Does Poverty Motivate People?

[WinePusher]

[youtube][/youtube]

First let me say that when I see and hear people like this it makes me think that liberals and the occupy wallstreet crowd got it right...

Obviously what he's saying is pretty atrocious. Obviously poverty is NOT good, it's a very bad thing that needs to be reduced and completely obliterated. But, putting aside this guys absurd and offensive comments, I've managed to glean two points in what he's saying:

1. Poverty motivates people to do better in life (this point was also made by Benjamin Franklin).
2. Capitalism has been the only socioeconomic system that has significantly reduced poverty throughout the globe.

I think it's a fact that Capitalism has done a great deal of good for the poorer classes of society, but the first point about poverty being a motivator remains to be seen. I would also say that poverty is by in large a combination of two factors: personal responsibility and circumstances beyond personal control. You're either poor because you got dealt a crappy hand of cards (in this case you have no control over the situation), or you're poor because you're lazy and not hard working (in this case you do have control over your situation). This is a crucial distinction that needs to be made because I think that all of us would have no problem providing assistance to people who are poor because of circumstances beyond their control. But when it comes to people who are poor by choice I think it's safe to say that all of us would have a problem giving them money since they're perfectly capable of making money themselves.

Questions: What is the cause of poverty? Does poverty motivate people to do better in life? How can poverty be reduced?

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 10 by Goat]

Goat wrote:

I will also say things have gotten a lot more extreme in the last 30 years. Things that were possible to do on the low end scale are not possible today. Let's look for example, minimum wage. If minimum wage kept up with inflation form when it was first introduced in the 1960's, the wage would be about 15 bucks an hour now. It's easy to say 'oh, get a better job', but those jobs aren't out there. The cost of education has skyrocketed, and a lot of people need to work to figure out where their next meal is coming from rather than improving themselves. There is a lot more desperation among the poor than there was 30 years ago, and there has been a distinct flow of money from the middle class and poor to the ultra rich.

I agree there are many problems and things are getting worse. I give the country 20 more years before the final crash comes. But liberals blame the "evil" corporations and blindly shout TAX THE RICH! and RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE!

Several of my friends worked for large corporations, mostly at low level technical jobs, and were paid very good salaries. Others worked at unskilled union jobs and earned even more money. Most large corporations already pay far more than minimum wage, even for the most menial jobs. The minimum wage laws strike only at small businesses, once the backbone of our economy.

In the small-town area where I now live, dozens of small businesses here have already closed their doors, primarily because of payroll costs. Since retiring, I have done a little volunteer bookkeeping for several small businesses and I know that even the most carefully controlled payroll costs typically account for more than two thirds of total expenses, not only leaving nothing for the owner, but driving the business further into the hole each month.

I remember a cartoon which showed the manager of a fast-food place meeting with his employees. The manager says "The good news is that your wages are going up. The bad news is that one of you is fired!"

I have read statistics which show that the evil top one percent already pays more than 60 percent of all taxes, more than the other 99 percent of the population combined. What would we do without that revenue? Remember that the rich are free to pull their money out of our economy and go live wherever they want, leaving the rest of us to stew in our own juices. Better be careful how far we push them.

[Ooberman]

If poverty motivates, then why does class stay pretty much the same?

If you want to know how your economic situation will be, look at your parents. It's the largest, by far, indicator of your situation.

There are very few people who get lucky to go from poverty to perversity (obscene wealth). It's almost as if it has more to do with chance...

This is a interesting source when it comes to Class in America:
http://www.nytimes.com/national/class/

So, poverty may have motivated many, and a few of them have become rich, and they are now telling us that it's good they have lots, and other people don't because it motivated them - and others like them.

This is the:

"Guy makes it Rich and feels he Knows All. Because of his Money, he's able to Wield Power" syndrome.

We all want that syndrome and see what we do with sudden wealth.

[bluethread]

A few observations.

1. 'Supply side' economics did not say, 'give the money to the rich, and it the excess will trickle down', It says, let the rich keep their money and they will invest it, which will create more employment in goods and services that people are actually willing to pay for. Creating a system designed to take money by force from one person and give it to another only adds to the economy by creating employment that transfers money.

2. One person stated that capitalism just leaves the rich with more in their "jar", as if the rich sit around surrounded by jars full of money. If they are permitted, the rich put their money back in the economy by buying resources and putting them into production to provide the goods and services people are willing to pay for. This increases supply and reduces prices, thus increasing demand. If they are restricted from putting their money into the economy through regulation and taxation, they will either attempt to influence that regulation and taxation, or speculate by investing in nonproductive assets.

3. It is proposed that money given to the poor increases demand. Presuming that to be true, the problem is that increased demand creates increased prices. Those increased prices may increase production, but only if the rich have money to invest in that increased production. If that money has been taken away from them by force, it is not there for investment.

