• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

whats your solution for poverty

trfjr said:
the drive motivation and the determination of an individual to achieve more success then what they already have no matter what they have already achieved is what grows an economy. If Henry Ford decided he was satisfied with just one small factory because it alone gave him enough profit to fulfill a above average way of life we would not have the Ford Motor company we have today that employees 10 of thousands
So if everyone had you ideology of only wanting enough for a modest life style you nor anyone else would ever achieve it
Click to expand...
Yes they would, because instead of having one gigantic megacorporation dominating, and in some areas, monopolizing the market, we would have lots of small businesses filling those needs. Imagine an America where your choices for cars are beyond just Honda, Toyota, BMW, Ford, etc....where you could buy a different brand of car in just about every state, all of them made by the folks living in that state.

Which economy do you think would be more sustainable?
 
KevinKohler said:
Yes they would, because instead of having one gigantic megacorporation dominating, and in some areas, monopolizing the market, we would have lots of small businesses filling those needs. Imagine an America where your choices for cars are beyond just Honda, Toyota, BMW, Ford, etc....where you could buy a different brand of car in just about every state, all of them made by the folks living in that state.

Which economy do you think would be more sustainable?
Click to expand...


Government regulation, and economies of scale, would make such a scenario impossible. It costs between $1-5 billion to develop a new car and bring it to market. I'm not sure the good citizens of say, Kentucky, could afford a Honda like vehicle that would have to sell for $400,000.
 
trfjr said:
and did you reward that employee that gave you more then you asked for to keep him going elsewhere? and make that greater profit for someone else?
Click to expand...

I worked hard for the man, who by the way, was one of the best men I have ever worked for. He had character and integrity. He never complained about my work; I never complained about my job.

You need to understand that this was many decades ago. It's not like this anymore.
 
ocean515 said:
Government regulation, and economies of scale, would make such a scenario impossible. It costs between $1-5 billion to develop a new car and bring it to market. I'm not sure the good citizens of say, Kentucky, could afford a Honda like vehicle that would have to sell for $400,000.
Click to expand...

Or it can take a $529 million dollar government loan to NOT bring a car to market. :)
 
ocean515 said:
All this effort to focus on the rich does not address a single reason why the "income gap" has increased. It's a canard floated by those who wish to promote an agenda.

At some point there will be serious discussions about the US economy, and ways in which it can become manufacturing focused again.
Click to expand...

That ship has sailed, my friend. Robots are cheaper than humans. At some point, even China is going to realize this. Manufacturing is NEVER going to be what it was, any where, on this planet. Sorry, but that's just life. Now, we can DO something to help our economy deal with that, or we can opt for the deer in headlights plan. Our call, really.

As for focusing on the gap between middle class and wealthy, it is absolutely about helping our economy. We are, and likely are always going to be, a consumer driven economy.

So answer a simple question. Who consumes more...40 families of four with 10K each, or one family of four with 400K? Which group is most likely to grow our economy the most, in terms of dollars spent?
 
ocean515 said:
Many of the countries poor are people who DID take a chance, and chance won? I think you should take your own advice about "hurting your argument".
Click to expand...

Are you saying that there are not many people in this country who are poor due to bankruptcy, due to a failed business venture?
 
Heebie Jeebie said:
Considering $400,000/year makes you wealthy most were NOT born into it.
Click to expand...

No, but many WERE born into 100K-200K a year families.

Lot easier to become "successful" when you aren't hamstrung by college debt, or struggling to find a place to live, etc.

I have seen it first hand. The folks that get the good jobs out of college are the ones that take the internships. Guess what? I qualified for a couple of them, but with 400+ dollars a month in student loans, I could not afford to work 40 hours a week...for free. But there were plenty of folks from my class that had parents who had NO problem with paying off the majority of their student debt, and also no issue with buying their kid a car on graduation, or paying for the rent, etc. All things that make it a LOT easier to work for free, whilst getting the ol foot in the door. You can ignore that reality if you want, and that's fine. Just know that that's exactly what you're doing. Ignoring reality.
 
