More Americans Die of Poverty than Terrorism
 

Source

The rest is at the source. Even adding in our soldiers deaths to those of civilians, it appears that poverty would 'win' any numbers battle.

The author blames military spending, I'm not sure I know what the answer is. I'm not really surprised at the numbers, but this is the first time I'd seen the comparison.

Meh, too bad the military isn't just for fighting terrorism or he'd have a better case. I'm a fan of cutting off all international aid and spending the money here on our own people instead.

Yeah that disconnect made the point not work for me as well, although it tends to be lumped under "war on terror."

I did find this if anyone else has the patience for 5 parts. But essentially our cost overrun alone is more than the entire EU's defense budget and something like 3x China's military budget.

Even if the military doesn't just fight terrorism, it's still a good place to look at cutting funding.

And they do, but the question of how much should we cut always comes into play. The U.S. military has a much smaller footprint now then we had during the Cold War, but the fact that a current gen fighter jet or Navy ship costs about 8x more to develop and build today then it did 30 years ago negates any sort of cost savings there.

I've heard speculation that China's military spending is slated to exceed the U.S.'s within 15 years.

But you recall when there was a big to do about cutting old planes from the budget that no one uses anymore? The military didn't want them but Boeing(?) and others fought to keep them in the budget. I think there's more obvious fat there then we give credit for, but the congressmen and senators from those states don't want to lose the business. I get that, but that's not a good way to budget military money.
Possible, but that's a HUGE step. If, per Mother Jones' analysis our overrun is about 15% of our budget, then we spend 20x China does on the military (not including Homeland Security, classified intelligence budgets, or Veteran's Affairs.) That's beyond huge. I wonder what numbers are being used. The Mother Jones analysis points out that the official budget is around 500 billion but Congress authorizes another 300+billion on top of that. We're closer to 1trillion on defense spending than anyone would like to be I think.

This article states that China's growth is about 10% a year although this year it was only about 7.5%. Even arguing that it's really at least 10% a year, they couldn't come close to us. Is China big bunch of liars? Well that's possible too I suppose.

I think, somewhat bizarrely, that military budget issues are kind of in the same boat as bank bailouts and health care: the issues are so deep and the structure so entwined with everything else that it would be very difficult to scrap it and start over with something more efficient and effective (even if that would be the ideal solution).

So we're kind of left polishing the turd that is the military/industrial complex. I can't imagine there isn't a bunch of fat in the military budget (really, in any 800+ billion budget), but I'm not sure what can be done about it.

As far as the article: it's kind of like saying more Americans die of poverty than from falling off cliffs, since there just aren't that many military deaths in comparison to the larger population (even in wartime), but I hadn't seen the argument put to the numbers like this before so it's definitely interesting. I'm sure throwing money at poverty problems isn't the ideal solution, but (ironically) if I had the actual answers to the deep-rooted causes of poverty, I'd be a richer man.

I'd like to see some way to divorce the politics from the budgeting. I know it's impossible, but we shouldn't be fighting to keep bases or planes purely on the grounds that it affects someone's constituency or major donors. I think that's a bad way to run the military budget.

I think there are people who do know where that fat is, and they're either not interested, or hamstrung from the politics or not in the position to affect it.

The numbers are what made the point strike home for me, and I know there's not a single answer or an easy answer, but surely there's something we can do differently. Honestly I find it appalling that people in this country die of hunger or because they couldn't afford medical treatment. Poverty shouldn't be the reason people die. Despite the fact that it happens the world over, we actually have the resources to do something about it.

Of course not, but there's something between where we are now and "throwing money at it" isn't there? Even if we personally don't have the answers.

"Nickel and Dimed" is a good read when considering poverty in America. It is key to note that the poverty line is calculated on food and clothing costs primarily- it does not take into account housing costs. And with the recent housing crisis- demands on rental properties are extremely high, making it even worse for renters. Suffice to say, the number of people living in poverty is far greater than the official numbers tell.

Co-sign.

How bout we combine the two subjects? Let's draft the poverty stricken into the military thereby using military funds to house/clothe/feed/pay the poor. Yay. I win. Me for president in 2010.

But in all seriousness I agree with what KSUViolet says, just sending someone a food stamp or a stipend every month isn't going to end poverty; To start we need better paying jobs for people.

Terribad idea.;)

We really need the whole gamut in my opinion, services, jobs, education, healthcare, all of it.

The military actually helps a lot with fighting poverty. It provides some of the best middle class jobs around, not to mention the fact that it's probably the only really good job option for most young lower class unskilled workers.

As for Nickel and Dimed, I found the entire premise to be ridiculous. It's required reading at my wife's school, but really--it's just about some PhD bitching about her low-wage job. She misses the whole point as to what low wage jobs are. They're low wage because the employer can get away with paying that wage. No one owes you anything. You either continue to work in work you find "degrading," which is such bullshit, nothing about cleaning toilets is degrading, it's honest work, most of us on GC have probably had to clean toilets at jobs we had in high school/undergrad. You either work that job forever or you work that job until you can build up a skill set someone values more.

The government is not going to fix poverty with entitlement programs. It'll possibly make poverty more palatable or even desirable, but it won't fix it.

That said, I do wish that the Air Force had to have bake sales to build its bombers instead of schools having to engage in that activity to buy textbooks.

Hmmm, who is more likely to be missing the point about low-wage jobs, someone who has one for a living, or Kevin.

Oh, I know the answer to this one.

Seriously, if you think poverty is ever desirable in any country including those with far more comprehensive assistance than we provide, you're an idiot. And if you think that everyone who works low wage jobs should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps and then they'd get ahead, you're an idiot.

:)

I disagree with much of this.

I agree with this.

So pull up your damned pants!

The military is great for people who don't have a lot of economic options in their hometowns. I've been told, " The only job in town was the mine/farm/factory and they weren't hiring." when asking guys why they joined.


You can use the skills and knowledge you learn while serving to give you that leg up but....... You have to utilize it, which a lot of people don't do causing them to end up in the same shitty situation they were in before they enlisted.

Or we need to get rid of the governments intervention in the marketplace which has caused poverty.

That would be a start.

(and Nickel and Dimed lacked logic, perspective, and consistency. It was just bad.)

How does the government create poverty through marketplace intervention? In a truly "free market" would there be 0 government intervention? Is a minimum wage a government intervention that should be abolished?

Minimum wage is an example of government intervention in the marketplace. It propagates racism of the worst kind, denies the least educated/experienced the opportunity to gain education/experience, increases unemployment, and marginalizes the poorest.

So, yes that would be one of them.

@ the bold: How so? Not being snarky. I'm genuinely curious why you feel that way.

Without a minimum wage what would stop the underpayment of workers when there is high unemployment?

Are two jobs that pay $3.00 an hour actually better than 1 that pays $6.00 an hour?

Racism
Walter E. Williams came up with this simple work in theory:

If you went to a restaraunt and on the menu, you saw that the filet mignon and the hamburger was the same price. Naturally, you would prefer the higher grade dish -- the filet mignon. One would normally be hesitant to purchase the filet mignon due to the price. But when they are the same price, there is no reason not to.

Now apply this concept to the archetypal "racist white business owner" who has the ability to hire either a white person or a black person, who are both of equal strengths, weaknesses, education, etc. A black person who may come from a more disadvantaged community is likely to work for less in order to prove themselves and move through the ranks. When both are on the same wage scale (a minimum wage), there is no opportunity cost for racism and the "racist white business owner" can quickly hire the white worker with no qualms in his business sense.

Hate to quote a musician, but from one country-rock band:
"Ain't about no cotton fields or cotton picking lies
Ain't about the races, the crying shame
To the fucking rich man all poor people look the same"

Allegedly, African-American and white unemployment was practically equal before minimum wage. While that does not mean that minimum wage necessarily caused the disparity, I haven't ventured a guess at another cause.

denies the least educated/experienced the opportunity to gain education/experience
This is quite simple. The least experienced would (at least theoretically) be willing to work for less in order to gain employment and thus gain experience and eventually gain a greater wage. Thus, the minimum wage acts as an entry-barrier into the work marketplace.

You would have to define underpayment.

That decision isn't mine, it's the workers.

I feel minimum wage does in a way prevent companies to take abuse of those who have no other options than to take the "minimum wage" jobs. If there was no lower limit, they would just pay whatever they wanted to pay. Off course there are companies who do pay their employees well and treat them with respect, but for most, it's profits before people.

Wait, so because a minimum wage doesn't let a racist employer pay black people less, it's the law that's the problem?

How would the alternative, hiring only minorities and paying them less than white people be any better? And the origin of minimum wage dates before civil rights, the odds that minority unemployment was being adequately counted and that the wars didn't have a huge impact seems unlikely. How would this not bring back sweatshops?

Why is the assumption that the employer would eventually pay the worker better? Why not fire the employee and hire someone else at a cheaper wage if they caused a fuss.

Interesting.

I'm glad you qualified that with "in theory," since minimum wage doesn't exist in a vacuum. Other things (affirmative action, etc) help to mitigate situations like this.

I am not getting this point, though. Minimum wage in and of itself doesn't act as a barrier -- it's actions like the one in the previously quoted section. Hiring someone on at minimum wage does not prevent that person from gaining experience and moving up within the company.

Obviously, companies are concerned about the bottom line. I think that the "high end" (for lack of a better term) jobs seem to realize the importance of work-life balance and employee retention more than "low end" ones do. This doesn't have anything to do with minimum wage, though.

I was questioning that as well.

^^I should edit that to say "in America." New Zealand had minimum wage long before we did for example.

When it doesn't allow them to pay less, that means they're unemployed.

Unemployment is the problem as it further marginalizes minorities by making it difficult to acquire workplace skills as well as drops their income to zero.

Give them the ability to be unemployed, while gaining on the job experience and also possibly overcoming racism through interaction (ideally).

Possibly. But the mountains of recent evidence at least points to current time. Whether or not it has historically happened, doesn't really matter if the correlation is there now. Especially the ones where the increase in minimum wage increases minority unemployment, which shows correlation nearly every time.

Here's an example article:
http://epionline.org/news_detail.cfm?rid=180

But there are alot more. I'm not sure why this is so difficult for y'all. While economics can't be absolutely established because of the human element that lies within, these theories are as close to it as possible.

If workers are interested in working in sweatshops, how is that a bad thing?

So what?

How does minimum wage not act as a barrier? If someone has absolutely no experience doing something, one could theoretically (without minimum wage) be hired for two or three dollars in order to gain experience needed. But, when minimum wage exists, this person would not be hired in order to gain said experience.

And another reference to racism is that within the unions. Many unions were established in South Africa to establish wage floors which kept out blacks. While I'm not saying that all unions act as such today, it is an easily understood example of the power of a wage floor in maintaining economic power status quo.

What is stopping someone who has no experience from being hired at minimum wage*? Almost all minimum wage jobs are entry level, so I'm not getting this argument.

*Think of this in "pre-recession" terms, as the state of the economy has obviously changed things.

I don't know....tell me what the unemployment rate is again?

So you're saying that there is absolutely no one looking for a job at the entry-level...

You're looking at it from a minimum wage prospective. Look at our unemployment rates. It's clear that something IS stopping someone with "no experience" to gain an entry-level job. What do you think that something is?

Isn't minimum wage the topic being discussed? :confused:

And when did I say that people aren't looking for entry level jobs?

I'm reading your argument as "if companies can't hire you for pennies, they won't hire you at all." This doesn't makes sense, since minimum wage existed pre-recession when our unemployment rate was much lower.

ETA: I think the thing that's stopping people from getting job is the influx of job seekers. People who are used to making well above minimum wage are scrambling trying to get minimum wage jobs, but the applicant pools have swelled. This is not an effect of minimum wage in and of itself.

If companies could pay, say, $3/hour to applicants, that doesn't mean that they'd hire more people. That just means they'd be getting cheap labor. That wouldn't have a massive effect on unemployment.

I think the assumption that employers will hire more people at lower wages instead of the same number of people at lower wages is an optimistic one on behalf of anti-minimum wage proponents.

EW if you're anti-minimum wage and anti-TANF and other welfare/entitlements... what are you going to do with someone who now might be working but doesn't make enough to eat? Or feed their kid? Or pay rent?

I highly recommend Morgan Spurlock's Minimum Wage episode of 30 days. As it is, a couple working on minimum wage can hardly support themselves assuming nothing bad happens. Then comes the ER bill for an infection or injury.

As he's pretty much a libertarian, I imagine he'd say that's not the government's problem.

Well that's why I was asking, so we let people starve? Kids starve? Bring back workhouses and mass orphanages? Debtor's prison? I don't get it. At all.

From a strictly economic perspective, artificial price ceilings and floors creates a dead weight loss in any market, even a labor market.

Not that I don't support a minimum wage. It just makes the market less efficient.