Poverty In The U.S. (We Should Be Ashamed!)

[dianaiad]

Yes, the US is bigger. But how does that impact scalability?
Germany has three times the population of Scandinavia and we have a social market economy (though not as social as Scandinavia). It scales here.

How does that impact scalability.

Geez, let's see. Scandanavia....21 million.
Germany..................................82.79 million
USA..........................................327.2 million

Germany is about four times bigger than Scandanavia (and it is showing signs of fraying..)
The USA is THREE TIMES LARGER THAN BOTH SCANDANAVIA AND GERMANY COMBINED.

ONE US state is half again as big as Scandanavia; 3.951 million. California.


It only takes FIVE STATES to reach the population density of Scandanavia and Germany combined. Five. .....and we have 45 states and a territory or two left.

And there is a reason we are called 'the United STATES of America."

You may as well consider 'scaling' one program to cover the whole of Europe, including Russia. That didn't work so well for Russia, did it, when they tried 'scaling up' as the Soviet Union?

Not to mention the FACT that most Americans have a real problem with the sort of taxes that such programs would require. It's why the politicians here keep harping on 'making the rich pay their fair share." Well, when I consider that the wealthiest 10% of Americans pay 90% of the taxes already, I have to wonder what 'fair share' actually means. Those very rich politicians don't seem to think that they, personally, are going to have to pay anything, I notice.

The problem you guys have....the ones who don't live here and haven't grown up here...is the sort of mindset MOST of us have. YOU all seem to think that there's only one pie, and the 'rich' get an unfair slice of it, leaving very little left for anybody else.

But WE left your nations, came here, and figured out that no, it's not 'one pie' to fight over. For us, if we see someone eating all the pie, we think....not how we can make that guy fork over his piece so we can have some, but rather....ok, I'll just go make a better, different pie.. So we do. It's an entirely different mind set from 'see how much they have, let's take it from them' to 'see how much they have, let's go see if we can get some too, over THERE."

Not "Your yacht is taking all the room, let's rip it apart so that we can have some of your goodies," but "a rising tide lifts all boats...and I'll bet my yacht (for which I hired MANY artisans, craftspeople, etc.) is better than yours!

Speaking of, it wasn't all that long ago (1993) that the gov issued a luxury tax on anything costing a certain amount, so that it cost FAR more to build a yacht or fancy private plane than it used to. So...what was SUPPOSED to happen was that the money would go to the gov and be used for good stuff.

What DID happen was that people stopped building yachts and planes, and it utterly destroyed some industries that have yet to come back. That tax hurt far more people than it helped, as such taxes ALWAYS do.
That tax was repealed, but not fast enough to save the industry.

Read the history. Look at the geography. SEE THE PROBLEM

The thing is, we could try the Scandanavian health system, We really could. Pick a state and go for it.

 

[epronovost]

My point was sympathy falls flats when the person created their own mess.

Why would you say such a thing? People who made poor choices and got into serious problem like compassion like anybody else in similar sitation and can learn from their mistakes just like anybody else.

 

[Shad]

Why would you say such a thing?

As sympathy is about something relatable. Abandoning everything on a whim is not something relatable to me. It is also about framing while ignoring the choices involved thus a misleading perception.

People who made poor choices and got into serious problem like compassion like anybody else in similar sitation and can learn from their mistakes just like anybody else.

That requires people acknowledging their mistake. I saw no acknowledge about a mistake made by Maria.

 

[PureX]

I'm confused....does this mean you favor
low density housing, even for major cities?
Btw high density housing is what enables people living
in cities like NYC & Chicago to give up car ownership.
Mass transit does it all for many. I call that wonderful.
But ya just canna do that in sprawling subdivisions with
no population center.

This thread is about poverty in the United States, not suburban sprawl. The cause is always the same, and the solution is always the same. The cause is that nearly all markets but the luxury markets are no longer 'free' markets. And the result is that we are all being price-gouged for nearly everything that we need to live in a modern inter-dependent society. The only limit to the pricing is whatever most buyers can afford to pay. And that means that those on the lower income end of the scale will not be able to afford the prices being demanded. It doesn't matter how many apartments San Francisco adds within their city limits, they will all still be too expensive for those on the lower end of the wage scale in that area. And if we pay them more, everyone else's wages will rise accordingly, and the rents will simply go up because there will be more money then available to be paid in rent.

We could build big high density housing projects with controlled rents for the low wage earners to live and work in the cities, but who is going to pay for that kind of "socialist" solution? And when we did this in the past those 'projects' became crime-infested prisons that trapped people in horrific and perpetual poverty.And we've just spent billions tearing them all down in Chicago and New York.

