Why the anti-sweatshop crusaders have it wrong

[Biggles]

"Poverty", my hairy ass.

Doesn't the AUP cover this!

 

[Omnis]

Doesn't the AUP cover this!

Needs a few more paragraphs before it'll cover Duke's ass.

 

[Danoff]

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.

Let's lay off the insults shall we?

It's a hard thing to define, what poverty should be - I don't envy the government for getting into the business of doing so. Since you asked me to, I'll take a more careful stab at defining poverty:

Any of the following:
A) Inability to maintain healthy caloric intake due to financial reasons (probably something like 1500 for women and 2000 for men) without relying on charity.
B) Inability to provide shelter due to financial reasons without relying on charity. Shelter consists of a roof, walls, a toilet, running drinkable water, and in some cases heat up to a necessary level for maintainable survival.
C) Inability to provide the clothing (including shoes) necessary for maintainable survival without relying on charity due to financial reasons.

This is what I (and I think most of the world) consider poverty. Occasionally people place themselves in poverty by spending the money needed for calories, clothing, or shelter on something else (like an addictive substance). This is a case of voluntary poverty, but I think it still qualifies as a type of poverty.

I do not like using income as a basis for poverty, since someone with no income can still not be impoverished due to large financial reserves.

Yea I subscribe to a higher minimum standard than you do and if that makes me typical American, cool.

It also discredits any claims that "1 in 7" Americans being in "poverty" has some sort of meaning that we should act upon.

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

We have the highest state income tax (11%) and the highest state sales tax (10%). Winning either of those two would be a dubious honor. Winning both is absurd.

 

[Duke]

Doesn't the AUP cover this!

Needs a few more paragraphs before it'll cover Duke's ass.

Fixed that for you guys. Sorry.

 

[Biggles]

Fixed that for you guys. Sorry

It's going to take more than a little Photoshop to erase that image from my brain.

 

[hambone8611]

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.

Its flawed thinking no matter which direction you take it that was my point and who said anything about redistributing money?
I can’t do anything about HUD, but I certainly don’t.
Glade you found time for a shave.

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.

Sure he did, he stated where the line should be drawn @ why, which was completely arbitrary and meaningless. He did set the line at 5 grand a year.

Let's lay off the insults shall we?

It's a hard thing to define, what poverty should be - I don't envy the government for getting into the business of doing so. Since you asked me to, I'll take a more careful stab at defining poverty:

Any of the following:
A) Inability to maintain healthy caloric intake due to financial reasons (probably something like 1500 for women and 2000 for men) without relying on charity.
B) Inability to provide shelter due to financial reasons without relying on charity. Shelter consists of a roof, walls, a toilet, running drinkable water, and in some cases heat up to a necessary level for maintainable survival.
C) Inability to provide the clothing (including shoes) necessary for maintainable survival without relying on charity due to financial reasons.

This is what I (and I think most of the world) consider poverty. Occasionally people place themselves in poverty by spending the money needed for calories, clothing, or shelter on something else (like an addictive substance). This is a case of voluntary poverty, but I think it still qualifies as a type of poverty.

I do not like using income as a basis for poverty, since someone with no income can still not be impoverished due to large financial reserves.



It also discredits any claims that "1 in 7" Americans being in "poverty" has some sort of meaning that we should act upon.



We have the highest state income tax (11%) and the highest state sales tax (10%). Winning either of those two would be a dubious honor. Winning both is absurd.

If you don’t use money to establish where the line is what’s the point in the line and since money is the normal means of acquiring all that you listed we should stick with it. So a reasonable measure cannot be made by saying I found a place at ½ fare market value or by sharing expenses with a pocket full of friends, that only shields you from feeling the reality of your situation, it can also be fun. To draw a reasonable line you need to consider things like minimum wage coast of power, price of housing, all the things you mentioned against ones own ability to provide them unassisted if you fall short of that goal. Well in that ball park is the reasonable line. The line cannot be arbitrary that would be pointless. If you feel the need to keep score [1in7] then the way I see it your kinda obligated to agree on the arbitrary point. Who said anything about acting on the behalf of any body?

