How Poor are the Poor?

[natty dread]

What on earth are you talking about? Democratic socialism is communism, is it not?

Wrong.

[thegreekdog]

Mr. Bottom, I have a few retorts:

(1) Your map is titled "Children in poverty."
(2) Your map shows a percentage, not actual numbers. How many people do you think live in South Carolina as compared to New York or Louisiana compared to California? Is 17-21% of the population of California more than 22-30% of the population of Louisiana?
(3) I recently attended an exhibit at the US Constitution Center in Philadelphia. It had a map of hate groups by state. Guess which state had the most hate groups? Hint: It's New Jersey.
(4) In the other thread where you made this argument, I debunked, summarily, any indication that the north subsidizes the south. You are incorrect. This is not arguable; it's fact.
(5) If I told you that 45% of the people in South Carolina voted Democrat, and you showed me a map where 20% of the people in South Carolina were poor, what evidence does that show that Republicans are poor?
(6) I think we'd all appreciate it if you stopped making broad stereotypes about groups of people, for example southernors, who I'm sure you think are white people with funny hick-like accents, but who are, really, composed of a variety of cultures and races, including, but not limited to African-Americans and Mexican-Americans.

[PLAYER57832]

What on earth are you talking about? Democratic socialism is communism, is it not?

No. Political communism is essentially a dictatorship by a committee.

[Mr_Adams]

Which is why it's all about Ron Paul. Time for the right to stop catering to the big buisness special interests, and the left to stop catering to the union special interest, and somebody to start catering to the interests of the individual, i.e. personal liberty, and self sustainable economy.

Do you believe there is such a thing as a sustainable economy? (after all, the current system is based on perpetual growth)

Ya, you like how they do that? The economy based on perpetual growth, funded by perpetual debt. Yes, I do believe in a sustainable economy, under an Austrian economy. Same as I've described for the whole thread.

[HapSmo19]

I wonder what that map would look like if you took the illegal immigrant population out of the mix...

Half-it across the board?

[Juan_Bottom]

(2) Your map shows a percentage, not actual numbers. How many people do you think live in South Carolina as compared to New York or Louisiana compared to California? Is 17-21% of the population of California more than 22-30% of the population of Louisiana?

There are several maps in the link, all from separate sources. The Child Poverty map is a sample, and I chose it because it was on topic and because the link to it was disabled. Here's the link again. But I am going to post all the maps for the butthurt people who didn't look at them the first time.
http://kindredblood.wordpress.com/maps-for-thought/

?
(3) I recently attended an exhibit at the US Constitution Center in Philadelphia. It had a map of hate groups by state. Guess which state had the most hate groups? Hint: It's New Jersey.

New Jersey and California both have a very high number apparently, but the South has the largest concentration.

(4) In the other thread where you made this argument, I debunked, summarily, any indication that the north subsidizes the south. You are incorrect. This is not arguable; it's fact.

Nonsense. I don't even know where that other thread is, but I could argue this point into the ground.

(6) I think we'd all appreciate it if you stopped making broad stereotypes about groups of people, for example southernors, who I'm sure you think are white people with funny hick-like accents, but who are, really, composed of a variety of cultures and races, including, but not limited to African-Americans and Mexican-Americans.

I'm a member of the Freethinkers think-tank, which is a closed group for southerners. No I'm not southern myself, but I'm the exception. This is a topic we are talking about there, so I brought the link here.

but you know full well that correlation is not cause and that there are plenty of very intelligent people who do have religious beliefs. (even aside from the atheism is a religion, too, bit).

I'm not claiming it's a cause, but I am claiming a strong correlation.


[bigimg]http://philhardwickblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/2008_election_map-counties.jpg[/bigimg]


BAPTISTS AS A PERCENTAGE OF ALL RESIDENTS
















CRIME MAP BY REGION
























And finally;
http://www.mint.com/blog/trends/poverty-10182010/
http://www.mint.com/blog/trends/poverty ... splay=wide (info-graphic poverty map)

(6) I think we'd all appreciate it if you stopped making broad stereotypes about groups of people, for example southernors, who I'm sure you think are white people with funny hick-like accents, but who are, really, composed of a variety of cultures and races, including, but not limited to African-Americans and Mexican-Americans.

