what is poverty today

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by Radium, Jul 27, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    i just realized that today even those in poverty have many of the things anyone in society might have. they may not have assets like homes and boats but they have mp3 players, an xbox, an 32" hdtv, beats by dre headphones, and lastly the crown that sits on every head from the highest to the lowest in society: the internet

    yes and i was just looking for a smart watch, like a watch that has an LED touch screen and can start your microwave - stuff like that

    the battery life on these things r wack so far but they are going to one day get that down and then everybody riding the bus is going to have a 200 dollar apple smart watch on their wrist

    whatispovertytoday

    you can be on unemplyment checks and still feasibly be living like this now. if you dont have debt x a family, you can be working at target and living 2x like this

    this is unprecedented there has never been a society or culture like this before
    test
  2. Nu'maaN

    Nu'maaN Anu'naki, Nuqqa.

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    25,674
    poverty is perception.

    for me it's when i can't afford to buy a deck of ciggies.

    but for a kid in somalia, it's whether or not his/her mom/dad can find water.

    :numaan:
    test
  3. Noncentz

    Noncentz Sieg Heil, M'fer!

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    6,043
    And that's why the poor are poor. They are stupid and don't understand how to use money properly.
    test
  4. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    test
  5. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    what does middle/upper middle class today consist of

    to me it seems like they seperate away from everyone by having things like homes/nicer apartments in more affluent neighborhoods, better/more cars, college education, infrequent vacations (i think america has the least paid leave in the developed world) and um, i guess they eat out more and at better restaurants and wear more expensive clothes; probably because where they work requires more formal clothing

    can anybody think of something i am missing

    taking these things away they become almost exactly like the lower class citizens in society with technology being more affordable and the internet providing almost all sources of entertainment

    actually it seems to me that our lives in society today greatly revolves around the latter more than anything and we spend most of our time and energy on those things

    my conclusion i am starting to arrive at is that the amount of work it takes to have exclusively upper class things is becoming less necessary on the whole. the make or break factor being raising a family - which requires lots of money and seems to render people either into working harder towards positions of greater wealth and status OR forcing them into positions of poverty from an inability to support them

    just sort of rambling hollla at me
    test
  6. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    shout out to them beats by dre headphones
    test
  7. Ignorant

    Ignorant Village Idiot

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Messages:
    17,758
    Wow... what a simplistic view.
    test
  8. SAMARA

    SAMARA truth is a sword

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2002
    Messages:
    1,151
    Poverty is personal debt.
    test
  9. PerfectoUnoJr

    PerfectoUnoJr RM Jobber

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    Messages:
    142
    There are many different kinds of poverty. I feel we look at financial poverty and say: "oh, having a lack of money is like a disease so we need to cure it." And even if you don't think that way, rarely do we hear any solutions as to how to fix it. The sentiment of, "they're lazy and don't deserve any help" comes from those frustrated that they've seen so much money thrown their direction and still see no improvement.

    In reality, I believe there are three kinds of poverty: stewardship, physical and relational. I won't go into great detail on each one, but many times financial poverty is the manifestation of different kinds of poverty. Giving out money works sometimes, but not often.

    So for instance, someone in physical poverty (anyone from a victim of a natural disaster to a cancer patient) who is a good steward would see that the money spent well and they can get back to their feet while paying their bills. While someone who isn't a good financial steward and an alcoholic (relational poverty), would probably be hurt by being given sums of cash.

    It's all about trying to find a way of helping people who suffer from poverty, without hurting them...or yourself.
    test
  10. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    im not really taking about causes of poverty. but i agree w your assessment. 1 thing i would add though is that for poverty to exist there must be a requisite of scarcity: not everybody can have and some must therefore have-not. society is always going to have a have-not group (poverty) just because society has scarcity.

    to that point i can say that whenever you introduce scarcity to anuy system it transforms agents in that system into fiercer competitors who must exert dominance over others to gain access to that scarcity ex: try to feed a group of pigeons a handful of breadcrumbs - bigger, more aggressive pigeons always beat out smaller, less aggressive pigeons

    the obvious move to make that system more efficient is to reduce or eliminate scarcity thus invalidating the need for fiercer and more dominance exerting agents to begin with - vs asking all agents to become fiercer and more dominance exerting, which seems impractical to me...

