Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Which is ironic, because the rich man is rich, because the poor man is poor.
So does wealth never increase? Is aggregate wealth a zero-sum game? The founders of Google might disagree with you, along with the 100 years of history that proves your statement incorrect.
An uneven distribution of wealth does not cause poverty.
An uneven distribution of wealth causes relative poverty, and without social safety nets, very real poverty.
Take welfare, section 8 and food stamps away from America, watch what our unemployment rate swells to, and watch how many shanty towns and abandoned squaller filled buildings are inhabited.
So does wealth never increase? Is aggregate wealth a zero-sum game? The founders of Google might disagree with you, along with the 100 years of history that proves your statement incorrect.
Wealth is and always will be a zero sum game. The founders of Google did not "create wealth", they created a medium to extract existing wealth.
100 years of history doesnt prove anything. The same global wealth exists that existed 3000 years ago, still exists today, its just been shifted and claimed.
An uneven distribution of wealth causes relative poverty, and without social safety nets, very real poverty.
"Relative poverty" is meaningless. Social safety nets don't prevent poverty, if anything they are corporate welfare. Businesses can't pay employees a wage below subsistence, because well a dead employee is not very effective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
Take welfare, section 8 and food stamps away from America, watch what our unemployment rate swells to, and watch how many shanty towns and abandoned squaller filled buildings are inhabited.
Why would this create unemployment? You'll hear the loudest objections from the likes of Wal-Mart, Target, McDonalds, etc.
Wealth is and always will be a zero sum game. The founders of Google did not "create wealth", they created a medium to extract existing wealth.
This is funny, so the level of wealth in human societies has been constant from day one? How about we test this idea, we can drop you off deep in the rain forest and you can live with a Yanomamo tribe that has had no direct contact with western people. Since wealth is never created you should be able to have the same standard of living you enjoy here.
Wealth is and always will be a zero sum game. The founders of Google did not "create wealth", they created a medium to extract existing wealth.
Yeah I'm sure you'd probably say the same thing about companies like Boeing, GE, microsoft, apple etc. Again, your view of a static economy is very misguided. Companies have created real wealth over the past century and improved the standard of living for everyone, from the top to the bottom.
Being poor in this country still means you often have access to cable TV, internet, a cell phone, even a car.
Take welfare, section 8 and food stamps away from America, watch what our unemployment rate swells to, and watch how many shanty towns and abandoned squaller filled buildings are inhabited.
Those places exist even with Section 8 and welfare. Have you been through the rustbelt in the upper midwest? Detroit looks like a warzone, but plenty of other cities have the same "abandoned squalor" and "shanty towns" you are talking about (Cleveland, Buffalo, syracuse, Flint, Gary, etc)
"Relative poverty" is meaningless. Social safety nets don't prevent poverty, if anything they are corporate welfare. Businesses can't pay employees a wage below subsistence, because well a dead employee is not very effective.
Really? Youve seen pictures of the factory shanty towns outside some of the "Industrial Revolution" factories? Humans will definatley sink to much lower forms of squaller and malnutrition before simply dying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Why would this create unemployment? You'll hear the loudest objections from the likes of Wal-Mart, Target, McDonalds, etc.
A decent number of people at any given time are subsiding on government handouts and safety nets for their only source of income. If forced off the dole, they would be faced with entering the workforce, or criminal enterprise. Largely, there is no room for these individuals in the workforce.
Those places exist even with Section 8 and welfare. Have you been through the rustbelt in the upper midwest? Detroit looks like a warzone, but plenty of other cities have the same "abandoned squalor" and "shanty towns" you are talking about (Cleveland, Buffalo, syracuse, Flint, Gary, etc)
Welfare and Section 8 didnt help those places.
Welfare and Section 8 prevented, and prevent, many people from flat out being homeless. I have seen income declarations for section 8 housing, hundreds of people making less then 10k a year, many making less then 3.
What housing do you think they are getting making less then 3k a year? Take government subsidies away, and they either flood the workforce, turn to crime, or become homeless.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
