Whoever posted that picture of the starving proletars eating a sumptuous dinner, and angry faced, because they can only afford it once every five years, is a genius.

Are you an editor? Or a kindred poetic soul. I asked Amity that, and she told me to go fuck myself. — god must be atheist

I'm no editor, but when inspiration strikes, I think anyone can be an editor.

If a poem gets edited by other than its creator, it is fucked. If a poet asks someone to edit his or her poetry, he or she is fucked, along with the shiny poem s/he rode in on. — god must be atheist

That's true...It's why I hesitated a bit before going in the deep end.

I just realized, that I need to clarify this: Your organization I did not view as editing, only as enlightening. Thanks, I appreciated your work and am actually impressed by it. Although that's a covert compliment to myself as well. Oh, well. — god must be atheist

Haha! Well, you are the person who wrote it after all.

Low income vs. High Income = TB vs. Diabetes! :grin:

Low income vs. High Income = TB vs. Diabetes! — Agent Smith

:lol: :point:

Low income vs. High Income = TB vs. Diabetes! — Agent Smith

I've had both. TB when I was about 9, and DB since about 45. But on a second take, I think they are both poor man's diseases. The difference lies in TB in poor countries, DB in rich countries, but you are poor if you got either in their respective countries.

Interesting!

The only one's who are truly rich are the one's who have escaped birth and death. To be a mere mortal is to be poor indeed.

Maybe your plan is to convince the poor of the value in ending their life of meaningless suffering. — Book273

Sometimes you irritate the heck out of me and I don't even know why.

Where in my post does it say it's meaningless suffering? Some low income people are actually assholes who couldn't give two three fucks about you or me. Think about that. You want them to feel suffering, but instead, they strut their way to the liquor store or fast food. Laughing. Yeah, the laughing poor people irritate the Berkeley graduates of engineering to no end. Who do they think they are not worried about the future when others have busted their way to a diploma sacrificing their social life and family.

Where on earth do you find people who just got paid and already broke? The next morning, they're sober and no money, and they feel the same way. That's not normal to responsible working adults! You can't be broke, make a joke about it, go to work, and do it over again.

Now that would be the equivalent of having a meal of 4 000$ to 5 000$, which is way much more that a full meal costs in any Michelin restaurant. But of course, I'd guess you could blow that amount of money by drinking the most expensive wines, which likely the restaurant has purchased just for your kind of sucker that comes around every once in a while and orders the most expensive they have. — ssu

I think I should have said in my OP that before you could post in my thread, that you must have calibrated your estimates about history. There were no average income indicators during the late 19th c or early 20th c. because there was no law about wages or labor. You could work and make zero dollar per hour back then. Your equivalent is grossly incorrect.

There were no average income indicators during the late 19th c or early 20th c. because there was no law about wages or labor. — L'éléphant

There's not the same statistics as now, but there truly is information how much people were paid. The basic point is that salaries and real income has increased in 100-150 years. And I would argue that they have increased so much that even low income people can dine in a Michelin star restaurant, if they preferred to save and spend their money like that. (Perhaps every 5 years, as you said.)

I think it's important to notice that if absolute poverty has decreased (especially on the long time scale), many can be worse off than before even if they aren't literally starving. It is important to define what low income or poverty means. Just taking a segment of people who earn the least and declaring them to be poor doesn't tell much.

I think it's important to notice that if absolute poverty has decreased (especially on the long time scale), many can be worse off than before even if they aren't literally starving. It is important to define what low income or poverty means. Just taking a segment of people who earn the least and declaring them to be poor doesn't tell much. — ssu

Abject poverty no longer exists now because it is a crime. I am talking about low income, as in minimum wage. So, normally this would be single income, minimum wage earner, in western society. But I guess, we don't have destitute people these days because there are always supplemental help or income provided by the government.

But I guess, we don't have destitute people these days because there are always supplemental help or income provided by the government. — L'éléphant

It's more complex than this. I know of many people who live and die on the streets of our city of 5 million people (in Australia) who do not get any kind of government welfare - often because they are unable to meet criteria or because they are unable to be organised enough to meet the requirements. Poverty often being the consequence of physical and mental ill health. As a result in this wealthy city there are people who eat out of rubbish bins and sleep in parks and under bridges, etc. This I have seen in cities all over the world.

As a result in this wealthy city there are people who eat out of rubbish bins and sleep in parks and under bridges, etc. This I have seen in cities all over the world. — Tom Storm

Someone once said, the only certainties about life are death, taxes, and mental illness. Scary shit.
Did you know that it costs so little each year to end severe poverty around the world?
A quick google reveals it's $175B! Think about that. The billionaires themselves can end global poverty each year.

Did you know that it costs so little each year to end severe poverty around the world? — L'éléphant

Of course but the problem is much more complex than money.

