled greed ?

Noted, I was thinking 7th century Europe. Did not occur to me that was a especially long time ago. However, such a society was targeted by our founding fathers as to be eliminated. You can be a Senator in spite your father never being a Senator.

“Besides, the “American Dream” of climbing the socio-economic ladder by dint of work and luck… isn’t exactly American any more, is it ?”

You left out the word “hard” as in “hard work”. I didn’t know mediocre work ever got anyone anywhere. A friend has a son in a smallish public college, graduates in June and he already has a job offer, $75K a year starting. Civil engineering is hard work. Joe Plumber doesn’t make as much, and plumbing isn’t as hard. Kid stocking shelves at Wal-Mart, that’s easy, minimum wage.

That’s my American Dream, and I’m not smart enough to know what my kid’s American Dream is, they really are smarter than us.

I run my business within the law, thus my own greed is bridled. So I would say that unbridled greed is bad for the country.

Both of you are incorrect in your basic assumptions. An economy is not static, there isn’t a finite amount of work that needs doing or jobs to do it and the amount of wealth is not fixed.

That is not to say everyone gets their dream job and becomes billionaires. It a functioning economy, people get to maximize their wealth when they have the freedom to align their skills, interests and abilities with the needs and wants of other people.

The fundamental flaw in watchwolf49’s metaphor is that his jellybeans just materialized out of nowhere. And then some nebulous “we” just arbitrarily dictates who they should go to. In reality, those 100 jellybeans might be produced by 5 people. The guy who invented the jellybean making machine gets the majority since it’s his invention and lets say he needs 4 other guys to maximize his jelly bean production. So what about the other 5 people in this economy? Why should they get any? They didn’t invent anything or contribute any labor. So until they have something in value to trade, they will remain impoverished in this Jellybeantopia.

Because this country remains the wealthiest, most productive nation on Earth?

Are you familiar with the European debt crisis?

Not per capita it ain’t.

What does it have to do with anything ?

Jellybeantopia … I like it … I was going to say all ten are involved … but that’s the easy way. So, 5 make jelly beans, 5 do nothing. The nebulous “we” is the Government, and again beautiful phrasing, I love it. So nebulous “we” tells the 5 that they can’t eat any jelly beans until they give nebulous “we” 5 jelly beans, which nebulous “we” gives one to each of the other 5.

That’s Democracy, the lazy 5 control half the vote. Oh, forgot to add that everybody owns AK-47’s, so the working 5 doesn’t get any … unwholesome ideas.

I’m not familiar with any debt crisis in Europe that is separate and distinct from the American debt crisis. The Central Banks are insolvent.

There is a finite of everything, msmith. There is a finite amount of land, natural resources, energy, and time.

Thus, wealth is fixed. For the entire concept to make sense, it MUST be limited.

You are right that value is not static. Your average CEO’s value has gone up tremendously over the past three decades, just as the value of a department store cashier has dropped precipitously. Not surprisingly, the gulf between the richest and the poorest has also expanded. And it will continue to expand as fewer and fewer people hold onto greater and greater amount of wealth. So you are right that there is no steady-state when it comes to who and how many get to be rich and poor. It’s just you seem to be drawing a very different conclusion from this than I am.

A near infinite number of jobs can be created to keep people industrious and occupied. But the number of jobs in a society says nothing about the overall distribution of wealth, or how wealthy the top is compared to the bottom. The countries known for the worse levels of poverty (places like India) are teeming with bright, hard-working types who employ themselves in all kinds of jobs. Jobs like scrubbing the filthy streets for flecks of gold, which in a big enough aggregate can be sold for pennies. It’s a job, right? But the guy doing it is poorer than old Job’s turkey. He will always be poorer than dirt. The same for the woman who sells her body for a dime, and offers up her baby girl for a quarter. Would you be impressed with a society where even babies have to work this hard?

Do you think we have a functional economy now?

Do you think most people are able to “maximize their wealth” now?

I don’t know what you mean by “freedom”. We don’t have free choice in anything. There are always going to be a limited number of spots in a given classroom at any given time. There are always a limited number of job positions, internships, interviews, job fairs, etc. There is also a limited amount of time and money that can be devoted to skills training and opportunity-seeking. So your use of “freedom” here seems kind of naive. Even the richest among us are limited by a set number of choices. When there are limits on everything, someone throwing a 7 is an eventuality.

It’s better to assume this is going to happen and ensure “losers” have a soft landing than it is to pretend that if people would only do X, Y, and Z, we don’t have to worry about doing anything for anyone.

No, we’re like sixth:
1 Qatar 100,889
2 Luxembourg 77,958
3 Singapore 60,799
4 Norway 54,397
5 Brunei 54,114
6 United States 51,704

It means these European countries that seem to give the Left a massive hard-on are not some economic Utopia either. Their socialist policies have led to their own set of problems that are just as bad or even worse than our own.

I think you misunderstand what the term “freedom” means. It is not a guarantee that you will be rich and successful. It means that you have the opportunity to pursue whatever career path you feel you have an aptitude for. You can freely enter into agreements with other people to buy and sell goods and services and talents for whatever deal you can negotiate. If there are a limited number of internships or jobs in a particular field, it means you have to compete for them. If being a bartender or garbageman is the only thing you are cut out for, so be it.