KevinKohler said:
That ship has sailed, my friend. Robots are cheaper than humans. At some point, even China is going to realize this. Manufacturing is NEVER going to be what it was, any where, on this planet. Sorry, but that's just life. Now, we can DO something to help our economy deal with that, or we can opt for the deer in headlights plan. Our call, really.

As for focusing on the gap between middle class and wealthy, it is absolutely about helping our economy. We are, and likely are always going to be, a consumer driven economy.

So answer a simple question. Who consumes more...40 families of four with 10K each, or one family of four with 400K? Which group is most likely to grow our economy the most, in terms of dollars spent?
Click to expand...


The ship has sailed? Robots? Really? Do you know that, or do you just think that?

As to who consumes more, obviously the family with $400,000.
 
The paid vacation verses an hourly pay rate increase 101: I worked at a golf course, doing mowing, cup resetting and general grounds care for $9/hour for 40 hours/week. The schedule was week one you worked 5, 8-hour days (M-F) and week two you worked 4, 8-hour days (M-Th), Friday 4 hours, Saturday 2 hours and Sunday 2 hours. The staff was split into two groups so that half worked each weekend, so you all worked 12 days straight and then had two days off. Rain/ice days you got 2 hour show up time and basically cleaned up the shop, and were sometimes allowed to work extra time that week to make up some of those "lost" hours. Overtime was very, very rare as that required paying us time and one half.

After two years with no pay raise they offered all of us a "paid vacation" of one week (40 hours) for all employees with at least one year's prior service. That sounded really good to most of these folks, "WOW a paid vacation benefit!", until I explained what that amounted to in terms of a payroll cost increase to the company. That paid time off, 40 hours at $9/hour, is $360 but that is only once per year and you still must work the other 2,040 hours/year w/o a raise (and just a bit harder to cover for any employee on vacation at the time) - so it amounts to basically a "pay raise" of $.18/hour for the 2,040 hours that you still must work.
 
ocean515 said:
Government regulation, and economies of scale, would make such a scenario impossible. It costs between $1-5 billion to develop a new car and bring it to market. I'm not sure the good citizens of say, Kentucky, could afford a Honda like vehicle that would have to sell for $400,000.
Click to expand...

That is absolutely true, and it's made so BECAUSE government prefers large corporations. Large corporations are more stable. Government likes stability, even at the cost of over all upward mobility. That's why we have market entry barriers, lobbying for large corps, but not for mom and pops, etc. Smaller car companies where once the norm, in this country, and in the rest of the world. And the good folks of Kentucky would be able to afford those cars, because, in MY scenario, THEY are the ones MAKING that 1-5 billion that the company is spending to bring a new car to market, not some folks in Mexico, pumping out crap fords, for pennies on the dollar.
 
ocean515 said:
The ship has sailed? Robots? Really? Do you know that, or do you just think that?

As to who consumes more, obviously the family with $400,000.
Click to expand...

Yes, robots. Automation is taking over more and more of the jobs in this country, everywhere, from manufacturing, to customer service. Remember when you could call a company, and speak to an actual, real, live human being? Ah, those were the days, weren't they? Or when your groceries were rung up by some 16-17 year old, and not a self check out lane? remember when cars were built entirely by hand? Those were NOT the days...cars leaked. Bad. Robots changed all of that. Automation, improvements in assembly lines, etc. We are constantly innovating ways to increase productivity, without increasing overhead/payroll. It's just a matter of time.

Explain how you think the single family of four with 400K of expendable dollars eats more, has more houses, cars, clothes, etc, than the 40 families of four with 10K of expendable dollars?
 
KevinKohler said:
No, but many WERE born into 100K-200K a year families.

Lot easier to become "successful" when you aren't hamstrung by college debt, or struggling to find a place to live, etc.

I have seen it first hand. The folks that get the good jobs out of college are the ones that take the internships. Guess what? I qualified for a couple of them, but with 400+ dollars a month in student loans, I could not afford to work 40 hours a week...for free. But there were plenty of folks from my class that had parents who had NO problem with paying off the majority of their student debt, and also no issue with buying their kid a car on graduation, or paying for the rent, etc. All things that make it a LOT easier to work for free, whilst getting the ol foot in the door. You can ignore that reality if you want, and that's fine. Just know that that's exactly what you're doing. Ignoring reality.
Click to expand...

