What objection can there be to solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner?

[hadit]

there is nothing "simple" about poverty. It is
NOT a simple "lack of money"

Yes, simple poverty can be solved merely with money. Complex poverty must be means tested.

The issues fall within the political debate. The Left wants to help the poor by giving them money, healthcare, and resources... the Right wants to minimize welfare and promote self sufficiency. They see the poor as lazy so giving them what they need only perpetuates the problem and disincentivizes them to work harder.

And as usual, there is truth in both approaches. Certainly, having resources available to help when someone falls on hard times is a good thing. At the same time, long term reliance on that help DOES result in dependency and a reluctance to provide for one's self.

You mean like poverty wages for the employer's bottom line so the Government can pick up the tab for social services? Why has the minimum wage not kept up with inflation on its own in our market based economy.

And as I've explained, those jobs are not generating more revenue than a higher MW. Now, if everyone is willing to pay higher prices and see jobs disappear, we can increase the MW. You simply cannot expect to drastically increase the MW with no impact to prices and jobs. If you could, we could go to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether. Obviously, we don't.

 

[Slade3200]

They promote business friendly policies and the reduction of government.

How do they do that with poverty wages that may require those actually employed to seek social services and that form of Big Government nanny-Statism? Are you sure you are simply being a right winger about this? Raising the minimum wage can actually help lower the cost of Government while generating more tax revenue in the process.

I agree that a fully employed person should be making a living wage for the area they live in. And for places that don't do that I would absolutely support raising the min wage.

 

[surada]

I am looking for reason why it would be Bad and promote the general malfare instead of Good and promote the general welfare. The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place in our Republic, it merely needs to be put to use.

Solving for actual economic phenomena is more market friendly than any policies based on political considerations. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment in our at-will employment States. Solving for that economic phenomena via existing legal and physical infrastructure would solve simple poverty and better ensure full employment of capital resources under our form of Capitalism.

Anyone have anything that you believe would make something that simple, not work or be Bad for our economy? I am looking for economic considerations and debate.

Anyone who wants a job should have one, IMO.. Don't we owe our fellow citizens that much? What are we afraid of?

 

[surada]

there is nothing "simple" about poverty. It is
NOT a simple "lack of money"

Yes, simple poverty can be solved merely with money. Complex poverty must be means tested.

The issues fall within the political debate. The Left wants to help the poor by giving them money, healthcare, and resources... the Right wants to minimize welfare and promote self sufficiency. They see the poor as lazy so giving them what they need only perpetuates the problem and disincentivizes them to work harder.

And as usual, there is truth in both approaches. Certainly, having resources available to help when someone falls on hard times is a good thing. At the same time, long term reliance on that help DOES result in dependency and a reluctance to provide for one's self.

You mean like poverty wages for the employer's bottom line so the Government can pick up the tab for social services? Why has the minimum wage not kept up with inflation on its own in our market based economy.

And as I've explained, those jobs are not generating more revenue than a higher MW. Now, if everyone is willing to pay higher prices and see jobs disappear, we can increase the MW. You simply cannot expect to drastically increase the MW with no impact to prices and jobs. If you could, we could go to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether. Obviously, we don't.

Are the Europeans so much smarter than we are? Or don't we have the will and intelligence for universal healthcare. Even Israel and Australia and Saudi Arabia can pull that off.

 

[WinterBorn]

I am looking for reason why it would be Bad and promote the general malfare instead of Good and promote the general welfare. The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place in our Republic, it merely needs to be put to use.

Solving for actual economic phenomena is more market friendly than any policies based on political considerations. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment in our at-will employment States. Solving for that economic phenomena via existing legal and physical infrastructure would solve simple poverty and better ensure full employment of capital resources under our form of Capitalism.

Anyone have anything that you believe would make something that simple, not work or be Bad for our economy? I am looking for economic considerations and debate.

You've already had this debate with me, many times, and I've given you the reasons why what you are advocating won't work. Why didn't you listen and learn?

