What is Poverty in the United States Today?

That may be true concerning countries like Japan buy our products, provide jobs here and actually operate manufacturing plants here. However it doesn't apply to countries like China. Our trading with them is almost entirely one sided. They're all too poor to buy our products, our workers would never be willing to compete with China's sweatshop wages and when was the last time China opened up a new manufacturing plant here in the states???

How is having a huge trade deficit with china possibly a good thing?
 
Coherent said:
...How is having a huge trade deficit with china possibly a good thing?
Click to expand...

Well, just one little thing. Minimum wage workers can afford hard items that would be beyond their reach if made here by people who feel it's only 'fair' for them to be paid $30/hour to push a broom.

KS
 
cammerfe said:
Well, just one little thing. Minimum wage workers can afford hard items that would be beyond their reach if made here by people who feel it's only 'fair' for them to be paid $30/hour to push a broom.

KS
Click to expand...
OR people would actually be able to afford the more expensive goods as more people would have quality well paying jobs. Think of all the people making minimum wage now who might be making $12-15 per hour working union manufacturing jobs and tell me that they wouldn't have a bit more money to spend. Additionally the American made electronics and other items would be higher quality and not fail after several years due to inferior parts and cost cutting. Have you ever seen how cheaply made some Chinese electronics are? When picking components like capacitors or w/e they basically use the bare minimum that will work with little regard to long term reliability. Then the customer wonders why their stereo amp fails 5 years down the road(conveniently after the return policy ends) cause the underspec electrolytic capacitors in the power supply blew up.

IMHO it might be good if people paid a higher price for electronics because then they wouldn't simply throw everything away the second a better model comes out. That would lead to less E-Waste. Heck we might even see the return of appliance repair. Nowadays whenever that big tv or stereo amp fails people just chuck it and buy a new one. Phones are even worse; People chuck em by the millions simply cause a new flashier model comes out.
 
Coherent said:
OR people would actually be able to afford the more expensive goods as more people would have quality well paying jobs.
Click to expand...

The economy doesn't work like that. Cal already showed the fallacy of this position.
Calabrio said:
And when you raise the salaries of everyone, what will happen to the cost of goods and services as a result?

If that entry level wage is raised, will more unskilled people be brought into the work force or less?

Here's an idea, why don't we just have the government give every person $1,000,000.00 in cash? Then we'd all be millionaires and we could buy whatever we wanted, right??
Click to expand...


​
 
Well, back to the poverty subject matter.....

Shag - it must have worked - the War on Poverty... our poor are 'rich'! Sitting in their air conditioned homes (which they own) - after they have gone to the mall in one of their 2 cars to pick out an x-box. They have microwaves and dishwashers, they consume massive amounts of calories, and they even have a coffee maker.... better than starbucks huh?

So, Johnson's Great Society has finally come to fruition - even Heritage says so....
 
Healthcare is a growing field and with 8000 boomers retiring every day and living for 15-25 years opportunity abounds for those who can provide services that seniors want that government will pay for if Obamacare doesn't get scuttled.

This is a guaranteed field for someone to find their piece of the pie or just get a job with some training.
25 years ago one of my high school buddies who quit college after 1 day went to work for a guy selling medical novelties to doctors and decided to start his own company on the idea of selling drug companies on medical magazines with short concise well written synopsyses of current medical articles culled by university students that would be of interest to doctors in various fields.
The magazines were first rate with beautiful color illustrations and the doctors got them free and he made a ton of money from the advertizing then sold the company to a publisher and turned that into a small cap billion dollar drug manufacturing company.
 
foxpaws said:
Well, back to the poverty subject matter.....

Shag - it must have worked - the War on Poverty... our poor are 'rich'! Sitting in their air conditioned homes (which they own) - after they have gone to the mall in one of their 2 cars to pick out an x-box. They have microwaves and dishwashers, they consume massive amounts of calories, and they even have a coffee maker.... better than starbucks huh?

So, Johnson's Great Society has finally come to fruition - even Heritage says so....
Click to expand...
So, you'll vote to stop spending more money on it then?
 
Foxy, you have an amazing ability to make facts and arguments say things they don't say...
 
shagdrum said:
Foxy, you have an amazing ability to make facts and arguments say things they don't say...
Click to expand...

So-I can't use this article when at some point you once again post how the War on Poverty didn't succeed?

Wow - it sure looks like it did to me Shag - our poor are considered 'rich' in many developing countries - right? We have raised the bar - the programs have given the poor TVs and cars and playstations.

Our poor seem to be exponentially better off than they were 50 years ago. What could account for this leap?
:p
 
foxpaws said:
Wow - it sure looks like it did to me Shag - our poor are considered 'rich' in many developing countries - right? We have raised the bar - the programs have given the poor TVs and cars and playstations.
Click to expand...

:confused:
....are you joking?

I really can't tell.

I would assume you would see the laughable "logic" behind the conclusion you are drawing.

Your smiley might suggest that you are kidding, but could you clarify?

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because of this," is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation, or correlation not causation. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, in which the chronological ordering of a correlation is insignificant.

Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection.​
If you really want to beclown yourself by using the article in this manner in the future, feel free...
 
shagdrum said:
:confused:
....are you joking?

I really can't tell.

I would assume you would see the laughable "logic" behind the conclusion you are drawing.

Your smiley might suggest that you are kidding, but could you clarify?

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because of this," is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation, or correlation not causation. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, in which the chronological ordering of a correlation is insignificant.

Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection.​
If you really want to beclown yourself by using the article in this manner in the future, feel free...
Click to expand...
It's the same logic she uses when she claims that buying an expensive pair of shoes makes her a capitalist.

I bet Stalin had nice things too. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 145 (members: 2, guests: 143)
Back
Top