6 ms·

So the problem is that car dependence, zoning laws and lack of public healthcare means you have a lot of very expensive items that you can't do anything about w

So the problem is that car dependence, zoning laws and lack of public healthcare means you have a lot of very expensive items that you can't do anything about without massively impacting your quality of life. So it is mostly an American problem, you can fix all of those via laws, many other countries has. In Europe housing scales down well, you can always pay less by living smaller or a bit further out from the city, you don't need a car and you don't need to pay that much for healthcare. Poor people still has it worse, but at least they have plenty of options.

kozzz 3y ago
Good luck living in rural Poland (anywhere outside 3 major cities) without a car. Same goes for most European countries
smokel 3y ago
If you'd be slightly more precise in your wording, you'd see that the overloaded use of the word "you" results in some problems here. If by "you", you mean a poor individual living in the United States, then I guess your reasoning is absurd, because one individual cannot change the laws. If by "you", you mean all individuals lumped together as the people making up the United States, then the argument makes slightly more sense, but then still, they can't, because they can't seem to agree on how to divide all wealth properly. So, no, "you" cannot fix this via laws. You can hope for it to be fixed, you can lobby for it to be fixed, you can pray for it, even go to war for it, but I don't think it's as easy as you make it seem. Moving to Europe might be an option, but even that is not an option for most people outside of Europe, mostly thanks to the laws that "we" put in place to stay rich.
- Jensson 3y ago
  > by "you", you mean a poor individual living in the United States That is a very uncharitable interpretation, not sure why you would read it like that. "You" can refer to governments or countries in general and not just individuals. And that was the entire argument of your post, please don't make strawmans like that.
  - smokel 3y ago
    I apologize for the harshness and sarcasm of my previous reply. I should have taken some more time to find a way to explain my personal gripes that were triggered by your remark. Please allow me a second chance: I am often a bit disappointed that in common language, it is very easy to suggest that one can change the world for the better, but in reality it is not an option for nearly everyone. I think that the problem leading to this is that most people believe that a group of people has similar traits as a single individual. A lot of reasoning goes awry by mixing the two. In my personal opinion, the way an individual makes up their mind is completely different from how a group of people makes up their collective minds. The first can be attributed to freedom of choice, agency, gut feeling, rational thought, etc. The latter lives in the realm of sociology, group think, religion, politics, marketing and communication. Another example of where I think this goes wrong is in the idea that we can rescue the climate by starting with ourselves. This is simply not true, unless nearly all people do this. Another one is the idea of contemporary voting in democracies. It simply does not help at all to put out just one vote. Change requires the opinions of many people to align. Sometimes, only sometimes, does a change by one person incur change in others. Most often, if you are not a leading figure, your change does not do anything at all. Ignoring this results in falsehoods and make-belief. I find this counterproductive in discussions. It may well be that I made up the strawmans, but I tend to believe that they're already there. But perhaps, and given your response, this is probably not at all the direction you'd want the discussion to go.
    - Jensson 3y ago
      Yeah, I don't think individuals can fix society by themselves. USA is a special case since the poorer 50% somehow failed to organize politically and form a party to represent them like they did in basically every other democracy. I think they still can organize, but there has to be massive barriers that are hard to overcome or they would already have done so.
      - kubanczyk 3y ago
        Notably, getting out of the bipartisan stalemate is step one. Coming from a country where 3-4 parties make it to the parliament, you probably wouldn't believe how much of the dysfunction originates in a two-party politics. It seems to be fixable with changes to the electoral law.
hermitcrab 3y ago
Could it be that poor Americans think they will be rich at some point - either through hard work, divine providence or the lottery (the American dream)? So they care less about structural change - their poverty is only temporary. But I'm not an American (let alone a poor American) and could be completely wrong.
- lapcat 3y ago
  No, it's not that. Rather, Americans are committed to the idea of "meritocracy". Meritocracy requires a hierarchy; it requires winners and losers. Meritocracy wouldn't make sense if everyone had the same merit, if everyone was equally worthy. Meritocracy allows people in the middle, people who are average by definition, ordinary, not special, to feel better about themselves by looking down at the poor. "They made poor choices, that's why they're poor. I made better choices." The point of meritocracy is to undermine sympathy and solidarity, to turn everything individualistic. Divide and conquer. The economics of competition, supply, and demand is amoral: it's just a method for determining the prices of products and transactions, without any judgment about whether the outcome is morally good. What we've done is turn our economic system into an ethical system: you are judged worthy, meritorious, based on your economic value. It's almost as if the so-called Invisible Hand of the market is God distributing punishment and reward.
  - yterdy 3y ago
    >It's almost as if the so-called Invisible Hand of the market is God distributing punishment and reward. Amusingly, Capitalism as a concept fits the definition of an "Eldritch Abomination."
  - dzink 3y ago
    The stratification comes from primate brains, not capitalism. It remains even without capitalism, except no amount of effort gets you out of it in other systems. Growing up in Eastern Europe, you could be extremely hard working and honest and the second you reach even minor success there would be a strong man (mafia muscle or political/government corruption) knocking on your door to trim you down a bit and take your everything if you fight back. If you were born in a village, you were not allowed to move to the city and had your destiny sealed as the farmer to feed the privileged citizens. There is a Bulgarian Book called “To Chicago and Back” where the author travels to America for the world fair. One of the highlights mentions that in the bus or train in America, even low level workers can wear a suit. Unlike the rest of the world, in capitalistic countries your money and effort is just as green, regardless of your parentage, color, proclivities, etc. You can make what you are willing to work for and the rest is a matter of choice. At least you have a choice. The rest of the non-capitalistic world mostly doesn’t.
roenxi 3y ago
I want to chime in, feeding a family of 4 should cost around $20k [0]. The article puts the federal poverty line at $26,200. $6,200 is not going to be a comfortable experience - but there is no fundamental reason it should be impossible, crushing or stressful. And the non-linear effect of dropping price that the article mentions is probably going to be caused by regulatory factors demanding minimum standards. If people directed the effort they put into minimum wages into driving down costs, they'd have a much more meaningful impact on the experience of impoverished people. Increasing incomes is good, but controlling costs is better. [0] https://www.move.org/the-average-cost-of-food-in-the-us/ https://www.move.org/the-average-cost-of-food-in-the-us/
- jlkuester7 3y ago
  So, I think we can agree that we don't have to just choose one method for improving the lives of low-income people. At the same time, it is true that some ways are more effective at producing results than others. Should we try to raise wages? Yes! Should we try to drive down costs? Yes! That being said, if I had to choose, I think I would prefer to increase my income instead of decreasing the cost of items I had to purchase. (Of course, both would be best!) Lower cost items only benefit me, if I need to purchase them. With an increased income comes an increased set of options for how to deploy that income.
  - em-bee 3y ago
    i don't see how that makes much of a difference. if costs are lower my income goes a lot further too, i save money on essentials and i have more freedom to spend the remaining money as i see fit. increased income is really just lower prices plus inflation. what matters is the ratio of cost of living to income.
    - abenga 3y ago
      Lower costs for you are lower income for someone else.
      - 3y ago
somsak2 3y ago
Not really accurate to say that other countries have "fixed" these with laws, many never had them in the first place. Car dependence in particular was never really a problem in Europe since the cities were already there way before cars. Not quite so for the US. I found going to Hiroshima a fascinating example of this. Tokyo and Kyoto are all very walkable and contain few cars. Since Hiroshima was re-built after cars were already a thing (and when Japan was under US occupation), it feels very un-Japanese and more like a big US city.
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y ago
In America, too, a family of four making $30k, is entitled to section 8 housing, food stamps, food banks, almost free health care and education. Their income tax is negative. In a sense, such family is better off than a middle income family. I have a lot of such poor relatives, they don't complain.