I have had the same arguments with him. I too have given him plenty of reasons it will not work. He wants Unemployment Compensation to replace the entire welfare system, for the simple fact that welfare has a means test. In other words, you have to show you do not have the means of supporting yourself before you are given people's tax dollars. And he wants the unemployed to not have to look for work, or attempt to get a job, and still be paid the equivalent of $15 an hour.

He is delusional.

 

[irosie91]

there is nothing "simple" about poverty. It is
NOT a simple "lack of money"

Yes, simple poverty can be solved merely with money. Complex poverty must be means tested.

The issues fall within the political debate. The Left wants to help the poor by giving them money, healthcare, and resources... the Right wants to minimize welfare and promote self sufficiency. They see the poor as lazy so giving them what they need only perpetuates the problem and disincentivizes them to work harder.

And as usual, there is truth in both approaches. Certainly, having resources available to help when someone falls on hard times is a good thing. At the same time, long term reliance on that help DOES result in dependency and a reluctance to provide for one's self.

You mean like poverty wages for the employer's bottom line so the Government can pick up the tab for social services? Why has the minimum wage not kept up with inflation on its own in our market based economy.

And as I've explained, those jobs are not generating more revenue than a higher MW. Now, if everyone is willing to pay higher prices and see jobs disappear, we can increase the MW. You simply cannot expect to drastically increase the MW with no impact to prices and jobs. If you could, we could go to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether. Obviously, we don't.

Are the Europeans so much smarter than we are? Or don't we have the will and intelligence for universal healthcare. Even Israel and Australia and Saudi Arabia can pull that off.

surada----how much time have you spent administering medical care in
the USA? How much have you heard the problems of people from those
universal healthcare countries with THEIR health care? There are people from whom
EVEN YOU, can learn. BTW ---if you need emergency care just GO TO THE
HOSPITAL----if you cannot pay they cannot refuse you

 

[hadit]

I am looking for reason why it would be Bad and promote the general malfare instead of Good and promote the general welfare. The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place in our Republic, it merely needs to be put to use.

Solving for actual economic phenomena is more market friendly than any policies based on political considerations. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment in our at-will employment States. Solving for that economic phenomena via existing legal and physical infrastructure would solve simple poverty and better ensure full employment of capital resources under our form of Capitalism.

Anyone have anything that you believe would make something that simple, not work or be Bad for our economy? I am looking for economic considerations and debate.

You've already had this debate with me, many times, and I've given you the reasons why what you are advocating won't work. Why didn't you listen and learn?

I have had the same arguments with him. I too have given him plenty of reasons it will not work. He wants Unemployment Compensation to replace the entire welfare system, for the simple fact that welfare has a means test. In other words, you have to show you do not have the means of supporting yourself before you are given people's tax dollars. And he wants the unemployed to not have to look for work, or attempt to get a job, and still be paid the equivalent of $15 an hour.

He is delusional.

And impervious to logic, fact and reason. Nothing ever moves him off dead center.

 

[irosie91]

They promote business friendly policies and the reduction of government.

How do they do that with poverty wages that may require those actually employed to seek social services and that form of Big Government nanny-Statism? Are you sure you are simply being a right winger about this? Raising the minimum wage can actually help lower the cost of Government while generating more tax revenue in the process.

I agree that a fully employed person should be making a living wage for the area they live in. And for places that don't do that I would absolutely support raising the min wage.

gee----I started babysitting ----saturday nites---for 50 cents per hour at age 14. I was
DESPERATE for a job of ANY KIND. If those people who hired me had to pay me 15 dollars per hour-------it wouldn't happen and I would not have a dime. Believe it or not --MY DESPERATION for a job was for the sake of ------saving for college---paying for the
SAT exams-----and........ buying a bit of clothing from the "AS IS" and "seconds" and
''damaged" store up the block. All of my four brothers went to college (like me) on
scholarship, loans and minimum wage jobs. (at 19 I got a job as a clerk type thing in
a hospital at a WOPPING 175 per hour. NOT ALL WORKING PEOPLE CAN GET A JOB THAT PAYS FOR A HOUSE AND A CAR five kids, AND WEEKLY TRIPS TO THE HAIR SALON. The "system" cannot support it. AOC cannot "make ends meet" on 175 thousand dollars per year. ---------

 

[Slade3200]

They promote business friendly policies and the reduction of government.

