From: Anonymous <anon@anon.efga.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 07:28:07 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: poverty traps (Re: Sa
Message-ID: <57f699d8a7c3b0c919bf94093536d1ba@anon.efga.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Harka wrote:
> -=> Quoting In:anon@anon.efga.org (Monty Cantsin) to Harka <=-
>
> In> The government is not Janice's friend.  It takes away $18,000
> In> from her each year and plunges her into poverty, sort of.  If
> In> you are appealing to the government to assist Janice, first
> In> ask it to get the hell out of the way.  (I realize you may
> In> just be saying that Janice's plight is unavoidable, not that
> In> she should be helped with government money.)
>
>Hmm, we all agree, that the government is not somebody to be trusted
>to be your friend. However, we also know the amount of laws possible
>to "violate" and the consequences that would have. And one of the
>worst things you can do is evading taxes. At least when they clamp
>down on you. Not something, I'd recommend to a mother of four kids
>(that she really doesn't want to give up to
>government-so-schill-workers). Jim Choate commented on that already,
>so I save further words.

Ignoring the ethical issues (Is it ethical to lie about your income?
Is it ethical to break the law?), the consequences would probably not
be too severe, if there were any consequences at all.  We've seen
several cabinet level people conspire to shield their employees from
paying income tax and at least one of them (Ron Brown) did not even
leave office.  Nobody went to jail.

Or, consider the record for prostitutes.  How often do they go to jail
for neglecting to pay income tax?  Never, I believe.  Prosecution would
be hard after all, they receive cash and they spend cash.

You could also do other low risk or even legal things like trading
services.  Maybe a discount is given to parents who will watch
Janice's kids once in awhile.  Maybe they trade services for
food. Etc. Etc.

> In> Janice should be baby sitting.  Were she to take in 4 kids at
> In> $500/month, she would make as much as her job and be able to
> In> watch her own kids during the same time.
>
>True in short-term. But after 8 kids have been rummaging around in
>your apartment every day (even without licence and off-the-books and
>all that stuff) you can definitely expect to spend a couple of grands
>on repairs in a matter of a month.

You would be of more help to your friend Janice if you did not try to
find reasons for her to fail.  The reality is that 8 kids will not
cause thousands of dollars of damage every month.

Also, I left some play in my calculations.  She doesn't actually have
to make $2000 a month to break even because she already "makes" $1000
by watching her own kids.  That means she only has to make $1000 each
month to break even with her job.  Let's say the tax rate is 50% (it's
much lower), and she charges $500/month per kid.  Then, 4 kids will
result in an income of $1000/month.

There's still some fat there.  We haven't computed how much she'll
save in work related expenses.  You mentioned $120/month in mass
transit costs.  How much for clothing?  If she has to dress
professionally, $1000/year is quite a conservative figure.  (Don't
forget dry cleaning.)

And we haven't considered the fact that she can charge more money
because she is a babysitter and not a daycare center.

> In> The food is generous because four of the five are kids, the
> In> oldest only being 12.  Kids don't each much.
>
>You're confirming my suspicion about not having kids :)

Seriously, I don't think my figures are inaccurate.  How much can a
three year old eat?

And, incidentally, I doubt very much that you or Janice even know with
any accuracy what her actual expenses are.  Janice should be tracking
every expense to the penny.  She should review her spending on a
regular and scheduled basis to see where she could be spending it
better.

An adult who is not all that careful can comfortably buy enough food
for $200/month.  But, Janice should be more than careful.  She should
be fanatic about lowering this expense.  This will work better if she
looks at as an interesting puzzle to work out rather than a chore.

She should practice vegetarianism.  Not only that, she should be
carefully studying other poor people for ideas on how to get by on
just a little income.  Peasants of India, Mexico, and China will all
have interesting tricks.  For instance, the stereotypical Mexican diet
of corn and beans just turns out to be an optimal combination.  The
amino acids missing from the corn are found in the beans and vice
versa.  (How a bunch of "ignorant" peasants figured this out is a
mystery to me.)  There are many books on living inexpensively on a
vegetarian diet.  They tend to have titles like "Chinese Cooking on 25
Cents a Day".

These books may be found at the library, or at a used bookstore, or
even be borrowed.

