Whats your idea's to curb poverty?

[arc]

Where are the taxes?

If they are in "others" then people are cheating.

If they are not concerned as "expenditures", then the whole picture gives a wrong impression.

 

 

I'm flattered that a couple of people marked it up when I posted it (thanks folks) but I'd really like a reply to my earlier question.

"For some years now we seem to have tried to reduce poverty by taking money from poor people and giving it to rich people.

It hasn't really worked.

Has there ever been a concerted attempt to do it the other way round?

If so, what happened."

 

 

I'm not an economist but I think the problem lies in the way that when an economy becomes increasingly larger, it becomes exceedingly more difficult for the lowest wage earner to participate successfully in it. In 1900 a family may have had only to deal with the monthly payments of rent or mortgage, energy costs of heating and cooking, groceries and incidentals. While most major cities had cheap horse drawn or even electrically powered public rail transportation systems. The average worker then, not unlike the worker now, would hope for an adjustment in wages to cover inflationary increases.

 

The mechanisms that would increase the cost of living expenditures back then involved fewer players in the supply chain that delivered these goods and services to the end user. Compare this to now, where every aspect of our economy, and by extension our lives, involve vast interrelated dependencies. When the price of say fuel goes up it affects so many goods and services that the increased adjustments of costs not only cascade through the economy, but negatively impact those at the bottom of the economy the greatest.

 

By the time an increase in wages is provided to the lowest earners it will be delinquent and even fall short in meeting the total of added expenses that the inflation imposed on prices. This is unfortunately the way increased costs are covered. The burden is shifted, not out of unconcern for low wage earners, but as the outcome of a vast adjustment that the total economy made to a change in the valuation of everyday goods and services within the economy.

 

The stock market and key commodities form the crucible of our economy, their value in contrast to wages and other costs determines the strength of the economy, the industries and financial sectors operate around this core with those jobs furnishing middle class wages and lifestyles. It is the lowest wage jobs that are the farthest from the crucible that receive a disproportionate impact. The inflation increase is proportionately greater the lower the wages are, and, as in a small movement of the handle of a buggy whip produces proportionately greater movement in its farthest reaches, those at the economy's edges receive the greatest adverse effect on their finances.

Edited December 20, 2013 by arc

[iNow]

I'm not an economist but I think the problem lies in the way that when an economy becomes increasingly larger, it becomes exceedingly more difficult for the lowest wage earner to participate successfully in it.

I have to disagree with you here. This appears very much nonsequitur and seems to be a flawed conclusion. When an economy grows, almost by definition more people are able to participate in it, and that's sort of opposite of what you just said.

 

IMO, the more parsimonious explanations for the difficulties being faced right now by low wage workers are:

• Their jobs are more easily shipped to even lower wage countries (like China or Bangladesh)
• Their jobs are easier to fill with other low-wage workers, a problem especially pertinent right now as there are 3-4 unemployed people for every 1 job vacancy (i.e. you don't need to raise wages to retain them since you can more cheaply replace them with someone at the same low wage... or an even lower wage, in some instances)
• Many of these low wage jobs equally require low skills and are now being done by machines and robots (since a one-time up front capital expenditure is far cheaper in the long-run than the recurring labor cost of humans doing it)
• Median wages have not scaled with profits or productivity as they did in the past, and this problem has been getting worse since the early 1980s. Profits are WAY up. Productivity is WAY up. Wages are flat to down.
• Gains these past 5-10 years have come almost entirely from wealth and investments, not from income where (as I've already mentioned) wages have been flat and even somewhat down
• Legislative protections for workers have been continually eroded under the banner of free markets and business friendliness. Likewise, unions that previously gave low wage workers a stronger voice with which to lobby and power with with to bargain/negotiate have been consistently busted and torn apart in a systematic way
• The floodgates have been opened allowing unlimited and massive contributions and donations to our elected officials (with rulings like Citizens United) thus further reducing the political power of the low wage workers (further muting their voice) relative to those who are already wealthy
• Healthcare costs impact the low wage earner disproportionately as they generally are paying more for service, often need more services due to poor nutrition, and they tend not to be offered good high quality health insurance coverage packages from employers as part of their compensation

There are clearly a multitude of other problems being faced right now by low wage workers, but those are some of the more apparent ones off the top of my head.

