If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   When you read about "The Poverty Line" in America, keep in mind the line was originally set in 1963 and it assumes all houses have a full-time housewife who is a "skilled cook" and "careful shopper" to stretch their budget   (theatlantic.com) divider line 95
    More: Interesting, abstract concepts  
•       •       •

10020 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jan 2014 at 2:11 PM (36 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-01-09 02:28:11 PM
22 votes:
Which actually tells you how bad things have really gotten in America
look at this graph:
www.doctorhousingbubble.com

now look at this one:
www.davemanuel.com

See the Problem?   Yes the median HOUSEHOLD income has risen slightly, but only because DOUBLE the number of people per household are working in most of them.

Those numbers are particularly appalling when you look at charts like this:
2.bp.blogspot.com

and this one, combined witht he ones above, should inspire you to dust off your torches and pitch forks:
graphics8.nytimes.com

The tide is rising but only some boats are benefiting while others are taking on water so fast they can barely stay afloat
2014-01-09 02:13:03 PM
20 votes:
The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.
2014-01-09 02:39:22 PM
15 votes:

Magorn: Which actually tells you how bad things have really gotten in America
look at this graph:
[www.doctorhousingbubble.com image 436x351]

now look at this one:
[www.davemanuel.com image 400x300]

See the Problem?   Yes the median HOUSEHOLD income has risen slightly, but only because DOUBLE the number of people per household are working in most of them.

Those numbers are particularly appalling when you look at charts like this:
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 725x537]

and this one, combined witht he ones above, should inspire you to dust off your torches and pitch forks:
[graphics8.nytimes.com image 511x452]

The tide is rising but only some boats are benefiting while others are taking on water so fast they can barely stay afloat


It's because the vast majority of employees have very little bargaining power with their employers.  We have seen a concerted effort to undermine and eliminate unionization, and have failed to enacted other laws that grant rights to employees.

The reason why wages have been falling isn't a mystery - our legal system (including right to work laws, "at will" employment, and very few mandated benefits) results in management having the freedom to pay employees low wages and benefits, and hire and fire them for whatever reason they want.  The typical employee is not in a position to negotiate with management for better job security, better pay, more benefits, etc.

It's just ridiculous for people to desperately try to explain the stagnation of wages as being primarily caused by anything else.
2014-01-09 02:58:37 PM
9 votes:
We have the occasional "grocery bill" thread here on the Fark dot coms and I always shudder at some of the totals that get posted. $200 a WEEK for a couple/small family or even a single person seems to be acceptable. Admittedly I am thrifty, single, know how to cook, don't really buy junk food and don't cram my piehole at the slightest little tummy grumble but I eat rather well on $70-80 per MONTH and could bring that WAY down if I was willing to spend more time doing prep/cooking.

That said the cost of food, especially staples, has soared as has all essential costs like housing, transportation, etc while the wages have not only stagnated but have been going DOWN when factoring in inflation, benefits, full time status (working two decently paid part time jobs is FAR more expensive than one meagerly compensated full time job) and the like.

We have trained the past couple of generations to be the ultimate bean counters who specialize in nickel and dime tactics to squeeze every last micro cent and millisecond out of every scenario they can while the salesmen lull everyone into believing they are subhuman for not making fiscally irresponsible purchases even if it means going into to debt at ridiculously high interest rates.

Then, those seemingly intelligent and cautious few who scrimp and save and claw their way into saving and investing or slave their way through jobs with supposed retirement benefits have their entire efforts wiped out every decade or so funneling it into the pockets of the very same people who would shame them if they did anything less than complete and utter meekness and subservience. Of course once the grift is complete those same entities that cried poverty and "too big to fail" have gotten their bailouts and reduced the quality of life for everyone everywhere start reporting "RECORD PROFITS" a few short years later while their victims are too old and tired to hold them accountable for their crimes.

My solution? Completely overhaul how business and economics is taught. These types of business models do NOT work in the long term despite the huge short term gains. If corporations want to be citizens and want their own little social safety net then they should also realize, that like the rest of us, contributing to that society for it's overall and sustained health will benefit them in the long run as well.

No one can buy your useless, overpriced crap if no one has the money to pay for it. I think this last ass raping we received by corporate America is about as far as it can go. The next big heist will sink the ship and even the suits will be out here with us dirty poors in the streets scrounging for rat corpses.
2014-01-09 02:30:11 PM
8 votes:

CleanAndPure: Lots of rich people are rich because of hard work... others have done little.

Lots of poor people are poor despite lots of hard work... others due to laziness.


Interesting that the rich people who have do little work aren't lazy but the poor people are.
2014-01-09 02:23:03 PM
8 votes:

telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?

boygeniusreport.files.wordpress.com

They don't pay their workers overtime, they tell their workers how to apply for food stamps, they discriminate against women...
2014-01-09 03:27:31 PM
7 votes:
So, the general consensus is people are poor because they're ignorant/stupid.

Well, obviously a good education is the cure.

oh, wait. We have an entire political party dedicated to privatizing education and eliminating critical thinking from the curriculum.

Well, we can fix that by sending them to college right?

oh, wait, crushing debt and a lack of jobs that pay enough for people to pay back the debt.
2014-01-09 02:17:05 PM
7 votes:

ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


How hard you work and what you're paid arnt really too correlated.

Lots of rich people are rich because of hard work... others have done little.

Lots of poor people are poor despite lots of hard work... others due to laziness.
2014-01-09 02:12:13 PM
7 votes:
And no need for daycare
2014-01-09 04:11:36 PM
5 votes:

Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: Phinn: ikanreed:
Here's the bullshiat.  That's it.  What you do, like what I did, required a lot of free time for education from your parents in your youth.  A lot of money and free time for education in your young adulthood, and a foot in the door with respect to "respectability".  It's not "difficult" but it is rare(er).

Are you implying that my access to education was somehow greater that that of the poor? I was public school educated at no cost to my parents other than feeding me. I attended university while working and paid for it all myself.  My scholastic aptitude is the only advantage I would have over some of the poor.  I would assume many of them probably have greater aptitude than I.  But I made wiser life choices.  I had no children (easy to do) until I was settled. I made other basic sound decisions.  Nothing I did was ever extreme or overly difficult. My opportunities were not particularly rare. I paid attention in public school. I attended regularly. I generally did about the minimum required of me.


WHICH public school?  How many resources did they have?  IS it like the HS  my son attends now that spent $65 million building the place and has everything a school could want since home prices in my area are some of the highest in the nation, or was it like the one in Chicago he went to for 1st grade where they had to ask parents to donate an old books they had lying around so the school could finally have an actual library?   How much money did they have to pay teachers? could they attract the best and brightest or did they have to make do with the inexperienced and burnt out?   Could you "pay attention" in class because of your innate status as an ubermencsh or did it have to do with the fact that your family could afford to send you to school on a full stomach so you could concentrate (and take you to a doctor and get medicines if you DID have focus issues?)

How about your parents?  Were they educated middle-class professionals?  Did they work one job that they got home at 5pm for and so were available to help you with homework?  Or were they barely educated themselves and having to work two jobs just to make ends meet?   How was your local public library?  Could your family afford a computer for you to do schoolwork on?  what was your community like? Did you have other middle class people and professionals available to use as role models?  Did they help set for you an expectation that you too, would one day have a similarly white-collar job just like everyone's parents you knew?

The fact that you think YOU made any decisions as a child that affected your future outcomes as an adult , and your success is a result of your innate virtue and wisdom in making life choices as a 7-year old is pathetically, laughably, delusional.    But a delusion all to common among those who ridiculously think of themselves as "self-made"
2014-01-09 03:11:55 PM
5 votes:

Chummer45: Magorn: Which actually tells you how bad things have really gotten in America
look at this graph:
[www.doctorhousingbubble.com image 436x351]

now look at this one:
[www.davemanuel.com image 400x300]

See the Problem?   Yes the median HOUSEHOLD income has risen slightly, but only because DOUBLE the number of people per household are working in most of them.

