@AndroidPolitician you clearly are an idiot...not a single person agrees with you. And, of course poverty levels get lower...that does not encourage hardwork, it encourages dependency. Also you sound like a child rapist on the video. Welfare does not create poverty it continues it.
Not a single rabid right-winger agrees but the actual research does. If "dependency" was an issue then why does poverty (only using private non-benefit income) go down?
The only way dependency would be a problem is if you think people are too stupid and greedy to use welfare to invest in a better life.
Neither the research nor the logic pans out, welfare reduces poverty it's just a fact.
AndroidPoliticain is an idiot and fails to understand how welfare really works. He does not even know what poor really is.
To AndriodPoliticain do you know what it means to be poor and that the United States standard set by the government is nothing more than a made up number.
The best thing to do instead of trying to debate him is to leave him alone and spread the word for no noe to veiw his videos then without attention he will go away.
Seriously your thinking is about the same as an ardent communist, when the communist countries were collapsing it was because they weren't communist enough and they couldn't engage the issues.
How about you actually try to engage me on the issue at hand? The Founding Father responsible for the majority of what became the constitution was in favor of things like welfare. So how is it unconstitutional?
No one is talking about "taking from others" you fundamentalist idiot, most people would pay taxes for services which is part of the social contract, when a community gets together and agrees on resources (roads, police etc.) you benefit off the resources so you pitch in. If you don't want to you convince the community to change or you leave.
@AndroidPolitician You're obviously too cataclysmically retarded and profoundly ignorant to realize how cataclysmically retarded and profoundly ignorant you are. OBVIOUSLY welfare is taking from others, you ridiculous moron. Besides that, none of your "arguments" against Sowell's facts bear even the faintest semblance of relevance, but of course you wouldn't realize that either. You're a pathetic, brainwashed, communist simpleton. (Except that "brainwashed" implies a brain)
That's weird because last time I checked most Americans are in favor of welfare so it's not "taking from them" and the evidence I provided and have linked in the descriptions disprove Sowell's assertions that welfare increases poverty and actually significantly decreases it.
9/11 trutherism aside, there's no such thing as "unconstitutional servitude" which anti-tax fanatics have actually tried and repeatedly failed to press in court.
And secondly how did he not win? He wrote the vast majority of the Federalist papers, ie the papers the laid the groundwork for the constitution that would eventually be implemented. That's winning.
That's not a "crime" that's the social contract, which the founders were inspired by. If you live in a community that uses certain resources (roads, police, defense, welfare etc.) you are benefiting off of them so you pitch in through taxes.
That aside, Hamilton did in fact argue for what's in the taxing and spending clause.
That's weird because Hamilton, aka the guy who wrote the vast majority of the federalist papers, seemed to argue that government should have an expansive role including things like welfare.
Compare the change in income in U.S BEFORE welfare to (pick any period). Undoubtedly the standard of living has gone up and poverty down. If you look at income graphs it has been on rise consistently, long long before welfare ever came along. It's like some moron jumping in front of a rally and taking credit for it. Nice try.
Btw some $11 trillion has been spent on the war on poverty. Not much to show for. Try again.
Poverty was quadruple what it is today in the 1800s and has never been as high as it was in the 50s, that aside, the countries with the most generous welfare the least poverty so it's a correlation both ways.
Second absolutely not, from the 1940s to the 70s inequality has drastically diminished.
So the fact we don't have 1800s level or even 1950s level poverty is a failure?
@AndroidPolitician Nope. The higher standard of living is a product of the market and has very little to do with welfare. Standard of living has been rising consistently since the industrial revolution long long before there was any welfare. In Hong Kong for example between 1961-1997 the per capita went up 87 fold, when there was almost no welfare or regulation to speak of. Try again
And oh after some $11 TRILLION been spent on the war on poverty, there are more poor now. Where did the money go?
Standards of living are not the same as poverty, there is nowhere near as much poverty in Sweden as in the US, does that mean Sweden has a higher standard of living?
"there are more poor now"
No there isn't, you're either ignorant or lying, the fact is there is less poverty today then in the 1950s and 4 times less than in the 1800s, that would obviously be a reduction in poverty.
@AndroidPolitician Hmm NO. How about you head over to the census bureau website before opening your mouth.
There were around 40 million under the poverty line in 1960. Today it's 46.2 million. So yes, THERE ARE MORE POOR TODAY. And that's after $11 TRILLION has been spent on the war on poverty. If most of the money actually went to the intended recipients, by simple arithmetic the poor should now be the richest. Please insert a coin and try again.
Hmmm maybe, just maybe, there are, oh I don't know, more people in the US than in 1960? And that maybe, just maybe, as a rate it's lower than in 1960 (because it is) or the 1800s perhaps?
Herp derp there are more acts of crime in the United States than in all of Somalia I guess Somalia is a safer country to live in durrrrrr.
@AndroidPolitician Nope that's not what I said. I clearly said there are more poor now and you challenged it. Not my problem if you don't know how to read. And I don't even know where you got the 1800 figure from when there are no official data on poverty before 1900.
And percent wise, it was around 17% in 1964, today it's 15.1%. Not much to show for $11 TRILLION.
Sorry, can't respond to your Somalia comment b/c I don't speak "retarded".
To even try to make the point that there are "more poor people" now is like saying there are more poor people than the 5th century, it shows you're a fucking idiot because there are billions of more people, period.
Why do you think there were 30-50% of people in poverty like in the 1800s? Or 22% in 1959? Or why do the countries with the most generous welfare have the least poverty?
It's because welfare reduces poverty but the US almost has none compared to other countries.
@AndroidPolitician 1. Nope. Even percent wise it didn't change much. It was 17% in 1964 right before the start of war on poverty, today it's 15.1%.
2. Provide a source for your 1800 figure.
3. How did countries like Hong Kong go from a slum to one of the richest in half a century with an 87 fold increase in per capita when there were no regulations or welfare to speak off?
1. So 22% in 1959 to 15% now (note it's skewed by a massive recession) isn't a change?
2. It's from the book "It's Getting Better All the Time" which was written by right-wing economist and a business professor
3. That's not true, in Hong Kong 52% of all residence live in public housing, in fact, all land is government rented, that's how they make revenue instead of taxes.
4. Millions out of poverty, the is relatively low considering there are 100s of millions of people
@AndroidPolitician Nope. It was 17% in 1964 right before the war on poverty. The change is 2%
Public housing was a reaction to a disaster. And it by no means was free. Besides you, no one with a brain will argue that public housing was the reason for Hong Kong's prosperity
I asked you for a source on 1800 figure. Not provided
I asked to show that welfare was even the cause for the small 2% change. Not provided.
I asked to where the $11 TRILLION went. No answer.
If this idiot video-maker gets a PhD in economics at UChicago then maybe he can consider calling Thomas Sower an unsuccessful and unqualified economist.
Defining poverty as "40% of the US median income" is ridiculous. The study is completely useless because it starts with an arbitrary and meaningless definition.
The critical factors are food, shelter, and clothing, not some ratio to US data.
Have you considered that people earning less than 40% of US median income might have dropped because of the technological and economic advances over that same period? Or maybe some other reason unrelated to welfare?
Unemployment now is a bad measure (the recession) and how every country has high unemployment
Sowell was talking about teen pregnancies at all not "illegitimacy" (which is a bad word to begin with because it implies you can't "legitimately" have children unless you're married).
It's the best global poverty statistic there is, and technology hasn't changed the effectiveness all that much, a phone/newspaper has about the same effect on finding jobs as the internet today.
Why is 40% of US median income "the best global poverty statistic there is?" If median income in the US changes the number of people in other nations living below that income would be changed, not by a change in their conditions but by a change in condition in the US. The mathematical poverty level could go up or down without any change in the number of people actually living in poverty.
Defend 40% of US median income as your standard for poverty.
First it's adjusted yearly meaning for a year like 1978 every country is measured by that years income and in 79 it's that year's measurement etc.
Second, it's basically the only absolute comparison there is, while most countries use things like nutrition etc. they are relative in that each country has different measurements for what constitutes poverty while 40% of income is applied evenly.
But why 40% of US median income? Food, lodging, and clothing cost far less in other countries than the US. In tropical countries they do not have the expense of heating in the winter and can comfortably in much less expensive housing.
Well first it based on numerous percents of median income (the numbers shown are for 40%) that aside it's because there are no uniform food, clothing stats for all countries.
And plus these were all advanced countries so we can assume the cost of food, housing etc. are similar.
If you can find a better absolute measure of poverty for all the countries be my guest.
I don't need to find a better one in order to demonstrate that yours is a poor one. Prices in Europe are vastly different than those in the US, and winters are not as harsh.
The unmarried teen pregnancy IS the vital statistic. Obviously, when people married in their late teens there was a lot more teen pregnancy, but it was not a social problem.
Illegitimacy is the best predictor of virtually every social problem.
All of the nations you cite as welfare success stories have unemployment rates at about 10% or higher. I would say that is evidence in favour of Sowell's point that welfare is a disincentive to work.
Poverty? What is it? It is an income level that someone sets with the idea for sustaining a level of life, according to their belief of what that standard should be. So, if you were to lower that number, you would lower the poverty rate. If you have food, cloths and a place to live, the rest is up to you. Some people that are given hand outs, will and do come to depend on those hand outs. I have seen this first hand. If someone gives you that standard of living, why would they do it themselves?
Sowell is 100% right! Sanctimonious liberals (his words not mine, I call you Leftists because you AREN'T real Liberals) will "do good" for people just as long as it boosts their ego!
Also, where the fuck to they get the money for $200 TImberland boots, $40-50 jackets, $30 T-shirts, $150 jeans, etc. and they are paying for their entire order at the retail store with a damn ebt! You want a handout, sure, they should have vouchers where you can get clothing from places like the goodwill (beggars can't be choosers), No ebt for electronics, video games, etc. If you are going to use the tax payers money, than it should be for items that are NEEDS not WANTS.
This is a Left Wing propaganda, trust me, I know many people who are welfare recipients and they are NOT motivated, NOT industrious, NOT honest about self improvement, NOT interested in education. Stop trying to bullshit people with this nonsense! I saw a guy the other day purchasing a $50.00 Boost Mobile card with a fucking EBT! How about the Welfare recipients that go through the store buying carts of fucking video games, junk food, etc all with an ebt.
The idea that welfare has caused the decrease in teenage births is a nonsense. Teenage birth rates simply mimic the general fertility rate tinyurl(.)com/5re9yla And there's no question the big change since 1960 in this regard is the pill, approved by the FDA in that year. Your portrayal of 'conservative logic' as the poor 'dying out' is unfounded. It's always been about incentives to pick oneself up tinyurl(.)com/y8s7b28 And why target Sowell in Free2Choose, when Milton says that same thing?