So I am clearly not making a broad stereotype. In fact in addition to this link full of awesome graphics, I also said:

You're taking things too far. To call Southern culture ignorant is a bit much. Note that I'm making a generalization in the same sense that the maps and US Census bureau is making generalizations:

the South is generally religious

the American South has a bunch of

and is generally ignorant

Again, this is purely how you chose to look at it.

No it isn't. It overwhelmingly "suggests" that the South has the largest concentration of poor people, ignorant people, religious people, and obese people. The South also has the majority of our country's hate groups, though I link that into general ignorance. You could "choose to look at it as" a map of which areas need the most help, but the reasons they need help are still facts that are staring you in the face.

So who wants to start the ass-kissing?

[thegreekdog]

Obviously I cannot argue with the data.

I will, however, continue to argue vehemently with respect to two of your conclusions:

(1) Southernors who voted Republican are poor and southernors who voted Democrat are not. This cannot be proven.
(2) The northern, more Democrat, states subsidize the southern, more Republican, states. This is simply not true.

[Juan_Bottom]

(1) Southernors who voted Republican are poor and southernors who voted Democrat are not. This cannot be proven.

That's not what I believe. I'm not talking about the people of the each southern state, but the state as a whole. For example Alabama is a Republican state, but there is a streak of blue running through it. Typically minorities vote overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates, therefor their votes are also tossed out at a much-MUCH higher rate than white votes. Something in the neighborhood of 1% versus 14%.

(2) The northern, more Democrat, states subsidize the southern, more Republican, states. This is simply not true.

Don't worry, I have more graphics for that.
Here is the article too;
http://geniusofinsanityworld.blogspot.c ... tates.html





I'm like butter tonight! I'm on a roll!

[thegreekdog]

Damn you JB, I cannot find that other thread. My retort was in there.

Meanwhile, there is a link to the OMB budget for FY2007 in that document you sent. It's way interesting.

[Juan_Bottom]

^Interesting

Meanwhile, there is a link to the OMB budget for FY2007 in that document you sent. It's way interesting.

I didn't read the OMB, but I did read the Tax Foundation's short article. I also read their Federal Tax Burdens and Expenditures by State. I'm starting to think that I really do read too much. I keep link-sailing through the day.

It's just me and a can of Coke Zero; Sitting here listening to Michael Bolton and reading poverty statistics.

EDIT

[thegreekdog]

Coke Zero? Michael Bolton?

I found my retort by the way:

I'm not entirely sure you (or the person you quoted) read the link you provided:

I read all the links, but the link above the quote is the match. I simply posted a bunch of relative links that supported the premise of the thread. The same Tea Partiers that believe our government's expenditures to be unsatisfactory are also the ones that are burdening the system the most.

Okay, except they aren't. The links you provided after the quote do not support the premise of the thread in any way. In fact, as I've illustrated very clearly for you, the states that your friend identified as "supporting" the Red States are actually in the top half of states that take money from the federal government.

Perhaps you're doing a little pimpdave thing here, I don't know. But, if you are trying to be serious, here it is again. The states listed below are the states identified in the "article" as states ostensibly supporting the Red States. All of them take more money from the federal government, per person, than most of the other states in the US.

New Jersey - $14 billion (9th) or $1,663 per person (18th) - New Jersey, as a state, takes the 9th most from the federal government and the 18th most per capita. This is more than half of the states in the US take.
New York - $45 billion (2nd) or $2,301 per person (4th) - New York, as a state, takes the 2nd most from the federal government and the 4th most per capita. This is also more than half of the states in the US take.
California - $64 billion (1st) or $1,730 per person (15th) - California, as a state, takes the most from the federal government and the 15th most per capita. This is also more than half of the states in the US take.
Massachusetts - $14 billion (10th) or $2,122 per person (5th) - Massachusetts, as a state, takes the 10th most from the federal government and the 5th most per capita. This is more than half of the states in the US take.

Simply put, the data does not support your premise.

Perhaps your premise should be, instead, that Red States shoudn't take any money from the federal government. I would agree with that premise.

Here's that thread link - viewtopic.php?f=8&t=144137

[Juan_Bottom]

Hey I answered that in the thread. Also, I answered it with a graphic here. By and large, the Red states get more than they pay in.




Illinois for example only receives $.73 for every dollar that it pays in. Mississippi gets back $1.77! While some blue states also receive more money than they pay (Maryland $1.55), these are the exceptions. Most Red states get more than they give.

[Mr_Adams]

and have the worst immigration problems.

[Timminz]

and have the worst immigration problems.

Could you please rephrase that in the form of a map.

