Why is there poverty?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I'd like to hear the theories of OIers on why poor people exist. Go. :)

[Die Rote Fahne]

I can predict:

- They are lazy
- They are irresponsible
- They want to be poor

[Skooma Addict]

I'd like to hear the theories of OIers on why poor people exist. Go. :)

There are many reasons. For starters, it is an undeniable fact that scarcity exists. At any given time, we posses only a limited amount of goods which we can use. However, we can accumulate capital over the ages to increase our living standards. Some people possess more of these goods than others, and we say the people with the least are in a state of poverty. Now, massive wealth distribution by the State in favor of the poor would help them in the short term, but it would harm everyone in the long run.

But the poverty rate is far higher than it should be due to....

Minimum wage laws- more often than not, it is the poor who cannot find a job due to these laws.

Unions supported by the state- Makes it far more difficult to become a worker in a heavily unionized sector of the economy. Look at doctors for example. This artificially decreases the supply of workers in these industries. The low supply of doctors is part of the reason why medical costs are so high.

taxation- This one is pretty obvious. If your taxed, you have less money than you otherwise would have had.

That's good for now. But there are examples such as government subsidies, laws preventing certain voluntary transactions, ect.

[hugsandmarxism]

"LOL its cause there really isn't capitalism, and regulations and socialism and stuff make people poor by hurting businesses!"

Ron Paulite on my college campus recently. -sigh-

[BurnTheOliveTree]

For starters, it is an undeniable fact that scarcity exists.

I can agree that there is a finite amount of resources. What do you think about the statistics suggesting we could feed the world many times over with the food wasted by supermarkets and the like?


Some people possess more of these goods than others, and we say the people with the least are in a state of poverty.

Okay. Some people can't even stay alive, though. This is absolute poverty, right? Not just the people who have the least relatively. These people have got to be considered objectively poor.


Now, massive wealth distribution by the State in favor of the poor would help them in the short term, but it would harm everyone in the long run.

Why's that?


Minimum wage laws- more often than not, it is the poor who cannot find a job due to these laws.

I don't understand. Why do minimum wage laws mean that the poor can't get work?


Unions supported by the state- Makes it far more difficult to become a worker in a heavily unionized sector of the economy. Look at doctors for example. This artificially decreases the supply of workers in these industries. The low supply of doctors is part of the reason why medical costs are so high.

Unions mean less jobs? Don't unions fight to keep jobs? Isn't that one of their primary goals? Explain.


taxation- This one is pretty obvious. If your taxed, you have less money than you otherwise would have had.

So wouldn't the obvious thing be to leave the poor alone on their taxes and get it off the rich instead? Wouldn't that help correct poverty?

-Alex

[Conquer or Die]

Investment is triggered on a profit basis instead of a scientific basis. Decisions are made individually by a handful of people and not democratically.

Voluntary transaction is nonsense. It can't be proven or disproven.

[Skooma Addict]

can agree that there is a finite amount of resources. What do you think about the statistics suggesting we could feed the world many times over with the food wasted by supermarkets and the like?

I haven't looked into the statistics in detail. I don't doubt that we could theoretically feed the world many times over, but I need to see the actual statistics before I comment. Can you give me a link? If not, ill just search google.

But my main point was that scarcity is the main reason why poverty exists.


Okay. Some people can't even stay alive, though. This is absolute poverty, right? Not just the people who have the least relatively. These people have got to be considered objectively poor.

I am not so sure about that. I would say it is more relative. I bet there is someone out there who we would view as being dirt poor, while at the same time he views himself as being very wealthy.

I find if very difficult to accept the idea that there someone can be "objectively poor". But I could be wrong, I haven't given this much thought to be honest.


Why's that?


Lets say the government took everyones money, and then gave everyone an equal share of dollars. This would obviously help some people, and hurt others But the economy as a whole is going to be severely damaged. For starters, the more wealth that is redistributed on a regular basis, the less motivation there is to become a net producer as opposed to a net consumer. I am not going to produce as much if I know 40% of my wealth is going to be taken from me. Production in the economy will fall.

More importantly, money that would have gone into productive business ventures is now just switching hands. The more money that is redistributed, the less of a reason there is to save money. The society will accumulate less capital, and living standards will be lower than what they would have been otherwise. Eventually, a point will be reached where it would have been better to for the poor if no redistribution had occurred.

There are other reasons, but I think I listed enough.



I don't understand. Why do minimum wage laws mean that the poor can't get work?


What if the minimum wage were 30 dollars an hour? You will only be able to find work if you can produce more than 30 dollars worth of product every hour. If I can only produce 20 dollars worth of product every hour, I will be unable to find a job. I will be permanently unemployed.


Unions mean less jobs? Don't unions fight to keep jobs? Isn't that one of their primary goals? Explain.


Unions fight to keep the jobs of their members at the expense of nonmembers. They use the state to create barriers to entry into certain fields. For example, in order to become an (insert job here), you need such and such a license. Sometimes it can take yeas to acquire the license necessary. Unions also lobby for benefits and pay raises. If an employer must give all employees certain benefits, then it just makes it that much harder to find work.


