Quote: Original post by tstrimp
The majority of working poor are high school and college students working part time while attending school.

False. According to A Profile of the Working Poor, 2005 (pdf), the working poor breaks down by age like so.

Table 2.  People in the labor force for 27 weeks or more by age(figures in thousands)                                pop.       %     poor       %16 years and older           142,824    1.00    7,744    1.0016 to 19 years                 4,192    0.03      438    0.0620 to 24 years                13,370    0.09    1,610	 0.2125 to 34 years                31,022    0.22    2,138    0.2835 to 44 years                34,779    0.24    1,752    0.2345 to 54 years                34,422    0.24    1,166    0.1555 to 64 years                19,649    0.14      532    0.0765 years and older             5,390    0.04      108    0.01

The first column contains the age breakdowns for the entire population of people in the labor force for at least 27 weeks (i.e. workers) over the age of 16, followed by the percentage formed by each age slice. The third column contains the age breakdowns for the population of workers in poverty, followed by the percentage formed by each age slice. The percentage calculations are mine and I rounded off so they might not add up to exactly 1.00.

If we assume that "high school and college students working part time while attending school" fall into categories younger than 25, which is a very reasonable assumption to make, it's clear that they could not possibly make up the majority of working poor. Only 27% of the working poor are younger than 25.

Now, if we compare the portion of under 25 working poor with under 25 in the entire work force, we find that under 25 are over represented among the working poor. 12% of the work force is under 25. 27% of working poor are under 25.

It also appears that as the working poor age, they tend to drop out of the work force altogether. That's based on the under representation of older persons among the working poor, relative to their portion in the labor force as a whole.

I was joking about the Koreans (a reference to the historical enmity between Korean Americans and African Americans, famously exhibited in the LA riots), but then I did a search for "Eugene International Gateway Foods" and found this doozy about what has happened since Kevin Kim, a Korean American, purchased Gateway Foods:

Residents upset by grocery's changes

Quote:
The produce bins are full of potatoes, oranges, garlic, pears, lettuce, peppers, squash, peas and greens. The meat department carries Harris Ranch beef, as well as hams, pigs feet, ox tails, sausage, bacon, pork chops and ribs. There is also a fresh fish counter that offers salmon fillets and sashimi-grade tuna.

Still, there were grumblings from some residents at a West Oakland meeting last week.

David Goudeau, a merchant seaman who lives in West Oakland, complained about the presence of the Asian market in the former Acorn Shopping Center. Others complained there is too much emphasis on foreign food selections and the selection of American foods is lacking variety.

"What it is, is they are really not accommodating to blacks down here, as far as what we like," said Mileva Sherman, a West Oakland resident. "Everything is Chinese food. They have a few things, like cereal, and they have vegetables. But the majority is for the Chinese, the Orientals, not too much for us to buy.

"At first I was going in there to buy vegetables, the greens and such. But now I just don't go in there at all. The last time I went in there, all I wanted was some simple peanut butter cookies, and they didn't even have that," she said. "There's not enough variety."

Peanut butter cookies.

So is this store selling less "American" food than before? And why?

Quote:
Store manager Henry Suh said the store tries to carry everything customers want, and they'll add items if there is demand, such as the ground turkey customers requested last week. But he said there will always be some people who are unhappy no matter what they do.

"This was 100 percent American grocery before," Suh said. "Mr. Kim bought it and changed it to international; we don't like to say Korean, we have Japanese food, Chinese food, Mexican food. Before there was a very low inventory of produce and meat, and the previous owner said it got spoiled because people didn't buy it."

He said they did discontinue some American food items that were not selling, but actually increased the stock of those products even though half the aisles are filled with ethnic foods and spices, with several counter displays and racks offer pickled vegetable and fish.

Supply and demand. People weren't buying produce, it was spoiling! They wanted peanut butter cookies instead. This is a perfect example of what I was talking about: grocery stores are leaving poor neighborhoods because poor people don't want fresh produce, let alone the kind of stuff you'd find in a Trader Joe's or Whole Foods. They want peanut butter cookies.

