So Rich So Poor

boots-aregard
Herd Member
Posts: 438
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:47 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

So Rich So Poor

Postby boots-aregard » Tue Jan 03, 2017 3:19 pm

A fascinating, slim little volume of information by Peter Edelman, a lawyer and policy wonk specializing in poverty, written in 2012. About the economics of poverty in America.

I'm just about half way thru. It's a reasonably quick read, a small book, but eye opening.

Did you know: A quarter of all jobs in the U.S. pay less than the poverty line. That means, people who are working full-time, day in, day out, all year long, do not make enough to escape poverty. Not the homeless, not the grifters, not the unemployed, but the WORKERS.

HALF of all jobs in the U.S. pay less than $34,000 a year. And these are the _jobs_.

Depending on how you factor the variables, the effective increase in pay for a full one half of U.S. workers over 40 years has been less than 1% a year. And that's the more generous factoring. The first way of doing it is less than 4/10ths of a percent a year.

Between 1979 and 2007 the top 1% of the population saw an increase of 275% in their incomes while the bottom 20% of workers saw an increase of 18%. (Not adjusted for inflation, since we are comparing numbers over the same period).

So, without demonizing anybody, how do we think a society is going to move forward as a society, if some large percentage of the population literally has no way to improve their lot? You can work really really hard and get nowhere.

You can go to school for some of those 'upper level jobs', sure, but they are disappearing and being taxed more and more heavily because the IRS can't get blood from the poverty stones, and the cream at the top is writing tax cuts for themselves (that they won't even FEEL given the huge increase in their incomes).

Plus, we still have a society that needs those poverty-wage jobs done.

He says a lot more about actual poverty, about the people who can't/don't work. But I'm kind of interested in discussing this place where we don't have to point fingers at the "lazy". We can talk about workers, actual functioning people who get up every day and put in the hours, yet still go home and wonder where their next meal is coming from.

England went thru a time when many people worked in mines, then the mines were closed and their society evolved. It also went thru a time when they had industrial mills all over the countryside, until those were closed. How did they make a more successful transition to middle class prosperity than we did? (Or did they?)

Really an interesting read for folks who are interested in structural issues in the economy.

Tuffytown
Herd Member
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 3:09 pm

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby Tuffytown » Tue Jan 03, 2017 8:01 pm

This concept has consumed much of my pondering for a couple of years. We know a lot of working poor who work sometimes multiple jobs while trying to raise kids and never seeming to move ahead. The pull themselves up by their bootstraps tiresome meme so misses the point of what is the reality of so many's situation.

I really wonder how we can expect to get to a vibrant economy when maybe half the population is not in a position to take part. It just seems to me that we are on a race to the bottom.

User avatar
Chisamba
Bringing Life to the DDBB
Posts: 4452
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:33 pm
Location: New Jersey

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby Chisamba » Tue Jan 03, 2017 8:24 pm

I would be interested to know what the poverty line is defined as, and what living in poverty consists of. For example i read a very interesting article on the poverty line as described by the US census, compared to the RECS score. what is recs one might ask and why it is significant? RECS is residential energy consumption score. why would that even be considered interesting when compared to poverty. Well, it tells how many houses have air conditioning, washing machines, televisions and computers ie the ownership and availability of household amenities.

comparing that to the Census poverty line shows that although there is no arguing that people are poor, 87 percent of poor households had air conditioning and 65 or something like that, had cable tv. So they might be living under the poverty line, but not far enough under the poverty line to not have air conditioning and cable. Why is this significant, because if compared with people living under the poverty line in other countries, the standards of those people living under the poverty line are higher than the middle class in many other countries when comparing amenities.

Now I do recognize an anti wealthy/ anti business/ high on socialism amoungst many of my fellow udbbers, so I am not surprised by the choice to read things that reflect that.

Tuffytown
Herd Member
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 3:09 pm

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby Tuffytown » Tue Jan 03, 2017 8:37 pm

Is air conditioning a optional extra or is the air conditioning function an integral part of the HVAC system built into the residence. Does the tenant choose to have it installed or has the property owner built that originally into the building. Does the survey you noted quantify what the settings the "poverty" tenant uses and monetize the money they pay in additional energy costs or just because the possibility exists assume that they are spending money they shouldn't on air conditioning energy. Still seems like blame the poor people rhetoric, they obviously would be much better off and somehow become rich if they gave up those amenities.

I would not argue that a life at poverty level is probably much better here than it is in many 3rd world countries but is that lowered standard what we should be aspiring to?

WheresMyWhite
500 post plus club
Posts: 960
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:37 pm

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby WheresMyWhite » Tue Jan 03, 2017 8:42 pm

FWIW, while AC may be built into the home's HVAC system (which would be more likely to be the case in newer construction but less likely to be the case in older construction), one does not need to turn it on. I have AC as an integral part of my home's HVAC system but I also have a choice whether I choose to use it or not; it doesn't cost $$ if it isn't running.

Tuffytown
Herd Member
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 3:09 pm

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby Tuffytown » Tue Jan 03, 2017 8:47 pm

WheresMyWhite wrote: it doesn't cost $$ if it isn't running.


