Is U.S. Poverty Too Comfortable?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WhoWee
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on whether poverty in the U.S. has become too comfortable, highlighting the official poverty level for a family of four at $22,350. Comparisons are made to global poverty standards, suggesting that U.S. poverty is relatively high. Concerns are raised about welfare systems, with calls for better oversight to ensure assistance goes to those truly in need. The conversation also touches on the challenges of home ownership, linking it to rising real estate prices and the cultural tendency to live beyond one's means. Ultimately, the debate emphasizes the need for a balance between providing support and encouraging self-sufficiency.
  • #61
arildno said:
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.

thephysicsman said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Is it me or has this gone off topic?
 
  • #63
BilPrestonEsq said:
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.
 
  • #64
brainstorm said:
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.
 
  • #65
arildno said:
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?
 
Last edited:
  • #66
BilPrestonEsq said:
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.
 
  • #67
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #68
arildno said:
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.
 
  • #69
BilPrestonEsq said:
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..??
 
  • #70
thephysicsman said:
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.
 
  • #71
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.
 
  • #72
WhoWee said:
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.
 
  • #73
brainstorm said:
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.
 
  • #74
thephysicsman said:
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...
 
  • #75
brainstorm said:
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".

arildno said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #76
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?

arildno said:
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?
 
  • #77
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.
 
  • #78
BilPrestonEsq said:
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.

WhoWee said:
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.

arildno said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #79
thephysicsman said:
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?:confused: :rolleyes: :eek: : :cry: :smile:

IVAN! Can you believe this?:smile:
 
  • #80
WhoWee said:
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.
 
  • #81
BilPrestonEsq said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #82
WhoWee said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #83
BilPrestonEsq said:
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.
 
  • #84
thephysicsman said:
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?!?...
 
  • #85
WhoWee said:
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.
 
  • #86
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #87
thephysicsman said:
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.
 
  • #88
arildno said:
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.
 
  • #89
brainstorm said:
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?
 
  • #90
BilPrestonEsq said:
Social Security is a good program.

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