CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 160,476
- 86,917
- 2,645
The poor in rural Peru and India, and now everyone in the Progressive Paradise of Venezuela have to walk down to the river for their drinking water. You have a lot of ******* nerve
Republicans really don’t understand poverty in America
- Thread starter Billy000
- Start date
The poor in rural Peru and India, and now everyone in the Progressive Paradise of Venezuela have to walk down to the river for their drinking water. You have a lot of ******* nerve
- Thread starter
- #22
Christ dude you are talking about one-time purchases. Obviously poor people occasionally are going to buy stuff like X boxes. God forbid they spend money on entertaining themselves! Getting a tax return every year makes this easy.
Healthcare and child support are of course very expensive and are on-going expenses on a month to month basis. That takes up a huge part of their income.
Also, the reason why poor people can be overweight isn’t because they get enough food per day, it’s because junk food is so cheap and healthy food is so expensive. It’s not like these people can afford all of the basic food groups on a daily basis. As a result, they eat food high in fat and carbohydrates which in turn causes obesity.
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 308,188
- 262,595
- 3,615
Two Thumbs
Platinum Member
PredFan
Diamond Member
Oh ffs, how gullible can you people be?
1. We have a high income disparity for many reasons. Because we pay people to do nothing, because we have illegals working here for pennies, as because wehave a lot of really rich people. Our “poor” have flat screens, smart phones, and video game consoles.
2. This is a statistical lie.
3. Bull shit. There are higher wage jobs available you just have to have the education and training for them.
4. Straw man argument. Your ignorance of economics leads you to say such ignorant things. Increasing the minimum wage will not change a thing. Even if you do it gradually.
LA RAM FAN
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2008
- 51,651
- 19,000
- 2,250
hate to break your heart but neither do the democrats and REALLY hate to break the news to you that it is a ONE PARTY SYSTEM of demopublican and reprocrats disguised as two parties so the sheep think they have a choice in changing the corruption that has gone on in our government for decades now but has never changed,that is WHY and why things never will change as long as we have this corrupt system and prevented from having a third party not controlled by the corporations as both parties are.LOL
- Thread starter
- #29
This is so stupid. If we deported all of the illegals, WHY would corporations just choose to pay their legal workers more? How in the hell would that benefit them?
WillowTree
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2008
- 84,532
- 16,116
- 2,180
Competition. Supply and demand. Ever heard of it?
IsaacNewton
Gold Member
- Jun 20, 2015
- 17,308
- 3,700
- 290
Republicans do understand poverty. If it isn't them or their cronies they couldn't care less. Next on their agenda are massive cuts to medicare, medicaid, and social security. Because all of those people are out of the womb and once out of the womb you have no value to their politics so you have no value.
usmbguest5318
Gold Member
Sadly, Billy000, even folks who might be undecided regarding the veracity or predominantly likely veracity of your central thesis -- Republicans don't understand poverty -- your OP presents a very uncompelling argument and thus is very unlikely to generate concurrence among such individuals. Obviously, among folks who agreed with the thesis upon encountering your OP will continue to do so, though some of them may be somewhat embarrassed by the nature of advocacy found in your argument/OP.
Why do I say that? Well, in recognition of the fact that sound/cogent (strong) arguments must have germane and accurate premises, along with a conclusion (thesis) that follows rationally from them, let's consider some of your premises.
Income inequality is, in isolation, irrelevant to poverty. Why? Because measures of income inequality identify the extent of difference in the income of earners at the top and bottom ends of the income spectrum.
(click the pic for a larger presentation of it)
Assume, for instance, the above figures portray a 198% difference between the average incomes of the highest and lowest earning individuals and that the ~$34K/year figure represents a poverty-level income for a one person household. The same measure income inequality, 198%, would exist were the average incomes of the lowest and highest earners $100,000/year and $19,802,310.
