The Real Reason Poverty Exists

originally posted by: stolencar18
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Do you have any opinions not driven by jealousy?

Everyone can walk off the Walmart locations, and ten million more will line up to fill the vacuum left behind. Millions of people are grateful for the Walmart jobs, the McDonalds jobs, etc. This country is so spoiled to think that work is beneath them...

I'm done with you because I'm embarrassed for you. I don't experience jealousy. Ever.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: grainofsand

Basic food, Basic shelter, healthcare, basic communications, basic clothes and basic transportation need to be universal, everything else is a luxury

So would you tax the luxuries to pay for the basics or would you require people to work?

a reply to: stolencar18

It's simple, take the number of people in the world who have jobs now, then take the number of people who are poor and have no jobs then stir in a bit of common sense, logic and reasoning, and it's clear the same amount of work could be done and then some with everyone working less instead of less people working more.

The reason why they keep importing people and going overseas is those people are in an even worse state of poverty and thus even more desperate and thus even more willing to be taken advantage of. It's a race downward. Also don't be fooled, these places have even worse poverty than us. They're just bringing them here because they won't be happy til we're all servants to our betters. They bring them here because they're so beaten and desperate they'll take whatever they can get.

But don't worry, as they're winning we'll all be that desperate soon too. Well those of us, who haven't given into despair, which is how most people in those countries live. Since well, where they come from even more people are worse off than we are.

We'll get there someday too if we don't do anything to stop it.

a reply to: Puppylove

We're already there. It's called government subsidies.

In California more than half of the state collects.

Major imbalance here.

a reply to: Bone75

Multiple ways to go about it. Taxing the luxuries is one of many ways to do so, yes. As for work, once again, that's how people afford those luxuries. Trust me, more than enough people will choose to want luxuries to supply more than enough work to provide for both luxuries for themselves and the basic needs of everyone.

What they get is luxuries for their service that others that don't work don't get. If you think most people will choose to not work and just collect you're silly. The reason most people hate work is they feel unappreciated and feel like they're working to stay in place.

When your work is actually getting something beyond basic living, while also no longer stressed about whether you can afford the basic necessities this week, people will be much happier with working.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Ha...again, tell me how I'm wrong on my economics instead of tooting your own horn.

a reply to: Puppylove

Except, how many people would stop work in this new world? Or reduce their total work? You're expecting that the total work output would remain the same.

a reply to: Puppylove

You should consider posting the "plan" I saw on the other thread.

a reply to: xuenchen

You found it, it's your baby not mine.

originally posted by: Puppylove
As for work, once again, that's how people afford those luxuries. Trust me, more than enough people will choose to want luxuries to supply more than enough work to provide for both luxuries for themselves and the basic needs of everyone

I must be misunderstanding. Are you saying that those who want more than government housing and free food and internet are gonna have to go out and work for it, then you're gonna tax the ones who choose to work for their "luxuries" to provide the basics for those who choose to sit on their asses?

Isn't that exactly what we have now?

a reply to: Bone75

I love you for this.

a reply to: Edumakated

The Native Americans didn't have poverty because they had a different way of thinking.

For one, they lived in tune with nature, which provided enough resources to survive. For another, they shared things throughout the tribe and cared for one another's well-being on a personal level.

The basis of the Western world is to deny the population access to the basic needs that would be covered by nature and instead require them to work for money to cover those needs. This is still rooted in the tribal model because a Native American also did work to acquire the basic needs from nature.

However, as technology evolves, I believe more basic needs will be met for a more reasonable price and this is the just thing to do. There is no need to artificially create a society where people have to work harder than they need to to earn basic needs. This is an outdated conservative idea rooted in punishing poor people, and it will not stand up to the power of changing technology.

As our society evolves, we will gain newer and cheaper technology that will allow our civilization to focus less on working for needs and more on working for wants. This has already happened in similar ways in the past. The industrial revolution brought things like washing machines and vacuum cleaners that allowed women the time to become independent and eventually join the workforce (I'm not sure what that accomplished, but it was a step towards something I think).

The information age has brought faster and faster computers into the realm of even someone in the poorest nations being able to afford one, albeit an older or less sophisticated model. With access to the internet, information is free (for the most part) and so is learning. This puts people on more of an even ground with each other. Someone working at McDonalds who spends their time surfing the web learning things might have a comparable knowledge in certain areas to someone who has graduated from college and pursued a more established career. In the past, this might not have been the case, as someone working at McDonalds might have been socially isolated and had little access to information on more intelligent ideas. This access to information empowers the individual, including poor people.

