35,000,000 poor Amerikans?

[Jorge Miguel]

35,000,000 poor Amerikans? (http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2008/12/01/irtr-repost-35000000-poor-amerikans/)


[Update: The following article was written two or three years ago. The minimum wage in the united $nakes of imperialism is now $6.55 an hour and will go up to $7.25 an hour next summer (July 24, 2009). If full-time work is considered to be 2000 hours a year, that represents an annual income of $13,100 ($14,500 next year). With two adults working full time, household income would be $26,200 ($29,000 next year). These figures are well above the "poverty" threshold of the u$ Census Bureau: $10,787 per year for a single person under 65, and $21,027 for a household with two adults and two children (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh07.html).
Also worth noting: "Noncash benefits (such as food stamps and housing subsidies) do _not_ count" towards these income levels for the purposes of the "poverty" threshold (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/povdef.html). Capital gains and losses are also excluded. Yet these items are significant in the determination of "poverty." A person living alone in the united $nakes who gets food stamps and subsidized housing could have a cash income (earned or unearned) of almost $11,000 a year and any amount of capital gains and STILL be considered "poor" by this standard. That income is a lot more than even many professionals (engineers, doctors, etc.) in much of the Third World get--and they certainly don't have access to food stamps and such either.-- Serve The People]
35,000,000 poor Amerikans?
by
Serve the People
(monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com)
I got out The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2001. It’s a few years old, but it will do for our purposes. (1)
According to the Bureau of the Census, U$ Department of Commerce, there were 32,258,000 “poor” persons in the united $nakes in 1999. That was 11.8% of the U$ population. “Poor” persons were 9.8% of the white population, 23.6% of the Black population, and 22.8% of the “Hispanic” (Latino) population.
“Poverty” was highest in the states with high populations of Blacks and other oppressed nations. Nuevo México topped the list at 20.5% “poor”; its population is mostly oppressed nations, with 2.6% Blacks, 9.5% First Nations, and 40.7% Latino–more Latinos than any other state. Next were Louisiana (32.4% Black) and the city of Wa$hington, DC (not a state, but it was 60.0% Black in 2000, according to the Bureau of the Census; this information was not listed in the almanac). By contrast, the states that are 90+% white tend to have the lowest rates of “poverty.”
What counts as “poverty” here? The U$ government defines “poverty” by family size. A single person under age 65 in the U$ was considered “poor” in 1999 if his income was below $8,667. For a family of four, the threshold was $17,029.
A full-time worker in the united $nakes would not count as “poor,” because even the minimum wage of $5.15/hour would give an income of $10,300 or so a year (assuming 2000 working hours in a year: 40 hours a week times 50 weeks a year). In a household of four that included two workers and two unemployed persons (probably children), total full-time income would be at least $20,600 (2 times $10,300), which again is above the “poverty” line.
So a supposedly “poor” person with “only” $8,667 a year in income is not even a full-time worker. Even if he gets only the minimum wage, he is working no more than 33.7 hours per week.
What does it mean to be “poor” in Amerika? Does it mean starvation? Rarely. MIM has pointed out that 49.6% of households below the poverty line in 1994 had air conditioners. (2) Would a comrade from India please tell me what percentage of the entire population of India, a country much hotter than the united $nakes, has air conditioners–or even electricity? The almanac does not give the answer, but it does say that there were only 68 television sets and 117 radios per 1,000 persons in India at some point during the 1990s (between 1994 and 2001), compared to 847 TV sets and 2,115 radios per 1,000 persons in the united $nakes. (3) Also, 98.2% of U$ households owned at least one TV set in 1999. (4) So it’s clear that the great majority of so-called “poor” households in the united $nakes do have TV, whereas in India only a minority of all households have it.
Just for comparison, I looked up the poverty line in India. It is less than 300 rupees per month per person. (1) That corresponds to an annual income of less than 3600 rupees. That is an annual income of US$80. And some 30% of India’s population is below that level. The same Web page claims that the average income in India is about US$440 per year. (5)
So-called “leftists” who make an issue out of an alleged 35,000,000 “poor” persons in Amerika are full of shit. They are just quoting a U$ government figure that was more or less arbitrarily chosen. They do not bother to look at reality and set an objective standard for poverty; they just blindly parrot numbers that make the united $nakes sound like a “poor” country. Their goal is to make Amerika look proletarian, for if there are 35,000,000 “poor” persons in Amerika, presumably there are tens of millions of “proletarians” who are just slightly better off.
The fact is that even most of the “poor” in the U$ are not exploited; they even benefit from imperialist exploitation. Most of them have (or at least have access to) relatively rich diets that are much more nutritious than what most Third World workers can afford to eat. “Poor” Amerikans also have large houses and numerous luxuries, including appliances like air conditioners and personal computers that are far out of the reach of most persons in the Third World. It is reactionary to spread misleading figures about “poverty” in the belly of the imperialist beast.
Notes:
(1) Most of the following data are from pages 379 and 380; the data on states come from pages 627 to 655.
(2) http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/bookstore/books/capital/cox.html
(3) Almanac, pp. 797 and 855.
(4) Ibid., p. 314.
(5) http://www.wakeupcall.org/administration_in_india/poverty_line.php
***


From http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/

[Madvillainy]

lol

[Jorge Miguel]

lol
Profound.

[Jorge Miguel]

To be clear, I don't agree with this article entirely, but it raises some valid points that I should like to see the left respond to rather than the usual character assassination against this particular trend of Maoism.

