Technology and Unemployment

[Mach]

Historically, socialism has been a great failure, we definitely agree on that. My issue is highlighted above; it's failed as implemented.

You're more reasonable than most in how you position socialism, accepting the failures while not claiming entirely (as so many do on these forums) unimplemented.
But all roads lead to the same destinations unfortunately. In this case, you can approach your argument another way. This socialist utopia can be implemented at any time today in the U.S. We have the individual economic and political liberty (the core important things) to do so today. You can, or someone else can, obtain the land/capital/business necessary as the critical mass/catalyst for this utopian dream and it can be marketed and implemented with free people. If it's better, even if you have a tiny minority that believes in this why are they not doing it today in this way? We can claim it's for reason XYZ, but at the end of the day it's all talk, with no evidence. I would argue it's most probable there is no evidence because it's not attractive either in terms of outcome and/or cost/benefit.

Philosophically, I can not accept that our current system is perfect.

But philosophically you should start with the premise that by definition no system that involves the countless multitudes of people can ever be perfect.

I fully acknowledge that most economists are NOT going to agree with me.

But they don't agree because of evidence. You don't agree because of faith (in spite of the evidence). You're being religious about it, they are being practical, and you cannot win the argument with reason if you're basing your claim on faith (not reason).

I know that I can sound like a doomsday preacher. The issue is the same as belief for global warming; most scientists/ecologists believe in it, but it's the same sort of logic. We've never actually had a global climate shift due to I hope people understand that I don't actually think capitalism will fail any time soon; I'm just wary of people that think there's always going to be enough of everything.

even if it were the case it's irrelevant. Human society has risen and fallen throughout history no matter the time or system or structure. The idea that you're "predicting" a fall is more common sense based on historical evidence than anything else. At the very least.

I blame modern capitalism for unemployment (something that doesn't happen in socialism, communism, or utopianism)

The problem with this argument, along with the same bad reasoning against the luddite fallacy, is the failure to discuss the entire system as a whole. When a job is removed due to technology, it typically fails to include the jobs gained from that technology. Necessity is the mother of invention, and if a particular industry declines, new industry is explored. Artificially propping up a failing industry is just throwing away time and money, and putting them way behind the race on that new industry that could have already been underway. Unemployment is bad, but if our system produces the lowest unemployment with the highest standard of living, opportunity, and freedom, the idea that it should be changed BECAUSE of one thing you perceive as negative is outrageous. Look again at the evidence around the world in the past 60 years. Countries with abysmal human rights, living standards, a tiny middle class and mostly poor, completely reforms their entire nation by adopting more capitalistic principles and low and behold poverty is drastically reduced almost overnight, middle class begins to boom, middle class then pushes for human rights, it's like the second coming. Seriously go read China or South Korea, or (nearly every currently OK economy). Read it sans partisan agenda. It's not because of the word capitalism. It's because of the structure of the systems. You could make all sorts of systems that use the same principles and it may not be capitalism but it will still function well. It has to do with division of power, accountability, feedback, a more direct carrot/stick for success or failure in a venture, tying risk to reward, skin in the game, non-central planning, etc., etc. These are what make capitalism function well, not the word, or the party that might support it, or big corporations. Look for the underlying reasons and you'll see.

 

[douglas]

The problem with this argument, along with the same bad reasoning against the luddite fallacy, is the failure to discuss the entire system as a whole. When a job is removed due to technology, it typically fails to include the jobs gained from that technology. Necessity is the mother of invention, and if a particular industry declines, new industry is explored. Artificially propping up a failing industry is just throwing away time and money, and putting them way behind the race on that new industry that could have already been underway. Unemployment is bad, but if our system produces the lowest unemployment with the highest standard of living, opportunity, and freedom, the idea that it should be changed BECAUSE of one thing you perceive as negative is outrageous. Look again at the evidence around the world in the past 60 years. Countries with abysmal human rights, living standards, a tiny middle class and mostly poor, completely reforms their entire nation by adopting more capitalistic principles and low and behold poverty is drastically reduced almost overnight, middle class begins to boom, middle class then pushes for human rights, it's like the second coming. Seriously go read China or South Korea, or (nearly every currently OK economy). Read it sans partisan agenda. It's not because of the word capitalism. It's because of the structure of the systems. You could make all sorts of systems that use the same principles and it may not be capitalism but it will still function well. It has to do with division of power, accountability, feedback, a more direct carrot/stick for success or failure in a venture, tying risk to reward, skin in the game, non-central planning, etc., etc. These are what make capitalism function well, not the word, or the party that might support it, or big corporations. Look for the underlying reasons and you'll see.

