We have updated our Privacy Notice, you can read the updated document here
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

The solution to poverty

2

Comments

  • #2


    BloodBath wrote: »
    Who runs all the low pay service jobs if they all leave Dublin because they can't afford to live there?

    They can barely afford to survive even with the cheap goods made in China and you expect them to buy home made products?


    :pac: So your best argument against people opting for a cheaper, better quality lifestyle is that someone (i.e. them) needs to work as slaves for the rich folk who can already afford to live in Dublin?



    Backed up by suggesting that it's OK for rich Dubliners to exploit the poor because the poor Irish exploit the even poorer Chinese/Bangladeshi workers. :rolleyes:

    Incidentally, having followed my own advice and opted for a low-cost, non-Dublin/Ireland lifestyle, I now work with a lot of assocations in France in different domains. Those who help out as volunteers are generally considerably more motivated, more reliable and give better service than the salaried employees. That's something that's been reported in many other countries too. The value of voluntary work is rarely appreciated by politicians and other directors of economic strategy.


  • #2


    Only if everyone else did likewise. In recession things stop because people stop working. But supposing people worked on regardless, the only thing that would be impacted would be your pay. Given time, your pay could resume but at a more sustainable level.

    Lets say you have expenses that occur because you are working (eg commuting /uniforms/childcare) but if you work for free you cannot pay for these. Do you then expect others to work for free until you can afford it?

    Recessions stop when people start consuming again. If you have no money to consume you cannot stop a recession. All that happens is that the companies can then make/produce their products cheaper (no labour cost).


  • #2


    :pac: So your best argument against people opting for a cheaper, better quality lifestyle is that someone (i.e. them) needs to work as slaves for the rich folk who can already afford to live in Dublin?


    Backed up by suggesting that it's OK for rich Dubliners to exploit the poor because the poor Irish exploit the even poorer Chinese/Bangladeshi workers. :rolleyes:

    Incidentally, having followed my own advice and opted for a low-cost, non-Dublin/Ireland lifestyle, I now work with a lot of assocations in France in different domains. Those who help out as volunteers are generally considerably more motivated, more reliable and give better service than the salaried employees. That's something that's been reported in many other countries too. The value of voluntary work is rarely appreciated by politicians and other directors of economic strategy.

    WTF are you talking about? What you said doesn't even make any sense in relation to what I said. You certainly are a rambler.

    Try forming some cohesive sentences that actually make an argument and make sense.

    If everyone did what you did they were would be nobody left in Dublin. Who do you think will run all the service jobs and other low paid jobs like nurses if they have that attitude. Most businesses that rely on service staff would have to shut down. Hospitals would shut down. Use your bloody head and think.

    The biggest problem is rent and property prices that is really screwing everyone on low incomes all over the country at the moment but especially in Dublin.


  • #2


    BloodBath wrote: »
    If everyone did what you did they were would be nobody left in Dublin. Who do you think will run all the service jobs and other low paid jobs like nurses if they have that attitude. Most businesses that rely on service staff would have to shut down. Hospitals would shut down.


    If there's nobody left in Dublin, there will be no need for all those jobs. :P


    But you're saying that it's okay for employers to offer low-paid jobs, and the city needs willing slaves to keep them in business. Strange idea ... although I know plenty of people who are quite happy to work for just enough money to pay the bills they incur only because they're working. Most of them are miserable, but not technically poor.


    You only have to look at the levels of indebtedness in the western world to see that the solution to poverty is not "work".


  • #2


    the_syco wrote: »
    No. Better for the company to fail and be replaced, than for it to continue and it's workers not be paid.


    Chinese cars do not have the same safety regulations, it's employees do not have the same rights. 2013 the average worker only got £270 per month.


    You mean if they worked 7 days a week without holidays until they died, to benefit the company shareholders but not themselves?

    Ignoring pensions is like sawing off your legs to sell now, so that you can run in the marathon later.


    A house with a garden costs more than an apartment without a garden. If they forever work, when would they have time to grow their own food? Studies have shown people need rest, and without rest, they're not as productive.

    =-=

    In a long term view, war reduces poverty, as less people exist after war. It also generates income that can be spent. Disease and famine also lessen people, but it also weakens the workforce, causing people not to work or spend.


    The first thing they'd do is to build showers for the poor and less unfortunate. Like the way Hitler built showers for the jews. If you want to have food for everyone, you need less people.


    If one person is doing well, generating jobs, would you not just give the job? I think that's how Hitler got in control.

    I hate replying to multiquote people. I clan only answer your points addressed to me down here.

    There would be no poor people. Creating jobs would be discouraged. Everybody would have a fair share and there would be no need for money.


