Serious Political and economic discussion thread

Diophantine

慈陰
is a Tutor
Surprised this hasn't been done yet. Discuss politics and economics here.
This could be about current affairs, anything that interests you in history, your own opinions, theorising, whatever. Ask questions if you're interested or unsure of things and try to share knowledge with each other.
Do any of you study economics or politics at school, college or university? How did you develop an interest in the subject?
Do any of you do a job that requires the application of knowledge on politics or economics?

I'll say a bit about myself.:psyduck:
I grew up as a leftist in an echo chamber. My mother is center-left and the school that I attended was ran by very left wing teachers and staff. I started studying economics and history (and by extension, politics) when I was 16.
I had briefly looked over the Vietnam war and the Civil Rights Movement in compulsory lessons and studied business studies because, well, I wanted to be rich (lol).:mehowth:
I hated business studies but loved the one module on economics, so I took that up along with history (and maths/further maths but that's not relevant). I studied Britain 1945-1990, Spain 1930-1975 and Germany 1918-1945. I also took a look into Japanese politics, economics and history as I am (half) Japanese by heritage and wanted to understand my roots more. I also looked into some LEDCs such as Uganda and South Africa because I wanted to think about how knowledge could be applied to help battle against poverty and because the emerging markets function very differently to the developed ones.

This was an interesting time because it was during 2014/15 in the build up to the UK's general election (where I live) and was the first time I was truly critical with each party and my opinion kept changing. It converged somewhere in the middle and I consider myself a bit to the left of the center.
I managed to get work experience with an investment management firm which pushed me even further as I had to write detailed reports for their strategy team and articles for their marketing team.
Brexit hit in 2016. I was truly skeptical of Brexit and was appalled at the common rationale on both sides.
Many Brexiteers voted to remain with immigration being their main concern (which I did not think was smart for many reasons). Many remainers voted without considering the reasons as to why people wanted to leave and were just like "muh economy" without actually having any rationale when scrutinised.:blobshrug:
I voted to remain.
Trump winning surprised me less than Brexit did, and I somewhat predicted it, but I was even more appalled at the rationale for voting this time.

At the moment, I am working as an intern at an investment bank on the trading floor, and so I need to stay up to date with what is happening in politics and economics as they directly impact my work. I stopped studying economics and politics and I currently study mathematics at university. I am still passionate about both fields, however, and am always open for discussion and learning more.

Don't be afraid if you're new to this! I hope we can all learn here. :bloblul:
 
Last edited:
I'm interested in this thread, I've been trying to educate myself in economics lately so that I can be more informed on the impacts of policies supported by the political parties that are relevant to me. Interesting to see the philosophical belief differences between neo-classical and new Keynesian economic belief modules.

Very interested in the possible debate of the validity of certain positions and how that might align or differ from the models that I've found to most closely align with my personal morality.
 
I'm interested in this thread, I've been trying to educate myself in economics lately so that I can be more informed on the impacts of policies supported by the political parties that are relevant to me. Interesting to see the philosophical belief differences between neo-classical and new Keynesian economic belief modules.

Very interested in the possible debate of the validity of certain positions and how that might align or differ from the models that I've found to most closely align with my personal morality.
Ill tell you this now. Keynesian (aka Trickle Down) economics is an average theory at best on paper, but it doesnt work if at all in practice. Supply-Side economics (which is the model supported by the American Republican party, and the biggest factor when the December 2017 tax cuts were put into legislation) is quite an intruiging concept that actually does work, and its the model thats been largely responsible for Americas (and lets be honest, the worlds) surge in overall economic growth and availability of advanced technologies to even the average poor citizen. As for my political position, Im pretty centrist as well, but conservative policy lately has been incredibly enticing to look into. Heres a video Id highly reccomend if you ever get the time to watch it, it thoroughly explains Supply-Side economics extremely well, albiet long.
 

Diophantine

慈陰
is a Tutor
I'm interested in this thread, I've been trying to educate myself in economics lately so that I can be more informed on the impacts of policies supported by the political parties that are relevant to me. Interesting to see the philosophical belief differences between neo-classical and new Keynesian economic belief modules.

Very interested in the possible debate of the validity of certain positions and how that might align or differ from the models that I've found to most closely align with my personal morality.
Which political parties are relevant to you?
In my country it is the Labour Party and the Conservatives. The other parties are too small and only have a chance via coalition.