WOW they really got ya bent over don’t they?

 

[Keef]

who said anything about redistributing money?

My taxes pay in part to support people living in government-issued housing against my will. That is redistribution of wealth: forcibly taking it from those who have it and giving it to those who don't, and I haven't even considered who actually deserves it or not.

Sure he did, he stated where the line should be drawn @ why, which was completely arbitrary and meaningless. He did set the line at 5 grand a year.

He didn't define a policy or limit of any sort. He considered an option and gave a personal example to support his opinion. I believe you misinterpreted what he meant.

If you don’t use money to establish where the line is what’s the point in the line...

Good question. What is the point of drawing a poverty line? Is a "line" the best way of classifying those in poverty and those not? If the criteria of poverty change with location (the requirement of heat for survival, for example) then how can you possibly draw a line? Like I mentioned earlier, this system is fundamentally flawed and if you want to fix it you need to try thinking out of the box.

To draw a reasonable line you need to consider things like minimum wage coast of power, price of housing, all the things you mentioned against ones own ability to provide them unassisted if you fall short of that goal.

Minimum wage changes by State, so the poverty line would need to be set on a State basis. Price of housing can vary drastically depending on what city you're in, so the poverty line would need to be set on a local level. The heating issue Danoff mentioned earlier varies widely by location, obviously, and also varies from night to night, winter to winter. If you're in Brownsville, Texas you might never need heat. If you're in Alaska you might need it for most of the year. If you're in southern Florida you might not need it at all but for that one night when the Space Shuttle freezes on the launch pad. Here in Ohio, I needed it three nights ago but it's currently 9:56 pm and 79 degrees outside. I'm not seeing this line anywhere...

Well in that ball park is the reasonable line.

...so where is it, exactly?

The line cannot be arbitrary that would be pointless.

Setting the line arbitrarily makes it arbitrary.

If you feel the need to keep score [1in7] then the way I see it your kinda obligated to agree on the arbitrary point.

So two sentences after you said it can't be arbitrary because it would be pointless, you're now conceding that you're obligated to choose an arbitrary point? You already admitted correctly that that would be pointless. You're not making any sense here Hambone.

WOW they really got ya bent over don’t they?

If you want to start a totally mature internet flame war I can offer a joke about you enjoying it, and deciding to call you Gimp from now on. We all can play that game too and it doesn't have much place in an argument like this so how about you just cut it and stick to the point.

 

[Danoff]

Sure he did, he stated where the line should be drawn @ why, which was completely arbitrary and meaningless. He did set the line at 5 grand a year.

I suggested that it would be more reasonable, but it isn't what I would propose.

If you don’t use money to establish where the line is what’s the point in the line and since money is the normal means of acquiring all that you listed we should stick with it.

Money certainly should play a role, but INCOME shouldn't. The lack of being able to provide the things I listed for yourself financially constitute poverty. By that I mean, you must be going without one of the things I listed (because of money), or relying on charity to provide those things, to be impoverished. Drawing an arbitrary in the INCOME sand is not helpful.

So a reasonable measure cannot be made by saying I found a place at ½ fare market value or by sharing expenses with a pocket full of friends, that only shields you from feeling the reality of your situation, it can also be fun.

Far from shielding you from the reality of your situation, it enables you to make ends meet on less money. It makes you situation sustainable. And your room mates don't have to be friends. I've been room mates with people I wasn't friends with. It's a way to sacrifice a personal luxury (privacy) to avoid poverty.

To draw a reasonable line you need to consider things like minimum wage coast of power, price of housing, all the things you mentioned against ones own ability to provide them unassisted if you fall short of that goal.

Nope. I just have to determine whether the person is providing those things for themselves. By my definition, if I make $10,000 per year and share an apartment, I'm not in poverty. But if I make $10,000 per year and sleep on a cot at the salvation army because I cannot afford any of the places available, I am in poverty.

