Capitalism, The Best Solution to Poverty

[Scot Dutchy]

You complain about the Heritage Foundation, but then you counter with "Slate." LOL. Good one.

The difference being of course Slate does use facts unlike Heritage who uses fake news.

[Brian Peacock]

... The point I was making is that it's really ridiculous to call the US an outlier from the rest of the world in that way, because pretty much, other arguably than a handful of first world, western European, Canada Oz/NZ, being poor in the rest of the world is much worse than in the US.

And the point I was making is that viewing the poverty of the impoverished in absolute or global terms is unhelpful when talking about or addressing the actual poverty of the impoverished of any nation. Are the hungry and homeless of New Hampshire better off than the hungry and homeless of New Mexico, or the hungry and homeless of the UK or The Democratic Republic of the Congo? Perhaps they are in absolute terms, which is to say by comparison, but they're still hungry and homeless Americans. To say that the homeless and hungry of the US are better off than the homeless and hungry of some other nation is just a lazy kind of way to declare that the hungry and homeless are not really hungry or homeless, that the poor are not poor, or at least that they're not that poor - like third-world poor. It feels like an aphorism to salve the conscience of those who don't really want to consider matter seriously, or who want to avoid the issue all together - it means poverty is a problem for the poor to solve themselves rather than recognising that the vast majority of poverty is not the consequence of personal action, inaction, or moral failure but a structural consequence and a social, and therefore a political, issue.

[pErvinalia]

But, the reality is that the poor in the US are not experiencing poverty like the "rest of the world." If your family income is $10,000 a year, you are wealthier than 84 percent of the world.
If it's $50,000 or more a year, you make more than 99 percent of the world. The average American is a 1%-er in the world.
http://www.oregonlive.com/hovde/index.s ... ricas.html

Here's the Pew Research Center -

But how does the well-being of the American family compare with the well-being of people in other countries?

The U.S. still fares very well on that score. On a global scale, the vast majority of Americans are either upper-middle income or high income. And many Americans who are classified as “poor” by the U.S. government would be middle income globally, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... dle-class/ In other words Dutchy - you are using biased sources, and when compared to the sources that I've presented, this is no contest. I have provided not just Heritage, but The Economist, the OECD's numbers, and Pew Research, and below you'll find Forbes too.

Here's an article by Forbes, all due respect to that neutral, moderate, unbiased "slate" source -- https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstal ... b6a6d25cb5

By those same World Banks standards the definition of globally middle class is a consumption possibility of $2 to $50 a day (there's two different possible definitions, $2 to $13 which we might better regard as "not in poverty but not yet middle class" and $12 to $50 which is perhaps "middle class"). Even those reporting no income at all in the US have consumption possibilities roughly equal to those reporting incomes of $20 a day. And to repeat, yes, this is adjusting for the different value of money in different places and countries.

Thus we can say that by global standards there are no poor people in the US at all: the entire country is at least middle class or better. We seem to have fought and won that War on Poverty.

This is just ridiculous. Poverty is related to the cost of living of where you live. If you can't afford to house and feed yourself properly, then you are in bad poverty, no matter how your income compares to the third world.

[Forty Two]

You complain about the Heritage Foundation, but then you counter with "Slate." LOL. Good one.

The difference being of course Slate does use facts unlike Heritage who uses fake news.

That's absurd. The Heritage foundation's cited data are government sources in 2011 and the previous couple of years, including the Census Bureau reports for 2009, US Department of Agriculture, and the Residential Energy Consumption Survey, which was conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy, and the US Housing and Urban Development Housing Report for 2009. So, we're not talking about fake news stories. We're talking about hard numbers. And, I also cited the Pew Research Study which was in accord with that finding, and other sources.

Slate took a slanted view because it relied on only one number calculated by the Luxemborg Income Study, which can't possibly answer the question in isolation.

[Forty Two]

... The point I was making is that it's really ridiculous to call the US an outlier from the rest of the world in that way, because pretty much, other arguably than a handful of first world, western European, Canada Oz/NZ, being poor in the rest of the world is much worse than in the US.

And the point I was making is that viewing the poverty of the impoverished in absolute or global terms is unhelpful when talking about or addressing the actual poverty of the impoverished of any nation.

Unhelpful? Not sure what you mean by that. The idea is that a nation can have no real poor in it, relatively speaking. There are some who equate income inequality with poverty, which it is not. If you had a society of millionaires and billionaires, and nobody below the million mark (and all such persons could live in big houses, with plenty of gourmet organic food, transportation, entertainment, intellectual stimulation and disposable income) they wouldn't become poor just because there happen to be billionaires out there who have 80% of the wealth.

I.e. - income inequality is one measure and a relevant one, but it is not the definition of poverty, nor is it inherently bad to have unequal distribution of income. In fact, to have a free society where people have economic freedoms, there will inevitably be inequalities due to people's differing life choices. People who opt to focus on work, for example, and eschew a family, will have a better chance at amassing more wealth because they limit expenses and increase income. Making more money than other people is not inherently bad.

