Forum Post: How can a poor person have no options at all
Posted 11 years ago on May 27, 2012, 12:29 a.m. EST by craigdangit
(326)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
When you can start an online business for about $100?
No one has answered this question for me. I am genuinely serious.
I (like many people) have always been concerned about poverty, but also like most people, I saw solutions coming exclusively from the top down. In my contacts with poor people, I now think my attitude has probably been incredibly egotistical and patronizing. However, a statement like it takes $100 to start an internet company is far more pretentious. First of all, you can only start an internet company for $100 if you’re already an expert in creating web pages. Even if you are fluent in creating web pages, you’ll need to know how to advertise, get good placement on search engines, and of course have goods or services to sell (or some way of generating revenue). Monetizing a web page is a challenge for even the most established and sophisticated web sites. So excuse me for thinking this, but this sounds like the sort of thing people like to say to alleviate their conscience of any responsibility for the state of our society.
I never said anything about creating a web site, that's definitely more on the challenging end of things.
Anyone can start an ebay business, though.
So why aren't you fifthly RICH Craig?
And don't lie.
You do know where the gold mines are, don't you?
Have I seen you on one of these info-commercials???
The Puzzler
[Removed]
Nobody ever said everybody could do it. And if you re-read my original post, you'll note that I did in fact emphasize that the tough part is figuring out what to sell that people will actually buy. That's the million dollar question, pardon the class analogy.
That aside, assuming you've got an idea, and assuming it's a good one, I stand on my original statement. You can get the web site and some other things up and running very cheaply. And no, you don't need to know much about building web pages or computer programming. The tools they have available these days pretty much idiot-proof the whole thing, and most of them are available free from whoever you're buying your domain hosting from. So if you're serious about it, you can really start up quite cheaply. Even things like search engine optimization can be done quite cheaply these days -- a few dollars a month. That's not to say you'll be successful. But the investment in trying is not large. If you doubt me, check it out for yourself.
As for the social conscience aspect of it, refer to the very long thread below. Likewise, refer to my post about my brother-in-law for a perhaps more apt example that my own.
Um.... "Your" original post?
Ummm, that's right Craig, keep saying, Ummm
So cute. Make any other grunting sounds?
Strictly speaking, my response to the original post.
meanwhile, we make laws where it is illegal for them to park their trailer homes on the street forcing them to pay as much as $600 a month in a trailer park owned by a corporation and NEVER allowing them to own land. Ya, our government sucks, and the people in it especially!
It's not that tough if you have a serious game plan. You can get a web site and email from godaddy, google or one of the other big providers for less than $20 a month. They have canned tools that let you build a website without having to buy any software, and you can arrange to take payments through paypal or with credit cards cheaply or free. And you can do it all in a long evening. I got pissed off at my business partners about a year ago, quite on a friday and had a business up and live on monday morning.
Once you get rolling, there are other online tools such as billing software like Harvest, collaboration sites like Alfresco and the like that are often free to very small users, or cost $10 or $15 a month, so you can keep your overhead really low. My total overhead from this all this stuff is maybe $40 a month and we're running a serious business with it that's paying the bills for three families that have kids and mortgages.
The real pain in the ass is the government. You can fly under the radar for a while, but at some point you have to start getting business licenses and filing tax returns for the business and getting workers compensation policies and all the rest, and then you'll start to realize why small business owners hate the government. There are many agencies you have to deal with, and they all have their own forms for you to fill out and they all want some money -- in aggregate, a surprisingly large percentage of your revenue; and none of them gives a shit how much of your time it takes, and you'll spend lots and lots of time evenings and weekends filling out forms, and lots of time during the workday on hold trying to straighten things out with them, and it will seriously cut into the time you have to do business, and you will be really pissed off. It will really test your commitment to being a big-government-I-like-taxes-businesses-ought-to-pay-their-fair-share sort of guy.
The only fly in the ointment to get started though, is that you have to have something that people are willing to pay for. Figure that out first. The rest is easy, if annoying sometimes.
lol so you think poor people have computers too? and internet? cell phones are free.. 250 minutes no text. think that would work? they give kids computers from some schools but no free internet. tv's are cool.. but without cable what good are they? your idea of poor is highly skewed. you obviously dont buy your clothes at thrift stores, visit a food pantry twice a month, and have more than one pair of shoes.
hey dumbass I live in a truck and I have a computer and internet access in any hotspot, also for people without computers there is something called a library and I have unlimited cell phone. and Tvs don't make you money they just wash your brain out
you live in a truck and your agreeing about being able to not live in truck. that means you live in a truck by choice. your too stupid to be allowed on the internet.. yes and libraries let you conduct business for hours on their computers downloading all that software too dont they, and you do not have a free unlimited phone. your probably stole that computer and poor does not mean homeless.
I guess if I listen to you I should just kill myself now. I think not. (agreeing about being able to not live in truck) were did this come from? (you do not have a free unlimited phone) really? I don't ? I think I'll go back to my first assesment of you plus one add on. your a dumbass with the reading comprehension of a third grader
Been there and done it all, my friend, probably more so than you; and a minority in a white man's world on top of it; so I know from personal experience it's possible to rise above it.
Yup, poor folks often have computers, and cable TV and cell phones. I don't begrudge them any of that; but it's misleading and disingenuous to suggest that everybody that's poor has nothing and no resources at all. Empirical studies have consistently shown that this is not true for most.
You don't magically get anything anything to start a business with, but here's one little fact for you to chew on: poor people on average spend as much money per capita every year on lottery tickets as do rich people. In some areas of the country, poor people spend more than rich people. Not as a proportion of their income, but in absolute dollars. And as a nation, we spent $50 billion on lottery tickets last year. Since there are more poor people than rich people, most of that $50 billion is being spent by poor people. Stop buying lottery tickets, save that money, and after a while you have a bit of working capital. That's a first step out. One of the things you have to learn to get out of poverty is to make better choices. Studies consistently show that poor people tend to make poor financial choices that help keep them in poverty. Lottery tickets are only one example.
Don't believe me about the lottery tickets? Read this:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2011/2011-010.pdf
There's more where it came from.
And if none of that suits you, what's your suggestion to somebody that asks how to get out of poverty? Tell 'em tough shit, you can't do anything so just stay poor? Or wait for a revolution that may never come, and certainly isn't coming any time soon? I like my ideas better.
That's right you have to have something people are willing to pay for - so what are you marketing there penguento - porn? Otherwise how did you afford all that "product" with only forty bucks overhead?
Not porn, though I've thought about it. Lotsa money there, but the field is very crowded.
We sell knowledge. People and organizations have certain kinds of questions, we have answers that they're willing to pay for.
The cheapie overhead model works for anybody, though. If you're working out of your house or starting up a business on a shoestring generally, you can pretty much take care of all of your admin functions with web-enabled tools that are free or nearly so, and biz culture has changed enough the last decade or so such that nobody looks askance at a business you're running off of your kitchen table. All that's among the reasons bands have had so much success marketing themselves on the internet and selling their songs directly from web sites. The tools are all already there in the can, and dirt cheap, and nobody really cares about the bling of having all of the formalities of a real organization anymore.
So basically you're an uneducated (assuming you had no college being that you're not concerned with that expense or counting it as part of your overhead) bullshit artist scamming people - but you know not all of us are willing to screw others to get ahead... and you've proven our point - most rich people are scammers with no moral content who are willing to siphon off and steal from, and sell out, the the rest of us to get ahead. I just hope this doesn't involve stealing grannies SSI check and costing her her glaucoma medicine.
I'm willing to screw someone to get ahead but honestly small biz can't afford to screw anyone otherwise they don't last long the internet has it's own brutal justice system and fast too
Spare us all, my friend. I'm not offended by sophomoric insults. Don't waste your time or the bandwidth.
We give technical advice on something on something complicated that causes lots of problems if it's not done right.
Penguento,
Must be nice being at the center of the Universe!
Problem is the rest of us are here too. And last I looked, there's this real world outside. Ever see that one?
Just
Puzzlin
by the way it's Wall Street that's regulating you - they are your government - they don't want any competition - they won't allow it (a fine or tax is nothing for them to get around but you're right it will sink you.) So if you really have a legitimate business - you might want to get on board with this movement before Wall Street finishes you and uses your government to fix you.
I'm not unsympathetic with your goals. If I were, I wouldn't tolerate all the flames as patiently as I do. I do, however, see these issues in more complex terms than some of you seem to. To be sure, at the top there is some blinding greed and power hunger, and some appalling stupidity as well. But not everybody up there is evil either,and properly regulated and managed, banks and big businesses perform some socially useful functions and have their place in in the scheme of things. But I certainly agree that there are things that should be done and can be done to improve society. The question is, what? And I think the answers are complex and imperfect, and need to be thought through, otherwise nothing will happen, or something bad will happen. Allen Greenspan proved just recently what happens when you impose poorly thought-through solutions on large systems.
All that said, there's probably some common cause between small business and OWS. Small businesses generally have had bad experiences with government, and the demands imposed on small business are a material drain on their time, money and other resources. And, believe it or not, some of the things Republicans say have a kernel of truth in them: government imposes significant costs and obstacles that materially discourage the hiring of new employees, so those difficulties cascade down to workers. Were the government serious about getting people to work it would remove some of these barriers, which could be done, I might add, without removing any protections that workers have under the law. Instead, you have situations like that in Philly, which announced a while back that if you live in the city of Philadelphia and have a blog, you must buy a license from the city. Which sort of goes back to my original point -- starting the blog is easy, and effectively free, and you might at least be able to make some spare change doing it. Unless of course, Philadelphia finds out. They'll fine you and shut you down if you don't get that license.
you are a fool
Not hardly, my friend. I'm a successfully self-employed person and have been for 15 years and I know a whole lot more about these things than snotty little puppies like you.
I see your point here penguento but I have to point a few things out to you.
1) Not everyone has the same know-how and ingenuity as you. You have to remember that people are raised into a culture that promotes traditional modes of employment. People grow up thinking that there is only one way to do things and only one way to be successful. All the knowledge that you have acquired that you now see as common sense NEVER occurs to other people, especially people who are in survival mode. The idea that people will just “help” themselves out of poverty by doing what you did comes from a logical flaw on your part and a tendency for people (like yourself) to get on high horses when they’ve figured out things other people haven’t.
2) Having something marketable is very difficult. Things like that require skills and talents. Sometimes it also requires help in order to get it off the ground and create enough revenue. Impoverished people often don’t chase pipedreams because it is too risky and they have no one to chase it with them. That is for middle and upper class people. That is for people, like yourself, who had a job but then decided that you could do better by yourself. Poverty comes with its own set of cultural and economic issues hinder mobility that can’t just be argued away by saying they have a TV, they can un-poor themselves. A business is a serious responsibility that can put someone even further in the hole if they are not careful. That means no food tomorrow if you can’t get any money today. That means your kids starve. That means you lose your house. There is no savings for the poor. They are living paycheck to paycheck. To get off that hamster wheel takes guts and for people in survival mode: STUPIDITY.
I understand your well-meaning intentions. I understand your reasoning. But if it really was that easy do you think there would be a problem? Because you did you think it will be easy for everybody to do it? I know people who don’t have computers. I know people who don’t know how to turn them on. Do you really believe these people are going to start an online business that would provide for them in their everyday life? Knowledge is power. You have some. But your perspective fogs your empathy. You have decided that you can now sit on the seat of judgment and regurgitate the old trite mythologies of our time about “tightening boot straps” and “laziness creates poverty.” You cannot and choose not to understand how this system destroys people and grinds them to dust. You prefer to blame the victims because you were clever enough to not be one.
I'm not suggesting that it's easy. Nor am I suggesting that everyone, or that even most people, can do it. I was born and grew up very poor myself, and was poor for a good part of my adult life, and I know exactly how it works, and I'm only too familiar with all of the difficulties and barriers that people face.
And I'm not disagreeing with any of you here who are calling for better government and collective action and living wages; don't get me wrong.
But think about it for a second: In the best of all worlds, these things will take years or decades to achieve, and some of them may never be achieved. What are people to do in the meantime? I am simply observing that between now and then, to the extent that it is possible, a person in difficult circumstances ought to engage in self-help to the extent that its possible.
Contrary to what that other chap says, I'm certainly not dumb enough to think that everybody who opens a business will have the success that I have had. The point is, you don't need to. If you're really down on your luck and the only game plan you can think of is to collect aluminum cans and cash them in for extra cash, why not do so? If you make $25 that's $25 you didn't have. If you're poor and you're buying $5 worth of lottery tickets every week, you can get ahead by $250 a year by stopping. And if you've got it a little more together, or can get it a little more together, you can find a job, even a crappy job, and begin to dig yourself out. I know -- I cleaned a lot of toilets on the way up. This incremental self-help can improve your life, and if it grows enough, it can change it. And by doing it you learn new things and learn new self-confidence and you can move forward more effectively. And you can be a more effective force for change for others.