Ignoring reality is saying most people were born into wealth.

Having wealthy parents doesn't hurt but it is no guarantee otherwise the number of rich would be climbing according to their birthrate. Most people who are in the top 1% got there mostly on effort, by starting a company, by learning a high paying skill, by living below their means or by just being plain lucky, like being with Microsoft at the beginning and being one of the 10,000 millionaires they created. There is no one way to get rich but in general you do have to WANT to be rich because it usually requires a great deal of sacifice to attain.
 
KevinKohler said:
That is absolutely true, and it's made so BECAUSE government prefers large corporations. Large corporations are more stable. Government likes stability, even at the cost of over all upward mobility. That's why we have market entry barriers, lobbying for large corps, but not for mom and pops, etc. Smaller car companies where once the norm, in this country, and in the rest of the world. And the good folks of Kentucky would be able to afford those cars, because, in MY scenario, THEY are the ones MAKING that 1-5 billion that the company is spending to bring a new car to market, not some folks in Mexico, pumping out crap fords, for pennies on the dollar.
Click to expand...


Every day, billions in imported goods arrive at the docks at the Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach, near where I live. Thousands of containers are offloaded, most containing goods we used to manufacture here. These goods represent products which have already been sold to markets that have already been established.

The US Government, in it's never ending quest to find something to do, has passed regulation after regulation, mandate after mandate, and made it very difficult for companies to actually make products here. In the end, these companies become little more than freight forwarders for goods they have made for them in factories outside the country. With proper focus and sane government assistance, many of these goods could be made in the US again. Only then will the foundation to a solid middle class be laid.
 
KevinKohler said:
Godwin's. Learn it, love it, try not to be just another statistic. It hurts your argument far more than it helps.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Historically these ludicrous systems developed to make enough capital for us to take from the thieves and run a human world. You should read more, if they let you.
 
Heebie Jeebie said:
Ignoring reality is saying most people were born into wealth.

Having wealthy parents doesn't hurt but it is no guarantee otherwise the number of rich would be climbing according to their birthrate. Most people who are in the top 1% got there mostly on effort, by starting a company, by learning a high paying skill, by living below their means or by just being plain lucky, like being with Microsoft at the beginning and being one of the 10,000 millionaires they created. There is no one way to get rich but in general you do have to WANT to be rich because it usually requires a great deal of sacifice to attain.
Click to expand...

Ignoring reality is making a post suggesting that all poor people can get rich, and that all they need to do it is put in effort, start a company, learn a high paying skill, or living below their means, with a dash of luck thrown in for good measure, lol.

I'm not saying that all of the nations wealthy were born into wealth. I'm saying that if you took the top 1%, and polled them, the majority of them did NOT start out life poor. Sure, some of them like to tell that story, like Obama, or Romney, but the stories are, for the most part, far from the truth. The majority of the 1% ers in this country DID earn the wealth that delegates them as being rich...but they had a much higher STARTING OUT POINT, than the majority of us get. This is not to degrade them...I'm not looking down on people for a simple accident of birth, or whatever. I just want you to realize....if you are born into a family making, say, 60K a year, today, you have better odds of winning the power ball, than you do of becoming "rich". Regardless of work ethic, brains, etc.

It was not always this way. We have REGULATED ourselves into this corner. We have established the status quo, and the machine we call government, is in NO hurry to change it. They are paid too well NOT to.
 
KevinKohler said:
Yes, robots. Automation is taking over more and more of the jobs in this country, everywhere, from manufacturing, to customer service. Remember when you could call a company, and speak to an actual, real, live human being? Ah, those were the days, weren't they? Or when your groceries were rung up by some 16-17 year old, and not a self check out lane? remember when cars were built entirely by hand? Those were NOT the days...cars leaked. Bad. Robots changed all of that. Automation, improvements in assembly lines, etc. We are constantly innovating ways to increase productivity, without increasing overhead/payroll. It's just a matter of time.

