Slashdot Mirror
Economists: US Poverty On Track To Hit Highest Level Since 1960s
First time accepted submitter eentory writes "According to economists and other experts surveyed by the Associated Press, the U.S. poverty rate is on track to hit its highest level since the 1960s. The consensus among those surveyed is that 'the official poverty rate will rise from 15.1 percent in 2010, climbing as high as 15.7 percent.' Just a 0.1 percent increase would put the poverty rate at its highest since 1965."
When you pay people to not have jobs... what the fuck do you expect?
working their way down to the grunt workers
No, they wealth is trickling SIDEWAYS into tax-shelters.
http://www.businessinsider.com/rich-21-trillion-31-trillion-offshore-tax-havens-2012-7?op=1
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Says it all.
No, it doesn't say it all. It doesn't say that the poverty line is much higher today than in 1960, so implying that people are worse off is nonsense. It also doesn't say that our definition of "poverty" is silly: it only counts income, and ignores assets. I live in Silicon Valley in a nice neighborhood with a paid off mortgage, and my wife drives a snazzy BMW. I run my own company and usually make a solid six figure income. But in 2010, I had several employees in R&D mode, my net income was nearly zero, I fell below the poverty line. I actually qualified for some government handouts. That is seems absurd to me.
It seems to me today that "poverty" is on par with 1960s luxury, so what's the point?
We have air conditioning everywhere. We have freely available water. Everyone can have a phone, but not just a phone, a cellphone. We have freely available internet.
I'm not a social scientist, so I am legitimately asking "what is the point to eradicating poverty?" Is it just an attempt to integrate a disenfranchised segment of the population - a persistent segment that ever since we moved out of tribes and into larger societies we've had. At what point are these people choosing poverty, and if that is the case why should we care? The current mother of the POTUS managed not to live in poverty, and have a son that went on to lead the free world.
I've been told by y social work friends that the city I live in has sufficient finds and resourced for the homeless. However the vast majority of these are people with mental problems who are high-enough functioning to not be compelled into assistance, who then go out and choose this lifestyle. If that is the case, then I don't think we can ever solve poverty.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
If the Democrats wanted to be seen as the good guys when it comes to the economy, Obama should have had his Justice Department throw bankers in jail when he had the chance. He also shouldn't have appointed Tim Geithner, or any other crony to the cabinet. And he should have refused donations from Goldman Sachs. And he should have at least tried to bail out home owners directly, instead of giving money to bankers who aren't lending it back out.
Sorry, both the Democrats and Republicans work in favor of the rich against the rest of us. If you want me to believe otherwise, do something meaningful. Refuse all corporate donations. Fire all the cronies in your cabinet. Direct your justice department to prosecut Lloyd Blankfein under RICO. DO SOMETHING!
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The economy isn't a zero-sum game. If someone is doing well, they usually invest the money (hopefully being put to productive use) or they exchange their money for goods and services.
The problem is frankly monetary policy. I know, I know. I'm a crazy Ron Paul-type.
Here's what I think is going on. Since we left the gold standard, the amount of money has increased by a lot. Where newly printed money hits the system first (like Wall Street for example) those people get to use the money first and get a big benefit. By the time that money trickles down to the rest of society, all those newly printed dollars mean a loss of purchasing power and the overall value of each dollar.
Almost any chart I've seen about how workers are doing worse from a variety of different sources, the point in the chart where everything goes crazy is the early 70s. 10 years prior to Reagan, but the same time Nixon took America off the gold standard.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Well considering that Nixon took the US off the Gold Standard, effectively turning into a "fiat currency" that the bankers have complete control over -- you may have made a very profound point.
For it was Jefferson that predicted that the Bankers and Corporations would enrich themselves and cast the people into poverty. In 2000, a family of four making $90k a year was considered poverty level in Silicon Valley. Now days it would not surprise me to see that bar raised to $125,000 since US buying power has fallen sharply and greatly increased gas prices have led to greater costs for food (up 30% over the last ten years) and other basic living necessities.
At the rate we're going, with raising gas and food prices and climate change slated to increase and make farming harder -- most every middle-class American will hit poverty level in the next decade. Or so that's what MIT, the Pentagon and a couple other research Institutions predict.
Check this out: Government spending by president. This shows that while Obama may have been spending a lot during a recession, something that many economists encourage to balance out the "good years", the real culprits of out of control government spending are Reagan, Bush and Bush.
Reagan can also be somewhat forgiven due to the economic problems in the 80s and encouraging government spending to make up for the loss in business generated GDP, however he was there for 8 years... and that recession did not last 8 years.
Just looking at the fiscal realities, Clinton was by far the best president if it weren't for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act which set the stage for "too big to fail" banks. Still from a spending standpoint he's by far the best.
Obama is overspending driven by rampant bankster cronyism stemming originally from the Bush era and into the Obama years. This started with TARP (Bush) and continued into QEII, III, and further. There's a good argument to be made that much of the current spending is momentum spending from the second Bush term.
Ultimately we have to look beyond the last 3.5 years and really examine longer term track records before we conclude that the Dems overspend or the Repubs drive up debt.
Read what I mean, not what I wrote.
"Apparently you have been asleep for a few decades. This is Hope and Change!"
No, I think you and the author of the parent post have both been asleep for a few decades and were dreaming that you were awake.
In the last few decades, BOTH Republicans and Democrats have had their opportunity to govern by simultaneously holding the Presidency and majorities in both houses of Congress.
Furthermore, no other party has controlled either the legislative or executive branch in that time.
They swap power back and forth, but the real legislative agenda never changes. Bigger government, military interventionism, reckless fiscal and monetary policy, stagnant real wages, special favors for the privileged elites, fewer civil liberties, more rules and regulations, etc. etc.
Your partisan bickering is nonsense. U.S. politics is like pro wrestling. Yelling, fighting and bitter enmity in front of the cameras, then kicking back and having drinks together while they laugh at the fools who think it's "real".
It's only "worse" if I accept your premises about what it means. We had a lot less regulation in the past than we do now, and entrepreneurial opportunities were much greater. It has recently been estimated by the Small Business Administration that small businesses pay over $10,000 per employee in regulatory costs alone. It costs a huge amount of money today to start even a modest business.
You're also downplaying the "not easy" part of whatever regulation you're supporting as "proper" - and if it's anything close to the current regime, then "not easy" is downright impossible. And the reason for that is the costs for not playing the Lobby game become much higher than playing the Lobby game. These days, if you don't play, you automatically lose. That invites corruption, and it's almost impossible to rout out.
Just look what Obama has done: to appear unbeholden to "lobbyists", he pledged not to accept donations from them. So the people that register as lobbyists don't get access. Instead, there are unregistered "bundlers" that do all the massive fundraising, and since they are not required to register, their activities are much less transparent.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
This stuff's been floating around for years:
Yer Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations:
There is an argument that this quote is taken out of context, in that it appears in a long passage where Smith denigrates various methods of tax collection, but most people agree that even if he is opposed to a tax on income, he is supportive of a tax regime which is progressive in effect, regardless of how it's collected.
Hayek in Road to Serfdom:
The counterargument to this is that the text systematically rejects any mechanism by which a state could operate such a system, only that it should "help to organize" such a system. So I guess it depends on your sense of the term "help."
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.