Those numbers are particularly appalling when you look at charts like this:
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 725x537]

and this one, combined witht he ones above, should inspire you to dust off your torches and pitch forks:
[graphics8.nytimes.com image 511x452]

The tide is rising but only some boats are benefiting while others are taking on water so fast they can barely stay afloat

It's because the vast majority of employees have very little bargaining power with their employers.  We have seen a concerted effort to undermine and eliminate unionization, and have failed to enacted other laws that grant rights to employees.

The reason why wages have been falling isn't a mystery - our legal system (including right to work laws, "at will" employment, and very few mandated benefits) results in management having the freedom to pay employees low wages and benefits, and hire and fire them for whatever reason they want.  The typical employee is not in a position to negotiate with management for better job security, better pay, more benefits, etc.

It's just ridiculous for people to desperately try to explain the stagnation of wages as being primarily caused by anything else.


For you, A ceeegar and another chart:

wonkroom.thinkprogress.org
2014-01-09 02:19:23 PM
5 votes:
Much like capitalism only works if you have an informed consumer, but those died out with personal responsibility sometime in the 1980's.
2014-01-09 02:18:42 PM
5 votes:
That's really what the poverty level and the minimum wage should be tied to. How much does it take ONE person, working full time, to pay rent on a modest home with lights and heat and keep the average family fed.

Problem is, now a lot of time both parents have to work just to have those essentials, which adds a daycare expense, and makes fixing proper meals tough when nobody is home to do the work that entails.
2014-01-09 02:36:27 PM
4 votes:

mike_d85: I have and lots of them work hard.  Most of them are idiots.  I say that honestly.  They are stupid, stupid people and you can tell them exactly the obvious answer and they will ignore you and do it wrong and worsen their situation or keep it somewhere in the neighborhood of "completely farked".


And?

Look, the dumb will be with you. Always.  It's not like the Scandinavian countries or whatever Asian tiger economy doesn't have plenty of 80-some IQ Joes. Everywhere does.

But, through some degree of economic protectionism, some degree of make-work, some degree of artificial value, a society can choose to trade in a little 'pure economic efficiency' for 'and the Joes do okay too'.  Or, you can say fark 'em all, gate your communities, and sell them meth.  One or the other.
2014-01-09 02:19:10 PM
4 votes:

telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?


You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?
2014-01-09 02:17:51 PM
4 votes:
*shrug* Everything needs updating now and then. The problem is when it  isn't updated, and that's a problem our government has in spades.
2014-01-09 03:38:46 PM
3 votes:

mdeesnuts: asquian: So, the general consensus is people are poor because they're ignorant/stupid.

Well, obviously a good education is the cure.

I think budgeting and how to balance a checkbook should be mandatory classes in primary and secondary schools (yes, do it at least twice).

But by and large the issue I see is life skills. For instance, you don't tell your boss to EABOD because you had a minor disagreement. But you tell Joe Blow that telling his boss to EABOD was a bad idea and he'll defend it.

Education has no help for those raised stubbornly dumb.


True, but trickle down economics and the crippling of our educational system have gone hand in hand towards putting us where we are.
2014-01-09 03:23:17 PM
3 votes:

Tricky Chicken: Phinn: ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.

Work is not valuable merely because it's hard.

Work is valuable to the extent that (a) other people desire it, and (b) the difficulty in their obtaining it through some alternative.

This is not true just because I say so.  This is an inescapable feature of objective, universal, economic reality.

What you are talking about sounds like supply and demand.  Janitorial work is arduous, but can be performed by nearly everybody with almost no training.  Therefore the available workforce for any particular position is massive and therefore inexpensive.  An extremely necessary position, but not very financially valuable.

Whereas what I do is not particularly strenuous, but the knowledge and skill set to do it is quite unique and required extreme effort to attain.  there are very few that can do what I actually do, so I can comand a higher salary.

but If you look at the work itself.  It is far more important for us to have janitorial services than the stuff I do. If I weren't here, the stuff would just get done much much more slowly.  If the custodians weren't here, nobody would be able to work at all after a few days.


Here's the bullshiat.  That's it.  What you do, like what I did, required a lot of free time for education from your parents in your youth.  A lot of money and free time for education in your young adulthood, and a foot in the door with respect to "respectability".  It's not "difficult" but it is rare(er).
2014-01-09 03:17:34 PM
3 votes:

here to help: We have the occasional "grocery bill" thread here on the Fark dot coms and I always shudder at some of the totals that get posted. $200 a WEEK for a couple/small family or even a single person seems to be acceptable. Admittedly I am thrifty, single, know how to cook, don't really buy junk food and don't cram my piehole at the slightest little tummy grumble but I eat rather well on $70-80 per MONTH and could bring that WAY down if I was willing to spend more time doing prep/cooking.
...


WTF are you eating?  Soylent Green and chicken feet?  I get fresh veg, canned foods in bulk, meat in bulk, and cook most everything from scratch and I can't do much better than $80 a WEEK.

FFS, just getting dried rice ($1.29) and beans ($1.30) for 7 days a week is $20 ($18.20).  And that's assuming you only consume one bag per day.  I'm shopping for 3 full grown adults so I assume we'd eat more.
2014-01-09 02:56:08 PM
3 votes:

Magorn: See the Problem?   Yes the median HOUSEHOLD income has risen slightly, but only because DOUBLE the number of people per household are working in most of them.


Learn to math.  That's not what your numbers show at all.  Unless polygamy has suddenly become popular without me finding out, it would be impossible for the number of people per household to double.  It shows that (omitting households where only the wife works) in 1967, an average of 1.32 people were working per household and in 2002, an average of 1.55 people were working per household.  That is a 17.4% increase in the number of people working per household, compared to a ~20% increase (I'm estimating $41k and $45k as household income numbers here, since your graph doesn't give exact numbers).

Now, I would expect that those numbers have increased by more than the .23 people per household that your numbers show, given that there has been a rise in stay at home husbands (though it is somewhat small).  That doesn't however, come anywhere close to confirming your statement.  If anything, it actually refutes it, showing that household income has risen faster than the average workers per family.

It also doesn't begin to address the couples where both people work because they chose to.  My parents (I'm not married, so my life doesn't really apply in this situation, which is why I'm using them), for example, both work because they chose to, not because they need to.  Back in 1967, that situation was much less common, since women were more likely to stop working once they got married even if they didn't have kids.


So, in reality, the only thing I want to dust off my torch for is to burn down whatever school you went to because it clearly didn't do it's job.
2014-01-09 02:49:48 PM
3 votes:

mdeesnuts: Go be a regular at a dive bar for a month. Just sit there for an hour or two after work. You'll get to know the (many) other regulars and learn their stories. Most of them will be middling poor and you'll come to understand they'd be much better off if they weren't so stubbornly dumb.


They should hit the reset button and put in the Konami code next go-around, amirite?
2014-01-09 02:26:49 PM
3 votes:

buzzcut73: That's really what the poverty level and the minimum wage should be tied to. How much does it take ONE person, working full time, to pay rent on a modest home with lights and heat and keep the average family fed.

Problem is, now a lot of time both parents have to work just to have those essentials, which adds a daycare expense, and makes fixing proper meals tough when nobody is home to do the work that entails.


This, and we justify it with the Prosperity Gospel.
2014-01-10 12:57:58 AM
2 votes:

roc6783: Meyerkev...you kind of went off the derp end there, but my point is that quite a few people want those programs reduced or eliminated, like the 90k people who are losing health insurance in WI this year, and the answer is always "If you don't want to starve or go to a doctor or etc. don't be poor." That is not a valid position as it ignores the segment of the population to which I referred previously. If someone wants to eliminate or reduce these programs wholesale, they should be honest about why. What do they propose to do with people unable or unwilling to live above income levels that need aid for survival?