Pretty much my point.

boots-aregard
Herd Member
Posts: 438
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:47 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby boots-aregard » Wed Jan 04, 2017 1:13 am

87% of poor households had a/c? I'm gonna have to see that report.

boots-aregard
Herd Member
Posts: 438
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:47 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby boots-aregard » Wed Jan 04, 2017 2:13 am

Chisamba wrote:Now I do recognize an anti wealthy/ anti business/ high on socialism amoungst many of my fellow udbbers, so I am not surprised by the choice to read things that reflect that.


Regardless of one's political bent, one can recognize that the "rising tide" that lifted all boats stopped rising in the 70s for a huge swath of the U.S. public. I'm talking about a STRUCTURAL CHANGE in our economy, not a year here or a year there of outsized effects. Our grandfather's expectations have been utterly rewritten by the new norms.

kande50
Bringing Life to the DDBB
Posts: 1781
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:28 pm
Location: Williamstown, MA

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby kande50 » Wed Jan 04, 2017 12:16 pm

Chisamba wrote:Now I do recognize an anti wealthy/ anti business/ high on socialism amoungst many of my fellow udbbers, so I am not surprised by the choice to read things that reflect that.


This is consistent with the ungenerous thoughts that go through my mind often. Is it actually possible for people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps if they live in an environment that has convinced them that they can't?

I think it all goes back to whether the decisions we make are strictly a result of how our dna interacts with our environment, and whether some genes in some environments make it impossible for individuals to make the kinds of decisions they'd need to be able to make to pull themselves up, or if we all really do have free will and could pull ourselves up if we wanted to.
Last edited by kande50 on Wed Jan 04, 2017 3:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

kande50
Bringing Life to the DDBB
Posts: 1781
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:28 pm
Location: Williamstown, MA

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby kande50 » Wed Jan 04, 2017 12:20 pm

Tuffytown wrote:I would not argue that a life at poverty level is probably much better here than it is in many 3rd world countries but is that lowered standard what we should be aspiring to?


Is equality what we aspire to, because if the Jones have 2 cents more than the Andersons then the Andersons are going to think they're poor compared to the Jones?

So then the question becomes, are the Andersons truly poor, or do they just think they are?

User avatar
Chisamba
Bringing Life to the DDBB
Posts: 4452
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:33 pm
Location: New Jersey

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby Chisamba » Wed Jan 04, 2017 1:42 pm

Changing Perspective is hard. I just need to just stay away from political threads but i am stupid, i sort by active topics and do not always read what thread they are posted in.. So i will say a little and then move on. I grew up in Africa where people are really poor. I mean genuinely actually poor. So poor that there is very little trash. Yes, think about it, in this society so much is thrown away. Poor people do not throw things away, they remake, re use, innovate. When i came here i was shocked, and i means shocked, to see furniture, toys, etc put on the curbside, and no one picked them up. I was at the dump yesterday, and to my displeasure, people were throwing away very usable stuff. That is by and large, to me, the indication of a country that is not really poor.

Now, i acknowledge that there is a sort of desert of availability, i suppose it is possible that in some areas there is less thrown away, more reused and recycled. However, if you have not seen people turning old tires into shoes, plastic bags into mattresses, street signs into houses, old wire into baskets, and any number of innovative uses of what americans consider trash, then it is hard to look at a person with a home, air conditioning, a tv and consider them poverty stricken.
In America you are considered a loser if you do not move out of the family home, get your own place, and start and independent life. Many may places, both in africa and in europe, no one can actually afford to move out, they stay home, they bring their wives home, they raise their children in their parents home, with grandparents helping with child care.

I see that it is possible to work very hard, and have a less easy life style than when you are not working at all, if you know how to use the system. I think the hard working lower paid workers are the ones that I am most sympathetic with ( those described in your first post)

(ps, just a reminder. If you are blocked to me, do not bother to quote me because i am not going to read it. )

kande50
Bringing Life to the DDBB
Posts: 1781
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:28 pm
Location: Williamstown, MA

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby kande50 » Wed Jan 04, 2017 3:15 pm

Chisamba wrote:So poor that there is very little trash.


Exactly my observations, as I got the save-everything-that-could-possibly-be-used-again genes, so am still sometimes shocked at how wasteful people can be. And what's even more concerning, is that those who can't afford to be wasteful are often even more wasteful than those who can.

We grew up without TV so I've always known that it's a luxury. Some, however, not only seem to think that TV a necessity, but apparently think that the premium channels are a good idea too, while at the same time complaining because they can't afford healthy food for their children.

Tabby
Herd Member
Posts: 357
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Location: Canada

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby Tabby » Wed Jan 04, 2017 7:51 pm

Wow - one of my favourite topics. Where to start?

First of all, I doubt anyone would dispute that the poorest American is still far better off than those in developing/3rd world nations. That's probably the biggest reason why the US is such a great country and why so many people want to go there. But that doesn't mean that the American poor have it easy or that they shouldn't have opportunities to do better. Boots's original post was about those American poor who are working full time and yet can't escape poverty. It isn't about who has a TV or air conditioning. How do you know someone didn't give them a TV or maybe they got it when they had a good paying job before they were laid off? Having a TV doesn't disqualify someone from being poor. Not in America.

Secondly regarding trash - there are more cultural aspects to this than just lack of necessity. Keeping "junk" around is generally not well received by American (or Canadian, for that matter) society. In fact, many municipalities have bylaws about keeping junk (as do apartment complexes and other rentals). People even get labelled as hoarders. It can go even farther than that since not every place supports recycling or composting programs. When I went to Disney a few years ago, I bought a case of bottled water so we wouldn't have to pay Disney prices for it during the day. We religiously saved each bottle figuring that we would eventually find a recycle box for them. When I eventually asked, the only way you could recycle was to drive the stuff to the depot yourself. That and the excessive packaging on everything (toilet paper individually wrapped inside the package wrapping?) resulted in our small family generating a whole ton of garbage for a mere week long vacation. We have a 1-bag a week trash limit up here so it really disgusted us to throw all this stuff to the landfill. While that may not sound the same as tossing furniture, it's part of the whole culture where you don't even think about what happens to the trash you throw away.

But back to poverty - I think the original point is to discuss those 1/2 of all US jobs with wages that have barely increased compared to the top 1% and how that affects society. I think that it will ultimately be society's undoing. What made America so wealthy in the 20th century was not the CEOs or the super-elite or any families with old money. It was the wealth of the middle class that drove the economy. They made the products, sold the products and bought the products, keeping the economy dynamic and circulating. In the seventies, CEOs made, on average, 5-10 times what their workers made. Now it's something like 400 times. The stagnation of middle class wages can have no other result except to slow that circulation as they can afford less and less. You can talk about education and training and all kinds of things but even the jobs requiring education have seen the same effect on their wages. Eventually education will not be worth the cost of tuition either. It is a very bad direction to be headed in. It's also something that's happening all over the developed world and may be too late to stop. Civil wars and revolutions have started this way. I'm very concerned for the future.

boots-aregard
Herd Member
Posts: 438
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:47 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby boots-aregard » Wed Jan 04, 2017 8:28 pm

Chisamba wrote:(ps, just a reminder. If you are blocked to me, do not bother to quote me because i am not going to read it. )


Is there a way for me to know which posters are blocking me? I don't know how a lot of this stuff works.

boots-aregard
Herd Member
Posts: 438
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:47 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby boots-aregard » Wed Jan 04, 2017 8:44 pm

Tabby wrote:But back to poverty - I think the original point is to discuss those 1/2 of all US jobs with wages that have barely increased compared to the top 1% and how that affects society. I think that it will ultimately be society's undoing. What made America so wealthy in the 20th century was not the CEOs or the super-elite or any families with old money. It was the wealth of the middle class that drove the economy. They made the products, sold the products and bought the products, keeping the economy dynamic and circulating. In the seventies, CEOs made, on average, 5-10 times what their workers made. Now it's something like 400 times. The stagnation of middle class wages can have no other result except to slow that circulation as they can afford less and less. You can talk about education and training and all kinds of things but even the jobs requiring education have seen the same effect on their wages. Eventually education will not be worth the cost of tuition either. It is a very bad direction to be headed in. It's also something that's happening all over the developed world and may be too late to stop. Civil wars and revolutions have started this way. I'm very concerned for the future.


Yes, the destabilization is definitely the wrong way to go.

What happens when you take a normal human being and lock him up, abuse him, and give him no hope of freedom? He turns into a brute.
What happens when you take a normal human being and economically enslave him? Nothing good.
And people wonder why we have such problems in the inner city (where people can't get jobs to survive on).
And people wonder why we have the "revolts" in middle America, the small towns where the good jobs have left.

I'm not talking about this from a 'compassion for individuals' perspective (although that's not a bad perspective to have). I'm talking about this from a structural mistake perspective. From a "let's not continue down a bad policy direction" perspective.

I don't understand how we can live in the wealthiest country in the entire world, and be so stingy with the benefits of that. Certainly, if I were king tomorrow, and building a society from scratch, I'd be looking at how I could make it the most *stable* base from which innovation and humanity could spring, rather than the least stable, most contentious, most soul-sucking possible.

kande50
Bringing Life to the DDBB
Posts: 1781
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:28 pm
Location: Williamstown, MA

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby kande50 » Wed Jan 04, 2017 11:12 pm

boots-aregard wrote:
Is there a way for me to know which posters are blocking me? I don't know how a lot of this stuff works.


I'd say probably not unless they contacted you to let you know that they'd blocked you? Not sure why someone would do that instead of just blocking those they didn't want to read, but many, many minds work in mysterious ways that I don't always understand.

I do wonder though, do blockers really not read posts from those they block, or do they just say that they don't? :-)

I blocked a few people on the UDBB for awhile so that I didn't start reading their posts before I knew who wrote them, and the way it worked then was that there was a link that could be opened if I wanted to read their post, but otherwise it stayed hidden.

WheresMyWhite
500 post plus club
Posts: 960
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:37 pm

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby WheresMyWhite » Thu Jan 05, 2017 2:16 am

Having nothing to do with the actual topic but on this board, I don't think I have anyone blocked. On TOB, I do and I rarely, if ever, unblock a specific post to read it.

kande50
Bringing Life to the DDBB
Posts: 1781
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:28 pm
Location: Williamstown, MA

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby kande50 » Thu Jan 05, 2017 12:16 pm

WheresMyWhite wrote:Having nothing to do with the actual topic but on this board, I don't think I have anyone blocked. On TOB, I do and I rarely, if ever, unblock a specific post to read it.