Which positions would you like to debate?


To everyone, I’m going to post some economic research later on l
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
im sure supply-side economics is the theory usually referred to as 'trickle down' economics and keynesian ecoomics is something else

Ill tell you this now. Keynesian (aka Trickle Down) economics is an average theory at best on paper, but it doesnt work if at all in practice. Supply-Side economics (which is the model supported by the American Republican party, and the biggest factor when the December 2017 tax cuts were put into legislation) is quite an intruiging concept that actually does work, and its the model thats been largely responsible for Americas (and lets be honest, the worlds) surge in overall economic growth and availability of advanced technologies to even the average poor citizen. As for my political position, Im pretty centrist as well, but conservative policy lately has been incredibly enticing to look into. Heres a video Id highly reccomend if you ever get the time to watch it, it thoroughly explains Supply-Side economics extremely well, albiet long.
"Trickle-down economics, also referred to as trickle-down theory, is an economic theory that advocates reducing taxes on businesses and the wealthy in society as a means to stimulate business investment in the short term and benefit society at large in the long term. It is a form of laissez-faire capitalism in general and more specifically supply-side economics. Whereas general supply-side theory favors lowering taxes overall, trickle-down theory more specifically targets taxes on the upper end of the economic spectrum."

but please tell us more about the differences between political-economic theories that you know so much about.
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
pope says
Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.[23]
A 2015 paper by researchers for the International Monetary Fund argues that there is no trickle-down effect as the rich get richer:

f the income share of the top 20 percent (the rich) increases, then GDP growth actually declines over the medium term, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down. In contrast, an increase in the income share of the bottom 20 percent (the poor) is associated with higher GDP growth.[5]

A 2015 report on policy by economist Pavlina R. Tcherneva described the failings of increasing economic gains of the rich without commensurate participation by the working and middle classes, referring to the problematic policies as "Reagan-style trickle-down economics," and "a trickle-down, financial-sector-driven policy regime".[6]
 
im sure supply-side economics is the theory usually referred to as 'trickle down' economics and keynesian ecoomics is something else



"Trickle-down economics, also referred to as trickle-down theory, is an economic theory that advocates reducing taxes on businesses and the wealthy in society as a means to stimulate business investment in the short term and benefit society at large in the long term. It is a form of laissez-faire capitalism in general and more specifically supply-side economics. Whereas general supply-side theory favors lowering taxes overall, trickle-down theory more specifically targets taxes on the upper end of the economic spectrum."

but please tell us more about the differences between political-economic theories that you know so much about.
Gladly. Trickle down and supply side are not the same in any scope of sense. Trickle down implies that you reduce taxes in order for the money and benefits to trickle back down to the poor. Supply Side is the concept that you lessen taxes on businesses. Example: the coorperate tax was 39% prior to the tax reform, its now been lowered to 20%. 20% of income is still substaintial, but that can allow businesses more room to innovate and stimulate the economy. They can either do that by investing into other ventures, in hopes of making more money, or store their money in banks, allowing banks to loan out money to aspiring businesses, and make more money off of interest. With Supply side economics, everyone benefits and reaps the rewards of successful business. The video I shared in my last post explains all of that extremely well, I highly reccomend it.

One more point Id like to make though, the Democratic Party economic platform, as I learned, only makes the economy stagnant, youre getting more money from the rich to give to the poor throigh social programs such as welfare, and those people, chances are, wont be making more money through that. For instance, if you buy a burger (I believe Cenk Uyger made this analogy in his debate against Ben Shapiro), that doesnt go up to the company and trickle down, that impact is, on the wider side of things, minimal. No major extra money maker or change happens in the economy, itll mainly stay stagnant.

Now truthfully, before learning more about supply side economics, my premise was that, yea, if you are richer, it wouldnt be a bad thing to need to give a little more back into the economy. After learning more about it, I can still say that the rich do still put in their fair share (aside from loopholes that anyone can take advantage of, not just the rich, and still more than the middle class, mind you). But in the end, when business is booming and more products are services are able to be made quicker and more advanced, everyone benefits.

Side note:
but please tell us more about the differences between political-economic theories that you know so much about.
No need to be rude bud, I was just trying to have civil dialog. Also, the sources you posted dont have legit stats behind them (knowing that I was rejecting trickle down economics and that it does not work lol, and you reference the bad of it anyways, what does that accomplish?), the pope one especially wasnt your best bet since thats clearly subjective. There is very visible gains and stats that do back up supply side as incredibly beneficial to the economy, thats why Americas economy is doing as well as it is.
 