Are the hungry and homeless of New Hampshire better off than the hungry and homeless of New Mexico, or the hungry and homeless of the UK or The Democratic Republic of the Congo? Perhaps they are in absolute terms, which is to say by comparison, but they're still hungry and homeless Americans.

The "poor" in the US are not hungry or homeless. Only a very very small number of people in the US are ever homeless, and those that are are most often homeless for a brief period of time, staying with family and such. The percentages are very low. Now, I'm not denying that they are there, and I am not saying that no provision should be made for them in our system. Provision IS in fact made for them. Help is available. But, it's a different group of people to say "the poor" in the US vs. "hungry and homeless" in the US. When an article says so many millions of people are "poor" in America, they are including in that group a lot of people who live in houses they own, have two cars in the driveway, have plenty of food, have computers, tvs, internet, and go to the movies and other entertainment options regularly with some discretionary funds. The hungry and homeless portion represents a tiny fraction.

To say that the homeless and hungry of the US are better off than the homeless and hungry of some other nation is just a lazy kind of way to declare that the hungry and homeless are not really hungry or homeless, that the poor are not poor, or at least that they're not that poor - like third-world poor.

It's not saying that, though. To be clear. I haven't said, nor did the articles say, that the "hungry and homeless" are better off here than other "hungry and homeless" people in another country. If a person is hungry and homeless, they are hungry and homeless. It's bad wherever you are. However, what the data showed is that the bottom 10% of American households live better than the average person in many first world countries, and are only worse off than the bottom 10% in one or two countries. That's according to the OECD's Better Life Index.

It feels like an aphorism to salve the conscience of those who don't really want to consider matter seriously, or who want to avoid the issue all together - it means poverty is a problem for the poor to solve themselves rather than recognising that the vast majority of poverty is not the consequence of personal action, inaction, or moral failure but a structural consequence and a social, and therefore a political, issue.

I'm not talking about the morality of anyone's actions or the reasons for them being poor. I'm saying - very clearly - that the when an article says that X million Americans are "poor" they are not "hungry and homeless" (except for a very small percentage). Most of the poor, as the Better Life Index showed, live better than the average person in most European countries. That's the data. Not a value judgment.

[Forty Two]

This is just ridiculous. Poverty is related to the cost of living of where you live. If you can't afford to house and feed yourself properly, then you are in bad poverty, no matter how your income compares to the third world.

You're missing the point. The data that I cited showed that the people being classified as "poor" in the US can, in fact, afford to house and feed themselves. That's the whole point of the data I cited at length from multiple sources, including the OECD, Pew Research, Heritage, Forbes, and others. It's not a comparison of income. That's what Dutchy posted - the mere comparison of income by the LIS numbers - I posted a broad array of data showing that the people that can't afford to "house and feed" themselves properly are a tiny group, and when an article says X million Americans are in poverty, they are including in that X million people who own their own home, have 1 or two cars, one or two tvs, internet, plenty of food, etc.

You see what I mean? If we defined poverty as "not being able to afford a home/apartment, transportation and food" there would be almost no poverty at all in the US. That's the data.

DISCLAIMER - I am not making a claim to superiority. I am sure that in Oz, for example, the same is true. If the test in Oz were to find the percentage of people who are not able to afford a place to live, transportation, food, clothing - the basics - the number would be very very small.

[Scot Dutchy]

Well lets have a look at Heritage:

The Heritage Foundation

Heritage's annual income grew to $1 million per year in 1976.[10] Heritage's stated mission is to "formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense".[11]

Right up your street luckily not mine.

A 2011 study on poverty in America[27] was criticized in opinion editorials published by The New Republic, The Nation, the Center for American Progress, and The Washington Post.[28][29][30][31]

A 2013 study by Heritage senior fellow Robert Rector on the 2013 Senate Immigration Bill (Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013) was criticized for its methodology by critics from across the political spectrum.[32] Notably, outlets like Reason Magazine and the Cato Institute criticized the report for failing to employ dynamic scoring despite Heritage's support for such methodology in analyzing other policy proposals.[33] The study was also criticized because its co-author, Jason Richwine, said in his 2009 doctoral dissertation that immigrants' IQ's should be considered when crafting public policy.[34]

In July 2013, following disputes over the farm bill, the Republican Study Committee of 172 conservative U.S. House members reversed a decades-old tradition of access by barring Heritage Foundation employees from attending its weekly meeting in the Capitol, but continues cooperation through "regular joint events and briefings".[35]

Trump administration
The foundation helped prepare for the presidential transition of Donald Trump before and following his election.[37] Politico reported on November 22, 2016:

The Heritage Foundation has regularly ranked as one of the world's most influential think tanks.