Would there then be cause to gripe about income inequality in terms of poverty? It would not. It would not because poverty is a matter whereby how much more or less others make isn't what defines whether one is impoverished. Whether one is impoverished is a function of one's available money (current income and accumulated income, aka wealth) and the prices of goods and services one must buy (food, housing, clothing, transportation, information, fees and excise taxes, etc.) and that are not considered economic luxury goods and services. [1]
Because income inequality is merely a difference measure, if one is of a mind to use it in an argument pertaining to poverty and what someone else has overlooked, one must combine one's discussion of income inequality with a discussion about prices. That is so whether one chooses to approach income inequality from the standpoint of income growth or by citing temporally static observations of income.
Note:
- Economically, luxury goods/services are forms of a "product" that are, in one's local economy, optional. For instance, in D.C., transportation is not an economic luxury good, however, transportation via one's privately owned car is an economic luxury good. In other local economies, that may or may not be so.
Well, to rise above the poverty what the hell else must one in poverty do but get a better paying job?
- It's not as though there's an abundance of "rich, dead uncles" having unclaimed fortuners.
- A poor person may win the lottery, but the odds of that are very slim.
- Theft is also an option, albeit an unlawful and unrecommended one.
Where there's a will, there's a way.
- How can poor people have no time to learn new skills?
- Even if they work and raise kids, the fact that they are impoverished and don't want to be impoverished means they must find time to learn new skills.
- If you clicked on the link just above and read the content at some of those articles, you'll have read about destitute individuals who parlayed their existing skills into profitable ventures. Quite simply, if one is of a mind to not be impoverished, one's first priority must be to do things that alter one's status as impoverished. Of all the things one might do with one's time, a use of it that one can be certain won't alter one's impoverished status is devoting so much of one's time performing a "dead end" job that doesn't pay enough to meet one's goals that one, in turn, has no time to invest any of it doing things that will alter that status.
- How much money must one have to learn new skills?
- College -- Far too few folks who are impoverished avail themselves of the fact that the priciest and most elite colleges and universities make it possible for qualified "ultra poor" individuals to obtain an education from them. That they do is one of the most significant and most easily accessed "field levelers" around. That such institutions meet 100% of demonstrated financial need prepares and enables "the least among us" to join the ranks of "the haves," and it precisely why a friend of mine who mentors young poor kids directs them to apply to the most elite private colleges and universities in the country. The money is there to be given out and those poor kids are most in need of it, so it's just flat-out stupid not to be a high performer in high school, apply to those institutions and, upon being accepted for admission, obtain it. For example:
- Adult training programs
Do you truly not see the argumentative contradiction in asking that question, the answer to which is indeed that the function will be automated [1], by asserting that a robot will probably perform that job?
Note:
- Automation of that sort is already happening in stores where it's economically feasible to do so.
- Fast Food Robots, Kiosks, and AI Use Cases from 6 Restaurant Chain Giants -
- Some examples from that article:
- Some examples from that article:
- Amazon just opened a grocery store without a checkout line -- Would you believe that people stood in line to shop at a store that has no checkout lines. Yep, that's how stupid some Americans are....They'll stand in line to enjoy the experience of, among other things, not standing in line. Clearly, having money to spend and being intelligent are mutually exclusive states of being.
- Fast Food Robots, Kiosks, and AI Use Cases from 6 Restaurant Chain Giants -
That process did begin decades ago and has been going on for years, since at least 1938 in the U.S. You and others may differ normatively about the rate and incidence of minimum wage increases, but the process of raising it has been going on for decades.
For the same reasons and in the context I indicated in my above discussion about income inequality, even if they do, it's an ingermane question to ask.
Why have I written the above remarks? Only to implore you, OP-er, to, if you cannot (or don't want to) present a sound argument, at least present a cogent/strong one. (See: Difference between argumentative/analytical soundness and cogency -- the difference between the two is in the nature of their conclusions, not that of their premises.) Frankly, I think many Republicans don't understand poverty period, be it in America or anywhere else; however, I cannot tick "agree" on your OP because the argument it presents in support of your central assertion/conclusion is too weak to agree with. I don't here expect folks to present perfect arguments, but my approbation nonetheless requires a stronger argument than you've presented. After all, one cannot be taken seriously in a discussion about public policy and have weak arguments for one's positions.
