Poverty: Can this spectre be ended by man?

[TomAiello]

I was thinking more along the lines of when people consider themselves to be poor in relation to their neighbours. I would think that is the greater factor when it comes to lack of happiness or social cohesion in western countries, now that most of us are above the breadline, and so potentially a more divisive issue.

I totally agree.

I actually think our political "leaders" behave very irresponsibly, and actively stoke that sort of jealous discontent, in an effort to gain support.

Lifting humanity out of grinding poverty is a long term project, and one that we have been doing very well at. Pointing fingers at inequality within one generation is actually counterproductive to the effort to improve the overall welfare of our entire species.

It depends whether you define poverty in absolute terms of square feet of living space, calories to eat, quantity of clean water to drink and bathe in, etc, but even that would vary across the globe.

The only measure that makes any sense is number of hours of work necessary to sustain life. The only thing we each truly have is our time. The amount of that time spent working to survive is the only truly comprehensive measure of overall human welfare.

If I choose to work less, and therefore choose to live in a smaller home, or eat fewer restaurant meals, or drive an older car (all of which I do), that makes me _better_ off, despite the fact that formal (mostly government) statistics would label me as "underemployed" and decidedly worse off (because my total monetary income is lower than it could be if I chose to give up more of my finite time to purchase more worldly goods and services).

[SpyderEdgeForever]

These are very good points.

Here is another example of "relative poverty", a future version of your "1900s" model:

Would you rather be a billionaire in 2019 or someone living in the year 3400 AD who at the touch of a button and the blink of their eyes, have full access to an entire solar system's worth of quantum robots that can make anything they want, replicate, and instantly heal any disease, and travel faster than light?

[TomAiello]

Assuming that human progress continues the way it has historically, anyone living in 3400 will be better off than a billionaire today.

The equivalent question would be "would you rather be Augustus Caesar or an average person today?"

Augustus Caesar was the wealthiest person in human history by the jealousy standard (where one measures one's own value relative to others). He personally owned a larger percentage of humanity's total wealth (goods and service production) than any other single human in history. Yet he could not buy an iPhone, an airline ticket, an MRI or antibiotics. I'll take my average American existence circa 2019 over his "ruler of the known world" existence circa 1 AD every single time.

We need to stop using a jealousy based standard to measure the value and worth of our lives. A human life has an absolute value which bears no relation whatsoever to it's comparative wealth. An individuals happiness is not somehow dependent on the unhappiness of his neighbors. The idea that you are only well off if you compare favorably in competition with your neighbors, that somehow you cannot simply be well off and happy in isolation, is one of the great lies of modern human society.

The fact that Bill Gates or Warren Buffet is a billionaire most definitely _does not_ somehow magically make my life worse.

[ChrisinHove]

And there is the 21st century’s conundrum. Our economies are predicated on continued growth, creating and meeting the demands of increasing consumption, but we know the harm of it.

[TomAiello]

The problem in the 21st century is that our societies relentlessly push for "growth" in the measurements of total goods and services produced and consumed, rather than for increase in human welfare. They are not the same thing, and confusing them leads to all kinds of problems.

A person who works 80 hours each week to make a wage of $100,000 per year is "valued" by our dominant economic model as "contributing" $100,000 per year to the human race. A person who works 5 hours per week, and lives on $50,000 per year is measured as "contributing" half of that. But which person would you rather be? Which person is actually better off?

Our centrally created statistics to measure "growth" and "employment" and "welfare" and "consumption" are all wrong, and all mislead us into thinking that what's truly valuable about our lives is the stuff we buy. That's a fundamentally flawed model of human well being. The only real measurement that matters is how many hour each day we spend to survive, as opposed to how many hours we spend doing the things we actually want to do. The fact that the Jones family next door has a new SUV parked in their driveway doesn't make me worse off (or better off). It may make them worse off (because it requires a certain number of their personal hours to pay for it), depending on how they value their time relative to their possession of that SUV, but it has absolutely no effect on my well being.

The critical measure of success isn't income--it's freedom. The freedom to do what you want with the finite hours of your life is infinitely more valuable than any quantity of stuff you accumulate.

People who are left free to pursue their own goals are better off than people who aren't--regardless of what our various bureaus of vital statistics may tell us. And in happy coincidence, the pursuit of those goals actually makes us _all_ better off in the long run. Trying to "eradicate poverty" by forcing people to do things they don't want to do is actually counterproductive to the goal of improving the welfare of our species.


Interesting fact: The "War on Poverty" has entrenched poverty in the USA. Poverty was steadily declining right up until Lyndon Johnson declared "war" on it--but has held it's ground ever since. That's _despite_ an ever increasing bureaucracy and every increasing funding allocated to "fight" poverty.

"During the 20 years before the War on Poverty was funded, the portion of the nation living in poverty had dropped to 14.7% from 32.1%. Since 1966, the first year with a significant increase in antipoverty spending, the poverty rate reported by the Census Bureau has been virtually unchanged…Transfers targeted to low-income families increased in real dollars from an average of $3,070 per person in 1965 to $34,093 in 2016…Transfers now constitute 84.2% of the disposable income of the poorest quintile of American households and 57.8% of the disposable income of lower-middle-income households. These payments also make up 27.5% of America’s total disposable income." (source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/government ... 1539211035)

[ChrisinHove]

I agree. Nevertheless, plenty of people *do* apparently achieve fulfilment by their work, where they live, what they drive etc. They’re also probably contributing at least their fair share of tax.

By “transfers” I guess you mean state benefits / welfare?

Persuading people they don’t need “stuff” whilst virtually every visible space in life is used for telling you that you do, is a big ask!

[TomAiello]

I agree. Nevertheless, plenty of people *do* apparently achieve fulfilment by their work, where they live, what they drive etc.

Yes, but it's a mistake to think those people are "better off" than someone who works less and finds fulfillment in other things, because they value their free time above monetary income.


And honestly, most of the high income earners I know are actually less happy because of their high stress and high hours work lives. I think we get suckered into thinking that we "must have" certain things to be happy, so we end up with massive debts (from higher education, home mortgages, and even consumer spending) that we have to work a lot of hours to service. That's a tragedy for someone who would have been much happier overall if they hadn't listened to the institutionalized peddlers of the "American Dream" who told them they needed to borrow $100k for a college education, another $400k for a nice house, and an additional $50k for the SUV to park in the driveway. People are much better off (by which I mean happier) if they are free to choose their own path--even if that means selling all their worldly goods and moving to Costa Rica to kayak fish full time, and even though the economic statistics would tell us all otherwise.

[kodai78]

I’d like to believe it could be ended. I think if more people had access to opportunity and education on a level playing field the percentage of the population in poverty would be reduced to a minimum. Recently some smart people have been trying some new things to reduce poverty. Micro loans, and grants, vocational training and a “free stove” if you keep your kid in school. (Last one reduces smoke in the house, respiratory illness in the family, lowers fuel cost and gives the kid increased opportunity.) Takes a few years but the kid is a whole lot better off in the end. I think it’s hard to configure a solution for every situation but I believe it’s the best thing you can be part of. I spend time, money and sweat providing health care to poor people and it’s the most rewarding thing I’ve ever been part of.

[SpyderEdgeForever]

kodai, if people could produce matter like plants do, with some form of self replicating bio-engineered machines, and these could be properly implemented, would that be able to make material goods in so much abundance that when it comes to material, and energy through solar power, there would be no more poverty in those areas?

In other words, certain things like rare elements and land may have cost but material production would be almost free.

Example: Think of universal or specialized engineered virus sized machines that are harmless to humans and pets but can assemble what you want from basic atoms, using solar and cheap chemical fuel.

