At 06:36 PM 1/29/01 +0100, Jeroen wrote:
>At 00:20 29-1-01 -0500, John Giorgis wrote:
>
>>At 01:55 PM 1/28/01 -0500, Kat wrote:
>> >Hi, John. I'm a low wage worker- below the poverty line, in fact. I
>> >produce your food, without which you would die. Obviously, a low-value
>> >product.
>>
>>Actually, Kat - I think that I can say with a high level of confidence that
>>you have not produced a single bite that I have ever eaten. (Of course,
>>if you were are below the poverty line, I would strongly question how it is
>>that we are conversing over e-mail..... maybe you're at a library or
>>something.)
>>
>>Rather, Kat your occupation is an anachronistic and inefficient process
>>that results in a byproduct of a marginal amount of surplus food. If the
>>amount of food produced by your farm (as I seem to recall it) disappeared
>>from the world market, the supply and price of food would be completely
>>unaffected. Therfore, the marginal value of your production is of very low
>>value, compared to larger and more efficient farms. Virtually all of the
>>food that I eat almost certainly comes from large and efficient farms that
>>produce large quantities of food very cheaply. Most farmers that run
>>these farms are actually fairly well off.
>
>I don't know how Kat feels about your post, John, but personally I find it
>rather insulting. All this sounds like you're saying "Kat, you and your
>contributions to society are so insignificant, we don't need you and your
>contributions".
>
>First a low blow at me, and now at Kat. What's your problem, John?
No.......... what it is, is this: Kat came along and basically insinuated
that because she was engaged in the most noble of occupations - farming,
that she was positively invaluable to our human civilization, despite her
poverty. I simply pointed out to Kat that she is but one member of a very
large human civilization, and hardly indispensable. Moreover, although I
would never insinuate that civilization would fall apart if it weren't for
me and Economists like me - at least society values my output much more
than it apparently values her output. (And believe me, if the need to
produce food was as important as she thinks it is - then the price of food
would be plenty high enough to leave her very well off indeed.)
Finally, I will admit that I took a minor personal swipe at my pet peeve of
what constitutes "poverty." Somehow, we have defined poverty in this
country to include people who by historical terms, and even by modern
global terms, are very rich indeed. For me, poverty implies a person who
works 12hour days, seven days a week, to earn barely enough to go home each
day to a cardboard shack and provide a bowl of rich for each member of his
or her family. In my mind, people who are "below the poverty line",
should be thinking about survival each day - basic nutrition, clothing,
shelter, and health care. If you are below the poverty, and you own a
computer, you should be selling it to buy more rice bowls. I dunno, that's
just me. But I'm the kind of guy who would vote against more welfare
payments to American poor, to send some more money to a place like El
Salvador or Bangladesh.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"Never tiring, never yielding, never finishing, we renew that purpose today:
to make our country more just and generous; to affirm the dignity of
our lives and every life." - George W. Bush Inaugural Address 1/20/01