WillowTree
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2008
- 84,532
- 16,116
- 2,180
Libtards are just dumbasses!
- Thread starter
- #35
Sadly, Billy000, even folks who might be undecided regarding the veracity or predominantly likely veracity of your central thesis -- Republicans don't understand poverty -- your OP presents a very uncompelling argument and thus is very unlikely to generate concurrence among such individuals. Obviously, among folks who agreed with the thesis upon encountering your OP will continue to do so, though some of them may be somewhat embarrassed by the nature of advocacy found in your argument/OP.
Why do I say that? Well, in recognition of the fact that sound/cogent (strong) arguments must have germane and accurate premises, along with a conclusion (thesis) that follows rationally from them, let's consider some of your premises.
Income inequality is, in isolation, irrelevant to poverty. Why? Because measures of income inequality identify the extent of difference in the income of earners at the top and bottom ends of the income spectrum.
(click the pic for a larger presentation of it)
Assume, for instance, the above figures portray a 198% difference between the average incomes of the highest and lowest earning individuals and that the ~$34K/year figure represents a poverty-level income for a one person household. The same measure income inequality, 198%, would exist were the average incomes of the lowest and highest earners $100,000/year and $19,802,310.
Would there then be cause to gripe about income inequality in terms of poverty? It would not. It would not because poverty is a matter whereby how much more or less others make isn't what defines whether one is impoverished. Whether one is impoverished is a function of one's available money (current income and accumulated income, aka wealth) and the prices of goods and services one must buy (food, housing, clothing, transportation, information, fees and excise taxes, etc.) and that are not considered economic luxury goods and services. [1]
Because income inequality is merely a difference measure, if one is of a mind to use it in an argument pertaining to poverty and what someone else has overlooked, one must combine one's discussion of income inequality with a discussion about prices. That is so whether one chooses to approach income inequality from the standpoint of income growth or by citing temporally static observations of income.
Note:
- Economically, luxury goods/services are forms of a "product" that are, in one's local economy, optional. For instance, in D.C., transportation is not an economic luxury good, however, transportation via one's privately owned car is an economic luxury good. In other local economies, that may or may not be so.
Well, to rise above the poverty what the hell else must one in poverty do but get a better paying job?
The government offers assistance programs of which impoverished people can avail themselves to obtain resources by which to live and marketable skills they may sell to buyers of labor. I suppose the government could also offer resources that allow impoverished people to emigrate, but not since the 1840s have people proposed that approach, and even then it wasn't proposed as an explicit solution for poverty.
- It's not as though there's an abundance of "rich, dead uncles" having unclaimed fortuners.
- A poor person may win the lottery, but the odds of that are very slim.
- Theft is also an option, albeit an unlawful and unrecommended one.
Where there's a will, there's a way.
Simply put, if one is poor, the things one cannot afford is indolence, ignorance, insipidity and fatuity.
- How can poor people have no time to learn new skills?
- Even if they work and raise kids, the fact that they are impoverished and don't want to be impoverished means they must find time to learn new skills.
- If you clicked on the link just above and read the content at some of those articles, you'll have read about destitute individuals who parlayed their existing skills into profitable ventures. Quite simply, if one is of a mind to not be impoverished, one's first priority must be to do things that alter one's status as impoverished. Of all the things one might do with one's time, a use of it that one can be certain won't alter one's impoverished status is devoting so much of one's time performing a "dead end" job that doesn't pay enough to meet one's goals that one, in turn, has no time to invest any of it doing things that will alter that status.
- How much money must one have to learn new skills?
