PDA

View Full Version : Poverty



peb
10-28-2015, 07:24 AM
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-poverty-cure-get-married-1445986205



We hear so much about income inequality these days, yet no one discusses the core cause.

Too Little Time
10-28-2015, 08:52 AM
Lack of marriage is certainly an important factor in causing income inequality. But so is lack of education or a family history of poverty.

I read a similar article in the past few weeks.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
10-28-2015, 08:59 AM
Hmm.

I will not go so far as to agree that lack of marriage is the "core cause" of income inequality. I think that there are far greater forces at work. I do, however, think that marriage is desirable.

peb won't be surprised to find me citing the Philippines; the last regular nation state where divorce is impossible. One effect of this has been to drastically reduce the rate of marriage amongst the poor - who make up the great majority of the population - as they are no more confident of staying married than are the rest of us, but they greatly fear the consequences of being unable to unmarry.

slug
10-28-2015, 09:01 AM
Lack of marriage is certainly an important factor in causing income inequality. But so is lack of education or a family history of poverty.

I read a similar article in the past few weeks.

yup...high income housholds have two working class incomes.

Norman Bernstein
10-28-2015, 09:12 AM
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-poverty-cure-get-married-1445986205



We hear so much about income inequality these days, yet no one discusses the core cause.

I'd love to read the article, but it's behind a paywall.

slug
10-28-2015, 09:15 AM
I'd love to read the article, but it's behind a paywall.

to get around the paywall type .. Google...the poverty cure get married wsj


http://s3.postimg.org/pyyq5khvn/image.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/gef3iosjj/full/)
upload image online (http://postimage.org/)

Corvida
10-28-2015, 09:30 AM
The only problem being that he has it backwards. Poverty is causing the low marriage rate. Women won't marry a felon or a poor guy. It's amazing what decades of drug war will do to a society.

Dan McCosh
10-28-2015, 09:30 AM
Getting women back in the house would eliminate income inequality.

Too Little Time
10-28-2015, 09:31 AM
I'd love to read the article, but it's behind a paywall.

Sometimes it is necessary to open the WSJ articles in an incognito window.

Michael D. Storey
10-28-2015, 04:11 PM
Getting women back in the house would eliminate income inequality.
What does this mean?

peb
10-28-2015, 05:52 PM
I'd love to read the article, but it's behind a paywall.



I don't understand this. Everytime I see a good article in the WSJ that i want to post, I search for it by name on my phone, it comes up and I can read it, I have no online subscription to the WSJ. I c&p the page URL to this forum. Other people can't read it. Why can I?

peb
10-28-2015, 05:54 PM
The only problem being that he has it backwards. Poverty is causing the low marriage rate. Women won't marry a felon or a poor guy. It's amazing what decades of drug war will do to a society.



It's not necessarily the low marriage rate, its the high rate of births outside of marriage. Poverty does not have to cause this.

Too Little Time
10-28-2015, 06:09 PM
I don't understand this. Everytime I see a good article in the WSJ that i want to post, I search for it by name on my phone, it comes up and I can read it, I have no online subscription to the WSJ. I c&p the page URL to this forum. Other people can't read it. Why can I?

The Wall Street Journal programmers are smart. I can usually get past the pay wall by doing a search. But sometimes incognito is necessary.

Too Little Time
10-28-2015, 06:12 PM
The only problem being that he has it backwards. Poverty is causing the low marriage rate. Women won't marry a felon or a poor guy. It's amazing what decades of drug war will do to a society.

I read the article previously. I think the author indicated there was a relationship and that it was not clear in which direction causation ran.

David G
10-28-2015, 06:54 PM
I read the article previously. I think the author indicated there was a relationship and that it was not clear in which direction causation ran.

^^^This is the crux of the matter. ^^^

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/magazine/can-marriage-cure-poverty.html?_r=0

Dan McCosh
10-28-2015, 08:41 PM
Who would have thought that the combined incomes of two people is larger than the income of one person?

Corvida
10-29-2015, 12:31 AM
I read the article previously. I think the author indicated there was a relationship and that it was not clear in which direction causation ran.

The headline pretty much suggests the author has decided that it's people not getting married that are the problem. Aside from having it backwards, they're also ignoring the opportunity costs of having every worker tied to another worker. Single people can move where the work is, or simply get by on less. One of the reasons the US became so productive in the first place, was SS keeping grandparents living on their own. Reducing family sizes and keeping workers mobile and available, rather than tied to a family unit. The idea that increasing household population would decrease poverty is an illusion. Sure the household income increases, but so do the family size and the costs associated with supporting a larger group of people. Within a generation, all you've accomplished is raising the poverty income threshold, which increases the number of people on assistance. And given that the government would have to give some incentive to make people marry, it's simply a cost with no benefit.

If anything government policies should be neutral to marriage and attempt to make child rearing less of a financial burden. Artificial incentives to marriage end badly on pretty much all fronts, where as today's kids, end up supporting everyone eventually.

slug
10-29-2015, 01:36 AM
Who would have thought that the combined incomes of two people is larger than the income of one person?