I fully acknowledge that every socialist nation has benefited from switching to capitalism. I'm not going to try and act like capitalism isn't a good way to improve human rights. My issue is that this has nothing to do with Utopianism, which has never been implemented. Utopianism =/= Socialism, they aren't the same thing. Utopianism is just one possible answer to some of our problems. The problem that I'm trying to address with this forum is what to do with automation. In capitalism, automation seems to do great for productivity and GDP, but it is also a major cause of the wage gap. A related question is whether this wage gap is a measure of a failing capitalism. I think it is, based on past patterns; high wage disparity is typically present before a depression.


My fear for the current system is that it will fail catastrophically, not gradually; I compare it to a ponzi scheme, which always look great until people are being arrested on the 10 O'clock news. I can't have evidence for an economic collapse that hasn't happened yet, but I can propose that it's likely. I question things like the increasing wage gap. All capitalist economies have an acceptable wage gap and that isn't a big concern of mine. But, our modern capitalism is based on a consumer cycle, where the economy seems to be better even when we consume more than we create. This screams of a ponzi scheme, where the economy could collapse the second people stop consuming. This encourages the commercialism that we now have, where more than half of a company's budget for any given product is for advertisement. The system is paying less attention to making products more affordable, safe, or reliable, and more on just getting you to drop what you have and buy the new one.

Think about Nike shoes. They're not better than regular shoes; they don't last much longer than bargain shoes, they don't "feel" better than a cheap orthopedic shoe, they certainly don't give you the super powers that the commercials imply you'll have. In the end, they're just a $5 shoe made in a sweatshop being sold to people for $50 (or more) due to brand recognition. In a more traditional capitalism, a Nike shoe would cost $5 and Nike would have gone out of business years ago. Modern capitalism allows for demand to be changed artificially.

It's not that capitalism is a flawed concept, it's the implementation that is flawed. The difference between Socialism and Capitalism, is that Capitalism has a decent way to reward new ideas and efficiency, where socialism (as implemented) doesn't. But, there is a real mistake in thinking that the free market is the best way to reward efficiency or new ideas; the best way to profit in capitalism is to cheat. Business Cartels, Exploitative labor, Advertisement (not the concept, but the way it creates false demand) are the norm these days, and are problems we need to address. There are plenty of technological advances that were suppressed for decades due to smear campaigns from big business (Edison vs Tesla ; DC vs AC comes to mind).

None of that completely addresses the issues of modern fiat money, which Utopianism could eliminate (in theory, of course). When government and business have to interact through money, but government gets to control the value of money, there is no real way to have a free market. I've heard of no Capitalistic solution to the problems of fiat money or inflation and not too many complaints either. Even when you adjust for the inflation rate, the top earners of America are skyrocketing, where the rest of us are pretty much stagnant.


I hope people aren't thinking I'm against Capitalism. I believe in the American dream and would love to run my own business one day. But, that doesn't mean I should turn a blind eye to the problems around me. I don't know if Utopianism is the solution or even possible, but it's worth looking into. Even if we only introduce some of these ideas within our current capitalism, it could help.

