The Two Americas

[Ndaccountant]

I posted it earlier, but nobody picked up on it. I thought it would generate a discussion, but since it didn't, I will start it again.

Single parent families are a MAJOR problem. According to Pew, single parent families have TRIPLED since 1960 and single mother families now make us 25% of all families.

From that attached article:

"Single parent households exist in a different socioeconomic pool than married households. Single mothers earn incomes that place them well below married mothers in the income ladder. According to Pew, married mothers earned a median family income of $80,000 in 2011, almost four times more than families led by a single mom. This is likely a consequence of the lower educational qualifications of single mothers, as well as the fact that they are younger and more likely to be black or Hispanic. Married mothers tend to be older and are disproportionately white and college-educated.

Our own analysis, using data from the Current Population Survey March Supplement for 2007-2012 closely parallels Pew’s findings, with some interesting nuances. In 2007, a married mother earned an average income of $57,194, nearly double that of single moms. Even after the recession hit married couples the hardest, average real incomes of single moms were just 60 percent of married moms in 2012. Differences in incomes between single and married dads also persisted over the course of the recession.

Although single dads earn more than single moms, but single parents, overall, earn less than married parents. It comes down to jobs, really. More than 80 percent of moms with spouses are employed, but only 60 percent of single mothers are in full-time jobs -- perhaps due to the difficulty of managing children alone. Similarly, single dads are less likely to be in full-time jobs (69 percent) than married dads (88 percent)."

I don't know about all of you, but until we fix the American household, this problem will not go away.

The Mysterious and Alarming Rise of Single Parenthood in America - Aparna Mathur, Hao Fu, and Peter Hansen - The Atlantic

 

[Bogtrotter07]

The idiocy wrapped in this one statement is amazing. Please never vote.

And you sir, are an expert on that! I am sure the board can agree.


Why call people names?

 

[Irish YJ]

Well stated.

While everyone is afraid of not being PC, the fact of the matter is that a large percentage of the poor are that way because they choose it. They have no real desire to improve themselves or their situations. There are so many programs available to these people (like free education) that would help them get a better job, but they refuse to put in the effort. The only thing they look for is the free money.

Last March I lost my $80K a year job. I had trouble finding another job even though I have 41 years experience in IT. I'm certain it was because of my age and a lack of a degree. I immediately got back in school and am taking classes at two colleges at the same time. I didn't qualify for any financial assistance because my earnings for the previous year were too high, so I'm paying for school out of my pocket. I ended up having to take a job that pays $25K less than what I was making, but I'm not crying or looking for handouts. I refinanced our mortgage (what a pain that process is), quit eating out, looked for other ways to cut costs and took some money out of our retirement fund to pay off the car so our bills would be manageable.

I mention this, because I came from a family that could considered upper lower class. We could afford a house and car, but we didn't have many extras. I made the conscientious decision that I wasn't going to live like that and raise a family in that manner. Yes there are some who just have faced unfortunate circumstances, but there are plenty of poor people who are poor because they choose to be. Why should they get a free hand out?

Sorry, I did say I was going to stay out of this debate, but couldn't resist! lol

You sir, are a what it's all about. When you get knocked down, you get back up. If you're knocked down a flight of stairs, you don't have to get back to the top right away, and are willing to stick around on a lower step while modifying your lifestyle until you can get back up to where you left off. If you are ever feel like working in Atlanta, PM me. If you are LAN/WAN savvy, PM me. We do national deployments and I use regional subs now and then. I have a pretty large account HQ'd in Indy.

I hate to say it, but yes, you're dead on about age and education as a factor. I'm guilty of it to a degree myself when hiring. It's really not age, it's openness, aggressiveness, and adaptable that I look for. It just turns out that young are typically more open and aggressive, and tend to easier with continuous change and chaos. Believe me, I'm less open and aggressive that I used to be myself. I've always liked change and chaos, so I guess I'm a bit different. Education speaks for itself. It's the ability to knock at a door or two. Doesn't let you in automatically, but more people answer when you knock. My IQ is pretty high, but I struggled sticking it out in college as I hadn't "found myself" as a kid (rephrase, stupid kid that partied too much). I'm glad I stuck it out. Not sure I would have ever had the opportunities I've had without that piece of paper. College taught me nothing I do today, but it did teach me persistence.

 

[Irish YJ]

I posted it earlier, but nobody picked up on it. I thought it would generate a discussion, but since it didn't, I will start it again.