I know of no conservative that wants all, or even most social safety nets to be eliminated...
2014-01-09 06:00:17 PM
2 votes:
And in perhaps the cruelest irony, people without "conventional housing (and who are not in shelters)" (i.e., the homeless) aren't part of the official poor.

If you don't count them then they really aren't a problem that needs to be solved, are they?
2014-01-09 04:54:44 PM
2 votes:

Maul555: menschenfresser: Even if you put the poverty line at $.01 annually for a family of fifteen, the conservative mouthbreathers will insist that's way more than they need. Particularly stupid since most of the conservative mouthbreathers are poor themselves. Oh wait, sorry; they're future millionaires so they vote like they want to be in the future.

*** THIS IS WHAT LIBERAL MOUTH BREATHERS ACTUALLY BELIEVE ***


Yeah, pretty much. It is.   We haven't seen any hint of contravarience against this hypothesis about conservative beliefs.
2014-01-09 04:25:24 PM
2 votes:
Getting a strong Craig Nelson vibe from this thread.

The poverty line calculation is antiquated.  To prove how useless it is, look at the number of programs that are targeted at people 2X to 4X the poverty level.  The actual poverty level is much higher than the government's calculation.

Sorry if I disrupted the discussion on how a family of four can actually survive on recycled corn husks and boiled tree bark if they just stayed up cooking all night.
2014-01-09 03:32:58 PM
2 votes:
The right wing really does want poor Americans to be POOR-poor. Like, starving skinny orphans poor.

www.thelondoneveningpost.com

And then instead of food, all the right wing will offer are bibles and a hob-nailed boot to the face.
2014-01-09 03:17:32 PM
2 votes:

Magorn: Chummer45: Magorn: Which actually tells you how bad things have really gotten in America
look at this graph:
[www.doctorhousingbubble.com image 436x351]

now look at this one:
[www.davemanuel.com image 400x300]

See the Problem?   Yes the median HOUSEHOLD income has risen slightly, but only because DOUBLE the number of people per household are working in most of them.

Those numbers are particularly appalling when you look at charts like this:
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 725x537]

and this one, combined witht he ones above, should inspire you to dust off your torches and pitch forks:
[graphics8.nytimes.com image 511x452]

The tide is rising but only some boats are benefiting while others are taking on water so fast they can barely stay afloat

It's because the vast majority of employees have very little bargaining power with their employers.  We have seen a concerted effort to undermine and eliminate unionization, and have failed to enacted other laws that grant rights to employees.

The reason why wages have been falling isn't a mystery - our legal system (including right to work laws, "at will" employment, and very few mandated benefits) results in management having the freedom to pay employees low wages and benefits, and hire and fire them for whatever reason they want.  The typical employee is not in a position to negotiate with management for better job security, better pay, more benefits, etc.

It's just ridiculous for people to desperately try to explain the stagnation of wages as being primarily caused by anything else.

For you, A ceeegar and another chart:

[wonkroom.thinkprogress.org image 402x253]


People who have embraced this "race to the bottom" are under the impression that if people work for nothing, everything will be free.
2014-01-09 03:16:29 PM
2 votes:

Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?

You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?

Telejester, the answer to your question seems to be 'no' couched as a deflection.

I am related to several people that are genuinely extreemely poor. And I know for a fact that they do almost no work at all. In fact the few times they actually were employed, one of them quit because he didn't want to wake up so early.  One (that I got a job) was fired because he just wouldn't do the work he was asked. One just goes out to clubs and keeps getting herself pregnant (lovely girl, gave up three babies for adoption before she started keeping them). Then there is the used car salesmen (four of them) that can't seem to keep working for the sema place for very long (but I get good deals on cars).  Now if you add into that the waves of dregs I get to meet through this group, I guess that should count as enough annecdotal evidence.

Please drop the 'weeping for the noble hard working screwed over poor' bit.


This and other posts make me want to ask whether folks would like to go the Victorian route and distinguish between the "deserving" poor and the "undeserving" poor. The "undeserving" would be given assistance and the "deserving" poor would be put in the workhouse, etc. Then maybe we could add in your Victorian capitalist to the picture, the guy with the top hat carrying a diamond-topped walking stick to twirl around, and who has 99.9% of the wealth in the town. This is what you guys seem to be asking for.
2014-01-09 03:06:55 PM
2 votes:
Even if you put the poverty line at $.01 annually for a family of fifteen, the conservative mouthbreathers will insist that's way more than they need. Particularly stupid since most of the conservative mouthbreathers are poor themselves. Oh wait, sorry; they're future millionaires so they vote like they want to be in the future.
GBB
2014-01-09 02:51:07 PM
2 votes:
Good luck finding a woman that's either a skilled cook or careful shopper these days.  Don't even consider finding one that's both.

/my experience.
//YMMV
2014-01-09 02:42:08 PM
2 votes:

Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?

You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?

Telejester, the answer to your question seems to be 'no' couched as a deflection.

I am related to several people that are genuinely extreemely poor. And I know for a fact that they do almost no work at all. In fact the few times they actually were employed, one of them quit because he didn't want to wake up so early.  One (that I got a job) was fired because he just wouldn't do the work he was asked. One just goes out to clubs and keeps getting herself pregnant (lovely girl, gave up three babies for adoption before she started keeping them). Then there is the used car salesmen (four of them) that can't seem to keep working for the sema place for very long (but I get good deals on cars).  Now if you add into that the waves of dregs I get to meet through this group, I guess that should count as enough annecdotal evidence.

Please drop the 'weeping for the noble hard working screwed over poor' bit.


Lol. I nominate this post as the most hilarious post of the day. No one is this clueless.

But yeah, keep sucking that Koch. I am sure one day something will trickle down.
2014-01-09 02:20:35 PM
2 votes:

CleanAndPure: ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.

How hard you work and what you're paid arnt really too correlated.

Lots of rich people are rich because of hard work... others have done little.

Lots of poor people are poor despite lots of hard work... others due to laziness.


The Poltically Correct term is "motivationally challenged." We can't hurt anyone's feeling by calling them a slacker
2014-01-09 02:15:20 PM
2 votes:
If you're so rich, why aren't you smart?
2014-01-10 01:34:51 PM
1 votes:

Magorn: Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: Phinn: ikanreed:

The fact that you think YOU made any decisions as a child that affected your future outcomes as an adult , and your success is a result of your innate virtue and wisdom in making life choices as a 7-year old is pathetically, laughably, delusional.    But a delusion all to common among those who ridiculously think of themselves as "self-made"


Oh, the self-made are so cute.
Not even if you were raised by wolves in the forest is any farker "self-made".
Not sure where such a delusion comes from, but it is usually accompanied by douchbagyness worn like Emperor's Clothing and ALWAYS announced by self.
Exception proving rule, sycophant "journalists" proclaiming the "self made man".
Delusions.
2014-01-10 11:53:02 AM
1 votes:

spmkk: WTF? Do you not recognize that manufacturing machinery has gotten WAY more advanced over the 38 years covered by this chart, and that the increase in worker output is due primarily to the tools used in manufacturing and to process efficiency? Or do you actually believe that manufacturing employees are working 3.5 times as hard as whey were in the 1970s?

This chart, especially in the context you presented it in, is equivalent to saying that since people are traveling much greater distances today than they were in 1895, it means that they're running faster, getting more exercise, and have less time to spend at their destinations.


Exactly.  I used to work for a factory.  Over the years I worked there I watched production go up 20x while the staffing might have gone up 4x.  It's not that the workers were working any harder, it was that machinery was taking more and more of the load.  If anything the workload got easier as the computers did more and more spoon-feeding.