[Phatscotty]

I thought the information in this link was interesting:

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... in-america

Specifically, I found the following information interesting:

- 45.9% of the US poor own a home
- 72.8% of the US poor own a car or truck
- 30.2% of the US poor own two or more cars or trucks
- 75.6% of the US poor own an air conditioner
- 97.3% of the US poor own a color television
- 55.3% of the US poor own two or more color televisions
- 62.6% of the US poor have cable or satellite TV
- 78.0% of the US poor own a video recorder or DVD player

Now, that was from 2004, so I wonder what it looks like now. I also read in this link that most of the poor in the United States live in bigger homes than the European middle class.

Here are some facts about poverty in America (from Business Insider in 2010 I believe):

- Household participation in the food stamp program increased 20.28% since 2009.
- The number of Americans on food stamps surpassed 41 million for the first time ever in June 2010. That's more than 10% of the population for those keeping track.
- One out of every six Americans (17%) is now being served by at least one government anti-poverty program.
- More than 50 million Americans are on Medicaid
- More than 25% of all Americans now have a credit score below 599.

Do these two items mesh for you? Is there any consideration given to priorities?

This must be taken care of immediately! We the workers must give the government more of our money ASAP!

[PLAYER57832]

If you really want to see the problem with our society, just go look at your local landfill... and compare it to one in Europe. That says far more about our society than the above statistics.

[Phatscotty]

Like grandma always used to say, show me your garbage, and I will grade your society.

[Phatscotty]

I disagree with the post before this one.

[spurgistan]

and have the worst immigration problems.

Assuming you mean illegal immigration problems, I didn't see hordes of undocumented Guatemalans in Mississippi.

[Phatscotty]

and have the worst immigration problems.

Assuming you mean illegal immigration problems, I didn't see hordes of undocumented Guatemalans in Mississippi.

You should probably look to the foreign country geographically closest to the state of Mississippi, which would be Mexico.

Guatemalans?

[Dukasaur]

and have the worst immigration problems.

Assuming you mean illegal immigration problems, I didn't see hordes of undocumented Guatemalans in Mississippi.

Since when is illegal immigration a problem? There are still many tedious low-paying jobs. The people born here (and I use "here" very broadly, to include most of the world's industrialized nations) consider themselves too good to do those jobs, and so immigrants are needed. The official channels don't bring in enough immigrants, so more are brought in unofficially. Do you think for one minute that the underground railroad from Mexico would keep running if there weren't hundreds of thousands of companies desperately waiting for someone to show up on their doorstep who actually wants to work?

Here in Canada it's mainly Jamaicans and Barbadians, but the story is the same. I work in the transport business hauling the products of agriculture, and I can tell you: if all our illegal Jamaicans were actually rounded up and sent home like the nutcases in the media want to have done, our nation would starve in a week. There is simply nobody born in this country who will do something as tedious and backbreaking as picking tomatoes, for instance.

In the U.S. you have your Mexicans, in France they have their Arabs, in Germany they have their Turks. Not one of these nations would survive the removal of those imported workforces. Their own populations, like ours, have been brought up with the myth that if you graduate from high school you will never have to shovel shit for a living, and they believe it.

[Juan_Bottom]

Since when is illegal immigration a problem? There are still many tedious low-paying jobs. The people born here (and I use "here" very broadly, to include most of the world's industrialized nations) consider themselves too good to do those jobs, and so immigrants are needed. The official channels don't bring in enough immigrants, so more are brought in unofficially.

Since we entered a recession and there aren't enough jobs to go around.... wait...

Here in Canada it's

Oh......

There are still many tedious low-paying jobs.

The actual problem is something that you hinted at.

if there weren't hundreds of thousands of companies desperately waiting for someone to show up