Nothing I've said conflicts with all of these larger goals. And I wouldn't suggest that anyone ought to forsake them. But for a person having to make their way in the world right now, today, there need to be more immediate steps as well.
Point taken. Completely understand.
sad but true - i have run my own business for 40 years so lighten up mr puppy - if this is what you think - When you can start an online business for about $100 - you are really dumber than most - what is you business and how are you doing since the downturn?
You're the one that started insulting people, so maybe you should lighten up yourself Mr. Fool.
Lessee -- Web Site and email -- Godaddy, $19.95 a month, $9 a year to reserve a domain name. Harvest web-based invoicing, $32 a month. Video conferencing for up to 6 people on Google, free. Collaboration site similar to Sharepoint but better on Alfresco, free. Online backup of all of our data, $5 a month on Sugarsync. Like everybody else on this site, I already had a computer and internet connection. Total, $56.95 a month. I could cut that down but I pay extra for some tracking metrics on Godaddy. They'll host a site for $5 a month. We built the site and set up the accounting etc. ourselves. Took two days to have it all up and running and be open for business. Everybody works out of their house, so there's no overhead for premises, the business owns no assets except for a single computer we bought a few weeks ago, and our only other ongoing expenses are cell phones and internet connections we all already had and would have regardless. Except, of course, for things like taxes and workers compensation insurance. We're doing it by the book, and not cheating on any of that. Taxes are actually our biggest expense because we live in three different states so we have to have three of everything.
We look to gross maybe $750K this year, but it's a startup, only been around 11 months. The one I walked away from did about $1.1 mil, payroll $700K per year. We can beat that, in a couple of years we can probably get to $1.5 mil. So I guess that's dumb, huh? No problem, I'll take dumb.
you are dumber than i thought - sure you can start a business very easily - that is not the point. now you need to make money - wow - just goes to prove taleb's line -"if you so rich why aren't you so smart." you are not worth the time - encountered too many of you here - and why are you here money bags?
How awful of me -- I actually want to make a living and am willing to work to get it. The nerve! And I actually suggest that other people might be able to do the same thing! And worst of all, I'm actually successful at it and make money!
I guess it's purer and more noble not to have a job and to be poor and to stay that way. Go down to the local ghetto and tell them that, and that if they just wait long enough the revolution will save them. See how much traction you get.
You're the one that wanted to know how my business is doing, so I told you. So tell me, since your business is apparently run on both smarter and more noble lines, what do you do, lose money on purpose to show solidarity with the masses?
and why are you here (constantly!) mr businessman? trying to help out the poor - go somewhere else and do it. as anyone can see there is lots of work that needs to be done and lots of people who would like to do it but the system cannot put them together (and godaddy won't either!). that can only mean that the system is broken. the work that needs doing in case you didn't know, is renewable energy (we are running out) and infrastructure - water, electric and roads just to start. i will leave you with max neef -AMY GOODMAN I began by asking him to explain what barefoot economics is.
AMY GOODMAN: So how would you turn that around?
MANFRED MAX-NEEF: Well, I don’t know how to turn it around. I mean, it will turn around itself, you know, in catastrophic manners. I mean, I don’t understand how there isn’t — millions of people can all of a sudden go out in the streets in the United States and begin destroying things, I don’t know. That may perfectly happen. You know, the situation is absolutely dramatic. Absolutely dramatic. And it is supposed to be the most powerful country in the world, you know, and so on. And even in those conditions, they continue with those stupid wars, you know, and spend more, more, more millions and trillions. Thirteen trillion dollars for the speculators; not one cent for the people who lost their homes! I mean, what kind of logic is that?
You can always tell when someone is losing one of these arguments. First they start the ad hominem attacks, then they tell you you're not welcome.
I'm here because I feel like it; and because I'm interested in these issues.
well then you have a lot of work to do - i was trying to help - read max neef and then send me your thoughts. just as an aside i thought what i said would make it clear that your idea of the poor and unemployed starting web based work at home businesses would not solve today's problems - silly me!
Not web-based, merely web-enabled. Let me give you a perhaps better example. A while back, my brother-in-law lost his job, declared bankruptcy, his girlfriend ditched him and cleaned out his bank account on the way out, he wrecked his car, and he owes a bunch of child support. He's got no college. All he was left with was his pickup truck. All in all, a very bad year.
He didn't like being broke and down and out, so he printed up $25 worth of flyers and started a web site and started a law-mowing business because the pickup truck and the lawnmower were about the only things he had left. Two months later, he was able to hire his first employee. So now there are two guys with jobs that used to be two guys that were unemployed.
Is he making the kind of money I'll be making this year? I don't think so; but he's paying the rent and the bills. Can everyone do this? Probably not. But some can. And why ought they not to? It beats sitting around for the next few decades waiting for someone else to be your salvation.
I'll read what you sent.
let me know what you think. i am all for hard work - did plenty of it myself but that is not the answer. our sustem is broken - remember i grew up in the 60's when one job supported a family - what happened?
money would solve problems
we have plenty of money - now what
Used properly - YEP.
LOL Yeah! Let's attack people we disagree with!
sorry but a person who writes this nonsense - When you can start an online business for about $100?
No one has answered this question for me. I am genuinely serious.
[Removed]
You posted that to a web community dominated by two major groups: people who want the government to distribute income equally to everybody, and people who want there to be no money or government at all. Neither of those two groups are going to be receptive to people who want to talk about entrepreneurship and personal responsibility.
That is true; but the income to be redistributed has to come from somewhere. If the people in favor of income redistribution are being intellectually honest, they ought also to be willing to work long hours and even to open a business themselves and to pay very high taxes and fees so that there is something to redistribute. And they ought also to gladly accept the regulatory burden of dealing with all of those forms and tax filings (and working on a holiday to do so, like I am today) as part of their civic and patriotic duty.
So you might consider this a call to arms: If you're serious about all of this OWS stuff, start a business. Try to make some big money with it. Then, take that money, and either pay it out in taxes, or distribute it to community groups and non-profits, leaving yourself only enough to live modestly and in no better a circumstance than your least-well-paid worker.
If anyone here tries that, I'll be the first to congratulate them. If any succeed, I'll be the first to be impressed.
See here: http://macromarketmusings.blogspot.com/2012/04/is-there-really-aggregate-demand.html
"Low demand" is the problem for small businesses for this recession (things like regulation have a significant share but it hasn't changed much). Creating more small businesses doesn't help.
Low demand isn't a kind of sea level spread evenly amongst all businesses. There are plenty of businesses large and small making money and hiring people right now.
In any economic climate, it's tough to run a business. You can't sit around waiting for demand to increase, you have to out-compete others, or they'll out-compete you. It is not, and never has been, a collaborative environment between businesses.
If you want for there to be more jobs, it's likewise not enough to sit around and demand that others create them, or to blame their absence on some external force. Doing these things accomplishes nothing and is nothing more than idle talk. You ought to be willing to roll up your sleeves and do something about it. That means starting a business and creating jobs yourself.
True, job openings exist, but there are still about 3 job seekers for every job, down from about 7 to 1 at the worst for this recession but still higher than the 1~1.5:1 of a normal economy.
For example, Apple made over $400,000 in profit per employee. But this is no reason for them to hire more people, since rich peope are not job creators. Apple itself says it is not in the business of creating jobs, as quoted in the NYT's "iEconomy" series.
That really wouldn't improve the situation, because "jobs" that your business creates are ones that another business loses, unless you really do create a new product category that increases consumption which most businesses do not do.
The point of collective action is to improve economic conditions for everyone, which is what work conservation would do. I agree that simply accusing corporations of evil is a pointless activity.
Apple's not in the business of job creation, but that's not to say they don't create jobs. They create plenty of jobs. New products require lots of bright people to create and market them, and companies like Apple are always hiring. Go to San Jose and you'll see companies like Apple adding buildings to their campuses all the time. They're going to fill those new buildings with lots of new employees of all kinds, and give them excellent salaries, benefits, stock options and and all kinds of the very things that everybody here thinks that employers ought to give to people. You might want to apply with Apple or Cisco or some of those other companies yourself.
"Lots" of jobs could be created and unemployment would still be above 8%.
The US is missing 7~12 million jobs, and there are many more people who are forced to work part-time (often at low wage rates) when they would prefer to work full-time.
But anyway: Apple is extremely profitable because people buy overpriced brands. Those profits are currently being saved by Apple, but even if they gave it out as dividends the rich (whom those dividends would go to) already have plenty of money that they aren't spending.
I spent a few seconds looking up the unemployment quote. From the NYT:
And, ultimately, they say curing unemployment is not their job.
“We sell iPhones in over a hundred countries,” a current Apple executive said. “We don’t have an obligation to solve America’s problems. Our only obligation is making the best product possible.”
it's about resources not jobs
what is "it"?
Apple seems to think it's about resources.
However, the rest of the economy wants "it" to be about jobs.
it's about safe one-liners in forums not real direct action in the streets
Right. But what's all that got to do with you getting a job at Apple? The reason they can pay people so well is that they make a lot of money. What do you guys think employees are paid with, fairy dust? It takes money, and a lot of it.
Of course they' re not in the business of solving the employment problem. No business is -- I can't imagine where you ever got the idea that businesses do that. Every business is in the business of making a product. In the course of making that product they hire and employ people. If they're a big company like Apple they employ a hell of a lot of people.
Are you guys sure you're really interested in having a job? It sounds to me like you're much more interested in talking about why there are no jobs than you are in getting one.
If you are looking for a job, check out the Apple website's hiring page. They're hiring for 3 new stores right now. Hunt a little further on the site and you'll discover they're hiring for corporate jobs, student positions and others.
http://www.apple.com/jobs/us/retail.html?cid=hrm-naus-rr01-0049
The NYT article is about manufacturing jobs, not sales jobs.
And the people who manufacture Apple's products are not paid much more than average. Up until 2010, when the suicides took place, workers were only making minimum wage of ¥900 ($132) per month.
Now, according to reports (and partially due to local minimum wage increases) they make around 2200 RMB/month after probation but that's still not very much compared to the cost of an iPhone and Apple's profit margins ($34 billion in 2011). If wage/assembly cost was about $8 per iPhone before, it's probably no more than $20~30 now for an iPhone that sells for $650~850 and 50% gross profit margins.
I am not under that impression. But many people are. Or are you not aware that people use Bain Capital's "leveraged buyout" strategy of maximizing corporate profits while firing workers as a way to attack the Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney?
I wonder that as well. But once again, unemployment can be fixed with work conservation if people will just support it.
There are still about 3 job seekers for every job opening. This includes every job you listed.
and that matters to who in nebraska? or oklahoma or mississippi, or lousina, wisconsin, michigan, rhoade island and on and on.. california is one miniscule space in a real big country and its going broke feeding the 1% . you may as well get use to the poor.. its the fastest growing segment of the population.
Apple is not the only corporation, silly.
But I agree that even if every single overseas job was brought back to the US, it might not be enough to eliminate unemployment (since other countries would certainly retaliate with similar trade barriers that reduce US exports). Which is why, once again, work conservation is the solution to unemployment.
http://the99percentvotes.com/idea/US95
So you're looking for a job in Nebraska or Oklahoma? Great! Just so happens I've got one for you, and it pays very well, and requires no skill or college degree and it's even a union job. And I bet they're hiring right now. Check out my discussion with JoeTheFarmer below about becoming a gandydancer, then rush right out to the local state employment office. They'll sign you right up and before you know it you'll have a well-paying union job that's most definitely proletariat and blue collar (and a great part of American history in the bargain) so that you can hold your head up high at the next OWS rally. And you'll make pretty darn good money in the process.
Send me a postcard from Nebraska. I haven't been back to Minden since I quite working the steel gangs.
"There are still about 3 job seekers for every job opening. This includes every job you listed."
It's possible that the requirement to live in bunks, not being able to see family, etc. mean that those jobs are both well-paid and open for new applicants, but at the same time it is precisely those restrictions that would make some people prefer to let someone else get that job and instead lobby for government solutions like higher taxes.
And if they're not willing to go where the work really is and do something what actually needs to be done, why the fuck should those of us who are willing to do so give a shit about what happens to them? Are they better than us, that they have a right to have some kind of special job land in their lap while everybody else has to go out and work and toil in fields and factories and construction sites? How do you think things get built and things get done?
It looks like we're talking about latte leftists here -- people who would rather sit in a coffee shop and talk revolution than actually get out there and work and sweat with the real workers, and who have never actually done any of these things, so they talk very importantly of matters they know only by means of rather rudimentary political theory they got from a book or magazine someplace.
Possibly. But maybe you could have said the same thing during the Great Depression (except that unemployment was probably much higher than with the recession, if statistics can be trusted despite that methodologies were different or whatever). And tax rates still went up.
The point is there ARE people who are willing to do most jobs. Since you don't have evidence that "gandydancer" jobs are not being filled, I will just link to the warehouse jobs for supply companies with forced overtime, unrealistic efficiency targets and no job security with many reports of the average worker lasting less than 6 months before being fired for not meeting efficiency targets.
