
Poverty is the new slavery - cdvonstinkpot
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-57476855/tavis-smiley-poverty-is-the-new-slavery/
======
kristianc
This is the written equivalent of poverty porn. It's obviously very well
written, but doesn't actually suggest any pragmatic solutions other than to
elevate the poor to the status of martyrs. The single call to action which it
does give conveniently isn't aimed at anyone at all. Whose responsibility is
it to make poverty a priority? Congress? The public? The rich?

Pieces like this just leave a bad taste in the mouth - it'll obviously help
shift copies of Mr. Smiley's book - but I'm not sure its going to do anything
for actual poor people. And if there's anything worse than massive social
inequality, its trying to make money off the back of it while masquerading as
some kind of social crusader.

------
jandrewrogers
Where does this idea come from that the percentage of total wealth controlled
by the extremely wealthy is unprecedented in American history? It would be an
interesting assertion except that anyone with even basic knowledge of American
history would know it is not true. This is not a value statement about the
facts, only an observation about the relative ignorance of people making this
claim. I thought they taught this stuff in school.

In fact, what is unprecedented is how little wealth the extremely wealthy
currently control. As a share of the GDP and total wealth, historical titans
such as Andrew Carnegie and John Rockefeller were vastly wealthier than anyone
alive now when adjusted for current dollars. In fact, the only American in
modern times that even approached the wealth of numerous historical figures is
Bill Gates.

I think there is a systemic problem creating an impoverished underclass but
the obvious ignorance around the claims of unprecedented concentrations of
wealth just grates.

------
agwa
The idea that poverty is slavery is not new. The notion of "wage slavery" is
nearly centuries old[1]. (People disagree whether it's appropriate to draw
parallels with chattel slavery, i.e. people as property.) This CBS News
article is really about the high rate of poverty and disproportionate
distribution of wealth in America today.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery>

------
DanielBMarkham
White is the new black, 50 is the new 40, and now poverty is the new slavery.

 _The fact that one percent of the nation's richest individuals control 42
percent of the nation's wealth is, to me, a stunning revelation in the wake of
a recession._

When you say things like this, you presuppose a world where we could take all
the money, put it in a pile, then share it equally. But such worlds do not
exist among systems of intelligent actors working in their best interests.

Poverty is a symptom, not a problem. The author doesn't go into what it's a
symptom _for_ , perhaps because such detailed analysis of how we got here is
beyond his ability, or perhaps he just wants to have a good lament and rant.
Don't know. But in either case, I got nothing from this aside from "bad things
suck"

~~~
toomuchcoffee
_Poverty is a symptom, not a problem._

Also, I'm not sure what observations could be offered in support of this
rather bold contention you're making here. Yet you seem to be stating it as if
it were something intuitively obvious, practically standing on its own merit.

------
kiba
_There are nearly 150 million poor and near-poor people in America who are not
responsible for the damage done by the Great Recession._

150 million poor and near-poor people, really? Nowhere in the article is the
definition of "poor" mentioned.

~~~
xxpor
That's half of the country, so I guess their definition is if you make less
than the median.

~~~
kiba
According to wikipedia:

 _According to the U.S. Census Bureau data released Tuesday September 13,
2011, the nation's poverty rate rose to 15.1% (46.2 million) in 2010,[2]_

Which mean the "near poor" people are lumped in with the poor population so
that it become somehow, 150 million people, which is about half of the
population of the US.

------
api
Debt is the new slavery (and often connected to poverty). It's the old company
town / company store model applied to the entire developed world.

~~~
_delirium
The model where you work to pay off a degree you only got into debt for
because you needed it to do the very same work does seem to be getting
uncomfortably close to at least a mild version of indentured servitude. In
indentured servitude, you worked to pay off the transit expenses needed to get
to the work (and then the housing expenses at the destination, which you
couldn't pay yet because you first had to pay for the transit).

That's one reason I'd rather have a state-funded university option provided,
instead of funding it retroactively via debt. Basically, the current
generation should fund the next generation's education, rather than loading it
onto them at the beginning of their careers as debt. Or, if student debt is
necessary, its repayment should be tied to income, so payment doesn't amount
to more than, say, 25% of someone's income per year.

Though in a way, that's still much better than being on the really low end,
because many college-degree holders do get okay jobs. If you've never driven
through some of the poorest parts of the American south, it's a quite
surprising experience, especially going off the highways into smaller towns.
In parts, doesn't feel very first-world at all, with whole stretches of people
living in what seem to be barely-standing-upright shacks.

~~~
natrius
What's wrong with people paying back the cost of their training to make money?
Why should other people be forced to pay to improve the lives of others?

There should be policies that protect students from making bad debt decisions
to pay for education that won't pay for the debt. Other than that, I don't see
student loans as a significant contributor to poverty.

~~~
_delirium
I generally believe that society should educate kids up to the level that
society expects of them to get a decent job. We don't ask kids to pay back the
cost of their K-12 education, for example, even though the cost is
substantial. And it's not clear to me that there's anything magical about the
age 18 as a cutoff (I mean, you can't even buy alcohol at that age! so clearly
we don't consider you an adult).

Either college should be purely a luxury, not needed for most jobs, or it
should be covered. I don't like the idea of people "starting out" with a big
pile of debt before they can even get to the workforce; that doesn't produce
any sort of level playing field. If anything, I'd support Thomas Paine's idea
that people should start out with a modest _positive_ net worth, granted upon
reaching adulthood, in recognition of the fact that everyone has equal right
of inheritance to at least a small portion of the existing wealth produced by
the country's previous generations.

To me, it's the responsibility of the current workforce to fund the next
generation's ability to reach it. I don't see anything wrong with funding
education from general taxes, in any case. It's one of the classic, almost
universally agreed upon things that a state should do, which even classical
liberal writers (e.g. Jefferson) were strongly in favor of publicly funding.

~~~
natrius
_"We don't ask kids to pay back the cost of their K-12 education, for example,
even though the cost is substantial."_

If it were possible for such a large amount of debt to be granted to a person
with no track record and structure it in a way that it could be reasonably
paid off, I'd be for individuals paying for their own education beyond what's
necessary to be an informed voter. I doubt that's possible, so everyone paying
it off over a lifetime via taxation isn't such a bad compromise.

After a certain point, however, the ability of a person to pay off their own
debt can be reasonably estimated, and we should let individuals pay for their
self-improvement rather than forcing everyone else to pay. In general, we
should strive to assign costs to those that benefit from them. Most of the
benefits for an education accrue to the student. Some accrue to society. Why
not pay for education using a similar breakdown?

 _"I don't like the idea of people "starting out" with a big pile of debt
before they can even get to the workforce; that doesn't produce any sort of
level playing field."_

Using taxes to pay for education guarantees that you'll be paying for
education until the day you die.

 _"To me, it's the responsibility of the current workforce to fund the next
generation's ability to reach it."_

I agree, but I'd say it a little differently. Successful people have a
responsibility to ensure that every person has a chance to be successful as
well. That said, I don't think such responsibilities should be mandated by
law. Putting someone in prison because they don't help other people become
successful sounds wrong.

~~~
_delirium
What are the advantages to your proposal? It seems like it would simply start
out everyone with a large burden, for what benefit? Lower taxes for the better
off? That seems like a poor tradeoff.

It could _almost_ be equivalent to my proposal if you limited the amount of
debt repayment to a percentage of income; then it'd be more like a tax you opt
into (if you go to the university, you opt into an extra 10% tax). Sweden does
something like that for a small portion of university fees. The main
difference between that and a normal tax is that the tax would have a cap,
which basically benefits the people who hit IPO jackpots and such. Again, I
don't see a benefit to that.

Mostly I don't see any benefit to all this accounting, unless it's a
roundabout way of making sure that people who hit outlier incomes don't have
to pay past a cap. Or is there some idea of libertarian "efficiency" that this
is all going to produce? I'm more of a social democrat, and think all this
extra accounting is what produces the inefficiency; just tax people and
provide public services, the way Denmark (where I currently live) does.

~~~
natrius
_"Or is there some idea of libertarian "efficiency" that this is all going to
produce?"_

There's efficiency to be had in aligning costs with benefits. As a society we
probably pay for more Classics degrees than we should. Beyond that, minimizing
the amount of money that is forcibly taken from people is inherently good.

I agree with the ends that most social democrats seek. I just think they
should be funded voluntarily, perhaps with some help from the government to
inform people where additional funds would lead to the greatest benefit. I
don't know if such a system would be practical, but it seems like the ideal we
should strive for instead of using force as a first resort.

~~~
angersock
_Beyond that, minimizing the amount of money that is forcibly taken from
people is inherently good._

You'll have to elaborate on this a little better, because it seems
misinformed. For example, it would suggest that saving Warren Buffet a billion
dollars while taking fifty grand from a hundred poor families is preferred.
And that's horseshit.

~~~
natrius
If Warren Buffet is currently having a billion dollars taken from him that
goes to a hundred poor families, stopping that is good. Would I rather
forcibly take some of Warren Buffet's money to feed some poor families instead
of letting them starve? Sure. But those aren't our only choices. Playing Robin
Hood is immoral and should be a last resort.

~~~
_delirium
I guess I don't see taxes as particularly immoral. Of all the things the state
can impose on people, having people who've already made some decent money chip
in a percentage for the common good seems low on the list. Even (unpaid) jury
duty seems more objectionable than that.

Though I do share some of your concerns about "force". I think criminal
sanctions are resorted to too quickly for a lot of things, both taxes and
other infractions (any time you lie to the government, or otherwise do
something it doesn't like). I'd rather emphasize civil remedies to collect.

------
tzs
"The fact that one percent of the nation's richest individuals control 42
percent of the nation's wealth is, to me, a stunning revelation in the wake of
a recession"

What percent of the wealth should the richest 1% control? Until someone can
posit some kind of somewhat reasonable answer to that, I don't see how we can
by stunned by whatever the actual figure is.

Unless everyone has an equal share of the wealth, so that there is no such
thing as rich people and poor people, it is MATHEMATICALLY REQUIRED that the
richest X% have >X% of the wealth, and if within each wealth range there are
some more wealth than others, then it is necessary that the ratio w(x)/x,
where w(x) is the percent of the wealth owned by the top x% be an increasing
function.

~~~
jandrewrogers
It is not just that, many people severely overestimate the net worth required
to put you in the "top 1%" just by working backward from the numbers. The best
estimates put the "top 1%" point at around $1.2-1.3M using the IRS's method of
calculation.

People with $1.2M in net worth are usually pretty middle class, especially in
the more expensive parts of the country. The bulk of the top 1% are hardcore
savers and small business owners. Not nearly as many fat guys with top hats
and cigars in the top 1% as is often implied.

------
andy_herbert
Poverty is like slavery in a very flippant sense. You only have to read some
of the first-hand accounts of human trafficking to get the sense of the
difference.

~~~
_delirium
Some of those human-trafficking accounts are related to poverty as well:
desperate people sometimes voluntarily sign up to human smuggling services
(e.g to get them across the US-Mexico or Turkey-EU border), with mixed and
often bad results. Many sex-trafficking cases are poverty-related also, not
all based on kidnapping random people.

Admittedly, that's not Americans in poverty.

~~~
kevinpet
Lots of terrorists use cell phones, so using a cell phone is terrorism?

~~~
toomuchcoffee
No, but _reductio ad absurdum_ is a poor argument technique.

------
natrius
The article claims that America's poor are being fleeced. I'm not sure I agree
with that. Rich people are paying less taxes than they used to, but it's hard
to make a case that the wealth of the poor has been forcibly redistributed to
the rich (predatory lending aside).

~~~
EliRivers
Didn't the country at large just drop enormous sums of money propping up
failed companies full of rich people?

Edit: Additionally, I think "wealth" and "money" are not the same thing and as
such any argument that the wealth of the poor is being unfairly taken cannot
be denied purely on the grounds that they don't pay much in tax. Their wealth
is being taken before they even see a monetary representation of it.

~~~
kevinpet
Since the poor and near-poor pay far less in taxes than the services they
receive, that's irrelevant.

The middle class and non-connected sort-of-wealthy are the ones getting
screwed by the bailouts.

Unless you assume that the poor have a right to what others earn (as opposed
to simply the right to not get screwed and exploited by the wealthy, as the
parent is talking about), then the poor have nothing to complain about as far
as bailouts go.

~~~
natrius
_"The middle class and non-connected sort-of-wealthy are the ones getting
screwed by the bailouts."_

They're still better off with the bailouts than they'd be without them. They'd
be even better off if policies that prevented the necessity of bailouts were
in place back then. I hope the policy changes since then have been enough.

~~~
Lazare
ENOUGH?! To a first approximation, there has not been _one_ policy change in
the US that will reduce the necessity of future bailouts.

(Basically, the single overwhelming issue is "too big to fail". To the limited
extent that this has been addressed at all by regulatory changes such as Dodd-
Frank, it has been to make the problem worse.)

~~~
natrius
Can you explain how the problem has been made worse? I used "hope" mainly
because I don't know the details.

------
monochromatic
Calling something slavery doesn't make it so. Statements like this are
ridiculous, and they also minimize the evils of _actual_ slavery.

------
kevinpet
If I wanted to read this kind of thing, I'd hang out on the front page of
Reddit. I come here for my news in the hope that even if it is a vacuous
political op-ed masquerading as sociology, there will be some sort of
technology connection.

------
netfire
Although our current poverty situation may be due, in part to income
inequality and policies that favor the wealthy. I think it has more to do with
how we deal with poverty, which is essentially to throw money at the problem
and hope it goes away.

I'm a big fan of helping people help themselves. Many people live in poverty
because of poor financial decisions or because they don't have skills to
succeed in the workforce, not because their taxes are too high. In fact our
current tax structure incentivizes people to stay in lower tax brackets
because as you start to earn more money, you have to pay a higher percentage
of your income to the government. I think the following changes would go a
long way to solving the poverty problem.

\- Focus on providing the basic needs (housing, food and medical attention) by
providing those goods and services to those in need instead of just giving
people money.

\- Stop giving loans (especially high-interest loans) to people who do not
have good credit. In my opinion the government should not allow loans to
consumers to have an more than 10% annual interest.

\- Stop using the IRS and tax policies as a welfare assistance program. They
are probably one of the worst entities able to determine if someone is really
in need.

As others have pointed out, American poverty doesn't really even compare to
situations of people in third-world countries. Poor in this article refers to
a statistic released by the census bureau, which best I could tell is
calculated using thresholds based on one's income and how many people live in
a household. Instead it should be based on whether someone is getting enough
to eat, has somewhere to live and can get medical treatment.

------
EliRivers
The United States will, I think, continue to see this for a long time. U.S.
internal propaganda is very effective at convincing people that they are not
so much poor as temporarily embarrassed millionaires, and as such political
movements to change the system against poverty are met with disapproval by the
people who need it the most.

------
AlumniFunder
This is a very valid point. There also seems to be a historical correlation of
wealth imbalances and great Recession/Depression.

I'm currently working on a crowdfunding (both equity and project) for
universities, because I believe that democratization of the venture capital
markets will be a good thing for America.

Like most things, the more data points (i.e., crowd investors), the more
rational and likely to succeed is the endeavor.

------
hollerith
>The fact that one percent of the nation's richest individuals control 42
percent of the nation's wealth is, to me, a stunning revelation in the wake of
a recession.

OK, but IMO disparities in income is a more relevant in a discussion of
poverty, and disparities in income in the US are not as high as disparities in
assets.

------
hnwh
Poverty is the old slavery too

------
toomuchcoffee
New? More like the same old, same old...

