Census: Poor and "Near Poor" 1/3 of US

[Schneibster]

I'm 41.

Then you have no excuse for making fun of poor people.

I'm not reading Audley's contribution to this topic as making fun of poor people. He's expressing disdain for the notion that people who have housing and food are poor, when there are so many people who have far less.

It is alll relative.

I don't get to say what happens to people in other countries, mostly. The best I can do is take care of people less fortunate than me in mine and hope to extend some help in emergency times to people elsewhere. And I can't even get my government to consistently admit that that-- the absolute fucking minimum-- might be a good idea all the time. And I've spent money and shoe leather and time on it. Shit, they can't even admit if they kill everything in a square mile, they fucked up. They spray these fucking poisons around and everybody starts freaking out when the bees start dying. Duh.

I've been listening to Libertardians who want to spray this poison telling everyone about the evil poor people as long as I been alive, and watching the rich people stack the deck and load the dice, and I'm not watching it any more. Fuck it. I'm not much interested in the point of view of someone who's well fed and owns a house on poor peoples' faults, whatever he might conceive them to be, nor in his anti-American bigotry, either.

It ain't relative. It's someone who's got plenty to eat criticizin' someone who ain't. That's chickenshit. Nothin' but, period. I won't listen to it.

I can't respond to the rest of this right now. I'm pretty fuckin' pissed off. I'm gonna can it before I say something really nasty. Good night.

[charlou]

I don't read Audley Strange as being libertarian at all.

I understand your concerns .. but you seem to be focussing your anger and frustration about them on a person who hasn't espoused views that you seem to be attributing to him.

Sleep well, Schneibs.

[Seth]

As Seth points out, though, in both countries the minimum wage, full time, is higher than the defined poverty level.

The "defined poverty level" in the US is US$14,570/yr. What is it in Britain?

Minimum wage employees generally do not work full time. As a result most minimum wage employees are below the poverty line. The US government has been hiding this for decades. We can have a long conversation about it and I will produce proof if you like. Seth will deny it.

But you didn't say that, now did you. Now you're backpedaling furiously, having been proven wrong. Nor have you cited any credible evidence that "minimum wage employees generally do not work full time." Given your previous mendacity, there is no reason we should believe you. Nor could I find an official US Census table showing that "most minimum wage employees are below the poverty line." If you have such an official table, I'd love to see it.

As was pointed out, the vast majority of minimum wage employees do not stay at minimum wage for long. While it may be true that "most minimum wage employees are below the poverty line" this is deceptive because this includes new workers beginning their work careers at part-time minimum wage jobs who are not heads of households and who will not remain at those jobs for long, either moving up or going on to college or other jobs.

According to the Census Bureau 2010 stats, of the population 16 to 65 (197,910,880) only 14.4% are at 100 percent or less of the poverty level, and only 18.7% are less than 125% of the poverty level. Of all people, only 15.3% have income in the past 12 months below the poverty level.

Of the working population between 16 and 65, and of those below 100 percent of the poverty level, 2.8% worked full-time, year-round, 19.1% worked less than full time, and 30.9% did not work.

Of full-time year-round workers with earnings, only 6.7% made less than $15,000, and the mean earnings was $54,886. The median earnings for those with less than a high school degree was $18,413, while the median earnings for those with high school (or equivalency) was $26,349. (all numbers are inflation-adjusted)

Of the work population between 16 and 64 years (203,399,398), 54.1% worked 50-52 weeks, 20.4% worked less than 50-52 weeks (1 to 40 weeks, and none of the categories in the table were more than 5.8% by number of weeks worked), an 25.6% did not work at all, with a median number of hours worked of 38.3.

[Hermit]

I'm 41.

Then you have no excuse for making fun of poor people.

I'm not reading Audley's contribution to this topic as making fun of poor people. He's expressing disdain for the notion that people who have housing and food are poor, when there are so many people who have far less.

It is alll relative.

Status Anxiety by Alain de Botton

Accordingly, the possession of a great many material goods becomes necessary not principally because these goods yield pleasure (though they may do this), but because they confer honour. In the ancient world, a debate had raged among philosophers about what was materially necessary for happiness and what unnecessary. Epicurus for one, had argued that simple food and shelter were necessary, but expensive houses & luxurious dishes could safely be bypassed by all rational, philosophically minded people. However, reviewing the argument many centuries later in The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith wryly pointed out that in modern, materialistic societies there were no doubt countless things which were unnecessary from the point of view of physical survival, but at the same time a great many more things had, practically speaking, come to be counted as 'necessaries', because no one could be thought respectable and so lead a psychologically comfortable life without owning them.

