Wage Slavery? The poor are poor because....

[The 93rd Coalition]

No, that's what I meant by Lack of Education. No education, no job, no money, no house, no food, no livelihood.

You haven't even attempted to reply to anything off my list.

What? I'm agreeing with you.

[Bezombia]

You haven't even attempted to reply to anything off my list.

What? I'm agreeing with you.

"Lack of education" =/= "Coming from a poor background/Crippling college debt/Lack of decently paying jobs/Chance". Not sure how that could be seen as an agreement...

[Maqo]

Source please.

I'm afraid I've lost the location of that source, but I'll notify you and this thread when I find it.

But here's one that generally confirms what I'm saying.

The economic success of capitalism doesn't mean it is not evil It could be that everyone in those countries is 'rich' but terribly unhappy. Also the second graph doesn't appear to be adjusted for purchasing power and thus is meaningless, though I can't be bothered looking at the source. Or it could be that every one of these 'most free' countries is significantly far removed from anything ancap and the positive trend does not continue to be positive after a threshold of government is reached.
(not saying that capitalism is evil: it is amoral. But the graphs don't prove that it is not)


The answer to the title question is quite obvious but seems to be caught up in huge amounts of right vs left wing rhetoric.
Poor people are poor because you need resources to make money. Its really that simple.
You don't need to go to extremes of socialism or ancapism or cronyism or slavery or whatever. The divide is very evident even comparing two middle-class families who earn the same wages but choose different investment strategies. A very obvious one that most people may be familiar with is purchasing a house: around here, mortgage repayments are less than what one would expect to pay in rent for the same property, but you need a 20% deposit. So you can save money... so long as you have $100,000 in the bank to get started.

Now, I did specifically say you need 'resources' to make money. Some people are gifted with intellectual resources and can pull themselves out of poverty using those valuable assets. For most people, resources = money. More money gets you better health, and thus better productivity. More money lets you buy less of a quality product, instead of a new cheap one every month. Resources might also mean education:

In Australia, public schools are jointly funded by the state/federal governments, and each has a catchment area and cannot refuse students who apply from this area. Supposedly this gives everyone equal access to education. But when you see the public schools in the rich suburbs, they are amazing (often outcompeting the $50k/year private schools in the area!). Why is this? Teachers with rich spouses are able to live close, and because of the wealth->education->compatibility relationship, these teachers are (demographically speaking) likely to be better educated and more capable teachers than those teachers who live in lower socioeconomic areas... and the cycle continues.


It doesn't need to be as complicated or as conspiracy-laden as government meddling or cronyism or what have you. Its only as complicated as boots:

“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.”

― Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms: The Play

[European Socialist Republic]

I'm gonna need something more than an infographic. Anyone could make their own chart in MS Word and add a "source" at the bottom to make it look legit.

Especially when both claimed sources are right-wing think-tanks...

Even the Mises Institute thinks the Heritage Foundation's index is flawed.
http://archive.mises.org/2941/flawed-ec ... dom-index/

Also, something that's kinda funny:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/2 ... nd-Greece#

[The 93rd Coalition]

What? I'm agreeing with you.

"Lack of education" =/= "Coming from a poor background/Crippling college debt/Lack of decently paying jobs/Chance". Not sure how that could be seen as an agreement...

Ah. Okay, I just realized what you meant by College Debt. But I agree with you anyway, those are all viable reasons.

I mean, this is just fascinating about how we're arguing about agreeing.

[Unitaristic Regions]

Where in the poll is the 'birth' option?

It's not always correct, I mean some people just tumble by sheer bad luck into poverty.

Birth is sheer bad luck if it causes your poverty

[JJ Place]

I looked over your sources, to the best of ability.

The first source's title is a bit, incorrect. Dorfman cites a lot of technically accurate statistics
Dorfman quotes the labor productivity in comparison to the minimum wage. Dorfman cites that labor productivity in fast food has shown no improvement in productivity since 1987, but the minimum wage has increased from $3.35 to $7.25. He cites that worker productivity has risen 0.6% for other service industries, which would make the raises in minimum wage six times more than would is justified. The problem is with that argument is that the CPI (the consumer price index, how we calculate inflation) has risen from $1000 in 1987 to $2,080.04. Under that concept, the minimum wage should have risen to $6.70 for fast food. Dorfman also cites that 1/3 of all people on minimum wage are teenagers, or the secondary or tertiary wage earner in a household. That's also right, and definitely is a valid point.

Dorfman uses a lot of loaded language, and really tries to point out anyone for raising the minimum wage as an adversary or someone else. Dordman tries to make a connection that this is class warfare by redistributing wealth, but that's a pretty extraordinary point, and, from my view, that doesn't seem to be any more than a mis-thought out point that sounds good that many people can get behind, but really is much different when you look at a broader picture of the situations.

