7 ms·

Why do the poor remain with us?

25 points by cwan 16y ago

tgrass 16y ago
Ever see a poor person in a Hugh Grant movie? I propose ending poverty by shuttling Hugh Grant all around the world.
shawndumas 16y ago
A corollary question, Who Are the Poor [1]? ---- [1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S-O6WDalug http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S-O6WDalug
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
jshen 16y ago
"They have life expectancies, security of food and shelter and rates of possession of consumer durables that mark them out as among the blessed of history." I think this guy has never walked down skid row in a big city. If we act like a whole subset of people don't exist we can make crazy claims like the poor are blessed.
- tomjen3 16y ago
  Try walking down Hackney-in-the-hole 250 years ago. The poor today really are fucking lucky.
  - jshen 16y ago
    try going to pretty much any other industrial country. The poor of america are shit on in comparison.
- TomOfTTB 16y ago
  With all due respect you don't know what you're talking about. I grew up very poor. Not only were we on welfare but my mom would turn around and sell the food stamps to get money to buy booze. Yet I still had food, shelter, education and even a few incidental things like toys. There's plenty of assistance available to the poor in this country. What you are mistaking for poor are people with deeper problems. People who are drug addicted. People who have mental illness. And others who for whatever reason can't find a way to function in society. There is plenty to debate about the difference between the poor and the rich but don't mistake those living on the street for the poor in this country because they are something else
  - jshen 16y ago
    a very large percentage of those that can't function are war veterans. I stand by my point that acting like those people don't exist leads to insane statements like the poor are blessed.
    - neworbit 16y ago
      Interesting, I hadn't heard that other than anecdotal "I am a vietnam vet please help" - what is that percentage?
      - jshen 16y ago
        http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-11-07-homeless-veterans_N.htm http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-11-07-homeless-vete...
        neworbit 16y ago
        Thanks! Now I wonder what percentage of vets are below the poverty line vs outright homeless. I know people who joined up because they were poor to begin with... and in general it seems to have worked out pretty well for them, though none of 'em are particularly rich. But maybe these are the "good work ethic" slice of the bunch? I have nothing but anecdotal evidence.
        jshen 16y ago
        Your assuming that the environment has little impact on people. I'm making the opposite point, war screws people up. Then we try to act like they don't exist or that they are just lazy.
  - boredguy8 16y ago
    With all due respect, you're one data point. While not minimizing the hardships you went through as a poor child, you were fortunate compared to some. As one report on Los Angeles' health concludes: "On the other hand, if we were to completely eliminate all deaths due to homicide, which is the leading cause of premature death among black males, this would likely have the greatest impact on reducing the disparity in life expectancy between black males and males of other racial/ethnic groups, and would result in a gain of 14 times more life-years at birth for black males relative to white males." [1] "don't mistake those living on the street for the poor" Are they rich? They certainly qualify as poor, even if they also fall into other categories. And you can't simply say "they're poor because of their mental state." You cannot trivially isolate a single variable like mental health or economic status from others. Poor white people in the US generally have a markedly improved experience over poor minorities. For example, a 2010 article examining Toxics Release Inventory Facility (TRIF) locations found a high correlation between placement and ethnic minorities. They found that, "...every race or ethnicity variable is negative and statistically signiﬁcant, indicating that Census units with greater minority populations are closer to new TRIFs than are those tracts with greater proportions of non-Hispanic Whites." [2] So while I and others certainly appreciate your perspective and your experience, you ought probably be careful not to draw conclusions about others' experience as a result. [1] "Life Expectancy in Los Angeles County", from the Office of Health Assessment and Epidemiology, July 2010 [2] "Justice for All? A Cross-Time Analysis of Toxics Release Inventory Facility Location" from the Review of Policy Research, January 2010. This study is particularly informative on the issue of environmental justice because it handles carefully the question of "market rationality" for environmental justice. As many had pointed out, "Individuals making conscious trade-offs to accept more environmental risk in exchange for some desired attribute, such as lower housing prices, does not have the same implications as does the situation in which environmental harms are imposed on existing residents." This study is an attempt to answer the "chicken-or-egg" question of whether environmental harms are imposed on ethnic minorities or if instead poor ethnic minorities make an economic tradeoff decision.
- presidentender 16y ago
  You're missing the point - the author says that poverty is relative. Our poor in the US or the EU are far better off than their grandparents were, better off even than the kings of yore due to technological progress. How much do you think a plantation owner in 1840 would've paid for air conditioning? How much would your father have paid for an iPad?
  - jshen 16y ago
    "better off even than the kings of yore due to technological progress" This is absurd. It's based on the false premise that consumerism equals happiness, dignity, well being, and a fulfilling life. And there is still the problem that you guys are disappearing a whole class of people, a large percentage of whom are war veterans, to make yourselves feel better.
    - dean 16y ago
      Despite the unfortunate reference to the iPad, the poster has a point. We are better off than the 'kings of yore'. We have access to better housing, heat and air conditioning, abundant and varied food, easy and affordable access to education and medical care and medicine, electric light, personal transportation, personal security and the list goes on. It's not just consumer goods -- we have more of everything including health and well-being, and most likely happiness. How many people back then (other than a king) could hope to be anything but a serf and tenant farmer in their lives. I think personal fulfilment would have been in short supply.
      - jshen 16y ago
        only if by "better off" you mean we have more material possessions. "easy and affordable access to education and medical care and medicine" Most of your points are fair, but I don't this one is. "we have more of everything including health and well-being" How are you measuring well being? I'll bet a lot of people today, even those that are upper middle class, have equal or more stress. "How many people back then " Why compare america of today with monarchies of the past? Why not compare america of today with other industrialized countries? In terms of the plight of the poor we look pretty bad compared to other modern countries.
- lotusleaf1987 16y ago
  It's sad that you're one of the few who can see this and yet the other replies to your comment seem to give bizarre rationalizations of why it's okay to be poor. I don't think there's an excuse at all. Go to Denmark or Canada or a number of other countries and they've all but wiped out poverty. It's a pathetic rationalization that poverty "is relative." The more I read HN the more tired I get reading these over-used libertarian fanatical positions. The poor are not just drug addicts, there are many people who've had much fewer opportunities and never had a chance to go to college or get an education. There are many many people who fall into "the working poor" look at any number of people stuck in dead end jobs but with little to no ability to get out of the situation. Meritocracy is a complete myth. The poor work the hardest and most dangerous jobs and the most hours. If all it took was 'hard work' then these people would be filthy rich by now. But obviously not all work is valued the same.
  - davidw 16y ago
    One thing that gets people in the US is medical problems. Just as an anecdote, I got a couple of sinus infections back to back on my recent trip to the US. Two doctor visits plus antibiotics cost me more than 250 dollars out of pocket. And that's for a relatively trifling problem. Imagine getting hit with serious medical bills at the very same time your ability to work has been seriously diminished.
    - michaelchisari 16y ago
      I had my appendix out a couple years ago, and it cost me around $2000, and this was with some really fantastic insurance. If uninsured, I would have gotten a bill for around $25,000. Had I been in a different point in my life, I would have been ruined financially.
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      This is widely believed, but only due to a deeply flawed study which got a lot of press. New statistics following the publication of that article have shown this pretty conclusively. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/12/will-health-care-reform-reduce-medical-bankruptcies/68304/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/12/will-hea...