@AndroidPolitician Ha Ha! Amusing to say the least. I see you have a thing for Thomas Sowell. So now, confiscating the hard earned money of those who actually work and giving it to those who thru govt programs sit on their tush is a good thing. Yes, they might be OUT OF POVERTY, but if you look nationally the countries are OUT OF MONEY!!! Typical example of this is Greece (not a warring country). Programs designed to reward people for failing and punish those who succeed. Sowell is right.
Yeah how about take for example the countries with the least poverty in the world and how for some reason they seem to have some of the most generous welfare, or how for some reason in the 1800s poverty was almost quadruple what it is now in the US.
And Greece's problems are because of debt from the dictatorship, massive tax evasion and the economic crisis which ruined Greece's economy.
@AndroidPolitician And what about Sweden and Finland? Both models of socialism. And they already blew up in the early 1990s. And oh another bubble in housing is taking place in Sweden again. And in Finland debt to GDP levels are back above 60% and climbing. As I lived in Sweden in the late 80s and worked in Finland in the late 90s, many will tell you horror stories of how daft the system is. The ones who like it tend to be the ones who are doing the least with their lives.
The poverty stats I used don't use government benefits so the "subsidized over the poverty line" argument doesn't work.
Both those countries "blew up" because of deregulation in the 90s not socialism. And even with that (and them having the most generous welfare etc.) they still have the lowest poverty rates in the world.
@AndroidPolitician If you're not using 'government benefits', please explain what sort of income transfers your are talking about since that is what welfare systems are? They take the earnings of one part of the population and gives it to others.
@AndroidPolitician You provide a link to 'Welfare's effect on poverty' as well as referring to what Thomas Sowell said on welfare. I'm lost. What are you talking about? International comparisons on wage/salary incomes without government benefits proves what?
The link was to "Table of poverty levels pre and post welfare" which has two international comparisons of relative poverty and absolute poverty with the latter not using government benefits.
The fact is, the absolute poverty rankings show the countries that have the most generous welfare have the least poverty without including government benefits.
@AndroidPolitician ?!? Your statement is self evidently contradictory. Given that income transfer is supposedly the only difference in pulling people out of poverty in contrast to economic progress being the key for pulling people out of poverty in all the countries mentioned pre or early 20th century as well as most asian countries today, of all the countries in Kenworthy's list, only 4 are not suffering from an overhang too much debt. But in your mind, it's completely unrelated!?!
The Kenworthy list was created in the 90s so debt is irrelevant but more to the point, it's economic empowerment that pulls people out of poverty, whether it's micro loans or welfare.
That aside, if welfare created poverty then why was poverty quadruple what it is today in the 1800s?
@AndroidPolitician Try to understand this. Income transfer is not the same as micro loans. Micro loans are designed for individuals in order for the person to develop their business. Income transfer are designed so that people can sit on their behinds (and be failures). As for the myth of how poor Americans were, I direct you to the book, 'The Transformation of the American Economy 1865-1914' by Robert Higgs. A very different picture from the ideas you have in your head.
@AndroidPolitician Again, you're arguing a point with no basis in fact. If you had look at the book that I mentioned by Robert Higgs, you would know that what you are saying is false. Also you would see that those countries with the most generous welfare systems are the ones deepest in debt now. Wake up!!!
@AndroidPolitician Dear debater, France's debt to GDP ratio is 82% If you include all the regional and local debt, which still gets paid for primarily by the central government it's over 500%!!! Sweden is in a slightly better position since it's debt to GDP is around 40%. But as household debt has surpassed 3 trillion SEK, it looks like there is a new housing bubble is about to burst.
@AndroidPolitician As to the questions, 1) Welfare doesn't increase poverty, but it does reduce the wealth of the nation as a whole because you take from the most productive and give to least productive. 2) Your second statement is also correct but I would add that it is not sustainable since the countries become too indebted by them. They're programs country cannot afford! A better way would be to follow US in late 19th century, mutual aid organisations. It was far more effective and private
I came expecting that I might hear an interesting argument. Seems I was sorely mistaken.
Poverty is relative; a poor American lives a lot better than a poor Indian. There's nothing wrong with social welfare for the most needy, but there's certainly a better way to accomplish that goal than we have now. But let me ask: what's your plan to end poverty?
We simply can't afford this anymore. I don't expect the government to stop these harmful programs. They will probably increase them and the result will be an economic collapse.
It is morally wrong to FORCE me to provide for people I do not know and do not care about.
You believe the government can fix things. The only thing the government does well is to kill people.
Among all the ill logical comments made in this clip there are 2 that standout above the rest
It does matter if unmarried teenage pregnancies is raising if overall teenage pregnancies is down...WOW thats dumb! So, there is no difference between teen moms with a husband and one without?...not to mention if the mom is married, she has to be at least 18 and 16 in some states.
The welfare system not generous enough...if you give people more, of course the will have more, doesn't mean they work.
I was saying teenage pregnancies are down since Sowell didn't specify they had to be unwed teenage pregnancies, but to the point, the percent has gone up not the number. If anything, the actual number might be lower because there used to be so much more.
Unless you think people are too stupid to invest their welfare into a better life it pretty much means they will. The facts show that more welfare means less poverty (and that's not including benefits).
@AndroidPolitician I don't think its a question of supposing that the poor are too stupid to invest welfare dollars. It's a question of people not valuing funds that they haven't earned like funds they have earned and the formation of an entitlement mentality.
@AndroidPolitician If a better life means self sufficiency, then yes, dependent people are 'too stupid' to do this. It's better put by saying people are more sensitive to short term consequences than long term consequences. The problem with Welfare is that if you are receiving it, simply by taking a cheap job, what you give up isn't worth the daily effort. Normal people don't think that in a couple of years of experience, the better job will be worth it the trade. This was all in Free2Choose.
Some people take welfare, because they do not want to work. I have seen generations do it. It wasn't until they made changes in the system that they started to observe lower birth rates. There was a time when you were given more money based on the number of children you had.
Then how come 30-50% of Americans were in poverty during the 1800s, and the countries with the most generous welfare (Sweden, France etc.) have the lowest poverty?
@AndroidPolitician, the US was in its infancy in 1800, of course people would have been poorer back then.
The European welfare states worked for a while (sort of) but are now falling apart, causing violent riots. Their lifeline to the poor has left them completely dependent on a bankrupt system, and this is not something that should be copied.
It's not 1800, it's the entire century of the 1800s (as in, 100 years) and it doesn't matter that "we were in our infancy" poverty is calculated relative to that time.
Poverty rates are still almost non-existent in those countries and the reason why there's riots etc. is because of IMF loans which force the countries into austerity.
I have two studies of welfare and poverty, I don't think Walter Williams is going to disprove empirical facts.
My bad I didn't realize it was a documentary but the point is poverty didn't "increase" relative the 50s (and has never been as high since) it was flat during the 60s and 70s and (relatively) increased during the 80s because of the outsourcing of manufacturing.
Notice Williams didn't show the poverty rate prior to welfare and especially didn't show the countries with almost no poverty and much more generous welfare.
Yeah but a majority of black adults did work in manufacturing especially inner-city blacks, there's a huge literature on this too by people like William Julius Wilson.
Yeah so how come poverty never went above what it was in the 50s or 1800s and is almost non-existent in countries with high welfare?
The only "evidence" that's been provided is a slight lag in poverty reduction in the 60s which is completely insignificant given long-term trends.
@AndroidPolitician, it's not "insignificant" and the figures are even worse now.
Welfare lured millions into dependence. If in France the Government gives the poor enough Euros to raise them above the poverty line - but this doesn't show that welfare "works" it just looks good on a report. The DEPENDENCE, and other social problems that this encourages are still there, which was my whole point.
First of all poverty even now is not even close to what it was in the 50s and secondly the income is calculated without welfare etc. so your "Europe subsidizes them over the poverty line" argument is wrong.
So now that you pretty much concede poverty is lower, where's the evidence for mass dependence? Even when welfare was at it's most liberal the average time on it was 3 years despite no time limit in the US.
@AndroidPolitician, I'm gonna have to stick to one point, I can't explain the entire European welfare system and 200 years of US history.
With more welfare, you get a general trend towards dependence. Walter Williams video shows this in detail. If you give incentives to stay poor - you will get a more dependent society.
How else would you explain the black family unit falling apart?
Surely you know at least 1 person that opted to quit their job and rely on handouts, no?
Well I'm sorry but "I know people on welfare" doesn't disprove the fact that even when welfare had no time limit the average time on it was 3 years.
The black family has been falling apart because of chronic joblessness since the outsourcing of manufacturing.
That aside, the "incentive to be poor" argument only works if you think people are too stupid and greedy to use welfare to plan for a better life. People aren't dogs, they invest the money for better opportunities.
Please look into this further as I think you are overlooking an enormous amount of research that has been done on this. All over the world, countries can handle jobs being outsourced. But throughout history when Governments tried giving out handouts, and over regulating the markets - the results were the opposite of what they expected.
The fact that I know people doesn't "prove" anything, i was just trying to show you an example.
Well the actual research shows that there's almost no poverty in places with the most generous welfare and vice versa and to think so you would have to think that people are so pathological that they would stay poor in order to get money or too stupid to not be able to invest it for the better.
I don't know what you mean by "handle" outsourcing, countries won't collapse but unemployment is still higher post-outsourcing and especially in the cities.
Um I doubt the documentary said that because that's incredibly stupid, even when there were no restrictions at all we still had massive unemployment in the 1800s.
But you still didn't answer why there's almost no poverty in the countries with the most generous welfare.
@AndroidPolitician, Williams put years of research into that movie so I don't think you should dismiss it as "stupid" if you haven't even watched it.
I'm not sure where you mean when you mention "generous welfare". There are many factors in what makes up the poverty rate, and I cannot cover them all in a 500 character comment.
Surely with what's happening in Europe right now, you cannot conclude that the US should copy everything they're doing and hope for a better result.
Well if you what you said Williams said was true then he seemed to of forgotten the 1800s, when there were no labor restrictions and we still had mass unemployment.
Sure there are numerous factors for why poverty exists but one of the biggest in poverty reduction (if not the biggest) is social welfare and is why the most generous states have the lowest poverty.
What's happening in Europe has nothing to do with welfare.
For what it's worth it's a very generous comment and I might watch the whole thing for the sake of interest.
I'm honestly not trying to be an ideologue but Williams simply doesn't know the facts, he literally missed a century that had all the things he was advocating (no welfare, labor regulation etc.) and the outcomes were orders of magnitude worse than today when they didn't have to be.
