The Two Americas

[goldandblue]

This idea that there is no social mobility in the United States, and that you can only get by if you are of a certain skin color or from a certain socioeconomic class is just BS. Yes, it is certainly easier to be prosperous if you were born into certain socioeconomic classes, but the idea that it is IMPOSSIBLE to get by if you weren't born white and rich is just an agenda that is easy to push because it makes many, many people feel good about themselves and feel like they don't have to work hard or make sacrifices in their lives to get ahead.

I grew up in a small town in the Midwest (99.2% white in the 2000 census with the 0.8% being comprised of my family that lived in town). A lot of my friends from high school who never studied hard and took six years to get a useless degree from some college no one has heard of and have no discernible skills work at the local Wal-Mart or some other similar type of job, and make next to nothing. I have other friends I went to high school with who are now on food stamps (yet still somehow have discretionary income for weed), and wouldn't you know it they grew up with more money than I did. Why anyone thinks those people deserve more than they get is beyond me. You choose to stack shelves for a living, then you have to deal with the consequences.

Here was my formula for going from a non-white household with $25k in household income in which I lived with a single mother who worked three jobs to support myself and my elderly grandparents who lived in the same house as me to me hitting the top tax bracket this year as a 28-year old. My mother was not sexually irresponsible and did not have additional children she couldn't afford to support. If she had had one more kid, our family would have been flat-out broke on the $25k per year my mother made. Instead, she sacrificed for me, wearing worn out clothes and shoes with holes in them, worked seven days a week, and never had any more children. I repaid this by working hard, never drinking in high school, being valedictorian of my class, going to an Ivy League school, and now as a 28-year old I hit the top tax bracket this year.

Note that there is no welfare, no governmental aid, and no "white privilege" in the aforementioned story. It was comprised entirely of self-sacrifice, sacrifice for one's child, focus, and hard work. How many generations did this social mobility take? It took one, and it didn't even involve being a professional entertainer or athlete. One generation of a family committed to hard work, education, not blaming others, and not playing the race card as an excuse for one's lack of success.

In fact, I once wrote a college application essay talking about overcoming constant, malicious, racism at my high school, and when my mother read it, she was extremely upset. She was upset because she said that she thought that she had taught me better than to ever use the race card. I remember being taken aback by her response at the time, but now 10 year later and having joined the real world as an adult, I realized how right she was in terms of trying to teach how to have a useful, constructive perspective on the world.

Separately, have you all seen in person what destitute people actually look like in China and India or elsewhere in the third world? Their quality of life is literally (and by literally I don't mean that figuratively) the same as feral, flea-infested dogs. It is jarring to your soul to see in person. That's not what your average family on food stamps looks like in America. It's not even close.

This may be the best post since I've been here.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

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.

Nothing in this article is about "robbing Peter to pay Paul," except the authors commentary on the clinical aspect of Marx's work.

What reading this article, discussing this, and having a conversation about this issue takes is someone with the intelligence, (many have it), the heart and concern, (that is out there but not in great quantity, [certainly not if you are not one of the have nots!]), and the imagination. You need imagination to put yourself in the position of those on the other side of the divide. You also need imagination to see the thousands of possible solutions to ameliorating this situation, and healing this country, instead of apply the same "heatless" Band-Aids that have been applied in the past. It may have been original or fresh in the past, but it is just stupid and heartless to recommend the same solutions that didn't work so many times before.

One thing I know is if you make it all about money, you will fail in doing or saying anything significant, and you will exclude yourself from the real conversation by showing your limitations.

This is where the author really got going:

Ultimately we abandoned that and believed in the idea of trickle-down and the idea of the market economy and the market knows best, to the point where now libertarianism in my country is actually being taken seriously as an intelligent mode of political thought. It's astonishing to me. But it is. People are saying I don't need anything but my own ability to earn a profit. I'm not connected to society. I don't care how the road got built, I don't care where the firefighter comes from, I don't care who educates the kids other than my kids. I am me. It's the triumph of the self. I am me, hear me roar.

That we've gotten to this point is astonishing to me because basically in winning its victory, in seeing that Wall come down and seeing the former Stalinist state's journey towards our way of thinking in terms of markets or being vulnerable, you would have thought that we would have learned what works. Instead we've descended into what can only be described as greed. This is just greed. This is an inability to see that we're all connected, that the idea of two Americas is implausible, or two Australias, or two Spains or two Frances.

Civil War

There is a brilliant point here with discussing the Civil War. Three actually.

The Civil War wasn't about Politics, (States Rights - Northern dominance) or Morality, (Slavery). It was about economics. There were two economic systems in the United States, in many ways they were competitive; and one was dying, the agrarian slave holding economy of the deep south.

