Why the anti-sweatshop crusaders have it wrong

[Danoff]

One in seven Americans lives in poverty, according to this:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/census-1-7-americans-live-poverty/

If this is success, you can have it. I'll take something else, thank you.

I think you'd be surprised at how well people the US census classifies as living in poverty actually live. According to the US census bureau, I've lived in poverty. I can tell you right now that it's a ridiculous assessment. I wasn't starving or living in a cardboard box. I certainly would hate for you to use the years that I spent living in "poverty" as a reason not to support capitalism - which is the very reason I no longer live in "poverty".

 

[hambone8611]

I think you'd be surprised at how well people the US census classifies as living in poverty actually live. According to the US census bureau, I've lived in poverty. I can tell you right now that it's a ridiculous assessment. I wasn't starving or living in a cardboard box. I certainly would hate for you to use the years that I spent living in "poverty" as a reason not to support capitalism - which is the very reason I no longer live in "poverty".

What happened did you have to send your dog to bed hungry? Your personal brush with the poverty line means nothing , your flippant disregard for people struggling to put food on the table based on your ability to demean the poverty line drawn by the US census is highly insulting. And just how does wanting a higher standard of success end in complete abandonment of capitalism? Anyway I’ll ask point blank are you for or against the sweatshop, personally I’m firmly against.

 

[Keef]

Persons in Family ...48 States and DC ......Alaska ........Hawaii
1 __________________$10,830 ________$13,530 ____$12,460
2 __________________$14,570 ________$18,210 ____$16,760
3 __________________$18,310 ________$22,890 ____$21,060
4 __________________$22,050 ________$27,570 ____$25,360
5 __________________$25,790 ________$32,250 ____$29,660
6 __________________$29,530 ________$36,930 ____$33,960
7 __________________$33,270 ________$41,610 ____$38,260
8 __________________$37,010 ________$46,290 ____$42,560
For each additional person, add $3,740 __$4,680 _____$4,300

That's the poverty threshold in the States. I've made less than $10,830 in a year before. I lived in poverty. I'm doing alright. Now, eight people living with $37,000? That'd be a struggle.

I'll jump in the sweatshop debate. I won't answer your question though Hambone, instead I'll say I'm for capitalism. If there were no government intervention you can bet that employees would often band together and demand better working conditions, better pay, etc. Oh wait, we already have that, they're called Unions. A capitalist system demands that companies balance many things in order to be successful, employee moral included. If the employees aren't happy they don't do good work, then the company offers less quality to the consumer, the market share fades, they lose money, etc. Good milk comes from happy cows.

 

[Dotini]

"Capitalism". What does it really mean? Have the very specifics of capitalism evolved over the centuries? Surely yes.

The foremost exemplar of capitalism in the world today is China, under the guise of state capitalism.

As libertarians, we are all familiar with ideals and their value in guiding thought and action. But at some point, we also have to deal with reality as it's found on the ground around us.

So one in 7 Americans are impoverished. That must be the price of competition, and a minor if inconvenient fact of life in the globalized world of capitalism and innovative markets. Not to worry, you say? If we fail, and China succeeds, we can all become Chinamen! Not hardly.

What if 4 of 7 Americans were impoverished? Or 6 of 7? At some point we must acknowledge the failure of abstract and mutable ideals in an over-intellectualized world as justifying the here-and-now suffering of our family, our fellow citizens and our own country. Not to do so is to put blinkered ideology above the most basic human values, including self-interest.

I submit that capitalism in the US ran off the tracks.
1) Off the gold standard in the 70's.
2) Permanent culture of deficit, debt and deregulation beginning in the 80's.
3) Excessive outsourcing and off-shoring beginning in the 90's.
4) Excessive speculation and leveraging beginning in the '00's.
5) Excessive reliance on militarism as a primary engine of domestic growth and global hegemony throughout.

 

[ExigeEvan]

That's the poverty threshold in the States. I've made less than $10,830 in a year before. I lived in poverty. I'm doing alright. Now, eight people living with $37,000? That'd be a struggle.