It's not like I'm criticizing the 1800s for not having cell phones.
Asian Americans have the highest level of education and the highest income (way above the “totally non-lazy nice white groups.”). The Asian poverty rate is above 10%. How can this be? Asian Americans have sub groups as well. Asian Indians average $90,000 a year compared to Bangladeshi-Americans, $46,000 per year. Asian Indian Americans have a 7% poverty rate. Korean Americans have a much higher poverty rate than any other group in the US: 30%.
To have concluded that I meant “totally non-lazy nice white groups” are immune to poverty explains how off base you are. If that were true, that would imply that I believe the opposite must be true: totally lazy bad non-white groups are carrying the virus of poverty. There are black groups and Hispanic groups which live above poverty. Take, for example, Cuban Americans and Jamaican Americans. Second generation Cuban Americans earn $15,000 more than the median US income.Jamaican Americans are par
The most educated groups in America tend to have abysmal rates of poverty. The US bureau of labor statistic concluded that people with no high school diploma had an unemployment rate of 14.5% compared to those with a bachelor degree that had 4.5% unemployment. Those with no degree averaged $25,000 (poverty range), with degrees, $48,000 (above country median income).
This only emphasizes what I have been saying all along: It isn’t as simple as picking an arbitrary number, coming up with a simplistic conclusion, and say, “Ah ha! That’s it.” I am glad to see that you are breaking down one of the possible causes of poverty, “blacks have huge poverty because of outsourcing which made US manufacturing leave the inner cities and left massive pockets of joblessness,” Which this can be true, but poverty is largely due to lack of education.
The stats came from a joint effort between the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau. And, the U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration U.S. CENSUS BUREAU concurred. 75% of the Europeans Americans are German Americans (the largest single group), Irish Americans, British Americans (which make up 25%), and Italian Americans. 15% are Polish Americans, French Americans, Dutch Americans, Norwegian American, and Swedish American.
*cough*subjective*cough* My thinking is not authoritarian you moron. Disagreeing with overly liberal welfare policies has nothing to do with authoritarian thinking. Are you that diluted? Christ, it's not like I'm saying that all welfare should be stripped away hahaha that would be mass starvation. It's about addicting people to welfare. But I'm sure you don't care to here another opinion. Later loser. Get a job.
You seem oddly mad at what's basic logic. Sowell is saying people are too stupid to use welfare to invest in a better life so we shouldn't give them welfare.
That's authoritarian thinking because you assume people are too stupid to function.
I found something fascinating. The poverty rate for Americans with Swedish ancestry is equal to the poverty rate of the Swedish: 6.7% in 2010. Yet in America their median income is $12,000 higher than the American median; $20,000 more than average Swede. Seems like culture is a much stronger driver for poverty reduction than welfare. Seems like Americans should look forward to American Swedes than Swedes.
Seems like you cherry picked some data to get an unlikely conclusion unless there's a "culture of non-poverty" in all of Scandinavia and places like Canada while places like Italy and America have poverty cultures?
Or maybe it's just economic policies of generous vs. non-generous welfare states.
@AndroidPolitician Seems like you don't like the facts! There is more to just arbitrary numbers.If you calculate the poverty level at 75% of US median, the median income earner in Sweden falls under poverty.Talk about cherry picking! Is it not ironic? That the same group has a poverty level in the US? Yet, those in the US make so much more money!!! Explain that! How is that possible! And, the their ancestors were poor farmers not educated men with money.Culture is not accounted for in the stats.
@nilbud Thank you. I feel the disappointment through your text. I know I tore down the imaginary reality you’ve been living in for soo many years. If Sweden is so great and America is so bad, why does America get more immigrants than any other country? Wow! You claim Sweden is the best. Do you live there? I hope you do. They’re the best, right?
@AndroidPolitician nilbud commented saying that in Sweden "there's no medical expenses, no ludicrous insurance premiums and excellent social services including superb free education. Also thanks to EU laws the food isn't poisoned and the water is drinkable." That goes beyond poverty. This, nilbud, has the mind of a simple person. He uses superb. Superb, to me, is synonymous with "'great"ness." White people of European decent poverty rate is below 8.6% while their average income is a much greater
Well with regards to "greatness", your using immigrants aka people leaving their country for another.
Not counting undocumented immigrates, the US just happens to be decent about it's immigration policy and is huge which is why more immigrants are allowed in the US than in any other country (compare this with the immigration policies of Russia or China).
The fact that more people go to is also structural, not because of it's "greatness".
@AndroidPolitician I completely disagree. But, I am not interested in further discussing terms and their definitions and what applies to what. I am much more interested in your opinion on the stat I commented on earlier: 8.6% poverty rate for Whites Americans of European descent. How do you explain this?
I don't know where this statistic came from, how it's known they are specifically of European decent or even if it's true but assuming it's true, groups like blacks have huge poverty because of outsourcing which made US manufacturing leave the inner cities and left massive pockets of joblessness.
You still have to prove that 20 different groups correlate with the 20 other countries on poverty and that it's somehow a "culture" these totally non-lazy nice white groups have.
You're using median income of Sweden and comparing it to median income of the US which isn't how you calculate poverty unless 100% of Sweden's income is poverty level (hint: it's not).
But that aside, the conclusion from this one set of data is that it's "culture", well to prove that you would need to look at the ethnicity of all 20 countries and see if they have all the same poverty rate in the US which is extremely unlikely.
These white trash Liberals. They are racists. They don't realize that in the real world there will always be the bottom 10%. They think that throwing money at something would automatically make it better. I am Hispanic. I was raised by a single mother on welfare. My father didn't live with us because in order for my mother to get warfare, he couldn't be around. He got aids and died at 35. He transmitted it to my mother. She went on to live on welfare for another 6 years. During the time she had
Everyone knows there's a bottom 10%, the point is to eliminate poverty rate. In the 1800s, 30-50% of Americans were in poverty and it's nowhere near that close now.
In high welfare states like Sweden poverty is close to 4%, does that mean there's still a bottom 10%, yes it does, but it also means there's less people in poverty.
@AndroidPolitician The poverty level is calculated by taking 60% of the median income. The median income in Sweden is $15,000 less than American median income. Putting them in the level as the most disadvantage group in America: Blacks. So, 4% poverty in Sweden is misleading. By these standards Cuba would have the lowest poverty level which is ridiculous. Liberals don't care about poverty. They care about economic equality. Which means to bring the bottom and top to the 50% median. Fairytale!
One uses what you described (relative poverty as defined by that country) and another that has poverty based on 40% of US median income for all countries.
In both, not only did they all reduce poverty because of welfare but the countries with the most generous welfare had greatest poverty reduction.
@AndroidPolitician All those stats are extremely misleading. I have an article that explains these stats, but I am not allowed to post here. It explains how these numbers are skewed."People vote with their feet," Milton Friedman. If given a choice, 25% of immigrants mention the USA as the number one choice for immigration. The second highest is Canada 6%.Why would people choose a country where, according to these statistics, will give them a higher chance of poverty than Sweden or the other 14?
@AndroidPolitician Once again, Sweden practices economic equality. By using a measure of income, it can skew any study. All the study show is that Sweden is more efficient at redistributing wealth. 40% of US wealth is an arbitrary number. Consumer Price index is 38.82% higher in Sweden than in the US. That means that a person earning $12,000 in the US will have more purchasing power than someone in Sweden.
@Suarez23 You really have no idea what you're on about. In Sweden there's no medical expenses, no ludicrous insurance premiums and excellent social services including superb free education. Also thanks to EU laws the food isn't poisoned and the water is drinkable. Your mind bogglingly stupid suggestion that poverty in Sweden is in any way comparable to the degradation people are subjected to in the US shows how idiotic you really are.
@AndroidPolitician A more accurate assessment would be to put the Sweden’s Poverty threshold at $16,700 while keeping the American threshold at $12,000. Being that the median Swedish income is $22,900, I am confident they’ll have a higher rate of poverty. All I am saying is that these numbers are misleading. The math is more complex than just taking an arbitrary number, 40% of US income, and using it where deem fit. It is intellectually dishonest.
The studies literally do both, one study compares relative definitions (like you said) and the other has them all at the US median (it doesn't matter what percent of US median income the results will be proportionality same from any %)
And in both there is substantially less poverty in places like Sweden.
@AndroidPolitician Correct. I have. But, neither study accounts for purchasing power or consumer price index which is extremely important. The study uses an arbitrary number, a predetermined income threshold based on a percentage of median income, be it relative or US median income. Would you be richer if everything you bought would be at a 40% discount? Well, the consumer price index indicates that, on average, anything you buy in the US is on a 40% discount compared to Sweden, figuratively.
What a moron. So Sowell goes to Columbia and the University of Chicago, wins numerous awards, and has been awarded professorships at some of the best universities in the nation and has achieved nothing? You sound like a one year college drop out that believes yourself to be an intellectual because you are the most intelligent cashier in a 5 aisle radius.
@AndroidPolititian I don't think welfare empowers poor people. For example: most people that won lottery say they wasted the money pretty quickly. My theory is that ignorance creates poverty and that only incentives in the free-market system can ultimately teach people what the right way out of poverty is.
Well you "theory" doesn't take into account the movement of manufacturing jobs outside of the cities creating massive joblessness.
As an example about welfare, in the 1800s, about 30-50% of Americans were in poverty, and welfare empowered them out. As another example, see how people went strike and used welfare for strike funds (and would win) in the 70s.
Welfare is a dis-incentive to work and can put a ceiling on the income level of the recipent. One could go to work, learn some skills, become more valuable, then make a higher income, but you have to remember that welfare and other benefits are taken away as your income increases. Under a welfare system, it might not pay a recipent to work for a living.
It would be a dis-incentive if people were corrupt and stupid. Welfare gives people the ability to look for work and empower themselves out of poverty.
The links to the studies are in the description but it's a truism that welfare helps empower people out of poverty unless you think most people are stupid are greedy.
While I think countries should have ample social safety nets, I'm pretty sure your approach is incorrect. The European welfare states derived after Myrdal's landmark studies, but were only affordable owing to high economic growth and moderating population growth in the post WW2 period. Lately many european countries, esp Germany, Sweden, Spain have been scaling down the extent of welfare. Secondly, high immigration rates will account for the 4-5% disparity in US poverty data, compared to europe.
The scaling back of welfare is due to a general movement of neoliberalism, I'm not sure of any data that shows it's difficult to sustain post-WW2 welfare states with lower growth rates.
Even if the immigration figure is true the US would still have a very high comparative poverty rate.
@AndroidPolitician It's difficult to sustain megaprofits with welfare systems expanding to meet population growth. If there's enough growth to justify the billion-$ CEO salaries and multi-billion bailouts, there's enough to distribute as "welfare."
