The new version of poverty

#26
#26
Simple fact, this is politics at its best. Since Obama said it, to most of you it has to be bad. It's just a simple definition. I'm not sure how that changes anything.
 
#27
#27
thekicker33 said:
This is just awesome Bam............... There has always been and always will be a lower class, who don't have the same amount of purchasing powering. Maybe you can explain it better than me, lol
Click to expand...

Purchasing power changes over time. However, you're correct with the lower class assumption. We've seen a resurgent gilded age since the application of Reaganomics and W's massive tax cuts, with a brief pause in the 90's.

Tax cuts can be applied, but they don't have to be concentrated on the wealthiest percentile of Americans, unless of course a Recession is occurring, when across the board cuts are needed.

Bush's tax cuts in 2000/2001 for the mini recession was understandable, but those tax cuts extended, and were highly concentrated on the wealthiest percentile, thus a larger divide.
 
#29
#29
thekicker33 said:
You're right the poor can purchase more today... But when comparing the purchaing power of the poor today and the rich today compared to the same groups of yesteryear, the purchasing power is probably the same.
Click to expand...

Probably? I thought your graph proved it never changes.

More importantly, the relative difference in purchasing power is only part of the story. Take a country like Norway where almost all do relatively well. Still there is substantial purchasing power difference among the populace. To claim the lowest of those doing well are poor or in poverty since they have relatively less purchasing power than others is wrong.

The OP is showing how changing the definition guarantees you always have a group of poor regardless of their ability to buy essentials. The existing measure looks at ability to purchase a baseline of essentials.
 
#30
#30
thekicker33 said:
Can't believe I'm having this discussion. The OP's post was about the poor always being with us. That will NEVER change. It's just relative to the times that you live.
Click to expand...

My post was merely a cut and paste with very litttle
commentary. I find it interesting his desire to redefine
poverty. What is the point? From his view poverty will
never improve in the US unless the purchasing power
of the poor increases at a faster rate than that of the
other classes.
 
#31
#31
thekicker33 said:
Simple fact, this is politics at its best. Since Obama said it, to most of you it has to be bad. It's just a simple definition. I'm not sure how that changes anything.
Click to expand...

Your simple facts continue to be neither.

I oppose it since it encourages wealth redistribution. As a relative measure it leaves us with a situation where we try to equalize purchasing power regardless of whether or not the low end can buy essentials.

I would oppose this no matter who proposed.
 
#32
#32
thekicker33 said:
This is just awesome Bam............... There has always been and always will be a lower class, who don't have the same amount of purchasing powering. Maybe you can explain it better than me, lol
Click to expand...

What you appear to be saying is that standard of living can never get better because any increase in wealth is merely offset by inflation. I haven't read everything in this thread yet. So, excuse me if I have misrepresented what you are asserting. If this is your premise, you are missing the fact that productivity has increased the size of the pie. While we still have a lower class and an upper class, the lower class of today are much better off than they were 100 years ago. Any economist will tell you this. Granted, the gap between the wealthy and the poor is higher than it was at that time, everyone has moved in a positive direction.
 
#33
#33
allvol123 said:
My post was merely a cut and paste with very litttle
commentary. I find it interesting his desire to redefine
poverty. What is the point? From his view poverty will
never improve in the US unless the purchasing power
of the poor increases at a faster rate than that of the
other classes.
Click to expand...

He claims that the supply/demand graph proves this CANNOT happen.
 
#34
#34
volinbham said:
Your simple facts continue to be neither.

I oppose it since it encourages wealth redistribution. As a relative measure it leaves us with a situation where we try to equalize purchasing power regardless of whether or not the low end can buy essentials.

I would oppose this no matter who proposed.
Click to expand...

Yes
 
#35
#35
volinbham said:
He claims that the supply/demand graph proves this CANNOT happen.
Click to expand...

Oh well might as well not even keep this poverty stat
thing. We should just acknowledge there will always be
a ton of impoverished that requires money to be
redirected their way. No hope for them.
 
#36
#36
volinbham said:
Probably? I thought your graph proved it never changes.

More importantly, the relative difference in purchasing power is only part of the story. Take a country like Norway where almost all do relatively well. Still there is substantial purchasing power difference among the populace. To claim the lowest of those doing well are poor or in poverty since they have relatively less purchasing power than others is wrong.

The OP is showing how changing the definition guarantees you always have a group of poor regardless of their ability to buy essentials. The existing measure looks at ability to purchase a baseline of essentials.
Click to expand...
I say probably because I don't have numbers sitting right in front of me.

And as far as Norway, I don't know enough about how they're set up. If they use capitalism, then you got a point.
 
#37
#37
thekicker33 said:
So you mean to tell me the poor nowadays compared to the poor 50 years ago have more purchasing power. Dude, you're wrong. More demand=higher prices unless supply picks up. that's just basic economics
Click to expand...

So are you also saying that the poor during the great depression had the same purchasing power as the poor today? Or perhaps more dramatic, would you say the middle class during the great depression had the same purchasing power as the middle class today?


volinbham said:
You're right. Your supply demand curve shows that standards of living never increase. Wow. Economics is so simple.
Click to expand...