But haven't you always live with your parents?

 

[Danoff]

What happened did you have to send your dog to bed hungry? Your personal brush with the poverty line means nothing , your flippant disregard for people struggling to put food on the table based on your ability to demean the poverty line drawn by the US census is highly insulting.

It's nonsense. You don't think you can feed yourself on $10k per year? That's not including the money, food stamps, and everything else our government ships you. You don't think a single person can eat on $10k per year? Keep in mind there are no taxes on that. You actually MAKE money off the tax code at that income level.

I'm here to tell you I made less than $10k for years and not only did I manage to feed myself every day (no problem), but I also put a roof over my head and gas in my car.

Yes, if I'm "making ends meet" as it were and still below the poverty line - then the poverty line is drawn incorrectly. It's easy enough for Dontini to say that 1 in 7 Americans lives in "poverty" and we all imagine rampant homelessness and people starving in the streets. But what's that's actually describing is people who ARE putting food on the table, getting to work, and sleeping in their own bed. It's nonsense. It demeans people in this country and elsewhere in the world who really ARE living in poverty.

And just how does wanting a higher standard of success end in complete abandonment of capitalism? Anyway I’ll ask point blank are you for or against the sweatshop, personally I’m firmly against.

For!

Bringing jobs to people who otherwise have no opportunities is a good thing. Am I for slavery? No. Am I for companies forcing these people to work? Absolutely not.

"Capitalism". What does it really mean? Have the very specifics of capitalism evolved over the centuries? Surely yes.

It's an economic construct that's fairly specifically defined.

The foremost exemplar of capitalism in the world today is China, under the guise of state capitalism.

Communist with capitalist pretense.

So one in 7 Americans are impoverished. That must be the price of competition, and a minor if inconvenient fact of life in the globalized world of capitalism and innovative markets.

It's the price of our wandering AWAY from competition.

I submit that capitalism in the US ran off the tracks.
1) Off the gold standard in the 70's.
2) Permanent culture of deficit, debt and deregulation beginning in the 80's.
3) Excessive outsourcing and off-shoring beginning in the 90's.
4) Excessive speculation and leveraging beginning in the '00's.
5) Excessive reliance on militarism as a primary engine of domestic growth and global hegemony throughout.

First of all, none of this is permanent. Deregulation is a good thing when you're over regulated, and debt is a better way to defeat an aggressive communist adversary than blood. Outsourcing can be very good for your economy. It's a healthy and natural thing for a progressing workforce to do. Speculation and leveraging will happen, it will fail, and it will happen again. It's something that we will always experiment with and there's nothing inherently wrong with it.

...and we don't rely on our military as an engine for domestic growth, and we don't rely on natural resources (that aren't) taken by our military.

Anything else?

 

[Dotini]

Anything else?

Yes. We need to commence the systematic vilification and extirpation from academic legitimacy of all the works of Milton Friedman.

 

[Danoff]

Yes. We need to commence the systematic vilification and extirpation from academic legitimacy of all the works of Milton Friedman.

Have you read any Milton Friedman?

 

[Dotini]

Have you read any Milton Friedman?

Yes. Both in an academic environment and out. I studied economics, amongst other things, at the University of Washington. His thinking was the hot stuff when I was younger. Wiser now, and more experienced, I have come to the conclusion that, more than any other single individual, uncle Miltie is responsible for the economic disaster we are in. He has given the false imprimatur of academic sanction to almost every item on my bill of particulars. He and his thinking must be stamped out!! As of course must the silly and jejune notion that the remotest possibility of your becoming personally wealthy justifies the widespread destruction of the middle class in America.

Do you ever get to Seattle? Drop by, and I will buy you a meal and plenty of liquor.

 

[Danoff]

I've been to Seattle, but it's been a while.

We should discuss Milton's theories in a different thread. But I wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment.

