Is U.S. Poverty Too Comfortable?

[WhoWee]

In an effort to get back on track - the Government has studied basic needs of the poor.
http://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/proceedings/y2005/Files/JSM2005-000618.pdf

I think it's safe to assume that opinions vary over time as to the definition of a "need". In 1811, (I'll assume) electricity and running water were not considered basic needs. I'll also assume hungry people would have been grateful for the ingredients to bake a loaf of bread.

 

[arildno]

In an effort to get back on track - the Government has studied basic needs of the poor.
http://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/proceedings/y2005/Files/JSM2005-000618.pdf

I think it's safe to assume that opinions vary over time as to the definition of a "need". In 1811, (I'll assume) electricity and running water were not considered basic needs. I'll also assume hungry people would have been grateful for the ingredients to bake a loaf of bread.

Hungry people today will ALSO be more grateful to get a loaf of bread (even if they have to bake it) than to get electricity and running water.

So, some needs do not, actually, vary very much across the millennia.
Those are the ones that are the truly basic needs.
Breathable air is another such basic need.

We might call them vital needs if you like.

 

[thephysicsman]

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.

Racist companies that for example do not want to hire white employees, punish themselves.

 

[arildno]

Racist companies that for example do not want to hire white employees, punish themselves.

I'm sure you can live blissfully unaware of that by earning 2 million dollars a year you are actually punishing yourself for being a racist, because if you hadn't been a racist, you would have earned 5 million...

 

[thephysicsman]

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.

A hero is (quoting my dictionary) "a person, typically a man, who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities".

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

I'll tell you Jared Lee Loughner is not a happy person.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

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.

Just to be clear what your saying is instead of depending on law you are depending on counter-acting people without compassion by demonizing, non-violent boycott campaigns against them?
What are you boycotting? I am talking about private citizens that don't want to contribute to charities? I guess you thought I meant businesses?

 

[WhoWee]

Back to the topic...is a (Post WWII style) 800 square foot house comfortable enough for someone "living in poverty"?
http://www.fullertonheritage.org/Resources/archstyles/postww2.htm

"Post WWII Tract Homes
Tract housing is a type of residential development in which many identical or nearly identical dwellings are built adjacent to one another. Tract housing was popularized in the United States when the building firm Levitt and Sons built four planned communities called "Levittowns" (in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Puerto Rico); Levittown, New York, however, was the first and most famous. Rather than design and build each house individually, Levitt and Sons built thousands of nearly identical 800-square foot " Cape Cod style" dwellings. The houses had a simple rectangular plan with a single gabled roof and a centered front door under a low eave. The repetitive use of only a few plans reduced labor costs, because the home builders were not required to be craftsmen. By ordering materials in bulk and then producing a large number of units, developers could also keep costs down while raising profits.

Common features of tract homes include:

Box- or rectangular-shaped single-story dwellings
Although different styles can be used, exteriors are simple with few decorative elements
Smooth stucco walls
Grass front lawns with a rear backyard and simple landscaping "

Going back to my post number 21

"A $25,000 (total investment) in a new energy efficient home on a reclaimed city lot financed over 30 years at 5 percent (with $500 down payment) would have an estimated monthly payment of $157.04. That is affordable and reasonable. It would enable poor people to byild equity in a quality asset and revitalize the inner city neighborhoods. It's a win - win - win. "

A pre-engineered panelized design of 600 to 800 square foot is what I had in mind. Purchased 10 per order - the panelized walls are available (R-30) at under $8/sq ft of wall surface - installed (1 to 2 days). A basic box with windows and doors would cost roughly $22,500 plus toilet, sinks, basic plumbing and electric package (surface mounted), energy efficient HVAC, and pad. All wall and floor coverings would be basic and functional. Produced in quantity, $25,000 is a do-able target - if Government bureaucracy doubled the cost to $50,000 - the payments would still only be $300 per month for a new house.

