Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 135

Thread: U.S. Poverty Climbed to 17-Year High in 2010

  1. #111
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: U.S. Poverty Climbed to 17-Year High in 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    Minimum wage at 40 hours is above poverty for a single person.
    Just barely. Did you notice that from the figures above, 31 percent of those in poverty have family responsibilities.

    "For a single parent with one child, however, the official poverty line was $14,291, and for a single parent with two children, it was $16,705. So anyone trying to support even the smallest of families on a single minimum-wage job would qualify as poor."
    http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/min...s-and-poverty/


    And why are we talking about the top 400 wage earners? Here's a shocker: I don't care how much wealth they (or anybody else) earns, as long as they are earning it.
    Here's a shocker for you: You pay higher taxes for welfare because we do not require the top income earners, who's wealth is increasing, to pay a living wage to their workers.


    I want people in poverty to succeed. I do not believe for one second that we need to target "rich people" to make that happen.
    You would rather it come our of your taxes for welfare then, as is our current system?

    I think we can have a discussion about solving poverty without demanding the heads of the rich on platters. I think we can have a dicussion about solving poverty without turning it into a "conservatives hate the poor", "rich hate the poor", "rich people keep people poor" bull****.
    How does eliminating the temporary tax cuts which amount to a few percentage points equate to demanding the heads of the rich on platters?
    Last edited by Catawba; 09-14-11 at 07:05 PM.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  2. #112
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,453
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: U.S. Poverty Climbed to 17-Year High in 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    i'm not sure what you want doesn't already exist. there are many, many education and jobs skills programs for the disadvantaged. in fact, these types of programs were part of welfare reform. and in many cases, these programs ARE mandatory. what's happening now is that despite record profits, companies are not hiring. they are sitting on their cash, giving outrageous bonuses to ceos while letting the wages of the masses stagnate. that's why providing incentives to these compaines for creating jobs is a good thing.
    Things will get "better" when America's working class adapts to the second world standard of living that business is willing to provide as a percentage of GDP.

    American workers are going to have to accept that businesses competing in a global economy are simply not going to give up the percentage of what they produce to which they have grown accustomed.

    When starving people in the billions are desperate to not DIE, our first world standard of living is cannot be sustained and allow profits to be harvested at a rate that renders American businesses "competitive".
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  3. #113
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,261

    Re: U.S. Poverty Climbed to 17-Year High in 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    I get the point on the recession increasing poverty. My point was that poverty existed prior to and will exist after the recession ends. Your repetition of the question doesn't mean I didn't answer it. I have. Repeatedly. You seem to be implying that if it weren't for the recession we wouldn't have poverty. You know that's false. We've seen 3-4% on average in increased poverty since the recession began. So if we see a 3-4% decrease when the recession ends we'll still have 12-13% poverty. Are you getting this at all? Here, in bullet points:

    1. Poverty existed before the recession.
    2. Povery was not decreasing prior to the recession.
    3. Low unemployment does not eliminate poverty.
    4. We will still have poverty when the recession ends.
    5. Creating jobs won't solve even half of the poverty cases we have. It would, presumably, solve about 25%, given the pre-recession and recession numbers.
    6. That must mean there are other reasons we continue to see stagnate or growing poverty numbers.
    7. I've mentioned those reasons several, several times. Any every one of those reasons is agreed upon by most researchers and easily accessible through a simple google search.
    8. None of the misinterpretations, clarifications, or attempts to bait answers you think I'm avoiding giving will take away from the fact that my initial post was correct.
    You are attacking a strawman. I have not heard anyone make the argument that any sort/combination of policies will absolutely eliminate poverty. Don's post pretty much sums up the "way" you should be thinking about poverty.

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Sustained robust economic growth reduces poverty. Rapidly growing East Asian economies, not to mention Brazil and India, offer good illustrations. On the flip side, stagnant or sluggishly growing economies typically result in an increase in the incidence of poverty on account of high unemployment (which cuts off people from incomes), little or no real income growth, and, in a potential long-term aspect, foregone competitiveness (such economies lead to efforts at "quick fixes" that ignore structural realities and result in foregone investment).
    From the available data, we can observe that poverty as a whole was at its relative minimum following the the dot.com craze. The growth realized after the turn of the century was certainly not "sustainable" by any stretch of the imagination. I am not sure exactly what it is you are trying to argue.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  4. #114
    Professor
    atrasicarius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    12-23-12 @ 05:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    2,227

