Minor quibble - it's socialism, not communism. They are related but not the same thing.
Yes, this would surely cut the "poverty rate" in half for about, let's see, one month! Then we would go right back to the same rate because we have done NOTHING to change the structural issues of poorly designed welfare systems, poorly designed poverty assistance systems (which tend to capture and keep people in poverty for generations). Since LBJ's "war on poverty" the poverty rate per-capita has been basically flat (all things considered) and we've spent 11 trillion dollars on them. This article is short sighted to say the least!
No, it won't simply go back to the same rate. $3k for example could be used by people to start an online business or a small local business(like a food cart) for example. At the very least for many it will help their children eat, with the extra $250/mo. Did things just go back to how they where after welfare or social security were implemented? They did not, and this would be similar. Considering the increasing population, the decreasing real wages, the increasing amount of outsourced jobs, the increasing amount of part time and temp jobs over full time jobs, the increasing taxes on everything, poverty should be going up. Wages are going down and down and down: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/31/w.../
This is GOP propaganda. Many many people have ideas for businesses, they do not have the confidence, security, or know how about how to start one. Would you start a business if it meant failing would put you on the street? I didn't for this very fear. To say they'd just spend it is wrong and misguided. At best, you can say they're not aware of the manipulation in the media that incites them to buy shit they don't need. However this is not everyone, there are many, many, many hardworking poor families that do not waste money.
Agreed, this is one of those "give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach him to fish he eats for life" examples. If everyone in the US was given $2920 as suggested (costing $900 billion), it would indisputably cut the poverty rate in half by definition. Among those under the poverty line...the dumb ones would buy flat screen tv's, the smart ones would milk the money for all that its worth, but in the end of the day everything would return to normal. It's like having a group of people dying from dehydration on an island, deciding to ship them each a one gallon water jug, and then leaving with a smile and thinking "problem solved!"
Yes, some people would be stupid and waste the $3k on stuff they don't need because of the incredible amount of consumerism ideology pushed on people. Is it their fault they want things when everywhere they look tells them to want things? It is a gross overgeneralization to say that most would do this with the majority of their money. Most would spend the money on what they need, food, clothing, housing, etc. just like they do currently with welfare. Most poor people work very hard. Have you ever noticed how the most back breaking jobs, stressful, and stringent jobs are the least paying? Construction, cooks, janitors, call centers, farm workers, landscapers, etc. The more money I made, the less I had to work. It would help greatly if jobs paid a decent amount. More than 50% of the nation makes less than $30k a year. $3k for them is a 10% increase, it makes a huge difference. 40% of the nation makes less than $20k a year, making it a 15% increase for them. http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2012 To say it won't make a difference and things will be as they were is naive and simply wrong.
As you state, those "menial" jobs definitely pay less, but so is the skill level. So, we should pay them just because they don't make as much as a neurologist (who invested hundreds of thousands of dollars, time and resources to gain the skills) and if we don't, it makes it wrong? Never in history have less skilled workers made the same amount as higher skilled workers (except in failed Communist regimes where they still didn't make as much and the ruling class made a bundle!) So, would you have a "fruit picker" (which I did in my youth) be paid as much as the neurologist? The facts quoted by the lead document and the SSA are "red herrings" and avoid the larger question about labor force supply, personal motive, drive, and the like. Dr. Benjamin Carson came from extreme poverty as did Dolly Parton, and they are quite successful. So we should "punish" them by taking what they have earned and just give it people. Why don't they follow these two people's example and start learning new skills - and they CAN do it in this society (there are thousands and thousands of examples). How about the Vietnamese Boat people from the 70's? They came here not speaking English, with little money (if any), and made something of their lives (and there are thousands of examples like this). It is the "opportunity to succeed" that government should protect, not the equality of outcomes (which it will NEVER successfully do). Even Jesus (like I have heard many give ascent to) who encouraged sharing your goods with the poor, NEVER supported or encouraged that "sharing" to be done at the "tip of the Roman spear" so to speak. He NEVER advocated "government" forcing the people with means to share with those who have less means! If we have too many "selfish or self-centered" people in this land, that topic is a moral/ethical/religious issue not a public policy issue. Maybe we SHOULD go back towards the early days of our Nation when Alexis de Tocqueville made the observation: “America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” (Maybe we should go back to having students read that one in Civics class instead of some of the crap they are forced to read in schools now). Here are just a couple more quotes from Alexis: "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money" (like a lot of what is happening in today's USA) "Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." "Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith."
