Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Poor Little Rich Man
Maybe it's true that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. But the poor are also getting a lot more time to enjoy "our friends, our hobbies, and our favorite TV shows." While people in the top 10 percent have about the same amount of leisure time now as their counterparts did in 1965, the bottom 10 percent have gained about 14 hours a week in free time.
Over at Slate, Steven E. Landsburg offers some musings on these surprising facts:
First, man does not live by bread alone. Our happiness depends partly on our incomes, but also on the time we spend with our friends, our hobbies, and our favorite TV shows. So, it's a good exercise in perspective to remember that by and large, the big winners in the income derby have been the small winners in the leisure derby, and vice versa.
Second, a certain class of pundits and politicians are quick to see any increase in income inequality as a problem that needs fixing—usually through some form of redistributive taxation. Applying the same philosophy to leisure, you could conclude that something must be done to reverse the trends of the past 40 years—say, by rounding up all those folks with extra time on their hands and putting them to (unpaid) work in the kitchens of their "less fortunate" neighbors. If you think it's OK to redistribute income but repellent to redistribute leisure, you might want to ask yourself what—if anything—is the fundamental difference.
Read the original study here.
|3.13.07 @ 6:12PM|#
The poor are getting richer, just not as fast as the rich. I agree that the rich getting super-rich is a problem because they can (and do) use their riches to disproportionately influence the government (relative to the poor). I do not agree that it is a problem because poorer people "feel bad" that they don't have all the stuff rich people do. That's envy, and it should never be rewarded. Envy is a petty human emotion that should be discouraged. Envy is a sign of shallowness, which no thinking person should respect (even if we are all at least a little bit shallow).
|3.13.07 @ 6:20PM|#
The poor are getting poorer in the same way a smaller than anticipated budget increase is considered a budget cut. This is, it's not really the same thing at all.
|3.13.07 @ 6:25PM|#
But if the poor get a less than expected increase, and the rich get a bigger than expected increase, you can understand why they feel pissed. There's a sense of entitlement, man!
R C Dean|3.13.07 @ 6:25PM|#
While people in the top 10 percent have about the same
amount of leisure time now as their counterparts did in 1965, the
bottom 10 percent have gained about 14 hours a week in free
time.
Which may, just may, have something to do with why the top 10% are
where they are, and the bottom 10% are where they are.
|3.13.07 @ 6:34PM|#
On the one hand it is disturbing having people worth billions of
dollars while others are dumpster-diving for supper. On the other
hand I dont understand the thinking that we should all have the
same amount of wealth.
I think that the wealthy could do more to help the less fortunate
but I also believe that a lot of poverty is the result of poor
decision making.
|3.13.07 @ 6:56PM|#
I love the conception that the wealthy would just hide their
money under their mattress unless the govt taxes it away from
them.
The best way for the wealthy to help the less "fortunate" (as if
the difference was only one of luck), is for them to invest their
wealth and create jobs. Strangely, this is exactly what most of
them do.
John Kindley|3.13.07 @ 7:08PM|#
" . . . a certain class of pundits and politicians are quick to
see any increase in income inequality as a problem that needs
fixing-usually through some form of redistributive taxation."
Any such increase noted in modern day trends is only an increase in
a problem that has always needed mending. Progressive taxation does
not have to be redistributive taxation. As I've said before in a
formula that seems apt, it's not a matter of taking from the richer
to give to the poorer, but of taking (to the extent we feel
government has to take at all) from the richer instead of the
poorer.
To quote the free-market manifesto that started it all, Adam
Smith's Wealth of Nations:
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor.
They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their
little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of
life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent
house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other
luxuries and vanities which they possess. . . It is not very
unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense,
not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in
that proportion."
So then it's just a question of how much progressivity in taxation
is just. I believe taxes should be far more progressive than they
have been in recent history and than most libertarians think they
would like. On the one hand, the government's confiscation through
taxes of what a poor or middle class citizen needs to establish or
maintain a decent and reasonably secure lifestyle works a greater
assault on personal liberty than does taxing the excess resources
of the wealthy (of course the latter taking as well as the former
impinges on liberty -- but which impinges more?). Cf. Thomas
Paine's Agrarian Justice. No one making less than $50k per year
should have to pay income tax.
We can also look to the apparent injustice of various forms of
taxation relative to one another. The much maligned (and inherently
progressive) inheritance or estate taxes seem far less odious and
more congenial to the libertarian spirit of independence than other
forms of taxation. Cf. Andrew Carnegie's The Gospel of Wealth.
Consumption or sales taxes (which unlike income taxes do not tax
savings, investment and capital), if they exempt the "necessaries
of life" (such as food) which "occasion the great expense of the
poor" may be more just than the current income tax regime.
mediageek|3.13.07 @ 7:16PM|#
"The best way for the wealthy to help the less "fortunate"
(as if the difference was only one of luck), is for them to invest
their wealth and create jobs. Strangely, this is exactly what most
of them do."
And with the advent of companies that manage investment portfolios
like Edward Jones, the middle class has been getting in on that
action, as well.
CEO Nwabudike Morgan|3.13.07 @ 7:27PM|#
Human behavior is economic behavior.
what's the value of leisure time?
the closer the remuneration offered by one's job gets to the (often
subconsciously) assessed value of leisure time, the more people
will opt for the leisure hours.
when you earn 9 bucks/hr gutting pigs at a slaughterhouse, sitting
at home watching TV is certainly competitive.
If you stand to pull serious riches (measured in millions) by
expertly and competitively riding herd on paperwork and yapping on
the phone, you're a lot more inclined to put in the hours.
Note: in 1965, gutting pigs in Austin, Mn paid enough to buy your
high school graduate a new car, or to send them off to
college...even if it was a land grant university.
|3.13.07 @ 7:28PM|#
"rounding up all those folks with extra time on their hands and
putting them to (unpaid) work in the kitchens of their "less
fortunate" neighbors."
The top 10% work mostly in their kitchens?
"If you think it's OK to redistribute income but repellent to
redistribute leisure, you might want to ask yourself what-if
anything-is the fundamental difference."