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  I think you've never bothered to look up statistics on the poor. In the 1970's, the bottom 10% only had a pot to piss in - they lacked a toilet. Today, the poor live in houses with 2 rooms/person, drive at least one car (70% or so), sometimes two cars (25%), and have all manner of consumer goods not available even to the middle class of 1970. http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf Not only that, but the poor manage to achieve all of this, for the most part, without even working. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf There might be a small number of poor people in bad situations, but the majority of the poor are doing very well by historical standards. Please go read the actual numbers before criticizing others who have already done so.
  - jshen 16y ago
    your doing the same thing as the other, magically disappearing a whole class of people. Please come meet me in Los Angeles and I'll show you the poor. They don't have a house, a car, or any consumer goods. As I said before, a very large percentage of the people I'm talking about are war veterans. They are people that were capable of functioning in society before we used them up and spit them out. Disappearing them from our minds doesn't make them go away in real life.
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      Ah, I see our disagreement. The author and I are pointing out that most of the 10% or so of society classified by the government as "poor" are doing extremely well. I guess you aren't dispute this at all. You are saying there is a much narrower subset (I'm guessing veterans and others with mental illness?) which is not doing well. I.e., "crazy people have problems, and many are also poor." Very true. But that isn't what the author is discussing. No one is claiming the mentally ill don't exist.
      - jshen 16y ago
        right, we're using different definitions, but my complaint is that people are brushing them off as "mentally ill". Many of them, 1 in 4 according to some studies, are military veterans. These are people that were not mentally ill prior to things like us sending them to war so we can sit in our comfy startups. We now want to disappear them from our minds by implying that they are innately broken (mentally ill). I'm a veteran so maybe I care more about this than most.
patio11 16y ago
I think the "recent entry" effect is underemphasized in a lot of discussions. It is like the old not-quite-paradox where you can move a kid between class A and class B and increase the average score in both rooms: transfer a middle class Mexican family to the southern United States and twelve months later every actual human is better off, but both Mexico and the United States suffer statistically.
- klipt 16y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox
yummyfajitas 16y ago
I'm guessing one of the big reasons we still have poor people is simply human preferences, as well as the fact that poverty is defined in relative rather than absolute terms. Some people prefer to consume goods and services. These people trade work for money, and have many goods and services. Other people prefer to consume leisure and avoid work. They have a standard of living lower than the workers (from who they receive large subsidies), but still much larger than the historical average. If we properly accounted for leisure, we would realize how well off even the "poor" are. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf (This report shows that most of the poor consume leisure.)
- dpatru 16y ago
  In societies without a welfare government, non-working poor people have to beg. In other words, they still work in the sense of trading their time for money. The poor do not have the option to live in idleness (like the rich do.)
- jellicle 16y ago
  Yes, the reason that poor people are poor is that they're lazy. And the reason rich people are rich is because they're hard-working and deserving. It has nothing to do with educational opportunities, wealthy parents, or anything like that. That 50-year-old housekeeper who almost graduated from high school, but couldn't because she had to work after her mother lost one of her two jobs? She's poor because SHE'S LAZY, never mind that she spends 9 hours a day scrubbing toilets. And the CEO who got the job because his father is a Senator and works about 10 hours a week? He's rich because HE DESERVES IT. > http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf (This report shows that most of the poor consume leisure.) It shows nothing of the sort. The word "leisure" isn't even in that report. In fact the report says that the working poor are usually screwed by circumstances beyond their control - layoffs, involuntary part-time work, pay that is illegally below minimum wage.