No the fruit picker should not make as much as a neurologist, nor did I imply they should. I'm no supporter of communism by any means, it's far worse than democracy as it leads to corruption even quicker. I like how some Scandanavian countries have done it. There is a maximum amount the highest paid employee can make in relation to the lowest paid employee. It helps with inequality greatly. Citing two people that became rich is pointless, you're ignoring the vast majority of people that do not have income mobility or fail as entertainers to ever make anything significant. It is not a punishment to redistribute wealth to the needy. It's benefits those with money and it is a necessity. Less people in poverty helps everyone, including the rich. Do you like dealing with homeless and the hungry? Not to mention, if you don't eat enough, you can't function well, and can't expect to perform well in a job. It helps everyone to help those in poverty. Consider too how many children do not eat enough, affecting their growth and therefore their ability to contribute as much to society in the future. I very much agree that we should protect the 'opportunity to succeed'. And we have failed to that immensely. There are huge barriers to entry, huge inequalities in people that were not born with a lot of money vs someone that did in starting a business, getting a degree, making decent money. We do not have a fair market, we have a market that promotes corporate oligarchies and makes it harder and harder for local businesses to survive. Think about the cost of marketing for example, no business does very well without strong marketing and marketing prices for TV are priced for corps making millions upon millions, not the typical family run business. We do not protect the opportunity for people to succeed, simply being in the USA does not mean you have the same opportunity as it is greatly tied to your family wealth and also where you live. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, my parents give me a good example of it happening, but my parents are in the top 5% of the nation and that is appalling because they are by no means rich. Ethical issues are public policy issues. If you look at almost all of our public policies, it has to follow some code of ethics. It's inescapable because of the nature of dictating what the society ought to do. For a society to thrive, we cannot be selfish for only ourselves. We must be selfish for our society also. We all need each other, we all affect each other, and we all need the same things. Some interesting quotes, but not really accurate. We have a socialist democracy of sorts now, we need to iron it out further. Our democracy has made us all debt slaves, we are all in servitude now. Faith is the death of morality...you no longer do things for your fellow man, you do it for god which completely defeats the purpose of morality. Our single biggest issue above all of this is our money system, it is broken and makes us poorer and poorer...no one but the top 1% can escape this. With loans being made out of thin air and interest payments demanded that do not yet exist...it's absurd. Everyday the value of our money is going down and our entire economy operates under the assumption of infinite growth in a finite world. It's only time before we have to change our idea of economics.
The two people I cited came from "dirt poor" backgrounds, and it is NOT pointless! If they can succeed, one black and one white, then the opportunity exists for any others to succeed! One became a world renowned surgeon, and the other, while an entertainer, started “Dollywood” and its associated enterprises to bring economic growth into the Appalachian area (read her story!).I don't agree that we have failed miserably. The US, and other market based systems, have created more income and better living conditions for billions around the world; more than any other economic system. We could look at any measure to show this is true historically and otherwise. The only person who would not like our system is Karl Marx - and his diatribes and economic systems have failed miserably. The only "communist/socialist" type systems that still exist have had to adopt some type of market based system to survive. Everyone points to the Nordic countries as the pinnacle of success, but if they did not export and trade with market based systems, they would be on their "economic butts"! As to the poor, what has failed most miserably is our government hatched, government run welfare systems which are poorly designed and keep millions entrapped in poverty because they are not built to help people "up" so to speak. It is better to leave the money in the hands of private charitable people and entities because more of the dollars go to the needy and not government "bureaucrats" who suck the vibrancy out of the "private" economy like leeches. That is not to say all government programs are a failure, but it does tend to take resources from the private sector that could be better used to create jobs and feed more people! As to taxes, they are necessary to run the country in the manner that the Constitution recommends; however, we have moved far from those guidelines and we are reaping the downside of those moves. I would say we are experiencing the "negative consequences of well intentioned, but misguided compassion". If you want to look at the "spiritual" side of it, even Jesus said, "The poor you will have with you always". That is because no "government" can make up the difference in motivation, the inclination to take risk, and other factors that differentiate individuals in the world. How can a Vietnamese "boat person" come here with next to nothing, learn the language, get educated, and succeed in businesses? They were MOTIVATED to do so, and they did not expect the "government" to support them for life.