The Civil War was one of the few times in history that the side that rose up was an oppressor, not the oppressed. The oppressed played a crucial part in the Civil War, immigrants from the North were the chief source of cannon fodder, and slaves became the "cause célèbre" for the moral justification for the wounding and killing of so many.

The South was goaded and cajoled into the aggressor's roll in the civil war, and dammed themselves in the process. From Pickett's charge, (often called the death of the flower of the true South), to the burning of Atlanta, and the pilfering of the true wealth of the South by the carpetbaggers. In hindsight those firebrands that thought they could gain what they wanted by insurrection were . . . wrong. So those that follow are . . . stupid. The only time armed insurrection works is when an oppressed peoples has no other course. South African natives against the white Colonists; Irish against the British; Americans against the British, etc.

But today we have rule of law, a system of government that works (by in large.) What we don't have is social justice. What we don't have is a burning desire to follow the word from nearly two thousand years ago, and take care of those least among us. What mental midgets want to do is throw money at, or take it away from the problem. At least those that want to throw money at the problem have some semblance of charity in their heart. They are so much better than the mean dullards that express a logic that you can achieve equality by promoting economic inequity! Think about that!

And think about the fact that the solution is so easy. Provide enfranchisement for the greatest number of people in an economically viable way, that creates wealth!

 

[Bluto]

Then people need to leave these areas and move somewhere else where they can get a job.

This assumes that they would have the job skills needed to enter into the labor market elsewhere.

someone who is a "have" and another that is a "have not."

I have no problem with there being "winners and losers" to a degree. I do have a major problem however, with the increasing gap between the supposed "winners and losers" and the direction that has been trending for the last 30 years as demonstrated by the data that Cak posted.

I also think the author made some really valid points in terms of being able to critique our current economic model and capitalism in general in a reasoned and thoughtful manner. The fact of the matter is we do have huge segments of the economy where risk has been socialized (the financial sector and corporate scale agriculture come immediately to mind).

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

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.

Well hello, community organizer. Welcome to the party.

1) Rich white man: are you saying there are no rich minorities?

2) Those people with money: did they earn it legally with their labor/ service, or did they steal it from someone else?

3) Is there some little council we don't know about that decides how this country's "resources" are distributed?

4) Does anyone force the employees of McDonald's or Wal Mart to work there? Are they free to take their skills/ labor elsewhere?

5) This country was never designed to have wealth distributed equally. Get over it.

 

[IrishLax]

This assumes that they would have the job skills needed to enter into the labor market elsewhere.

There are plenty of jobs that require little to no prerequisite training and/or you can get by with OTJ training.

I have no problem with there being "winners and losers" to a degree. I do have a major problem however, with the increasing gap between the supposed "winners and losers" and the direction that has been trending for the last 30 years as demonstrated by the data that Cak posted.

I also think the author made some really valid points in terms of being able to critique our current economic model and capitalism in general in a reasoned and thoughtful manner. The fact of the matter is we do have huge segments of the economy where risk has been socialized (the financial sector and corporate scale agriculture come immediately to mind).

I can get on board with what you're saying here, what I took exception to in the article was the laughably sensationalist and overly dramatic rhetoric that was used. I think it's a lot more productive to have an honest intellectual discussion on potential tweaks/incremental improvements that can be made to the system... I find completely counterproductive to pen an article using the phrasing the author did to make his point emotionally driven.

 

[connor_in]

This assumes that they would have the job skills needed to enter into the labor market elsewhere.



I have no problem with there being "winners and losers" to a degree. I do have a major problem however, with the increasing gap between the supposed "winners and losers" and the direction that has been trending for the last 30 years as demonstrated by the data that Cak posted.

I also think the author made some really valid points in terms of being able to critique our current economic model and capitalism in general in a reasoned and thoughtful manner. The fact of the matter is we do have huge segments of the economy where risk has been socialized (the financial sector and corporate scale agriculture come immediately to mind).

Actually, right now in North Dakota (due to the energy boom), even the service industry people are getting paid really well because the demand is so high for workers and the supply is so low. Could be a great place to build a nest egg even if you didn't want to live there forever.

 

[connor_in]

There are plenty of jobs that require little to no prerequisite training and/or you can get by with OTJ training.



I can get on board with what you're saying here, what I took exception to in the article was the laughably sensationalist and overly dramatic rhetoric that was used. I think it's a lot more productive to have an honest intellectual discussion on potential tweaks/incremental improvements that can be made to the system... I find completely counterproductive to pen an article using the phrasing the author did to make his point emotionally driven.

^ This

 

[Irish Houstonian]

With today's standards of living, the real gap is in attractiveness. Think about it: when you're ugly, life sucks, and when you're very attractive the world is your oyster. Particularly for women, but it's true for men as well.