- College -- Far too few folks who are impoverished avail themselves of the fact that the priciest and most elite colleges and universities make it possible for qualified "ultra poor" individuals to obtain an education from them. That they do is one of the most significant and most easily accessed "field levelers" around. That such institutions meet 100% of demonstrated financial need prepares and enables "the least among us" to join the ranks of "the haves," and it precisely why a friend of mine who mentors young poor kids directs them to apply to the most elite private colleges and universities in the country. The money is there to be given out and those poor kids are most in need of it, so it's just flat-out stupid not to be a high performer in high school, apply to those institutions and, upon being accepted for admission, obtain it. For example:
- Adult training programs
Do you truly not see the argumentative contradiction in asking that question, the answer to which is indeed that the function will be automated [1], by asserting that a robot will probably perform that job?
Note:
- Automation of that sort is already happening in stores where it's economically feasible to do so.
- Fast Food Robots, Kiosks, and AI Use Cases from 6 Restaurant Chain Giants -
- Some examples from that article:
- Amazon just opened a grocery store without a checkout line -- Would you believe that people stood in line to shop at a store that has no checkout lines. Yep, that's how stupid some Americans are....They'll stand in line to enjoy the experience of, among other things, not standing in line. Clearly, having money to spend and being intelligent are mutually exclusive states of being.
That process did begin decades ago and has been going on for years, since at least 1938 in the U.S. You and others may differ normatively about the rate and incidence of minimum wage increases, but the process of raising it has been going on for decades.
For the same reasons and in the context I indicated in my above discussion about income inequality, even if they do, it's an ingermane question to ask.
Why have I written the above remarks? Only to implore you, OP-er, to, if you cannot (or don't want to) present a sound argument, at least present a cogent/strong one. (See: Difference between argumentative/analytical soundness and cogency -- the difference between the two is in the nature of their conclusions, not that of their premises.) Frankly, I think many Republicans don't understand poverty period, be it in America or anywhere else; however, I cannot tick "agree" on your OP because the argument it presents in support of your central assertion/conclusion is too weak to agree with. I don't here expect folks to present perfect arguments, but my approbation nonetheless requires a stronger argument than you've presented. After all, one cannot be taken seriously in a discussion about public policy and have weak arguments for one's positions.
1) It’s pretty simple to understand why income disparity affects poverty. Productivity among low wage jobs has skyrocketed over the last few decades. Rather than these workers seeing a raise in their wages, their wages have gone up very little. Instead of these corporations investing in higher wages given the rise in productivity, they keep that money that was made off the backs of their low level workers. If the top 1% becomes bloated, it is because these lower wage people are not seeing any benefit in the skyrocketing profits of corporate America. These low wages are way behind on the rate of inflation while top earners’ pay is well ahead of it.
2) Christ dude lol. I’m not saying that it is pointless for poor people to learn new skills. I’m saying it’s stupid to suggest this is a cure-all for poverty itself. As you alluded to, it is extremely difficult for single parents to find the time and money to learn new skills. That is a reality whether you like it or not. And again, if every poor person did this and found better paying skilled jobs, WHO would fill all those millions of entry level jobs left behind that pay shit? Obviously corporations depend on this kind of labor. Also, you citing anecdotal stories as evidence of economics is a terrible fallacious argument.
3) My reference to automation was besides my point. I said it as a digression. It would have better had I not said it because I’ll admit it was confusing to add, but you wasting so much energy on trying to prove automation is already happening was pointless lol. I already know automation is currently happening.
4) Yes, the minimum wage has been raised over time in the past. However, my obvious point is that it hasn’t kept up with inflation. Obviously that matters.
5) Also, you are a pretentious, pontificating douche bag.
usmbguest5318
Gold Member
Sadly, Billy000, even folks who might be undecided regarding the veracity or predominantly likely veracity of your central thesis -- Republicans don't understand poverty -- your OP presents a very uncompelling argument and thus is very unlikely to generate concurrence among such individuals. Obviously, among folks who agreed with the thesis upon encountering your OP will continue to do so, though some of them may be somewhat embarrassed by the nature of advocacy found in your argument/OP.
Why do I say that? Well, in recognition of the fact that sound/cogent (strong) arguments must have germane and accurate premises, along with a conclusion (thesis) that follows rationally from them, let's consider some of your premises.
