Why do the poor remain with us?(lorenzo-thinkingoutaloud.blogspot.com)
lorenzo-thinkingoutaloud.blogspot.com
Why do the poor remain with us?
http://lorenzo-thinkingoutaloud.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-do-poor-remain-with-us.html
94 comments
I think the "recent entry" effect is underemphasized in a lot of discussions. It is like the old not-quite-paradox where you can move a kid between class A and class B and increase the average score in both rooms: transfer a middle class Mexican family to the southern United States and twelve months later every actual human is better off, but both Mexico and the United States suffer statistically.
"They have life expectancies, security of food and shelter and rates of possession of consumer durables that mark them out as among the blessed of history."
I think this guy has never walked down skid row in a big city. If we act like a whole subset of people don't exist we can make crazy claims like the poor are blessed.
I think this guy has never walked down skid row in a big city. If we act like a whole subset of people don't exist we can make crazy claims like the poor are blessed.
With all due respect you don't know what you're talking about. I grew up very poor. Not only were we on welfare but my mom would turn around and sell the food stamps to get money to buy booze. Yet I still had food, shelter, education and even a few incidental things like toys. There's plenty of assistance available to the poor in this country.
What you are mistaking for poor are people with deeper problems. People who are drug addicted. People who have mental illness. And others who for whatever reason can't find a way to function in society.
There is plenty to debate about the difference between the poor and the rich but don't mistake those living on the street for the poor in this country because they are something else
What you are mistaking for poor are people with deeper problems. People who are drug addicted. People who have mental illness. And others who for whatever reason can't find a way to function in society.
There is plenty to debate about the difference between the poor and the rich but don't mistake those living on the street for the poor in this country because they are something else
"I grew up very poor" ... "Yet I still had food, shelter, education and even a few incidental things like toys."
Your definition of "very poor" is not the same as mine. What is your word for someone that doesn't have stable shelter and stable food? There are a lot of people in this country that don't have those things.
Your definition of "very poor" is not the same as mine. What is your word for someone that doesn't have stable shelter and stable food? There are a lot of people in this country that don't have those things.
a very large percentage of those that can't function are war veterans. I stand by my point that acting like those people don't exist leads to insane statements like the poor are blessed.
Interesting, I hadn't heard that other than anecdotal "I am a vietnam vet please help" - what is that percentage?
Thanks!
Now I wonder what percentage of vets are below the poverty line vs outright homeless. I know people who joined up because they were poor to begin with... and in general it seems to have worked out pretty well for them, though none of 'em are particularly rich. But maybe these are the "good work ethic" slice of the bunch? I have nothing but anecdotal evidence.
Now I wonder what percentage of vets are below the poverty line vs outright homeless. I know people who joined up because they were poor to begin with... and in general it seems to have worked out pretty well for them, though none of 'em are particularly rich. But maybe these are the "good work ethic" slice of the bunch? I have nothing but anecdotal evidence.
Your assuming that the environment has little impact on people. I'm making the opposite point, war screws people up. Then we try to act like they don't exist or that they are just lazy.
With all due respect, you're one data point. While not minimizing the hardships you went through as a poor child, you were fortunate compared to some.
As one report on Los Angeles' health concludes: "On the other hand, if we were to completely eliminate all deaths due to homicide, which is the leading cause of premature death among black males, this would likely have the greatest impact on reducing the disparity in life expectancy between black males and males of other racial/ethnic groups, and would result in a gain of 14 times more life-years at birth for black males relative to white males." [1]
"don't mistake those living on the street for the poor"
Are they rich? They certainly qualify as poor, even if they also fall into other categories. And you can't simply say "they're poor because of their mental state." You cannot trivially isolate a single variable like mental health or economic status from others. Poor white people in the US generally have a markedly improved experience over poor minorities. For example, a 2010 article examining Toxics Release Inventory Facility (TRIF) locations found a high correlation between placement and ethnic minorities. They found that, "...every race or ethnicity variable is negative and statistically significant, indicating that Census units with greater minority populations are closer to new TRIFs than are those tracts with greater proportions of non-Hispanic Whites." [2]
So while I and others certainly appreciate your perspective and your experience, you ought probably be careful not to draw conclusions about others' experience as a result.
[1] "Life Expectancy in Los Angeles County", from the Office of Health Assessment and Epidemiology, July 2010
[2] "Justice for All? A Cross-Time Analysis of Toxics Release Inventory Facility Location" from the Review of Policy Research, January 2010. This study is particularly informative on the issue of environmental justice because it handles carefully the question of "market rationality" for environmental justice. As many had pointed out, "Individuals making conscious trade-offs to accept more environmental risk in exchange for some desired attribute, such as lower housing prices, does not have the same implications as does the situation in which environmental harms are imposed on existing residents." This study is an attempt to answer the "chicken-or-egg" question of whether environmental harms are imposed on ethnic minorities or if instead poor ethnic minorities make an economic tradeoff decision.
As one report on Los Angeles' health concludes: "On the other hand, if we were to completely eliminate all deaths due to homicide, which is the leading cause of premature death among black males, this would likely have the greatest impact on reducing the disparity in life expectancy between black males and males of other racial/ethnic groups, and would result in a gain of 14 times more life-years at birth for black males relative to white males." [1]
"don't mistake those living on the street for the poor"
Are they rich? They certainly qualify as poor, even if they also fall into other categories. And you can't simply say "they're poor because of their mental state." You cannot trivially isolate a single variable like mental health or economic status from others. Poor white people in the US generally have a markedly improved experience over poor minorities. For example, a 2010 article examining Toxics Release Inventory Facility (TRIF) locations found a high correlation between placement and ethnic minorities. They found that, "...every race or ethnicity variable is negative and statistically significant, indicating that Census units with greater minority populations are closer to new TRIFs than are those tracts with greater proportions of non-Hispanic Whites." [2]
So while I and others certainly appreciate your perspective and your experience, you ought probably be careful not to draw conclusions about others' experience as a result.
[1] "Life Expectancy in Los Angeles County", from the Office of Health Assessment and Epidemiology, July 2010
[2] "Justice for All? A Cross-Time Analysis of Toxics Release Inventory Facility Location" from the Review of Policy Research, January 2010. This study is particularly informative on the issue of environmental justice because it handles carefully the question of "market rationality" for environmental justice. As many had pointed out, "Individuals making conscious trade-offs to accept more environmental risk in exchange for some desired attribute, such as lower housing prices, does not have the same implications as does the situation in which environmental harms are imposed on existing residents." This study is an attempt to answer the "chicken-or-egg" question of whether environmental harms are imposed on ethnic minorities or if instead poor ethnic minorities make an economic tradeoff decision.
Your logic is flawed here. You're basically saying the author's statement that the "poor are blessed in industrialized nations" is incorrect because of people who are not blessed for reasons other than simply being poor.
By that same logic we could say the poor are overwhelmingly blessed because some people who are technically poor live in mansions with their wealthy parents.
That's why we use generalizations in theoretical discussions. The author uses the generalization of "the poor" as people who are poor but have no other serious problems or benefits. In that context he's right.
And my experience confirms that because the aide was there and available to anyone who wanted it. I wasn't special. As I said just the opposite was true. My Mom squandered much of the Aide given to us and we STILL got by. So in a general sense others should be able to as well.
Finally as others have pointed out here the author's point is wealth is relative. Even those living on the street of the United States are tons better than many of the people living in third world countries.
By that same logic we could say the poor are overwhelmingly blessed because some people who are technically poor live in mansions with their wealthy parents.
That's why we use generalizations in theoretical discussions. The author uses the generalization of "the poor" as people who are poor but have no other serious problems or benefits. In that context he's right.
And my experience confirms that because the aide was there and available to anyone who wanted it. I wasn't special. As I said just the opposite was true. My Mom squandered much of the Aide given to us and we STILL got by. So in a general sense others should be able to as well.
Finally as others have pointed out here the author's point is wealth is relative. Even those living on the street of the United States are tons better than many of the people living in third world countries.
You were poor with privilege (according to your "about me" blog page). Others are poor without it.
My response was not to the author, but rather to your response to someone saying that "poor" is always contextualized and there are poor today that are not at all well off. Your counter was "I was poor and I had things OK." That's not a compelling rejoinder. There are many poor that don't have that same experience.
My point regarding variable isolation (which you call 'flawed logic') is to highlight that there are lots of kinds of poor people: there is no such thing as "simply being poor". This is why the true logical flaw is when you say things like "we could say the poor are overwhelmingly blessed because some people who are technically poor live in mansions". No, you can't. You can't speak of "the poor" as a monolithic entity, period. Yes, some poor today have it better than some wealthy of the past. But there are poor today that have it worse than people in the past.
Which brings me, I suppose, to the point the author of the linked article makes: the poor on skid row do not, in point of fact, have "possession of consumer durables". That is the point the author of the post you replied to was trying to make. And while possibly most poor in rich-world nations are better off than most poor in rich nations of the past, that's not the original author's claim. The claim is that the poor of today are "the blessed of history." I see no reasons presented as to why that's true, and my knowledge of both history and the current world leads me to disagree (though again, that's beyond the point I was making).
My response was not to the author, but rather to your response to someone saying that "poor" is always contextualized and there are poor today that are not at all well off. Your counter was "I was poor and I had things OK." That's not a compelling rejoinder. There are many poor that don't have that same experience.
My point regarding variable isolation (which you call 'flawed logic') is to highlight that there are lots of kinds of poor people: there is no such thing as "simply being poor". This is why the true logical flaw is when you say things like "we could say the poor are overwhelmingly blessed because some people who are technically poor live in mansions". No, you can't. You can't speak of "the poor" as a monolithic entity, period. Yes, some poor today have it better than some wealthy of the past. But there are poor today that have it worse than people in the past.
Which brings me, I suppose, to the point the author of the linked article makes: the poor on skid row do not, in point of fact, have "possession of consumer durables". That is the point the author of the post you replied to was trying to make. And while possibly most poor in rich-world nations are better off than most poor in rich nations of the past, that's not the original author's claim. The claim is that the poor of today are "the blessed of history." I see no reasons presented as to why that's true, and my knowledge of both history and the current world leads me to disagree (though again, that's beyond the point I was making).
The problem is that everything is relative. Did slaves have it badly? Well they were fed, had shelter, and life expectancy too. Probably better than being a gladiator, for example.
People who grow up in Watts don't sit around saying, "At least this ain't Rwanda!" They just see folks who have nice cars drive down the street, or have nice clothes, or eat in restaurants with waiters, etc...
The argument that life is worse somewhere else is a loser argument to me. Oddly, the same people who push this argument will then collapse with convulsions if you tell them that you're going to raise income tax rates from 36% to 39%.