 

[Bluto]

This idea that there is no social mobility in the United States, and that you can only get by if you are of a certain skin color or from a certain socioeconomic class is just BS. Yes, it is certainly easier to be prosperous if you were born into certain socioeconomic classes, but the idea that it is IMPOSSIBLE to get by if you weren't born white and rich is just an agenda that is easy to push because it makes many, many people feel good about themselves and feel like they don't have to work hard or make sacrifices in their lives to get ahead.

I grew up in a small town in the Midwest (99.2% white in the 2000 census with the 0.8% being comprised of my family that lived in town). A lot of my friends from high school who never studied hard and took six years to get a useless degree from some college no one has heard of and have no discernible skills work at the local Wal-Mart or some other similar type of job, and make next to nothing. I have other friends I went to high school with who are now on food stamps (yet still somehow have discretionary income for weed), and wouldn't you know it they grew up with more money than I did. Why anyone thinks those people deserve more than they get is beyond me. You choose to stack shelves for a living, then you have to deal with the consequences.

Here was my formula for going from a non-white household with $25k in household income in which I lived with a single mother who worked three jobs to support myself and my elderly grandparents who lived in the same house as me to me hitting the top tax bracket this year as a 28-year old. My mother was not sexually irresponsible and did not have additional children she couldn't afford to support. If she had had one more kid, our family would have been flat-out broke on the $25k per year my mother made. Instead, she sacrificed for me, wearing worn out clothes and shoes with holes in them, worked seven days a week, and never had any more children. I repaid this by working hard, never drinking in high school, being valedictorian of my class, going to an Ivy League school, and now as a 28-year old I hit the top tax bracket this year.

Note that there is no welfare, no governmental aid, and no "white privilege" in the aforementioned story. It was comprised entirely of self-sacrifice, sacrifice for one's child, focus, and hard work. How many generations did this social mobility take? It took one, and it didn't even involve being a professional entertainer or athlete. One generation of a family committed to hard work, education, not blaming others, and not playing the race card as an excuse for one's lack of success.

In fact, I once wrote a college application essay talking about overcoming constant, malicious, racism at my high school, and when my mother read it, she was extremely upset. She was upset because she said that she thought that she had taught me better than to ever use the race card. I remember being taken aback by her response at the time, but now 10 year later and having joined the real world as an adult, I realized how right she was in terms of trying to teach how to have a useful, constructive perspective on the world.

Separately, have you all seen in person what destitute people actually look like in China and India or elsewhere in the third world? Their quality of life is literally (and by literally I don't mean that figuratively) the same as feral, flea-infested dogs. It is jarring to your soul to see in person. That's not what your average family on food stamps looks like in America. It's not even close.

I came from a similar background and circumstances. Here's the thing we both had in common it would seem, people in our lives that chose to take responsibility for us, made sure we had food,clothes, housing and pointed us in the right direction. Not everyone from the backgrounds we came from is fortunate enough to have that. Should they be disqualified due to circumstances? How does this get addressed? Again I'm not looking to "save" everyone. I would just like to see a more equitable distribution of the resources that help produce healthy, stable kids so they can then move on to being healthy stable and productive adults.

Anyhow, If we're gonna set living like feral, flea infested dogs as the baseline for being "poor" we're aiming pretty low in my opinion. The poverty I have seen and been exposed to in the US has been jarring enough for me I suppose.

As to the whole where are they now idea most of the people I know who did poorly in high school are now ironically enough civil servants (correctional officers at prisons), make a really good living, hate unions (although they are members of the most powerful one in California) and hate paying taxes (again the source of their income and benefits).

 

[phork]

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.

Yah because Mr. Corporate CEO and MR. Corporation pay their fair share of income tax.

This chart has been bandied about but I think it is very telling. I understand it is probably not the whole story in one chart but its hard to deny that in 1979, something significant changed.

We as a whole country have shown a tremendous increase in productivity, yet wages have risen only slightly, and almost none for males. Where does the benefit of productivity go to?

On the other side....

The answers are usually somewhere in the middle.

Nice Union dig. Now its the Unions fault.

Wall street demands profit. If it can't get it from business growth, it gets it through margin by decreasing costs.The number one expense at most companies is payroll. Our system is set up in a way that is causing us to eat our own.

Wall Street doesn't demand profit, it legally extracts it. Famous case point of reference is Ford vs Dodge Bros. Henry Ford wanted to open more plants and hire more men and give people a good living wage (not that I defend Henry Ford I know his history, stick to this case in general) the Dodge Bros wanted their cut and sued. The court ruled that shareholders must be paid first regardless.

