GAP BETWEEN RICH AND POOR and POVERTY


jimmoyer
#1
The strength of the economy is not the central factor that drives the gap between rich and poor. I could find several countries that are much poorer than Canada and still have a smaller gap. There are both richer and poorer countries with smaller gap between rich/poor. This is not a correlative factor. The USA has the number one economy and has one of the largest gaps among western democracies between its rich and poor and consequently one of the highest crime rates as well.
--------------------------freethinker---------------------------

You know, freethinker, I've seen this point made often.
And to give you your due, your point has longevity because
large gaps between the rich and poor cause much distrust
to the point of mutiny, to the point of crime, to the point
of civil war and unfortunately is embraced without question
by the thinking intellectual LEFT.

But ultimately your point about the gap between rich and poor
needs much more examination.

Often in most people's lives in the Western modern first world,
a lot of people switch from poor to being richer often.
And so the poor is no monolith, but a changing demographic.

While the gap grows bigger in China, a million people a
month rise to a level never before dreamt.

It wouldn't have happened from patronizing foreign aid.

And what of this POOR MONOLITH ?

It appears to be a static thing. It appears that all the poor stay
poor their whole lives. But this is not true.

Nor is it true that the parents who are poor always beget poor children.

What makes some poor make it in the next generation?

Many first generation immigrant poor have a hope that defies
your sensibility, because they do what it takes as poor people
to get their children to a higher level. It is why the immigrants
often invigorate many nations even while pissing off the natives
who buy into your ideas of monolithic poorness.

You have often heard the grandparents of the Great Depression
never thought of themselves as poor.

Why?

Because of perception that everyone was in the same boat.

So now you got everybody poor. More poor people than you
could shake a stick at !!

So when everybody is POOR, you got no GAP !!


And yet these children played.

Perception my friend !!

It can defeat you or make you ALIVE !!

There is no doubt your mantra repeated like it was the 11th
Command of thou shalt have no LARGE GAP is a matter
of great philosophical contention that is quite real. Quite real.

We say our cities are failures because of it.

But in those cities are the very immigrants that have a hope
that defies other cultures of mindthink --- in particular they
defy your mantra, your zeitgeist, YOUR MINDTHINK, freethinker.

In India, the middle class is something that would look poor
in America or in Montreal Canada.

Middle class in India is rowhouses that have HOPES and DREAMS
and instead of laying down to die, they strive with vigor !!

The Polish Plumber pisses off the French !!

The Eastern German prostitute really pissed off the West German
prostitutes.

Poverty, my friend exists, because it is quite complex.
So complex that it has defeated your best ideas.
And it has defeated my best ideas.

So I propose that the old divisions of socialism and capitalism
are an inadequate answer to the complex problem of poverty.

What we need to do is target cultures of failure, cultures steeped
in a mindthink that does get passed on from generation to generation.

In the last riots befalling East Los Angeles, the ghetto natives destroyed the alchohol beverages and mom and pop stores and gun shops and appliance stores ---- mostly run by immigrant Koreans.

Only in passing did the white media notice some of these
Korean complaints of being targeted.

And just in a lightning blitzkrieg segue (totally relevant),
how many White kids send money home to their parents?

The Mexicans do.

This money sent home from Mexicans in America is the 3rd
largest percent of the Mexican total GNP, Gross National Product.

And these Mexicans are poor.

They see your gap, but they don't see the gap in the same
intellectual vein you do.

They send money home.

Did you ?

I didn't.

But then I'm a white suburbanite.
 
jimmoyer
#2
Here you go:

THE WAR ON POVERTY.

State your proposals.
 
I think not
#3
Liberate Tute Me
 
sanch
#4
Much of the current debate on poverty and high unemployment among African Americans is centered around this essay by Orlando Paterson who is an African American sociologist at Harvard. Paterson is usually on the left on most issues.

My position is that structural factors are very determinant but that culture also plays a role. The last few paragraphs are interesting in this respect.


Quote:

SEVERAL recent studies have garnered wide attention for reconfirming the tragic disconnection of millions of black youths from the American mainstream. But they also highlighted another crisis: the failure of social scientists to adequately explain the problem, and their inability to come up with any effective strategy to deal with it.

