Most Of America's Poor Have Jobs.

[WhipperSnapper]

If one job aint enough, get two.

You can only work so many physical labor intensive blue collar jobs until you collapse from fatigue. It's one of those smug comments that sounds good on paper but doesn't work really well in practice. (I suspect that your comment was intended to be tongue-in-cheek.)

 

[sm625]

Do I have an answer? No - because in don't know what the problem is.

Because for a very long time, the problem was; you can't help out the poor, because they refuse to help themselves, as a result of their awful life styles - drugs, laziness and not paying their taxes.

And, getting a job does not automatically make you rich or on the way to being rich. In fact, it doesn't even make you middle class.

Yes, yes, there always has been and always will be poor people. The problem is that today you dont just have rich people and poor people, you have rich people in total control of the government, who have circumvented every democratic mechanism, who captured the banking system and used it to blow serial bubbles which destroy the wealth of the entire country, and then print money for themselves to make their trades whole while everyone else gets stiffed. They write trade deals that benefit themselves while destroying millions of jobs. As the years of racketeering tick by, the richest 1% now own many times their historical share of the nation's wealth. This wealth has been gained at the expense of the poor.

 

[Exterous]

But, stop pulling random fantasy based false images of the poor, from your ass. You have every right to protest doing anything for someone else, but base your reasoning on facts, not alarmist defective thinking.

To be fair there are plenty of ways they aren't exactly helping themselves. They spend a higher percentage of their income on tobacco, alcohol and eating out than the middle class does. Those 3 things on average come pretty close to 10% of the second lowest 20%'s income

http://www.bls.gov/cex/csxann13.pdf

 

[soundforbjt]

To be fair there are plenty of ways they aren't exactly helping themselves. They spend a higher percentage of their income on tobacco, alcohol and eating out than the middle class does. Those 3 things on average come pretty close to 10% of the second lowest 20%'s income

http://www.bls.gov/cex/csxann13.pdf

And I'm guessing a lot of that is because of the environment they live in, especially the alcohol part and the fact there's fewer grocery stores and a there's a liquor store on nearly every corner.

 

[Jhhnn]

To be fair there are plenty of ways they aren't exactly helping themselves. They spend a higher percentage of their income on tobacco, alcohol and eating out than the middle class does. Those 3 things on average come pretty close to 10% of the second lowest 20%'s income

http://www.bls.gov/cex/csxann13.pdf

Pretty meaningless, considering that a cheap pack of smokes, a 40 oz beer or taking the kids to MickyD's are pretty much the same price for everybody.

Of course it's higher on a % basis. So's rent, I suspect.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Obama's economy is a failure.

 

[smackababy]

Pretty meaningless, considering that a cheap pack of smokes, a 40 oz beer or taking the kids to MickyD's are pretty much the same price for everybody.

Of course it's higher on a % basis. So's rent, I suspect.

The point is, these are all avoidable expenses but people prefer to have them. Same with having a smart phone, cable TV, high speed internet, and an Xbox with the latest games.

If you are living below middle class, smoking is a foolish endeavor. You are wasting money for no reason and you can't afford it.

 

[HeXen]

The point is, these are all avoidable expenses but people prefer to have them. Same with having a smart phone, cable TV, high speed internet, and an Xbox with the latest games.

If you are living below middle class, smoking is a foolish endeavor. You are wasting money for no reason and you can't afford it.

One could say it's a foolish endeavor for anyone of any class. But they have to enjoy something in life don't they? What are you to enjoy being poor without wasting money? Wasting money for no reason could be said for most anything such as buying video games, going out to dinner, renting a movie...it's enjoyable things, like smoking so really it's never a waste.

 

[Jhhnn]

Obama's economy is a failure.

That's inane. Offshored & automated trickle down Reaganomics are the engine of failure for working people.

 

[Exterous]

Pretty meaningless, considering that a cheap pack of smokes, a 40 oz beer or taking the kids to MickyD's are pretty much the same price for everybody.

Of course it's higher on a % basis. So's rent, I suspect.

