6 ms·
Companies which purvey deadly substances like tobacco or hard liquor are listed on stock exchanges and contribute to federal political campaigns. He, with a ju
by CleanedStar 14y ago
Companies which purvey deadly substances like tobacco or hard liquor are listed on stock exchanges and contribute to federal political campaigns. He, with a junky educational system and disappearing blue collar jobs sells marijuana or cocaine and becomes an evil "drug dealer". It's also rather interesting how cocaine and heroin got into the hands of domestic drug distributors like Ricky Ross - something covered by the press from time to time, but not dwelled on.
Was there a poverty trap in feudal Europe, or these American lands before the Americans? There's a poverty trap because the economic system needs a poverty trap to function. It is not due to neglect, but due to a massive amount of attention that poverty exists in the U.S. - it takes a lot of work and effort to keep people poor, in a country where GDP and productivity have been rising for a long time.
What would the reason for U.S. poverty? Well it could be the legacy of the New Deal and progressivism, although that would not explain massive poverty in slums and rural areas at the end of the 19th century in the U.S. It could be due to a liberal idea of a lack of caring - although the New Deal, the Great Society and so forth brought a lot of focus on these things.
Or poverty can exist because it is a necessity, a cornerstone of the economic system. The reserve army of labor ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour ) and all of that.
- ctdonath 14y agoWhat would [be] the reason for U.S. poverty? Lets start with discussing the US legal definition of "poverty", which puts the line at some 20x world median income.
- gamechangr 14y agoExcellent comment...thought the same thing!
- cma 14y agoAt least mention that purchasing power parity makes this less extreme than it sounds.
- nandemo 14y agoWhile purchasing power parity is certainly relevant, being poor in the US (by the official US definition) is still better than being poor almost anywhere else. This paper goes so far as to argue that, in many ways, the average poor American lives at the same level or better (materially speaking) than an European middle class person: http://www.timbro.se/bokhandel/pdf/9175665646.pdf http://www.timbro.se/bokhandel/pdf/9175665646.pdf Also, note that the official definition's minimum yearly income doesn't include welfare benefits.
- edderly 14y agoThe paper you cite really only talks in terms of access to/possession of goods. So yes, in the US you may be more likely to possess a car than someone in Bhutan. But whether that is better is debatable. By comparison it's interesting to look at 'happiness', obviously that has it's own problems in terms of quantifiability. However, at least it involves asking the poor how well off they are. http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic457678.files//HappinessInequality.pdf http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic457678.files//Hap... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness
- ry0ohki 14y agoYou can talk about happiness, but even the poorest people in the US still have access to basic sanitation and clean drinking water, and (usually) a roof over their head which is not something you can say for many poor people of the world.
- edderly 14y agoAnd as long as the poorest in the US are richer than someone in the world that is somehow satisfactory? I'm fairly content to talk about happiness, it's fairly fundamental. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_o...
- kamaal 14y agoFact: The poor in US would actually be amazingly rich in a country like mine(India). Add to this you also get something called social security. Where exactly are the poor in the US?
- tsotha 14y agoIt's more a poverty of spirit than anything else. They have material goods.