If the poor get poorer why do they have more stuff than ever before? - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14973538
Pants-of-dog wrote:If he is buying stuff, he is still making an impact.

Mind you, this impact is significantly less than the impact he could enjoy if his spending was not limited.

So if we look at poverty as a spectrum, he is far less wealthy than he would otherwise be.

Now, I also mentioned vulnerability to economic exploitation as a criterion.

Since our hypothetical island billionaire is financially secure, he is not poor.

At best, you could say thst he, like the poor, has trouble using his wealth to improve hus situation.


Would a person who acquired all of his material desires ahead of time and then moved into isolation and obscurity be poor or rich?

He has everything he could possibly want, but is entirely unable to effect social conditions, at the same time, he is not vulnerable to economic exploitation per se.

Most people would regard him as filthy rich having every material thing he wants, but your definition does not seem to permit this. How am I wrong?
#14973540
Perhaps it's time for me to chime in.

Having stuff isn't really a marker of well being. Also, poor people have less of the things that REALLY matter. namely:

Education is more expensive than ever.
Medical care is more expensive than ever.
Housing is more expensive than ever.

These 3 things are what's making more people poorer year after year.
#14973545
Rancid wrote:Education is more expensive than ever.
Medical care is more expensive than ever.
Housing is more expensive than ever.


1. They get public education for free, and inner city schools where we think of "america's poor" get the highest amount in state funds despite performing the worst.
2. Medical care is expensive, but the poor also get this for free and you can do things cheap as I will explain below.
3. Housing is not expensive in the inner city, I paid $27,900.00 for a fully furnished 3 story solid brick home that was up to code in the inner city at age 23 with a combination of cash and unsecured loans (I didn't have enough credit and banks were not giving loans out readily in 2012), up to that point, the most money I ever made was $10.75 and hour. This house was in Pittsburgh and I was from one of the poorest counties in Pennsylvania, our median income is about as much as paid for my house. Most of the blacks in my neighborhood rented for under $200/mo, didn't work, and spent lots of cash on junk food, clothes, and electronics, none of which I could afford to spend much on.

I'm sorry @Rancid, but these aren't legitimate excuses. Its about priorities.

I currently make under $50,000 a year, ( I make $18/hr, plus 8% commission on my sales profits, totaling an average of $800/mo additional, plus a $2K yearly bonus....I do work a lot of overtime though), and I do alternative medicine or emergency medicine out of pocket in cash and do not do regular appointments except for dentistry and I am the only income for my family with a wife at home and going on six kids, plus I am still going to school and paying for it out of pocket.

We homeschool, all paid out of pocket, and I am building my own home currently, which will total me $80,000.00, I have owned three homes before this one I am building and never paid more than $27,900.00 for any home and never paid more than $5,000.00 for a vehicle until I got my 12 passenger van last year.

You can do things affordably, people just don't want to.
#14973562
Victoribus Spolia wrote:
1. They get public education for free, and inner city schools where we think of "america's poor" get the highest amount in state funds despite performing the worst.
2. Medical care is expensive, but the poor also get this for free and you can do things cheap as I will explain below.
3. Housing is not expensive in the inner city, I paid $27,900.00 for a fully furnished 3 story solid brick home that was up to code in the inner city at age 23 with a combination of cash and unsecured loans (I didn't have enough credit and banks were not giving loans out readily in 2012), up to that point, the most money I ever made was $10.75 and hour. This house was in Pittsburgh and I was from one of the poorest counties in Pennsylvania, our median income is about as much as paid for my house. Most of the blacks in my neighborhood rented for under $200/mo, didn't work, and spent lots of cash on junk food, clothes, and electronics, none of which I could afford to spend much on.

I'm sorry @Rancid, but these aren't legitimate excuses. Its about priorities.

I currently make under $50,000 a year, ( I make $18/hr, plus 8% commission on my sales profits, totaling an average of $800/mo additional, plus a $2K yearly bonus....I do work a lot of overtime though), and I do alternative medicine or emergency medicine out of pocket in cash and do not do regular appointments except for dentistry and I am the only income for my family with a wife at home and going on six kids, plus I am still going to school and paying for it out of pocket.

We homeschool, all paid out of pocket, and I am building my own home currently, which will total me $80,000.00, I have owned three homes before this one I am building and never paid more than $27,900.00 for any home and never paid more than $5,000.00 for a vehicle until I got my 12 passenger van last year.

You can do things affordably, people just don't want to.