Single parent families are a MAJOR problem. According to Pew, single parent families have TRIPLED since 1960 and single mother families now make us 25% of all families.

From that attached article:

"Single parent households exist in a different socioeconomic pool than married households. Single mothers earn incomes that place them well below married mothers in the income ladder. According to Pew, married mothers earned a median family income of $80,000 in 2011, almost four times more than families led by a single mom. This is likely a consequence of the lower educational qualifications of single mothers, as well as the fact that they are younger and more likely to be black or Hispanic. Married mothers tend to be older and are disproportionately white and college-educated.

Our own analysis, using data from the Current Population Survey March Supplement for 2007-2012 closely parallels Pew’s findings, with some interesting nuances. In 2007, a married mother earned an average income of $57,194, nearly double that of single moms. Even after the recession hit married couples the hardest, average real incomes of single moms were just 60 percent of married moms in 2012. Differences in incomes between single and married dads also persisted over the course of the recession.

Although single dads earn more than single moms, but single parents, overall, earn less than married parents. It comes down to jobs, really. More than 80 percent of moms with spouses are employed, but only 60 percent of single mothers are in full-time jobs -- perhaps due to the difficulty of managing children alone. Similarly, single dads are less likely to be in full-time jobs (69 percent) than married dads (88 percent)."

I don't know about all of you, but until we fix the American household, this problem will not go away.

The Mysterious and Alarming Rise of Single Parenthood in America - Aparna Mathur, Hao Fu, and Peter Hansen - The Atlantic

The American household, and community, are the two things most broken, which contribute the most IMHO to both our declining economic and moral state.

 

[Wild Bill]

I posted it earlier, but nobody picked up on it. I thought it would generate a discussion, but since it didn't, I will start it again.

Single parent families are a MAJOR problem. According to Pew, single parent families have TRIPLED since 1960 and single mother families now make us 25% of all families.

From that attached article:

"Single parent households exist in a different socioeconomic pool than married households. Single mothers earn incomes that place them well below married mothers in the income ladder. According to Pew, married mothers earned a median family income of $80,000 in 2011, almost four times more than families led by a single mom. This is likely a consequence of the lower educational qualifications of single mothers, as well as the fact that they are younger and more likely to be black or Hispanic. Married mothers tend to be older and are disproportionately white and college-educated.

Our own analysis, using data from the Current Population Survey March Supplement for 2007-2012 closely parallels Pew’s findings, with some interesting nuances. In 2007, a married mother earned an average income of $57,194, nearly double that of single moms. Even after the recession hit married couples the hardest, average real incomes of single moms were just 60 percent of married moms in 2012. Differences in incomes between single and married dads also persisted over the course of the recession.

Although single dads earn more than single moms, but single parents, overall, earn less than married parents. It comes down to jobs, really. More than 80 percent of moms with spouses are employed, but only 60 percent of single mothers are in full-time jobs -- perhaps due to the difficulty of managing children alone. Similarly, single dads are less likely to be in full-time jobs (69 percent) than married dads (88 percent)."

I don't know about all of you, but until we fix the American household, this problem will not go away.

The Mysterious and Alarming Rise of Single Parenthood in America - Aparna Mathur, Hao Fu, and Peter Hansen - The Atlantic

O'Reilly and Don Lemon agree. They're racist.

 

[BGIF]

O'Reilly and Don Lemon agree. They're racist.

So does Bill Cosby. Another racist?

 

[connor_in]

Why is everyone so up in arms on this topic? The title of the topic is correct per my old geography teacher...

The One North America + The One South America = The Two Americas

 

[Wild Bill]

So does Bill Cosby. Another racist?

My opinion on Cosby can't be trusted. My love for Jello pudding runs too deep.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

This conversation is silly in a few regards.

Almost anyone can site anecdotal evidence, or site one case that shows just about whatever they want. YJ, you really need to turn your cousin in, because she is defrauding the system and clearly violating the rules.

Here is how welfare works. There are hard and fast rules. The workers tell recipients to report income "changes." They don't tell the recipient's what is okay and what isn't. So the fact of the matter is, no one could plan a course if action on self improvement if they wanted to, because these people live in the constant fear of losing the small safety net they have. Except if you work for Walmart. I have a child (very young adult) who had a friend apply for a job at Walmart. This young lady had a child as a teen, and decided to keep the baby. So she was interested in benefits. Do you know that interviewer from Walmart could quote figures and numbers for Federal programs off the top of her head with accuracy? These are numbers you just can't get anywhere. "Here is what happens to this if you make that," kind of stuff. I was curious. I looked for that information myself. I made phone calls. Used the internet. Went to the library. Talked to lots of people in the field. The less I found anyone else with that level of information, the more curious I got. Turns out that Walmart has "made a living" hiring individuals on public assistance, and has gotten real good at obtaining information on how high pay can go, (etc.), before benefits cease.