Those articles, and the "1 million applications for 50k McDonald's jobs", proves that people are willing to accept bad jobs, which is what suggests that the US will see more socialism if these problems are not addressed. And the lack of movement in employment-to-population ratios is the best evidence that this is a long-term problem.
Work conservation is still the solution. http://the99percentvotes.com/idea/US95
The wages paid by Foxconn (which is not Apple -- it's a completely separate company) in China have nothing to do with what Apple pays people in the United States. And they don't have anything to do with this discussion unless you're planning to go to China to look for a job.
Apple employs thousands of people in the US, including engineers, accountants, clerical staff, lawyers, secretaries and many other sorts. And they pay them very well. So do other Silicon Valley companies. And regardless of how many people there are for every opening, the fact is that someone gets every one of those well-paying jobs. And every time they do, the economy is a bit better off. That is how economic growth occurs.
So it seems like we agree: Apple is not to blame for not distributing its $400k profit per employee to those employees by paying everyone 4 times what they are currently paid, despite that some people seem to think Apple (and similar corporations) should do that or should just "hire people for no reason".
Although what President Obama asked of Steve Jobs was that Apple create manufacturing jobs in the United States, so the issue of Foxconn workers' wages is still relevant.
Anyway, this tangent started when you said,
Let's say that Apple is left untouched. We can even say that people working there continue to all work full-time instead of using work conservation.
If other people in the United States use work conservation, then they will be motivated to buy competitors' products which are of similar quality and much cheaper, just lack the Apple brand, and this creates jobs for those companies while simultaneously reducing the work for Apple employees. This leads to several effects:
1) Since people are working less (at these non-electronics companies where people who used to buy iPhones work), those companies can hire more workers since demand is unchanged. (The rich have most of the $55 trillion in wealth in the US, they're not about to start spending less.) Result: job creation.
2) Since Apple's competitors are less profitable, more money goes to wages instead of profits (stored in tax havens by Apple). Result: next pay cycle or economic quarter, more spending in the economy because less money is being saved = job creation (compared to Apple saving profits).
Or to put it a different way: before you had one very-well paid worker, and one unemployed college graduate using food stamps to get by (paid for by taxpayers). The worker purchases one iPhone, half of which goes to Apple's profits.
After work conservation: two people who work less than full-time and get paid well for the time they work. Both buy a cell phone from a non-Apple company. Result: no cost to taxpayers from food stamps and twice as much spent on assembly for cell phones. All of that money can then be spent when it goes to workers' paychecks instead of Apple's overseas tax haven.
What Apple is exporting workers to China?
Or are they looking for keyosk operators?
You should be so lucky that you get one of the jobs Apple has in this country. They're an excellent employer, and pay their people quite well.
Work conservation wouldn't create new demand. If I'm making a hundred dollars a week and I go half time so that you and I each now get fifty, where's the additional wealth that's going to create new demand?
The US has $55 trillion of wealth. Most of that wealth is not being spent.
Work conservation would increase spending per income earned because money would continue to circulate, instead of being spent on brands (where it goes to the rich who don't spend it) or just being saved due to a lack of need to buy things.
Most of the revenue at most companies goes to pay expenses like salaries. The average profit margin is around 6% or so, which means that 94% goes for other things like paying the employees. And if the rich don't spend their money, where do they all get those mansions and Italian sports cars? Does someone give them to them? One of the things that people around here complain about is conspicuous consumption. That's spending.
Corporate profits last year were about $1.6 trillion. The US economy is only $15 trillion, and corporations don't even account for all business revenues/economic activity. So even without looking it up, your 6% figure is too low.
*maybe that's actually median profit margin, or maybe it's something complicated to do with taxes. Like maybe the 6% is before income tax deductions or something.
The top 5% account for something like 37% of consumer spending. But that is still less money than they earn.
[Deleted]
the poor spend money on food and rent
There is no generic / national system to 'carry' the poor/homeless thru an intergration period into a "regular" human community. Where do we begin? how do we begin to deal with mental illness, broken lives, child neglect, cronic crime, constant incarceration, ugly violence etc etc. Yes, it costs money but I consider it an human Investment. The returns can be enormous. We may find our next Einstein amoung the 'poor'. We have to make decisions.... a huge defence budget (protected by the industrial military complex lobby - the 1%) or try to help our human nation (the 99%) get back on its feet again. The USA needs its middle class back again after 30 yrs of erosion.
what he doesn't mention is the complex structure of copyright, patents and trademarking and how you protect yourself from big corporate thieves. this cost is extremely complex time consuming and costly.
also the recent history of corporations steal small peoples idea's and then tying them up in courts for years forcing them into give up by attrition. all but making copyrights and and patents useless and costly
penguento is not an idiot, he's in fact offering solutions to people if they are willing to do the work. so anyone on here who are belittling his suggestions really need to step up and come up with a better suggestion of your own or shut the fuck up who am I? the poor person living in a truck I'm actually ahead of him working on some online projects
how about this try living in a truck for 3yrs then get back to me on that
Have you been living in a truck for three years?
and I'm not selling my truck
If you think everyone has a hundred bucks on hand, you don't know what "poverty" means. A lot of people are budgeted to the penny every month, and the slightest unexpected expense puts them in the negative.
Most people classified as "poor" in fact have all sorts of things like televisions, air conditioning and cell phone. "Poor" doesn't mean what it meant during the Great Depression, by a long shot. Read this:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty
Most TVs, especially CRTs, are worthless. You can't get rid of them at yard sales. Ditto on any phone that is more than 2 years old, and most of those are given away in the first place as incentives to sign up with a phone service. Most air conditioning units are stuck in place in homes and apartments and are NOT property of the renters of the unit. They're not liquid assets anyway, again try selling an AC unit at a yard sale...
TV isn't a necessity, but AC may save some lives this summer. Every year I hear of people that die from dehydration or other heat-related causes because they can't afford AC... Cell phones are must haves in modern society. If you don't have one you can't contact most people, because land line phones are extinct and people stopped waiting to make important calls for things like job offers since now everyone has a cell phone.
The point isn't what the resale value of an old television or cell phone is, and you're right you need a phone of some sort if you're looking for a job. And I certainly have no issue with anybody having a television or air conditioning.
My point is that even most poor people have some resources -- they're not completely destitute and living on the street as you suggest. And if you have some resources, even very limited ones, they can be leveraged to improve your situation.
Some are completely destitute and living on the street. Several million people, in fact, make up our nation's homeless population. There are far too many people who are just a medical mishap away from joining them too. Its a shame that the most powerful nation in the world can't figure out a solution to this problem. Hint: Politicians have to value people over any amount of money, and America over any other nation.
So, since some people are in really bad shape, that means that nobody that's poor ought to try to lift themselves out of it, or that no one should suggest ways for them to achieve it? Everybody all ought to just wait until the government does something?
However much it might be so that the government ought to come up with a solution, for any individual person, it's a poor strategy to wait for that to happen, since it's clearly not going to be forthcoming any time soon.
For any individual, taking advantage of whatever help is available, whether government or private, right now, and a very large dose of self-help, right now, is far more likely to yield some results in the foreseeable future. And that includes homeless people.
The government of the people should always help the least of us. It is how we are judged. No? But I don't push for handouts, charity, free rides. No! I say, lets just vote out politicians who would cut taxes on the wealthy, Those that cut regulations for corp 1%? Vote 'em out!! Against Green jobs? OUT!!! Against healthcare for all with a real public option to compete with criminal insurance corps. Out! Out! OUT! It's simple, no hand outs! Justice for the 99%. Support OWS. Vote out pro Norquist, anti Buffett rule politicians
Vote out the anti-people politicians as fast as we are able. Keep up the pressure for change. unite in common cause. Don't opt-out but get organized to retake our Democracy.
Here are good pressure points.
PETITION: Congress must put Wall Street reform back on the agenda: http://act.boldprogressives.org/sign/sign_glasssteagall/?source=bp
Also,
PETITION: Jail the Bankers: http://act.boldprogressives.org/sign/sign_wallstreet_bankerjail/?source=bp
The middle class must save the middle class - and put this country on a healthy path forward.
The working poor must save the working poor - and put this country on a healthy path forward.
The Poor must save the Poor - and put this country on a healthy path forward.
The Homeless people must save the homeless people - and put this country on a healthy path forward.
The Middle class & the working poor & The Poor & The Homeless - working together - can save this country.
Unite in common cause.
Sure, all of the above. But meanwhile, what's the objection to doing something for yourself at the same time? Poverty isn't some kind of noble state that people must immerse themselves in to be pure, and certainly, none of the poor people I ever knew thought any such thing. They wanted a good job and money. You're also in a much better position to help other people if you have money yourself.
Jobs must be created - can't be employed if there are no jobs.
So stop the outsourcing of jobs would also be a great idea.
Goods imported to this country should meet tariffs that make them compete on a level field with goods produced in this country. Would make outsourcing so much more unattractive.
Every country should hold this same practice as being common sense. Level playing field. You want parity in the world? This is a start.
Every job should be required to pay a living wage. How can you get out of poverty if you can not earn a living?
Unite in common cause people.
idle hands do the devils work
Any without disagreeing with any of what you just said, I'll reiterate: For any individual, waiting for all of that to happen is a very poor strategy. If and when it does happen, great. But in the meantime, there are things you can do for yourself to improve your own situation.
Yeah vote out politicians who are standing in the way of improving the lives of the 99%!. Vote out the politicians who obstruct green tech jobs, Who vote against unemployement insurance, who want to end medicare for the elderly. Who would cut taxes for the wealthy. Who would raise interest rates on college loans, Who prevent fin reform implementation. That is what we can do for ourselves! take the govt back from the 1%.
Voting for the right guys is certainly one of them. But not the only one.
And get in the streets! agitate for the policies that would help the 99%. Stop supporting the 1%. Get arrested, get beaten (on film) by the police. we are the 99%. We are legion. they will be assimilated. agitate, agitate, agitate!
Sure sure - I have heard that there is a booming business in stripping the copper out of abandoned homes. Not something I would recommend doing though.
OH OH I know I know. Sell weed!! It is profitable due to prohibition.
OH but the downside is you could be caught and sentenced to do time in a for profit prison.
Though the upside is you would not be homeless and you would get fed - though the downside would be you would not be getting in a better position to live a good law abiding life when you got out - oh the upside is you could be working making goods for American companies - oh but the downside is you won't get paid a living wage to do that.
What a conundrum. {:-[
Oh, well. I guess there's just nothing a person can do. All the poor and unemployed folks out there will just have to live in a cave and eat worms for the rest of their lives and hope that some day in the distant future there'll be a social revolution that will change the lives of their grandkids. And that'll be a great day for those grandkids, but sadly, it's just too late for the people alive right now. Nothing will be done for them, and there's nothing they can do for themselves. So sad, but unavoidable, I guess. No point in any of them even trying.
Eore - you are missing the point. Or you don't care. Or you don't understand.
Vote out the anti-people politicians as fast as we are able. Keep up the pressure for change. unite in common cause. Don't opt-out but get organized to retake our Democracy.
Here are good pressure points.
PETITION: Congress must put Wall Street reform back on the agenda: http://act.boldprogressives.org/sign/sign_glasssteagall/?source=bp
Also,
PETITION: Jail the Bankers: http://act.boldprogressives.org/sign/sign_wallstreet_bankerjail/?source=bp
The middle class must save the middle class - and put this country on a healthy path forward.
The working poor must save the working poor - and put this country on a healthy path forward.
The Poor must save the Poor - and put this country on a healthy path forward.
The Homeless people must save the homeless people - and put this country on a healthy path forward.
The Middle class & the working poor & The Poor & The Homeless - working together - can save this country.
Unite in common cause.
Further.
Jobs must be created - can't be employed if there are no jobs.
So stop the outsourcing of jobs would also be a great idea.
Goods imported to this country should meet tariffs that make them compete on a level field with goods produced in this country. Would make outsourcing so much more unattractive.
Every country should hold this same practice as being common sense. Level playing field. You want parity in the world? This is a start.
Every job should be required to pay a living wage. How can you get out of poverty if you can not earn a living?
Unite in common cause people.
We need to invest in real REAL green tech.
Green Tech.
This is where we should be going: Green Energy we have the technology we just need to use it. This is what I am talking about. A clean future to be implemented NOW!
http://www.hopewellproject.org/
http://ecat.com/
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/all/1
FuelCell Energy http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/progress_alerts.cfm/pa_id=600
I would suggest lobbying in this direction. Invest in our future create new industry that is healthy profitable creates new jobs ends fossil fuel dependance ends the pollution of fossil fuel. Can be exported in aid around the world to impoverished countries to make them more self sufficient - instead of throwing billions of dollars yearly to the regimes of these countries to use in their personal retirement programs.
some of us are working
all those trying need to refocus on task
And how are people supposed to help themselves? Think. If you had no home, no possessions, and no money to your name, how are you going to "make it?"