 

[Dotini]

I've been to Seattle, but it's been a while.

We should discuss Milton's theories in a different thread. But I wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment.

Let me know next time you come to Seattle. That also applies to Famine and any other denizen of this forum! I'll buy. I have a new oil well in Texas just now coming on line!

I know my ideas are not exactly mainstream (yet!). it's okay to disagree.

Respectfully yours,
Dotini

 

[hambone8611]

It's nonsense. You don't think you can feed yourself on $10k per year? That's not including the money, food stamps, and everything else our government ships you. You don't think a single person can eat on $10k per year? Keep in mind there are no taxes on that. You actually MAKE money off the tax code at that income level.

I'm here to tell you I made less than $10k for years and not only did I manage to feed myself every day (no problem), but I also put a roof over my head and gas in my car.

Yes, if I'm "making ends meet" as it were and still below the poverty line - then the poverty line is drawn incorrectly. It's easy enough for Dontini to say that 1 in 7 Americans lives in "poverty" and we all imagine rampant homelessness and people starving in the streets. But what's that's actually describing is people who ARE putting food on the table, getting to work, and sleeping in their own bed. It's nonsense. It demeans people in this country and elsewhere in the world who really ARE living in poverty.



For!

Bringing jobs to people who otherwise have no opportunities is a good thing. Am I for slavery? No. Am I for companies forcing these people to work? Absolutely not.




Well if you live under the bridge you should be able to eat fairly well on 10 grand but let’s assume you have to pay your own way through this life.
Around here a cheap roof over your head about 600 a month =7200 a year, power another 100 a month = 1200 starting to look bleak now that we’re down to 1600 bucks for the year and we have not scratched the surface of the coast of living. I’m not going to go into all the other expenses you know they exist. And food stamps can’t hardly be considered part of anybody’s wage I can’t even believe you said that. And what other money and stuff does the government send you,oh wait they don’t , so how much money do you get as a single person at the end of the year with that kind of income and no EIC can’t be much

I really don’t care what you say you did. You’re not the standard setter you seem to think you are.

The poverty line is not drawn to low simply because you say so. And try opening your eyes to the world around you homelessness is rampant, no room at the mission and their fighting for space under the bridges at night and the soup kitchens are struggling. Sure it could be much worse but that’s hardly the goal.

So I asked you a point blank question and gave you a point blank answer to that question and what did you do? You dodged that question by answering two separate questions, the same cowardly tactic that politicians’ use. Not only that but you made a statement that put the best possible spin on the topic at hand HHMMM.

 

[Keef]

But haven't you always live with your parents?

Of course I've always lived with my parents. Are you not allowed to be considered impoverished if you live with parents? Okay, then consider 3 of my friends who live together in a house they rent. They make more money than me, but they're all poorer than me. So let me get this straight. Because they make a certain amount of money they're not in poverty, despite the fact that they're measurably poorer than me?

My point is that the government guidelines for measuring "poverty" are a bit lenient. If I can live fine while being in poverty but they can struggle while being in poverty then it seems the definition of poverty is a bit off.

The fact that "1 in 7 Americans live in poverty" is misleading. Some people out there genuinely struggle, but some people, when you inform them they're impoverished, would reply with "I am?"

I'll tell you what though, I bet I'd be doing a lot better if the government didn't steal 30% of my paychecks and waste it on crap that doesn't help me any. Pretty sure I can make more informed decisions about how to use my money than they can.

 

[Northstar]

These people aren't being forced to work, they voluntarily chose to work in these places becauses its economically better than actually being in slavery e.g. prostitution and other sex work or living on the streets, stravation.

How do you know they aren't being forced?

I'm not saying that they all are, but it's not exactly hard to imagine that there are sweatshops where they are forced to work.

 

[Keef]

The foremost exemplar of capitalism in the world today is China, under the guise of state capitalism.

Capitalism /= state capitalism. There's no such thing. According to the dictionary, capitalism is...

an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

You know that. Why philosophize about the meaning of "the"?