Hypothetically, what if the American government made free potatoes; if potatoes were grown by government run, autonomous potato farms? It would put thousands of people out of work, certainly, but it would end the starvation of millions of Americans. The societal cost comes down to how cheap the government can make potatoes. That is the main flaw, governments have always been inefficient and almost reward incompetence, but that is the source of the problem. If we could guarantee a system of government that makes a potato for cheaper than the market, it could hypothetically be made free to the public. It all comes down to having more money on hand for people to consume other things and pay more taxes. If so, it wouldn't bankrupt the government, the surrounding industries, or the individual. But, it all comes down to that crucial problem of having a government that can consistently be more efficient than a business. That is not the case at the moment and probably has never been the case. But, Utopianism is dependent on a more efficient form of government, ideally run by computers. Socialism fails because of inefficient government, Capitalism survives besides an inefficient government, Utopianism succeeds by creating an efficient government. (In theory, since there hasn't been one yet.)

 

[Ahlevah]

Then possibly making our income tax system even more progressive than what we really need right now. Like no taxes on incomes up to the median income (GDP/workers = $125k), and then a flat tax on income above that level, as low as necessary to have a balanced budget.

Taxes are a duty of citizenship. Everybody, except people who are truly poor, should pay something. Otherwise, the TurtleDude Effect occurs in which the masses enact more and more punitive taxes and spending on the few.

 

[Hard Truth]

Technology could, and should, reduce the overall amount of labor required to provide for us. It would, except that;
1. We've been conned into thinking we need a bunch of stuff
2. The pay off from technology's efficiencies is mostly going only the people at the top.

The result is that most of us feel like we have less free time than in the past. On the positive side, prosperity is spreading to more parts of the world.

In my view, we need a movement for a shorter work week and/or siestas, which would increase employment significantly It is entirely possible to have more free time without giving up much materially. Sadly, too many people think that work itself is a virtue, rather than just a means to an end, and oppose this idea.

 

[Ahlevah]

Think about Nike shoes. They're not better than regular shoes; they don't last much longer than bargain shoes, they don't "feel" better than a cheap orthopedic shoe, they certainly don't give you the super powers that the commercials imply you'll have. In the end, they're just a $5 shoe made in a sweatshop being sold to people for $50 (or more) due to brand recognition. In a more traditional capitalism, a Nike shoe would cost $5 and Nike would have gone out of business years ago. Modern capitalism allows for demand to be changed artificially.

I don't think style is a capitalist phenomenon. I remember during my travels in the USSR during the Cold War that Russian black marketers paid a lot of money to buy Western clothing, such as denim bluejeans. I don't recall seeing any ads for Levis while I was there. There were plenty of political ads on billboards, such as "Long Live Marxism-Leninism" and "Progress through Work," but no Levis ads.

 

[Fisher]

I don't think style is a capitalist phenomenon. I remember during my travels in the USSR during the Cold War that Russian black marketers paid a lot of money to buy Western clothing, such as denim bluejeans. I don't recall seeing any ads for Levis while I was there. There were plenty of political ads on billboards, such as "Long Live Marxism-Leninism" and "Progress through Work," but no Levis ads.

One of my college professors said he used to take a bunch of Levis with him when he traveled there during USSR days and could sell them through the hotel employees for enough that he could live pretty large while he was there. said his airfare and a handful of levis were his only out of pocket costs.

 

[imagep]

Taxes are a duty of citizenship. Everybody, except people who are truly poor, should pay something. Otherwise, the TurtleDude Effect occurs in which the masses enact more and more punitive taxes and spending on the few.

but everyone does pay some taxes. Don't pretend like income tax is the only form of taxes that we have. It's not even a majority tax. It's less than 50% of the total tax revenue collected by the federal government, and an even far lower percentage collected by state and local governments.

Most everyone pays sales tax, property tax (directly or indirectly), any taxes that may be passed on to the consumer embedded in the price of the stuff we purchase, gas tax, tobacco tax, alcohol tax, and certainly the tax that we pay to the rich every time they profit from a product that the worker/consumer class makes and consumes.

Claiming that everyone should pay income tax is as rediculous as claiming that everyone should pay tobacco tax.

 

[Fisher]

but everyone does pay some taxes. Don't pretend like income tax is the only form of taxes that we have. It's not even a majority tax. It's less than 50% of the total tax revenue collected by the federal government, and an even far lower percentage collected by state and local governments.

