Why are today's poor (U.S.) more miserable than a century + ago?

cpwill said:

That is incorrect. self-esteem, empowerment, fulfillment, a sense of achievement, they all come from achievement.

Click to expand...

And I disagree with your opinion. :shrug:

well the obvious answer is "all of them", considering that we are not judging off of a raw, but relative standard. but here you are arguing a misnomer, and trying to claim that later achievement = earlier receipt.

well it's not just that - it's that we use welfare to trap them in poverty and low productivity, thereby ensuring that they will never achieve enough to reach self-fulfillment, empowerment, etc.

:lol: yeah. if there is one thing that leaps to mind about the experience with our social welfare state over the past few decades, it's "success"

success at destroying stable family formation
success at creating a permanent underclass
success at trapping people to the measure of their birth
success at taking the most dynamic, charitable, creative, industrial people to roam the earth and turning them into permanent dependents, trapped in self-destructive decisions with only resentment for those who aid them.

yeeahaw, let's have some more of that :roll:

Click to expand...

What nonsense. There is more social mobility today than ever in the history of mankind. People aren't trapped in welfare systems. They're made mobile by them.

Hatuey said:

There is more social mobility today than ever in the history of mankind.

Click to expand...

Hey now.



.

ecofarm said:

Hey now.
.

Click to expand...

Think I'm wrong? Compare any modern Western country to the serfdoms where you live. Born into poverty, die in poverty 9 times out of 10. Where is the social mobility? Where can people gain free educations and move up? Even if they get an education half of them won't do much with it because the social infrastructure simply isn't there to allow them to succeed. Again, you can argue all you want that some people take advantage of welfare systems but the reality is that far more people have socially (and possibly) benefited from "government handouts" than under any other kind of system. :shrug:

Where is the middle class in Africa? Where is the middle class in South America? No government handouts there. Why do the majority of the people in those continents live in abject poverty? After all, no welfare = success and achievement. Yes?

Hatuey said:

The OP is flawed. So I didn't select anything.

I don't, because that would be intellectually dishonest.

/CATO rhetoric ignored.

Click to expand...

:roll: Okay then, have a nice day. Thanks for stopping by. Don't forget your CATO straw man on the way out.

Hatuey said:

Think I'm wrong?

Click to expand...

You posted this:

Hatuey said:

I don't, because that would be intellectually dishonest.

Click to expand...

Hatuey said:

And I disagree with your opinion. :shrug:

Click to expand...

unfortunately for you, it's not my opinion, but rather the findings of social science.

What nonsense. There is more social mobility today than ever in the history of mankind.

Click to expand...

In aggregate absolutely. For the narrow band of those whom we place into our welfare system, less so - although impressive gains have been had since we reformed welfare in the 90's.

People aren't trapped in welfare systems. They're made mobile by them.

Click to expand...

yeah?



how many single moms' do you know that get offered a raise from $29,000 to $70,000?

I don't know if they are more miserable today, but they are far more envious. That's pretty much Obama's base.

cpwill said:

unfortunately for you, it's not my opinion, but rather the findings of social science.

Click to expand...

Two links which do... nothing? One is for a log in the other is for a study? Did you read it? It doesn't say what you want it to say. It says people who believe in AII support it. People who don't, don't. :shrug:

In aggregate absolutely. For the narrow band of those whom we place into our welfare system, less so - although impressive gains have been had since we reformed welfare in the 90's.

yeah?

how many single moms' do you know that get offered a raise from $29,000 to $70,000?

Click to expand...