So wouldn't the obvious thing be to leave the poor alone on their taxes and get it off the rich instead? Wouldn't that help correct poverty?

The less taxes the better. But taxes are bad for the economy. This would help the poor in the short term, but in the long run, many would-be businesses will never even appear. It would be best if we simply allowed the market to function naturally. His way, it would be easy to find work, living standards would rise quicker than ever before, and the very few people who couldn't support themselves could rely on charity, churches, and families.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I haven't looked into the statistics in detail. I don't doubt that we could theoretically feed the world many times over, but I need to see the actual statistics before I comment. Can you give me a link? If not, ill just search google.

Despite the world population more than doubling since 1950, crop production has more than trebled over the same period. This means that we now produce over 40 per cent more food per capita than we did in the 1950s.

Today, we produce more than enough food to enable each and every person on the planet to have an adequate and nutritious diet.

The world is already producing more than twice the amount of food we actually consume.

http://provenancesupply.co.uk/2009/09/reducing-waste-feeding-the-world/
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/debates/fof_article/7378/

But there are still people starving. Clearly the problem is not scarcity - our production growth is faster than our population growth and we already have enough for the world twice over.

So I don't think you can argue that scarcity is the main problem here.


I am not so sure about that. I would say it is more relative. I bet there is someone out there who we would view as being dirt poor, while at the same time he views himself as being very wealthy.

How would a person that can't stay alive claim that they are wealthy or not poor?

I completely agree with you that relative poverty exists - I can be seen as wealthy because I'm sat on the internet and I'm well fed, or poor because I'm comparitively in the gutter compared to the elite.

But the picture rather changes when people can't even stay alive, or have to spend their entire lives staving off death by stealing, begging, prostitution whatever. In no sense can they be seen as anything except poor, surely? Their existence are defined by their poverty, in fact.


This would obviously help some people, and hurt others

Let's remember that this would help the vast majority of people, and hurt a tiny slice. Most of the world is poor, only a little section are rich.


I am not going to produce as much if I know 40% of my wealth is going to be taken from me.

Absolutely. But the people who get their 40% taken away, after a fair redistribution of wealth, are not producers in the first place, they are capitalists. They just sell the produce, they don't make it. Say we've got a car factory, and we've got workers there making the cars for their wage, and we've got a board of directors who sell those cars for massive profit, it is those directors who would have their 40% redistributed, not the producers/workers.


The society will accumulate less capital, and living standards will be lower than what they would have been otherwise.

Sorry, I don't understand this. Explain why redistribution means less capital? :confused:


What if the minimum wage were 30 dollars an hour? You will only be able to find work if you can produce more than 30 dollars worth of product every hour. If I can only produce 20 dollars worth of product every hour, I will be unable to find a job. I will be permanently unemployed.

Well, the minimum wage isn't 30 dollars an hour, and we're meant to be looking at the real causes of poverty, not imaginary ones. So why do the current minimum wage laws mean that people are poor?


Unions fight to keep the jobs of their members at the expense of nonmembers.

If this was the case, poor people could just join their union and hey presto they'd have a job. It can't be that simple, can it?


Unions also lobby for benefits and pay raises. If an employer must give all employees certain benefits, then it just makes it that much harder to find work.

Supposing unions had never lobbied for benefits or pay-raises, then, you'd see a USA much like that of 1900 where the employers called the shots entirely, right? USA in the 1900s had massive poverty, 10 year olds in factories, scant public education, typhoid and tuberculosis epidemics, and so on and so forth. The unions fought for shorter working days, healthcare etc against those initial terrible conditions.

Surely you can see that unionised struggle has helped to combat poverty rather than create it? :)


It would be best if we simply allowed the market to function naturally.

If combatting poverty is your goal, then the fact is that an unregulated market doesn't work. It has never worked, historically. Again, witness the pure capitalism of 1900 america, and witness the massive poverty in that society. Now the market is by contrast heavily regulated, and I don't think anyone could argue that poverty is as much a problem as it was back then.

-Alex

[Skooma Addict]

Despite the world population more than doubling since 1950, crop production has more than trebled over the same period. This means that we now produce over 40 per cent more food per capita than we did in the 1950s.

Today, we produce more than enough food to enable each and every person on the planet to have an adequate and nutritious diet.

The world is already producing more than twice the amount of food we actually consume.

http://provenancesupply.co.uk/2009/0...ing-the-world/ (http://provenancesupply.co.uk/2009/09/reducing-waste-feeding-the-world/)
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.p..._article/7378/ (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/debates/fof_article/7378/)

But there are still people starving. Clearly the problem is not scarcity - our production growth is faster than our population growth and we already have enough for the world twice over.

So I don't think you can argue that scarcity is the main problem here.

Scarcity is the main problem. If scarcity did not exist, then there would be no poverty. Everyone could have whatever he wanted whenever he wanted.

Besides, even if we did feed the entire world, that would only eliminate starvation for a short time, it would not eliminate poverty.


How would a person that can't stay alive claim that they are wealthy or not poor?

I completely agree with you that relative poverty exists - I can be seen as wealthy because I'm sat on the internet and I'm well fed, or poor because I'm comparitively in the gutter compared to the elite.