Most everyone pays sales tax, property tax (directly or indirectly), any taxes that may be passed on to the consumer embedded in the price of the stuff we purchase, gas tax, tobacco tax, alcohol tax, and certainly the tax that we pay to the rich every time they profit from a product that the worker/consumer class makes and consumes.

Claiming that everyone should pay income tax is as rediculous as claiming that everyone should pay tobacco tax.

Then why not eliminate the sin taxes so people have more money to consume? Tobacco taxes disproportionately affect the poor and middle class too and it gets to the same end.

Even better yet, how about eliminate the home mortgage interest deduction that disproportionately benefits the wealthy? You know we could just about double SNAP benefits by closing that single deduction without raising the debt don't you?

 

[douglas]

I don't think style is a capitalist phenomenon. I remember during my travels in the USSR during the Cold War that Russian black marketers paid a lot of money to buy Western clothing, such as denim bluejeans. I don't recall seeing any ads for Levis while I was there. There were plenty of political ads on billboards, such as "Long Live Marxism-Leninism" and "Progress through Work," but no Levis ads.

Oh, I wasn't saying Nike's aren't stylish, nor am I trying to downplay that kind of demand; a Utopia of identical houses, identical cars, identical people, etc., isn't really a Utopia. What I was trying to highlight was the way a company can "create" demand. I'm not proposing that advertisements are "evil", but they can be exploitative, especially those that are directed at young people. It's a lot easier to attack and exploit image issues than to actually create a better product. Do you really think Nike's would sell due to their style alone, barring the use of commercials showing people wearing Nike's getting the girl, or playing ball like a star, or just getting noticed on the street? There's an entire science behind making ads that exploit the psycho-social desires of the consumers, without actually having a product that addresses those desires.

It bothers me when people look down at poor people and say, "But they still have enough money to buy Nike's (or Ipods, cellphones, video games, etc.)". The fiscal irresponsibility of the poor is often blamed for their poverty, and it's true (people should take more responsibility over their fate), but few people acknowledge that companies seem to target poor people. When I go through the poorer parts of town, I see quite a lot of ads for Beer, Nikes, and junk food. There's always the argument that people have free will and don't need to buy outside of their means. But, I argue that susceptibility to exploitative advertisement is like using a drug addict; when you see a drug dealer selling to a drug addict, which one do you blame? (I blame both, but I definitely blame the dealer more than the addict)

 

[imagep]

Then why not eliminate the sin taxes so people have more money to consume? Tobacco taxes disproportionately affect the poor and middle class too and it gets to the same end.

Because tobacco harms individuals, and run up the cost of everyones insurance. Having sin taxes kills two birds with one stone, it disincentivizes bad behavior, while raising revenue which can go towards the $1.2 trillion that our government (all levels combined) spends on healthcare. It's logical, and extremely efficient.

Even better yet, how about eliminate the home mortgage interest deduction that disproportionately benefits the wealthy?

I agree that we should do that.

You know we could just about double SNAP benefits by closing that single deduction without raising the debt don't you?

Maybe we could, but I think we would be better off eliminating means tested welfare programs. Means tested welfare locks people into poverty by providing an incentive NOT to work. I would suggest using the savings from eliminating means tested welfare to fund cutting taxes for people who work - that way we remove the reason that many people don't bother to work (or worker longer hours) and give them more reward for work (the tax reductions on earned income).

 

[Henrin]

Because tobacco harms individuals, and run up the cost of everyones insurance. Having sin taxes kills two birds with one stone, it disincentivizes bad behavior, while raising revenue which can go towards the $1.2 trillion that our government (all levels combined) spends on healthcare. It's logical, and extremely efficient.

It's also government meddling in the market and influencing personal behavior by punishment.

 

[douglas]

Then why not eliminate the sin taxes so people have more money to consume? Tobacco taxes disproportionately affect the poor and middle class too and it gets to the same end.

