The inevitibility of impoverishment.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Babe_Ruth

Sultan of Swat
Staff member
V.I.P.
#1
Is poverty, or at an extreme case homelessness, inevitable in America's economic system?

Whenever people see a homeless man on the street, they often react by saying "Pfhhh, maybe he should get a damn job." But wouldn't that ultimately put another out on the streets?
 
A

Ant On A Log

Guest
#2
therapist said:
No it wouldn't, anyone with a basic understanding of economics can tell you.
^ Please read the rules on one line posts!!!!!!!!!!! (i'm really just being a dick)

Yeah, I think it is. For an economic system which relies on labor as a commodity to work, it needs people to shit on. Unfortunately, it can't shit on everyone, so there are those who are the shit-less. These are your homeless and unemployed.
 

Kazmarov

For a Free Scotland
#3
^Thank you for warning him. One line posts, especially when you make a statement and don't back them up, are not allowed. This counts as your one warning, therapist.

As long as there are mental disabilities, accidents causing physical injury, and just plain bad luck, there will be homelessness, assuming there isn't a vast welfare system. Poverty is considered less than around 12,000 a year in the U.S, so unless the government shells out for every individual in that amount, poverty will exist.

Also, there are always people in a society that will refuse to work, or simply don't have the skills to work for a livable wage. So yes, poverty is inevitable.
 
B

Belcher

Guest
#5
For any sort of discussion about this, we'd all have to agree on some sort of standardized conception of what the term impoverishment is, and for some reason I don't think we all have the same norms about this sort of thing.
 

Nosferatu_Alucard

Undead Intellectual
#6
I think in the economic system we live in today there has to be poor people.

Quoting George Carlin:
"The rich people, pay none of the taxes and get all the money. The middle class pays all the taxes makes some of the money. And the poor people, are just there to scare the shit out of the middle class. Keep them showing up that those "jobs!"
 

Kazmarov

For a Free Scotland
#7
the state of having little or no money and few or no material possessions
Let's use that as the definition for poverty. By material possessions, this would refer to cars, houses, apartments, all that jazz. If you are unable to live without assistance through charity or welfare, I'd consider that poverty.
 
B

Belcher

Guest
#8
In which case, the only possible answer would be an affirmative because people willingly choose to turn their backs on money and 'material possesions'...?
 

Kazmarov

For a Free Scotland
#9
People can leave an ascetic or impoverished lifestyle, but it's still poverty.

For any sort of discussion about this, we'd all have to agree on some sort of standardized conception of what the term impoverishment is, and for some reason I don't think we all have the same norms about this sort of thing.
If you'd like to suggest some definitions for impoverishment, please do so.

In which case, the only possible answer would be an affirmative because people willingly choose to turn their backs on money and 'material possesions'...?
I'm not exactly sure what you mean, please PM me.
 
B

Belcher

Guest
#10
Kazmarov said:
People can leave an ascetic or impoverished lifestyle, but it's still poverty.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean, please PM me.
Right. So the question of poverty's inevitability is simple. Poverty is inevitable because some people will always choose to turn their back on 'material possesions and money' which is what you claim makes them impoverished.
This is why the discussion needs a better definition of the term poverty, which I'm trying to point out is something that we'll never be able to agree on because it's a rather subjective term.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.