When I was living below the poverty line where I chose to spend 10% of my income was pretty damn important and I certainly didn't waste it on smokes, alcohol and eating out

 

[alcoholbob]

Of course government-backed loans and government-owned educational institutions are not part of a free market. what I was referring to when I said, "will make the free market morons' heads explode" was the notion that someone could be an ambitious hard worker and still suffer economically. The notion that meritocracy does not always prevail and that sometimes unjust economic outcomes occur or at least that sometimes hardworking ambitious (even smart) people suffer financially contradicts the free market morons' religious dogma that people get what they deserve.

The free market is about the efficient allocation of resources through voluntary trade. It's a pure meritocracy but to succeed in a pure meritocracy you need not just an individual trait like willingness to work hard or intelligence but also the ambition to take risks. Putting your head down and grinding to get a license--which is essentially what college is--doesn't merit you anything but the diploma you earned.

 

[drebo]

Exhibit A of someone who has been fed bullshit and now regurgitates it. It's also an example of someone who doesn't understand what's being discussed

Huh?

We're talking about common sense. If you don't make enough to support yourself, you shouldn't have kids. At that point, a person who makes $30k is well above the poverty line, rather than below it by having 3 dependents.

What part of that do you not comprehend?

 

[ivwshane]

Huh?

We're talking about common sense. If you don't make enough to support yourself, you shouldn't have kids. At that point, a person who makes $30k is well above the poverty line, rather than below it by having 3 dependents.

What part of that do you not comprehend?

No that's not what was being discussed, it's what you wanted to discuss. Do you understand where or why the numbers $30k and three dependsnts were used? I suspect not because you were arguing against a point no one was making

 

[shira]

If you actually read the page that you linked you would realize how dumb this study is. They define poverty based on an arbitrary income cutoff then tell us that most of the people below that income cutoff have jobs. Of course they have jobs, if they didn't they'd have zero income!

Specifically, they defined poor as 125% of the Federal Poverty Level. The FPL can be found here. https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/federal-poverty-level-FPL/

For example, for a family of 4 the FPL is $24k, so "poor" would be any family less than 30k. This study tells us that more than half of families that make less than $30k have a head of household that works. Is that in anyway surprising?

Your bolded statement makes absolutely no sense. Zero-income people are counted as "poor", as is everyone else below the poverty line. Those below the poverty line who have jobs are counted. Divide the latter by the former and you have the percentage of poor people who have jobs. Why is that "dumb?"

 

[JEDIYoda]

obama's economy is a failure.

you are clueless!!

 

[ivwshane]

Your bolded statement makes absolutely no sense. Zero-income people are counted as "poor", as is everyone else below the poverty line. Those below the poverty line who have jobs are counted. Divide the latter by the former and you have the percentage of poor people who have jobs. Why is that "dumb?"

I think he's trying to make the argument that poor people don't have jobs or that to be poor you have to have zero income. Either that or he is trolling.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

The free market is about the efficient allocation of resources through voluntary trade. It's a pure meritocracy but to succeed in a pure meritocracy you need not just an individual trait like willingness to work hard or intelligence but also the ambition to take risks. Putting your head down and grinding to get a license--which is essentially what college is--doesn't merit you anything but the diploma you earned.

Oh, I understand that completely. However, the free market advocates often seem to fail to understand that. One of the common arguments they will make is that the poor failed to work hard enough or failed to obtain an education or failed to invest themselves in obtaining marketable skills. Of course, in reality, there are only so many decent middle class jobs to go around in an economy where the free market has resulted in massive amounts of wealth going to a tiny percentage of the populace (who, according to the dogma, worked very very hard for every penny of it). Everyone could obtain "marketable skills" in a seemingly useful field, but if you produce four times as many STEM graduates as their are jobs for STEM graduates, then 75% of them will end up unemployed or underemployed-out-of-field.

What the Free Market Dogmatists might fail to realize is that the evil socialists also believe that people should be rewarded for their work; capitalists don't have a monopoly on the concept of a work ethic. The notion that many of the super wealthy people have not actually worked for and earned the wealth they are obtaining but might rather be expropriating it from the actual workers never occurs to them (because their minds are too small). It's not all about getting a magical Obama Phone.

