CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I am completely against money being taking away from people (in a way that is not taxation) and being redistributed because it is stealing and definitely a bit to Bolshevist-ish for my liking.
So, what if companies are increasing the prices on their products and services? At the same tim what if companies reduce wages? Would it be improper, under those instances, to take from the big business and give to the unfortunate in hopes that people can make a living?
If companies raise prices they loose business to less expensive products (given the price increase was not a necessary market adjustment). If they cut wages they loose worker morale and thus quality and quantity in output. Other companies who wish to produce a better product will pay a better wage attracting workers from the wage cut company.
It is always improper to give money and call it "making a living". Making a living requires independent motivation and action. This isn't to say there should be no safety net at the very bottom, only to say that we should be aware of how the net can entrap people as well.
If companies raise prices they loose business to less expensive products (given the price increase was not a necessary market adjustment). If they cut wages they loose worker morale and thus quality and quantity in output.
Depends on the product wouldn't you agree? The price of video games, from what I've seen growing up, has gone from $20 to $60, yet many people still buy them. I think if a company is one of the sole producers of something they can increase the price and still achieve generate large amount of revenue.
Wage cuts are quite risky, but for people who desperately need a job I don't think they will be willing to quit if their wages drop. I do agree with you though. I understand your points and appreciate your response.
It is always improper to give money and call it "making a living". Making a living requires independent motivation and action. This isn't to say there should be no safety net at the very bottom, only to say that we should be aware of how the net can entrap people as well.
I never thought of it as improper, but I guess you could say that it is because my idea of "making a living" may be different from your version of "making a living". So yes, I also agree with you here as well.
Just a little point on video game prices: Video game prices have actually been going up far more slowly than the cost of production of the games themselves, which has been a bit of a problem for the industry. While the current prices has been pretty stagnant around $60 per game, the price it should be if it was calculated based on the cost of production should theoretically be significantly higher. The problem is, recent games that have attempted to do so have been met with very, very seriously backlash from gamers, many (if not most) of whom do not recognize that the product they are buying is costing more and more to produce.
Putting the game on a disk isn't the expensive part, it is the creation of said data that is costing more and more every year. Games are getting bigger, the graphics are getting better, and gamers are demanding more and more.
"If companies raise prices they loose business to less expensive products (given the price increase was not a necessary market adjustment). If they cut wages they loose worker morale and thus quality and quantity in output. Other companies who wish to produce a better product will pay a better wage attracting workers from the wage cut company."
Unfortunately, there are some exceptions to this and it doesn't always play out. Internet providers, for example, often informally agree to certain price ranges, so that nobody undercuts and they all make a tidy profit. Large companies also often pay low wages to large amounts of their workers, especially when they lack sufficient competition, because they can get away with it. The free market rarely (if ever) can correct these situations itself.
Price fixing is already illegal. Furthermore, it only works in situations where barriers to entry are sufficient to keep out competition. Often these barriers come from government laws or regulations.
You response additionally assumes that low wage jobs are a situation that needs correcting. This isn't necessarily the case. A firm cannot get away with paying less than market equilibrium. If they are paying the lowest they can get away with, there are consequences, but that won't necesarily stop them, nor should it perhaps.
Price fixing is TECHNICALLY illegal, but there are ways that companies within certain industries can get around it, especially with unofficial cooperation within an industry, which does occur without penalties. And, by the way, that illegality would be considered a "law or regulation", and without said government interference, would be legally acceptable. I agree that there would need to be barriers to entry that are sufficient to keep out competition, but that can often be when a new start up would be facing a MASSIVE company, such as when local grocery stores or department stores try to open within driving distance of a Walmart, who, by nature of their size, is able to offer better prices.
Low wage jobs have pay that is increasing at a slower and slower rate and is not meeting inflation and cost of live increases, so yes, they do need correcting. When almost all companies within a given industry pay the lowest they can get away with, the consequences are rather minimal, as the amount of mobility a person within said job has is equally minimal.
Price fixing schemes don't last (regardless of laws) because of overwelming incentives to not maintain the agreement. This, regardless of the obvious benefits to all involved if they maintain the fixed prices. The reason lies in game theory as developed by John Nash. arguing that this price fixing continues in secret will be difficult to support.