 

My central point, however, is that a growing economy is good for everyone (better for some than others obviously, but still good on net for all), and it actually helps low wage workers by increasing opportunity and aggregate job supply. If we want to help low wage earners, preventing the economy from growing is now where we should start... quite the opposite, really.

 

In 1900 a family may have had only to deal with the monthly payments of rent or mortgage, energy costs of heating and cooking, groceries and incidentals. While most major cities had cheap horse drawn or even electrically powered public rail transportation systems. The average worker then, not unlike the worker now, would hope for an adjustment in wages to cover inflationary increases.

This is a good point, and I would add to it. Recall that back in 1900 many low wage workers didn't even have to worry about rents or food or energy costs because they often were working as live-in servants of wealthy families, provided room and board and meals as part of their compensation. However, since then, our wealthy families no longer tend to bring servants or staff into their homes, but instead outsource it (thus lowering their own costs).

 

For example, instead of paying a live-in family chef, they go to restaurants. Instead of paying a live-in maid, they hire a service to come in weekly just for a few hours. Instead of hiring a full-time care-taker for their children, they hire baby sitters and nannies and send kids to day care. All of this has only further eroded the purchasing power of the low wage earner, who now has to find a way to cover these additional costs (housing, food, fewer job opportunities, etc.) that were previously included in their overall compensation a century ago.

 

By the time an increase in wages is provided to the lowest earners it will be delinquent and even fall short in meeting the total of added expenses that the inflation imposed on prices.

I tend to agree with your core point here, but I do think this issue can be largely mitigated by tying wage increases in a meaningful way to cost of living increases.

 

We should also note that right now we are experiencing an exceptionally low level of inflation (below target, and that's part of the reason we're struggling so much to start growing again, but I digress...). The current low rate of core inflation means the impact of low wages on worker well-being is not quite as severe as it would be under higher inflation. While headline inflation on volatile goods prices like food and oil has been up and down, the overall rate is quite low and this ultimately makes it much easier for low wage earners (as much as they do struggle) to make it by day to day.

 

The inflation increase is proportionately greater the lower the wages are, and, as in a small movement of the handle of a buggy whip produces proportionately greater movement in its farthest reaches, those at the economy's edges receive the greatest adverse effect on their finances.

All true, but we need to remember that higher inflation right now would make US goods more attractive to purchasers in other currencies, thus increasing demand for US produced goods and thus increasing the number of jobs available. This would actually wind up making it a bit easier for low wage earners to be successful. It's a bit counter-intuitive, I admit, but while lower wage earners are disproportionately impacted by increased inflation, they also benefit from increased inflation during times like these much more than other income ranges due to the larger benefit that inflation brings to the economy itself.

 

It's a nuanced point, and there are many economists right now explaining it (higher inflation right now being a net good for US workers) much better than I can.

 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/01/inflation

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/the-case-for-higher-inflation/

Edited December 20, 2013 by iNow

[arc]

I'm not an economist but I think the problem lies in the way that when an economy becomes increasingly larger, it becomes exceedingly more difficult for the lowest wage earner to participate successfully in it.

 

 

I have to disagree with you here. This appears very much nonsequitur and seems to be a flawed conclusion. When an economy grows, almost by definition more people are able to participate in it, and that's sort of opposite of what you just said.

 

"it becomes exceedingly more difficult for the lowest wage earner to participate successfully in it."

I guess I would explain this by using one of the more visible examples of a lowest wage job, working in a fast food restaurant. 20 years ago these jobs furnished motivated workers of a high school and college age an introduction and education into the workings of a modern food service business. These were considered temporary jobs by almost all of these worker, being just a stepping stone to earn and learn as they moved up in life.

