But that's how we measure and define poverty. A family of four that earns at least 50% below the median income is in poverty, correct?
Yep. For better or worse.
But when you start comparing it to other countries and, specifically, their own scales of wealth vs our own scale is where it loses context. Worse, is that the comparisons are presented in a way to lead you to believe it's creating context.
Donald Trump is poor compared to Bill Gates.
A kid working a fast food job is poor compared to my family.
Does that put Donald Trump and the kid flipping burgers in the same boat?
Of course not, but that's what these comparisons do.
So roller, what is your solution? Limit number of part-time workers a company can have? Increase the minimum wage? Something else?
There is no simple fix, and the kind of thinking that espouses one does more harm than good. Increasing the minimum wage is the best first start. It helps get people off of welfare. It puts money into the pockets of people who SPEND it. That's the multiplier effect we've discussed several times over the years, and that grows the economy for everyone, not just for a select few. I also have many times stated that having "breakpoints" like a 30-hour or 40-hour workweek where benefits suddenly start costing a lot more money, it incentivizes the John Schnatters and David Siegels to cut the hours of their already-struggling employees. Their shareholders see cost savings, and give the CEO another huge bonus.
When money is "hoarded" for lack of a better term, it leads to economic stagnation and to quote the ski instructor from South Park, "you're gonna have a bad time." Meh, it's all in The Great Gatsby.
Also, our standard shouldn't be pegged to the very lowest standards of living on Earth, but to the highest. Don't *aspire* to have the poorest of the poor, that is lose-lose thinking.
Lord Gonchar said:
To say something is a law and that is that is to not understand the system or it's intended purpose on any level.
I know I've been expressing myself poorly, and too I've probably gotten too wrapped up in my Aspergerian fixation on specific points.
When I say it's the law, that's all I'm saying. I'm not saying it's a good law, a bad law, a worthless law, I'm just saying it is the law. I'm not saying laws shouldn't be repealed, revisited, re-whatevered
"...and that is that..." is not what I believe and not what I was trying to convey.
But then what some would say is their definition of poor would be entirely different than another persons definition of poor.
You have the celebrity who made 3.2 million last year, but he feels he needs to hoard more money because he's at the bottom of the bean pole in the music industry and needs to catch up to beyounce who is worth 300 million. He feels poor compared to her.
My grandmother who lives in her little brick home no bigger then 1000 square feet, who is well raised, eats properly with wholesome foods, doesn't have depressed mood swings every 10 minutes, because of the impurities/toxic substances were all exposed to from what we eat and partake in, is 10 times more happy then the average joe. She gets by on retirement checks and CPP. Is she poor? LOL!
I don't think its a matter of pegging our standards to the lowest of the lowest. Rather its a disagreement as to the best ways to avoid it. I disagree with artificial price controls like the minimum wage. Its counterproductive. And increasing it further in our current labor market doesn't make much sense. As a matter of basic economics, you do not increase the demand for something by raising its price.
To me, the better approach is reducing the number of people with skill sets that only qualify them for low paying jobs. Reduce the number of people who are incapable of making a "living wage" rather than dictating that the minimum is a "living wage." Best first start is to make education more of a priority. But not in the sense of spending more money on it. We already spend a boatload of money on education so with few exceptions, that is not the issue. The issue is making education a priority like we are currently making youth sports. If we put half the time and effort into math and science that we are currently putting into youth sports, we would be a whole lot better at math and science. We would also have a lot fewer people who only qualify for low paying jobs.
Though if I knew a way of changing those priorities, I would quit my day job. Pretty sure that increasing the minimum wage won't do it though.Last edited by GoBucks89, Saturday, September 14, 2013 6:35 PM
I like those thoughts. Now I'm off to watch the Buckeyes, so I guess I'll see you all on page 7.
And Discern, your Grandmother sounds very wealthy to me. Indeed, "poor" has more than a financial definition.
Donald Trump is poor compared to Bill Gates.
No, he's less uber-wealthy. With better hair.
I have time to add that the OECD is extremely well respected in the social sciences as an objective non-politically motivated organization that has at its core the best interest of the human race; not a particular race or a particular people or political affiliation.Last edited by OhioStater, Saturday, September 14, 2013 6:48 PM
No, he's less uber-wealthy. With better hair.
Exactly my point.
And so are the people making less than 50% of the median income of the United States when compared to the rest of the world.
Ensign Smith said:
I'm gonna go out a limb and bet that you weren't as.unhappy about it when five flawed human beings picked our president back in 2000.
I admittedly wasn't, but I'd like to think I've learned a few things in the last 13 years. Certainly wouldn't have been opposed to something like a Congressional override of a controversial Supreme Court decision. Even in 2000...though I'd have still hoped they wouldn't have gotten the votes to override it. Even if Bush didn't turn out to be the president I was hoping he'd be, he was better than the Al-ternative.
I called it in one of the first posts in this thread! It's come down to useless political arguments where no one changes anyone else's minds....
I sure hope Shamu doesn't have his hours cut too.
Useless? I like it. :) And I'm not trying to change anyone's mind...in fact, I like hearing the other perspectives. No one's gotten nasty with one another.
I wonder what percentage of killer whales live in poverty, and how that impacts their access to quality care.
Yeah, I was going to say almost the exact same thing.
I's not about changing minds, it's about understanding different perspectives. It's been fun so far.
If we were judged on how many people "came over to our way of thinking" - then we would be totally failing. If we're judged on how many people came to see that other perspectives and opinions also have validity and merit....then I'd hope we're doing MUCH better...
Plus I love surprising people with the occasional "conservative" perspective...
The uber-rare double post. Because it just came up in my FB feed...
What can you buy, and what can you NOT buy, with a SNAP card...
^That's all well and good that they think they can tell you what you can and can't buy with the card, but it's irrelevant. You can swipe an EBT card through any ATM and get cash. Government's literally handing out preloaded debit cards to people.
^Do you know this from personal experience with the SNAP program?
Just my 2 cents. If this supposed hourly requirement is what the claims are for Obamacare, then companies like Sea World can thank the Obama administration for giving them an excuse (What they will tell their employees) to cut hours. I mean seriously, was this a company the paid it's part time employees health care before? I highly doubt it. And, you can bet that congress had something to do with that hourly requirement to give businesses an automatic out, of not having to pay anything for health insurance for their employees, no matter how many hours they work.
Also that law would be very hard to enforce, and whatever it is, you can bet that employers will walk the wire on getting their employees as close to that health care cut-off they can get. With Unions being squashed left and right by mainly republican governors, who would a worker go to if they were to work over 32 hours a week? It would be impossible to keep track of that.
And, having contacted the labor board and workmen's comp about my former employer crashing every work restriction I had, when I had serious tendonitis, what employee related organization is going to care? It's all about the company now, and as far as the government and labor related orgs. If you don't like your job quit! They could care less.
Even if Bush didn't turn out to be the president I was hoping he'd be, he was better than the Al-ternative.
Do you rent out your alternate timeline machine? I have some important decisions upcoming, and knowing the certain outcome of each possible choice would be pretty helpful.
Nope, I don't own one of those. My instincts are just that powerful.
Feel the Force, Luke. I mean Dj.
You must be logged in to post