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    If you bothered to read the first couple of paragraphs of the report, it would tell you that most of the poor are not working poor (by choice). If you skipped ahead to the tables, you'd realize it also tells you that only 12% of the poor work full time for at least 27 weeks/year. You are committing a logical fallacy. You are acting as if I made a blanket statement rather than a statistical one, and refuting only the (obviously false) blanket statement. If you want a report on leisure, rather than simply not working, here you go: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm That doesn't specifically carve out the poor, but it shows that people with low income consume 30 min/day more leisure than the highest income groups. The "not employed" (a category which encompasses about 80% of the poor) get considerably more than 30 min/day. Sorry if the inconvenient facts get in the way of your moral posturing.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
dpatru 16y ago
There are two ways not to be poor: either you're productive yourself or you are supported by someone who is productive. If you are not productive, it's because you don't want to be or because you can't. You may not want to be productive if it's easier or more pleasant not to be (eg, if you're receiving large unemployment check from the government.) You can't be productive if factors outside of your control prevent you (eg, you suffer from a severe handicap, you're in prison, or no one will hire you.) If you're not supported by someone, it's because you either don't want help or you don't have anyone in your life whose willing and able to support you. In the modern, these two cases (being productive and having someone willing and able to support you) are often merged. For example, there are many people who are essentially professional beggars. They are not productive in the way a farmer is. A farmer works at farming and lives directly off of the wealth produced by the farm which he trades. In contrast, a fundraiser for a charity works at convincing people to give for something that is only indirectly beneficial to themselves. Sometimes the same person may play both of these roles. A politician may ask a working person to vote for him because he will provide students with financial aid. The politician in this case is acting as a kind of professional beggar on behalf of students. The worker who votes for the politician does not expect to receive a direct benefit. The worker's vote is an act of charity. The same politician may ask a student for her vote because he will increase her government-provided student aid. The student's vote is a kind of business decision. (Although of questionable morality since her vote is not a vote for charity so much as a vote for coercing others to give.) The social welfare state has also given rise to what are essentially unemployed beggars: People who in the past might have lived off of the charity of others but now don't even ask for support. They simply declare their need to the government which supports them.
- michaelchisari 16y ago
  I think you have a major misconception about how welfare works in the U.S. The idea of a "large government check" or that living off of welfare is preferable to a living wage job, is not really realistic. Since welfare reform in the 90's, TANF, for instance, runs out in just over two years. Further, countries which have the greatest welfare systems available, don't suffer from the kind of malaise people often incorrectly correlate with the availability of welfare.
jtbigwoo 16y ago
The trouble is that the poverty rate, like the unemployment rate, can never actually fall to zero in a market economy. "Full employment" still results in an unemployment rate of 2 - 6% (depending on how you're counting.) There are always going to be layoffs, family illnesses, fights with the boss, etc. that keep everyone from being employed all the time. In a healthy economy, though, those people are quickly cycling through unemployment and back into the workforce. In a similar way, something like a 10% poverty rate would probably qualify as "zero poverty." The goal, then, of anti-poverty initiatives should not be to eliminate poverty or to simply provide for the basic needs of the poor (1). The goal should be to ensure that each person below the poverty line is set up to rise up out of poverty as quickly as possible. The trouble is that the programs that help the poor the most (education, substance abuse treatment) are labor-intensive and expensive. (1) One possible exception - providing for the basic needs of children in poverty.
- jseliger 16y ago
  The other issue, which has gotten more and deserved press lately, is that of zero marginal product workers: http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/01/cowen-and-lemke-on-the-job-market.html http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/01... . Some people do not appear to offer any margin on their labor, which is a big structural problem that I don't think anyone knows how to solve. If you're interested in the subject, see the link.