Of course [it costs so little each year to end severe poverty] but the problem is much more complex than money. — Tom Storm

If it's so easy to end poverty, then why is it more complex than money?

If it's so easy to end poverty, then why is it more complex than money? — Bitter Crank

Drum roll....

If it's so easy to end poverty, then why is it more complex than money? — Bitter Crank

I can't imagine it would be easy - my response was glib and inadequate. Ending poverty permanently - not just bailing people out temporarily by throwing billions in different directions is the salient matter. I am no expert but I would imagine it's about dealing substantively with complex social systems and structures, the workings and failures of capitalism and building people's skills and supporting them to gain more control of their lives and power in society. This would require radical social change, not just dollars or rubles.

Indeed. I have no idea, really, of how to end poverty in the world. The main difficulty is not the poor; it's the rich. So much of the world's wealth is hyper-concentrated in the hands of a very small number of people -- something like the richest 1%. Below the richest 1% is another layer, maybe 5% to 10%. that are only relatively rich--rich compared to to most of the world's people, but not rich compared to the top 1%.

The richest 10%, all together, control a very large share of the world's wealth. They, being Homo sapiens, are predictably NOT going to give it up. And even if they were willing, it would be difficult to convert that much wealth, much of it in kind of abstract paper instruments, into wealth the rest of the world could use productively. [the 1% and 10% mostly apply to the developed world. Wealth outside the developed world is even more concentrated.]

The world economy is a horrendously complex machine and who knows where to begin pushing buttons, pulling levers, turning wheels, opening and closing valves -- etc? Not I.

The poor are screwed because once they are poor they are generally going to stay that way, unless their economic environment changes--which it might, or might not. In general the same is true with people who are have reasonably stable, if barely adequate income. Barring some change, they will probably stay that way. The rich stay rich, the poor stay poor. So do most people, wherever they are at on the economic ladder.

:up:

Yep, low-income does imply screwed! The screwing doesn't stop at you and your premature demise though; it continues in your children, their children, so on à la slavery. Poverty is slavery in disguise. There are no officially documented slavers, no slave markets, slavery is illegal, yet there are slaves and that's what let's it fly under the moral radar.

Being low income is much worse than it has to be because they have tons of kids and no access to medical care; a lot of low income problems are government based, but living low income doesn't have to be miserable and unhealthy.

I think if you are low income with no kids, you should go vegetarian. It is cheaper and more practical than veganism and meat-eating, and also reduce your food intake and look into different diets and fasting.

I am personally not low income, but I live frugally and believe in saving money. Gardening and learning how to grow my own vegetables and fruits maximizes my chances of survival if something terrible happens.

With that, fresh vegetables, grains and beans are very cheap, and sustainable for a good well-being and healthy life.

There are many resources out there for low income to make life easier. I bought a car from the junkyard for $5000 that got me through college and was $24 for a full tank that lasted over a week. I'm not some boomer either, I'm a 90's baby.

The guy spoke about Thrift Stores was also right. There is designer clothing in the Thrift Store. Just last week, I thrifted a new coat, 6 blouses, 3 pairs of new jeans for $30. Most never worn.

If you want to live like Jeff Bezos, then yes your life will suck as a low income person.

Abject poverty no longer exists now because it is a crime. — L'éléphant

What do you mean it's a crime? If the economy is weak and people are poor, how can it be a crime? Must be a lot of criminals in Lebanon nowdays.

But I guess, we don't have destitute people these days because there are always supplemental help or income provided by the government. — L'éléphant

And just why is that? First and foremost, it's the economy. Only then it's that there are safety networks.

The reason is that the majority do live in prosperity, compared to earlier times. That governments do have the ability of giving such amounts to transfer payments tells also about the prosperity of the society. In fact, that there isn't widespread abject povetry shows that things can indeed improve. Likely if prosperity increases, in the future people with low income will enjoy a lifestyle that now is limited to upper middle class and even upper class.

What do you mean it's a crime? If the economy is weak and people are poor, how can it be a crime? — ssu

In western societies it's a crime.

In fact, that there isn't widespread abject povetry shows that things can indeed improve. Likely if prosperity increases, in the future people with low income will enjoy a lifestyle that now is limited to upper middle class and even upper class. — ssu

So you assume the same poor people occupy the low income class. They might be able to move up, but then there will always be other people who would just occupy that place. Are you really not getting this? The state of being low income is what's permanent, not necessarily the people.

I think if you are low income with no kids, you should go vegetarian. It is cheaper and more practical than veganism and meat-eating, and also reduce your food intake and look into different diets and fasting. — Cobra

I agree. I'm mostly vegetarian by choice.

