• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The World Health Organization calls for decriminalization of most drugs

WFFaithful said:
poorinam-UPDATE-01.png
Click to expand...

Off topic, but we really should subsidize free internet for the poor.
 
fucking poors have a microwave what else do they want gah
 
Is their point that the war on poverty worked?
 
PhDeac said:
Is their point that the war on poverty worked?
Click to expand...
What do you think? We're told it's an epidemic.

IMO it's all about definitions. We changed the way we defined poverty in the mid 1960s and then poverty became perpetual because the definition is relative, tracking with monetary inflation and an inflated sense of what poverty means....ie things like social poverty. I think that graphic is really just showing the reality of what that means. It's like a lot of things the Boomers have pushed as New Dealer believers. The problem has to fit their solution of big government. Instead of solving problems, they became big problem generators...and then pitched a big government solution that can't solve the problem as they defined it, is a poor solution for the real specific problems that occur, and that creates more problems called "unintended consequences".

Then you get "Fuck the Boomers" threads....for not solving poverty, heath care, education, etc.
 
Weird. I look at that list and see that the poor are WAY behind the large majority of Americans. Most of those things aren't that expensive and standard in American households.
 
God forbid that poor people have a FLAT SCREEN TV. They should go out and buy those cheap CRT TVs.

I wasn't really planning to engage the tax question anymore, as it is off topic in this thread, but I like stats. $223,000 (a "middle class income" according to the post) puts a family in the top 8% of American households. http://www.whatsmypercent.com/

If you run that AFTER TAX number on a worldwide basis, that family is in the top 0.2% of all humans on the planet, and has income 60.4 times the global average. http://www.givingwhatwecan.org/get-involved/how-rich-am-i. And before you ask, that number is adjusted for cost of living and weighted for household composition.

So, cry me a river, you poor, poor $223,000 earner in Chapel Hill.
 
Deacon923 said:
God forbid that poor people have a FLAT SCREEN TV. They should go out and buy those cheap CRT TVs.

I wasn't really planning to engage the tax question anymore, as it is off topic in this thread, but I like stats. $223,000 (a "middle class income" according to the post) puts a family in the top 8% of American households. http://www.whatsmypercent.com/

If you run that AFTER TAX number on a worldwide basis, that family is in the top 0.2% of all humans on the planet, and has income 60.4 times the global average. http://www.givingwhatwecan.org/get-involved/how-rich-am-i. And before you ask, that number is adjusted for cost of living and weighted for household composition.

So, cry me a river, you poor, poor $223,000 earner in Chapel Hill.
Click to expand...

Who have no kids to support and a house paid off.

He ignored that SS caps at $113,700. Also anybody in that situation almost certainly has a decent percentage of their income being passive which isn't subject to SS or Medicare at all. Some of it is probably at preferred cap gains or dividend rates.
 
Last edited:
Can you even buy a CRT in a store anymore?
 
Hasn't a microwave been standard in every new home or apartment complex built in the last two decades or so?

A car, computer, and internet access are essential for someone trying to lift themselves out of poverty.
 
To me there is merit in both sides.

Have advances in technology changed poverty and wealth measures in absolute terms? Certainly, and this is a good thing. And some of this is due or accelerated by the same factors that drive wealth concentrations.

Does relative poverty still matter? Yes. For one thing, the relative value of these technological advances has decreased so much that they aren't as worth as much comparative to other wealth. In other words, your snazzy cellphone sold will only keep you in food for a couple of weeks.
 
Last edited:
And that snazzy cellphone isn't nearly as snazzy after the new ones come out several times a year.

It's not about resale value though. The bigger issue with that list is that most of those items are pretty close to necessary and relatively cheap in 2014 USA. As we said, you can't get rid of a CRT nowadays, yet apparently that's what 60% of the poor have.

You can get a cheap tablet or computer for less than $200, even $100, yet 50% of the poor don't have one. Standard high speed internet + phone in my area is $55 a month. That's high speed. There are much cheaper options that 57% of poor Americans don't have.

Video game systems have been in American homes for over 30 years, let just under half of poor families with children don't even have an old PS2 lying around or can't buy a new PS2 for $70.

If the point of that chart is that American poor life high on the hog, any reasonable look at that list shows that is not the case.
 
ChrisL68 said:
To me there is merit in both sides.

Have advances in technology changed poverty and wealth measures in absolute terms? Certainly, and this is a good thing. And some of this is due or accelerated by the same factors that drive wealth concentrations.

Does relative poverty still matter? Yes. For one thing, the relative value of these technological advances has decreased so much that they aren't as worth as much comparative to other wealth. In other words, your snazzy cellphone sold will only keep you in food for a couple of weeks.
Click to expand...

All true. If a poor American family sold every single item they possess on that Heritage Foundation list, they could probably pay rent and food for a couple months, tops.

Using that same wealth calculator I posted, an American family at the poverty line is still better off than 85% of the world (because living in India or Africa or most of China and Latin America sucks pretty hard). That's a good thing. But that in no way gives America an excuse to just say "screw it, they've got microwaves, we've got no obligation to help further." In fact, it is in our best national interest to continue to try and increase living standards and education levels. In the long term, that's the only way we can remain competitive globally. Most of the political discourse isn't just "we've got no obligation to help further" it's "how can we slash the amount of help we give". How exactly does America become a better nation by reducing living standards and education for 80% of the population, so that 20% of the population has more money to spend?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top