Interesting report on the poor

[roadtripper]

If only it were that simple.


Wow, I cannot believe this level of broadstroke generalization and judgmental rhetoric!

Sadly, I can----
We live in a nation where the government pitches that "personal responsibility" rhetoric in order to blame the poor for their situation. The result is, the red staters get to blame the poor for being poor, and somehow manage to claim the moral high ground. What's wrong with this picture?

 

[MyGoofy26]

Sadly, I can----
We live in a nation where the government pitches that "personal responsibility" rhetoric in order to blame the poor for their situation. The result is, the red staters get to blame the poor for being poor, and somehow manage to claim the moral high ground. What's wrong with this picture?

Exactly. In this country, being poor is a sin in itself. Kind of an odd place to find an example, but one day I got sucked into one of those VH1 shows where they did an hour about the show Cops. One of the producers (I think, someone closely related to the show) was talking about how people ask him why it's always poor people on the show and he pretty much said that because white collar crime isn't as dramatic. Police will wrestle a guy to the ground that just stole a $4 pack of cigarettes, but will show "respect" to the CEO of a major corporation that stole millions of dollars by quietly arresting him in private.

 

[bicker]

Personal responsibilty isn't "rhetoric" -- it is a reasonable expectation for all mature adults. Abusing it, as perhaps the "red staters" do as roadtripper alleges, doesn't obviate the fact that people do need to take responsibility for their own actions and circumstances. Let's not confuse the reasonable with the arguable.

 

[crisi]

Sorry but that is just incorrect about transfer of wealth. We pay A LOT of taxes-- A LOT. How much do the poor pay-- none. In fact many take money from the state. Our family donates a lot of money to charity-- how much do poor donate? None because they have no money to donate. To say that the more wealthy are not willing to give is soooo wrong. Look at the wealthiest people in the US-- Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Huge donators. I disagree that people don't care. People do care and people DO donate not just money but time to help. The poor also have to be willing to help themselves which they often aren't willing to do. They have children without being fincancially able to take care of them for example. Their parents often don't encourage children to do well in school which would help the next generation of poor. They pay high interest because they are a HIGH RISK.

I have the good fortune to be in the highest income tax bracket. Last year our household taxes were higher than the median household income in this country.

We pay LESS as a percentage of income in taxes now than we did when I made poverty wages. We now stop paying social security tax in the fall. We pay a good portion of our taxes in capital gains - at 15%. Since we don't live in the "house that goes with our income" our property taxes are much smaller than when we made less money, but had more of our money tied up in our house. Because more of our income is saved, much less goes to paying sales taxes. Because much of our income is sheltered - the government doesn't see it at all. And then there is the quantity of "stuff" that comes into our life now as "perks" - when I made $5 an hour the department had potluck lunches - now I go to lunch at high end steak houses with vendors. My coworkers used to go for happy hour (I never did, too broke). Now - last time I was drinking with coworkers, Microsoft was picking up the tab.

We are fortunate enough to go to chartity balls, and you know what - few of those "rich people" going to those things bought their own ticket. They are there as guests of corporations who are getting tax breaks. "Who's guest are you" is a common enough question.

But I do know poor people who tithe - and tithe more of their income as a percentage than some of the rich people I know. And I know poor people who donate their time and energy to making their communities better places.

 

[roadtripper]

Personal responsibilty isn't "rhetoric" -- it is a reasonable expectation for all mature adults.

I agree, bicker-- but when the ones demanding personal responsibility are running up deficits, sending Americans to their deaths in a war that they lied in order to begin, giving contracts to their buddies who build tunnels that crash on people's heads and who gouge the American taxpayer for oil costs during the Iraqi reconstruction, it's rhetoric-- they only want the poor to be responsible.

 

[cdrn1]

I would also recommend "Nickel and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich, a fascinating account of one woman's attempt to live off of minimum wage in three different cities.

I read this book last week. Quite enlightening. I saw quite a few similarities in her contacts and some of the nonskilled workers that work in our facility. It's shameful that people work so hard day after day and are paid far less than a living wage.
I agree with MrsPete, the book didn't ring true on many levels. Barbara was just play-acting at being poor and knew that she would get her upper-middle class life back when the experiment was finished. I chose to concentrate more on the characters that she interacted with on a day-to-day basis and that is where I think the truth in the book lies.

 

[nightowlky]

There's a lot of truth in this. It's easier for a middle-class person to be frugal and "stay ahead" of the game: Because I have a car, I can drive to the salvage store and buy food very cheaply. Because I have a freezer, I can stock up on bargain-priced chicken. Because I have good credit, I can buy a car for the lowest possible price. Because I can afford preventative medical care, I am less likely to end up in the emergency room for a minor problem like strep throat. The list could go on.