People who grow up in Watts don't sit around saying, "At least this ain't Rwanda!" They just see folks who have nice cars drive down the street, or have nice clothes, or eat in restaurants with waiters, etc...
The argument that life is worse somewhere else is a loser argument to me. Oddly, the same people who push this argument will then collapse with convulsions if you tell them that you're going to raise income tax rates from 36% to 39%.
But if the only bad thing about being poor is comparing yourself to people who are better off then thats not a problem that we'd ever be able to solve. If we're actually increasing poor people's life expectancies with welfare (and we do!) then we have a good excuse for using government money to help poor people. If all we were doing was acting on people's envy then welfare wouldn't be justified.
But if we're spending money not to cushion people's feelings but to materially improve their lives, and if we consider the life of someone in Rwanda to have the same value as someone in the US, then the relative plights of the people in Rwanda _do_ figure in to it.
But if we're spending money not to cushion people's feelings but to materially improve their lives, and if we consider the life of someone in Rwanda to have the same value as someone in the US, then the relative plights of the people in Rwanda _do_ figure in to it.
The only thing we know, outside of activities like math, are relative measures. That's it. There's no "good" life or "bad" life. There's just better and worse, period.
Materially improving lives, but not making them feel any better about their lives is an utter waste of money. It's the same reason why virtually no one will give away all of their money this afternoon, knowing that even with $0 to their name their life is better than the average Europeans during the Dark Ages.
There is no absolute material scale at which point one is happy. There's substantial research in happiness that shows that happiness is a completely relative measure.
But if the only bad thing about being poor is comparing yourself to people who are better off
Not only is that the only bad thing, but it is the ONLY way to determine if you're actually poor!
Materially improving lives, but not making them feel any better about their lives is an utter waste of money. It's the same reason why virtually no one will give away all of their money this afternoon, knowing that even with $0 to their name their life is better than the average Europeans during the Dark Ages.
There is no absolute material scale at which point one is happy. There's substantial research in happiness that shows that happiness is a completely relative measure.
But if the only bad thing about being poor is comparing yourself to people who are better off
Not only is that the only bad thing, but it is the ONLY way to determine if you're actually poor!
If it were true that the only measure of welfare were relative then, since I care about myself somewhat more than other people, it would behoove me to not only eliminate welfare but make the lives of the poor as hard as possible so I could raise my relative status.
Luckily, the scientific studies I've seen show that there are many things (health, marriage, security, etc) that are more important to people's happiness than relative status or wealth.
Luckily, the scientific studies I've seen show that there are many things (health, marriage, security, etc) that are more important to people's happiness than relative status or wealth.
If it were true that the only measure of welfare were relative then, since I care about myself somewhat more than other people, it would behoove me to not only eliminate welfare but make the lives of the poor as hard as possible so I could raise my relative status.
Indeed! And so it is for MANY people. In fact this is the Republican platform in the South with respect to poor blacks. This is why "small government" is so popular there. Not because they actually want a small government per se, but they view government as a force that actively attempts to reduce various economic gaps.
Luckily, the scientific studies I've seen show that there are many things (health, marriage, security, etc) that are more important to people's happiness than relative status or wealth.
Everything you've noted is relative. Are you happy that you'll die, most likely, before your 100th birthday? Is the fact that now a deep cut likely won't kill, but cancer likely can supposed to make me happy? How secure are you given the crime rate in your area? Given the divorce rate of something like 50% in the US, are we happy or sad, or 50/50 each way?
In fact there's some great happiness research on the happiness of people after suffering great injuries, like paralysis or losing limbs. After a couple of years, they're not any less happy than people who haven't had such injuries. This is an example of self-relative happiness (versus the societal relative happiness we've been talking about), but demonstrates how happiness has no absolute metric one can use to measure it.
Indeed! And so it is for MANY people. In fact this is the Republican platform in the South with respect to poor blacks. This is why "small government" is so popular there. Not because they actually want a small government per se, but they view government as a force that actively attempts to reduce various economic gaps.
Luckily, the scientific studies I've seen show that there are many things (health, marriage, security, etc) that are more important to people's happiness than relative status or wealth.
Everything you've noted is relative. Are you happy that you'll die, most likely, before your 100th birthday? Is the fact that now a deep cut likely won't kill, but cancer likely can supposed to make me happy? How secure are you given the crime rate in your area? Given the divorce rate of something like 50% in the US, are we happy or sad, or 50/50 each way?
In fact there's some great happiness research on the happiness of people after suffering great injuries, like paralysis or losing limbs. After a couple of years, they're not any less happy than people who haven't had such injuries. This is an example of self-relative happiness (versus the societal relative happiness we've been talking about), but demonstrates how happiness has no absolute metric one can use to measure it.
I think you've never bothered to look up statistics on the poor.
In the 1970's, the bottom 10% only had a pot to piss in - they lacked a toilet. Today, the poor live in houses with 2 rooms/person, drive at least one car (70% or so), sometimes two cars (25%), and have all manner of consumer goods not available even to the middle class of 1970.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf
Not only that, but the poor manage to achieve all of this, for the most part, without even working.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf
There might be a small number of poor people in bad situations, but the majority of the poor are doing very well by historical standards. Please go read the actual numbers before criticizing others who have already done so.
In the 1970's, the bottom 10% only had a pot to piss in - they lacked a toilet. Today, the poor live in houses with 2 rooms/person, drive at least one car (70% or so), sometimes two cars (25%), and have all manner of consumer goods not available even to the middle class of 1970.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf
Not only that, but the poor manage to achieve all of this, for the most part, without even working.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf
There might be a small number of poor people in bad situations, but the majority of the poor are doing very well by historical standards. Please go read the actual numbers before criticizing others who have already done so.
your doing the same thing as the other, magically disappearing a whole class of people. Please come meet me in Los Angeles and I'll show you the poor. They don't have a house, a car, or any consumer goods.
As I said before, a very large percentage of the people I'm talking about are war veterans. They are people that were capable of functioning in society before we used them up and spit them out. Disappearing them from our minds doesn't make them go away in real life.
As I said before, a very large percentage of the people I'm talking about are war veterans. They are people that were capable of functioning in society before we used them up and spit them out. Disappearing them from our minds doesn't make them go away in real life.
Ah, I see our disagreement. The author and I are pointing out that most of the 10% or so of society classified by the government as "poor" are doing extremely well. I guess you aren't dispute this at all.
You are saying there is a much narrower subset (I'm guessing veterans and others with mental illness?) which is not doing well. I.e., "crazy people have problems, and many are also poor." Very true. But that isn't what the author is discussing. No one is claiming the mentally ill don't exist.
You are saying there is a much narrower subset (I'm guessing veterans and others with mental illness?) which is not doing well. I.e., "crazy people have problems, and many are also poor." Very true. But that isn't what the author is discussing. No one is claiming the mentally ill don't exist.
right, we're using different definitions, but my complaint is that people are brushing them off as "mentally ill". Many of them, 1 in 4 according to some studies, are military veterans. These are people that were not mentally ill prior to things like us sending them to war so we can sit in our comfy startups. We now want to disappear them from our minds by implying that they are innately broken (mentally ill).
I'm a veteran so maybe I care more about this than most.
I'm a veteran so maybe I care more about this than most.
Sorry, accidental downvote, meant to upvote!
You're missing the point - the author says that poverty is relative. Our poor in the US or the EU are far better off than their grandparents were, better off even than the kings of yore due to technological progress. How much do you think a plantation owner in 1840 would've paid for air conditioning? How much would your father have paid for an iPad?
My father wouldn't have cared about an iPad. Gadgets are not a substitute for quality of life; they are merely a means of distraction. I would argue that you are the one missing the point. The difference between being rich and poor is not possessions, and it can't be easily summed up in a quantitative manner. The difference is especially visible in the areas of influence, confidence, and security.
Rich people have the money and the connections to do pretty much anything they want to, to be able to convince other people to do their bidding. They likely grew up in a home where they learned the proper etiquette to enable them to operate smoothly in nearly any social situation. Even if someone doesn't have the etiquette down, that person can still gain confidence by wearing fine clothing or driving a luxury car. Finally, rich people always have a contingency plan; they don't have to worry about becoming insolvent due to an unexpected injury or loss of property.
If you grew up middle class and haven't been rich or poor, you just can't see it. I grew up somewhat poor, and I experienced firsthand the lack of security, and the little bit of influence I had was entirely based on my accomplishments. We busted our asses all summer when I was twelve so that we would have a place to live before we ran out of money. We went to the dentist once in about ten years, and the cure for most of our ailments was water and rest (antibiotics, what?). My dad worked insane hours as a laborer and barely slept just to keep food on the table and a roof over our head. I couldn't be "cool" at school because we didn't have money to buy nice clothes, much less keep up with the latest fashions. And just recently, while seeking work after college, I experienced the awful reality of having creditors call daily, and prioritizing which bills to pay not by due date but by necessity.
I've recently started a job where we operate a lot in more privileged social circles. Rich people have country club memberships that allow them to socialize with other rich people and get deals done that are simply impossible for anyone else. We dress up in suits that feel great, look great, and inspire confidence; I had a wonderful time this past New Year with several people I didn't know -- I was wearing an outfit that cost more than I had earned in six months before getting this job. I've been given resources that show me how to navigate parties and flourish in any social situation. I can convince a dude to get on his knees and shine my shoes simply by giving him some money; I can convince my boss (who has written books on security and cryptography) to review and advise my spare-time-work on a new filesystem, partly thanks to a mutual respect that is an automatic result of belonging to the same social circle.
Don't kid yourself. Being rich is way different from being poor. I don't see any way that can ever change. Not everyone can get what they want.
Rich people have the money and the connections to do pretty much anything they want to, to be able to convince other people to do their bidding. They likely grew up in a home where they learned the proper etiquette to enable them to operate smoothly in nearly any social situation. Even if someone doesn't have the etiquette down, that person can still gain confidence by wearing fine clothing or driving a luxury car. Finally, rich people always have a contingency plan; they don't have to worry about becoming insolvent due to an unexpected injury or loss of property.
If you grew up middle class and haven't been rich or poor, you just can't see it. I grew up somewhat poor, and I experienced firsthand the lack of security, and the little bit of influence I had was entirely based on my accomplishments. We busted our asses all summer when I was twelve so that we would have a place to live before we ran out of money. We went to the dentist once in about ten years, and the cure for most of our ailments was water and rest (antibiotics, what?). My dad worked insane hours as a laborer and barely slept just to keep food on the table and a roof over our head. I couldn't be "cool" at school because we didn't have money to buy nice clothes, much less keep up with the latest fashions. And just recently, while seeking work after college, I experienced the awful reality of having creditors call daily, and prioritizing which bills to pay not by due date but by necessity.