  • #2


    :pac: So your best argument against people opting for a cheaper, better quality lifestyle is that someone (i.e. them) needs to work as slaves for the rich folk who can already afford to live in Dublin?



    Backed up by suggesting that it's OK for rich Dubliners to exploit the poor because the poor Irish exploit the even poorer Chinese/Bangladeshi workers. :rolleyes:

    Incidentally, having followed my own advice and opted for a low-cost, non-Dublin/Ireland lifestyle, I now work with a lot of assocations in France in different domains. Those who help out as volunteers are generally considerably more motivated, more reliable and give better service than the salaried employees. That's something that's been reported in many other countries too. The value of voluntary work is rarely appreciated by politicians and other directors of economic strategy.

    The only people who exploit the poor in China are the corporations who employ people there. If those jobs were in the west the products would be more expensive but so also would the wages earned in the West. That’s how America got rich.

    The personal solution (I left Dublin) is not a real solution for everybody. Low paid Dubliners should be able to live there and it’s housing - not anything else that makes it impossible.


  • #2


    The only people who exploit the poor in China are the corporations who employ people there. If those jobs were in the west the products would be more expensive but so also would the wages earned in the West. That’s how America got rich.


    Tell that to the millions of Americans living below the poverty line.



    Everyone who buys a T-shirt for 5€ is exploiting a sweat-shop worker somewhere in the middle east. It's easy to blame "corporations" and pretend that your average Dublin Mammy isn't contributing to the problem, but she is - she's giving those same corporations the incentive to do what they do, and if she has the chance of buying a T-shirt for 5€ made by child labourers in some Bangladeshi factory, or an T-shirt of the same quality for 15€, made by adult EU-workers earning an EU minimum wage, nine times out of ten she'll choose the sweat-shop.


  • #2


    Tell that to the millions of Americans living below the poverty line.



    Everyone who buys a Penneys T-shirt for 5€ is exploiting a sweat-shop worker somewhere in the middle east. It's easy to blame "corporations" and pretend that your average Dublin Mammy isn't contributing to the problem, but she is - she's giving those same corporations the incentive to do what they do, and if she has the chance of buying a T-shirt for 5€ made by child labourers in some Bangladeshi factory, or an T-shirt of the same quality for 15€, made by adult EU-workers earning an EU minimum wage, nine times out of ten she'll choose the sweat-shop.

    But the 100euro t shirts are made in the same street as the penny’s t shirts


  • #2


    But the 100euro t shirts are made in the same street as the penny’s t shirts


    You're talking about something different - someone who chooses to spend their disposable income paying 95€ extra for the same garment (or equivalent scenario in electric gadgets and gizmos) is not causing poverty. That's just excessive consumption, leading to a depletion of the earth's resources.


    Poverty is as much a state of mind as a financial condition. Most of the "poor" people I know in Dublin and the UK are actually quite well-off and extremely wasteful compared to the (very few) really poor people I know elsewhere.


  • #2


    There are effectively no 15 quid tshirts made in the EU on sale

    American Apparel used US minimum wage workers, in still pretty crap conditions; made it their entire brand and they still hit the wall.

    People aren't willing to pay for the non sweatshop stuff and the brands that can get away with charging multiples want to keep all that extra profit themselves.


  • #2


    Tell that to the millions of Americans living below the poverty line.

    They are now because capital moved east.

    Everyone who buys a T-shirt for 5€ is exploiting a sweat-shop worker somewhere in the middle east. It's easy to blame "corporations" and pretend that your average Dublin Mammy isn't contributing to the problem, but she is - she's giving those same corporations the incentive to do what they do, and if she has the chance of buying a T-shirt for 5€ made by child labourers in some Bangladeshi factory, or an T-shirt of the same quality for 15€, made by adult EU-workers earning an EU minimum wage, nine times out of ten she'll choose the sweat-shop.

    That’s a clear misunderstanding of the way it works. Plenty of extremely expensive items are made in sweatshops. What the lower wages mean is higher profits.


  • #2


    You're talking about something different - someone who chooses to spend their disposable income paying 95€ extra for the same garment (or equivalent scenario in electric gadgets and gizmos) is not causing poverty. That's just excessive consumption, leading to a depletion of the earth's resources.

    That’s utterly nonsensical. Literally no sense can be made of it. The environmental costs of creating an expensive item in a sweat shop are the same as the lower cost item.
    Poverty is as much a state of mind as a financial condition. Most of the "poor" people I know in Dublin and the UK are actually quite well-off and extremely wasteful compared to the (very few) really poor people I know elsewhere.

    Poverty is relative.


  • #2


    daheff wrote: »
    Lets say you have expenses that occur because you are working (eg commuting /uniforms/childcare) but if you work for free you cannot pay for these. Do you then expect others to work for free until you can afford it?

    Recessions stop when people start consuming again. If you have no money to consume you cannot stop a recession. All that happens is that the companies can then make/produce their products cheaper (no labour cost).
    On your first question, lets suppose they did continue to work for you for free. Then things would continue pretty much as usual until things turned around. Obviously, this scenario would not arise in the first place if everyone was working for much lower pay to begin with because that would be sustainable and not something which contributes to global imbalances.

    You say: "Recessions stop when people start consuming again." This is what they were saying after the credit crunch in 2008 and the government borrowed billions to pump back into the economy and get people spending. What a terrible idea! More drugs do not cure drug addicts. We needed cold turkey and we are going to get it. Next time the problem will be to big to "fix" with another round of QE. Cowardly politicians will not be able to borrow their way out of the next recession they cause.


  • #2


    On your first question, lets suppose they did continue to work for you for free. Then things would continue pretty much as usual until things turned around. Obviously, this scenario would not arise in the first place if everyone was working for much lower pay to begin with because that would be sustainable and not something which contributes to global imbalances.
    Things would not continue "pretty much as usual" for the workers. They are getting no wages, but they still have to pay for groceries, pay rent or mortage, pay to get to work, etc, etc. If they have any savings, those savings are depleted; if they have no savings, they are getting deeper and deeper into debt.

    And why is the workers, in particular, who are supposed to bear the cost of keeping the enterprise from folding? Why should not the supplier continue to supply parts and raw materials, but without getting paid? Why should not the banks continue to extend credit, but stop charging interest? Why should the business not get free power, gas, water from the utility companies? Why should the landlord not stop charging them rent for their premises until the recession ends? Why do you single out the workers as the stakeholder who should pay to keep the enterprise from folding?


  • #2


    On your first question, lets suppose they did continue to work for you for free. Then things would continue pretty much as usual until things turned around. Obviously, this scenario would not arise in the first place if everyone was working for much lower pay to begin with because that would be sustainable and not something which contributes to global imbalances.

    You say: "Recessions stop when people start consuming again." This is what they were saying after the credit crunch in 2008 and the government borrowed billions to pump back into the economy and get people spending. What a terrible idea! More drugs do not cure drug addicts. We needed cold turkey and we are going to get it. Next time the problem will be to big to "fix" with another round of QE. Cowardly politicians will not be able to borrow their way out of the next recession they cause.

    You have literally no idea how economies work.

    On the second point first, while we do have to worry about debt, household debt has decreased in Ireland. Economic growth doesn’t necessarily mean massive debt increases.

    In general you don’t seem to get that workers are both consumers and workers. If you force workers to work for cheap then they will have no disposable income to spend and everybody ends up unemployed


  • #2


    Interesting radicalism from reality keeper. He wants poor workers but has nothing to say about capitalists or landowners.


  • #2


    Interesting radicalism from reality keeper. He wants poor workers but has nothing to say about capitalists or landowners.

    what he is proposing is effectively transferring resources (labour) for free to capitalists (company owners) to allow the capitalists continue in business and keep making profits.

    Only losers in this idea are the labour force.


  • #2


    If you force workers to work for cheap then they will have no disposable income to spend and everybody ends up unemployed


    Not sure where the "force" is coming from in your scenario. The beauty of capitalism is the whole system is based on a agreed relationship between parties. Ultimately if you force business owners to pay a wage not comparable to the productivity of their Labour you have a serious issue on your hands.


  • #2


    In general you don’t seem to get that workers are both consumers and workers. If you force workers to work for cheap then they will have no disposable income to spend and everybody ends up unemployed


    That's a peculiar argument - "everybody" ends up "unemployed" because they're not getting paid for working for nothing! :cool:


    Again, this only applies in the context of a consumerist economy, where the objective is (unsustainable) never-ending growth, and these days is based on magic money conjured up out of electrons and mass delusion.


    I "work" with several small/medium sized festivals, each of which is a capitalistic micro-economy operated as a non-profit organisation. The largest "employs" 120 volunteers who get no pay, just two good meals a day. The vast majority of the artists perform for free, the site is made available for a symbolic rent, and the main stage and seating is available free-of-charge as long as the festival committee looks after the transport and construction (done by some of the volunteers).



    This means public can enjoy 4 days and nights of high quality live entertainment for just 20€ a head (under 12s free), and a host of other interested parties get a cut of whatever money is in circulation - accommodation providers, local traders, sound and light technicians, etc. In essence, not a lot different to how the Germans got themselves through their austerity years post-reunification and during the 2008 crash.



    No-one is forcing any of our volunteers to come back year after year after year ... but they do! :cool:


  • #2


    You have literally no idea how economies work.

    On the second point first, while we do have to worry about debt, household debt has decreased in Ireland. Economic growth doesn’t necessarily mean massive debt increases.

    In general you don’t seem to get that workers are both consumers and workers. If you force workers to work for cheap then they will have no disposable income to spend and everybody ends up unemployed
    Household debt has decreased but more of the money used to decrease it came from billions borrowed by the government and pumped back into the economy.

    Spending in the economy brings in very little foreign currency.


  • #2


    Household debt has decreased but more of the money used to decrease it came from billions borrowed by the government and pumped back into the economy.

    Spending in the economy brings in very little foreign currency.
    But the bulk of the borrowings aren't in foreign currency. They're in euros.


  • #2


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    But the bulk of the borrowings aren't in foreign currency. They're in euros.

    When I say foreign currency, I mean currency from abroad which could include euros. Of course, cash from outside the fiat currency economies would be better.


  • #2


    When I say foreign currency, I mean currency from abroad which could include euros. Of course, cash from outside the fiat currency economies would be better.
    The whole point about euros is that they are all the same; there is no distinction between a eure earned in Ireland and a euro earned in Germany. If the Irishg government borrows in euros (from a German lender) it can repay that borrowing with euro collected in Ireland (from an Irish taxpayer).


  • #2


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    The whole point about euros is that they are all the same; there is no distinction between a eure earned in Ireland and a euro earned in Germany. If the Irishg government borrows in euros (from a German lender) it can repay that borrowing with euro collected in Ireland (from an Irish taxpayer).
    Yes but it owes over 200 billion euro. The modus operandi in Ireland has been to borrow to spend (with lip service to investment). The debt was
    accumulated by irresponsible government and will be unsustainable when the next recession comes.


  • #2


    Yes but it owes over 200 billion euro. The modus operandi in Ireland has been to borrow to spend (with lip service to investment). The debt was
    accumulated by irresponsible government and will be unsustainable when the next recession comes.

    Didn't you predict a massive financial collapse to happen in 2017?

    It currently costs Ireland approx 6bn a year to service the debt, and despite being one of the highest in the Eurozone, is well within the country's capacity

    The modus operandi has been not to default - so far it's been working well


  • #2


    Printing houses ? technologically possible now, as opposed the vast costs paid to builders?. I think all the wars in the world and corrupt governments certainly have a role in keeping their people in poverty and below, all the money that's spent on guns and bombs. Also Multinationals should pay a fair tax....


  • #2


    For me there is a pretty big elephant in the room..

    Some things go hand in hand..

    Does peace and equality go hand in hand with monarchs/royalty?

    As long as we tolerate kings and queens,we tolerate poverty and inequality.


  • #2


    Liv2Luv wrote: »
    For me there is a pretty big elephant in the room..

    Some things go hand in hand..

    Does peace and equality go hand in hand with monarchs/royalty?

    As long as we tolerate kings and queens,we tolerate poverty and inequality.

    No it doesn't inequality is increasing and monarchies are decreasing.


  • #2


    MayoSalmon wrote: »
    Not sure where the "force" is coming from in your scenario. The beauty of capitalism is the whole system is based on a agreed relationship between parties. Ultimately if you force business owners to pay a wage not comparable to the productivity of their Labour you have a serious issue on your hands.

    The op wants to force lower wages.

    That “agreed” contract isn’t on an equal basis of course.

    In terms of productivity what makes the service industry more productive is more customers. In manufacturing you would have to agree to wage gains along with productivity increases. That kind of bargaining made the west rich.


  • #2


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    But this thread, realitykeeper, which you started, is specifically about the solution to poverty, and there's an undeniable link between poverty and not having enough money. Encouraging people to grow their own vegetables and is all very well, but it's of limited value to someone who cannot afford to buy or rent a house with a garden large enough to grow a meaningful amount of food, or who hasn't had the foresight to inherit one. I completely agree that people's well-being will be enhanced by engaging in meaningful, beneficial work even that work is unpaid, but enhancing well-being is not the same thing as reducing poverty.

    Thank you for this wisdom

    One point; define " poverty"?

    There is from time t o time an "official declaration " of how many of us live " below the poverty line"

    Its definition of "poverty" is upper middle class. They would define as poor many who live simply through choice. As i do. I am not living in poverty

    I am too old to work as such but I engage daily in meaningful activity that benefits others and yes it means a great deal to me in many ways

    Oh and I do grow food but would starve if that was all I had!r

    There has to be realism in idealism.


Society & Culture