You can't grow your own food because you have no land. You can't hunt for your food because in most areas you need a permit ($) to do that. You can't get a job because you don't have the money to afford the training. You can't even lease your body for $ legally, thanks again to the Christians and their disdain for everything that isn't exactly like them. What can you do... that doesn't involve breaking into homes or mugging someone?
Some of us are fighting to have a universal free healthcare system, so that families don't have to be afraid of seeing the doctor. For too many people getting treated at a hospital is more damaging to their lives than the medical conditions themselves. Money be damned. It doesn't matter how much it costs, its the right, pro-Human thing to do.
Some of us are fighting to keep jobs that any American can do in America. Not just jobs that require people to go into tens of thousands of $ in student loan debt to obtain. And not everybody gets scholarships. I'm talking about levying tariffs on Chinese goods in order to level the playing field between us and a country that doesn't care about human rights... Again the government could put every unemployed American to work through government works programs if it wanted to instead of spending billions of bombs to kill Muslims half-way across the world.
Some of us tried to grow our own food. Of course the 1% backing government ordered the police to destroy that endeavor. Thanks to the 1%, private property is more important than the human right to food.
Some of us realize that charity alone will not solve anyone's problems. During the Guilded Age aristocrats from the charities of the day would "disapprove" of giving aid to starving people using whatever arbitrary rules they wanted. I want charity to be in the reigns of the government, so that Christian groups, for example, can't do what groups did during the Guilded Age and deny food to people because they didn't agree with a set of beliefs or w/e. I'd rather have the government redistrubute the income than rely on private groups to be "generous."
People are doing what they can to help themselves in the ways that they can. You're on a website for a movement that is empowering exactly these people by amplifying their voices and providing at the very least an avenue for them to network, pool resources, etc. There are tons of other movements and actions that are taking place right now that were spurred from this movement or its ideals.
Perhaps "everyone" does not. However, I used to sell frivolous items for a living. I had poor people try to buy stuff from me before they even had the money.
I don't think everyone has a hundred dollars on hand. I think everyone, (who is not homeless) Could SAVE that much money, in a short amount of time, if they tried very hard. Cut the movies, starbucks, and nail jobs. Live on beans and ramen for a week, and pack your own lunch. The average worker would probably have that much saved in a week if they did this. On minimum wage, it would take longer. I've done it.
Probably because just because you start a business doesn't mean that it will actually make any money.
Yeah! So don't even try! The system is rigged!
It takes perseverance, drive, intelligence and desire to lift yourself from poverty. The majority of the people here simply don't possess those characteristics so they expend vast amounts of effort in developing silly plans to take cash from those who do have those characteristics.
OWS is filled with losers who simply can't succeed in the richest nation the world has ever known. I am stunned they don't die of embarrassment.
Lifting people out of poverty can be easier if the state pitches in. Over the last thirty years, the Chinese government lifted 100 million of China's poorest people out of poverty, according to the world bank.
The US has not lifted any people out of poverty and has in fact sent a substantial number of people into poverty over the same time period. It was different during the times of FDR and JFK, then we were lifting American people out of poverty. Let's go back to that way of doing things.
Or do you think that those Chinese people who made it out of poverty were just "winners" while the American people who went into poverty were just "losers"?
Just one question for you arturo. While I personally oppose nuclear power for other obvious reasons, what is your answer to the issue of peak uranium? http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article27549.html
I believe that the human being is a form of life that can only survive through progress, that is, we can't exist in an indefinite steady state. This is because our key quality which differentiates us from animals is that we use fire, and fire requires fuel.
Inevitably, we run out of one source of fuel, and must progress to a better form of fuel. For example, we went from wood, to coal, to gasoline, to nuclear fission (with a few additional steps in between), but the general direction of this process was to progress to energy sources that provided more energy from smaller amounts of fuel than the previous sources.
So, when we run out of uranium, the next step would be to progress to nuclear fusion which uses isotopes of hydrogen as fuel, such as deuterium. While this fuel source is abundant, if we were to run out here on earth, there is much more available on the surface of the moon.
Some might say that this is an unproven technology and so we cannot depend on it. But I would say that back when we were using wood for fuel, gas engines were unproven, that is non-existent. However, we did inevitably progress to their use.
Beyond fusion, which provides more energy per amount of fuel than fission, some scientists now say that eventually we will be able to use matter / anti-matter reactions as fuel, which would provide even more power per amount of fuel than fusion.
I think I remember reading, for example, that a matter / anti-matter fueled rocket, after lifting off, would reach outer space within a matter of moments. Plans for fusion powered rockets to get us to Mars in a week have been on the drawing board for decades.
Yes, fusion. But after thirty years of research, and billions of dollars, how much energy has fusion produced? Oh yeah, none. So are you advocating we wait for fusion, or go ahead and build more fission reactors in spite of the fact of a uranium supply problem? (Not to mention the glaring safety issues.)
Our fusion research has been scaled back quite a bit.
I think it is estimated that the amount of uranium available would last us for over a thousand years.
I guess you didn't read the link. "An acute shortage by 2013" does not equal a 1000 year supply, and that is just for the current number of reactors. This does not account for the additional reactors in the works. Much of the nuclear fuel in recent years has come from dismantled nuclear bombs. They are running out.
Here is the quote I remembered relating to a 1,000 year supply, it has to do with the thorium supply in India:
"The potential for long-term independence in India’s nuclear power generation was vested in a fissionable material, not a fissile material, thorium. That is, thorium is not fissile like U-235; thorium-232 (Th-232) absorbs slow neutrons to produce U-233, which is fissile. In other words, Th-232 is fertile like U-238, which absorbs neutrons to produce fissile plutonium (Pu-239).
According to an estimate by analysts based in India’s premier nuclear research and development facility, the Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC), India’s thorium reserves can amount to a staggering 358,000 GWe-yr (Gigawatt electrical-year) of energy. In other words, India’s thorium reserves could last for as long 1,000 years, at a rate of generation of 358 GW every year, even without using breeder reactors. India’s total power-generation capacity at this point in time is close to 146 GW, of which, nuclear power’s contribution is a paltry 4.12 GW."
Yes, I think thorium was where you got the 1000 years. There is no doubt that thorium would seem to be a vast improvement. The issue of peak uranium, though, is a widely recognized situation. Your link was from 2004. There is wide agreement, now, that uranium supply will be inadequate.
Then why do you think China is increasing its investment in nuclear power? They are considering thorium, but I believe are mostly just using uranium now. Here's some info on it:
China diversifies sources of uranium as nuclear power industry grows http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/business/2010-11/18/c_13612126.htm
Interview: Nuclear power development to continue: former IAEA chief http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-03/19/c_13788017.htm
The last one talks about thorium.
Government leaders aren't always as smart as one might hope. I do think China is going toward thorium. India definitely is. It is my understanding that thorium can be used in conventional reactors.
It would appear that thorium can be used in conventional reactors.
I don't know what if any additional set-up is required - But check it out:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/all/1
The purely thorium reactor looks the most friendly though.
I think perhaps your source is biased, here is what someone else says:
"The “proven reserve” estimates are flawed for two primary reasons. First of all they do not consider the fact that very little effort, or money, has been put towards uranium exploration thus far. Second, they do not adequately account for the tiny effect that uranium ore price has on final nuclear power price, and the maximum allowable prices that they use to determine “economically recoverable” reserves are far too low."
http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.aspx
This doesn't give an estimated number on how many years worth of uranium we have though, it just points out the flaws of contemporary estimates. Another issue to consider is that thorium can be used as a nuclear fuel as well.
The Chinese are building nuclear plants as fast as they can, I seriously doubt they would do that if they thought they had only one year before a serious shortage began. There is also the idea to be considered that nuclear fuel can be recycled.
I know, right? The government hasn't pitched in a RED CENT to the poor for the last 50 years! If they only do just a TINY BIT, we'll end the problem of poverty forever! There's no such thing as dependency!
Yes, capitalism has been wonderful for the Chinese but are you seriously comparing levels of poverty between China and the US? Surely you know better than that.
No, I'm not comparing nations really. But their people have risen, while ours have fallen, does that make their people winners and ours losers, as you say?
Would you rather live in China or the US?
As a matter of fact, I will moving back to China on Thursday. I used to teach English there and will be going back to do the same. Its not bad there.
But my point is that you are calling people here losers, so I would think that you consider people whose economic situation declines to be losers and people whose economic situation improves, to be winners.
The poor Chinese may be poorer than our poor people, but they are getting better, does that make them winners and our poor people losers?
OWS'ies are losers, not the millions of Americans who have created the richest nation in the history of the world. Nowhere in this forum will you find an idea that doesn't involve taking.
Frankly, most of you will grow out of this silliness (not too many 50 YO living in tents and shitting in McDonalds bags) but every soul sucking day you give to this stupidity is one less day you have to create a life for yourself.
Will you be earning the average Chinese salary or perhaps something a little more American?
Actually, I'm going to invest in a school. I started a school in Argentina, learned how to do it, now, I'm going to try the world's biggest market for English lessons, while my partner manages the school in Argentina. In this sense, my income will be up to me, depending on how much I put into it.
I do have a friend teaching in China, who makes $3k -$5k a month working part time at HSBC and part time as an examiner for the British Council. Quite a few foreigners make this kind of money in China.
There are all kinds of people on this website, I've even met some doctors and dentists who support OWS. So clearly, you are exaggerating. Can't say, I've ever mentioned a word about taking here, personally, I try to give more than I take.
Most people here have lives. I've been working at home, since I've been back visiting in the US, and watch this site on and off during the day. The vast majority of people who participate here have gone to work by 9 am.
People who protest Wall Street do so because they are tired of giving hand outs, in terms of bail outs to Wall Street banks. This is essential, the global financial system is teetering on the verge of collapse now. If this problem isn't solved, we'll probably start seeing runs on banks pretty soon.
Every penny the banks got in bailouts has been paid back with interest, anyone with any integrity can admit that. The only bailouts that are unpaid are those to the car companies and the unions. Clearly, you are exaggerating.
The problem is not the banking system, it is the elite who move from politics to business to academia to media. You dance to their tune, they want you complaining about the banks, not them, so that's what you do. do you really believe you made the decision to blame the financial system? Where did the information for that decision come from? :)
Blaming banks is like a junkie blaming the needle for his addiction, banks are a conduit for policy made by the elite. Look around you, do you see the children of the political elite by your side?
Every penny the banks got in bailouts has been paid back with interest, anyone with any integrity can admit that.
According to the last audit of the Federal Reserve conducted by the GAO last year, you are wrong. What was revealed in the audit was startling:
$16 Trillion dollars had been secretly given out to US banks and corporations and foreign banks everywhere from France to Scotland. From the period between December 2007 and June 2010, the Federal Reserve had secretly bailed out many of the world’s banks, corporations, and governments. (pg 131 of the report)
The Federal Reserve likes to refer to these secret bailouts as an all-inclusive loan program, some of the money has been returned and it was loaned out at 0% interest.
To place $16 trillion into perspective, remember that GDP of the United States is only $14.12 trillion. The entire national debt of the United States government spanning its 200+ year history is “only” $14.5 trillion.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11696.pdf
What banks still owe money?
Not for the TARP program which was what the public knew about, but there were many emergency bailout programs and a lot of money is outstanding.
Is it sort of like all the oil lying on the bottom in the gulf making three eyed shrimp?
I wouldn't use that exact analogy, but what was done by the Fed Resrv. was pretty slimey.
No one knows where this mysterious 16 trillion went?
You didn't read that 266 page report did you? 16 trillion is an aggregate. Billions were provided for 'overnights' to keep banks solvent, that's money deposited by the central bank to cover the funding requirements to keep the institution from triggering a default, these funds were aggregated. How many times does it take for 100 billion loaned (and repaid) overnight to make up a trillion?
Your masters depend on your ignorance.
Sure I understand that the elite are behind the banking system, what do you think all the talk about the 1% here is about? That's nothing profound. Though the people who cause the problems are a fraction of the 1%. I certainly don't need you to tell me that.
Banks are still in need of bailouts, look at the continuing crisis in Europe. Now, there is no way to bail them out fast enough though, and if we don't pass Glass Steagall it will probably reach a point in the not to distant future where we won't be able to take our money out of the banks.
Apparently I do need to tell you that. The banking system is teetering because of the massive government debt all over the world. The Greek crisis is not a banking crisis, it is a debt crisis that will undoubtedly cause some bank failures.
I know, the idiots here genuinely believe if we just tax the rich out of existence and run the printing presses 24/7 all will be well, free shit for all forever. But anyone with two braincells to rub together knows that is rank stupidity.
Forget everything you've been told and have based your beliefs on, clear your political prejudices and rethink how things actually work. It''s all right in front of you.