Income inequality is, in isolation, irrelevant to poverty. Why? Because measures of income inequality identify the extent of difference in the income of earners at the top and bottom ends of the income spectrum.
(click the pic for a larger presentation of it)
Assume, for instance, the above figures portray a 198% difference between the average incomes of the highest and lowest earning individuals and that the ~$34K/year figure represents a poverty-level income for a one person household. The same measure income inequality, 198%, would exist were the average incomes of the lowest and highest earners $100,000/year and $19,802,310.
Would there then be cause to gripe about income inequality in terms of poverty? It would not. It would not because poverty is a matter whereby how much more or less others make isn't what defines whether one is impoverished. Whether one is impoverished is a function of one's available money (current income and accumulated income, aka wealth) and the prices of goods and services one must buy (food, housing, clothing, transportation, information, fees and excise taxes, etc.) and that are not considered economic luxury goods and services. [1]
Because income inequality is merely a difference measure, if one is of a mind to use it in an argument pertaining to poverty and what someone else has overlooked, one must combine one's discussion of income inequality with a discussion about prices. That is so whether one chooses to approach income inequality from the standpoint of income growth or by citing temporally static observations of income.
Note:
- Economically, luxury goods/services are forms of a "product" that are, in one's local economy, optional. For instance, in D.C., transportation is not an economic luxury good, however, transportation via one's privately owned car is an economic luxury good. In other local economies, that may or may not be so.
Well, to rise above the poverty what the hell else must one in poverty do but get a better paying job?
The government offers assistance programs of which impoverished people can avail themselves to obtain resources by which to live and marketable skills they may sell to buyers of labor. I suppose the government could also offer resources that allow impoverished people to emigrate, but not since the 1840s have people proposed that approach, and even then it wasn't proposed as an explicit solution for poverty.
- It's not as though there's an abundance of "rich, dead uncles" having unclaimed fortuners.
- A poor person may win the lottery, but the odds of that are very slim.
- Theft is also an option, albeit an unlawful and unrecommended one.
Where there's a will, there's a way.
Simply put, if one is poor, the things one cannot afford is indolence, ignorance, insipidity and fatuity.
- How can poor people have no time to learn new skills?
- Even if they work and raise kids, the fact that they are impoverished and don't want to be impoverished means they must find time to learn new skills.
- If you clicked on the link just above and read the content at some of those articles, you'll have read about destitute individuals who parlayed their existing skills into profitable ventures. Quite simply, if one is of a mind to not be impoverished, one's first priority must be to do things that alter one's status as impoverished. Of all the things one might do with one's time, a use of it that one can be certain won't alter one's impoverished status is devoting so much of one's time performing a "dead end" job that doesn't pay enough to meet one's goals that one, in turn, has no time to invest any of it doing things that will alter that status.
- How much money must one have to learn new skills?
- College -- Far too few folks who are impoverished avail themselves of the fact that the priciest and most elite colleges and universities make it possible for qualified "ultra poor" individuals to obtain an education from them. That they do is one of the most significant and most easily accessed "field levelers" around. That such institutions meet 100% of demonstrated financial need prepares and enables "the least among us" to join the ranks of "the haves," and it precisely why a friend of mine who mentors young poor kids directs them to apply to the most elite private colleges and universities in the country. The money is there to be given out and those poor kids are most in need of it, so it's just flat-out stupid not to be a high performer in high school, apply to those institutions and, upon being accepted for admission, obtain it. For example:
- Adult training programs
Do you truly not see the argumentative contradiction in asking that question, the answer to which is indeed that the function will be automated [1], by asserting that a robot will probably perform that job?
Note:
- Automation of that sort is already happening in stores where it's economically feasible to do so.
- Fast Food Robots, Kiosks, and AI Use Cases from 6 Restaurant Chain Giants -
- Some examples from that article:
- Amazon just opened a grocery store without a checkout line -- Would you believe that people stood in line to shop at a store that has no checkout lines. Yep, that's how stupid some Americans are....They'll stand in line to enjoy the experience of, among other things, not standing in line. Clearly, having money to spend and being intelligent are mutually exclusive states of being.
