Poverty Rate in US Rises to 12.7 Percent

[loseyourname]

Thank you -- it gets confusing what member posted where.

I think it would be hard to support a family of four on $19,311 even if you had no luxuries (though some things like a telephone are no longer considered a luxury), especially if you don't have medical benefits.

On August 30th the Census Bureau released new data on the income, poverty and health insurance coverage in the U.S. It found that 45.8 million people were uninsured in 2004, an increase of 800,000 people since 2003.

There is somewhat of a weakness in the calculations. Food took up a much greater percentage of expenditures in the 50s than it does today. I think they figure that some people are undercounted, some are overcounted (for many other reasons) and it evens out somewhere to give somewhat of an accurate picture. Whether or not that is true, well, I don't know. Statistics can only get us so far.

 

[Burnsys]

1. If the company is not stealing other people's money from them, the govt. and the people have no right to steal the company's money from itself no matter how it is using its property.

2. No single company can create an energy crisis itself.

3. If a group of companies come together and decide to withhold all production if they are not offered higher prices (very unlikely), then they will likely lose money in the long term as
a) they will lose the trust of the public who will prefer other competitors
b) people will be forced to look for other energy sources - necessity is the mother of invention.
c) If they increase the price of oil too much, alternative energy sources e.g. solar cells will actually become cheaper than oil and people will start switching.
.

Just read "Creating an energy crisis to rise prices"

That was exactly what they did in my country 6 months ago.
We have 4 Foreing Oil corporations (Exxon, shell, Respol, Petrobras) who controls 90% of the oil market, They said we had an oil and gas crisis, they started to stop delivering gas to our industries, while at the same time they increased the exports (What crisis if they increase the export of gas??)... with the complicity of our corrupt government they decide to double the price of gas in the internal market, of course you can imagine with 50% of our population below poverty line, that would mean a LOT of people will simply won't be able to buy gas, those who can pay it, now has to pay it double.
Over here people obiusly don't trust any of this corporations, but what can we do? there is no one else to buy from.. And gas came to our houses the same way water does, you can't chose who you buy from.

While not many businessmen are ethical these days, I think greedy capitalists are quite nice. The more their greed, the more their desire for money, the more the growth of the economy.

What a narrow view, the only economy that grow is theyr personal economy, with money they take from the bulk of the population...

There is no credible scientific evidence that completely proves that we are heading towards an ecological disaster. Atleast not for another 100 years.

I invite you to swim in my city most important river, which is totally poluted to the point it's pure black with no fishs and bubbles that emerge from the bottom (Literaly) which you can guess who are the mayor polutters. yes those same 4 foreing oil corporations...

 

[sid_galt]

That was exactly what they did in my country 6 months ago.
We have 4 Foreing Oil corporations (Exxon, shell, Respol, Petrobras) who controls 90% of the oil market, They said we had an oil and gas crisis, they started to stop delivering gas to our industries, while at the same time they increased the exports (What crisis if they increase the export of gas??)... with the complicity of our corrupt government they decide to double the price of gas in the internal market, of course you can imagine with 50% of our population below poverty line, that would mean a LOT of people will simply won't be able to buy gas, those who can pay it, now has to pay it double.
Over here people obiusly don't trust any of this corporations, but what can we do? there is no one else to buy from.. And gas came to our houses the same way water does, you can't chose who you buy from.

Burnsys,
it is difficult to come to a conclusion before examining the situation in detail.

For example, if you examine the history of the World War I superficially, you might as well come to the conclusion that the murder of the Archbishop was the main cause of WWI when that was not the case - it was only a spark.

If you just read what happened at the time of the great famine in Ireland, you'll come to the conclusion that capitalism was to blame for the poverty of the Irish when government intervention had a huge part.


In your situation too, unless one looks at the full details, one cannot answer the question.
For example,
Are there or were there restrictions on drilling for oil in Argentina? Did the government decide who was to and who was not to dig for oil in Argentina? If that's the case then it is the complicity of the government and the corporate which is to blame.
My argument only applied to an economy free from government intervention, because that is what I was debating with Skyhunter. If I implied otherwise, I apologize.

What a narrow view, the only economy that grow is theyr personal economy, with money they take from the bulk of the population...

You provide no reasoning for your argument.

1. Companies do not take money away from the public. They do not force the people to surrender their money to the company. If that were the case, then it would mean that we should have remained in the stone age as the net amount of money and prosperity was way lower then than now.
Companies MAKE money.

2. When companies make money, they invest it in new ventures, generating employement and improving the economy.

I invite you to swim in my city most important river, which is totally poluted to the point it's pure black with no fishs and bubbles that emerge from the bottom (Literaly) which you can guess who are the mayor polutters. yes those same 4 foreing oil corporations...

What would you prefer?
A life without oil or a life without the scenic beauty of a river?

 

[Burnsys]

Burnsys,
it is difficult to come to a conclusion before examining the situation in detail.

For example, if you examine the history of the World War I superficially, you might as well come to the conclusion that the murder of the Archbishop was the main cause of WWI when that was not the case - it was only a spark.

