whats your solution for poverty

[Catawba]

No not by any measure, by the measures they choose. For example by numbers effected, middle class wins. By biggest reduction, the bottom wins. See, 4 charts don't actually tell anything except what the author wants them to show.

Thanks for your unsubstantiated opinion anonymous internet guy!

 

[Catawba]

Catawba, I suspect you would have felt right at home with the anarchists of the Occupy Wall Street people.

Its simply the realization by the majority of the working class that trickle down economics has been a failure so there is no longer any reason to allow it to continue.

 

[dnsmith]

During any particular span of time, even wealth is fixed.

Like up how much wealth that a particular corporation had in 2003. Now look it up again. It didn't change did it?

If you read the rest of my posts, you will see that I admit that quantities can change. But even when they do change, the particular distribution is still a zero sum game. The real life historic chart of income distribution that I posted a few posts ago does a great job to illustrate this. If one person or group get's a larger percentage of something, regardless of if the amount of that something changes, it still directly effects how much another person or group gets.

Sure! At the end of any period of time wealth is a specific amount. But during the process of building that wealth a rich man does not detract from the less wealthy man. Both affect the end result but neither detracts from the other.

 

[dnsmith]

Even with shyte, regardless of the size of the poo, if one person gets a larger or smaller percent of the turd, mathmatically someone is effected.

And that measurement can only give you the end result and during the process one does not detract from the other.

Same with peanuts, or bottles of hairspray, or cars, or anything else which does not have a limitless supply. The supply of what we produce is limited the the quantity that we produce. We can't distribute more or less than we produce, distribution, no matter how it is distributed, always equals production.

Now granted that if we lived in a world where everyone personally produced whatever they have, and they get to keep everything that they produce, and didn't trade with others, then the amount that one individual kept wouldn't be dependent on how many that another produced or kept. But we haven't lived in that type of economy in a long long time. In the current modern economy, where our total wealth is determined by our total production, and most of us work for someone else, it doesn't work like it did back in caveman days. How wealthy we individually become largely depends on how much we produce in aggregate, and the forces that shape the distribution of what we make in aggregate.

 

[dnsmith]

The reality of the nature of supply and demand refutes it.

No! It does not. You are expressing an opinion, not refuting the article.

 

[dnsmith]

Its simply the realization by the majority of the working class that trickle down economics has been a failure so there is no longer any reason to allow it to continue.

By trickle down economics you must be talking about supply side economics. As a matter of fact every dollar in wages has trickled down from the employers. But supply side economics only works under certain circumstances; just like demand side economics only works during certain circumstances. If you put all your eggs in either one you will lose during come business cycles. A good example is Apple. They make a product and then sell its features to create the demand where there was no demand before the new product. That is a successful supply side economics examples. A good economist will look for features of both in an economy and try to ascertain which one is causing the most effect.

 

[Catawba]

No! It does not. You are expressing an opinion, not refuting the article.

The article was an opinion.

"Demand is the underlying force that drives everything in the economy. Fortunately for economics, people are never satisfied. They always want more. This drives economic growth and expansion. Without demand, no business would ever bother producing anything."
Demand


We had to make the same self-correction to our tax system the last time wealth inequality was this high as we are making today.

 

[dnsmith]

The article was an opinion.

"Demand is the underlying force that drives everything in the economy. Fortunately for economics, people are never satisfied. They always want more. This drives economic growth and expansion. Without demand, no business would ever bother producing anything."
Demand


We had to make the same self-correction to our tax system the last time wealth inequality was this high as we are making today.

Demand does play a huge part in our economy, but it isn't the whole thing. If it were people could not walk into a store to buy something. Rather they would have to order it to be made and wait for it. Supply plays a huge part as well. I believe that is why we have so many business cycles. One way doesn't do the whole thing so instead of modifying we chunk the whole and then, here we go again. If there is a stable economic policy in place supply plays the dominating force because creating those supplies requires companies to produce and that takes workers. It works both ways. Only the ignorant demand it be one way or the other.

 

[Catawba]

Demand does play a huge part in our economy, but it isn't the whole thing. If it were people could not walk into a store to buy something. Rather they would have to order it to be made and wait for it. Supply plays a huge part as well. I believe that is why we have so many business cycles. One way doesn't do the whole thing so instead of modifying we chunk the whole and then, here we go again. If there is a stable economic policy in place supply plays the dominating force because creating those supplies requires companies to produce and that takes workers. It works both ways. Only the ignorant demand it be one way or the other.