25 points by cwan 16y ago

Ever see a poor person in a Hugh Grant movie? I propose ending poverty by shuttling Hugh Grant all around the world.

A corollary question, Who Are the Poor [1]? ---- [1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S-O6WDalug http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S-O6WDalug

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

jshen 16y ago

"They have life expectancies, security of food and shelter and rates of possession of consumer durables that mark them out as among the blessed of history." I think this guy has never walked down skid row in a big city. If we act like a whole subset of people don't exist we can make crazy claims like the poor are blessed.

tomjen3 16y ago
Try walking down Hackney-in-the-hole 250 years ago. The poor today really are fucking lucky.
- jshen 16y ago
  try going to pretty much any other industrial country. The poor of america are shit on in comparison.
TomOfTTB 16y ago
With all due respect you don't know what you're talking about. I grew up very poor. Not only were we on welfare but my mom would turn around and sell the food stamps to get money to buy booze. Yet I still had food, shelter, education and even a few incidental things like toys. There's plenty of assistance available to the poor in this country. What you are mistaking for poor are people with deeper problems. People who are drug addicted. People who have mental illness. And others who for whatever reason can't find a way to function in society. There is plenty to debate about the difference between the poor and the rich but don't mistake those living on the street for the poor in this country because they are something else
- jshen 16y ago
  a very large percentage of those that can't function are war veterans. I stand by my point that acting like those people don't exist leads to insane statements like the poor are blessed.
  - neworbit 16y ago
    Interesting, I hadn't heard that other than anecdotal "I am a vietnam vet please help" - what is that percentage?
    - jshen 16y ago
      http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-11-07-homeless-veterans_N.htm http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-11-07-homeless-vete...
      - neworbit 16y ago
        Thanks! Now I wonder what percentage of vets are below the poverty line vs outright homeless. I know people who joined up because they were poor to begin with... and in general it seems to have worked out pretty well for them, though none of 'em are particularly rich. But maybe these are the "good work ethic" slice of the bunch? I have nothing but anecdotal evidence.
        jshen 16y ago
        Your assuming that the environment has little impact on people. I'm making the opposite point, war screws people up. Then we try to act like they don't exist or that they are just lazy.
- boredguy8 16y ago
  With all due respect, you're one data point. While not minimizing the hardships you went through as a poor child, you were fortunate compared to some. As one report on Los Angeles' health concludes: "On the other hand, if we were to completely eliminate all deaths due to homicide, which is the leading cause of premature death among black males, this would likely have the greatest impact on reducing the disparity in life expectancy between black males and males of other racial/ethnic groups, and would result in a gain of 14 times more life-years at birth for black males relative to white males." [1] "don't mistake those living on the street for the poor" Are they rich? They certainly qualify as poor, even if they also fall into other categories. And you can't simply say "they're poor because of their mental state." You cannot trivially isolate a single variable like mental health or economic status from others. Poor white people in the US generally have a markedly improved experience over poor minorities. For example, a 2010 article examining Toxics Release Inventory Facility (TRIF) locations found a high correlation between placement and ethnic minorities. They found that, "...every race or ethnicity variable is negative and statistically signiﬁcant, indicating that Census units with greater minority populations are closer to new TRIFs than are those tracts with greater proportions of non-Hispanic Whites." [2] So while I and others certainly appreciate your perspective and your experience, you ought probably be careful not to draw conclusions about others' experience as a result. [1] "Life Expectancy in Los Angeles County", from the Office of Health Assessment and Epidemiology, July 2010 [2] "Justice for All? A Cross-Time Analysis of Toxics Release Inventory Facility Location" from the Review of Policy Research, January 2010. This study is particularly informative on the issue of environmental justice because it handles carefully the question of "market rationality" for environmental justice. As many had pointed out, "Individuals making conscious trade-offs to accept more environmental risk in exchange for some desired attribute, such as lower housing prices, does not have the same implications as does the situation in which environmental harms are imposed on existing residents." This study is an attempt to answer the "chicken-or-egg" question of whether environmental harms are imposed on ethnic minorities or if instead poor ethnic minorities make an economic tradeoff decision.
presidentender 16y ago
You're missing the point - the author says that poverty is relative. Our poor in the US or the EU are far better off than their grandparents were, better off even than the kings of yore due to technological progress. How much do you think a plantation owner in 1840 would've paid for air conditioning? How much would your father have paid for an iPad?
- jshen 16y ago
  "better off even than the kings of yore due to technological progress" This is absurd. It's based on the false premise that consumerism equals happiness, dignity, well being, and a fulfilling life. And there is still the problem that you guys are disappearing a whole class of people, a large percentage of whom are war veterans, to make yourselves feel better.
