It's tedious to argue with somebody who simply doesn't understand the very basics of an argument.
AGAIN: THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION BEING ASKED.
THE QUESTION BEING ASKED CONCERNS WHETHER CAPITALISM FORCES A PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE TO LIVE POVERTY.
As I have already argued, it does. It doesn't matter what else they could be doing. What matters is the system already in place. As it is, capitalism does mean some people necessarily have to be poor so that others can enjoy cheap commodities.
You can't answer my question can you?
It certainly does matter, if that child is not working for $20 a month, what would the child be doing to provide for himself, in absence of the capitalist job?
Really? Is that what every chart which shows the connection between education and earnings show? Interesting.
What happens when everyone is the U.S. has a bachelors degree, masters degree or doctorate?
We will still need these highly educated people to, pick up garbage, scrub floors, wash windows, work as laborers in manufacturing.
Will their education be necessary to do these things?
That is entirely different issue related to job safety. Not whether education and how much you make are related.
To get that job they had to have an education, yet they have been laid off in greater numbers.
So their earning potential has been diminished.
That has absolutely nothing to do with what we're discussing. We're discussing whether a person with an education is more likely to be paid more. The truth is that this is true. Regardless of how a blue collar or white collar fare in a recession, at the end of the day - once the recession is over - the white collar will still make more money.
On average, yes.
You say more education has brought people out of poverty.
How much education though?
You blame capitalism for poverty, yet these jobs that require this education would not exist, without capitalism.
What is your solution?
I'm serious now, pay attention and put the how to be a Libertarian book down:
1. For a capitalist, it is necessary for goods to be produced cheaply in order to make a profit.
That's not true.
For someone to make a profit, the good must be produced and meet the cost/benefit ratio of the consumer.
"Cheaply" is subjective.
2. For capitalists in the real world, this means that they have to go to places where people are desperate for jobs and offer them the bare minimum they need to survive. Now, I don't know if you've ever been poor but it's been my experience that the majority of people living in poverty have an incredibly hard time getting out of it even in in present day America. So how does this relate to the issue being asked?
Since your 1st point is wrong, your second point isn't entirely true either.
You still haven't told me what these people would be doing, absent the capitalist job.
3. If a person is only making enough money to live on the daily, it means they do not accumulate wealth. Which means they don't pass wealth to their children. Which means the poverty cycle continues.
Not true either.
Some people have risen up from poverty because on new economic opportunity.
In fact whole nations have been brought up based on this concept and not because of prior wealth.
Finally, this is the reason union movements began in the first place. Capitalists of the late 19th and early 20th century had absolutely no problem making people work in squalid conditions and paying the bare minimum. If one complained? One was fired. That was it. What has happened is that now factories with horrible conditions, cheap labor and overworking bosses have been moved to the 3rd world. Only in places like Africa, complaining might mean getting your hand chopped off. That is why it's the fault of capitalism that some people must remain poor for others to enjoy commodities.
Yet during that same time life expectancy was increasing.
How were these people worse off than before?
You haven't proven this at all, you're just ignorantly ranting.