Yeah:

http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2007-2008/rrep450.pdf

An international review of research on educational attainment and social mobility by Breen and Jonsson (2005) supports many of the findings reported in this section. The authors identify a mixed pattern, with some countries (e.g. Sweden and Germany) exhibiting a declining relationship between class and education attainment and others (including England) showing little change over time. It is also clear that social class is more strongly associated with educational attainment at younger ages, but that class effects persist into higher education. In most countries, education does play a ‘mediating’ role between class of origin and class of destination but many studies continue to find ‘origin effects’ that, to some extent, counteract the influence of education on social mobility. The study highlights the continued potential role of higher education in promoting absolute and relative social mobility, in the context of issues raised in this section regarding the impact of social class background on school choice, school level attainment, the decision to enter higher education, choice of institution attended and subjects studied.

Click to expand...

Hatuey said:

Two links which do... nothing? One is for a log in the other is for a study? Did you read it? It doesn't say what you want it to say. It says people who believe in AII support it. People who don't, don't.

Click to expand...

yes. and then it compares their relative results. maybe you should read further .

Yeah:

http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2007-2008/rrep450.pdf

Click to expand...

...You cite higher education in other countries in an attempt to respond to the fact that our welfare structure contains cliffs that effectively punish people for increasing their productivity and income?

cpwill said:

yes. and then it compares their relative results. maybe you should read further .

Click to expand...

Can't. Need to buy the article. Wanna show us where?

...You cite higher education in other countries in an attempt to respond to the fact that our welfare structure contains cliffs that effectively punish people for increasing their productivity and income?

Click to expand...

I can't see the pic for some reason. It's just a broken link.

Hatuey said:

Can't. Need to buy the article. Wanna show us where?

Click to expand...

dang I got it through an alumni association membership.

I'll root around and get you some relevant data.

I can't see the pic for some reason. It's just a broken link.

Click to expand...

you can't see this:




?

tessaesque said:

We're more materialistic than at any point in the past.

Click to expand...

You nailed it!

Ya know, as a former "poor" myself, I don't really see the poor daydreaming about yachts and mansions, or even iPads and fancy clothes. They really aren't all that materialistic.

I see them daydreaming about not having to eat Ramen for another week, or being able to get their teeth fixed.

Among those who are politically aware in the slightest, I see them daydreaming about finding one candidate, just ONE, who represents something other than big business and their own ego.

Why are the poor miserable? Two reasons.

The first is that being poor is stressful. Not knowing where your next meal is coming from, or knowing you're one stumble away from losing your home, will do that do you.

Two is that they are voiceless. No one in our governmental arena represents them.

Hatuey said:

Higher levels of self worth, empowerment, fulfillment and achievement can be achieved through receiving. You can bet there are millions of middle class people who wouldn't have the level of self worth, empowerment and fulfillment if it weren't for the social programs available to them and their parents. How many single mothers would have made anything of themselves before these programs and under a system like the one advocated by you? How many immigrants would have run successful businesses if it weren't for government help?

Again, one can argue all they want that some people take advantage of welfare etc. But the collective progress made in the last 100 years is all the proof needed to show that they serve an extremely beneficial purpose. You don't even have to go into time. Just compare the US poor to the poor in any other country that doesn't really give two ****s about its poor. Ours have the ability the move up BECAUSE of what is given to them. Countries that don't? Well Bangladesh is pretty ****ty.

Click to expand...

So lets look at your premise for just a second.

If a person is only given things, and never accomplishes anything on their own, you say that they can have higher levels of self worth, empowerment, fulfillment and achievement.

Lets take those one at a time.

Self worth - a confidence and satisfaction in oneself; dignity: the quality of being worthy of esteem or respect;. This is possible regardless of whether a person receives assistance or is totally dependent on others. However, to say that a person gains higher levels of self worth through receiving is contrary to basic psychology.

Empowerment - authorization: the act of conferring legality or sanction or formal warrant; to promote the self-actualization or influence of. This is not possible by being totally reliant upon others. If assistance is on a limited and temporary basis, and the assistance is utilized by the giver through requirement and by the recipient as a tool to empower themselves to move from assistance to independence, then and only then would or could the assistance lead to empowerment. But assistance does not and cannot achieve empowerment for a person in an of itself. So this premise is inaccurate by virtue of its basic application and definition. Empowerment is achieved by and through independent accomplishment by its very nature.