 

Many of these workers that did not move on to college would likely have left fast food employment for a manufacturing position, gaining experience, and in time, possible a living wage from added technical skills. This group has been recently spotlighted, they appear to not be leaving fast food employment, there appears to be a redefining of fast food by these workers as more of a long term - dare we say - career. Or at least one requiring a living wage. The question is why have they not found the living wage job that previously existed beyond fast food?

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/12/05/fast-food-strike-wages/3877023/

 

 

I believe the reason for this is these manufacturing jobs have been filled with lower wage workers, drying up this important step in the ladder of economic opportunity for many workers. I know this first hand. The industry that I have worked in for 34 years is under constant pressure to lower wages. How and why would they do this? Because a few companies have mixed into the work force minimum wage immigrant workers that they have no intention of ever paying the higher wages now paid. This requires my employer who pays the industries highest wages to compete with a substantial disadvantage.

 

As the competition enlarges this minimum wage work force my employer must compensate through lower profit margins and cutting employee benefits. At some point they will probably do the same and another middle class job will go by the wayside. I'm talking about manufacturing jobs that pays our workers up to 3 times minimum wages. My dad raised 4 kids doing this for a living. My three sons are following in his footsteps, I hope this will not be a regrettable choice.

 

My own job is to take these manufactured electrical advertising products (think Las Vegas) and install them at our customers businesses. Some of these customers are manufacturers themselves and they appear to be doing the same where they can, replacing higher wage workers for lower. My electrical licence has in the past guaranteed me and my loved ones a good living but even this is threatened from attempts to change our state to a "Right to work" status, meaning anyone can do the installation, including the welding and electrical work. This could be as much as 1/3 to 1/2 a cut in income if passed.

 

Just as the treasury could print so much money it would lower the value of a dollar, an over abundance of cheap labor diminishes the value of the status quo living wage worker. This isn't about hiring workers for jobs Americans don't want, this is about under cutting lower middle income blue collar jobs and workers from below. Leaving this struggling fringe now trying to raise fast food employment to a living wage standard.

 

So you see, you can grow an economy and lose the lower middle income jobs at the same time. You are not loosing the job just the value it had in contributing to a middle class life that is sadly on its way out. There will be little left of the blue collar lower to middle class but for public employees and the few surviving unions.

 

"it becomes exceedingly more difficult for the lowest wage earner to participate successfully in it."

As I inadequately explained, the modern economy can impose an accumulated adjustment of differed expenses. These can raise prices in almost all goods and services as these new inflationary costs are distributed downward through the economy. Where these meet the lowest wages they have a proportionate larger adverse impact on the workers buying power. Hurting those with the least amount of income the most.

 

Edited December 21, 2013 by arc

[iNow]

I guess I would explain this by using one of the more visible examples of a lowest wage job, working in a fast food restaurant. <snip. These were considered temporary jobs by almost all of these worker, being just a stepping stone to earn and learn as they moved up in life. <snip> there appears to be a redefining of fast food by these workers as more of a long term - dare we say - career. Or at least one requiring a living wage. The question is why have they not found the living wage job that previously existed beyond fast food?

I believe the answer to your question is quite easy. The supply of better jobs outside of fast food is too low. There is a overall lack of better opportunity positions elsewhere. Demand for products is down, so companies are not making capital expenditures and are not hiring. There are simply fewer jobs for fast food workers to transition into.

 

This problem is made worse when you realize just how many higher skilled workers have been laid off these last few years from their previous higher wage positions. They are now in the same job market seeking work, too, and they are basically now competing for the same positions lower wage workers are seeking, and they have a massive advantage against lower wage workers who generally have less experience and less education.

 

I believe the reason for this is these manufacturing jobs have been filled with lower wage workers, drying up this important step in the ladder of economic opportunity for many workers.