If you just read what happened at the time of the great famine in Ireland, you'll come to the conclusion that capitalism was to blame for the poverty of the Irish when government intervention had a huge part.

In your situation too, unless one looks at the full details, one cannot answer the question.
For example,
Are there or were there restrictions on drilling for oil in Argentina? Did the government decide who was to and who was not to dig for oil in Argentina? If that's the case then it is the complicity of the government and the corporate which is to blame.
My argument only applied to an economy free from government intervention, because that is what I was debating with Skyhunter. If I implied otherwise, I apologize.

Well. the state oil company where privaticed by recomendation of the wb and the imf as one more step into a free market economy, we hadn't any "Provoqued Oil crisis" before that, Oil corporations has no limit from the government to came here and drill here or there, are the same 4 corporations the ones who limits other, they won't alow any new oil corporation to came into the market, becouse they are so powerfull they can buy any competitor, or they can even lower their prices lossing money for a moment just to destroy competitors.
And what yoy was arguing was: There is no way corporations could create an energy cirsis, i am telling you, they did it here...

What would you prefer?
A life without oil or a life without the scenic beauty of a river?

i would prefer a life first.

4.884.823 People live in it's shores. in a small town that is near the "Polo Petroquimico" the place where al this corporations has their refineries, was made an study:
They tested 200 small kids, 20% of them had more than 10 micrograms of lead per dc in their blood, also more than 140 migrograms of bencene in urine. and more than 1,5 micrograms of toluene.
More frecuent patologies are the respiratiories ones, Bronquitis, neumonia, and asma,
chromium and arsenic is found in the soil., etc etc.

 

[sid_galt]

Oil corporations has no limit from the government to came here and drill here or there, are the same 4 corporations the ones who limits other, they won't alow any new oil corporation to came into the market, becouse they are so powerfull they can buy any competitor, or they can even lower their prices lossing money for a moment just to destroy competitors.

Source? I highly doubt that any oil company has full freedom to go and drill in Argentina. Even in the freest economies in the world, a permit is required from the government.

Also could you provide a source for the oil crisis you mentioned above? It would help.

And what yoy was arguing was: There is no way corporations could create an energy cirsis, i am telling you, they did it here...

As I said before, due to the context of my discussion with Skyhunter, my commments applied only to a completely free market system which does not exist anywhere in the world.

i would prefer a life first.

4.884.823 People live in it's shores. in a small town that is near the "Polo Petroquimico" the place where al this corporations has their refineries, was made an study:
They tested 200 small kids, 20% of them had more than 10 micrograms of lead per dc in their blood, also more than 140 migrograms of bencene in urine. and more than 1,5 micrograms of toluene.
More frecuent patologies are the respiratiories ones, Bronquitis, neumonia, and asma,
chromium and arsenic is found in the soil., etc etc.

Fine. Companies can cause damage to human health. They should not be allowed to do that.

But a Day after Tomorrow crisis due to anthropological acitivity isn't coming anytime soon.

 

[sid_galt]

After reading a bit on the Argentine economic crisis, I don't blame any corporation for taking flight.

First the govt. pegged the value of the peso to the dollar.
It kept taking international loans and didn't decrease the spending.
Corruption was rampant.
The economy still had high degrees of regulations.

In an economy with govt. controls, a company will always be able to buy legislators to pass "favorable" laws restricting the freedom of other companies and will be able to create an energy crisis.


This is nothing like the scenario I am referring to - namely a completely free market economy. In such a system, a company will not be able to create an energy crisis.

 

[ron damon]

I don't think the current rate of poverty in the US has an explanation in economics.

The question would be: why does a coherent segment of the population choose not to avail themselves of opportunities for advancement that so many other diverse peoples (like illegal Latino immigrants), under much greater disadvantages, successfully exploit (to a greater degree)?

 

[Smurf]

What would you prefer?
A life without oil or a life without the scenic beauty of a river?

I'd prefer no oil. Why?

 

[Smurf]

I don't think the current rate of poverty in the US has an explanation in economics.

The question would be: why does a coherent segment of the population choose not to avail themselves of opportunities for advancement that so many other diverse peoples (like illegal Latino immigrants), under much greater disadvantages, successfully exploit (to a greater degree)?

Good question. What is your hypothesis?

 

[ron damon]

Good question. What is your hypothesis?

The answer to such a problem is the holy grail of sociology. I think I'll defer it for now

 

[Smurf]

The answer to such a problem is the holy grail of sociology.

Sure it is...

 

[MaxS]

I don't think the current rate of poverty in the US has an explanation in economics.

The question would be: why does a coherent segment of the population choose not to avail themselves of opportunities for advancement that so many other diverse peoples (like illegal Latino immigrants), under much greater disadvantages, successfully exploit (to a greater degree)?

Wow. And THIS is the fundamental ignornace of the conservative.

Do you really think that, given an opportunity to avail themselves, A LARGE MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION WOULD CHOOSE TO LIVE IN POVERTY!?

Use some of those latent critical thinking skills, they've got to be somewhere under that blanket of propaganda.

 

[ron damon]

Use some of those latent critical thinking skills, they've got to be somewhere under that blanket of propaganda.

