4 ms·

Poverty is an issue long solved in USA. We are talking about relative poverty and governments are trying to push totalitarian redistribution schemes everywhere.

by tn13 10y ago

Jtsummers 10y ago
> Poverty is an issue long solved in the USA. When? How? EDIT: While I disagree with the parent poster, primarily because I've seen plenty of homeless, underemployed, malnourished individuals in my travels around the US my entire life, and no significant decline in the past several years, my questions were not meant entirely sarcastically. If poverty is solved, explain how or by what measure you consider it to be solved. My viewpoint: From a purely technical standpoint it could be considered solveable. We have sufficient housing, clothing, food for literally everyone in this country, and more. The issue becomes one of distribution. But just having the resources doesn't mean that the problem itself is solved.
- RankingMember 10y ago
  I was going to say "Well jeez, can someone please alert the media? Where's the photo op with "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner in the background? :P
- dionidium 10y ago
  The grandparent's POV is a pretty common one. Just about anybody can get a job making minimum wage, which will bring home at least (7.25 × 40) × 4 = $1,160 each month (more in some places). That is enough money in most places to rent a basic apartment and buy plenty of food to eat. Plenty of people in that bracket also have cable TV and a car and a smart phone. It's not easy and it's not all that much fun, but you're not going to starve or freeze to death and the Wheel of Fortune you watch every night is the same Wheel of Fortune that Bill Gates watches. That's the definition of "solved" that's in play here.
  - Jtsummers 10y ago
    Which isn't actually a solution, we still need to connect people to those jobs somehow. Many people live in areas where those jobs simply aren't available. I drive through those towns all the time. There's insufficient money invested in the area in other businesses to offer a middle class that can support a lower class making minimum wage. These people need to move, which is a non-trivial cost. There's no guarantee they'll get a job when they go to, say, Atlanta. And they'll be paying more in rent or living in even worse living conditions (crammed into small apartments with more people). They'd be giving up their connections to family and friends and a community that they've been a part of. The problem of poverty will only be solved when no one is in poverty for any reason but choice. Calling it solved because technically there may be enough minimum wage jobs for everyone is the same as saying hunger is solved because technically there's enough food for everyone.
  - drabiega 10y ago
    > Just about anybody can get a job making minimum wage It can be hard to see because the problem is so unevenly distributed through the social fabric, but this is just objectively not true.
    - dionidium 10y ago
      You should read "anybody" here in the same way as if I'd said, "Just about anybody can walk across a room." That's also just objectively not true, but when we're talking about the population as a whole, then it's an OK proxy for the complete truth.
      - drabiega 10y ago
        I agree in general, I just don't think it's a good enough proxy in this case.
- tn13 10y ago
  homeless, underemployed and malnourished etc. in USA are far better than Homeless, Underemployed and Malnourished 50 years ago and even the lower middle class in the rest of the world. I would prefer to be a homeless in USA than lower middle class in India.
  - Jtsummers 10y ago
    That doesn't make poverty solved. That means we've improved the lot for many people, but we haven't solved the problems of poverty. They're still homeless. They're still underemployed/unemployed. They're still malnourished. When those are consequences of anything but rational, healthy, deliberate choice [0], or very temporary circumstances, then poverty is not solved. [0] Which pretty much means religious/cultural reasons. The rationality of those choices are still debatable, but they aren't predicated on mental or physical illness.
toomuchtodo 10y ago
You are grossly misinformed: https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/ https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/
- dionidium 10y ago
  I think you both know that you're talking past one another, seemingly intentionally. It's absolutely true that, given even a minimal family/friend support structure, people to the very left of the earnings curve have a decent standard of living in the U.S. today. If you have an able body, it's pretty hard to starve (or even go without cable TV). I think you both know that. On the other hand, some people obviously don't have able bodies or any support network to speak of. I think you both know that, too. So, why he disconnect?
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    > If you have an able body, it's pretty hard to starve (or even go without cable TV). I think you both know that. I'm not so sure. I know people who are able bodied, college degree educated, and some months can barely afford groceries after all non-discretionary spending is accounted for.
    - grahamburger 10y ago
      Barely afford groceries after all non-discretionary spending is a lot different than "can't afford groceries or non-discretionary spending." I've been in the former category, for quite a long time - I would not call that poverty. If that was the worst of what people experience in the US, I would also call poverty solved. (It's not the worst of what people experience, and I would not personally call poverty solved.)