To redistribute leisure you have to force people to stop working,
and force the person with more leisure time do their job for them a
while.
I doubt the bottom and top 10% are perfectly substitutable, though
some at the top may just be rent-extracting bureaucrats (a la Kevin
Carson). And it's disruptive to The Class Structure and all that
jazz.
Under redistributive taxation of income, you pay The Man his slice
then get back to working how and as much as you've a mind.
So redistribution of income does rather less damage than
redistribution plus a shitload of government planning. Forced to
choose between the two, the former's just plain more libertarian
than the latter.
|3.13.07 @ 7:31PM|#
As far as taxes go, the really rich haven't had it so good since
the 1930s, thanks to a top rate of 15% on dividends and capital
gains. (Lower than the 17% flat tax that Steve Forbes dreamed
about!)
A low-income person can easily end up paying >25% in tax, if you
add it all up (15.3% SS/Medicare, 10-25% income tax, plus state
income, sales, and property taxes). The only people who get off
easy are those in the sweet spot of the Earned Income Tax Credit -
some even enjoy a net subsidy.
|3.13.07 @ 7:40PM|#
On the one hand it is disturbing having people worth
billions of dollars while others are dumpster-diving for
supper.
I know a little bit about that guy you saw dumpster diving; namely
that he isn't just poor. If I recall correctly, poverty is defined
something like two or three times the money needed to maintain a
nutritionally adequate diet. So, in the US, around half of "poor"
families own their own home. They are poor relative to, say me, but
not in the sense of dumpster-food-or-no-food poor. That guy in the
dumpster is crazy. My wife donates some of her time as a physician
in a homeless clinic. Even though the care is free, the largest
obstacle she faces in patient care is getting them to follow
directions and return. The hard core homeless couldn't show up to a
simple menial job even if they could get one. I don't know what
rich folks can de for these people. Free food, healthcare, and
coats maybe.
|3.13.07 @ 7:55PM|#
I don't know what rich folks can de for these
people.
A bullet between the eyes would probably be best.
|3.13.07 @ 8:23PM|#
Is that leisure time desired? If people are not working as many hours as they want and have more free time than they wish and would rather have more, then the study's results mean something completely different than what Landsburg implies.
|3.13.07 @ 9:03PM|#
Col Dubois,
I am not religious, so I hope you aren't either, or St. Peter will
give you the down elevator. And I am not kidding.
|3.13.07 @ 10:30PM|#
...and the definition of 'leisure time' can be debated. How about a four-hour flight in a private jet with a fully-stocked bar, a personal attendant, and an entertainment center? To some people, it's part of a normal working day...and many others can only dream of such luxury. I'm sure you can come up with additional examples.
isonomist|3.14.07 @ 1:52AM|#
"I believe taxes should be far more progressive than they have
been in recent history and than most libertarians think they would
like."
Now exactly what do you mean by more progressive? If the
US with its unwieldy, complicated progressive tax system were to
eliminate the income tax and the payroll tax, and switch to a flat
consumption tax with a deductible of $20k and no silly and complex
exceptions, would that make the tax system more or less
progressive? (It would definitely make the tax system immensely
better, but that wasn't the question.)
R C Dean|3.14.07 @ 7:28AM|#
Progressive taxation does not have to be redistributive
taxation.
It does in a democracy, because the majority will inevitably
discover that progressive taxation is a step on their path to
untold riches:
Step 1: Tax my rich neighbor more than myself
Step 2: Vote for pandering politicians who promise me a Free
Lunch.
Step 3: Untold riches!
Are there any modern democracies that haven't taken this path?
|3.14.07 @ 8:32AM|#
The study doesn't talk about the "top 10%" vs. the "bottom 10%."
It talks about people with more than 12 years of education vs.
people with 12 years or less.
Now I'm off to do some non-leisure activities for the next 8
hours.
|3.14.07 @ 9:01AM|#
The poor have more leisure time because they don't work FLSA exempt jobs. My preferred solution? Get rid of FLSA exemptions so I can have my free time back.
Dan T.|3.14.07 @ 9:14AM|#
I do not agree that it is a problem because poorer people
"feel bad" that they don't have all the stuff rich people do.
That's envy, and it should never be rewarded. Envy is a petty human
emotion that should be discouraged. Envy is a sign of shallowness,
which no thinking person should respect (even if we are all at
least a little bit shallow).
I don't know about this - I would think that the desire for
equality is a natural one among people and to assign the
perjorative term "envy" to those who wish to be treated like others
seems a little like blaming the victim.
You could say that anybody who is treated unjustly is going to be
jealous of those who are not. But it comes across as a
rationalization of the guilt that comes along with privilige.
Dan T.|3.14.07 @ 9:22AM|#
The poor are getting poorer in the same way a smaller than
anticipated budget increase is considered a budget cut. This is,
it's not really the same thing at all.
No. Wealth is relative and if a certain group is building wealth at
a slower pace than society at large then that group is getting
poorer, since the only way you can be poor or rich is in comparison
to everybody else.
|3.14.07 @ 9:47AM|#
"I would think that the desire for equality is a natural one
among people"
Jesus Dan, you really are a hopeless idiot. The common desire is to
do better than your neighbor.
"The study doesn't talk about the "top 10%" vs. the "bottom 10%."
It talks about people with more than 12 years of education vs.
people with 12 years or less."
This really speaks to me. My wife and I are moving and getting some
new "good" jobs. They are good in that they pay more, but we will
also be working less than we typically have. My wife with 20+ years
of education will be working 10 hour days with three overnight
shifts a month. This is considerably better than the hours she
works now. I'm embarrassed to say how long I've been in school, but
it is at least as much as her. I will now be working a 40 hour week
for the first time ever.
But then, we chose the jobs with long hours. Someone already raised
the point, but would the bottom 10% in education like to work
more?
|3.14.07 @ 9:48AM|#
"No. Wealth is relative and if a certain group is building
wealth at a slower pace than society at large then that group is
getting poorer, since the only way you can be poor or rich is in
comparison to everybody else." - Dan T.
