Will poverty be eliminated in 25 years?

[melensdad]

When current workers get old enough to retire (the retirement age keeps increasing) they will have to be supported by the then current workers–their children and grandchildren. And there may not be enough of them to keep up the payments.

Jim the problem is that there are NOT ENOUGH new workers entering the system to pay for all the retired workers. Retirees are living longer, that means current workers are paying more than is expected per retiree. The birthrate is not keeping up with retirees, that means there are not enough earners to pay for the takers. With this type of simply math it is easy to see that

• we will have a collapse of the Social Security system, OR
• we will see large tax increases dumped on our kids to pay for the debt, OR
• we will see a cut back in the benefits to some/all of the retirees, OR
• we will see the retirement age increased again and again, OR
• we will see some combination of all these things

 

[vern_humphrey]

I was using the more philosophical meaning of laissez-faire:

A practice characterized by a usually deliberate abstention from direction or interference especially with individual freedom of choice and action.

Then we definitely don’t have laissez-faire. The government exercises the most minute control over the schools – everything from choosing the textbooks to setting the curriculm to inculcating various values in the children (as in “Heather has Two Mommies.”

It’s not, so long as the economic nature of a society is geared toward agrarianism or industrialization. But the information-based economy of today has bred an entirely new economic dynamic, which extreme specialization. Today, individuals do not learn an assortment of jobs in their profession, merely the function of one little cog in a vast and ultimately entropic machine. When this is the case, assignment and control of occupation according to aptitude is absolutely vital.

Children receive an education – that is a broad-based set of skills and knowledges that can be applied in many different fields later.

Euorpean nations have gone the “tracking” route, where a child is decreed to be a future auto mechanic or brain surgeon in the first couple of years of school. It doesn’t work.

That’s a tad melodramatic. I’m not suggesting indentured servitude, merely that the use of the master/apprentice system would ensure that people can be the very best at what they do, and begin to be productive individuals much earlier.

The key to the suggestion, however, is that someone else decides what your child is going to be - and the child will darned well be whatever has been decreed.

Currently, most people, even after entering college, change their majors numerous times. But even assuming they don’t, and choose an occupation that requires post-graduate work, they don’t end their education until their mid-twenties and often only a kind of apprenticeship (such as a doctor interning at a hospital) are they even given complete leeway. That’s a lot of wasted time and energy to invest in someone.

But forcing them into something they don’t want and aren’t suited for would be a greater waste.

Oh, here we go! The tale of the disenfranchised proletariat whose creativity and dreams are crushed by the viscious, unfeeling weight of the engine of society. People need to realize that it’s only the vast wealth of Western society that provides for such freedom of choice in occupation, or the novel idea that one actually has to enjoy their job.

Actually, that’s not true. It’s sum of the actions of many free individuals acting in what they perceive ot be their own best interests that produced this country, its customs, and irs freedom.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that’s not going to last forever. Not a long time, even.

And what evidence do you have for that?

What is it that drives us to be come like an ant’s nest, all laboring mindlessly for the queen?

 

[anthony022071]

Yep – I read the same thread and the cited comments. And he’s right.

Also, when we forgave international debt, the nations that **weren’t **paying their debts got them wiped out. The nations that were paying them didn’t – and Kenya is one of the latter.

The lesson is, if you borrow, steal the money, use it to enrich yourself and your cronies, and buy arms to oppress your people, we’ll wipe the slate clean and you can borrow more. If you use the money to develop your nation. benefit your people and work hard to replay the debt, you’re screwed.

Very interesting lesson. Maybe this is deliberate unfairness on the part of the governments of Europe and America, to keep African nations down,in a state of dependency.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Very interesting lesson. Maybe this is deliberate unfairness on the part of the governments of Europe and America, to keep African nations down,in a state of dependency.

I think it’s just typical do-gooder mentality. Do what makes us feel good – no matter how much harm it does to others. I mean, like thinking things through and tackling the real problems is like, hard, man! Know what I mean?

 

[anthony022071]

I think it’s just typical do-gooder mentality. Do what makes us feel good – no matter how much harm it does to others. I mean, like thinking things through and tackling the real problems is like, hard, man! Know what I mean?

That’s true,but I also wouldn’t put it past the people who make these decisions to have ulterior motives. Cynical intentions often go under the cover of apparent generosity,as with the government of Cuba. When a government is generous with social programs for its own citizens,it makes for a state of dependancy (welfare state),which consolidates power for the government. When a government is generous with aid for foreign nations,the effect can be a state of dependancy,and also a state of chaos when the nation that receives the aid is already very corrupt and wicked.
While most people would view aid to corrupt foreign governments
as wasteful and harmful,there may be people in the governments of Europe and America who quietly view the bad effects of such aid as advantageous to Western political and economic intrests,the idea being basically “divide and conquer”.

 

[vern_humphrey]

That’s true,but I also wouldn’t put it past the people who make these decisions to have ulterior motives. Cynical intentions often go under the cover of apparent generosity,as with the government of Cuba. When a government is generous with social programs for its own citizens,it makes for a state of dependancy (welfare state),which consolidates power for the government. When a government is generous with aid for foreign nations,the effect can be a state of dependancy,and also a state of chaos when the nation that receives the aid is already very corrupt and wicked.

Or it may be simply cynicism – “We aren’t willing to solve the problem, so throw them a bone and hope the disaster doesn’t occur on our watch.”

While most people would view aid to corrupt foreign governments
as wasteful and harmful,there may be people in the governments of Europe and America who quietly view the bad effects of such aid as advantageous to Western political and economic intrests,the idea being basically “divide and conquer”.