How do they do that with poverty wages that may require those actually employed to seek social services and that form of Big Government nanny-Statism? Are you sure you are simply being a right winger about this? Raising the minimum wage can actually help lower the cost of Government while generating more tax revenue in the process.

I agree that a fully employed person should be making a living wage for the area they live in. And for places that don't do that I would absolutely support raising the min wage.

gee----I started babysitting ----saturday nites---for 50 cents per hour at age 14. I was
DESPERATE for a job of ANY KIND. If those people who hired me had to pay me 15 dollars per hour-------it wouldn't happen and I would not have a dime. Believe it or not --MY DESPERATION for a job was for the sake of ------saving for college---paying for the
SAT exams-----and........ buying a bit of clothing from the "AS IS" and "seconds" and
''damaged" store up the block. All of my four brothers went to college (like me) on
scholarship, loans and minimum wage jobs. (at 19 I got a job as a clerk type thing in
a hospital at a WOPPING 175 per hour. NOT ALL WORKING PEOPLE CAN GET A JOB THAT PAYS FOR A HOUSE AND A CAR five kids, AND WEEKLY TRIPS TO THE HAIR SALON. The "system" cannot support it. AOC cannot "make ends meet" on 175 thousand dollars per year. ---------

Sorry, I'm not talking about people paying neighborhood kids cash for babysitting. I'm talking about functioning businesses that hire full time employees. Sorry if I was confusing

 

[irosie91]

They promote business friendly policies and the reduction of government.

How do they do that with poverty wages that may require those actually employed to seek social services and that form of Big Government nanny-Statism? Are you sure you are simply being a right winger about this? Raising the minimum wage can actually help lower the cost of Government while generating more tax revenue in the process.

I agree that a fully employed person should be making a living wage for the area they live in. And for places that don't do that I would absolutely support raising the min wage.

gee----I started babysitting ----saturday nites---for 50 cents per hour at age 14. I was
DESPERATE for a job of ANY KIND. If those people who hired me had to pay me 15 dollars per hour-------it wouldn't happen and I would not have a dime. Believe it or not --MY DESPERATION for a job was for the sake of ------saving for college---paying for the
SAT exams-----and........ buying a bit of clothing from the "AS IS" and "seconds" and
''damaged" store up the block. All of my four brothers went to college (like me) on
scholarship, loans and minimum wage jobs. (at 19 I got a job as a clerk type thing in
a hospital at a WOPPING 175 per hour. NOT ALL WORKING PEOPLE CAN GET A JOB THAT PAYS FOR A HOUSE AND A CAR five kids, AND WEEKLY TRIPS TO THE HAIR SALON. The "system" cannot support it. AOC cannot "make ends meet" on 175 thousand dollars per year. ---------

Sorry, I'm not talking about people paying neighborhood kids cash for babysitting. I'm talking about functioning businesses that hire full time employees. Sorry if I was confusing

OK----at age 18, I had a minimum wage job in a large department store----1.25 per hour----------I worked 20 hours per week ---senior year in High School. I NEEDED that one too.
Employees get around that one by hiring PART TIME ONLY

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The first was 2009 when overwhelmingly Congress passed TARP and other packages and a Democratic President signed off,

TARP transferred wealth to the rich? How?

 

[Dadoalex]

I am looking for reason why it would be Bad and promote the general malfare instead of Good and promote the general welfare. The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place in our Republic, it merely needs to be put to use.

Solving for actual economic phenomena is more market friendly than any policies based on political considerations. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment in our at-will employment States. Solving for that economic phenomena via existing legal and physical infrastructure would solve simple poverty and better ensure full employment of capital resources under our form of Capitalism.

Anyone have anything that you believe would make something that simple, not work or be Bad for our economy? I am looking for economic considerations and debate.

Hi.

I've something that's been floating around in my brain for a while.

