Showing posts tagged poverty

“Poverty isn’t a money problem for poor people; poverty (in the richest country in the world) is a problem with our distribution of resources. Poverty is the problem of inequality. Poverty is a problem because the rich hoard their resources. Poverty is a problem because corporations hoard cash while Americans remain unemployed. Poverty is a problem because of corporate welfare. Poverty is a problem because of unethical job creators. The problem isn’t because poor people are poor; the problem is because the rich never think they are rich enough.”

Brain teasers for egalitarians/equalists.

bankuei:

stfufauxminists:

alexandraerin:

Say I’m 32 years old and you’re 22 years old.

In how many years will we be the same age?

Silly question, right? If you define aging as a process that stops at death, the only way we’ll ever be the same age is if I die first. If you don’t, then we’ll never be the same age. Every time you age a year, I also age a year. Since our ages increase at the same rate, you will never catch up to my head start. We have achieved a total equality of aging, but that does not change the permanent inequality of our age.

Okay, say I have a million dollars and you’re completely broke. If we both get a dollar a day, how long will it take you to catch up with me?

Now, this one’s even sillier, because if you have no other resources, your dollar a day is going to be eaten up by basic living expenses that it doesn’t quite meet, and I have an excess of money that can be spent on money-making opportunities that pay off far better than an additional $365 a year. I could literally burn the dollar I’m getting as part of our Totally Equal Income and still make more money in a year than you do just by sticking my money in the bank. 

But still: both of us getting a dollar a day is totally equal, right? It means we’re being treated exactly the same.

And now, final problem:

If we have a world that contains structural inequalities, systemic imbalances, disproportionate danger faced by some, and unequal access to resources and opportunities, is “treating everyone the same” really going to result in equality?

Show your work.

I may have reblogged this already but I don’t care it’s important.

And that’s before we get into the fact that even that example is very neutral - if you’re poor, people will GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to punish you.  If you’re rich, people will even GIVE YOU free shit.  It’s not just having a larger capital reserve to draw upon, there’s literal social benefit/punishment on top of that.

I remember a privileged guy I knew, having to go into the municipal water dept. to pay a bill, in person, for the first time and being amazed at how shitty everyone was being treated.  

karalianne:

Look what happens if you help people instead of insisting that they “help themselves.” They actually manage to help themselves!

bessibels:

neverbat:

mylittledraenei:

blue-author:

addictinginfo:

Minimum wage should be linked to the poverty level. 

This is basic economic fact.
A business that claims it can’t afford to pay a living wage to its workers is admitting that by definition it fails to meet its basic operating expenses. That major multinational corporations can be “successful” while failing to meet a basic operating expense is only possible because We The People pick up their greedy/lazy slack through taxes and charity. 
And yet somehow it’s everybody else who’s a moocher and a looter…
And this corrosive greed is a big part of what’s slowly poisoning the U.S. economy. Money being hoarded at the top and put in “safe” investments and bank accounts is money that does nothing for no one. It’s just an elaborate means of keeping score. Money put into the hands of the workers does what money is meant to do: it circulates. It gets spent. The same dollar will go through dozens of sets of hands, touching dozens of lives, feeding dozens of people and sparking profits for dozens of businesses. The same dollar, in the hands of the rich, will generally do… nothing. It won’t create jobs. It won’t fund innovations. It won’t start businesses.
Less than 1% of corporate revenues become wages for workers. Less than 3% of the wealthy are actually entrepreneurs (people who risk their money on business ventures that create jobs). 
But 100% of the working class spends their money. That money creates jobs. That money fuels innovations. That money becomes profits. That money keeps the economy ticking.
We have been lied to about who are the parasites and who are the drivers of the economy. We have largely accepted a view of money as a means of keeping score and the economy as something that must have winners and losers, rather than money being a proxy for barter and an economy being a way to divide the labor of society and distribute the load of living

#poverty #classism

"A business that claims it can’t afford to pay a living wage to its workers is admitting that by definition it fails to meet its basic operating expenses."

"Less than 1% of corporate revenues become wages for the workers."

bessibels:

neverbat:

mylittledraenei:

blue-author:

addictinginfo:

Minimum wage should be linked to the poverty level. 

This is basic economic fact.

A business that claims it can’t afford to pay a living wage to its workers is admitting that by definition it fails to meet its basic operating expenses. That major multinational corporations can be “successful” while failing to meet a basic operating expense is only possible because We The People pick up their greedy/lazy slack through taxes and charity. 