I've recently started a job where we operate a lot in more privileged social circles. Rich people have country club memberships that allow them to socialize with other rich people and get deals done that are simply impossible for anyone else. We dress up in suits that feel great, look great, and inspire confidence; I had a wonderful time this past New Year with several people I didn't know -- I was wearing an outfit that cost more than I had earned in six months before getting this job. I've been given resources that show me how to navigate parties and flourish in any social situation. I can convince a dude to get on his knees and shine my shoes simply by giving him some money; I can convince my boss (who has written books on security and cryptography) to review and advise my spare-time-work on a new filesystem, partly thanks to a mutual respect that is an automatic result of belonging to the same social circle.
Don't kid yourself. Being rich is way different from being poor. I don't see any way that can ever change. Not everyone can get what they want.
You are correct - even though the poor are now middle class (in terms of standard of living), they have not increased in social status.
This is unavoidable. Status seeking is a zero sum game. And even if the rich didn't achieve status (which many don't, BTW), there would still be status-poor individuals: the ugly, the socially inept, and the people with better things to do than engage in signalling.
This is unavoidable. Status seeking is a zero sum game. And even if the rich didn't achieve status (which many don't, BTW), there would still be status-poor individuals: the ugly, the socially inept, and the people with better things to do than engage in signalling.
I largely agree with you, but I think framing the argument in terms of "status seeking" is slightly disingenuous. Etiquette is not all about status seeking.
Placing cutlery at 4:22 when you are finished with your meal seems like a silly etiquette rule, but it signals the wait staff that you are finished, and increases efficiency for the restaurant, the staff, and the dinner guests.
Knowing who to tip and how much increases the happiness and satisfaction of everyone involved in service transactions by managing expectations and fulfilling them, increasing stability for everyone.
Keeping an up-to-date address book for your acquaintances is something that I never heard of growing up; I have one childhood friend who has asked for my address three times in the last year.
I could go on, but the real point is that the ability to operate with proper etiquette is a signal to others who are doing the same. You are telling each other that you are friendly, respectful, courteous, and have an attention to detail. When it comes to getting things done, a group of people like this working together are going to be more productive than a random group of people lacking the same social skills but otherwise having similar abilities. Removing friction and conflict by following seemingly-silly conventions is not zero sum.
Among the truly wealthy, this is not status-seeking behavior, it's simply what one does. It only looks like status-seeking to those who are not "playing the game." I first realized this when reading YouTube comments for a dining etiquette video (e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIj5Rt-7b9I). The majority of Americans (myself included) were not taught these methods, and they think that it's absolutely silly. Those who grew up doing this are wondering what kind of barbarians do not eat in this way. Those who host parties know that if everyone eats with "proper etiquette," you can fit more people around a table and limit the spread of germs (e.g. placing dirty silverware back on the table).
Placing cutlery at 4:22 when you are finished with your meal seems like a silly etiquette rule, but it signals the wait staff that you are finished, and increases efficiency for the restaurant, the staff, and the dinner guests.
Knowing who to tip and how much increases the happiness and satisfaction of everyone involved in service transactions by managing expectations and fulfilling them, increasing stability for everyone.
Keeping an up-to-date address book for your acquaintances is something that I never heard of growing up; I have one childhood friend who has asked for my address three times in the last year.
I could go on, but the real point is that the ability to operate with proper etiquette is a signal to others who are doing the same. You are telling each other that you are friendly, respectful, courteous, and have an attention to detail. When it comes to getting things done, a group of people like this working together are going to be more productive than a random group of people lacking the same social skills but otherwise having similar abilities. Removing friction and conflict by following seemingly-silly conventions is not zero sum.
Among the truly wealthy, this is not status-seeking behavior, it's simply what one does. It only looks like status-seeking to those who are not "playing the game." I first realized this when reading YouTube comments for a dining etiquette video (e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIj5Rt-7b9I). The majority of Americans (myself included) were not taught these methods, and they think that it's absolutely silly. Those who grew up doing this are wondering what kind of barbarians do not eat in this way. Those who host parties know that if everyone eats with "proper etiquette," you can fit more people around a table and limit the spread of germs (e.g. placing dirty silverware back on the table).
...the real point is that the ability to operate with proper etiquette is a signal to others who are doing the same. You are telling each other that you are friendly, respectful, courteous, and have an attention to detail.
As you say, it's about signalling that you are part of an secret in-crowd.
The efficiency gains you describe are minimal. Seriously, waiters picking up your dishes 3 minutes later, or spending 90 seconds per year giving out your address is irrelevant. If you are as rich as you say, you can afford a big enough table to give the barbarians elbow room (if you wanted to). The harm caused by being in the presence of dirty dishes for a few minutes more might be positive, but it's very close to zero.
And are you seriously going to tell me your suit and newly shined shoes are more efficient (for any purpose other than signalling your status) than my jeans and aasics/hiking boots (depending on the weather)?
As you say, it's about signalling that you are part of an secret in-crowd.
The efficiency gains you describe are minimal. Seriously, waiters picking up your dishes 3 minutes later, or spending 90 seconds per year giving out your address is irrelevant. If you are as rich as you say, you can afford a big enough table to give the barbarians elbow room (if you wanted to). The harm caused by being in the presence of dirty dishes for a few minutes more might be positive, but it's very close to zero.
And are you seriously going to tell me your suit and newly shined shoes are more efficient (for any purpose other than signalling your status) than my jeans and aasics/hiking boots (depending on the weather)?
I'm not trying to say that I'm rich, just that I've been part of those circles lately, and my perception is starting to change a little bit. Note that the "secret in-crowd" you mention is more likely to be the kind of people that you want to associate with anyways, people who will have a positive effect on your personal and professional life. Technical interviews are largely unfair, but we agree that they are necessary to weed out the worst candidates. Social etiquette is very similar in that it's somewhat unfair to the people who are bad at it, but at the same time it's a very effective screening process. I would never anticipate getting mugged by someone wearing a suit.
As for the bit about efficiency, I was mostly trying to point out that the etiquette rules are not baseless, and following them is not zero-sum. Each efficiency gain in itself is minimal. What is the value of an unbroken conversation over the course of a meal without a single interruption from the wait staff? What if it's 100 times per year? How about that waiter who can effectively add an additional table to his load because he doesn't have to pause and question before removing a plate? At a nice restaurant, each table is probably worth about $7-15 per hour to the waiter.
Giving out my address is not 90 seconds per year total, it's about a minute per friend for each time that friend wants to send me an invitation, or a thank you note, or a Christmas card. How special does it feel to receive a handwritten note? It helps maintain relationships and improve everyone's happiness, and it employs people in the business of selling stationery and teaching calligraphy. In reality, by not having their friends' addresses handy, people end up sending thoughtful notes less often, they are sent in a less-personal digital format, and the occasional mailing becomes a (minor) burden to someone for whom you are trying to do a favor.
Etiquette-based efficiency gains don't even have to be major to be worthwhile. Most rules of etiquette are practical and are designed to make life smoother and more enjoyable for everyone. With stress being a major factor in health, and with happier people being more productive, even minor gains in these areas can multiply quickly.
Now for a rant about nice clothes...
I never said that the clothes are about efficiency; they are more about looking good, feeling confident, being less wasteful, getting great service, and employing more people. I just bought my first nice suits and shoes last month, and the difference in comfort surprised me. Since the measurements are custom, the fit is perfect. The material looks and feels great. Call it fashion or personal taste all you want, but every friend I've encountered has commented on how good I look in my new suits. Between that and the added comfort, I feel more confident, and I find myself rebuilding my sense of self-worth from the low place it was in about eight months ago.
Another major difference is the buying experience. While shopping for my new things I had a suit salesperson working closely with me, advising me on the subtle aspects of different styles and making sure I selected something I would be happy with. After making my selections, a tailor measured me to ensure that the (yet-to-be-made) suits would be perfect for me. When I purchased my shoes, a shoe salesman measured my foot to find my exact size (an unusual 10eee), offered me advice for proper care, and gave me his contact information.
What happens after the purchase is even more critical. When I picked up my suit, the same salesperson inspected the fit and the quality to ensure that everything was perfect. When I lose weight this year, I can take my suit back to the same store for free alterations. When I had a minor issue with my shoes, I was able to email the shoe salesman and get an answer and a solution with minimal hassle.
And it doesn't even stop there. A good suit will be in my wardrobe for a couple decades. When the elbows wear or the seams tear, you take them to a tailor for repair. When the shirt cuffs fray, you get new cuffs. When the shoes lose their luster, you get them shined. When the soles wear, a cobbler puts new ones on.
To sum it up, I get an amazing service experience and excellent ongoing care. Along the way, I help several salespeople, a couple tailors, a cobbler, some fashion designers, various shoe shiners and dry cleaners, and countless others make a living. I am less wasteful because my clothes are not shipped across the Pacific, laundered inefficiently at home, and thrown into a dump after a couple years of usage and some wear. I provide people with meaningful, skilled, safe jobs instead of dangerous and unhealthy sweatshop work.
It's easy and popular to look at rich people and call them entitled douchebags, but when you get down to it, many of them are doing a lot more good in the world than you would think.
As for the bit about efficiency, I was mostly trying to point out that the etiquette rules are not baseless, and following them is not zero-sum. Each efficiency gain in itself is minimal. What is the value of an unbroken conversation over the course of a meal without a single interruption from the wait staff? What if it's 100 times per year? How about that waiter who can effectively add an additional table to his load because he doesn't have to pause and question before removing a plate? At a nice restaurant, each table is probably worth about $7-15 per hour to the waiter.
Giving out my address is not 90 seconds per year total, it's about a minute per friend for each time that friend wants to send me an invitation, or a thank you note, or a Christmas card. How special does it feel to receive a handwritten note? It helps maintain relationships and improve everyone's happiness, and it employs people in the business of selling stationery and teaching calligraphy. In reality, by not having their friends' addresses handy, people end up sending thoughtful notes less often, they are sent in a less-personal digital format, and the occasional mailing becomes a (minor) burden to someone for whom you are trying to do a favor.
Etiquette-based efficiency gains don't even have to be major to be worthwhile. Most rules of etiquette are practical and are designed to make life smoother and more enjoyable for everyone. With stress being a major factor in health, and with happier people being more productive, even minor gains in these areas can multiply quickly.
Now for a rant about nice clothes...