Nonsense. If everyone were billionaires, you think that the people
who had 5 billion would envy those with 6 billion? On the other
hand, if everyone is starving, then the guy with a crust of bread
has the status of a billionaire.
"I don't know about this - I would think that the desire for
equality is a natural one among people and to assign the
perjorative term 'envy' to those who wish to be treated like others
seems a little like blaming the victim." - Dan T.
Envy is what you experience when you have enough, but want what
belongs to someone else. It has very little to do with how people
treat other people. Unjust treatment should and usually does bring
about righteous indignation, a completely different emotion. But
that brings us to your next point...
"You could say that anybody who is treated unjustly is going to be
jealous of those who are not." - Dan T.
True, but there's a huge difference between being TREATED unjustly
and how much money one makes/has. The two are not related. That's
why "all men are created equal" is a reference to how they are
treated by their government and their society, not as an edict to
chop off chunks of people's legs to make them all the same
height.
"You could say that anybody who is treated unjustly is going to be
jealous of those who are not." - Dan T.
Unjust treatment does not breed jealousy, but righteous
indignation. People who are jealous feel that way because they
don't deserve what the other person has, and hate the way that
makes them feel.
"But it comes across as a rationalization of the guilt that comes
along with privilige." - Dan T
Project much? While I agree that wealth does bring certain
privileges, the best thing about being a U.S. citizen is that the
poor man is equal under the law to the rich man. In fact, the two
could very well trade places, though it is more likely that the
poor man will become richer than that the rich man will lose
everything. (It's also unlikely that the poor man will stay
poor.)
The rich man and the poor man alike, have nothing to be ashamed of.
Even Eleanor Roosevelt understood this: "No one can make you feel
inferior without your consent." That's one of the beautiful things
about the U.S.
Of course, another of my favorite ER quotes is "The future belongs
to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams." Odds are, if
you believe in it, and go about it in a rational manner, you can
accomplish it. That's one of the primary differences between the
U.S. and most of human history...
|3.14.07 @ 9:56AM|#
Wealth is relative and if a certain group is building wealth
at a slower pace than society at large then that group is getting
poorer, since the only way you can be poor or rich is in comparison
to everybody else.
If my neighbor's house burns down, it doesn't make me any richer.
If only it were so simple!
|3.14.07 @ 9:57AM|#
"No. Wealth is relative ... "
There is absolute poverty and relative poverty. Absolute poverty is
measured in terms of affording subsistence items. You can certainly
make time here talking about absolute poverty. But if you want to
talk about the guy who settles for basic cable on his 27" CRT while
his neighbors watch high-def cable on 58" plasma screens you'll
find most unsympathetic. Including me.
|3.14.07 @ 10:10AM|#
"If you think it's OK to redistribute income but repellent to
redistribute leisure, you might want to ask yourself what-if
anything-is the fundamental difference."
OK, gennius, the next time a mugger wants your wallet, are you
going to volunteer to go off with him and be his slave instead? I
didn't think so.
There are levels of stupidity that require a great deal of
education.
|3.14.07 @ 10:14AM|#
You ever hear the old saw, "It takes money to make money?"
Try showing up to the job interview half an hour late because your
'81 Citation broke down again, wearing a threadbare sports coat,
with a rash you haven't gone to the doctor to have treaated because
you have neither health insurance nor much of a savings account.
I'll tell you what, you're not going to be seeing a decline in your
leisure time anytime soon.
Yeah, it's all petty envy for poor people to believe their
situation is unjust. Hey, they're not starving!
|3.14.07 @ 10:18AM|#
joe:
When the mugger steals the wallet, he is stealing productive hours
of your life. He has after the fact forced all of the labor you
spent earning those dollars to be solely for his benefit. I don't
think the slave thing is as far off as you suggest.
|3.14.07 @ 10:19AM|#
Try showing up to the job interview half an hour late
because your '81 Citation broke down again,
Been there. And I did get the job. In fact joe, when I was
poor I worked a series of undesirable jobs. There was considerable
turnover in my coworkers because of the nature of the work. I guess
I just needed the money more than them?
|3.14.07 @ 10:20AM|#
Define slavery, joe. Would you agree that slavery is being
forced to work for someone else without choice or fair recompense,
under threat of violence?
"OK, gennius, the next time a mugger wants your wallet, are you
going to volunteer to go off with him and be his slave instead? I
didn't think so." - joe
No one can volunteer to be a slave. You can't rape the willing,
joe.
"There are levels of stupidity that require a great deal of
education." - joe
The best part about you is how incredibly ironic some of the
statements you make truly are.
Here's one for you to think over: Education can cure ignorance, but
not stupidity. Anyone who thinks stupidity can be cured probably
also believes the guy who tells you "I'm from the government, I'm
here to help."
Dan T.|3.14.07 @ 10:20AM|#
"No. Wealth is relative and if a certain group is building
wealth at a slower pace than society at large then that group is
getting poorer, since the only way you can be poor or rich is in
comparison to everybody else." - Dan T.
Nonsense. If everyone were billionaires, you think that the people
who had 5 billion would envy those with 6 billion? On the other
hand, if everyone is starving, then the guy with a crust of bread
has the status of a billionaire.
I'm not sure what you mean here - money is not a thing, but rather
a means of exchange. The value of having a billion dollars depends
entirely on the amount of money everybody else has.
"I don't know about this - I would think that the desire for
equality is a natural one among people and to assign the
perjorative term 'envy' to those who wish to be treated like others
seems a little like blaming the victim." - Dan T.
Envy is what you experience when you have enough, but want what
belongs to someone else. It has very little to do with how people
treat other people. Unjust treatment should and usually does bring
about righteous indignation, a completely different emotion. But
that brings us to your next point...
I guess whether an emotion is "envy" or "righteous indignation"
depends on whether you sympathize with the person in
question.
"You could say that anybody who is treated unjustly is going to
be jealous of those who are not." - Dan T.
