Wealthy America?!?

[Alex H]

Originally posted by Biggles@31 March 2004 - 19:46
The ideal, therefore, is for all ones competitors to pay high domestic salaries and for ones own company to have outsourced to a village in Tibet. Thus the market will be cash rich and ones product will be the most cost competitive (if perhaps smelling somewhat of Yak).

That is not the true capitalist ideal. Much of what goes on in business today is not capitalist driven, it is greed driven.

If you take a look back to some of your great American capitalists, that is the men who defined modern capitalism, their aim was to sell products that increased the quality of life to such an extent that their customers were financially comfortable enough to continue buying their products.

Henry Ford for example paid his workers more than he had to, for the simple reason that by having well paid employees and an efficient production process (run by those employees) every one of the people who worked at Ford were able to buy the cars they made, which meant he would be able to sell that many more cars.

A true capitalist realizes that with the enormous power they have (money) they have to be responsible membrs of the community. Bill Gates is one of the few rich people now who is following the ideal, by giving away computers to kids who will be relying on them for the rest of their lives, and donating money to other worthy causes.

Names like the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation will always be synonymous with great weath, built on the American Dream, and still do great works for the community years after their founders have passed away.

So if you have a plan to become filthy rich which does not include giving your money away to create a better world, you're not a capitalist, you're just f*cking greedy.

[j2k4]

There are signs of actual understanding in the previous post!

Well done, Alex.

Philanthropic, altruistic entrepeneurialism.

They're not all evil.

[alpha]

Originally posted by Biggles@31 March 2004 - 19:49
I would tend to agree that it is relative poverty that counts here.

However, the poverty that really gets people down is not the relative poverty of living in a poor area of the US to, say, living in a poor area of Madras. The real issue that is in the faces (if I may use an Americanism) of the poor of, for example, LA is the wealth of those in LA.

It is hard to look on the bright side if you are struggling to put petrol in your car as someone drives by in a Rolls. Relative deprivation is what causes unrest, street riots and crime. People do not (on the whole) riot etc., because they think someone in France has a nicer life style.

The poor may envy the rich, but, by and large, their aspiration is not simply to be at the bottom of the pile somewhere else where the dung may be a little less smelly. Those that re-locate have aspirations to drive the Rolls not stand in the social security line. Consequently, once the difficulty of "making it" becomes apparent, deviant routes to success through crime etc., pull the lazy and weaker-willed off course.

If you were to bring a "poor" person from my country(India) to the US and give him the lifestyle of a "poor" person there, I think he would be quite content. His children might feel otherwise. Social inequality is not an issue to one who is in such a state of destitution as is seen over here.

The problem with the term poverty is that it is a relative term. A century from now it is quite possible that I would be considered extremely poor based on my comforts or the perceived lack of them.

[Alex H]

Originally posted by j2k4@1 April 2004 - 05:21
There are signs of actual understanding in the previous post!

Well done, Alex.

Aww, gee! Thanks J2k4. I didn't know you cared

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Alex H+31 March 2004 - 23:38--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Alex H @ 31 March 2004 - 23:38)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@1 April 2004 - 05:21
There are signs of actual understanding in the previous post&#33;

Well done, Alex.

Aww, gee&#33; Thanks J2k4. I didn&#39;t know you cared [/b][/quote]
It is quite possible that you will never know how much, Alex.

[Alex H]

I feel all warm and fuzzy on the inside now.

Thanks

[FuNkY CaPrIcOrN]

Off to MCDonalds to get .50 cent CheeseBurgers.About 10 of them.


Gob Bless America&#33;

[alpha]

Originally posted by FuNkY CaPrIcOrN@1 April 2004 - 08:25
Off to MCDonalds to get .50 cent CheeseBurgers.About 10 of them.


Gob Bless America&#33;

Hah&#33; They&#39;re cheaper here B)

[UnOwen1]

Originally posted by alpha@30 March 2004 - 23:56

- Forty-six percent of all "poor households" actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

- Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

- Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

- The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

- Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.

- Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

- Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

- Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

“Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family&#39;s essential needs.”


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“ In good economic times or bad , the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year. (emphasis added) That amounts to 16 hours of work per week.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Source: Robert E. Rector and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D. “Understanding Poverty in America”, The Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

Damn&#33; I wish I was a poor man in America

I am curious to know what any Americans think of these stats. A few people I know that have been to the US tell me that its portrayal in movies is inaccurate and that some places are as bad as in India.

Owning a home in america is actually a misnomer. The statistics you quote is actually double-speak for the percentage of americans who have entered into a contract to PURCHACE a home. This can take up to 30 years, If at all. The percentage of americans who actually OWN A HOME (like me, shack as it may be)is more like 12%. and then you never really own it anymore. Miss 3 tax payments, and YOU ARE HISTORY..

[clocker]

Originally posted by UnOwen1@1 April 2004 - 02:59

Owning a home in america is actually a misnomer. The statistics you quote is actually double-speak for the percentage of americans who have entered into a contract to PURCHACE a home. This can take up to 30 years, If at all. The percentage of americans who actually OWN A HOME (like me, shack as it may be)is more like 12%. and then you never really own it anymore. Miss 3 tax payments, and YOU ARE HISTORY..

Just so.
Indeed, many Americans really don&#39;t "own" their cars or any of the big ticket items in their possession...they were purchased on credit.

Credit may be a wonderful thing ( I personally don&#39;t think so), but it leads to the loss of the most important item of all...the freedom to control your future.
Carrying a giant debt load means that you must consider your ability to make payments above any other priority.