Fulfillment - Satisfaction or happiness as a result of fully developing one's abilities or character; The achievement of something desired, promised, or predicted: "winning the championship was the fulfillment of a childhood dream"; the feeling of being happy and satisfied because you are doing something that fully uses your abilities and talents. By definition, this not applicable to your premise. No one has a dream or goal of being reliant upon others to survive.

Achievement - A thing done successfully, typically by effort, courage, or skill; The process or fact of achieving something; a result gained by effort. I cannot for the life of me determine how a personal sense of achievement, much less a higher level, can be gained through receiving something that has not been earned by ones own effort.

Then you conflate the good achieved through social programs by obfuscation of the negatives that reliance upon these programs can and have produced.

tessaesque said:

We're more materialistic than at any point in the past. Gotta keep up with the Joneses.

Click to expand...

You have to have something before you get into keeping up with the jones...you have to reach a certain point...when your poor your thinking getting the basics

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Ya know, as a former "poor" myself, I don't really see the poor daydreaming about yachts and mansions, or even iPads and fancy clothes. They really aren't all that materialistic.

I see them daydreaming about not having to eat Ramen for another week, or being able to get their teeth fixed.

Among those who are politically aware in the slightest, I see them daydreaming about finding one candidate, just ONE, who represents something other than big business and their own ego.

Why are the poor miserable? Two reasons.

The first is that being poor is stressful. Not knowing where your next meal is coming from, or knowing you're one stumble away from losing your home, will do that do you.

Two is that they are voiceless. No one in our governmental arena represents them.

Click to expand...

Exactly. The options in the poll are pretty laughable. Welfare? Welfare existed since Bismarck. Manufacturing and farming? Have anybody who chose those options ever worked in a factory or a farm? Cities? Cities have existed for millennias.
I think SAM's opinion is the most valid in this thread

#1) In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1.* Since the year 2000, that*ratio has*exploded to*between 300 to 500 to one.

#2) A*USA Today analysis of government data has found that paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history during the first quarter of 2010.* During the same time period, government benefits (Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, food stamps, etc.)*rose to a record high.*

#3) According to the United Nations, the United States now*has the highest level of income inequality of all of the highly industrialized nations.

#4) Four of the biggest banks in the United States*(Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup)*had a "perfect quarter" with zero days of trading losses during the first quarter of 2010.

#5) According to economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, two-thirds of income increases in the United States between 2002 and 2007 went to the wealthiest 1% of all*Americans.

#6) 39.68 million Americans*are now on food stamps, which represents a new all-time record.* But things look like they are going to get even worse.* The U.S. Department of Agriculture*is forecasting*that enrollment in the food stamp program will exceed 43 million Americans in 2011.

#7) For the first time in*U.S. history,*banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth in the United States than all individual Americans put together.

#8) Over*just one three day period, approximately 10,000 people showed up to apply for just 90 jobs making washing machines in Kentucky for $27,000 a year.

#9) Executives at many of the*big banks*that received*massive amounts of government bailout money during the*financial crisis*are being lavished with record bonuses*as millions of other*Americans continue to suffer.

#10) Younger generations of Americans are particularly struggling.* For example, according to*a National Foundation for Credit Counseling survey, only 58% of those in "Generation Y"*pay their monthly bills on time.

#11) Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million in 2009.

#12) Over 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009, which represented*a 32 percent increase over 2008.* Not only that, more Americans filed for bankruptcy*in March 2010*than during any month since U.S. bankruptcy law was tightened in October 2005.

#13) An analysis of income tax data by the Congressional Budget Office a*couple years*ago found that the top 1%*wealthiest households in the United States now*own nearly twice as much of the corporate wealth*as they did just 15 years ago.

#14) A staggering 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement.