I never said that the clothes are about efficiency; they are more about looking good, feeling confident, being less wasteful, getting great service, and employing more people. I just bought my first nice suits and shoes last month, and the difference in comfort surprised me. Since the measurements are custom, the fit is perfect. The material looks and feels great. Call it fashion or personal taste all you want, but every friend I've encountered has commented on how good I look in my new suits. Between that and the added comfort, I feel more confident, and I find myself rebuilding my sense of self-worth from the low place it was in about eight months ago.
Another major difference is the buying experience. While shopping for my new things I had a suit salesperson working closely with me, advising me on the subtle aspects of different styles and making sure I selected something I would be happy with. After making my selections, a tailor measured me to ensure that the (yet-to-be-made) suits would be perfect for me. When I purchased my shoes, a shoe salesman measured my foot to find my exact size (an unusual 10eee), offered me advice for proper care, and gave me his contact information.
What happens after the purchase is even more critical. When I picked up my suit, the same salesperson inspected the fit and the quality to ensure that everything was perfect. When I lose weight this year, I can take my suit back to the same store for free alterations. When I had a minor issue with my shoes, I was able to email the shoe salesman and get an answer and a solution with minimal hassle.
And it doesn't even stop there. A good suit will be in my wardrobe for a couple decades. When the elbows wear or the seams tear, you take them to a tailor for repair. When the shirt cuffs fray, you get new cuffs. When the shoes lose their luster, you get them shined. When the soles wear, a cobbler puts new ones on.
To sum it up, I get an amazing service experience and excellent ongoing care. Along the way, I help several salespeople, a couple tailors, a cobbler, some fashion designers, various shoe shiners and dry cleaners, and countless others make a living. I am less wasteful because my clothes are not shipped across the Pacific, laundered inefficiently at home, and thrown into a dump after a couple years of usage and some wear. I provide people with meaningful, skilled, safe jobs instead of dangerous and unhealthy sweatshop work.
It's easy and popular to look at rich people and call them entitled douchebags, but when you get down to it, many of them are doing a lot more good in the world than you would think.
Please, tell me more about poverty, as I have never lived it and cannot possibly understand. Then I will tell you more about life before electricity, which I understand completely.
The second clause of each of those sentences has the same truth value as the other.
The second clause of each of those sentences has the same truth value as the other.
I don't really follow what you're saying here. I was simply trying to illustrate the difference between being rich or poor. It has very little to do with A/C or gadgets.
For the most part, the difference in the amount of enjoyment, food, shelter, and safety that I had as a child as compared to now is negligible. The changes in influence and confidence are profound, and after a couple years at this job I will be quite secure.
Being rich is about having the choice to do what you want to do in life. The poor can't outsource unpleasant tasks, they can't take profitable risks, and they have a hard time convincing others to do what they want them to do (without the assistance of a weapon). No amount of increasing world wealth is going to change that. In terms of life skills, the human population is a bell curve and there are always going to be some people who are better than others.
For the most part, the difference in the amount of enjoyment, food, shelter, and safety that I had as a child as compared to now is negligible. The changes in influence and confidence are profound, and after a couple years at this job I will be quite secure.
Being rich is about having the choice to do what you want to do in life. The poor can't outsource unpleasant tasks, they can't take profitable risks, and they have a hard time convincing others to do what they want them to do (without the assistance of a weapon). No amount of increasing world wealth is going to change that. In terms of life skills, the human population is a bell curve and there are always going to be some people who are better than others.
In the Republic, Cephalus says this:
And the great blessing of riches, I do not say to every man, but to a good man, is, that he has had no occasion to deceive or to defraud others, either intentionally or unintentionally; and when he departs to the world below he is not in any apprehension about offerings due to the gods or debts which he owes to men. Now to this peace of mind the possession of wealth greatly contributes; and therefore I say, that, setting one thing against another, of the many advantages which wealth has to give, to a man of sense this is in my opinion the greatest.
I think it is inaccurate to think that people from earlier times would have traded their riches for consumer goods - at least, not the thoughtful ones. The great advantages of riches are freedom, security, peace of mind.
And the great blessing of riches, I do not say to every man, but to a good man, is, that he has had no occasion to deceive or to defraud others, either intentionally or unintentionally; and when he departs to the world below he is not in any apprehension about offerings due to the gods or debts which he owes to men. Now to this peace of mind the possession of wealth greatly contributes; and therefore I say, that, setting one thing against another, of the many advantages which wealth has to give, to a man of sense this is in my opinion the greatest.
I think it is inaccurate to think that people from earlier times would have traded their riches for consumer goods - at least, not the thoughtful ones. The great advantages of riches are freedom, security, peace of mind.
I think the author is missing the point: Wealth relative to a previous century is cold consolation when you're facing eviction, when you've lost your job, when your car, hardly a luxury in auto-obsessed America, is repossessed, and you lack health insurance.
In fact, the ability to purchase an iPad is comparing a consumer trifle to the kind of precarity the poor live with.
In fact, the ability to purchase an iPad is comparing a consumer trifle to the kind of precarity the poor live with.
"better off even than the kings of yore due to technological progress"
This is absurd. It's based on the false premise that consumerism equals happiness, dignity, well being, and a fulfilling life.
And there is still the problem that you guys are disappearing a whole class of people, a large percentage of whom are war veterans, to make yourselves feel better.
This is absurd. It's based on the false premise that consumerism equals happiness, dignity, well being, and a fulfilling life.
And there is still the problem that you guys are disappearing a whole class of people, a large percentage of whom are war veterans, to make yourselves feel better.
Despite the unfortunate reference to the iPad, the poster has a point. We are better off than the 'kings of yore'. We have access to better housing, heat and air conditioning, abundant and varied food, easy and affordable access to education and medical care and medicine, electric light, personal transportation, personal security and the list goes on. It's not just consumer goods -- we have more of everything including health and well-being, and most likely happiness. How many people back then (other than a king) could hope to be anything but a serf and tenant farmer in their lives. I think personal fulfilment would have been in short supply.
only if by "better off" you mean we have more material possessions.
"easy and affordable access to education and medical care and medicine"
Most of your points are fair, but I don't this one is.
"we have more of everything including health and well-being"
How are you measuring well being? I'll bet a lot of people today, even those that are upper middle class, have equal or more stress.
"How many people back then "
Why compare america of today with monarchies of the past? Why not compare america of today with other industrialized countries? In terms of the plight of the poor we look pretty bad compared to other modern countries.
"easy and affordable access to education and medical care and medicine"
Most of your points are fair, but I don't this one is.
"we have more of everything including health and well-being"
How are you measuring well being? I'll bet a lot of people today, even those that are upper middle class, have equal or more stress.
"How many people back then "
Why compare america of today with monarchies of the past? Why not compare america of today with other industrialized countries? In terms of the plight of the poor we look pretty bad compared to other modern countries.
It's sad that you're one of the few who can see this and yet the other replies to your comment seem to give bizarre rationalizations of why it's okay to be poor. I don't think there's an excuse at all. Go to Denmark or Canada or a number of other countries and they've all but wiped out poverty. It's a pathetic rationalization that poverty "is relative." The more I read HN the more tired I get reading these over-used libertarian fanatical positions. The poor are not just drug addicts, there are many people who've had much fewer opportunities and never had a chance to go to college or get an education. There are many many people who fall into "the working poor" look at any number of people stuck in dead end jobs but with little to no ability to get out of the situation.
Meritocracy is a complete myth. The poor work the hardest and most dangerous jobs and the most hours. If all it took was 'hard work' then these people would be filthy rich by now. But obviously not all work is valued the same.
Meritocracy is a complete myth. The poor work the hardest and most dangerous jobs and the most hours. If all it took was 'hard work' then these people would be filthy rich by now. But obviously not all work is valued the same.
One thing that gets people in the US is medical problems.
Just as an anecdote, I got a couple of sinus infections back to back on my recent trip to the US. Two doctor visits plus antibiotics cost me more than 250 dollars out of pocket.
And that's for a relatively trifling problem. Imagine getting hit with serious medical bills at the very same time your ability to work has been seriously diminished.
Just as an anecdote, I got a couple of sinus infections back to back on my recent trip to the US. Two doctor visits plus antibiotics cost me more than 250 dollars out of pocket.
And that's for a relatively trifling problem. Imagine getting hit with serious medical bills at the very same time your ability to work has been seriously diminished.
I had my appendix out a couple years ago, and it cost me around $2000, and this was with some really fantastic insurance. If uninsured, I would have gotten a bill for around $25,000. Had I been in a different point in my life, I would have been ruined financially.
This is widely believed, but only due to a deeply flawed study which got a lot of press.
New statistics following the publication of that article have shown this pretty conclusively.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/12/will-hea...
New statistics following the publication of that article have shown this pretty conclusively.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/12/will-hea...
All that shows is that Massachusetts system is flawed. For instance, there are zero medical bankruptcies in Switzerland, France, or Germany.
Even if it were flawed, you'd expect some effect.
Also, you are simply wrong with your international comparison. If we apply the standards of Warren's study, any bankrupt citizen of France who spent $1001 or more in taxes on France's national health care system was a "medical bankruptcy".
Also, you are simply wrong with your international comparison. If we apply the standards of Warren's study, any bankrupt citizen of France who spent $1001 or more in taxes on France's national health care system was a "medical bankruptcy".
Even if it were flawed, you'd expect some effect.
Why? If you improperly implement a system, you don't have to have any reasonable expectation of success. If I recreate a system incorrectly, I can't say, well, I should expect at least a 5% success rate. Often, poor implementations can cause negative results.
any bankrupt citizen of France who spent $1001 or more in taxes
That would be incorrect, because medical bankruptcies are the result of medical costs directly. For instance, being in a car accident or being diagnosed with HIV, neither of which directly result in a bankruptcy of any kind due to medical costs in those countries.
Why? If you improperly implement a system, you don't have to have any reasonable expectation of success. If I recreate a system incorrectly, I can't say, well, I should expect at least a 5% success rate. Often, poor implementations can cause negative results.
any bankrupt citizen of France who spent $1001 or more in taxes
That would be incorrect, because medical bankruptcies are the result of medical costs directly. For instance, being in a car accident or being diagnosed with HIV, neither of which directly result in a bankruptcy of any kind due to medical costs in those countries.
Why? If you improperly implement a system, you don't have to have any reasonable expectation of success.
So you truly believe that forcing everyone to purchase low deductible medical insurance is so deeply flawed that it will not reduce medical bankruptcies at all? Good to know.
That would be incorrect, because medical bankruptcies are the result of medical costs directly.
According to Elizabeth Warren's criteria, anyone who spent $1001 on medical expenses in the 2 years prior to their bankruptcy is classified as a medical bankruptcy. So for example, Michael Vick's bankruptcy was a "medical bankruptcy" by the criteria of the study we are discussing.