As Thomas Jefferson pointed out: To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.
Yes some can succeed quite well, but that is not the norm by any means. Which is why I said citing two people alone is pointless. The norm and reality are the opposite, there's a low chance of income mobility for over 50% of people. It makes sense too, the way most people enter the top 5% is by investing and making money off of money. Those that don't make much money, don't have money to invest. Our income system makes the wealthy wealthier and the poor poorer, not only in the basic interest based structure, but in our policies (especially tax) too. Don't misunderstand me, anyone living in the USA is better off than most people in the world. But look at what has been done to the world, especially poorer less developed countries. We thrive off of their poverty and taking of their resources. How much of what we use is made by people being paid slave wages across asia? Electronics, clothing, furniture, etc. So sure, we do okay...but we rape the world to do okay. The number of countries we have actively fucked over is astounding. Our welfare system is not good, but it is certainly better than nothing. It actually does help people stay out of poverty and move up, however, finding something to move up to is very difficult for many. Our economy is mostly a service economy, which does not pay very well. Do you honestly expect those at or near the poverty line to have the time or money to get a higher education? For so many, especially those with children, it's nearly impossible. Not to mention so many graduates are underemployed today and have massive amounts of debt which the federal gov profits off of too! We do need taxes to run the government, but the constitution does not allow for unapportioned taxes and only allowed direct taxes. No % based tax bullshit that we deal with today. We know how much it costs to run the government, we should be paying a flat amount, not a % based amount. It was not until the Federal Reserve and IRS were created that we passed the 16th amendment along with them. The entire system is designed to make us poorer from the beginning, taxing the poor and middle class much more than the rich, the government paying interest to the federal reserve for every dollar that's created. The dollar today is worth 96% less than it was 100 years ago. Our economy is racing straight towards the edge of a cliff, and nothing short of ending the federal reserve will save it. I by far don't expect the government to take care of us. However, if the government CREATES poverty, then it should take care of those in poverty. We create, mandate, require, fundamentally must have, poverty because of the Federal Reserve System and always having less money available to people than what is owed. lol Jesus. Okay, Jesus would ask why someone's right to food and shelter necessitates their working for it? Why is it okay to exploit people and the earth for financial gain, the way many corporations do today and the majority of people support? He would tell you to give the needy what they need if you can do without it.
I had to stop reading once I saw in the solution that step one was to tax the rich. I mean, awesome idea, but You'll never get the majority of those people to agree with it, and they've got their hands in so many pockets of so many politicians that any bill including it would never get onto the floor, let alone see debate. It's a great thought experiment, and as a Canadian (currently going to school in OH), i think it could work, too. Unfortunately, with the US political system, mainstream media, and public opinion the way it is right now, I just can't see it getting off the ground.
touché, but you do have to figure out how to overcome that obstacle. . Believe me, I'm not happy that the system in the US is the way it is. As an outsider, the amount of backlash to the ACA (even with the understandingf that it's a flawed piece of legislation) is nonsensical. It foreshadows the kind of reaction that a proposal like this would have in the current political climate, however.
Who do you consider "the rich" with that blanket comment coffeesp00ns? Who is the rich? Do all the "rich" have their hands in the pockets of politicians? You would surely have to include all political parties as the Democrat party now has more "rich" than the Republican Party! If you take all the "rich" have, then who runs the businesses, enterprises, computer companies, etc. I agree with you about good bills reaching the floor, and no more "we've got to pass it to see what's in it - which is turning out to be a huge debacle - type of politics. I hear this all the time, "tax the rich" - to our peril!