But the picture rather changes when people can't even stay alive, or have to spend their entire lives staving off death by stealing, begging, prostitution whatever. In no sense can they be seen as anything except poor, surely? Their existence are defined by their poverty, in fact.

It is just very difficult to accept the idea that objective poverty exists. For starters, where is the cut off point? When is a person in a state of objective poverty?

But yea, I would obviously view a person who is starving to death as in poverty.



Let's remember that this would help the vast majority of people, and hurt a tiny slice. Most of the world is poor, only a little section are rich.

In the short run, maybe. But you say that as though it is acceptable to use violence against innocent people in order to help others. I view this as unethical under most circumstances.


Absolutely. But the people who get their 40% taken away, after a fair redistribution of wealth, are not producers in the first place, they are capitalists. They just sell the produce, they don't make it. Say we've got a car factory, and we've got workers there making the cars for their wage, and we've got a board of directors who sell those cars for massive profit, it is those directors who would have their 40% redistributed, not the producers/workers.

There are producers in the higher income brackets. Capitalists also do more than what you described. Capitalists provide the necessary capital for the production process. They also pay workers before their product is sold. Capitalists are important and they serve a useful function. There are also capitalists and entrepreneurs in the lower income brackets.



Sorry, I don't understand this. Explain why redistribution means less capital? :confused:


This is one of the biggest problems with massive wealth distribution. The incentive to save/invest is greatly reduced. The interest rate will be higher than it otherwise would have been. Less people will invest in higher order capital goods, and more people will consume. In the long run, investment in higher order capital goods is what will lead to a prosperous economy. In fact, if a poor person saves enough money, they may enter into the higher income bracket, in which case they will have their money taken from them.

Basically, saving is required required for a prosperous economy. But massive wealth redistribution decreases the incentive to save.



Well, the minimum wage isn't 30 dollars an hour, and we're meant to be looking at the real causes of poverty, not imaginary ones. So why do the current minimum wage laws mean that people are poor?

My example would work for a 6 dollar per hour minimum wage. People will not be hired if they cannot produce more than the current minimum wage. Poor people often times remain in a state of poverty because they have been driven out of the market. They cannot find a job because the minimum wage is too high. The minimum wage does help some workers by decreasing the supply of labour. But only at the expense of other less gifted workers. It is unethical.



If this was the case, poor people could just join their union and hey presto they'd have a job. It can't be that simple, can it?

Your right, it is not that simple. If it were that simple, businesses would be going bankrupt left and right. The effect of unions is very similar to that of the minimum wage. The same concepts pretty much apply.


Supposing unions had never lobbied for benefits or pay-raises, then, you'd see a USA much like that of 1900 where the employers called the shots entirely, right? USA in the 1900s had massive poverty, 10 year olds in factories, scant public education, typhoid and tuberculosis epidemics, and so on and so forth. The unions fought for shorter working days, healthcare etc against those initial terrible conditions.

Surely you can see that unionised struggle has helped to combat poverty rather than create it? :)

Well, the 1900's wasn't a free market, but it is better than what we have now. Also, living standards went up in the 1900s. Before that, people lived in little cottages which often caught on fire, and they had a very difficult time sustaining themselves. The entire family worked in these small and vermin infested cottages, children included.


If combatting poverty is your goal, then the fact is that an unregulated market doesn't work. It has never worked, historically. Again, witness the pure capitalism of 1900 america, and witness the massive poverty in that society. Now the market is by contrast heavily regulated, and I don't think anyone could argue that poverty is as much a problem as it was back then.

I am not sure what you mean by unregulated capitalism. The 1900s certainly was not an example of unregulated capitalism. It was a vast improvement over the cottage lifestyle people had to live through.

[Havet]

I'd like to hear the theories of OIers on why poor people exist. Go. :)

Exploitation, Inequality of opportunity, governmental privilege granted to capital, forced indocrination as a tool to incentivize laziness and irresposibility (by public and private schools).

[scarletghoul]

because you touch yourself at night

[Mo212]

I find if very difficult to accept the idea that there someone can be "objectively poor". But I could be wrong, I haven't given this much thought to be honest.

Go frequent medical journals that show disease and pathology is correlated with socioeconomic status. What you don't get is that it's not so much not haivng anything then it is the SOCIAL and STATUS repercussions of not having much.

Go read up on studies about Japan's demographic nightmare because Japanese women refuse to marry men who make under ~40,000 a year.

You have to realize the the culture of capitalist consumerism is highly toxic to social relationships, only a blindman would say otherwise.

[Skooma Addict]

Go frequent medical journals that show disease and pathology is correlated with socioeconomic status. What you don't get is that it's not so much not haivng anything then it is the SOCIAL and STATUS repercussions of not having much.

Go read up on studies about Japan's demographic nightmare because Japanese women refuse to marry men who make under ~40,000 a year.

You have to realize the the culture of capitalist consumerism is highly toxic to social relationships, only a blindman would say otherwise.

I am not sure what this has to do with the claim that one can be objectively poor, but I will comment anyways.