Internationally, and in partnership with the Wall Street Journal, Heritage publishes the annual Index of Economic Freedom, which measures a country's freedom in terms of property rights and freedom from government regulation. The factors used to calculate the Index score are corruption in government, barriers to international trade, income tax and corporate tax rates, government expenditures, rule of law and the ability to enforce contracts, regulatory burdens, banking restrictions, labor regulations, and black market activities. Deficiencies lower the score on Heritage's Index. The Heritage Foundation also publishes The Insider, a quarterly magazine about public policy.

Charles W. L. Hill, after discussing the international shift toward a market-based economic system and Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom, said "given that the Heritage Foundation has a political agenda, its work should be viewed with caution."[51]

Your typical right wing fake news production source.

[Forty Two]

Well lets have a look at Heritage:

The Heritage Foundation

Heritage's annual income grew to $1 million per year in 1976.[10] Heritage's stated mission is to "formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense".[11]

Right up your street luckily not mine.

One, Heritage was not my only source. Two, the sources cited by Heritage were government sources like the Census Bureau, Housing and Urban Development, Dept of Agriculture, and Department of Energy, and official data.

Slate is left wing click-bait bullshit website, that hasn't had much of any value to say since Christopher Hitchens died. Also, Slate has a specific reputation for publishing "Slate pitches." Those are counterintuitive click-bait articles designed to get people to click on them to see how in the world the writer can possibly take the position he's taking. That's a well-known tactic that Slate is known for. I.e., they purposefully publish crap to get people to click.

A few years back, I remember reading the single-dumbest SJW Progressive type article ever written, and it caused me to stop reading the site at all. I used to read it all the time, because Hitchens wrote for it. But, that's 6 years ago now since the Hitch died. A year or two after he died, I was reading an article where this dopey author suggested that it was now appropriate to start asking babies for permission to touch them when you change their diapers - I mean it - I am not joking. They wrote in all seriousness that when you bathe or change a baby who cannot talk or otherwise communicate other than through crying and smiling and such, you need to ask the baby permission every step of the way, if it's o.k. to touch their butt when you wipe their ass and stuff.... is it o.k. to take off your poo filled diaper? LOL. It was the most ridiculous thing. They had lots of articles in that ilk, but that one took the cake. That's Slate. So, yeah, forgive me if I take their claim that people the US are poorer than those in Cuba, South America and various African countries....

If you like sources that promote leftist polices, based on principles of central control, unlimited government and lack of individual freedom, then that's all fine and good. Your sources may still be relevant, but don't pretend that because a source is "up your street" that it's the reputable one. Heritage is a reputable source. But, it also was not my only source - Pew, Forbes, and the government primary data, plus the OECD data itself, all support my statements.

I notice you focus on Heritage, which of course, you don't point out anything about the data in the article that was wrong - just that you don't like the fact that they promote free markets and free enterprise. However, you say nothing about the OECD Data I separately cited, or the Pew Research data. You just want to hand wave away a mountain of relevant data, and then suggest that the people we ought to believe is "Slate" because they cite the LIS income report which does not illustrate poverty.

[Sean Hayden]

Can you imagine what it's like to be okay with making 300x more than what someone who works under you makes?

--holy shit

Oh well, it's a reason to never feel too bad about myself I guess. At least I'm not rich.

[Scot Dutchy]

Can you imagine what it's like to be okay with making 300x more than what someone who works under you makes?

--holy shit

Oh well, it's a reason to never feel too bad about myself I guess. At least I'm not rich.

For 42 it is normal way of life. Like everything in America.

[Hermit]

The task of a CEO is the mange the company so it makes money, because if it doesn't make money it will cease operations because it will run out of money. Then all the workers are out of jobs, and the company is gone.

So, if Thomas Rutledge's remuneration package did not amount to $98 million per annum, Charter Communications Inc. won't make money, cease operations because it will run out of money, all the workers will be out of jobs, and the company will be gone. Got it.

Here's an article by Forbes ... https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstal ... b6a6d25cb5

Thus we can say that by global standards there are no poor people in the US at all: the entire country is at least middle class or better. We seem to have fought and won that War on Poverty

I have great difficulty imagining how anyone can quote that with a straight face.

[Scot Dutchy]

Tell these people that:





They are not poor; just pretending.

[JimC]

Brian Peacock wrote:

...It feels like an aphorism to salve the conscience of those who don't really want to consider matter seriously, or who want to avoid the issue all together - it means poverty is a problem for the poor to solve themselves rather than recognising that the vast majority of poverty is not the consequence of personal action, inaction, or moral failure but a structural consequence and a social, and therefore a political, issue.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Given Forty Two's logic in dismissing Slate as a source, I have to wonder why the Heritage Foundation gets a pass, given their partnering with the Discovery Institute and hosting such anti-luminaries as Stephen Meyer (multiple times), John West and Jay Richards.

[Brian Peacock]

I've always thought there was something fishy about John West...