True, but there's a huge difference between being TREATED unjustly
and how much money one makes/has. The two are not related. That's
why "all men are created equal" is a reference to how they are
treated by their government and their society, not as an edict to
chop off chunks of people's legs to make them all the same
height.
But I contend that wealth is the very thing that makes people
unequal. If you think a Rockefeller is "equal" to a child born into
poverty then the term ceases to have any meaning.
"You could say that anybody who is treated unjustly is going to
be jealous of those who are not." - Dan T.
Unjust treatment does not breed jealousy, but righteous
indignation. People who are jealous feel that way because they
don't deserve what the other person has, and hate the way that
makes them feel.
In this case you're kind of begging the question - does simply
having something mean that person deserves it? Especially when your
station in life is largely determined by your birth?
"But it comes across as a rationalization of the guilt that comes
along with privilige." - Dan T
Project much? While I agree that wealth does bring certain
privileges, the best thing about being a U.S. citizen is that the
poor man is equal under the law to the rich man.
In theory they are, in reality the poor are the ones in prison, not
the rich.
The rich man and the poor man alike, have nothing to be ashamed of.
Even Eleanor Roosevelt understood this: "No one can make you feel
inferior without your consent." That's one of the beautiful things
about the U.S.
Easy enough for her to say!
|3.14.07 @ 10:21AM|#
I want to pin down the 'justice' angle. What does that word mean
when someone says the "situation of the poor is unjust?"
It isn't the same justice we use when we talk about 'the justice
system', is it? How?
Dan T.|3.14.07 @ 10:24AM|#
If my neighbor's house burns down, it doesn't make me any
richer. If only it were so simple!
Actually, it does.
Consider - now your neighbor needs a place to stay. If you still
have a house, you went from having nothing that he needed to having
something that he needs. Therefore, he might agree to pay you to
rent a room where he wouldn't have before.
|3.14.07 @ 10:29AM|#
"Try showing up to the job interview half an hour late because
your '81 Citation broke down again, wearing a threadbare sports
coat, with a rash you haven't gone to the doctor to have treaated
because you have neither health insurance nor much of a savings
account. I'll tell you what, you're not going to be seeing a
decline in your leisure time anytime soon." - joe
Ok, let's play the "who has it bad" game, joe... Some of the jobs
I've held you wouldn't poke with a stick, joe. My favorite was
working as an "assistant plumber" - it doesn't sound so bad, right?
The job description, if there had been one, would read "digging
footings with a pick and shovel in the Louisiana heat, no different
from the guys who pulled 'hard labor' at Angola and Parchman back
in the day." I didn't have a rash, but I couldn't afford sunblock,
either. Most guys passed out from heat stroke at some point or
other while I worked there. Granted, I didn't have a Chevy
Citation, because I didn't have the money to buy a car. I guess
showing up on foot for the job didn't bother my employer too much.
My favorite part of the job was replacing septic tanks. When you
talk about a "shit job," it helps to know what you're talking
about.
"Yeah, it's all petty envy for poor people to believe their
situation is unjust. Hey, they're not starving!" - joe
Well, you got that part right, at least. When was the last time you
met someone who was not mentally impaired/unbalanced who was
starving?
|3.14.07 @ 10:32AM|#
Jason L,
"When the mugger steals the wallet, he is stealing productive hours
of your life."
Yes, theft is bad. Not as bad as physical assault, enslavement, and
extended physical compulsion.
It's really easy - you KNOW it's better to give the guy you're
wallet. You KNOW you'd give up your stuff before you gave up your
freedom.
pigwiggle,
Lucky you. Anecdote is not the singular of data. Do you make a
point of showing up late for jub interviews? is someone who has
more resources going to have more advantages pursuing
opportunities, or not?
The gymnastics required to play dumb here are astounding. LOok here
at rob's comment:
""OK, gennius, the next time a mugger wants your wallet, are you
going to volunteer to go off with him and be his slave instead? I
didn't think so." - joe
No one can volunteer to be a slave. You can't rape the willing,
joe."
In other words, if a mugger demands your wallet and you give it to
him, you're being robbed. If you get him to accept something else
instead, your doing so "willingly," by rob's reasoning.
Deliberate self-obfuscation. Sad, and telling.
|3.14.07 @ 10:34AM|#
Yay, everyghing is ok, because poor people can get hired to do pick and shovel work!
|3.14.07 @ 10:37AM|#
And don't lecture me on hard jobs, troll boy. Your self-serving
projections of what my life "must have been like" don't
matter.
Ever eat popcorn for two days because your check hasn't come it
yet? No? Then crack open a nice tall bottle of STFU, and don't you
ever dare to guess at my personal circumstances gain, you
prick.
|3.14.07 @ 10:41AM|#
"It's really easy - you KNOW it's better to give the guy you're
wallet. You KNOW you'd give up your stuff before you gave up your
freedom."
It still isn't that clear to me. Let's say that I knew the robber
would be back every day to take all of my earnings for that day. I
would be a slave. There would be no meaningful difference. My house
wouldn't be mine. I'd starve unless he deigned to give me some of
my product back to feed myself.
Dan T.|3.14.07 @ 10:43AM|#
But if you want to talk about the guy who settles for basic
cable on his 27" CRT while his neighbors watch high-def cable on
58" plasma screens you'll find most unsympathetic. Including
me.
If the only difference between the impoverished and the wealthy
were the size of their TV sets I doubt anybody would care.
|3.14.07 @ 10:45AM|#
Lucky you. Anecdote is not the singular of data.
Joe comes with an "old saw" and then bitches about my anecdote.
Dick.
|3.14.07 @ 10:46AM|#
"I'm not sure what you mean here - money is not a thing, but
rather a means of exchange. The value of having a billion dollars
depends entirely on the amount of money everybody else has." - Dan
T.
Sure, money is a means of exchange not a fixed value. But assuming
everyone could like like the current equivalent of a billionaire -
would there still be envy? I'd bet my last crust of bread that
there would be...
Now explain how having all of the basics in life - food, clothing,
shelter, leisure time to spend with your loved ones - covered makes
you "unjustly poor."