A balance is needed. That is why we are self correcting our tax system. Consumer demand drives production. When most of the nation's wealth is concentrated at the very top, out of reach of the majority of consumers the economy cannot prosper. When this happened last in our country, we had to self correct the tax system so it didn't keep concentrating wealth at the top.

 

[imagep]

Sure! At the end of any period of time wealth is a specific amount. But during the process of building that wealth a rich man does not detract from the less wealthy man. Both affect the end result but neither detracts from the other.

If a company increases or decreases the income of one person or group, then regardless of how much wealth is created, that affects the amount of what everyone else makes. We are not independent from each other, we are dependent and connected.

 

[imagep]

And that measurement can only give you the end result and during the process one does not detract from the other.

During the process, one does most definitely detract from each others.

Let's say that you own a company and that company's profits are skyrocketing due to one of the products getting a great review in Consumer Report Magazine. If you gave your workers a big bonus, then you as the owner of the company would have less than if you didn't give your workers that bonus.

 

[imagep]

By trickle down economics you must be talking about supply side economics. As a matter of fact every dollar in wages has trickled down from the employers. But supply side economics only works under certain circumstances; just like demand side economics only works during certain circumstances. If you put all your eggs in either one you will lose during come business cycles. A good example is Apple. They make a product and then sell its features to create the demand where there was no demand before the new product. That is a successful supply side economics examples. A good economist will look for features of both in an economy and try to ascertain which one is causing the most effect.

Not really a good example. Thats micro economics, the economics of individuals and individual businesses. A particular individual or company having success or failure has nothing to do with macroeconomics, and supply side and demand side are both macroeconomic topics.

Macro and Micro economics are two different subjects, and are generally taught as two different subjects in college.

 

[YoungConserv]

I think the biggest problem we face in America is the poverty mentality where people spend for today not thinking about tommorow. That's why if you go into any poor neighborhood in America and find nice cars, entertainment systems and lots of alcohol. This spending on wants more than needs is what keeps many in poverty.

 

[Dezaad]

Poverty is largely based on a cycle of dependence, not simply a temporary condition of need with a one size fits all solution. To break out of the poverty cycle you need to become independent, or self sufficient. The old parable: If you give a man a fish then you have fed him but for that day, yet if you teach that man to fish then you have fed him for a lifetime.

Rather than using very inefficient "aid in place" systems that we have now, which basically amount to a reward for failure, we need to alter the thinking entirely. Step one is to relocate the person(s) needing help (remove them fron "the hood"), evaluate what is lacking and produce a viable improvemnt plan to supply needed education/job skills. This is most efficiently done, as we have found, in schools, not in individual homes.

The "poor house" concept is needed for housing, a basic barracks unit for singles, and small multi-room units for families with children. Strict security is required, much like a work release prison facility, you leave only for school/work and return immediately thereafter. Meals and laundry facilities are all within the compound, staffed by a core of staff supervisors and using "resident" help getting both OJT and a small wage. Study, play and entertainment (TV, books & etc.) common rooms wil be provided within each poor house compound.

For childcare, that should be provided within the poor house compound as well. Again using staff supervison and OJT "resident" help for bith OJT and a small wage. After a "resident" attains enoubh educatio/job skill training they are allowed to work off site or in a "resident" help position, accumulating a portion of their wages in their own account, the majority going to fund the poor house. Once they are deemed stable enough, and have a sufficient account balance they are allowed (encouraged?), and helped, to find outside housing/employment - this may not be in the immediate area of the poor house facility.

Unlike a prison, the "residents" are allowed to leave and stay gone, but not to return if they break the rules. Miss school/work, come back stoned, drunk or late and you are evicted, and charged with child abuse (if applicable). Any crimes committed inside the poor house will also be grounds for eviction (as well as prosecution). This enviroment is not meant to be over punitive, but not so relaxed as to allow it to be prefered over freedom either. I would antcipate that an average stay would be from 1 to 3 years, depending on how much education/counciling was needed.