Its not just two incomes. If a single income family lost thier job...instant poverty...then society must step in with ENTITLEMENTS. A single income family uses Society as the safety valve. This must stop.

Duncan Gibbs
10-29-2015, 06:57 AM
The simple fact of the matter is that 'the market' is deliberately creating poverty as a business strategy. There is more money to be made by concentrating capital at either end of the economic spectrum: Those who buy mega-yachts, polo ponies, diamond encrusted Evian bottles and $100,000 dresses and those who buy cheap chit en-masse at Costco and Walmart. So buy and sell luxury goods and services, or invest in big box retail if you want to make money and not give a rats. You can get married and divorced as much as you like!

It's called the hourglass economy and it is well outlined in the Citigroup 'Plutocracy' memos, which can be downloaded as PDFs with following links:

citigroup plutonomy report part 1 (https://pissedoffwoman.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/citigroup-plutonomy-report-part-1.pdf)

citigroup plutonomy report part 2 (https://pissedoffwoman.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/citigroup-plutonomy-report-part-2.pdf)

citigroup plutonomy report part 3 (https://pissedoffwoman.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/citigroup-plutonomy-report-part-3.pdf)

Figure 3's title from part 1 really tells a story:


The Metamorphosis of the Highest 1% of Income Earners in the U.S.: from Rentier Rich to a Managerial Technocratic Aristocracy

Too Little Time
10-29-2015, 07:15 AM
The headline pretty much suggests the author has decided that it's people not getting married that are the problem. Aside from having it backwards, they're also ignoring the opportunity costs of having every worker tied to another worker. Single people can move where the work is, or simply get by on less. One of the reasons the US became so productive in the first place, was SS keeping grandparents living on their own. Reducing family sizes and keeping workers mobile and available, rather than tied to a family unit. The idea that increasing household population would decrease poverty is an illusion. Sure the household income increases, but so do the family size and the costs associated with supporting a larger group of people. Within a generation, all you've accomplished is raising the poverty income threshold, which increases the number of people on assistance. And given that the government would have to give some incentive to make people marry, it's simply a cost with no benefit.

If anything government policies should be neutral to marriage and attempt to make child rearing less of a financial burden. Artificial incentives to marriage end badly on pretty much all fronts, where as today's kids, end up supporting everyone eventually.

I think that belief is more important than what is claimed. If you believe that marriage will improve your economic condition, you may have a better chance for economic stability if not success married rather than unmarried. Likewise if you do not believe that marriage will improve your condition, you have a better chance to fail in an economic sense.

Duncan Gibbs
10-29-2015, 07:30 AM
Did you not read my post?

What you believe is an irrelevancy, and your suggested psychological nuances will deliver marginal changes at best. The whole system is rigged for poor people to stay poor, and for the middle class to be squeezed either up or down. A few individuals may buck the trend, but they will be rare exceptions indeed.

slug
10-29-2015, 10:35 AM
Whoa !

Michael D. Storey
10-29-2015, 03:02 PM
yup...high income housholds have two working class incomes.
Working class plus working class does not equal high income. 50k plus 50k equals 100k, which is upper middle. And it is another reason to promote income equality. 50k plus 50k beats the pants off of 50k plus 35k.

Too Little Time
10-29-2015, 04:24 PM
Did you not read my post?

What you believe is an irrelevancy, and your suggested psychological nuances will deliver marginal changes at best. The whole system is rigged for poor people to stay poor, and for the middle class to be squeezed either up or down. A few individuals may buck the trend, but they will be rare exceptions indeed.
I thought you were a mad man ranting. A common occurrence around here.


Working class plus working class does not equal high income. 50k plus 50k equals 100k, which is upper middle. And it is another reason to promote income equality. 50k plus 50k beats the pants off of 50k plus 35k.
200% of the median - $100K/year income, is by definition rich.

The following link gives what I think are reasonable estimates of what it takes for a family to have financial security. Any amount over those estimates can be saved and invested. Over time the growth of those investments will make a family financially secure based on theh income those investments produce..
http://www.epi.org/publication/what-families-need-to-get-by-epis-2015-family-budget-calculator/

But if your goal is to improve your financial position: You don't have kids. You don't have any discretionary spending. You cut down on non discretionary spending. (We had kids. We did not improve our financial position until they were out of the house.)

Our non discretionary spending is under $30K/year. And we have a lot of investments. So we have the freedom to spend a lot on discretionary items.

PeterSibley
10-29-2015, 04:47 PM
That was Citigroup, not Duncan. Don't shoot the messenger.

Too Little Time
10-29-2015, 05:13 PM
That was Citigroup, not Duncan. Don't shoot the messenger.
I was addressing his comments not those of Citigroup.

If a couple gets married and thinks that alone is going to solve their problems, they are not going to see any economic gain from being married.