This is certainly part of it, but I believe the issue is less about those few jobs which are actually available being filled by lower income workers and is instead more about those jobs simply drying up, being cut, not being back-filled, and even sometimes becoming totally obsoleted.

 

a few companies have mixed into the work force minimum wage immigrant workers that they have no intention of ever paying the higher wages now paid. This requires my employer who pays the industries highest wages to compete with a substantial disadvantage.

While there will always be a small handful of local exceptions, you should note that immigrant labor is a net positive for the economy and for jobs at all wage levels, and this has been so well established at this point that this point is not even really arguable if you're basing your position on facts instead of belief.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/31/worried-about-the-economy-then-pass-immigration-reform/

Few economic problems wouldnt be improved by more immigration. If youre worried about deficits, more young, healthy workers paying into Social Security and Medicare are an obvious boon. If youre concerned about the slowdown in new company formation and its attendant effects on economic growth, more immigrant entrepreneurs should cheer you. If youre worried about the dearth of science and engineering majors in our universities, an influx of foreign-born students is the most obvious solution youll find.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/29/five-things-economists-know-about-immigration/

Economists have tried to put a dollar figure on how much the world economy would grow if we just removed all immigration restrictions overnight. The answer: a lot. Angel Aguiar and Terrie Walmsley modeled the effects of three U.S. policy alternatives full deportation of Mexican immigrants, full legalization and full legalization with increased border control and found, unsurprisingly, that full deportation reduces gross domestic product and the others would add. Deportation reduces GDP by 0.61 percent, legalization with border control increases it by 0.17 percent and legalization without border control increases it by 0.53 percent.

 

Pritchett, meanwhile, compared what open borders would do to world GDP, compared to completely free movement of capital and completely free trade with developing countries. It's not even close. Open borders increase world GDP by $65 trillion. Let me repeat that. $65 trillion with a 't'. The others don't even come close:

More here: http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2010/august/effect-immigrants-us-employment-productivity/

 

As the competition enlarges this minimum wage work force my employer must compensate through lower profit margins and cutting employee benefits.

Very true, but we must also remember that job losses these last several years have came across ALL skill levels and across ALL sectors. Clearly, the more appropriate explanation for our problems here is a huge market shock causing a massive decrease in aggregate demand, thus causing companies to scale back, cut costs, cut workers, and stop investing and hiring.

 

This then has a multiplier effect and self-reinforces since those laid off employees taking lower wages also now have less money to spend and so the places where they spent their wages now take a hit and have to lay people off... They can't pay their creditors, so they take a hit and have to cut costs... lather, rinse, repeat. This story cannot be accurate told by laying blame at the feet of cheap immigrant labor. It's about a massive shock to the system that caused extreme austerity measures, which counter-intuitively made things worse for all of us.

 

At some point they will probably do the same and another middle class job will go by the wayside. I'm talking about manufacturing jobs that pays our workers up to 3 times minimum wages.

Manufacturing will always follow the cheapest source of labor, though, since they live and breath by tiny margins. Manufacturers must always drive cost reductions wherever they can be found if they are to survive. The single biggest cost to most companies (especially in the manufacturing sector) are the employees... the labor and benefits and fully burdened costs that come with them, so companies always try to minimize the number of people working for them or to find other ways to lower cost of labor.

 

During the past several decades, this expressed itself by transitioning labor to other countries. Many US jobs went to China, then many of those Chinese jobs went to India since labor was cheaper there, then many of those Indian jobs went to Bangladesh since labor was even cheaper there... Now, they're at the lowest rung of the wage ladder and they can no longer travel somewhere else to achieve cheaper labor than they get in Bangladesh, so what are we doing? We're building robots and machines to do the cheap labor instead. That's the real challenge here IMO. The uneducated person has fewer blue collar opportunities, yes, but that problem does not come from immigrant labor.

 

 

Just as the treasury could print so much money it would lower the value of a dollar, an over abundance of cheap labor diminishes the value of the status quo living wage worker.