 

[thephysicsman]

So no more social security we will just rely on the kindness of others to make sure millions of people are taken care of.

Hopefully most people will have saved enough money throughout a long working life to fund their own pensions.

That idealistic approach is irresponsible and naive.

No, it's not. It's responsible and realistic. What's naive is to entrust short-term politicians with the responsibility for other people's retirement.

I don't want anyone to go hungry. I just want the Government to seek value - to feed more people for less cost.

If you want to satisfy everyone's stomachs, you should promote capitalism, not socialism. China did not lift hundreds of millions of people out of hunger through government food. They did it by opening their markets a tiny bit and starting to protect private property.

I'm sure you can live blissfully unaware of that by earning 2 million dollars a year you are actually punishing yourself for being a racist, because if you hadn't been a racist, you would have earned 5 million...

Possibly, but that has no bearing on the truth of my claim. Here are the ten most profitable companies in America in 2009 according to Fortune 500:

1. Exxon Mobil
2. Microsoft
3. Wal-Mart
4. Procter & Gamble
5. IBM
6. Goldman Sachs
7. Merk
8. AT&T
9. Wells Fargo
10. Johnson and Johnson

There's not the slightest chance you'll find any racism in the policies of these companies. They simply can't afford it.

 

[WhoWee]

If you want to satisfy everyone's stomachs, you should promote capitalism, not socialism. China did not lift hundreds of millions of people out of hunger through government food. They did it by opening their markets a tiny bit and starting to protect private property.

You think I'm promoting socialism? :

IVAN! Can you believe this?

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

Back to the topic...is a (Post WWII style) 800 square foot house comfortable enough for someone "living in poverty"?
http://www.fullertonheritage.org/Resources/archstyles/postww2.htm

"Post WWII Tract Homes
Tract housing is a type of residential development in which many identical or nearly identical dwellings are built adjacent to one another. Tract housing was popularized in the United States when the building firm Levitt and Sons built four planned communities called "Levittowns" (in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Puerto Rico); Levittown, New York, however, was the first and most famous. Rather than design and build each house individually, Levitt and Sons built thousands of nearly identical 800-square foot " Cape Cod style" dwellings. The houses had a simple rectangular plan with a single gabled roof and a centered front door under a low eave. The repetitive use of only a few plans reduced labor costs, because the home builders were not required to be craftsmen. By ordering materials in bulk and then producing a large number of units, developers could also keep costs down while raising profits.

Common features of tract homes include:

Box- or rectangular-shaped single-story dwellings
Although different styles can be used, exteriors are simple with few decorative elements
Smooth stucco walls
Grass front lawns with a rear backyard and simple landscaping "

Going back to my post number 21

"A $25,000 (total investment) in a new energy efficient home on a reclaimed city lot financed over 30 years at 5 percent (with $500 down payment) would have an estimated monthly payment of $157.04. That is affordable and reasonable. It would enable poor people to byild equity in a quality asset and revitalize the inner city neighborhoods. It's a win - win - win. "

A pre-engineered panelized design of 600 to 800 square foot is what I had in mind. Purchased 10 per order - the panelized walls are available (R-30) at under $8/sq ft of wall surface - installed (1 to 2 days). A basic box with windows and doors would cost roughly $22,500 plus toilet, sinks, basic plumbing and electric package (surface mounted), energy efficient HVAC, and pad. All wall and floor coverings would be basic and functional. Produced in quantity, $25,000 is a do-able target - if Government bureaucracy doubled the cost to $50,000 - the payments would still only be $300 per month for a new house.

Wouldn't this be like treating the symptoms of a disease rather that looking for a cure?
Brainstorm made a point earlier (if I am not mistaken) that this would lower the value of houses already on the market.

 

[russ_watters]

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

Oh, I see, you're saying that inflation saps returns from investments. That's only true if you take a very simplistive view of the issue: investment returns also increase in response to inflation, as do the wages of the employess that fund it.

One good example is interest rates vs inflation: it's not a coincidence that both are low at the same time right now.