@DSuper3 Wow, what a cogent argument. Why don't you add "Nyah-nyah-NYAH-nyah" to give it the added gravitas it assuredly merits. Also be sure to attribute statements I did not make, like references to teenage pregnancy. Too bad you weren't wearing YOUR helmet in that head-on tricycle crash when you were five.
@TheAzov Let me understand this. You say "If there's enough growth to justify the billion-$ CEO salaries, there's enough to distribute as "welfare." Correct? So you believe the "Bad, Bad Rich People" should be punished for their success and their money should be given to others. WOW! It's probably too late for you. I guess you agree with the administrations contention that the American people are too stupid to take care of themselves so the government has to spend their money for them.
@DSuper3 "Their success?" If not for workers and the investors who lent them money they'd be nowhere. Honorable mention should go to the majority of wealthy who have inherited their $. "Their money?" It's wealth that is extracted from society in the form of rent, appropriation of (others') labor value, and the consumer, transformed into capital (dead labor). It's *our* money that would be rightfully returned back to us as the true creators of value, and therefore of wealth.
@TheAzov Let me understand this. You say "If there's enough growth to justify the billion-$ CEO salaries, there's enough to distribute as "welfare." Correct? So you believe the "Bad, Bad Rich People" should be punished for their success and their money should be given to others. WOW! It's probably too late for you. I guess you agree with the administrations contention that the American people are too stupid to take care of themselves so the government has to spend their money for them.
@TheAzov Let me understand this. You say "If there's enough growth to justify the billion-$ CEO salaries, there's enough to distribute as "welfare." Correct? So you believe the "Bad, Bad Rich People" should be punished for their success and their money should be given to others. WOW! It's probably too late for you. I guess you agree with the administrations contention that the American people are too stupid to take care of themselves so the government has to spend their money for them.
Saying that welfare reduces poverty makes NO economic sense. It is easy to cherry pick studies to confirm a bias but when you cannot tie it back to a logically coherent theory of social causation that is honestly supported by empirical fact, you are simply a hack cherry picking convenient "evidence". Deceit is in haste but honesty can wait a fair leisure. It is pretty clear that your "analysis" was in haste...
The logic is obvious if you weren't so bound by your ideology, welfare empowers people to support themselves enough to find work. Without welfare people would just fall through the cracks and not be able to recover or find a job.
And secondly, it's not just "cherry picking", the countries with the greatest welfare had the greatest reduction in poverty universally based on every study that multiple countries, and that's adjusting for the economy and with different poverty rates.
@AndroidPolitician The "logic" IGNORES human nature, making it utterly illogical and worthless as a theory of social causation. Also, it is easy to overgeneralize in statistical comparisons and mislead, even unintentionally. Your comparison of various countries poverty rates is a good example of this. It ignore the economic and historical contexts involved and arbitrarily attributes the drop in poverty to a rise in the welfare state with NO evidence or logical proof to actually connect the two.
@shagdrum You're a fucking moron of the lowest order. You can tell because you keep repeating "as a theory of social causation". You haven't the IQ to be able to think about these things you're too slow witted and basically stupid to do anything but regurgitate. Your nature is to be a weak creepy thief and you assume everyone is as broken minded and simple as you are. You're being carried by society but you bite the hand that feeds you.
@AndroidPolitician Your "logic" ignores human nature making it utterly illogical and worthless as a theory of social causation. Also the comparisons of poverty rates are worthless because they ignore the economic and historical context involved and simply attribute the change in poverty rates to rise in welfare though arbitrary speculation. No empirical evidence or logical proof is given to objectively and honestly establish ANY connection between the two. It is simply ASSUMED.
@AndroidPolitician It is easier to distort the truth with statistics then to uncover the truth with them (even unintentionally). For instance, if you simply define poverty as a set monetary figure then, over time, it can be shown that inflation alone reduces poverty. subtle manipulation of methodology is an easy means to hide the negative effects of welfare but no critical examination of the methodologies of the "studies" you talk about is offered.
@AndroidPolitician When someone is simply cherry picking and engaging in flawed statistical "analysis" that can not be tied back to a logically coherent theory of social causation, they are simply promoting ideological dogma by grasping at straws to rationalize their own ideological views. Unfortunately, most of these people arrogantly think themselves "above" ideology yet their arrogance blinds them to the fact that they are simply slaves to ideology.
@AndroidPolitician you clearly are an idiot...not a single person agrees with you. And, of course poverty levels get lower...that does not encourage hardwork, it encourages dependency. Also you sound like a child rapist on the video. Welfare does not create poverty it continues it.
SofaKingWhiteFU 1 month ago
@SofaKingWhiteFU
Not a single rabid right-winger agrees but the actual research does. If "dependency" was an issue then why does poverty (only using private non-benefit income) go down?
The only way dependency would be a problem is if you think people are too stupid and greedy to use welfare to invest in a better life.
Neither the research nor the logic pans out, welfare reduces poverty it's just a fact.
AndroidPolitician 4 weeks ago
@AndroidPolitician Keep it up, you're eviscerating these guys....
Zakdayak 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
AndroidPoliticain is an idiot and fails to understand how welfare really works. He does not even know what poor really is.
To AndriodPoliticain do you know what it means to be poor and that the United States standard set by the government is nothing more than a made up number.
The best thing to do instead of trying to debate him is to leave him alone and spread the word for no noe to veiw his videos then without attention he will go away.
MegaRanger10 1 month ago
@MegaRanger10
Welp if the number of poor is just a made up number by the government I guess no one will ever know if I or Sowell are right.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@fleetwoodmac4susan
(Cont.)
Seriously your thinking is about the same as an ardent communist, when the communist countries were collapsing it was because they weren't communist enough and they couldn't engage the issues.
How about you actually try to engage me on the issue at hand? The Founding Father responsible for the majority of what became the constitution was in favor of things like welfare. So how is it unconstitutional?
AndroidPolitician 2 months ago
@fleetwoodmac4susan
No one is talking about "taking from others" you fundamentalist idiot, most people would pay taxes for services which is part of the social contract, when a community gets together and agrees on resources (roads, police etc.) you benefit off the resources so you pitch in. If you don't want to you convince the community to change or you leave.
(Cont.)
AndroidPolitician 2 months ago
@AndroidPolitician You're obviously too cataclysmically retarded and profoundly ignorant to realize how cataclysmically retarded and profoundly ignorant you are. OBVIOUSLY welfare is taking from others, you ridiculous moron. Besides that, none of your "arguments" against Sowell's facts bear even the faintest semblance of relevance, but of course you wouldn't realize that either. You're a pathetic, brainwashed, communist simpleton. (Except that "brainwashed" implies a brain)
PumpingSmashkins 2 months ago
@PumpingSmashkins
That's weird because last time I checked most Americans are in favor of welfare so it's not "taking from them" and the evidence I provided and have linked in the descriptions disprove Sowell's assertions that welfare increases poverty and actually significantly decreases it.
AndroidPolitician 2 months ago
@fleetwoodmac4susan
9/11 trutherism aside, there's no such thing as "unconstitutional servitude" which anti-tax fanatics have actually tried and repeatedly failed to press in court.
And secondly how did he not win? He wrote the vast majority of the Federalist papers, ie the papers the laid the groundwork for the constitution that would eventually be implemented. That's winning.
AndroidPolitician 2 months ago
@fleetwoodmac4susan
That's not a "crime" that's the social contract, which the founders were inspired by. If you live in a community that uses certain resources (roads, police, defense, welfare etc.) you are benefiting off of them so you pitch in through taxes.
That aside, Hamilton did in fact argue for what's in the taxing and spending clause.
AndroidPolitician 2 months ago
@fleetwoodmac4susan
That's weird because Hamilton, aka the guy who wrote the vast majority of the federalist papers, seemed to argue that government should have an expansive role including things like welfare.
AndroidPolitician 2 months ago
Correlation doesn't equal causation.
Compare the change in income in U.S BEFORE welfare to (pick any period). Undoubtedly the standard of living has gone up and poverty down. If you look at income graphs it has been on rise consistently, long long before welfare ever came along. It's like some moron jumping in front of a rally and taking credit for it. Nice try.
Btw some $11 trillion has been spent on the war on poverty. Not much to show for. Try again.
H1TMANactual 3 months ago 2
@H1TMANactual
Poverty was quadruple what it is today in the 1800s and has never been as high as it was in the 50s, that aside, the countries with the most generous welfare the least poverty so it's a correlation both ways.
Second absolutely not, from the 1940s to the 70s inequality has drastically diminished.
So the fact we don't have 1800s level or even 1950s level poverty is a failure?
AndroidPolitician 3 months ago
@AndroidPolitician Nope. The higher standard of living is a product of the market and has very little to do with welfare. Standard of living has been rising consistently since the industrial revolution long long before there was any welfare. In Hong Kong for example between 1961-1997 the per capita went up 87 fold, when there was almost no welfare or regulation to speak of. Try again
And oh after some $11 TRILLION been spent on the war on poverty, there are more poor now. Where did the money go?
H1TMANactual 3 months ago 2
@H1TMANactual
Standards of living are not the same as poverty, there is nowhere near as much poverty in Sweden as in the US, does that mean Sweden has a higher standard of living?
"there are more poor now"
No there isn't, you're either ignorant or lying, the fact is there is less poverty today then in the 1950s and 4 times less than in the 1800s, that would obviously be a reduction in poverty.
AndroidPolitician 3 months ago
@AndroidPolitician Hmm NO. How about you head over to the census bureau website before opening your mouth.
There were around 40 million under the poverty line in 1960. Today it's 46.2 million. So yes, THERE ARE MORE POOR TODAY. And that's after $11 TRILLION has been spent on the war on poverty. If most of the money actually went to the intended recipients, by simple arithmetic the poor should now be the richest. Please insert a coin and try again.
H1TMANactual 3 months ago 2
@H1TMANactual
Holy shit are you really that fucking stupid?
Hmmm maybe, just maybe, there are, oh I don't know, more people in the US than in 1960? And that maybe, just maybe, as a rate it's lower than in 1960 (because it is) or the 1800s perhaps?
Herp derp there are more acts of crime in the United States than in all of Somalia I guess Somalia is a safer country to live in durrrrrr.
AndroidPolitician 3 months ago
@AndroidPolitician Nope that's not what I said. I clearly said there are more poor now and you challenged it. Not my problem if you don't know how to read. And I don't even know where you got the 1800 figure from when there are no official data on poverty before 1900.
And percent wise, it was around 17% in 1964, today it's 15.1%. Not much to show for $11 TRILLION.
Sorry, can't respond to your Somalia comment b/c I don't speak "retarded".