I submit that capitalism in the US ran off the tracks.
1) Off the gold standard in the 70's.
2) Permanent culture of deficit, debt and deregulation beginning in the 80's.
3) Excessive outsourcing and off-shoring beginning in the 90's.
4) Excessive speculation and leveraging beginning in the '00's.
5) Excessive reliance on militarism as a primary engine of domestic growth and global hegemony throughout.

...therefore, don't blame poverty on the spoils of capitalism. Blame it on capitalism that has been heavily tampered with by a money- and power-hungry government. And that, of course, is hardly capitalism anymore.

 

[Danoff]

Well if you live under the bridge you should be able to eat fairly well on 10 grand but let’s assume you have to pay your own way through this life.
Around here a cheap roof over your head about 600 a month =7200 a year,

You're already talking like someone who has never had to make ends meet on that kind of money. You think it costs $600/month to put a roof over your head? When I made that kind of money I spent $325/month on rent (and I paid more than I had to because I had a nice place - no leaks*, no roaches, carpet, and a dependable toilet and refrigerator). Utilities were $35/month, groceries were ~$100/month. So far I've totaled $460/month and I've covered all the basics - food, water, shelter, and electricity. That's less than $6000 per year. That's 16 hours a week of work at minimum wage. At the time I also paid for cable, high speed internet, and gas and I still made less than the poverty line.

I remember it because I budgeted those figures VERY carefully. If you're covering all of the basics, I don't consider you to be living in poverty and I think it degrades the term to use it to describe someone who is capable of making ends meet. Poverty means living at a shelter, eating at a soup kitchen, and/or bathing at a public facility. The line is drawn incorrectly and it's the reason Dontini is able to quote inflated statistics.

And what other money and stuff does the government send you,oh wait they don’t

Unemployment, disability (I've seen the abuses), welfare, subsidized housing, "earned income", subsidized phone, electricity, water, WIC, the list really does go on and on. You'd know this if you'd ever looked into any of it.

The poverty line is not drawn to low simply because you say so.

No, not because I say so. It's drawn too high because it includes people that have, or can have, all of the basic necessities in live covered. That's why it's drawn too high. I think to really get to the point where necessities can't be covered you'd have to drop it below $5000/year - less than half of what it is now. I managed to keep my expenses for necessities at around $6000/year and I was aware that more savings could be had.

And try opening your eyes to the world around you homelessness is rampant, no room at the mission and their fighting for space under the bridges at night and the soup kitchens are struggling.

These people are not making $10,000 per year. You're not listening to what I'm saying. I'm saying that lumping me in my apartment with my electricity, stove, heat, cable, internet, water, and groceries in with people fighting for space under a bridge is irresponsible and insulting. To say that I lived in poverty while people really are living in poverty is ludicrous - yet that's exactly what the US census bureau is doing and it's the reason Dontini says 1 in 7 Americans are living in "poverty". It's a stupid definition and it's insulting to people who really are impoverished.

So I asked you a point blank question and gave you a point blank answer to that question and what did you do? You dodged that question...

I most certainly did not. You asked me for or against and I answered a resounding, unquestioning, FOR!. I even included the exclamation point. I don't know how much more straight an answer I can give you.


* There was one nasty leak now that I think about it.

 

[A2K78]

How do you know they aren't being forced?

I'm not saying that they all are, but it's not exactly hard to imagine that there are sweatshops where they are forced to work.

First and foremost, why would anybody voluntarily want to take employment where they are "forced"?

As I have said the people working in these so-called "sweatshops" aren't being forced, but they voluntarily chose the line of occupation because they see it as a better economic vehicle as oppose work where they are actually being forced e.g. prostitution or begging...

 

[Dotini]

Why philosophize about the meaning of "the"?


...therefore, don't blame poverty on the spoils of capitalism. Blame it on capitalism that has been heavily tampered with by a money- and power-hungry government. And that, of course, is hardly capitalism anymore.