Since Smith's day, economists have been almost unanimous in subscribing to the idea that what defines, and lends bitterness to, the state of poverty is not so much direct physical suffering as the shame that flows from the negative reactions of others to one's state, from the way that poverty flouts what Smith termed 'the established rules of decency'. In The Affluent Society (1958 ), J.K. Galbraith proposed, with a bow to Smith, 'people are poverty-stricken whenever their income, even if adequate for survival, falls markedly behind that of the community. Even they cannot have what the larger community regards as the minimum necessary for decency; and they cannot wholly escape, therefore, the judgement of the larger community that they are indecent.'


The 'have-nots' are looked down upon as materially inferior, and their material status also seems to influence the way they are generally perceived, intellectually and morally.

That seems to be the nub of the difference Audley Strange and Schneibster are looking at poverty from. The former sees it in global terms. The latter relative to the communities people live in.

Yes, the bulk of those considered poor or almost poor in the USA, UK or Australia would be considered obscenely wealthy in societies where owning six cows and twelve goats means you are at the top of that particular social pyramid, but that is not where they live, is it? The poor of each nation are genuinely poor within the communities they live in.

Having said that, it certainly adds perspective to compare the conditions of those regarded as the poor in the first world to those pertaining to those in the third. The hardship of not being able to afford to repair one's broken down car, replace the blown television or even get one's teeth fixed pales into insignificance to the hardship that forces people to sell themselves or their children into slavery. The latter still does happen more frequently than we lucky ones realise.

So, yes, I agree with both Audley Strange and Schneibster. Their fight is most unnecessary. Perhaps they might want to explore the common ground instead of engaging in that tedious flame war.

[maiforpeace]

Seriously Fuck you fucking Penis

Feck, this is a reminder to refrain from personal attacks, they are against the rules. Thank you. maiforpeace

[maiforpeace]

That seems to be the nub of the difference Audley Strange and Schneibster are looking at poverty from. The former sees it in global terms. The latter relative to the communities people live in.

Yes, the bulk of those considered poor or almost poor in the USA, UK or Australia would be considered obscenely wealthy in societies where owning six cows and twelve goats means you are at the top of that particular social pyramid, but that is not where they live, is it? The poor of each nation are genuinely poor within the communities they live in.

Having said that, it certainly adds perspective to compare the conditions of those regarded as the poor in the first world to those pertaining to those in the third. The hardship of not being able to afford to repair one's broken down car, replace the blown television or even get one's teeth fixed pales into insignificance to the hardship that forces people to sell themselves or their children into slavery. The latter still does happen more frequently than we lucky ones realise.

So, yes, I agree with both Audley Strange and Schneibster. Their fight is most unnecessary. Perhaps they might want to explore the common ground instead of engaging in that tedious flame war.

Nicely put Seraph.

[Warren Dew]

Read all about it.

They say people making $51,000 are "near poor" because they have to pay taxes that reduce their disposable income, eh?

The solution is pretty simple, then: repeal the 16th amendment so income taxes can no longer push people into or near poverty.

[JimC]

That seems to be the nub of the difference Audley Strange and Schneibster are looking at poverty from. The former sees it in global terms. The latter relative to the communities people live in.

Yes, the bulk of those considered poor or almost poor in the USA, UK or Australia would be considered obscenely wealthy in societies where owning six cows and twelve goats means you are at the top of that particular social pyramid, but that is not where they live, is it? The poor of each nation are genuinely poor within the communities they live in.

Having said that, it certainly adds perspective to compare the conditions of those regarded as the poor in the first world to those pertaining to those in the third. The hardship of not being able to afford to repair one's broken down car, replace the blown television or even get one's teeth fixed pales into insignificance to the hardship that forces people to sell themselves or their children into slavery. The latter still does happen more frequently than we lucky ones realise.

So, yes, I agree with both Audley Strange and Schneibster. Their fight is most unnecessary. Perhaps they might want to explore the common ground instead of engaging in that tedious flame war.

Nicely put Seraph.

Agreed.

[Audley Strange]

I'm 41.

Then you have no excuse for making fun of poor people.

I'm not reading Audley's contribution to this topic as making fun of poor people. He's expressing disdain for the notion that people who have housing and food are poor, when there are so many people who have far less.

It is alll relative.

Status Anxiety by Alain de Botton

Accordingly, the possession of a great many material goods becomes necessary not principally because these goods yield pleasure (though they may do this), but because they confer honour. In the ancient world, a debate had raged among philosophers about what was materially necessary for happiness and what unnecessary. Epicurus for one, had argued that simple food and shelter were necessary, but expensive houses & luxurious dishes could safely be bypassed by all rational, philosophically minded people. However, reviewing the argument many centuries later in The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith wryly pointed out that in modern, materialistic societies there were no doubt countless things which were unnecessary from the point of view of physical survival, but at the same time a great many more things had, practically speaking, come to be counted as 'necessaries', because no one could be thought respectable and so lead a psychologically comfortable life without owning them.