The main cause for this shortcoming is a deep-seated dogma that has prevailed in social science and policy circles since the mid-1960's: the rejection of any explanation that invokes a group's cultural attributes its distinctive attitudes, values and predispositions, and the resulting behavior of its members and the relentless preference for relying on structural factors like low incomes, joblessness, poor schools and bad housing.

Harry Holzer, an economist at Georgetown University and a co-author of one of the recent studies, typifies this attitude. Joblessness, he feels, is due to largely weak schooling, a lack of reading and math skills at a time when such skills are increasingly required even for blue-collar jobs, and the poverty of black neighborhoods. Unable to find jobs, he claims, black males turn to illegal activities, especially the drug trade and chronic drug use, and often end up in prison. He also criticizes the practice of withholding child-support payments from the wages of absentee fathers who do find jobs, telling The Times that to these men, such levies "amount to a tax on earnings."

His conclusions are shared by scholars like Ronald B. Mincy of Columbia, the author of a study called "Black Males Left Behind," and Gary Orfield of Harvard, who asserts that America is "pumping out boys with no honest alternative."

This is all standard explanatory fare. And, as usual, it fails to answer the important questions. Why are young black men doing so poorly in school that they lack basic literacy and math skills? These scholars must know that countless studies by educational experts, going all the way back to the landmark report by James Coleman of Johns Hopkins University in 1966, have found that poor schools, per se, do not explain why after 10 years of education a young man remains illiterate.

Nor have studies explained why, if someone cannot get a job, he turns to crime and drug abuse. One does not imply the other. Joblessness is rampant in Latin America and India, but the mass of the populations does not turn to crime.

And why do so many young unemployed black men have children several of them which they have no resources or intention to support? And why, finally, do they murder each other at nine times the rate of white youths?

What's most interesting about the recent spate of studies is that analysts seem at last to be recognizing what has long been obvious to anyone who takes culture seriously: socioeconomic factors are of limited explanatory power. Thus it's doubly depressing that the conclusions they draw and the prescriptions they recommend remain mired in traditional socioeconomic thinking.

What has happened, I think, is that the economic boom years of the 90's and one of the most successful policy initiatives in memory welfare reform have made it impossible to ignore the effects of culture. The Clinton administration achieved exactly what policy analysts had long said would pull black men out of their torpor: the economy grew at a rapid pace, providing millions of new jobs at all levels. Yet the jobless black youths simply did not turn up to take them. Instead, the opportunity was seized in large part by immigrants including many blacks mainly from Latin America and the Caribbean.

One oft-repeated excuse for the failure of black Americans to take these jobs that they did not offer a living wage turned out to be irrelevant. The sociologist Roger Waldinger of the University of California at Los Angeles, for example, has shown that in New York such jobs offered an opportunity to the chronically unemployed to join the market and to acquire basic work skills that they later transferred to better jobs, but that the takers were predominantly immigrants.

There is more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/26/op...rssnyt&emc=rss
 
cortezzz
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyer

Here you go:

THE WAR ON POVERTY.

State your proposals.

we share in our family
if an when anyone needs cash for school or a car they need for a new job or--for a new kid--whoever can pitches in
and when you need it --someone will try and help you
the focus is--on the next generation
their education and aspirations
and on the last generation--- the elders
making sure they arent left out in the cold
its a form of communism
 
jimmoyer
#6
That, cortezzz, might be the best we can do, and maybe
it might do more than anything else we try.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Poverty is relative to the desires of the person.

The greatest fraud with respect to poverty is people being sold the idea they should want and need a "lifestyle" and from that perspective they feel impoverished.
------------------------caracal kid------------------------

THAT is the beginning of any thinking on the subject.

What else are you thinking on the matter ?
 
BitWhys
#7
For advanced economies, I don't buy into trickle down theory even if it DOES raise the lowest common denominator in the long run. I think its perfectly possible to grow a middle class without having to cater to the elite.

For developing economies, I thought The Commission for Africa was a fairly comprehensive plan for the region.