A high school education today gets you far less than before.
I can't speak to medical, but I grew up poor. Though I remember my access to services was very limited.
The inner city is disappearing with gentrification. THus, you have to live far outside of the city, and spend money to commute into it to work. It's certainly harder the poorer you are.
#14973580
Almost all of the people you are dealing with have chemical addiction issues and/or mental illness, or are dependent on people with those problems.


This is simply not true. Many do but certainly not "almost all". But even if it were true it would beg the question you mention next. Why are they not in treatment/hospital?


Society used to commit them to mental institutions, including for chronic alcoholism. That was deemed "cruel" by liberals.


Half of the story. Very true that misguided people, believing that they were protecting mentally ill people in California, de-institutionalized a great many of them. This sent them into homelessness and even the absolute horror of untreated schizophrenic paranoia. The rest of the truth is this though blackjack.

Ronald Reagan, for whom I voted, repealed Carters bill that continued funding for federal mental health hospitals. The devastated the mentally ill. One could argue whether is was the business of the feds to be running mental health hospitals but they were. Reagan claims to have done it for no other reason than to take at least a chip out of the monumental deficits he was running up.

Most able-bodied people are able to get out of poverty pretty quickly.


Absolutely and categorically untrue. Especially if they are homeless.

In fact, people illegally resident in the United States can make a decent living and send money back to their home country.


Obviously you know how they do this but will not tell us here because you have an agenda to forward. Why don't you explain how they do it. If you don't then we can assume you don't know and are just trolling. I will give you a chance and then I will do it.

One Degree would have us believe that people are better off today than they were 50 years ago because they have some technological Tchotchke. As Steve American (I think) correctly pointed out, the misery of poverty in the developed world is not the result of not having a television. It is that they have fucked up health care (if they have it at all) food insecurity, and the ever present impending homelessness. A great many Americans are simply on that razor's.

Many posit that all Americans have health care because if you go to the hospital you will be treated. This is absolutely untrue. Sometimes you will get emergency care and sometimes it will be adequate. But in the US health care for the poor is appalling even by third world standards. That is why we trail so many nations in outcomes all the while spending more per capita than any other nation. And by a long shot, not a quibble.
#14973585
As usual, we are not defining who we are talking about. The outcasts, the working poor, the freeloaders, and the poor are different groups. Dr. lee describes the outcasts as the poor to justify his arguments.
The poor in the US have everything provided for them, housing, food, free health care, dental, and vision. The working poor get some of this or none meaning the poor are actually better off than many if not most of the working poor depending on the income cutoff.
The outcasts have problems that disqualify them from most government housing, but they are still eligible for all the other benefits including social security disability for addiction.
The freeloaders are the ones who don’t work because they know they are financially better off not working. We periodically attempt to make some of them take jobs.
Bottom line, anyone not capable of working will be totally provided for if they apply and can follow rules for housing and maintaining the paperwork for requalification every year for benefits. Anyone claiming this is not being done for a poor person needs pinned down on why this individual is not receiving assistance.
#14973593
One Degree wrote:The poor in the US have everything provided for them, housing, food, free health care, dental, and vision.
Please provide a source for this ludicrous claim. If this was the case, then USA wouldn't have a 13% poverty rate, that is higher than some 3rd world countries.

One Degree wrote:Bottom line, anyone not capable of working will be totally provided for if they apply and can follow rules for housing and maintaining the paperwork for requalification every year for benefits.
So, there is no homeless disabled people in the USA? :lol:

In this first brief, we focus on people with disabilities who experience chronic homelessness, who make up 24% of adults experiencing homelessness and 5% of families.

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness
https://www.usich.gov/resources/uploads ... hronic.pdf

All I hear is some sanctimonious twat trying to demonize poor people and label them as either disabled, lazy, or mentally ill. :knife:
#14973597
Godstud wrote:Please provide a source for this ludicrous claim. If this was the case, then USA wouldn't have a 13% poverty rate, that is higher than some 3rd world countries.

So, there is no homeless disabled people in the USA? :lol:

In this first brief, we focus on people with disabilities who experience chronic homelessness, who make up 24% of adults experiencing homelessness and 5% of families.

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness
https://www.usich.gov/resources/uploads ... hronic.pdf

All I hear is some sanctimonious twat trying to demonize poor people and label them as either disabled, lazy, or mentally ill. :knife:


Tell me why they are homeless. I live with the physically and mentally disabled receiving full assistance.
Saying 24% of the homeless are disabled is intentionally misleading. It suggests they are homeless because of their disability. What is their disability? It certainly is not physical and it is certainly not a treatable mental illness that is making them homeless. Be specific or your argument is bullshit.