(For those unfamiliar, other contributing factors to Vick's bankruptcy were spending wildly on consumer goods like mansions and boats, going to jail, and losing his job as NFL quarterback as a result. But nevertheless, Elizabeth Warren believes this was a medical bankruptcy.)
So you truly believe that forcing everyone to purchase low deductible medical insurance is so deeply flawed that it will not reduce medical bankruptcies at all? Good to know.
That would be incorrect, because medical bankruptcies are the result of medical costs directly.
According to Elizabeth Warren's criteria, anyone who spent $1001 on medical expenses in the 2 years prior to their bankruptcy is classified as a medical bankruptcy. So for example, Michael Vick's bankruptcy was a "medical bankruptcy" by the criteria of the study we are discussing.
(For those unfamiliar, other contributing factors to Vick's bankruptcy were spending wildly on consumer goods like mansions and boats, going to jail, and losing his job as NFL quarterback as a result. But nevertheless, Elizabeth Warren believes this was a medical bankruptcy.)
so deeply flawed that it will not reduce medical bankruptcies at all?
Yes, which is why I support a national health care system, like France or Germany. A public option, which Massachusetts lacks, has also been shown to work better, although I don't consider it ideal by any stretch.
According to Elizabeth Warren's criteria
First off, we don't need to use Elizabeth Warren's criteria to recognize how medical bankruptcies affect people. There's plenty of studies out there which use different criteria, but none of which conclude with Zero.
Yes, which is why I support a national health care system, like France or Germany. A public option, which Massachusetts lacks, has also been shown to work better, although I don't consider it ideal by any stretch.
According to Elizabeth Warren's criteria
First off, we don't need to use Elizabeth Warren's criteria to recognize how medical bankruptcies affect people. There's plenty of studies out there which use different criteria, but none of which conclude with Zero.
There's plenty of studies...
[citation needed.]
(Fun fact, I've looked into the literature here. Most "medical bankruptcies", as defined by reputable studies, are actually a result of job loss for medical reasons. People still break their back and become unable to work in France.)
[citation needed.]
(Fun fact, I've looked into the literature here. Most "medical bankruptcies", as defined by reputable studies, are actually a result of job loss for medical reasons. People still break their back and become unable to work in France.)
People still break their back and become unable to work in France.
Do you know much about the social security system in France?
Do you know much about the social security system in France?
Really? They wiped out poverty?
http://www.redbarnet.dk/Default.aspx?ID=2208 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_Canada http://www.economist.com/node/17581844
Poverty exists in every nation in the world.
There are a small percentage of people that have mental or physical issues, and they should be helped by the government. The rest need to get jobs.
If you are stuck in a dead-end job, I don't feel sorry for you. I was stuck in one. It takes hard work, dedication, and sacrifice to get out. I've know a ton of people stuck in those types of jobs and most of them weren't willing to sacrifice their free time for their career. Instead of sitting at home and watching TV, playing video games, or hanging out with your friends when you get home from work, educate yourself. We are in an age where you can get tons of free information online. MIT even has free courses. Hell, if you want to go the less legal route, you can find almost any college textbook in pdf format, for free.
I'm tired of people making excuses for lazy people. It reminds me of when I was in school: we would have group projects where one or two people would do all of the work and the rest (usually 4-5 people) would sit and earn the same amount of credit. I suppose this was a model for real life.
"Meritocracy is a complete myth. The poor work the hardest and most dangerous jobs and the most hours."
If you have a job that anybody can do, you aren't going to get paid very much..because its value is low. Making money has never been just about working hard. It also takes intelligence, skill, and there needs to be value in it.
http://www.redbarnet.dk/Default.aspx?ID=2208 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_Canada http://www.economist.com/node/17581844
Poverty exists in every nation in the world.
There are a small percentage of people that have mental or physical issues, and they should be helped by the government. The rest need to get jobs.
If you are stuck in a dead-end job, I don't feel sorry for you. I was stuck in one. It takes hard work, dedication, and sacrifice to get out. I've know a ton of people stuck in those types of jobs and most of them weren't willing to sacrifice their free time for their career. Instead of sitting at home and watching TV, playing video games, or hanging out with your friends when you get home from work, educate yourself. We are in an age where you can get tons of free information online. MIT even has free courses. Hell, if you want to go the less legal route, you can find almost any college textbook in pdf format, for free.
I'm tired of people making excuses for lazy people. It reminds me of when I was in school: we would have group projects where one or two people would do all of the work and the rest (usually 4-5 people) would sit and earn the same amount of credit. I suppose this was a model for real life.
"Meritocracy is a complete myth. The poor work the hardest and most dangerous jobs and the most hours."
If you have a job that anybody can do, you aren't going to get paid very much..because its value is low. Making money has never been just about working hard. It also takes intelligence, skill, and there needs to be value in it.
Making money is about exploiting economic opportunities. "Value" is an almost meaningless word. The garbage men who take the trash off my curb provide more value than a lot of white collar management, in my opinion. If you're either intelligent and skillful, you'll certainly have a better chance of identifying a desirable economic niche to fill and being able to work your way towards it. But is it right that many of the hardest working people in society, doing undesirable jobs, are compensated so much less than "knowledge workers"? Do you really think an 8 hour day sitting at a desk deserves twice as much pay as an 8 hour day digging a ditch? What the fuck is value? The compensation of a ditch digger has more to do with what a ditch digger can be offered to sustain himself than with any intrinsic 'value' of his work. That's true of a lot of shitty jobs, and it's bullshit that the people who have figured out how to exploit these shitty jobs to generate 'value' also somehow deserve respect, while the exploited are denigrated for their moral failures (such as laziness).
"The garbage men who take the trash off my curb provide more value than a lot of white collar management, in my opinion"
The garbage men in my city get paid $50,000+/year (it's in the midwest). I think this is a pretty good wage.
"Do you really think an 8 hour day sitting at a desk deserves twice as much pay as an 8 hour day digging a ditch? What the fuck is value?"
It's not for me (or you) to decide. If someone is willing to pay a ditch digger $300,000/year, so be it. The market decides value and it's usually based on supply/demand. Since anyone who is under 40, healthy, and has two legs can dig a ditch, I don't see the wages being that high.
"That's true of a lot of shitty jobs, and it's bullshit that the people who have figured out how to exploit these shitty jobs to generate 'value' also somehow deserve respect, while the exploited are denigrated for their moral failures (such as laziness)."
Why don't you start a company and pay ditch diggers the same as office workers? I know you won't, because you would rather force other companies to do it instead.
The garbage men in my city get paid $50,000+/year (it's in the midwest). I think this is a pretty good wage.
"Do you really think an 8 hour day sitting at a desk deserves twice as much pay as an 8 hour day digging a ditch? What the fuck is value?"
It's not for me (or you) to decide. If someone is willing to pay a ditch digger $300,000/year, so be it. The market decides value and it's usually based on supply/demand. Since anyone who is under 40, healthy, and has two legs can dig a ditch, I don't see the wages being that high.
"That's true of a lot of shitty jobs, and it's bullshit that the people who have figured out how to exploit these shitty jobs to generate 'value' also somehow deserve respect, while the exploited are denigrated for their moral failures (such as laziness)."
Why don't you start a company and pay ditch diggers the same as office workers? I know you won't, because you would rather force other companies to do it instead.
Your point about supply and demand determining value is well taken, and I acknowledge that is the way capitalist economies operate. I was criticizing it because I find the commodification of labor to be dehumanizing. If only there were some theory of value that took labor into account...
[deleted]
"If you have a job that anybody can do, you aren't going to get paid very much..because its value is low."
This is not how labor markets work. I think the inappropriate generalization of a HN reader's experience to the working poor in general is aptly addressed by other responders.
This is not how labor markets work. I think the inappropriate generalization of a HN reader's experience to the working poor in general is aptly addressed by other responders.
"This is not how labor markets work."
It's exactly how labor markets work (without the unions inflating wages). The reason Mcdonalds workers are paid a little above minimum wage is because the skill required to do those types of jobs is low. Since it is low, the supply of applicants is huge and the company knows that if you aren't willing to work for them for that wage, they will almost certainly find someone who will. When I say value, I should have said wage, because you and many others seem to be taking the defensive.
"I think the inappropriate generalization of a HN reader's experience to the working poor in general is aptly addressed by other responders."
If you have a low paying job (and you can physically and mentally work), why aren't you trying to find a better one? I really want to know. All I hear are excuses or things that can be changed.
It's exactly how labor markets work (without the unions inflating wages). The reason Mcdonalds workers are paid a little above minimum wage is because the skill required to do those types of jobs is low. Since it is low, the supply of applicants is huge and the company knows that if you aren't willing to work for them for that wage, they will almost certainly find someone who will. When I say value, I should have said wage, because you and many others seem to be taking the defensive.
"I think the inappropriate generalization of a HN reader's experience to the working poor in general is aptly addressed by other responders."
If you have a low paying job (and you can physically and mentally work), why aren't you trying to find a better one? I really want to know. All I hear are excuses or things that can be changed.
I understood your point the first time. I still respectfully disagree, but perhaps someone with more understanding of macro can step in here.
In idealized, infinitely large, rational labor markets, wages are still driven by the interaction of supply and demand. Even in this model, you are ignoring the other half of the equilibrium--that only where employment is available and desired are wages available. It is perfectly possible for large pools of skilled workers to fail to find employment because of insufficient employment opportunity (as an example, consider the tech crash, or Detroit), or for jobs which do not require special skills to command astronomical prices as a result of insufficient labor supply (e.g. Alaskan fisheries or nursing).
Of course, the market is finite. This makes it possible for group pressures to distort the wage price point. You correctly identified one half of these pressures: unionization. The other half is employer pressure, in which a company dominates enough of the job pool that it can set uncompetitive wages. That's a form of monopoly, and is why some folks get really angry about Walmart showing up in their town. Oh, and government regulatory pressure is acting on both sides of this dynamic in various ways, from tax structures to discrimination and safety laws.
It gets worse, actually, because perfect information is not available reflecting the market state, there's a significant lag time between training and employment, and people were never rational actors to begin with.
If this is unconvincing, I encourage you to consider the constraint of social capital.
In idealized, infinitely large, rational labor markets, wages are still driven by the interaction of supply and demand. Even in this model, you are ignoring the other half of the equilibrium--that only where employment is available and desired are wages available. It is perfectly possible for large pools of skilled workers to fail to find employment because of insufficient employment opportunity (as an example, consider the tech crash, or Detroit), or for jobs which do not require special skills to command astronomical prices as a result of insufficient labor supply (e.g. Alaskan fisheries or nursing).