While I will leave aside many other issues for the time being, the average stay would greatly depend on the number of jobs available in the country as compared with the number of people seeking those jobs. During times when the economy is generating fewer than a "full employment" complement of jobs for a prolonged period, the average stay in your facility would be equally prolonged. The poor can't do much about being poor if consumer demand isn't enough to drive full employment job creation. Here is the thing that really sucks: In such a situation, anyone who does manage to pull themselves up merely displaces someone else, who then becomes the "loser".

 

[ttwtt78640]

While I will leave aside many other issues for the time being, the average stay would greatly depend on the number of jobs available in the country as compared with the number of people seeking those jobs. During times when the economy is generating fewer than a "full employment" complement of jobs for a prolonged period, the average stay in your facility would be equally prolonged. The poor can't do much about being poor if consumer demand isn't enough to drive full employment job creation. Here is the thing that really sucks: In such a situation, anyone who does manage to pull themselves up merely displaces someone else, who then becomes the "loser".

That may be true, but ignores demand in other geopraphic areas. While some areas suffer job loss, others lack help. I will not say that any system is likely to be perfect, but what we have now is not even close. It offers very little chance of escape, or breaking the cycle of poverty/gov't dependence.

 

[imagep]

I think the biggest problem we face in America is the poverty mentality where people spend for today not thinking about tommorow. That's why if you go into any poor neighborhood in America and find nice cars, entertainment systems and lots of alcohol. This spending on wants more than needs is what keeps many in poverty.

Somehow it's hard for me to think of someone with a nice car and a fancy entertainment system as being poor.

Poverty is much more based upon income, than it is expenditures. Someone who only works as a minimum wage crew person at Mcdonalds is poor. Someone who works full time as a business manager, or any other professional career or a skilled tradesman is middle class.

How they spend their money isn't my concern. That part time minimum wage worker at McDonalds could save every penny that they make, and they would still be poor - forever. I find it odd that conservatives typically chastise us "class warriors" for even mentioning how much money that people like top CEO's make - telling us that it's none of our business, yet the same type of people will tell us that it is our business how someone spends their own money.

Sometimes the middle class and lower classes tend to think of doctors as being rich. I don't agree that most doctors are rich, but compared to someone who has a lower salary, I can understand why they think of doctors as being rich. the difference between most doctors and most lower income class people isn't net worth, it's income. Doctors are notorious for being big spenders and having low net worths compared to their incomes (probably partially because of their education debt and entering the work force at an older age). Again, someone with a low income will never become rich based upon that income, no matter how much they scrimp and save. And doctors will almost always seem rich (to lower income folk), even if they never save a penny. for most people, lifestyle and poverty are based upon their income, not upon their savings.

On an individual bases, the best way to get out of poverty isn't trying to save a few bucks, it's getting a higher paying job. On a macroeconomic bases, the best way to reduce poverty is to become a more productive society and to have an income distribution system that rewards everyone who bothers to work with some of that increase in our aggregate production.

 

[Dezaad]

That may be true, but ignores demand in other geopraphic areas. While some areas suffer job loss, others lack help. I will not say that any system is likely to be perfect, but what we have now is not even close. It offers very little chance of escape, or breaking the cycle of poverty/gov't dependence.

There is indeed some geographical mismatch between available jobs and labor force. I guess in this situation, we would need to decide whether we value community or economic efficiency the greater. I have recently very much lamented the lack of community in our society. Perhaps you don't much care for it.

In any case, many times the geographical mismatch does not explain the lack of jobs for all those that want to work. We are in such a time.

 

[dnsmith]

Its simply the realization by the majority of the working class that trickle down economics has been a failure so there is no longer any reason to allow it to continue.

ALL wages are trickle down. What you must mean by trickle down economics is supply side economics; but whether you want to admit it or not, supply side economics is part of all economies right along side of demand side economics. In fact they tend to both exist at the same time. Neither can be engaged in by itself for any length of time without eventual failure. One does not have to choose sides since both supply side and demand side exist simultaneously with one or the other being leaned on a little more than the other. But never mind, I can't expect amateur economists to understand the big picture.

 

[dnsmith]

During the process, one does most definitely detract from each others.

Let's say that you own a company and that company's profits are skyrocketing due to one of the products getting a great review in Consumer Report Magazine. If you gave your workers a big bonus, then you as the owner of the company would have less than if you didn't give your workers that bonus.