I'm mildly disappointed to be accused of philosophizing. I look upon it as punchy, hard-hitting empirical facts.

But I do like your concluding statement! I'll reword it this way:

"Blame poverty on capitalism that has been heavily corrupted by power-hungry government and a ruthlessly amoral Wall Street, each sanctioned by radically neo-liberal professors in academia."

Yours,
Dotini

 

[Scaff]

First and foremost, why would anybody voluntarily want to take employment where they are "forced"?

Possibly because they are mislead when taking that employment, you are aware that people do lie.

You mention being forced into prostitution in your next paragraph, so I would image you are more than aware that in many cases these 'jobs' would have been presented as legitimate jobs at first, with girls only finding they are trapped into prostitution when they arrive in a new country.

As I have said the people working in these so-called "sweatshops" aren't being forced, but they voluntarily chose the line of occupation because they see it as a better economic vehicle as oppose work where they are actually being forced e.g. prostitution or begging...

You point here goes back to a question I asked when you first started this thread and have not yet answered.....

Are you (and the author) seriously expecting us to believe that every third world employer pays above average wages and offers excellent working conditions? If so it displays a level of naivety that is staggering.

To then lump everyone who believes that sweat shops that do exploit workers and pay substandard wages (for the local area) as simply being slaves to the US union movement is equally laughable. Sorry, but does the rest of the world not have an issue with this very problem or are they also in the thrall of the American unions?

....you seem to be adopting a rather narrow view of what goes on.

The link I provided in my first reply even gave you an example in regard to your first paragraph (First and foremost, why would anybody voluntarily want to take employment where they are "forced"?), in which people were employed quite legitimately in a factory and then forced to work huge amounts of overtime at half the legal rate (for the country itself) under threat of being fired if they did not (in violation of the countries labour laws).


Or this case in which a maid employed directly via a legitimate agency was then tortuered by her employers...

http://arabnews.com/saudiarabia/article112477.ece

In the same way that good and bad employers do exist, to keep using the point "so-called "sweatshops"" does your own argument no good. Unless you are attempting to claim that no employer is capable of abusing and/or exploiting workers then as a term its misleading.

Are all third-world factories 'sweat-shops'? Of course not, many are excellent places to work that offer opportunities that would otherwise not exists. Does that mean sweat-shops don't exist? Of course not, and to keep labouring a point that seems to be supporting the non-existence of them undermines your point to such a level that its hard to take it seriously.


Scaff

 

[Northstar]

First and foremost, why would anybody voluntarily want to take employment where they are "forced"?

As I have said the people working in these so-called "sweatshops" aren't being forced, but they voluntarily chose the line of occupation because they see it as a better economic vehicle as oppose work where they are actually being forced e.g. prostitution or begging...

I will ask again since you once again haven't answered my question.

How do you know? Just saying it doesn't make it true.

I'm not trying to say they all do, but it's not hard to see this happening. Most of these factories are in 3rd world countries where there is really little law enforcement which means it's very possible that these factories are ran by cartels who go into villages, kidnap people, make them work than give them a dollar or two to make it look semi-legitimate.

I don't have anything supporting this, but it's not exactly a stretch to see it happening considering what else goes on in third world countries.

 

[hambone8611]

You're already talking like someone who has never had to make ends meet on that kind of money. You think it costs $600/month to put a roof over your head? When I made that kind of money I spent $325/month on rent (and I paid more than I had to because I had a nice place - no leaks*, no roaches, carpet, and a dependable toilet and refrigerator). Utilities were $35/month, groceries were ~$100/month. So far I've totaled $460/month and I've covered all the basics - food, water, shelter, and electricity. That's less than $6000 per year. That's 16 hours a week of work at minimum wage. At the time I also paid for cable, high speed internet, and gas and I still made less than the poverty line.