And yet somehow it’s everybody else who’s a moocher and a looter…

And this corrosive greed is a big part of what’s slowly poisoning the U.S. economy. Money being hoarded at the top and put in “safe” investments and bank accounts is money that does nothing for no one. It’s just an elaborate means of keeping score. Money put into the hands of the workers does what money is meant to do: it circulates. It gets spent. The same dollar will go through dozens of sets of hands, touching dozens of lives, feeding dozens of people and sparking profits for dozens of businesses. The same dollar, in the hands of the rich, will generally do… nothing. It won’t create jobs. It won’t fund innovations. It won’t start businesses.

Less than 1% of corporate revenues become wages for workers. Less than 3% of the wealthy are actually entrepreneurs (people who risk their money on business ventures that create jobs). 

But 100% of the working class spends their money. That money creates jobs. That money fuels innovations. That money becomes profits. That money keeps the economy ticking.

We have been lied to about who are the parasites and who are the drivers of the economy. We have largely accepted a view of money as a means of keeping score and the economy as something that must have winners and losers, rather than money being a proxy for barter and an economy being a way to divide the labor of society and distribute the load of living

#poverty #classism

"A business that claims it can’t afford to pay a living wage to its workers is admitting that by definition it fails to meet its basic operating expenses."

"Less than 1% of corporate revenues become wages for the workers."

nudityandnerdery:

silensy:

2005-2014

Good lord, this is the most stark portrayal I’ve seen of this.

Holy crap, over nine years?

Minimum wage, maximum use

wearmanyhats:

Where did this idea come from— that if you raise the minimum wage, there’ll be an economic disaster? That if you give poor people money they’ll just hoard it, that the money just disappears into a black hole and everybody stops hiring and unemployment soars because it’s too expensive to hire people…?

You know what happens when you give poor people a bigger cash flow?

Suddenly we’re not living paycheck to paycheck. We don’t have to choose between paying the electric bill and the groceries, we can actually cover both. Suddenly we’re not nervously eyeballing the first of the month, because covering rent is no big deal.

We get that funny noise in the car engine fixed even if it’s several hundred dollars, instead of just putting up with the knocking and driving to work with our teeth gritted and fingers crossed every day waiting for the car to just up and die (and then end up spending several thousand on a new used car— being poor can actually be very expensive). We get the house’s leaky windows patched up and hey, the heating bill just went down, look at that. We’re less tempted to rack up debt on credit cards buying— not luxuries, but essential things like food or medicine.

We’ll pay for nannies and babysitters for our kids so we can show up to work that job flipping your burgers. We’ll pay for after-school programs and extracurricular activities so our kids are happy, socialized, and well-rounded.

We’ll funnel that money into more books, movie tickets, weekend getaways, art supplies, a hobby vegetable garden, community involvement, whatever— things that enrich our lives and take away the stress of the working day, because we’re no longer sinking all our time and energy into two or three jobs just to scrape up enough to make the most meager of ends meet. We’ll buy gifts for our loved ones on holidays. We’ll go out to eat more, shop for clothes more— patronizing the businesses that hire minimum wage workers. (How ‘bout that.)

We might put some money in a savings account, yes, but eventually spend it— on major purchases like college or a house, or spend it when retirement rolls around. But by and large all that extra money gets fed right back into the local economy— by workers who are more likely to be happy, less likely to be stressed and exhausted.

I’m not saying having more income will magically fix all problems min-wage workers have. But it will take care of the biggest ones, and enable us to take care of many more.

And you can be damn sure if you give us more income the one thing we won’t be doing with it is hiding it in a mattress and never spending it.

Rich people do that.

darecrow:

cptprocrastination:

doomhamster:

belcanta:

nikkidubs:

attentiondeficitaptitude:

belcanta:

Guaranteed basic income to every citizen, whether or not they are employed to ensure their survival and that they live in a dignified, humane way, preventing poverty, illness, homelessness, reducing crime, encouraging higher education and learning vocations as well as helping society become more prosperous as a whole. 

Wow. Forget raising the minimum wage. This is much much better idea.
The minimum wage could actually drop if we had basic income.
But Americans would never go for it. Miserably slogging through 12 hour days and having businesses open 24/7 is too engrained in our culture.

