You have to be rich to be poor.

[Archbob]

If your in the bottom 1/5, your going to be pretty close if not below the poverty line. I'd hardly call it exploitation. US companies there don't pay workers as much as they would in the US, but still pay more than other jobs in said country. They'd be worse off without us there. The article is about the US anyways, not other countries. His supermarkets/groceries argument is way off the mark.

And its true that the main reason for increased prices in the inner cities is because of theft. Poor people steal things for stores more often than rich people, you'd be idiotic to debate that.

 

[aelf]

If your in the bottom 1/5, your going to be pretty close if not below the poverty line.

In other words you're only guessing?

 

[Archbob]

In other words you're only guessing?

Statistically speaking, the bottom 1/5 is very close to poverty. In fact the bottom 1/5 is around the 125-130% poverty level at the very top. I think the number impoverished at the moment was around 15-16% or higher due to the recession, but most of those recession-hit families do own cars so the percentage of 'impoverished' people who own cars should actually be higher now.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

Its always been somewhere between 12 and 17% that are in poverty. My guess that its slightly higher right now due to this recession being the worst since the war.

 

[aelf]

Like I said, if that is true, it just goes to show how skewed economic life is in the USA. Something to do with supply and demand being in great excess of necessity.

But that statement would still only apply in quite a specific context, despite its general appearance.

US companies there don't pay workers as much as they would in the US, but still pay more than other jobs in said country. They'd be worse off without us there. The article is about the US anyways, not other countries. His supermarkets/groceries argument is way off the mark.

That doesn't mean it's not exploitation.

 

[Archbob]

Like I said, if that is true, it just goes to show how skewed economic life is in the USA. Something to do with supply and demand being in great excess of necessity.

But that statement would still only apply in quite a specific context, despite its general appearance.



That doesn't mean it's not exploitation.

Basic needs to survive are also less expensive there. For instance food and clothes in China only costs a fraction of what it costs here so salaries should reflect that different. Obviously its more tilted than the costs right now, but suggesting that things should be the same everywhere is unrealistic.

 

[aelf]

Basic needs to survive are also less expensive there. For instance food and clothes in China only costs a fraction of what it costs here so salaries should reflect that different. Obviously its more tilted than the costs right now, but suggesting that things should be the same everywhere is unrealistic.

Nope, that's not the issue. Fewer poor people in China have cars because production there is not yet in such excess of necessity. You might think that poor people having cars is a good thing, but the important thing is getting them out of poverty, not giving them cars because you have more than enough to spare. Something wrong with the focus there.

The fact that you're able to produce and consume much more than necessity dictates also implies that you're riding off the backs of other people elsewhere.

 

[Archbob]

Nope, that's not the issue. Fewer poor people in China have cars because production there is not yet in such excess of necessity. You might think that poor people having cars is a good thing, but the important thing is getting them out of poverty, not giving them cars because you have more than enough to spare. Something wrong with the focus there.

The fact that you're able to produce and consume much more than necessity dictates also implies that you're riding off the backs of other people elsewhere.

Necessity for cars is also far lower in China. Anyone who has been there knows. In most instances, you can get somewhere by walking faster in the city. Also, public transportation is much more available there. A car there is more a status symbol there than anything else.

Your last statement is ridculous. The reason why we're able to produce more per person is in large part because of our superior technology. Also, if you hire a personal in China, there's nothing wrong with paying them chinese wages.

 

[aelf]

Necessity for cars is also far lower in China. Anyone who has been there knows. In most instances, you can get somewhere by walking faster in the city. Also, public transportation is much more available there. A car there is more a status symbol there than anything else.

Oh, noes! America is bested by China!

Your last statement is ridculous. The reason why we're able to produce more per person is in large part because of our superior technology. Also, if you hire a personal in China, there's nothing wrong with paying them chinese wages.

Technology and cheap input.

Also, there's no such thing as "Chinese wages".

 

[JollyRoger]

And its true that the main reason for increased prices in the inner cities is because of theft. Poor people steal things for stores more often than rich people, you'd be idiotic to debate that.

Not to make anyone look idiotic for trying to cut off debate . . .

 

[Archbob]

Oh, noes! America is bested by China!

Where the hell is that from? I'm just stating the obvious.

Technology and cheap input.

Also, there's no such thing as "Chinese wages".

Yeah, there is. Every country has its own standard living wage. The average wage in China happens to be about 4000 Yuan per month(roughly $650-$700 USD) per month. As long as you paying about that or slightly more, its fair play. That kind of wage will get you a middle-class life over there whereas it would take 5-6 times as much for such a middle-class life in the states.

 

[aelf]

Where the hell is that from? I'm just stating the obvious.

The obvious thing is that there are a number of reasons why it's wrong and stupid that there are so many cars in the USA and why poor people have to have cars to get anywhere in reasonable time.

Yeah, there is. Every country has its own standard living wage. The average wage in China happens to be about 4000 Yuan per month(roughly $650-$700 USD) per month. As long as you paying about that or slightly more, its fair play. That kind of wage will get you a middle-class life over there whereas it would take 5-6 times as much for such a middle-class life in the states.