A person who's born into poverty CAN fight his way up out of a bad situation, but it's going to take more effort for him to become middle class than it'll take for his born-middle-class cohorts to stay at that level.

I think the biggest problem, however, isn't the increased cost of many of these individual things; it's the lack of awareness among the poor that it's both their choices and their circumstances that are keeping them in a bad situation. I don't think the situation is so bad that it's impossible to escape it.

We've become Brazil.

 

[4formickey]

I'm having for this one. This thread should get more hit than giving up your seat on the bus thread

 

[meloneyb21]

 

[Reflection]

Why must there be a reason or explanation for unfairness, for inequity? Cannot it simply be that inequity is inevitable? or a natural part of an imperfect world?

Or a part of a free market economy, where human-made rules, personal initiative, and numerous other factors play a part?

 

[va32h]

I found this book interesting but unrealistic. Her experiement was set up in such a way that her circumstances didn't really emulate the lives of the poor. Consider:

I don't disagree with you on that point - she did not spend enough time on her subject, but she is not an immersion journalist a la say a Morgan Spurlock.

However, her accounts of the people she met and their circumstances, living in their cars, living two or three to an efficiency, multiple jobs, hiding injuries and illnesses from employers because they cannot afford not to work, not having adequate food for lunches, etc. were just as illuminating as her personal experiences.

What I especially remembered from the book was Ehrenreich's (and her friends') surprise that no one "found her out." Her upper middle class income and education (i.e. her presumed higher class) was not readily apparent. Our class pretenses are irrelevent; we are what we do - a middle class educated woman who is waiting tables is treated like a waitress; if she's cleaning a house she's treated like a maid.

 

[barkley]

i read this book as well-i found it interesting that it came out as the 'welfare to work' program was being initiated and the public was being told that it would cut welfare rolls and save taxpayers sooooooooooooo much money. it did cut the rolls-because time limits were put on how long an adult could receive public assistance. when their time limits came up, barring a court injunction against a particular county or state-adult's were removed from the public assistance grant (however their food stamp benefits increased) while their children remained aided. "welfare dollars' spent by the government decreased drasticly-what the analysts don't disclose in their p.r. is that while a person may have received (for a family of 2) $490 per month before-when they went on welfare to work and got that part time job, we were issuing as much as $1000 per month in child care, $500 in gas, transportation and clothing 'appropriate for work'-as well as buying cars or paying for traffic tickets so that people could get their driver's lic. back and secure insurance (again something we might pay). the dollar spending despite 'lowered numbers of people on assistance' was massivly higher-it just became 'supportive services' vs. 'public assistance'. so while i found the book interesting i did'nt think it reflected what an individual who was on public assistance realy experienced by virtue of being required to take 'any minimum wage job'.

yes there are 'professional' welfare clients-most often it's a generational thing and there is truly a mindset that it is the only way to get by (and despite the schools and the churches and mentors telling them differently, a child whose been raised in a home as well as a community that tells him/her it's their only option-it makes for a very difficult time convincing them otherwise) . but the vast majority of people i encountered were the same as those you'de read posts on this board by-men and women who had been working all their lives until some event outside their control sent their lives into a tailspin. divorce, disability, loss of job-many went through every resource they owned but between the mortgage payment and credit card debt, medical bills and just keeping the kids clothed and fed-if they were very lucky they maybe made it 3 months before they were making an application (i get a kick out of financial advisors who say to have 3 or 6 months of salary set aside for a 'rainy day'-depending on what tragedy happens 3 or 6 months may be just the begining of a long stretch of time when a person is recovering from a major illness or injury-and generaly that great paying job they lost due to cut-backs was great paying because they had been there for long enough to get to that point-and they may be starting at step one in the new job-IF they can find one).

 

[bsmcneil]

Sorry but that is just incorrect about transfer of wealth. We pay A LOT of taxes-- A LOT. How much do the poor pay-- none. In fact many take money from the state. Our family donates a lot of money to charity-- how much do poor donate? None because they have no money to donate. To say that the more wealthy are not willing to give is soooo wrong. Look at the wealthiest people in the US-- Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Huge donators. I disagree that people don't care. People do care and people DO donate not just money but time to help. The poor also have to be willing to help themselves which they often aren't willing to do. They have children without being fincancially able to take care of them for example. Their parents often don't encourage children to do well in school which would help the next generation of poor. They pay high interest because they are a HIGH RISK.