Please insert a coin and try again.
H1TMANactual 3 months ago 2
@H1TMANactual
To even try to make the point that there are "more poor people" now is like saying there are more poor people than the 5th century, it shows you're a fucking idiot because there are billions of more people, period.
Why do you think there were 30-50% of people in poverty like in the 1800s? Or 22% in 1959? Or why do the countries with the most generous welfare have the least poverty?
It's because welfare reduces poverty but the US almost has none compared to other countries.
AndroidPolitician 3 months ago
@AndroidPolitician 1. Nope. Even percent wise it didn't change much. It was 17% in 1964 right before the start of war on poverty, today it's 15.1%.
2. Provide a source for your 1800 figure.
3. How did countries like Hong Kong go from a slum to one of the richest in half a century with an 87 fold increase in per capita when there were no regulations or welfare to speak off?
4. Where did most of the $11 trillion go?
Try again.
H1TMANactual 3 months ago
@H1TMANactual
1. So 22% in 1959 to 15% now (note it's skewed by a massive recession) isn't a change?
2. It's from the book "It's Getting Better All the Time" which was written by right-wing economist and a business professor
3. That's not true, in Hong Kong 52% of all residence live in public housing, in fact, all land is government rented, that's how they make revenue instead of taxes.
4. Millions out of poverty, the is relatively low considering there are 100s of millions of people
AndroidPolitician 3 months ago
@AndroidPolitician Nope. It was 17% in 1964 right before the war on poverty. The change is 2%
Public housing was a reaction to a disaster. And it by no means was free. Besides you, no one with a brain will argue that public housing was the reason for Hong Kong's prosperity
I asked you for a source on 1800 figure. Not provided
I asked to show that welfare was even the cause for the small 2% change. Not provided.
I asked to where the $11 TRILLION went. No answer.
Please insert a coin and try again
H1TMANactual 3 months ago 2
@H1TMANactual
What do you mean nope? Before 64 it was 22%. And it's 15% right now because we're in the worst recession in 80 years.
Yeah just like how poverty was obviously less in the 1800s right?
"I asked you for a source on 1800 figure. Not provided"
Can you not read?
"It's from the book 'It's Getting Better All the Time'"
It went to making sure we don't have 22% or 30-50% poverty again.
AndroidPolitician 3 months ago
If this idiot video-maker gets a PhD in economics at UChicago then maybe he can consider calling Thomas Sower an unsuccessful and unqualified economist.
92spectrum 3 months ago
Defining poverty as "40% of the US median income" is ridiculous. The study is completely useless because it starts with an arbitrary and meaningless definition.
The critical factors are food, shelter, and clothing, not some ratio to US data.
Have you considered that people earning less than 40% of US median income might have dropped because of the technological and economic advances over that same period? Or maybe some other reason unrelated to welfare?
dragknuckle 3 months ago
@dragknuckle
Unemployment now is a bad measure (the recession) and how every country has high unemployment
Sowell was talking about teen pregnancies at all not "illegitimacy" (which is a bad word to begin with because it implies you can't "legitimately" have children unless you're married).
It's the best global poverty statistic there is, and technology hasn't changed the effectiveness all that much, a phone/newspaper has about the same effect on finding jobs as the internet today.
AndroidPolitician 3 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
Why is 40% of US median income "the best global poverty statistic there is?" If median income in the US changes the number of people in other nations living below that income would be changed, not by a change in their conditions but by a change in condition in the US. The mathematical poverty level could go up or down without any change in the number of people actually living in poverty.
Defend 40% of US median income as your standard for poverty.
dragknuckle 3 months ago
@dragknuckle
First it's adjusted yearly meaning for a year like 1978 every country is measured by that years income and in 79 it's that year's measurement etc.
Second, it's basically the only absolute comparison there is, while most countries use things like nutrition etc. they are relative in that each country has different measurements for what constitutes poverty while 40% of income is applied evenly.
AndroidPolitician 3 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
But why 40% of US median income? Food, lodging, and clothing cost far less in other countries than the US. In tropical countries they do not have the expense of heating in the winter and can comfortably in much less expensive housing.
dragknuckle 3 months ago
@dragknuckle
Well first it based on numerous percents of median income (the numbers shown are for 40%) that aside it's because there are no uniform food, clothing stats for all countries.
And plus these were all advanced countries so we can assume the cost of food, housing etc. are similar.
If you can find a better absolute measure of poverty for all the countries be my guest.
AndroidPolitician 3 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
I don't need to find a better one in order to demonstrate that yours is a poor one. Prices in Europe are vastly different than those in the US, and winters are not as harsh.
dragknuckle 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is a massive difference between children of divorce and children of women who have never been married.
dragknuckle 3 months ago
The unmarried teen pregnancy IS the vital statistic. Obviously, when people married in their late teens there was a lot more teen pregnancy, but it was not a social problem.
Illegitimacy is the best predictor of virtually every social problem.
dragknuckle 3 months ago
All of the nations you cite as welfare success stories have unemployment rates at about 10% or higher. I would say that is evidence in favour of Sowell's point that welfare is a disincentive to work.
dragknuckle 3 months ago
Poverty? What is it? It is an income level that someone sets with the idea for sustaining a level of life, according to their belief of what that standard should be. So, if you were to lower that number, you would lower the poverty rate. If you have food, cloths and a place to live, the rest is up to you. Some people that are given hand outs, will and do come to depend on those hand outs. I have seen this first hand. If someone gives you that standard of living, why would they do it themselves?
nannyberries 4 months ago
@nannyberries
"I've seen it myself" arguments aside (I've seen welfare help people get better jobs myself too, it's a non-argument).
All the data shows that welfare makes people to invest in a better future especially in the countries with most generous welfare.
AndroidPolitician 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sowell is 100% right! Sanctimonious liberals (his words not mine, I call you Leftists because you AREN'T real Liberals) will "do good" for people just as long as it boosts their ego!
JoKo203 4 months ago
@JoKo203
Yeah that's why the countries with the most welfare have the least poverty and why poverty was about quadruple what it is today a century ago?
Clearly that was the market getting freer from 1800 to today not social programs.
AndroidPolitician 4 months ago
Comment removed
JoKo203 4 months ago
@JoKo203
Congrats on removing your dumb comment.
AndroidPolitician 4 months ago
Also, where the fuck to they get the money for $200 TImberland boots, $40-50 jackets, $30 T-shirts, $150 jeans, etc. and they are paying for their entire order at the retail store with a damn ebt! You want a handout, sure, they should have vouchers where you can get clothing from places like the goodwill (beggars can't be choosers), No ebt for electronics, video games, etc. If you are going to use the tax payers money, than it should be for items that are NEEDS not WANTS.
JoKo203 4 months ago
This is a Left Wing propaganda, trust me, I know many people who are welfare recipients and they are NOT motivated, NOT industrious, NOT honest about self improvement, NOT interested in education. Stop trying to bullshit people with this nonsense! I saw a guy the other day purchasing a $50.00 Boost Mobile card with a fucking EBT! How about the Welfare recipients that go through the store buying carts of fucking video games, junk food, etc all with an ebt.
JoKo203 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The idea that welfare has caused the decrease in teenage births is a nonsense. Teenage birth rates simply mimic the general fertility rate tinyurl(.)com/5re9yla And there's no question the big change since 1960 in this regard is the pill, approved by the FDA in that year. Your portrayal of 'conservative logic' as the poor 'dying out' is unfounded. It's always been about incentives to pick oneself up tinyurl(.)com/y8s7b28 And why target Sowell in Free2Choose, when Milton says that same thing?
dmg46664 4 months ago
@AndroidPolitician Ha Ha! Amusing to say the least. I see you have a thing for Thomas Sowell. So now, confiscating the hard earned money of those who actually work and giving it to those who thru govt programs sit on their tush is a good thing. Yes, they might be OUT OF POVERTY, but if you look nationally the countries are OUT OF MONEY!!! Typical example of this is Greece (not a warring country). Programs designed to reward people for failing and punish those who succeed. Sowell is right.
thurstjo1963 4 months ago
@thurstjo1963
Yeah how about take for example the countries with the least poverty in the world and how for some reason they seem to have some of the most generous welfare, or how for some reason in the 1800s poverty was almost quadruple what it is now in the US.
And Greece's problems are because of debt from the dictatorship, massive tax evasion and the economic crisis which ruined Greece's economy.
AndroidPolitician 4 months ago
@AndroidPolitician And what about Sweden and Finland? Both models of socialism. And they already blew up in the early 1990s. And oh another bubble in housing is taking place in Sweden again. And in Finland debt to GDP levels are back above 60% and climbing. As I lived in Sweden in the late 80s and worked in Finland in the late 90s, many will tell you horror stories of how daft the system is. The ones who like it tend to be the ones who are doing the least with their lives.
thurstjo1963 4 months ago
@thurstjo1963
The poverty stats I used don't use government benefits so the "subsidized over the poverty line" argument doesn't work.
Both those countries "blew up" because of deregulation in the 90s not socialism. And even with that (and them having the most generous welfare etc.) they still have the lowest poverty rates in the world.
AndroidPolitician 4 months ago
@AndroidPolitician If you're not using 'government benefits', please explain what sort of income transfers your are talking about since that is what welfare systems are? They take the earnings of one part of the population and gives it to others.
thurstjo1963 4 months ago
@thurstjo1963
The international comparisons are based on wage/salary incomes without government benefits.
AndroidPolitician 4 months ago
@AndroidPolitician You provide a link to 'Welfare's effect on poverty' as well as referring to what Thomas Sowell said on welfare. I'm lost. What are you talking about? International comparisons on wage/salary incomes without government benefits proves what?
thurstjo1963 4 months ago
@thurstjo1963
The link was to "Table of poverty levels pre and post welfare" which has two international comparisons of relative poverty and absolute poverty with the latter not using government benefits.
The fact is, the absolute poverty rankings show the countries that have the most generous welfare have the least poverty without including government benefits.
AndroidPolitician 4 months ago
@AndroidPolitician ?!? Your statement is self evidently contradictory. Given that income transfer is supposedly the only difference in pulling people out of poverty in contrast to economic progress being the key for pulling people out of poverty in all the countries mentioned pre or early 20th century as well as most asian countries today, of all the countries in Kenworthy's list, only 4 are not suffering from an overhang too much debt. But in your mind, it's completely unrelated!?!
thurstjo1963 4 months ago
@thurstjo1963
The Kenworthy list was created in the 90s so debt is irrelevant but more to the point, it's economic empowerment that pulls people out of poverty, whether it's micro loans or welfare.
That aside, if welfare created poverty then why was poverty quadruple what it is today in the 1800s?