Here's a corker for you: What is the difference between someone who
could earn millions and decides not to in favor of a minimalist
lifestyle, and one who lives exactly the same way but never had the
capability to earn millions? How is either one "poor?"
"I guess whether an emotion is 'envy or 'righteous indignation'
depends on whether you sympathize with the person in question." -
Dan T.
It has nothing to do with sympathy. For starters, they feel very
different and are motivated by completely different things. If you
don't know the difference, I can't explain it to you any more than
I can explain what a purple sunset looks like to a congenitally
blind man.
"In this case you're kind of begging the question - does simply
having something mean that person deserves it? Especially when your
station in life is largely determined by your birth?" - Dan
T.
One's station in life is not determined by one's birth. Is being
given something by your parents wrong? I'd say that a parent has
every right to give their child anything they possess, since it
belongs to the parent and should then be the parent's decision
about how to handle their property.
"In theory they are, in reality the poor are the ones in prison,
not the rich." - Dan T.
Tell it to Martha Stewart, Jeffrey Skilling, Kenneth Lay, George
Soros, etc. Just to name a few "insider trading" convictions off
the top of my head...
|3.14.07 @ 10:47AM|#
Jason L,
If every slave in Dixie had $100, and could buy their freedom for
$100, do you actually think any of them would keep the money and
remain a slave? Would offering that deal to slaves - who, even if
they chose to buy themselves out, would be forced to give up their
money under pain of the violence inherent in being a slave - be no
better than forcing them to remain slaves?
|3.14.07 @ 10:48AM|#
If the only difference between the impoverished and the
wealthy were the size of their TV sets I doubt anybody would
care.
Which was the point of my post. Again; there is a significant
difference between relative (your words) poverty, and absolute
poverty.
|3.14.07 @ 10:49AM|#
pigwiggle,
Very nice. I couldn't help but noticed that decided to dodge the
questions that demonstrataed why your anecdote isn't reliable
evidence.
|3.14.07 @ 10:51AM|#
" I'm embarrassed to say how long I've been in school, but it is
at least as much as her."
And your degree(s), I suspect, came not from the English
Dept.
And I have, in real life, traded income for "leisure" (i.e.,
control). I don't feel oppressed , or envious.
|3.14.07 @ 10:54AM|#
P Brooks,
How many of the people in the bottom quintile got there because
they had the choice a high income, and chose more leisure
instead?
It's nice that there are monks who choose a live of poverty instead
of being CEOs, but that's a vanishingly small portion of poor
people.
|3.14.07 @ 10:58AM|#
"Ever eat popcorn for two days because your check hasn't come it
yet? No? Then crack open a nice tall bottle of STFU, and don't you
ever dare to guess at my personal circumstances gain, you prick." -
joe
Cry me a river about your "starving student" days, joe. Try eating
one bowl of cereal every day for over a week, no milk, chased with
tap water, so that your son can have three meals a day. The
starvation diet does wonders, doesn't it? Why do you think the job
I referred to was so attractive?
That doesn't change the fact that I stuck it out, and did it by
myself, while you bitch and moan and look for pity.
"In other words, if a mugger demands your wallet and you give it to
him, you're being robbed. If you get him to accept something else
instead, your doing so 'willingly,' by rob's reasoning." -
joe
Now THAT'S a hefty straw man you're swinging at, joe. Still waiting
for your definition of slavery...
Dan T.|3.14.07 @ 11:02AM|#
Anybody who can talk about "the days when they were poor" was probably never truly poor to begin with.
|3.14.07 @ 11:04AM|#
"Anybody who can talk about 'the days when they were poor' was
probably never truly poor to begin with." - Dan T.
Uh-huh, sure. Because no one ever makes their lives better through
physical and mental effort, that only happens on TV. Anyone who has
anything more than a subsistence-level lifestyle has more than they
deserve, right?
|3.14.07 @ 11:06AM|#
joe:
I don't think your example exactly works. You are offering $100 in
exchange for perpetual slavery. That is, of course, a no
brainer.
If you work hours of your life for the express purpose of attaining
a wage, and someone else takes that wage, you have lost those hours
of your life. You thought you were making a free choice, but you
were not.
|3.14.07 @ 11:09AM|#
"How many of the people in the bottom quintile got there because
they had the choice a high income, and chose more leisure
instead?"
Life is full of choices. Dropping out? Having kids. Using drugs.
Selling drugs. Learning a skill. Sitting on your arse. Take a risk.
Play it safe.
I submit that it is predominately these choices that determine your
economic outcome in modern America.
|3.14.07 @ 11:09AM|#
You can have my defition of slavery when you apologize for your
unwarranted presumption in making baseless assumptions about my
life, troll-boy. Actually, no, you can't, because I'm not
interested in another back and forth pissing match with someone who
refuses to discuss ideas.
And no, I wasn't talking about while I was in school.
|3.14.07 @ 11:10AM|#
joe,
You and I must be the two unluckiest guys posting on HNR. Most
people who were born in, and live in the U.S. don't usually go
without food.
|3.14.07 @ 11:12AM|#
"It's nice that there are monks who choose a live of poverty
instead of being CEOs, but that's a vanishingly small portion of
poor people."
I don't want to get drawn into the anecdote wars, but I have known
a lot of people with extremely high native intelligence who
consciously declined to "make something of themselves" specifically
because they valued "leisure" more than money or status. That
portion of *poor* people may not be as vanishingly small as you
might think.
|3.14.07 @ 11:12AM|#
Jason L,
"If you work hours of your life for the express purpose of
attaining a wage, and someone else takes that wage, you have lost
those hours of your life."
No, you have lost some money. Your stuff is not your life. It's not
nothing, but it's not your life. It's not even your time.
The hours you've worked to pay your taxes - would you be just as
well off if they were, instead, lopped off your lifespan? Or spent
in prison?
|3.14.07 @ 11:15AM|#
"You can have my defition of slavery when you apologize for your
unwarranted presumption in making baseless assumptions about my
life, troll-boy." - joe
I'm sorry I made unwarranted presumptions about your life,
joe.
Can I have an apology for your name-calling in addition to your
definition of slavery?