But I can say this, purchase of a new car, and making payments if properly reported of a car registered in the name of the recipient, would result in a suspension of the recipients benefits. Yes you are allowed to own a car, but with a value limit. They go right to year and model, so it must be a lower amount. And you are only allowed to move so much money. So unless you are a drug dealer and totally defrauding the system, you cannot possibly swing payments and still even qualify for food or medical assistance.

So if we are going to hold these people accountable for changing their lives, why don't we develop a system that encourages them to do so? We don't.

One step further, what about a kid I helped in 2008 and 2009 that came back from Iraq. They build a fabulous left ear for him. He was on patrol, .50 cal machine gunner. Everyone else died. A piece of metal entered under his chin on the right side and exited the left side of his head. They are not sure whether that was the same one that went through his buttocks and came out his chest, or one that went through his leg. At any rate he went about two hundred feet up and through the air, (they estimate.) We worked hard to help him learn to scribe his whole day, and then cross off what he had done. I worked with him for about eight weeks, off and on. Every day I had to introduce myself to him. Some days he may have remembered me but not my name, as he said, but I don't know. I would go home and weep alone. Who is going to take care of him?

His wife and he had been in the process of a divorce, and she was trying to make sure that he would never see his two children again. He was a problem to deal with. He was trying to get a job, because he remembered his family very well. He just couldn't remember what he had done fifteen minutes before. Shouldn't we have a system geared around protecting people like him, not just providing a high return on investment?

I mean what is important to you?

In the Scandinavian countries the majority of women give birth while unmarried. It works quite well. There society and system is set up for this. And needless to say, their divorce rates are down. It works swimmingly. Here children are doomed because of religious views and the huge moneymaking industry divorce has become.

 

[phgreek]

Redistribution wouldn't be necessary if the country's wealth was distributed equally in the first place. The disparity in wages in this country is ridiculous. For every person cheating the welfare system there is a rich white man making multi-millions of dollars while he plays golf at the finest golf courses or dines in the finest restaurants. One works his *** off for minimum wages or can't find a job at all while the other gets paid very, very well for the work of others. The McDonald's or Wal-Mart worker is a good example of the first and a recent presidential candidate is a good example of the second. Unfortunately, the country's financial resources are solely in the hands of the latter and others like him.

The fallacy in the attitudes reflected in this post are the reason for generational poverty. If you can't see that...shrug?

The cycle of wealth starts with motivation, dedication, and restraint...and a refusal to allow offspring to see it any other way. Families who leave poverty behind refuse to make excuses....and they work to the point of an early grave for 2 sometimes 3 generations. The White guy you refer to is likely a few generations removed from someone who sacrificed life and limb to drag their family forth from poverty...so while you focus on what the grandson has...folks never want to be the grandfather...but that's whitie's fault...WHATEVER!

You don't like the simplistic lecture...don't say stupid racist things...pretty simple...

and BTW...I got news for ya...if you think a job at Walmart or Mcdonalds should provide a living wage...you are fvcking nuts....those are things you do while you better yourself. Those are jobs that used to be manned by high school and college kids...simply because the economy sucks SOOOOOOOOOOO bad, and those jobs are manned by people in their 30s doesn't change the job or what it should cost.

 

[EddytoNow]

For a financial system based on consumerism, at some point if the majority of people can't afford to buy things or all of the nation's GDP is controlled by a few, it is pretty much a positive feedback loop leading to economic collapse. What is that point? IDK. Our society gets screwed and would pretty much fall apart.

This is what I have been saying. And the fact that I accurately pointed out that the over-whelming majority of the nation's GDP is in the control of white men has opened me up to charges of racism. Why have I also not been accused of sexism?

A million dollars in the hands of one man buys a couple of cars and a couple of homes. That same million dollars divided into twenty $50,000 wage earners (white, black, red, yellow, brown, male, female) buys twenty homes and twenty cars. What's the average Wal-Mart worker make? Not enough to buy a home, but maybe enough to buy a 10-year old used car.

