I hope someone is listening...

Originally posted by bill718
"A job should lift workers out of poverty, not keep them in it." Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) Vermont.🙂

Poverty is an artificial construct. If you want to lower the poverty rate, the easiest way to do it is to lower the government defined poverty income threshold.

In any case, poverty definitions for some bizarre reason don't factor in government benefits. Because of government programs like Section 8, Medicaid and food stamps, it's probably accurate that nobody really has to live in objective poverty in the US.

It's also ironic that Bernie Sanders would extol the virtues of lifting oneself out of poverty by working when people like Senator Sanders have consistently advocated expansion of government benefits that make working unnecessary.

I actually admire Senator Sanders. I think his heart is in the right place and some of his rhetoric against the predatory practices of large banks have their element of truth. But unfortunately, he's hopelessly naive in some areas.

Originally posted by sh76
Poverty is an artificial construct. If you want to lower the poverty rate, the easiest way to do it is to lower the government defined poverty income threshold.

In any case, poverty definitions for some bizarre reason don't factor in government benefits. Because of government programs like Section 8, Medicaid and food stamps, it's probably accurate that no ...[text shortened]... large banks have their element of truth. But unfortunately, he's hopelessly naive in some areas.

What's "objective poverty"?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
What's "objective poverty"?

I'll go with what is more commonly known as "absolute poverty":

Copenhagen Declaration: Absolute poverty is a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information.

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

Originally posted by sh76
I actually admire Senator Sanders. I think his heart is in the right place...

Agreed. I think he's wrong about a lot, but also forthright and honest, unlike so many others. I like Kucinich too for the same reasons.

Originally posted by sh76
I'll go with what is more commonly known as "absolute poverty":

Copenhagen Declaration: Absolute poverty is a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information.

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

I think you may have meant "abject poverty", not "objective poverty".

Originally posted by darvlay
I think you may have meant "abject poverty", not "objective poverty".

Adjectival poverty?

"Impoverished poverty" ...

Originally posted by sh76
I'll go with what is more commonly known as "absolute poverty":

Copenhagen Declaration: Absolute poverty is a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information.

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

I think most people have access to safe drinking water, sanitation facilities and shelter in the US, but surely you don't want to argue that (nearly) everyone has access to adequate health care and education?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I think most people have access to safe drinking water, sanitation facilities and shelter in the US, but surely you don't want to argue that (nearly) everyone has access to adequate health care and education?

Everyone has access to public schools. Sure, some are horrendous; but that's not really a function of poverty but mismanagement and/or social problems in the area. Every public school probably has adequate funding to provide quality education. Poor people have access to college education as well though federal financial aid. They can't access expensive private schools, but everyone can get a quality education at a community college or state school.

As for healthcare, the poor are eligible for Medicaid, which is certainly adequate. It's the lower middle class who don't qualify for Medicaid who have the problem. They can also get adequate healthcare when necessary, though it may bankrupt them in the process.

In any case, being bankrupt by health problems has nothing to do with poverty. The same can happen to someone making $100k/year if s/he doesn't have health insurance and happens to have heart problems or cancer.

Long story short, I do not think that anyone in the US* is denied healthcare or education solely by virtue of their poverty.



* (by which I mean almost no one, of course, not literally no one)

Originally posted by darvlay
I think you may have meant "abject poverty", not "objective poverty".

No; I specifically wanted to avoid using the word "abject" because that implies really bad poverty. I meant poverty that implies something other than being in the lowest X% of income. I meant poor in the objective sense; i.e., being deprived of basic quality of life. I used "objective" because that's what makes the most sense to me. Others use "absolute" which is fine if you're thinking the definition of absolute that is synonymous with "objective" but not if you're thinking the definition of absolute that is synonymous with "abject."

Originally posted by darvlay

Haven't seen that name in a while

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I think most people have access to safe drinking water, sanitation facilities and shelter in the US, but surely you don't want to argue that (nearly) everyone has access to adequate health care and education?

Access, and taking advantage of it are different things. Even in the worst school districts, some manage to rise above mediocrity.

Health care? Needed work, but not an overhaul.

Originally posted by sh76
No; I specifically wanted to avoid using the word "abject" because that implies really bad poverty. I meant poverty that implies something other than being in the lowest X% of income. I meant poor in the objective sense; i.e., being deprived of basic quality of life. I used "objective" because that's what makes the most sense to me. Others use "absolute" which ...[text shortened]... jective" but not if you're thinking the definition of absolute that is synonymous with "abject."

And again, as you point out, there is hardly anyone in the US that is really poor.

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/the_work_versus_welfare_trade-off_2013_wp.pdf

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
Libs will never learn that raising the price of labor does not raise its value.

Does that include the 7 and 8 figure a year CEO's...or is that something we're not supposed to discuss?? 🙄

Originally posted by sh76
I'll go with what is more commonly known as "absolute poverty":

Copenhagen Declaration: Absolute poverty is a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information.

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

Well Mr. sh76, if you grew up in a different enviornment and had little choice but to work for minimum wage, and try to support yourself or your family with those wages, as millions of people do, I guarentee you'd be singing a very different tune! It's easy to discuss economic theory, but until you walk a mile in someone else's shoes, you don't know what your saying. 😉

Originally posted by bill718
Does that include the 7 and 8 figure a year CEO's...

Yes, of course.

or is that something we're not supposed to discuss?

Knock yourself out. Explain how mandating a certain wage, for a CEO or otherwise, increases the actual value of a person's labor to the employer.