5 ms·

>>When you're poor, it's easy to be resentful of those who aren't; it's easy to pass resentment and mistrust on to your children To clarify, there can be legit

by smtddr 12y ago

>>When you're poor, it's easy to be resentful of those who aren't; it's easy to pass resentment and mistrust on to your children To clarify, there can be legit reasons for that resentfulness they hold. I'd argue the current construct of society definitely gives the appearance(or just out-right, _is the fact_) of well-to-do people benefiting from the poor. The War on Drugs is at least one of those systems.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
How does taxing the wealthy to pay for the war on drugs allow the well-to-do to benefit from the poor? This idea makes little sense. It may hurt the rich less, but it hardly benefits them. "For one thing, most of our very poor don't work, which makes it hard to exploit them." - Paul Krugman
- judk 12y ago
  Drug warriors and arms dealers get paid well to put poor drug users in jail or coffins.
- innguest 12y ago
  The private prison complex (the "well-to-do") benefit from jailing the poor who don't work. That's how the ward on drugs allows the well-to-do to benefit from the poor. The poor can still be exploited even if they don't work, as you can see.
- harry8 12y ago
  How do you think the existence of the very poor who don't work affects the poor who do? Useful dimensions to consider are wage expectations, bargaining power with employers, the rational fear of being fired or branded a troublemaker and its consequences and so on... It probably doesn't benefit "the rich" but it sure benefits those specific businesses relying on cheap labour with an interest in driving its cost down. It also benefits those getting very rich indeed from the illegal drug trade, like JFK's Father did when alcohol was an illegal drug (which is what bootlegging is after all, drug running/pushing where the illegal drug was alcohol). Such people care little for the social consequences of gaining their wealth. The illegal drug trade also entrenches corruption in politics and legal system. Such corruption and the acceptance of it does not work in favour of those without resources. Those with resources and flexible morals it does benefit.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    How do you think the existence of the very poor who don't work affects the poor who do? Reduced supply raises prices. If more of the poor were in the labor force, employers would more easily find replacement workers. I suppose you (and the other two commenters) are right that the war on drugs benefits a small number of wealthy people at the expense of the rest of them. But overall it's a negative sum game - bad for the rich and poor alike.
    - harry8 12y ago
      The unemployment of the unskilled (&/or semi-skilled) is a clear sign of the oversupply of unskilled (&/or semi-skilled) labour at the going price and this pushes the price down. If you have few skills and are poor how do you "get into the labor force?" Drop your price directly to below the minimum wage as is so very common? (Think of the illegal immigrant stereotypes here.) Gain less by spending more on search, more on travel to more remote work or give part of your wage to an employment gatekeeper or something else that competes your economic gain downward? The person who is in the labor force with similar skills - it sure doesn't boost their bargaining power. With respect, I'm sure you have that price pressure exactly backwards. The war on drugs is an absolutely unmitigated disaster on a global scale from start to finish. The sooner it is ended the better. Those with vested interests in the current normal practice of the political system will perceive any change to how things are done in Washington or wherever as a threat. Scare campaigns seem to get you elected, opposing them seems to ensure you won't get elected. Running on a "stop this utter insanity making us weak and vulnerable" campaign of ending the war on drugs will likely get an almighty scare campaign run against them (think of the children!) Many vested interests eg lobbyists will support that campaign to keep the political status quo as stable as possible. (Some individuals will always do what they actually think is right, even when it is against their interests). I hope to see that scare campaign fail one day. Maybe some cracks are showing? Past a certain level of wealth more money has no meaning at all, Soros, Koch, Gates, Buffet and a large number more people have more money than they can ever spend. More power and influence does have meaning to them, be it altruistic or ego driven or whatever.
      - 12y ago
- MoonHarvest 12y ago
  What about incredibly rich socialites who don't work and yet thrive off of their parents' money? What about people in upper-middle-class office jobs who spend the vast majority of every day in their office browsing Reddit? What about people who do work, but who go into their workplace with a terrible attitude and end up failing to provide the service customers pay for? These are three types of people that you can also observe, if you look hard enough, and they are not always destitute. They also (arguably) don't work - just having a job or money in the bank doesn't mean you contribute your fair share to society. Granted these observations alone, which are just as hard to quantify as the Krugman quote above, it's hard to say that the war on drugs (or the war to put poor people into prison, whichever name you prefer) does not exploit lower-class people. If there are always people who don't work as much as others would like them to, there's nothing theoretically different about people born into different social strata. So, the Krugman quote above is almost reprehensible, and I also don't believe it's backed by data. For instance, a full-time federal minimum wage worker makes $15,080 a year. This is enough to live above the poverty line if you only support yourself, but not even close to enough to support a spouse and even one child (http://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-are-annual-earnings-full-time-minimum-wage-worker http://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-are-annual-earnings-full...). How can you possibly say that people who try and support their families on a minimum wage salary are mostly lazy bums who don't work? I would like to see how Krugman backs up his argument. Data is always welcome.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    How can you possibly say that people who try and support their families on a minimum wage salary are mostly lazy bums who don't work? That would indeed be a silly thing to say. Data is always welcome. Work habits: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2012.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2012.pdf Disposable income: http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/taxes-and-cliffs.html http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/taxes-and-cliffs... Consumption: http://www.bls.gov/cex/22013/midyear/income.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cex/22013/midyear/income.pdf
aptwebapps 12y ago
The legitimacy of the complaint isn't as pertinent as the effect of living with resentment.