#15) Once great blue collar manufacturing cities such as Detroit have turned into rusted-out war zones*while corporate executives rake in record bonuses by moving factories to third world nations.

#16) The bottom 40 percent of*income earners*in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent*of the nation’s wealth.* So what does that say about America when nearly half the people are dividing up just one percent of the pie?

Full Article Here:

16 Signs That The Rich Are Getting Richer And The Poor Are Getting Poorer

Neomalthusian said:

Select all that apply.

I ask this with the underlying questions being, "What is it about poverty that we should be trying to resolve? Is it more important for those in poverty to organize and demand that their poverty be somehow eradicated...

...or is it more important for those in poverty to find ways to feel empowered, fulfilled, and independent, despite their limited means?

Click to expand...

The poor in the USA are so well off that they live the lives of the middle class in other countries. The poor are spoiled and have distain for those that have more than they do.
They simply don’t do what will get them out of poverty. If they have time to organize and demand someone remove them from poverty than they have the time to do it themselves.

Neomalthusian said:

Select all that apply.

I ask this with the underlying questions being, "What is it about poverty that we should be trying to resolve? Is it more important for those in poverty to organize and demand that their poverty be somehow eradicated...

...or is it more important for those in poverty to find ways to feel empowered, fulfilled, and independent, despite their limited means?

Click to expand...

Do you actually have any evidence of this? The poor a century ago didn't have cars,air conditioning, heating, refrigeration, food stamps, welfare, good public education, cellphones with government life line services,TVs, and many other things.People in other countries must be screaming that is not poor. Your idea of miserable must be different than ours

cpwill said:

that is unfortunately incorrect. your self worth, empowerment, and fulfillment come not from what you receive, but what you achieve.

Click to expand...

Yes but it's harder to achieve much of anything if you don't have an education, you're constantly sick, and you're worried about where your next meal is coming from.

jamesrage said:

Do you actually have any evidence of this? The poor a century ago didn't have cars,air conditioning, heating, refrigeration, food stamps, welfare, good public education, cellphones with government life line services,TVs, and many other things.People in other countries must be screaming that is not poor. Your idea of miserable must be different than ours

Click to expand...

NOBODY had those things 100 years ago.

Except heat. EVERYBODY'S had that for a long time.

More miserable now than a century ago? Give me a ****ing break. The poor now have it way better than they did in the 19th and early 20th century. They have welfare, food stamps, unemployment, indigent medical care, people who go out of their way to reserve jobs for them, and even rehabilitation. A hundred years ago, the poor were dying in the streets, starving to death, **** like tuberculosis and syphilis were rampant, and if you got hurt on the job, too bad. Even 50 years ago, the poor didn't have it as good as they do now.

Kind of a trick response, but i think that todays.poor feel left out because si ce about 1980 they have been.

From the fifties to the eighties, the lowest fifth was actuall seeing their lot improve MORE than the upper 80%.

For more than thirty years they have stagnated or lost ground.

They're competing with $2 a day labor in a country with $500 rents.

So maybe not miserable so much as hopeless. Which i guess could make one miserable.

And i'm sure there were some at aome point who claimed the poor weren't poor because they had indoor plumbing.

"Better than elsewhere" is the ultimate slippery slope.

Its better in Mexico than it is in Somalia. That doesnt mean its great in Mexico.

What if...? said:

Kind of a trick response, but i think that todays.poor feel left out because si ce about 1980 they have been.

Click to expand...

So feeling "left out", in your opinion, somehow makes their lives worse? Left out of what, exactly? They have every opportunity given to them so they can advance, which is something they absolutely did not have a hundred+ years ago.

They're competing with $2 a day labor in a country with $500 rents.

Click to expand...

Because workforce competition is a new thing. Ever heard of the Irish? Same ****, different century.

I question the premise. I seriously doubt that 99%+ of today's poor would be happier if they were magically transported time-wise and became the 1912 version of poor.