I think it's a very interesting feature. If I'm in a no-drama state of mind I do a lot of blocking, and then unblock when I'm not. I like the way it's set up here because I'm reminded when I have someone blocked. Other sites don't do that and then I forget that I have posters blocked that I'd unblock if I remembered.

User avatar
musical comedy
Bringing Life to the DDBB
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 3:41 pm
Location: New Jersey

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby musical comedy » Thu Jan 05, 2017 3:01 pm

WheresMyWhite wrote:Having nothing to do with the actual topic but on this board, I don't think I have anyone blocked. On TOB, I do and I rarely, if ever, unblock a specific post to read it.
:D I had so many posters blocked on TOB political forum that I stopped reading it as it removed 99% of all posts. I never unblock to read.

Why aren't you all using the 'like' button here? I use it. If Chisamba is wondering who has been liking her posts, it's been me.

kande50
Bringing Life to the DDBB
Posts: 1781
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:28 pm
Location: Williamstown, MA

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby kande50 » Thu Jan 05, 2017 4:30 pm

musical comedy wrote:Why aren't you all using the 'like' button here? I use it. If Chisamba is wondering who has been liking her posts, it's been me.


You can hover the mouse over the number of likes link and see who has liked it.

WheresMyWhite
500 post plus club
Posts: 960
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:37 pm

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby WheresMyWhite » Thu Jan 05, 2017 4:44 pm

I do use the Like here and TOB :)

TOB.... there are a few that are just flat out bad for my blood pressure :) The rest I can read even if I don't agree :lol:

kande50
Bringing Life to the DDBB
Posts: 1781
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:28 pm
Location: Williamstown, MA

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby kande50 » Thu Jan 05, 2017 5:03 pm

WheresMyWhite wrote:I do use the Like here and TOB :)

TOB.... there are a few that are just flat out bad for my blood pressure :) The rest I can read even if I don't agree :lol:


Some posters tend to harsh my reading experience, so I skip their posts at least part of the time. (How's that for a first world problem?)

But back to the topic at hand, I do often wonder if there really are such huge differences in the quality of life between rich and poor, or if we all get pretty much the same amount of pleasure and pain simply because that's the way the human mind works? So is someone like Trump, who has everything money can buy, really any happier than anyone else?

I think most believe that they'd be happier if they had more money, but then at some point those whose finances eventually improve realize that overall, they're not.

Chancellor
Site Admin
Posts: 1120
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 8:26 am

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby Chancellor » Thu Jan 05, 2017 5:28 pm

kande50 wrote:
Is it actually possible for people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps if they live in an environment that has convinced them that they can't?

I think it all goes back to whether the decisions we make are strictly a result of how our dna interacts with our environment, and whether some genes in some environments make it impossible for individuals to make the kinds of decisions they'd need to be able to make to pull themselves up, or if we all really do have free will and could pull ourselves up if we wanted to.


SOME of these jobs were never meant to be full time jobs for people supporting families. To me, it is ridiculous to think one could support a family slinging hamburgers at a fast food joint. And, when I was growing up, that was a first job for teenagers etc. Now, you go there and you see adults trying to make that their full time job.

These jobs DO need to be filled but ought to be filled as part time jobs for the younger generation. However, I see a LOT of younger generation kids thinking that kind of work is beneath them or they find it too hard to be on their feet all day!
I think it is important to remember this when talking about poverty lines.

boots-aregard
Herd Member
Posts: 438
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:47 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby boots-aregard » Thu Jan 05, 2017 5:37 pm

kande50 wrote:But back to the topic at hand, I do often wonder if there really are such huge differences in the quality of life between rich and poor, or if we all get pretty much the same amount of pleasure and pain simply because that's the way the human mind works? So is someone like Trump, who has everything money can buy, really any happier than anyone else?

I think most believe that they'd be happier if they had more money, but then at some point those whose finances eventually improve realize that overall, they're not.


I believe there have been studies done about this. And (IIRC, always a big "if") the studies concluded that having LOTS of money didn't necessarily make one happier, but having SUFFICIENT money did improve one's perspective of life a lot. Having insufficient money is a constant worry and threat, so the stressors we all recognize as damaging are ever present for the poor.

I remember an average number around $48K a year, (which is bollocks where I live, but would be OK in many other places. N.B., it is a third more than the current average wage in the U.S. Also, I don't know if that number was for one person or a family. Many standard numbers are quoted in terms of "family of four".)

The point about flipping-burgers-was-never-intended-to-be-an-adult-job is one we hear often. The point of the book I mentioned is that THAT sector of the economy is replacing the jobs that WERE intended to be adult jobs. That well paying jobs are gone, and poor paying jobs have replaced them. This, regardless of the skill set of the job-seeking population. Supply side versus demand side, if you will.

boots-aregard
Herd Member
Posts: 438
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:47 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby boots-aregard » Thu Jan 05, 2017 5:42 pm

Chancellor wrote:These jobs DO need to be filled but ought to be filled as part time jobs for the younger generation. However, I see a LOT of younger generation kids thinking that kind of work is beneath them or they find it too hard to be on their feet all day!
I think it is important to remember this when talking about poverty lines.