"BUT WHERE WILL THE GOVERNMENT GET THE MONEY?" screamed Joe Schmoe, slamming a meaty fist onto the table and getting mouth-froth all over the front of his greying tank top. "You libt*rds all think money grows on TREES!! HAHA!""But where will people get the incentive to work?!" Mindy Bindy cried, flapping her hands in front of her face. She’d had a fear of the unemployed lollygagging about ever since she was a child and her mother told her to be afraid of the unemployed lollygagging about. "You think people should get paid for nothing? I work hard for my money!”
"But who will serve me?" grumbled Marty McMoneybags. "Who will make me feel important? Who will do my laundry and cook my food and stand in front of me wearing a plastic smile while I take out all my stress—because I do have a lot of stress, you know, being this rich is stressful—on them?” He paused and straightened out the piles of hundred dollar bills on the desk in front of him, then raised his two watery, outraged eyes up to the Heavens. “Lord, if there are no poor people, how will I know that I’m rich??”

I laughed. This is perfect! Well said!

The thing is, while I’m sure you could scrape up a few people who’d be willing to just float by on a guaranteed minimum income? For most people the choice to work would be a no-brainer. “Hmmm. I can get by on 33k a year, or I can take that part time job and make 48k… enough to move to a better apartment, maybe take the family on vacation. Sold.” Hell, most people would want to work simply because it gives one a sense of dignity and something to do with one’s time. (Speaking as someone who’s been unemployed, on extended sick leave, etc. in her time, the boredom and sense of isolation that comes with not having a job is almost as bad as the humiliation of having to depend on other people for one’s survival.)
And with this system, part-time jobs and “non-skilled” jobs would be much more readily available because nobody would need to work two or three jobs just to stay afloat!
Which would ALSO mean that employers and customers couldn’t shamelessly exploit employees the way they can today, because if losing a job weren’t necessarily a financial disaster, more people would be willing to walk out on jobs where they weren’t being treated with dignity.
And if this also applies to students (and it should) then student loans would become much less of a problem, and fewer people would flunk out of school because of having to juggle studies and work.
Far fewer people would be forced to stay with abusive partners, parents or roommates because they couldn’t afford to move out.
And the thing is, all those people who suddenly had money? They’d be spending it. They’d be getting all the stuff they can’t afford now - new clothes, books, toys, locally-produced food, car repairs - and with each purchase money would flow BACK to the government, because VAT, also income tax.
The unemployed and/or disabled wouldn’t need special support any more - which would also mean the government could fire however many admins who are currently engaged in humiliating - *cough* making sure those people aren’t getting money they don’t deserve. Same for medical benefits and pensions. And I’m no legal scholar, but I somehow imagine less financial desperation would lead to less petty crime, and hence less need for police and security everywhere?
TL;DR Doomie thinks this is a good idea, laughs at those who protest.

reblogging for more top commentary

Guys you’re forgetting about the amount of debt the U.S. is in right now. The government couldn’t afford this if they wanted to. I’m sure its a really great idea I mean I’d love that kind of help but we can’t afford it as a country. Which sucks fat donkey balls if you ask me.

This is my dream, for fucking serious. Universal basic income makes so much sense. And I’m not an economist, but I bet we could make a lot of that money by taxing the rich way more heavily than we do now. You know, like we used to do in the 1950s, that magical dreamland that Republicans seem so eager to go back to.

darecrow:

cptprocrastination:

doomhamster:

belcanta:

nikkidubs:

attentiondeficitaptitude:

belcanta:

Guaranteed basic income to every citizen, whether or not they are employed to ensure their survival and that they live in a dignified, humane way, preventing poverty, illness, homelessness, reducing crime, encouraging higher education and learning vocations as well as helping society become more prosperous as a whole. 

Wow. Forget raising the minimum wage. This is much much better idea.

The minimum wage could actually drop if we had basic income.

But Americans would never go for it. Miserably slogging through 12 hour days and having businesses open 24/7 is too engrained in our culture.

"BUT WHERE WILL THE GOVERNMENT GET THE MONEY?" screamed Joe Schmoe, slamming a meaty fist onto the table and getting mouth-froth all over the front of his greying tank top. "You libt*rds all think money grows on TREES!! HAHA!"