I remember it because I budgeted those figures VERY carefully. If you're covering all of the basics, I don't consider you to be living in poverty and I think it degrades the term to use it to describe someone who is capable of making ends meet. Poverty means living at a shelter, eating at a soup kitchen, and/or bathing at a public facility. The line is drawn incorrectly and it's the reason Dontini is able to quote inflated statistics.




Unemployment, disability (I've seen the abuses), welfare, subsidized housing, "earned income", subsidized phone, electricity, water, WIC, the list really does go on and on. You'd know this if you'd ever looked into any of it.



No, not because I say so. It's drawn too high because it includes people that have, or can have, all of the basic necessities in live covered. That's why it's drawn too high. I think to really get to the point where necessities can't be covered you'd have to drop it below $5000/year - less than half of what it is now. I managed to keep my expenses for necessities at around $6000/year and I was aware that more savings could be had.



These people are not making $10,000 per year. You're not listening to what I'm saying. I'm saying that lumping me in my apartment with my electricity, stove, heat, cable, internet, water, and groceries in with people fighting for space under a bridge is irresponsible and insulting. To say that I lived in poverty while people really are living in poverty is ludicrous - yet that's exactly what the US census bureau is doing and it's the reason Dontini says 1 in 7 Americans are living in "poverty". It's a stupid definition and it's insulting to people who really are impoverished.



I most certainly did not. You asked me for or against and I answered a resounding, unquestioning, FOR!. I even included the exclamation point. I don't know how much more straight an answer I can give you.


* There was one nasty leak now that I think about it.

First I would like to apologize for miss reading your answer to my question I read it as a segway to the statement that followed and not an answer, so my comment to that was clearly out of line.
As to my time below the poverty line it was spent in part raising two daughters and I was also very resourceful however poverty based pissing contest is not one I would want to win. I will also say that my brush with poverty means no more than yours does which is still nothing.
As to the expenses you list, rent at about ½ low market value for a studio where I live you don’t see that every day
Power for 35 dollars a month that’s the same amount my bill went up when the step son moved back in. My younger brother’s studio runs 60 in summer 120 winters and he lives alone. Even if you survive on just two meals a day your average meal is $1.78. [If you have to sustain life on three and a half bucks a day and you don’t feel your living in poverty I don’t think bathing in a public facility is going to be an eye opening experience]
You’re telling of what poverty is sets the bar so incredibly low and is so out of touch with reality I can only shake my head with amazement.
As to unemployment you do realize that is something you pay into and may or may not use, it does not come just because you fill out the right paperwork, same with disability [their being abused has no relevance] the other things you mentioned are not handed out as readily as you may think and I would not want to change places with the one who is receiving any of them nor do I begrudge them.
I am listing to what you are saying it’s just that you are wrong on so many levels, beginning with something called fair market value and the assumption that there are plenty off landlords that are willing to accept less than half that

 

[Danoff]

I am listing to what you are saying it’s just that you are wrong on so many levels, beginning with something called fair market value and the assumption that there are plenty off landlords that are willing to accept less than half that

Look, you do what you have to when you don't have the money. You're assuming that anyone who cannot afford to live alone in a studio apartment where you live is in poverty. You're wrong - that person is poor. I had a room mate when I wasn't making any money. Some of my friends had many room mates, and lived on next-to-nothing. You're assuming for some reason that if you have to share space you're living in poverty. It's ridiculous. You have an absolutely American view of what constitutes poverty. If living alone is a must, I knew where I could rent the equivalent of pool houses in peoples' back yards for $200/month or less.

Poverty means being unable to provide something fundamental - like food, electricity, or shelter. It means you're not getting a healthy amount of calories, or are relying on charity to supply you with the basic necessities of life. Poverty does not mean poor. It means what wikipedia says it means:

Poverty is the lack of basic human needs...

You attempting to describe poverty as someone who can't afford their very own studio apartment in any city in America is an abuse of the term. There are many ways to put a roof over your head and food in your belly without shelling out $700/month in rent.