I have refrained from calling anyone names during this discussion. The issue is wage disparity plain and simple. If anyone has any facts to prove that white males do not control the majority of the wealth in this country, I'm still waiting to hear them.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

This is what I have been saying. And the fact that I accurately pointed out that the over-whelming majority of the nation's GDP is in the control of white men has opened me up to charges of racism. Why have I also not been accused of sexism?

A million dollars in the hands of one man buys a couple of cars and a couple of homes. That same million dollars divided into twenty $50,000 wage earners (white, black, red, yellow, brown, male, female) buys twenty homes and twenty cars. What's the average Wal-Mart worker make? Not enough to buy a home, but maybe enough to buy a 10-year old used car.

I have refrained from calling anyone names during this discussion. The issue is wage disparity plain and simple. If anyone has any facts to prove that white males do not control the majority of the wealth in this country, I'm still waiting to hear them.

Your bleeding heart cries of theft by the rich white man, yet what you really want is theft as you describe above.

We're all still waiting (not holding my breath) to hear how Person A (who legally earned his/ her wealth) stole it, and where you or anyone else has the legal or moral authority to 1) STEAL someone's private property or money and 2) redistribute as you see fit.

I can only imagine your inflated sense of importance and self worth with such daunting responsibilities you've laid upon yourself.

 

[Me2SouthBend]

To simplify his argument, he sees all the poor, and he thinks the solution is more redistribution of wealth.

This is just the same ol same old. Except is that really the solution? You already have massive transfers of wealth from the upper middle class and the upper class to the bottom half. The bottom 41% net -9% in federal income taxes. In other words, not only does the bottom 41% not contribute income taxes but they are net recipients at tax time. Then, factor in all the social programs that help the poor: food stamps, Medicaid, housing assistance, college assistance, etc. in addition to the practically innumerable redistribution programs at the state and local level. You end up with already massive redistributions. Far more than there used to be. Yet, even as the redistribution goes up, the "two Americas" grow wider. Funny how that works.

Maybe robbing Peter to pay Paul isn't the answer.

So what is the answer?

I don't know, but I'm glad Pat isn't here to answer the question.

 

[phgreek]

This is what I have been saying. And the fact that I accurately pointed out that the over-whelming majority of the nation's GDP is in the control of white men has opened me up to charges of racism. Why have I also not been accused of sexism?

This is what you said:

"For every person cheating the welfare system there is a rich white man making multi-millions of dollars while he plays golf at the finest golf courses or dines in the finest restaurants. One works his *** off for minimum wages or can't find a job at all while the other gets paid very, very well for the work of others."

...just gonna let folks decide for themselves what you were trying to "point out"...

 

[Cackalacky]

Man fix the quotes....lol. Looks like I am arguing with everyone.

 

[NDBoiler]

So conversely, has the "rich white man" not worked hard for years in his life to get to the point where he could make that kind if money? What about a rich Asian or African American man, have they worked harder to earn their millions? What about a rich woman, has she worked harder, and is therefore more deserving, than all of the rich men? The point is, this is basic economics at work. Every worker, from the corporate CEO to the minimum wage fast food employee, is paid exactly what they are "worth" in the market. If a company is unable to fill an open job or jobs at a given wage, then the market dictates that that wage will go up to attract the worker to fill that job until the employment/wage reach an equilibrium. Take for example the fast food worker's strike from last week. If there are unemployed workers willing to take the striking worker's jobs at the same wage, then the market has dictated that the wage is "correct", but if the employer cannot fill those jobs, then the market will dictate an increase in wages to attract workers to then fill those jobs.

This is what I have been saying. And the fact that I accurately pointed out that the over-whelming majority of the nation's GDP is in the control of white men has opened me up to charges of racism. Why have I also not been accused of sexism?

A million dollars in the hands of one man buys a couple of cars and a couple of homes. That same million dollars divided into twenty $50,000 wage earners (white, black, red, yellow, brown, male, female) buys twenty homes and twenty cars. What's the average Wal-Mart worker make? Not enough to buy a home, but maybe enough to buy a 10-year old used car.

I have refrained from calling anyone names during this discussion. The issue is wage disparity plain and simple. If anyone has any facts to prove that white males do not control the majority of the wealth in this country, I'm still waiting to hear them.

I think I basically did as part of my response in Post #19 to your original post.

 

[nsideirish]

I know one guy on my side: Pope attacks mega-salaries and wealth gap in peace message | Reuters

What a commie!!!!