4. One individual mentioned the effects of regulation, ie minimum wage and payroll mandates. Small business is negatively effected to the greatest extent, since large businesses can adjust by reducing personnel, reorganizing the business or effecting the regulation either legally or legislatively. This reduce the primary means for people to move from poverty to wealth.

5. The argument has been framed as those in poverty being there because of things beyond their control or their own lack of ambition. This is a false dichotomy. It is not either/or, but a combination of the two that keeps people in poverty. To the extent that there are things beyond the control of the poor, things can be done to increase opportunity, ie reduced regulation. However, if people choose to take advantage of opportunities to consume rather than opportunities to invest, handing them more resources with which to consume does nothing but inflate prices.

So, what motivates the poor, the opportunity to get more. The problem is that the poor are generally short sighted with their investments, due to a combination of circumstance and lack of discipline. The best way to help the poor is to encourage them to invest long term through reduced regulation and the promotion of long term investment, not increased consumption.

[WinePusher]

If poverty motivates, then why does class stay pretty much the same?

It doesn't. There will always be a class of rich people and poor people, that much is true. But the people that make up these classes are constantly changing. Income mobility is extremely prevalent in America, and you always have people moving up from the poor class to the rich class through the span of their life.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 12 by Ooberman]

Ooberman wrote:

If poverty motivates, then why does class stay pretty much the same?

When I was in school years ago, my Sociology textbook gave three main classes, with each class subdivided into upper and lower. Life Magazine also published a story on American classes and gave some identifying characteristics of each. For example, beer was the popular drink among the lower classes, while the middle class preferred cocktails. Wine seemed to be limited mostly to the uppler classes, although cheap wine was popular among the very lowest class.

The classes are definitely self-perpetuating. There is some volatility within the middle class, but the lower class remains stagnant and multiplies within itself. There is some correlation with income and with IQ, but childhood environment and education are most important. A lower class clod remains a lower class clod even if he wins millions in the lottery. It is said that IQ is formed by age six and is permanently fixed by age 15. It is said that you could dress him up in a good suit and a good haircut and he could pass in an upper-class country club until he opens his mouth.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 15 by JohnPaul]

I agree, for the most part soci-economic and environmental factors keep classes the same. On top of that our economy is dependent on things remaining the same for the most part. Where the best ideas(entrepreneurs) need skilled workers (middle class) who can distribute the ideas among unskilled workers(lower class). By virtue the largest class will always be the lower class as that is the one with the highest demand of employment. The middle class are skilled yes but lack the creativity of the Entrepreneurs who create industries i.e. Bill Gates, Henry Ford, Steve Jobs etc. There are very few people who can be visionaries like these people and because of this they will always be in the higher classes. Now there is also inherited wealth which can cause less intelligent people who lack the creativity of their forbearers to create a drag on the economy. However, I think for the most part that is unavoidable bi-product of the philosophy in which we run our economic affairs. The idea that you can provide for your family after death.

I think the largest issue we face then is not so much the fact that there is wealth in our social structures, but uncreative people who are lucky enough to be in that position creating a drag on our economy by stagnating innovation of ideas. How do we rectify this I am not sure.

[JohnPaul]

If poverty motivates, then why does class stay pretty much the same?

It doesn't. There will always be a class of rich people and poor people, that much is true. But the people that make up these classes are constantly changing. Income mobility is extremely prevalent in America, and you always have people moving up from the poor class to the rich class through the span of their life.

I do not equate class with wealth. For example, do you see a rock star as upper class? I hope not. I hope the absurd liberal edict of human equality has not forced the American concept of class down to that low a level.

[Darias]

[youtube][/youtube]
First let me say that when I see and hear people like this it makes me think that liberals and the occupy wallstreet crowd got it right...

For the sake of argument, let's assume this guy, at base, is a psychopath at worst and an asshole at best. That said, does one's lack of empathy, and crass attitude justify theft? If it is unethical to steal from your neighbor because he is an asshole, then it is also unethical to steal from everyone just because some of them might be assholes.

So, anyone or any group that advocates theft is unethical, period. The ends do not justify the means. I cannot take from my neighbor, give the loot to charity, call myself moral, and call my deed "good." I don't see how a ballot box magically makes that crime virtuous. Legal plunder is no more ethical than legally permissible murder -- even if the ballot box permits both.

Obviously what he's saying is pretty atrocious.

I'm going to go ahead an assume that he is not stupid. It seems to me that he is saying something extremely controversial and unapologetic because it gives him attention and it gives the station higher ratings. It's a win-win scenario like any other trade in the marketplace.

That said, I certainly didn't get any warm fuzzies from his choice of words.

Obviously poverty is NOT good, it's a very bad thing that needs to be reduced and completely obliterated.

1. Assuming what he said was honest and came from the depths of his heart, or bowels, entrepreneurs tend to see the glass half full, even when there's no water in the cup. Part of what makes successful people successful is that they don't let circumstance hold them back. There's a chance he didn't mean anything malicious, but in any case it came across as pretentious and uncaring. I certainly won't defend the guy.

2. Depending on your definition of poverty; it will always exist so long as someone else has something others do not. In that case I don't think poverty can be eliminated. Can it be mitigated? Certainly. I don't want poverty maximized anymore than anyone else does, but my view on the best way to alleviate the poor from their condition differs strongly with the Robin Hood approach many seem to be fond of.

But, putting aside this guys absurd and offensive comments, I've managed to glean two points in what he's saying:

1. Poverty motivates people to do better in life (this point was also made by Benjamin Franklin).
2. Capitalism has been the only socioeconomic system that has significantly reduced poverty throughout the globe.

I think it's a fact that Capitalism has done a great deal of good for the poorer classes of society, but the first point about poverty being a motivator remains to be seen. I would also say that poverty is by in large a combination of two factors: personal responsibility and circumstances beyond personal control. You're either poor because you got dealt a crappy hand of cards (in this case you have no control over the situation), or you're poor because you're lazy and not hard working (in this case you do have control over your situation). This is a crucial distinction that needs to be made because I think that all of us would have no problem providing assistance to people who are poor because of circumstances beyond their control. But when it comes to people who are poor by choice I think it's safe to say that all of us would have a problem giving them money since they're perfectly capable of making money themselves.

Questions: What is the cause of poverty? Does poverty motivate people to do better in life? How can poverty be reduced?

1. It can.
2. That's a given. It's really hard to deny that reality.

Obviously circumstances you're born into, you can't help. But if everyone never tried because they believed they were destined for rags, then you wouldn't have all these successful billionaires around.

I can say that this economy is not doing well right now and that there are a lot of people in my shoes, but ultimately, I'm still responsible for my choices that contributed to my current status of unemployment. Some people are content to blame everyone else for their problems, and in the case that that's true, they'd rather wallow in that than do their best to change their situation. I personally don't think progressives are helping when they tell the poor that they can't do anything about their situation and that they deserve a better job with more money and they should resent people who have more -- because being resentful and entitled isn't helping them gain employment. No one, not even Bill Gates or Obama is beneath hard work. If you have this sense of entitlement that keeps you from scrubbing toilets or picking berries then you're either not going to get the job or you're going to get fired.

People are responsible for their choices. If a woman decides to get pregnant with a deadbeat dad and he leaves her and she is forced to work -- that's not my fault. She made the decision to have sex with an unfaithful person, to have that child, and to raise it, and if she can't work full time and raise her kids too, then it's really sad, but why should anyone be made to pay for her mistakes? If you want to help out, that's mighty charitable of you -- nothing wrong with that.

I made the decision to go to college and get a BA in liberal arts -- a completely unmarketable field and worthless wall decoration. It would be really nice if I could just give Goat my federal student loan bill every month as I'm sure he's doing well enough for himself to take care of me. But my problems aren't his unless he wants them to be.

He has nothing to worry about because he wont see me voting to have the elderly subsidize the young -- or voting at all for that matter. I, however, do have to pay more in health insurance to benefit wealthy baby boomers. Thanks Obama.

This is totally backwards. THis person has no idea or concept about poverty what so ever, and the fact that 85 people have 50% of the worlds wealth is not 'motivation', it is just greed and oligarchy.

Half the people living in poverty so 85 people can live opulently is obscene.

I hear this alot, but I'm sorry it's not "the world's wealth." The planet is not an agent, and the wealth belongs to the individuals who have earned it legitimately.

Phrasing it the way you have is as ridiculous as saying 1% of the neighborhood owns 50% of the community's pools. First, the pools belong to the individual owners, not the community; and secondly, it's not the pool owners' fault that their neighbors do not have pools. It is not the pool owners' collective duty to ensure that the others receive pools. The people who have pools don't deserve contempt on behalf of the people who do not. One does not deserve to be robbed just because they have something; and the other doesn't deserve degradation just because they do not.

And I don't know about you, but not having money is a damned huge incentive to get some. I say this from personal experience. Even progressives admit this because it's just obvious. Check the 8 minute mark:

[center][yt][/yt][/center]


When you don't have an unemployment check coming in, you will try just a bit harder to find a job. I'm currently an unemployed college graduate and I will take any job I can get my hands on. I will do a tap dance just for a sales job. I know I won't be bagging groceries 'til I'm 40, so it's not like I'm signing my own fate.