Of course, the market is finite. This makes it possible for group pressures to distort the wage price point. You correctly identified one half of these pressures: unionization. The other half is employer pressure, in which a company dominates enough of the job pool that it can set uncompetitive wages. That's a form of monopoly, and is why some folks get really angry about Walmart showing up in their town. Oh, and government regulatory pressure is acting on both sides of this dynamic in various ways, from tax structures to discrimination and safety laws.
It gets worse, actually, because perfect information is not available reflecting the market state, there's a significant lag time between training and employment, and people were never rational actors to begin with.
If this is unconvincing, I encourage you to consider the constraint of social capital.
You're delusional and narcissistic and clearly incapable of understanding another person's life beyond your own. What about the people who work back to back jobs at minimum wage and still can't afford to get educated or gain the necessary skills? There are plenty of people working just to pay their bills and barely treading water.
|Poverty exists in every nation in the world.
The poverty in those countries doesn't even begin to compare to the poverty in the US, in terms of number or hardship. Those countries all have national healthcare.
|If you are stuck in a dead-end job, I don't feel sorry for you.
Yes because those people are so inferior they deserve to live in squalor. Great attitude.
|Hell, if you want to go the less legal route, you can find almost any college textbook in pdf format, for free.
You're assuming everyone has access to the internet, a computer, and knows how to torrent.
|If you have a job that anybody can do, you aren't going to get paid very much..because its value is low. Making money has never been just about working hard. It also takes intelligence, skill, and there needs to be value in it.
What about the millions upon millions of people working jobs in construction, fruit picking/packing, working in warehouses, garbage disposal, retail, or any number of other jobs.
Some people are born into poverty and because of one reason or another are never able to escape it. I don't think everyone deserves that, even if they aren't a Mensa members. Clearly intelligence does not make you a better person. You need to go read Howard Zinn. He explains this much more eloquently than I can. I find your entire rationalization of poverty to be completely bogus, unfounded, and disconnected from reality.
|Poverty exists in every nation in the world.
The poverty in those countries doesn't even begin to compare to the poverty in the US, in terms of number or hardship. Those countries all have national healthcare.
|If you are stuck in a dead-end job, I don't feel sorry for you.
Yes because those people are so inferior they deserve to live in squalor. Great attitude.
|Hell, if you want to go the less legal route, you can find almost any college textbook in pdf format, for free.
You're assuming everyone has access to the internet, a computer, and knows how to torrent.
|If you have a job that anybody can do, you aren't going to get paid very much..because its value is low. Making money has never been just about working hard. It also takes intelligence, skill, and there needs to be value in it.
What about the millions upon millions of people working jobs in construction, fruit picking/packing, working in warehouses, garbage disposal, retail, or any number of other jobs.
Some people are born into poverty and because of one reason or another are never able to escape it. I don't think everyone deserves that, even if they aren't a Mensa members. Clearly intelligence does not make you a better person. You need to go read Howard Zinn. He explains this much more eloquently than I can. I find your entire rationalization of poverty to be completely bogus, unfounded, and disconnected from reality.
"he poverty in those countries doesn't even begin to compare to the poverty in the US, in terms of number or hardship. Those countries all have national healthcare."
85% of the population has healthcare in the US. Hospitals will also not turn down someone that goes there in an emergency.
"Yes because those people are so inferior they deserve to live in squalor. Great attitude."
I gave you reasons why, if you want to make up your own, it's fine by me.
"You're assuming everyone has access to the internet, a computer, and knows how to torrent." That was just a suggestion. You can find things legally (and free). Every library in every major city in the US has free Internet.
"What about the millions upon millions of people working jobs in construction, fruit picking/packing, working in warehouses, garbage disposal, retail, or any number of other jobs."
They are paid what they are worth. Fruit picking? Probably low paying, because the supply is much higher. Many of the other jobs you mention are well above minimum wage (and some are unionized).
"Some people are born into poverty and because of one reason or another are never able to escape it." Give me a good reason why someone (without being mentally or physically incapable) can't escape it?
"I find your entire rationalization of poverty to be completely bogus, unfounded, and disconnected from reality."
If the book you mention spews the same garbage in your posts, I'm not going to bother.
85% of the population has healthcare in the US. Hospitals will also not turn down someone that goes there in an emergency.
"Yes because those people are so inferior they deserve to live in squalor. Great attitude."
I gave you reasons why, if you want to make up your own, it's fine by me.
"You're assuming everyone has access to the internet, a computer, and knows how to torrent." That was just a suggestion. You can find things legally (and free). Every library in every major city in the US has free Internet.
"What about the millions upon millions of people working jobs in construction, fruit picking/packing, working in warehouses, garbage disposal, retail, or any number of other jobs."
They are paid what they are worth. Fruit picking? Probably low paying, because the supply is much higher. Many of the other jobs you mention are well above minimum wage (and some are unionized).
"Some people are born into poverty and because of one reason or another are never able to escape it." Give me a good reason why someone (without being mentally or physically incapable) can't escape it?
"I find your entire rationalization of poverty to be completely bogus, unfounded, and disconnected from reality."
If the book you mention spews the same garbage in your posts, I'm not going to bother.
|85% of the population has healthcare in the US. Hospitals will also not turn down someone that goes there in an emergency.
Compared to 100% in the countries I mentioned. Also, healthcare in the US doesn't even cover the full cost, there are still premiums and deductibles and dental is usually ~60% compared to 100% in other countries.
Your argument is based on blaming the poor, over and over again. It must be easy blaming the most vulnerable class.
Compared to 100% in the countries I mentioned. Also, healthcare in the US doesn't even cover the full cost, there are still premiums and deductibles and dental is usually ~60% compared to 100% in other countries.
Your argument is based on blaming the poor, over and over again. It must be easy blaming the most vulnerable class.
"Compared to 100% in the countries I mentioned. Also, healthcare in the US doesn't even cover the full cost, there are still premiums and deductibles and dental is usually ~60% compared to 100% in other countries.
Your argument is based on blaming the poor, over and over again. It must be easy blaming the most vulnerable class."
I'm blaming people that can work, but choose not to due to their free will. Are these people poor? most likely, yes. You lump these people in the same group as the people that are physically or mentally unable to work.
Quality and quantity are different. The US may not have the best overall coverage (due to cost), but the quality of our hospitals are the best in the world. I personally wouldn't want to go anywhere else.
I would love to have universal health care, but it's just not a scalable system. When people know everything is covered, many will go to the doctor or hospital when they don't really need to (hey, I'm paying for it). This will result in long lines and too few doctors for too many patients.
I've seen this at a much smaller scale with a few of my past employers that have "unlimited technical support". Those companies were always over-worked and couldn't afford to hire more staff. This was because people would call us up for the smallest things. If they were charged per-hour or per-call, the business could have scaled much better. The customers would have also gotten better support because the staff wasn't over-worked.
Even though you probably will deny it, this does happen in Canada and many other countries that have government-run healthcare. All of my relatives live in Canada. Most come over here for any major surgery because the waiting list is too long. I know this is just anecdotal evidence, but I've heard this many times before. I know it's not an isolated incident.
If there was a system that limited doctor visits (IE: you get a limited amount per year) and then you were charged money after that. This would prevent our hospitals and doctors offices from being swamped and possibly allow us to keep some sort of quality. I know it would never happen, because the government-run healthcare advocates want all or nothing.
I'm blaming people that can work, but choose not to due to their free will. Are these people poor? most likely, yes. You lump these people in the same group as the people that are physically or mentally unable to work.
Quality and quantity are different. The US may not have the best overall coverage (due to cost), but the quality of our hospitals are the best in the world. I personally wouldn't want to go anywhere else.
I would love to have universal health care, but it's just not a scalable system. When people know everything is covered, many will go to the doctor or hospital when they don't really need to (hey, I'm paying for it). This will result in long lines and too few doctors for too many patients.
I've seen this at a much smaller scale with a few of my past employers that have "unlimited technical support". Those companies were always over-worked and couldn't afford to hire more staff. This was because people would call us up for the smallest things. If they were charged per-hour or per-call, the business could have scaled much better. The customers would have also gotten better support because the staff wasn't over-worked.
Even though you probably will deny it, this does happen in Canada and many other countries that have government-run healthcare. All of my relatives live in Canada. Most come over here for any major surgery because the waiting list is too long. I know this is just anecdotal evidence, but I've heard this many times before. I know it's not an isolated incident.
If there was a system that limited doctor visits (IE: you get a limited amount per year) and then you were charged money after that. This would prevent our hospitals and doctors offices from being swamped and possibly allow us to keep some sort of quality. I know it would never happen, because the government-run healthcare advocates want all or nothing.
[deleted]
But the working poor who suffer only because they haven't had opportunities are the ones who "have life expectancies, security of food and shelter and rates of possession of consumer durables that mark them out as among the blessed of history." All of which isn't to say that we can't afford to do more to help the unfortunate in our country, but comparing the plight of the poor in the US to the plight of the poor in, say, the Congo is ludicrous.
|All of which isn't to say that we can't afford to do more to help the unfortunate in our country
Are you saying it's impossible to help the poor in US? I'm not sure, but I completely think that's a cop-out and that we very easily could. The fact that the top 20% have 85% of the wealth should be all the proof we need. Imagine if the top 20% only have say 60% or even 40%? It would be very easy to imagine a world were the minimum wage were higher ie a living wage and where healthcare is available to all. Go to Germany for instance, they make ~15 euros an hour at Wal-Mart, get 2 months paid vacation, and have free healthcare. To say this is impossible in the US is absolutely just false. It just takes political will.
Are you saying it's impossible to help the poor in US? I'm not sure, but I completely think that's a cop-out and that we very easily could. The fact that the top 20% have 85% of the wealth should be all the proof we need. Imagine if the top 20% only have say 60% or even 40%? It would be very easy to imagine a world were the minimum wage were higher ie a living wage and where healthcare is available to all. Go to Germany for instance, they make ~15 euros an hour at Wal-Mart, get 2 months paid vacation, and have free healthcare. To say this is impossible in the US is absolutely just false. It just takes political will.
Don't know about Canada in general, but Vancouver BC has a lot of homeless on the streets. Do you have a comparison of poverty levels between Canada and the US you can cite?
This is pretty useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Canadian_and_Amer...
I did read an article in either Mother Jones or the Economist a while back about this but I couldn't find it (after googling for a few minutes). Also, Canada has national healthcare and in many ways better access to opportunities such as college, it also has a higher standard of living.
I did read an article in either Mother Jones or the Economist a while back about this but I couldn't find it (after googling for a few minutes). Also, Canada has national healthcare and in many ways better access to opportunities such as college, it also has a higher standard of living.