That process did begin decades ago and has been going on for years, since at least 1938 in the U.S. You and others may differ normatively about the rate and incidence of minimum wage increases, but the process of raising it has been going on for decades.
For the same reasons and in the context I indicated in my above discussion about income inequality, even if they do, it's an ingermane question to ask.
Why have I written the above remarks? Only to implore you, OP-er, to, if you cannot (or don't want to) present a sound argument, at least present a cogent/strong one. (See: Difference between argumentative/analytical soundness and cogency -- the difference between the two is in the nature of their conclusions, not that of their premises.) Frankly, I think many Republicans don't understand poverty period, be it in America or anywhere else; however, I cannot tick "agree" on your OP because the argument it presents in support of your central assertion/conclusion is too weak to agree with. I don't here expect folks to present perfect arguments, but my approbation nonetheless requires a stronger argument than you've presented. After all, one cannot be taken seriously in a discussion about public policy and have weak arguments for one's positions.
1) It’s pretty simple to understand why income disparity affects poverty. Productivity among low wage jobs has skyrocketed over the last few decades. Rather than these workers seeing a raise in their wages, their wages have gone up very little. Instead of these corporations investing in higher wages given the rise in productivity, they keep that money that was made off the backs of their low level workers. If the top 1% becomes bloated, it is because these lower wage people are not seeing any benefit in the skyrocketing profits of corporate America. These low wages are way behind on the rate of inflation while top earners’ pay is well ahead of it.
2) Christ dude lol. I’m not saying that it is pointless for poor people to learn new skills. I’m saying it’s stupid to suggest this is a cure-all for poverty itself. As you alluded to, it is extremely difficult for single parents to find the time and money to learn new skills. That is a reality whether you like it or not. And again, if every poor person did this and found better paying skilled jobs, WHO would fill all those millions of entry level jobs left behind that pay shit? Obviously corporations depend on this kind of labor. Also, you citing anecdotal stories as evidence of economics is a terrible fallacious argument.
3) My reference to automation was besides my point. I said it as a digression. It would have better had I not said it because I’ll admit it was confusing to add, but you wasting so much energy on trying to prove automation is already happening was pointless lol. I already know automation is currently happening.
4) Yes, the minimum wage has been raised over time in the past. However, my obvious point is that it hasn’t kept up with inflation. Obviously that matters.
5) Also, you are a pretentious, pontificating douche bag.
Okay...Did you not thoroughly read my post? If you did, clearly my attempt to explain the weakness of your argument in neutrally non-criticizing/non-castigatory terms didn't work, let me try a mildly derisive approach.
- Thread starter
- #37
Sadly, Billy000, even folks who might be undecided regarding the veracity or predominantly likely veracity of your central thesis -- Republicans don't understand poverty -- your OP presents a very uncompelling argument and thus is very unlikely to generate concurrence among such individuals. Obviously, among folks who agreed with the thesis upon encountering your OP will continue to do so, though some of them may be somewhat embarrassed by the nature of advocacy found in your argument/OP.
Why do I say that? Well, in recognition of the fact that sound/cogent (strong) arguments must have germane and accurate premises, along with a conclusion (thesis) that follows rationally from them, let's consider some of your premises.
Income inequality is, in isolation, irrelevant to poverty. Why? Because measures of income inequality identify the extent of difference in the income of earners at the top and bottom ends of the income spectrum.
(click the pic for a larger presentation of it)
Assume, for instance, the above figures portray a 198% difference between the average incomes of the highest and lowest earning individuals and that the ~$34K/year figure represents a poverty-level income for a one person household. The same measure income inequality, 198%, would exist were the average incomes of the lowest and highest earners $100,000/year and $19,802,310.