    hopefully, society can be more like that going forward

    thats why im happy we r becoming more and more a technology society - where for us wealth is now more and more defined by having access to technology

    i define wealth as access to: adequate housing, food, transport, entertainment

    and if you have all these things then you would have wealth. that entertainment part is the part im really interested tho in i think

    i am interested in that because adequate housing food and transport has not really changed or updated over time howver the nature of having access to entertainment has changed radically. that entrainment part i think actually plays the biggest role though its obviously the least necessary: its the most fun part of wealth.

    and i think for a human being the two most important things are 1. entertainment and 2. intimacy w things like adequate housing, food, transport acting just as supporters/enablers to these two things ukltimately

    so, im really happy about technology becoming more fun and everyone becoming more intertwined with technology because i know they are at least going to have more entertainment (which i argue as the most meaningful aspect of wealth)

    the only thing we would need next is some kind of a sustainable housing model and a better, more comprehensive transport/metro system so that we could wouldnt have to need cars!!!!!
    test
  11. miscreant

    miscreant 1996 was the shit

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    Messages:
    2,856
    radium, what do you think of the government and tax system

    would you say we're still all peasants living under serfdom but in a newer age?

    and income tax

    can you see a better way for the government to raise revenue

    do you agree wit paying the government for your right to work?
    test
  12. Alias3000

    Alias3000 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,181
    Poverty is a mindstate and an acronym. Your point of view is what makes you impoverished, not the circumstances you were born into.

    Pov - Point of View
    test
  13. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    i guess i really like government vs .... anarchism

    i really like tax (fire fighters, teachers, tap water) but i think its largely waste too eg locking up marijuana smokers

    i think income bracket tax is a good and necessary thing but what we ultimately do w this money is highly questionable. i think there are better ways to use that money/not use that money.

    summary: i think that big governments are not inherently bad things and are actually good things, but reckless spending is a bad thing.

    to qualify that statement please look at these two videos. i really really agree w james crotty and his view about this. so please look at this and prepare to note the points he makes on your own because i am going to check to see if you understood the points he was making

    if you dont want to then just stop posting i guess





    and yeah i think that we are now largely just serfs - but not really because of reckless tax spending, but mostly because of lack of mobility in society and access to true wealth. mobility and access to true wealth are more important factors towards quality of life in a society than paying vague taxes out to a vague entity OECD <-- (a link)

    so i think that access to jobs is the most important thing and that tax, which can be implemented effectively or non effectively, comes next

    countries like switzlerand and denmark do a good job of that for example
    test
  14. miscreant

    miscreant 1996 was the shit

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    Messages:
    2,856
    haven't watched the vids yet, i will though

    what do you think of a spending tax vs income tax?

    so instead of paying for your right to earn money

    paying tax on purchases instead

    not on essentials (fruit, veg, meat, elec, water, etc) but on luxury purchases

    so say you already own a home and family car and you wanna purchase a harley (luxury) or a yacht (luxury) or a holiday house (luxury), you pay tax on these purchases

    so essentialy, the wealthier class, who have a lot of luxury purchases, would be contributing more revenue to the government

    i'm in a rush so i can't elaborate but you're intelligent enough to get the basic premise
    test
  15. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    the gov needs to constantly have x amount of money to constantly pay for x amount of things

    so with that i dont see the difference between generating x amount of money from a spending tax or x amount of money from an income bracket tax; they both ultimately have to generate x amount of money anyway.

    what should be debated is that x number; is it an efficient number
    test
  16. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    good vids, extremely relevant with everything that is going on with america politically right now

    the republican ideology is pretty much just as they described: i've been following fox news and fox business channel on a somewhat daily basis during the escalating debate prior to the republican primaries and they want 3 core items from whomever they nominate: lower taxes (for the rich), less regulations (for corporations), and dramatically less social spending. pretty much the same thing that republicans always want though now they claim its due to our economy.

    what's really striking is the use of double talk to describe fiscal policy: when they talk about protecting the rich from taxes they can't say that outright, so instead they talk about freeing up money for 'job creators.' this prestigious label of 'job creator' is applied to any and everyone who happens to fall in the top income bracket, whether or not they are starting up any new businesses.