Not sure what you think the cure is. Kids (who obviously recognize flipping burgers is a dead end) should forgo college in order to flip burgers? They should not try, with their fresh skills and youthful starting salaries, try to get on a ladder with more rungs? And, what, the adults who are too old to retool (or think they are anyway) should quit working at work "not intended" for them? The adults with kids at home who need to be fed should reject the work?

People are struggling to survive from where they are in their lifecycle and with what they believe about their future. What part about that is "important to remember" when talking about poverty lines? I'm missing your point (which is probably pretty obvious!! :lol: )

Tuffytown
Herd Member
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 3:09 pm

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby Tuffytown » Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:19 pm

That exactly. Yes, burger flipping historically was an entry level teenage job. Problem is that it is a very different dynamic we are in now. Those adults who are flipping burgers and not making enough to get out of poverty aren't doing that by conscious choice I would think. The widget known as humans are currently in excess supply as needed for the demand of the workforce so they are significantly devalued.

Simple to blame those underemployed and say they should be working for better jobs, hard to do when those jobs are not there. Unfortunately it is real people who suffer.

piedmontfields
Bringing Life to the DDBB
Posts: 2735
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 4:41 pm
Location: E Tennessee USA

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby piedmontfields » Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:17 pm

Thanks for the book tip.

Frankly, I really don't want to live in a society that is extremely divided between the few wealthy and the rest (although of course I do, living in the US). In general, that kind of divide leads to more violence, more suffering, and overall a worse quality of life for everyone. Being wealthy in that environment is simply not sufficient to assure a life of peace, security or health. You can hide in economically segregated environments, but you WILL FEEL and ultimately experience--at least indirectly-- the effects of extreme inequality and poverty---even if only through the experience of people who work for you, live in your city, etc.

Besides the reality of how little income many working people earn, consider the reality that most people approaching retirement age have $60k or less in retirement savings. There is a huge wealth gap in this country. Think about how dependent so many people are and will be on social security and how many will continue to need to work in order to cover food/housing/health needs.

User avatar
musical comedy
Bringing Life to the DDBB
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 3:41 pm
Location: New Jersey

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby musical comedy » Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:20 pm

boots-aregard wrote:I believe there have been studies done about this. And (IIRC, always a big "if") the studies concluded that having LOTS of money didn't necessarily make one happier, but having SUFFICIENT money did improve one's perspective of life a lot. Having insufficient money is a constant worry and threat, so the stressors we all recognize as damaging are ever present for the poor.
I know there is documentation on people that have won large sums on the lottery and it pretty much ruined their lives. But then, when one is accustomed to being poor and then all of a sudden becomes wealthy, maybe they just don't know how to deal with that. It isn't the same as those people that were born with the silver spoon or those that worked their way up to wealth.
I remember an average number around $48K a year, (which is bollocks where I live, but would be OK in many other places. N.B., it is a third more than the current average wage in the U.S. Also, I don't know if that number was for one person or a family. Many standard numbers are quoted in terms of "family of four".)
I think a lot of times those figures are for a family of 4. It makes a huge difference whether it is one person living on that or four. The other thing is it depends on how much it costs you to live and how you live. If your home is paid for and you are not the type that travels or spends on luxury items, you can get by ok with a minimal income (ask me how I know :D ).

Tabby
Herd Member
Posts: 357
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Location: Canada

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby Tabby » Fri Jan 06, 2017 1:00 pm

Chancellor wrote:
SOME of these jobs were never meant to be full time jobs for people supporting families. To me, it is ridiculous to think one could support a family slinging hamburgers at a fast food joint. And, when I was growing up, that was a first job for teenagers etc. Now, you go there and you see adults trying to make that their full time job.

This drives me nuts. Since when were burger flipping jobs "meant" to be anything other than making a product that fast food restaurants can sell for profit? Nobody sat down and said, "We need to make jobs for teenagers" and invented fast food. If the jobs were meant for teenagers, how come McDonalds is still open during school hours? This whole attitude that certain jobs weren't meant for living on is just part of what's poisoning society. The reason teenagers were doing this job when we were growing up is because they could - it didn't require advanced education, you got trained on the job, and they had a lot of evening and weekend shifts. Fast food restaurants also liked teenagers because they didn't demand high pay.

The problem today is that there are fewer and fewer good paying full time jobs available. They've either been off-shored or automated. You can't off shore service work - including burger flipping (though it will likely soon be automated). So non-teenagers are forced to take this kind of work. The problem is, even working full time at this doesn't pay a living wage - which is ridiculous when you think about it. In all the years that McDonalds has been in business, the CEOs and executives have gotten raises, the franchise owners, the big bosses etc. But the burger flippers still make minimum wage, which has NOT kept up with inflation (in part due to pressures put on governments by the very same CEOs and executives). Yet every penny of profit that company makes has come from the labour of burger flippers and other minimum wage servers in the restaurants. Why haven't they reaped the benefits of their successful company? Why only the top? Believe it or not, they work very hard at their jobs. Some actually become very good at it.

Nope - it's because society has designated these jobs as meant for teenagers - as if the sole reason they were brought into existence was to provide part time work for teenagers and nothing else. Burger flippers don't deserve a living wage because they are somehow the dregs of society and the mantra of working hard doesn't apply to them. If they were smart, better, more educated, then they'd be deserving but many can't get more educated because they're working 2-3 of these jobs just to stay alive. But if they have a TV then it's proof that they're useless :roll: .