I understand your point, but do want to remind you that we currently seem to have an over abundance of ALL types of labor right now, across all wage levels, not just cheap labor. This is suggests a problem with lack of demand for products and services we're facing, not too much supply of labor or low wage workers.

 

So you see, you can grow an economy and lose the lower middle income jobs at the same time.

I agree, but you also tend to create jobs in other sectors or areas (it's the entire concept of creative destruction). Perhaps a better question here is for me to ask you, how are you defining economic growth?

 

If you're defining economic growth merely by GDP, then I concede and have to agree with you. Most of that growth is happening in the financial sector and in wealth and investments. However, if you define economic growth by job creation and increased availability, greater access to work for people who want it, and all of this coupled with median wages somehow tied to profits and productivity, then I have say lower middle income people would greatly benefit. It all depends on what specific type of economic growth you're referring to.

[Dekan]

What does "poverty" really mean? Doesn't it boil down to this - not having enough to eat.

 

If so, it's basically a problem of food-shortage. And this problem could be solved by building more factories, and atomic power stations

 

The stations would provide the energy to dig mines, bring up ores, and smelt them into metals, which would go to big atomic-powered factories. Here the metals are shaped into a huge armada of machines - tractors, combine-harvesters, motor-trucks - designed to go out and work the Earth's farms, to produce the needed food.

 

And the farms would be ready all over the Earth - especially in South America, where the primitive rain-forest would be bulldozed and cleared for usable modern arable and grazing land. Also in Australia, where atomic-powered desalination plants would pump water from the coast to irrigate the interior and make it agriculturally productive.

 

With bold scientific steps like these, we could feed everyone, and get rid of poverty within a few decades. What's stopping us doing it?

[John Cuthber]

What does "poverty" really mean? Doesn't it boil down to this - not having enough to eat.

 

 

Not really.

If you have the choice between having food and heating your home it's still poverty, whichever decision you make.

And, if you can do those, but not afford medical care or an education for your kids then not only are you in poverty, but you (and they) are likely to be stuck there.

 

There are other issues like " in South America, where the primitive rain-forest would be bulldozed and cleared for usable modern arable and grazing land."

Ignoring, for the minute, the morality of killing all the other animals which live there, what about the greenhouse effect?

[iNow]

What does "poverty" really mean? Doesn't it boil down to this - not having enough to eat.

 

If so, it's basically a problem of food-shortage.

Not having enough to eat is often one component of poverty, but it does not represent poverty itself (which encompasses many other things). I addressed this thinking already in post #18 when the same thing was suggested by jduff.

[ralfy]

Localization and skills connected to it, such as permaculture, organic gardening or small-scale farming, herbal medicine, recycling, etc.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Stick to the topic please - hijack regarding disposal of nuclear waste split to speculations.

[Arete]

And the farms would be ready all over the Earth - especially in South America, where the primitive rain-forest would be bulldozed ...

 

After the many threads in which it had been explained at length why it would be a bad thing for humans to decimate the world's biodiversity, I am somewhat astounded by the fact you still seem to think it would be beneficial to do so.

 

Furthermore, one of the reasons that farmers in rainforest reasons have adopted slash and burn methods - which relocate the farm site to a new location on a regular basis is because in a rainforest, the nutrients are largely in the biomass rather than the soil, leaving it quite unproductive, such that yields decrease rapidly and the farms become nonviable in only a few growing seasons.

 

And a second furthermore - global production already produces enough food for all the humans in the world - more production would be surplus to requirements and not resolve world hunger (which as been point out already is a connected but distinct issue from world poverty). Issues like a lack of infrastructure for disribituion of food in the developing world, conflict, natural disasters, unstable economic markets and wastage/spoilage are more of a concern.

Edited December 22, 2013 by Arete

[ralfy]

About food production,

"Dramatic decline in industrial agriculture could herald 'peak food'"

Most conventional yield projection models are oblivious to the real world say US researchers

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/dec/19/industrial-agriculture-limits-peak-food

 

As suggested at the end of the article, farming as part of localization will be important in the long run.