If a couple gets married and each realizes that they have some responsibility for the other, they may change their economic behavior. And see some gains.

Duncan Gibbs
10-29-2015, 05:36 PM
Well you were wrong in your "Madman ranting" comment.

Poverty is a structural problem and changes in living arrangements, such as marriage, will most likely only have marginal effects on circumstance, although I agree that whether a couple take advantage of their marriage will have some effect. The notion being peddled here, that a lack of marriage will "cause" poverty is a nonsense. Lack of reasonable access to abortion facilities, along with adequate child care will cause poverty. The notion that everyone should simply get married suggests that those in marginal circumstances all act as automatons and ignore issues such as abusive relationships, drug dependencies along with a multitude of other issues that muddy whether a couple walk down the isle or not.

Beyond all that, poverty (much of it anyway) is manufactured as a business opportunity as laid out in the Citigroup memorandums. By keeping wages marginal, but society aspirational (think of propaganda such as Keeping up with the K's - I can't bring myself to write their name), it forces the poorest to shop in stores that offer very cheap, usually low quality, goods and do it in large volumes. Shelf stocking strategies further reinforce this by responding to pay cycles thereby reducing costs and increasing profits, along with the low wages these businesses pay.

Too Little Time
10-29-2015, 06:20 PM
Well you were wrong in your "Madman ranting" comment.

Poverty is a structural problem and changes in living arrangements, such as marriage, will most likely only have marginal effects on circumstance, although I agree that whether a couple take advantage of their marriage will have some effect. The notion being peddled here, that a lack of marriage will "cause" poverty is a nonsense. Lack of reasonable access to abortion facilities, along with adequate child care will cause poverty. The notion that everyone should simply get married suggests that those in marginal circumstances all act as automatons and ignore issues such as abusive relationships, drug dependencies along with a multitude of other issues that muddy whether a couple walk down the isle or not.

Beyond all that, poverty (much of it anyway) is manufactured as a business opportunity as laid out in the Citigroup memorandums. By keeping wages marginal, but society aspirational (think of propaganda such as Keeping up with the K's - I can't bring myself to write their name), it forces the poorest to shop in stores that offer very cheap, usually low quality, goods and do it in large volumes. Shelf stocking strategies further reinforce this by responding to pay cycles thereby reducing costs and increasing profits, along with the low wages these businesses pay.
I believe that the Citi memos were describing a Willy Sutton strategy: You rob the rich because that is where the money is.

I find it doubtful that recent memos have caused the current level of poverty. One would need a time machine.

Duncan Gibbs
10-29-2015, 06:41 PM
The memos themselves don't "cause" poverty. The strategies outlined by the memos and deployed by big business and luxury goods and services brands are the cause of a great deal of economic inequality. We've gone from the 1970s when the top global 1% owned about 6% of global wealth to now, where the top 1% now own well over 50% of global wealth. This is having significant effects on poverty, in terms of shoring up the positions of the super rich and reinforcing barriers to climbing out of poverty. The idea that the strategy is about robbing the rich is not what is described in the memos. It's about keeping the money circulating at the top end of the economic spectrum and regulating and restricting its flow in the middle and at the lower end.

Michael D. Storey
10-29-2015, 08:09 PM
I thought you were a mad man ranting. A common occurrence around here.


200% of the median - $100K/year income, is by definition rich Cash flow is not wealth. Besides, whose definition? Yours? Also, 100k is for a family of two or four? Or six? Your statements are not based upon fact but instead on feelings and opinion. I was responding to the statement that two working class incomes equal high income. Deal in numbers, not in names that are shoved about as if they had physical boundaries.

Too Little Time
10-29-2015, 09:44 PM
Cash flow is not wealth. Besides, whose definition? Yours? Also, 100k is for a family of two or four? Or six? Your statements are not based upon fact but instead on feelings and opinion. I was responding to the statement that two working class incomes equal high income. Deal in numbers, not in names that are shoved about as if they had physical boundaries.

Professional economists may disagree where the line between the middle class and the rich based on income is. Depending on the economist the line is between varies 125% and 200% of median income. But they all agree that over 200% of median income is rich. The name has numbers and actual meaning associated with it. Wealth is a bit different, but it is not hard to have the wealth of the rich if you have income of the rich.

If you want a more flexible definition of rich. The following link provides that. But even in the high rent districts, over $100K allows one to accumulate wealth even for a family of 4.
http://www.epi.org/publication/what-families-need-to-get-by-epis-2015-family-budget-calculator/


People earn and spend their income anyway they want. Having a 2 worker household is a choice many make. Having a family is a choice many make. My wife and I made the choice for both of us to work and to have kids.

But talking a name shoved about, what does "high income" mean? What does "upper middle" mean? Typically people who use those terms ensure that they are not included in those classes. I recall a fellow with perhaps $10 million in financial worth claiming he was middle class. As middle class that he was entitled to a second house, and a new Lexus every couple years. He was certainly not rich because his neighbors owned stuff he did not own.