I don’t see any advantage to a poverty-stricken Africa. I do see an advantage to a prosperous continent – look at how much we trade with Europe, for example. If there were equal markets and buying power in Africa, it would be greatly to our advantage.

 

[JimG]

Jim the problem is that there are NOT ENOUGH new workers entering the system to pay for all the retired workers. Retirees are living longer, that means current workers are paying more than is expected per retiree. The birthrate is not keeping up with retirees, that means there are not enough earners to pay for the takers.

Yes, I agree with your post. People are not having enough children to support them in their old age–which is basically what social security and medicare is, on a larger scale. It occurs to me that this might be a reason to encourage more immigration–a lot of it, since it’s unlikely that the worker base can be expanded sufficiently otherwise.

 

[JimG]

When this is the case, assignment and control of occupation according to aptitude is absolutely vital.

I can hardly wait until the Department of Occupational Assignment is created.

This being the government, I am sure there will be an appeals process, with a Board of Occupational Assignment Appeals. EEOC will also have a greater workload, as there will be inevitable claims of bias in occupational assignment on the basis of race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I can hardly wait until the Department of Occupational Assignment is created.

This being the government, I am sure there will be an appeals process, with a Board of Occupational Assignment Appeals. EEOC will also have a greater workload, as there will be inevitable claims of bias in occupational assignment on the basis of race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation.

Look at the bright side – it will provide a good living to hordes of lawyers and political activists, who would otherwise have to get jobs as truckdrivers and spread carnage over our highways.

 

[Stolen_Rutters]

Poverty will never be eliminated. We may eliminate the threat of death due to hunger with some serious effort, but poverty itself will never go.

It’s standard depends on where you are, too. In the US, what we call poverty is actually not a bad life, material-wise. It’s really depressing when you are always comparing yourself to that drug dealer down the street who has that big Cadillac, and loose women hanging on his arm. That just means you have to find a better role model to look up to. All too often, your Dad isn’t around, so it’s up to you to find your own role models from your surroundings. I was fortunate enough to end up with my step dad, Abe Lincoln and Albert Einstein (the second and third are from books, of course).

Now to the bigger issue. Now some countries have real problems. If you are fortunate enough to volunteer for a mission to South America or Africa, you get a reality check that Dealer life doesn’t look so appealing, and the whole “roll” model thing is overblown.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Poverty will never be eliminated. We may eliminate the threat of death due to hunger with some serious effort, but poverty itself will never go.

It’s standard depends on where you are, too. In the US, what we call poverty is actually not a bad life, material-wise. It’s really depressing when you are always comparing yourself to that drug dealer down the street who has that big Cadillac, and loose women hanging on his arm. That just means you have to find a better role model to look up to. All too often, your Dad isn’t around, so it’s up to you to find your own role models from your surroundings. I was fortunate enough to end up with my step dad, Abe Lincoln and Albert Einstein (the second and third are from books, of course).

Now to the bigger issue. Now some countries have real problems. If you are fortunate enough to volunteer for a mission to South America or Africa, you get a reality check that Dealer life doesn’t look so appealing, and the whole “roll” model thing is overblown.

Having lived in both South America (Peru) and Africa (Egypt), as well as Viet Nam, Korea and Singapore, I know what you mean. The causes of poverty vary from country to country – in some countries, poverty is accepted as part of the human condition and that makes it very difficult to deal with.

In the United States, I think we can see that poverty is primarily due to five causes:

1. Cultural – there are segments of our society that place a low value on education, hard work and so on. To a certain extent, this mirrors what you find in Peru or Egypt. While education is the key to helping people like this, many actively resist education.
2. Disabilities. There are people who cannot work – some cannot even communicate. The solution here is to provide those who can work with an opportunity to work and at least partially support themselves, as a matter of upholding their human dignity.
3. Drug dependency. This might be considered a subset of disabilities. Many homeless people are dependent on drugs or alcohol. It may be that the very best we can do for these people is provide food, clothing and shelter.
4. Bad luck. Many people who fall into this category are the easiest to help, since all they really need is a chance.
5. Old age. These are people who have simply run out of time before preparing for their old age. Lacking the ability to work and needing care, they are a charge on the rest of us.

 

[manualman]

Vern,

You can’t think of any upsides for unscrupulous western leaders to keep the third world in chaos? How about extremely low prices for natural resources? No interference from the populace in industrial pollution policy? No worries about unionization at the factory? No massive increase in demand (and therefore price) for limited energy resources?

Methinks much of the materialistic western culture is highly dependent on the above. Were all these countries to overnight develop stable, just governments with good priorities and the rule of law, I suspect the global economy would stagger under the loss of its cheapies.

At the very least, it is an intriguing idea. Hmm, could be an Oliver Stone movie line…

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern,

You can’t think of any upsides for unscrupulous western leaders to keep the third world in chaos? How about extremely low prices for natural resources? No interference from the populace in industrial pollution policy? No worries about unionization at the factory? No massive increase in demand (and therefore price) for limited energy resources?

If you lie there in the dark long enough, you’ll convince yourself there really are monsters under the bed.

Methinks much of the materialistic western culture is highly dependent on the above. Were all these countries to overnight develop stable, just governments with good priorities and the rule of law, I suspect the global economy would stagger under the loss of its cheapies.

At the very least, it is an intriguing idea. Hmm, could be an Oliver Stone movie line…

Ah, yes – Oliver Stone, the man who originated the theory that absense of evidence is proof of conspiracy.