Poverty is an issue long solved in USA. We are talking about relative poverty and governments are trying to push totalitarian redistribution schemes everywhere.

by tn13 10y ago

Poverty is an issue long solved in USA. We are talking about relative poverty and governments are trying to push totalitarian redistribution schemes everywhere.

Jtsummers 10y ago

> Poverty is an issue long solved in the USA. When? How? EDIT: While I disagree with the parent poster, primarily because I've seen plenty of homeless, underemployed, malnourished individuals in my travels around the US my entire life, and no significant decline in the past several years, my questions were not meant entirely sarcastically. If poverty is solved, explain how or by what measure you consider it to be solved. My viewpoint: From a purely technical standpoint it could be considered solveable. We have sufficient housing, clothing, food for literally everyone in this country, and more. The issue becomes one of distribution. But just having the resources doesn't mean that the problem itself is solved.

RankingMember 10y ago
I was going to say "Well jeez, can someone please alert the media? Where's the photo op with "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner in the background? :P
dionidium 10y ago
The grandparent's POV is a pretty common one. Just about anybody can get a job making minimum wage, which will bring home at least (7.25 × 40) × 4 = $1,160 each month (more in some places). That is enough money in most places to rent a basic apartment and buy plenty of food to eat. Plenty of people in that bracket also have cable TV and a car and a smart phone. It's not easy and it's not all that much fun, but you're not going to starve or freeze to death and the Wheel of Fortune you watch every night is the same Wheel of Fortune that Bill Gates watches. That's the definition of "solved" that's in play here.
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  Which isn't actually a solution, we still need to connect people to those jobs somehow. Many people live in areas where those jobs simply aren't available. I drive through those towns all the time. There's insufficient money invested in the area in other businesses to offer a middle class that can support a lower class making minimum wage. These people need to move, which is a non-trivial cost. There's no guarantee they'll get a job when they go to, say, Atlanta. And they'll be paying more in rent or living in even worse living conditions (crammed into small apartments with more people). They'd be giving up their connections to family and friends and a community that they've been a part of. The problem of poverty will only be solved when no one is in poverty for any reason but choice. Calling it solved because technically there may be enough minimum wage jobs for everyone is the same as saying hunger is solved because technically there's enough food for everyone.
- drabiega 10y ago
  > Just about anybody can get a job making minimum wage It can be hard to see because the problem is so unevenly distributed through the social fabric, but this is just objectively not true.
  - dionidium 10y ago
    You should read "anybody" here in the same way as if I'd said, "Just about anybody can walk across a room." That's also just objectively not true, but when we're talking about the population as a whole, then it's an OK proxy for the complete truth.
    - drabiega 10y ago
      I agree in general, I just don't think it's a good enough proxy in this case.
tn13 10y ago
homeless, underemployed and malnourished etc. in USA are far better than Homeless, Underemployed and Malnourished 50 years ago and even the lower middle class in the rest of the world. I would prefer to be a homeless in USA than lower middle class in India.
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  That doesn't make poverty solved. That means we've improved the lot for many people, but we haven't solved the problems of poverty. They're still homeless. They're still underemployed/unemployed. They're still malnourished. When those are consequences of anything but rational, healthy, deliberate choice [0], or very temporary circumstances, then poverty is not solved. [0] Which pretty much means religious/cultural reasons. The rationality of those choices are still debatable, but they aren't predicated on mental or physical illness.

toomuchtodo 10y ago

You are grossly misinformed: https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/ https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/

dionidium 10y ago
I think you both know that you're talking past one another, seemingly intentionally. It's absolutely true that, given even a minimal family/friend support structure, people to the very left of the earnings curve have a decent standard of living in the U.S. today. If you have an able body, it's pretty hard to starve (or even go without cable TV). I think you both know that. On the other hand, some people obviously don't have able bodies or any support network to speak of. I think you both know that, too. So, why he disconnect?
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  > If you have an able body, it's pretty hard to starve (or even go without cable TV). I think you both know that. I'm not so sure. I know people who are able bodied, college degree educated, and some months can barely afford groceries after all non-discretionary spending is accounted for.
  - grahamburger 10y ago
    Barely afford groceries after all non-discretionary spending is a lot different than "can't afford groceries or non-discretionary spending." I've been in the former category, for quite a long time - I would not call that poverty. If that was the worst of what people experience in the US, I would also call poverty solved. (It's not the worst of what people experience, and I would not personally call poverty solved.)