The real problem is that "free-market capitalism" does not work in modern inter-dependent societies where people have to engage in commerce to obtain the essentials of life. The very fact that they are purchasing the essentials of life means these markets are no longer "free" markets. They are now "captive" markets. And in a captive market the prices are dictated by the money available for purchase, because the buyer cannot refuse to buy. So prices are all being set based on the average of what we can all afford to spend. And those who fall below that mean average will not be able to afford to buy what they need to survive. While those above the mean average will use their excess wealth to capture yet more wealth (as investment capital). Nothing is then available to fill in that economic gap that impoverishes all those people living below the mean.

None of this is going to be solved by building more houses, or more cars, or growing more food, or even by giving people more social welfare. The only way to solve this is to face the truth about the failure of capitalism in modern, highly inter-dependent societies, and make the necessary fundamental 'socialist' changes that have to happen to give equal power back to the buyer in these many "captive" markets. Everything else is just putting band-aids on broken limbs.

 

[PureX]

My point was people can make poor choices that place themselves in the situation they complain about. Ergo Maria. She walked away from everything, her choice.

What is the point of your making this point if not that she should be left to suffer the consequences of her mistake? And that all these 'losers' should be left to suffer the consequences of their mistakes? Be honest. Isn't that really what you were implying, here? (Until I called you out on it, and now you're 'accusing the accuser' because you don't know what else to do.)

 

[Shad]

What is the point of your making this point if not that she should be left to suffer the consequences of her mistake?

Life has consequences. She is a charity case not a problem of the government. She is the wrong example to use in the video.

And that all these 'losers' should be left to suffer the consequences of their mistakes?

No, it depends on the mistake and what is being asked of people.

Be honest. Isn't that really what you were implying, here?

I just draw a line in the sand when it comes to circumstances beyond what most people do.

[(Until I called you out on it, and now you're 'accusing the accuser' because you don't know what else to do.)

Nope. Watch the video. You are just upset because I pointed out the obvious issue in one situation is the person in question instead of going along with sob stories.

 

[PureX]

Life has consequences. She is a charity case not a problem of the government. She is the wrong example to use in the video.

Why, because she made a mistake, in your eyes? How does that make her different from anyone else in the video?

No, it depends on the mistake and what is being asked of people.

Sure, because YOU should be the judge of who gets helped and who doesn't. After all the "winners" in life have been ordained by God (or Darwin, or Trump, or someone) to judge and condemn the "losers" as they see fit.

I just draw a line in the sand when it comes to circumstances beyond what most people do.

Sure, you and God. That makes sense.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well, when I consider that the wealthiest 10% of Americans pay 90% of the taxes already

They pay an overall smaller percentage of their income to taxes, and the top 10 has over half the wealth.
Wealth Inequality in America: Key Facts & Figures | St. Louis Fed

 

[Shad]

Why, because she made a mistake, in your eyes?

No because she has options which in her pride she refuses to use.

How does that make her different from anyone else in the video?

They didn't abandon their own assets

Sure, because YOU should be the judge of who gets helped and who doesn't.

My point was about personal choice thus charity versus to government mandates and shame blame.

After all the "winners" in life have been ordained by God (or Darwin, or Trump, or someone) to judge and condemn the "losers" as they see fit.

Nope. Some people have issues out of their control.

Sure, you and God. That makes sense.

Fiction in your head as you are ignoring the point of choice.

So tell me what have you do to aid any in the video besides grandstanding on RF? I do not mean taxes.

 

[Shad]

They pay an overall smaller percentage of their income to taxes, and the top 10 has over half the wealth.
Wealth Inequality in America: Key Facts & Figures | St. Louis Fed

This is far more in line from what I have read including government stats.

 

[Revoltingest]

This thread is about poverty in the United States, not suburban sprawl. The cause is always the same, and the solution is always the same. The cause is that nearly all markets but the luxury markets are no longer 'free' markets. And the result is that we are all being price-gouged for nearly everything that we need to live in a modern inter-dependent society. The only limit to the pricing is whatever most buyers can afford to pay. And that means that those on the lower income end of the scale will not be able to afford the prices being demanded. It doesn't matter how many apartments San Francisco adds within their city limits, they will all still be too expensive for those on the lower end of the wage scale in that area. And if we pay them more, everyone else's wages will rise accordingly, and the rents will simply go up because there will be more money then available to be paid in rent.

We could build big high density housing projects with controlled rents for the low wage earners to live and work in the cities, but who is going to pay for that kind of "socialist" solution? And when we did this in the past those 'projects' became crime-infested prisons that trapped people in horrific and perpetual poverty.And we've just spent billions tearing them all down in Chicago and New York.

The real problem is that "free-market capitalism" does not work in modern inter-dependent societies where people have to engage in commerce to obtain the essentials of life. The very fact that they are purchasing the essentials of life means these markets are no longer "free" markets. They are now "captive" markets. And in a captive market the prices are dictated by the money available for purchase, because the buyer cannot refuse to buy. So prices are all being set based on the average of what we can all afford to spend. And those who fall below that mean average will not be able to afford to buy what they need to survive. While those above the mean average will use their excess wealth to capture yet more wealth (as investment capital). Nothing is then available to fill in that economic gap that impoverishes all those people living below the mean.