Many UNION jobs that were really good to have in the '60s and '70s have since become very dangerous and low paying. Americans don't want to risk their fingers for minimum wage, so illegals are brought in by the company itself to fill those jobs. Had those companies not previously paid off the federal government and their state's politicians, those jobs would still be high paying/safe jobs for Americans.
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/003974.html
Swift is a really good example of this. As a meat packer in the 1970s, your wages were better than they would be today. *Compare the peaked average salary of $18.00 (in 1980) to today's average salary of $11.00. Swift, and all of the other meat processing companies began a very direct attack on their American workers in the late 1970s. They began eliminating positions, intimidating organizers, and moving factories to get them out of unions hands. They also moved their plants to states that had "friendly" governments that would allow them to operate freely. In fact some companies (like ibp)have been caught advertising in Mexico for workers.
What we've seen is a growing meat industry that has more influence over the US government, due to their size and power of lobby. In the 1970s,
the top five beef packing companies only controlled 25% of the beef packaged in this country. But today, in 2011, they control more than 80% of it. Unrestricted trade has lead to a shifting of jobs from American hands to the hands of illegal immigrants. In several companies/industries unions were shut out under the Bush administration, which kept their jobs at low wages for illegal immigrants. Companies like Cintas Corporation (cleaning), Woodfin Suites (hotels), Smithfield (meat packaging), and QSI (contracted temp services) fired workers (illegal workers that is) who supported unionizing. The Unions had offered to grant illegals protection if they helped the union organizers. Instead what happened was the organizers were fired, and the illegals were threatened with deportation. Both Smithfield and QSI regularly turned in batches illegal workers to the government in exchange for no raids (under the ICE law). These pro-union workers were the first to go. Illegal workers who didn't have valid social security numbers but worked hard for the company were withheld.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/53905639/Ille ... Immigrants

And speaking of "friendly governments" under the Bush Administration, the Chief of Staff at the USDA was the former chief lobbyist for the beef industry in Washington. The head of the FDA was The former executive vice president of the National Food Processors Association became the head of the FDA. Basically, the fox was guarding the hen house. Things haven't improved a whole lot.

The most frustrating part is that even when the illegals are rounded up due to the complete carelessness of their managers, the managers and owners are not held accountable by the government. The meat industry retains it's top honor in this regard as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postville_Raid



So anyway, the overall point is that there would be a lot less room for illegal workers if we would regulate our businesses like Teddy "motherfucking" Roosevelt had promised. Unions could help once again, but these big industries are given free reign to bust them up with the federal government's blessings. These "tedious jobs" haven't always been that way. They have been made that way by general ignorance and an unwillingness to do what is necessary to protect American interests. Illegal immigration has always been a problem, and continues to be a problem.


*

Average wage for a meatpacker in 1976: $17.41 an hour. Average in 2006: $11.47.

I feel like I am dominating this thread but without helping anything. Sorry.

[BigBallinStalin]

What was their definition of 'poor'?

Also, is this really that surprising? Our entire culture glorifies consumer items as trophies of success - Even if one is struggling financially, they don't want to 'feel poor', as such - Keeping up appearances, would you say?

I dare say most people would be living on credit, it's what the system wants - an entire population slaved to wage labour to help pay for the maxed out credit card which has been used on various opiates (either drugs, or other mind-numbing items, like TV's, iPods, shit music, Hollywood gossip, Mcdonalds) - Meanwhile the capitalist machine keeps churning, keeps producing (waste) and the populace contines to consume -

Shit, just because you are 'poor' doesn't mean we are not going to find away to get people to buy our products!

That is one of my various thoughts on the subject.

My first thought was - we're subsidizing the impoverished who aren't really impoverished. As an example, in 2004 I only had one car. Thirty percent of the impoverished in the US in 2004 owned more than one car. As another example, in 2004 I did not own a home. Forty-five percent of the impoverished in the US in 2004 owned a home. As a third example, in 2004 I did not own more than one television and did not have cable or satellite. In 2004, 55% of the impoverished own more than one television and 63% had cable or satellite. And yet I was subsidizing, through my tax dollars, the impoverished peoples' food stamps and healthcare.

My second thought was - Where is the prioritization?

My third thought was - We're living in a ridiculously lavish society that spends more on shit it doesn't need.[/quote]


Doesn't any else find these questions to be reasonable ones?

[PLAYER57832]

The questions are quite reasonable. Your answers (previously, in other threads) are not.

The answer is to stop pretending that everyone's goal in life, the goal of the country should be to allow more people to sell more stuff.

But seriously, it used to be that people who could not get enough to eat or have a warm/dry place to sleep were "poor". We still have those groups. However, the greater concern here in the US is people without medical care.

That one really throws everything else out of kilter, because without some kind of insurance, it is absolutely impossible for anyone not extremely wealthy to "plan for" or "prepare for" a major illness. Its easier, ironically enough, to come back financially after a fire or other major disaster than a medical illness-- even if your illness is fully treated.

When you understand that the difference between a major illness and a minor one is access to medical care (and NOT the emergency kind!), it becomes very apparently why so many people now feel poor, despite having so many "things".