Dorfman makes the point that the minimum wage significantly hurts the country, and economy, and consumers, but I find that a really extraordinary point, and he only really uses thought evidence, they'rs no real proof, at least not in that article.

Dorfman does make an excellent point, in that there certainly is a much better alternative to the minimum wage, but that's a very complex issue, and Dorfman really doesn't add up the argument, or an understanding of the broader picture for that issue.

The general problem is that Dorfman seems to be a bit disconnected from what life is like on minimum wage, Dorfman really doesn't seem to feel the reason for raising the minimum wage, providing more income for a number of people. Dorfman really doesn't make the economic argument for anything against the minimum wage, and Dorfman's other arguments don't really bad up or have a lot of the feelings or reasons or logic behind them.



The second article is well written, popularly drafted, concise, easy to read and understand, but it lacks substantiation; it's just a collection of thoughts, and they're largely incorrect with a larger picture of the economic and social workings.

Hm, well, thank you for reading them over. I felt that the first article made a lot of good points and used facts and statistics to back them up. A bit complicated, but I could understand it.

The second article is from an organization dedicated to the protection of small business. That's the reason why I found it fairly reliable.

The first article does make multiple points. The problem with the article lies in that it misses a lot of information, and that fundamentally alters the arguments its trying to propel. That ommission, and the differences in perception from the author, towards the people that are affected by the minimum wage and policies makes a big difference in the conclusions. The statistics are right, but the analysis is off.

Ahuhmm, it's an article written to attract readers, but it's not really a substantial source. I'm not sure about the organization, it very well might be a very dedicated and beneficial organization, but the article is a very flimsy argument, and really not a source at all, it really doesn't prove anything, other than a bad argument by the author.

[Unitaristic Regions]

I'm afraid I've lost the location of that source, but I'll notify you and this thread when I find it.

But here's one that generally confirms what I'm saying.

The economic success of capitalism doesn't mean it is not evil It could be that everyone in those countries is 'rich' but terribly unhappy. Also the second graph doesn't appear to be adjusted for purchasing power and thus is meaningless, though I can't be bothered looking at the source. Or it could be that every one of these 'most free' countries is significantly far removed from anything ancap and the positive trend does not continue to be positive after a threshold of government is reached.
(not saying that capitalism is evil: it is amoral. But the graphs don't prove that it is not)


The answer to the title question is quite obvious but seems to be caught up in huge amounts of right vs left wing rhetoric.
Poor people are poor because you need resources to make money. Its really that simple.
You don't need to go to extremes of socialism or ancapism or cronyism or slavery or whatever. The divide is very evident even comparing two middle-class families who earn the same wages but choose different investment strategies. A very obvious one that most people may be familiar with is purchasing a house: around here, mortgage repayments are less than what one would expect to pay in rent for the same property, but you need a 20% deposit. So you can save money... so long as you have $100,000 in the bank to get started.

Now, I did specifically say you need 'resources' to make money. Some people are gifted with intellectual resources and can pull themselves out of poverty using those valuable assets. For most people, resources = money. More money gets you better health, and thus better productivity. More money lets you buy less of a quality product, instead of a new cheap one every month. Resources might also mean education:

In Australia, public schools are jointly funded by the state/federal governments, and each has a catchment area and cannot refuse students who apply from this area. Supposedly this gives everyone equal access to education. But when you see the public schools in the rich suburbs, they are amazing (often outcompeting the $50k/year private schools in the area!). Why is this? Teachers with rich spouses are able to live close, and because of the wealth->education->compatibility relationship, these teachers are (demographically speaking) likely to be better educated and more capable teachers than those teachers who live in lower socioeconomic areas... and the cycle continues.


It doesn't need to be as complicated or as conspiracy-laden as government meddling or cronyism or what have you. Its only as complicated as boots:

“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.”

― Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms: The Play

Plus, you can wonder what this 'economic freedom' entails as private property is nothing but institutionalized exclusion. Whether pro or anti-property, you'll have to admit that it limits freedom. Social property allows for free use of who uses and thus excludes far less...

[Magna Libero]

Eh...




Such a gentle idea. Unfortunately an economy can't work if everyone ignores the profit motive.

Profit doesn't have to be in the form of money. Everyone would work becausetheir labor supports their flow of food and shelter in the community

Who would decide what to produce? If your answer is planned economy then that would be inefficient as it doesn't take demand into account.

Would advertisements, logos and symbols for a product be banned? If yes, how would the consumer know which product he wants to buy and is closest to the ideals of the said consumer?

