Hi Harry et al,
At 01:40 PM 1/13/2002 Sunday , Harry Pollard wrote:
>
> Ed,
>
> I saw recently a calculation that to be able to afford a two bedroom
> apartment required a wage of $15.80 an hour. In any event, I believe that the
> Feds assume 50% of a poor person's wage goes in Rent, while a third goes for
> food.
>
> (So, it's perfectly understandable why people live in their cars.)
>
> Contrasted with 500 years ago when a laborer probably got a free cottage from
> the local landowner and spent 29% of income for food (19% for the artisan).
> This was for a family and I rather think families were than a lot larger than
> they are now.
>
> So, how do we find your "low income cut-off definition of poverty"?
[snip]
I'm not so sure what a "just" society really means.
But I am sure that the rich buy more than bathrooms, pools and bacon
with their wealth. They also buy politicians and social and economic
control over their poorer fellow citizens. And that, I feel, is wrong.
The downfall of Argentina was not caused by some rich folks buying
up all the bacon. It may have been caused by them buying the
municiple water works and raising the rates 400%. It may have
been caused by the rich, who control the IMF, from "encouraging" the
Argentine government to cut social programs.
The argument that governments never get it right and are always
screwing their citizens is just not true. That many governments
nowadays seem to be implementing a lot of unhealthy programs
is related to the fact that politicians are being bought by those
with concentrated wealth, Ken Lay for example.
Instead of throwing out democratic governments we should be
throwing out those politicians whose motives are not in line
with the public's welfare. I do believe that, given leadership
willing to make government work in the public interest, we
can have a more egalitarian society. No, everyone won't
necessarily be happy, but our present cynicism may become
much reduced.
Dennis Paull
Half Moon Bay, CA