Edit: I don’t intend to read your source unless you tell me it says something other than what I already suspect. The only disability making them homeless is addiction or refusing to take medication.
#14973608
One Degree wrote:Saying 24% of the homeless are disabled is intentionally misleading.
No. It's not. It's part of an actual study done. I can understand why you'd say that though, since it obviously demonstrates how fucking wrong you are. :lol:

There is no suggestion that they are homeless due to their disability, but often people with disability cannot make money, so...

You won't read my source, since it's a reliable and authentic American government source that demonstrates that you are full of shit.
#14973609
One Degree wrote:Meh, “having no real say in your own life’ seems to define poverty as something other than poverty to match a political agenda. I get what they are trying to say and kind of agree with the idea, but it is couched in too much political innuendo to have any real meaning imo.

The problems which affect the poor aren't reducible to their economic circumstance.
The issue with poverty is based in what wealth normally affords, a means to an end. Which is why the earlier link stated
it is the lack of self-determination which constitutes deprivation.

Which also followed into emphasizing what allows people the capacity for self determination such as education, health care and so on which some have brought up in this thread in terms of it's economic issue where I see implicit is the functioning of a good life which one can't achieved.
Generally we think such a good life requires money as in the case of the USA, where wealth does afford one much self determination in terms of education, healthcare, a say in one's life. I think it does well to emphasize the issue that these issues aren't necessarily solved by welfare/charity.

https://ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/works/concepts-activity.htm
The word ‘predicament’ is particularly apt to express this idea. ‘Predicament’ originates from the word ‘predicate’, something which can be said of a subject, the Latin version of the Greek, ‘kategoria’. ‘Predicament’ implies a ‘double bind’ of some kind, a ‘Catch 22’. That is, the problem presents itself as a contradiction, and as such has to be grasped by a concept. For example, I have little money; but that may not be a problem because I may not need money. The concept of ‘poverty’ however transcends the conditions of wants and needs, of disempowerment, isolation, social norms of consumption, availability of welfare or support, etc., and captures the situation as a contradiction between means and ends. It would require a whole essay to explain and define ‘poverty’. ‘Low income’, for example, is just an abstract general? concept and not a true concept because it does not capture what is problematic. A family may have a low income, but if their needs are small and they are well supported within an extended family or community, their low income is not a predicament. But poverty is a predicament. ‘Predicaments’ give rise to concepts because they are contradictions and demand an innovation in the relevant system of social practice. This innovation is manifested in the introduction of a new word, or the investment of new meaning in an old word and a modification in the normative practices of that institution. In that sense the institution is ‘composed of’ concepts. If there is no relevant system of social practice, no institution or social movement for which such a problem could arise and express itself, then no contradiction arises.
#14973610
Godstud wrote:No. It's not. It's part of an actual study done. I can understand why you'd say that though, since it obviously demonstrates how fucking wrong you are. :lol:

There is no suggestion that they are homeless due to their disability, but often people with disability cannot make money, so...

You won't read my source, since it's a reliable and authentic American government source that demonstrates that you are full of shit.


Answer my questions based upon your source and then I will decide whether I need to read it. Are the disabilities making them homeless addiction and mental illness? If so, we have already covered why they are homeless. If they are claiming a different disability causes homelessness then I would probably read it.
They also are not representative of the poor, so it is not a valid argument to begin with.
#14973612
Wellsy wrote:The problems which affect the poor aren't reducible to their economic circumstance.
The issue with poverty is based in what wealth normally affords, a means to an end. Which is why the earlier link stated

Which also followed into emphasizing what allows people the capacity for self determination such as education, health care and so on which some have brought up in this thread in terms of it's economic issue where I see implicit is the functioning of a good life which one can't achieved.
Generally we think such a good life requires money as in the case of the USA, where wealth does afford one much self determination in terms of education, healthcare, a say in one's life. I think it does well to emphasize the issue that these issues aren't necessarily solved by welfare/charity.

https://ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/works/concepts-activity.htm


First, if your basic necessities are met then an individual is capable of bettering their life on their own. You, and others, are arguing they need the means for unlimited improvement. There is no reason why this should be a criteria.
Second, you are arguing for immediate improvement. Past generations saw this improvement as a generational process which is why they argued you could lift yourself up. Their expectations were not for themselves, but future generations. They believed in baby steps.
So, the change in defining poverty is simply belief in instant gratification today coupled with the increased emphasis on the individual. Ironically, I would think Socialists would be opposed to these concepts.
#14973618
One degree laughingly asserted:

The poor in the US have everything provided for them,


Untrue.

housing,


Wrong. Read the book "Evicted".

food
,

Not true. Not every person even without income even qualifies for food stamps (Which, by the way, because of the rules are not much help if you are homeless.

free health care,


Untrue. You are just trolling.

dental


Untrue. You are just trolling.

vision


Untrue. You are just trolling.