Walmart became massive not only through low wages, but through supply line innovation. In order to compete, other firms need to innovate as well. fortunatley for the low wage Walmart worker, walmart has low prices.
If you want low wage jobs to increase wages, you can't just force higher wages. That's a bandage on an internally bleeding wound. Other prices will adjust. The only way to increase wages in a meaningful way, is to make labor more scarce. This can be accomplished a number of ways, but the best way would be education (making low skill workers more scarce). Though education is key, public educations is apparently not the answer. That's another debate.
"Walmart became massive not only through low wages, but through supply line innovation. In order to compete, other firms need to innovate as well. fortunatley for the low wage Walmart worker, walmart has low prices." Start ups are unable to "innovate" via imports from other parts of the world the way a massive company like Walmart can, which means that the existence of Walmart within an area effectively nullifies much of the potential competition in most (though definitely not all) fields of products they carry.
"If you want low wage jobs to increase wages, you can't just force higher wages. That's a bandage on an internally bleeding wound. Other prices will adjust. The only way to increase wages in a meaningful way, is to make labor more scarce. This can be accomplished a number of ways, but the best way would be education (making low skill workers more scarce). Though education is key, public educations is apparently not the answer. That's another debate." I agree that you can not simply force wages, and unfortunately much of the reason behind our declining wage increases (now isn't that a weird way to word it) has to do with the leading philosophies of those who are running many of these businesses. Gone are the days of people like Henry Ford, who realized that paying good wages leads to a sense of loyalty to the company you work for, as well as more productive workers themselves.
I definitely agree the bettering our education (both higher and vocational) is necessary, though attempts to accomplish this are rather limited and many of those that are, are met with stern opposition (see the recent debate on the government paying for a limited amount of very direct junior college tuition).
Start ups are unable to "innovate" via imports from other parts of the world the way a massive company like Walmart can, which means that the existence of Walmart within an area effectively nullifies much of the potential competition in most (though definitely not all) fields of products they carry.
Walmarts innovation wasn't simply importing (free trade is a net benefit as well btw). It was supply chain efficiency. It's not just mom and pop who can't compete. That being said, if Walmart becomes the only player in the game because they are better, that's good. The minute they become complacent with their position on top, someone else will fill the niche (startups need not lack funding, and often don't). It's true that small shops will never be able to compete. Another way to say that is that small shops will never be as desirable to people who purchase. That's fine too, let them go.
The problem with this is that large department stores like Walmart are most certainly harmful to local economies, where what would otherwise be decently paying jobs at local stores get replaced (and truncated) by the lower paying jobs in a place like Walmart.
Most people in the world used to be farmers. Technology replaced labor so that very few people are now farmers. Technology taking a specific job is not bad for the economy, though it may mean trouble for some specific people. Walmart replacing high cost shops similarly, does not hurt the economy. People just have to do something else, like all the farmers did. Economic change is not economic harm and in the long run, the change you are describing is an economic positive.
Technology replaced labor so that very few people are now farmers
This is entirely false. It's not farmers that have disappeared, it is the modern farm integrated with technology such as factories.
Farm animals are compacted inside these modern farms for increased productivity (e.g. chickens never even see the light of day in modern farms, animals such as cows have no free space to graze).
Organic food (a rarity) is derived from natural farms that let the animals walk around freely and graze thus resulting in natural growth. This is a timely process which is why factories have been incorporated into farmlands (but those in the factory are still farmers).
To conclude, farmers are still farmers as they were ages ago, they just use a different method for raising livestock. There's no decreased in farmers, there's just an increase in technological farming.
Animals are not required for their labor in most instances, only their flesh. To claim that there are not now less farmers than before (in both absolute and relative terms) ignores the huge human population and the fact that one person can now farm vast acres with technology when compared a farmer with a horse drawn plow.
People working in a factory surrounded by farm land are not farmers.
Animals are not required for their labor in most instances, only their flesh
Well... they are. They need to be moved fed and checked/monitered--and machines are not trusted enough to check the animal itself, and the company is liable for any animal leaving the farm in bad conditions.
