<p>Duplicate post deleted.</p>
<p>
Has this ever worked?</p>
<p>The problem that I have with this statement is that it either makes the assumption that these safety nets will be produced by a philosophy, or will be produced by charity, and I have never seen any evidence of either of those happening on a scale that can actually combat poverty. And here’s why:</p>
<p>It is possible to “look out for yourself” and “do no overt harm to others” and yet still produce a net increase in poverty.</p>
<p>How? Two ways. </p>
<p>First, it is a reality of life that most people will work for others, rather than in a state of profitable self-employment - indeed, I think productivity grows dramatically with active cooperation and interaction, so a country of 100% entrepreneurs would be economically crippled. But for people to work, some people must hire, and if “look out for myself” and refuse to hire or lay people off or hire at rates/benefits that keep people in poverty (since I am putting “me” first) then I am not helping and may be actively hurting. We have seen this a LOT in the last few years.</p>
<p>Second, those entrepreneurs out there require starting wealth, and one of the roles played by the (relatively) wealthy is to provide that wealth as investment… and if they don’t, then there is little to nothing that those entrepreneurs can do! One of the downsides to private investment is that when your own money is on the line, “playing it safe” happens a lot, even when it is unwarranted.</p>
<p>
I believe oversight is possible, if and only if that oversight is built in to the structure of the authority from the beginning, and remains under the direct control of the people, Regardless, I have a greater faith in the ability to control a single group than I do in the idea that people in authority are necessarily tyrants but wealthy people in business are somehow overall benevolent.</p>
<p>As a note, please observe that in modern republics and democracies, those with political authority more often than not got into those positions by leveraging prior positions in business,</p>
<p>Weathy people in business do not hire people to be benevolent, though. They hire people to help them produce goods and services. Politicians make promises to get votes. </p>
<p>
Agreed, but the prior statement:</p>
<p>
implies that the best balance point between “look out for yourself” and “do not harm” is to neither increase nor decrease poverty, as increasing it would be doing harm and decreasing it any more than absolutely necessary would not be looking out for yourself. Reducing poverty therefore requires either significant benevolence by at least some or else an effective absence of genuine greed… which just ain’t realistic.</p>
<p>Now, I believe that poster’s thought was that the “absolutely necessary” amount of poverty reduction would be significant enough to actually end poverty… but I have seen nothing to indicate that this is the case. Indeed, the advancement of knowledge and the study of business suggests that the trend in the market is only to reduce “absolutely necessary” as far as possible without regard to poverty.</p>
<p>“As a note, please observe that in modern republics and democracies, those with political authority more often than not got into those positions by leveraging prior positions in business,”</p>
<p>I don’t know about that. How many of the US presidents in current times had significant positions in business? Seems like most of them leveraged their family name and/or prior political positions. Many of our US Senators have very little experience in business. Current administration has less than 10 percent of individuals with private sector experience? So you must not be talking about those in the US, at least not currently. That is, if I got my facts straight.</p>
<p>Well, I don’t think it’s possible to reduce poverty without addressing the causes of poverty and no-one ever want to talk about that. Mailing out checks which we do quite a bit of is a band-aid. There is still poverty and no less of it, interestingly. Now, I suppose we could mail out bigger checks. Maybe everyone should get 100k whatever they do or don’t do because that is what we all need to be comfortable. Unfortunately a lot of people are going to do a lot less under that system and there will eventually be no more money to mail to anyone.</p>
<p>Anybody who wants to can mail me out a 100K check. Thanks, in advance.</p>
<p>Actually, the S&P link I posted talks about ways to cut poverty. There are ways…</p>
<p>But it is more fun to just talk about giving people $100,000.</p>
<p>The fact that we are no longer a country that makes things, but builds factories overseas where we can produce more cheaply even to the point of employees living on site is probably a contributing factor.
The service industry employs a lot of people but it doesn’t pay very well.
<a href=“Raising The Minimum Wage Would Be Good For Wal-Mart, And America”>http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2014/02/11/raising-the-minimum-wage-would-be-good-for-wal-mart-and-america/</a></p>
<p>Look on the bright side; the medical industry is busy. U can’t outsource sick & elderly customers. </p>
<p>
While they also traded on family connections (which, I would argue, are almost always coupled to either government or business anyway), both Bushes were substantially active in business - Sr had 20 years of business experience between leaving the military and entering Congress, and Jr. had about the same. In both cases, their business acumen was (if I recall correctly) part of their appeal AND fundraising success.</p>
<p>Reagan was predominantly the head of a trade guild (SAG) (which I would consider as a business position) for a solid decade before his first political success. Prior to becoming a Governor, he certainly had no political experience.</p>
<p>Really, while none of the Dems had any real business experience, you have to go back to Ford to find a Republican President who didn’t have plenty.</p>
<p>
And many have quite a bit. More to the point, while many at the federal level have prior political experience to reference, many or most based their entry into politics on business success at the same level as their prospective political office. This seems to be more prevalent on the (R) side, but it is pretty strong regardless.</p>
<p>
Contrast that with the prior administration. Regardless, I would argue that Congress is far more influential on issues like poverty than the Presidency. Ultimately, solutions and contributors to poverty all center on money, and Congress controls the purse strings.</p>
<p>The medical side is very busy.
But are people being paid enough?
Lots of physicians even getting out of the field, .& I expect a robot could be programmed to do diagnosis.
<a href=“If Schools Don't Change, Robots Will Bring On a 'Permanent Underclass': Report”>http://motherboard.vice.com/read/if-schools-dont-change-robots-will-bring-on-a-permanent-underclass-report</a></p>
<p>Maybe it is, cosmicfish, that R’s have more business experience, that works as a positive for them, and D’s less, as the people who respect that are not the demographic they are going for. </p>
<p>What an odd statement, busdriver. </p>
<p>In modern times, the presidents who came into office based in large part on their previous business acumen (none has come directly from solely business, I don’t think) were Warren Harding, Jimmy Carter, and to some extent George W. Bush. </p>
<p>I think the skills needed to succeed in business are skills that don’t necessarily translate to success in politics. In fact, business itself is diametrically opposed in many ways to government. Can you imagine the federal government saying, “well, Kansas, you’re just not producing the numbers we need, so I’m afraid we have to cut you loose.” ?</p>
<p>"Anybody who wants to can mail me out a 100K check. Thanks, in advance. "
- I will be next person in this line. I even will accept more than 100k, I will send you a “Thank you”, I promise!!</p>
<p>I knew this conversation would head down the rabbit hole of politics and poverty, but this statement…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…just made me sad. Somehow I can’t imagine Jesus saying “hey, just make sure you don’t step on the poor and the imprisoned and the marginalized while you take care of yourselves. It’s all good.”</p>
<p>There, I’ve done it - injected religion into a politicized conversation. </p>
<p>To bring back the conversation to middle class, from another thread,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Either way middle class is way below the income we are discuusing here. You are all well to do.</p>
<p>So the median income in 2012 was about $51,000, right? Then according to the first method in post #177, the upper boundary of the middle class is $102,000.</p>
<p>I think there are many people on this thread who fit this definition of middle class (myself included.)</p>
<p>Drawing a line at 2*median income seems off to me… What’s the justification for that? Though your definition of “well to do” might just be what I prefer to call “upper middle class.” </p>