 

[halik]

I also look at a very narrow subset of effective tax rate to make dogmatic points about tax policy. As a boat owner, I was taxed at far higher effective use tax rate than the average household; do I have a claim for tax fairness?


How about we focus on the total effective tax rate, state & local and include transfers? After all, we're trying to argue about net tax credit/debit by income stratum. But I suspect doing that won't make a strong argument for your dogmatic points.

ref: pg 12
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/f...22-Supplemental_Material-MarginalTaxRates.pdf

 

[Mai72]

Working hard and being a good guy doesn't guarantee that you'll have an amazing income.

As Jim Rohn once said "You don't get paid for the hour. You get paid for bringing value to the marketplace." This is why people are paid accordingly.

It's great that people work 2-3 jobs, but it's not going to amount to a hill of beans unless they get the skills necessary to increase their pay.

Finally, the middle class and upper middle class pay the bulk of taxes. The poor don't make enough, and the rich are too smart.

 

[Mai72]

Exhibit A of someone who has been fed bullshit and now regurgitates it. It's also an example of someone who doesn't understand what's being discussed

So you're saying that people shouldn't be responsible? That responsibility should be the government's job?

Wrong. If you want to survive in today's world you need to change your mindset. Having more children than you can afford is going to handicap you. That's the reality today.

The world is much different than it was 20 years ago. You either adapt or you'll have a very difficult time. You'll go thru life blaming the rich for your issues. That's not a good way to live.

 

[TheSlamma]

That's inane. Offshored & automated trickle down Reaganomics are the engine of failure for working people.

We need a bill that deals with offshoring to countries that allow sweat shop labor.

 

[ivwshane]

It's crazy, you quoted me and replied as if the voices in your head were mine. They are not

So you're saying that people shouldn't be responsible? That responsibility should be the government's job?

Wrong. If you want to survive in today's world you need to change your mindset. Having more children than you can afford is going to handicap you. That's the reality today.

The world is much different than it was 20 years ago. You either adapt or you'll have a very difficult time. You'll go thru life blaming the rich for your issues. That's not a good way to live.

 

[drebo]

No that's not what was being discussed, it's what you wanted to discuss. Do you understand where or why the numbers $30k and three dependsnts were used? I suspect not because you were arguing against a point no one was making

The context of the discussion is that the majority of people who are at or near the poverty line are still poor even though they have jobs.

The context of those peoples' lives is absolutely relevant to that discussion, as that is what determines "poverty".

A single-income home that makes $30k (roughly the poverty threshold for a 4-person house) that has one person in it versus four people in it is a vastly different quality of life.

That same person isn't going to suddenly make $12k just because he doesn't have 3 dependents, so his $30k income actually becomes sufficient.

Being poor while employed is a choice. That's what you don't seem to be able to understand. Of course, I don't typically expect bleeding hearts to understand that kind of thing, so whatever.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

It's great that people work 2-3 jobs, but it's not going to amount to a hill of beans unless they get the skills necessary to increase their pay.

It's not that simple. There are not necessarily enough jobs to go around for the people who have the skills to work those jobs. There is such a thing as having an oversupply of skilled people in certain fields. We probably have oversupplies of people in all fields except physician, and that's only because the supply of physicians is kept in check by a shortage of residency spots and limits on the number of alleopathic medical school seats.

 

[ivwshane]

The context of the discussion is that the majority of people who are at or near the poverty line are still poor even though they have jobs.

The context of those peoples' lives is absolutely relevant to that discussion, as that is what determines "poverty".

A single-income home that makes $30k (roughly the poverty threshold for a 4-person house) that has one person in it versus four people in it is a vastly different quality of life.

That same person isn't going to suddenly make $12k just because he doesn't have 3 dependents, so his $30k income actually becomes sufficient.

Being poor while employed is a choice. That's what you don't seem to be able to understand. Of course, I don't typically expect bleeding hearts to understand that kind of thing, so whatever.

Hey look at that, you do know what the topic is about. Sadly you think you know what being poor is about because you just know.
Like most retarded righties, your bubble extends no farther than your own ears and your fucked brain is incapable of thinking outside that bubble. The only hope for you is that your life gets so fucked up that you become poor due to no fault of your own because then and only then are righties capable of understanding other people's experience.