Bernie Sanders exposes billionaires who are buying US government.

[Al B. Sure!]

"things allowing one to become upper class" = opportunities like education, I think.

If you can't go get an education because you are working at the mill/street/McDs to supply your families needs, you are not being allowed most of the opportunity space to improve your lot in life.

As an example.

JM

So having the poverty level consider access to things with costs (like let's say a $5000/semester college education) is not rising the poverty demarcation point?

O rly?

So being able to pay for college doesn't mean you're richer than someone who can't pay for college? Including the lack of ability to afford college in your definition of poverty, doesn't mean you're increasing the capacity to buy things (like an education) corresponding to poverty?

[Jon Miller]

Other nations handle this by making education free (especially for those who are capable).

JM

[Al B. Sure!]

Other nations handle this by making education free (especially for those who are capable).

JM

And that doesn't raise their well-being in economic terms?

Explain to me how you're not moving up the poverty demarcation point, again?

[Berzerker]

i still dont know why this member of congress is exposing people for speaking in private

this nation was founded in part by anonymous pamphleteers and here Bernie the socialist Sanders is doing the kings work exposing the dissidents

[KrazyHorse]

I stopped bolding after a bit, it is so obvious what the problems are with societies where success is a dirty word.

You shouldn't even need to post anything to demonstrate that, yet knowing poly there will be those who deny that allowing the successful to flaunt themselves has anything to do with individuals toiling and risking failure in their pursuit of innovation.

[KrazyHorse]

Yes it is. People having iPhones hasn't eliminated envy.

Diminishing marginal utility is another intrinsic problem of inequality.

1) my point was around an "objective" measure of inequality; the positional value remains (as it always will, by definition)
2) you can view diminishing marginal utility to be a fundamental problem, but I view it simply as an opportunity.

[Aeson]

1) my point was around an "objective" measure of inequality; the positional value remains (as it always will, by definition)

If I was arguing against your point that would matter. I simply made my own point which you first countered with "no it isn't" and now have said it's true by definition.

2) you can view diminishing marginal utility to be a fundamental problem, but I view it simply as an opportunity.

An opportunity to ...

a) voluntarily reduce inequality and thus maximize overall utility while not limiting incentive? (the altruistic opportunity)
b) maximize inequality and thus reduce overall utility? (the opportunity to be a giagantic *******)
c) deny there is a problem with inequality because the problems with inequalities are only opportunities to fix the problems with inequalities by reducing inequality? (the broken window opportunity)

... I'm sure there's many other opportunities here. Which is the one you are speaking of?

[Aeson]

1) my point was around an "objective" measure of inequality; the positional value remains (as it always will, by definition)

If I was arguing against your point that would matter. I simply made my own point which you first countered with "no it isn't" and now have said it's true by definition.

2) you can view diminishing marginal utility to be a fundamental problem, but I view it simply as an opportunity.

An opportunity to ...

a) voluntarily reduce inequality and thus maximize overall utility while not limiting incentive? (the altruistic opportunity)
b) maximize inequality and thus reduce overall utility? (the opportunity to be a giagantic *******)
c) deny there is a problem with inequality because the problems with inequalities are only opportunities to fix the problems with inequalities by reducing inequality? (the broken window opportunity)

... I'm sure there's many other opportunities here. Which is the one you are speaking of?

[Aeson]

I should also point out that I don't view diminishing marginal utility to necessarily be a problem. It can benefit incentive in some cases, but also can be a detriment to it. It will always mean that inequality leads to diminished overall utility vs an optimal distribution though. (Whether or not, or at what level that is a bigger problem than those of the methods to achieve that optimal distribution is of course the main question.)

[Jon Miller]

And that doesn't raise their well-being in economic terms?

Explain to me how you're not moving up the poverty demarcation point, again?

Huh?

No, it isn't just a 'move up' of the demarcation point as it could be done by not requiring a general increase in their economic situation (afterall, if education was easily available to the poor, they could still not take advantage of it).

Access to health care might be, the same way as food/shelter, but it is still not the same as 'make everyone middle class' unless you choose to do it by large transfer payments instead of by access to free health care.

Actually, if you didn't want free education, you could instead make it so that the first 3-4 years of community college were free (with an additional subsidy for living) for everyone or just for those who would be near the poverty without governmental assistance. This would aid the poor more than the middle class and a lot more than the rich (as rich would choose to go to more expensive schools, and often the middle class too).

JM

[Jon Miller]

Giving access to education to the poor is not "increasing the poverty line as the standard of living for the middle class/wealthy rises".

It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with that.

JM

[Al B. Sure!]

Start with a poverty line of $10,000/individual. He eats $6 of food a day so spends $2190 on food, $400/month in rent for $4800/year, with $3010 remaining for every other expense, including clothes, transportation, healthcare, education, entertainment, etc.

Now you give him $200/month in food stamps, say an average of $1000/year in Medicaid, and access to an education valued at $5000/year...

Now, he eats $8 of food/day at a cost of only $520 from his income, still $4800/year in rent, with $4680 of his income remaining to spend on every other expense... but wait. Also has $1000 in healthcare and $5000 in education spending that won't come out of that $4680 so his non-food/shelter spending is now $10680, even greater than his income! His total spending can now amount to $18.4K, even though he only makes $10K in ordinary income.

And that's not moving the poverty demarcation point?! That's not increasing his standard of living?!

[Kidlicious]

2) you can view diminishing marginal utility to be a fundamental problem, but I view it simply as an opportunity.

What value can opportunity have if it doesn't result in increased utility?

[Jon Miller]

Start with a poverty line of $10,000/individual. He eats $6 of food a day so spends $2190 on food, $400/month in rent for $4800/year, with $3010 remaining for every other expense, including clothes, transportation, healthcare, education, entertainment, etc.

Now you give him $200/month in food stamps, say an average of $1000/year in Medicaid, and access to an education valued at $5000/year...

Now, he eats $8 of food/day at a cost of only $520 from his income, still $4800/year in rent, with $4680 of his income remaining to spend on every other expense... but wait. Also has $1000 in healthcare and $5000 in education spending that won't come out of that $4680 so his non-food/shelter spending is now $10680, even greater than his income! His total spending can now amount to $18.4K, even though he only makes $10K in ordinary income.

And that's not moving the poverty demarcation point?! That's not increasing his standard of living?!

How is anything you just posted at all relevant to what I posted and your response?

I just am trying to understand.

JM

[Al B. Sure!]

How is anything you just posted at all relevant to what I posted and your response?

I just am trying to understand.

JM

What? I can't explain it any more clearly or explicitly. You're promoting expanding what it means to be impoverished from just inability to have food and shelter to inability to have healthcare, education, etc. You're moving the demarcation point between poverty and not higher.