Since Smith's day, economists have been almost unanimous in subscribing to the idea that what defines, and lends bitterness to, the state of poverty is not so much direct physical suffering as the shame that flows from the negative reactions of others to one's state, from the way that poverty flouts what Smith termed 'the established rules of decency'. In The Affluent Society (1958 ), J.K. Galbraith proposed, with a bow to Smith, 'people are poverty-stricken whenever their income, even if adequate for survival, falls markedly behind that of the community. Even they cannot have what the larger community regards as the minimum necessary for decency; and they cannot wholly escape, therefore, the judgement of the larger community that they are indecent.'


The 'have-nots' are looked down upon as materially inferior, and their material status also seems to influence the way they are generally perceived, intellectually and morally.

That seems to be the nub of the difference Audley Strange and Schneibster are looking at poverty from. The former sees it in global terms. The latter relative to the communities people live in.

Yes, the bulk of those considered poor or almost poor in the USA, UK or Australia would be considered obscenely wealthy in societies where owning six cows and twelve goats means you are at the top of that particular social pyramid, but that is not where they live, is it? The poor of each nation are genuinely poor within the communities they live in.

Having said that, it certainly adds perspective to compare the conditions of those regarded as the poor in the first world to those pertaining to those in the third. The hardship of not being able to afford to repair one's broken down car, replace the blown television or even get one's teeth fixed pales into insignificance to the hardship that forces people to sell themselves or their children into slavery. The latter still does happen more frequently than we lucky ones realise.

So, yes, I agree with both Audley Strange and Schneibster. Their fight is most unnecessary. Perhaps they might want to explore the common ground instead of engaging in that tedious flame war.

I gave my opinion on a piece posted. Immediately Schniebster/ as usual, acted like a prick when anyone disagrees with the opinions of the other writers he posts, so I treated him like one. He never refuted or rebutted my points, he attacked me. I never reported the thread, I was not aggressive or accusative to anyone else on this thread. I would have even let Feck's "fuck you" slide because he was obviously empassioned yet still managed to actually give his own opinion.

If people wish to discuss the issue rather than whether I'm a some fiendish 1 percenter mocking the proles, then fine. Scheibster never did that, not from his first reply, because I do not think it his intention to discuss things and give their opinions.

Actually my distain is not even for people who are just above the poverty line. It is for those who make an arbitrary demarcation of poverty and then to lump in those above it as "nearly poor". Why not "nearly rich"? Why well I think it is because we have been bombarded by aspirational consumerism for so long, that people who don't have new cars or the house in the country fell themselves impoverished. They are not and personally I think that lumping those who do not have the ability to feed, clothe or house themselves with people who can is not only insulting, but given the mentality of those who are aspirational consumerists, to be labelled "nearly poor" is to be labelled "outcast".

I've got to say though, it's a brilliant tactic. "Hey last year we were middle class, now we are fucking "nearly poor". Fuck the Democrats!"

[Seth]

Actually my distain is not even for people who are just above the poverty line. It is for those who make an arbitrary demarcation of poverty and then to lump in those above it as "nearly poor". Why not "nearly rich"? Why well I think it is because we have been bombarded by aspirational consumerism for so long, that people who don't have new cars or the house in the country fell themselves impoverished. They are not and personally I think that lumping those who do not have the ability to feed, clothe or house themselves with people who can is not only insulting, but given the mentality of those who are aspirational consumerists, to be labelled "nearly poor" is to be labelled "outcast".

I've got to say though, it's a brilliant tactic. "Hey last year we were middle class, now we are fucking "nearly poor". Fuck the Democrats!"

You've nailed it. The sliding brackets of "poor" and "rich" are how the class warfare rhetoric is sustained.

In any society there are going to be poor, "near poor", middle class, upper middle class, wealthy and ultra rich. This is bell curve inevitability. It's flatly impossible to create a society where everyone has the same as everyone else while still having a society where everyone is not living in penury and starvation. The Soviet Union proves this. China proves this. Cuba proves this.

The best any society can do is to give people the opportunity for upward social and economic mobility by not deliberately erecting barriers to success and finding ways to make sure that nobody starves or freezes to death in the winter. You can't force people to stretch their economic legs, you can only dangle the promise of success before them and give them an opportunity to strive for it. Many people, indeed I'd say most people simply don't have what it takes to be entrepreneurs and find the great successes and rewards that great risk brings. It's a scary proposition to put everything you have on the line to start a business, and it's incredibly hard work that entails endless hours and lots of stress. The vast majority of people prefer the security of working for a daily paycheck that they know will arrive, and they want to improve their socioeconomic condition by moving up in the company or trade they've chosen and by saving their money so they can invest it in the success of others.

