Why is systemic poverty intractable?

[Model_Citizen]

@XT

And yet we’ve had increased automation for well over a century now, and the dire predictions of folks like the Luddites haven’t exactly come to pass. So, you believe that labor should get an increase in wages just because this will leave ‘vast swaths of the population’ to be ‘unable to make a living wage in the face of ever-increasing automation’? Not that this has come to pass in reality, but again I ask you…why? Basically, labor is a trade in which business trades money and benefits for a persons labor at an agreed upon rate. But you want business to just give labor something extra (a ‘living wage’) not because it’s earned, but because you feel that it should be so. Is that correct?

If an individual works a full time job, they should be entitled to living wage, yes. This should be the economic baseline for society, with more skilled workers making more as appropriate. I think this is a reasonable premise and one that is completely attainable in a modern developed country.

I would also like to make the distinction that this is really a separate point entirely than to the one of depressed wages mentioned earlier. I stand by my earlier point that the death of collective bargaining really has kept wages low, even accounting for the effects technological advance, and that this is at least as important in the discussion as the impact of automation.

Regardless, if you think this is bullshit, I’m interested in hearing how you see the middle class recovering without a revival of labor rights and/or some form of governmental economic intervention. Seriously.

@XT

So, it’s your contention that systemic poverty is intractable because organized labor in this US has been ‘dismantled’? And that labor in the US is being paid below it’s actual market value, even taking into account automation and modern expert systems and the like??

In case you were skeptical about the state of unionization as I described it, here’s a link: Union Membership Rate For U.S. Workers Tumbles To New Low | HuffPost Latest News

And once again, yes, I stand by the contention that labor isn’t paid appropriately in the US due to the aforementioned reasons.

@Shodan

No, that would be silly. It was addressed to the folks who want to base their economic system on class envy.

Unless you don’t object to having the government kick you out of your residence and hand it over to some homeless guy on the assumption that you stole it from him by paying the mortgage or rent.

Regards,
Shodan

Have you entertained the possibility that people aren’t basing their proposed economic system on ‘class envy’, but instead upon improving opportunity for working class people? Like, even if they’re completely wrong about their ideas, that they’re genuinely attempting to improve society, and not just motivated by some sort of “screw the rich” mentality?

Also, if my net worth was measured in the millions of dollars and I owned 20 houses, I don’t think my feathers would be terribly ruffled if the government confiscated a few in the name of fighting homelessness, personally.

[Shodan]

@Model_Citizen

Have you entertained the possibility that people aren’t basing their proposed economic system on ‘class envy’, but instead upon improving opportunity for working class people? Like, even if they’re completely wrong about their ideas, that they’re genuinely attempting to improve society, and not just motivated by some sort of “screw the rich” mentality?

The posts to which I am responding don’t seem to offer that possibility - it’s just “he’s got more than me, grab it”.

Likewise with your talk conflating homeless people with the working class.

[QUOTE=Wesley Clark]
The poverty rate was cut in half during the heyday of the labor movement, from 22% down to 11%.
[/QUOTE]
No, actually union membership has been declining in the US since 1954.

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

@Model_Citizen

Also, if my net worth was measured in the millions of dollars and I owned 20 houses, I don’t think my feathers would be terribly ruffled if the government confiscated a few in the name of fighting homelessness, personally.

“If” - biggest little word in the world.

IOW, as long as the government is taking from others and not you, you don’t get your feathers ruffled. I should have added the other component that goes with this kind of thinking - class envy, and great generosity with other peoples’ property.

Regards,
Shodan

[Tethered_Kite]

I think we’ll always have some level of intractable poverty. Not all poor people are lazy but a certain percentage of them don’t like to work. It’s not cultural but more a matter of personality type.

A lot of these people have addictions, other destructive habits or mental health issues and others of them just don’t feel motivated to work. I’m so sure of this that I’ll bet most everyone reading here knows someone like this or has a family member like this.

These folks view life as a game of getting something for nothing and that’s half the fun and excitement. And they do get by. Why should they do anymore since they always get by? There is always someone there to help when things get rough. And when they burn out one set of caretakers they move on to a new group of people.

It seems there is nothing you can do to change them as they are living just the way they choose to live. Unless we can figure out how to change the way their brains work, and they are willing, they will always be with us.

As I read I actually find it a little frightening to even consider having a society where everyone wanted to live the same way.