AndroidPolitician 4 months ago
@AndroidPolitician Try to understand this. Income transfer is not the same as micro loans. Micro loans are designed for individuals in order for the person to develop their business. Income transfer are designed so that people can sit on their behinds (and be failures). As for the myth of how poor Americans were, I direct you to the book, 'The Transformation of the American Economy 1865-1914' by Robert Higgs. A very different picture from the ideas you have in your head.
thurstjo1963 4 months ago
@thurstjo1963
So if you give money to people for anything other then starting a business they act stupid with it and waste it?
You aside you still have not answered the two big questions:
1) If welfare created poverty then why was poverty quadruple what it is today in the 1800s?
2) How come the countries with the least poverty have the most generous welfare?
AndroidPolitician 4 months ago
@AndroidPolitician Again, you're arguing a point with no basis in fact. If you had look at the book that I mentioned by Robert Higgs, you would know that what you are saying is false. Also you would see that those countries with the most generous welfare systems are the ones deepest in debt now. Wake up!!!
thurstjo1963 4 months ago
@thurstjo1963
You literally said the only way people get a better life is if they invest in businesses, is this true yes or no?
And no, Sweden and France aren't exactly in lots of debt.
Robert Higgs doesn't dispute that:
1) poverty was quadruple what it is today in the 1800s so welfare didn't increase poverty.
2) The countries with the most generous welfare have the least poverty.
Can you please answer those two questions instead of changing the subject
AndroidPolitician 1 week ago
AndroidPolitician 3 months ago
@AndroidPolitician Dear debater, France's debt to GDP ratio is 82% If you include all the regional and local debt, which still gets paid for primarily by the central government it's over 500%!!! Sweden is in a slightly better position since it's debt to GDP is around 40%. But as household debt has surpassed 3 trillion SEK, it looks like there is a new housing bubble is about to burst.
thurstjo1963 3 months ago
@AndroidPolitician As to the questions, 1) Welfare doesn't increase poverty, but it does reduce the wealth of the nation as a whole because you take from the most productive and give to least productive. 2) Your second statement is also correct but I would add that it is not sustainable since the countries become too indebted by them. They're programs country cannot afford! A better way would be to follow US in late 19th century, mutual aid organisations. It was far more effective and private
thurstjo1963 3 months ago
Welfare costs the taxpayer barely anything compared to the wars we're in.
1thruZ 4 months ago
Welfare allows the lazy to live better.
Kurio71 4 months ago in playlist More videos from AndroidPolitician
I came expecting that I might hear an interesting argument. Seems I was sorely mistaken.
Poverty is relative; a poor American lives a lot better than a poor Indian. There's nothing wrong with social welfare for the most needy, but there's certainly a better way to accomplish that goal than we have now. But let me ask: what's your plan to end poverty?
nrpahcandrasya 5 months ago
@nrpahcandrasya well said.
drezmelk 5 months ago
We simply can't afford this anymore. I don't expect the government to stop these harmful programs. They will probably increase them and the result will be an economic collapse.
It is morally wrong to FORCE me to provide for people I do not know and do not care about.
You believe the government can fix things. The only thing the government does well is to kill people.
MrGearySr 5 months ago
do you liberals got to a speech school. You all have the same monotone slow dragged speech. You think that makes you sound intelligent.
You fucking idiot
craig1049 5 months ago
Among all the ill logical comments made in this clip there are 2 that standout above the rest
It does matter if unmarried teenage pregnancies is raising if overall teenage pregnancies is down...WOW thats dumb! So, there is no difference between teen moms with a husband and one without?...not to mention if the mom is married, she has to be at least 18 and 16 in some states.
The welfare system not generous enough...if you give people more, of course the will have more, doesn't mean they work.
Superman1685 5 months ago 2
@Superman1685
I was saying teenage pregnancies are down since Sowell didn't specify they had to be unwed teenage pregnancies, but to the point, the percent has gone up not the number. If anything, the actual number might be lower because there used to be so much more.
Unless you think people are too stupid to invest their welfare into a better life it pretty much means they will. The facts show that more welfare means less poverty (and that's not including benefits).
AndroidPolitician 5 months ago
@AndroidPolitician I don't think its a question of supposing that the poor are too stupid to invest welfare dollars. It's a question of people not valuing funds that they haven't earned like funds they have earned and the formation of an entitlement mentality.
SexDrugsFinance 4 months ago
@AndroidPolitician If a better life means self sufficiency, then yes, dependent people are 'too stupid' to do this. It's better put by saying people are more sensitive to short term consequences than long term consequences. The problem with Welfare is that if you are receiving it, simply by taking a cheap job, what you give up isn't worth the daily effort. Normal people don't think that in a couple of years of experience, the better job will be worth it the trade. This was all in Free2Choose.
dmg46664 4 months ago
Is Seth Rogen narrating this?
rhildre1 5 months ago
Some people take welfare, because they do not want to work. I have seen generations do it. It wasn't until they made changes in the system that they started to observe lower birth rates. There was a time when you were given more money based on the number of children you had.
468101 6 months ago
The creator of this video shold READ Thmas Sowell's books and papers. He is basing all his arguments on sound bites. This video is VERY misleading.
spanieaj 6 months ago
@spanieaj, you're assuming the creator of this video knows how to read properly.
LibertyDownUnder 6 months ago 8
@LibertyDownUnder @spanieaj
So are either one of you somehow going to prove welfare increases poverty?
AndroidPolitician 6 months ago
@AndroidPolitician, absolutely, welfare perpetuates poverty
See here: /watch?v=P1r-r6iLBEI
LibertyDownUnder 6 months ago
@LibertyDownUnder
Then how come 30-50% of Americans were in poverty during the 1800s, and the countries with the most generous welfare (Sweden, France etc.) have the lowest poverty?
AndroidPolitician 6 months ago
@AndroidPolitician, the US was in its infancy in 1800, of course people would have been poorer back then.
The European welfare states worked for a while (sort of) but are now falling apart, causing violent riots. Their lifeline to the poor has left them completely dependent on a bankrupt system, and this is not something that should be copied.
Did you watch the 'good intentions' clip at all?
LibertyDownUnder 6 months ago
@LibertyDownUnder
It's not 1800, it's the entire century of the 1800s (as in, 100 years) and it doesn't matter that "we were in our infancy" poverty is calculated relative to that time.
Poverty rates are still almost non-existent in those countries and the reason why there's riots etc. is because of IMF loans which force the countries into austerity.
I have two studies of welfare and poverty, I don't think Walter Williams is going to disprove empirical facts.
moourl(.)com/zrv7d
AndroidPolitician 6 months ago
@AndroidPolitician, I'm not sure what facts you disagree with Walter Williams on.
The video presents actual figures, and explains in detail why the decline is happening.
Black poverty rates were declining on their own till the 60s, most black kids had a job, and were doing well in school.
Then welfare was introduced, incentives to stay poor and move to Government housing projects were given - and poverty rates started shooting up.
Do you disagree with this?
LibertyDownUnder 6 months ago
@LibertyDownUnder
My bad I didn't realize it was a documentary but the point is poverty didn't "increase" relative the 50s (and has never been as high since) it was flat during the 60s and 70s and (relatively) increased during the 80s because of the outsourcing of manufacturing.
Notice Williams didn't show the poverty rate prior to welfare and especially didn't show the countries with almost no poverty and much more generous welfare.
AndroidPolitician 6 months ago
@AndroidPolitician, black kids didn't work in manufacturing, so outsourcing is not the cause.
It was made in 1983, I don't all these jobs packed up and left in 3 years.
Poverty was in decline prior to the 60s, it's just that politicians tried to "help" and speed things up.
If you keep watching the rest of the clip, it explains which jobs disappeared and why.
LibertyDownUnder 6 months ago
@LibertyDownUnder
Yeah but a majority of black adults did work in manufacturing especially inner-city blacks, there's a huge literature on this too by people like William Julius Wilson.
Yeah so how come poverty never went above what it was in the 50s or 1800s and is almost non-existent in countries with high welfare?
The only "evidence" that's been provided is a slight lag in poverty reduction in the 60s which is completely insignificant given long-term trends.
AndroidPolitician 6 months ago
@AndroidPolitician, it's not "insignificant" and the figures are even worse now.
Welfare lured millions into dependence. If in France the Government gives the poor enough Euros to raise them above the poverty line - but this doesn't show that welfare "works" it just looks good on a report. The DEPENDENCE, and other social problems that this encourages are still there, which was my whole point.
LibertyDownUnder 6 months ago
@LibertyDownUnder
First of all poverty even now is not even close to what it was in the 50s and secondly the income is calculated without welfare etc. so your "Europe subsidizes them over the poverty line" argument is wrong.
So now that you pretty much concede poverty is lower, where's the evidence for mass dependence? Even when welfare was at it's most liberal the average time on it was 3 years despite no time limit in the US.
AndroidPolitician 6 months ago
@AndroidPolitician, I'm gonna have to stick to one point, I can't explain the entire European welfare system and 200 years of US history.
With more welfare, you get a general trend towards dependence. Walter Williams video shows this in detail. If you give incentives to stay poor - you will get a more dependent society.
How else would you explain the black family unit falling apart?
Surely you know at least 1 person that opted to quit their job and rely on handouts, no?
I know at least 10.
LibertyDownUnder 6 months ago
@LibertyDownUnder
Well I'm sorry but "I know people on welfare" doesn't disprove the fact that even when welfare had no time limit the average time on it was 3 years.
The black family has been falling apart because of chronic joblessness since the outsourcing of manufacturing.
That aside, the "incentive to be poor" argument only works if you think people are too stupid and greedy to use welfare to plan for a better life. People aren't dogs, they invest the money for better opportunities.
AndroidPolitician 6 months ago
@AndroidPolitician, dude it's nothing to do with being stupid.
Please look into this further as I think you are overlooking an enormous amount of research that has been done on this. All over the world, countries can handle jobs being outsourced. But throughout history when Governments tried giving out handouts, and over regulating the markets - the results were the opposite of what they expected.
The fact that I know people doesn't "prove" anything, i was just trying to show you an example.
LibertyDownUnder 6 months ago
@LibertyDownUnder
Well the actual research shows that there's almost no poverty in places with the most generous welfare and vice versa and to think so you would have to think that people are so pathological that they would stay poor in order to get money or too stupid to not be able to invest it for the better.
I don't know what you mean by "handle" outsourcing, countries won't collapse but unemployment is still higher post-outsourcing and especially in the cities.
AndroidPolitician 6 months ago
@AndroidPolitician, the rest of the documentary explains the point that without wage restrictions and regulations - there would be no unemployment.