To claim that there are not now less farmers than before (in both absolute and relative terms) ignores the huge human population and the fact that one person can now farm vast acres with technology when compared a farmer with a horse drawn plow.
Just because chairs are made to be circular seats that levitate does not make it any less of a chair. Its an object made to be sat on. Just because technology plants the seeds and water/feed the plants--as well as animals--does not make the person controlling the technology any less of a farmer.
That one person is still a farmer given that its doing what a farmer would do with the difference being in technology. It owns land containing animals that are made to be slaughtered and distributed amongst humans.
Animals require labor, they are not required for their labor.
A man controlling the tech for farming is a farmer. By controlling tech he can farm much more land than before. For this reason there are less farmers than before both probably in absolute terms and most definitely in relative terms.
Are you suggesting that the limitation of farmers on one farm given the advanced technology? Or are you suggesting a decrease of famers as in 'a decrease in farmland due to cities and such, thus a decrease I farmers'.
So, essentially you're talking about the workers on the farm, not the farmer (farm owner/manager) himself.
So when you say "per acre" that would be describing the workers covering an extensive amount of land. But just to clarify, farm workers and farmers are two different people. A farmer owns/manages the land, and the farm worker is, well, self-described.
It was my assumption that you were suggesting this "human labor" described farmers as the laborers (you said a decrease of farmers when describing the advancement of technology).
It used to be that every farmer was a laborer. With technology, it may not necessarily be the case. Either way, technology has decreased the relative population of farmers and of farm laborers.
When I said farmer, I was thinking of "people who farm" in the agricultural sense . This could apply to farm owners or it could apply to farm laborers. The rest of what I said is also applicable to either owners or laborers.
So, what if companies are increasing the prices on their products and services?
The functioning of capitalism serves to regulate commerce. A product or service that is priced too high, will be avoided by the consumer if possible. In the case of monopoly, government rightly should and does protect consumers from price gouging.
At the same time what if companies reduce wages?
Again the functioning of capitalism and free commerce within a single economy will bring about a balance between wages and prices. Government rightly protects its own economy from the introduction of cheap goods produced in other economies through tariffs and trade agreements.
take from the big business and give to the unfortunate
The problem with this, in stimulating an economy, is that taking money from where it was earned and putting it in the hands of the needy does not make more money available in that economy.
The functioning of capitalism serves to regulate commerce. A product or service that is priced too high, will be avoided by the consumer if possible. In the case of monopoly, government rightly should and does protect consumers from price gouging.
Understandable, and I'm aware of way consumers usually avoid higher prices when their are much better options available. Do you believe the government should regulate business operations such as price fixing and monopolization?
Government rightly protects its own economy from the introduction of cheap goods produced in other economies through tariffs and trade agreements.
Completely understandable. Learned this in history and finance classes. Now I don't quite understand how they directly impact our economy from a negative standpoint besides the fact that money is leaving the country.
The problem with this, in stimulating an economy, is that taking money from where it was earned and putting it in the hands of the needy does not make more money available in that economy.
So, how does one actually place more money in the economy?
Do you believe the government should regulate business operations such as price fixing and monopolization? In some extreme cases YES.
Now I don't quite understand how they directly impact our economy from a negative standpoint besides the fact that money is leaving the country. That is precisely the problem. When money leaves our economy the absolute result is less money in the economy.
So, how does one actually place more money in the economy? Simply placing more money into the economy is most often done by borrowing money or printing money. Neither of these provide sustainable growth, but do bring the negative effects of inflation and debt respectively. Rather economies that are stimulated to grow more or larger businesses generating more jobs, actually create or increase sustainable wealth in the economy.
Then perhaps the government needs to control the companies so they do not do anything to out of line. However taking money away from them is bad because if you take profit away then there will be less of an incentive for these independent companies to even exist which wrecks the capitalist system. You may as well have communism with state ownership of everything if that's what you're going to do.
That's different because that's a punishment and a deterrent to speeding and littering, not the Government trying to change the world by unethical means.
That wasn't an assertion, it was a question, so there is nothing to dispute. Apparently it offended your sensibilities. Whoops ;)
Sorry, but if you're going to take the route of haphazardly slapping "ethical" and "unethical" onto policies as a metric for deciding upon whether or not they should banned, passed, or amended, you're not find yourself as very convincing to other people on the site. The ethical part is subjective, even then, I'm betting that most people don't follow your moral philosophy and religious beliefs.
That being said, we can still agree these fines are still an effort by the gov't to change the world, and that such fines, which are ubiquitous in the modern world, are highly beneficial in that they help fund infrastructure, which iirc in my country is still said to be quite shady, and discourage acts that often result in the loss of life and/or property. That's not unethical, that's being in touch with reality.
Yes, example; Guatemala mid 50's with Jacobo Arbenz, Bolivia in the 90s and so on.
Obviously the answer is situational as there are examples of where the act was not beneficial. A better question is "when is redistribution of wealth beneficial to the economy of a government?".
Perhaphs the act of redistributing wealth can be beneficial when the wealth is currently positioned in a way that favors the extraction of wealth for the benefit of a group by the detriment of another, that is there is no mutual benefit for the population and the extracting entity but just the extracting entity. Accumulation by dispossession.
In the examples above nations' economic freedom were subjugated under corporate rule in a manner that clearly favored the corporates extraction of wealth over the well being of the nations populations. This was complicated, especially in the Guatemala example, by the corporate backing of competing governments economies. In both examples the redistribution of wealth from the corporations to the nations people greatly improved the nations economies.
Of course establishing signs of when to redistribute wealth in some countries is tougher than others.
In the examples I gave it allowed the populations to participate in the economy where previously circumstances prevented them to do so. These are quite well known examples where redistribution had positive affects on each nation as well as their populations.
Power in Guatemala was pretty unequal having dictators kept in place by the support of by other countries (USA) and their corporate interests. Guatemalas population was destitute and starving because most of their land was held in corporate hands (United Fruit Company, UFCO) who would not farm the land or allow residents to farm. Democratically elected Arbenz enacted the use of immenent domain paying UFCO what they valued their own land at (which UFCO undervalued for tax purposes) then redistributed it to the people. Guatemala rejoiced and started to prosper, that is until UFCO used its political ties with the US that eventually led to the CIA overthrowing a democratically elected official and installing some pretty brutal regimes.
US apologized for this action in the 90s after the documents were declassified.
Bolivia is especially interesting due to the use of neoliberal ideology employed by Jeffery Sachs that stopped Bolivias super inflation in the 80s after the price of tin tanked but after a number of years led to a growing disparity between the classes (rich got richer, poor got poorer). It was the water deal with Bechtel that was the final straw and eventually ended up with the redistribution of wealth back to the people in the 90s. It was a pretty big political upheaval. While economic conditions and political participation of the populace improved after the redistribution the water issue has yet to be solved.
I stated "Obviously the answer is situational..." as we can find situations where redistribution did not help. Any absolute statement either way; "redistribution of wealth does/does not stimulate economies" can be met with counter examples so the statement is conditional. It is never always right.
When two or more economies interact as in Bolivia or a hundred other examples as you rightly point out, governments are obliged to intervene on behalf of their own economies. On this we are in agreement.
My question is this: Within a single economy is it rational to take money from a wealthy individual and give it to a poor individual as a means to stimulate that economy.
Within a single economy is it rational to take money from a wealthy individual and give it to a poor individual as a means to stimulate that economy.
The same principle applies within economies as well, Arbenz himself forfeited much of his land to do just this. In both situations above there was much moving around of wealth inside the countries.
It wasn't just oust the foreign companies but to redistribute the economies within.
Is it rational? It can be. I don't think that is the right question though as it still falls to the problem of being an absolute statement. A better question is "when is redistribution needed" and or "when does it work".
When is it needed? Of course this is dependant on many factors but I would suggest for instance if the inequality is reinforcing itself in accordance to dependency theory and growing then such a redistribution may be prudent or there will continue to be diminishing returns on growth. This is where the disparity between classes broadens as seen in Bolivia in the 90s.
Of course there being an inequality does not automatically mean such a redistribution would work.
It is less likely to work within the same economy though if the redistribution does not find its way back into circulation within the specific economy. Take the US for instance where recently the stimulus package failed. US is a consumer economy yet it produces little goods the population buys, the money largely did not go into US coffers but out. Some economists (Krueger for example) argued the stimulus was far too small, but I feel even if it were larger the US still doesn't produce the goods they use. Throwing cash out in like that of any amount is not likely to have helped in the long run in my opinion.
That is largely where the redistribution in Bolivia excelled, the money went to the people who produced the things the population needed, those people were themselves.
The redistribution has to target something that helps bridge the gap they are trying to address. Cleary giving US citizens a couple hundred bucks cash was the least the US government could do, it certaintly didn't fix any problems.
Yes. There is a fundamental difference in why the redistribution of land succeeded in Bolivia, where the US stimulus and welfare programs redistribution of money failed. Land gave the people of Bolivia the means to earn money, while in the US simply taking money from one person and giving it to another did nothing to grow the economy. One more important factor was in play in Bolivia that is not in the US. The land was left fallow and unused. In the US money was being the used in the economy regardless of whether, the spender was rich or poor.
You have pointed out an interesting exception to my thinking. Wealth Redistribution does work if the wealth is land. Hmmmm
Nitpick; Guatemala was mainly land distribution. Bolivia was money, political voice (equal political representation) and jobs. In both cases money became concentrated in fewer hands though and was redistributed as well.
But the nuts and bolts of the idea remain the same; the type of wealth distribution must target a way to bridge the inequality or efforts to distribute are likely for naught.
I agree that land redistribution has historically been a pretty safe bet though for flattening inequalities between groups. Kenya in the 50s with the MauMau rebellion followed the same suit, black plague basically did the same in Europe and so on. This option of land redistribution is rarely on the table though as it usually involves large sweeping changes in political regimes.
I would argue for other ways to redistribute wealth in the absence of land being an option, education seems to be beneficial regardless of the nations form of economy. The debt that comes with education not so much though...
To point out the reasons for wealth redistribution failures and successes is not nitpicking, but rather a careful look at an issue of great importance. You yourself are touting clear successes without understanding exactly why wealth redistribution also suffers monumental failures.
Know this:
Guatemala's success was because land was redistributed providing an opportunity for the poor to earn a living.
Bolivia's success came for the same reason, jobs, as you mentioned.
In the US money alone has been redistributed with nearly complete failure.
In the past five decades the US government has spent 22 trillion tax dollars in the "War on Poverty" with almost no effect. WHY is an important question, do you not agree.
I should have quoted you for clarity. The nitpick was me misunderstanding which country you thought the land was redistributed to the people. You now seem to understand it was Guatemala that had the land redistributed and you get a portion of why Bolivias redistrbution worked. Probably just transposed the names of the countries. It was this quote here that led me to believe you had it mixed up.
...why the redistribution of land succeeded in Bolivia...Land gave the people of Bolivia the means to earn money...
While it is true without land we would just add that to the list of what was needed it wasn't a hurdle for Bolivia.
The Bolivian populations hurdle to ovetcome was achieving political representation and the middle class recovering money that was concentrated in areas where it was either going out of the country or sitting stagnant. When the newly redistributed wealth was spent it was spent on the things they themselves produced. Bolivia was no longer leaking as much wealth out of the nation. I noted this was where the recent US stimulus package failed.
You yourself are touting clear successes without understanding exactly why wealth redistribution also suffers monumental failures.
What makes you think do not understand this? I used only 1 example of a redistribution that led to a failure but I believe the reason I gave that it failed is valid. If you disagree why my example of that failure was off please, by all means, explain your thoughts on it.
In the past five decades the US government has spent 22 trillion tax dollars in the "War on Poverty" with almost no effect. WHY is an important question, do you not agree?
"War on poverty" is pretty vague on where the money went. Where it goes may have different goals than to end poverty, such as a goal may be to feed those in need (snap benefits) as an end is many years out. I personally don't think citizens of a world power like US should starve until they rebuild a working class.
