SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: neolib who wrote (761858)1/6/2014 6:42:53 PM
From: Brumar891 Recommendation

Recommended By
FJB

  Respond to of 1573841
 
If we were a more liberal country, we'd give people lottery and cigarette stamps.

Poor NYers spend 25% of income on cigarettes:

zerohedge.com

Poorest people in America spend 9% of their $13,000 annual income on lotteries

dailymail.co.uk

Wait'll they legalize pot. Then we can measure what percent they spend on weed.
Heh:
D.C. government program to subsidize pot for poor patients
washingtontimes.com

Looks like illegal drug use is becoming a marker for poverty and lack of education. Funny to hear old liberal dinosaurs like koan, bent, and rat brag about their regular dope use. When they were young, they thought it was something smart, with-it people did. Now its something losers and dropouts do - like buy bunches of lottery tickets.
....

* With the exception of heroin and crack among the poor, the use of illegal drugs in the nation appears to have peaked, including the snorting of powdered cocaine.

* Federally financed studies show that the people turning away from drugs are the most educated and affluent. The poorest and least-educated have continued or increased their drug use.

* Crack, a smokable form of cocaine, has largely remained a poor people's drug. Its rise in the past two years has had devastating effects on poor neighborhoods, but it has failed to make the same inroads into the middle class.

* The most deadly impact of illegal drug use is probably yet to come, as tens of thousands of intravenous drug users, their sexual partners and their children contract acquired immune deficiency syndrome. Most of those people will be poor.

.....
Statistics indicate that outside of the poorest neighborhoods, the nation's 20-year affair with illegal drugs is on the decline.

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, marijuana use peaked in 1978, and by 1985, 7 out of 10 high school seniors believed marijuana use to be harmful. Young people's use of hallucinogens, like LSD and PCP, or ''angel dust,'' has fallen since 1979. A Different Generation

In 1985, a national household survey conducted by the University of Kentucky for the National Institute on Drug Abuse asked 18-to-25-year-olds if they had smoked marijuana in the last month. It found that people who never graduated from high school were most likely to be using the drug. The better educated the young people were, the survey found, the less they were using marijuana.

Among an earlier generation of smokers - people 35 and over, who probably developed their attitudes toward marijuana in the late 60's and early 70's - the findings were just the reverse. It was the college-educated who were most likely to be smoking marijuana.

........

According to the household survey of 18-to-25-year-olds, the people most likely to have used cocaine in the previous month in 1982 were those who graduated from college. The least likely to have used cocaine were those who never finished high school. Among college graduates, 13 percent said they had used cocaine in the past month, while among those without high school diplomas, only 4 percent had used cocaine.

But by 1985, the situation was just the opposite. Only 3 percent of college graduates said they used cocaine in the last month. But 10 percent of people who never finished high school said they used the drug. Since the survey did not include people without homes, it may have understated drug use among the poorest and least-educated, according to Prof. Harwin Voss of the University of Kentucky, who helped direct the study.

.....

nytimes.com

Poor Households Earning $13K Per Year Spend Over $1K On Lottery Tickets

by Ben Shapiro 28 Nov 2012

States across the nation rely on poor suckers to fund their spending. No, we’re not talking about taxpayers – we’re talking about lottery ticket purchasers. According to new studies, households earning $13,000 per year spend almost $1,170 per year on lottery tickets – 9 percent of total income. As it turns out, many people living in poverty make poor financial decisions.

[ That's UNFAIR! We need to punish people who don't make stupid financial decisions. ]

Yet states rely more and more on measures that target those people. Taxes on cigarettes and alcohol disproportionately affect the poor; lotteries target the poor. None of this makes the economy any better. In fact, it impoverishes the poor even more, making them more dependent on government. Those who are spending over a thousand dollars a year on lottery tickets are likely receiving at least that much in government assistance to make up the difference.

President Obama’s entire economic plan is predicated on the bizarre notion that taking away money from those who are most likely to invest it well and handing it to those who are likely to invest it poorly will help the economy. It’s idiocy. And it’s gambling with America’s future.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/28/Average-family-earning-$13K-spends-on-lottery



To: neolib who wrote (761858)1/6/2014 7:52:32 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1573841
 
the real question wrt to minimum wage is tied back to wealth concentration. In an economy with lower working wages and higher wealth concentration, I expect lower productivity over time and higher asset inflation.

1 - I wouldn't expect that to any great degree. Higher inequality because of the poor getting poorer, would be bad for the poor but wouldn't really have much of a connection to lower productivity. Higher inequality because of the rich getting richer, without the poor getting poorer, could allow for more investment capital, it would contribute some to asset inflation, but the extra investment capital would be positive for productivity.

2 - We are not getting lower working compensation over time. Not over the long run even lower working wages.

3 - We are not getting less consumption over time, either in total, or from those with below average incomes.