The Nonprofit Conglomerate
So given the risk in any business startup a profit margin in the 15% range is expected. But, what if that 15% were poured into income and benefits for the employees instead?
This would be an interlocking corporation wherein individual companies within the corporation provide goods and services to one another
For example a payroll management company, in addition to its outside customers, would provide payroll services to member companies at steep discounts.
The company would fund the following for its employees:
3 month layoff protection
100% funded healthcare (using facilities that are members)
Heavily discounted childcare
Training
Education
Once these items are fully funded 100% of profits go toward employee salaries.

With no "owners" there's no income taxes and no owner income so the rest can go to the employees.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Once these items are fully funded 100% of profits go toward employee salaries.

With no "owners" there's no income taxes and no owner income so the rest can go to the employees.

Employees already pay "income taxes." Businesses pay business taxes. Governments exist to provide necessary infrastructure that history shows no private entity should be trusted to manage, "profit" or no.

On the other hand, Worker Owned Conglomerates already exist.

 

[Blues Man]

Poverty can be caused by many reasons. It is up to the individual to do what is needed to get out of it. Bad choices can lead to poverty. There are many mechanisms provided by the State and Federal Governments to help them get out. . However, you can not make people take advantage of them. High School Dropouts, mental illness, personalty disorders, alcoholism, drug addiction, and many more human conditions get in the way.. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

The point is we should have no homeless problem in our first world economy. Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner means more capital circulating in our economy and fewer problems. Who would not benefit by that form of full employment of capital resources under our form of Capitalism?

For example, people with drug addictions or mental illness would be able to afford rehabilitation to help them be more productive in our economy. And, people with an income would be more market friendly and better able to afford housing to stay off the street. They would benefit, landlords would benefit, and the general public would benefit by not having a homeless problem in their neighborhood.

Homelessness is on a downward trend.

Homelessness statistics in the US for 2021 | Policy Advice

Despite the efforts to provide adequate housing, homelessness statistics reveal that they haven’t been enough. Look here to learn more.

policyadvice.net

• 39.8% of homeless persons are African-Americans.
• 61% of homeless persons are men and boys.
• 20% of homeless persons are kids.
• 42% of street children identify as LGBT.
• New York City has one-fifth of all US sheltered homeless.
• The homeless problem is on a downward trend.
• Permanent housing interventions have grown by 450% in 5 years.

The point is, we have a first world economy or should have, and we should have no homeless problem. There is a market friendly solution that merely requires enough morals to faithfully execute our own laws.

There will always be some homeless people.

no matter what the economy is like.

I agree to disagree. Simply camping out for fun is not the same as being homeless due to an inefficiency in public policies that enables it.

Many homeless people are mentally ill and will not ever submit to forced housing

Who said anything about forced housing with persons who have an income. Most would Want to get off the street on their own simply by having an income. And, those with mental health issues would be able to look into rehab with their income. Seems more like a form of free market capitalism than what we have now under our current regime.

you think the mentally ill homeless have incomes?

 

[WinterBorn]

Poverty can be caused by many reasons. It is up to the individual to do what is needed to get out of it. Bad choices can lead to poverty. There are many mechanisms provided by the State and Federal Governments to help them get out. . However, you can not make people take advantage of them. High School Dropouts, mental illness, personalty disorders, alcoholism, drug addiction, and many more human conditions get in the way.. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

The point is we should have no homeless problem in our first world economy. Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner means more capital circulating in our economy and fewer problems. Who would not benefit by that form of full employment of capital resources under our form of Capitalism?

For example, people with drug addictions or mental illness would be able to afford rehabilitation to help them be more productive in our economy. And, people with an income would be more market friendly and better able to afford housing to stay off the street. They would benefit, landlords would benefit, and the general public would benefit by not having a homeless problem in their neighborhood.

Homelessness is on a downward trend.

Homelessness statistics in the US for 2021 | Policy Advice

Despite the efforts to provide adequate housing, homelessness statistics reveal that they haven’t been enough. Look here to learn more.

policyadvice.net

• 39.8% of homeless persons are African-Americans.
• 61% of homeless persons are men and boys.
• 20% of homeless persons are kids.
• 42% of street children identify as LGBT.
• New York City has one-fifth of all US sheltered homeless.
• The homeless problem is on a downward trend.
• Permanent housing interventions have grown by 450% in 5 years.