I guess this is what drives me the most nuts in that we speak out of one side of our face saying work harder but the other side says that certain types of work aren't worthwhile.

piedmontfields
Bringing Life to the DDBB
Posts: 2735
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 4:41 pm
Location: E Tennessee USA

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby piedmontfields » Fri Jan 06, 2017 3:00 pm

Tabby wrote: The problem today is that there are fewer and fewer good paying full time jobs available. They've either been off-shored or automated. You can't off shore service work - including burger flipping (though it will likely soon be automated).


Another factor is the serious decline of unions in the US. Union work raised the standard of living for many---not just the people in the union jobs.

The US is now largely a service economy. We are highly unlikely to ever have the number of manufacturing jobs in the future that we've had in the past. However, a strong labor movement and strong unions could transform service jobs for the better.

awa
Novice
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:29 pm

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby awa » Fri Jan 06, 2017 3:53 pm

piedmontfields wrote:Besides the reality of how little income many working people earn, consider the reality that most people approaching retirement age have $60k or less in retirement savings. There is a huge wealth gap in this country. Think about how dependent so many people are and will be on social security and how many will continue to need to work in order to cover food/housing/health needs.


Congress is now getting ready to cut/dismantle Social Security and Medicare. That safety net will be severely diminished. What will happen then?

WheresMyWhite
500 post plus club
Posts: 960
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:37 pm

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby WheresMyWhite » Fri Jan 06, 2017 3:59 pm

If there are little to no manufacturing jobs and only a service type economy, how is a strong labor movement going to help?

I am frankly not in favor of unions but many of the service oriented jobs could just be dispensed with, either by the consumer or the provider if the service is too expensive, either to pay for or offer. At least IMO. I just don't believe that going forward with both increases in population, job offshoring and automation that there are sufficient jobs for the general populace. Squeezing the rock isn't going to make things better unfortunately.

boots-aregard
Herd Member
Posts: 438
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:47 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby boots-aregard » Fri Jan 06, 2017 5:11 pm

WheresMyWhite wrote:If there are little to no manufacturing jobs and only a service type economy, how is a strong labor movement going to help?


Typically, labor unions work where laborers are seen as roughly interchangeable widgets. A knowledge worker has skills that are important to the employer upon which to negotiate. An interchangeable worker (a welder, a typist, a waitress) is not seen as having specific skills upon which to negotiate. Their strength in terms of wresting concessions from the employer, comes from their numbers. All the welders agree to hold out for a living wage. All the typists agree to a sick day in order to pressure the employer for vacation leave, etc.

Far too many Americans are so removed from Union positions that they view Unions as somehow "unfairly" threatening employers. Which is akin, really, to considering a VP of a company as "unfairly" threatening an employer when he goes in to negotiate for a raise. The source of the power in the power differential is a different source between a knowledge worker and an internchangeable worker, but the interface between management and labor pool is the same, and has always been the same. It's propaganda that has made Americans view one side as "bad" and the other as righteous. Labor has *always* had to negotiate with management, and many of the union wins in the past have shaped our labor market today (i.e., the 5 day work week, standard vacations, overtime pay, etc.)

I am frankly not in favor of unions but many of the service oriented jobs could just be dispensed with, either by the consumer or the provider if the service is too expensive, either to pay for or offer. At least IMO. I just don't believe that going forward with both increases in population, job offshoring and automation that there are sufficient jobs for the general populace. Squeezing the rock isn't going to make things better unfortunately.


The rock, to which you refer, is actually bursting with cash money. They've been raking it in hand over fist for the past 4 decades. Not sure what you mean here. There has been no dirth of productivity in the U.S. economy since 1970. It's just that the rewards of the U.S. economy have been sequestered into a very few pockets.

Tabby
Herd Member
Posts: 357
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Location: Canada

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby Tabby » Fri Jan 06, 2017 7:24 pm

boots-aregard wrote:
WheresMyWhite wrote:
I am frankly not in favor of unions but many of the service oriented jobs could just be dispensed with, either by the consumer or the provider if the service is too expensive, either to pay for or offer. At least IMO. I just don't believe that going forward with both increases in population, job offshoring and automation that there are sufficient jobs for the general populace. Squeezing the rock isn't going to make things better unfortunately.


The rock, to which you refer, is actually bursting with cash money. They've been raking it in hand over fist for the past 4 decades. Not sure what you mean here. There has been no dirth of productivity in the U.S. economy since 1970. It's just that the rewards of the U.S. economy have been sequestered into a very few pockets.

I read WMW's statement as the rock being taxpayers and consumers, not the top 0.01% that have been raking it in for the past 4 decades. The thing is, as the masses become poorer, there is less and less "reward" for those very few pockets to even take. It's actually bad for everyone but big business types generally don't think long term. Who knows exactly what will happen. These types of circumstances have not, historically, ended well. It almost seems as if we either need to flip to a Star-Trekkian utopia where money doesn't matter and robots/machines do all the dirty work or we start to look like many other nations around the globe where the few rich and powerful live in mansions behind guarded walls and the masses run around sick and hungry and crime is rampant. I don't see anything like Star Trek in our near future.

