Is U.S. Poverty Too Comfortable?

[BilPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by russ_watters
I realize I said I was answering the question directly but I really didn't. My answer is no, poverty should not be comfortable because if it is comfortable, many people won't make an effort to get out of it.

WHOWEE In his response to the State of the Union Address tonight, Congressman Ryan said (something to the effect of) "let's not turn the safety net into a hammock" - classic!

Anyone would have to agree with this on the basis that anybody given a choice between working for a paycheck or receiving an equal paycheck without working would take the free money. I know I would! The problem with solving welfare problems is that under our current system the value of money is diminishing without working any less. That has to be changed just the same. The gap between rich and poor will continue to grow. And that is equal to the welfare problem. Or rather that is equal to unemployment and other subsidies given to people that want to work but can't find any or can't make enough to pay their bills due to economic circumstances that are out of their control. Bottom line is you can't give money to able minds and bodies for nothing. It is obviously not fair to those that work.

 

[thephysicsman]

Social security is funded through payroll deductions and matching tax.

That is, through initiation of force.

That's like saying that we should rely on a person's self discipline and morality instead of enforcing laws(on criminals, theives and the like).

No, it's nothing even close to it. The funciton of the law is to protect us against criminals who want to steal our money - not to help the criminals to do so.

There will always be people who can't help themselves

And there will always be people who want to help. Because, as you put it:

we are humans and we have compassion.

Problem is you can't rely on everyone to have compassion.

You don't have to rely on everyone to have it.

 

[Evo]

That is, through initiation of force.

What force, or were you attempting to make a joke?

 

[thephysicsman]

What force

Try to keep your own money, and you'll find out.

 

[arildno]

Money has some extra values beyond the item you can buy with it:
You can buy something else for it instead, and you also have a freedom on the spending rate of your money.

It might be justified that those added values are precisely what people on welfare should be debarred from:
1. Money is not given out, but food articles, clothes etc.
2, Furthermore, the spending rate of their valuables can be controlled by limiting the amount they are given each time (possibly increasing the frequency of hand-outs).
Rather than giving the equivalent of a month's allowance (which could easily be frittered away in a day by bartering or re-selling), a daily allowance will probably reduce the percentage of abuse of welfare.

That such a situation might feel humiliating to the recipient is a rather irrelevant point. Because being in need is not the same as suffering an injustice.

 

[russ_watters]

The problem with solving welfare problems is that under our current system the value of money is diminishing without working any less.

No. Inflation has no bearing whatsoever on this issue. I think you are attributing more effects to inflation than it really has.

The gap between rich and poor will continue to grow. And that is equal to the welfare problem.

While it is popular these days to equate the two, they aren't really equal. In fact, I'd say equating the two contributes to the problem of reliance on government aid: when you base the definition of "poverty" on income inequality instead of standard of living, you create a situation where people receive handouts they don't need which decreases the incentive to work.

 

[thephysicsman]

1. Money is not given out, but food articles, clothes etc.
2, Furthermore, the spending rate of their valuables can be controlled by limiting the amount they are given each time (possibly increasing the frequency of hand-outs).
Rather than giving the equivalent of a month's allowance (which could easily be frittered away in a day by bartering or re-selling), a daily allowance will probably reduce the percentage of abuse of welfare.

I agree, this kind of help is certainly more effective, and this is how I imagine it would be if social security was replaced by private charity.

That such a situation might feel humiliating to the recipient is a rather irrelevant point. Because being in need is not the same as suffering an injustice.

Good point.

when you base the definition of "poverty" on income inequality instead of standard of living, you create a situation where people receive handouts they don't need which decreases the incentive to work.

Exactly! I see no problems with income inequality, but I do see a lot of problems with inequalities of justice.

 

[brainstorm]

So you have to take their money by force through taxes or else the burden would fall on the shoulders of only the compassionate, giving people without compassion a financial advantage.

The problem with this is that not everyone's money is worth the same thing. What I mean by this is that when a well-earning attorney or other professional is taxed for compassion, their labor does not contribute anything to the poor. Instead, their money gets paid to someone who works in a grocery store to give food to the poor. The forced exchange that took place through taxation and governed spending is that the grocery store workers feed the poor and in exchange they get free attorney service, or whatever the person does who paid the taxes. But who says that the grocery store worker WANTS to work harder just because the attorney paid more taxes? See, the problem is not just distributing money and resources, it's distributing preferred and less-preferred forms of labor.