Of course not all rich people have their hands in the pockets of politicians. There are many rich people who have little to no political interest, and there are also many who would rather donate to other causes. the whole "tax the rich - to our peril" is crazy, because it relies on trickle-down economics, [which just don't really work,] (http://mesharpe.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?refe...) or at least not as well as its proponents would have you believe. rich people don't get rich by spending mony, they get rich by keeping the money they have and making it grow by smart investment.
So,
The article you post make a “sweeping” declaration about real wages. In that article, the author also notes a large influx of workers into the workforce. This would include larger blocks of workers such as illegal immigrants and a larger percentage of women entering the workforce (since the 1950’s). As with any basic economic law, “if the supply increases, this puts downward pressure on the price”. The article on real wages makes an assent to explain the differential in wages such as lower income and more poorly educated, workers (some 20 million plus in the last forty years) coming into the marketplace. Nor does it explain wage differentials between women who work full time with no family and those that work part-time so as to raise a family (this could mean some men too). So what does this article prove? Does it prove that “trickle down” theory doesn’t work, as you state with an also “sweeping generality”, in the marketplace? What exactly do you mean by “trickledown economics”? What does “trickle down” really mean to folks? Do you mean “trickle down” in the sense of Henry Ford, who took an idea and had a bank account of only a few hundred dollars to start with (see the Henry Ford museum in Dearborn, Michigan) to make the automobile an “every mans” vehicle, and who made a fortune for him and his family, but transformed the American landscape with affordable vehicles, which produced mobility, which produced the ability of the average worker to gain employment, and increased jobs and income for millions of people worldwide with the direct manufacture and distribution of the automobile, trucks and such, type of “trickle down”? The kind that produced dealerships that employ hundreds of thousands of people, still, and provide livelihood for them and their communities “trickle down”? Do you mean the Thomas Edison type of “trickle down” that produced such inventions as the electric light bulb and created jobs, income and wealth for millions of people in factories (that produce the light bulbs) and improved the lot of billions of people worldwide (and saved the environment and animals to a healthy degree by decreasing the use of kerosene, the killing of whales for whale oil, and the burning of millions and millions of candles with their carbon discharge) type of “trickle down”? Do you mean the “trickle down” like the investors (wealthy people, venture capitalists, and investment companies) who listen to an idea like one from a Bill Gates and finance it so that it becomes a Microsoft, and then employs billions worldwide in the direct manufacture of the PC and all its related industries type of “trickle down”? You mean the type that allows a Bill and Melinda Gates to give $658 million of their own money to start a foundation that now has billions in assets and helps to provide a wide range of benefits to the poor and underprivileged such as (http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2011/11/02/the-sec..., type of “trickle down”? Drat those tax cuts (in the 1980’s) for the wealthy!!!! Do you mean Steve Jobs type of “trickle down” (again with an idea and financial backing of those “evil rich people”) that created Apple and employs hundreds of thousands of people worldwide and has given us such marvelous inventions such as the personal computer, the iPhone, the iPad, and such that improve productivity and help spur related industries such as the personal Smartphone and its stores and such companies such as Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint and that employ hundreds of thousands of people worldwide and improves the lots of millions (you probably use one or more of those devices as you decry the very economic catalyst that gave you those devices) against “trickle-down theory”. Is this the type of “trickle down” that you mean?