Would there then be cause to gripe about income inequality in terms of poverty? It would not. It would not because poverty is a matter whereby how much more or less others make isn't what defines whether one is impoverished. Whether one is impoverished is a function of one's available money (current income and accumulated income, aka wealth) and the prices of goods and services one must buy (food, housing, clothing, transportation, information, fees and excise taxes, etc.) and that are not considered economic luxury goods and services. [1]
Because income inequality is merely a difference measure, if one is of a mind to use it in an argument pertaining to poverty and what someone else has overlooked, one must combine one's discussion of income inequality with a discussion about prices. That is so whether one chooses to approach income inequality from the standpoint of income growth or by citing temporally static observations of income.
Note:
- Economically, luxury goods/services are forms of a "product" that are, in one's local economy, optional. For instance, in D.C., transportation is not an economic luxury good, however, transportation via one's privately owned car is an economic luxury good. In other local economies, that may or may not be so.
Well, to rise above the poverty what the hell else must one in poverty do but get a better paying job?
The government offers assistance programs of which impoverished people can avail themselves to obtain resources by which to live and marketable skills they may sell to buyers of labor. I suppose the government could also offer resources that allow impoverished people to emigrate, but not since the 1840s have people proposed that approach, and even then it wasn't proposed as an explicit solution for poverty.
- It's not as though there's an abundance of "rich, dead uncles" having unclaimed fortuners.
- A poor person may win the lottery, but the odds of that are very slim.
- Theft is also an option, albeit an unlawful and unrecommended one.
Where there's a will, there's a way.
Simply put, if one is poor, the things one cannot afford is indolence, ignorance, insipidity and fatuity.
- How can poor people have no time to learn new skills?
- Even if they work and raise kids, the fact that they are impoverished and don't want to be impoverished means they must find time to learn new skills.
- If you clicked on the link just above and read the content at some of those articles, you'll have read about destitute individuals who parlayed their existing skills into profitable ventures. Quite simply, if one is of a mind to not be impoverished, one's first priority must be to do things that alter one's status as impoverished. Of all the things one might do with one's time, a use of it that one can be certain won't alter one's impoverished status is devoting so much of one's time performing a "dead end" job that doesn't pay enough to meet one's goals that one, in turn, has no time to invest any of it doing things that will alter that status.
- How much money must one have to learn new skills?
- College -- Far too few folks who are impoverished avail themselves of the fact that the priciest and most elite colleges and universities make it possible for qualified "ultra poor" individuals to obtain an education from them. That they do is one of the most significant and most easily accessed "field levelers" around. That such institutions meet 100% of demonstrated financial need prepares and enables "the least among us" to join the ranks of "the haves," and it precisely why a friend of mine who mentors young poor kids directs them to apply to the most elite private colleges and universities in the country. The money is there to be given out and those poor kids are most in need of it, so it's just flat-out stupid not to be a high performer in high school, apply to those institutions and, upon being accepted for admission, obtain it. For example:
- Adult training programs
Do you truly not see the argumentative contradiction in asking that question, the answer to which is indeed that the function will be automated [1], by asserting that a robot will probably perform that job?
Note:
- Automation of that sort is already happening in stores where it's economically feasible to do so.
- Fast Food Robots, Kiosks, and AI Use Cases from 6 Restaurant Chain Giants -
- Some examples from that article:
- Amazon just opened a grocery store without a checkout line -- Would you believe that people stood in line to shop at a store that has no checkout lines. Yep, that's how stupid some Americans are....They'll stand in line to enjoy the experience of, among other things, not standing in line. Clearly, having money to spend and being intelligent are mutually exclusive states of being.
That process did begin decades ago and has been going on for years, since at least 1938 in the U.S. You and others may differ normatively about the rate and incidence of minimum wage increases, but the process of raising it has been going on for decades.
For the same reasons and in the context I indicated in my above discussion about income inequality, even if they do, it's an ingermane question to ask.