[watchwolf49]

@Model_Citizen

I believe he’s referring to the collective trend over the past several decades where labor has gained paltry increases in wages while management has seen soaring profits ( http://anticap.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/fig2_prodhhincome.jpg ). This would indicate that he (and most working class people) have been screwed out of fair compensation for the labor provided to businesses.

I don’t think the American promise was to eliminate this structure, rather to allow mobility through. I started as a wage-slave, worked my way through management and now enjoy the pleasures of ownership. Hard work and luck was all it took. I think the financially irresponsible will always be poor, no matter what share we give them. I kinda hate to go Soviet on you, but capitalism breeds poverty. There just a segment of every population that just can’t handle money.

[Model_Citizen]

@Shodan

“If” - biggest little word in the world.

IOW, as long as the government is taking from others and not you, you don’t get your feathers ruffled. I should have added the other component that goes with this kind of thinking - class envy, and great generosity with other peoples’ property.

Regards,
Shodan

What’s your take on wealthy interests lobbying and pushing for policies that disproportionately benefit the rich, i.e. tax cuts, privatization, and the elimination of social programs that do nothing directly for them? Are you so quick to criticize them for their class warfare?

[XT]

[QUOTE=Model Citizen]
If an individual works a full time job, they should be entitled to living wage, yes. This should be the economic baseline for society, with more skilled workers making more as appropriate. I think this is a reasonable premise and one that is completely attainable in a modern developed country.
[/QUOTE]

And I disagree. Your labor is worth what it’s worth. It’s like trying to arbitrarily say that if I sell you a grapefruit it has to be worth X, even if it’s only worth Y…but, you know, I really, really need X for it so you should pay that because I need it. We have a social safety net to prevent people from falling below an acceptable level of poverty and starving to death. Now, if you want to advocate a stronger net, then that’s another matter…but just arbitrarily saying that because you work full time you must have a living wage (whatever that is and however it’s defined)? No, I totally reject that. It’s stupid IMHO and counter productive.

I would also like to make the distinction that this is really a separate point entirely than to the one of depressed wages mentioned earlier. I stand by my earlier point that the death of collective bargaining really has kept wages low, even accounting for the effects technological advance, and that this is at least as important in the discussion as the impact of automation.

You can assert all you like, but I’ve yet to see any evidence. For one thing, I don’t accept that wages ARE low wrt what the labor is worth. I accept that YOU believe this, but I don’t. The average American makes more than the average citizen of just about every other nation out there, especially when you factor in that we have such a large and diverse population.

Regardless, if you think this is bullshit, I’m interested in hearing how you see the middle class recovering without a revival of labor rights and/or some form of governmental economic intervention. Seriously.

Since I don’t accept the base premise I don’t think that the ‘middle class’ NEEDS to recover (as a class). I don’t believe that labor rights need to be further adjusted nor that we need any special governmental economic intervention. I don’t believe that just because people are Americans this gives them some special right to ever increasing wages, regardless of what the economy is doing, or that because people are Americans it gives them a right to wages beyond what their labor is worth. And I don’t believe in a fiat ‘living wage’. So, it would be hard for me to answer your questions here seriously, unfortunately.

Oh, getting back to the thread, I also don’t believe that ‘systemic poverty’ is intractable…or that we HAVE ‘systemic poverty’ in the US (or in most of Europe for that matter). I believe that we have made incredible strides towards truly systemic poverty in the west in the last hundred years, and while there is always more that can be done, I think the US is and will remain very strong in this regard.

In case you were skeptical about the state of unionization as I described it, here’s a link: Union Membership Rate For U.S. Workers Tumbles To New Low | HuffPost Latest News

Yes, I know. To me, this is a feature, not a bug, and it’s a GOOD thing, overall. IMHO unions today mainly get in the way more than they help labor. YMMV of course and I respect that, but again to me this isn’t a problem that needs to be solved…nor an aspect that I’m not aware of.

And once again, yes, I stand by the contention that labor isn’t paid appropriately in the US due to the aforementioned reasons.

Right…your assertion of a fiat ‘living wage’, that exceeds the actual value of labor. I understand. I also obviously disagree.

[Wesley_Clark]

@Shodan

Likewise with your talk conflating homeless people with the working class.
No, actually union membership has been declining in the US since 1954.