  - dean 16y ago
    Despite the unfortunate reference to the iPad, the poster has a point. We are better off than the 'kings of yore'. We have access to better housing, heat and air conditioning, abundant and varied food, easy and affordable access to education and medical care and medicine, electric light, personal transportation, personal security and the list goes on. It's not just consumer goods -- we have more of everything including health and well-being, and most likely happiness. How many people back then (other than a king) could hope to be anything but a serf and tenant farmer in their lives. I think personal fulfilment would have been in short supply.
    - jshen 16y ago
      only if by "better off" you mean we have more material possessions. "easy and affordable access to education and medical care and medicine" Most of your points are fair, but I don't this one is. "we have more of everything including health and well-being" How are you measuring well being? I'll bet a lot of people today, even those that are upper middle class, have equal or more stress. "How many people back then " Why compare america of today with monarchies of the past? Why not compare america of today with other industrialized countries? In terms of the plight of the poor we look pretty bad compared to other modern countries.
lotusleaf1987 16y ago
It's sad that you're one of the few who can see this and yet the other replies to your comment seem to give bizarre rationalizations of why it's okay to be poor. I don't think there's an excuse at all. Go to Denmark or Canada or a number of other countries and they've all but wiped out poverty. It's a pathetic rationalization that poverty "is relative." The more I read HN the more tired I get reading these over-used libertarian fanatical positions. The poor are not just drug addicts, there are many people who've had much fewer opportunities and never had a chance to go to college or get an education. There are many many people who fall into "the working poor" look at any number of people stuck in dead end jobs but with little to no ability to get out of the situation. Meritocracy is a complete myth. The poor work the hardest and most dangerous jobs and the most hours. If all it took was 'hard work' then these people would be filthy rich by now. But obviously not all work is valued the same.
- davidw 16y ago
  One thing that gets people in the US is medical problems. Just as an anecdote, I got a couple of sinus infections back to back on my recent trip to the US. Two doctor visits plus antibiotics cost me more than 250 dollars out of pocket. And that's for a relatively trifling problem. Imagine getting hit with serious medical bills at the very same time your ability to work has been seriously diminished.
  - michaelchisari 16y ago
    I had my appendix out a couple years ago, and it cost me around $2000, and this was with some really fantastic insurance. If uninsured, I would have gotten a bill for around $25,000. Had I been in a different point in my life, I would have been ruined financially.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    This is widely believed, but only due to a deeply flawed study which got a lot of press. New statistics following the publication of that article have shown this pretty conclusively. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/12/will-health-care-reform-reduce-medical-bankruptcies/68304/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/12/will-hea...
yummyfajitas 16y ago
I think you've never bothered to look up statistics on the poor. In the 1970's, the bottom 10% only had a pot to piss in - they lacked a toilet. Today, the poor live in houses with 2 rooms/person, drive at least one car (70% or so), sometimes two cars (25%), and have all manner of consumer goods not available even to the middle class of 1970. http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf Not only that, but the poor manage to achieve all of this, for the most part, without even working. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf There might be a small number of poor people in bad situations, but the majority of the poor are doing very well by historical standards. Please go read the actual numbers before criticizing others who have already done so.
- jshen 16y ago
  your doing the same thing as the other, magically disappearing a whole class of people. Please come meet me in Los Angeles and I'll show you the poor. They don't have a house, a car, or any consumer goods. As I said before, a very large percentage of the people I'm talking about are war veterans. They are people that were capable of functioning in society before we used them up and spit them out. Disappearing them from our minds doesn't make them go away in real life.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    Ah, I see our disagreement. The author and I are pointing out that most of the 10% or so of society classified by the government as "poor" are doing extremely well. I guess you aren't dispute this at all. You are saying there is a much narrower subset (I'm guessing veterans and others with mental illness?) which is not doing well. I.e., "crazy people have problems, and many are also poor." Very true. But that isn't what the author is discussing. No one is claiming the mentally ill don't exist.
    - jshen 16y ago
      right, we're using different definitions, but my complaint is that people are brushing them off as "mentally ill". Many of them, 1 in 4 according to some studies, are military veterans. These are people that were not mentally ill prior to things like us sending them to war so we can sit in our comfy startups. We now want to disappear them from our minds by implying that they are innately broken (mentally ill). I'm a veteran so maybe I care more about this than most.