Explain how you think the single family of four with 400K of expendable dollars eats more, has more houses, cars, clothes, etc, than the 40 families of four with 10K of expendable dollars?
Click to expand...


All those "improvements" you mentioned are the result of actions taken in the face of dwindling profits caused by increased costs and growing competition. You want speed in checkout lines? Bar Codes were developed, which also helped track inventory. You want 24 hour access to your money, ATM's were introduced. Bottom line, you want it now? Automation is the only way to do it.

As to the $00,000 dollar question.

This is how you put the question: "Who consumes more...40 families of four with 10K each, or one family of four with 400K?"

Well, now you've added "expendable" to your question. Which form of the question are you interested in?
 
ocean515 said:
Every day, billions in imported goods arrive at the docks at the Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach, near where I live. Thousands of containers are offloaded, most containing goods we used to manufacture here. These goods represent products which have already been sold to markets that have already been established.

The US Government, in it's never ending quest to find something to do, has passed regulation after regulation, mandate after mandate, and made it very difficult for companies to actually make products here. In the end, these companies become little more than freight forwarders for goods they have made for them in factories outside the country. With proper focus and sane government assistance, many of these goods could be made in the US again. Only then will the foundation to a solid middle class be laid.
Click to expand...

That's a great short term goal. I think the number one way we could achieve this, is through a BIT of deregulation, a tax break for companies that manufacture here, mild tarifs on products NOT made here...and, most importantly...we should require companies that want to claim to be US companies...to carry our laws with them, when they send their work overseas. If apple wants their Ipod made in china, fine...but if apple wants the protection that being a US "citizen" affords them, like, you know...IP rights, and such...then they should be required to treat those Chinese workers the same way we require companies to treat american workers. That will do two things. It will speed up the process of increasing the living standards of the countries we send out work out to, and it will bring SOME of that work back home.
 
ocean515 said:
All those "improvements" you mentioned are the result of actions taken in the face of dwindling profits caused by increased costs and growing competition. You want speed in checkout lines? Bar Codes were developed, which also helped track inventory. You want 24 hour access to your money, ATM's were introduced. Bottom line, you want it now? Automation is the only way to do it.

As to the $00,000 dollar question.

This is how you put the question: "Who consumes more...40 families of four with 10K each, or one family of four with 400K?"

Well, now you've added "expendable" to your question. Which form of the question are you interested in?
Click to expand...

I realized that i was not being clear, which was why I added expendable. I'm not moving the goal posts, though that's exactly what it looks like. It's what I meant in the first place. So, yes, the later, is what I'm interested in. Obviously, a bunch of families that only MAKE 10K a year are NOT gonna contribute to our economy one bit. But a bunch of families that have an EXTRA 10K to burn, are. As opposed to one family with an extra 400K to burn.
 
KevinKohler said:
That's a great short term goal. I think the number one way we could achieve this, is through a BIT of deregulation, a tax break for companies that manufacture here, mild tarifs on products NOT made here...and, most importantly...we should require companies that want to claim to be US companies...to carry our laws with them, when they send their work overseas. If apple wants their Ipod made in china, fine...but if apple wants the protection that being a US "citizen" affords them, like, you know...IP rights, and such...then they should be required to treat those Chinese workers the same way we require companies to treat american workers. That will do two things. It will speed up the process of increasing the living standards of the countries we send out work out to, and it will bring SOME of that work back home.
Click to expand...


It's not a short term goal, I believe it's the basis for long term stability. If the United States wants to be a service based economy, then the living standards and economic growth we hope for needs to be lowered. It is not possible for a thriving, growing, middle class to exist in a service based economy.
 
KevinKohler said:
I realized that i was not being clear, which was why I added expendable. I'm not moving the goal posts, though that's exactly what it looks like. It's what I meant in the first place. So, yes, the later, is what I'm interested in. Obviously, a bunch of families that only MAKE 10K a year are NOT gonna contribute to our economy one bit. But a bunch of families that have an EXTRA 10K to burn, are. As opposed to one family with an extra 400K to burn.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying the issue. Without putting too fine a point on it, I believe both scenarios would benefit the economy the same. $400,000 is $400,000.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom