Current Events > Interesting article comparing poverty in Japan to the US

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-07-30/u-s-economy-personal-bad-behavior-isn-t-what-causes-poverty

So Japanese people are doing everything right -- eschewing violence, avoiding drugs, working hard and not having kids out of wedlock. They are following the conservative prescription, as well as or better than any other developed country in the world. And yet still, many of them are poor. This suggests that there is something very wrong with the conservative theory of poverty.

Although some individuals suffer economic hardship due to poor their own choices -- and violence, drugs and family breakdown undoubtedly make life worse for poor people in any country -- the main causes of poverty are more related to the economys structure. Too many people fall through the cracks in the capitalist system because of unemployment, sickness, injury or other forms of bad luck. And the market, on its own, simply doesnt create enough well-paying jobs for everyone to be able to afford a comfortable lifestyle.

So the solution for the U.S.s relatively high poverty rate will probably rely little on personal responsibility and moral rectitude. Instead, the U.S. should look to European countries, or to Australia and Canada, for ideas on how to reduce poverty. Theres just no substitute for a strong social safety net.
---

Balrog0 posted...

They are following the conservative prescription, as well as or better than any other developed country in the world. And yet still, many of them are poor. This suggests that there is something very wrong with the conservative theory of poverty.

Well, a conservative would likely just state something along the lines of, "That's all they were worth anyway, or else they'd have more money." You have to look at it from an Ayn Rand prism to understand the mindset: the toughest and most ruthless get the lion's share, everyone else is just a parasite and should be relegated to subsist on mere scraps. To them the mere idea of a 'social safety net' is both weakness and an affront to those strong enough to have what they need.
---

DuneMan posted...

Well, a conservative would likely just state something along the lines of, "That's all they were worth anyway, or else they'd have more money." You have to look at it from an Ayn Rand prism to understand the mindset: the toughest and most ruthless get the lion's share, everyone else is just a parasite and should be relegated to subsist on mere scraps. To them the mere idea of a 'social safety net' is both weakness and an affront to those strong enough to have what they need.

That's entirely true but to say it's incorrect would presumptuous . It's a different mindset that is certainly against the moral compass of the world at large but again can't be said to be entirely wrong.

Poverty rate, share of population with less than half of median national income.

Seems already flawed, by defining "poverty" differently from the nations themselves.
US poverty line is about a fifth of median income, and Japan doesn't define one at all.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Seems already flawed, by defining "poverty" differently from the nations themselves.

this is how most nations measure poverty. we're an exception to the rule

http://oecdinsights.org/2014/06/30/the-measure-of-poverty/
---

Balrog0 posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Seems already flawed, by defining "poverty" differently from the nations themselves.

this is how most nations measure poverty. we're an exception to the rule

http://oecdinsights.org/2014/06/30/the-measure-of-poverty/

Even that's flawed, by the article's own admission.

But theres a problem with relative poverty its eh, relative. It tells you only how a person or a group is faring compared to the general population. That can become an issue during a recession, when there may be a general decline in peoples income (and, thus, in median income). As a result, even if poorer people are suddenly earning a lot less, they may not be very much worse off in relative terms.

ok
---

We just need to accept that some people just can't hack it on their own.
Tossing money at them, in misguided belief that they suddenly can hack it if they'd just have money tossed at them, isn't really helping.

Maybe we need some sort of group homes or something, like half-way houses for people who are never really going to reach more than half-way.

how on earth can that be your take away from the article?
---

Balrog0 posted...

how on earth can that be your take away from the article?

What's the takeaway I'm supposed to have?

DuneMan posted...

Well, a conservative would likely just state something along the lines of, "That's all they were worth anyway, or else they'd have more money." You have to look at it from an Ayn Rand prism to understand the mindset: the toughest and most ruthless get the lion's share, everyone else is just a parasite and should be relegated to subsist on mere scraps. To them the mere idea of a 'social safety net' is both weakness and an affront to those strong enough to have what they need.

Unfortunately, this.

---

You can have any take away you want, I'm just struggling to see how you got there. the article itself is making the opposite conclusion to what you're saying and your only objection to it so far has been a pretty minor one about measurement
---

Balrog0 posted...

You can have any take away you want, I'm just struggling to see how you got there. the article itself is making the opposite conclusion to what you're saying and your only objection to it so far has been a pretty minor one about measurement

Well for one it's Bloomberg Opinion so I'd say his take is just as valid as the assistant finance professor who wrote it.

Balrog0 posted...

You can have any take away you want, I'm just struggling to see how you got there. the article itself is making the opposite conclusion to what you're saying and your only objection to it so far has been a pretty minor one about measurement

"Some people just can't do capitalism" seems to be the same conclusion as the opinion piece here.

I mean it explicitly says a european style social safety net is the answer bro

unless you mean something else by 'throwing money at them' then it seems to be the opposite conclusion
---

The weak should fear the strong.
---

Balrog0 posted...

I mean it explicitly says a european style social safety net is the answer bro

unless you mean something else by 'throwing money at them' then it seems to be the opposite conclusion

In the end, "throwing money at them" is essentially a bribe to not participate, and just leave the rest of us alone. If that's acceptable, then so be it.

Istism posted...

but again can't be said to be entirely wrong.

fine i'll say it

its entirely wrong

and QM

being awful itt what a surprise
---

Paper_Okami posted...

and QM

being awful itt what a surprise

Cynical pragmatism just does that.

And then you look at the graph showing "share of GDP spent on social programs"...Japan was higher than Australia and Canada.

So...lower social program spending?

---

EwokCommanda posted...

And then you look at the graph showing "share of GDP spent on social programs"...Japan was higher than Australia and Canada.

So...lower social program spending?

As also noted in the article, Japan's standing is inflated by the amount they spend on health care.

These numbers are a few years old and understate Japan's spending. You can see how much faster they're growing in Exhibit 2, though. That's driven by an aging population

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/oct/us-health-care-global-perspective
---

Balrog0 posted...

I mean it explicitly says a european style social safety net is the answer bro

unless you mean something else by 'throwing money at them' then it seems to be the opposite conclusion

Yeah, but there are EU countries with higher jobless and homeless rates than the US, EU countries with free college but lower graduate rates than the US, a significant number of countries where the average person is making so little they would fall under the American poverty line, etc. Just saying "do it like the EU" isn't an answer either.

By many metrics the American capitalist system serves far more people far better than the systems that are often pointed to as what we should be switching to. Not all metrics for sure, but IMO there is this misguided belief that europe doesn't have any of these problems.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Yeah, but there are EU countries with higher jobless and homeless rates than the US, EU countries with free college but lower graduate rates than the US, a significant number of countries where the average person is making so little they would fall under the American poverty line, etc. Just saying "do it like the EU" isn't an answer either.

I agree. It's just an op-ed, not a treatise on dealing with poverty, I just thought it was an interesting angle on the whole 'culture of poverty' argument that I hadn't encountered before
---

Balrog0 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Yeah, but there are EU countries with higher jobless and homeless rates than the US, EU countries with free college but lower graduate rates than the US, a significant number of countries where the average person is making so little they would fall under the American poverty line, etc. Just saying "do it like the EU" isn't an answer either.

I agree. It's just an op-ed, not a treatise on dealing with poverty, I just thought it was an interesting angle on the whole 'culture of poverty' argument that I hadn't encountered before

So... the conclusion here is that every economic system sucks, and we're just arguing over which one sucks less?

Isn't there a large issue in Japan with impoverished elderly citizens purposefully committing misdemeanor crimes to get taken to prison for a roof, bed, and food?