I think its quite possible to make sure everyone gets some food in their bellies without either the cost or the resulting lack of fearing starvation bringing the world economy to its knees.
 
Finder
#8
edit out
 
cortezzz
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyer

That, cortezzz, might be the best we can do, and maybe
it might do more than anything else we try.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Poverty is relative to the desires of the person.

The greatest fraud with respect to poverty is people being sold the idea they should want and need a "lifestyle" and from that perspective they feel impoverished.
------------------------caracal kid------------------------

THAT is the beginning of any thinking on the subject.

What else are you thinking on the matter ?


i am thinking that---in my state of abject poverty
i can alway easily acquire happiness by
simply reading an interesting book


consciousness explained--by daniel dennet
or ---darwins dangerous idea also by daniel

both of which
--im reading now--

books further
enrich my wonderfull playfull mind
rendering any aspirations to excess material consumption ---
a farsical waste of time

so long as i can --commandeer this computer to poke fun at you guys

there is no poverty for me

im not sure this will work for everybody
 
jimmoyer
#10
For advanced economies, I don't buy into trickle down theory even if it DOES raise the lowest common denominator in the long run. I think its perfectly possible to grow a middle class without having to cater to the elite.
---------------------------BitWhys---------------------------

That's an interesting point.

I've wondered if the tyranny of short term profits
for the shareholders is any better than long term profit.

Can a company survive at 40 cents on the Dollar
rather than 70 cents on the Dollar in this global
free trade economy ??

Can we defy the harsh laws of nature ?

And build ourselves a safety net impregnable from
the forces of competition, from the forces of atrophy ?
 
BitWhys
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyer

...Can we defy the harsh laws of nature ?...

you little devil.

you know EXACTLY what you mean by that

the short answer, IMO...

yes. but allow me to defer for now. I'd like to do a half decent job on it.
 
jimmoyer
#12
LOL !!!

I'll await your half decent job of it.
Because frankly I don't know of another way.
 
Toro
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyer

I've wondered if the tyranny of short term profits
for the shareholders is any better than long term profit.

It is neither good nor bad.

Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyer

And build ourselves a safety net impregnable from
the forces of competition, from the forces of atrophy ?

Building walls around competition makes people poorer, not richer. This is probably the biggest folly of all. However, that doesn't mean you cannot build safety nets for those who aren't winners. You should.

There is no question that the wage gap has been rising in America, even though all wage cohorts have seen their standards of living increase over time. The question is why.

Some say that it is because as the economy shifts more to a knowledge-based economy, the gains are accruing to those with the most education. That is certainly true, though I think the case is overstated. I think it has more to do with gains accruing to education and the effects of globalization over the past 20-30 years.

In this case, the largest gains are accruing to capital, and the holders of capital, not to labour, as labour continues to come under pressure from the global labour arbitrage due to the rise of Asia. This will continue for many years IMO.

The exact wrong prescription would be to wall ourselves off and retreat, as the opponents of globalization propose. This is a recipe for stagnation and decline, making the nation worse off as a whole. Instead, there should be tax cuts for the poorer classes and tax hikes for the richer classes, as well as increased spending on education and social programs.
 
jimmoyer
#14
That Toro, is a great post.

To reiterate:

1. Building walls around competition makes people poorer, not richer.

2. Gains are accruing to holders of capital, not labor.

3. You should build safety nets around those who
are winners.

That last idea is quite fascinating.

I'm sure it's going to get a lot of political grief, but
the psychology of it and the economics of it might
be quite sound.
 
BitWhys
#15
just to point out "the opponents of globalization" aren't one big happy protectionist family. on a theoretical level I support "globalization" but that can only be in theory since free trade as its described by ITS proponents simply doesn't exist.

case in point

the Yuan.

not to mention the whole worker mobility problem.

otherwise a pretty good post.
 
jimmoyer
#16
According to BitWhys and I kind of agree, Global Free Trade does not exist.
 

Similar Threads

5
Bee in the Bonnet: Rich Man, Poor Man
by CDNBear | Dec 29th, 2006
62
Rich and Poor Gap widdening : NDP
by Jersay | May 15th, 2006