If everyone was involved in making jellybeans, then there wouldn’t be any poverty in our model. Everyone would be productive so everyone would have the ability trade the fruits of their productivity for someone else’s. The reason there is poverty in the real world is because significant ground of people don’t have access to “jellybean makers”.

Sure the “Government” could make the 5 jellybean makers to give a bit of their jellybeans to the others. But at some point, the jellybean makers will say “screw this” and just stop making anything at all. Then what will everyone eat?

Of course, this presumes that just because you are poor and unfortunate, you have some inherent right to take from people who aren’t.

Ours aren’t. That’s one difference. Unemployment rates is another. 7% in the US vs 12-30% in various EU countries. There are others differences that separate the US crisis of 2007-8 from the ongoing EU debt crisis. But they are too complex for me to discuss here. Feel free to Google if you like.

But the point is that the EU isn’t doing any better than the US at eradicating systematic poverty and in many ways is doing a lot worse.

When I was in college back in the mid to late 90s, many of my classmates pursued the opportunity of computer science, since they all had demonstrable aptitude in this field and it was advertised as a field with “unlimited” possibilities.

But a lot of them quickly found out that this was a pipe dream, at least for them. The smart and lucky ones eventually found something else that was equally right up their alleys, and as equally profitable. But a good number of them were confronted with the reality that “freedom” is an illusion in a market where someone else determines what’s valuable, and they had to wave good bye to their educational investment and take “any job”. Once you get stuck in “any job”, you’re screwed.

But none of this has anything to do with poverty. A person can be the best street sweeper in all the world, but as long as street sweeping is considered an “easy” job that any idiot can do, he will likely always get the “bottom” wages. It doesn’t even matter if there isn’t a long line of people willing to do his job. No one wants to pick tomatoes either. Americans, that is. But damned if we’re actually going to pay tomato-pickers a wage that reflects this demand. We have “freedom” that the tomato-picker doesn’t. “Freedom” is an illusion.

Sure … when all 10 are involved, when we divide the 100 jelly beans between the five (owners), the other five (workers) quit working. This is bad for the owners, so they toss a jelly bean at each worker, they each get only 19. The workers notice that it … you know … worked. They form a labor union. Owners panic and each kick in 5 jelly beans to form a nebulous “we” which in turn stops this nonsense and nationalize the sugar industry while we’re at it.

Yes, I’ve known people who said taxes are too much, and quit working. I was always happy to get extra hours. I’d pay more in taxes but there’d be more money in my pocket as well. I personally have no inherent right to take from the wealthy, at least not from my mom and dad. I do have a divine right to take from the poor. I calculate out someone’s Social Security payment increase and raise their rents the same amount, that’s MY money, not yours.

I’m glad to hear the European Central Bank is in good shape. Over here we’re hemorrhaging $75 billion a month. Just an insane amount of losses around the member banks. S’okay though, our kids will be happy to pay off the debt.

Meanwhile, back in Jellybeantopia, my assertion is that if the five workers are required to receive 5 jelly beans, the owners can only have 15. If there’s a floor, then there must be a ceiling. May I remind you that market dynamics based on time become completely static “at any given point in time”, say for example, midnight, January 1st, 2014.

Poverty is part of capitalism, I see no way around it. If there’s a profit to be had easing their suffering, I’m all for it.

Math is hard, those that finish such a degree usually get good jobs. Wasn’t it just a bit ago where anyone who knew LINUX could get a job in Austin? Do you mean computer science like with a soldering iron. Yeah, those jobs got took by filthy non-jelly-bean-eating robots.

Those numbers are PPP-corrected, which involves various (often questionable) estimations and equivalences. In nominal GDP/capita the US ranks 10 to 16 depending on whom you ask, with Sweden, Norway, Canada and Denmark always ranking above it.
Luxembourg too, but them anyone could conquer, it doesn’t count :smiley:

The EU crisis has precious little to do with “socialist policies”. And aside from the PIIGs (which have their own sets of poverty & corruption issues), no European country boasts a higher debt/GDP ratio than the US (much less the Scandiwegians, those ultraleftist frozen hell holes).

In any event, I still fail to see how this assertion answers the question I was asking, namely : in what way does unbridled greed as manifested by the stratospheric increase in the wealth of the already ultra-wealthy to the detriment of everyone else, coupled with vastly decreased taxes, again to their benefit but to the detriment of everyone else ; the resulting widening income gap and its concurrent decreased socio-economic mobility benefit your country.
Not my country. Not the other countries. **Your **country.

I thought to comment on those numbers … the listed 5 countries all put together would make a major city in the USA … so if I can cherry pick a US city, I’ll take Rancho Santa Fe … average per capita income of $188,000. Makes them oil sheiks look like beggars. I looked up counties of similar size to the USA and got Brazil at $12,000 and Indonesia at $5,000.

In Jellybeantopia II, the owners only get a triple return on their “campaign contributions” to their nebulous “we”, thus they only see a 14-fold disparity in incomes. Yes, I agree, it’s inexplicable that the 5 workers keep voting in favor of this system, but they do … Hello …

In my country, the poor live like middle class everywhere else … in my country, the middle class are rich beyond the world’s imagination … in my country, we have California [sticks tongue out] and no one else does.

It’s not intractable. It simply requires an end to capitalism, which is a fundamentally oppressive and authoritarian mode of socioeconomic organization, especially in its laissez-faire variety.