Discussing "why" something isn't working is best if the idea is not a vague term. If you have a specific example to discuss within the nebulous term "war on poverty" it would make asking "why" much easier to answer without generalizing.
What makes you think do not understand this? I used only 1 example of a redistribution that led to a failure but I believe the reason I gave that it failed is valid. If you disagree why my example of that failure was off please, by all means, explain your thoughts on it.
Your earlier statement :
Perhaps the act of redistributing wealth can be beneficial when the wealth is currently positioned in a way that favors the extraction of wealth for the benefit of a group by the detriment of another, that is there is no mutual benefit for the population and the extracting entity but just the extracting entity. Accumulation by dispossession.
This is not redistribution but rather accumulation. We are talking about redistribution and also why it sometimes fails.
"War on poverty" is pretty vague on where the money went
With these specific examples I contend that it has failed. Note the data from Heritage. It has failed because it was money not opportunity that was distributed. This week Obama is proposing billions in new taxes and free higher education, while many graduates are not finding jobs using there education. In the US today jobs and making a living are what is needed, just as in Guatemala and Bolivia.
Sorry about the underlining. The links seen to be confusing the editor function.
Everything will be underlined I think from your post on down. Editing posts with links can be annoying on this site, I think you can fix it still but its a bit of a pain (well for me it is due to using a tablet not a pc). When you goto edit your links are doubled with one in parentheses. I think if you eliminate the extra bits it may fix itself. Meh, it's not horrible and I can live with it.
Anywho, Italics mine, bold yours.
Perhaps the act of redistributing wealth can be beneficial when the wealth is currently positioned in a way that favors the extraction of wealth for the benefit of a group by the detriment of another, that is there is no mutual benefit for the population and the extracting entity but just the extracting entity. Accumulation by dispossession.
This is not redistribution but rather accumulation. We are talking about redistribution and also why it sometimes fails.
I can see how my phrasing could lead you to read my statement the way you did. The lead in to my statement helps in context but that was left off of the quote, then the followup just failed. The lead in stated "when to redistribute" and my answer is when accumulation is widening gaps between classes and reinforcing itself. In a later clarification I summed it up again.
When is it needed? Of course this is dependant on many factors but I would suggest for instance if the inequality is reinforcing itself in accordance to dependency theory and growing then such a redistribution may be prudent or there will continue to be diminishing returns on growth. This is where the disparity between classes broadens as seen in Bolivia in the 90s.
Of course there being an inequality does not automatically mean such a redistribution would work.
If I were clear the first time I may not have had to say it again. And then of course this time as well. My bad!
I will address the rest of your post in a post after this one. This point here seems tangential to the conversation now and it looks like things could get lenghty.
Part deux. (Already addressed the portion above your links in another post).
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GreatSociety
Note the list of major initiatives
Yeah still not specific. I see it has food stamps which I already addressed then many things that seem to actually address a way out of poverty like; headstart, legal services for the poor, upward bound (assisting poor high school students achieve higher education), job core, urban transportation and so on.
 It has failed because it was money not opportunity that was distributed.Â
Money can be opportunity. Plenty of those things above appear to be non monetary forms of opportunity though. Agreed that some redistribution fails because there is no opportunity. Getting money to folks in some situations doesn't work to reduce poverty but reducing poverty is not always the goal because it is not yet achievable. Reducing the sting of poverty sometimes is the goal when poverty itself cannot be addressed. I believe we have said this sentiment above. Currently in the US I do not see giving money in most situations to be fixing the issue, see above where I discussed the failed stimulus.
Your other two links are from a conservative think tank and an opinion piece from a writer from another conservative think tank. Of course a source being conservative or liberal is not enough to dismiss any claims, that would be the genetic fallacy. I will address the heritage link since it provides some of their methodology which is largely absent from the opinion piece.