    Re: U.S. Poverty Climbed to 17-Year High in 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    Minimum wage at 40 hours is above poverty for a single person. And why are we talking about the top 400 wage earners? Here's a shocker: I don't care how much wealth they (or anybody else) earns, as long as they are earning it. I want people in poverty to succeed. I do not believe for one second that we need to target "rich people" to make that happen. I think we can have a discussion about solving poverty without demanding the heads of the rich on platters. I think we can have a dicussion about solving poverty without turning it into a "conservatives hate the poor", "rich hate the poor", "rich people keep people poor" bull****.
    I don't think conservatives hate the poor, I think conservatives don't understand the poor. This may not hold true for everyone, but most of the conservatives I've seen are completely unwilling to blame poverty on anything except poor choices by the poor person in question. Well, sometimes that's the case. More often, though, poverty is a result of people getting screwed by the system, which conservatives are absolutely unwilling to acknowledge. And even if you can dig up a bad decision somewhere that may have contributed to poverty, should we really demand that everyone be absolutely perfect in order to succeed? Occasionally, people make mistakes. It happens. Should their lives be totally ****ed because of that? Most poor people would eagerly work themselves out of poverty, given only the opportunity.
    For: legalizing drugs, gay marriage, abortion, guns, universal health care, public sector jobs, nuclear power, free education, progressive taxation
    Against: corporations, make-work, the 40 hour work week, intellectual property, imperialism, "homeland security," censorship

  5. #115
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,453
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: U.S. Poverty Climbed to 17-Year High in 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    Apparently they're doing it wrong, because poverty prior to the recession was not on the decline.
    Yes and no.

    They require job seeking here in CA, but full time minimum wage positions are rare, even as entry level. So they end up in part time positions that don't pay the bills, far too often. Because they have two years to get a JOB. A "living" isn't part of the equation.

    Seriously, there isn't enough money to provide all Americans with an"adequate" living AND allow American businesses to remain competitive on the global playing field, where they are competing with those whose workforces are fighting to put basic nutrition on the table, and are therefore HAPPY to have a job that allows them to eat every day.

    No amount of tax cuts or deregulation are going to offset labor cost differentials.

    Only a reduction in the overall American standard of living is going to do this, so this is what is happening. The American Dream is being downsized.

    Its the only way American businesses can remain competitive.

    I sure hope the potential "prize" is worth the sacrifice its requiring.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  6. #116
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,453
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: U.S. Poverty Climbed to 17-Year High in 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    I don't know. It's not worth the effort IMO.
    See? Now that's the problem I have with your posts.

    X said it, I believe it, that settles it.

    "I know its not raining, I will NOT open a window to find out for sure. There's no point."

    I would be willing to bet "highly welfare dependent" means "deriving most or all of their living from welfare during their adult lives". That's what semantics would suggest.

    Do studies use selective language to lend support to their claims? Of course.

    Is this a universal practise? No.

    Would you accept the kind of dismissal you gave on a subject you support? I doubt it.

    But its a free country, so carry on.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  7. #117
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,453
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: U.S. Poverty Climbed to 17-Year High in 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    All the recent proposals I have seen use the millionaire threshold. I think the lower $250,000 threshold has been dropped from consideration.
    That's better. And I think jobs with unnaturally short lifespans, like professional athletes, might deserve a little leeway, or random windfalls in certain cases.

    The $250k number always made me go "Hmmm?".
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  8. #118
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,453
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: U.S. Poverty Climbed to 17-Year High in 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    My initital thought was to make the training/education programs geared towards "recession proof" or "in demand" fields. Things like HVAC, medicine, plumbing, insurance, etc. Then I figured there'd be too much kick-back from people because I'm "limiting their choices" or something.
    Yeah, tread lightly. "Planned economies" decide who does what job.

    But obviously training as a buggy whip maker would be pretty useless.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  9. #119
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,358

    Re: U.S. Poverty Climbed to 17-Year High in 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by What if...? View Post
    Things will get "better" when America's working class adapts to the second world standard of living that business is willing to provide as a percentage of GDP.

    American workers are going to have to accept that businesses competing in a global economy are simply not going to give up the percentage of what they produce to which they have grown accustomed.

    When starving people in the billions are desperate to not DIE, our first world standard of living is cannot be sustained and allow profits to be harvested at a rate that renders American businesses "competitive".
    Then how do you account for the success of Germany's economy. They have a highly paid workforce and their economy is growing faster than ours.

  10. #120
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: U.S. Poverty Climbed to 17-Year High in 2010

    Quote Originally Posted by What if...? View Post
    See? Now that's the problem I have with your posts.

    X said it, I believe it, that settles it.
    Well that part is most generally true but I provide all sort of links to what I claim. What we had here is something not even worth the effort. How exactly do you look up a
    highly welfare dependant. WTF does that even mean? It's not a government classification.

    Two long-term studies, for example, found that about one in five daughters of "highly welfare dependent" mothers themselves became highly welfare dependent, with the rest showing only light welfare use or none at all.

    This is a proper way to present a study? Basically as far as that statement goes we could assume that out of 5 mothers who were "highly welfare dependant" all 5 had daughters that ended up on welfare, or maybe a few didn't. Did the other 4 show welfare use or not?

    Seriously, I'm suppose to take this seriously?

Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •