it's not just about wages, it's about hours & job security too

You say nothing here. Can you show that Western European countries, despite their generous welfare systems, have greater underclass problems? Please refer to economic evidence.

I've merely stated the obvious: your original comment was nonsensical as America has a decidedly ineffective welfare system. You've then blubbered

 

More generous how?

The US spends $4 trillion a year on social welfare

 

Greater welfare payment which reduces poverty rates

 

But where would trillions more in revenue come from?

 

Notice these counties do not have trouble. You do, mind you, have to target progressivity and methods to reduce inequalities

 

Correlation does not imply causation, as they say. It's easier to provide these benefits when there's fewer poor people in the society as a ratio of the population. Which of course is kind of ironic, since people in poorer societies have more need for these benefits than people in wealthier societies.

What you were trying to say would sort of be as asinine as saying rich people have expensive cars, so let's encourage the poor to buy expensive cars. After all, people who own expensive cars tend to do well financially.

 

You're going around in circles. They have lower poverty because of the effectiveness of.welfare policy.

Cobblers! I'm stating the obvious: progressivity is crucial as a means to ensure a fairer society which generates genuine economic choice.

 

Yes of course, a person should always be trying to better their personal circumstances. But it's also important for us to recognize as a society that some people have limited options.

Of course personal responsibility comes into play here, but also I think we need to recognize that when the level of difficulty is so high to be able to attain something, there is a problem. And so some people get trapped.

The real issue is there's an oversupply of labor relative to demand for that labor, and so employers pretty much get to dictate the terms, especially on the lower end of the labor market.
If they want someone to be available to work any time of the week, but don't want to have to employ that person full time, they can get that. Even if the worker doesn't like that arrangement. That could basically force the worker into part-time status and prevent them from being able to have a second part-time job. Employers are demanding not only their part-time worker's time but also their availability any day of the week, any time. And some employees have no choice but to take that.

Effectiveness of welfare policy isn't the only factor in amount of poverty.

It seems you're imagining government can change economic reality with a simple change in policy decision.

It goes both ways. The ability to have better welfare policy is dependent on the overall wealth in that society, and inversely dependent on the number of poor people in that society, since obviously it's going to be difficult to have better welfare policy when there are more poor people.

 

You have no argument. I've referred to the importance of redistribution. I've also referred to the known international comparison: the poverty reduction from welfare policy in the US is pitiful

 

Yes, so the US is now focusing on other types of policies.
Surely you don't believe welfare is the main policy by which to reduce poverty.

 

Again, you're going around in circles. Redistribution generates real economic choice (e.g. greater firm creation and higher self employment rates). Welfare is a crucial part of that. We have immediate post-scheme poverty alleviation and we have long term change in the income distribution.

But hey, if you want to suggest the US would be better off with socialism...

 

Yes, trying to raise wages would be one strategy. But the subject of this thread is that may be only half of the equation.
If there are minimum wage protection laws perhaps there should also be protection laws that employers cannot expect their low-wage workforce to be on call anytime they feel like it. That basically monopolizes the employee's schedule so they can't have a second part-time job somewhere else.

A lot of low wage workers are trapped in that situation.

 

Eliminating low wages would require strong unions (encouraging long term labour relations). Note also you still can't ignore welfare policy. More generous welfare, instead of subsidisation of low wages, eliminates the forced supply of cheap labour. Firms have to adopt efficiency enhancing policy, such as upskilling.

 

They certainly have trouble.

The average European is drastically worse off than the average American.

 

If we fix poverty threshold according to the US definition, what do we find? The US has higher povert, except for the UK (which also adopts full blown neoliberalism)

 

On a basis of purchasing power, the average American vastly outpaces the average European. Without supporting evidence I won't take your word for it that the US has higher poverty levels than the European average.

When left to their own devices, man naturally meets his needs far greater than government could ever imagine. The only reason socialism has a prayer is because so much of it is intertwined into the US system that it appears, on the surface, that socialism is viable.

 

For an example of international comparison check out Smeedings work. I'm sunning it today so haven't checked the full reference, but try Poor People in Rich Nations.

From the first days of these forums I've had the 'our poor are richer than your rich' line. Analysis offered by the Luxembourg Income Study shows that's a myth.

 

I would never insinuate that America's poor is more well off than your rich, as that's obviously a ludicrous statement made by a fool. I will admit that I was sloppy in saying average, as that's a poor choice of words. I meant median purchasing power, in which the median American vastly outstrips the median European.

 

I believe we should solve simple poverty in our at-will employment State through more faithful execution of our at-will employment laws. Persons should have recourse to unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed in our at-will employment States.

 

I've traveled extensively in Europe, enlisted in the US Marine Corps because as a dual US/German citizen I was obligated to meet the requirements of German conscription, and have a true love for French, German, and Italian food.

Your reference to Smeedings study was, by all accounts, impeccably academic and worthwhile. I was looking for obvious bias, yet found none, beyond it being quite outdated. As a young adult quite a bit has changed in my lifetime, and I understand that poverty is a very relatively term that can't be truly compared(as Smeedings made quite obvious) across nations, let alone regions.

So on this particular subject I'll admit that you're probably right-with my definition of poverty being horribly skewed having been born into it and then launching myself into the upper echelons-as I have an inherent bias.

 

Teachers crying that it takes them 10 years to make $40,000 a year (for the record, I'm not really blaming them for it):

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/31/us/oklahoma-teachers-profiles/index.html

(CNN)Craig Troxell steps precariously across a customer's roof, marking hail damage from yet another Oklahoma storm. He still smells of the freshly cut grass from the swanky side of town, where he had just mowed lawns to make a few extra dollars.

But Troxell, 50, isn't a landscaper nor roof salesman by trade. He's a full-time high school science teacher who works four jobs to make ends meet.
"Teacher morale gets worse every year," said Troxell, who also drives a school bus before and after school. "I've heard a lot of my (teacher) acquaintances walk away and get a different job. They don't want to do it anymore."

...
*****

Personally, being self-employed, I am under that yearly amount, and I am subject to the insane self-employment tax to boot. On the flip-side, I don't put in very many hours to do my work, and it's at home with no added job expenses beyond maintaining a good computer and internet access.

I don't think I would personally feel incentivized to be a teacher at those wages, either. It would really have to be a passion for me to do that work at that level of income, because it's bound to be a lot of work and a lot hours and stress. What is going on with wages in this country? I think this all perfectly exemplifies the problem of the growing wealth-divide, with a few having mega fortunes while everyone else continues to see earnings stagnate or even shrink, and with them benefits and job security. Our system screws the working class as it stands today, and yet it also screws employers! No one has it easy. No one but the critters in Washington and the 1%..

 

A neat summary!

 

I think a lot of people make the mistake of thinking that the wealthiest ones, the "1%," are also employers. They aren't, though. They're the people who ultimately own the employers, the companies that actually do the grunt work.

 

Unemployment compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, can solve simple poverty in our Republic.

 

True! One of my mates went to the wall and lost his firm. He referred to how 'focused power' destroyed its chances, despite being a creative and productive outfit.