Personally, I wouldn't want to marry a woman who will only marry a man who makes over 40,000 a year. Well....I could make exceptions if she were extremely attractive.

I also am not very fond of mainstream culture. But I am not going to attribute this to culture to capitalism. I think most people just aren't interested in things I would consider "above" mainstream culture. I do not know many people who are interested in philosophy and economics for example. I don't think this has much to do with capitalism.

What do you mean when you say consumerism is toxic to social relationships?

[Zanthorus]

What do you mean when you say consumerism is toxic to social relationships?

Have you ever heard of Commodity Fetishism?

Basically in a market society the relationships between human beings are replaced by relationships between things. It doesn't matter to the consumer who produces their goods as long as they produce them. It doesn't matter to the producer who consumes their goods as long as they consume. This is in stark contrast to the kind of face to face interactions inherent in participatory or democratically controlled economies.

[Skooma Addict]

Have you ever heard of Commodity Fetishism?

Basically in a market society the relationships between human beings are replaced by relationships between things. It doesn't matter to the consumer who produces their goods as long as they produce them. It doesn't matter to the producer who consumes their goods as long as they consume. This is in stark contrast to the kind of face to face interactions inherent in participatory or democratically controlled economies.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that human relationships are replaced by relationships between things. There certainly are many human relationships in a free market. But it does matter to some people who produces the goods they buy. Some people care, others don't

[Zanthorus]

I wouldn't go so far as to say that human relationships are replaced by relationships between things. There certainly are many human relationships in a free market. But it does matter to some people who produces the goods they buy. Some people care, others don't

On a smaller scale in terms of local businesses etc you might be right that some people do care who produces their goods. But observe for example a supermarket. How many people do you think actually care who grew the ingredients to make the cereal they're going to eat for breakfast tomorrow or the chocolate bar they'll have in the car on the way to work? Probably not very many.

Really actually it would probably be detrimental to the market for people to know where their products came from because in a lot of cases that would be sweatshops, third world production lines or exploited farmers forced to sell their crops at less than their actual value. The ruling classes need people to be kept in the dark about who's producing their goods because otherwise they might start feeling guilt or remorse and begin to question or even actively rebel against the system.

[Skooma Addict]

On a smaller scale in terms of local businesses etc you might be right that some people do care who produces their goods. But observe for example a supermarket. How many people do you think actually care who grew the ingredients to make the cereal they're going to eat for breakfast tomorrow or the chocolate bar they'll have in the car on the way to work? Probably not very many.

Really actually it would probably be detrimental to the market for people to know where their products came from because in a lot of cases that would be sweatshops, third world production lines or exploited farmers forced to sell their crops at less than their actual value. The ruling classes need people to be kept in the dark about who's producing their goods because otherwise they might start feeling guilt or remorse and begin to question or even rebel against the system.

But even besides local businesses, there are other examples. I am sure your familiar with the diamond market. People regularly ask to make sure that the diamond they want was not mined using slave labour.

I also am not sure what you mean by "the ruling class".

But generally, your right, people do not care about where their product came from. But there are exceptions. Just look at the diamond market. People wont buy products if they were acquired using slaves.

[spiltteeth]

Accumulation of private wealth produces poverty, ie capitalism.

[Radical]

One of the fundemental reasons for poverty is the fact that the richest 10% of the world population hold 90% of the wealth - A symtom of Capitalism.

"It is true liberty is precious, so precious that it must be rationed"

[Zanthorus]

I am sure your familiar with the diamond market.

:lol:


People regularly ask to make sure that the diamond they want was not mined using slave labour.

While sort of interesting that's sort of irrelevant to my main point. I agree their are exceptions but I think on the whole ignorance of who produced the goods people consume is the norm.


I also am not sure what you mean by "the ruling class".

Generally speaking:

- Wealthy Business Owners
- Politicians
- The Police
- The Military
- Rich Landowners
- Aristocrats
- The people who control the content of mainstream media outlets

[Mo212]

I am not sure what this has to do with the claim that one can be objectively poor, but I will comment anyways.

I don't think you're thinking about the social stigma and ostracism that comes with having a disability or mental illness which poverty only exacerbates, check out some sites below:

http://www.unnaturalcauses.org/

http://susanrosenthal.com/articles/america-in-crisis/class-inequality-and-illness-whats-missing-from-the-health-care-debate

http://adaptech.dawsoncollege.qc.ca/pubs/DisabilityMatters/CBC%20News%20-%20Viewpoint%20Disability%20Matters.htm



Personally, I wouldn't want to marry a woman who will only marry a man who makes over 40,000 a year. Well....I could make exceptions if she were extremely attractive.

I know but you have to think about how a culture of greed brought on by onslaught of "lifestyle" advertising as a result of mass media effects people and that is built right into capitalism (advertising). They go hand in hand. The economy has to keep creating new and unnecessary needs to keep people spending to "keep the economy going" (i.e. falling rates of profit when people are not spending), but "keeping the economy going" in this sense is not necessarily a good thing, there are tonnes of things in capitalist society that simply useless.


I also am not very fond of mainstream culture. But I am not going to attribute this to culture to capitalism.