The poor work the hardest and most dangerous jobs and the most hours.
Utterly wrong. 80% of the poor don't work at all (and are not seeking work), and only 10% work full time (mostly by choice).
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf
Please stop repeating propaganda.
Utterly wrong. 80% of the poor don't work at all (and are not seeking work), and only 10% work full time (mostly by choice).
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf
Please stop repeating propaganda.
20% are working poor. 35% are children. Of the remaining 45%, half of them are women, almost all with children. Often the issue with working when you have children to take care of is the inability to afford childcare if you take a job. The costs of childcare for two children can easily make a minimum wage job untenable.
What's propaganda is the idea that ranks of the poor are populated by low-life do-nothings, and if we only just ripped what little safety net they had out from under them, they'd all be startup entrepreneurs writing Twitter mashups like good citizens.
What's propaganda is the idea that ranks of the poor are populated by low-life do-nothings, and if we only just ripped what little safety net they had out from under them, they'd all be startup entrepreneurs writing Twitter mashups like good citizens.
The poor have a labor force participation rate of 20% and full time labor force participation rate of 10%.
The population overall (which is also 30% children) has a labor force participation rate of 65% and a full time labor force participation rate of 55%. I assumed everyone was roughly aware of this, which is why I didn't bother including it in my prior post.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
And if childcare is the real problem here, there is a very simple solution: one of the unemployed women can care for the children of several of the others (as well as her own). This is what hard working poor people do (outside the US).
[edit: before you tell me how hard the poor struggle with non-employment activities, go read the ATUS. The people with earnings in the $0-500/wk category (they don't explicitly break out "in poverty") spend half an hour per day on leisure more than the highest income group.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm ]
The population overall (which is also 30% children) has a labor force participation rate of 65% and a full time labor force participation rate of 55%. I assumed everyone was roughly aware of this, which is why I didn't bother including it in my prior post.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
And if childcare is the real problem here, there is a very simple solution: one of the unemployed women can care for the children of several of the others (as well as her own). This is what hard working poor people do (outside the US).
[edit: before you tell me how hard the poor struggle with non-employment activities, go read the ATUS. The people with earnings in the $0-500/wk category (they don't explicitly break out "in poverty") spend half an hour per day on leisure more than the highest income group.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm ]
The population overall (which is also 30% children) has a labor force participation rate of 65% and a full time labor force participation rate of 55%.
Yes, but you're forgetting the simple fact that those people are not poor. There has been a wealth of sociological studies and data about poverty, it's mental, emotional, and social effects, and I would sincerely suggest reading up on them.
the poor don't work anywhere near as hard as the rest of us.
I disagree. A significant portion of "the rest of us" may be employed, but don't work nearly as hard as most of the poor, especially considering the requirements of raising children on a very small budget in often dangerous neighborhoods. Being poor in the U.S. is without a doubt a daily struggle.
And if childcare is the real problem here, there is a very simple solution
What you're suggesting is a system of mutual aid, which I wouldn't disagree with, but you should be careful to present it as easy or simple, let alone a silver bullet. If you've never actually worked on a mutual aid project focused on poverty then I would suggest doing so, it would be an enlightening experience as to the dilemmas and pitfalls that crop up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_aid_society
before you tell me how hard the poor struggle with non-employment activities
I think you have a very narrow view of what life in poverty entails. I think this is something I would recommend you learn more about. There are plenty of resources out there, not just studies, but stories told by people both in and recently out of poverty. Here's a glimpse:
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2005/09/03/being-poor/
Yes, but you're forgetting the simple fact that those people are not poor. There has been a wealth of sociological studies and data about poverty, it's mental, emotional, and social effects, and I would sincerely suggest reading up on them.
the poor don't work anywhere near as hard as the rest of us.
I disagree. A significant portion of "the rest of us" may be employed, but don't work nearly as hard as most of the poor, especially considering the requirements of raising children on a very small budget in often dangerous neighborhoods. Being poor in the U.S. is without a doubt a daily struggle.
And if childcare is the real problem here, there is a very simple solution
What you're suggesting is a system of mutual aid, which I wouldn't disagree with, but you should be careful to present it as easy or simple, let alone a silver bullet. If you've never actually worked on a mutual aid project focused on poverty then I would suggest doing so, it would be an enlightening experience as to the dilemmas and pitfalls that crop up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_aid_society
before you tell me how hard the poor struggle with non-employment activities
I think you have a very narrow view of what life in poverty entails. I think this is something I would recommend you learn more about. There are plenty of resources out there, not just studies, but stories told by people both in and recently out of poverty. Here's a glimpse:
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2005/09/03/being-poor/
I didn't dispute that poor people are poor, or that they might be sociologically, mentally or emotionally different from the non-poor. In fact, I strongly believe that these mental differences (mostly in the areas of laziness) are the cause of their poverty.
I simply asserted that they work less, and provided statistics. All you offered in response is data-free assertions that no, they really do work hard in spite of what the official statistics say.
Also, I happen to know mutual aid works because I've seen it work. This is what hard working poor people do in (for example) Peru, Mexico and India. You might not be able to persuade US poor people to do it (after all, why work when you can watch TV and eat chips), but that doesn't mean they can't do it. It simply means they don't want to.
I think this is something I would recommend you learn more about. There are plenty of resources out there, not just studies, but stories told by people both in and recently out of poverty. Here's a glimpse:
Oh wow, a long list of unsupported claims about what it's like to be poor. I guess this means all the statistics I linked to must be incorrect.
I've got an idea. Since BLS surveys comprise the vast majority of government spending (don't bother we me with citations to the CBO showing this is incorrect), maybe we can cure our budget deficit by forgoing the data collection and just asking some random guy on the internet for baseless assertions.
I give up.
I simply asserted that they work less, and provided statistics. All you offered in response is data-free assertions that no, they really do work hard in spite of what the official statistics say.
Also, I happen to know mutual aid works because I've seen it work. This is what hard working poor people do in (for example) Peru, Mexico and India. You might not be able to persuade US poor people to do it (after all, why work when you can watch TV and eat chips), but that doesn't mean they can't do it. It simply means they don't want to.
I think this is something I would recommend you learn more about. There are plenty of resources out there, not just studies, but stories told by people both in and recently out of poverty. Here's a glimpse:
Oh wow, a long list of unsupported claims about what it's like to be poor. I guess this means all the statistics I linked to must be incorrect.
I've got an idea. Since BLS surveys comprise the vast majority of government spending (don't bother we me with citations to the CBO showing this is incorrect), maybe we can cure our budget deficit by forgoing the data collection and just asking some random guy on the internet for baseless assertions.
I give up.
You might not be able to persuade US poor people to do it (after all, why work when you can watch TV and eat chips)
I'm not saying that, you are, and it's pretty insulting the attitude you're taking. I'm saying that I've actually worked on said projects, with varying levels of success. I'm suggesting you work on starting similar projects in the U.S., because it would provide a necessary perspective which you seem to lack.
I give up
I'm suggesting that government statistics only tell part of the story. I'm assuming you've never been poor in the U.S., so I think it would be useful for you to understand things from that perspective. You seem uninterested, however.
I'm not saying that, you are, and it's pretty insulting the attitude you're taking. I'm saying that I've actually worked on said projects, with varying levels of success. I'm suggesting you work on starting similar projects in the U.S., because it would provide a necessary perspective which you seem to lack.
I give up
I'm suggesting that government statistics only tell part of the story. I'm assuming you've never been poor in the U.S., so I think it would be useful for you to understand things from that perspective. You seem uninterested, however.
I lived just above the poverty line in graduate school, and I've spent half my entire adult live living in either low income neighborhoods or neighborhoods with many low income residents [1].
As for mutual aid, perhaps you can explain to us why Peruvian peasants seem to figure it out all by themselves, but poor Americans can't. Is it because the American poor, sitting on their couch with no job, have it so much harder than the uneducated Peruvians waking up at 5AM for the 1000ft climb to reach the potato/coca/corn fields they work on?
[1] Harlem no longer qualifies as low income, but plenty of the people there have low/no income.
As for mutual aid, perhaps you can explain to us why Peruvian peasants seem to figure it out all by themselves, but poor Americans can't. Is it because the American poor, sitting on their couch with no job, have it so much harder than the uneducated Peruvians waking up at 5AM for the 1000ft climb to reach the potato/coca/corn fields they work on?
[1] Harlem no longer qualifies as low income, but plenty of the people there have low/no income.
I lived just above the poverty line in graduate school, and I've spent half my entire adult live living in either low income neighborhoods or neighborhoods with many low income residents
That's not really the same for many reasons.
why Peruvian peasants seem to figure it out all by themselves, but poor Americans can't
That's partially true, but understanding the complexities of why that is is what I'm trying to suggest you discover for yourself. I can guarantee you that the situation is not reducible to such a simplistic charge of laziness.
That's not really the same for many reasons.
why Peruvian peasants seem to figure it out all by themselves, but poor Americans can't
That's partially true, but understanding the complexities of why that is is what I'm trying to suggest you discover for yourself. I can guarantee you that the situation is not reducible to such a simplistic charge of laziness.
The numbers you present and the quote you dispute talk past each other.
Besides that, you're numbers above appear to be wrong. From the link you sent it appears that about 2/3 of the labor force in poverty works full time.
Besides that, you're numbers above appear to be wrong. From the link you sent it appears that about 2/3 of the labor force in poverty works full time.
My mistake - the actual full time labor force participation rate of the poor is 12%, not 10%.
|Please stop repeating propaganda.
You're the one spewing the same old "blame the poor!" propaganda. Go look at the dishwasher at your favorite restaurant and ask him what other jobs he does. He probably has a second and possibly a third job.
You just can't conceive of another person's reality other than your own.
It's not propaganda and the 80% of poor you're referring to are mostly children and women (raising children), and the rest are drug addicts and mentally ill people who have virtually no safety nets. Get a clue.
You're the one spewing the same old "blame the poor!" propaganda. Go look at the dishwasher at your favorite restaurant and ask him what other jobs he does. He probably has a second and possibly a third job.
You just can't conceive of another person's reality other than your own.
It's not propaganda and the 80% of poor you're referring to are mostly children and women (raising children), and the rest are drug addicts and mentally ill people who have virtually no safety nets. Get a clue.
An imagined anecdote (what you provided) is not a substitute for data (what I provided).
I'm guessing one of the big reasons we still have poor people is simply human preferences, as well as the fact that poverty is defined in relative rather than absolute terms.
Some people prefer to consume goods and services. These people trade work for money, and have many goods and services.
Other people prefer to consume leisure and avoid work. They have a standard of living lower than the workers (from who they receive large subsidies), but still much larger than the historical average. If we properly accounted for leisure, we would realize how well off even the "poor" are.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf (This report shows that most of the poor consume leisure.)