How is the methodology in the heritage piece? It has plenty of flaws in their measures. Don't get me wrong here there are plenty of facts but in context they seem to fall apart. This canard for instance;
Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, at the beginning of the War on Poverty, only about 12 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Gee how many people in the us had color tvs in the 60s as compared to now? That is a useless measure but the idea is that poor people have nice things as they continue their list;
Nearly three-quarters have a car or truck; 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.[9]Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite television.Two-thirds have at least one DVD player, and a quarter have two or more.Half have a personal computer; one in seven has two or more computers.More than half of poor families with children have a video game system such as an Xbox or PlayStation.Forty-three percent have Internet access.Forty percent have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.A quarter have a digital video recorder system such as a TIVO.Ninety-two percent of poor households have a microwave.
If I get sick or injured and cannot work temporarily then need assistance for a while, do I first need to sell all the things I earned when I was well? Should families start from scratch every time a hardship arises? That seems to be an unecessary burden that would make recovering financially even harder.
The fact that the poor have some of this is not a failure of the system but a boon. Suff like transportation or internet are useful for getting out of a situation where you need assistance. Ability to be educated or commuting to job interviews and such.
The idea of poor people having nice stuff ignores that the majority of families recieving assistance only do so for a short term.
The majority of families who leave the welfare system do so after a relatively short period of time -- about half leave within a year; 70 percent within two years and almost 90 percent within five years.
Another from the 90s with similar numbers (lumped together past 1 year)
Thirty-four percent stay on welfare less than one year and another 44 percent for up to five years.
The reason for long stays on the system are attributed to lack of education and disabilities. Those who are repeat visitors to the welfare system fall in the same categories. As noted above the "war on poverty" targets the education opportunities to address that issue already.
Chart 2 in the heritage link shows we keep spending more money on the issue but the percentage of those on poverty stays near the same. Yup, percentage of those on poverty stays the same. We have much more people though so of course the amount spent will go up, it helps to put things in perspective. The graph of course does nothing to tell us if any training etc. has any real affect. Chart 2 is smoke and mirrors in the way it is used. Heck it isn't even adjusted for inflation, might as well be comparing how many houses had air conditioning in the 60s with how many do today;)
Example; I work in wildland fire and work with prevention at times. Prevention took on another districts responsibility due to budget issues. There is now a larger area to work with so cost went up but total arson fires remained the same. If we were to graph this it would look similar to heritages graph, would Prevention be said to be not effective or wasting money now? Of course not, that would not fit the context.
The heritage piece is mainly pushing the idea that self reliance is the key to solving poverty. It fails to address what we both seem to agree on that opportunities are needed to reduce poverty. True to its political aim the piece states that welfare is creating the need for more welfare by undermining social productive norms. The piece offers hardly any relevant context in its claims and addresses even less solutions.
This is already pretty long, if you think I missed something important point it out to me.
I think we are coming to some agreement with respect to the unintended negative social as well as economic results of welfare programs in the US. By trying to lift people economically without commensurate opportunity, we have not only failed, but made things worse. In removing the sting of poverty we have made it livable for too many.
My OP asked if it was rational to take money from one individual, give it to another individual, and thereby expect an improvement in the economy.
To be clear IMO it does not increase the money in the system, and because if this, is not a rational means to economic growth.
To be clear IMO it does not increase the money in the system, and because if this, is not a rational means to economic growth.
It is a conditional statement. It can work but obviously is not a magic bullet. It is why I keep saying why and what conditions need to be present for redustribution to be even condidered. It does not increase the money in the system it increases growth by stimulating circulation as currency can become stagnant at times that hinders growth.
It does not increase the money in the system it increases growth by stimulating circulation as currency can become stagnant at times that hinders growth.
This is correct only if the individual who the money was taken from was somehow not going to use it. I general this is untrue. The rich people I know spend a lot of money.
Sorry man its a liberal talking point that is largely incorrect and in no way valid enough to justify wealth distribution of money.
It is clear the top earners are saving more than spending causing a slow siphoning the wealth from the rest of the economy in the US. Supply side economics can help individuals in spurts but seem to not do much for the health of the overall economy.
...its a liberal talking point that is largely incorrect and in no way valid enough to justify wealth distribution of money.
What justifies if wealth should be redistributed or not largely depends on if inequalities are intensifying and reinforcing themselves (won't work its own way out) and if the redistribution will work when it goes through. I have shown instances it has worked like in Bolivia. I am unsure of how saying something can work in certain conditions is a talking point.
