Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 462 posts

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#441

Post by gozur88 »

eru wrote: post #439
RyanZAG wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Woah, I'm not from America, but that seems really wrong. More taxes and bigger government does not create any sort of extra benefit for the poor - the extra taxes will simply go to creating more levels of indirection and inflated prices in existing government. Why do you think anything with a government stamp is automatically 10x the price? It's not because of people wanting smaller government. Smaller government is…

> Why do you think anything with a government stamp is automatically 10x the price? In general, yes. But not in the best run governments---Singapore comes to mind. (But even Europe isn't quite as bad as the US. American public procurement---especially for infrastructure projects---is truly hideous and expensive by global standards.) The Swiss seem a good model if you are looking for how localized government can work.

>But even Europe isn't quite as bad as the US. American public procurement---especially for infrastructure projects---is truly hideous and expensive by global standards.

I don't understand why that is. We paid ten billion dollars to replace the SF Bay Bridge, and it took forever. Now we're going to spend seventy billion for a train that goes from nowhere to nowhere, and very little is actually going toward construction itself.

Is it the cumulative effect of regulations, or the price of labor, or corruption? Something else?

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#442

Post by unclebucknasty »

cmdrfred wrote: post #329
unclebucknasty wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> indentured servitude . No, it's not. And, I wouldn't dismiss out of hand what can be "enforced by contract law". The contract itself represents the willingness of two parties to adhere to certain terms. If a company pays you a million dollar signing bonus and asks you for a three year commitment, then you should expect them to demand that bonus back if you leave in two years for reasons not set forth by the terms.…

This will be abused. Mcdonald's will say that it's 'training' cost 10 grand and keep people on low wages without any recourse for the entire term of the contact. Rinse, repeat.

That's specious and unrealistic. Nobody's buying that it costs $10K to train on fries or any other low-skilled position.

These would be voluntary programs for skilled jobs that require training. No one would be obligated to sign up, and no one would voluntarily do so without obvious benefit.

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#443

Post by awt »

dang wrote: post #435
awt wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't? If you can find the stats for non-white newborns I'd read them. What kind of empathy does a mother have for her child that would raise him without a father in poverty? What empathy does a single mother have for the people from whom she is taking money in the form of welfare?

I don't think it's single mothers who lack empathy here. If you have something thoughtful to say about a difficult topic, that's fine, but please don't post ideological rhetoric to HN threads.

I will not stop posting about uncomfortable topics because of your disapproval.

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#444

Post by Natsu »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #398
Natsu wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's terribly vague and offers no insight as to which things Marx might have been right about. There's a child comment that's a bit better, but it dumps a lot of Wikipedia links out with little in the way of explanation. In short, on HN it's better if you can explore ideas more thoroughly, rather than simply tossing out short quips and assuming everyone is on the same page. It would be better to write something along…

Or it could be viewed as a provocative, open-ended question, inviting exploration by those more versed on Marx's work.

Stone Soup has to start with someone putting in at least a stone's worth.

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#445

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

darawk wrote: post #423
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> He or she is charging an absolute amount, not a percentage of their payslip. Here's another analogy. I make this beautiful and unique item that you want to buy. I charge - literally - an arm and a leg over it. Like, the actual body parts. You protest: "You're asking for a part of my body??". I reply "I'm asking for an arm and a leg, not a part of your body". Hey, maybe you can pay me with someone else's arm-and-a-…

That is not coercion. You fundamentally misunderstand (or apparently disagree with) literally all of western philosophy and economic thought if you think that charging rents in a voluntary exchange is 'coercion'. The simple fact is that, over many thousands of years, humans have evolved a system of voluntary exchange. And we have found that that system produces the greatest benefit for the largest number of people as…

>> You fundamentally misunderstand (or apparently disagree with) literally all of western philosophy and economic thought if you think that charging rents in a voluntary exchange is 'coercion'.

On the one hand, to say that with any authority you have to be a, well, authority, on "western philosophy and economic thought" or at least to have read it. All of it. Have you?

On the other hand, I'm not conversing with "all of western philosophy and economic thought" here. I'm disagreeing with you about a very specific thing, which btw is not at all whether "charging rents in a voluntary exchange is a coercion". That's your interpretation of my comments.

What I find coercive is charging someone 70% of their income to let them live at a shithole with the unspoken threat of them becoming homeless otherwise looming over their head. Not to mention the threat of kicking them out if they complain about the state of the property, or if somebody calls the cops on them, and so on, as the article reports.

The people who rent those properties, far from being "free agents" as you pretend they are, find themselves in dire economic straights and with extremely limited options. They are under immense pressure to find a house and grave consequences if they can't pay the rent.

If you consider that "free agency" then you might as well consider extortionate lending, such as practiced by loan sharks, with the threat of having your legs broken by thugs if you can't pay, to be a fair and acceptable exchange.

I don't know what "literally all of western philosophy and economic thought" says about extortion, but I do know it's illegal in most of the world- and for good reason.