patio11 16y ago

I think the "recent entry" effect is underemphasized in a lot of discussions. It is like the old not-quite-paradox where you can move a kid between class A and class B and increase the average score in both rooms: transfer a middle class Mexican family to the southern United States and twelve months later every actual human is better off, but both Mexico and the United States suffer statistically.

klipt 16y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox

yummyfajitas 16y ago

I'm guessing one of the big reasons we still have poor people is simply human preferences, as well as the fact that poverty is defined in relative rather than absolute terms. Some people prefer to consume goods and services. These people trade work for money, and have many goods and services. Other people prefer to consume leisure and avoid work. They have a standard of living lower than the workers (from who they receive large subsidies), but still much larger than the historical average. If we properly accounted for leisure, we would realize how well off even the "poor" are. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf (This report shows that most of the poor consume leisure.)

dpatru 16y ago
In societies without a welfare government, non-working poor people have to beg. In other words, they still work in the sense of trading their time for money. The poor do not have the option to live in idleness (like the rich do.)
jellicle 16y ago
Yes, the reason that poor people are poor is that they're lazy. And the reason rich people are rich is because they're hard-working and deserving. It has nothing to do with educational opportunities, wealthy parents, or anything like that. That 50-year-old housekeeper who almost graduated from high school, but couldn't because she had to work after her mother lost one of her two jobs? She's poor because SHE'S LAZY, never mind that she spends 9 hours a day scrubbing toilets. And the CEO who got the job because his father is a Senator and works about 10 hours a week? He's rich because HE DESERVES IT. > http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf (This report shows that most of the poor consume leisure.) It shows nothing of the sort. The word "leisure" isn't even in that report. In fact the report says that the working poor are usually screwed by circumstances beyond their control - layoffs, involuntary part-time work, pay that is illegally below minimum wage.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  If you bothered to read the first couple of paragraphs of the report, it would tell you that most of the poor are not working poor (by choice). If you skipped ahead to the tables, you'd realize it also tells you that only 12% of the poor work full time for at least 27 weeks/year. You are committing a logical fallacy. You are acting as if I made a blanket statement rather than a statistical one, and refuting only the (obviously false) blanket statement. If you want a report on leisure, rather than simply not working, here you go: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm That doesn't specifically carve out the poor, but it shows that people with low income consume 30 min/day more leisure than the highest income groups. The "not employed" (a category which encompasses about 80% of the poor) get considerably more than 30 min/day. Sorry if the inconvenient facts get in the way of your moral posturing.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

dpatru 16y ago

There are two ways not to be poor: either you're productive yourself or you are supported by someone who is productive. If you are not productive, it's because you don't want to be or because you can't. You may not want to be productive if it's easier or more pleasant not to be (eg, if you're receiving large unemployment check from the government.) You can't be productive if factors outside of your control prevent you (eg, you suffer from a severe handicap, you're in prison, or no one will hire you.) If you're not supported by someone, it's because you either don't want help or you don't have anyone in your life whose willing and able to support you. In the modern, these two cases (being productive and having someone willing and able to support you) are often merged. For example, there are many people who are essentially professional beggars. They are not productive in the way a farmer is. A farmer works at farming and lives directly off of the wealth produced by the farm which he trades. In contrast, a fundraiser for a charity works at convincing people to give for something that is only indirectly beneficial to themselves. Sometimes the same person may play both of these roles. A politician may ask a working person to vote for him because he will provide students with financial aid. The politician in this case is acting as a kind of professional beggar on behalf of students. The worker who votes for the politician does not expect to receive a direct benefit. The worker's vote is an act of charity. The same politician may ask a student for her vote because he will increase her government-provided student aid. The student's vote is a kind of business decision. (Although of questionable morality since her vote is not a vote for charity so much as a vote for coercing others to give.) The social welfare state has also given rise to what are essentially unemployed beggars: People who in the past might have lived off of the charity of others but now don't even ask for support. They simply declare their need to the government which supports them.

michaelchisari 16y ago
I think you have a major misconception about how welfare works in the U.S. The idea of a "large government check" or that living off of welfare is preferable to a living wage job, is not really realistic. Since welfare reform in the 90's, TANF, for instance, runs out in just over two years. Further, countries which have the greatest welfare systems available, don't suffer from the kind of malaise people often incorrectly correlate with the availability of welfare.

jtbigwoo 16y ago

The trouble is that the poverty rate, like the unemployment rate, can never actually fall to zero in a market economy. "Full employment" still results in an unemployment rate of 2 - 6% (depending on how you're counting.) There are always going to be layoffs, family illnesses, fights with the boss, etc. that keep everyone from being employed all the time. In a healthy economy, though, those people are quickly cycling through unemployment and back into the workforce. In a similar way, something like a 10% poverty rate would probably qualify as "zero poverty." The goal, then, of anti-poverty initiatives should not be to eliminate poverty or to simply provide for the basic needs of the poor (1). The goal should be to ensure that each person below the poverty line is set up to rise up out of poverty as quickly as possible. The trouble is that the programs that help the poor the most (education, substance abuse treatment) are labor-intensive and expensive. (1) One possible exception - providing for the basic needs of children in poverty.

jseliger 16y ago
The other issue, which has gotten more and deserved press lately, is that of zero marginal product workers: http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/01/cowen-and-lemke-on-the-job-market.html http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/01... . Some people do not appear to offer any margin on their labor, which is a big structural problem that I don't think anyone knows how to solve. If you're interested in the subject, see the link.