Last edited:

Diophantine

慈陰
is a Tutor
One more point Id like to make though, the Democratic Party economic platform, as I learned, only makes the economy stagnant, youre getting more money from the rich to give to the poor throigh social programs such as welfare, and those people, chances are, wont be making more money through that. For instance, if you buy a burger (I believe Cenk Uyger made this analogy in his debate against Ben Shapiro), that doesnt go up to the company and trickle down, that impact is, on the wider side of things, minimal. No major extra money maker or change happens in the economy, itll mainly stay stagnant.

Now truthfully, before learning more about supply side economics, my premise was that, yea, if you are richer, it wouldnt be a bad thing to need to give a little more back into the economy. After learning more about it, I can still say that the rich do still put in their fair share (aside from loopholes that anyone can take advantage of, not just the rich, and still more than the middle class, mind you). But in the end, when business is booming and more products are services are able to be made quicker and more advanced, everyone benefits.
Poorer people have a higher marginal propensity to save (that means they have a higher consumption to savings ratio). This means that things such as welfare benefits, jobseekers' allowance, etc are stimulating to the economy.
Consumption (buying non-business related goods/services) is a massive component of aggregate demand (the total amount of demand in an economy), and so things such as welfare benefits usually lead to an increase in GDP.

Also, booming countries that are unsustainable are prone to high inflation which can deter foreign direct investment, lower the foreign exchange rate and raise living costs. People get fucked over if inflation overtakes the rate of wages growth.

pope says
Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.[23]
A 2015 paper by researchers for the International Monetary Fund argues that there is no trickle-down effect as the rich get richer:

f the income share of the top 20 percent (the rich) increases, then GDP growth actually declines over the medium term, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down. In contrast, an increase in the income share of the bottom 20 percent (the poor) is associated with higher GDP growth.[5]

A 2015 report on policy by economist Pavlina R. Tcherneva described the failings of increasing economic gains of the rich without commensurate participation by the working and middle classes, referring to the problematic policies as "Reagan-style trickle-down economics," and "a trickle-down, financial-sector-driven policy regime".[6]
Trickle-down theory is strange. It works in theory but, as you have displayed, it does not always work in practice. Its viability depends on the structure of the economy in question.
 

kilometerman

Banned deucer.
I generally like the economic system where the government doesn't get so much power that it starts to shoot its citizens. But then again its 2018 and I want free shit so gimme gimme now
 
Poorer people have a higher marginal propensity to save (that means they have a higher consumption to savings ratio). This means that things such as welfare benefits, jobseekers' allowance, etc are stimulating to the economy.
Consumption (buying non-business related goods/services) is a massive component of aggregate demand (the total amount of demand in an economy), and so things such as welfare benefits usually lead to an increase in GDP.

Also, booming countries that are unsustainable are prone to high inflation which can deter foreign direct investment, lower the foreign exchange rate and raise living costs. People get fucked over if inflation overtakes the rate of wages growth.


Trickle-down theory is strange. It works in theory but, as you have displayed, it does not always work in practice. Its viability depends on the structure of the economy in question.
Ok, first off, wellfare does not stimulate the economy, it takes more money out of it, and that contributes to debt (a lot like the more radical universal income proposals floating around). My general view on wellfare is to make it minimal so it encourages people to go out and work, or, instead, create public works projects to create jobs, and subsequently, a resume. Social programs in general tend to make taxes unnecessarily higher, and it encourages people to not only sit around and not work, but to abuse the sysyem and make it disproportionately unfair to the people who truly werent at fault and need it. My personal view is you have to try and put a sincere effort in life, we're at a point of arguably equal opportunity where thats way more possible (in America at least, I cant speak for other countries). Everyone has the chance to get ahead in life, given they make smart decisions (there are exceptions where people are screwed up, but for the marginal 95% of the time its very true).
 