kozzz 3y ago

Good luck living in rural Poland (anywhere outside 3 major cities) without a car. Same goes for most European countries

smokel 3y ago

If you'd be slightly more precise in your wording, you'd see that the overloaded use of the word "you" results in some problems here. If by "you", you mean a poor individual living in the United States, then I guess your reasoning is absurd, because one individual cannot change the laws. If by "you", you mean all individuals lumped together as the people making up the United States, then the argument makes slightly more sense, but then still, they can't, because they can't seem to agree on how to divide all wealth properly. So, no, "you" cannot fix this via laws. You can hope for it to be fixed, you can lobby for it to be fixed, you can pray for it, even go to war for it, but I don't think it's as easy as you make it seem. Moving to Europe might be an option, but even that is not an option for most people outside of Europe, mostly thanks to the laws that "we" put in place to stay rich.

Jensson 3y ago
> by "you", you mean a poor individual living in the United States That is a very uncharitable interpretation, not sure why you would read it like that. "You" can refer to governments or countries in general and not just individuals. And that was the entire argument of your post, please don't make strawmans like that.
- smokel 3y ago
  I apologize for the harshness and sarcasm of my previous reply. I should have taken some more time to find a way to explain my personal gripes that were triggered by your remark. Please allow me a second chance: I am often a bit disappointed that in common language, it is very easy to suggest that one can change the world for the better, but in reality it is not an option for nearly everyone. I think that the problem leading to this is that most people believe that a group of people has similar traits as a single individual. A lot of reasoning goes awry by mixing the two. In my personal opinion, the way an individual makes up their mind is completely different from how a group of people makes up their collective minds. The first can be attributed to freedom of choice, agency, gut feeling, rational thought, etc. The latter lives in the realm of sociology, group think, religion, politics, marketing and communication. Another example of where I think this goes wrong is in the idea that we can rescue the climate by starting with ourselves. This is simply not true, unless nearly all people do this. Another one is the idea of contemporary voting in democracies. It simply does not help at all to put out just one vote. Change requires the opinions of many people to align. Sometimes, only sometimes, does a change by one person incur change in others. Most often, if you are not a leading figure, your change does not do anything at all. Ignoring this results in falsehoods and make-belief. I find this counterproductive in discussions. It may well be that I made up the strawmans, but I tend to believe that they're already there. But perhaps, and given your response, this is probably not at all the direction you'd want the discussion to go.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    Yeah, I don't think individuals can fix society by themselves. USA is a special case since the poorer 50% somehow failed to organize politically and form a party to represent them like they did in basically every other democracy. I think they still can organize, but there has to be massive barriers that are hard to overcome or they would already have done so.
    - kubanczyk 3y ago
      Notably, getting out of the bipartisan stalemate is step one. Coming from a country where 3-4 parties make it to the parliament, you probably wouldn't believe how much of the dysfunction originates in a two-party politics. It seems to be fixable with changes to the electoral law.