 

[Cackalacky]

I know one guy on my side: Pope attacks mega-salaries and wealth gap in peace message | Reuters

What a commie!!!!

I know he leaves the Vatican dressed in disguise so he can visit homeless shelters, harshed on a cardinal for his lavish spending, and other stuff, but the Vactican is one of the richest and most opulent places in the world. Not really a shining example to use to support your point, plus he is from Argentina, which has a history of socialist/communist leanings. Maybe we should leave the pontiff and his philosophies out of this one eh?

 

[Black Irish]

I know one guy on my side: Pope attacks mega-salaries and wealth gap in peace message | Reuters

What a commie!!!!

Pope Francis seems like a good and caring man, and I have no problem with him being the leader of my church. I appreciate that he cares seriously about the plight of the poor. That being said, I ain't planning on letting him do my taxes and estate planning for me (not that I have an estate to plan for). He's not an economist or a finance minister; he's making broad pronouncements so that Catholics out there give some serious thought about helping those in need, which we are called to do.

 

[NDBoiler]

1. Not at all. What I'm saying is the wealth is disproportionately concentrated in the hands of white men. You can't really believe that a corporate executive whose company loses money deserves to be paid millions of dollars for spending all day on the golf course, while a man/woman working 60-80 hours a week deserves only $8.00 per hour.

2. Some earned it with their labor or service. Many simply inherited their money and contribute very little actual labor to the country's economy. Many others, in fact, did steal it from their stockholders, their customers (through inflated prices), their employees (through sub-standard wages), or greed (multiple homes, cars, etc. while others remain homeless, including children and the elderly).

3. I never suggested this and don't know why you suggest that I did.

4. No one physically forces them to work at McDonald's or Wal-Mart, but they do so to survive because they have no alternative. They are not lazy, shiftless or whatever else you are implying. They would gladly accept a higher paying job. Are you offering them a job with better wages and benefits for their families?

5. I never suggested that wealth be distributed equally. In fact, I specifically said that wealth redistribution would be unnecessary if their wasn't such a disparity in wages to begin with.

The gap between the wealthy and the poor continues to grow wider. Throughout history greedy societies have come to their end when the poorest in their ranks have been left without hope. The wealthy in America have been able to isolate themselves in their secluded communities ignoring the disparity that exists in standard of living, access to health care, etc. They get very defensive when faced with this disparity. The general attitude seems to be "I got mine. To **** with those less fortunate than I." Such a sad state for a country that prides itself on being the land of opportunity.

I think the bolded above illustrates some key misunderstandings on your part in regards to this discussion. A company that loses money while having a high paid executive(s) is going to replace that executive just the same, otherwise they have no clue how to run a business and won't be functioning as a business for too long. Also, your belief that corporate executives are sitting around playing golf all day is misguided. In fact, I would challenge you to present statistics to support your statement about minimum wage workers consistently working 60-80 hours a week. Here are some articles that actually support the idea that corporate executives work significant hours:

Report: Most Executives Work 50-Hour-Plus Weeks - CIO.com

The 50 Hour Work Week For Executives — The Idolbuster

Labor Days: How Executives Work [Infographic]

I can also relate from personal experience through observation of my father's work career. He grew up in Oak Park, IL a low-middle class suburb of Chicago. His mom worked in quality control at a candy factoy, and his dad ran a gas station. He worked his ass off and got into Notre Dame (paying his own way working multiple summer jobs), and graduated with a degree in finance in 1974. He worked his way up the ladder and for the past 20+ years has been a CFO (not even making making millions of dollars per year). I know he has worked an average of 55+ office hours per week for years, and NEVER has his phone/ipad off because he is constantly emailing on weekends/evenings as well, due to the fact that some of the people he works with are in Europe (and because a lot of them work tons of hours as well). To blindly characterize soemone in this position as undeserving or not hard working is simply ignorant. I would encourage you to reasearch your opinion a little more on this matter.

 

[rikkitikki08]

You Want details? Fine. I drive a Ferrari, 355 Cabriolet, What's up? I have a ridiculous house in the South Fork. I have every toy you could possibly imagine. And best of all kids, I am liquid.

 

[NDBoiler]

Pope Francis seems like a good and caring man, and I have no problem with him being the leader of my church. I appreciate that he cares seriously about the plight of the poor. That being said, I ain't planning on letting him do my taxes and estate planning for me (not that I have an estate to plan for). He's not an economist or a finance minister; he's making broad pronouncements so that Catholics out there give some serious thought about helping those in need, which we are called to do.