Celticpride

Gotta have high, high hopes for a living
is a Top Team Rater Alumnusis a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
My general view on wellfare is to make it minimal so it encourages people to go out and work, or, instead, create public works projects to create jobs, and subsequently, a resume.
Believe it or not Democrats and lefties don’t want to send unnecessarily large sums of money to the poor, just the definition of minimal is different between the two.
Social programs in general tend to make taxes unnecessarily higher, and it encourages people to not only sit around and not work, but to abuse the sysyem and make it disproportionately unfair to the people who truly werent at fault and need it.
Very few people are incentivized to not work, people rely on jobs for more than income; it’s a source of pride and identity. A 19 yo might see the incentive to just cash the check but for older people, especially parents, there’s quite a few factors that make just taking a check extremely undesirable, chief among them respect among community and trying to provide the best life possible for their loved ones.
My personal view is you have to try and put a sincere effort in life, we're at a point of arguably equal opportunity where thats way more possible (in America at least, I cant speak for other countries).
Are you saying the US is at a point presently where sincere effort and “pulling yourself up by the bootstraps” actually matters? In an ideal world sure maybe that’s the case but the US is leagues away from that.
 

kilometerman

Banned deucer.
Depends. In certain sectors, generally newer ones, there are tons of opportunities for innovation and self-made men. Look at what happened to laser eye surgery for example But most sectors have just been near obliderated by decades of bottlenecking and regulations that there's no room for anything other than big businesses to thrive.
 
Believe it or not Democrats and lefties don’t want to send unnecessarily large sums of money to the poor, just the definition of minimal is different between the two.

Very few people are incentivized to not work, people rely on jobs for more than income; it’s a source of pride and identity. A 19 yo might see the incentive to just cash the check but for older people, especially parents, there’s quite a few factors that make just taking a check extremely undesirable, chief among them respect among community and trying to provide the best life possible for their loved ones.

Are you saying the US is at a point presently where sincere effort and “pulling yourself up by the bootstraps” actually matters? In an ideal world sure maybe that’s the case but the US is leagues away from that.
I agree to a very limited extent, but Im curious about your last counterpoint, because yes, the general reality is thats true. If you want to be successful, you have to be prepared to work hard, and thats very true across the board for everybody (although with Harvards current racist platform Id argue its unfairly scewed, but thats another topic). Now that does not mean everyone has the same starting point, but its very uneccesarily hard to pin point that and make it eaual playing field in that manner, because thats unpredictae and uncontrollable. Where equal opportunity is very present, in my opinion, is in school, and the ability to get a degree where your heart sees fit, and you have the opportunity to take advantage of that. And if not, vocational schools are there to help train for very capable blue collar jobs that can make sizable money. So, short, yes, equal opportunity is very existent, and the US is NOT leagues away from that in any sense.

While im about, ill tell you where I do have issues with the other things you said, but in all honesty that was my biggest gripe. The amount of money one can get in wellfare, yea your right, but if were talking an (estimated, probably more than even) 500k Americans relying on it, 1k a month, lets say, adds up preposterously. Otherwise, you are right with other regards to that point.

Youre 2nd point is a given, but not everyone does think like that, so that is where Id slightly disagree. Thats why theres cases that stupid people on wellfare have more kids to make more money without the need to work. That truly is screwed up. Theres a large sum of people that do take advantage of the wellfare system, and with the amount of money dumped into, its safe to say that is an issue. In a humanitarian society, I would love to think thats how all people would think, but its sadly not the case.

On a side not, I gotta say this is a good debate so far! :)
 
Last edited:

Diophantine

慈陰
is a Tutor
Ok, first off, wellfare does not stimulate the economy, it takes more money out of it, and that contributes to debt (a lot like the more radical universal income proposals floating around). My general view on wellfare is to make it minimal so it encourages people to go out and work, or, instead, create public works projects to create jobs, and subsequently, a resume. Social programs in general tend to make taxes unnecessarily higher, and it encourages people to not only sit around and not work, but to abuse the sysyem and make it disproportionately unfair to the people who truly werent at fault and need it. My personal view is you have to try and put a sincere effort in life, we're at a point of arguably equal opportunity where thats way more possible (in America at least, I cant speak for other countries). Everyone has the chance to get ahead in life, given they make smart decisions (there are exceptions where people are screwed up, but for the marginal 95% of the time its very true).
This is yet another conservative view I disagree heavily with. I can guarantee you that out of the unemployed, very few are not incentivised to work. It is patronising, ignorant and very much an armchair view. The only ones that do not want to work are those that can survive without work income (ie, trophy wives, children of incredibly rich people, people that make money off of investments like real estate, criminals, etc).
Most of the unemployed are looking for jobs, and we can observe this by looking at the statistics for the unemployed to job applications ratio. It is pride and survival on the line for them. In fact, you can only get jobseekers' allowance if you can prove that you are looking for a job.
 