It is somewhat ironic that you can spend much less money and eat
better than most Americans.

Also, she should hunt up a food coop.  I am sure there is one in her
area.  Usually you can volunteer some nominal amount of time and
receive at least a 10% discount.  Sometimes more.  Also, buying
staples in bulk can dramatically lower costs.  (Best to make sure you
like lentils before buying a fifty pound sack, though.)  Food coops
usually have people around who know a whole lot about living
inexpensively.  They may also have a lending library.

Anyway, you will find (hopefully) that there are thousands of ways to
improve one's situation.  They (usually) aren't painful - when you
find a new one it's fun.  After awhile you discover you are not in a
bad situation any more.  Isn't that exciting?

>Talking about freedom at the same time then is an oxymoron and you're
>confirming my "criticisms about the free market" (Yes Tim, I have
>re-considered my position without changing my perspective in the
>end).  Capitalism in it's current form does not allow for individual
>freedom for most people (exceptions apply), because they have to make
>the money to be free (independent).  If that requires doing for
>years, what you don't want to do (working in computers, although you
>hate them and all you really want to do is paint and live as an
>artist but can't afford to, for example), then that means by
>definition, that freedom has to be given up. At least temporarely and
>as mentioned before, that can be a _very_ long time for most people
>(who have been born into the "wrong" families, for example).

But of course you have to do things you don't want to do to put
food on the table!  This is true everywhere.

The key question is this: why should somebody else labor all summer so
you'll have food in the winter?  All a "free market" advocate is
saying is that you should not force the other guy to raise your food.
You have to persuade him to do it for you, perhaps by doing something
for him in return.  If you think about it for awhile you will realize
that this is a profoundly pacifistic belief.  And a very reasonable
and realistic one.

If nobody else values your natural painting talent it won't be of much
use getting food on the table.  You'll have to find something else you
can do for other people which they want and which you don't mind
doing.  How could this possibly be unjust?

>Cypherpunks sometimes tend to become somewhat theoretical about
>things, neglecting the possibility, that it may not apply on a
>larger (real-life)scale.

No, you don't understand the idea.  You are looking at it like this:
"How can we engineer this system so that everybody will do just fine
(by my definition.)"  The Cypherpunk point of view, to the extent
there is such a thing, is something like this: "It is not right to
dictate to other people what their life choices should be."

People will make mistakes.  People will get unlucky.  Some people will
get very unlucky and die (early).  Most Cypherpunks prefer this to a
world where we all live in little cells and have food brought every
day.  One way to solve the problems of the Janices in the world is to
tell them what to do: Do not raise four kids.  Do not get a lame
degree.  Do not get divorced.

This would solve Janice's "problems".  So what's wrong with the
picture?  Well, Janice apparently wanted four kids.  She apparently
wanted a degree in education instead of computer science.  How can we
judge whether getting married wasn't a worthwhile risk?  How can we
judge the value Janice places on her children?

The answer is: we can not and should not.  But, likewise, just because
Janice took some chances and it led to minor problems, that does not
mean that anybody else is obligated to worry about them.

The problems Janice has are called "real life".  Things may not be
what she wants right now, but they result from her choices and her
decisions.  To me, and most Cypherpunks, that is preferable.

Monty Cantsin
Editor in Chief
Smile Magazine
http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html
http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBNFOteJaWtjSmRH/5AQFy4Qf9FwMV1Swp0YSwuaSNhaSnaUGpIe9B6Ndf
m3eaSiiOhcQXaJH88CUUYUz2RvYqxqFpjfDp7Wzik9yncwuOHR1sd+LKzcAcD437
5DehzEhxnRSLBwVGVXy94FmLUXaEJCw5woedEhOa9GOPw2e8LUYkKOjG074Od1V1
Gs6XnBMnx/oa0lI1RNBi2oWbfBFzNSCiv24pp5PeMZVkb4e/MB51HOhv8FhH/f2J
Te1SF/w2awXbv0BU8B4bZAc660DMVaXgi+uqMs2gUB6HRqmOjek3fuVK0cS8YRzC
TMJSMehCZJbcoPEI+RkK2mnTqoivqdRdnYD4CnjiJ4KuSsqmGDWVNw==
=oSqR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----