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#446

Post by dang »

awt wrote: post #443
dang wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's single mothers who lack empathy here. If you have something thoughtful to say about a difficult topic, that's fine, but please don't post ideological rhetoric to HN threads.

I will not stop posting about uncomfortable topics because of your disapproval.

It's not the topic that's the problem, it's the pre-existing political boilerplate. That stuff doesn't add to conversation, it destroys it.

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#447

Post by eru »

gozur88 wrote: post #441
eru wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do you think anything with a government stamp is automatically 10x the price? In general, yes. But not in the best run governments---Singapore comes to mind. (But even Europe isn't quite as bad as the US. American public procurement---especially for infrastructure projects---is truly hideous and expensive by global standards.) The Swiss seem a good model if you are looking for how localized government can work.

>But even Europe isn't quite as bad as the US. American public procurement---especially for infrastructure projects---is truly hideous and expensive by global standards. I don't understand why that is. We paid ten billion dollars to replace the SF Bay Bridge, and it took forever. Now we're going to spend seventy billion for a train that goes from nowhere to nowhere, and very little is actually going toward constructi…

Labour is expensive in American, but not 10x more than in Europe. You also got corruption, but you got that in Europe, too. Especially southern Europe---but Spain is still not a bad as the US at building public infrastructure.

There's some special American factors. One is that your population, and by extension the lawmakers they vote for, don't trust the bureaucrats at all, and thus make try to micromanage the public servants with laws that remove discretion. These laws are intended to remove opportunities for corruption, but they also remove opportunities for common sense.

For example, in most of the US they have to award public contracts to the lowest bidder---no matter how likely the awarders think the lowest bidder is going to overrun schedule and budget.

I've read a bit about these problems (and my summary above is from memory). Even lurking on HN, this topic comes up from time to time in the comments.

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#448

Post by awt »

dang wrote: post #446
awt wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will not stop posting about uncomfortable topics because of your disapproval.

It's not the topic that's the problem, it's the pre-existing political boilerplate. That stuff doesn't add to conversation, it destroys it.

Judging by the responses to my "boilerplate," inluding yours which consisted of a run of the mill ad hominem attempt to shut down the conversation by white knighting, and others which were non-arguments and sarcastic these are not arguments that people have considered.

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#449

Post by bryanrasmussen »

sokoloff wrote: post #294
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no I'm sorry, I live in a house that was a damn luxury a 100 years ago and it's still a pretty fine house today. The houses described in the article would probably look pretty good compared to the poor housing of a 100 years ago, but not like any sort of luxury. The "look at those big screen tvs the poor have" argument does not translate well here.

Indoor plumbing came to rural America in the 1930s. Electric lighting came to cities in the 1920s. Electric appliances were rare in the 1920s, even in cities. The first self-contained electric refrigerator was invented in 1923. (Ever wonder why your grandparents probably still call it "the ice box"?) Cold running water was probably available, but water was still heated by the stove or fire in most places. (The single…

I guess I will accept those as a list of luxuries that are available now that would have required servants to match before 1916 ( I guess if you had servants the hot and cold running water, the refrigerator and microwave were matched in utility - and servants are a luxury.)

However there are a number of luxuries that have not increased in these years that are pretty important, such as personal space and privacy, my house and I suppose yours have this luxury. The houses I grew up in, and which poor people are living in now, often do not have these luxuries.

There is another thing that it seems was not a luxury in 1916 and is becoming now, relative freedom from the threat of eviction. According to the article there is a greater deal of eviction of today's poor than there was in the past, and I think that luxury might be really important if you have children. Important enough that I would be willing to trade indoor plumbing, microwave and TV for it, maybe some other luxuries if I was given the tools to make up for them (tools like ice delivery and so forth).

Finally given the low quality of poor people's housing not all of these luxuries you list can be counted on as being available, if for example the heating breaks it might take months to fix etc, so the luxury at the level is highly variable.

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#450

Post by undersuit »

CydeWeys wrote: post #438
undersuit wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you're paying taxes on the shelter. Your shelter. If someone takes your improvement from you that's theft. We have laws regarding theft in most countries do we not?

If something can be stolen from you, then you own it. You're trying to have it both ways by playing with semantics. A land value tax charges taxes for owning land. Now you're saying that it wouldn't be taxes on the land, but rather, taxes on improvements. Then it's no longer a land value tax at all then. The whole point of a land-value tax is that the tax reflects the potential value of the land, regardless of any im…

I didn't say the shelter was being taxed for value. The shelter is on land. You pay taxes on the land. Ergo, you're paying taxes for the shelter. The only reason you'll probably want to continue paying taxes on the land is because you have a shelter there.

>If something can be stolen from you, then you own it.

Right, you have been grant the right to use the land as long as you pay the taxes, which you may or may not have built a shelter on. You also own the shelter. You don't own the land.

Post reply on HN