And since inflation is measured by the price of goods and services, inflation corresponds with an increase in the price of goods, which means an increase in the income of corporations, due to supply and demand and increase in the wages of the employees.

It seems like you think inflation is strictly a drain on the economy - a certain percentage of the economy that disappears in a kind of entropy every year. It's not like that.

 

[thephysicsman]

You think I'm promoting socialism?

You're promoting redistribution of wealth through force. Whatever you call it, it's not capitalism, it's not freedom and it's not American.

 

[WhoWee]

Wouldn't this be like treating the symptoms of a disease rather that looking for a cure?
Brainstorm made a point earlier (if I am not mistaken) that this would lower the value of houses already on the market.

If these homes were built on vacant lots in the inner-city - it would improve the real estate values of the local community. On the other hand, it would create an increased supply of over-priced apartments - that would force landlords to make their properties more competitive.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

Hopefully most people will have saved enough money throughout a long working life to fund their own pensions.

Hopefully? Social Security is a good program. People pay into it and when they need it after retirement it is there for them. What is wrong with SS?

No, it's not. It's responsible and realistic. What's naive is to entrust short-term politicians with the responsibility for other people's retirement.

First I want to say I understand where you are coming from because I used to have the same opinion. What changed my mind is a friend of mine who takes care of his father, his grandmother and his brother because of both old age and his brother's health problems. Is he supposed to rely solely on charity to get the help that he needs? Again this creates a financial disadvantage for those that care. Giving an equal financial advantage to those that don't. It may make me feel great to help but if I don't have the money then what? Especially if I have to take responsibility for the millions of people in need. Without the help of the many that don't care to contribute how can I. How do you address the financial burden that would ride on the backs of the compassionate? This is a totally idealistic approach. And keep in mind that this is America and we hold elections every 2 years. We choose who represents us. Whether or not we use this right is up to us.

If you want to satisfy everyone's stomachs, you should promote capitalism, not socialism. China did not lift hundreds of millions of people out of hunger through government food. They did it by opening their markets a tiny bit and starting to protect private property

You put way to much faith in the free market. The free market is driven by profit. I realize you see this as a good thing. And it some ways it is. Now I understand how free market competition is good for the consumer and good for the advancement of technology and efficiency. But the free market doesn't care about you. The government is you it is everyone not some separate entity. It is our apathy that allows us to be misrepresented. It is often the collaboration between politicians and corporations that do the most damage. So don't try to make free market look like some kind of answer to everything. That makes no sense. China?!?...

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

If these homes were built on vacant lots in the inner-city - it would improve the real estate values of the local community. On the other hand, it would create an increased supply of over-priced apartments - that would force landlords to make their properties more competitive.

I suppose it would be more constructive and could be made more efficient than older dwellings. It would raise the value of a vacant lot as well.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

Oh, I see, you're saying that inflation saps returns from investments. That's only true if you take a very simplistive view of the issue: investment returns also increase in response to inflation, as do the wages of the employess that fund it.

One good example is interest rates vs inflation: it's not a coincidence that both are low at the same time right now.

And since inflation is measured by the price of goods and services, inflation corresponds with an increase in the price of goods, which means an increase in the income of corporations, due to supply and demand and increase in the wages of the employees.

It seems like you think inflation is strictly a drain on the economy - a certain percentage of the economy that disappears in a kind of entropy every year. It's not like that.

What I am saying is money for the federal government comes from taxes. If the taxes collected are not enough money to supply the needs of the budget including entitlment programs then we have a budget deficit and the money has to be borrowed. This only makes the problem worse for the next year. Eventually as the graph shows the amount of interest with be equal to the money needed for these programs.The money needed for interest payments will eventually exceed all the money received from taxpayers.

 

[WhoWee]

You promote redistribution of wealth through force. Whatever you call it, it's not capitalism, it's not freedom and it's not American.

If you read my posts carefully - you'll reach a different conclusion.