Regards,
Shodan

Membership was 28-32% up until the mid 70s, when it started to decline. I don’t know what role the labor movement played, but the great compression and drastic decline in poverty happened when the labor movement was at its strongest. Labor supported people like LBJ who proposed the great society programs, and labor unions raise the floor on wages. Whether the labor unions were 29% of the labor force or 32% isn’t relevant much, because both numbers are far higher than 11%.

[watchwolf49]

So, the upper class is okay, right?

[Shodan]

@Wesley_Clark

http://dailycapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/union-membership-mark-perry-blog.jpg

Membership was 28-32% up until the mid 70s, when it started to decline.

No, as mentioned, the heyday of organized labor was the 1950s, and the decline started in 1954, not the mid 70s. Your graph shows this.

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

@Model_Citizen

What’s your take on wealthy interests lobbying and pushing for policies that disproportionately benefit the rich, i.e. tax cuts, privatization, and the elimination of social programs that do nothing directly for them? Are you so quick to criticize them for their class warfare?

Tax cuts and privatization are not income transfers from one person to another, and are not based on a desire to grab the property of others. So that is not really class warfare in the sense of “you got it, I want it, so it’s mine by rights” that Marxists, Occupy Wall Street protestors, and other idiots push.

You are advocating a “living wage” for full-time workers. Why do you believe it benefits workers to incentivize reducing their hours to part-time?

Regards,
Shodan

[Wesley_Clark]

@Shodan

No, as mentioned, the heyday of organized labor was the 1950s, and the decline started in 1954, not the mid 70s. Your graph shows this.

Regards,
Shodan

Labor hovered at 28-32% of the labor force in the 50s, 60s and 70s, then started to decline in the mid 70s. The labor movement was at almost 30% of the labor force in 1970, that is not a decline.

[Shodan]

:shrugs: If you are going to define a change from 34% to 29% as not a decline, or the point where the bottom began to fall out as the heyday, then there is little purpose in continuing to engage the point.

Regards,
Shodan

[Model_Citizen]

@Shodan

Tax cuts and privatization are not income transfers from one person to another, and are not based on a desire to grab the property of others. So that is not really class warfare in the sense of “you got it, I want it, so it’s mine by rights” that Marxists, Occupy Wall Street protestors, and other idiots push.

The fact that these policy changes do not involve an explicit “income transfer” from one person to another does not diminish the fact that they blatantly serve to disproportionately benefit wealthy interests. Just because you view their rationale as benevolent and just does not make it any less of a case of class warfare. It’s laughable to dismiss all policies that place a greater burden on the rich to the benefit of the poor as awful, awful class warfare, and then defend the exact opposite on the grounds that it’s “not really class warfare” because nobody is directly taking money out of someone’s pocket. Those policies are absolutely a form of class warfare by the wealthy.

@Shodan

You are advocating a “living wage” for full-time workers. Why do you believe it benefits workers to incentivize reducing their hours to part-time?

Why would this encourage reducing their hours? I’m referring to a minimum wage increase, i.e. someone working full time at minimum wage will earn enough to make a modest living.

I mean, seriously, I don’t think such a proposal is terribly outrageous. A significant number of minimum wage employees already make so little that they’re a drain on our social safety net programs. Something needs to be done.

[Steely_Dan_Fan]

The problem is the idea of wages altogether.

Properly, in a free and just society (as opposed to the oppressive, authoritarian society that Shodan advocates) access to resources is not treated as a commodity exchange, contingent upon the supposed economic value of labor you provide. Instead, full and equal access to social resources (all wealth is rightfully social) is a guarantee conferred upon the individual as a consequence of hir mere existence, simply because s/he needs it to have a decent and pleasant life.

It’s people that matter, not things. Thus, the interests and freedom of real people are more important than the absolute amount of wealth, “efficient allocation” or private accumulation. The economy is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Anyone who doesn’t hate freedom understands this already.

If, say, $10 is enough to have a decent life, then a society of ten people in which the total wealth is $150 and each person has $15 is preferable to a society of ten people in which the total wealth is $1500 but one person has $1450, three people have $15 each, and the remaining $5 is split six ways.

[Shodan]

@Model_Citizen

Why would this encourage reducing their hours? I’m referring to a minimum wage increase, i.e. someone working full time at minimum wage will earn enough to make a modest living.

My bad - I thought you meant legislating a raise for full time workers only. It appears you mean increasing the minimum wage so that it is more expensive to hire people at all. So the net effect would not be to push full time workers into part-time, but to force part-timers into unemployment. (Depending on how high you set the minimum wage.)