[Baron Von PWN]

Since when is illegal immigration a problem? There are still many tedious low-paying jobs. The people born here (and I use "here" very broadly, to include most of the world's industrialized nations) consider themselves too good to do those jobs, and so immigrants are needed. The official channels don't bring in enough immigrants, so more are brought in unofficially.

Since we entered a recession and there aren't enough jobs to go around.... wait...

Here in Canada it's

Oh......

There are still many tedious low-paying jobs.

The actual problem is something that you hinted at.

if there weren't hundreds of thousands of companies desperately waiting for someone to show up

Many UNION jobs that were really good to have in the '60s and '70s have since become very dangerous and low paying. Americans don't want to risk their fingers for minimum wage, so illegals are brought in by the company itself to fill those jobs. Had those companies not previously paid off the federal government and their state's politicians, those jobs would still be high paying/safe jobs for Americans.
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/003974.html
Swift is a really good example of this. As a meat packer in the 1970s, your wages were better than they would be today. *Compare the peaked average salary of $18.00 (in 1980) to today's average salary of $11.00. Swift, and all of the other meat processing companies began a very direct attack on their American workers in the late 1970s. They began eliminating positions, intimidating organizers, and moving factories to get them out of unions hands. They also moved their plants to states that had "friendly" governments that would allow them to operate freely. In fact some companies (like ibp)have been caught advertising in Mexico for workers.
What we've seen is a growing meat industry that has more influence over the US government, due to their size and power of lobby. In the 1970s,
the top five beef packing companies only controlled 25% of the beef packaged in this country. But today, in 2011, they control more than 80% of it. Unrestricted trade has lead to a shifting of jobs from American hands to the hands of illegal immigrants. In several companies/industries unions were shut out under the Bush administration, which kept their jobs at low wages for illegal immigrants. Companies like Cintas Corporation (cleaning), Woodfin Suites (hotels), Smithfield (meat packaging), and QSI (contracted temp services) fired workers (illegal workers that is) who supported unionizing. The Unions had offered to grant illegals protection if they helped the union organizers. Instead what happened was the organizers were fired, and the illegals were threatened with deportation. Both Smithfield and QSI regularly turned in batches illegal workers to the government in exchange for no raids (under the ICE law). These pro-union workers were the first to go. Illegal workers who didn't have valid social security numbers but worked hard for the company were withheld.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/53905639/Ille ... Immigrants

And speaking of "friendly governments" under the Bush Administration, the Chief of Staff at the USDA was the former chief lobbyist for the beef industry in Washington. The head of the FDA was The former executive vice president of the National Food Processors Association became the head of the FDA. Basically, the fox was guarding the hen house. Things haven't improved a whole lot.

The most frustrating part is that even when the illegals are rounded up due to the complete carelessness of their managers, the managers and owners are not held accountable by the government. The meat industry retains it's top honor in this regard as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postville_Raid



So anyway, the overall point is that there would be a lot less room for illegal workers if we would regulate our businesses like Teddy "motherfucking" Roosevelt had promised. Unions could help once again, but these big industries are given free reign to bust them up with the federal government's blessings. These "tedious jobs" haven't always been that way. They have been made that way by general ignorance and an unwillingness to do what is necessary to protect American interests. Illegal immigration has always been a problem, and continues to be a problem.


*

Average wage for a meatpacker in 1976: $17.41 an hour. Average in 2006: $11.47.

I feel like I am dominating this thread but without helping anything. Sorry.

Know what really made western wages fall? Winning the cold war. pre- 1989 about a third of the world was completely locked away from capitalist markets, more were partially locked out of capitalist markets due to cold war rivalries making the Soviet Union seem a reasonable alternative capitalism. Following 89 there is gradually movement on a global scale to more open markets and capitalism .

Old capitalist markets previously insulated from all that cheap labor by the cold war now have to adapt, the change is gradual since it takes time for these newly open economies to transition but eventually they get into the market, and suddenly paying someone 18$ to do something a guy in china will do for 2 or less $s an hour doesn't make sense anymore.

The Global economy is currently balancing itself out. Think of the Cold war as the communist building a massive damn against western capital, what is happening in the global economy right now is the aftermath of that damn breaching, capital is flowing out of the western basin into the former communist world. Eventually things will equalize and wages in the west will become comparable to those in the east, however this will occur by necessity after a drop in the west and a rise in the east.