DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - U.S. Poverty Rate, 1 in 6, at Highest Level in Years

**makemoneyonli** · 09-15-2011, 11:40 PM

I have a big problem equating poverty stricken with unproductive. Frankly, it is offensive.

Many of the poverty stricken are working poor and NOT unproductive. But they are underpaid.

Working poor unproductive. Since they're working, they are probably carrying most of their own load, but with difficulty.

Moreover, many of our underemployed citizens are so because of macroeconomic conditions. They may be underemployed, but they are not necessarily unproductive.
Unemployed = unproductive. If they're receiving benefits, they're being carried. Not so much a moral issue (yes, it may or may not be their fault), but a financial one. They're a drag on the system.

You seem to have a penchant for gauging one's productivity on the basis of one's income. Do you really think that the Average CEO is 400 times more productive than the average corporate employee?? Depends how you look at it. They deploy vastly more assets, their decisions effect vastly more money and people. They have much more individual influence on events. In that sense yes.

But that's not the point. This isn't about equality. It's about survival and success/failure at the national level. If too much in the way of national assets are waisted propping up citizens who really need to be supporting themselves, it isn't being deployed in ways that could be building assets and national strength going forward.

For example, something like 43% of the federal budget is spent on the elderly. Is this smart? Are we investing a vast amount of money in people who are never again going to be productive? While it would never happen, what would happen if we wholely cut this off an redeployed it to education, infrastructure, and other investments that would actually yield a future return? Which would make us more competitive with our surging competitors (China and others.)?

09-15-2011, 11:40 PM	#35
makemoneyonli Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 447 Senior Member	I have a big problem equating poverty stricken with unproductive. Frankly, it is offensive. Many of the poverty stricken are working poor and NOT unproductive. But they are underpaid. Working poor unproductive. Since they're working, they are probably carrying most of their own load, but with difficulty. Moreover, many of our underemployed citizens are so because of macroeconomic conditions. They may be underemployed, but they are not necessarily unproductive. Unemployed = unproductive. If they're receiving benefits, they're being carried. Not so much a moral issue (yes, it may or may not be their fault), but a financial one. They're a drag on the system. You seem to have a penchant for gauging one's productivity on the basis of one's income. Do you really think that the Average CEO is 400 times more productive than the average corporate employee?? Depends how you look at it. They deploy vastly more assets, their decisions effect vastly more money and people. They have much more individual influence on events. In that sense yes. But that's not the point. This isn't about equality. It's about survival and success/failure at the national level. If too much in the way of national assets are waisted propping up citizens who really need to be supporting themselves, it isn't being deployed in ways that could be building assets and national strength going forward. For example, something like 43% of the federal budget is spent on the elderly. Is this smart? Are we investing a vast amount of money in people who are never again going to be productive? While it would never happen, what would happen if we wholely cut this off an redeployed it to education, infrastructure, and other investments that would actually yield a future return? Which would make us more competitive with our surging competitors (China and others.)?
	Quote