Actually it is possible for a really stupid and uninformed person to believe this shit. But you, no doubt, do not admit to that so how about a series of sources. That way no one will mistakenly believe that you are ignorant or stupid.

The working poor get some of this or none meaning the poor are actually better off than many if not most of the working poor depending on the income cutoff.


Gobbledygook. Meaningless.

One time I gave a talk. During the Q & A a student got up and said, "I just wanted to shout ""prove it motherfucker"" every time you made a point". I know what he means.
#14973621
Drlee wrote:One degree laughingly asserted:



Untrue.



Wrong. Read the book "Evicted".

,

Not true. Not every person even without income even qualifies for food stamps (Which, by the way, because of the rules are not much help if you are homeless.



Untrue. You are just trolling.



Untrue. You are just trolling.



Untrue. You are just trolling.

Actually it is possible for a really stupid and uninformed person to believe this shit. But you, no doubt, do not admit to that so how about a series of sources. That way no one will mistakenly believe that you are ignorant or stupid.



Gobbledygook. Meaningless.

One time I gave a talk. During the Q & A a student got up and said, "I just wanted to shout ""prove it motherfucker"" every time you made a point". I know what he means.


You didn’t offer anything. I have stated repeatedly I live with these people and I do know for a fact what they receive. Prove me wrong. We have a full time employee for assisting residents with filling out the forms. Her sole job is to help the residents get all the assistance they qualify for. I can’t think of a single disability that disqualifies anyone on its own that would force them to be homeless. I am sure you are quite capable of looking up Medicaid on the internet and see the benefits by state. Indiana definitely offers the benefits I named.
If you know of a disability that disqualifies you for benefits, tell me what it is?
#14973681
Rancid wrote:A high school education today gets you far less than before.


By itself sure, but trade school can get you further than it did it before and even further than college in most cases.

I went to a Welding school for like a few weeks and it helped me generate wealth that would rival what most professorships would likely pay me after I have completed my Ph.D.

In fact, right now, I make close to what most professors in philosophy make right now, and I have NO education in what I am doing currently, the only marketable skills I have used for work were my experience from my construction background, or my welding certificate, which I rarely used anyway even in machining.

In Pittsburgh, several of the young black men I worked with at the machine shop were trained FOR FREE by a program offered by trade schools in the inner city teaching blacks how to operate lathes, mills, etc. As long as they maintained employment (after the trade school actually PLACED THEM); there was ZERO charge for the training. These sorts of things exist everywhere.

I guess my point is that you can get on fine if you make an effort and there A LOT of charitable organizations and welfare programs to help. So it seems to me, that if you keep yourself in abject poverty in spite of these things, then you must have a serious personal problem and I really mean that.

You can still pursue your goals in this country if you work hard enough and are creative (not doing what everyone else is doing). The problem is that Americans are getting lazier, less moral, and less creative in their approach to things and I think knowing that Uncle Sam is always there for you with a free meal ticket has incentivized this poor-for-life mentality.

Pants-of-dog wrote:What do you think, based on what I already wrote?


Why can't you just answer my question?
#14973695
Rancid wrote:I agree with @Drlee, I have a ton of super poor relatives (I grew up poor, remember?). They do not get health care for free. Instead, they just get through life in pain, as their untreated conditions get worse.


Which group do they belong to? I will guess the ‘working poor’. If they have no income, then they get it free.
#14973697
One Degree wrote:Which group do they belong to? I will guess the ‘working poor’. If they have no income, then they get it free.


Correct, working poor. I give money to my family when I can, but it's not enough for everyone.

I took a look at my Aunt's tax returns from 2017. She only earned just over $12,000 (that's nothing in a high cost of living city like Miami). The only reason she has a (rented) home (in the ghetto) is because the rest of us are supporting her and giving her money regularly.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 19
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

I disagree with this, but I also don't think &quo[…]

The actual argument (that the definition is being[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

There are many ways to approach a construction sit[…]

One potential solution is for us to do everything[…]