Is U.S. Poverty Too Comfortable?

[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.

 

[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.