None of this is going to be solved by building more houses, or more cars, or growing more food, or even by giving people more social welfare. The only way to solve this is to face the truth about the failure of capitalism in modern, highly inter-dependent societies, and make the necessary fundamental 'socialist' changes that have to happen to give equal power back to the buyer in these many "captive" markets. Everything else is just putting band-aids on broken limbs.

Sprawl increases the cost of housing & living.
I proposed measures to mitigate poverty.
It's a partial solution, yes...but not a Band-Aid.
- Preserve farming & natural land.
- Cut energy usage.& car ownership.
- Increase safety with less traffic.
- Cut housing costs.
- Encourage walking for health, well being, & socializing.

If we ignore partial solutions because they don't
do everything in one fell swoop, then the bar will
be set so high that nothing will be done.
Think evolution, not revolution.

Oh, don't forget about legalizing victimless crimes.
Prison causes poverty for the whole family of the inmate.

 

[PureX]

No because she has options which in her pride she refuses to use.

So what? Why are you passing judgment on her for this?

They didn't abandon their own assets

When did this become a sin/crime/mistake, and by who dictate, if not your own? So who are you to be passing judgment, and assigning her sentence?

My point was about personal choice thus charity versus to government mandates and shame blame.

You're going to have to clarify that sentence.

Nope. Some people have issues out of their control.

How does any of us know what was or is within anyone else's control? I was an alcoholic for many years, and I still don't know at what point it became an uncontrollable behavior, or what I could have done to prevent that happening given my ignorance of it at the time. And I WAS THERE. So I don't see how you or anyone else could possibly stand in judgment of such a thing, excepting they fall prey to their own ignorance and bias.

 

[PureX]

Sprawl increases the cost of housing & living.

Yes, that's why it occurs.

We don't build houses for people to live in. We build houses to get other people's money. As much of their money we can. So we build the kinds of houses that will net the builders the biggest profit. And that means building "mcmansions" on mini "estates" in the "country" that can be built cheap and sold for big bucks. No one's interested in building efficient, affordable housing for people with little money to spend on them. And no one cares about how all those cheap mcmansions will effect the quality of life in that community. Because all anyone cares about is the money. And so that's the basis for all our active decisions. And when all this greed results in the suffering of ourselves or others, well, we'll just ignore it, or find a way to blame THEM for it, or blame the politicians, or the "liberals", or someone else.

Same thing with automobiles. Same thing with all our commercial endeavors. None of it is ever being done for the actual purpose it pretends to serve. It's ALL ALWAYS being done for the money. Which is almost always the wrong reason, and almost always ends with less-than-desirable results. We could all be driving inexpensive, very efficient, very durable electric cars if we made motor vehicles for the purpose of transportation. But we don't. We only make them to get as much of other people's money for ourselves as we can. So we WAY over-complicate them, and then WAY overprice them, because that's how we can get as much of other people's money, for them, as possible (if we're in the automobile industry). And on and on it goes, in every industry. So that we live in a society that has been totally poisoned by it's own greed. Where everything we do, we do for the wrong reasons. And when this all ends with the inevitably lousy results for the vast majority of people in our society, everyone then blames everyone else, because no one wants to own up to the fact that it's happening because of their own greed and stupidity. Greed that they are all telling themselves is some sort of twisted virtue. Or some sort of existential inevitability that they must embrace in order to survive.

There isn't going to be any solutions to poverty happening in the United States because the people who's job it was to find and enact those solutions have all been corrupted by our collective acceptance and veneration of greed. They now only serve the forces and desires of their own greed, and that of their greedy masters; the people who's life ambition it is to amass as much money as possible for themselves regardless of how this will effect anything and anyone else. And we are allowing this, and even supporting it, because we won't face up to our own fear and greed, and our complicity in the corruption that has resulted.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, that's why it occurs.

Sprawl occurs because of the increased cost?
How does that make sense?

We don't build houses for people to live in. We build houses to get other people's money. As much of their money we can. So we build the kinds of houses that will net the builders the biggest profit. And that means building "mcmansions" on mini "estates" in the "country" that can be built cheap and sold for big bucks. No one's interested in building efficient, affordable housing for people with little money to spend on them. And no one cares about how all those cheap mcmansions will effect the quality of life in that community. Because all anyone cares about is the money. And so that's the basis for all our active decisions. And when all this greed results in the suffering of ourselves or others, well, we'll just ignore it, or find a way to blame THEM for it, or blame the politicians, or the "liberals", or someone else.