Culture and economic system in modern times cannot be disentangled from one another because of the media, for instance i doubt you would claim advertising doesn't have effects on people for instance. (i.e. brands they buy, how they think and perceive the world around them, etc, etc).


What do you mean when you say consumerism is toxic to social relationships?

This a gigantic topic, but we can take a look at "consumer subcultures" that occur within capitalist society in which rich people only associate with other rich people, then there are subcultures and social phenomena that have complex interplay between technology and finite amount of attention people have in their waking hours.

Also watch born rich:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKKb7_7qBrk

[Skooma Addict]

I don't think you're thinking about the social stigma and ostracism that comes with having a disability or mental illness which poverty only exacerbates, check out some sites below:

http://www.unnaturalcauses.org/

http://susanrosenthal.com/articles/a...th-care-debate (http://susanrosenthal.com/articles/america-in-crisis/class-inequality-and-illness-whats-missing-from-the-health-care-debate)

http://adaptech.dawsoncollege.qc.ca/...%20Matters.htm (http://adaptech.dawsoncollege.qc.ca/pubs/DisabilityMatters/CBC%20News%20-%20Viewpoint%20Disability%20Matters.htm)

I am well aware of the stigma and ostracism many people face. But I am not sure what that has to do with the idea of objective poverty.


I know but you have to think about how a culture of greed brought on by onslaught of "lifestyle" advertising as a result of mass media effects people and that is built right into capitalism (advertising). They go hand in hand. The economy has to keep creating new and unnecessary needs to keep people spending to "keep the economy going" (i.e. falling rates of profit when people are not spending), but "keeping the economy going" in this sense is not necessarily a good thing, there are tonnes of things in capitalist society that simply useless.

What you view as unnecessary other people view as necessary. What you think is useless other people think is useful.


Culture and economic system in modern times cannot be disentangled from one another because of the media, for instance i doubt you would claim advertising doesn't have effects on people for instance. (i.e. brands they buy, how they think and perceive the world around them, etc, etc).

Well, if you are going to say our problems arise from the media, you should know the media is heavily regulated. We don't have a free media. BUt yea, advertising does have an effect on people. I don't really find this objectionable though.



This a gigantic topic, but we can take a look at "consumer subcultures" that occur within capitalist society in which rich people only associate with other rich people, then there are subcultures and social phenomena that have complex interplay between technology and finite amount of attention people have in their waking hours.

I agree that rich people who only associate with other rich people are not the brightest group of people, but this isn't really something that would cause me to stop supporting capitalism.

Even if your criticisms of capitalism were true, they are not strong enough to stop me from supporting capitalism. In fact, your criticism is not really of capitalism itself. Snobby rich people and advertising do not depend on capitalism for their existence.

[Skooma Addict]

Also, I am going to watch that born rich video, even though I am sure I will get angry while watching it.

[Zanthorus]

What you view as unnecessary other people view as necessary. What you think is useless other people think is useful.

Actually I think it would be pretty simple to establish objectively what is and isn't necessary for healthy survival. In fact I'm pretty sure science has already established it.

[Havet]

Actually I think it would be pretty simple to establish objectively what is and isn't necessary for healthy survival. In fact I'm pretty sure science has already established it.

There is a difference between what people find useful and what people find necessary for healthy survival, as Olaf said.

[Zanthorus]

There is a difference between what people find useful and what people find necessary for healthy survival, as Olaf said.

Where did he say that? Mo212 stated that capitalism produces unnecessary consumer goods and Olaf questioned the objectivity of what is and isn't necessary but as I replied it's actually pretty obvious what is and isn't necessary infact it's already been scientifically established. I would advise working on your reading comprehension.

[Havet]

Where did he say that? Mo212 stated that capitalism produces unnecessary consumer goods and Olaf questioned the objectivity of what is and isn't necessary but as I replied it's actually pretty obvious what is and isn't necessary infact it's already been scientifically established. I would advise working on your reading comprehension.

Olaf: What you think is useless other people think is useful

Zanthorus: It would be pretty simple to establish objectively what is and isn't necessary for healthy survival

Clearly your both talking of different things. Olaf is talking of usefulness and you are talking of objective survival necessity.

[Zanthorus]

Olaf: What you think is useless other people think is useful

Zanthorus: It would be pretty simple to establish objectively what is and isn't necessary for healthy survival

Clearly your both talking of different things. Olaf is talking of usefulness and you are talking of objective survival necessity.

Mo212: The economy has to keep creating new and unnecessary needs

Olaf: What you view as unnecessary other people view as necessary.

Me: It would be pretty simple to establish objectively what is and isn't necessary for healthy survival

[Skooma Addict]

Actually I think it would be pretty simple to establish objectively what is and isn't necessary for healthy survival. In fact I'm pretty sure science has already established it.

But I was asking about objective poverty, not what is necessary for survival. My question remains, where do you draw the line? When is someone in an objective state of poverty?

I am also watching that video you linked me and I have a question. Am I supposed to feel sorry for these rich people? I am listening to these multimillionaires whine about how hard their life is, and it is very annoying.