So, the government absolves itself of responsibility and you have no problem with that? How can only a 'small' portion of SUBPRIME loans relate to the CRA? Are you suggesting that a bank would make loans to subprime borrowers had it not been for government guarantees? Why would they do that? They wouldn't.
The 'government' is far more complex than you put it, and the Fed Resv is far more independent than say, the State Dept....
I am suggesting that a bank would make loans to subprime borrowers, because the banks knew that they weren't holding the paper for 30 years themselves. The mortgages were sold off, bundled, securitized and sold/traded to other banks around the world as 'AAA' investments.
Banks having to hold on to the mortgages long term, the way traditional banking was done, meant being responsible for it, and performing due diligence to ensure that losses would be minimized. With the removal of regulations allowing the crossing over of traditional lines of business, retail banking, insurance, and securities, this was no longer the case.
Ever ask yourself why should a housing bubble in the United States that hit us for $3 Trillion tops, should be able to take down the Global Economy? Isolated and alone it shouldn't of. The tiny number of low income homes in urban areas addressed by the CRA does not explain it. It was the much larger volume of middle income and higher income mortgages that defaulted that created the mess.
Remember watching the Olympics in 2010 from Canada and reading that the athletes Olympic Village residence was being foreclosed on? Everyone over extended.
CRA changed the rules for all borrowers. Gone were the days of the 20% down requirement, good credit and yes, a job. It's disingenuous to claim only a 'small number' of loans were CRA generated, there were not TWO criteria for loans, the CRA leveled the playing field for all (isn't that what you guys always want?). The CRA created the subprime market, were your mind not fogged by your politics you would be able to admit the plain truth. Did you go watch Democrats strongly defend these loans for years on You Tube? Guess not, that might disturb your carefully constructed blinders. :)
Naturally, the 'government' doesn't want to be anywhere near blame for the meltdown and will tell any lie to keep it that way and there are plenty of guys like you who will mindlessly defend it. Someday you may wake up, hope you don't feel 'too' foolish. I'll let you have the last post, that's how you guys 'win' isn't it? :)
Yet you still haven't pointed out any text within that law that indicates how the CRA changed the rules for all borrowers as you claim... you take it on blind faith that it did because thats what you were told.
I ask for proof of your claims and you provide none.
The assumption that low and moderate income earners are poor credit risks is unfounded. What the CRA did was guarantee that those groups in the inner city with lower income and good credit had the same access to loans as wealthier people.
Of course the government shares blame, I never said it didn't, but not with the CRA.
The last poster doesn't win. The winner is the one who provides tangible evidence to back up their claims, which you have failed to provide although asked numerous times already.
Since we ran out of room above, you wrote:
You didn't read that 266 page report did you? 16 trillion is an aggregate. Billions were provided for 'overnights' to keep banks solvent, that's money deposited by the central bank to cover the funding requirements to keep the institution from triggering a default, these funds were aggregated. How many times does it take for 100 billion loaned (and repaid) overnight to make up a trillion? Your masters depend on your ignorance.
Yes I did read it all. Tell me, TARP authorized via the Congress $700 Billion dollars for aide to banks, and it was a big deal at the time drawing lots of fire. Why did they even bother with that charade if the Fed Resrv was cranking out 100's of Billions on their own without a single question and no oversight?
They extended credit where the fires were, foreign and domestic. These were not dollars created for circulation as TARP was. TARP was to assure liquidity and stability.
Let me try to make this clear; if a billion is lent overnight and repaid in the morning (with the interbank interest rate paid) and loaned again the next night and the next 8 nights that is an aggregate of 10 billion in loans even though it is the same billion dollars. Nobody printed 16 trillion and it's still wandering around out there.
Reality is; without a banking system people starve to death. The trucks stop rolling and food doesn't show up in the grocery store. There was absolutely no choice other than to do whatever was necessary to prevent a financial collapse. If that meant helping people you don't like then too bad. There were millions of people in homes they could never afford through CRA 'no qualify', 'no down' loans and they lost them, listen carefully...they...couldn't ...afford ...them. I'll give you the same advice I gave arturo, drop your prejudices and look at what happened. Honestly answer some questions; were the banks greedy or were they a conduit for policy? Is the reason there are no bankers in jail because they were following the law as it existed? Who wrote the laws? Why are they not in at least as much trouble as the bankers?
Show me any language in the CRA, any revision, that stated that banks had to make bad loans?
They did it because it was profitable. They sold people much more home than they could afford because it made for higher fees.... most of the mortgages were sold off, they weren't even held by the issuing banks for more than a few months at best. It was a money making scam from Realtor -> mortgage broker -> bank underwriter -> banks who bundled loans and securitized them -> securities investors -> back to banks who bought the securities and round and round.
A large portion of the mortgages weren't even for first homes, but were secondary mortgages on homes. People were falsely told that there net worth increased because the value of their homes went up in the bubble, so they took out 2nd mortgages from their falsely found new wealth.
The government is just as much to blame and I don't let them off the hook, Democrats and Republicans the same.... and they should all be in jail, and banking reform is a priority.
The CRA removed the safeguards and allowed the banks to do what banks do and the government made it work by providing fannie mae and freddie mac to put the risk on the taxpayer. None of this would have happened without government policy.
Would you be stunned to learn that the Bush administration warned against the growth of FMae and FMac as early as 2001?
You wrote: You're still confusing credit with cash.
My point and main thrust of my anger is, the banks painted a picture that not much was wrong, yet time after time they needed preferential emergency measures to keep up and running, be it extended credit or cash, for their poor decisions.
What kind of help did the average american get? He got foreclosed on by the same institutions that had a revolving credit line and had their debt reduced through outright purchases like the Maiden Lane I, II, III programs.
The banks wouldn't even renegotiate loan terms or interest rates with their customers... some who were not that far behind and with just a little help would could have stayed in their homes.
Unite in common cause. Here are a couple good points to support.
PETITION: Congress must put Wall Street reform back on the agenda: http://act.boldprogressives.org/sign/sign_glasssteagall/?source=bp
Also,
PETITION: Jail the Bankers: http://act.boldprogressives.org/sign/sign_wallstreet_bankerjail/?source=bp
Reality is; without a banking system people starve to death. The trucks stop rolling and food doesn't show up in the grocery store. There was absolutely no choice other than to do whatever was necessary to prevent a financial collapse.
If that meant helping people you don't like then too bad. There were millions of people in homes they could never afford through CRA 'no qualify', 'no down' loans and they lost them, listen carefully...they...couldn't ...afford ...them.
I'll give you the same advice I gave arturo, drop your prejudices and look at what happened. Honestly answer some questions; were the banks greedy or were they a conduit for policy? Is the reason there are no bankers in jail because they were following the law as it existed? Who wrote the laws? Why are they not in at least as much trouble as the bankers?
I can't make you smart. The law states that lenders MUST include "low and moderate income" borrowers, what does that mean to you?
It means that credit worthy people of moderate and low income must be included. You make the assumption that no such group exists. Thats a typical right wing argument, fact is they do exist and the banks overlooking this group is/was a discriminatory action.... thus the need for the law. You still haven't shown me language in the CRA that indicates otherwise... but you are good at flinging insults.
YOU are putting words in it that don't exist, the CRA is a MANDATE, it doesn't specify how the banks add low income borrowers to the rolls it merely states they WILL add them if they wish to continue to be federally insured. Why can you not understand that?
In order to comply banks lowered down payment requirements and credit requirements, they loaned money to people who could not pay the loan back, they knew it, Barney Frank knew it and Raines at FM knew it.
Once the banks figured out that FMae and Fmac were going to buy anything and everything they could dig up then the greed fest began. The lenders couldn't make loans fast enough, the government guaranteed money rolled in, more loans, higher house prices, more loans, non-qualifying loans, they simply stopped worrying about repayment because the government would buy all the trash they could write, the banks couldn't lose, all this was government sponsored! Yipeeee!
Who was at fault here? Do you really believe all this was a surprise to the government? There are dozens of vids at You Tube from the floor of the Congress of the United States in which politicians disregard warnings about the coming real estate bubble. Wake up man!
The CRA removed the safeguards and allowed the banks to do what banks do and the government made it work by providing fannie mae and freddie mac to put the risk on the taxpayer. None of this would have happened without government policy.
You didn't answer the question as to how.... show me the language in the CRA that gave the green light to make bad loans?
The CRA requires, by law, that lenders include "low and moderate income' borrowers in their loan portfolios...how do you include those people without lowering credit standards? How did the government get the banks to go along? By getting FMae and FMac to buy the shitty paper. Who is getting the blame? Banks. Where's the outrage at congress and the GSEs who made it happen?
Here's the link, it isn't hard to figure out... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
YOU are putting words in it that don't exist, the CRA is a MANDATE, it doesn't specify how the banks add low income borrowers to the rolls it merely states they WILL add them if they wish to continue to be federally insured. Why can you not understand that? In order to comply banks lowered down payment requirements and credit requirements, they loaned money to people who could not pay the loan back, they knew it,
Why can't I understand this? Because it's in writing.... ==TITLE VIII — COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT==
SEC. 802. (b) It is the purpose of this title to require each appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency to use its authority when examining financial institutions, to encourage such institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions.
Also because the narrative you have doesn't live up to empirical scrutiny. According to Federal Reserve, the claim that "the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage lending" was contrary to their data, and that no empirical evidence had been presented to support the claim.
"The final analysis we undertook to investigate the likely effects of the CRA on the subprime crisis was to examine foreclosure activity across neighborhoods grouped by income. We found that most foreclosure filings have taken place in middle- or higher-income neighborhoods; in fact, foreclosure filings have increased at a faster pace in middle- or higher-income areas than in lower-income areas that are the focus of the CRA.[11]
Two key points emerge from all of our analysis of the available data. First, only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations are related to the CRA. Second, CRA- related loans appear to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans. Taken together, as I stated earlier, we believe that the available evidence runs counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis."
Conclusions ...Contrary to the assertions of critics, the evidence does not support the view that the CRA contributed in any substantial way to the crisis in the subprime mortgage market.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/kroszner20081203a.htm
Fmae and Fmac are another story and I don't have room here, but your narrative is sorely lacking there as well.
So, the government absolves itself of responsibility and you have no problem with that? How can only a 'small' portion of SUBPRIME loans relate to the CRA? Are you suggesting that a bank would make loans to subprime borrowers had it not been for government guarantees? Why would they do that? They wouldn't.
Do you believe the banks would have loaned money to subprime borrowers without the mandate of the CRA and Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae buying the subprime paper?
The CRA requires, by law, that lenders include "low and moderate income' borrowers in their loan portfolios...how do you include those people without lowering credit standards?
Having a low or moderate income alone does not mean you are not credit worthy. If you have a steady income and pay your bills on time, that makes you credit worthy. So again, show me the language in the CRA that states banks have to make bad loans.
I can't make you smart. The law states that lenders MUST include "low and moderate income" borrowers, what does that mean to you?
PDCF which was the overnight borrowing program made up half of the monies spent.
You're still confusing credit with cash.
I see a lot of people here like you that call names and act like spoiled children. It doesn't give you much credibility. You're probably just unhappy with your life and are taking it out on others.
So, back to default lefty position. I thought I saw a glimmer of rationality in you and decided I'd make the effort, no harm no foul, carry on! :)
How come we have poor people to begin with?
Entropy.
Well....that explains everything.
What it doesn't explain is changes in economic mobility. Of course this is hardly a recent topic... I read some articles from around 1990, when the widening gap between the rich and the rest of society was first discovered, and there were many arguments about incorrect analysis of data regarding economic mobility.
For example someone might look at households in the top quintile of income, and "discover" that some households were likely to have moved out of that quintile several years later! But this just means that economic mobility exists, and not whether inequality has been widening or the amount of economic mobility decreasing.
So....the answer is??
Brand purchasing, and education.
(Pricing strategies might be part of it but mostly the above.)
See this post for an easy-to-understand example, just substitute "brand" for "high-quality banana":
http://jobcreationplan.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-spending-money-is-not-always.html
"Brand development" is a major component/concern for many corporations. It doesn't make the product better. It just makes people think it's better, and this takes both time and money. New businesses cannot compete similar to how at the individual level, someone with a college degree is more likely to get a minimum-wage retail job than someone with just a HS education despite that a HS education is perfectly acceptable for many jobs.
I think we are looking at this from different angles. At least in my mind, the question is not how a poor person can rise out of poverty, but how to eliminate poverty so one does not have to rise out of it in the first place.
People can't choose their parents. Imagine someone with parents who could work, but chose not to for 11 out of 12 months of the year. Even in the best society that person would probably fit definitions of poverty.
But job availability is the best way to reduce the frequency of this happening. For example, minorities (except Asians) are frequently cited as having higher poverty rates etc... but how much of this is due to subconscious discrimination? If jobs are available then even minorities have no trouble finding employment. Also see Pygmalion effect.
Why would someone make the 'choice' not to work for 11 out of 12 months? You can't really move on from this question without an answer and think you've answered anything.