At least you can explain to Dan T. why he's wrong to claim that
"Anybody who can talk about 'the days when they were poor' was
probably never truly poor to begin with."
|3.14.07 @ 11:16AM|#
"At least I get to be me, instead of you." - joe
At last, something we can both be glad of.
|3.14.07 @ 11:18AM|#
P Brooks,
I would submit that the people you describe are not a
representative sample of poor people in our country.
Jason L,
"I submit that it is predominately these choices that determine
your economic outcome in modern America." I submit that the
children born to people who became poor through such bad choices
are going to live in poverty, and have fewer resources to get
themsevles out of poverty, through absolutely not fault of their
own.
The low level of movement among different wealth clases - not
income classes, because the low income of college students while
they are in school, and their ability to take unpaid but useful
internships in their off time demonstrate the uselessness of
looking merely at income in any given year - is evidence of what
common sense tells us: people who have economic resources have
structural advantages that those without those resources do
not.
|3.14.07 @ 11:28AM|#
"The low level of movement among different wealth clases" -
joe
"people who have economic resources have structural advantages that
those without those resources do not." -joe
A few citations for this would help, but positing that these two
things are significant problems, what is your proposed solution to
those two problems?
|3.14.07 @ 11:40AM|#
1. Policies to encourage more economic activity in areas with
high concentrations of povery. It may be ideologically comforting
to think that there were Help Wanted signed all over the South
Bronx throughout the 1980s, and that people just chose to ignore
them and be poor instead, but it isn't true. Loan programs,
infrastructure investments, the siting of government facilities,
redevelopment efforts to make certain areas more attractive for
private investment, tax breaks, that sort of thing.
2. Programs designed to provide more opportunnities for poor
people, to help them into the economic mainstream. There's a great
program in my city which provides low-income women with
work-appropriate outfits, so when they apply for jobs, they aren't
immediately dismissed by potential employers based on their
appearance and the inability to function in a professional
environment that those would-be employers often assume based on
their appearance. I don't know why I'm fixated on clothing today,
but the example works.
3. Additional resources for schools in poor areas.
4. More progressive tax policies, such as EITC expansion.
|3.14.07 @ 11:45AM|#
It would be comforting to see one single proposed pallative in
that list that doesn't involve massive gov't bureaucracy and the
mismanagement of resources that goes along with it.
Although I have to admit I like the way you're selling it - you
managed to use the word government only once - even tho every
solution requires massive gov't intervention for your "policies and
programs" approach.
The "War On Poverty" followed very similar approaches, yet was a
miserable failure. How can you avoid the same result?
|3.14.07 @ 11:50AM|#
Would it be fair to characterize your 4-pronged approach
as:
1.) Gov't programs.
2.) Gov't policies.
3.) Another gov't program.
4.) More taxes to pay for more gov't? (Not that I'm against the
EITC - I think ANY money the gov't gives back to ANYONE is a good
thing and far too rare.)
I don't want yout to think I'm unfairly characterizing your
solution, and I don't want you to think that I'm creating a straw
man. But when I see what you've written, that's really what it
scans as.
|3.14.07 @ 11:55AM|#
"The hours you've worked to pay your taxes - would you be just
as well off if they were, instead, lopped off your lifespan? Or
spent in prison?"
Noting that I ostensibly get something back for taxes and looking
at the net time lost, servitude can be more or less pleasant. How
cushy is the prison? There are subjective aspects to the time spent
doing something that aren't factored into the wage, but if you net
those out, there is still some portion of my life that I'm working
entirely for someone else's benefit because I have no choice in the
matter. If I hate my job, such that all subjective aspects of it
save the wage are bad, I could as well choose prison.
Andy|3.14.07 @ 11:59AM|#
A new theory - the more ridiculous and indefensible Joe's point, the faster it devolves into "you can't argue with me unless you've lived my life."
|3.14.07 @ 12:03PM|#
I, too, was unaware of any numbers that measure a low level of
movement between wealth classes. I'd be curious to see such.
Of course there are structural advantages to having well off
parents. There are even more structural advantages to having good
parents. There is a ton of opportunity out there if you make the
right choices, even if you are from a poor family. What I'm saying
is that there aren't a lot of people who study, finish high school,
and get a skill or go to college who can't move between
classes.
If those choices aren't made, EITC ain't gonna help.
|3.14.07 @ 12:04PM|#
Magical thinking. Oh My God, the government is involved, that
means it can't work!
Since the government sets tax policy, determines where its
facilities are located, maintains the public infrastructure
including schools, and alone raises enough money to provide
sufficient resources for a nationwide effort, the government is
going to have to play a large role in any effort to reduce
poverty.
"The "War On Poverty" followed very similar approaches," No, not
really. The War of Poverty, as it is generally understood, followed
the approach of providing money to the poor, rather than attempting
to address the causes of their poverty.
"...yet was a miserable failure." Actually, poverty rated declined
dramatically after the War on Poverty was instituted, and rose
dramatically once Reagan undid it. It's actually rather striking
how poverty rates fell even during the lousy economy of the 70s.
The War on Poverty succeeded at what it was attempting to do - get
money into the hands of people who didn't have enough money. The
problem was, it ran into the old "If you give a man a fish..."
problem.
|3.14.07 @ 12:07PM|#
Would it be fair to characterize rob's contributions to the
thread as:
1. Collection of words and punctuation.
2. Collection of words and punctuation.
3. Collection of words and punctuation.
4. Collection of words and punctuation?
Enough with the magical thinking and labelling. You actually need
to consider the substance of ideas sometimes, rob.
|3.14.07 @ 12:27PM|#
Well, one thing is for sure.
As long as we define poverty as the bottom quintile of income, it
will always be with us.
No matter what the material conditions of those occupying that
quintile happen to be.
|3.14.07 @ 12:32PM|#
R C,
Yes, there are two different issues there - one of helping the
needy, and one of providing equal opportunity.
They overlap, but they can certainly be thought of on their own
terms.
|3.14.07 @ 12:33PM|#
I ate picnic tables for three weeks so the wife and one-legged
dog could eat the stuff on top of the tables.