WheresMyWhite
500 post plus club
Posts: 960
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:37 pm

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby WheresMyWhite » Fri Jan 06, 2017 7:29 pm

boots-aregard wrote:The rock, to which you refer, is actually bursting with cash money. They've been raking it in hand over fist for the past 4 decades. Not sure what you mean here. There has been no dirth of productivity in the U.S. economy since 1970. It's just that the rewards of the U.S. economy have been sequestered into a very few pockets.


The 'rock' I was referring to was the corporations, both the companies themselves as well as the execs.

While the execs may be raking in the cash, it doesn't get put back in the worker pool. The corporations have a duty to the stock holders to make a profit.

I don't see much incentive for the "rock" to want to onshore services or service oriented employees. Much easier to stop offering the services or offshore. At some point this might bite the corporations in their behinds but that is yet to be seen. In the mean time, the manufacturing and many service oriented jobs are shrinking to the US-based worker.

If I truly thought unions were there for the employees, maybe I'd be more in favor of them but they often seem to be to be out for their own best interests... :(

Chancellor
Site Admin
Posts: 1120
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 8:26 am

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby Chancellor » Fri Jan 06, 2017 7:47 pm

Tabby wrote:
Chancellor wrote:
SOME of these jobs were never meant to be full time jobs for people supporting families. To me, it is ridiculous to think one could support a family slinging hamburgers at a fast food joint. And, when I was growing up, that was a first job for teenagers etc. Now, you go there and you see adults trying to make that their full time job.

This drives me nuts. Since when were burger flipping jobs "meant" to be anything other than making a product that fast food restaurants can sell for profit? Nobody sat down and said, "We need to make jobs for teenagers" and invented fast food. If the jobs were meant for teenagers, how come McDonalds is still open during school hours? This whole attitude that certain jobs weren't meant for living on is just part of what's poisoning society. The reason teenagers were doing this job when we were growing up is because they could - it didn't require advanced education, you got trained on the job, and they had a lot of evening and weekend shifts. Fast food restaurants also liked teenagers because they didn't demand high pay.



So, this is what drives ME nuts. What I am saying is that people should not look at these jobs and think "hmm, I can have a family and support myself on whatever the 40 hr per week wage is at McDonald's now".
The problem is that people DON'T think ahead. They get pregnant and then figure out how they are going to support that kid.

I agree with you that Fast food restaurants like teenagers because they didn't demand high pay. Now it seems that kids think they ought to just have a job handed to them....and God FORBID they actually have to work.

The guy who used to mow my lawn couldn't keep kids around. They found that riding on a lawnmower at $14 an hour was too taxing.

Some jobs are NOT meant to be "careers". That is just plain and simple.

piedmontfields
Bringing Life to the DDBB
Posts: 2735
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 4:41 pm
Location: E Tennessee USA

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby piedmontfields » Fri Jan 06, 2017 8:01 pm

Tabby wrote:..we start to look like many other nations around the globe where the few rich and powerful live in mansions behind guarded walls and the masses run around sick and hungry and crime is rampant.


At this point, this appears to be the most likely outcome.

I would argue that we are all better off--in wholistic terms--if we have less wealth and income inequality. But given the operation of power among the 1% (really the .1%!), it will be a real fight for the 99.9% to advocate for the changes necessary to achieve this. And when many of the 99% believe that corporations have a right to extreme profits without any responsibility to workers or communities, it becomes even harder to imagine creating a more equal future.

Tabby
Herd Member
Posts: 357
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Location: Canada

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby Tabby » Fri Jan 06, 2017 11:04 pm

Chancellor wrote:
So, this is what drives ME nuts. What I am saying is that people should not look at these jobs and think "hmm, I can have a family and support myself on whatever the 40 hr per week wage is at McDonald's now".
The problem is that people DON'T think ahead. They get pregnant and then figure out how they are going to support that kid.

I honestly don't think anybody does this. Or at least once they work at a McJob* for a while, nobody decides that this is the life for them. If McJob's have one virtue for teenagers, it's teaching them first hand that working hard at school is worth the effort so they don't have to do this for the rest of their lives. I made my son work these kinds of jobs as a kid. He owns his own business now. As for getting pregnant - I'm pretty sure 99% of teen pregnancies are unplanned. It sucks for those who get into that trap. But that's not McDonald's fault, either.
I agree with you that Fast food restaurants like teenagers because they didn't demand high pay. Now it seems that kids think they ought to just have a job handed to them....and God FORBID they actually have to work.

The guy who used to mow my lawn couldn't keep kids around. They found that riding on a lawnmower at $14 an hour was too taxing.

Some jobs are NOT meant to be "careers". That is just plain and simple.

I blame kids not wanting to "work" on the parents. Work is in quotes because they want job, they just don't want to have to put any effort into them. Many parents don't want their kids to work so they can focus on school. When not in school, they're in a bunch of pre-organized activities. Their days are full but they don't ever actually do anything and they have absolutely no responsibility. My step-daughter's friend (15 years old) is not allowed to ride the city bus to the mall without an adult. How the heck is she ever going to go to college at 18 if she can't ride the bus at 15? These kids aren't being given the necessary life skills.

What's really sad about this is the millennial generation is going to be hit the hardest by off-shoring, automation and everything else. They're the least prepared and the most vulnerable.

So yeah - I see either a society of walled up mansions keeping out dire poverty and crime or a violent revolution unless something changes. And there's no indication of significant change.

