On 2/7/2012 8:03 PM, Schweik wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:40:40 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 2/7/2012 5:27 AM, wrote:
On Feb 7, 1:22 am, Jeff wrote:

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.

Neither did the rich. What is your point? Lots of things have changed,
usually for the better, over the past 112 years, even for the poor. The
poor of today are better off than the poor of 1900, just like everybody
else is. So what?

My point is that Hawke is wrong when he says there has been no
change. If you use constant standards, the poor today are well off.
But if you say the poor is the fifteen percent of the population that
has the lowest income, there is no way to change things. There will
always be people that make less than others.

Dan



Of course things have changed over the course of hundreds of years. But
someone living in a 20' trailer with a small flat screen and the other
things that come with it has all the modern conveniences from hot
running water to a microwave and a computer but he's still poor. Compare
him to a rich person in the mid 1800s who has non of those things but
has a lot of wealth. You could take a Texas cattle rancher of the late
1800s and he's got none of the things today's guy in the trailer has.
But he's got a big ranch house, thousands of acres of land, and all
kinds of livestock and equipment. He's got no micro, no computer, no hot
running water, and has an outhouse. So who is poorer?

No doubt the guy in the trailer is poorer than the guy with the big
cattle ranch but the guy in the trailer has all the modern conveniences.
It's like comparing apples to oranges. Point is you can have all of
today's modern conveniences but you are still poor and I think you know
what that means.

Hawke

So what you are telling us is the poor folks have housing, food,
entertainment, and all the other amenities to live and that is still
not enough?

In other words, it is a simple matter of seeing the rich man drive by
in his big car and feeling jealousy because he has the big black sedan
and all you have is the pickup truck.

That's pretty much what he's saying; he can't be saying anything else.

As Dan said above, if you define the poor as the bottom X percent of
income, whatever percentage "X" is, then there will always be poor
people. They might have everything Hawke-Ptooey thinks they "need", but
he'll still say they're poor and, more to the point, "doing badly."
Yes, if the poor are defined as those at or below the X percentage level
of income, then they'll still be poor...but they won't be doing badly.