The problem is getting the money to the right people and leaving able minds and bodies to fend for themselves like everyone else. It needs to be case by case rather than just giving money to anyone below a certain income. Hiring social workers to weed out the people that don't really need the money would certainly be more efficient than just handing out money to anyone that says they need it.

Again, from the grocery store worker's perspective, or food-server, etc. paying the social worker just creates one more person they have to cook and clean for, along with the "truly needy person" who gets money to buy groceries and buy fast food because the social worker felt really bad for them. The question is why both the social worker AND needy person can't work in the food service industry that they need money to patronize? If they need money to pay for a house or apartment, why can't they work in the construction industry, etc.? There are obviously reasons why not everyone can and does work in these industries but the issue is why can't the people in need be trained or otherwise work in some way that reduces the burden of the service class who don't like their work?

Anyone would have to agree with this on the basis that anybody given a choice between working for a paycheck or receiving an equal paycheck without working would take the free money. I know I would! The problem with solving welfare problems is that under our current system the value of money is diminishing without working any less. That has to be changed just the same. The gap between rich and poor will continue to grow. And that is equal to the welfare problem. Or rather that is equal to unemployment and other subsidies given to people that want to work but can't find any or can't make enough to pay their bills due to economic circumstances that are out of their control. Bottom line is you can't give money to able minds and bodies for nothing. It is obviously not fair to those that work.

Yes, but the problem is that those that work don't want to cut their hours to create more jobs for the unemployed. It's a catch 22. They want maximum hours for maximum pay and job security, but they don't want to do anything to help those that are structurally unemployed as a result of there being too few jobs. How can you horde jobs and work-hours and then complain that other people need to work instead of getting a handout?

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by BilPrestonEsq
That's like saying that we should rely on a person's self discipline and morality instead of enforcing laws(on criminals, theives and the like).

THEPHYSICSMAN:No, it's nothing even close to it. The funciton of the law is to protect us against criminals who want to steal our money - not to help the criminals to do so.

Actually it is exactly the same. Laws are in place because we cannot depend on people to discipline themselves just as we cannot depend on people to have compassion for others.

THEPHYSICSMAN: There will always be people who can't help themselves
And there will always be people who want to help. Because, as you put it:we are humans and we have compassion.

THEPHYSICSMAN:You don't have to rely on everyone to have it.

That is exactly what will create a financial incentive to be without compassion. That is why the burden will fall on those that do have compassion. How is that fair?
How will that not create the same inequality with corporations for example that don't care about the ecological consequences of their actions and those that do. The ones that don't care end up making more profit than the ones that do care. Same as the people that don't care about those without the means to suppert themselves end up with more money as they are not burdened with those feelings of compassion.

 

[thephysicsman]

Laws are in place because we cannot depend on people to discipline

Laws are in place because we need protection against criminals. If you admit the principle that it is the duty of the government to discipline people, why not prevent people from eating junk food?

we cannot depend on people to have compassion for others.

Yes, we can. There have always been compassionate people. Compassion is part of human nature.

why the burden will fall on those that do have compassion. How is that fair?

It's not a burden! People with real compassion help because they want to help. They enjoy it! It's a win-win situation.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

No. Inflation has no bearing whatsoever on this issue. I think you are attributing more effects to inflation than it really has.

I would like to keep this on topic but the proof of inflation(money supply vs. purchasing power) is clearly laid out in the graphs in my last post on the 'Is Modern Banking Fraudulent?' thread. This does have an effect on all spending including entitlement spending
The sooner people realize the obvious mathematically impossiblity of a sustained economy through fractional reserve banking the better. If you would like to argue that we can in that thread. I felt it was necessary to make that point in my post on this thread seeing as I it was important to clarify different points in my argument.

While it is popular these days to equate the two, they aren't really equal. In fact, I'd say equating the two contributes to the problem of reliance on government aid: when you base the definition of "poverty" on income inequality instead of standard of living, you create a situation where people receive handouts they don't need which decreases the incentive to work.