LibertyDownUnder 6 months ago
@LibertyDownUnder
Um I doubt the documentary said that because that's incredibly stupid, even when there were no restrictions at all we still had massive unemployment in the 1800s.
But you still didn't answer why there's almost no poverty in the countries with the most generous welfare.
AndroidPolitician 6 months ago
@AndroidPolitician, Williams put years of research into that movie so I don't think you should dismiss it as "stupid" if you haven't even watched it.
I'm not sure where you mean when you mention "generous welfare". There are many factors in what makes up the poverty rate, and I cannot cover them all in a 500 character comment.
Surely with what's happening in Europe right now, you cannot conclude that the US should copy everything they're doing and hope for a better result.
LibertyDownUnder 6 months ago
@LibertyDownUnder
Well if you what you said Williams said was true then he seemed to of forgotten the 1800s, when there were no labor restrictions and we still had mass unemployment.
Sure there are numerous factors for why poverty exists but one of the biggest in poverty reduction (if not the biggest) is social welfare and is why the most generous states have the lowest poverty.
What's happening in Europe has nothing to do with welfare.
AndroidPolitician 6 months ago
@AndroidPolitician, it's your channel mate, I'll let you have the last word.
All I can ask is that you watch all 3 parts of Walter Williams show where he explains all this in detail:
Part 1: /watch?v=P1r-r6iLBEI -decline of the black community into poverty
Part 2: /watch?v=7DS0XXFdyfI - minimum wage and labor restrictions
Part 3: /watch?v=eqMuLNWL_Qo - the welfare system
LibertyDownUnder 6 months ago
@LibertyDownUnder
For what it's worth it's a very generous comment and I might watch the whole thing for the sake of interest.
I'm honestly not trying to be an ideologue but Williams simply doesn't know the facts, he literally missed a century that had all the things he was advocating (no welfare, labor regulation etc.) and the outcomes were orders of magnitude worse than today when they didn't have to be.
It's not like I'm criticizing the 1800s for not having cell phones.
AndroidPolitician 6 months ago
Asian Americans have the highest level of education and the highest income (way above the “totally non-lazy nice white groups.”). The Asian poverty rate is above 10%. How can this be? Asian Americans have sub groups as well. Asian Indians average $90,000 a year compared to Bangladeshi-Americans, $46,000 per year. Asian Indian Americans have a 7% poverty rate. Korean Americans have a much higher poverty rate than any other group in the US: 30%.
Suarez23 6 months ago
To have concluded that I meant “totally non-lazy nice white groups” are immune to poverty explains how off base you are. If that were true, that would imply that I believe the opposite must be true: totally lazy bad non-white groups are carrying the virus of poverty. There are black groups and Hispanic groups which live above poverty. Take, for example, Cuban Americans and Jamaican Americans. Second generation Cuban Americans earn $15,000 more than the median US income.Jamaican Americans are par
Suarez23 6 months ago
The most educated groups in America tend to have abysmal rates of poverty. The US bureau of labor statistic concluded that people with no high school diploma had an unemployment rate of 14.5% compared to those with a bachelor degree that had 4.5% unemployment. Those with no degree averaged $25,000 (poverty range), with degrees, $48,000 (above country median income).
Suarez23 6 months ago
This only emphasizes what I have been saying all along: It isn’t as simple as picking an arbitrary number, coming up with a simplistic conclusion, and say, “Ah ha! That’s it.” I am glad to see that you are breaking down one of the possible causes of poverty, “blacks have huge poverty because of outsourcing which made US manufacturing leave the inner cities and left massive pockets of joblessness,” Which this can be true, but poverty is largely due to lack of education.
Suarez23 6 months ago
The stats came from a joint effort between the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau. And, the U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration U.S. CENSUS BUREAU concurred. 75% of the Europeans Americans are German Americans (the largest single group), Irish Americans, British Americans (which make up 25%), and Italian Americans. 15% are Polish Americans, French Americans, Dutch Americans, Norwegian American, and Swedish American.
Suarez23 6 months ago
totally stupid.another dependent posts a video.
salupaginahit 6 months ago
Thomas Sowell is using common sense you fucking morons.
TyrannicalTyler86 6 months ago
@TyrannicalTyler86
The "common sense" is that people are so stupid and ignorant that they can't use welfare to plan for a better future.
It's not "common sense", it's authoritarian thinking.
AndroidPolitician 6 months ago
@AndroidPolitician Uhhh no, that's bullshit. Stop using invalid logic.
*cough*subjective*cough* My thinking is not authoritarian you moron. Disagreeing with overly liberal welfare policies has nothing to do with authoritarian thinking. Are you that diluted? Christ, it's not like I'm saying that all welfare should be stripped away hahaha that would be mass starvation. It's about addicting people to welfare. But I'm sure you don't care to here another opinion. Later loser. Get a job.
TyrannicalTyler86 3 months ago
@TyrannicalTyler86
You seem oddly mad at what's basic logic. Sowell is saying people are too stupid to use welfare to invest in a better life so we shouldn't give them welfare.
That's authoritarian thinking because you assume people are too stupid to function.
AndroidPolitician 3 months ago
@TyrannicalTyler86 He oversimplifies and joins dots that don't join up. Your stupidity is amusing.
nilbud 6 months ago
I found something fascinating. The poverty rate for Americans with Swedish ancestry is equal to the poverty rate of the Swedish: 6.7% in 2010. Yet in America their median income is $12,000 higher than the American median; $20,000 more than average Swede. Seems like culture is a much stronger driver for poverty reduction than welfare. Seems like Americans should look forward to American Swedes than Swedes.
Suarez23 6 months ago
@Suarez23
Seems like you cherry picked some data to get an unlikely conclusion unless there's a "culture of non-poverty" in all of Scandinavia and places like Canada while places like Italy and America have poverty cultures?
Or maybe it's just economic policies of generous vs. non-generous welfare states.
AndroidPolitician 6 months ago
@AndroidPolitician Seems like you don't like the facts! There is more to just arbitrary numbers.If you calculate the poverty level at 75% of US median, the median income earner in Sweden falls under poverty.Talk about cherry picking! Is it not ironic? That the same group has a poverty level in the US? Yet, those in the US make so much more money!!! Explain that! How is that possible! And, the their ancestors were poor farmers not educated men with money.Culture is not accounted for in the stats.
Suarez23 6 months ago
@Suarez23 You're confused, your babbling nonsense doesn't mean anything.
nilbud 6 months ago
@nilbud Thank you. I feel the disappointment through your text. I know I tore down the imaginary reality you’ve been living in for soo many years. If Sweden is so great and America is so bad, why does America get more immigrants than any other country? Wow! You claim Sweden is the best. Do you live there? I hope you do. They’re the best, right?
Suarez23 6 months ago
@Suarez23
No one is talking about "greatness", we're talking about poverty and whether not welfare reduces it.
AndroidPolitician 6 months ago
@AndroidPolitician nilbud commented saying that in Sweden "there's no medical expenses, no ludicrous insurance premiums and excellent social services including superb free education. Also thanks to EU laws the food isn't poisoned and the water is drinkable." That goes beyond poverty. This, nilbud, has the mind of a simple person. He uses superb. Superb, to me, is synonymous with "'great"ness." White people of European decent poverty rate is below 8.6% while their average income is a much greater
Suarez23 6 months ago
@Suarez23
Well with regards to "greatness", your using immigrants aka people leaving their country for another.
Not counting undocumented immigrates, the US just happens to be decent about it's immigration policy and is huge which is why more immigrants are allowed in the US than in any other country (compare this with the immigration policies of Russia or China).
The fact that more people go to is also structural, not because of it's "greatness".
AndroidPolitician 6 months ago
@AndroidPolitician I completely disagree. But, I am not interested in further discussing terms and their definitions and what applies to what. I am much more interested in your opinion on the stat I commented on earlier: 8.6% poverty rate for Whites Americans of European descent. How do you explain this?
Suarez23 6 months ago
@Suarez23
I don't know where this statistic came from, how it's known they are specifically of European decent or even if it's true but assuming it's true, groups like blacks have huge poverty because of outsourcing which made US manufacturing leave the inner cities and left massive pockets of joblessness.
You still have to prove that 20 different groups correlate with the 20 other countries on poverty and that it's somehow a "culture" these totally non-lazy nice white groups have.
AndroidPolitician 6 months ago
@Suarez23
You're using median income of Sweden and comparing it to median income of the US which isn't how you calculate poverty unless 100% of Sweden's income is poverty level (hint: it's not).
But that aside, the conclusion from this one set of data is that it's "culture", well to prove that you would need to look at the ethnicity of all 20 countries and see if they have all the same poverty rate in the US which is extremely unlikely.
Based on occam's razor it's probably the welfare.
AndroidPolitician 6 months ago
These white trash Liberals. They are racists. They don't realize that in the real world there will always be the bottom 10%. They think that throwing money at something would automatically make it better. I am Hispanic. I was raised by a single mother on welfare. My father didn't live with us because in order for my mother to get warfare, he couldn't be around. He got aids and died at 35. He transmitted it to my mother. She went on to live on welfare for another 6 years. During the time she had
Suarez23 6 months ago
@Suarez23
Everyone knows there's a bottom 10%, the point is to eliminate poverty rate. In the 1800s, 30-50% of Americans were in poverty and it's nowhere near that close now.
In high welfare states like Sweden poverty is close to 4%, does that mean there's still a bottom 10%, yes it does, but it also means there's less people in poverty.
AndroidPolitician 6 months ago
@AndroidPolitician The poverty level is calculated by taking 60% of the median income. The median income in Sweden is $15,000 less than American median income. Putting them in the level as the most disadvantage group in America: Blacks. So, 4% poverty in Sweden is misleading. By these standards Cuba would have the lowest poverty level which is ridiculous. Liberals don't care about poverty. They care about economic equality. Which means to bring the bottom and top to the 50% median. Fairytale!
Suarez23 6 months ago
@Suarez23
I have a link to two studies in the description.
One uses what you described (relative poverty as defined by that country) and another that has poverty based on 40% of US median income for all countries.
In both, not only did they all reduce poverty because of welfare but the countries with the most generous welfare had greatest poverty reduction.
AndroidPolitician 6 months ago
@AndroidPolitician All those stats are extremely misleading. I have an article that explains these stats, but I am not allowed to post here. It explains how these numbers are skewed."People vote with their feet," Milton Friedman. If given a choice, 25% of immigrants mention the USA as the number one choice for immigration. The second highest is Canada 6%.Why would people choose a country where, according to these statistics, will give them a higher chance of poverty than Sweden or the other 14?
Suarez23 6 months ago
@Suarez23
They're not misleading at all, poverty is pegged to 40% of US median income for all countries and yet the US is still at the high end.