This^^^^

To go back to the original article author as well, he's not an economist either, and appears pretty unqualified to speak with any authority on the subject matter but yet he still did.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Pope Francis seems like a good and caring man, and I have no problem with him being the leader of my church. I appreciate that he cares seriously about the plight of the poor. That being said, I ain't planning on letting him do my taxes and estate planning for me (not that I have an estate to plan for). He's not an economist or a finance minister; he's making broad pronouncements so that Catholics out there give some serious thought about helping those in need, which we are called to do.

Yes sir

 

[rikkitikki08]

I know you're not standing on your front porch with a bag of money waiting for me to call you. But I'm not some 18-year-old selling a cure for AIDS. I'm 46 years old, I have 22 years market experience, I know this business. So pick up your skirt, grab your balls, and lets go make some money

 

[nsideirish]

Just posting the thoughts of someone I am sure we all respect on here.

None of us are economists so why even have this thread? We can't have well-informed opinions unless we have a PhD in the specific subject?

 

[rikkitikki08]

Im sitting here quoting the great American film boiler room and i cant even get a response.......this is bush league!

 

[Bluto]

The American household, and community, are the two things most broken, which contribute the most IMHO to both our declining economic and moral state.

If we are going to have a serious discussion about this shouldn't we then also look at how an amoral value system (capitalism for many is much more than purely an economic model as demonstrated by the rhetoric of how it unequivocally equates to freedom) has also played a part in undermining individual households as well as entire communities and how it's byproducts encourage or discourage various behaviors? The Catholic Church seems to think so as demonstrated by some of the current Pope's statements.

 

[phgreek]

I know he leaves the Vatican dressed in disguise so he can visit homeless shelters, harshed on a cardinal for his lavish spending, and other stuff, but the Vactican is one of the richest and most opulent places in the world. Not really a shining example to use to support your point, plus he is from Argentina, which has a history of socialist/communist leanings. Maybe we should leave the pontiff and his philosophies out of this one eh?

pretty good point. He owns very little...but he doesn't want for anything either...not exactly in the fray like other people...

I Love the pontiff, and I understand he comes at this strictly from the perspective of kindness and charity, and not with avarice, jealousy, malice, or political motives...so on one hand there is wisdom in what he says on the level of individual practitioners of the faith. If the private owner of a business raises salaries some as his wealth increases, or institutes profit sharing based on his/her adherence to the pontiff's message...good for them.

I draw the line when those sentiments are transferred to "Policy" which effectively forces the papal view on those whom may not share it...rather that be governments to citizens or boards of directors to stockholders...or the very worst of "second hand smoke" via governments to businesses.

I don't deny the compensation disparity...BUT...look at the ranks of college football coaches...how head coaches have come to be saviors or goats in a 3 year window...same for CEOs. Money goes to the pinnacle of where the risk/reward lives...pretty simple. The economy below the top has largely not changed much in 30 years, but dancing on the point sure has...

 

[NDBoiler]

Just posting the thoughts of someone I am sure we all respect on here.

None of us are economists so why even have this thread? We can't have well-informed opinions unless we have a PhD in the specific subject?

After postiing I thought that would come up, LOL.

But to answer it anyways, I agree with you in regards to a message board, as the assumed status quo is here we are all "regular joes" for the most part, pontificating on various subjects. But my point in regards to Mr. Simon was that he sought to use the pulpit of the interview to push an idea or agenda (as if it was authoritative) to a wide reaching audience given his position of celebrity status.

 

[NDBoiler]

If we are going to have a serious discussion about this shouldn't we then also look at how an amoral value system (capitalism for many is much more than purely an economic model as demonstrated by the rhetoric of how it unequivocally equates to freedom) has also played a part in undermining individual households as well as entire communities and how it's byproducts encourage or discourage various behaviors? The Catholic Church seems to think so as demonstrated by some of the current Pope's statements.

Thats a great point Bluto. I agree that there are indeed flaws with capitalism and what it can cause people to do (greed, etc). But, I also believe you would find similar issues, and likely to a greater extent, in any other system. Socialism, communism, totalitariansim have all proven themselves in history to be significantly flawed and cause far reaching social ills over time. If you can point to a basis for an economic system that is "more correct" than capitalism, then I am all ears. I just feel that it is the least "evil" of options.