The extra money didn't go to the factory floor workers because they weren't doing anything more.  It went to the bigger building, it went to the equipment suppliers, it went to people like me (the guy who wrote the software that made it work) and a few guys who built some of the equipment.
2014-01-10 12:06:35 AM
1 votes:

HoratioGates: Phinn: ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.

Work is not valuable merely because it's hard.

Work is valuable to the extent that (a) other people desire it, and (b) the difficulty in their obtaining it through some alternative.

This is not true just because I say so.  This is an inescapable feature of objective, universal, economic reality.

You are picking something you disagree with and making an argument about something else.  Value is not the only thing you can pay someone for (it's what it makes sense for a company to pay for under Capitalism, but that's why we have governments, to look out for the welfare of people when Capitalistic forces don't align in the public interest.  Pure Capitalism may put a premium on 'value' but at the same time is doesn't put much of a premium on fairness.  If two people bust their ass at work and one takes home 10 times as much because his work had more value that's only fair because we say it is and because we live in a society that has set that up as a rule.  (Capitalism does have some things going for it in the realm of wealth creation, but when people start calling it 'fair' it's questionable).

Unfortunately, since money and free speech go hand in hand, you get a government bought by the people it's supposed to be regulating.


The word "fair" needs to be eliminated from political vocabulary. It means nothing. The way you're using it, it means something like "good" or "right." That's not the issue. The issue is HOW you define what's good and right--how you choose between competing goods.

A guy "busts his ass" and gets one-tenth the income of someone else? What if this ass-busting behavior is making donkey porn? Is it good or right or FAIR that he gets paid so much less than a film producer who makes wildly popular entertainment with one-tenth the effort? What if this porn producer makes 10 times more than a guy who makes obscure art films in archaic languages that a small coterie of elite academics love but are completely unappealing to everyone else? More importantly, who decides what these various producers get paid? Based on what methodology? Effort? Social value? Determined how?

Or what about a guy who "busts his ass" by fashioning exquisite hand-made large-scale replicas of office buildings from sugar cubes and old grocery bags? It could be the most grueling, time-consuming, highly refined work imaginable, but socially worthless. By what possible means could his income be determined by reference to his effort? Who should make that determination, in your ideal society? Using what criteria?

Deciding if work is "in the public interest" is another one of your weasel words. What is the means by which these public interests are identified and their relative importance determined? By what method are they to be prioritized? How does one decide how resources are to be diverted from (or to) the infinite number of things that people could be producing?

Your propositions are vacuous to the point of being meaningless -- all you've said is that we should be "fair" to people who "work hard" doing things that are in the "public interest."

Well, whoopdie-farking-doo, but if you're going to propose a new GLOBAL ECONOMIC SYSTEM, you're going to need to be a little more thorough.
2014-01-09 10:59:50 PM
1 votes:

Magorn: "...Those numbers are particularly appalling when you look at charts like this:

img.fark.net"



WTF? Do you not recognize that manufacturing machinery has gotten WAY more advanced over the 38 years covered by this chart, and that the increase in worker output is due primarily to the tools used in manufacturing and to process efficiency? Or do you actually believe that manufacturing employees are working 3.5 times as hard as whey were in the 1970s?

This chart, especially in the context you presented it in, is equivalent to saying that since people are traveling much greater distances today than they were in 1895, it means that they're running faster, getting more exercise, and have less time to spend at their destinations.
2014-01-09 09:48:00 PM
1 votes:
My impression is that the ones calling the shots, left and right both, are working to make the USA more like India or Mexico.  A small, elite ruling class with all the wealth, and masses of undereducated, working poor with no hope of bettering their lives.  Keep labor cheap, give them the barest of essentials, and make sure to hatchet out the middle of the ladder so they've got no way to climb out.
2014-01-09 09:33:34 PM
1 votes:

Phinn: ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.

Work is not valuable merely because it's hard.

Work is valuable to the extent that (a) other people desire it, and (b) the difficulty in their obtaining it through some alternative.

This is not true just because I say so.  This is an inescapable feature of objective, universal, economic reality.


For the people arguing that people are being paid what they are worth:

Why do you believe that the value of work has diminished over the years?

If people are being paid according to their value, why are profits higher than ever, worker productivity is higher than ever, and worker's wages are stagnant?

Worker's today are better educated as well..... though much less valuable.

And now the really important question..... If this pattern continues (I'm sure that it will), SHOULD the government get involved to try to turn it around?
2014-01-09 08:07:25 PM
1 votes:

DrBrownCow: buzzcut73: That's really what the poverty level and the minimum wage should be tied to. How much does it take ONE person, working full time, to pay rent on a modest home with lights and heat and keep the average family fed.

Just to play the devil's advocate, why should a person be considered poor if they have family/friends/communities available to assist them?   Where is the incentive for families, friends, and the local community to take care of those truly in need if the government will provide assistance first?


There's not.  And so they don't.   http://philanthropy.com/article/Generosity-in-the-States/133707/

I've heard it described as grasshoppers and ants.

Ants -  "Americans, contrary to every other society I have studied, form voluntary random social alliances."
Grasshoppers - "There's a problem, so we sit here until the king government comes and rescues us.  And then biatch about how long it took."

Completely different societal outlook.  It's the *main* reason that I'm more Republican than Democrat.

When it's the church (or hell, HOA. It's just got to be local and trusted to do 'what is right'.  It can be the local bank cutting you a sweet deal on that house loan) running things, everyone pitches in what they can and then it goes to whoever needs it IF AND ONLY IF that person is considered a 'good guy'.  "Yeah, Bill's just down on his luck.  Hopefully, he'll be doing better next year." vs. "Yeah, Bob's a total methhead, let him starve".  That's the key thing.  Societal trust is high (I give because I TRUST that everyone else will give if, God forbid, I need it) and it only goes to those who are considered contributing.  Aggressively functional, somewhat ruthless.  Mind you, there's issues with having a good old boy network, and it scales poorly, but it works on a small, local level.
2014-01-09 07:22:19 PM
1 votes:

Thisbymaster: CleanAndPure: ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.

How hard you work and what you're paid arnt really too correlated.

Lots of rich people are rich because of hard work... others have done little.

Lots of poor people are poor despite lots of hard work... others due to laziness.

No one who is rich, got rich because of hard work, they got rich from being at the right place at the right time.


"Give me lucky generals" - Napoleon Bonaparte.

Luck is being in the right place at the right time AND being able to both recognize and exploit it.

And uh, given that Bill Gates is sorta famous in the industry for working 80+ hour weeks, not so much.  Right place, right time, yes.  Recognizing the right place/time, having the right skillset to employ it, having the guts to go for it (Informal poll: How many of you thought up the Snuggy before there was a Snuggy and never did anything about it?),  Brilliant, innovative business model, insanely hard worker, good at finding other brilliant people to surround him, also yes.  The 2nd without the first is a good middle manager at IBM or Google, the 1st without the 2nd is worthless.

/And keep in mind that you used an absolute and the problem with absolutes is that you only need one example to disprove them.  NEVER say All, always say most unless you can prove it.
2014-01-09 07:12:32 PM
1 votes:
And it's not a terribly ineffective political argument! Americans hate the poor, and deeply resent the idea of any of their money going to help them. That's why Clinton killed welfare, and why food stamps are now at risk. There's little political upside in promising to help the poor, and for years Democrats have only ever promised to help "all Americans" and "the middle class."
2014-01-09 06:39:36 PM
1 votes:

telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.

wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?


I have to agree.   It's absolutely true that a lot of the hardest working people are among the poorest.  That's just a basic fact that everybody in America already knows.

But there are many, many people who are just downright evil and corrupt in their very soul, and then don't understand why such a gross injustice is an overwhelming problem.   Those people are going to take more convincing.
2014-01-09 06:17:20 PM
1 votes:

meyerkev: All kids are not equal. Charging $16K/year gets you bright kids and involved, educated parents on the average. Having no gate at all whatsoever gets you nothing. (I recall there being a study that said that it didn't matter whether or not you made it into charter school, but the mere act of trying made you a much better student since it correlated to parental involvement).