This is yet another conservative view I disagree heavily with. I can guarantee you that out of the unemployed, very few are not incentivised to work. It is patronising, ignorant and very much an armchair view. The only ones that do not want to work are those that can survive without work income (ie, trophy wives, children of incredibly rich people, people that make money off of investments like real estate, criminals, etc).
Most of the unemployed are looking for jobs, and we can observe this by looking at the statistics for the unemployed to job applications ratio. It is pride and survival on the line for them. In fact, you can only get jobseekers' allowance if you can prove that you are looking for a job.
Well I have a couple stats to back my position up. Again, I heartfully wish people act the way you want them to think for the betterment of humanity, but, unfortunately, as I said prevously, it is sadly not true. Why? Well the first stat I have has to do with single motherhood. While employment rates have risen up, for single mothers, their general unemployment rate has also risen, from 47%-65%, more than half of all single mothers, in 15 years. That is pretty scary. Not only that, but in Vermont alone, someone on benefits not working can make $20.83 an hour. That to me is a ridiculous amount of money to not work, and frankly its substantially higher than the minimum wage. Now on a yearly basis, the pre-tax value of benefits in Vermont on a yearly basis is $42,350. For a frame of reference, the average middle class citizen in Vermont makes only about $10,000 more. I agree that people need to be incentivized to work, but giving more than minimum wage is not the way to do it. As for your previous point, that they can only recieve money if theyre looking for employment, thats another very hard factor to pinpoint, because people do lie and easily find ways around that. You can apply without submitting a resume, for instance, and that would count. But whose gonna hire you if you dont bother giving a resume out to purposely avoid getting hired? On top of that, why go for a minimum wage job when in states like Vermont, you can actually make more on welfare? The answer isnt raise the minimum wage substantially, because that actually gets LESS people hired (because you now cost more). Since I dont want to solve a problem without a solution, heres what I would personally propose:

1. Lower welfare.

2. Get more people enforcing welfare (ex: monthly check ups where people will personally come to your house to see progress and catch if youre trying to cheat the system). 2.5. Have a limit on the amount of money you get from having kids, lets say for our purposes the costs of 3 kids all together. You shouldnt be incentivized to have more kids for more money, thats highly immoral, and frankly, the kid does not deserve that.

3. More public works jobs, such as infrastructure, paid community-service, etc. And if you dont find a job on your own in a certain amount of time (and youre still recieving benefits), you can be forced into taking one of those said tasks above.

4. Stay out of poverty altogether. This may seem like an absurd accusation, but this backs it. There really are only 3 rules to be able to stay out of poverty a staggering 98% of the time: graduate high school, dont have kids until after youre married, and lastly, having a full-time job. Its as easy as it sounds.

 
Last edited:
  • Sad
Reactions: trc
Without trying to be aggressively patronizing that is a shockingly naive viewpoint
Well hold on, how so exactly, and are there stats that you have that disprove anything Ive said thus far? Only myself and one other person have actually presented sources, and Id say its pretty naive and downright hypocritical to call me that when you havent even given backing to really anything youve posted.
 
It is neither naive not hypocritical to observe that someone has a tinted view of the world and has expressed the views that there is no fundamental injustice in the legal and socioeconomic worlds that would justify social supports. It is also aggressively naive to believe that people who are in poverty can easily leave it if they so choose ignoring the realities of said situation that encourage and enforce intertia - this speaking as someone who in the past year has risen to the middle class from near the poverty line. While it is possible to live in reasonable comfort at a minimum wage - as a single, educated, healthy, white, male, with no dependents - each of those factors that gets impacted severely reduces the capacity for upward economic mobility as each incurred cost represents a significantly greater percentage of available income, to say nothing of the psychological factors and stress incurred by working multiple menial jobs just for paycheck to paycheck sustenance.

I'm mobile restricted at the moment so I cannot properly engage in the debate but many of the social positions you have stated are simply not compatible with the realities of the economy as it has grown since the post-post-depression period.
 