by smtddr 12y ago

yummyfajitas 12y ago

How does taxing the wealthy to pay for the war on drugs allow the well-to-do to benefit from the poor? This idea makes little sense. It may hurt the rich less, but it hardly benefits them. "For one thing, most of our very poor don't work, which makes it hard to exploit them." - Paul Krugman

judk 12y ago
Drug warriors and arms dealers get paid well to put poor drug users in jail or coffins.
innguest 12y ago
The private prison complex (the "well-to-do") benefit from jailing the poor who don't work. That's how the ward on drugs allows the well-to-do to benefit from the poor. The poor can still be exploited even if they don't work, as you can see.
harry8 12y ago
How do you think the existence of the very poor who don't work affects the poor who do? Useful dimensions to consider are wage expectations, bargaining power with employers, the rational fear of being fired or branded a troublemaker and its consequences and so on... It probably doesn't benefit "the rich" but it sure benefits those specific businesses relying on cheap labour with an interest in driving its cost down. It also benefits those getting very rich indeed from the illegal drug trade, like JFK's Father did when alcohol was an illegal drug (which is what bootlegging is after all, drug running/pushing where the illegal drug was alcohol). Such people care little for the social consequences of gaining their wealth. The illegal drug trade also entrenches corruption in politics and legal system. Such corruption and the acceptance of it does not work in favour of those without resources. Those with resources and flexible morals it does benefit.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  How do you think the existence of the very poor who don't work affects the poor who do? Reduced supply raises prices. If more of the poor were in the labor force, employers would more easily find replacement workers. I suppose you (and the other two commenters) are right that the war on drugs benefits a small number of wealthy people at the expense of the rest of them. But overall it's a negative sum game - bad for the rich and poor alike.
  - harry8 12y ago
    The unemployment of the unskilled (&/or semi-skilled) is a clear sign of the oversupply of unskilled (&/or semi-skilled) labour at the going price and this pushes the price down. If you have few skills and are poor how do you "get into the labor force?" Drop your price directly to below the minimum wage as is so very common? (Think of the illegal immigrant stereotypes here.) Gain less by spending more on search, more on travel to more remote work or give part of your wage to an employment gatekeeper or something else that competes your economic gain downward? The person who is in the labor force with similar skills - it sure doesn't boost their bargaining power. With respect, I'm sure you have that price pressure exactly backwards. The war on drugs is an absolutely unmitigated disaster on a global scale from start to finish. The sooner it is ended the better. Those with vested interests in the current normal practice of the political system will perceive any change to how things are done in Washington or wherever as a threat. Scare campaigns seem to get you elected, opposing them seems to ensure you won't get elected. Running on a "stop this utter insanity making us weak and vulnerable" campaign of ending the war on drugs will likely get an almighty scare campaign run against them (think of the children!) Many vested interests eg lobbyists will support that campaign to keep the political status quo as stable as possible. (Some individuals will always do what they actually think is right, even when it is against their interests). I hope to see that scare campaign fail one day. Maybe some cracks are showing? Past a certain level of wealth more money has no meaning at all, Soros, Koch, Gates, Buffet and a large number more people have more money than they can ever spend. More power and influence does have meaning to them, be it altruistic or ego driven or whatever.
    - 12y ago
MoonHarvest 12y ago
What about incredibly rich socialites who don't work and yet thrive off of their parents' money? What about people in upper-middle-class office jobs who spend the vast majority of every day in their office browsing Reddit? What about people who do work, but who go into their workplace with a terrible attitude and end up failing to provide the service customers pay for? These are three types of people that you can also observe, if you look hard enough, and they are not always destitute. They also (arguably) don't work - just having a job or money in the bank doesn't mean you contribute your fair share to society. Granted these observations alone, which are just as hard to quantify as the Krugman quote above, it's hard to say that the war on drugs (or the war to put poor people into prison, whichever name you prefer) does not exploit lower-class people. If there are always people who don't work as much as others would like them to, there's nothing theoretically different about people born into different social strata. So, the Krugman quote above is almost reprehensible, and I also don't believe it's backed by data. For instance, a full-time federal minimum wage worker makes $15,080 a year. This is enough to live above the poverty line if you only support yourself, but not even close to enough to support a spouse and even one child (http://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-are-annual-earnings-full-time-minimum-wage-worker http://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-are-annual-earnings-full...). How can you possibly say that people who try and support their families on a minimum wage salary are mostly lazy bums who don't work? I would like to see how Krugman backs up his argument. Data is always welcome.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  How can you possibly say that people who try and support their families on a minimum wage salary are mostly lazy bums who don't work? That would indeed be a silly thing to say. Data is always welcome. Work habits: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2012.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2012.pdf Disposable income: http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/taxes-and-cliffs.html http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/taxes-and-cliffs... Consumption: http://www.bls.gov/cex/22013/midyear/income.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cex/22013/midyear/income.pdf

aptwebapps 12y ago

The legitimacy of the complaint isn't as pertinent as the effect of living with resentment.