Soberly speaking, I generally sing libertarian but in this area, I
find myself siding with joe. Too many Libertarians assume that if
you're poor, it's just your own damned fault. Of course, Dan T.s
assertion that you're only poor if you've been poor your whole life
is much more asinine than that, but it's still philosophically
naive to assume that our choices are entirely in our own hands -
that we are not at least partially the products of the
circumstances we are born into.
|3.14.07 @ 12:38PM|#
Soberly speaking, I generally sing libertarian but in this
area, I find myself siding with joe. Too many Libertarians assume
that if you're poor, it's just your own damned fault.
I don't assume that. I just think it's wrong to enslave some people
to help others.
|3.14.07 @ 12:49PM|#
Real Bill:
Are you equating any form of taxation with slavery? Or just
progressive taxation?
|3.14.07 @ 12:49PM|#
joe - Nice to see you haven't lost your ability to miss the
point, even when I'm bending over backward to give you the benefit
of the doubt. I also love the rhetorical trickery you engage in to
avoid having to respond to anyone who challenges your position as
someone who refuses to "actually ... consider the substance of
ideas sometimes."
"Magical thinking. Oh My God, the government is involved, that
means it can't work!" - joe
You mean like the magical thinking that the gov't can fix the
profound problems that its individual citizens have? The amount of
gov't failures is a stronger track record for skepticism regarding
gov't intervention than is your faith in gov't intervention.
"Actually, poverty rated declined dramatically after the War on
Poverty was instituted, and rose dramatically once Reagan undid
it." - joe
Two points - you're wrong on the basic history (Nixon, not Reagan),
and you can't prove it was the WoP that helped those folks.
In fact, you've already admitted to the fundamental problems of the
program:
"President Johnson's 'War on Poverty' speech was delivered at a
time of recovery (the poverty level had fallen from 22.4% in 1959
to 19% in 1964 when the War on Poverty was announced) and it was
viewed by critics as an effort to get the United States Congress to
authorize social welfare programs. Many economists such as Milton
Friedman have argued that Johnson's policies actually had a
negative impact on the economy due to their interventionist nature.
Economists such as these recommend that the best way to fight
poverty is not through government welfare but through economic
growth." - wikipedia entry on "War on Poverty"
"The OEO was dismantled by President Nixon in 1973, though many of
the agency's programs were transferred to other government
agencies." - wikipedia "War on Poverty" entry
What would keep your program from falling prey to the same
problems, joe? Magic?
Surely you've heard the old saw that "insanity is repeating the
same action yet expecting a different result."
|3.14.07 @ 12:55PM|#
"it's still philosophically naive to assume that our choices are
entirely in our own hands - that we are not at least partially the
products of the circumstances we are born into." -thwip
Truest statement written on the subject thus far.
|3.14.07 @ 1:05PM|#
thwip:
I'm equating taxation as it is actually practiced in the US with
slavery. I'll allow that certain forms of taxation do not rise to
the level of slavery.
|3.14.07 @ 1:08PM|#
I read somewhere that the war on poverty did result, for certain targeted minority groups, an advance out of poverty for the first few years of its inception. Then the results stabilized, then reversed. That war didn't work very well here, yet, perhaps it's due to how it was designed. Conversely, countries such as Sweden have done pretty well negating poverty with much more thoughtfully designed taxation and social safety nets.
|3.14.07 @ 1:19PM|#
thwip,
As I wrote (and as rob missed, even in his own quotes. Gee, I
wonder what "though many of the agency's programs were transferred
to other government agencies" could possible mean?), the WoP was
largely dismantled by Reagan, and that is when we began to see
poverty rates creep back up. They didn't begin to fall again until
the early-to-mid 1990s, under Clinton's economic policies.
Now, causation is tough to prove. To some people even more than
others, but when you see three consecutive changes in a measure,
each of which follows in short order the implementation of policies
regarding programs intended to address the measured factor, most
reasonable people would find that to be some compelling
evidence.
|3.14.07 @ 1:33PM|#
Btw, Sweden was just an example. Not saying I'd favor their
model exactly. For one thing I'm not sure it's dynamic enough to
sustain long term growth. Personally, I'd favor a dynamic tax
system that doesn't penalize productivity and incentives for
greater investments, business creativity, etc. yet at the same time
would not penalize the poor: for example a sales tax on all items,
save food, medicine, and clothing, and then a progressive tax on
higher end luxury goods (but not so high as to penalize production
of those goods). This along with a robust social safety net,
designed to avoid moral hazzard, could be another way to combat
poverty.
I do agree that the taxation system as it stands now is horribly
wrongheaded and regressive. It's especially harmful to the poor.
You go to work a job at 8 dollars an hour only to find a sizable
chunk of that is taken out through withholding. At the bare mininum
such a system needs to go.
|3.14.07 @ 1:45PM|#
"buh bye, rob. As usual, it was pointless." - joe
joe's motto should be "Bringing intellectual dishonesty to the Hit
N Run discussion since his very first posts."
At least you're consistent, persistent and tenacious, joe.
Consistently insulting, persistently irritating, and tenaciously
immune to rational discourse, that is.
|3.14.07 @ 1:48PM|#
That should have read - Consistently insulting, persistently PARTISAN, and tenaciously immune to rational discourse, that is.
|3.14.07 @ 1:53PM|#
"Gee, I wonder what "though many of the agency's programs were
transferred to other government agencies" could possible mean?" -
joe
Surely it mitigates the word "dismantled," right joe?
You're a real piece of work...
|3.14.07 @ 2:31PM|#
If we genetically engineer people to have higher intelligence, I
bet poverty would decline.*
*I'm not endorsing compulsory genetic engineering.
|3.14.07 @ 2:38PM|#
"Personally, I'd favor a dynamic tax system that doesn't
penalize productivity and incentives for greater investments,
business creativity, etc. yet at the same time would not penalize
the poor: for example a sales tax on all items, save food,
medicine, and clothing, and then a progressive tax on higher end
luxury goods (but not so high as to penalize production of those
goods)."
