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.
Do you HONESTLY think there are NO educated people who are having tough times finding jobs??? Or, even if they are employed, having financial difficulty?
Like you, I have an education, as do many others out there having a hard time finding permanent, decently-paying employment. I earned a bachelor's degree, a post-degree certificate, and a master's degree WITH HONORS but WITHOUT ANY DEBT. Without any financial assistance from family.
So, if I could graduate without any debt, why couldn't you?? Obviously, you weren't hauling yourself up by your bootstraps quite enough, were you? Clearly, you were slacking off.
Like you, I worked my way up slowly to better and better jobs. I had a well-paying position. And then the kind of stuff than happens in life, happened: my spouse accepted a job offer in another state. Since we've moved, I've found only contract work.
The point is, I'm far from alone. I KNOW there are MILLIONS of others out there like me. There are people who, through no fault of their own, cannot land decent, permanent jobs no matter how hard they try, or how "creative" or "sacrificing" they are. There are PLENTY of educated, highly-qualified people (including many young, strapping Millennials) out there who are in that boat.
And if educated people find it tough, what is it like for those who have been unable to get an education or training, or who don't speak english very well, or who who have been out the workforce for so long taking care of families that their qualifications are now outdated (and they cannot AFFORD to further their educations)? Many are forced to take minimum wage jobs. And how are they supposed to support families on current minimum wages (as many of them must)?
I AM a taxpayer. And my spouse and I pay our fair share of taxes. So yeah, I kinda DO care about taxpayers. However, that doesn't mean that I can - or want to! - turn a blind eye to the poverty and struggle of others around me. And the fact is that ANYONE with any foresight WON'T. Sh** happens. Life doesn't always go the way we think it will.
Hence my interest in the subject of this thread; it's not because I think anyone else should support me at their own sacrifice. Oh, and this is a woman, to boot.
So how much of your money do you give away to the poor? Do you live a meager existence, with no car, small home, no going out, and give away all of your extra money to those more needy than you? When you both had jobs, did you do the same?
Or is this concern for your fellow citizens only go as far as the money OTHERS give? How else should someone support you unless it is at their sacrifice? You TAKE from someone else, something that they have earned. And you have not.
And don't talk to me about "life". Everyone deals with it. In my case, a divorce, an opportunity to buy a business falling through, unemployment, and a move to another state (where neither of us had jobs lined up) happened. We've managed to find employment, buy a home, and save money. And because we've sacrificed and worked hard, I DO resent other people deciding that those that made choices (because yes, choosing to relocate for your husband's job IS a choice) should be entitled to more of my money makes me sick.
Then don't do that. I certainly don't corelate C-D commentary levels with anythingr.
If you had some other point... maybe try again with fewer words.
They prefer the notion that one day they too might be rich.
It's similar to the appeal of Church and "heaven" to most of the thinly educated.
Actually taking responsibility for their own situation is far less appealing.
Meh. There are certainly elements of that going on... but it's hardly "the" cause.
The principle cause is number of warm bodies locally and globally.
Everyone shares responsiblity for this problem.
Poverty and low wages are connected by the supply:demand relationship.
Fewer people --> More Demand ---> Better wages
As I've said, poverty due to low wages is an all too common situation that so many humans find themselves in. Your assertions to the contrary only serve to underscore my earlier point that most of America's populace feels differently about that conclusion due to a great propaganda job by pop media.
Any amount of reading on American labor history would show that labor/demand constructs don't always work out in a way that allows for decent wages to be paid, better wages as a result of less available workers doesn't pencil out to be liveable wages and that is the major difference between neatly contrived theories and their practical application. Employers who pay low wages based on a theory that supports the reduction of humans to a numerical unit have found comfort in the fact that these theories seem to allow them their lopsided share.
Here is an example: Fewer people--> More demand---> Better wages, but not that good----> Wage is stable now---> Workers not able to contribute much to the economy, but certainly raise the riches of the owners----> A lot of poor workers, but many sati$fied owners----> Poor, unsatisfied, non contributing workers-- and a lot of wealthier, very satisfied owners or investors living among a growing army of the poor.. Is this the America we want? Or are we, as you assert, stuck in this order of things due to a belief that economic theory will prevail over the needs of humankind?
I Sincerely apologize for the lengthy posts, I myself only read those posts that have some length to them in order to allow myself the opportunity to read the words of others (agreement or not) who have put forth an effort greater than that of the snappy one liners that crowd the pages of CD.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,206,701 times
Reputation: 57821
There are people making $20/hour that are only part time, or have a lot of kids/debt that are struggling. Should they get paid $30/hour? There are many others making $100,000 or more that live check-to-check because they bought a house or cars they really couldn't afford. Live a lifestyle based on your income. If you make federal minimum wage and can't afford an apartment, marry someone with a better job, stay with your parents, or get roommates until you can find a better job.
As I've said, poverty due to low wages is an all too common situation that so many humans find themselves in. Your assertions to the contrary only serve to underscore my earlier point that most of America's populace feels differently about that conclusion due to a great propaganda job by pop media.
Let us assume that the lowest wage anyone earns is the Minimum-Wage.
The Minimum-Wage is greater than the Poverty Level.