In this situation, I could see that anyone could have any material good made from abundant elements (carbon, iron, oxygen, nitrogen, silicon, aluminum, etc) assembled in "mass customization" through these machines. From knives and blankets to brand new suits and shoes, and toiletries and anything else, ultimately including foods. What would then be valuable are information, land resources, and rare elements like gold or platinum which cannot be easilly found in the enviroment. Until cheap nuclear transmutation, that is.

[JD Spydo]

We have some other trends and dynamics working at this time which is slowly escalating the poverty in this country. I personally have been a victim of age discrimination. I have a ton of training and college under my belt but in 2009 I wrote enough resumes to line the south rim of the Grand Canyon and only got 2 interviews in a two year peoiod. And I'm in pretty good overall shape for my age ( 65) and I even got turned down for an overnight stocker job in a local grocery store ( graveyard shift). A good friend of mine informed me that they rarely hire anyone over 40 . I have an excellent work ethic and I've been told by my last 2 employers that I was a good worker and they would give me a top notch recommendation for a new job.

I'm not the only one either>> In the past 2 years I've talked to many of my old high school buddies and many of them have very impressive college degrees and work histories but yet can't even so much as get an interview. Also the decline in high paid manufacturing jobs in this country and jobs in several other sectors going overseas has made the work environment here in the USA a terrible challenge.

Also a lot of new job openings we have here in the Kansas City area have such horribly low starting wages that many people would take a 50% to 60% reduction in pay from their last job. If it was just myself that had fallen victim to this new trend for hiring that many companies are embracing I would just say that is my own tough luck. But I'm hearing it from many old friends and acquaintances that the job markets here in KC are truly discouraging. I have several other testimonies I could give as well>> I even had one friend who worked with a well known, high tech company for 18 years and they tricked him into training his own replacement that they shipped in from India I've almost resigned myself to believe that I'm just going to have to starting some type of business of my own. But how many other Americans can do that ??? Truly we have employment problems in this country. They are eliminating the "middle class" at break-neck speed.

[TomAiello]

We have some other trends and dynamics working at this time which is slowly escalating the poverty in this country.

Do you have numbers on that? What data shows an increase in poverty?

You hear a lot of anecdotes, and a lot of complaints that poverty is increasing, but worldwide it's definitely declining, and has been doing so steadily for a century. In the USA, it declined steadily until Johnson's "War on Poverty" which appears to have entrenched it, but it's been holding steady at basically the same level for the past 50 years.

[James Y]

We have some other trends and dynamics working at this time which is slowly escalating the poverty in this country. I personally have been a victim of age discrimination. I have a ton of training and college under my belt but in 2009 I wrote enough resumes to line the south rim of the Grand Canyon and only got 2 interviews in a two year peoiod. And I'm in pretty good overall shape for my age ( 65) and I even got turned down for an overnight stocker job in a local grocery store ( graveyard shift). A good friend of mine informed me that they rarely hire anyone over 40 . I have an excellent work ethic and I've been told by my last 2 employers that I was a good worker and they would give me a top notch recommendation for a new job.

I'm not the only one either>> In the past 2 years I've talked to many of my old high school buddies and many of them have very impressive college degrees and work histories but yet can't even so much as get an interview. Also the decline in high paid manufacturing jobs in this country and jobs in several other sectors going overseas has made the work environment here in the USA a terrible challenge.

Also a lot of new job openings we have here in the Kansas City area have such horribly low starting wages that many people would take a 50% to 60% reduction in pay from their last job. If it was just myself that had fallen victim to this new trend for hiring that many companies are embracing I would just say that is my own tough luck. But I'm hearing it from many old friends and acquaintances that the job markets here in KC are truly discouraging. I have several other testimonies I could give as well>> I even had one friend who worked with a well known, high tech company for 18 years and they tricked him into training his own replacement that they shipped in from India I've almost resigned myself to believe that I'm just going to have to starting some type of business of my own. But how many other Americans can do that ??? Truly we have employment problems in this country. They are eliminating the "middle class" at break-neck speed.

