http://www.bbc.co.uk/...ence-environment-17340168

"Three billion people living on less than $2.50 a day."

there are places where people can live on $2.50 a day?
can their drunk alcoholic smokers survive on $7.50 a day?

? give them coal to use as an energy source? I'm guessing this group isn't going to propose.

"can there drunk alcholic smokers survive on 7.50 a day?" you looking for a cheap party place?

contemplating where i'm going to live if i actually retire before i drop dead.

if you find somewhere where a white man can live like a king that has quality wine and preferably toasted tobacco, all for seven fifty a day, count me in..

It's impossible to both "retire" and survive off of that amount of money.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

lol, but if almost 1/2 the world's population is doing it, then why can't i do it too? oh, maybe you mean i need to spend $10 a day to live and get tobacco and booze.

or maybe you feel that it's impossible because of the healthcare costs that would be incurred if i was old enough to retire. how much do retirees have to spend on drugs and healthcare just so they can live long enough to enjoy their retirement?

i dunno where but there must be plenty of third world countries u could drink cheap booze and smoke all day for $2.50

i'm guessing most countries in africa, but the question is being held hostage and ransomed for millions of dollars

Actually, when I said you couldn't "retire" I was referring to the fact that everyone living on that amount of money is essentially a subsistence farmer. They only eat a couple staple items, and they grow those themselves.

Subsistence farming has very limited overhead... hence needing only $2.50/day to survive. As soon as you're purchasing your food, though, those grow hugely. Since subsistence farming will require you to work incredibly hard (possibly harder than at any other point in your life, though I don't know your working history well enough to state that outright), it would not meet the definition used in most western nations for "retirement".

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

sounds good. hobbits would probably come along and steal my food though.

I triple posted somehow

I triple posted somehow

[quote poster=Klown; 16016; 297114]

The poor where I live go around smoking the remainder of cigarettes that people have put out in ash trays. So smoking is covered... I can easily get drunk on 2.50, they have these 'Max Fury' drinks at this grocery store where I live. Its malt liquor and has the equivelent of 5 beers worth of alcohol. 50 cents each. We used to drink them as youths.

Are people that take wellfare counted as negative income in this "statistic"?

No, because it's a reference to what they "live on" not what they "earn".

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

hmmm, i think property taxes around here require them to make a minimum of $5 per day before they get the benefit of eating whatever it is that they broke their back trying to grow.

assuming of course that they already paid for the land that they're sitting on.

merit

mostly asia
smokes are 12 cents a pack and a beer for 20 cents
u can retire and survive here.
I am!

I must be spoiled, or poor with money. I'd die within a few weeks

a teacher, with a masters degree here has an annual salary of only
$4,400 US
and she is required to buy books and chalk for classroom and even do building repairs if they are needed, from her own salary,
different living here, North Americans dont know how spoiled they are

It's not about spoiled - although there is no doubt that the wealth in western nations has resulted in indolence of the first rate - it's about freedom. I recommend 'The Conquest of Poverty' by Henry Hazlitt (available online in pdf format for free, just google) for anyone interested in the subject of poverty. If you are concerned about improving matters in the third world - as I am and believe we all should be - then it's important to understand how the west became so prosperous in the first place. Laissez-faire capitalism. The market economy. Economic freedom. Look @ the example of Botswana, which was for many decades in the 20th century the world's fastest growing economy. How did they manage to climb their way out of poverty? Why were they different from so many other African nations? Limited government. They strictly controlled government spending. That is the path to prosperity.

KazisWin: The conditions have to be right for laissez-faire capitalism to actually prosper. Most of Africa is far behind where Europe and the United States are and were when it comes to individual freedoms and safety (and probably other things as well).

Furthermore, it wasn't true laissez-faire capitalism that led to prosperity in any of these countries. It was regulated capitalism. When there was no minimum wage, no child labor laws and no safety regulations, the only people that were doing well were the super-rich.

During the 19th century in America (the period I believe to which you are referring), prior to the advent of the minimum wage, child labour laws and safety regulations what we saw was skyrocketing standards of living - not only for the elite, but also for the poorest of the poor (and everyone else). Prosperity did not result BECAUSE of government interventions in the economy but rather because of the accumulation of capital & technological innovations that increased productivity and hence wages and general living conditions. It was capitalism that ameliorated the brutal poverty that had been prior to that endemic in man's experience, not the government. Then after the government took credit, passing these laws which were either blessedly impotent or counter productive.

Take the minimum wage. Perhaps the intent is well meaning (although there are sinister forces at work here as well, as I'll explain) but the effect is absolutely devastating. All you have to do to understand what is going on is to look @ teenage unemployment and especially negro teenage unemployment after the advent of the minimum wage. The biggest percentage increase in the minimum wage was from 30 cents to 50 cents and after that unemployment skyrocketed among teenagers. Why teenagers specifically? Because they have the lowest skill set of any group of workers. You see, the minimum wage doesn't make anyone get paid more. It simply makes it a crime to hire anyone who has a skill set less than the minimum wage. Because wages are determined exactly by productivity. Every worker gets paid his marginal revenue product. But when you set a price floor it results in surpluses, in this case that surplus is of labour, also known as unemployment. And it doesn't matter if that price floor is the result of government fiat (as in the case of the minimum wage) or the result of union activities the result is the same.

Africa is very far behind Europe and the US when it comes to individual freedoms. Absolutely. That's why it's so fluffed up and poor over there.

You have a very myopic view of the minimum wage.

The minimum wage certainly has caused some of the current teenage unemployment. In fact, it's also because they're the class with the lowest skill set, but what that's accomplished for now is actually putting adults with greater skills into jobs.

In the long-run, when more jobs are created, the more skilled adult workers will move into better positions and those crappy minimum wage positions will become available for teenagers again.

You need to study up on labor conditions in the late 19th century if you think true laissez-faire capitalism is in the best interests of the people.

The labour conditions of the late 19th century compared to what? Today, or the labour conditions of the 18th century? If you are saying that things weren't great in the 19th century... well, no duh. It was the 19th century. We didn't have cars. Or running water. But that's not an indictment of the socio-economic system in place at the time. Working 11 hours a day in a factory might not be so hot, but it's better than working 15 hours a day on the farm trying to scratch a living out of the dirt. Living standards during the 19th century skyrocketed for EVERYONE, including the poorest of the poor. Because of laissez-faire capitalism. The reason why we have so much prosperity today is because of laissez-faire capitalism in the 19th century. It enabled wealth and capital to be developed.

Typically, now is when I'd do some simple internet research to show the awful conditions and (if evidence supports it) refute what you've had to say, but in the other thread you suggested (tongue-in-cheek, I assume) a $50 per person tax rate for everyone across the board, so I'm going to go ahead and say that you're either an idiot or (more likely) you're not really interested in serious debate but are rather just trolling.

So I'll tell you what. You show me some actual hard statistics and data that suggests that what you're saying is right and perhaps I'll take you seriously and do my own research.

I find it humourous that you admit your ignorance about this topic YET still feel fit to be condescending and insulting.

Some of the silly things you've said on here are so indefensible that I don't feel my condescension is misplaced.

Feel free to prove me wrong and actually post some research or statistics. Please try to make me eat my words.

There are three types of lies, lies, damned lies and statistics
- your name sake

They don't have laissez-faire (no restrictions) style capitalism in China, perhaps it was just threshold of low-restricted capitalism that does the trick?

Further, wasn't there the problem of the Company Town, where the workers were being exploited (not getting much of the wealth they generated) until the labor unions came along?

I do agree that you can't pay more than the market will hold, example, teachers demand more money on the basis of being important, but they don't realize that no matter how 'important' their teachings are, it's a more desirable task than, say, roofing or plumbing, which pays more (usually).

I think we have socialism via the progressive tax.

Tax = theft, but it's a theft the masses have demanded in exchange for their votes.

If you think I don't have a clear point, you're right.

want not to be ignorant? then go over seas, live awhile and be a local,
then you can talk with experience, not just hot air

my kid can't even eat lunch at school for that price

most interesting part is, that when u see people who live on such a little amount, seem to be happier than those in the west with money

I think that whenever we hear that someone "lives on a dollar a day" what they're leaving out is that they get their food in some other way than paying for it with cash.

Bob works in the field for 16 hours. He gets all his meals while working. Free clothing, medical care (if he breaks his leg, the local shaman will bind it with twine or something) and if his wife has a baby, the midwife will help deliver baby number 11 ... in exchange for a bushel of wheat or who knows.

My point is that when there is no money, there are other types of economies. I admit I wouldn't want to be there.

Imagine a tribe in the jungle. No money at all. So they don't eat? No, they get their food by working for it, somehow, in exchange for something, perhaps services rendered, etc.

It's called ignorance. They've never experienced what money can buy them, nor do they realize what's on offer beyond their narrow worldview. So they're happy with what they know and have. Hell, even for the ones that can afford a TV, most of their shows is either brainwashing or government propaganda.

Hmm

That's why I donate