[Landofromania]

They are poor because they believe in there god,meaning money

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The poor are poor because, well, some people do better than others.

I come from a family who is NOT rich by any means. However, we managed to go through life being a success. How you ask? My father beat the odds.

I mean, you can say all you want about more money, but the thing about wealth is not to get to be a millionaire, but rather to be able to beat the odds with the next generation. My dad beat the odds exponentially from earning 1 dollar a day back in 1960s El Salvador to more than 100,000 a year nowadays in the U.S. We as his children are going to be earning at least as much as he has by the time we retire.

The poor are poor many times because of their particular situation, which must be corrected via the government assuring the basic necessities of a life in the hands of people. Sort of a safety net.

[Divair2]

They are poor because they believe in there god,meaning money

You don't need to believe in money for it to exist.

[Shie]

The poor are poor because, well, some people do better than others.

I come from a family who is NOT rich by any means. However, we managed to go through life being a success. How you ask? My father beat the odds.

I mean, you can say all you want about more money, but the thing about wealth is not to get to be a millionaire, but rather to be able to beat the odds with the next generation. My dad beat the odds exponentially from earning 1 dollar a day back in 1960s El Salvador to more than 100,000 a year nowadays in the U.S. We as his children are going to be earning at least as much as he has by the time we retire.

The poor are poor many times because of their particular situation, which must be corrected via the government assuring the basic necessities of a life in the hands of people. Sort of a safety net.

I agree with you here on the matter of luck. The next question is whether the poor should be taken care of.

[Juggalo world]

Some make it others dont,its all a matter of effort if you work and are smart with what you have youll succeed if you dont work and or waste your money youll be poor until you die and have no one to blame but yourself.

[Bojikami]

Because Capitalism.

[Nervium]

They are poor because they believe in there god,meaning money

You don't need to believe in money for it to exist.

It would be great though. Because no money = no taxes = no whining libertarians on the internet!


That's what I call FREEDOM.

[Revolutionary Zion]

Capitalism allows those of the Middle-Class and above to get richer by eliminating all opportunities the Poor have to get better. It results in low funding to Social Welfare, Education, and Health, so that those who already have more than enough can get more, unhindered. Meanwhile, no support for the Poor other than a next-to-nothing Minimum Wage, and even then, those jobs usually go to spoiled highschoolers and college kids wanting to buy an XBox.

[Herskerstad]

One liner OP's are frowned upon and the user sure as hell knows this. That's all I will add to this thin shadow of a thread.

[Bezombia]

One liner OP's are frowned upon and the user sure as hell knows this. That's all I will add to this thin shadow of a thread.

*counts*

This OP has like eighteen lines, what are you talking about?

[Aravea]

The poor are kept poor via exploitation by large multinational corporations seeking to maintain a viable source of low cost labor. Furthermore these MNCs further poverty by limiting the efforts of NGOs by utilizing corrupt officials and unfair trade practices. Nowhere is this more evident than in the Choclate industry which gains its supply by encouraging the use of indentured servitude on Cacao plantations in nations such as Cote d Ivorie(sorry if I misspelled it). Or at least that's what I've read.

[Dayaar Mongol]

There are poor people in the USA because of Capitalism.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Some make it others dont,its all a matter of effort if you work and are smart with what you have youll succeed if you dont work and or waste your money youll be poor until you die and have no one to blame but yourself.

inherited wealth, connections, and (sadly) skin color are all factors that play a part, in descending order of importance. One could struggle by without them, but the odds would not be in his or her favor.

[Kalarin]

Hierarchy breeds inequality. Capitalism is based a hierarchical system. In truth there will always be poor and rich. Both are subjective terms we use to define a set level of wealth. The real aim should be not to make the poor rich but to make poverty an acceptable standard of living.

In truth wage slavery is more tax slavery. While you work to live you work to pay tax. Don't pay tax its off to jail. Don't work well its a lower standard of living for you.

The poor are poor because there will always be a poor. There will always be someone or some group at top better off than everyone else.

[Herskerstad]

One liner OP's are frowned upon and the user sure as hell knows this. That's all I will add to this thin shadow of a thread.

*counts*

This OP has like eighteen lines, what are you talking about?

Oooh right, I forgot I had one user on my foe list. For a moment I thought the second poster had a clever 1-liner to provoke a shitstorm argument.

My bad.

[Bezombia]

*counts*

This OP has like eighteen lines, what are you talking about?

Oooh right, I forgot I had one user on my foe list. For a moment I thought the second poster had a clever 1-liner to provoke a shitstorm argument.

My bad.

Bullshit. When you ignore someone you can still see that they posted.