The real advantage of charters and free privates is that they can expel the idiots/troublemakers/felons-in-training back to the public schools -- who cannot.

They can raise the mean by cutting the chaff.
2014-01-09 06:03:10 PM
1 votes:

GORDON: Isn't the real 18+ unemployment rate in the country about 50%?


0/10

/Weak start out of the gate
2014-01-09 05:48:20 PM
1 votes:
More than 16 million children in the United States - 22% of all children - live in families with incomes below the federal poverty level - $23,550 a year for a family of four. Research shows that, on average, families need an income of about twice that level to cover basic expenses. Using this standard, 45% of children live in low-income families.

Look at all the lazies.
2014-01-09 05:19:37 PM
1 votes:
In a 1965 article, Orshansky said her threshold, dependent on this budget, should be used to measure when a family had "inadequate" funds, not adequate funds.


cdn.billmoyers.com
Mollie Orshansky

The poverty line calculation is ridiculous. Argue about lazy poor like people have for decades as if it will do any good, but let's at least fix this so we can figure out exactly how many poor people we have.
2014-01-09 05:16:44 PM
1 votes:

Tricky Chicken: No, I'd be comfortable in assuming that at least some of the poor had access to a public education even greater than my own. I'd even wager that some of the poor had access to expensive private educations and still failed.


Let's go back to what I originally said, shall we:
"The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest."  No one said that you had to be hardworking to be poor.  Just that you're really farked over after a certain level of early life poverty.
2014-01-09 04:50:07 PM
1 votes:

menschenfresser: Even if you put the poverty line at $.01 annually for a family of fifteen, the conservative mouthbreathers will insist that's way more than they need. Particularly stupid since most of the conservative mouthbreathers are poor themselves. Oh wait, sorry; they're future millionaires so they vote like they want to be in the future.


*** THIS IS WHAT LIBERAL MOUTH BREATHERS ACTUALLY BELIEVE ***
2014-01-09 04:48:27 PM
1 votes:

Magorn: WHICH public school?  How many resources did they have?  IS it like the HS  my son attends now that spent $65 million building the place and has everything a school could want since home prices in my area are some of the highest in the nation, or was it like the one in Chicago he went to for 1st grade where they had to ask parents to donate an old books they had lying around so the school could finally have an actual library?   How much money did they have to pay teachers? could they attract the best and brightest or did they have to make do with the inexperienced and burnt out?   Could you "pay attention" in class because of your innate status as an ubermencsh or did it have to do with the fact that your family could afford to send you to school on a full stomach so you could concentrate (and take you to a doctor and get medicines if you DID have focus issues?)

How about your parents?  Were they educated middle-class professionals?  Did they work one job that they got home at 5pm for and so were available to help you with homework?  Or were they barely educated themselves and having to work two jobs just to make ends meet?   How was your local public library?  Could your family afford a computer for you to do schoolwork on?  what was your community like? Did you have other middle class people and professionals available to use as role models?  Did they help set for you an expectation that you too, would one day have a similarly white-collar job just like everyone's parents you knew?

The fact that you think YOU made any decisions as a child that affected your future outcomes as an adult , and your success is a result of your innate virtue and wisdom in making life choices as a 7-year old is pathetically, laughably, delusional.    But a delusion all to common among those who ridiculously think of themselves as "self-made

...

I went to a school that is currently ranked a 6 out of 10 on the Great Schools.org website for whatever that would be worth. I would say middle of the road would be appropriate.  It was a massive place with over about a thousand graduating seniors. An easy place to get lost in the crowd. I was undiagnosed at the time with ADD, but I am medicated now. I have no idea what teachers made, but it seemed like we had some good ones and some just going through the motions.

Neither parent was educated past high school. Dad worked in a mill and mom was a waitress. Neither ever worked with me on homework. i know where the library was but didn't go.  Computers were not a thing at the time. Everybody in the area was working class. There was no crime to speak of that I was aware of.  There were regular waves of lay-offs at the mill.  Nobody that I knew of in my family had gone to college, and I was the only of 4 siblings to actually graduate High School.

I think the only 'decisions' I made that could affect my life would have been to actually just show up at school and not to have kids. I thought I made it clear that i didn't do anything exceptional or even mdestly impressive. I hardly think I am delusional about what I did in my youth.  I just kept doing just about the bare minimum and didn't stop.

Now if that is all it takes to be boot-strappy, then it is pretty freaking easy.  I made maximum two decisions (really just two habits) that could be even noted.  I went to school, and I didn't have kids.  I didn't study particularly hard, I didn't strive to excel, I didn't join clubs, I didn't really do much.  In fact, I only think the truant officer knew me on sight.  My first day he took me aside and said "I'm not going to have the same problems with you like I did with your brother and sister am I?".  I graduated Very slightly above the middle of the pack.

I would not say I am 'self-made' as much as I would say I am the result of tme most minimal of effort.  I am effectively the default level of success.
2014-01-09 04:42:30 PM
1 votes:

asquian: So, the general consensus is people are poor because they're ignorant/stupid.

Well, obviously a good education is the cure.

oh, wait. We have an entire political party dedicated to privatizing education and eliminating critical thinking from the curriculum.

Well, we can fix that by sending them to college right?

oh, wait, crushing debt and a lack of jobs that pay enough for people to pay back the debt.


Uhh... it is common core who is now grading wrong answers as partially correct. It is unions who have attempted to move to pass fail instead of grading. Ted Kennedy was the architect of NCLB. How do private schools do worse than public? They don't.
2014-01-09 04:30:10 PM
1 votes:

ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


That's preciesly the point. Work smart, not hard.
2014-01-09 04:28:37 PM
1 votes:

TheShavingofOccam123: telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?


They don't pay their workers overtime, they tell their workers how to apply for food stamps, they discriminate against women...


Liberals tell people to apply for food stamps too. Are they evil?
2014-01-09 04:19:20 PM
1 votes:

ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


They probably wouldn't be poor if they had that same work ethic you claim in school.
2014-01-09 04:17:45 PM
1 votes:

Lawnchair: meyerkev: increased urbanization (which then combines with anti-growth policies to fark over EVERYBODY).

Where are you getting this "everything's anti-growth" victim complex?  Portland, fine, but that's the extreme outlier.  A lot more of the nation is like greater Houston... ever-the-more enthralled, begging, and will give you tax breaks (if not straight-up give you money) to put up all the duplexes, Walmarts, and fried-chicken-and-oil-change huts you want.

The problem is with urban renewal and gentrification, the wealthy are moving back into cities.  The poor are ending up in the peripheries.  Trailer parks in Victorville and Tracy.  Which are far worse places for the poor, since they're so tied to driving 300 miles a week, which kills the poor at $4 gas.


So I'm sitting in SF.  Anti-growth out the wazoo.

No building up, no proper mass intra/inter-city mass transit late-nights and weekends so you can't live in the burbs and "live" in the city (and even with the piss-poor regional transit we have now, it's just as expensive to be at the suburban transit stations as it is to live in the city), no new freeways (or added lanes) to at least support more commutes.  They're supposed to increase the regional population by 30% over the next few decades, and I have no clue how they're going to do it because every time someone builds more housing, there's screaming, and there's absolutely no intention of fixing the problems (namely, a super-low supply of housing, exacerbated by unfortunate rent control policies, the geography forcing all traffic through a couple of choke points, and a piss-poor mass transit network).

And all that ends up happening is that the rich get richer (not necessarily a bad thing depending on how and why it happens), the "rich" get poor because a 1 BR is $4K/month and that's 2/3rds of their take-home, the middle-class gets farked and pushed out past Altamont because they can't afford that and never could, and the poor get stuck on welfare, because Section 8 pays for it and moving up to middle-class just gets you farked.