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Original post by LessBread
There's plenty of money to be made off the poor. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be fast food restaurants in ghettos. In America, systematic responses to exploitation and manipulation are often met with cries of "socialism" and the like. The whack-a-mole approach benefits powerful interests, many of whom prosper from the status quo and don't want to see it change.

The whack-a-mole approach is what you're advocating. Here you've identified a problem: a seemingly excessive amount of convenience stores and fast food restaurants (due to demand, not conspiracy) and a shrinking number of grocery stores. The problem? Social dysfunction. The symptoms? Lack of demand for food products that require preparation. Your solution? The equivalent of a school district busing.

Where was it demonstrated that there was a lack of demand for food products that require preparation? Moreover, I haven't proposed a solution to the problem, I've been exploring a solution proposed by someone else. That solution supports the argument that we need greater investment in our public transportation systems, which I support. It seems to me that when it comes to the shrinking number of grocery stores in the ghetto, a far more straight forward solution would be to open up grocery stores in the ghetto. And if businesses won't do it, then the government should step in to fill the gap.

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote:
Nevertheless, that notion smacks of paternalism. Today it's a buddy, tomorrow it's the lord of the manor. The bottom line here is that the problem isn't with the food stamp program, which works well. The problem is with transportation. And guess what? Our transportation systems need serious upgrades right now anyway.

Slippery slope fallacy. Feudalism didn't develop from the system I proposed. And anyway, I was joking. People would violently oppose the buddy system because they'll be damned if they have to actually help someone else they don't know.

I see.

Quote: Original post by trzy
Transportation is arguably a problem but that's due to poor urban planning over decades. What sort of transportation is going to solve the obesity problem? More bus routes? High-speed rail links between ghettos and affluent neighborhoods? You're expecting me to buy the notion that if only people had transportation they'd go out of their way to shop at Trader Joe's? If there was a demand for fresh produce in ghettos, the grocery stores would respond by opening up stores.

How did our urban planing over the decades get screwed up? In my experience, because wealthy developers were able to buy off the politicians and get the zoning exceptions they wanted. At least, that describes the problem here in Fresno. Bicycles are the sort of transportation that will solve the obesity problem. Walking to nearby bus stops and light rail train stations helps a lot too. I don't know that transportation would translate into more customers for Trader Joe's. I suspect that it would to an extent. I don't think it automatically translates into everyone in the ghetto shopping at grocery stores. I also don't think that the decrease in grocery stores in ghettos necessarily means there is a lack of demand for fresh produce there. It's more likely that the other costs involved in opening new stores outweigh the demand.

Quote: Original post by trzy
I couldn't help but chuckle when I saw this in the Oakland article you posted:

Quote:
In this down-at-the-heels neighborhood of 28,000, located between downtown Oakland and San Francisco Bay, the only grocery store is Eugene International Gateway Foods.

Eugene's goods are so geared toward the Asian community it is easier to find lemon grass than artichoke or asparagus, according to Kenna Stormogipson, a 26-year-old West Oakland resident who teaches at Oakland Tech High.

West Oakland is a neighborhood ringed by three freeways. Its proximity to the Port of Oakland makes it one of the most polluted places in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Besides these drawbacks, the fact that there's not a single grocery store that offers fresh produce popular among the black and Latino residents makes West Oakland one of the least desirable places to live in the Bay Area.

"People have left West Oakland because they see it as an unhealthy place," Stormogipson asserted.

This is smacks of racism. Evidently, we are to believe that nobody wants to sell Latino and black food, only Asian food. It's probably those damned Koreans keeping the black man down again. The market responds to their demand but not the black or Hispanic man's demand.

I don't think it smacks of racism. It's too matter of fact for that. The rest - i.e. "keeping the black man down" - is your conjecture.