 

[homeforsummer]

Of course I've always lived with my parents. Are you not allowed to be considered impoverished if you live with parents? Okay, then consider 3 of my friends who live together in a house they rent. They make more money than me, but they're all poorer than me. So let me get this straight. Because they make a certain amount of money they're not in poverty, despite the fact that they're measurably poorer than me?

My point is that the government guidelines for measuring "poverty" are a bit lenient. If I can live fine while being in poverty but they can struggle while being in poverty then it seems the definition of poverty is a bit off.

I don't want to get drawn into the general arguement here but your assessment above Keef is pretty poor.

Of course your basic wage isn't the sole measure of relative poverty or not, otherwise a spoilt teenager with rich parents but with a paper round earning a few dollars a day would be considered impoverished when a couple with low-paid day jobs (yet earning above the threshold) and trying to make ends meet wouldn't.

So no, as long as your parents have enough money to comfortably support your family then regardless of whether you're personally earning "below the poverty line" then you aren't in poverty. The whole thing needs to be taken in context.

I personally earn only just over half of the average UK salary per year. My girlfriend probably earns about a half, maybe slightly less. We live together, rent our own place, pay our own bills, and I run a car too.

We aren't even slightly "in poverty" but we certainly aren't "well off". And yet, each of us probably earns more than some younger GTP members living with their parents, yet I bet some of those living with their parents are considerably less impoverished (I don't like to use the term as we aren't, but it gets my point across) than we are. Certainly, the amount that some people seem to spend with regularity on their cars even though they work behind a till in a shop seems to suggest this. It's also why there are lads living around where I live with brand new £30k cars even though they work in clothes shops. When you live with your parents you can afford to save up, pay a deposit on a fancy car and keep up with the repayments. Stick them in their own place and tell them to actually live off what they earn and watch them trade in that Audi TT for a ten year old Fiesta pretty damn quick.

So yeah, my point is the poverty line thing has to be taken in context. It's no use being obtuse about it, but if you happen to be living by yourself and only earning $10k a year, you can bet you'd struggle a lot more than you are now.

 

[Keef]

So yeah, my point is the poverty line thing has to be taken in context.

And my point is that the "poverty line", as arbitrarily defined by the government, isn't always correct. There are people below it who have and can afford "basic human needs, such as clean water, nutrition, health care, education, clothing and shelter." So, the "1 in 7" blanket statement isn't necessarily correct, which is what Danoff has been arguing, and he used his own "poverty" situation as an example.

You can't argue the issue if the principle the issue is based on is wrong. Deep thought is a bitch and that's why your average politician won't be bothered.

EDIT: Dontini, sorry if I misinterpreted your statement, but either way it convinced me to go look up a proper definition of capitalism. That's one more person who understands it and that's a good thing.

 

[FoolKiller]

How do you know? Just saying it doesn't make it true.

I'm not trying to say they all do, but it's not hard to see this happening. Most of these factories are in 3rd world countries where there is really little law enforcement which means it's very possible that these factories are ran by cartels who go into villages, kidnap people, make them work than give them a dollar or two to make it look semi-legitimate.

I don't have anything supporting this, but it's not exactly a stretch to see it happening considering what else goes on in third world countries.

I can tell you I know that sweatshops don't do this. Because when you do this you cross a line and are no longer, by definition, a sweatshop.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sweatshop

a shop employing workers at low wages, for long hours, and under poor conditions.

The moment you throw in kidnapping and force it becomes slavery, even if you pay them.

I equate a sweatshop to what coal mining towns used to be like, where all property and shops around the coal mine was owned by the mining company. They charged enough for food and rent to get nearly your entire paycheck back. You couldn't quit because you had no other options as the town you lived in was only there because of the coal mine. The only people to get out were the ones willing to risk weeks or months of poverty by leaving and finding new work in another location.

The key there is that you can leave. If someone will harm or kill you for trying to quit a job it is a whole different thing.