Not that it will help otherwise - the large majority of poor families with children do not have anyone who works full time year round (cite) so it would be merely that the full-time job that they haven’t got would pay enough if they could get it. Unless you believe that raising the entry costs of hiring would somehow increase employment, which is problematic.

[QUOTE=Steely Dan Fan]
The problem is the idea of wages altogether.

Properly, in a free and just society (as opposed to the oppressive, authoritarian society that Shodan advocates) access to resources is not treated as a commodity exchange, contingent upon the supposed economic value of labor you provide. Instead, full and equal access to social resources (all wealth is rightfully social) is a guarantee conferred upon the individual as a consequence of hir mere existence, simply because s/he needs it to have a decent and pleasant life.
[/QUOTE]
No, actually the problem is that such a system cannot work in any society large enough to sustain significant economic activity. It’s been tried a few times, but turns out to be a fantasy in any circumstance larger than a large family or a small tribe, unless there is a larger, efficient society nearby that they can work for, or be exploited by.

It makes for nice fantasies, where you do the work and we will split up the results, but once those who produce more efficiently realize that they don’t earn anything extra for any extra work, they tend to either not bother with the extra effort, or arm themselves so that they don’t have to hand over.

But, as I say, it makes for a nice pipe dream, especially for those who think they will be the ones deciding who gets what. It just doesn’t work out, because you won’t be, as witnessed by systems like feudalism.

Regards,
Shodan

[Voyager]

@Shodan

My bad - I thought you meant legislating a raise for full time workers only. It appears you mean increasing the minimum wage so that it is more expensive to hire people at all. So the net effect would not be to push full time workers into part-time, but to force part-timers into unemployment. (Depending on how high you set the minimum wage.)

Simple, obvious and wrong.

Not that it will help otherwise - the large majority of poor families with children do not have anyone who works full time year round (cite) so it would be merely that the full-time job that they haven’t got would pay enough if they could get it. Unless you believe that raising the entry costs of hiring would somehow increase employment, which is problematic.

So. Minimum wage increases affect part time workers also - they may still not have year round full time work, but the work they have will pay more. Not that salary has anything to do with making a job part time or full time - that is the reaction to benefits.
And increasing the minimum wage increases consumption, which can lead to more employment - or will at least cancel out any negatives from the increase.
The Times had an article interviewing people who lived in an area with a fairly big increase - and it was kind of nice seeing them say that they can actually have a Christmas this year, and can afford both food and rent.

[PlaceboTarget]

@amorali

I think suggesting that poverty is solvable is seen by some as being socialist in itself. And that’s part of the problem.
I think a lot of people truly believe that in order for them to be wealthy others must be poor.
And so they are unwilling to even talk about solutions.

And it so happens that people believe what suits them best.

[PlaceboTarget]

@Farin

First, human are inherently greedy.

No, they are not. Greed is usually induced by society. Inherently greedy humans are as natural as serial killers. “Humans are inherently greedy” is just a false assumption.

@Farin

Second, how do you rationally ration the world’s food most equitably? How do we eliminate as much waste as possible? It’s a daunting logistical challenge. It CAN be surmounted, but it’s certainly no small matter.

Not worth the effort, I see. They’re just poor people after all, not humans like us.

@Farin

Third, human inherently distrust anything that symbolizes any kind of oppression.

Another hasty generalization. Safety and security is regarded more precious. Any form of government is a “kind of oppression”. People accept complex and pyramidal social structures if they fulfill their missions satisfactorily.

@Farin

A giant globe-spanning monolithic organization would be an easy target.

I see. So federations the size of a small continent, such as Russia, China or the USA are acceptable, but globe-spanning ones aren’t.

@Farin

Fourth, how do you guard all of this against those that would wish power over others?

Well, that question has been answered already: separation of powers. This principle either works and it has been applied successfully (the U.S. being an example of democracy due to the actual separation of powers) or it doesn’t work and it has never been applied successfully (the lack of separation of powers in the U.S. turning it into a failure of democracy).

[PlaceboTarget]

@robert_columbia

In any society you are going to have a few people who just can’t function in society (habitual criminals, people who want to live the “homeless lifestyle”, etc.) and are likely to remain poor.

But when 10 percent of the total population lives in absolute poverty (that is really no food, water, sanitation, clothing, shelter, health care and education), then it is inhumane to state that these people have chosen poverty as a “lifestyle”.