Celticpride

Gotta have high, high hopes for a living
is a Top Team Rater Alumnusis a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Well hold on, how so exactly, and are there stats that you have that disprove anything Ive said thus far? Only myself and one other person have actually presented sources, and Id say its pretty naive and downright hypocritical to call me that when you havent even given backing to really anything youve posted.
You presented quora as a source, which linked to a Vermont “think tank” blog post. The blog post read like a Econ 101 paper that was thrown together at the last minute. That’s far from a high quality source lol
 
It is neither naive not hypocritical to observe that someone has a tinted view of the world and has expressed the views that there is no fundamental injustice in the legal and socioeconomic worlds that would justify social supports. It is also aggressively naive to believe that people who are in poverty can easily leave it if they so choose ignoring the realities of said situation that encourage and enforce intertia - this speaking as someone who in the past year has risen to the middle class from near the poverty line. While it is possible to live in reasonable comfort at a minimum wage - as a single, educated, healthy, white, male, with no dependents - each of those factors that gets impacted severely reduces the capacity for upward economic mobility as each incurred cost represents a significantly greater percentage of available income, to say nothing of the psychological factors and stress incurred by working multiple menial jobs just for paycheck to paycheck sustenance.

I'm mobile restricted at the moment so I cannot properly engage in the debate but many of the social positions you have stated are simply not compatible with the realities of the economy as it has grown since the post-post-depression period.
Ok, youre starting to put words into my mouth here. Im also mobile restricted rn, so Im gonna tackle this briefly. Ill gladly go into more detail later on anything I say if need be.

1. I have never said once that its easy to get out of poverty, nor have I suggested that. It is hard to get out of poverty, and if you want to be, at the very least, upper middle class, you have to be willing to put the grind in if family members before you didnt earn it, which happens, and we cannot control that. I did say though that its not terribly hard to avoid poverty altogether (read #4 of my last post, that link was a great study done).

2. I agreed with you up until you said white male in the latter portion of ypur post. Please correct me if this is not what youre implying, but its seeming like youre using gender and race as factors towards the injustice your illuding to. That I strongly disagree with, those 2 factors are minimal, and its a lie to say you have any societal and systematic privileges because youre white and male. That all has to do with socioeconomic status, mental health, and disability, if any (Ill edit this part later when I can find the other factors). There are laws against hiring discrimination based on gender or race, and you can sue.

Celticpride34 ill gladly take a look and respond in a bit.
 

Asek

Genious to some... retard to most
is a Forum Moderator
Moderator
1. I have never said once that its easy to get out of poverty, nor have I suggested that. It is hard to get out of poverty, and if you want to be, at the very least, upper middle class, you have to be willing to put the grind in if family members before you didnt earn it, which happens, and we cannot control that. I did say though that its not terribly hard to avoid poverty altogether (read #4 of my last post, that link was a great study done).
so what youre proposing is a reduction in welfare which benefits those born into / living in poverty, suggesting they have to 'grind' to get themselves out of this situation, and thinking the best way to not live in poverty is to not fall into it in the first place when a large portion of those in poverty come from generations of living in such circumstance, compacted by the fact that social / economic mobility in most western countries has decreased dramatically (i want to say this decrease has been going on for a while but this reduction in social mobility has gotten a lot worse inbetween our paretns generation and ours, especially in america. dont have source on hand). your proposals seem to be at large odds with each other as far as im concerned. how are children in poverty meant to acquire education / knowledge enabling them to acquire the skills to have decent paying jobs in the labour force if the welfare they are receiving is being stripped back, putting further burden on their carers to have them as dependents and as such pressuring them into leaving education for work sooner? its all well and good to say the best way to avoid poverty is to never be in poverty in the first place but thats not a viable option for a large amount of those who find themselves born into those situations and your suggestion that 'its that simple' by doing those 3 things you posted comes across as patronising

in an era where inequality in developed countries is reaching levels not seen since before the world wars, i think any discussion of further stripping back welfare systems and other means to improve the distribution of wealth are just silly.

sorry if this is a bit of a word soup, tired


2. I agreed with you up until you said white male in the latter portion of ypur post. Please correct me if this is not what youre implying, but its seeming like youre using gender and race as factors towards the injustice your illuding to. That I strongly disagree with, those 2 factors are minimal, and its a lie to say you have any societal and systematic privileges because youre white and male. That all has to do with socioeconomic status, mental health, and disability, if any (Ill edit this part later when I can find the other factors). There are laws against hiring discrimination based on gender or race, and you can sue.
lol
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top