Government waste and inefficiency, coupled with the cradle to grave welfare mentality is the road to ruin. There are limits - and we are there - see the story of the "Golden Goose".

I don't want to hear spending called investment. I don't want to pay higher utility rates because of cap and trade and represented as a solution to global warming.

The silver lining however, might be the expansion of Medicaid - as it collapses state after state - we will be forced to break out chainsaws to make spending cuts - where surgical cuts would have been sufficient a few years ago.

(Again - label this entire post - MY OPINION - please).

No, I'm an unrepresented angry independent - a businessman and married father of four. I'm also realistic that entitlement programs are here to stay - but need to be reformed.

Again - label this entire post - IMO.

 

[brainstorm]

Hungry people today will ALSO be more grateful to get a loaf of bread (even if they have to bake it) than to get electricity and running water.

Yes, people can and should learn to appreciate the value of everything they consume. There is a difference, however, between being spoiled and being intelligent enough to recognize that affordable everyday luxuries are priced high to extract more from you than it costs to produce what you are getting in return. Yes, an electric grid costs a lot to build and maintain but when there are people who are going to build and maintain the grid for themselves whether you are connected to it or not, why should they withhold access to poor people until those people agree to work in a restaurant and wash their dishes? People should be free to work for everyday (and not so everyday) luxuries like eating at restaurants, but they should not be prodded into such work just because that is the only job available and they need to money to pay for electricity. There needs to be some reason in the economics of trading labor for goods and services - not just total submission to an ethic that says, "if you want anything besides basic survival from the economy, you have to accept whatever job anyone is willing to pay you for." People should have the opportunity to do work contributing to industries that they believe in and not just getting stuck with whatever job pays the bills, imo.

 

[WhoWee]

Yes, people can and should learn to appreciate the value of everything they consume. There is a difference, however, between being spoiled and being intelligent enough to recognize that affordable everyday luxuries are priced high to extract more from you than it costs to produce what you are getting in return. Yes, an electric grid costs a lot to build and maintain but when there are people who are going to build and maintain the grid for themselves whether you are connected to it or not, why should they withhold access to poor people until those people agree to work in a restaurant and wash their dishes? People should be free to work for everyday (and not so everyday) luxuries like eating at restaurants, but they should not be prodded into such work just because that is the only job available and they need to money to pay for electricity. There needs to be some reason in the economics of trading labor for goods and services - not just total submission to an ethic that says, "if you want anything besides basic survival from the economy, you have to accept whatever job anyone is willing to pay you for." People should have the opportunity to do work contributing to industries that they believe in and not just getting stuck with whatever job pays the bills, imo.

My bold

What exactly is stopping them from following their dreams - lack of education, unfair hiring practices related to race/gender/nationality, criminal record, credit record, lack of specific training and skills, drug addiction - or is it something that is their own fault - maybe a lack of effort or qualifications? What are the barriers holding these people back?

 

[thephysicsman]

Social Security is a good program.

No, it's an immoral and economically irresponsible Ponzi scheme.

 

[thephysicsman]

How do you address the financial burden that would ride on the backs of the compassionate?

It's ridiculous to call it a burden when these people enjoy helping others! If they don't like the burden, they can quit giving.

You put way to much faith in the free market.

Have you ever worried about whether there would be sufficient food in your local grocery store the next day? Paced the floor over whether only the rich would afford food, and leave nothing for you? Probably not. And the reason you haven’t is that you rightfully put a lot of faith in the free market. This provides clues as to what we should do in the area of health care: allowing the market to operate as freely as possible.

But the free market doesn't care about you.

So what? That's the beauty of the free market system - if you want to make a profit, it requires you to cooperate with and help people you otherwise wouldn't give a damn about.

The government is you it is everyone not some separate entity.

The government is not me. Today's government only represents the majority of American voters. America is proud to call herself a democracy, but democracy means "people power" - not "majority power". In a true democracy, the minority would also be considered part of the people.

don't try to make free market look like some kind of answer to everything.