I know this is anecdotal, but I've spoken with people who come from 1% households. They usually don't have any drive and say that they'll just rely on inheritance. One guy I talked to spent enough money to buy a brand new, top of the line PC for just a mic and a pair of headphones; whereas I spent about $50 for an all in one headset that does the same thing. I'm telling you, a spoiled generation just does not have the same money sense or work ethic that the poor have. There's an old Chinese proverb that states, "Wealth can't pass beyond the third generation," and there is definitely some truth in that. The upper class does not get richer indefinitely. And in the case of O'Leary, he's not letting his own kids have any of his wealth. So he's certainly not contributing to any sort of oligarchical lineage.

I'm probably on the bottom end of the middle class, but I don't plan to stay that way if I can make more money one day. I certainly don't plan to mooch off anyone else, family or otherwise. I'd rather be homeless than sign up for unemployment and I mean that.

Well, there is poverty, and then there is poverty to the point of suffering. I think it is feasilible to get to the point where there is a lack of suffering in poverty. If people get paid enough to LIVE. not maybe get fancy cars, or extra fine cloths, but enough for the basic food/shelter, basic medical and clothes. That is not what we get with corporatism.

Abject poverty is a serious problem in 3rd world countries and socialist backwaters. Yet it is not a problem here. "Our" poor have refrigerators, cellphones, cars, air conditioning, computers, and food. But in other places war torn by dictatorships and socialist policies for decades -- people there are lucky to own a tar-paper shack, let alone have access to clean drinking water.

From a consequentialist point of view, corporatism is preferable to whatever East Germany had. I strongly oppose corporatism for how much in contributes to the wealth gap and for how it uses the state for its benefit, but I also blame the game and not the players. Government protects the rich from risk and loss and that's unfair for small businesses. Government picks favorites and contributes greatly to pollution and just about every other ill you could imagine.

In China, while forming unions are illegal and despite the fact that many of its industries are state owned, state capitalism has helped bring millions out of abject poverty; the same is true in India. Keep in mind, this is capitalism as it is not as it should be. I think the world would be a much better and richer place if there were fewer North Koreas and fewer socialist policies that are better at rationing than creating prosperity. I don't want the US to go the way of Greece and other nations where people would like to retire at 55 and have free education, healthcare, and income. Those places have massive unemployment problems and currency problems and just about every problem you could imagine.

Even in places where corporations like Nike and Apple might encourage child labor, that is still better than child prostitution or suicide, which is what happens when laws are made against that sort of thing. In impoverished nations, child labor is the norm anyway and they'd all be working in the rice fields if there wasn't a factory to work in. That's nothing to celebrate over, but it's better than death.

I would like to see a world that is more free, where laws do not prohibit what currency you wish to use, where laws do not prevent you from starting a business or forming unions or traveling to work where you want to work.

It used to be the case where foreign families could come to the US to have better economic opportunities without passports. But nowadays everyone's too nationalistic and terrified to want that. I don't see the problem with immigration. If you don't want to work in a field, then foreigners aren't taking your jobs.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 18 by Darias]



Well put. I must say your eloquence is something I wish I possessed. While there are some issues with capitalism unfettered it far outweighs the alternative. There are also some really simple things that can be done to mitigate social issues without dumping tons of money into it or raising taxes.

Take for example what they are doing with education in Oregon. They are providing the upfront costs of college education by having a portion of your earned wages being returned over a period of time. So if you don't get that high paying job after you graduate you are not saddle with loans that make meeting ends nigh impossible. Trust me I took out $120,000 dollars for my education. those loan payments were expensive >.< only $30,000 to go So given the alternative I think ideas like that can help people who would be averse to taking out huge loans from going to college. [/url]

[Goat]

[Replying to post 18 by Darias]



Well put. I must say your eloquence is something I wish I possessed. While there are some issues with capitalism unfettered it far outweighs the alternative. There are also some really simple things that can be done to mitigate social issues without dumping tons of money into it or raising taxes.

Take for example what they are doing with education in Oregon. They are providing the upfront costs of college education by having a portion of your earned wages being returned over a period of time. So if you don't get that high paying job after you graduate you are not saddle with loans that make meeting ends nigh impossible. Trust me I took out $120,000 dollars for my education. those loan payments were expensive >.< only $30,000 to go So given the alternative I think ideas like that can help people who would be averse to taking out huge loans from going to college. [/url]

On the other hand, let's look at some of those 'fetters'?? How about the good old 'environmental and safty regulations'. Inspections have to be paid for. Now, there are some states that are very anti-regulation, and don't do their environmental and safety inspections nearly was good as they should.

Then disasters happen.. and guess what?? The people around there suffer.

While that can happen anyplace, isn't it amazing that it keeps on happening in states that are anti-regulation? You know, Utah, Texas, West Virginia?