Understanding Economics: 2 - Why Is There Poverty?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 вер 2024
- Standard theories - Over the years, various reasons have been proposed to account for persistent poverty in a progressive society. Is poverty caused by overpopulation? By a lack of capital investment? Is poverty an inherent part of a capitalistic society? We examine each of these ideas.
This a good explanation for older intelligent people who have a classical university background which allows them to understand the meanings of the terms used, who are able to follow a logical argument for more than two minutes, and who are already interested in economics. Needs to be dumbed down if you want a wider audience. Try to learn to talk like Trump. "Economics is so important. It's so important. It's killing us to not know economics. Killing us. We have to know economics. Now, poverty is a horrible thing. It's terrible..." (Am I joking?)
Note: that on the graph Productivity does not seem to be inflation adjusted. 1974 was when the USA government went completely off the gold standard and inflation took off. So, my question is, how is productivity being measured and is it also adjusted for inflation?
It's real wages. It is adjusted.
My only objection to point 1 is that education is correlated with a higher income. In fact, real wages continued to rise for people with post bachelors degrees after the 70s. They actually dropped for high school dropouts.
The formula in computing average standard of living per person...is GDP divided by total population equals GDP per capita or average standard of living per person ..the greater the total population, the lower the GDP...the lower the GDP per capita..that's the cause of poverty...
The alleged "increase in worker productivity" is really the increase in industrialization, the increase in high-tech-, the increase in robotics, etc. Unskilled labor by itself isn't really that much more productive than it ever was. That fact explains the inequality of income and wealth that tends to grow in perpetuity.
As a more highly productive worker, you will not get any more pay than your peers since the pay is set in bands requiring promotion to get significantly more pay. The employer will just give you verbal praise to make you feel good. They are more likely to fire unproductive staff than give you a raise since you can take up the slack whilst they look for another hire.
That's why you need to change jobs or negotiate more salary with the current employer if you have an offer ready
@@tedarcher9120 I changed jobs often. How are you doing?
@@AndyWJP same, that's how I doubled my salary in one year
I only want a job to survive.
If you need to work to live, then you have no right to live. :(
Many good points BUT as far as the point of jobs being scarce, and you only being able to get your job at the expense of someone else misses the fact the the economy is dynamic. If you make yourself more productive, you might out bid another worker for the same pay rate. However, since you are more productive the company will profit more; this information will cause other companies to bid up the wages offered you until their profits are "normal" compared to the risk taken. So, not only output increases your wages will increase too. In the mean time the lower productive worker should be able to find a job at about the same rate as before since a company could expand to take advantage of a low wage worker: BUT Now again his wages would be bid up by other companies until their profit is normal compared to the risk taken. (Of course addition investment capital might be need too to expand efficiently but the general situation still remains.) JOB ARE SOMEWHAT SCARCE, BUT THEY ARE DYNAMIC TOO!! increases in your productivity help not only you but others. In a market economy wages are based mostly on productivity; this would include investment capital available used for tools etc. too. Please feel free to comment, dispute, or discuss.
The legal exploitation of human labor. We are all economic slaves...
Some one needs to do the work to provided for needs and wants.
4:00 George was against labor unions and striking. Unions do opposite that they claim they are helping, less freedom and wealth.
EqualLandRichPeople This is false www.jstor.org/stable/3487043?seq=1
@@mauricio9564 He supported unions to the extend they returned the fair share of land profits.
@@mauricio9564 www.henrygeorge.org/pchp24.htm Unions destroy wealth and freedom. George went along with unions to recapture the land profits, but did not support unions. #3 of chapter 24 above.
9:00 Hunter gather is the natural state of man.
You eventually get to the point where the population exceeds the food supply. WWII was an example before hybrid grain was invented. Famines in USSR Ukraine killed millions.
The famines in Ukraine were engineered though. Stalin deliberately caused them to kill people.
Marxism is not the only option. Is not even the right one as we all can see the fail of the communist nations.
The poverty is the result of the lack of capitalism. Yes. Capitalism is the non coercive exchange of goods and services. While the socialism and the state require the removal of part or all production by force to exist. Look forward to libertarianism to understand this idea better.
Cesar Scur There is substantive middle ground between privatize-everything capitalism and socialize-everything communism. Both extremes produce poverty. A truly free, fully libertarian marketplace allows for intellectual and natural commons, while enforcing private property rights. Only since the beginning of the Cold War has the term "capitalism" come to refer to the voluntary exchange of goods and services, rather than government protection of industrialists, and then mostly among right-libertarians and fusionist conservatives.
I hope you kept watching.
@@ElasticGiraffe
I changed my mind. You are mostly right. Economy can only exist and thrive in a civilized society. So you need a moral structure that correctly correlates to reality. Only Christianity has that. Only Christ holds the path to a real life.
I'll take Marxist way but the workers have to be more disciplined with the little extra more money that they should get maybe 2-5% more with there spending habits and it makes no sense for a boss to share his profits for people too waste the money and both the boss and workers have to work together to make the business more productive, also the boss should invest in non working people that have to be serious about improving there life
Boss should help non working people?