"But where will people get the incentive to work?!" Mindy Bindy cried, flapping her hands in front of her face. She’d had a fear of the unemployed lollygagging about ever since she was a child and her mother told her to be afraid of the unemployed lollygagging about. "You think people should get paid for nothing? I work hard for my money!”

"But who will serve me?" grumbled Marty McMoneybags. "Who will make me feel important? Who will do my laundry and cook my food and stand in front of me wearing a plastic smile while I take out all my stress—because I do have a lot of stress, you know, being this rich is stressful—on them?” He paused and straightened out the piles of hundred dollar bills on the desk in front of him, then raised his two watery, outraged eyes up to the Heavens. “Lord, if there are no poor people, how will I know that I’m rich??”

I laughed. This is perfect! Well said!

The thing is, while I’m sure you could scrape up a few people who’d be willing to just float by on a guaranteed minimum income? For most people the choice to work would be a no-brainer. “Hmmm. I can get by on 33k a year, or I can take that part time job and make 48k… enough to move to a better apartment, maybe take the family on vacation. Sold.” Hell, most people would want to work simply because it gives one a sense of dignity and something to do with one’s time. (Speaking as someone who’s been unemployed, on extended sick leave, etc. in her time, the boredom and sense of isolation that comes with not having a job is almost as bad as the humiliation of having to depend on other people for one’s survival.)

And with this system, part-time jobs and “non-skilled” jobs would be much more readily available because nobody would need to work two or three jobs just to stay afloat!

Which would ALSO mean that employers and customers couldn’t shamelessly exploit employees the way they can today, because if losing a job weren’t necessarily a financial disaster, more people would be willing to walk out on jobs where they weren’t being treated with dignity.

And if this also applies to students (and it should) then student loans would become much less of a problem, and fewer people would flunk out of school because of having to juggle studies and work.

Far fewer people would be forced to stay with abusive partners, parents or roommates because they couldn’t afford to move out.

And the thing is, all those people who suddenly had money? They’d be spending it. They’d be getting all the stuff they can’t afford now - new clothes, books, toys, locally-produced food, car repairs - and with each purchase money would flow BACK to the government, because VAT, also income tax.

The unemployed and/or disabled wouldn’t need special support any more - which would also mean the government could fire however many admins who are currently engaged in humiliating - *cough* making sure those people aren’t getting money they don’t deserve. Same for medical benefits and pensions. And I’m no legal scholar, but I somehow imagine less financial desperation would lead to less petty crime, and hence less need for police and security everywhere?

TL;DR Doomie thinks this is a good idea, laughs at those who protest.

reblogging for more top commentary

Guys you’re forgetting about the amount of debt the U.S. is in right now. The government couldn’t afford this if they wanted to. I’m sure its a really great idea I mean I’d love that kind of help but we can’t afford it as a country. Which sucks fat donkey balls if you ask me.

This is my dream, for fucking serious. Universal basic income makes so much sense. And I’m not an economist, but I bet we could make a lot of that money by taxing the rich way more heavily than we do now. You know, like we used to do in the 1950s, that magical dreamland that Republicans seem so eager to go back to.

hostilehottie:

IF YOU GENUINELY THINK THAT PEOPLE ON PUBLIC ASSISTANCE LIVE IN REALLY NICE APARTMENTS AND CAN AFFORD IPHONES AND NAME BRAND CLOTHES AND DESIGNER SHOES & PURSES AND EAT FULL STEAK DINNERS ROUTINELY AND PAY FOR THAT ALL WITH FOOD STAMPS WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU IN COLLEGE. WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU WORKING. QUIT YOUR JOB AND DROP OUT AND GO LIVE THE LIFE YOU’RE SO JEALOUS OF. WHY WON’T YOU DO THAT? IS IT PERHAPS BECAUSE YOU KNOW AS WELL AS I DO THAT YOU’RE FULL OF SHIT?

