Are people really that financially busted? - Page 10 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

benhogan · #**136** 02-25-2013, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

From an evolutionary point of view, I think you're pretty close to the mark. Early in our evolution when we were hunter/gatherers for tens of thousands of years, there were no established means for planning for the long term future. No graineries, no money, no canned food, no capital, no 401k's, etc. Humans had to accept what came to them each season in the way of food. It was only with the development of agriculture and herding that humans had to start planning for the future. To look at it another way, the bourgoise lifestyle is unnatural.

Thanks.

I have a tendency to look at things in a dumbed-down way or an upside-down way. Sometimes it helps me understand complicated things.

t walgamuth · #**137** 02-25-2013, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by benhogan

to the OP-

Look at it from the flip side.

I think it is actually NORMAL to be in the poor state. It is not normal to be rich because it actually takes effort to save/invest/think ahead, etc.

Compare it to airplanes. The normal state is for it to be on the ground. It takes effort/jet fuel to get into the air. Airplanes crash when they run out of fuel midair.

Also, there are more poor people than rich people (at least in the US). Therefore it is plausible to assume that being poor is an easier state to be in than rich. Poor is normal, rich is not (because it actually takes effort).

It takes more than effort to get ahead. Some of what it takes is given to us at birth, perhaps most of it.

jcyuhn · #**138** 02-25-2013, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

That does not make me angry.
1. I question if you have all the facts.
2. Even if you do would I want her life?
No.

All those sorts of programs are for the benefit of children, not their parents. Lots of people who have children, especially a single parent cannot afford child care so it often makes more sense not to work for some of them.

I don't question the facts. Arthur Laffer had an op-ed piece in the WSJ last week about the crazy disincentives to work experienced by people on welfare benefits. Unfortunately the online article is available to subscribers only, or I would link it here. The basics as I recall them are this. His example is a single mother with 2 children in Pennsyslvania. He calculated the total value of welfare benefits received at $45,000 per year for the family. At the same time, the "marginal tax rate" of working is between 90% and 100%. That is, if the mom went out and got a job, for every dollar she earned, after taxes and benefit reductions, she would be at most better off by $0.10. She would need a job paying $50K/year to be materially better off than by staying on welfare and not working. In such a situation it is quite rational to choose to not work.

I am summing this up from memory, so if anyone has a better command of the facts, I welcome your corrections.

kerry · #**139** 02-25-2013, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

It takes more than effort to get ahead. Some of what it takes is given to us at birth, perhaps most of it.

What makes you think that? Capitalism definitely selects a certain kind of person for advancement, but is the quality it selects for given at birth? Postponed satisfaction, planning for the long term future, priority of the future over the present don't strike me as things likely to be genetically determined. Perhaps they are. But look at the connection between Protestantism and Capitalism. The Protestant focus on the future life in heaven and the emphasis on living in the present in light of the future is intimately connected with capitalist values. Without that cultural element it's hard to see how capitalism would have developed. Was the evolution of protestant capitalist culture a genetic thing?

kerry · #**140** 02-25-2013, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcyuhn

I don't question the facts. Arthur Laffer had an op-ed piece in the WSJ last week about the crazy disincentives to work experienced by people on welfare benefits. Unfortunately the online article is available to subscribers only, or I would link it here. The basics as I recall them are this. His example is a single mother with 2 children in Pennsyslvania. He calculated the total value of welfare benefits received at $45,000 per year for the family. At the same time, the "marginal tax rate" of working is between 90% and 100%. That is, if the mom went out and got a job, for every dollar she earned, after taxes and benefit reductions, she would be at most better off by $0.10. She would need a job paying $50K/year to be materially better off than by staying on welfare and not working. In such a situation it is quite rational to choose to not work.

I am summing this up from memory, so if anyone has a better command of the facts, I welcome your corrections.

The documentary, Waging a Living follows a number of poor people, examining their circumstances and looking at their choices. One woman in the film makes a series of choices directly related to what you describe. She had a number of children and was getting welfare benefits.

benhogan · #**141** 02-25-2013, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

It takes more than effort to get ahead. Some of what it takes is given to us at birth, perhaps most of it.

we disagree on this part unless you are talking about some other country.

jcyuhn · #**142** 02-25-2013, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by benhogan

we disagree on this part unless you are talking about some other country.

Sadly, economic mobility in the U.S. is lower than most all other developed economies. Children of poor parents tend to remain poor; children of wealthy parents tend to remain wealthy. Wikipedia has a decent article; see the "Comparisons with Other Countries" section.

benhogan · #**143** 02-25-2013, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcyuhn

Sadly, economic mobility in the U.S. is lower than most all other developed economies. Children of poor parents tend to remain poor; children of wealthy parents tend to remain wealthy. Wikipedia has a decent article; see the "Comparisons with Other Countries" section.

interesting. i will check it out. thanks.

barry12345 · #**144** 02-25-2013, 12:08 PM

People that have not been seriously effected since 2008 should keep an eye open on how bad it has become for many. The cost of living increases alone have put many into very tight situations.

The general statistics indicate people are accumulating more consumer credit debt liability in both amount and volume than ever before. This or much of it is just used to keep treading water. One other thing it does indicate is the standard of living is in decline even if not too obvious. The excess credit is masking it.

A true picture of the state of things is when many hit their limits credit wise. Some have already hit the wall. There is a very large percentage of the general population that probably will impact that wall at about the same time frame. I suspect the current planning is it will be spread out just enough to mitigate the effects a little.

Many banks are currently experiencing their own credit ratings falling simply because of the amount of it they are carrying on the books now. The government will become sensitive to this at some point. The will try to keep the banks still loaning money when they have already far too much exposure.. This could be a dangerous point in time if it occurs.

Interest costs cannot be increased to control anything now as it would bring the house of cards down quickly. The current flow of money into consumer credit is not being secured by and large. The solution to hitting the wall is to print a lot more money when it ocurs in high numbers is the probable plan.

This should impact people not really touched much by the 2008 onward events in some fashion. Or I expect it will. In some ways the financial health of conservative people will be viewed as of lesser concern that that of the governments needs.

I see nothing of a true recovery forming up. That it will occur by just confidence increasing in a manipulated enviroment such as exists today is a bit of a long shot to me. When consumer credit tops out for people job loss from it occuring may be subtantial.

Today already is far from a walk in the park for too many. There is a serious danger it might yet get far worse. Almost out of control comes to mind.

barry12345 · #**145** 02-25-2013, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by benhogan

interesting. i will check it out. thanks.

Many practises still current in the United states may be segmenting the population to some degree. Once done it is much harder to escape for the children of these various groups. It may even be compared to esaping a group culture to some degree.

Many countries make serious efforts to reduce the segmentation of their population . To have it causes a lot of very expensive long term issues.

pj67coll · #**146** 02-25-2013, 12:29 PM

The default state of humanity is hardscrabble poverty and has been for most of it's history. Probably will be for a long time yet. The level of wealth which we as members of western civilization are accustomed to is atypical for the human species. The fact that we are born into it and know nothing else should not blind us to that fact.

- Peter.

barry12345 · #**147** 02-25-2013, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

The documentary, Waging a Living follows a number of poor people, examining their circumstances and looking at their choices. One woman in the film makes a series of choices directly related to what you describe. She had a number of children and was getting welfare benefits.

What people may tend to forget. If a reciepient takes an employable position. Thats if there are more bodies than jobs in general. It displaces someone else in the workforce usually. So there in no reduction in the programs cost in general. Now if there are more jobs than people available it is a large saving to our systems to have that person take a job.

To my knowledge only the french dealt with this issue head on a long time ago. We still want to stigmatise people when logically there is no reason. When there is reason to do so fine. We continue to embrace old and worn out concepts.

kerry · #**148** 02-25-2013, 12:31 PM

Was talking to a friend of mine yesterday. He works at Home Depot. Since I'm a teacher, he mentioned that a colleague of his was reading a college textbook. She is an older woman, probably in her 50's I'm guessing. He asked why she was attending college. She said she was taking the minimum number of credits necessary at a community college to qualify for the maximum student loans. She was using the student loan money to live since her salary at Home Depot did not cover her living expenses. She never intends to pay off the student loans according to my friend.

I've heard of this happening before. This is the first concrete instance I've run across.

martureo · #**149** 02-25-2013, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

What makes you think that? Capitalism definitely selects a certain kind of person for advancement, but is the quality it selects for given at birth? Postponed satisfaction, planning for the long term future, priority of the future over the present don't strike me as things likely to be genetically determined. Perhaps they are. But look at the connection between Protestantism and Capitalism. The Protestant focus on the future life in heaven and the emphasis on living in the present in light of the future is intimately connected with capitalist values. Without that cultural element it's hard to see how capitalism would have developed. Was the evolution of protestant capitalist culture a genetic thing?

I think you might have it backwards.

Although your character of protestant ideals is accurate, I think Roman Catholicism is closer.

demographic of upper echelon members who are above the law and can't be touched (think of priests/clergy)
government/companies which you have to pay taxes to (tithes)
these governments/companies can change the rules at whim
history doesn't matter.... don't look at that
you can pay your way out of anything (indulgences...yes they still exist)
lying, cheating, and stealing get you ahead (pornocracy...)

Protestant ideals would be much more at home in a free market, without any actual humans involved.

JamesDean · #**150** 02-25-2013, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

Was talking to a friend of mine yesterday. He works at Home Depot. Since I'm a teacher, he mentioned that a colleague of his was reading a college textbook. She is an older woman, probably in her 50's I'm guessing. He asked why she was attending college. She said she was taking the minimum number of credits necessary at a community college to qualify for the maximum student loans. She was using the student loan money to live since her salary at Home Depot did not cover her living expenses. She never intends to pay off the student loans according to my friend.

I've heard of this happening before. This is the first concrete instance I've run across.

She has to realize that thats not a sustainable option. I mean how long do you think she can keep that up? Even if she never repaid the loan...

She should maybe learn something worth while that would qualifier her for a better paying job. Instead of just wasting the time/energy/effort taking those classes and taking the money for the short term.