*I hate always blaming McDonalds - they aren't the mastermind leading this party but hopefully everyone knows what I mean.

boots-aregard
Herd Member
Posts: 438
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:47 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby boots-aregard » Fri Jan 06, 2017 11:24 pm

WheresMyWhite wrote:
boots-aregard wrote:The rock, to which you refer, is actually bursting with cash money. They've been raking it in hand over fist for the past 4 decades. Not sure what you mean here. There has been no dirth of productivity in the U.S. economy since 1970. It's just that the rewards of the U.S. economy have been sequestered into a very few pockets.


The 'rock' I was referring to was the corporations, both the companies themselves as well as the execs.

While the execs may be raking in the cash, it doesn't get put back in the worker pool. The corporations have a duty to the stock holders to make a profit.


It might be that such a "duty", as practiced, is actually counterproductive to the general welfare and our economic stability as a whole. Something to ponder.

If I truly thought unions were there for the employees, maybe I'd be more in favor of them but they often seem to be to be out for their own best interests... :(


Any political body is ripe for corruption. Unions are political bodies. Just like Republicans. ;) I tease you gently here.

piedmontfields
Bringing Life to the DDBB
Posts: 2735
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 4:41 pm
Location: E Tennessee USA

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby piedmontfields » Fri Jan 06, 2017 11:51 pm

boots-aregard wrote:It might be that such a "duty", as practiced, is actually counterproductive to the general welfare and our economic stability as a whole. Something to ponder.


I am certainly sympathetic to "gains" which are more than monetary or quarterly. But that said, in this economy and society, it is a real test of one's commitments to invest in a way that rewards those who recognize those non-immediate gains. I have dear friends who do this and I admire their choices. However, I may be the one to bail their butt out.

IOW, I still invest to make money--and have made a goodly amount--in part because our society appears quite doomed (so money is a buffer to suffering).

heddylamar
Bringing Life to the DDBB
Posts: 1405
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 3:04 pm
Location: Texas (o_O)

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby heddylamar » Sun Jan 08, 2017 3:46 am

I work in the social/political activism and fundraising arena. For years I raised funds and awareness for a nonprofit who had a small, regional, niche impact -- their recipients live in a very economically repressed area of the US.

While the nonprofit was working to slap a bandaid on the problem (elementary education, food distribution, plus housing, medical, and counseling), they were not bringing in jobs. Yes, some recipients went on to work for the nonprofit, but other jobs in the region are at best minimum wage. How does a bandaid help long term? Well, for this nonprofit their aid increased year over year for decades, both expenditures and audience. I can't say that they were really helping solve the larger problem -- adult education (GED would be a start), and job market growth (attract industry).

It's an interesting conundrum that requires thoughtful planning to solve.

I would have loved to help launch a campaign to attract new business to the region, or build on the smaller businesses that already exist. Unfortunately, the nonprofit wasn't interested in addressing the long term problem, only in aiding with immediate needs.

And, yes, to echo Chisamba, waste in the US is shocking. We are such a consumer culture that we don't think about cost, and long term needs, let alone things like environmental impact. Instead, we race out to buy the newest bright shiny object.

Tuffytown
Herd Member
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 3:09 pm

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby Tuffytown » Sun Jan 08, 2017 5:16 am

I find this article somewhat apropos of this discussion.

It was posted on facebook by a very dear friend of mine who happens to be the opposite of me on the political scale. Even so we find much in common in our concerns about the future structure of society and economics.

http://www.monbiot.com/2012/12/10/the-gift-of-death/

boots-aregard
Herd Member
Posts: 438
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:47 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: So Rich So Poor

Postby boots-aregard » Sun Jan 08, 2017 4:18 pm

heddylamar wrote:I work in the social/political activism and fundraising arena. For years I raised funds and awareness for a nonprofit who had a small, regional, niche impact -- their recipients live in a very economically repressed area of the US.

While the nonprofit was working to slap a bandaid on the problem (elementary education, food distribution, plus housing, medical, and counseling), they were not bringing in jobs. Yes, some recipients went on to work for the nonprofit, but other jobs in the region are at best minimum wage. How does a bandaid help long term? Well, for this nonprofit their aid increased year over year for decades, both expenditures and audience. I can't say that they were really helping solve the larger problem -- adult education (GED would be a start), and job market growth (attract industry).


Yes, I was talking with my niece about low-income housing and the same kinds of issues came up. Requiring "greedy landlords" to cut their upsides is a demotivating factor in the provision of housing, so that's counterproductive. This approach causes rental housing to be sold off as primary residences thus reducing the actual stock of rental houses. Requiring "greedy developers" to build low income units as well as high income units just creates a temporary two-tiered market that allows a renter to profit (and become a "greedy landlord" to their friends/aquaintances) for a time. I didn't get any real long-term solution proposal as we were talking, though we were cut short, so maybe there is something.

The Market is a powerful force.

(I put "greedy" in quotes above because this is a propaganda issue again. EVERYBODY -- developers, landlords, renters, city planners -- respond to market forces. Imperfectly, all of us. My point simply being that we can't ignore market forces as if they don't exist, because they are the most powerful regulators of all and we don't control them.)


Return to “The Observation Lounge/ Cookbook Forum even Hot Topics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 58 guests