When societies look at the "near poor" as an excuse to "level the playing field" by redistributing wealth from those who are exceptionally productive to those who are marginally productive, the serve neither purpose, and in fact make things worse. When people living on the margins have no impetus to improve themselves and seek better for themselves because the basic needs they have are met by government largess, they stop trying to improve themselves and choose to live on the government dole and smoke dope or whatever gives them pleasure for the minimum amount of labor. Worse, when the wealth of the productive class is stolen from them, they soon become disheartened and stop being as productive. The more socialist the redistribution becomes, the more "entitled" the dependent class feels and the more oppressed the productive class feels, until at some point the productive class gives up and joins the dependent class. Things go rapidly south from there.

Instead of goalpost shifting, which is what's going on right now, now that it's been shown that trickle-down economics actually works and even the bottom one percent have an improved economic condition because of the enormous amounts of wealth being generated by the top of the economic spectrum, one should look rationally at the objective economic condition of the poor and "near poor" to see if their basic needs are being adequately met so as to prevent them from living in squalor and starvation. If the truly indigent and desperately poor are starving and (involuntarily) living in cardboard boxes under bridges, then society has to step up and care for them and find them shelter and food.

In the US, nobody starves to death, and the vast bulk of people who live in cardboard boxes under bridges are there by choice, usually do to mental illness (than the ACLU and the Democrats for shutting down and clearing out the mental institutions who used to take care of such people), drug abuse or simply a preference to be "free" from most of the rules and strictures of society.

Indeed, in the US, the vast majority of people living below the poverty line have cars, microwaves, TV, clothes, food, housing and all the other essentials, and a good many luxuries, that aren't enjoyed by the truly poor of the world, who may be living without anything, including food.

So no, it's not a matter of "comparative poverty," it's a matter of absolute poverty and the existence of opportunity to move OUT of poverty, which exists in the US under capitalism, but not under socialism.

Living at the margin of the bell curve in the US is simply an inducement to take advantage of the uncountable opportunities that the US, and capitalism, offer to improve one's socioeconomic condition through hard work and risk. It's been done billions of times throughout our history, and it's there for anyone to take at their will. But if they don't have the will, and won't take the risk, then they doom themselves to economic marginality, and society owes them nothing more than to make sure they don't starve to death or die in the gutters, which we do very effectively here in the US.

[Audley Strange]

Actually my distain is not even for people who are just above the poverty line. It is for those who make an arbitrary demarcation of poverty and then to lump in those above it as "nearly poor". Why not "nearly rich"? Why well I think it is because we have been bombarded by aspirational consumerism for so long, that people who don't have new cars or the house in the country fell themselves impoverished. They are not and personally I think that lumping those who do not have the ability to feed, clothe or house themselves with people who can is not only insulting, but given the mentality of those who are aspirational consumerists, to be labelled "nearly poor" is to be labelled "outcast".

I've got to say though, it's a brilliant tactic. "Hey last year we were middle class, now we are fucking "nearly poor". Fuck the Democrats!"

You've nailed it. The sliding brackets of "poor" and "rich" are how the class warfare rhetoric is sustained.

Quite right and there are parasites and extremists in each of those groups easily duped into wasting effort fighting self imagined "monsters". Reverse snobbery is still snobbery.

In any society there are going to be poor, "near poor", middle class, upper middle class, wealthy and ultra rich. This is bell curve inevitability. It's flatly impossible to create a society where everyone has the same as everyone else while still having a society where everyone is not living in penury and starvation. The Soviet Union proves this. China proves this. Cuba proves this.

I know nothing of China or Cuba, but the Soviet Union still had its economic Heirarchy which was obvious even in the 30's and 40's, to the extent that Orwell's Inner Party, Outer Party and proles pretty much hit the nail on the head.

The best any society can do is to give people the opportunity for upward social and economic mobility by not deliberately erecting barriers to success and finding ways to make sure that nobody starves or freezes to death in the winter.

It can also offer a welfare system. I know you disagree with that, but it is how it is implemented and to whom. I have no problem with paying taxes to assist those who have NO ability to contribute because of medical issues. I have no problem with allowing people some cash to tide them over while they find a new job. I do have a problem with sustaining entire family who not only do not and have never contributed, don't want to try and often make things worse for everyone else.

You can't force people to stretch their economic legs, you can only dangle the promise of success before them and give them an opportunity to strive for it. Many people, indeed I'd say most people simply don't have what it takes to be entrepreneurs and find the great successes and rewards that great risk brings. It's a scary proposition to put everything you have on the line to start a business, and it's incredibly hard work that entails endless hours and lots of stress. The vast majority of people prefer the security of working for a daily paycheck that they know will arrive, and they want to improve their socioeconomic condition by moving up in the company or trade they've chosen and by saving their money so they can invest it in the success of others.