[Zanthorus]

But I was asking about objective poverty, not what is necessary for survival. My question remains, where do you draw the line? When is someone in an objective state of poverty?

This is just blatant pseudo-post modernist Bourgeois sophistry.

"There is no obective state of poverty"

Priceless! :laugh:

[Havet]

This is just blatant pseudo-post modernist Bourgeois sophistry.

"There is no obective state of poverty"

Priceless! :laugh:

With all respect you still haven't answered the question

Where does one draw the line? I'm curious to now as well.

Is it at less than 1 dollar/day?

[Ele'ill]

I'd like to hear the theories of OIers on why poor people exist. Go. :)


Education.

A lot of people don't know what their options are so they end up making uneducated decisions about how to get off the slippery slope. They simply don't know where to go for help.

Lack of community

Community centers run out of funds and in certain areas have very few or no other non profit organizations in their immediate area to network with. The homeless and poor become invisible and are deemed nonexistent to begin with but when the food cupboards run low things get much worse.

I guess the whole idea of our existence on this planet being to become wealthier or as wealthy as we possibly can stops us at a very young age from perhaps being willing to live without a lot of money and material wealth and even further- to do this AND help those that are struggling.

I think a lot of poor people become depressed and hopeless which from the outside can appear as laziness.

[Green Dragon]

On a smaller scale in terms of local businesses etc you might be right that some people do care who produces their goods. But observe for example a supermarket. How many people do you think actually care who grew the ingredients to make the cereal they're going to eat for breakfast tomorrow or the chocolate bar they'll have in the car on the way to work? Probably not very many.

Really actually it would probably be detrimental to the market for people to know where their products came from because in a lot of cases that would be sweatshops, third world production lines or exploited farmers forced to sell their crops at less than their actual value. The ruling classes need people to be kept in the dark about who's producing their goods because otherwise they might start feeling guilt or remorse and begin to question or even actively rebel against the system.

But why do you suppose consumers in a socialist community would care about the workers who made cereal or chocolate bar?
I would suggest it would not be likely, since the chocolate workers are supposedly democratically running their plant and they are choosing their working conditions.

[danyboy27]

pyramid scheme. that why we have poor people.
that the way this system work, even the most hardcore capitalist will tell you that.

[Scary Monster]

pyramid scheme. that why we have poor people.
that the way this system work, even the most hardcore capitalist will tell you that.

No better way to say it than that.


Exploitation, Inequality of opportunity, governmental privilege granted to capital, forced indocrination as a tool to incentivize laziness and irresposibility (by public and private schools). (hayenmill, i cant really tell what political ideology you are, but it seems you support capitalism in general) But id like to add that Olaf and hayenmill are sucking people into a semantics game. Jeezus christ it always appears to me that you two are simply detached from reality. The reality is, as im sure all of you know already, it takes money to make money.. LOTS of freakin money to make a decent living, under capitalism. Myself and numerous people ive come across simply werent born into money. So we have to bust our asses everyday in work, while going to school at the same time which is extremely expensive. To get even the basic things to live, like a place to stay and food and transportation, we bust our asses for. People fall into poverty because life just isnt as predictable as capitalism tries to convince people. Women that i know of myself have it the worst,since they have kids to take care of by themselves, on top of all this i mentioned. capitalism creates these problems, pure and simple. Im not even gonna mention the shit that goes on in africa, middle east,etc in which imperialism causes. we all know what happens anyway.

I know I post similar responses like this every now and then in the OI, but i think theres no clearer way of explaining how incredibly dumb it is to support capitalism. I lay down the pure facts to folks when we hang out at the bars and such, when theyre in the mood to be talkin about shit like this, and they always show their utter contempt for this system when i lay it out for em. Theres nothing any supporter of capitalism can say to change my mind or rebute any of this

[Muzk]

wtf? stop arguing with giant posts, poverty = you dont have food, and this is inevitably caused by the profit system, olaf gtfo

[Havet]

The reality is, as im sure all of you know already, it takes money to make money.. LOTS of freakin money to make a decent living, under capitalism. Myself and numerous people ive come across simply werent born into money.

This is why I said Inequality of Opportunity


So we have to bust our asses everyday in work, while going to school at the same time which is extremely expensive. To get even the basic things to live, like a place to stay and food and transportation, we bust our asses for. People fall into poverty because life just isnt as predictable as capitalism tries to convince people. Women that i know of myself have it the worst,since they have kids to take care of by themselves, on top of all this i mentioned.

This is why I said exploitation


capitalism creates these problems, pure and simple. Im not even gonna mention the shit that goes on in africa, middle east,etc in which imperialism causes. we all know what happens anyway.

I never denied Capitalist creates those problems. Which is why I oppose capitalism.


dumb[/I] it is to support capitalism. I lay down the pure facts to folks when we hang out at the bars and such, when theyre in the mood to be talkin about shit like this, and they always show their utter contempt for this system when i lay it out for em. Theres nothing any supporter of capitalism can say to change my mind or rebute any of this

I don't support capitalism

[Scary Monster]

wtf? stop arguing with giant posts, poverty = you dont have food, and this is inevitably caused by the profit system, olaf gtfo

Dont read it then. Its not like i posted a whole essay. This is only like the third time i posted a whole paragraph on this site. Anyhoo, I thought it was necessary. Im just stating exactly what i see personally, since no kind of economic mumbo jumbo can downplay it.