So you think the US should be more socialist, unless this is a hidden reference to job creation (which work conservation is still the best way: http://the99percentvotes.com/idea/US95).
Or if you dislike the word "socialist", then more directly: that the US should provide welfare and a guaranteed basic income to everyone.
Why do some people make the choice to not work at all?
Poverty exists. It makes sense to give people opportunities to escape it. Or do you disagree?
I do disagree. I still ask why does poverty exist in the first place? And it makes a whole lot more sense to eliminate poverty so there is no need to escape it.
Well then, I will directly answer your question. Some people choose not to work, or to only work the bare minimum necessary to survive (working 1 month per year was just an example), because they do not have any goals that require working more than that.
Maybe that means they can't afford to send their children to college, but some people will still choose to do this. Then you will have children who have been raised in poverty who will need to have an opportunity to 'succeed' in life despite their upbringing.
If education was not mandatory in the US, many parents might not bother sending their children to school. That requirement is for the benefit of children precisely because an education is what can allow someone to exceed their parents' economic success.
I think saying 'some people choose not to work' is the lamest, immoral, and misleading accusation for poverty that exists. Statistical evidence suggest the poor work every bit as hard as the rich.
Hilarious how you neglect to even mention the current high unemployment rate as a factor of poverty, did that slip your mind. I read this week -- it takes the average person something like 37 weeks to find work. It is way to convenient and easy to blame the nameless, voiceless victims of society and ignore the social paradigms.
I would argue for a basic guaranteed income to ELIMINATE poverty. Also gives people more bargaining power in negotiating wages and less desperation to feel trapped to take the first job they can get.
...so why don't you support work conservation? It would fix unemployment. And what do you mean when you say "At least in my mind, the question is not how a poor person can rise out of poverty, but how to eliminate poverty so one does not have to rise out of it in the first place."?
If you cite unemployment as the cause of poverty, then since work conservation would fix unemployment it would also fix poverty. Or do YOU have an explanation for poverty, other than unemployment, that I haven't mentioned?
Edit: this thread isn't actually about work conservation, meh. So: work conservation would fix unemployment. If you say poverty is only because of unemployment, then the reasons for poverty are the same as the reasons for unemployment which I don't feel the need to repeat. (They include imperfect price discrimination on housing, etc...). Vote here for work conservation: http://the99percentvotes.com/idea/US95
Poverty is only because of unemployment??? To be absolutely clear, I said............... unemployment is a FACTOR that contributes to poverty. I have a hard time believing your reading skills are that poor that you came away thinking I in any way said unemployment was the only cause for poverty. Which leads me to believe you are intentionally obnoxious.
This thread is about poor people having options. So how about we give them the option of some dignity, security, and a basic income. Give them the option of a decent society, not a society where it is every man, woman, and child for themselves.
Factors including: Lack of motivation, family issues, mental conditions, being orphaned, and of course finding out the government will give you stuff if you don't feel like working.
1) Personal factors 2) Biological factors 3) Geographical factors 4) Economical factors 5) Social factors 6) Political factors
We import them and we create our own by awful decision making. If you avoid even some basic self-destructive choices, your chances of being poor in the United States fall to almost nothing. 1) Don't get knocked-up; 2) Finish high school; 3) Don't take drugs; 4) Don't commit crime; 5) If you can get a job, take it and get started, even if you don't like it; 6) Learn English, Ebonics doesn't count. These are cold facts of responsibility.
Liberals are appalled at the message of empowerment that not being poor is under our own personal control.
Facts come in different degrees. For example, gravity is an irrefutable fact of life.
But the steps, I hate to inform you, in your formula above are not irrefutable cold facts that guarantee one avoiding poverty. One simple example: Many people may have fulfilled all of your little obligatory steps and still found themselves below the poverty line when the greater social conditions they lived in led to the Wall Street Meltdown.
In truth, your so-called facts are highly debatable. They don't take into the slightest account for the social environments we are subjected to during our lifetimes. Your facts really amount to a snobbish social opinion of 'blame the victims'. Instead of making an earnest attempt to look at all the factors that cause impoverished conditions in the world, you look to play the blame game.
Awesome. Your restraint and perfectly delivered dressing down. Well said well said.
Just chipping at the cracks in a stupid unfounded argument that reaches absurd conclusions.
RT is a severely challenged individual.
Yeah, but they're doing a great job of baiting you. It's probably giving them a perverse thrill getting you to waste so much time replying to him/her.
Funny that. I've not much experience with being sought after for my attentions. ODD Feeling. Especially when the seeker is looking to be knocked around. OH - Well as the saying goes spare the rod and spoil the child. Well I can't apply the rod so I have to make do with text.
Yeah, you seemed to have gather quite the following. Too bad 'text' isn't as effective as 'the rod,' but, hey, you do have to use what's available. ;-)
Yep - use what is available.
A point I try to make in what people can do to fight greed corruption and crime.
GeriTroll! You wanted attenton or else you would not have made this false-titled posting that provides only a two-sentence excuse for your existence here:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/health-and-prosperity-for-all-moving-forward-in-un/
You HAVE our attention, troll. Now what will you do with it?
Let you hang yourself!
I will give you all the rope you want or need.
Considering your lack of intelligence you will likely smother your self in a pile of rope before you figure out how to tie a noose.
GeriTroll! We didn't originate this false-flag posting. YOU did! We didn't begin with a foundation of lies. YOU did! And we didn't throw the first personal insult or make the first unfounded accusation. YOU did!
http://occupywallst.org/forum/health-and-prosperity-for-all-moving-forward-in-un/
And WHY? Because you're a GeriTroll!
I find it quite funny that "you" identify yourself with these comments on another Post.
To identify a troll - look at issues that benefit all of society - and see them standing in the way.
To identify a troll look at issues that benefit special interest groups - quite often to the detriment of society/humanity/world - and see them cheering on the issue for the special interest.
I point no fingers at any individuals other than in a general attitude of support or confrontation.
Huh.
GeriTroll! Remove two words from your last complete sentence, and I'd say you're closer to the truth than you've been since your daddy discovered fire:
"I point no fingers at any individuals other than in a general attitude of confrontation."
I point no fingers at any individuals other than in a general attitude of recognition/identification of their attributes or lack there of.
I find it quite funny that "you" identify yourself with these comments on another Post.
To identify a troll - look at issues that benefit all of society - and see them standing in the way.
To identify a troll look at issues that benefit special interest groups - quite often to the detriment of society/humanity/world - and see them cheering on the issue for the special interest.
Like that better?
Funny that you should identify yourself with comments about recognizing trolls.
GeriTroll! Why do you think copying and pasting your own personal postings serve any purpose other than to pollute this forum more than you already have? You may have helped you brothers carve out the first wheel, but otherwise I've seen no contributions here from you other than insults.
I admire RT's simple solutions to life's hardest problems, the way RT came up with that simple, easy to follow "stay-out-of-poverty" list - it's adorable.
LOL - simple is a way to put it.
pin it to your fridge.
LOL - Part of a positive goals montage?
everyone affirm with me now......don't get knocked up....don't get knocked up.....don't get knocked up.....don't get knocked up.....don't get knocked up.....don't get knocked up.....don't get knocked up.....don't get knocked up.....don't get knocked up.....don't get knocked up.....don't get knocked up.....don't get knocked up.....don't get knocked up.....don't get knocked up.....
Hey - I can feel it working already - how outstanding.............hold on a sec.. ............. I don't think I can get knocked up.
Try another one quick quick I'm starting to lose the feeling.
I just remembered something...I'm a guy...don't knock anyone up...don't knock anyone up....
LOL - American Band Stand hosted by Dick Clark.
There were 2 Dick's that hosted American Band Stand? I thought it was just the 1 Dick.
GeriTroll! Dick Clark's dead. What did he die for? You're old. What will you die for? Hopefully something more than forum troll groupthink points...
I would give it a 2 Dick. The beat is easy to follow but it's not a great one to dance to.
Either you made a typo or else a 2 Dick is some new slang that just went right over my head. Either way, let's not even try to do the 2 Dick dance. Oh dear, that came out sounding all wrong.
Don't commit crime - refute the status-quo...Don't commit crime - refute the status-quo...Don't commit crime - refute the status-quo...om ohm omni ohm om omnioho.....don't knock anyone up...don't knock anyone up....ringhey quo...Don't commit crime - refute the status-quo...Don't commit crime - refute the status-quo...ringhey quo...
For use by the advanced - only - lets be careful out there - This has been a public Service announcement......Don't commit crime - refute the status-quo...ringhey quo...
om ohm omni ohm om omnioho................don't knock anyone up...don't knock anyone up....ringhey quo...don't knock anyone up...don't knock anyone up....om ohm omni ohm om omnioho
you got the beat.
They really aren't debatable. Your "victims" are typically victims of themselves. I blame the decision maker. But in that, those fucking up their lives are empowered to know that they themselves can turn it around, not some social worker flunking and another program of dependency.
Because you bring up Wall Street, here's another one to add to the list: 7) Use the brain God gave you when borrowing money. If it's your name at the bottom of the loan agreement, it's your fault no matter what a responsibility shedding liberal will tell you. Borrowing money is a choice, don't make it another bad one.
You have a tough time understanding the basics of cause and effect. I alone did not cause the "Wall Street" crash and that is a fact.
I didn't write that you did. But if you want another fact, here's one: Borrowing money is a choice.
You have a grasp of the obvious. It's the other things you need to spend a little more time contemplating.
They can easily be refuted with statistics showing increases in unemployment and underemployment for both high school graduates and college graduates. If you need me to look up such statistics because you are unaware where to find them yourself, please say so.
Poverty isn't random and isn't just associated with recessions. Do you tell your kids, if you have them, that poverty is independent of the choices they make? I doubt it. Liberals aren't liberals with their own kids, just in the expectations of cause and affect when it comes to the kids of others.
Tax increases aren't random either, they are the result of a social and historical trend. Don't complain if the US increases taxation and welfare to make up for a lack of jobs.
I do when government uses the money for waste, permanent bloat, and to underwrite dependency and dysfunction.
Do you tell kids that poverty is independent of the choices they might make? Or do you reserve that silliness for what you tell other people's kids?
Do you tell yourself that taxation is independent of the choices you make? Or do you acknowledge that work conservation would lead to lower taxes due to less inequality and need for direct and indirect support of the poor?
Voting for more socialism is a "choice" that people can take to lift themselves out of poverty. Are you really so sure you want to encourage people to take that choice, instead of supporting work conservation?
(See also: "If you're poor, it's because you want to be or because you're stupid")
Let's see, a complete idiotic idea of "conservation" and another one called socialism... but that isn't really the choice. The U.S. remains a center-right country where neither one is going to happen.
Do you tell your kids that poverty is random and independent of the choices they make? Or do you reserve that silliness for what you tell someone else's kids?
Unemployment, and the resulting poverty (by the federal definition), is to some extent random.
Same with getting a college degree and only being able to find a minimum-wage job while having to pay interest on high college debt. Many people are justified in thinking that there are no "correct choices" available to them in the current economic environment.
Can you admit to that?
49% of the 18-29 age group have a positive view of socialism, compared to just 46% for capitalism. Socialism is a very real possibility in the future if people do not adopt work conservation.
Does that fact upset you?
A lot of young belief believe in dumb things when they're young. It doesn't upset me, it's just a part of the learning process in life. Most of us smarten up as we go. Take OWS, for example. Protests draw a lot more young people because those dopey views get less common with age.
Well, don't be surprised if tax rates and socialism go up. I'm sure you are aware of what happened last time inequality was this high. The "New Deal" and marginal tax rates on the rich of 90%+.
For such a student of history, you sure don't know much about tax rates. The quoted rate might impress someone like you, but I look at the effective rate and effective rates were never anything like the rate you mentioned.
So you're saying that we should also eliminate tax loopholes and special treatment for capital gains, hm?
Or are you saying that as long as the effective rate doesn't approach 90%, it's ok for us to raise the marginal rate back to 90% for the rich and it won't be socialism?
(for anyone else reading this, lol: work conservation would avoid high tax rates.)
Lots of people, especially young people, are unemployed or underemployed despite meeting all of those qualifications, and even those who go to college are often unable to find a job in their field. Why do you think OWS exists?
Yes, it's a tough downturn right now.
OWS exists for long-term leftists to exploit the downturn to come out between the cracks in the floor and make their case. So, that's what they're doing. The 20-somethings along with them are mostly over-indulged directionless people simply looking to belong to something, no matter how screwy.
Your attitude is that "The unemployed are just lazy!". See that post for a refutation, the first four paragraphs.
Nope, that's not my attitude at all. But poverty in the United States is almost completely avoidable by not making self-destructive decisions and by us changing our immigration policies (such as enforcement, for starters). The message of "you can't" mixed with dependency building gubbermint money is a failure.
I just commented on this exact topic. Copying my post...