"poverty due to low wages" would only be possible if your not working full-time.
Let us assume that the lowest wage anyone earns is the Minimum-Wage.
The Minimum-Wage is greater than the Poverty Level.
"poverty due to low wages" would only be possible if your not working full-time.
Federal poverty level is irrelevant. Poverty means, "the state of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor."
There are, in fact, working poor in the United States. Why do you deny that through your insistence on the using the federal poverty level as the definition of poverty?
Note that federal "poverty level" does not account for differences in cost of living in different sub-regions. Do you think that $13,920 is a living wage?
It proabably is in much of rural America; and not too far off in small, conservative cities.
It isn't in Boston, New York or San Francisco -- for reasons which should be obvious.
If you don't think that's fair, that's your problem.
Federal poverty level is irrelevant. Poverty means, "the state of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor."
There are, in fact, working poor in the United States. Why do you deny that through your insistence on the using the federal poverty level as the definition of poverty?
To those who seem to have a lot to say with regard to who is impoverished and what exactly constitutes poverty I can only reply that numbers and theories have had a great impact on the government's ( and those who believe government) view toward those who are indeed impoverished in America. After years of reading the various posts on many forums that have dealt with some of our most challenging socio/economic problems I can see that the disconnect between those of us that are doing alright and those that aren't as a growing divide of views and understanding.
We can argue on these forums using numbers and data that not only don't tell the whole story, but moreover seem to be contrived. Lies, damned lies, and statistics, wasn't there something written about the connection of these convenient utilities? Some people in America have experienced poverty for numerous reasons, that much we can agree on, and I wouldn't take away from those who have stated the obvious fact of personal responsibility playing a role in some of America's poverty, BUT-----It doesn't always add up to one, or two, or three, reasons that American's have found themselves on the down side of things. Despite their best efforts many of our countrymen find themselves falling behind in their ability to maintain their financial well being.
It's this portion of the American populace that deserves better from those who for whatever reason are better off. I think we used to call it sympathy, or caring, or Christian, or just plain human to give a damn about our fellow man. I tried to point out that this situation isn't occurring in a vacuum, forces that have played a large role in the impoverishment of our fellow Americans own and control media, banking, control domestic policy, and, they have gotten their hands into this government in such a way that makes the government a willing partner in all that they do.
This has been noted by those on the left and right of the American political spectrum, it isn't news that the government has fostered a paternal view toward the poor, "the war on poverty," HUD, SNAP, and many other of the alphabet soup acronyms of the various "programs" that have been paraded out to the public as something to "help" the poor actually serve to accommodate the fact of this group's being retained at subsistence levels in order to stave off the social consequences of an economy that favors such a lopsided system.
When the level of economic participation prohibits a group of wage earners to adequately support the other group of wage payers things begin to slide downhill for the entire populace, not unlike the economic contraction we see today. Too many workers are not able to afford too many goods, contraction results, concentration of wealth and big box merchandising rises in response, small business are squeezed out, not by the demand for higher wages but by the fact of this new concentration that pays low wages and controls the labor needs to their advantage.
Go to those poor and tell them that forum posters have it all figured out for them, "you just aren't living right', "you aren't taking responsibility for yourself" "sure, you've gone to college and are having money problems, but again, move into your parents home, live in a car, share a room", live "right". Audacity? Ignorance? I don't know but I do know I really don't want to have that conversation with any poor person.
It proabably is in much of rural America; and not too far off in small, conservative cities.
It isn't in Boston, New York or San Francisco -- for reasons which should be obvious.
If you don't think that's fair, that's your problem.
It isn't enough in many places beyond those three. I am one of many who consider the federal poverty level an inaccurate descriptor of poverty in America (you'll note, I'm sure, that programs measured by the federal poverty level often have cut offs that are multiples of the poverty line, e.g., SNAP is available to households with gross pay at 130% of the poverty line).
The federal line has been criticized for decades, and Congress appointed a panel to make recommendations about it in 1992. That panel published recommendations under the title, "Measuring Poverty: A New Approach." Their recommendations included regional cost of living adjustments, accounting for consumption of all needs (not just food), and more accurately measuring household income. Congress, due to politics, chose not to adopt those recommendations and continued to require use of an inadequate measure.
Most Americans live in urban areas (80.7% per the most recent census), and urbanization is continuing.
For further reading on the federal poverty line, try the following:
Federal poverty level is irrelevant. Poverty means, "the state of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor."
There are, in fact, working poor in the United States. Why do you deny that through your insistence on the using the federal poverty level as the definition of poverty?
Without a standard to what 'poverty' means there can not be useful dialog.
There are people who earn $100k/year who will say that they have very little money, and there are others who earn $40k/year who will say that they are doing fine.
I know people in each of these categories, I suspect that you do as well.
It is a subjective term, in that context.
Do you feel that you are in poverty? Or not.
To have meaningful discourse, we need to use an objective definition of the term.
It probably is in much of rural America; and not too far off in small, conservative cities.
It isn't in Boston, New York or San Francisco -- for reasons which should be obvious.
If you don't think that's fair, that's your problem.
Exactly.
Where I live it is enough, but in some other areas it is not enough.
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.