Even better yet, how about eliminate the home mortgage interest deduction that disproportionately benefits the wealthy? You know we could just about double SNAP benefits by closing that single deduction without raising the debt don't you?

I'm a little torn on the whole sin tax issue. It doesn't seem to work very well, smokers and drinkers still smoke and drink. I'm also sold on the whole idea that it's a tax on the poor. But, I'm not really for the nanny state. If you want to do something that's against your health, who am I to infringe on your liberty. But, it could be argued that this is a form of drug addiction and you're not really exercising your liberties. I'm against advertisements for these "sins", since it seems to exacerbate the loss of liberty. For the reduction of tobacco/alcohol abuse without using taxes, we could just limit their sale within impoverished neighborhoods. But, that's no alternative to a successful public education against drug abuse.

When it comes to tax deductions, they overwhelmingly benefit the rich. We should just get rid of them entirely and lower the tax brackets by the average deduction. That shouldn't change much for the bottom half of our income brackets, but it should re-establish the intended tax rates for the rich. A well implemented progressive tax would level out some of the problems of capitalism.

 

[imagep]

It's also government meddling in the market and influencing personal behavior by punishment.

Sure it is, and in the US we have a government that is "by the people". Most of us want it that way, so thats what we have. If we didn't want it that way, we wouldn't have it.

It's the majority rule system, if you don't like it, then change the system, but you have a lot more of "us" than there are of you.

 

[imagep]

I'm a little torn on the whole sin tax issue. It doesn't seem to work very well, smokers and drinkers still smoke and drink.

I guarantee that us smokers and drinkers smoke and drink less due to the taxes. Less is better in this case. And there are lot's of people who don't smoke simply because they can't afford to because smokes are so high these days. Even those who do smoke and drink too much, at least they have to contribute to the higher healthcare cost of smokers and drinkers (which is largely paid for by the guberment.

I'm also sold on the whole idea that it's a tax on the poor. But, I'm not really for the nanny state. If you want to do something that's against your health, who am I to infringe on your liberty.

Poor people tend to be stupid, and do stupid things. Some people need the assistance of the nanny state. But hey, if you don't want to be bothered by the nanny state, then don't do stupid stuff.

But, it could be argued that this is a form of drug addiction and you're not really exercising your liberties. I'm against advertisements for these "sins", since it seems to exacerbate the loss of liberty. For the reduction of tobacco/alcohol abuse without using taxes, we could just limit their sale within impoverished neighborhoods.

So we just replace our economic nanny state with a litteral one? That doesn't sound like a positive trade off, it sounds to me like an even more restrictive nanny state.

When it comes to tax deductions, they overwhelmingly benefit the rich. We should just get rid of them entirely and lower the tax brackets by the average deduction. That shouldn't change much for the bottom half of our income brackets, but it should re-establish the intended tax rates for the rich. A well implemented progressive tax would level out some of the problems of capitalism.

Thats what I have been trying to tell you guys for years. Sensible policy is better policy.

 

[Fisher]

Sure it is, and in the US we have a government that is "by the people". Most of us want it that way, so thats what we have. If we didn't want it that way, we wouldn't have it.

It's the majority rule system, if you don't like it, then change the system, but you have a lot more of "us" than there are of you.

Well apparently the bulk of you do not outweigh the power of them. Obama is a millionaire who paid less effective tax than many--I forget if his rate was 12 or 14%--but I don't see his supporters demanding he pay more and I do not see him not taking advantage of the deductions available to him.

 

[douglas]

So we just replace our economic nanny state with a litteral one? That doesn't sound like a positive trade off, it sounds to me like an even more restrictive nanny state.

Of course not, I'm not actually supporting the plan of physically restricting sales. I just say it would be a more efficient nanny state, not that we should have a nanny state.

But, there's a point in socialism and utopianism where we would have to limit sales. This isn't necessarily nannystate-ism, but necessary for efficient government; less choices means more efficient production. That's a problem that has also plagued Socialism, it's not natural for people to be robots and have no individual desires. That's part of why I support Utopianism over Socialism; you don't make people into robots, you just get real robots. Reduction of choices is one problem in Utopianism that I would like to fix while it's still on paper; I don't think it's much of a utopia without the ability to be unique and have individual desire. Some propose 3d printers as a solution.