The counter-argument is here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/work-conservation-is-the-solution-to-the-global-re/
"The final alternative to working less is for communities to become more isolated and less open to world trade. Instead of buying the cheapest product that was manufactured overseas, people could be encouraged to buy from local producers either by choice or through raising trade barriers to make locally made products more competitive on price. Economists generally agree that this would lower the gross domestic product for a country and for the world, but on the other hand it would raise employment precisely because of the inefficiency that would result. The primary argument against doing this is that the same standard of living could be obtained by encouraging people to work less so that work, and jobs, are more evenly distributed in the population."
So if illegal immigrants want to work 60 hours per week, "stealing" jobs? Let them! We can share the remaining jobs at a higher wage rate.
Since immigrants do have some cost to society (I think they can get social security if they work for 10 years, and illegal immigrants make up most of the unpaid emergency room visits in some areas) it helps to restrict immigration, but work conservation would fix the unemployment that immigrants can cause.
It isn't "stealing" jobs, it's being qualified only to do jobs of very low value and therefore very low income. And what's the word for someone with no job or with a very low paying job? You got it, poor. So, choices and the border, that's most of poverty in America.
Working less produces less. Leftists have this idea of a fixed pie, but the more we work, the bigger the pie gets. When I work, I'm not taking the work from anyone, I'm creating something with my work.
Someone who isn't working gets no pie at all (except government handouts). Not hard to understand.
Of course no one "owns" work so you can't really take it from them (except by offering a product/service that someone chooses to buy instead of a competitor). But by supporting, for example, the idea of property ownership by the rich despite that there are many housing vacancies and homeless people etc., and you continue to support this idea despite that high prices for rent/housing prevent people from being able to work at lower wages and pay for housing, you are responsible for unemployment.
Foxconn workers pay about $18 per month for their dorm housing. If you are paying much more than this for your own housing arrangement, it is your fault that Apple does not hire US workers because your spending influences the prices that land owners charge for housing.
Right, I don't own work. But when more people do things, more is created. Splitting jobs is a silly idea. Production doesn't need to be rationed like it's some fixed quantity.
We all have property rights. You shouldn't lose your property rights at some government imposed level. So, property rights should just vanish? A vacant house just gets taken?
Housing prices are set in the market place. There isn't remotely anything close to rich people controlling the housing market. The market is too huge to control or to corner. If prices are too high, whatever that means, competition takes care of it. Now if you're upset that people won't create housing so that they take losses, but you can be all cozy without having to work much, that's too bad. Gee, I wish housing was cheaper too. Heh, why not food and everything else while we're at it. I could quit work. But others in the economy won't provide me those things at the prices I want simply because that's what I want. Because then, their work doesn't cover their needs and they simply will turn me away.
The country has a huge array of housing choices. You can buy or rent a big home of a little one. Then there's locational choices. It's endless.
So why are there homeless people while 17% of construction workers are unemployed?
People without money cannot buy the things are created unless they are given away for free. Things (including housing) are generally not given away for free, so people end up working in the financial sector and become very rich while creating nothing.
This is the logical extreme when a government and the "wealthy" population does not fulfill the implicit contract embodied in the idea of property rights. Revolution happens. Remember "no taxation without representation"?
Of course, if we create more jobs through work conservation, none of this is necessary.
We have economic cycles. Construction is especially cyclical and especially with this downturn. Jobs requires skills and skills aren't immediately transferable to other jobs. Carpenters can't become MRI technicals overnight, especially when government is paying them not to make adjustments.
Work conservation does nothing to expand wealth. Pretending there's some cap on output and then rationing work is nonsensical.
So hire more construction workers who work less time each week. Overtime gives workers an incentive to want to work as much as possible when they have the opportunity which leads to a smaller number of workers.
You're right, it wouldn't lead to more wealth, just more time not working and less welfare/taxation.
Do you not see those as worthy goals for people to have?
the need for labor is a diminishing quantity
Metallica - Unforgiven [ OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO ]
Matt, lay off the pot. Your parents might be out of town, but when your mom heads down to the basement, she's gonna smell it.
so don't try to understand
Shit Head. Careful not to be caught out in the rain or you'll likely wash into a sewer. You'll feel at home but you will be out of the action.
No, I'd get out of the rain and not wait for a liberal and a social worker to come to my rescue. See, unlike you and sadly so many others, I was never convinced that I'm helpless and in need of saving.
Apparently your perspective on life suits you - anti social. Are you a loner or are there others who will put up with - endure - your presence?
I love people in a circle of friends, just not on my back.
Parasite with a keyboard. Theft by government is for cowards. Make your case to your neighbor's face as to why you deserve what he earned.
they should all bugger off, and get what they need ?
Every once in a while you surprise me and post something that makes sense.
If making a good living in the U. S. is so easy why doesn't everyone do it?
Your question makes no sense.
Your question is "How can a poor person have no options at all when they can start an online business for about $100?"
What are the options your concerned about? Everyone always has options. The person could wake up at 10am or noon if they're schedule to work at 1pm... that's an option. The person can drink water or some orange juice before they go to work. That's also an option. Your question makes no sense.
Is your "option" question about jobs? How can a poor person have no options at jobs? Is that what you mean to ask?
Well for one... what kind of business can you start for a hundred bucks? Buy something on ebay for 100 bucks and hope you can sell it for 2 hundred a week later after you get it in the mail?
You have to have inventory to sell a product... which takes a lot of money upfront.
Also your business has to be successful to turn a profit.
Also like Titus mentions in his comment... what if this person can't afford a computer or internet? That takes more than a hundo. Or can they start this miracle hundred dollar business that pays them a salary from the library? Did they need college to access this knowledge or some kind of training that they couldn't afford?
I'd say a lot of times poor people do not have good options. That's more factually accurate. Foxconn or Wal Mart? Bad options.
There are still about 3 job seekers for every job opening. At the peak of the recession/unemployment crisis it was about 7 to 1.
Or, as Nobel-prize-winning economist Paul Krugman writes in an excerpt from a book he recently wrote,
Some people, like college graduates, generally do have options. But in taking those options they would be depriving someone else who is equally qualified (minimum wage jobs don't need more than a HS degree, if even that) from getting that job.
I personally spent months on this very web site begging people to apply for a job that I had available and I ended up getting ONE applicant.
Did you post it anywhere else? Anecdotally, real businesses get hundreds of applicants for a good job.
I posted and filled the job here. And we must be a 'real' business since he's still employed now. The one guy who applied, I mean.
We went over this in another thread. You're doing something wrong with your business if you can't get people to apply for your IT opening in a major FL city.
Do you blame your lack of success in other areas on others as well? Own up to your short comings, look for ways to improve, and try again. Its not the workers' fault that you are using semi-obscure open source software instead of things that people actually learn in college like .NET or Java.
Lack of success? I was looking for one outstanding person to train. I found him. Success. I've spent months personally training him and he's now a valued full-time employee. He now has a very nice full-time telecommuting job, learning skills that are in much higher demand than .NET and Java programming.
The pathetic thing is that it took me months to get one guy to apply. There is a lot of rhetoric all over this site about how there are three job seekers for every job opening or whatever, and there are also months of posts from me in the archives, explicitly offering a job and telling people where they could go for free job training. One guy applied.
More likely that you aren't being honest about these circumstances.
Sometimes I feel like other people on this site live in a completely different universe from the one where I live. So I waved a sign to see if I could get the attention of any of the people over in the hardscrabble, grey, alternate universe that I can glimpse through this site. It said something like "Free job training - apprenticeship on-the-job-training telecommuting job available." With more details of course.
Now one of the people in that hardscrabble alternate universe has teleported into my universe, where I can wake up without an alarm clock get paid well to do a job that I love from home while spending time with my wife and my baby daughter. Where I have employers bending over backwards to woo me, where I don't have to deal with middle managers or daily commuting traffic. It's a fairy tale existence from the people of view of the poor people over in Hardscrabble Land, where employers discipline employees with bullwhips and then steal their lunch money and discard them in dumpsters.
The people over in Hardscrabble Land didn't see the guy from occupywallst.org who made the move from one universe to another because their prejudices won't allow them to believe that the other universe exists at all, much less that moving between the two universes is possible. They dismiss the story as a hallucination, a lie. They can't acknowledge that there is an alternate universe where rare skills are highly valued. Where employees are known as "talent" who are frequently offerent partial ownership in companies. Hardscrabble people cackle at the implausibility of the myth of the Guy Who Had It Easy.
What a load of self serving egotistical crap. I enjoyed a 25 yr career in tech. I've hired, trained and promoted in house workers who would not have otherwise benefitted from tech careers. So what.! That is irrelevant to this proud movement. The 1% criminals have crashed the world economy. They have stolen our govt with armies of lobbyists, lawyers, and accountants, They have rigged the system against the 99% to perpetrate the largest transfer of wealth from working American families to wealthy 1%'rs who hide their money to avoid their fair share of taxes and move our jobs overseas. They attack the 99%'s unions and cut our wages and benefits. Make some sense! support your fellow working American families!. Stop advocating for the 1%. They can't commit these crimes without your ignorant support. Vote out pro norquist, anti buffett rule politicians.
If you have worked for 25 years in tech then you know as well as I do that there is a technology boom in progress right now and that not ALL of the world economy is "crashed". How am I "advocating for the 1%" by pointing that fact out to a bunch of unemployed people and then hiring and training one of them? Are you looking at the world through a lens that only sees 99%ers and boogeymen? If I don't say the right things then I must be a 1%er? Is that how this works? (Those were rhetorical questions because I already know: that's how this works.)
Your precious little fantasy is useless in regards to the issues that hurt the 99%. Its simply self serving and questionable to say the least. Do you support the 99%?. Or do you stand with 1% who prey on you and your family? Are you here to help or tear down? I think it is clear you are here to tear down.
This would be hilarious if it weren't so sad. Anybody who doesn't agree with you must "stand with the 1%"? Is that how it works for you? There is a red flag and a blue flag, and you have to pick one to rally behind? And people who aren't "us" must be "them", right?
What? Are some coy little 12 year old. Be a grown up. forget hiding behind some obfuscated link nonsense. You don't have to support OWS. You can stand with the 1% criminals who crashed our economy and prey on you and your family. That's you business. You don't have to swear allegiance. I want to know! That's all. You wanna hide your allegiance? so be it. I can assume you ain't with the 99%. Right? If you stand with the 1% you have no honor. My opinion thats all.
Unimpressed with your link. Seemed like more veiled anti 99% propaganda. You don't seem to support OWS to me. I could be wrong. but you haven't said it. Thats kinda telling.
No you are not wrong. I've went several rounds with this dude before.
If you read the link then you know exactly where I stand. If you can't manage to figure it out from that page and you demand me to swear allegiance, then why would you think that would that motivate me to want to be part of your club?
Can't answer? I guess you are anti OWS. Don't waste my time. with your distractions. Your either behind us or you're in our F%$#in way.!
Did you even try to read the link that I posted, in answer to your question?
http://occupywallst.org/forum/common-ground-one-way-forward-there-should-be-no-c/
Put down your pitch fork and put your witch hunt on pause for long enough to read that post? Or is that not really what you're after? You just enjoy the witch hunt part of it, don't you?
I can't pretend there ISN'T blue and red flags. But I ain't askin which you prefer, just where you stand on the issues, Stronger fin regulation, public healthcare option, tax the wealthy. green tech, take stand. Do you support OWS? or not? too much for you?
Too much for me? What is this, a McCarthy interrogation to hunt down traitors? "DO YOU SUPPORT OWS, YES OR NO?!?"
This will clash with your rally-around-our-flag mentality and it will probably just confuse you, but try this on for size:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/common-ground-one-way-forward-there-should-be-no-c/
I'm not going to go over this with you again. YOU fucked up somewhere, and that is why you didn't get applicants. Instead of looking at your hiring strategy, you want to blame others for your shortcomings. Its YOUR fault that no one applied, especially since there are millions upon millions of people who are looking for work. Why is it OWS' fault that you didn't go look for them? Did you even post the job opening on Dice?
I didn't fuck up if I found an excellent employee who is still on the job now who has become full-time, did I?
The job in question was only advertised on this web site, as an experiment. The result of the experiment was depressing: one applicant. He's been fantastic, but one guy? From a web site full of people whining about unemployment? Only one of them was willing to train for a job?
And you thought that you would magically find thousands of willing applicants who:
a) cared about IT b) didn't think you were just trolling c) wanted to/could move to Miami Beach d) didn't already have jobs e) weren't merely trolls themselves
on a message board for a protest movement?
Really? You're complaining that you got one applicant because you posted a job opening in the least likely place for an IT professional to find it? You didn't post anything on Dice or Monster or even Craigslist from what I'm gathering, and that's like the ABC's of job postings. I mean, that 's the bare minimum.
What made you think that OWS was a job board? Did you really think that everyone here is posting just because of some personal need for jobs? Do you think that OWS will magically disappear if all protesters end up employed? I guess its impossible to fathom that some people are not just looking out for themselves and actually want to help other people.
