On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:04:27 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 2/5/2012 2:02 PM, wrote:
On Feb 5, 1:25 pm, wrote:



In 1900 there were a whole lot of poor people in the United States. In
the year 2000 there are a lot of poor people in the United States. So
whatever has been done to change that it hasn't had much effect. The
economic system is capitalism. If in the "richest" free market country
in the world you still have as many poor as you did a hundred years ago
what does that say about the ability of capitalism to provide a decent
lifestyle to everybody?


Hawke

The poor in 1900 did not have cell phones, HD televisions, cars,
microwave ovens, and such. The poor in 2000 have all of those things.

My father was born in 1898. His family was not poor, but they did not
have electricity, running water, a car, or flush toilets.

Dan



Lots of people seem to have a problem with this. They equate what life
is today with what it was like many years ago and don't understand that
life has changed radically between then and now. Today we have all kinds
of things they didn't have 100 years ago; TV, Aircraft, cars, computers,
microwave ovens, cellphones, etc., in other words, new technology they
lacked. Today most everyone in the U.S. has access to all these things
but they're still poor.

So having access to modern technology does not mean no one is poor. As
Sean Hannity has said, poor people have flat screen TVs, microwave
ovens, cars, cell phones, and computers so are they really poor?

I know if I wanted to I could get a cellphone for 29 bucks, a used
computer and microwave for a couple hundred, or less. A junky car can be
had for very little if you know what you are doing too. So for a very
small amount of money you can have all the things the rich people have.
But you don't. The difference between what the rich have and what the
poor have is huge. So even though you may watch TV on a Flat screen in
an apartment with heat, running water, plumbing, and you have a cell
phone and computer you still are poor. You're a lot better off than the
guy living 100 years ago in a tenement building with none of those
things, which didn't exist at the time. But you're still poor. Because
the difference between being rich and poor is a relative term. Always
has been and always will be. Living standards have improved but poor is
still much different than rich in any era.

Hawke

The problem is that when you say POOR PEOPLE you are really saying
that they are in the lowest 15% of the population. However that
doesn't really mean anything if you have a hand phone, TV, computer,
housing, enough to eat, does it really mean that he is poor?.

Or are you simply saying that they are poor in relation to the posh
American life style. I remember considerable discussion on this group
about "My dishwasher stinks". Is a dish washer really an important
accessory to life. Does it mean that the lack there of is an
indication that you are poor?

The fact that someone else has a yacht, houses in Bermuda and Aspen
and two cars in the garage simply means that they are better off then
the poor people but isn't really meaningful when you talk about the
"Poor People".

Is it really meaningful to bitch because, although one has all the
amenities to live comfortably, that he is somehow deprived because he
doesn't have the house in Aspen?

Or is that simply jealousy?

The fact that someone else has more or less then I do is immaterial to
a discussion of whether I am rich or poor.

cheers,

Schweik