Look, you'll never get anywhere in any Science if you restrict yourself to what's palatable, or found "acceptable" in the time/place where you live.

Try to go beyond the propaganda/truth antinomy.

 

[MaxS]

Man, what the hell are you talking about.

People live in poverty because they don't have any other choice, not because the choose to do so. FFS!

 

[ron damon]

People live in poverty because they don't have any other choice, not because the choose to do so.

I'd be willing to bet my entire library (my most precious possession ) that the opposite is the case (with qualifications).

 

[MaxS]

This reply is going to be extremely sterile as I don't want to run the risk of being banned from these forums.

Suffice to say you are rather warped.

 

[Smurf]

I'd be willing to bet my entire library (my most precious possession ) that the opposite is the case (with qualifications).

Ron, if all the people in poverty were to get off their lazy butts tomorrow, go get jobs (let's assume there are some available) and start making lives for themselves. What do you think would happen? Would all impoverishment dissapear?

 

[ron damon]

Suffice to say you are rather warped.

that is true though

 

[ron damon]

Ron, if all the people in poverty were to get off their lazy butts tomorrow, go get jobs (let's assume there are some available) and start making lives for themselves. What do you think would happen? Would all impoverishment dissapear?

Oh boy, you expect me to solve the problem of economic change in a single post? What odds are you giving?

Let me just remark that wealth (in a broad sense) is not found, but created.

 

[Smurf]

Oh boy, you expect me to solve the problem of economic change in a single post? What odds are you giving?

No, i expect you to tell me what you think would happen if we hypothetically brainwashed everyone into working really really hard and assuming the most generous of circumstances (there are jobs available, they all have places to live, they all have skills and education, ect.). What would happen to proverty? Do you think it would merely cease to exist?

 

[MaxS]

No, i expect you to tell me what you think would happen if we hypothetically brainwashed everyone into working really really hard and assuming the most generous of circumstances (there are jobs available, they all have places to live, they all have skills and education, ect.). What would happen to proverty? Do you think it would merely cease to exist?

Actually under those extremely idealized conditions yes.

It is because people don't have the opportunities that poverty exists, no?

 

[ron damon]

assuming the most generous of circumstances (there are jobs available, they all have places to live, they all have skills and education, ect.)

hmm, I think this is where most people get lost, since if all of the above (or most, or even some) is a precondition to prosperity, how did it ever arise in the first place?

 

[Smurf]

Actually under those extremely idealized conditions yes.

It is because people don't have the opportunities that poverty exists, no?

I disagree.

hmm, I think this is where most people get lost, since if all of the above (or most, or even some) is a precondition to prosperity, how did it ever arise in the first place?

What on Earth are you talking about?

 

[MaxS]

I disagree.

Er... I'm lost then, I always thought so. Enlighten me =D

 

[Smurf]

Er... I'm lost then, I always thought so. Enlighten me =D

Poverty is unavoidable in this system even under ideal economic conditions. I was going to illustrate that, but he refused to respond.

 

[MaxS]

Why? If everyone is able to get a good education and find a good job, why would there be poverty?

 

[Smurf]

Why? If everyone is able to get a good education and find a good job, why would there be poverty?

Well there's a difference between being able to get a good job and there being jobs "available" (which there arn't - but hypothetically). Also, if everyone in poverty got a good job one day, someone has to, in time, take their place as the bottom of the hierarchy, if there is no poverty it will be created. Capitalism can not sustain equality.

 

[MaxS]

Ah but poverty has nothing to do with equality.

Poverty is about subsistance living. If you make just enough to live, or less, you are in poverty. If you make anything more than what is necessary, you are not in poverty.

 

[Smurf]

Ah but poverty has nothing to do with equality.

Poverty is about subsistance living. If you make just enough to live, or less, you are in poverty. If you make anything more than what is necessary, you are not in poverty.

Yes. Capitalism, in such inability to sustain equality, will push some people up and some people down, some people will be pushed too far down - inevitably. That's what I meant. Even if we brainwashed everyone to work real hard they still would not be able to get out of poverty (or they would, but someone else would take their place).

 

[loseyourname]

Yes. Capitalism, in such inability to sustain equality, will push some people up and some people down, some people will be pushed too far down - inevitably. That's what I meant. Even if we brainwashed everyone to work real hard they still would not be able to get out of poverty (or they would, but someone else would take their place).

Saying that there is a theoretical impediment to a capitalistic economy providing the very basics to stay above the poverty line to an entire population does not make it the case, Smurf. In practice, it's never happened, because of both the inability to work of some, the refusal of others, and the non-availability of jobs to others (I'll never understand why everyone has to be such an absolutist on the causes of poverty when it seems obvious to an agendaless viewpoint that there is a huge litany of reasons), but there is no a priori impossibility of universal non-poverty. Capitalism is an economy in any way predicated on human manufacturing and/or service requires inequality, but it does not require anybody to "pushed down" in an absolute sense. Having people live in poverty is not doing anything to help capitalism. Not even the most ingenious corporate bloodsucking shark has devised a way to profit off of the unemployed receiving government assistance, much less the homeless and neglected.