Seems like an issue, especially with the size of the elderly population.
---

Looking to those countries is a bad idea, today. The fringe crazies on the far left want this so they can push bonkers, country collapsing policies that will make more people poor.
---

Godnorgosh posted...

The article clearly isn't framing this as a problem primarily of personal responsibility.

Responsibility, competence, and happenstance all combine into "can't do capitalism".

Unfortunately, the modern concept of "safety net" in the US undermines responsibility and ignores luck, while assuming we're incompetent.
The only real exception is unemployment insurance.

Godnorgosh posted...

If you thought that this was even remotely the upshot of the piece, read it again.

"bootstraps is a lie"?

LepartialJury posted...

The more people a country has, the harder it is to sustain it, more at 11. Japan's situation is the closest to the US due to being the second most populated developed country after it. Their low crime rates and lengthy lifespan is already miraculous enough. Socialism will be even less sustainable. Europe is basically the tiny gated white upper class neighborhood of the world. You can't expect to use small Vermont town policies in a place like Detroit. And those small Vermont town policies will have to be drastically changed if more and more people go there.

https://medium.com/@MattBruenig/small-populations-make-it-harder-to-do-what-nordic-countries-do-c5a04715e657

But the exact opposite is true. Small populations should make it way harder to do what Nordic countries do.
Smaller countries are much more reliant on the global economy than bigger countries. One easy way to see this is to look at a countrys exports as a percent of GDP.

The Nordic countries export 3 to 4 times as much as the US exports. They have to because their smaller domestic market means that the only way they can grow businesses to any scale is to sell on the global market. If their exports become uncompetitive because of their high taxes and labor costs, then that is a much bigger problem for them than it is for a country like the US, which is less dependent on exports for its GDP.
Additionally, the small size of these countries should also mean that it is a lot easier for people to avoid investing capital in the countries if the economic environment becomes too unfavorable. Companies or individuals looking for places to park their capital can easily afford to skip over the Nordic countries without missing out on much. But it is much harder to skip over the US, again because of its large market size.

Unrelated to its population size, the Nordic countries also face unique challenges owing to their integration into Europe and the EU. A rich person in a Nordic country who is fed up with high taxation can easily slip into lower tax areas elsewhere in Europe. Immigration from one country to another is not very difficult. The same is not true of the US where disgruntled rich people have a much harder time emigrating elsewhere than their Nordic peers.

Whats so remarkable about the Nordic countries is that they manage to pull off their systems despite the considerable handicap of small populations and small market sizes. Despite all the pressures being small puts on having lower wages and lower taxes in order to remain competitive, the Nordics consistently post the highest unit labor costs in Europe and highest taxes in the developed world. Yet they flourish.

---

Antifar posted...

Thus, the quickest way to establish a colony on Mars would be a global wealth tax.
Anyone who can, will John Galt the entire planet, all at once.

Article makes the old mistake in not getting that conservatives don't guarantee financial success so much as they point to obvious self sabotage.
---

LepartialJury posted...

The average person is smarter and more educated than the average person that has more population so their contributions will be stronger

whut

LepartialJury posted...

Also, you know, you're forgetting the biggest massive advantage that allows them to "flourish" that Nordic countries have over countries like the US and Japan and that's natural fossil fuel.

we're one of the largest exporter of oil in the world my man
---

Balrog0 posted...

we're one of the largest exporter of oil in the world my man

Don't we import more than we export, though?

---

EwokCommanda posted...

Balrog0 posted...

we're one of the largest exporter of oil in the world my man

Don't we import more than we export, though?

Thats also true of other Nordic countries, though
---

Balrog0 posted...

Thats also true of other Nordic countries, though

From what I could find, Norway and Sweden export more, while Iceland and Denmark import more.

Meh...not like it matters.

---

LepartialJury posted...

With less people around each person can be given more education, more resources

They have fewer resources to accompany their smaller populations, though. GDP per capita is in fact higher in the US than in Sweden, Finland, and Iceland.
---