 

[hambone8611]

Look, you do what you have to when you don't have the money. You're assuming that anyone who cannot afford to live alone in a studio apartment where you live is in poverty. You're wrong - that person is poor. I had a room mate when I wasn't making any money. Some of my friends had many room mates, and lived on next-to-nothing. You're assuming for some reason that if you have to share space you're living in poverty. It's ridiculous. You have an absolutely American view of what constitutes poverty. If living alone is a must, I knew where I could rent the equivalent of pool houses in peoples' back yards for $200/month or less.

Poverty means being unable to provide something fundamental - like food, electricity, or shelter. It means you're not getting a healthy amount of calories, or are relying on charity to supply you with the basic necessities of life. Poverty does not mean poor. It means what wikipedia says it means:



You attempting to describe poverty as someone who can't afford their very own studio apartment in any city in America is an abuse of the term. There are many ways to put a roof over your head and food in your belly without shelling out $700/month in rent.

So by your means of establishing the poverty line it’s two to a studio and 5000 a year or a budget of 200 a month to fly solo under your roof, [I hope there is a lot of pool rooms available] well why not 3 to a studio and 3500 a year or better yet through a forth in there and call yourself upper middle class. I will tell you why not, because that kind of logic is retarded. Yea I subscribe to a higher minimum standard than you do and if that makes me typical American, cool.


What’s up with that Taxifornia thing anyway? Can’t pass up an opportunity to whine about paying your taxes.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

So by your means of establishing the poverty line it’s two to a studio and 5000 a year or a budget of 200 a month to fly solo under your roof, [I hope there is a lot of pool rooms available] well why not 3 to a studio and 3500 a year or better yet through a forth in there and call yourself upper middle class. I will tell you why not, because that kind of logic is retarded. Yea I subscribe to a higher minimum standard than you do and if that makes me typical American, cool.

I know five friends who share an apartment "floor". Three have their own room and two sleep in the area beside the living room. The only major problem is that there is only one bathroom. From what I have seen it looks a lot better than poverty. And they'll be happier than someone living alone who is materially better off.

What’s up with that Taxifornia thing anyway? Can’t pass up an opportunity to whine about paying your taxes.

You know their taxation isn't exactly known for being the lowest around the country.

 

[Joel]

So by your means of establishing the poverty line it’s two to a studio and 5000 a year or a budget of 200 a month to fly solo under your roof, [I hope there is a lot of pool rooms available] well why not 3 to a studio and 3500 a year or better yet through a forth in there and call yourself upper middle class. I will tell you why not, because that kind of logic is retarded. Yea I subscribe to a higher minimum standard than you do and if that makes me typical American, cool.


What’s up with that Taxifornia thing anyway? Can’t pass up an opportunity to whine about paying your taxes.

That's the thing. The "higher minimum standard" really isn't poverty. I don't consider someone to be impoverished until they can't buy food, shelter, water, and electricity. If you can cover that, it's not poverty.

 

[Famine]

So by your means of establishing the poverty line

Which he didn't state.

He said the existing metric is insulting because it would have included him when he wasn't living in poverty. It insults him, by saying he was in poverty when he wasn't, and it insults those actually in poverty because it includes people like him who weren't. Which means the existing metric is inadequate. He didn't propose a replacement one.

 

[Duke]

well why not 3 to a studio and 3500 a year or better yet through a forth in there and call yourself upper middle class. I will tell you why not, because that kind of logic is retarded. Yea I subscribe to a higher minimum standard than you do and if that makes me typical American, cool.

So, then why not define "poverty" as an even higher standard (pick your favorite) and then simply redistribute money until everyone meets that standard? Sounds like a simple way to eliminate poverty to me.

Let me know how that works out for you. Or, just look around and see how that's working out, because that's what we've been doing for the last, ohhh, 50 years.

Did you know that the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD, who oversee publicly-funded housing) defines broadband internet as a basic human need? New welfare housing projects, and substantially renovated ones, must now include "free" broadband internet for the tenants.

"Poverty", my hairy ass clean-shaven and shapely behind.