I hope you do realize that by giving your employees a big bonus you are effectively trying to ensure that they continue to make bucks for you as an even greater part of the pie.

 

[dnsmith]

Not really a good example. Thats micro economics, the economics of individuals and individual businesses. A particular individual or company having success or failure has nothing to do with macroeconomics, and supply side and demand side are both macroeconomic topics.

Macro and Micro economics are two different subjects, and are generally taught as two different subjects in college.

Gee, I didn't know that when I was teaching at University

 

[dnsmith]

I think the biggest problem we face in America is the poverty mentality where people spend for today not thinking about tommorow. That's why if you go into any poor neighborhood in America and find nice cars, entertainment systems and lots of alcohol. This spending on wants more than needs is what keeps many in poverty.

There is a lot of truth to that. But people will always eat first even if they to throw away a lot of money on unneeded luxuries.

 

[dnsmith]

Somehow it's hard for me to think of someone with a nice car and a fancy entertainment system as being poor.

Poverty is much more based upon income, than it is expenditures. Someone who only works as a minimum wage crew person at Mcdonalds is poor.

Some times yes, sometimes no. A person can buy food and find housing on minimum wage. They may not have luxuries, but once the basic needs of food, clothing and housing are met, there is no poverty.

I think the perception of poverty in the US is perverted. The poverty lines are arbitrarily set by elite people who themselves could not live the way they want on income below that level, yet there are many people in our world who live with just the basic needs. There is very little real poverty in the US. Having lived in a country which does have real poverty, a place which if help was not given starvation would ensue. In the us we suffer from a perception of poverty which has expanded the meaning of the word.

 

[Catawba]

ALL wages are trickle down. What you must mean by trickle down economics is supply side economics; but whether you want to admit it or not, supply side economics is part of all economies right along side of demand side economics. In fact they tend to both exist at the same time. Neither can be engaged in by itself for any length of time without eventual failure. One does not have to choose sides since both supply side and demand side exist simultaneously with one or the other being leaned on a little more than the other. But never mind, I can't expect amateur economists to understand the big picture.

I was referring to the trickle down theory applied to our tax system under Reagan and doubled down under Bush. It was supposed to have created more jobs. Since it hasn't, there is no longer a reason for the working class to allow it.

 

[Harshaw]

I was referring to the trickle down theory applied to our tax system under Reagan and doubled down under Bush. It was supposed to have created more jobs. Since it hasn't, there is no longer a reason for the working class to allow it.

I realize you never care if anything you say is actually true, but wow.

 

[dnsmith]

There is indeed some geographical mismatch between available jobs and labor force. I guess in this situation, we would need to decide whether we value community or economic efficiency the greater. I have recently very much lamented the lack of community in our society. Perhaps you don't much care for it.

Community in society is a great trait to have, so long as we understand where that community must lie; WITH THE PEOPLE; not with business. Business has but one purpose, to make a profit which is then distributed to the owners (share holders). It is up to the share holders to determine how much community there should be. It is not up to government to make that decision for them.

In any case, many times the geographical mismatch does not explain the lack of jobs for all those that want to work. We are in such a time.

What has to happen is the passage of time. After the last recession one of the situations we can observe is business tightening its belt and working with what they had to make a consistent profit. A lot of automation took the place of people in the work place making fewer people more productive; enough to sustain business in down cycle. Over time and with population grown, and with retraining to care for those automated tools and with the creation of new products, and to manufacture what the new people want, the level of employment will go up. Unemployment is not just once side of the economy doing less than it should. Unemployment is a function of transition. Government played a large part in causing our last recession with its fiscal and monetary policy. Actually it took almost two administrations to destroy the housing market which was the cause of the recession. Recessions are not without their advantages when viewed over the long haul while looking past the individual pain the unemployed feel. One of those advantages is the discovery by business that by employing their people more efficiently and working toward a more effective manufacturing system the business can become more productive.

The biggest issue we face, and have faced every time we have had a recession or depression is the fact that government has spent every dime of its revenue with no reserves, then borrowed, then went further in the hole. Business cycles have caused structural deficits and government has yet to accept that during the up cycle one must save part of the revenue for the down cycle to maintain equilibrium over the long haul.

When we continue to have the feast or famine approach to government spending it creates deficits which causes the basic purpose of government to fail; that being enough funds to take care of the needy without putting the government into the poor house.