The point is, we have a first world economy or should have, and we should have no homeless problem. There is a market friendly solution that merely requires enough morals to faithfully execute our own laws.

There will always be some homeless people.

no matter what the economy is like.

I agree to disagree. Simply camping out for fun is not the same as being homeless due to an inefficiency in public policies that enables it.

Many homeless people are mentally ill and will not ever submit to forced housing

Who said anything about forced housing with persons who have an income. Most would Want to get off the street on their own simply by having an income. And, those with mental health issues would be able to look into rehab with their income. Seems more like a form of free market capitalism than what we have now under our current regime.

you think the mentally ill homeless have incomes?

Daniel, we have been through this before. Here are some reasons your plan won't work.

1) Giving $2,600.00 to addicts would hasten their death by funding their addiction.
2) Giving $2,600.00 to homeless people with metal illness would make them targets for criminals.
3) Where would the gov't send the checks?
4) How many homeless people have a valid ID? No address = no state ID
5) Where would they keep their money? No address or ID = no bank account

There are more issues. But these show how ridiculous your plan is.

 

[danielpalos]

there is nothing "simple" about poverty. It is
NOT a simple "lack of money"

Yes, simple poverty can be solved merely with money. Complex poverty must be means tested.

The issues fall within the political debate. The Left wants to help the poor by giving them money, healthcare, and resources... the Right wants to minimize welfare and promote self sufficiency. They see the poor as lazy so giving them what they need only perpetuates the problem and disincentivizes them to work harder.

And as usual, there is truth in both approaches. Certainly, having resources available to help when someone falls on hard times is a good thing. At the same time, long term reliance on that help DOES result in dependency and a reluctance to provide for one's self.

There are those who steadfastly refuse to provide for themselves and consider their poverty a point of pride. These must be allowed to experience the fullness of their decisions.

Seems more like hypocrisy coming from right wingers who have no problems spending trillions on the general warfare and common offense, but object to promoting and providing for the general welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

I am looking for reason why it would be Bad and promote the general malfare instead of Good and promote the general welfare. The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place in our Republic, it merely needs to be put to use.

Solving for actual economic phenomena is more market friendly than any policies based on political considerations. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment in our at-will employment States. Solving for that economic phenomena via existing legal and physical infrastructure would solve simple poverty and better ensure full employment of capital resources under our form of Capitalism.

Anyone have anything that you believe would make something that simple, not work or be Bad for our economy? I am looking for economic considerations and debate.

You've already had this debate with me, many times, and I've given you the reasons why what you are advocating won't work. Why didn't you listen and learn?

All you had was fallacy not any valid arguments but still want to be Right. Only right wingers do that. Besides, I already know it will work simply because y'all have no arguments to the contrary. Fallacy is not a valid argument for rebuttal, just You wanting to be Right. You must be on the right wing.

It has been tried and a couple of countries and it failed. So, far your idea is a fallacy. You want to be right is just stupidity and has nothing to do with left or right, it has to do with economics.

No, it hasn't been tried. Equal protection of the laws is a civil right guaranteed in our federal and State Constitutions. Only right wingers have a problem being legal to the law but are more than willing to blame the less fortunate.

On the contrary, the laws have been applied equally to those who work and those who do not. Your problem is your insistence on re-defining the words in the law to mean something they do not. Post THE TEXT of a specific law, (not just vague, unemployment compensation law) that you think is not being applied equally and I'll demonstrate.

This is one law that is not being applied equally to Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism:

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

It is a State (labor code) Law.

Okay, now tell me how that is not applied equally.

Simply having any for-cause criteria for unemployment compensation is unequal protection of at-will employment doctrine.

 

[danielpalos]

We could have an epidemic and destroy a bunch of small businesses with government restrictions.
Then we can make federal loans for new small businesses and pick the winners and losers.
Then we can have nit-wits explain why that is the best exercise of Capitalism.

.