[Scary Monster]

This is why I said Inequality of Opportunity



This is why I said exploitation



I never denied Capitalist creates those problems. Which is why I oppose capitalism.



I don't support capitalism

I see. I was confused when you said exploitation, because you didnt specify on whos behalf. And your info bar says youre a part of some Libertarian organization, which i thought advocates free market capitalism with little or no government intervention, does it not?

[Havet]

I see. I was confused when you said exploitation, because you didnt specify on whos behalf.

Exploitation of the workers


And your info bar says youre a part of some Libertarian organization, which i thought advocates free market capitalism with little or no government intervention, does it not?

That libertarian organization advocates free market anti-capitalism

[Dejavu]

I think even worse than inequality of opportunity is the unjust inequality of authority in society.

[Dejavu]

The reality is, as im sure all of you know already, it takes money to make money.. LOTS of freakin money to make a decent living, under capitalism. Myself and numerous people ive come across simply werent born into money. So we have to bust our asses everyday in work, while going to school at the same time which is extremely expensive. To get even the basic things to live, like a place to stay and food and transportation, we bust our asses for. People fall into poverty because life just isnt as predictable as capitalism tries to convince people. Women that i know of myself have it the worst,since they have kids to take care of by themselves, on top of all this i mentioned. capitalism creates these problems, pure and simple. Im not even gonna mention the shit that goes on in africa, middle east,etc in which imperialism causes. we all know what happens anyway.

I hear you my friend, a lot of us are in the same boat. This is why its absolutely vital to understand the way our monetary system really works because it effects all of us. I can provide you with some very useful information that is non-partisan and not attached to any particular ideology. It would be , by far , some of the best resource material I have found to date. Let me know if you're interested.

[Scary Monster]

Hells yeah im interested. :) Sounds like its an excellent source to get some verbal ammunition hah. PM me with that, pleez


That libertarian organization advocates free market anti-capitalism

Eh? Youre a very ambiguous guy

[SocialPhilosophy]

I can predict:

- They are lazy
- They are irresponsible
- They want to be poor

Conservatism, Because everyone Wants to be poor.


So twelve percent of the United States today suddenly became overwhelmed with the need to be lazy irresponsible and poor? :thumbup1: Fuckyeah America.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE]The reality is, as im sure all of you know already, it takes money to make money.. LOTS of freakin money to make a decent living, under capitalism. Myself and numerous people ive come across simply werent born into money. So we have to bust our asses everyday in work, while going to school at the same time which is extremely expensive.

And at some point, the fellow who was "born" into money, had a parent who had to to do the above.


To get even the basic things to live, like a place to stay and food and transportation, we bust our asses for.

In a socialist community, somebody is going to have to bust his "ass" to provide those basic things to you. Why do you think you would get a free ride?



People fall into poverty because life just isnt as predictable as capitalism tries to convince people.

LIFE is not predictable. This will be true even in a socialist community.


Women that i know of myself have it the worst,since they have kids to take care of by themselves, on top of all this i mentioned. capitalism creates these problems, pure and simple.

I am not sure why capitalism is responsible for the lack of a father in your friend's children's lives. But again, how does socialism assure that dad is there?


Im not even gonna mention the shit that goes on in africa, middle east,etc in which imperialism causes.

As long as the people in those regions blame all the "shit" going on in their countries, on somebody else, they will alsways be swimming in "shit."
And even if in a socialist community, if you blame all of our problems on somebody else, you will always have those problems.

[Dejavu]

Anyway the answer to the OP question can be summed up in one word. Scarcity.

However , if we look at the world today and ask why is there this much poverty? The answer becomes more complicated and not easy for a lot of people to accept.

[Tungsten]

I'd like to hear the theories of OIers on why poor people exist. Go. :)

Real poverty exists due to lack of productivity. The people who are starving, aren't usually very productive. If they were, they wouldn't be starving. That should be self-evident.


Absolutely. But the people who get their 40% taken away, after a fair redistribution of wealth,

There's no such thing as a fair redistribution of wealth. Any such redistribution is invariably backed by violence and there is that small problem of vested interests.


Supposing unions had never lobbied for benefits or pay-raises, then, you'd see a USA much like that of 1900 where the employers called the shots entirely, right? USA in the 1900s had massive poverty, 10 year olds in factories, scant public education, typhoid and tuberculosis epidemics, and so on and so forth. The unions fought for shorter working days, healthcare etc against those initial terrible conditions.

I should have guessed this topic was going to degenerate into some facile leap of logic.

So......every technological and medical advance since 1900 and the social benefits thereof can directly be attributed to unions lobbying for benefits and higher wages? You'd might as well be arguing that unions lobbied for air travel because that didn't exist in 1900 either. Needless to say, it's BS. In fact, you deserve one of these for the crime of false causation:
http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/3443/facepalmxl.jpg
* You don't go on strike against the existence of tuberculosis or typhoid, you go to a doctor, who develops a cure, and then he cures you.
* Labour saving technological advancements reduced the need for child labour and long hours, raised productivity and thus made goods more affordable. These came from scientists, not unions. It's thanks to this technology that we're not working 18 hours a day, not because of anyone's lobbying.