Your experiment is like posting an opening for Planned Parenthood in the middle of a hardcore Christian forum. Call it whatever you want to, I'm just gonna call it dumb.
I'll repeat again that I succeeded in filling that job. (For the zillionth time, it's a telecommuting job, it's not in Miami Beach. The guy is in Connecticut.) He has moved up through the training really well and he has had a raise already, and he recently moved to full time. You're telling me over and over that I'm doing it wrong, but I found exactly the person who I was looking for. I intentionally didn't go out looking for people with the "Rails" keyword on a Monster.com resume. From my point of view: success.
Not such a big success from this web site's point of view. I found a group of thousands of people complaining online about unemployment, and so I offered a job. But it took me MONTHS to get ONE person to apply? I spent months talking about the free job training available, and ONE person bothered to go to http://tryruby.org for 15 minutes of free training that could lead to a new career? That told me a lot about the people on this web site complaining about unemployment.
You didn't consider the possibility that no one wanted to work for you because of your shitty attitude. I remember your early posts. You were definitely in the "get a job you lazy bums!" camp. Who wants to work for someone who has an attitude like that?
I'm complaining about unemployment, and I have a job. Nearly everyone else is on here for the same reason. We have jobs and can't just hit the streets every time that OWS wants to do a rally during business hours on Tuesday.
Again, its YOUR fault that you choose to do such a shitty job of posting your job opening. It was your plan all along to post this opening, and use it as a way to troll the forums. If you actually needed that job filled you would have went to an IRL protest or posted the opening in a place where people with actual IT skills look for jobs, not in a forum where only a handful of people will read it.
I know you are trying so desperately to paint all of us in a bad light, but its not going to work. I'm gonna keep protesting exactly because of people like you that are trying to ruin everyone elses' lives in the name of greed.
Have you posted ANYTHING positive about OWS? Have you offered ANY solutions? Have you been to ANY protests? Are you doing ANY work to make positive change economically, politically, socially?
I kind of thought that creating a job for somebody from this site and spending months training him was 'making a positive change'. Back when Occupy and this site still had a lot of energy, a lot of people were donating money. I didn't hand anybody a fish, I taught somebody how to fish. Now, all of that donated money is gone. Pissed away on metro cards and "herbs". But the guy who I hired has had a raise in pay already, and now he's working full time.
Have I posted anything (else) positive?
http://occupywallst.org/forum/common-ground-one-way-forward-there-should-be-no-c/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/vote-or-else-this-will-all-be-a-pointless-exercise/
Don't declare me to be a troll just because I don't enthusiastically echo your own preconceived narrative about the terrible economy or whatever. The economy might be terrible in some sectors, but it's booming in other sectors. People who are truly concerned about unemployment need to consider that simple fact, because if the skill sets of the group of people who are unemployed more closely matched the skill sets that are in high demand then there would be a lot less pain among those unemployed people, and also among people like me who have to get pretty creative to find and train new talent.
Have to get pretty creative?!? Give me a fucking break! You didn't even do the bare minimum with your job posting! Show me the links to your listing on Monster, Dice, and Craigslist. Show me the ad in the classified section of the newspaper. Show me where you posted the opening on a website that IT professionals visit.
Hiring one person does not give you free reign to negatively affect this forum. I haven't seen you talk about attending any protests, or building anything, or even offering good ideas for the GAs. All you do is bitch and moan. Fuck off!
Is that how you plan to change the world? By telling people who you don't agree with to fuck off?
If you post a job on Monster then you're going to get applicants who already have the skills. Why do that when the whole point is that you're offering to train somebody new and teach them skills that are in high demand?
LOL - nice rebuttal to a stupid stance on a stupid post. Well said and summed up nicely.
The poor person probably can't afford a computer, let alone the internet when they're primarily concerned with survival. Or do you believe homeless people carry around laptops, maybe even Ipads, then stop in to Starbucks for coffee and the free WIFI.
hi
(I'm using Starbucks wireless to post this :P)
You're homeless? :{)
[Removed]
That is like saying anyone can be a write a novel or a hit record,
You either need to be selling a product which means you need inventory or you need to be selling advertisement which means you need millions of visitors a month.
You can actually start a web site for $20 but you need to have something that people want. A blog with 100 thousand viewers a month will only bring in about $100/month in advertising dollars. I don't think that will bring you out of poverty.
This does not mean there are not options, it just means that not everyone has the understanding of what their options are or how to take advantage of them.
Where did you get those statistics?
Most Online marketing estimates have average click-through rates at around 1.5%. So 100,000 page views per month, at a click cost of around $1.75 or above, should get your site well into the four figures if not higher per month. That's ramen profitability, but I don't think starting a blog is the ideal way to get off of minimum wage, unless the person has a terrific knack for writing. Anyone can sell stuff on ebay or haul scrap metal.
Whe did I get those statistics?
I have about 35 web sites so I know what I am talking about. 100,000 views a month is 3,300/day. Just because you have a site does not mean people will pay a premium to advertise on it. Sometime you just get public service announcements which pay nothing.
Just because you have a view does not mean you have a click. Some sites get 1 click per 500 views and some get 50 clicks per 500 views.
CPC ranges $0.29-$2.35 RPM rages 0.00 - $43.00
Some of my sites earn $30 a day and some $0.05/day and some make nothing. One day CBS news had a link to my page on the Persied meteor shower and I earned $112 just from that page in one day.
It is not something I could live on but it is nice to have the extra income. Some days I get lucky and have a surprise.
I saw an interview on television the other day with the young lady that started the Evil Angel porn video company. She started it with $500. Apple started in somebody's garage with no money at all. So did Hewlett Packard. Facebook started as a couple of college students pooling their savings. I know a guy that's made a full-time living for years running a website that does nothing but review top-end racing bicycle parts.
Blogs are a waste of time, but there are lots of other things to do, and most of them have yet to be invented.
The question was, how can poor people say they have no options. Of course there are options however the original post implied that it is easy, just start an on line company.
My point was that it is not that simple. Facebook, Apple, HP... are the successes stories just like a hit record of number one book. Not everyone
It is like those late night infomercials "Internet Millions" where they tell you that "in two months you will be a millionaire just by using my proven method" they are usually standing by a pool with Martinis.
The guy pushing shopping carts at Walmart has little chance of becoming an internet millionaire by paying $100 for a web site.
The point isn't that everybody can make a million with an internet startup; but rather that there are lots of options, even for people with little or no money.
Let's make it easier and take out the entrepreneurial part of it: Anybody out there looking for a job and willing to work? Now that summer is on us, every railroad in the country is in full swing with its track maintenance program. They need big gangs of gandydancers to repair and replace miles and miles of railroad track. If you can fog a mirror and pass a physical you qualify -- no experience, no skills, no nothing necessary. Don't even have the money to last till next payday? No problem. Tell them you want to work on a bunk gang. You live in a bunk car in a work train, they provide meals and a cook, and deduct some money later when you get paid. And it's a union job; pays very, very well, and all the overtime you care to work. No worries about too many applicants either -- they can't keep enough people around, and they are hiring continuously throughout the season. Recession and bad economic times? No sweat. The work still needs done, and like I said, this time of year, they're always hiring.
I worked as a gandy for several years, and started in times just like this -- no jobs, no money, lousy economy, and me down on my luck, no skills, dead broke; so I know firsthand how this works. The work's out there if you're enterprising; but even if you're not, you're not out of options by a long shot. There's what I just described, there's roughnecking in the oil fields in North Dakota, and there's night janitor work available right now in every city in this country; and there's a lot more than that. I'd bet money that if I wanted to I could turn up a job in a couple of days doing one or another of these things. Not a great job, or even a good one, but one that will buy some groceries.
I suspect that some of the folks around here need to lower their standards a bit.
I have been working since I was 13. Never had a problem finding a job. Sure there are jobs out there. For many though you can make just as much collecting from government programs so why bother.
That is a little different than the original post to which I responded. The post implied that it is easy. It is not easy. It never was. You have to work hard to succeed and you still may fail.
It is explained here: http://jobcreationplan.blogspot.com/2012/05/alternative-to-socialism.html
Rent: $200+ in the US.
Wages of some Chinese workers: $100/month.
(Wages of people in some other countries: even less)
I read the blog and agree with many points. I know that here in Clark County, Nevada, tracts of housing and apartments sit empty, some not even completed, while homeless people beg on the streets.
Still, I'm not sure the blog offers any real solutions, though some interesting suggestions.
The solution was described in previous posts in the blog. Copying from them:
Other changes, like to how employer health insurance works, would make it easier for someone to switch from full-time to part-time work and back again as necessary (say someone quits work, and so someone else needs to go from 20 hours/week to 40 hours until a replacement is found and trained) but are not necessary for companies to start using the system.
(Also thanks for confirming the empty housing thing)
So a quick example of how it relates to housing and so on...
People are paid more in the US mostly because there is already a lot of money here, and the Chinese are willing to maintain their currency disadvantage by buying US brands at high prices. (China's rich do this that is, not the poor.)
This is why, for example, when I was looking up housing construction costs I found that the average wages in the US for categories of skilled work involved in housing were around $60~70 in the US, and the equivalent of $2~3 in China. Materials cost were roughly the same for easily transportable categories like wood and metals, so overall construction cost about 1/3 in China of what it costs in the US... so the point is sharing jobs really is the way to full employment.
So say you have Skilled Knowledge Worker making $50/hour; Recent College Graduate making $15/hour in an unskilled job (the best they could find); and High School Graduate who is unemployed.
Housing costs $1000/month. This is only 12.5% of the pre-tax earnings of the Skilled Worker, but it's 41.7% of the pre-tax earnings of the Recent Graduate which leaves them with little left over after paying for necessities. The HS Graduate lives with their parents since they are unemployed and can't pay $1000/mo.
The point here is that if housing is overpriced by, say, $400/mo it only costs the Skilled Worker 5% of their pre-tax income and probably won't affect their desire to stay there. (Housing is generally considered a burden if it's more than ~30% of a household's income.)
But let's say the Skilled Worker decides to work only half as much, while the Recent Graduate fills in but is paid slightly lower (this is ignoring the efficiency arguments which would justify the Skilled Worker getting paid at a higher average rate for working less) while the HS Graduate takes the unskilled job. So SKW now makes $4k/mo for working 20 hours/week, the RCG now makes $3k/mo for working 20 hours per week (instead of $2.5k for full-time work), while the HSG makes $2.5k/mo for full-time work.
At this point, $1k/mo would be a burden for both the RCG and the HSG (33% and 42% of income), while the SKW is spending 25% of their pre-tax income on housing and would see much more benefit from saving $400 than they did when making $8k. So because incomes are more equal, the landlord will probably have to lower rent, meanwhile the HSG is now employed.
I see that we generally agree, just have different ways of saying that we need to change the current system to something more equitable.
The idea of sharing available work sounds good except, as I mentioned in reply to another of your posts, many people may already be committed to a certain debt load. The whole system has to be shifted to emphasize the workers rather than the managers and owners.
In other words, work conservation doesn't seem dramatic enough :P...
Please tell us how this works.
Well, let's see, you start an Ebay account, and find something undervalued at a garage sale, or even in a dumpster under certain circumstances, clean it if need be, snap a few photos with a cell phone and upload that son of a gun. Then, after the bidding stops, the buyer sends payment and you send them the item. Now you look for more undervalued items.
It's pretty easy, really, however, it requires two things of the business owner: Diligence in studying the market value of common items, and a desire to get ahead financially.
Sacrificing the starbucks and movies on the weekend, while not necessary to get ahead, certainly doesn't hurt either.
22k for a family of 4 - and how much have?? i am sorry for calling you a fool - you are not. you are a creep or worse. read this and then spout off about starbucks or a movie - and keep in mind you told me how much money you make - creep - The poverty rate for people age 65 and over was 9.0 percent, statistically unchanged from 8.9 percent in 2009. In 2010, 6.7 percent of all people, or 20.5 million people, lived in deep poverty (had income below one-half the poverty threshold, or $11,157 for a family of four). This is a statistically significant increase of 1.5 million people from 2009. ... keep in mind also that these people pay tax on that amount!
How do you pay for the item? How do you pick it up? Where do you put it?
Well, the "pay for it" part, comes out of the $100 figure I quoted.
Most poor people have a car, or other form of transportation.... wait a second, are you asking ridiculous questions on purpose? maybe you're trolling. Never mind.
I'm interested in Options for the Poor.
The item is purchased with the $100. Does that leave enough to carry out the transaction?
Poor can't afford cars (gas, insurance, repairs, storage, parking, registration, etc.). So: How do you pick it up? Where do you put it?
It's not because one can potentially start a business with 100$ that there are no serious problems that need to be fixed. Anyhow, your argument is flawed because starting a business does not equate making money. Only a small number of start-ups make money and survive. More than likely, the person who starts an Internet company with 100$ will fail and be worst off than he started. It's called the risk of going into business.