 

[Henrin]

Sure it is, and in the US we have a government that is "by the people". Most of us want it that way, so thats what we have. If we didn't want it that way, we wouldn't have it.

It's the majority rule system, if you don't like it, then change the system, but you have a lot more of "us" than there are of you.

I don't think having the government using taxes to influence behavior of people is a government by the people. If it is however, that is a sad state of affairs.

 

[imagep]

I don't think having the government using taxes to influence behavior of people is a government by the people. If it is however, that is a sad state of affairs.

It's the policy that the people who we elected to represent us have established. If we didn't like it, we would elect different people.

There are always going to be people who believe that this or that policy is a "sad state of affairs" - the people who happen to be in the minority opinion on that particular issue. Some call it "tyranny of the majority", but I prefer tyranny of the majority to the minority tyrannizing the majority.

 

[Ahlevah]

but everyone does pay some taxes. Don't pretend like income tax is the only form of taxes that we have. It's not even a majority tax. It's less than 50% of the total tax revenue collected by the federal government, and an even far lower percentage collected by state and local governments.

Right, and if most voters, say, use cars and pay an excise tax on gasoline, then that'll probably temper their enthusiasm for raising it. On the other hand, if only a certain class is left to pay an income tax, then I can see the class that doesn't pay it but that receives a benefit from raising it on others clamoring to raise the tax to the moon. An income tax hits a poor man directly at one of his most fundamental rights--the right to the fruits of his own labor. Tax his income and his enthusiasm for an ever-expanding government will be slowed. Having one class pay the tax and another not also, I think, would tend to divide the nation on class grounds. I don't think that's productive for our democracy.

 

[douglas]

It's the policy that the people who we elected to represent us have established. If we didn't like it, we would elect different people.

There are always going to be people who believe that this or that policy is a "sad state of affairs" - the people who happen to be in the minority opinion on that particular issue. Some call it "tyranny of the majority", but I prefer tyranny of the majority to the minority tyrannizing the majority.

I agree for the most part. The solution to both of these possible tyrannies has already been implemented, a democratically elected republic. But, on the problem of nannystate-ism, the vast majority of people are against it (in theory). I don't think that our sin taxes are really from popular demand, they've just been lobbied well. According to this poll, 56% Oppose , only a third of Americans are pro-sin tax.

Taxes aren't fair or unfair, they're just necessary.

 

[Ahlevah]

It bothers me when people look down at poor people and say, "But they still have enough money to buy Nike's (or Ipods, cellphones, video games, etc.)". The fiscal irresponsibility of the poor is often blamed for their poverty, and it's true (people should take more responsibility over their fate), but few people acknowledge that companies seem to target poor people. When I go through the poorer parts of town, I see quite a lot of ads for Beer, Nikes, and junk food. There's always the argument that people have free will and don't need to buy outside of their means. But, I argue that susceptibility to exploitative advertisement is like using a drug addict; when you see a drug dealer selling to a drug addict, which one do you blame? (I blame both, but I definitely blame the dealer more than the addict)

Who's advertising that having kids out of wedlock or dropping out of school is detrimental to your financial health, and yet we seem to be flooded with dropouts and "love children." What irks me is we've moved from the idea that people should be responsible for their own welfare to one in which poor people are poor because there's always some Big Bad Wolf sleeping in Grandma's bed waiting to exploit them. Ultimately, what it comes down to no government can protect a person from himself. I'm not convinced that it should. If a poor person wants to choke on Marlboros or have his closet stuffed with Air Jordans that should be his choice and no one else should assume he'd be happier spending his resources on something else. But every person should recognize it's the decisions he makes that largely determine his own fate.