Why have I written the above remarks? Only to implore you, OP-er, to, if you cannot (or don't want to) present a sound argument, at least present a cogent/strong one. (See: Difference between argumentative/analytical soundness and cogency -- the difference between the two is in the nature of their conclusions, not that of their premises.) Frankly, I think many Republicans don't understand poverty period, be it in America or anywhere else; however, I cannot tick "agree" on your OP because the argument it presents in support of your central assertion/conclusion is too weak to agree with. I don't here expect folks to present perfect arguments, but my approbation nonetheless requires a stronger argument than you've presented. After all, one cannot be taken seriously in a discussion about public policy and have weak arguments for one's positions.
1) It’s pretty simple to understand why income disparity affects poverty. Productivity among low wage jobs has skyrocketed over the last few decades. Rather than these workers seeing a raise in their wages, their wages have gone up very little. Instead of these corporations investing in higher wages given the rise in productivity, they keep that money that was made off the backs of their low level workers. If the top 1% becomes bloated, it is because these lower wage people are not seeing any benefit in the skyrocketing profits of corporate America. These low wages are way behind on the rate of inflation while top earners’ pay is well ahead of it.
2) Christ dude lol. I’m not saying that it is pointless for poor people to learn new skills. I’m saying it’s stupid to suggest this is a cure-all for poverty itself. As you alluded to, it is extremely difficult for single parents to find the time and money to learn new skills. That is a reality whether you like it or not. And again, if every poor person did this and found better paying skilled jobs, WHO would fill all those millions of entry level jobs left behind that pay shit? Obviously corporations depend on this kind of labor. Also, you citing anecdotal stories as evidence of economics is a terrible fallacious argument.
3) My reference to automation was besides my point. I said it as a digression. It would have better had I not said it because I’ll admit it was confusing to add, but you wasting so much energy on trying to prove automation is already happening was pointless lol. I already know automation is currently happening.
4) Yes, the minimum wage has been raised over time in the past. However, my obvious point is that it hasn’t kept up with inflation. Obviously that matters.
5) Also, you are a pretentious, pontificating douche bag.
Okay...Did you not thoroughly read my post? If you did, clearly my attempt to explain the weakness of your argument in neutrally non-criticizing/non-castigatory terms didn't work, let me try a mildly derisive approach.
What is that it? That’s all you have to say? Also, I definitely adequately explained why income disparity is related to poverty. You just choose deny it.
Two Thumbs
Platinum Member
NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- When it comes to wealth creation, forget America's top 1% -- it's all about the top 10% in Credit Suisse's 2014 wealth report. The data show which countries have the highest income inequality in the world; where the top 10% of earners control more income than anywhere else; and trends among the wealthy.
According to the report, many factors influence wealth inequality, including the growth rate of the economy, macroeconomic trends, how much money people save, inheritance laws, entrepreneurship, demographics and more. Perhaps the most important factor is the performance of financial markets: When markets are up, the 10-percenters gobble up more of the nation's wealth. When they're down, the opposite happens.
The US doesn't make the list
According to the report, many factors influence wealth inequality, including the growth rate of the economy, macroeconomic trends, how much money people save, inheritance laws, entrepreneurship, demographics and more. Perhaps the most important factor is the performance of financial markets: When markets are up, the 10-percenters gobble up more of the nation's wealth. When they're down, the opposite happens.
The US doesn't make the list
1. There are good jobs that are unfilled in America. A lot of those poor people can’t do those jobs
2. Capitalism needs ditch diggers and fast food attendees and maids.
3. Lowering immigration should raise wages.
4. If you are poor don’t have kids. You aren’t that poor if you only have one mouth to feed. And you live in the greatest country in the world.
- Moderator
- #40
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
New Topics
-
The Filibuster Change Showed Senator Cornyn Is An Incredible Low Life!
- Started by JimofPennsylvan
- Replies: 0
-
Gunman and one victim dead in shooting at Old Dominion University; 2 others injured- Started by 1srelluc
- Replies: 0
-
Remember the Alamo! We need Regime Change in Mexico Unconditional Surrender- Started by CrusaderFrank
- Replies: 12
-
Little Miami School Board Member Resigns Over Pro-Hitler Social Media Posts
- Started by 0311
- Replies: 14
-