I understand that, though I have to say that some Trans-nationals are parasitical upon the society and quite often, they don't contribute to that society and often make things worse of everyone. Whether that be through environmental issues, blackmailing governments for subsidies (give us cash or tax breaks or we'll take those 15000 jobs to Karachi) and paying their staff just enough to stay but not enough to make them respect the company or try to climb the ladder and in many cases, outsourcing and subcontracting there is often NO chance they can move up in the company. Generally though I do agree, people need to make a choice between the big money and hard work or the easy life. I've had the opportunity to do both and after watching 3 or four blokes who were in there late 30's early 40's drop dead from heart attacks due to the stress, I thought, fuck that and went for the easy life.

When societies look at the "near poor" as an excuse to "level the playing field" by redistributing wealth from those who are exceptionally productive to those who are marginally productive, the serve neither purpose, and in fact make things worse. When people living on the margins have no impetus to improve themselves and seek better for themselves because the basic needs they have are met by government largess, they stop trying to improve themselves and choose to live on the government dole and smoke dope or whatever gives them pleasure for the minimum amount of labor. Worse, when the wealth of the productive class is stolen from them, they soon become disheartened and stop being as productive. The more socialist the redistribution becomes, the more "entitled" the dependent class feels and the more oppressed the productive class feels, until at some point the productive class gives up and joins the dependent class. Things go rapidly south from there.

I don't think that is true. "Near Poor" to me sounds more like a marketing term than it does a class. In fact I think the productive class (even the lowest rungs of the working class) is more likely to become increasingly right wing, which I think is evinced in European Elections after the 2008 recession. The left were predicting some gains because of the recession, but almost everywhere in Europe they either lost their seats or remained irrelevant. The very people who work the hardest for the least are the ones that resent the leisure and dependant classes the most.

Instead of goalpost shifting, which is what's going on right now, now that it's been shown that trickle-down economics actually works and even the bottom one percent have an improved economic condition because of the enormous amounts of wealth being generated by the top of the economic spectrum, one should look rationally at the objective economic condition of the poor and "near poor" to see if their basic needs are being adequately met so as to prevent them from living in squalor and starvation. If the truly indigent and desperately poor are starving and (involuntarily) living in cardboard boxes under bridges, then society has to step up and care for them and find them shelter and food.

In the US, nobody starves to death, and the vast bulk of people who live in cardboard boxes under bridges are there by choice, usually do to mental illness (than the ACLU and the Democrats for shutting down and clearing out the mental institutions who used to take care of such people), drug abuse or simply a preference to be "free" from most of the rules and strictures of society.

Well here it was the successive Thatcherite Neo-Cons who shut down a lot of our mental health facilities. However many of the homeless are definitely not there by choice, as you point out many of them are mentally ill and cannot be held responsible for their actions. That includes many IVD users.

Indeed, in the US, the vast majority of people living below the poverty line have cars, microwaves, TV, clothes, food, housing and all the other essentials, and a good many luxuries, that aren't enjoyed by the truly poor of the world, who may be living without anything, including food.

Yep.

So no, it's not a matter of "comparative poverty," it's a matter of absolute poverty and the existence of opportunity to move OUT of poverty, which exists in the US under capitalism, but not under socialism.

Living at the margin of the bell curve in the US is simply an inducement to take advantage of the uncountable opportunities that the US, and capitalism, offer to improve one's socioeconomic condition through hard work and risk. It's been done billions of times throughout our history, and it's there for anyone to take at their will. But if they don't have the will, and won't take the risk, then they doom themselves to economic marginality, and society owes them nothing more than to make sure they don't starve to death or die in the gutters, which we do very effectively here in the US.

You are far harsher than I. Which is fine. I think any society should make sure that the basic necessities of life are catered for. That would inlcude security, a place to live (given the amount of buildings lying empty I don't think it would be a problem to set up hostels) for those who would sleep on the street. Emergency Health treatment. Basic education.

Not wants, needs. I'm not interested in the excuse that it can be a psychological issue. I've seen kids go into tantrums because they can't get the latest gadget all their schoolfriends have. We recognise that sort of behaviour is not beneficial for children, it is unforgivable in adults.

[Audley Strange]

Minimum wage sounds like it's a lot higher in the UK than the US. A lot higher.

ETA: Minimum wage is generally below the poverty line in the US. Just so everyone is aware.

And the UK has the NHS....HUGE difference. Audley did not take that into account.

Sounds like anti-US bigotry to me.

Bigotry is bigotry. Adults drop bigoted views when presented contradictory evidence.

Children try to get out of it.

Most Americans are pretty ignorant of what life is like in the UK too.

Audley, it's almost impossible for someone with a middle income, much less someone on minimum wage to get a mortgage TODAY. You and I lucked out.

My husband and I have impeccable credit and a middle income and we're going through hell just to refinance enough to lower our payments to cover the medical insurance we now are paying out of pocket since he had to take a pay cut and go on contract.

And, as I said earlier, here in the US we have to pay for our health care...with the monthly premium and our high deductible it's a significant expense.

Anyway, given your reply to the OP I guess anyone who can't get a mortgage today is simply whining and is just shit out of luck, eh?