Again, witness the pure capitalism of 1900 america, and witness the massive poverty in that society. Now the market is by contrast heavily regulated, and I don't think anyone could argue that poverty is as much a problem as it was back then.

The only way we could evaluate this argument honestly is by comparing the relatively free markets of the era with the relatively unfree markets of the same era and looking at the conditions people lived in. Quelle surprise - all we get is the usualy socialist inability to look at history objectively or honestly.

[Tungsten]

pyramid scheme. that why we have poor people.
that the way this system work, even the most hardcore capitalist will tell you that.

In some ways you're right. The fiat money system we've got right now won't go on forever.

In fact, I long for its demise. I'll give it no more than 20 years.

[Dejavu]

Welcome back to Tungsten and Green Dragon. Nice to see you guys again.

[Bud Struggle]

Welcome back to Tungsten and Green Dragon. Nice to see you guys again.

Why do I think they're your roommates? :D

[Scary Monster]

[QUOTE=Scary Monster;1584478]

And at some point, the fellow who was "born" into money, had a parent who had to to do the above.



In a socialist community, somebody is going to have to bust his "ass" to provide those basic things to you. Why do you think you would get a free ride?




LIFE is not predictable. This will be true even in a socialist community.



I am not sure why capitalism is responsible for the lack of a father in your friend's children's lives. But again, how does socialism assure that dad is there?



As long as the people in those regions blame all the "shit" going on in their countries, on somebody else, they will alsways be swimming in "shit."
And even if in a socialist community, if you blame all of our problems on somebody else, you will always have those problems.


:lol: Doesnt sound like you understand socialism at all. And you seem to have missed the entire point of everything i said, such as, when in the hell did i say capitalism is responsible for a woman not having a father in their child's life? I cant even answer anything you asked me, because you either didnt make any sense, or your question has nothing to do with what i said.



In a socialist community, somebody is going to have to bust his "ass" to provide those basic things to you. Why do you think you would get a free ride?

LIFE is not predictable. This will be true even in a socialist community.



my point was that people wouldnt have to "bust their ass" for basic necessities in a proper socialist system, because everyone would have access to adequate social services, not just the people who are lucky enough to have a parent who has a lot of money, regardless of how that parent got that money. of course people would still have to work hard, but they wouldnt have to struggle so hard for the most basic shit that their survival and well-being depends upon. Ive had an ex who was laid off and was staying in homeless shelters with her 10 year old kid for a couple weeks for fucks sake, until she found a friend to stay with and a job.

[Dejavu]

Why do I think they're your roommates? :D

Haha. I don't know those guys. I did have my old roommate post on here a couple times but he found the forum uninteresting. I have fun here.:laugh:

[GPDP]

The problem with the question is that "poverty" is an extremely vague word. I'm going to have to agree with a few of the reactionaries here, and state that poverty can mean several things. It can mean destitution, it can mean a lack of luxuries, a lack of basic necessities for survival, possessing relatively low living standards... hell, to the extreme relativist, it may even mean having less stuff than the guy next to you!

If, for example, we want to talk about poverty in terms of lacking access to the basic necessities of life... then the answer is still pretty complex, and has to take into account different contexts. Poverty in the First World is not quite as severe as in the Third World, and its causes are somewhat less complex as well. After all, Third World nations have to deal not only with exploitation at home by individual employers and oppression by the state, but also imperialism on the part of First World nations, both economic and militaristic.

It also depends on whether we're looking at poverty in terms of every individual on this planet, or in aggregations such as communities or even whole nations. An individual may be in poverty because he can't find a job (and why can't he have a job? That's a whole 'nother discussion, but the answer may depend on whether you believe jobs should be left to the whims of the market or to efforts to provide them in spite of the market), but whole nations may be poor simply because all the wealth is being sucked out of the country.

My answer? We just haven't had enough Live Aid concerts. :rolleyes:

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=Green Dragon;1586527]


[QUOTE]:lol: Doesnt sound like you understand socialism at all. And you seem to have missed the entire point of everything i said, such as, when in the hell did i say capitalism is responsible for a woman not having a father in their child's life?

Then you wrote it poorly.



my point was that people wouldnt have to "bust their ass" for basic necessities in a proper socialist system, because everyone would have access to adequate social services, not just the people who are lucky enough to have a parent who has a lot of money, regardless of how that parent got that money. of course people would still have to work hard, but they wouldnt have to struggle so hard for the most basic shit that their survival and well-being depends upon.

Prove it.



Ive had an ex who was laid off and was staying in homeless shelters with her 10 year old kid for a couple weeks for fucks sake, until she found a friend to stay with and a job.


Okay. Your ex lost a job. People will never lose their jobs in a socialist community? Of course they will.
People will never lose housing in a socialist community? Why? Somebody has to upkeep the house; somebody has to provide the resources to do so. Why should it be someone other than the owner?