Would you rather have people dying in the streets? Our hospitals are already being stressed at capacity and our morgues are overflowing to the point some are renting refrigerated trucks to keep the bodies. It seems like you are claiming it is the profit not the people that counts.

Currently the hospitals are not near capacity, you might want more recent information. The time when we were closing in on hospital capacity was the beginning to middle of December. We started to see numbers rising quickly in October but failed to do any restrictions because of the upcoming elections. A week after the elections the governors then imposed their restrictions however the numbers would grow and present an issue with hospitals. More of the party over country decisions.

Are you on the right wing? You provided no link.

States in West and South have highest shares of residents hospitalized as Los Angeles hospitals turn away ambulances

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/01/05/covid-hospitalizations-los-angeles-oxygen/

Los Angeles turns away ambulances filled with the diseased homeless. In fact, EMTs and Paramedics are instructed not to even bother picking these people up.

Yet, right wingers still think the pandemic is a Hoax?

 

[WinterBorn]

I am looking for reason why it would be Bad and promote the general malfare instead of Good and promote the general welfare. The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place in our Republic, it merely needs to be put to use.

Solving for actual economic phenomena is more market friendly than any policies based on political considerations. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment in our at-will employment States. Solving for that economic phenomena via existing legal and physical infrastructure would solve simple poverty and better ensure full employment of capital resources under our form of Capitalism.

Anyone have anything that you believe would make something that simple, not work or be Bad for our economy? I am looking for economic considerations and debate.

You've already had this debate with me, many times, and I've given you the reasons why what you are advocating won't work. Why didn't you listen and learn?

All you had was fallacy not any valid arguments but still want to be Right. Only right wingers do that. Besides, I already know it will work simply because y'all have no arguments to the contrary. Fallacy is not a valid argument for rebuttal, just You wanting to be Right. You must be on the right wing.

It has been tried and a couple of countries and it failed. So, far your idea is a fallacy. You want to be right is just stupidity and has nothing to do with left or right, it has to do with economics.

No, it hasn't been tried. Equal protection of the laws is a civil right guaranteed in our federal and State Constitutions. Only right wingers have a problem being legal to the law but are more than willing to blame the less fortunate.

On the contrary, the laws have been applied equally to those who work and those who do not. Your problem is your insistence on re-defining the words in the law to mean something they do not. Post THE TEXT of a specific law, (not just vague, unemployment compensation law) that you think is not being applied equally and I'll demonstrate.

This is one law that is not being applied equally to Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism:

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

It is a State (labor code) Law.

Okay, now tell me how that is not applied equally.

Simply having any for-cause criteria for unemployment compensation is unequal protection of at-will employment doctrine.

No. The "for cause" criteria simply means you are responsible for your own life. If you choose to quit a job, you don't get paid. If an employer fires you for cause, it was your actions that got you fired. I've never known an employer to fire a good employee.

If an employer fires you for cause, they are deprived of your labor.

You expect the employer to continue to pay you, even though you quit the job or were fired for violating stated ruled. And you want to call that equality?

 

[Circe]

Many in poverty are there by choice.

I have one friend and several family members that are living in poverty and they wont listen to a damn thing I say. I've even offered to pay for trade school for several neices and nephews...only one has taken me up on it.

And guess what...after all that expense and school work, then 2 years of working in the trade...he is no longer working as an auto mechanic and is back living in poverty.

At this point I've learned that hunger is a great motivator for the lazy!!!

Yeah, we've got a relative like that. She LIKES how she lives, and I don't see how it's anyone else's business in that case. It's her life! Huh, I can think of another one like that, in fact. Whole life in poverty, and proud of it.

Another issue is incapacity, affliction. We know a guy whose brother died and froze to death behind a garbage dumpster, and it sounds real sad, but the truth is that the guy was a schizophrenic all his life and living in a state-supported group home. But every once in awhile he would escape and the police would eventually find him under a bridge and take him back.

This time, he chose particularly cold weather to make his escape, and died of it.

My point is, you can't solve ALL poverty -- some is being too impaired or too stupid, and some is a life-style choice which if they aren't stealing or otherwise being a public nuisance, is no one else's business.