|
|
|
|
|
|
by pwnstigator
6028 days ago
|
|
|
One worked for a harvesting company and received a good salary. Another did long distance trucking. All of these are “low paying” jobs, yet in the USA they receive excellent salaries. That's not poverty. Not even close. You do not have a problem with this, because you do not fall in the top tax bracket. That is the “not me” phenomenon in action. I probably will. Again, you view any money an individual makes as a gift from society. This is not so. For a voluntary transaction (where there is no coercion) no one owes a third party anything. Society enables that transaction to happen. What happens if people stop doing their jobs? Shops close down, infrastructure fails, and no one can get any work done. Those transactions can't happen, because people can't get in to work. The qualities of Universities in these countries are much lower than countries such as the United States. That's because the US put a lot of money into universities/research in the 1940s-60s, which attracted a lot of talent. It's self-perpetuating, for now. |
|
|
In the USA even an unskilled person can get a fairly good job (as the above example shows). How exactly do you then have severe poverty (like the thing you talk about) when even unskilled people get work?
In my country you are dirt poor even if you work 8 hours a day. What you label poverty is not poverty at all. They show photos of poor Americans – eating a McDonalds hamburger.
I ate my first hamburger at a shop when it was my birthday. Poor people usually eat staple foodstuffs (not McDonalds).
> What happens if people stop doing their jobs? Shops close down, infrastructure fails, and no one can get any work done.
Shops stay open because the shop owner sells his goods for a profit. An open shop is not a gift from society; it is a shop-owner acting in self-interest by selling things for a profit. The same goes for people working in infrastructure (e.g. those employed by municipal roads agencies, etc…). As soon as people stop doing their jobs (as unionists often like to do) they stop getting paid.
Except in the basic income grant world that many of the left like to live.
> That's because the US put a lot of money into universities/research in the 1940s-60s, which attracted a lot of talent.
Not really. One reason is that the USA has high tuition fees that enable good universities. If people pay the tuition fees themselves they are more inclined to actually work (instead of the 4 years of party in many countries). You also have private universities (which are not government funded) which are very good.