Mind you, you will never get to a point where you can live cheaply in a big house that you bought with petty cash, AND live in a cool city because lots of people want to live in cool cities which requires density, but FFS, you're driving out the software engineers (who you blame for causing all the problems) because they can't afford to live here.  Do you not see the issue here?

/And meanwhile, anytime someone suggests fixing the problems, the "Let's keep our city wierd AND Let's somehow make it affordable by wishing for unicorns" activist nuts show up and start ranting.
//Trust me, the city will be weirder with high-rises then it will be when the poor and "poor" people all leave because they can't afford it and you're just left with super-rich people and their groveling servants.
///And in all fairness, "wishing for unicorns" probably equals "Making Silicon Valley leave".  So they do have a plan, it's just unrealistic.
////And so Victorville people are just screwed (Weren't they looking at Caltrain to Monterey at one point?), but there *are* plans to extend BART to Tracy at some point.  It'll never, ever happen because the NIMBY's will kill it, but the sane people get that you can only live in the super Central Valley exurbs, and  are trying to make that at least possible.
2014-01-09 04:14:49 PM
1 votes:

mike_d85: work at them and some day become the manager of a local McDonalds or get another menial job with moderately good pay (landscaper, unskilled construction, etc.).  THIS is not "poor".  This is "lower class" or "working poor" maybe.  At 30, you should have worked out making shift supervisor at Pizza Hut, at least.


No. This is poor.  Landscaper, construction labor, or shift supervisor at Pizza Hut level jobs paid working-poor/lower-class wages 15 years ago.  They pay utter poverty wages now.
2014-01-09 04:09:26 PM
1 votes:

CleanAndPure: ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.

How hard you work and what you're paid arnt really too correlated.

Lots of rich people are rich because of hard work... others have done little.

Lots of poor people are poor despite lots of hard work... others due to laziness.


Yes.  But there are drastically more poor people then wealthy.  So overwhelmingly more hardworking people are poor then wealthy.
2014-01-09 04:03:19 PM
1 votes:

Tricky Chicken: I am related to several people that are genuinely extreemely poor. And I know for a fact that they do almost no work at all.


So you're related to people who don't work hard and are poor. Are you suggesting that because you know some people who "deserve" to be poor that all poor people must deserve it?
2014-01-09 03:56:39 PM
1 votes:

Tricky Chicken: You see, fallacy of composition would apply if I implied that all poor are as useless as the ones I listed.  I did not do that.


It's what liberals do.  You say, "I know one poor person who is lazy" and then they start slamming you for making a wild accusation that poor people are lazy.  No, that's not what you said.  Facts don't matter to them though.
2014-01-09 03:56:37 PM
1 votes:

mike_d85: Most of them are idiots.


This is true, but what makes you think it is correlated with wealth?
2014-01-09 03:50:50 PM
1 votes:

GDubDub: As I saw in an episode of The West Wing:

They government hates the idea of changing the calculation in a way that raises the poverty line, because then YOU HAVE MORE POOR PEOPLE.

I can see it now, and it makes me cringe how if the Obama administration changed the calculation that put another 10 million people under the line, the GOP would be screaming: 10 MILLION MORE POOR PEOPLE UNDER OBAMA'S WATCH!!!!

/republican


It's both funny, and a little sad how relevant that show still is.

also, the GOP scream if Obama goes to the bathroom, so worrying over their BS isn't worth the time. If something needs done, do it anyway.
2014-01-09 03:43:55 PM
1 votes:
As I saw in an episode of The West Wing:

They government hates the idea of changing the calculation in a way that raises the poverty line, because then YOU HAVE MORE POOR PEOPLE.

I can see it now, and it makes me cringe how if the Obama administration changed the calculation that put another 10 million people under the line, the GOP would be screaming: 10 MILLION MORE POOR PEOPLE UNDER OBAMA'S WATCH!!!!

/republican
2014-01-09 03:43:05 PM
1 votes:

ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: Phinn: ikanreed:
Here's the bullshiat.  That's it.  What you do, like what I did, required a lot of free time for education from your parents in your youth.  A lot of money and free time for education in your young adulthood, and a foot in the door with respect to "respectability".  It's not "difficult" but it is rare(er).


Are you implying that my access to education was somehow greater that that of the poor? I was public school educated at no cost to my parents other than feeding me. I attended university while working and paid for it all myself.  My scholastic aptitude is the only advantage I would have over some of the poor.  I would assume many of them probably have greater aptitude than I.  But I made wiser life choices.  I had no children (easy to do) until I was settled. I made other basic sound decisions.  Nothing I did was ever extreme or overly difficult. My opportunities were not particularly rare. I paid attention in public school. I attended regularly. I generally did about the minimum required of me.
2014-01-09 03:41:58 PM
1 votes:

ikanreed: Except cities don't really have the "low-income" jobs anymore either.  There aren't factories downtown where you can just jump in and start making lower-middle class wages.


As has been explained to me, as we outsource virtually all primary production, the dream job of the future for the 90% is step-and-fetch-it work in service to the top 5%.  As more of the wealthy move into the urban core, they need hairdressers, waiters, maids, hos, Whole Foods cashiers, personal trainers, etc, but they need them to live somewhere else.
2014-01-09 03:36:28 PM
1 votes:

letrole: poverty is a result, not a cause

poor decisions, inadequate self-control, lack of ambition, no shame

a man may be born poor, and that's the fault of his parents, but a man who's born poor, and still poor by the age of 30 has nobody to blame but himself


A man born poor will have to grow up in a house where he wont get the same kind of interactions as his more successful counterparts. He won't get the same level of schooling. He won't receive many of the other similar opportunities and benefits as a person who is born into a better situation. s it still possible to overcome this deck stacked against him? Sure, but that's going to be the exception not the rule.
2014-01-09 03:35:41 PM
1 votes:

asquian: So, the general consensus is people are poor because they're ignorant/stupid.

Well, obviously a good education is the cure.


I think budgeting and how to balance a checkbook should be mandatory classes in primary and secondary schools (yes, do it at least twice).

But by and large the issue I see is life skills. For instance, you don't tell your boss to EABOD because you had a minor disagreement. But you tell Joe Blow that telling his boss to EABOD was a bad idea and he'll defend it.

Education has no help for those raised stubbornly dumb.
2014-01-09 03:33:03 PM
1 votes:

ikanreed: Or how about we don't have an economic system built on screwing people, for the benefit of a very select few on the the justification that it's somehow "fair"?


So which system is that?
2014-01-09 03:32:40 PM
1 votes:

Lawnchair: meyerkev: increased urbanization (which then combines with anti-growth policies to fark over EVERYBODY).

Where are you getting this "everything's anti-growth" victim complex?  Portland, fine, but that's the extreme outlier.  A lot more of the nation is like greater Houston... ever-the-more enthralled, begging, and will give you tax breaks (if not straight-up give you money) to put up all the duplexes, Walmarts, and fried-chicken-and-oil-change huts you want.

The problem is with urban renewal and gentrification, the wealthy are moving back into cities.  The poor are ending up in the peripheries.  Trailer parks in Victorville and Tracy.  Which are far worse places for the poor, since they're so tied to driving 300 miles a week, which kills the poor at $4 gas.


Except cities don't really have the "low-income" jobs anymore either.  There aren't factories downtown where you can just jump in and start making lower-middle class wages.
2014-01-09 03:29:25 PM
1 votes:

Phinn: ikanreed: Enigmamf: ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.

It sounds like you subscribe to the labor theory of value.

Oh, no, I don't care about value(at least in the context of the working poor), I care about human suffering, just world hypothesis bullshiat, and minimizing it.   When the sanctity of your economic system's assumptions come before the people who make it up, you're doing something wrong.

Then YOU alleviate their suffering, big guy.  You've got your caring meter cranked up to 11, so that clearly makes you better than everyone else.  And since caring is all that matters, go ahead, run with it, dude.  Give the poor what they need.

