4 ms·

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 wi

by 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.
  - yummyfajitas 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...how do you "get into the labor force?" The labor force is people who are working or seeking work (the BLS can give you a precise definition). Most of the poor do not fall into this category (see another reply of mine in this thread for data). Everything you describe is what would happen if the poor were willing to compete on price for work. The fact that they are not doing so is what pushes wages up.
    - harry8 12y ago
      Are you really suggesting nobody who is poor is looking for work? That nobody who has been so unsuccessful that they have stopped looking won't take it given the opportunity eg employment growth. Ok then, nothing more to discuss.

by harry8 12y ago

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.
- yummyfajitas 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...how do you "get into the labor force?" The labor force is people who are working or seeking work (the BLS can give you a precise definition). Most of the poor do not fall into this category (see another reply of mine in this thread for data). Everything you describe is what would happen if the poor were willing to compete on price for work. The fact that they are not doing so is what pushes wages up.
  - harry8 12y ago
    Are you really suggesting nobody who is poor is looking for work? That nobody who has been so unsuccessful that they have stopped looking won't take it given the opportunity eg employment growth. Ok then, nothing more to discuss.