Some people prefer to consume goods and services. These people trade work for money, and have many goods and services.
Other people prefer to consume leisure and avoid work. They have a standard of living lower than the workers (from who they receive large subsidies), but still much larger than the historical average. If we properly accounted for leisure, we would realize how well off even the "poor" are.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf (This report shows that most of the poor consume leisure.)
Yes, the reason that poor people are poor is that they're lazy.
And the reason rich people are rich is because they're hard-working and deserving.
It has nothing to do with educational opportunities, wealthy parents, or anything like that. That 50-year-old housekeeper who almost graduated from high school, but couldn't because she had to work after her mother lost one of her two jobs? She's poor because SHE'S LAZY, never mind that she spends 9 hours a day scrubbing toilets. And the CEO who got the job because his father is a Senator and works about 10 hours a week? He's rich because HE DESERVES IT.
> http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf (This report shows that most of the poor consume leisure.)
It shows nothing of the sort. The word "leisure" isn't even in that report. In fact the report says that the working poor are usually screwed by circumstances beyond their control - layoffs, involuntary part-time work, pay that is illegally below minimum wage.
And the reason rich people are rich is because they're hard-working and deserving.
It has nothing to do with educational opportunities, wealthy parents, or anything like that. That 50-year-old housekeeper who almost graduated from high school, but couldn't because she had to work after her mother lost one of her two jobs? She's poor because SHE'S LAZY, never mind that she spends 9 hours a day scrubbing toilets. And the CEO who got the job because his father is a Senator and works about 10 hours a week? He's rich because HE DESERVES IT.
> http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf (This report shows that most of the poor consume leisure.)
It shows nothing of the sort. The word "leisure" isn't even in that report. In fact the report says that the working poor are usually screwed by circumstances beyond their control - layoffs, involuntary part-time work, pay that is illegally below minimum wage.
If you bothered to read the first couple of paragraphs of the report, it would tell you that most of the poor are not working poor (by choice). If you skipped ahead to the tables, you'd realize it also tells you that only 12% of the poor work full time for at least 27 weeks/year.
You are committing a logical fallacy. You are acting as if I made a blanket statement rather than a statistical one, and refuting only the (obviously false) blanket statement.
If you want a report on leisure, rather than simply not working, here you go: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm
That doesn't specifically carve out the poor, but it shows that people with low income consume 30 min/day more leisure than the highest income groups. The "not employed" (a category which encompasses about 80% of the poor) get considerably more than 30 min/day.
Sorry if the inconvenient facts get in the way of your moral posturing.
You are committing a logical fallacy. You are acting as if I made a blanket statement rather than a statistical one, and refuting only the (obviously false) blanket statement.
If you want a report on leisure, rather than simply not working, here you go: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm
That doesn't specifically carve out the poor, but it shows that people with low income consume 30 min/day more leisure than the highest income groups. The "not employed" (a category which encompasses about 80% of the poor) get considerably more than 30 min/day.
Sorry if the inconvenient facts get in the way of your moral posturing.
In societies without a welfare government, non-working poor people have to beg. In other words, they still work in the sense of trading their time for money. The poor do not have the option to live in idleness (like the rich do.)
The trouble is that the poverty rate, like the unemployment rate, can never actually fall to zero in a market economy. "Full employment" still results in an unemployment rate of 2 - 6% (depending on how you're counting.) There are always going to be layoffs, family illnesses, fights with the boss, etc. that keep everyone from being employed all the time. In a healthy economy, though, those people are quickly cycling through unemployment and back into the workforce.
In a similar way, something like a 10% poverty rate would probably qualify as "zero poverty." The goal, then, of anti-poverty initiatives should not be to eliminate poverty or to simply provide for the basic needs of the poor (1). The goal should be to ensure that each person below the poverty line is set up to rise up out of poverty as quickly as possible. The trouble is that the programs that help the poor the most (education, substance abuse treatment) are labor-intensive and expensive.
(1) One possible exception - providing for the basic needs of children in poverty.
In a similar way, something like a 10% poverty rate would probably qualify as "zero poverty." The goal, then, of anti-poverty initiatives should not be to eliminate poverty or to simply provide for the basic needs of the poor (1). The goal should be to ensure that each person below the poverty line is set up to rise up out of poverty as quickly as possible. The trouble is that the programs that help the poor the most (education, substance abuse treatment) are labor-intensive and expensive.
(1) One possible exception - providing for the basic needs of children in poverty.
The other issue, which has gotten more and deserved press lately, is that of zero marginal product workers: http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/01... . Some people do not appear to offer any margin on their labor, which is a big structural problem that I don't think anyone knows how to solve. If you're interested in the subject, see the link.
Ever see a poor person in a Hugh Grant movie? I propose ending poverty by shuttling Hugh Grant all around the world.
A corollary question, Who Are the Poor [1]?
----
[1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S-O6WDalug
----
[1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S-O6WDalug
[deleted]
[deleted]
There are two ways not to be poor: either you're productive yourself or you are supported by someone who is productive.
If you are not productive, it's because you don't want to be or because you can't. You may not want to be productive if it's easier or more pleasant not to be (eg, if you're receiving large unemployment check from the government.) You can't be productive if factors outside of your control prevent you (eg, you suffer from a severe handicap, you're in prison, or no one will hire you.)
If you're not supported by someone, it's because you either don't want help or you don't have anyone in your life whose willing and able to support you.
In the modern, these two cases (being productive and having someone willing and able to support you) are often merged. For example, there are many people who are essentially professional beggars. They are not productive in the way a farmer is. A farmer works at farming and lives directly off of the wealth produced by the farm which he trades. In contrast, a fundraiser for a charity works at convincing people to give for something that is only indirectly beneficial to themselves.
Sometimes the same person may play both of these roles. A politician may ask a working person to vote for him because he will provide students with financial aid. The politician in this case is acting as a kind of professional beggar on behalf of students. The worker who votes for the politician does not expect to receive a direct benefit. The worker's vote is an act of charity. The same politician may ask a student for her vote because he will increase her government-provided student aid. The student's vote is a kind of business decision. (Although of questionable morality since her vote is not a vote for charity so much as a vote for coercing others to give.)
The social welfare state has also given rise to what are essentially unemployed beggars: People who in the past might have lived off of the charity of others but now don't even ask for support. They simply declare their need to the government which supports them.
If you are not productive, it's because you don't want to be or because you can't. You may not want to be productive if it's easier or more pleasant not to be (eg, if you're receiving large unemployment check from the government.) You can't be productive if factors outside of your control prevent you (eg, you suffer from a severe handicap, you're in prison, or no one will hire you.)
If you're not supported by someone, it's because you either don't want help or you don't have anyone in your life whose willing and able to support you.
In the modern, these two cases (being productive and having someone willing and able to support you) are often merged. For example, there are many people who are essentially professional beggars. They are not productive in the way a farmer is. A farmer works at farming and lives directly off of the wealth produced by the farm which he trades. In contrast, a fundraiser for a charity works at convincing people to give for something that is only indirectly beneficial to themselves.
Sometimes the same person may play both of these roles. A politician may ask a working person to vote for him because he will provide students with financial aid. The politician in this case is acting as a kind of professional beggar on behalf of students. The worker who votes for the politician does not expect to receive a direct benefit. The worker's vote is an act of charity. The same politician may ask a student for her vote because he will increase her government-provided student aid. The student's vote is a kind of business decision. (Although of questionable morality since her vote is not a vote for charity so much as a vote for coercing others to give.)
The social welfare state has also given rise to what are essentially unemployed beggars: People who in the past might have lived off of the charity of others but now don't even ask for support. They simply declare their need to the government which supports them.
I think you have a major misconception about how welfare works in the U.S. The idea of a "large government check" or that living off of welfare is preferable to a living wage job, is not really realistic. Since welfare reform in the 90's, TANF, for instance, runs out in just over two years.
Further, countries which have the greatest welfare systems available, don't suffer from the kind of malaise people often incorrectly correlate with the availability of welfare.
Further, countries which have the greatest welfare systems available, don't suffer from the kind of malaise people often incorrectly correlate with the availability of welfare.
The choice that welfare allows is: welfare (much leisure with little money) versus work (little leisure with X money), where X depends on your productivity. For people with little productivity, welfare looks very attractive.
You make a series of egregious assumptions in your analysis of poverty. First, is that "productivity" is fixed in any way. New skills can be learned, attitudes can change, etc. I would especially argue against the idea that leisure is a virtue amongst the poor, instead arguing that depression and social alienation are greater issues than a culture of leisure.
Second, you ignore the point that welfare, in the U.S., is not perpetual. TANF expires after 60 months. Unemployment runs out. Disability requires a disability, etc.
In fact, there's a strong case against what you're arguing, because countries such as Norway, Sweden, Germany, which have extensive welfare systems, do not follow the trajectory of encouraging low productivity as you would suggest they do.
Second, you ignore the point that welfare, in the U.S., is not perpetual. TANF expires after 60 months. Unemployment runs out. Disability requires a disability, etc.
In fact, there's a strong case against what you're arguing, because countries such as Norway, Sweden, Germany, which have extensive welfare systems, do not follow the trajectory of encouraging low productivity as you would suggest they do.
> I would especially argue against the idea that leisure is a virtue amongst the poor. . .
Leisure may not be good for the poor (because it leads to depression and social alienation) but it is valued by the poor. Just like an alcoholic may value a drink even though it causes him harm. All things being equal, leisure is generally preferred over work.
> welfare, in the U.S., is not perpetual . . .
The fact that the government-offered choice not to work may not be permanent does not mean that it does not contribute to poverty. If I can spend spend five years of my life not working, making kids, and getting myself in trouble, not only am I likely to be poor during those five years, but I may well continue to be poor for a long time thereafter as a result of the choices I made during those five years.
See http://nationalinterest.org/article/swedish-models-869?page=... for a long answer on why Sweden does not present a good model for welfare.
Leisure may not be good for the poor (because it leads to depression and social alienation) but it is valued by the poor. Just like an alcoholic may value a drink even though it causes him harm. All things being equal, leisure is generally preferred over work.
> welfare, in the U.S., is not perpetual . . .
The fact that the government-offered choice not to work may not be permanent does not mean that it does not contribute to poverty. If I can spend spend five years of my life not working, making kids, and getting myself in trouble, not only am I likely to be poor during those five years, but I may well continue to be poor for a long time thereafter as a result of the choices I made during those five years.
See http://nationalinterest.org/article/swedish-models-869?page=... for a long answer on why Sweden does not present a good model for welfare.