Again same answer. Except for the part in bold which I couldn't agree with more. How is someone receiving the same amount of money through a handout going to have any incentive at all to work for the same money? There is no incentive.

 

[arildno]

That is exactly what will create a financial incentive to be without compassion. That is why the burden will fall on those that do have compassion. How is that fair?

And why cannot this be counter-acted by demonizing, non-violent boycott campaigns?

For example:
"Do you want to trade with that OGRE?? Are you equally disgusting yourself?"

Nobody has a law-protected privilege to make money. Not even uncompassionate ogres.

The crucial point here is what are the morally justifiable actions to take against ogres.
Social ostracization and financial boycotting campaigns are no infringements on the ogre's rights.

If an ogre goes broke because people are disgusted by his lack of compassion, I fell no tears for him.

 

[thephysicsman]

And why cannot this be counter-acted by demonizing, non-violent boycott campaigns?

Good point. But keep in mind that businesses are far more effective in helping people by doing business than by handing out their money. People tend to forget this. They seem to believe that the economy is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum" game, where one person's profit is another person's loss.

 

[russ_watters]

This does have an effect on all spending including entitlement spending...

Not really, no - typically the spending is adjusted from year-to-year to eliminate the impact of inflation. It is for social security: http://www.boston.com/business/pers...money/archives/2009/03/social_security_2.html

In other words, inflation has essentially no impact on Social Security spending/benefits.

 

[arildno]

Good point. But keep in mind that businesses are far more effective in helping people by doing business than by handing out their money

So?
I, and a zillion people are in our full right to boycott anyone merchant, and advise others to do the same.
As long as we do not inspire people to this by lying and misrepresentation.

There is nothing more inherently admirable in doing business than walking your dog.

Making money is not some form of morally heroic act. (not that it is despicable, either)

 

[brainstorm]

Good point. But keep in mind that businesses are far more effective in helping people by doing business than by handing out their money. People tend to forget this. They seem to believe that the economy is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum" game, where one person's profit is another person's loss.

Well, actually higher profits raise profit expectations generally, which leads to competition for who can set prices the highest and lower costs the most. Higher prices reduce everyone's purchasing power, including the poor - but especially the poor because a greater proportion of their income goes to purchases instead of things like saving, insurance, investment, etc.

As for the effect of paying people to do compassionate work, I think it has the effect of creating a class of people who feign compassion because they know there's money in it. Also, once people are getting paid for something, they're more likely to refuse to do it when the money isn't there; I've read a little about this about when modern welfare state governments are responding to recession by making cuts in social services.

I think sometimes people help each other out for various reasons and that's wonderful but you can't rely on that. The best thing to help poverty, imo, is to make it possible to live better with less spending, both by supporting economic policies that lower prices and by promoting education and goods that make it possible for people to live more independently with less financial means. When people can save money by fixing their own roof leak or drain because they are intelligent enough to use the internet and/or innovate low-cost solutions, that is handy. Of course they still should have access to achieving the same standards of consumption as the middle-class, but maybe those standards need to come down some so there's enough to go around for the poor as well.

 

[thephysicsman]

I, and a zillion people are in our full right to boycott anyone merchant, and advise others to do the same.

Sure. You would be fools to do so, but that would be your right.

Making money is not some form of morally heroic act.

Making money involves productive work. If this is not heroic, what is?

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

QUOTE=russ_watters;3104684]Not really, no - typically the spending is adjusted from year-to-year to eliminate the impact of inflation. It is for social security: http://www.boston.com/business/pers...money/archives/2009/03/social_security_2.html

In other words, inflation has essentially no impact on Social Security spending/benefits.[/QUOTE]

The money needed to subsidize social security to adjust for inflation has to come from somewhere else. Where do suppose the money comes from?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GAO_Slide.png

 

[thephysicsman]

Well, actually higher profits raise profit expectations generally, which leads to competition for who can set prices the highest and lower costs the most. Higher prices reduce everyone's purchasing power, including the poor - but especially the poor because a greater proportion of their income goes to purchases instead of things like saving, insurance, investment, etc.

In a free market you can only make money by providing consumers with something for which they willingly pay. How on Earth can this lower their purchasing power?

I think sometimes people help each other out for various reasons and that's wonderful but you can't rely on that.