Secondly, what people might subjectively think doesn't change the fact there's less poverty in the countries and more generous welfare.
AndroidPolitician 6 months ago
@AndroidPolitician Once again, Sweden practices economic equality. By using a measure of income, it can skew any study. All the study show is that Sweden is more efficient at redistributing wealth. 40% of US wealth is an arbitrary number. Consumer Price index is 38.82% higher in Sweden than in the US. That means that a person earning $12,000 in the US will have more purchasing power than someone in Sweden.
Suarez23 6 months ago
@Suarez23 You really have no idea what you're on about. In Sweden there's no medical expenses, no ludicrous insurance premiums and excellent social services including superb free education. Also thanks to EU laws the food isn't poisoned and the water is drinkable. Your mind bogglingly stupid suggestion that poverty in Sweden is in any way comparable to the degradation people are subjected to in the US shows how idiotic you really are.
nilbud 6 months ago
@AndroidPolitician A more accurate assessment would be to put the Sweden’s Poverty threshold at $16,700 while keeping the American threshold at $12,000. Being that the median Swedish income is $22,900, I am confident they’ll have a higher rate of poverty. All I am saying is that these numbers are misleading. The math is more complex than just taking an arbitrary number, 40% of US income, and using it where deem fit. It is intellectually dishonest.
Suarez23 6 months ago
@Suarez23
The studies literally do both, one study compares relative definitions (like you said) and the other has them all at the US median (it doesn't matter what percent of US median income the results will be proportionality same from any %)
And in both there is substantially less poverty in places like Sweden.
I suggest you actually read the studies.
AndroidPolitician 6 months ago
@AndroidPolitician Correct. I have. But, neither study accounts for purchasing power or consumer price index which is extremely important. The study uses an arbitrary number, a predetermined income threshold based on a percentage of median income, be it relative or US median income. Would you be richer if everything you bought would be at a 40% discount? Well, the consumer price index indicates that, on average, anything you buy in the US is on a 40% discount compared to Sweden, figuratively.
Suarez23 6 months ago
@Suarez23
Yes they do, the incomes in both are adjusted for inflation and use the same standard for all countries.
It's not like Sweden etc. have 500% inflation so everyone has a higher income than in the US.
AndroidPolitician 6 months ago
What a moron. So Sowell goes to Columbia and the University of Chicago, wins numerous awards, and has been awarded professorships at some of the best universities in the nation and has achieved nothing? You sound like a one year college drop out that believes yourself to be an intellectual because you are the most intelligent cashier in a 5 aisle radius.
poop2poop2 7 months ago
@poop2poop2
If you actually listen to what I said, Sowell has made no achievements in the field of economics and that's true.
Name one study or discovery he's made into any field whatsoever.
AndroidPolitician 7 months ago
@AndroidPolititian I don't think welfare empowers poor people. For example: most people that won lottery say they wasted the money pretty quickly. My theory is that ignorance creates poverty and that only incentives in the free-market system can ultimately teach people what the right way out of poverty is.
AtheistRightWing 7 months ago
@AtheistRightWing
Well you "theory" doesn't take into account the movement of manufacturing jobs outside of the cities creating massive joblessness.
As an example about welfare, in the 1800s, about 30-50% of Americans were in poverty, and welfare empowered them out. As another example, see how people went strike and used welfare for strike funds (and would win) in the 70s.
AndroidPolitician 7 months ago
Welfare is a dis-incentive to work and can put a ceiling on the income level of the recipent. One could go to work, learn some skills, become more valuable, then make a higher income, but you have to remember that welfare and other benefits are taken away as your income increases. Under a welfare system, it might not pay a recipent to work for a living.
harbar3000 7 months ago
@harbar3000
It would be a dis-incentive if people were corrupt and stupid. Welfare gives people the ability to look for work and empower themselves out of poverty.
AndroidPolitician 7 months ago
@harbar3000 That's a ludicrous suggestion.
nilbud 6 months ago
I hate when people make an argument solely by pulling ''scientific studies'' out of their ass.
AtheistRightWing 7 months ago
@AtheistRightWing
The links to the studies are in the description but it's a truism that welfare helps empower people out of poverty unless you think most people are stupid are greedy.
AndroidPolitician 7 months ago
great title, about time someone said it.
fringeailments 7 months ago
Thomas Sowell is a psuedo-intellectual hack. Thank you for debunking the myth...
2Majesties 8 months ago
While I think countries should have ample social safety nets, I'm pretty sure your approach is incorrect. The European welfare states derived after Myrdal's landmark studies, but were only affordable owing to high economic growth and moderating population growth in the post WW2 period. Lately many european countries, esp Germany, Sweden, Spain have been scaling down the extent of welfare. Secondly, high immigration rates will account for the 4-5% disparity in US poverty data, compared to europe.
manicbranic 8 months ago
@manicbranic
The scaling back of welfare is due to a general movement of neoliberalism, I'm not sure of any data that shows it's difficult to sustain post-WW2 welfare states with lower growth rates.
Even if the immigration figure is true the US would still have a very high comparative poverty rate.
AndroidPolitician 8 months ago
@AndroidPolitician It's difficult to sustain megaprofits with welfare systems expanding to meet population growth. If there's enough growth to justify the billion-$ CEO salaries and multi-billion bailouts, there's enough to distribute as "welfare."
TheAzov 8 months ago 7
@TheAzov
This man is much smarter than you could ever hope to be.
He's absolutely right! You are wrong!
You actually believe Welfare doesn't encourage irresponsibility and complacency?
Teen aged pregnancy rates are declining???
It amazes me how brainwashed you are. You should wear a helmet!!!
You should wear a helmet!
DSuper3 6 months ago
@DSuper3 Wow, what a cogent argument. Why don't you add "Nyah-nyah-NYAH-nyah" to give it the added gravitas it assuredly merits. Also be sure to attribute statements I did not make, like references to teenage pregnancy. Too bad you weren't wearing YOUR helmet in that head-on tricycle crash when you were five.
TheAzov 6 months ago
@TheAzov Let me understand this. You say "If there's enough growth to justify the billion-$ CEO salaries, there's enough to distribute as "welfare." Correct? So you believe the "Bad, Bad Rich People" should be punished for their success and their money should be given to others. WOW! It's probably too late for you. I guess you agree with the administrations contention that the American people are too stupid to take care of themselves so the government has to spend their money for them.
DSuper3 6 months ago
@DSuper3 "Their success?" If not for workers and the investors who lent them money they'd be nowhere. Honorable mention should go to the majority of wealthy who have inherited their $. "Their money?" It's wealth that is extracted from society in the form of rent, appropriation of (others') labor value, and the consumer, transformed into capital (dead labor). It's *our* money that would be rightfully returned back to us as the true creators of value, and therefore of wealth.
TheAzov 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheAzov Let me understand this. You say "If there's enough growth to justify the billion-$ CEO salaries, there's enough to distribute as "welfare." Correct? So you believe the "Bad, Bad Rich People" should be punished for their success and their money should be given to others. WOW! It's probably too late for you. I guess you agree with the administrations contention that the American people are too stupid to take care of themselves so the government has to spend their money for them.
DSuper3 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheAzov Let me understand this. You say "If there's enough growth to justify the billion-$ CEO salaries, there's enough to distribute as "welfare." Correct? So you believe the "Bad, Bad Rich People" should be punished for their success and their money should be given to others. WOW! It's probably too late for you. I guess you agree with the administrations contention that the American people are too stupid to take care of themselves so the government has to spend their money for them.
DSuper3 6 months ago
@DSuper3
Really? Are you really going to argue that teenage pregnancy isn't at an all time low?
AndroidPolitician 5 months ago
Saying that welfare reduces poverty makes NO economic sense. It is easy to cherry pick studies to confirm a bias but when you cannot tie it back to a logically coherent theory of social causation that is honestly supported by empirical fact, you are simply a hack cherry picking convenient "evidence". Deceit is in haste but honesty can wait a fair leisure. It is pretty clear that your "analysis" was in haste...
shagdrum 8 months ago
@shagdrum
The logic is obvious if you weren't so bound by your ideology, welfare empowers people to support themselves enough to find work. Without welfare people would just fall through the cracks and not be able to recover or find a job.
And secondly, it's not just "cherry picking", the countries with the greatest welfare had the greatest reduction in poverty universally based on every study that multiple countries, and that's adjusting for the economy and with different poverty rates.
AndroidPolitician 8 months ago
@AndroidPolitician The "logic" IGNORES human nature, making it utterly illogical and worthless as a theory of social causation. Also, it is easy to overgeneralize in statistical comparisons and mislead, even unintentionally. Your comparison of various countries poverty rates is a good example of this. It ignore the economic and historical contexts involved and arbitrarily attributes the drop in poverty to a rise in the welfare state with NO evidence or logical proof to actually connect the two.
shagdrum 8 months ago
@shagdrum You're a fucking moron of the lowest order. You can tell because you keep repeating "as a theory of social causation". You haven't the IQ to be able to think about these things you're too slow witted and basically stupid to do anything but regurgitate. Your nature is to be a weak creepy thief and you assume everyone is as broken minded and simple as you are. You're being carried by society but you bite the hand that feeds you.
nilbud 6 months ago
@AndroidPolitician Your "logic" ignores human nature making it utterly illogical and worthless as a theory of social causation. Also the comparisons of poverty rates are worthless because they ignore the economic and historical context involved and simply attribute the change in poverty rates to rise in welfare though arbitrary speculation. No empirical evidence or logical proof is given to objectively and honestly establish ANY connection between the two. It is simply ASSUMED.
shagdrum 8 months ago
@AndroidPolitician It is easier to distort the truth with statistics then to uncover the truth with them (even unintentionally). For instance, if you simply define poverty as a set monetary figure then, over time, it can be shown that inflation alone reduces poverty. subtle manipulation of methodology is an easy means to hide the negative effects of welfare but no critical examination of the methodologies of the "studies" you talk about is offered.
shagdrum 8 months ago
@shagdrum
"Your "logic" ignores human nature"
I think your making up your own little definition of "human nature" where humans are greedy and stupid.
"For instance, if you simply define poverty as a set monetary figure then, over time, it can be shown that inflation alone reduces poverty."
Oh well luckily the studies didn't do that, thus rendering about 20 of your comments pointless.
AndroidPolitician 8 months ago
@AndroidPolitician When someone is simply cherry picking and engaging in flawed statistical "analysis" that can not be tied back to a logically coherent theory of social causation, they are simply promoting ideological dogma by grasping at straws to rationalize their own ideological views. Unfortunately, most of these people arrogantly think themselves "above" ideology yet their arrogance blinds them to the fact that they are simply slaves to ideology.