Joe,

My older brother worked at a popular beach-area shop for 29 years. The shop is unusual because they sell things like novelty T-shirts, jewelry, bongs, alternate books, etc,, etc. He had become a manager. New owners eventually bought the property and kept the shop. They brought in some young guy with no experience to be a manager and laid my brother off. Twenty-nine years doing a job he loved, at a shop and beach area where he was loved and had been a fixture for decades. Many employees and old customers of the shop boycotted it for firing him. He ended up having to find work at a computer printing company that he hates, with a toxic work environment under a sociopathic boss who doeasn't care about his employees nor about work ethic. My brother is 65 now, and has been at this current job for the past 14 years.

Unfortunately, age discrimination is all too real, and it can happen anywhere in this country. Younger and cheaper is not always better than age and experience, but that's the bottom line this country is heading to. I'm self-employed as a certified massage therapist, so I haven't had to worry about that. I'm also planning on starting an online 'side hustle'. But this overall trend of age discrimination is very troubling, because no matter how much experience and loyalty an employee has, their job security is never insured.

The young people who are brought in to replace these older workers should also be concerned, because as soon as they reach some level of seniority within the company they're at, the same can easily happen to them. They're just treated as parts that are interchangeable and can be replaced when it's deemed their salary has become too high and their usefulness has run out. Fact: A high degree of people involved in making corporate decisions are sociopathic in nature. This allows them to fire people at will, without any care or consideration for them or their families' well-being, or for their years of loyal service.

Jim

[JD Spydo]

Very interesting post James Y :) These are not isolated cases either. I'm hearing this over and over from a lot of guys and gals I used to work with and went to school with. That friend that I mentioned in the earlier post was working with the biggest/oldest high tech company on the planet and I'm sure most of you all can guess which company that is.

That friend of mine who worked there for 18 years told me he only missed about 3 to 4 days of work in all those years because of being sick a couple of times. What a disgusting, heartless way to treat a very loyal employee In response to the one guy who is challenging my observations of increasing poverty in this nation I have several news stories ( not from the mainstream media either) that will back that up. One recent story on WND.com said that there were over 5 million people who were more than 3 months behind in their car payments>> the article said that was the worst ever recorded. Here in the Midwest where I'm living two very good friends of mine who work for the State of Missouri informed me recently that "Farm Suicides" are increasing almost exponentially here in Missouri and all over the farming belt in the entire midwest and that the delinquencies of farm loans is at an all time high>> even worse than Great Depression era suicides from what they told me.

Some of the numbers might look good on paper but we in the USA are having a multitude of problems. These accountants now a days can skew these numbers and make them say virtually anything they want them to. For the purchasing power of the dollar is dwindling almost daily. Just the prices of groceries have doubled on many items throughout the stores and some have even tripled Teen suicides are also up at an alarming rate. These atrocities are not the result of a good overall economy. They are a result of hopelessness that many here in the USA are experiencing first hand. Just look at the exponential rise of the homeless in San Franciso, LA and San Diego. Even here in Kansas City the numbers of homeless are rising continually.

I also heard in the past few months that there are hundreds if not thousands of homeowners who are way behind in their house payments all over the USA. I got that from a local realtor I've known for over twenty years now. Yeah there is a case to be made that there are a few industries and sectors that seem to be doing good at this time but there are far more that are being ravaged by the current economic trends. Just living in the real world I see what's going on around me and I don't believe hardly anything on the main stream news media anymore. When I see it first hand and talk to people first hand that's enough documentation for me.

[Mad Mac]

Yes, man has ended poverty, at least in the United States. Here is what I mean.

This question is a loaded one, the specter of poverty. Poverty, as mentioned in another post, is indeed relative. With the public and private safety nets in this country we have essentially eliminated real poverty. By that I mean death by starvation. Yet, anyone who makes less than $11,000 a year is considered to be below the poverty line. In many third world countries, that would be a wealthy person.

There will always be the poor, no matter what sacrifices we make for them.