That is highly misleading because there are huge variations from that standard. Anybody knows this. Talking in real life terms about being paid the standard wage is delusional.

 

[Archbob]

The obvious thing is that there are a number of reasons why it's wrong and stupid that there are so many cars in the USA and why poor people have to have cars to get anywhere in reasonable time.

No, it isn't. You need to study the layout of American cities and cities in China. If your asking why our cities our designed this way, you need to study population density.

That is highly misleading because there are huge variations from that standard. Anybody knows this. Talking in real life terms about being paid the standard wage is delusional.

Obviously, that's why we have rich and poor in each country, but the average wage generally translates to a middle-class type of life(at least in China). Talking in real life terms about getting an average wage is very much realistic. Talking in real life terms why workers in every country should be paid the same is delusional.

The whole view of a socialistic world where people are all equal is delusional and its really not something to strive for because most people don't even want it.

 

[aelf]

No, it isn't. You need to study the layout of American cities and cities in China. If your asking why our cities our designed this way, you need to study population density.

The reason there is a lack of infrastructure in the USA also has to do with resistance to the idea of public transportation.

Obviously, that's why we have rich and poor in each country, but the average wage generally translates to a middle-class type of life(at least in China). Talking in real life terms about getting an average wage is very much realistic.

How is that realistic when it's an average? Different workers get paid differently. Some get paid way below what is due to them for their labour.

Talking in real life terms why workers in every country should be paid the same is delusional.

Fortunately, nobody is saying that.

The whole view of a socialistic world where people are all equal is delusional and its really not something to strive for because most people don't even want it.

No socialist thinks that people are all equal. Sadly, you're terribly ignorant of other views.

 

[a_propagandist]

by 10% you mean 95%

Yeah, I'm training my stomach to take it.

 

[Phlegmak]

I'm not arguing anything. You are. The whole "poor people must deal with life's difficulties" tripe is a typically conservative argument in opposing wealth redistribution.

"Wealth redistribution" is way too ambiguous for me to comment on it. I'm not against taxes or public projects. And the poor must indeed deal with life's difficulties the best they can. It's simply a part of being alive. Honestly, I don't understand what's difficult to understand about all of this.

 

[mrt144]

The reason there is a lack of infrastructure in the USA also has to do with resistance to the idea of public transportation.

The resistance was built up over time as a result of public transportation not being necessary for much of our cities' (West of the Mississippi especially) early growth and expansion.

 

[mrt144]

"Wealth redistribution" is way too ambiguous for me to comment on it. I'm not against taxes or public projects. And the poor must indeed deal with life's difficulties the best they can. It's simply a part of being alive. Honestly, I don't understand what's difficult to understand about all of this.

I am also confused as to how saying "Poor people pay premium for convenience and that's too bad" is necessarily a conservative observation.

 

[aelf]

"Wealth redistribution" is way too ambiguous for me to comment on it. I'm not against taxes or public projects. And the poor must indeed deal with life's difficulties the best they can. It's simply a part of being alive. Honestly, I don't understand what's difficult to understand about all of this.

I didn't say I didn't understand. But since it seems really difficult for you to understand what I'm asking about, forget it.

The resistance was built up over time as a result of public transportation not being necessary for much of our cities' (West of the Mississippi especially) early growth and expansion.

I take it you don't deny that part of it is quite irrational.

 

[mrt144]

I take it you don't deny that part of it is quite irrational.

It's irrational given the present day we live in but at the time, but without consideration to the future (40+ years), it seemed entirely rational and even totally desirable. Land was cheap, vast and so was the fuel (oil, wood, steel, etc) to drive the expansion.

Looking at it now, we are totally reaping what we sow in regards to lack of density. Some people love their suburban lives, some think that living in the city is all about dodging homeless bum urine streams, some are just country boys. I think dense cities are the greatest thing ever and work well when there is investment in the urban infrastructure by everyone regardless of class. When the poor are the only ones living in the dense areas things are going to be bad (and this is a backdoor support of gentrification.)

 

[Archbob]

There's isn't a lack of infrastructure in the States. The infrastructure here is a hell lot better here than it is in China. The reason for the spread-out cities is because our population density is alot lower and we just have a lot of land.

The USA and China are roughly the same size. Most of China is actually mountains or desert and so not really habitable for a large population. China also has like 4 times the people as the US. It makes logical sense that the cities there are more dense.

Wages have always been determined by need of skill and scarcity of skills. People doing manual labor just aren't worth that much.

The median income for an average household is surprising good for what a middle-class lifestyle is in a certain country. Of course, people get paid differently, but there are alot more people clustered around the median than around the two extremes. If your getting paid around the median, then your living a decent lifestyle. Outsourcing is great for countries in development. Unlike popular belief, it usually raises the standard of living and the median wage in a undeveloped country. Society will never be truly able to get away from social stratification. Live with it.