You can. It doesn't take many compassionate people to help the very few who will need help in a free society.

The best thing to help poverty, imo, is to make it possible to live better with less spending, both by supporting economic policies that lower prices

This is impossible. A free market is the only way to lower prices.

 

[brainstorm]

Making money involves productive work. If this is not heroic, what is?

There are all these people who insist that money is the measure of work-productivity, but I think if you look more closely the two aren't the same. Some work produces great value but makes relatively little money, e.g. changing the oil in car regularly to get more miles out of the engine than if you rarely change it. Other work makes a lot of money but doesn't produce much tangible economic value, e.g. decorating retail displays, tearing ticket stubs, etc. Of course these tasks all have a function within the system they are embedded, but in a larger scheme they do not produce economic value the way things like farm-labor and construction do. So when more people could be producing more building materials so the price of building materials could be low enough for poor people to afford, but they are working in jobs to manage and market building materials at as high a price possible to increase profits, is this work really heroic for the poor? Yes, I'm aware of the argument that by pushing the price for building materials up, it stimulates more production of those products which ultimately results in a more abundant availability and the surplus trickles down, but I don't know that it really always does as efficiently as it could or should.

 

[WhoWee]

Money has some extra values beyond the item you can buy with it:
You can buy something else for it instead, and you also have a freedom on the spending rate of your money.

It might be justified that those added values are precisely what people on welfare should be debarred from:
1. Money is not given out, but food articles, clothes etc.
2, Furthermore, the spending rate of their valuables can be controlled by limiting the amount they are given each time (possibly increasing the frequency of hand-outs).
Rather than giving the equivalent of a month's allowance (which could easily be frittered away in a day by bartering or re-selling), a daily allowance will probably reduce the percentage of abuse of welfare.

That such a situation might feel humiliating to the recipient is a rather irrelevant point. Because being in need is not the same as suffering an injustice.

I think one of the problems with the US system is we (taxpayers) don't enjoy any buying power. Given the amount of money spent to house and feed people - we should be able to buy more (stuff) for the same amount of money. The most obvious example: States and US Government should buy food at wholesale - not retail. Historically, the Agriculture department has even paid farmers NOT to produce crops.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/01/AR2006070100962.html
"Nationwide, the federal government has paid at least $1.3 billion in subsidies for rice and other crops since 2000 to individuals who do no farming at all, according to an analysis of government records by The Washington Post. "

In the overall budget, $1.3 billion is (spent roughly every 8 hours?) - not a big number. However, if the same amount of money was spent purchasing crops from the farmers - wouldn't that be better (for the taxpayers)?

To expand on the point of "That such a situation might feel humiliating to the recipient is a rather irrelevant point. Because being in need is not the same as suffering an injustice. " - I see nothing wrong with the Government buying certain generic goods and staples directly from producers including: generic soups, cereal, and bread, cheese, (throw in some soaps and tooth paste), milk, eggs, meat, vegetables, fruit, and condiments.

People on welfare don't NEED over-priced processed foods - they NEED basic sustenance - anything more is a waste and a luxury (IMO). I don't want anyone to ever go hungry. We can feed more people for less money (again IMO).

 

[arildno]

Sure. You would be fools to do so, but that would be your right.

Why fools?
Why am I fool to push a businessman out of business if he is a racial bigot, for example?
I do not want such men to prosper in their private life, and I find it eminently rational, and within my rights, to reduce their opprtunities for it. By legal means, of course.

Making money involves productive work.

The classical Randian fallacy.
Answer is: not necessarily.

If this is not heroic, what is?

Hmm, let's see.
That's a really hard one.
Does saving a boy from drowning in a pond meet your "standards" of heroism?

 

[thephysicsman]

So when more people could be producing more building materials so the price of building materials could be low enough for poor people to afford, but they are working in jobs to manage and market building materials at as high a price possible to increase profits, is this work really heroic for the poor?

It is heroic to pursue your own happiness. If managing and marketing makes you happy, this is heroic.

 

[arildno]

It is heroic to pursue your own happiness.

Tell that to Jared Lee Loughner, and other guys like him.
I'm sure they agree with you.