The premise is pretty much where I am. I want the least damaging
safety net. I don't think the safety net should be set very high,
either, except for the physically an mentally unable. I don't think
your plan would get us there exactly, but I agree with the
goal.
|3.14.07 @ 2:45PM|#
JasonL - Yeah, that's the second thing that thwip's said that makes a boat-load's worth of sense.
|3.14.07 @ 2:54PM|#
Wah wah wah, rob.
Big mean joe refusing to do all the work, provide all the ideas,
and then sit back while you google opinions and factoids from
unreliable sources so you can do a touchdown dance and insult me
personally?
Grow pair, nancy.
Andy|3.14.07 @ 3:17PM|#
joe,
joe,
You hang out here, ignore arguments you can't answer, insult people
for no reason, and make shrill claims you can't back up. What
exactly do you get from the boards, and what exactly do you bring
to the community? Don't get me wrong, I conceptually love the idea
of someone who makes good arguments challenging a lot of the
predispositions and misconceptions on this board. In fact, I would
admire that person, because as any libertarian participating in day
to day life can tell you, it's intimidating being in a room full of
people who all can't wait to tell you you're crazy (but it helps
sharpen your mind and develop your arguments!)
But you're not that person, you're just trolling, elaborately and
persistently. The worst part about it is that you dismiss everyone
else for "making you make all the arguments", when what you really
mean is "for not providing arguments for which you have ready
answers" - just looking above us on this thread, there are a number
of unanswered points you've just abandoned, and then you try to end
the argument by acting like no one is willing to make points
against you? Weak.
Why should anyone listen to a word you say if you don't believe it
enough to defend it, and why should anyone bother arguing with you,
if you don't respect them enough to listen?
|3.14.07 @ 3:34PM|#
Question: Walmart, for instance, likes to cap the hours of it's
workforce at 31 a week so they don't qualify for benefits (IE: Are
part time). They are hardly the only business that does this
Walmart workers are, if adults, likely to be pretty low down the
income totem pole.
Does anyone know if the study in question accounts for things like
that? What about multiple part-time jobs? (Most of those I've
personally known who rate in the "bottom 10%" either work multiple
unskilled jobs OR shouldn't be counted as workers (students,
etc)).
|3.14.07 @ 3:43PM|#
Walmart, for instance, likes to cap the hours of it's
workforce at 31 a week so they don't qualify for benefits (IE: Are
part time). They are hardly the only business that does
this
Yet another reason to decouple health insurance from
employment.
|3.14.07 @ 4:43PM|#
"This from the guy who thinks typing the word "government" is an
argument." - joe
This from a guy who thinks, all human history as evidence to the
contrary, that 'government' is a solution.
See how easy it was for me to take the easy way out and just turn
the insult around on you? And I didn't even have to make a rational
argument against anything you wrote.
Calling people names is what people do when they can't counter
someone elses's point, joe. There are very few people on these
threads dumb enough to think that abandoning arguments means you've
made your point. When you just back away from even trying to
counter someone else's points it shows how weak your line of
argument really is.
|3.14.07 @ 4:48PM|#
So, there's a fundamental difference between leisure time and
wealth because you'd probably prefer to give money, rather than
time, to a mugger? ... ? joe should write a thesis about the Mugger
Theory of Value and its advantages over the Labor and Utility
Theories.
(The argument was already pretty well demolished by JasonL, but
it's so absurd on its face.)
|3.14.07 @ 11:20PM|#
joe,
It's a little strange to get frustrated with someone for
consistently arguing a pro-market, anti-government solution line on
a blog where the slogan is "free minds, free markets." I also think
government solutions are often uncreative, coercive, and
inefficient. Perhaps I might venture over to The Nation's blog and
argue my case, but I know it would just be irrational of me to get
upset when I would consistently hear about all the wonderful ways
that government could intervene into the economy. I might give
Earth First a shot but I'm not going to be surprised if they don't
buy my stance that human beings are more important than animals. Or
that there are market approaches to some of the environmental
problems we face.
|3.15.07 @ 10:24AM|#
Andy,
"What exactly do you get from the boards, and what exactly do you
bring to the community?"
What I bring to the community are interesting ideas and principled
arguments, as my numberous libertarian defenders point out whenever
people throw a fit because there's a dirty liberal
commenting.
Onion Belt,
I engage with and debate pro-market ideas with people who make them
all the time. Were there actually any ideas in rob's bitchy snarks,
I would engage them. But simply writing, "That's the government,
right?" isn't an idea. It's the waving of a magical talisman. Were
it coming from someone with who was decent and respect, I'd brush
it off ina decent and respectful manner.
But it's not. It's coming from troll-boy rob, who lurks here for
the purpose of insulting me personally.
Fuck him.
shiek of araby|3.15.07 @ 2:43PM|#
some o' y'all's got some funny ideas regarding what being poor
in the USA is about these days
I had a post I was gonna drop here yesterday
but I decided not to (who am I to spam up someone else's blog with
the "blah blah blah" of my low-end anarcho-capitalistic
existence?)
so I spent an hour getting my abandoned blog to work again, and
posted some of the
blah blah blah" in question under the title "fuck welfare":
http://whitetrashpromenade.blogspot.com/
I hope someday to get into a back and forth dialog with some of the
refined and well heeled libertarian types who post hereabouts
just for the educational value
|3.17.07 @ 3:02AM|#
" Were there actually any ideas in rob's bitchy snarks, I would
engage them." - rob
Reading this pretty much sums up why joe is my bitch in every
thread we've ever tangled on.
"Were it coming from someone with who was decent and respect, I'd
brush it off ina decent and respectful manner." - joe
Anyone who has ever read joe's posts knows he's nearly incapable of
being decent and respectful.
"But it's not. It's coming from troll-boy rob, who lurks here for
the purpose of insulting me personally. Fuck him." - joe
That's EXACTLY how trolls behave, joe. Good demonstration, but
everyone who reads these threads would be much more surprised if
you actually did something other than insult people who have you
intellectually out-gunned.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245