Well here's the thing, if it is all down to random chance, luck as you put it, then yes it is just whining. Granted they probably have a legitimate complaint in so far as those banks who were unlucky got help and they didn't, but that is not what they are complaining about.

My reply to the OP was in essence "get some fucking perspective". I think we have, to a great extent, lost that in the West. I never said "can't get a mortgage, tough shit!" Nor many of the things people think they read.

But look at the first paragraph...

They drive cars, but seldom new ones. They earn paychecks, but not big ones. Many own homes. Most pay taxes. Half are married, and nearly half live in the suburbs. None are poor, but many describe themselves as barely scraping by.

The article is not about those who cannot afford a mortgage. It is about those who can, who do and who still plead poverty even when they have blackberrys and two cars. Those people are not by any reasonable measure "nearly poor", at worst they are upper working class. Sure it might be a struggle some months to pay all your bills, but its not like they are going to starve any time soon.

Again I think "nearly poor" in this sense is an insult to those who are genuinely poor.

[Seth]

The best any society can do is to give people the opportunity for upward social and economic mobility by not deliberately erecting barriers to success and finding ways to make sure that nobody starves or freezes to death in the winter.

It can also offer a welfare system. I know you disagree with that, but it is how it is implemented and to whom. I have no problem with paying taxes to assist those who have NO ability to contribute because of medical issues. I have no problem with allowing people some cash to tide them over while they find a new job. I do have a problem with sustaining entire family who not only do not and have never contributed, don't want to try and often make things worse for everyone else.

These are the distinctions and nuances that are lost on the Marxists and extremists, who usually fail to distinguish between the indolent dependent class and the destitute. America has never left the truly destitute to swing in the wind, and it's false to suggest that it has by pointing to wealth inequality as if the simple fact that some very small number of people have vast sums of wealth somehow prevents others, even the destitute, from obtaining wealth. It is this socialist zero-sum fallacy that is the core cognitive disconnect in their ideological rhetoric and propaganda.

Nor do they acknowledge that in most cases, government intervention in markets, through entitlement regulation and spending actually causes most of the problems that the poor and middle class suffer, particularly with medical care.

Prior to WWII, "health insurance" was virtually unheard of in this nation. People saved up money for medical emergencies and they shopped around for doctors who would provide the services they needed at a fair price. Competition in the medical marketplace kept prices reasonable (although like any skilled trade, medicine can be expensive because of the barriers to entry and associated costs of goods sold) and the market filled with many competing doctors and organizations.

During FDR's reign, wage controls were put in place that prevented companies from offering higher wages for more-qualified and therefore more valuable employees, either for acquisition or retention, so companies began offering "health benefits" as a non-regulated way of adding to the compensation packages for highly-valued executives and skilled workers in order that the company could obtain the best possible workers. It was an expedient that was required by FDR's idiotic Progressive economic policies (which extended the duration of the Great Depression by a decade or more) for companies to remain competitive in the labor market.

Workers, and particularly union workers and leaders, soon saw this as another benefit that companies could be persuaded to offer using the power of labor organization, and in 1973 "HMOs" were mandated by federal law for those employers who offered medical benefits to their workers.

The problem is that with the advent of the HMO, the natural checks and balances on medical spending, which had been severely impacted by the "health insurance" concept to begin with...but which were traditionally under the control of the company...were all but eliminated. If a company offered any kind of health benefits, it was now required (if it had more than 25 employees) to offer full HMO coverage.

The problem with HMO coverage is that it's no longer "insurance", it's become "pre-paid health care." The difference is significant both as to the costs of health care and how the consumer views the program. With health care insurance, you pay a company to cover defined risks, and the premium charged the INDIVIDUAL depends on what the company assesses the actuarial risk to be. This meant that people who had chronic illnesses or major illnesses like cancer, could be charged more or excluded from the insurance plan because of the potential costs to the insurer. Health insurance companies acted just like auto insurance companies by controlling their risk exposure and graduating the premiums to the risks. Executive health care insurance prior to 1973 was not necessarily a given, and could depend on a health examination and a setting of the rate by the individual by the insurance company. The company could then choose to offer to pay all or part of the premium, depending on how valuable the employee was to the company.

But with the advent of government regulation of health care insurance, and then the HMO law, it changed from being insurance to a defined-benefit "pension" plan of sorts. HMOs were not allowed to discriminate against sick employees or charge them more to cover the risks of treating them, they had to offer "one-size-fits-all" pre-paid health care to any employee, regardless of their health and irrespective of risk.

Of course this government meddling in the free markets immediately lead to increases in the cost of providing medical care as the consumption of health care resources skyrocketed as employees, given essentially unlimited access to health care with only minimal co-pay obligations, began taking advantage of "what they paid for" without any thought regarding the cost of going to the HMO doctor every time they got a splinter or a cold. The law of supply and demand predictably has pushed the costs of health care up as a result. Many more people demanding care creates demand for every aspect and component of the system, and manufacturers, suppliers, doctors and everyone else associated with medical care respond to that demand by raising prices on in-demand resources.

And the situation is made far, far worse when government meddles even further by "mandating" particular coverages or treatments because it's not "fair" to deny those treatments. Some estimates of the costs of government-mandated coverage claim it increases the cost of premiums by as much as 60% in some cases. The idiocy of this government meddling with private health care plans is demonstrated by laws which, for example, require men to pay extra premiums for coverage for female reproductive treatments, from birth-control to uterine cancer, that men will never experience.

The more government mandates particular treatments, the higher the costs to the "insurer" and the higher the premiums go.

In the past, an employer offering medical benefits to a valued employee could negotiate with the employee and the insurer to limit coverage to a defined set of benefits at a defined cost, based on the risk exposure posed by the particular employee. But Progressive/Socialist notions of "fairness" have so skewed the entire medical care industry that it's inevitable that costs are skyrocketing because HMOs and other "insurers" are legally forbidden to limit their coverages, or their risks, by politicians who use mandatory HMO coverage benefits as yet another ploy to garner votes. "Vote for Me and I'll require your HMO to cover all your cancer treatments, no matter how experimental, unproven or ultimately useless they are and no matter how much it costs them to do so!"

It's a potent vote-getter, but such things are far more responsible for the costs of "health insurance" than "corporate greed." The fact is that most HMOs operate on razor-thin profit margins and they only make "a lot of money" because they are so huge.

The point, to reiterate, is that it is socialist/progressive government meddling with the free market for health care that has quite directly caused it to cost so much to get "health care insurance," not to mention actual health care. The laws of supply and demand made it certain that this would happen as soon as government stuck its oar in to try to make things "fair" for everyone.

You can't force people to stretch their economic legs, you can only dangle the promise of success before them and give them an opportunity to strive for it. Many people, indeed I'd say most people simply don't have what it takes to be entrepreneurs and find the great successes and rewards that great risk brings. It's a scary proposition to put everything you have on the line to start a business, and it's incredibly hard work that entails endless hours and lots of stress. The vast majority of people prefer the security of working for a daily paycheck that they know will arrive, and they want to improve their socioeconomic condition by moving up in the company or trade they've chosen and by saving their money so they can invest it in the success of others.

I understand that, though I have to say that some Trans-nationals are parasitical upon the society and quite often, they don't contribute to that society and often make things worse of everyone.

Certainly this is true, but it's the exception, not the rule.

Whether that be through environmental issues, blackmailing governments for subsidies (give us cash or tax breaks or we'll take those 15000 jobs to Karachi) and paying their staff just enough to stay but not enough to make them respect the company or try to climb the ladder and in many cases, outsourcing and subcontracting there is often NO chance they can move up in the company.

Well, environmental regulation is a government function, and if the government fails to do it, the People can replace the government. As for "blackmailing," that's another function of improper meddling in the markets by government. If government simply said "no subsidies to anyone" as it should, then companies would make economic choices based on what's best for their business and their customers, and consumers would ultimately validate or invalidate that choice. As for "outsourcing", nobody's required to work for any company, and if they can't move up, then they either need to move on or suck it up and be satisfied with where they are.

Generally though I do agree, people need to make a choice between the big money and hard work or the easy life. I've had the opportunity to do both and after watching 3 or four blokes who were in there late 30's early 40's drop dead from heart attacks due to the stress, I thought, fuck that and went for the easy life.

Live hard, die young, leave a beautiful corpse...

When societies look at the "near poor" as an excuse to "level the playing field" by redistributing wealth from those who are exceptionally productive to those who are marginally productive, the serve neither purpose, and in fact make things worse. When people living on the margins have no impetus to improve themselves and seek better for themselves because the basic needs they have are met by government largess, they stop trying to improve themselves and choose to live on the government dole and smoke dope or whatever gives them pleasure for the minimum amount of labor. Worse, when the wealth of the productive class is stolen from them, they soon become disheartened and stop being as productive. The more socialist the redistribution becomes, the more "entitled" the dependent class feels and the more oppressed the productive class feels, until at some point the productive class gives up and joins the dependent class. Things go rapidly south from there.

I don't think that is true. "Near Poor" to me sounds more like a marketing term than it does a class.

I agree. It's a wholly-political term that's intended to be pejorative and demeaning in order to fire up the political base.

In fact I think the productive class (even the lowest rungs of the working class) is more likely to become increasingly right wing, which I think is evinced in European Elections after the 2008 recession. The left were predicting some gains because of the recession, but almost everywhere in Europe they either lost their seats or remained irrelevant. The very people who work the hardest for the least are the ones that resent the leisure and dependant classes the most.

Correct. People in places like Amsterdam see legions of parasitical layabouts and pot-heads claiming the half of another person's labor that the Netherlands extracts for social welfare entitlement payments and they resent having to labor for the benefit of these indolent thieves. Most people understand capitalism and that capitalism, free markets and forcing people to suffer the consequences of their bad actions are good things, not bad things, and they support their right to make money and keep it and spend it as they choose, not as some societal leech chooses.

Instead of goalpost shifting, which is what's going on right now, now that it's been shown that trickle-down economics actually works and even the bottom one percent have an improved economic condition because of the enormous amounts of wealth being generated by the top of the economic spectrum, one should look rationally at the objective economic condition of the poor and "near poor" to see if their basic needs are being adequately met so as to prevent them from living in squalor and starvation. If the truly indigent and desperately poor are starving and (involuntarily) living in cardboard boxes under bridges, then society has to step up and care for them and find them shelter and food.

In the US, nobody starves to death, and the vast bulk of people who live in cardboard boxes under bridges are there by choice, usually do to mental illness (than the ACLU and the Democrats for shutting down and clearing out the mental institutions who used to take care of such people), drug abuse or simply a preference to be "free" from most of the rules and strictures of society.

Well here it was the successive Thatcherite Neo-Cons who shut down a lot of our mental health facilities. However many of the homeless are definitely not there by choice, as you point out many of them are mentally ill and cannot be held responsible for their actions. That includes many IVD users.

And yet here, we are not permitted, for reasons of constitutional personal liberty, to force them into treatment or confine them for their own safety. This particular issue is a real knotty conundrum. At what point should government infringe on the individual's right to live on the fringes of society and their personal liberty in order to make society more orderly and stable? Tough question.

Indeed, in the US, the vast majority of people living below the poverty line have cars, microwaves, TV, clothes, food, housing and all the other essentials, and a good many luxuries, that aren't enjoyed by the truly poor of the world, who may be living without anything, including food.

Yep.

So no, it's not a matter of "comparative poverty," it's a matter of absolute poverty and the existence of opportunity to move OUT of poverty, which exists in the US under capitalism, but not under socialism.

Living at the margin of the bell curve in the US is simply an inducement to take advantage of the uncountable opportunities that the US, and capitalism, offer to improve one's socioeconomic condition through hard work and risk. It's been done billions of times throughout our history, and it's there for anyone to take at their will. But if they don't have the will, and won't take the risk, then they doom themselves to economic marginality, and society owes them nothing more than to make sure they don't starve to death or die in the gutters, which we do very effectively here in the US.

You are far harsher than I. Which is fine. I think any society should make sure that the basic necessities of life are catered for. That would inlcude security, a place to live (given the amount of buildings lying empty I don't think it would be a problem to set up hostels) for those who would sleep on the street. Emergency Health treatment. Basic education.

And here in the US, every person, whether they have any money or not, can find all of those things, either through government programs (like federal support for indigent use of ERs) or through private charities that offer shelter, food, clothing and treatment, and basic education has been a right here for a very long time.

Not wants, needs. I'm not interested in the excuse that it can be a psychological issue. I've seen kids go into tantrums because they can't get the latest gadget all their schoolfriends have. We recognise that sort of behaviour is not beneficial for children, it is unforgivable in adults.

As Ben Franklin said, the poor must not be made comfortable in their poverty, they must be driven from it, for only in that way will they be induced to improve themselves, take responsibility for their own success (or failure), and not be a drain on the public purse.

I'm with you on providing minimal life-sustaining support for everyone (which we already do here), and more than that for those who truly CANNOT work, but the quid pro quo is that government support must be minimal, embarrassing, humiliating and difficult to obtain, so that one does not become comfortable on the dole and one has inducement to get off the dole and become a productive member of society.

[Audley Strange]

I'm with you on providing minimal life-sustaining support for everyone (which we already do here), and more than that for those who truly CANNOT work, but the quid pro quo is that government support must be minimal, embarrassing, humiliating and difficult to obtain, so that one does not become comfortable on the dole and one has inducement to get off the dole and become a productive member of society.

My grandfather, who was a stauch pretty hard line communist and who despised liberals used to say the same thing. How about that?

[Seth]

I'm with you on providing minimal life-sustaining support for everyone (which we already do here), and more than that for those who truly CANNOT work, but the quid pro quo is that government support must be minimal, embarrassing, humiliating and difficult to obtain, so that one does not become comfortable on the dole and one has inducement to get off the dole and become a productive member of society.

My grandfather, who was a stauch pretty hard line communist and who despised liberals used to say the same thing. How about that?

Well, the thing about utopian ideological Communism is that if it worked (which it cannot in any complex society larger than a few dozen people), it would be a great system, and yes, Communists have no tolerance for slackers. Usually they just kill them, oftentimes during slave labor. The "Road of Bones" is an excellent example of this principle of Communism.