There are many resources out there for low income to make life easier. I bought a car from the junkyard for $5000 that got me through college and was $24 for a full tank that lasted over a week. — Cobra

That's not happening now. Covid-19 has brought out the worst in people. Have you tried looking at the prices of stupid used cars these days? What about housing? Overpriced real estate, realty companies/realtors hording...houses!

The poor are screwed because once they are poor they are generally going to stay that way, unless their economic environment changes--which it might, or might not. In general the same is true with people who are have reasonably stable, if barely adequate income. — Bitter Crank

Yes, one indicator of the state of well-being is how long do poor people remain in that same economic level, as in how many years or generation. Another indicator is the existence of the middle class -- if it shrinks or expands.

Just wondering, would you be satisfied if everyone were middle class but the only hitch were that there were really really rich people that ran the companies that the middle class were working for?
In other words, as far as power and wealth differentials, there is a wide gulf, but in terms of everyday living (as long as the living is relatively moderate), you are satisfied? Basically what is happening now, but with just "working/poor classes" making enough to be middle class?

I'm just curious for various philosophical implications.

Just wondering, would you be satisfied if everyone were middle class but the only hitch were that there were really really rich people that ran the companies that the middle class were working for? — schopenhauer1

I don't know. In western societies, the "necessities" are different than in other countries. For example, creative self-expression and low unemployment rate are necessities in the first world. By creative self-expression I mean, the freedom and opportunity to be able to do things that one enjoys outside work, or to be able to be employed according to one's passion. Being a middle class but controlled by business owners is not satisfying. A finding in psychology reveals that the most satisfying way to earn a living is by getting paid per project you complete (not by wages or salary where you have to meet the number of hours worked and be present at the location fixed by your employer).

A finding in psychology reveals that the most satisfying way to earn a living is by getting paid per project you complete (not by wages or salary where you have to meet the number of hours worked and be present at the location fixed by your employer). — L'éléphant

It would be hopeful if the economy moved in this direction. Of course, this only matters for those kind of white collar jobs.. automation for the rest? Much further down the line of course.

How about the very fact that there is a class of people who somehow had the means to scrounge the resources together to create the means of creating stuff of value.. and then there is the rest who didn't do that, but work for that guy.. There's always the owners and the not owners who work for them.

But as an antinatalist, I don't see a solution to this problem. Once born, being not a paradise.. resources get doled out by those who can pay the people who know about the technology to be able to create the stuff... and then workers can work for the owners to survive. Most being not clever enough to create the technology themselves or figure out how to own the means by which to make stuff to sell.

It would be hopeful if the economy moved in this direction. Of course, this only matters for those kind of white collar jobs.. automation for the rest? Much further down the line of course. — schopenhauer1

In western economies, there are people who get paid this way -- artists, for example. That's not a white collar job. It's artistic.

and then there is the rest who didn't do that, but work for that guy.. There's always the owners and the not owners who work for them. — schopenhauer1

Because we were made to believe that economies can only be one way, and not another. I mean, look at the parents who start telling their children before birth what the children are going to be -- an engineer, a doctor, a teacher, an architect -- in other words, salary-earners! Everyone is supporting the economy as it is now. The blue collar work are there to catch us in case we don't want to be one type of salary-earner -- we become the wage-earners. Amazon warehouses abound.

Most being not clever enough to create the technology themselves or figure out how to own the means by which to make stuff to sell. — schopenhauer1

It's all about necessity. If that ability is taken away from you, there is a salve for your psyche: your life is much more comfortable if you don't have to work your muscles or brains for the things you need. Do you agree?

You know the memory capacity of the ancient civilization professionals, right? The lawyers, the orators, the philosophers -- like a dictation machine. Yes, that good. Why? Because there were no tape recorders or typewriters during their time. Just their hearing and memory, and they had to wait until the meeting is over before they could start writing things down. Imagine doing that now.

What is the point of this post? Genuinely curious.

It seem quite hyperbolic which is fine, but I'm not sure where you expect this to go or want this to go?

It seem quite hyperbolic which is fine — I like sushi

Hyperbolic? So everything that's said on this thread is just..exaggeration?

What is the point of this post? Genuinely curious. — I like sushi

The point is to point out there is a class of low wage earners. I know, funny. It's shallow and lacks imagination.

The state of being low income is what's permanent, not necessarily the people. — L'éléphant

It's naturally permanent, because naturally there always will be those low income. And income classes aren't fixed. Some rich oil country which has no taxes, provides all the services free and gives salaries to it's citizens still have those who are "low income". Yet one simply has to look at this on absolute terms. Just what kind of lifestyle those that have the lowest income enjoy? That is quite different from country to country.

It's just like with income inequality. Income inequality decreases in a severe economic depression or in war. That's just how statistics work.

What about this obvious point drove you to post it instead of posting about the sky being blue or circles being round?

I guess you just want us to pay attention to it more. Fair enough. I don't really care much for the post and if there is nothing more so be it.