The only alternative to the free market is violence, and in a civilized society violence is only an answer as a last resort to an unavoidable conflict.

 

[russ_watters]

What I am saying is money for the federal government comes from taxes. If the taxes collected are not enough money to supply the needs of the budget including entitlment programs then we have a budget deficit and the money has to be borrowed. This only makes the problem worse for the next year. Eventually as the graph shows the amount of interest with be equal to the money needed for these programs.The money needed for interest payments will eventually exceed all the money received from taxpayers.

All of that is true, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with inflation!

 

[russ_watters]

No, it's an immoral and economically irresponsible Ponzi scheme.

I'd hold the "immoral" - I don't think such concerns are typically relevant to a purely economic question - but agree otherwise. I also believe it is contrary to the principles on which the US was founded - namely freedom and personal responsibility.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

All of that is true, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with inflation!

It has everything to do with inflation. You made the point that SS adjusts for inflation.
That money necessary to adjust for inflation comes from tax payers...and so on I already went into all that. Inflation is created (one way) through deficit spending because you are borrowing the money through government bonds that are bought by the Fed. This directly causes inflation as new money has been created deluting the existing supply.This makes it even harder to cut the deficit the next year unless taxes are raised so even more money will have to be borrowed. This creates an even larger portion of the budget to be spent on interest. This will continue until the government goes bankrupt.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

It's ridiculous to call it a burden when these people enjoy helping others! If they don't like the burden, they can quit giving.

mybold

Hence the problem! That is my whole point! I guess then the weak will just die off?
Great, problem solved! Just as long as it's not you right? Or your parents? Or your siblings?
Or your friends?


Note: I only replied to what seemed relevant to this thread. Though I really didn't want to stop there...I would be happy to talk about whatever else on either the proper thread or through PM.

 

[thephysicsman]

I guess then the weak will just die off?

Yes, but it's extremely unlikely that not a single person will be willing to help them. It's utterly insane to force social "security" upon 300 million Americans based on this microscopic probability.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

"I guess then the weak will just die off? "

Yes, but it's extremely unlikely that not a single person will be willing to help them. It's utterly insane to force social "security" upon 300 million Americans based on this microscopic probability.

It's not that there won't be one person to help them, I am not arguing that. What I am saying is it creates an inequality between those that help and those that don't. When I say it puts a burden on these people I mean financially.
This gives a financial advantage to those that don't care to contribute in the free market.
This creates a financial incentive in the free market not to give.
The free market is about competition and this gives those that don't give a competitive edge.
This question is a matter of where you stand financially and where you and the ones you love stand financially and whether or not you and your loved ones are in good health.
It is difficult to care for someone in need it is also expensive.
If you cannot guarantee that there will always be enough money in charities to make up for these expenses then there is a flaw in the logic behind it. Unless of course the guaranteed safety of you are your loved ones is not important to you.
In which case I would have nothing to say to that, it would be a difference in fundamental values.
I believe that the weak and dependant need to be taken care of.
I would say that is American
And it is only fair that the financial burden fall on every American
Now I am not saying that social security doesn't have flaws. I have been posting the opposite. There needs to be oversight. I will say it again, No able minds and bodies should receive social security

 

[thephysicsman]

it creates an inequality between those that help and those that don't.[/I]

So?

When I say it puts a burden on these people I mean financially.

It's their choice. The one who is really putting a financial burden on other people is you. You want to take other people's money by force.

This gives a financial advantage to those that don't care to contribute in the free market.

It's their right if they want to. They own their own lives, including their wallets.

This creates a financial incentive in the free market not to give.

Maybe for someone.

The free market is about competition and this gives those that don't give a competitive edge.

That's a very materialistic point of view. Most people are not pure materialists. They have other values in their lives.

It is difficult to care for someone in need it is also expensive.

It's not difficult for a lot of people, Americans are among the most giving people on the planet, even after the government has taxed us and wasted a significant fraction of our money.