“After 40 years of impoverished black men getting prison time for selling weed, white men are planning to get rich doing the same things. So that’s why I think we have to start talking about reparations for the war on drugs. How do we repair the harms caused?”
liberalsarecool:

minnesnowtahey:

Funny how, as soon as Ryan mentions rural poverty, the idea that there are no jobs comes in right away. But when he’s talking about inner city poverty, it’s all about the lack of a culture of work. Even when the man is trying to deny racial overtones, they slip in.
This is the backtracking of a Republican who knows he’s been just a liiiittle more blatant in his racial pandering than he’d intended and is trying to stuff the genie of his real message back into the bottle of right-wing talk radio, out of the notice of the general public. But we know what you said, Paul. And worse, we got your meaning the first time.
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/paul-ryan-absurdly-claims-obvious-racial-language-had-nothing-do-race

Paul Ryan could never make his speeches about big cities in big cities. He has to use his coded, racist dog whistles in areas that approve that type of lazy rhetoric. Come to NYC, Paul. We’ll destroy you.

liberalsarecool:

minnesnowtahey:

Funny how, as soon as Ryan mentions rural poverty, the idea that there are no jobs comes in right away. But when he’s talking about inner city poverty, it’s all about the lack of a culture of work. Even when the man is trying to deny racial overtones, they slip in.

This is the backtracking of a Republican who knows he’s been just a liiiittle more blatant in his racial pandering than he’d intended and is trying to stuff the genie of his real message back into the bottle of right-wing talk radio, out of the notice of the general public. But we know what you said, Paul. And worse, we got your meaning the first time.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/paul-ryan-absurdly-claims-obvious-racial-language-had-nothing-do-race

Paul Ryan could never make his speeches about big cities in big cities. He has to use his coded, racist dog whistles in areas that approve that type of lazy rhetoric. Come to NYC, Paul. We’ll destroy you.

vixyish:

vaspider:

getoutofthewelfaretag:

sardonical1:

Shouldn’t there be some shame involved? Why such a large sign advertising that you can have your meal paid for by your neighbors?

Wait, why should a business be ashamed of accepting money?Also, there are only a limited number of states that allow food stamps to be used in restaurants. AND, in those states, this is limited to eligible homeless, disabled, or elderly food stamp recipients. As in, people who cannot cook for themselves.Also, do you get this pissy over politicians going out to eat? After all, that’s also “paid for by your neighbors”.

Hate to break it to you, but with the number of farm subsidies in the U.S., unless you grow every scrap of food yourself, your food was “paid for by your neighbors.”
I don’t think you’re feeling shame for that. Don’t attempt to shame those who are benefitting from our social safety net: you’re benefitting from it too, you just don’t realize it, which is why you feel safe being so judgmental.
That’s sad! Try instead remembering that you benefit in all ways from our collective society, because you’re not paving every road you drive on, growing every bit of your own food, paying every teacher yourself, or clearing every street of snow.
And remember, too, if you can’t remember that: you’re one car accident, rare disorder or strange clump of disobedient cells away from being so tired you can’t cook for yourself, and giving an EBT card to someone so they can go bring you a hot meal since you can’t drive anymore.
Brought to you by a hard-working middle-class woman in her 30s who is typing this on her phone because her body hurts too much for her to get up today. There But For The Grace, dude.

Somehow I just knew when I saw the photo appear that underneath it was going to be an OP by some class-shaming asshole.

vixyish:

vaspider:

getoutofthewelfaretag:

sardonical1:

Shouldn’t there be some shame involved? Why such a large sign advertising that you can have your meal paid for by your neighbors?

Wait, why should a business be ashamed of accepting money?

Also, there are only a limited number of states that allow food stamps to be used in restaurants. AND, in those states, this is limited to eligible homeless, disabled, or elderly food stamp recipients. As in, people who cannot cook for themselves.

Also, do you get this pissy over politicians going out to eat? After all, that’s also “paid for by your neighbors”.

Hate to break it to you, but with the number of farm subsidies in the U.S., unless you grow every scrap of food yourself, your food was “paid for by your neighbors.”

I don’t think you’re feeling shame for that. Don’t attempt to shame those who are benefitting from our social safety net: you’re benefitting from it too, you just don’t realize it, which is why you feel safe being so judgmental.

That’s sad! Try instead remembering that you benefit in all ways from our collective society, because you’re not paving every road you drive on, growing every bit of your own food, paying every teacher yourself, or clearing every street of snow.

And remember, too, if you can’t remember that: you’re one car accident, rare disorder or strange clump of disobedient cells away from being so tired you can’t cook for yourself, and giving an EBT card to someone so they can go bring you a hot meal since you can’t drive anymore.

Brought to you by a hard-working middle-class woman in her 30s who is typing this on her phone because her body hurts too much for her to get up today. There But For The Grace, dude.

Somehow I just knew when I saw the photo appear that underneath it was going to be an OP by some class-shaming asshole.