Quote: Original post by trzy
I feel horrible for people like Robert Bell who go through huge pains to do the right thing despite their advanced age and poverty. I wish he had somewhere to shop in his own neighborhood. Better transportation would certainly help this guy, but how many other people would take advantage of it? Why doesn't Trader Joe's, Safeway, or Winco open up shop in West Oakland?

Maybe they're worried about crime?

Quote: Original post by trzy
Supply and demand. People weren't buying produce, it was spoiling! They wanted peanut butter cookies instead. This is a perfect example of what I was talking about: grocery stores are leaving poor neighborhoods because poor people don't want fresh produce, let alone the kind of stuff you'd find in a Trader Joe's or Whole Foods. They want peanut butter cookies.

Maybe they weren't buying it because it was priced too high for their incomes?

From the second page of the article: "The store has a good selection, there is no shortage of greens and vegetables, and the prices are much better," she said

Peanut butter cookies are found in the Thai food aisle, but watch out, they're really spicy! ... [grin]

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Where was it demonstrated that there was a lack of demand for food products that require preparation?

I haven't demonstrated it conclusively, I've only offered my anecdotal observations, but look at that other article I posted. In the case of that particular Oakland neighborhood, there was a lack of demand for fresh produce.

Quote:
Moreover, I haven't proposed a solution to the problem, I've been exploring a solution proposed by someone else. That solution supports the argument that we need greater investment in our public transportation systems, which I support.

I think when there is demand for public transportation, there ought to be initiatives to improve it. Urban planning from now on should emphasize accessible cities rather than sprawling suburban wastelands, which will further increase demand for public transportation. What I don't like is do-gooders trying to artificially create demand for public transportation by putting ridiculous restrictions on drivers. Universities are notorious for jacking up parking fees to ridiculously high levels, which they claim is to increase revenue and encourage clean public transportation use while, paradoxically, tuition fees continue to skyrocket (the reason being the administrative overhead that idiotic university initiatives create.)

Quote:
It seems to me that when it comes to the shrinking number of grocery stores in the ghetto, a far more straight forward solution would be to open up grocery stores in the ghetto. And if businesses won't do it, then the government should step in to fill the gap.

This is the whack-a-mole thinking that I mentioned earlier. It's uneconomical almost by definition: private owners can't open stores in the ghetto because they would lose money. Creating more government bureaucracy to implement a money-losing business even less efficiently than the private sector could strikes me as very unsustainable.

I'll agree that there is a deadlock in poor neighborhoods that needs to be broken. I wish there was an analytical way of tackling this problem; for all I know, there could be, but social scientists aren't well accustomed to formulating mathematical theories and the scientific method is alien to politicians and legal types. The long-term solution is to reduce social dysfunction by promoting positive behavior (yes, this means telling people how to live their lives, but in a tactful, positive manner) while stigmatizing criminal and negligent behavior. Simultaneously, transportation can play a vital role by allowing greater mobility and access to better jobs and centers of education outside of the ghetto. Health awareness campaigns are necessary as well but must be conducted efficiently. There might also be a role for temporary legislation that makes it more costly to open up fast food establishments and convenience stores (or feasible incentives for grocers), but I don't think these should be permanent.

Hopefully, these things would help stimulate demand for grocery stores. It's already trendy among middle and upper class folks to eat organic and eat healthy. Junk food is stigmatized. A similar sort of attitude should be propagated down the economic ladder.

Quote: How did our urban planing over the decades get screwed up? In my experience, because wealthy developers were able to buy off the politicians and get the zoning exceptions they wanted. At least, that describes the problem here in Fresno.

You can't discount the role of cheap gas fueling America's development for more than half a century.

Quote: Bicycles are the sort of transportation that will solve the obesity problem. Walking to nearby bus stops and light rail train stations helps a lot too. I don't know that transportation would translate into more customers for Trader Joe's. I suspect that it would to an extent. I don't think it automatically translates into everyone in the ghetto shopping at grocery stores. I also don't think that the decrease in grocery stores in ghettos necessarily means there is a lack of demand for fresh produce there. It's more likely that the other costs involved in opening new stores outweigh the demand.

What costs? Is real estate pricier in the ghetto? Are ghettos in areas that are difficult to deliver to? Or does security cost more? Profitable grocery stores do exist in the ghetto, as your Oakland article pointed out, just not grocery stores that Latinos and blacks seem to like. The article I posted sheds more light on the specifics of the situation in West Oakland.

It's not just Latinos and blacks who are poor and obese, however, there are overweight poor whites.

I think it would be interesting to go to a cheap grocery store, like Walmart or Winco, and observe what people buy. Most Super Walmarts have produce and Winco definitely does. Still, what seems to be most popular is food that's easy to prepare or requires no preparation at all: canned foods, frozen foods, chips, snacks, candy, etc. People have really taken to this stuff and it's hard to break the cycle. I suspect developing a refined palate helps dissuade people from junk food. Once you've eaten delicious home cooked meals and exotic dishes at nicer restaurants, Cheetos start to taste like shit. The problem is that most people don't have the money to go eat sashimi or try Afghan cuisine. However, healthy home cooking also has the same effect, but poor Americans don't have much of a home life, sadly.

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by trzy
Supply and demand. People weren't buying produce, it was spoiling! They wanted peanut butter cookies instead. This is a perfect example of what I was talking about: grocery stores are leaving poor neighborhoods because poor people don't want fresh produce, let alone the kind of stuff you'd find in a Trader Joe's or Whole Foods. They want peanut butter cookies.

Maybe they weren't buying it because it was priced too high for their incomes?

From the second page of the article: "The store has a good selection, there is no shortage of greens and vegetables, and the prices are much better," she said

Peanut butter cookies are found in the Thai food aisle, but watch out, they're really spicy! ... [grin]

Typically, fast food, TV dinners, and the like are much more expensive than potatoes, pasta, rice, and some basic greens. Because of a lack of competition, it's likely that the meat was more expensive than at a major grocery chain in the suburbs, but one would still expect some degree of demand that would be met by additional suppliers. It just wasn't there.

Note that on the second page of the article, there is mention of a donut shop next to the store staying open later than usual because of an increase in demand thanks to more customers to the grocery store. People in the ghetto apparently love their fatty, expensive pastries.

Quote: Original post by tstrimp

Quote: Original post by Zahlman
The working poor commonly work double shifts. You might do well to calculate how far minimum wage would get you in your city.

Prove it. The majority of working poor are high school and college students working part time while attending school.

That's why I said "commonly". It seems to me that you're making a more substantial claim than I am, similarly without evidence. Of course, it seems to me that high school and college students are generally unlikely to know how to cook for themselves. ICBW of course.

Quote:
A tax cut is actual whether spending is cut or isn't.

For the purpose of stimulus, a tax cut is only effective in the margin between the tax cut and the budget. If one cuts taxes and increases the deficit, there is a relations hip between the tax cut that is a stimulant, and the deficit, which is a retardant.(In the long run especially)

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
Spending drives demand, increased demand requires increased production, increased production creates jobs, and not busy work jobs(digging a hole one day and filling it the next), but sustainable jobs that result in a product that the market has demanded.

That's the simple version.

The longer version:

Take your existing income,(assuming you weren't using your personal circumstances as an example), and add 20% to it. Assume for a moment that you're breaking dead even after all things considered. Not a dollar to spend after bills, food, etc. After your 20% "raise", you now have 20% of your prior income as disposable income. You can either bank it, in which case the bank will employ that money as capital to a productive enterprise, or spend the money, in which case the money enters the market as demand for goods and services.

So far so good.

Quote:
And if you were Brad Pitt, you'd be married to Angelina Jolie! Sorry, but you're veering off on a flight of fancy based on a theoretical condition. Interest rates are set artificially. Stick with that please. The question was closer to "How do tax cuts lead to jobs" not "How can they lead to jobs."

The purpose of that paragraph was to describe the market dynamic, as well as explain an irritant in the manner the market would normally clear. An intelligent reader can discern the product.

Quote:
You're talking about spending or saving disposable income here right? It seems to me that a person without disposable income does not think about buying food in this way. In that situation, the "opportunity cost" may well be living to see the next day.

This model provides for that person and for the person on the other end of the spectrum as well. Whether they "think about it" in my way or another is immaterial.

Quote:
Hold on there. What you've pictured is a banker sitting on pile of money with an incentive to spend it. Several links remain between that picture and demand rising.

I explained earlier how demand rises. The benefit of savings is reduced by low returns which means production is fully capitalized, this means there is a surplus of goods and too many goods chasing too few dollars, this is classic econ. Prices fall and demand rises, as purchases become a better decision than savings. Or in economic terms, the opportunity cost of time preference outweighs the benefit of deferred purchases.(In the aggregate no less)

Quote:
That more or less describes the last couple of years when interest rates were higher than you described above.

That's correct Less, in the past the actual market clearing rate and the bubble rate were closer aligned. As the two branch in different directions the effect becomes more pronouced. You realize a bank can borrow money from the fed today at an inflation adjusted rate approaching zero right? That's the cost of money right now.

Quote:
That totally failed to answer the question. I'm not saying that to be argumentative or what have you, but it's just glaringly obvious. How do tax cuts lead to jobs? It appears that you have no idea how it happens, it just happens! Like magic! Poof! Would you care to try again?

I explained it rather exhaustively. If you can't get it perhaps you need to try harder. Disposable income is disposed of in one of two ways, it is either capitalized or consumed as demand. Capitalization enhances the means of production, consumption increases the demand of the fruit of production.

Increased demand of goods and services create jobs.

Quote:
Would you like me to take a crack at explaining how tax hikes create jobs? [grin]

My natural curiosity would say yes, it would probably be good for a chuckle. But my experience with your lack of attention to detail on detail issues like this tells me it would probably be a weak regurgitation of something you've read, which always ends in dissapointment.

The web, and most media sources are chock full of court jesters echoing Keynes, why burden it with one more?

Here's my favorite bit from Keynes,

Quote:
"Nevertheless the theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state, than is the theory of production and distribution of a given output produced under conditions of free competition and a large measure of laissez-faire."

and just to balance that drivel out here's something nice from H.L. Mencken.

Quote:
The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it.

[Edited by - Dreddnafious Maelstrom on February 12, 2009 12:17:34 AM]

Quote: Original post by Zahlman
If you want to give $2500 or so a year back to everyone, regardless of what they're currently making or if they're even employed, then that's an admirable, if (as you acknowledge) naive way of going about it. But seriously, tax cuts wouldn't look like that even if it were Nader making them.

Ahh, I'd never suggest that so I'll not qualify for your admirable tag I'm afraid. I don't believe one person is entitled to another person's money by the mere fact of their existence. Nor do I believe that the government serves the public when it takes from one man, cuts off it's own little slice and then gives the remainder to another.

I believe in philanthropy, and in giving deeply of yourself, especially as it regards people in need. However, that doesn't require me to sanction a group of armed thugs(the government) the right to take one man's money on threat of the sword and hand it to their chosen constituency.

Feel free to disagree, but understand one thing if nothing else. I think your approach to government makes everyone involved poorer and less free. I also believe that my approach makes everyone richer and more free. If I didn't believe that I would alter my approach until it did.

I used to think that socialists and "progressives" we're ill willed people that were just bad at math. In time I came to realize that they are well meaning people who are bad at sociology. [smile]

That's ok. I think libertarians are well meaning people who are bad at sociology. I think your approach will make a small number of people richer at other's expense and thus make the poor less free in the long run. I disagree with your notion (as I see it) that freedom is equal to total individual autonomy.

So it appears we are at an impasse.