The fact is situations where wealth stagnation hindered growth have been alleviated by a redistribution under certain conditions. I feel I satisfied the requirments of the debate, I believe you feel otherwise which is fine. There seems to be no more discussion of the "when's or why's" it has or has not worked.
We may have ran our course here as we have come full circle. All in all it was a nice discussion. I jumped in this debate due to you generally having a good demeanor, and you do. Thanks!
I'm not sure. Perhaps if the redistributed wealth went into the communities rather than the politicians bank accounts we could test it and find out if its a good way to stimulate an economy.
I know, but government redistribution occurs in every economic system in the world (short of anarchy, but that is hardly a "system") and is endorsed to one degree or another in every political ideology, including libertarianism. Different ideologies believe that funds should be redistributed towards different things and to different degrees, but the term "redistribution of wealth" is just a political catch phrase, good for working people up but doesn't actually convey almost anything of real meaning.
Perhaps the topic needed to be made explicit. The common modern political rhetoric is referring to the taking of wealth (usually in the form of money) from one person or group, and redistributing it (in cash or entitlement programs) to another person or group. Wealth that is distributed equally to all economic actors (in the for of pubic goods) may be an example of distribution, but not redistrobution.
Rather than being baseless rhetoric, this idea comes, in part, from the moral theories of John Rawls. He advocated a system where we repeatedly "reset" ones baseline position when inequality occurs (literally taking from haves and giving to have-nots).
Any argument for the above clarified redistrobution ignores the moral issue of administrative costs of the distributors.
Government wealth distribution? I thought there was an entire cycle that was in play. People work for wages from a company. That company produces goods and services. People buy those guys and services with the money from their jobs. I believed that this was the way the economy flowed. I don't see how the government would get involved unless you are also including, or specifically hinting at, governmental benefits. Was this the case?
Yes government entitlements are in fact the way governments get involved. Government attempts to close the wealth gap in the US for instance, have failed. My original topic was to question the assumption that when governments deprive one individual of money in order to provide money to another individual, there results a net gain for the economy. This is both demonstratably and rationally false. Yet some liberal pundits in the US argue irrationaly that somehow there is a resulting increase for the economy, even when no money has been added. Hmmmmm
The government is constantly involved in the redistribution of wealth, and it often their efforts benefit the wealthy (at every one else's expense). One way this is done is through corporate welfare. According to an article in Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2014/03/14/where-is-the-outrage-over-corporate-welfare/), "The largest, wealthiest, most powerful organizations in the world are on the public dole." The Boeing corporation, for example, has received over $13 billion in state subsidized "economic development" grants since 1976. Or how about the Banking Bailout or the Gulf War? These certainly benefited the wealthy more than the rest of us.
Therefore, while I agree that no additional money is added to the economy through government entitlement programs, the same reasoning applies to corporate welfare and supply-side economics.
Starchild, at multiple points along that cycle, taxes are collected by the government. The government then uses said taxes for a variety of things, one of which being social welfare programs. In this way they take money from one group, and use it to benefit another. There are arguments that can be made as to how other, more publicly oriented things (public works for example) can also constitute a more indirect form of this. This is often referred to as a method of redistribution of wealth via the government.
Starchild, at multiple points along that cycle, taxes are collected by the government. The government then uses said taxes for a variety of things, one of which being social welfare programs.
I'm well aware of this, but thanks for re-informing me. However, this post was more directed towards the creator of the debate and I purposefully left out bits of information to cut down the amount of typing I would have to do.
In this way they take money from one group, and use it to benefit another. There are arguments that can be made as to how other, more publicly oriented things (public works for example) can also constitute a more indirect form of this. This is often referred to as a method of redistribution of wealth via the government.
This is more applicable to my post, but it's also something I already knew. At first I was unsure about what the question was asking, but I have already hinted at government benefits in my initial post which I'm not sure if you may have missed or not. So I guess thank you for re-informing me.
No apologize required. This was originally my fault for not posting enough information in my initial post. So if anyone is to blame let that be me. Pardon me for my folly.