Here’s a few who might disagree with your statement on “trickle down” and on real wages. Steve Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/special-report/2012/freedom-manifesto-... Thomas Sowell: http://www.tsowell.com/images/Hoover%20Proof.pdf http://capitalismmagazine.com/2001/09/the-trickle-down-econo.../ Brookings Institution”
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2008... And one more, how about the story of John Mackey, the founder and CEO of Whole Foods (who makes much more than the cashier at one of the stores – and should!) who has improved the lot of thousands of employees, thousands of food growers, thousands of people of work at companies that supply Whole Foods with bags, containers, and other support items. Below are a few thoughts from him to muse about in your accusation that “trickle down doesn’t work”. Is this the type of “trickle down” that you mean?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danschawbel/2013/01/15/john-mack.../ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTexYu2qBOk http://www.amazon.com/The-Morality-Capitalism-What-Professor... Is this the type of “trickle down” that created the disparity that was more than evidently discovered when the Berlin Wall came down, between West and East Germany. The Eastern Germanic block had a more “fair” income distribution (except those at the top of course) for all the workers, and was more egalitarian in terms of “economic justice” (that is spouted about today), but was about 30 years behind West Germany (with a more market oriented, capitalistic “trickle down” approach). The East lagged behind the West in terms of standard of living, education, manufacturing, housing, transportation, medicine and all types of other “modern day conveniences”. Why, because their system, while providing a more level economic “playing field”, depressed innovation, depressed the growth of markets, depressed economic growth, and the like not to mention the absolute depression of personal freedoms, liberties and choice of vocation that we here in America (at least for now) enjoy and take for granted. Would you rather have this model with its egalitarian, utopian intent, but its failure as an economic model? How about Cuba then? Aren’t they just the envy of the world? There are thousands and thousands of wealthy people, investors and business owners alike, who are inclined to help others with the blessings that they have acquired. To say, again, that all wealthy people are greedy, Wall Street type robber barons, such as a Bernie Madoff, is a false misnomer! To say that those who invest don’t create wealth for others is an absolute falsehood and is debunked by history itself! Those capitalistic “trickle down” type economies have produced more wealth and improved lots in life for billions worldwide than any other types of economies in history.
Usually, the detractors of “trickle down” theory are those from the academic elite (who might be tainted with the Marxist “egalitarian” view of economics) who, instead of producing an idea or company that does what those mentioned above did, are content to sit in the bleachers and pick apart the things that other people do. I am not against education and enlightenment and opinions, but few who have actually been on the field and “done it” would spout off such tirades against the very system that allows them to sit in their prestigious university posts (partially or fully supported by taxpayers) and fulfill what Theodore Roosevelt said in his famous quote:
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” ― Theodore Roosevelt
I don't think this article has much truth to it, but I'm not informed enough to specify why. The article doesn't seen very good at conveying the message that poverty is a solvable problem. But it’s not true. High rates of poverty can, as a policy matter, be solved with trivial ease. How? By simply giving the poor money. Claiming that poverty is just an issue of money doesn't seem right to me. I happen to live in a welfare state, where people who can't work or lost their job can apply for financial support. We already have heavy taxes on the riches (52% on income above €54k / $73k). If it was truly only a money problem, we wouldn't have 11% of the population still living in poverty. Besides that, the Demos article linked in the Atlantic article writes this, with the last line seemingly contradictory to the Atlantic: To be sure, you probably don’t want to run a program that hunts out every family below the poverty line and brings them right up to it. Such a program would effectively involve imposing a 100% marginal tax rate for all income made below the poverty line. Maybe someone with a better knowledge of systems can correct me but I'm not convinced yet.In the United States, we are generally told that poverty is a deeply complicated problem whose solution requires dozens of reforms on issues as diverse as public schooling, job training, and marriage.
In 2012, the number was $175.3 billion. That is how many dollars it would take to bring every person in the United States up to the poverty line. In 2012, that number was just 1.08% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which is to say the overall size of the economy.
To be fair, the author claims that his proposal would cut the poverty rate in half. In the States the poverty/hunger rate is about 20% (though I suspect it's significantly higher because many people, like isolated rural families and the homeless, simply don't get counted.) So, it sounds like your welfare state is doing what the author says his proposal would do. Poverty is just not having enough resources to acquire the basic needs for living in a society. Since our society requires people to purchase most of their basic needs, then not having enough resources usually means not having enough money. So, poverty is usually a result of not having enough money. Really, I think providing everyone with a basic income is a very good idea. It could replace most other "safety net" programs. It would help to prevent the desperate from falling prey to predatory business or racketeering practices. It would ensure an extensive, and stable, market for commodities and housing. And the progressive tax rates would help mitigate the problems associated with an extreme concentration of wealth.I happen to live in a welfare state [...] If it was truly only a money problem, we wouldn't have 11% of the population still living in poverty.