 

[douglas]

Right, and if most voters, say, use cars and pay an excise tax on gasoline, then that'll probably temper their enthusiasm for raising it. On the other hand, if only a certain class is left to pay an income tax, then I can see the class that doesn't pay it but that receives a benefit from raising it on others clamoring to raise the tax to the moon. An income tax hits a poor man directly at one of his most fundamental rights--the right to the fruits of his own labor. Tax his income and his enthusiasm for an ever-expanding government will be slowed. Having one class pay the tax and another not also, I think, would tend to divide the nation on class grounds. I don't think that's productive for our democracy.

I agree for the most part, but it doesn't address the need for a progressive tax. If wage disparity wasn't as high and the average worker made more, we wouldn't have a need for a progressive tax. But disparity is high and wages are low, so we need a way of smoothing out the problems.

 

[MusicAdventurer]

It bothers me when people look down at poor people and say, "But they still have enough money to buy Nike's (or Ipods, cellphones, video games, etc.)". The fiscal irresponsibility of the poor is often blamed for their poverty, and it's true (people should take more responsibility over their fate), but few people acknowledge that companies seem to target poor people. When I go through the poorer parts of town, I see quite a lot of ads for Beer, Nikes, and junk food. There's always the argument that people have free will and don't need to buy outside of their means. But, I argue that susceptibility to exploitative advertisement is like using a drug addict; when you see a drug dealer selling to a drug addict, which one do you blame? (I blame both, but I definitely blame the dealer more than the addict)

Who's advertising that having kids out of wedlock or dropping out of school is detrimental to your financial health, and yet we seem to be flooded with dropouts and "love children." What irks me is we've moved from the idea that people should be responsible for their own welfare to one in which poor people are poor because there's always some Big Bad Wolf sleeping in Grandma's bed waiting to exploit them. Ultimately, what it comes down to no government can protect a person from himself. I'm not convinced that it should. If a poor person wants to choke on Marlboros or have his closet stuffed with Air Jordans that should be his choice and no one else should assume he'd be happier spending his resources on something else. But every person should recognize it's the decisions he makes that largely determine his own fate.

I think the problem here though is in the cultural factors even outside the media that contribute to this problem. The thinking for those in poverty is sometimes that "If I buy nice shoes and clothes, people will think I am worthy of respect and love". This is pretty sad. One could argue that it's an error in thinking, but wearing the right clothing tends to do good things for people. Several studies have shown that people are more kind, generous and trusting of those whom they find attractive. It seems like there is a perpetuating cycle here. Buying things that are too expensive and then being rewarded by others for it. This is something that can be changed in education, mental health counseling, and so on. However, the problem is much deeper than this. There is really a system problem wherein people get stuck in poverty due to a lack of education and perceived and often actual life options.

 

[MusicAdventurer]

I agree for the most part, but it doesn't address the need for a progressive tax. If wage disparity wasn't as high and the average worker made more, we wouldn't have a need for a progressive tax. But disparity is high and wages are low, so we need a way of smoothing out the problems.

Could not agree more with this statement!

 

[douglas]

Who's advertising that having kids out of wedlock or dropping out of school is detrimental to your financial health, and yet we seem to be flooded with dropouts and "love children." What irks me is we've moved from the idea that people should be responsible for their own welfare to one in which poor people are poor because there's always some Big Bad Wolf sleeping in Grandma's bed waiting to exploit them. Ultimately, what it comes down to no government can protect a person from himself. I'm not convinced that it should. If a poor person wants to choke on Marlboros or have his closet stuffed with Air Jordans that should be his choice and no one else should assume he'd be happier spending his resources on something else. But every person should recognize it's the decisions he makes that largely determine his own fate.

Who's advertising these bad choices? EVERYBODY in the media! When you show every superstar acting like a fool, having sex with everyone and everything, and then taking home $20 million for being a shame of humanity, what are kids supposed to think? The problem is that it affects impoverished neighborhoods more than others; they have fewer successful role models. You say everybody should recognize how their decisions alter their fate, and I agree. But, that recognition isn't common sense or instinct, it has to be taught.

Again, I'm not for the nanny state, but the government should provide safety nets. It's too easy for a good person to make a stupid choice; civilized society requires empathy.