Private charity is a lot more effective and less expensive than government programs.

If you cannot guarantee that there will always be enough money in charities to make up for these expenses then there is a flaw in the logic behind it.

Can you guaranourtee that y the socialist programs will never run out of other people's money?

I believe that the weak and dependant need to be taken care of.
I would say that is American

Take care of them. I won't stop you. But don't use force. That's un-American.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

Wow,Ok you get cancer and you can't go to work anymore, your wife died years ago and you have to take care of your 2 children on your own. NOW WHAT?

 

[russ_watters]

It has everything to do with inflation. You made the point that SS adjusts for inflation.
That money necessary to adjust for inflation comes from tax payers...and so on I already went into all that. Inflation is created (one way) through deficit spending because you are borrowing the money through government bonds that are bought by the Fed. This directly causes inflation as new money has been created deluting the existing supply.This makes it even harder to cut the deficit the next year unless taxes are raised so even more money will have to be borrowed. This creates an even larger portion of the budget to be spent on interest. This will continue until the government goes bankrupt.

Were you aware that despite the current extreme deficit spending, inflation is currently very low? Inflation is not what is driving us toward bankrupcy - it is the simple issue of decreased tax revenue due to a slowdown in the economy combined with increased spending on government bailouts (which doesn't include an increase in social security spending).

In fact, you have the issue backwards: inflation helps a debt problem by reducing the amount you owe.

 

[russ_watters]

Wow,Ok you get cancer and you can't go to work anymore, your wife died years ago and you have to take care of your 2 children on your own. NOW WHAT?

Well I'd use my health insurance and disability benefits to pay for all that, plus my wife would have had a life insurance policy.

 

[WhoWee]

Well I'd use my health insurance and disability benefits to pay for all that, plus my wife would have had a life insurance policy.

So would I Russ. Living within your personal means and personally responsiblity used to be the American standard.

From an article written in 1994. My bold.
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/the-american-tradition-of-personal-responsibility
"Our society was founded on an ideal: Who your ancestors are doesn't matter; who you are matters. You rise or fall on your achievement or your failure. That and economic opportunity, which is a result of the American individualist ideal, are the primary reasons why America has been the world's most popular magnet to people from every culture. That is why immigrants often say that they are more comfortable here than in their native El Salvador, their native Nigeria, or anywhere else. That is why, historically, we tended to attract individualists who wanted to be judged not by their ethnicity, geography, or race, but by who they are."

America has long been the land of opportunity - the expectation of that is to try and succeed - to "make it", to prosper and create financial stability for your family. To facilitate the way to a better life for your children than your own - growth.

How does a welfare mentality fit into this ideal? How does dependence upon the Government for food, shelter, income, healthcare, and even nursing home care and burial costs fit into this ideal?

Poverty should be a motivation to succeed - it should not be an acceptable way of life - free of personal responsibility - once again - IMO.

 

[thephysicsman]

Wow,Ok you get cancer and you can't go to work anymore, your wife died years ago and you have to take care of your 2 children on your own. NOW WHAT?

I'm sure someone will be willing to help. You, for example?

 

[WhoWee]

Wow,Ok you get cancer and you can't go to work anymore, your wife died years ago and you have to take care of your 2 children on your own. NOW WHAT?

What would you do in such a situation - where would you start - do you have a plan?

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

I'm sure someone will be willing to help. You, for example?

I am so fed up with your logic. Unless you want to return to the animal kingdom than stop pestering me with this radical right wing propaganda BS. Stop replying to my posts with ill thought out one word answers! Without law, without organization and regulations nothing separates us from animals. An unregulated market is the definition of natural selection. Money is a necessity of survival in our civilization. If you create a financial incentive NOT to help those in need than in order to compete in the market and for survival you will have to stop giving to the weak. Eventually it will become impossible to do so in order to compete for survival. These are the laws of natural selection. The nice guy cannot win.