At least he referrred to you as DUDE!!! "Nobody calls me Lebowski. You got the wrong guy. I'm the Dude, man."
 
#38
#38
paul1454 said:
What you appear to be saying is that standard of living can never get better because any increase in wealth is merely offset by inflation. I haven't read everything in this thread yet. So, excuse me if I have misrepresented what you are asserting. If this is your premise, you are missing the fact that productivity has increased the size of the pie. While we still have a lower class and an upper class, the lower class of today are much better off than they were 100 years ago. Any economist will tell you this. Granted, the gap between the wealthy and the poor is higher than it was at that time, everyone has moved in a positive direction.
Click to expand...
I have a hard time describing things. Lets see, yes the poor are better off today than they were 100 years ago. But so are the rich. To me, that means, the poor will always exist because the gap between poor and rich isn't closing anytime soon and thus purchasing power in terms of the time is the same.

At the same time, poor nowadays have more ability to get the essentials in life.

I'm thinking we took the OP's initial statement and went in two different directions.

Not surprising in a political forum.
 
#39
#39
IBlvNTmWrk said:
So are you also saying that the poor during the great depression had the same purchasing power as the poor today? Or perhaps more dramatic, would you say the middle class during the great depression had the same purchasing power as the middle class today?




At least he referrred to you as DUDE!!! "Nobody calls me Lebowski. You got the wrong guy. I'm the Dude, man."
Click to expand...
There are always extremes... In normal times, my statement, I believe to be true.
 
#42
#42
In this forum, there isn't really a solution needed. It's just a definition that was being talked about and not anything about redistribution of wealth
 
#44
#44
thekicker33 said:
There are always extremes... In normal times, my statement, I believe to be true.
Click to expand...

Normal times? The historic trend in this country is growth in real incomes (basically purchasing power).

There is always a gap between rich and poor. That is a distinct issue from:

1. has the standard of living changed for the poor? Yes it has

2. does the definition of poverty focus on ability to purchase essentials or how much less purchasing power you have than others. It was the former, it is being changed (or proposed) to the latter. The difference is very important.

Past poverty = can't afford food; future poverty = can't buy a second car and second TV.
 
#46
#46
thekicker33 said:
I have a hard time describing things. Lets see, yes the poor are better off today than they were 100 years ago. But so are the rich. To me, that means, the poor will always exist because the gap between poor and rich isn't closing anytime soon and thus purchasing power in terms of the time is the same.

At the same time, poor nowadays have more ability to get the essentials in life.

I'm thinking we took the OP's initial statement and went in two different directions.

Not surprising in a political forum.
Click to expand...

But if purchasing power remains the same over time, it would be impossible for the poor to "have more ability to get the essentials in life." It is the productivity that is the driver of standard of living. Poverty is a number that is based on the income needed to purchase those essentials. It it not dependent on one's income relative to others. That is why changing the definition makes little sense. Unless I am missing something in the new definition, it will not take into account true purchasing power - only relative income. That is a far stretch from the true meaning of poverty.
 
#47
#47
paul1454 said:
But if purchasing power remains the same over time, it would be impossible for the poor to "have more ability to get the essentials in life." It is the productivity that is the driver of standard of living. Poverty is a number that is based on the income needed to purchase those essentials. It it not dependent on one's income relative to others. That is why changing the definition makes little sense. Unless I am missing something in the new definition, it will not take into account true purchasing power - only relative income. That is a far stretch from the true meaning of poverty.
Click to expand...

Been trying to make this point since page 1. The definitions are materially different.

Which begs the question: why change it?
 
#48
#48
Purchasing power comparisons aside, I see Republicans as guilty as wealth redistribution as the Democrats they accuse. Republicans just happen to redirect wealth to the top instead of the middle.

The poor today have more purchasing power, but considering wealth, the divide between the poor and the wealthiest percent has if anything enlarged.

I will say this again, Tax cuts are essential, especially during a recession. Across the board tax cuts are fine with me during recessions. However, concentrating tax relief at the top percentile during placid times is unnecessary and does nothing but spiral the economy into another gilded age, let alone enlarged deficits.

saez07.png
 
#49
#49
How are tax cuts wealth redistribution? The government did not take MORE from the low end to give to the high end. Taxes were cut across the board so whose wealth was redistributed? Allowing someone to keep more of their wealth is not redistribution.
 
#50
#50
bam15 said:
Purchasing power comparisons aside, I see Republicans as guilty as wealth redistribution as the Democrats they accuse. Republicans just happen to redirect wealth to the top instead of the middle.

The poor today have more purchasing power, but considering wealth, the divide between the poor and the wealthiest percent has if anything enlarged.

I will say this again, Tax cuts are essential, especially during a recession. Across the board tax cuts are fine with me during recessions. However, concentrating tax relief at the top percentile during placid times is unnecessary and does nothing but spiral the economy into another gilded age, let alone enlarged deficits.

saez07.png
Click to expand...

I agree with the bolded, but the disparity between rich and poor has nothing to do with poverty. As to the share of taxes, saying that tax relief is concentrated within the top earners is off the mark, but that is a different issue that I don't have time to get into at the moment.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top