    the fact is that corporations & the super rich are shelving tons of money right now as opposed to putting it back into the economy in the form of either spending or new business ventures, and republicans/fox news & business pundits will tell you it's because they are afraid of what future fiscal policy decisions the obama administration might push through.

    i think a much more feasible answer is that they know that this recession has financially restrained their consumers to the point that here is really just not that much room for growth right now. this seems to support the idea that maybe we're better off putting more money in the hands of the average worker/consumer than the super rich: not only morally/socially but economically as well.

    another even more striking invocation of double speak is when they incessantly use the term 'class warfare' to describe raising taxes on the top income bracket. they conveniently ignore the fact that the wealth gap is increasing not only between the top 1% and the bottom 90%, but between the top .01% and the top 1% as well. basically their label of class warfare is (imo) a projection of exactly what they are trying to pull, and yet that little piece of propaganda seems to be working. i actually encounter people who are nowhere near the top brackets who would never support asking rich people to pay a higher (neither marginal nor effective) percentage than they currently do, because that would be 'unfair.'
    test
  17. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    i don't think a luxury tax alone could be sizable enough to replace the income tax to be honest

    there have been proposals to replace the income tax with an increased overall sales tax but that would actually affect the poor much more than the rich: the poor put out a much larger percentage of their income on daily purchases than the rich do.

    ultimately i don't think there is anything fundamentally unfair about income tax or 'paying to work.' ultimately it is this society and its hierarchical structure which allows individuals to make money and prosper: without the structured economy that an order society provides each man is basically only as rich as what his two hands can provide. the fact is that there is something to the idea that we are all connected in one way or another and there's nothing wrong with a general fund being collected from everyone who benefits from this society/economy to be paid towards projects which can benefit said society as a whole.
    test
  18. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    good post. yeah i really like james crotty ad his take on things like the history of tax in america. my image of american history and the way different groups within the country push and pull against each other was really improved by checking that out. he's just very simple and straight forward

    his point about the gradual up tick of deficits going hand in glove w tax cuts at the top x defense spending was very significant because it links together to create this image that is very very hard to deny

    the image being that of some kind of giant arrow mobilizing itself together on a battle map from different pieces to point directly at different types of social programs as the new necessary target to attack

    i think the biggest thing that seems to enable that conclusion is defense spending. because if we can never cut back on defense spending due to some huge (perceived) need for it, we then absolutely must cut back on every other thing.

    logically it just seems so automatic. so psychologically, the only thing needed from this would be to create a huge perceived need.

    the same is true for the tax cuts at the top. the only thing stopping this would be a creation of a huge perceived need. let's say a recession - and let's add to that, the necessity of freeing up job creators.

    its totally automatic logically.

    its honestly ingenious.

    re: growth

    yeah growth us whats really interesting to me right now. i think another way to describe a lack of growth would be a lack of diversity economically. that is, more and more purchasing power decreases for the average person and more and more money gets routed to an increasingly smaller group of items in an economy

    to think of that try to image large rays of light glimmering out to spread over a whole room and then being turned into a very fine laser beam targeting only a single thing in that room.

    its a move away from generalization towards extreme specialization - and a move towards a necessary domination over a whole economy by that small group, as more and more people start to buy only the products made available by that group.

    if this is true then to me it would seem to be gearing up right on time as we now start to move out more and more towards a technology society. increasingly we are going to start buying and owning the same things. the same phones, the same lap tops, the same tablets etc

    the money in society turning into a laser beam towards these types of items
    test
  19. Alias3000

    Alias3000 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,181
    "Just working with the scraps she was given, and mama made miracles every Thanskgiving." - Tupac
    test
  20. breathlesss

    breathlesss Registered Sex Offender

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    as for american poverty

    i've been working 40 hour weeks for a year and a half a place that started minimum wage, 7.40 here, am now at 8.25, and i'm still just shy of the poverty line of 12,000 whatever a year...
    aside from not having enough jobs to go around due to the population growth not egual to our infrastructural growth, poverty is caused by a misalignment of price inflation and minimum wage...our parents could go get a 40 hour minimum wage job and survive somewhat comfortably, this is no longer an option
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)