Oh, wait, do you actually need other people's cooperation in solving complex social problems?  Well, then, you might want to actually communicating with the general public in terms of something we like to call "economic reality."


Or how about we don't have an economic system built on screwing people, for the benefit of a very select few on the the justification that it's somehow "fair"?  There's a bullshiat "I care about fairness" ethical lie in your system too, only you're in favor of human suffering to get it.
2014-01-09 03:27:58 PM
1 votes:

Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: telejester:

Please drop the 'weeping for the noble hard working screwed over poor' bit.

You forgot one more lazy person you're related to, the laziest one of all:
[paganpages.org image 280x456]

Do you have some evidence of this charge? Aside from the time I spend on Fark? Or is this just more baseless tripe you like to spew? Like your classics " the hardest working people are among the poorest." and "Just knowing that there were global cooling articles in the 70's automatically makes you a denier" (circa thread 8079447).

You do seem to have a dizzying lack of depth and ability to support your assertions.

Oh, look, you bringing up a point where you were wrong in the past makes you less wrong now.

Are you starting with the argument that there were NO articles touting global cooling in the 70s?! Or do you assert that I was wrong to confirm that yes such articles existed?


Christ, I'm not putting up with this pedantic bullshiat again.  Yes, you are a climate change denier, and you're making the world a worse place.  Yes, you're wrong today, too, and you should go away.
2014-01-09 03:25:14 PM
1 votes:

ikanreed: Enigmamf: ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.

It sounds like you subscribe to the labor theory of value.

Oh, no, I don't care about value(at least in the context of the working poor), I care about human suffering, just world hypothesis bullshiat, and minimizing it.   When the sanctity of your economic system's assumptions come before the people who make it up, you're doing something wrong.



Then YOU alleviate their suffering, big guy.  You've got your caring meter cranked up to 11, so that clearly makes you better than everyone else.  And since caring is all that matters, go ahead, run with it, dude.  Give the poor what they need.

Oh, wait, do you actually need other people's cooperation in solving complex social problems?  Well, then, you might want to actually communicating with the general public in terms of something we like to call "economic reality."
2014-01-09 03:20:50 PM
1 votes:

Enigmamf: ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.

It sounds like you subscribe to the labor theory of value.


Oh, no, I don't care about value(at least in the context of the working poor), I care about human suffering, just world hypothesis bullshiat, and minimizing it.   When the sanctity of your economic system's assumptions come before the people who make it up, you're doing something wrong.
2014-01-09 03:20:31 PM
1 votes:

here to help: We have the occasional "grocery bill" thread here on the Fark dot coms and I always shudder at some of the totals that get posted. $200 a WEEK for a couple/small family or even a single person seems to be acceptable. Admittedly I am thrifty, single, know how to cook, don't really buy junk food and don't cram my piehole at the slightest little tummy grumble but I eat rather well on $70-80 per MONTH and could bring that WAY down if I was willing to spend more time doing prep/cooking.

That said the cost of food, especially staples, has soared as has all essential costs like housing, transportation, etc while the wages have not only stagnated but have been going DOWN when factoring in inflation, benefits, full time status (working two decently paid part time jobs is FAR more expensive than one meagerly compensated full time job) and the like.

We have trained the past couple of generations to be the ultimate bean counters who specialize in nickel and dime tactics to squeeze every last micro cent and millisecond out of every scenario they can while the salesmen lull everyone into believing they are subhuman for not making fiscally irresponsible purchases even if it means going into to debt at ridiculously high interest rates.

Then, those seemingly intelligent and cautious few who scrimp and save and claw their way into saving and investing or slave their way through jobs with supposed retirement benefits have their entire efforts wiped out every decade or so funneling it into the pockets of the very same people who would shame them if they did anything less than complete and utter meekness and subservience. Of course once the grift is complete those same entities that cried poverty and "too big to fail" have gotten their bailouts and reduced the quality of life for everyone everywhere start reporting "RECORD PROFITS" a few short years later while their victims are too old and tired to hold them accountable for their crimes.

My solution? Completely overhaul how busines ...


I'm curious as how you can feed yourself for $2.50 a day, let alone eat 'rather well' on that budget.
2014-01-09 03:19:41 PM
1 votes:

Phinn: ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.

Work is not valuable merely because it's hard.

Work is valuable to the extent that (a) other people desire it, and (b) the difficulty in their obtaining it through some alternative.

This is not true just because I say so.  This is an inescapable feature of objective, universal, economic reality.


What you are talking about sounds like supply and demand.  Janitorial work is arduous, but can be performed by nearly everybody with almost no training.  Therefore the available workforce for any particular position is massive and therefore inexpensive.  An extremely necessary position, but not very financially valuable.

Whereas what I do is not particularly strenuous, but the knowledge and skill set to do it is quite unique and required extreme effort to attain.  there are very few that can do what I actually do, so I can comand a higher salary.

but If you look at the work itself.  It is far more important for us to have janitorial services than the stuff I do. If I weren't here, the stuff would just get done much much more slowly.  If the custodians weren't here, nobody would be able to work at all after a few days.
2014-01-09 03:18:42 PM
1 votes:

liam76: mdeesnuts: mike_d85: ikanreed:
You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?

I have and lots of them work hard.  Most of them are idiots.  I say that honestly.  They are stupid, stupid people and you can tell them exactly the obvious answer and they will ignore you and do it wrong and worsen their situation or keep it somewhere in the neighborhood of "completely farked".


This. Go be a regular at a dive bar for a month. Just sit there for an hour or two after work. You'll get to know the (many) other regulars and learn their stories. Most of them will be middling poor and you'll come to understand they'd be much better off if they weren't so stubbornly dumb.

You know there are a lto fo poor peopel who don't hang otu at bars, right?

And if you are getting your info rom that, it could be coloring your view.


That's true. It's just where I noticed the correlation of stubbornly dumb to poor. And I say stubborn because most of the people I base this off of weren't actually dumb, just made self-defeating decisions and would defend them no matter what.

/have family like that, too, just not such a large pool
//I like dive bars so I have a pretty good sample size
2014-01-09 03:18:19 PM
1 votes:

Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: telejester:

Please drop the 'weeping for the noble hard working screwed over poor' bit.

You forgot one more lazy person you're related to, the laziest one of all:
[paganpages.org image 280x456]

Do you have some evidence of this charge? Aside from the time I spend on Fark? Or is this just more baseless tripe you like to spew? Like your classics " the hardest working people are among the poorest." and "Just knowing that there were global cooling articles in the 70's automatically makes you a denier" (circa thread 8079447).

You do seem to have a dizzying lack of depth and ability to support your assertions.


Oh, look, you bringing up a point where you were wrong in the past makes you less wrong now.
2014-01-09 03:17:58 PM
1 votes:

ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


It sounds like you subscribe to the labor theory of value.
2014-01-09 03:16:56 PM
1 votes:
In real terms, not numbers. What is the definition of "living in poverty" in the US? I'm guessing those living in "poverty" today have quite a more comfortable life than even the "middle" class in the 60's.

Then again there is that whole choice and consequence thing that "freedom" loving people seem to forget about. Everyone wants freedom of choice but they don't want to have to deal with the consequences of their actions if they are bad.
2014-01-09 03:16:11 PM
1 votes:

Magorn: Chummer45: Magorn: Which actually tells you how bad things have really gotten in America
look at this graph:
[www.doctorhousingbubble.com image 436x351]

now look at this one:
[www.davemanuel.com image 400x300]

See the Problem?   Yes the median HOUSEHOLD income has risen slightly, but only because DOUBLE the number of people per household are working in most of them.