Same thing with automobiles. Same thing with all our commercial endeavors. None of it is ever being done for the actual purpose it pretends to serve. It's ALL ALWAYS being done for the money. Which is almost always the wrong reason, and almost always ends with less-than-desirable results. We could all be driving inexpensive, very efficient, very durable electric cars if we made motor vehicles for the purpose of transportation. But we don't. We only make them to get as much of other people's money for ourselves as we can. So we WAY over-complicate them, and then WAY overprice them, because that's how we can get as much of other people's money, for them, as possible (if we're in the automobile industry). And on and on it goes, in every industry. So that we live in a society that has been totally poisoned by it's own greed. Where everything we do, we do for the wrong reasons. And when this all ends with the inevitably lousy results for the vast majority of people in our society, everyone then blames everyone else, because no one wants to own up to the fact that it's happening because of their own greed and stupidity. Greed that they are all telling themselves is some sort of twisted virtue. Or some sort of existential inevitability that they must embrace in order to survive.

There isn't going to be any solutions to poverty happening in the United States because the people who's job it was to find and enact those solutions have all been corrupted by our collective acceptance and veneration of greed. They now only serve the forces and desires of their own greed, and that of their greedy masters; the people who's life ambition it is to amass as much money as possible for themselves regardless of how this will effect anything and anyone else. And we are allowing this, and even supporting it, because we won't face up to our own fear and greed, and our complicity in the corruption that has resulted.

I've developed real estate. I can assure you that maximizing profit
rests upon getting maximum housing density. This is because for a
given amount of land, the more housing units one can build, the more
one makes. This is true even when the price per unit is lower to build,
maintain, & heat.

I've also built, fee managed, & owned commercial & residential real estate.
Your views run counter to everything I've seen, & are like no others I've
run across in the business.
How is it that your experience in the real estate industry differs so greatly?

 

[Shad]

So what? Why are you passing judgment on her for this?

Passing judgement on the very cause of her poverty? You bet. Or are you denying she willing abandoned her assets?

When did this become a sin/crime/mistake, and by who dictate, if not your own? So who are you to be passing judgment, and assigning her sentence?

I assign her no sentence. She assigned that herself by her poor choice. I am just not pardoning her. See the difference?

You're going to have to clarify that sentence.

My point about choice who and how we help, and why.

How does any of us know what was or is within anyone else's control?

You listen to the words coming out of her mouth.

I was an alcoholic for many years, and I still don't know at what point it became an uncontrollable behavior, or what I could have done to prevent that happening given my ignorance of it at the time. And I WAS THERE.

So was I. I stopped buying alcohol. Going to AA is far different than shaming people as per your OP.

So I don't see how you or anyone else could possibly stand in judgment of such a thing, excepting they fall prey to their own ignorance and bias.

That is because you do not want people to judge you and your choices, nothing more. It is a symptom of entitlement culture.

 

[Shaul]

They pay an overall smaller percentage of their income to taxes, and the top 10 has over half the wealth.
Wealth Inequality in America: Key Facts & Figures | St. Louis Fed

So the bottom 50% have more money in 2016 than they did in 1989. (15% of $7.12 Trillion is less than 13% of $12.88 Trillion) Got it.

 

[SoyLeche]

So the bottom 50% have more money in 2016 than they did in 1989. (15% of $7.12 Trillion is less than 13% of $12.88 Trillion) Got it.

That's income. They have less money overall, and it's spread over more people (from the same link):

 

[Shaul]

That's income. They have less money overall (from the same link):

Math isn’t your strong suit I see. If someone’s income is up it is irrelevant whether someone else’s is up even more.

Also your facts are out of date. Last week the world’s richest lost $444 billion. Did the bottom 50% lose billions? No.

World’s Richest Lose $444 Billion After Hellish Week for Markets

Your wealth distribution meme is just envy mongering. If income for the poor is rising (which it is) their percentage of a even faster growing pie is irrelevant.

 

[SoyLeche]

Math isn’t your strong suit I see. If someone’s income is up it is irrelevant whether someone else’s is up even more.

Also your facts are out of date. Last week the world’s richest lost $444 billion. Did the bottom 50% lose billions? No.

World’s Richest Lose $444 Billion After Hellish Week for Markets

Your wealth distribution meme is just envy mongering. If income for the poor is rising (which it is) their percentage of a even faster growing pie is irrelevant.

It's not just the percentage of wealth the pie that has gone down, it's the absolute dollars. And those dollars are being spread over a larger population.

 

[Shaul]

It's not just the percentage of wealth the pie that has gone down, it's the absolute dollars. And those dollars are being spread over a larger population.

That is factually incorrect. The income of the lowest income earners have increased both in dollar amount and relative to inflation. Furthermore the percentage on people in the U.S. earning below the poverty level has dropped in each of the past five years according to the Census bureau.