[Oneironaut]

You make interesting comparisons between the quality of living of the "richest" country in the world and a third world country. You have outlined the differences between the absolute poverty of India and the absolute poverty of the United States. However, what you fail to address is relative poverty. It is true that absolute poverty in the United States has been drastically decreased (it still does exist). However, relative poverty has been growing in alarming numbers. When you actually consider relative poverty, which is just as relevant than absolute poverty, you would see that the US is ranked 16th in the world, with Ireland falling in the 17th spot.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

You claim that the workers of the US aren't exploited and even benefit from US imperialism? Are you kidding me? We are forced into wage slavery, have the opportunity to see all the wealth that has been extracted from us of which we see only the crumbs, and are that constant whim of the "free market". We are commodities just like the rest of the world's workers. We benefit from US imperialism? Millions of jobs once held by American workers have been sent abroad resulting from US imperialism.

Yes you're right that we enjoy a higher quality of living than many of the third world. This doesn't excuse the fact that we are alienated and exploited just like the rest of the world. Workers in the US have created all the value that the capitalists enjoy, yet we are only fed enough to keep us at work and not revolt. The majority of us don't make enough to even raise a family as we would like too.

If you want to say that we aren't exploited, I'd tell you to get your head out of your ass and shut the fuck up.

[Oneironaut]

Sorry Topulli, I thought you wrote this crap. Consider my response for the article writer, not you!

[Jorge Miguel]

No need to apologise and thanks for replying.

[#FF0000]

I'm with AGdI entirely.

To say that the first world working class is no longer exploited because they have it better than the third world is blaming the first world working class for enjoying what little it's won through the struggle.

I'd also have to wonder what the practical implications of that line of thinking would be. Are the workers in the US or England or Germany supposed to send money off to third world labor parties or organizations, when they don't have enough to cover all of their own needs? Are the first world workers supposed to give up on their own emancipation until third world workers are at the same place as they are? Is that how revolutions happen? Is that how history works?

Which reminds me. The writer of the article seems to think that exploitation is some relative thing. It's not. First world workers are forced to sell their labor to create surplus value for capitalists just as third world workers are. They are both exploited.

I never liked Third-Worldism. It's impractical, and just all-around ridiculous.

[The Douche]

Are the first world workers supposed to give up on their own emancipation until third world workers are at the same place as they are? Is that how revolutions happen? Is that how history works?

Not quite, 1st world workers are not going to rise up, the only people in the first world who are revolutionary are non-white, and according to some MIMites, only female. Some even go so far to say that blacks are also not proletarians.

Eventually the entire third world will go socialist and with their combined military might they will invade the first world and make the workers work for essentially nothing (think prussian socialism) to rebuild/build up the third world. This is sometimes referred to by MIM as the "one big gulag".

I'm not making this up. That is what they advocate.

Also, all sex under capitalism is rape, unless it is two non-white females.
Also, clothing will be regulated under socialism to "mao suits". (not a joke)
Also, men will only be permitted to have short hair.

[turquino]

I think this article is correct. It shows that even the poorest american has more things than a relatively wealthy person in the Third world. An american with only $10.000 income is still within the world's richest 14%. Furthermore, if we were to divide up the total social product equally (as measured by global nominal GDP), then each person would be entitled to approximately $8200. A similar calculation here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1296165&postcount=90
So you can see that even a generous calculation of the value of labour shows it is below the legal minimum wage. Clearly, if workers are receiving more than the value of their labour, then their wages must contain surplus value and they are not exploited, but exploiters.


Yes you're right that we enjoy a higher quality of living than many of the third world. This doesn't excuse the fact that we are alienated and exploited just like the rest of the world. Workers in the US have created all the value that the capitalists enjoy, yet we are only fed enough to keep us at work and not revolt. The majority of us don't make enough to even raise a family as we would like too. The claim that american workers have created all the value that the capitalists enjoy is a fucking lie. Profits would be negative if the workers were paid the american average around the world. Few workers in the first world are even doing any productive labour, so most are unproductive and only can only be involved in circulating or realizing surplus value, not creating it. For your claim to be true, american workers would have to be enormously productive, as in 5-10x more productive than average. But even if they were this productive, that still would not justify their super high wages. Better productivity is determined by better technology; however, technology does not create value, human labour does. Simply because the american produced more does not mean his labour was more valuable, and thus deserved higher remuneration, but that he had access to more technology (a high organic composition of capital).

[Oneironaut]

The claim that american workers have created all the value that the capitalists enjoy is a fucking lie.

Woops I made a typo. I should have just said workers, first world and third world included.



Profits would be negative if the workers were paid the american average around the world.
This is besides the point. You are merely expressing the reality of capitalism. Since when are socialists advocates of profit anyway? We want to trash the entire system, including profit.


Few workers in the first world are even doing any productive labour, so most are unproductive and only can only be involved in circulating or realizing surplus value, not creating it.

I don't know where you got your information for this claim. I am a construction worker. We are renovating a high-end hospital that is paying our bosses billions of dollars for the job. We renovate multi-million dollar rooms. There are currently 5 crews who work in the hospital and each have 4-6 laborers and carpenters. Laborers, like myself, who make up 3/4 of each crew earn 17.85 an hour. Carpenters (assuming they are journeymen) make 21.50 an hour. Since there are at most 30 workers in the hospital, our combined wage per hour is at most 562.875 dollars. My crew's last project took us 8 days to complete from start to finish. Working 8 hour days for 8 days, combined we were paid 1,216.8 dollars. The final cost of all the materials (including medical instruments) was 850,000 dollars. My foreman said that the room would have had to cost over 1.5 million dollars for the company not to make a profit. In other words, the company turns a 650,000 dollar profit. The four people who built the room made 1,216.8 dollars? No chance that surplus value isn't being extracted from us.