Actually the poor DO pay taxes, but no one expects you to own up to that. Also, ALL people receive countless benefits from the government. Know what pisses me off? People who like to say that poor people are the only ones on welfare. Mega-corporations, which employee a vast amount of people, get tax breaks - a form of welfare. Hospitals, schools/universities, retailers, etc etc etc all receive some form of welfare. Small businesses can as well. Anyone who complains about the poor receiving too many benefits hasn't thought this through enough.

 

[crisi]

Actually the poor DO pay taxes, but no one expects you to own up to that. Also, ALL people receive countless benefits from the government. Know what pisses me off? People who like to say that poor people are the only ones on welfare. Mega-corporations, which employee a vast amount of people, get tax breaks - a form of welfare. Hospitals, schools/universities, retailers, etc etc etc all receive some form of welfare. Small businesses can as well. Anyone who complains about the poor receiving too many benefits hasn't thought this through enough.

There is an economic theory that the wealthy get far more out of the government than they put in.

Take Bill Gates. Gates could not have made Microsoft into the juggernaut that it is now without:

Employees who benefitted from the U.S.'s relatively good public school systems.

Roads that were used to distribute his products

The internet, originally funded by the Department of Defense. Still subsidized by taxes (school access).

The entire microcomputer industry - a direct result of the funding of NASA by the U.S. government.

And the list goes on - from the politically stable climate that allows entrupenunial behavior to a system that enables and enforces patents, the rich - even when we aren't talking "corporate welfare" - manage to pull a lot out of our system.

And poor people pay social security taxes and sales taxes. Both are regressive taxes - more burdensome on people at lower incomes than people at higher incomes. Many states have their property taxes skewed against the poor - often the property tax rates are higher on rental properties - which gets passed down to the tenants - where many states allow homeowners to homestead for a break.

 

[crisi]

By the way, before I sound like some raving socialist....I think that Microsoft has put back far more in terms of contributing to productivity gains, employment, spending and innovation than it has taken out. But there are plenty of companies that take advantage of the same resources that don't become Microsoft. Some which last only long enough for the founder to get rich off venture capital or IPO money before folding. In the end, I believe that this is a better than zero sum game, but that there are corporations who end up on both sides of the zero.

 

[punkin]

In the end, I believe that this is a better than zero sum game, but that there are corporations who end up on both sides of the zero.

It is obviously better than zero-sum since our economy keeps growing and expanding.

 

[crisi]

It is obviously better than zero-sum since our economy keeps growing and expanding.

Don't confuse correlation with causation. Our economy could be growing and expanding for many different reasons, and it could grow and expand without some of what we provide for the wealthy - it could stagnant or reverse without some of what we provide for the poor. Some would argue that with LESS regulation and taxes providing LESS infrastructure, we'd have MORE innovation and growth. Others would argue that more investment in infrastructure will provide more growth. The reality is that the right investments need to be made for long term growth, but no one really knows what that is. If you figure it out, there is a Nobel Prize in Economics waiting for you.

For instance, the economy of Colorado and California grew by leaps and bounds with minimal infrastructure during the Silver and Gold rushes respectively. But the still very regulated economy of China has been outpacing our productivity gains for a decade or better.

 

[golden1]

I really hate it when people make generalizations about the poor and their circumstances. How do you know that tomorrow you won't lose your job or have a catastrophic health crisis in your family? Sometimes, yes, poor choices make people poor and sometimes you can just run into bad luck. Judge people on an individual basis, but don't lump the poor into one big block.

 

[nightowlky]

It is obviously better than zero-sum since our economy keeps growing and expanding.

If only our economy *was* growing. Well, it is growing but in a very unhealthy way. It's being done via deficit spending:

GDP Growth With and Without MEW (Mortgage Equity Withdrawal)

What's that mean? Well, the housing slowdown will slow the economy directly. We're already seeing inflation rise as the housing market cools because rents are going up and the way the CPI is now manipulated...er...calculated hinges a fair amount on that.


Couple that with a negative savings rate that rivals that of the time of the Great Depression and job growth that has barely kept pace with population/labor force growth (and has been skewed heavily to the public sector instead of the needed private sector)
and it's easy to see that we are masking deep economic problems with debt and happy talk from the Fed to keep the markets propped up.

We are all a pink slip away from relying upon the state for survival. I've been there for several months before and it's not fun when you can't find a job for months on end.

 

[mshrm]

What an interesting thread. Normally I would avoid reading this type of topic. There are some people here with a huge sense of entitlement and little compassion. Always interesting to see the sides of different DIS fans.