hermitcrab 3y ago

Could it be that poor Americans think they will be rich at some point - either through hard work, divine providence or the lottery (the American dream)? So they care less about structural change - their poverty is only temporary. But I'm not an American (let alone a poor American) and could be completely wrong.

lapcat 3y ago
No, it's not that. Rather, Americans are committed to the idea of "meritocracy". Meritocracy requires a hierarchy; it requires winners and losers. Meritocracy wouldn't make sense if everyone had the same merit, if everyone was equally worthy. Meritocracy allows people in the middle, people who are average by definition, ordinary, not special, to feel better about themselves by looking down at the poor. "They made poor choices, that's why they're poor. I made better choices." The point of meritocracy is to undermine sympathy and solidarity, to turn everything individualistic. Divide and conquer. The economics of competition, supply, and demand is amoral: it's just a method for determining the prices of products and transactions, without any judgment about whether the outcome is morally good. What we've done is turn our economic system into an ethical system: you are judged worthy, meritorious, based on your economic value. It's almost as if the so-called Invisible Hand of the market is God distributing punishment and reward.
- yterdy 3y ago
  >It's almost as if the so-called Invisible Hand of the market is God distributing punishment and reward. Amusingly, Capitalism as a concept fits the definition of an "Eldritch Abomination."
- dzink 3y ago
  The stratification comes from primate brains, not capitalism. It remains even without capitalism, except no amount of effort gets you out of it in other systems. Growing up in Eastern Europe, you could be extremely hard working and honest and the second you reach even minor success there would be a strong man (mafia muscle or political/government corruption) knocking on your door to trim you down a bit and take your everything if you fight back. If you were born in a village, you were not allowed to move to the city and had your destiny sealed as the farmer to feed the privileged citizens. There is a Bulgarian Book called “To Chicago and Back” where the author travels to America for the world fair. One of the highlights mentions that in the bus or train in America, even low level workers can wear a suit. Unlike the rest of the world, in capitalistic countries your money and effort is just as green, regardless of your parentage, color, proclivities, etc. You can make what you are willing to work for and the rest is a matter of choice. At least you have a choice. The rest of the non-capitalistic world mostly doesn’t.

roenxi 3y ago

I want to chime in, feeding a family of 4 should cost around $20k [0]. The article puts the federal poverty line at $26,200. $6,200 is not going to be a comfortable experience - but there is no fundamental reason it should be impossible, crushing or stressful. And the non-linear effect of dropping price that the article mentions is probably going to be caused by regulatory factors demanding minimum standards. If people directed the effort they put into minimum wages into driving down costs, they'd have a much more meaningful impact on the experience of impoverished people. Increasing incomes is good, but controlling costs is better. [0] https://www.move.org/the-average-cost-of-food-in-the-us/ https://www.move.org/the-average-cost-of-food-in-the-us/

jlkuester7 3y ago
So, I think we can agree that we don't have to just choose one method for improving the lives of low-income people. At the same time, it is true that some ways are more effective at producing results than others. Should we try to raise wages? Yes! Should we try to drive down costs? Yes! That being said, if I had to choose, I think I would prefer to increase my income instead of decreasing the cost of items I had to purchase. (Of course, both would be best!) Lower cost items only benefit me, if I need to purchase them. With an increased income comes an increased set of options for how to deploy that income.
- em-bee 3y ago
  i don't see how that makes much of a difference. if costs are lower my income goes a lot further too, i save money on essentials and i have more freedom to spend the remaining money as i see fit. increased income is really just lower prices plus inflation. what matters is the ratio of cost of living to income.
  - abenga 3y ago
    Lower costs for you are lower income for someone else.
    - 3y ago

somsak2 3y ago

Not really accurate to say that other countries have "fixed" these with laws, many never had them in the first place. Car dependence in particular was never really a problem in Europe since the cities were already there way before cars. Not quite so for the US. I found going to Hiroshima a fascinating example of this. Tokyo and Kyoto are all very walkable and contain few cars. Since Hiroshima was re-built after cars were already a thing (and when Japan was under US occupation), it feels very un-Japanese and more like a big US city.

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y ago

In America, too, a family of four making $30k, is entitled to section 8 housing, food stamps, food banks, almost free health care and education. Their income tax is negative. In a sense, such family is better off than a middle income family. I have a lot of such poor relatives, they don't complain.