The technological age also made entertainment a higher quality and available to more people, especially in first-world nations, than before. This is another example of technology changing society. Video games allow anyone, even someone earning minimum wage, to live a second life where they are able to obtain goals and make progress regardless of their real-world feats.

What kinds of societal changes will come with the technology in the next 20 years? It is inevitable that this will happen.

Only an active agenda based on hatred of the poor or greed will be able to stop the poor from making improvements to their quality of life as technology advances, and even this won't succeed in the long run.

originally posted by: stolencar18
a reply to: Bone75

I love you for this.

I'm blushing, but I have a feeling you'll regret that

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Puppylove
As for work, once again, that's how people afford those luxuries. Trust me, more than enough people will choose to want luxuries to supply more than enough work to provide for both luxuries for themselves and the basic needs of everyone

I must be misunderstanding. Are you saying that those who want more than government housing and free food and internet are gonna have to go out and work for it, then you're gonna tax the ones who choose to work for their "luxuries" to provide the basics for those who choose to sit on their asses?

Isn't that exactly what we have now?

He is so caught up in his utopian wet dream he doesn't even realize it we have the exact system in place now. It is called welfare, minimum wage, housing projects, food stamps, etc. Those who want more out of life, work harder so they can earn more money and live better lives.

a reply to: Edumakated

You live in an imaginary world where everyone can do as you say.

Hate to break it too but half of California is on subsidies because most of the jobs out here pay crap and cost of living is through the roof.

But go ahead... Keep imagining some kind of world where if you just work hard you get ahead.

It's almost like you think most people don't work hard everyday. Joker!

a reply to: Puppylove

So you admit you want to enslave people.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Puppylove

So you admit you want to enslave people.

Your speaking total nonsense like a few other posters here who live in fantasy worlds.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

We could also go about it in a more constructive manner. If US businesses wish to keep their tax cuts then they need to hire more American workers...80% of their global labor force sounds like a fair deal. Otherwise they can relocate their headquarters and pay import duties.

But looking at taxes and the Powerball jackpot of $1.5 billion: cash option drops it to $958 million and by the time you pay federal, state and local taxes you might have between $500-$600 million.

Maybe the government are the ones that "need to change".

The solution is even more simple, if we all stayed home for one day even, just one, called in and said we were sick, have a funeral, have a doc appointment, something, that absence of workers in the work force, customer's in the stores would show the companies they work for us, while also empowering us the people.

We are the economy, money is nothing if there aren't people wanting to buy things to create it's value.

We are the money, whether we have it or not, we contribute to it's value, the more we want it, the more valuable it becomes and the more power you give, find ways to not need / want as much, and watch the tables turn.

Supply and Demand have it's pros and cons, it's checks and balances, be the change, organize a national day or week of protest, we all can create the awareness we seek.

Stop believing we have no power, when we are more powerful then any small group with a bunch of rectangle cotton pieces will ever be.

a reply to: Bone75

"The taxing them was your idea not mine. I said it was one way to get funding. Two those luxuries they get, are what they get for choosing to work. Something those that don't do not not get.

The taxation should actually not be necessary, as the work that needs to be done is already accounted for in doing the work necessary to earn these luxuries.

The difference is, basic needs are provided for, everyone gets that. You want more you work for it.

No one is in abject poverty in this. Right now being left out in the cold and starving to death is a reality in much of the world. We do not have anything even remotely close to what I'm saying. If you think we do, you need to travel more, and you don't even need to leave the US.

Also, once again, you are completely over blowing the people sitting on their ass thing. How many people you know that would choose to sit on their ass rather than have their smart phone, luxury foods, personal television, video games, etc?

Not many. You'll all so paranoid about everyone getting stuff for nothing you're willing to throw the bulk of humanity under the bus. Most people are willing to work, and would definitely choose to to get luxuries. The main difference is, no one needs to fear being on the street or starving, or being able to communicate and get a hold of their employer, or not being able to have their medical needs met.

Everyone starts and stays in a better starting position. Instead of struggling to survive first and hoping to live a little for their efforts, people get to survive for free, but work to live.

You're all being paranoid with your ridiculous, "But everyone will sit on their ass and sponge off me" crap.

Stop pretending like you get nothing for your service to the community in this system. You get luxuries, a better standard of living, you still get to be the haves in this scenario over all those who don't work. You just don't get to have these things while people starve and die on the street.