I think that makes far more sense than drawing a catch-all line in the sand at some INCOME level (which necessarily ignores wealth).

WOW they really got ya bent over don’t they?

Yup, it's not a good state to live in because of that. I wouldn't recommend it. The only reason I'm here is because I have a highly specialized job that doesn't exist outside of the state.

If you want to start a totally mature internet flame war...

Yea, I read it that way the first time too - but I think he was referring to my explanation of California taxes.

 

[hambone8611]

My taxes pay in part to support people living in government-issued housing against my will. That is redistribution of wealth: forcibly taking it from those who have it and giving it to those who don't, and I haven't even considered who actually deserves it or not.


He didn't define a policy or limit of any sort. He considered an option and gave a personal example to support his opinion. I believe you misinterpreted what he meant.


Good question. What is the point of drawing a poverty line? Is a "line" the best way of classifying those in poverty and those not? If the criteria of poverty change with location (the requirement of heat for survival, for example) then how can you possibly draw a line? Like I mentioned earlier, this system is fundamentally flawed and if you want to fix it you need to try thinking out of the box.


Minimum wage changes by State, so the poverty line would need to be set on a State basis. Price of housing can vary drastically depending on what city you're in, so the poverty line would need to be set on a local level. The heating issue Danoff mentioned earlier varies widely by location, obviously, and also varies from night to night, winter to winter. If you're in Brownsville, Texas you might never need heat. If you're in Alaska you might need it for most of the year. If you're in southern Florida you might not need it at all but for that one night when the Space Shuttle freezes on the launch pad. Here in Ohio, I needed it three nights ago but it's currently 9:56 pm and 79 degrees outside. I'm not seeing this line anywhere...


...so where is it, exactly?


Setting the line arbitrarily makes it arbitrary.


So two sentences after you said it can't be arbitrary because it would be pointless, you're now conceding that you're obligated to choose an arbitrary point? You already admitted correctly that that would be pointless. You're not making any sense here Hambone.


If you want to start a totally mature internet flame war I can offer a joke about you enjoying it, and deciding to call you Gimp from now on. We all can play that game too and it doesn't have much place in an argument like this so how about you just cut it and stick to the point.

There is one formula used, that result may vary from state to state but the result is not arbitrary. Sorry if I did not make that clear. I was not trying to start any war, in my circle that expression is common and not meant as an insult, except to the one doing the bending, but jokes don’t hurt me my sensibilities are not that delicate.

I suggested that it would be more reasonable, but it isn't what I would propose.




Money certainly should play a role, but INCOME shouldn't. The lack of being able to provide the things I listed for yourself financially constitute poverty. By that I mean, you must be going without one of the things I listed (because of money), or relying on charity to provide those things, to be impoverished. Drawing an arbitrary in the INCOME sand is not helpful.



Far from shielding you from the reality of your situation, it enables you to make ends meet on less money. It makes you situation sustainable. And your room mates don't have to be friends. I've been room mates with people I wasn't friends with. It's a way to sacrifice a personal luxury (privacy) to avoid poverty.



Nope. I just have to determine whether the person is providing those things for themselves. By my definition, if I make $10,000 per year and share an apartment, I'm not in poverty. But if I make $10,000 per year and sleep on a cot at the salvation army because I cannot afford any of the places available, I am in poverty.

I think that makes far more sense than drawing a catch-all line in the sand at some INCOME level (which necessarily ignores wealth).



Yup, it's not a good state to live in because of that. I wouldn't recommend it. The only reason I'm here is because I have a highly specialized job that doesn't exist outside of the state.



Yea, I read it that way the first time too - but I think he was referring to my explanation of California taxes.

Well I believe we end this portion of the topic right where we began, at an impasse. So the next logical question is why you are for the sweat shop and why am I against them. I’m not sure we should go down that road. I really struggle making myself clear with this computer. Your take on my last statement was correct I took no shot at you.