 

[thephysicsman]

I see nothing wrong with the Government buying certain generic goods and staples directly from producers

The government spends other people's money on things that they maybe don't want to spend them on. You seriously see nothing wrong with this?

Why am I fool to push a businessman out of business if he is a racial bigot, for example?

I didn't say that. You would be a fool if you pushed a productive businessman out of business because he invested his money instead of giving it away to the poor.

Why fools?
The classical Randian fallacy.
Answer is: not necessarily.

How so?

Does saving a boy from drowning in a pond meet your "standards" of heroism?

Yes, unless you put yourself at risk.

 

[brainstorm]

Why fools?
Why am I fool to push a businessman out of business if he is a racial bigot, for example?
I do not want such men to prosper in their private life, and I find it eminently rational, and within my rights, to reduce their opprtunities for it. By legal means, of course.

I used to think this way but there is something to fighting fair. For example, you should realize that much racist bigotry occurs because people boycott institutions that are not racially exclusive enough (i.e. "white" enough). So it is ethically a bit nicer to raise the issue for discussion instead of immediately punishing a business "without due process." Granted sometimes you are convinced "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that a business is corrupt and you just can't stand to contribute to it by being a client, but also realize that legitimate businesses can be harmed by public campaigns created to scapegoat certain businesses to foster success for their competition.

It is heroic to pursue your own happiness. If managing and marketing makes you happy, this is heroic.

Heroic to whom? Let's face it, everyone commits actions that are beneficial to some and detrimental to others - so everyone is a hero in some ways and a villain in others. The best we can do is try to maximize benefit and minimize detriment as much as possible for whomever possible, including ourselves.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

Is it me or has this gone off topic?

 

[brainstorm]

Is it me or has this gone off topic?

To you, everything in any thread that doesn't focus on fractional reserve banking is off topic it seems.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

To you, everything in any thread that doesn't focus on fractional reserve banking is off topic it seems.

You obviously didn't read my posts.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

And why cannot this be counter-acted by demonizing, non-violent boycott campaigns?

For example:
"Do you want to trade with that OGRE?? Are you equally disgusting yourself?"

Nobody has a law-protected privilege to make money. Not even uncompassionate ogres.

The crucial point here is what are the morally justifiable actions to take against ogres.
Social ostracization and financial boycotting campaigns are no infringements on the ogre's rights.

If an ogre goes broke because people are disgusted by his lack of compassion, I fell no tears for him.

Why would anyone want to depend on the possibility of this happening? So you would bet the lives of your family members on this happening?

 

[arildno]

Why would anyone want to depend on the possibility of this happening?

Why should it remain just a possibility?
People are perfectly capable of regulating their own communities, when aroused.
Placing (hopefully) benign bureaucrats to do the work you personally are responsible for doing merely makes you into a passive observer.
Nor will they be efficient at doing that work, either, without thereby arousing you from apathy.
Nor will they generally be benign, either, but more interested in getting a bigger office next year.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

It's not a burden! People with real compassion help because they want to help. They enjoy it! It's a win-win situation.

Again would you like to bet your aging family members on that? So no more social security we will just rely on the kindness of others to make sure millions of people are taken care of. That idealistic approach is irresponsible and naive.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

Why should it remain just a possibility?
People are perfectly capable of regulating their own communities, when aroused.
Placing (hopefully) benign bureaucrats to do the work you personally are responsible for doing merely makes you into a passive observer.
Nor will they be efficient at doing that work, either, without thereby arousing you from apathy.
Nor will they generally be benign, either, but more interested in getting a bigger office next year.

As long as it's not a law it will continue to be only a possibility. I hear you the thing is it is not a realistically viable solution as you are betting real human lives on possibilities.

 

[arildno]

As long as it's not a law it will continue to be only a possibility.

Really?
I didn't know that there was a law against going to work in shabby, stinking clothes.
In the vast majority of firms, however, you'll not find a single employee dressed like that. Not to mention on CEO level. :-)

Can you cite me the law paragraph that makes effective this kind of practical boycott?

Hmm..??

 

[WhoWee]

The government spends other people's money on things that they maybe don't want to spend them on. You seriously see nothing wrong with this?

I don't want anyone to go hungry. I just want the Government to seek value - to feed more people for less cost. Yes, I want the Government to spend our tax money more efficiently.