 

The implication is that not just the poor but even the middle class will be employing these suggestions in the long run.

[arc]

What does "poverty" really mean? Doesn't it boil down to this - not having enough to eat.

 

It is relative to its surroundings, being poor in America may come with government subsidies that do not exist in the third world.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2013/11/09/too-much-of-too-little/

"There was a time when Terry Canales thought he knew the solution, and that solution could be accomplished through politics.

Canales, a 33-year-old Texas state representative, grew up outside McAllen, surrounded by the poverty and obesity he called “the double deaths” of Hidalgo County. He had waited in line at the area’s ubiquitous drive-through convenience stores and watched people use their government Lone Star cards to purchase some of South Texas’s most popular snacks, paying $1 for hot Cheetos smothered with cheese or $2 for a Mexican snow cone covered with gummy bears and chili powder. He had seen children use food stamps to buy Red Bull energy drinks by the case, and he had seen some of those same children waiting in line at the medical clinic near his house where 28 people had diabetes diagnosed every day."

 

Friday nights at our house is pizza night. Repeatedly, and including this last Friday, my wife observed customers paying full price for pizzas with state issued food cards. This last time the woman in front of her paid 30 dollars on a state card for two pizzas. My wife did what she does every Friday, bought our two with coupons for $15.

[arc]

I believe the answer to your question is quite easy. The supply of better jobs outside of fast food is too low. There is a overall lack of better opportunity positions elsewhere. Demand for products is down, so companies are not making capital expenditures and are not hiring. There are simply fewer jobs for fast food workers to transition into.

 

Yes, some of these are downward displaced workers, they either have arrived from formerly greener pastures or started here and have been unable to breakout to blue collar work in manufacturing or construction trades because these employers are now preferring a lower wage immigrant work force.

 

In 2009 when the economy hit the skids our company only cut 5 employees out of a total work force of 38. They were ones added during the previous "good years" and were not considered essential. Our company is a family owned business and it has operated these last four years with very low margins to keep this core group employed.

 

Our competition laid off employees in mass and have chosen to supplement their rehiring with low wage immigrant replacements as the economy has recovered, these current american fabricators and assembly techs are training their eventual lower wage replacements. Our company will be having to compete against these lower cost competitors.

 

I find it rather hypocritical when people raise hell about Walmart coming to a new area and harming local businesses with their lower wage employees and high volume wholesale buying power, and then turn around and think dumping mass amounts of low wage immigrant workers into the same local communities doesn't accomplish the same thing. I worked with a guy that was a fabricator at a company back in the late 1980's, he was paid then around $17 an hour, he now works at that other "transitioning" company for minimum wage. The guy is almost 60 years old and makes about half what he did in 1987.

 

Please explain this current idea that "Walmart is bad for american workers and small businesses" while "dumping lower wage workers into the same market and displacing those same american workers and small businesses" is good for competition and America.

 

It is only good for employers that will higher 30 worker for what they payed 15 american's to do previously. Wall street loves companies that will hire 300 workers for what they use to only "buy" 100 or 150 for. Wall Street loves american products that now can be made by lower wage workers, opening vast new markets to american exports. Wall street loves cutting costs, and really doesn't care if millions of workers and the businesses that want to do right for their employees get financially worked down to going out of business or giving up and reducing wages.

 

 

This is certainly part of it, but I believe the issue is less about those few jobs which are actually available being filled by lower income workers and is instead more about those jobs simply drying up, being cut, not being back-filled, and even sometimes becoming totally obsoleted.

 

While there will always be a small handful of local exceptions, you should note that immigrant labor is a net positive for the economy and for jobs at all wage levels, and this has been so well established at this point that this point is not even really arguable if you're basing your position on facts instead of belief.