Those numbers are particularly appalling when you look at charts like this:
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 725x537]

and this one, combined witht he ones above, should inspire you to dust off your torches and pitch forks:
[graphics8.nytimes.com image 511x452]

The tide is rising but only some boats are benefiting while others are taking on water so fast they can barely stay afloat

It's because the vast majority of employees have very little bargaining power with their employers.  We have seen a concerted effort to undermine and eliminate unionization, and have failed to enacted other laws that grant rights to employees.

The reason why wages have been falling isn't a mystery - our legal system (including right to work laws, "at will" employment, and very few mandated benefits) results in management having the freedom to pay employees low wages and benefits, and hire and fire them for whatever reason they want.  The typical employee is not in a position to negotiate with management for better job security, better pay, more benefits, etc.

It's just ridiculous for people to desperately try to explain the stagnation of wages as being primarily caused by anything else.

For you, A ceeegar and another chart:

[wonkroom.thinkprogress.org image 402x253]



It's especially laugh-worthy that the scale on the left is five (5) percentage point per line, while the scale on the right is two (2) percentage points per line.

But it was gratuitous for the chart-maker to line up a 30% union membership rate with a 54% rate of middle class income representation.

Would you like to see my chart comparing global warming and pirates?
GBB
2014-01-09 03:02:26 PM
1 votes:

buzzcut73: That's really what the poverty level and the minimum wage should be tied to. How much does it take ONE person, working full time, to pay rent on a modest home with lights and heat and keep the average family fed.


The problem is that rent is partially based on the actual value of the home and the cost of upkeep to the landlord, and probably more based on the ability of the tenant to pay.

If you are getting by paying $500 a month on minimum wage and suddenly you are making an additional $300 a month because of an increase in minimum wage, your landlord is going to want a piece of that.

In 2007, rent for my apartment was $750.  In 2006 is was $730.  When the lease came up for renewal in 2008, just before the housing market collapse, they wanted $900.  I moved.  In 2011, I looked on their website and that floorplan was $8XX.  Landlords will always be greedy bastards that will base their rent schedules on the income potential of their tenants actual or prospective.

When I was car shopping quite a few years ago, the Honda Insight was the only hybrid on the market.  There was also a tax credit available from the IRS for $2,000 for buying an alternative fuel vehicle.  That was mentioned by the salesperson when I was looking.  Take a wild guess at how much over MSRP the Honda Insight I was looking at was.
2014-01-09 03:01:37 PM
1 votes:

Target Builder: CleanAndPure: Lots of rich people are rich because of hard work... others have done little.

Lots of poor people are poor despite lots of hard work... others due to laziness.

Interesting that the rich people who have do little work aren't lazy but the poor people are.


If you have no money and don't work to try and get some to feed your family... you're lazy.

If you alreafy have huge amounts of money and don't work hard... big deal... why waste your life working when you could be sipping pina coladas in Rio?
2014-01-09 03:01:04 PM
1 votes:

ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.



Work is not valuable merely because it's hard.

Work is valuable to the extent that (a) other people desire it, and (b) the difficulty in their obtaining it through some alternative.

This is not true just because I say so.  This is an inescapable feature of objective, universal, economic reality.
2014-01-09 02:56:01 PM
1 votes:

mdeesnuts: mike_d85: ikanreed:
You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?

I have and lots of them work hard.  Most of them are idiots.  I say that honestly.  They are stupid, stupid people and you can tell them exactly the obvious answer and they will ignore you and do it wrong and worsen their situation or keep it somewhere in the neighborhood of "completely farked".


This. Go be a regular at a dive bar for a month. Just sit there for an hour or two after work. You'll get to know the (many) other regulars and learn their stories. Most of them will be middling poor and you'll come to understand they'd be much better off if they weren't so stubbornly dumb.


You know there are a lto fo poor peopel who don't hang otu at bars, right?

And if you are getting your info rom that, it could be coloring your view.
2014-01-09 02:52:23 PM
1 votes:

Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?

You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?

Telejester, the answer to your question seems to be 'no' couched as a deflection.

I am related to several people that are genuinely extreemely poor. And I know for a fact that they do almost no work at all. In fact the few times they actually were employed, one of them quit because he didn't want to wake up so early.  One (that I got a job) was fired because he just wouldn't do the work he was asked. One just goes out to clubs and keeps getting herself pregnant (lovely girl, gave up three babies for adoption before she started keeping them). Then there is the used car salesmen (four of them) that can't seem to keep working for the sema place for very long (but I get good deals on cars).  Now if you add into that the waves of dregs I get to meet through this group, I guess that should count as enough annecdotal evidence.

Please drop the 'weeping for the noble hard working screwed over poor' bit.


You forgot one more lazy person you're related to, the laziest one of all:
paganpages.org
2014-01-09 02:46:59 PM
1 votes:

PsiChick: *shrug* Everything needs updating now and then. The problem is when it  isn't updated, and that's a problem our government has in spades.


The Republican party agrees with you.
2014-01-09 02:41:42 PM
1 votes:

ikanreed: telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?

You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?


I have met people who are genuinely poor because of laziness.  Not saying all poor people are lazy of course.  But they're not all hard working either.
2014-01-09 02:35:37 PM
1 votes:

MayoSlather: You're like Pope Francis except you're a complete dick.


Thank you?
2014-01-09 02:34:32 PM
1 votes:

ikanreed: telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?

You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?


Telejester, the answer to your question seems to be 'no' couched as a deflection.

I am related to several people that are genuinely extreemely poor. And I know for a fact that they do almost no work at all. In fact the few times they actually were employed, one of them quit because he didn't want to wake up so early.  One (that I got a job) was fired because he just wouldn't do the work he was asked. One just goes out to clubs and keeps getting herself pregnant (lovely girl, gave up three babies for adoption before she started keeping them). Then there is the used car salesmen (four of them) that can't seem to keep working for the sema place for very long (but I get good deals on cars).  Now if you add into that the waves of dregs I get to meet through this group, I guess that should count as enough annecdotal evidence.

Please drop the 'weeping for the noble hard working screwed over poor' bit.
2014-01-09 02:33:02 PM
1 votes:

AngryDragon: So it's women's fault then.  I always suspected.  If they would just stick to making sammiches, everything would be better.


j-walk.com
2014-01-09 02:28:04 PM
1 votes:
So it's women's fault then.  I always suspected.  If they would just stick to making sammiches, everything would be better.
2014-01-09 02:27:57 PM
1 votes:

mike_d85: ikanreed: telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?

You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?

I have and lots of them work hard.  Most of them are idiots.  I say that honestly.  They are stupid, stupid people and you can tell them exactly the obvious answer and they will ignore you and do it wrong and worsen their situation or keep it somewhere in the neighborhood of "completely farked".

I say "most" because there are people who got caught in medical bills, layoffs, metal illness, etc. and ended up poor (usually temporarily) and they are not idiots.  However the people who were born poor, stayed poor, and do not show any signs of ever getting out of poverty, are generally morons.


You're like Pope Francis except you're a complete dick.
2014-01-09 02:26:00 PM
1 votes:

ikanreed: telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?

You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?


I have and lots of them work hard.  Most of them are idiots.  I say that honestly.  They are stupid, stupid people and you can tell them exactly the obvious answer and they will ignore you and do it wrong and worsen their situation or keep it somewhere in the neighborhood of "completely farked".

I say "most" because there are people who got caught in medical bills, layoffs, metal illness, etc. and ended up poor (usually temporarily) and they are not idiots.  However the people who were born poor, stayed poor, and do not show any signs of ever getting out of poverty, are generally morons.
2014-01-09 02:22:16 PM
1 votes:

AgentPothead: Much like capitalism only works if you have an informed consumer, but those died out with personal responsibility sometime in the 1980's.


Well you know poverty has been the problem of indolent irresponsible people. Job creators try to help them, but you know what the bible says, job creators only help those that help themselves.
2014-01-09 02:17:25 PM
1 votes:
The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?
 
Displayed 95 of 95 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report