 

Most of these are jobs that do not involve exports, they involve construction and fabrication of locally used products, but they have to sink or swim in the ocean of cheap labor. Its a free market and no one is standing up for these Americans. These jobs allowed them to buy their own homes or at least start to, they won't be able to do this now in this new labor glut. People know the middle class is shrinking from the bottom up, the blue collar American dream is dead and won't be brought back for minimum wage.

 

Yes, the facts are that doubling production for half the wages is very profitable and produces increased tax revenues. Washington and Wall Street are loving the cheap labor, it looks good for America, but there are millions of workers that lose their dreams to the millions of immigrants that come here for theirs.

 

So, the players behind cheap immigrant labor are; Wall Street, hmm. Those guys are always for the little guy right? And Washington, they just love us common people, always protecting us from those corporations. Gee, I don't feel any anxiety at all about the future. Oh, and the press that has self induced blindness to the millions of American families that have been, and are now being financially harmed by falling wages. Or the political parties that are so exited about getting a piece of this political pie. No, the facts show its just rainbows and lollipops from here on out.

 

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12122

 

In 2001, following a three-year undercover investigation, federal prosecutors accused Tyson of conspiring to smuggle undocumented immigrants from Mexico and Central America to work in its poultry plants in Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, Indiana, Missouri and Virginia, over a period of 7 years, in order to raise profits. Despite the testimony of managers that orders came from on high, a Tennessee jury controversially concluded in 2003 that the operation was run locally without the approval of the company executives.

 

What do you think happens when these workers "escape" to outside employment, they get replaced by another . . .and then another . . . .and then another . . . . . .

 

Again;

Just as the treasury could print so much money it would lower the value of a dollar, an over abundance of cheap labor diminishes the value of the status quo living wage worker. This isn't about hiring workers for jobs Americans don't want, this is about under cutting lower middle income blue collar jobs and workers from below. Leaving this struggling fringe now trying to raise fast food employment to a living wage standard.

Edited December 25, 2013 by arc

[iNow]

Like I said, I stipulate that not all sectors are the same. Note that most of my comments here refer to the economy in aggregate, not to certain local markets where dynamics can clearly be different (such as in your case).

 

It also struck me when you mentioned cutting only 5 people during the recession. I was like, wow... I remember walking more people than that out before 10am one morning during 2 weeks of such activities. We cut more than 5,000 where I am, and then had to do it again with another 2 or 3,000 last year. The cuts were not with a scalpel, but with a cleaver. I also remember when tens of thousands were laid off in the 90s where my dad worked. Hard times for all involved, but I recognize that this is the nature of the economy. After all, you don't hear people any longer lamenting the loss of horse buggy manufacturers or phone switchboard operators or milk delivery men... even though it was hard in the short-term for people doing that work. While those jobs went away, new jobs in other areas were created. That's just how this works.

 

Anyway... Happy holidays.

[Airbrush]

Ideas to curb poverty?

 

More relevant education, a longer school day, and longer school year.

 

Better methods of matching people's skills, or talents, to education and to jobs.

 

Discourage people who cannot afford a family from having a family.

Edited December 26, 2013 by Airbrush

[Popcorn Sutton]

I think that there are several ways to fix it. One is socialism, two is changing the monetary system, three is a complete redefinition of what we know to be a system.

 

Socialism sounds appealing, but doesn't mean we will be productive (I would like to have a cutoff on the amount of wealth one can acquire to preserve that productivity).

 

Changing the monetary system has been a topic for a while I'm sure, but it seems that every politician who has ever said that they would like to focus on that while in office has gotten killed.

 

Scientocracy seems to be a bit of a topic at this point and a Brazilian economist is talking about it on tv and YouTube. I like this idea because productivity will skyrocket and priorities will be dealt with as quickly as possible so we can reduce their significance. Whether we also change the monetary system is up for debate. Like I said before, I would suggest limiting what one person can earn, but even that number can rise and lower depending on significance.

 

A redefinition of our society would almost certainly be tragic because I don't think it's possible for people to stay at peace with such a sudden transition.