For me the essence of the story is this:

Which world do you want to live in?

No such thing (s).

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Despite a voluminous and often fervent literature on "income distribution" the cold fact is that most income isn’t distributed: It is earned</p>— Thomas Sowell (@ThomasSowell) <a href="https://twitter.com/ThomasSowell/statuses/409000634202198017">December 6, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

You are correct. Except when all the great production jobs that drove the economies in N. America moved to China that ideal died. Some people just aren't smart enough to be lawyers or accountants. Some people want to check in for their 8 hours and do their part. That is to say they wish to earn a fair livable wage. Those jobs are leaving by the thousands and never coming back.

 

[nsideirish]

I really support a system like Japan's where the top earner in a corporation (usually the CEO) can only earn a certain percentage more than the lowest income earner.

Probably not a popular idea here though. This video changed my mind though:

Wealth Inequality in America - YouTube

 

[Bogtrotter07]

The thing I find most funny is that people actually think there is a serious problem with the way quality of life, etc. is heading in this country.

Over time, it is inarguable that society continues to progress and that through incremental advancements... technological and otherwise... things get progressively better. "Poverty" today would be "upper middle class" a couple generations ago in terms of amenities, access to education, purchasing power, etc. There are a lot of people who are just so completely devoid of perspective and common sense and want to make it seem like the sky is falling.

Could things be better? Duh. Of course they could. Are things "bad"? Fuck no.

It takes just an ounce of global perspective to realize how not-crappy everyone has it in the United States.

Your posts are usually great. The highlighted text is a totally unsupportable statement with an unsustainable argument.

Cell phones and TV's do not increase a quality of life.

People who have over assess what people who don't, have. Every time.

Step into a classroom in a elementary school with me. I can tell you who are the children of the "haves" and who are the children of the "have not's" by behavior and custom with just a few seconds of interaction.

The things that are important that are economic, that are required for "have not's" to become "haves" are usually "skipped over," by those that make the leap. Therefore, it really is about luck, even over desire.

 

[Cackalacky]

Yah because Mr. Corporate CEO and MR. Corporation pay their fair share of income tax.



Nice Union dig. Now its the Unions fault.



Wall Street doesn't demand profit, it legally extracts it. Famous case point of reference is Ford vs Dodge Bros. Henry Ford wanted to open more plants and hire more men and give people a good living wage (not that I defend Henry Ford I know his history, stick to this case in general) the Dodge Bros wanted their cut and sued. The court ruled that shareholders must be paid first regardless.



No such thing (s).

I was not taking a shot at unions. By 1979 bank deregulation and corporate money = free speech took off, hence my first chart. Then my next one was that there is an undeniable trend that not having unions does have a benefit for overall productivity( the other side of the story). I believe unions have done some good and have value in the workplace. I was trying to present both sides of a productivity argument. If it was not clear in the frame work of the OP I apologize.

The equality versus equity was that if we as a society want all people to truly be equal how much and what are we willing to do to make that happen.

 

[palinurus]

It's one thing to have our own biases and prejudices about the underclass -- we may think, in theory, that the underclass is either a victim or parasitical, but to look at them as people is to set aside those biases and prejudices and see that (a) we should want to create or foster a system that provides opportunity but doesn't make kids and old people suffer inordinately, but (b) recognizes that, ultimately, without personal accountability, there is no long term solution from government.

Two things I believe:

1) the market isn't perfect and government should restrain the worst tendencies of capital (collusion, etc.) but it is a far better distributor of wealth than the government can do by regulation, forced wage and price activity, and central planning. If the last hundred years don't teach us that, then we're lost; and

2) we should all, regardless of our political inclinations, be very very worried about a political system that implements programs that work to perpetuate (or do nothing to reduce or eventually eliminate) reliance on government, and thus crushes independence and accountability.

In my volunteer life, I have worked with people who are 40 year or more in the system of relying on government and various benefits. Their kids now live in the same world, and now so do their grandchildren. It is a way of life, dependence is, and really they have no awareness that they were created to be free, taking advantage of skills and gifts they assuredly have. These are generally good people, but a system that looks at providing benefits as an end (and as a mean to electoral support) helps perpetuate this. Any government that fails to ask if its policies are perpetuating this life is broken. And it is, at bottom, not a failure of the market and economics, but a failure of values, family breakdown, and a system that promises benefits, transmuted into a life -- no, generations -- of dependence.

 

[IrishLax]

Your posts are usually great. The highlighted text is a totally unsupportable statement with an unsustainable argument.

Cell phones and TV's do not increase a quality of life.

People who have over assess what people who don't, have. Every time.

Step into a classroom in a elementary school with me. I can tell you who are the children of the "haves" and who are the children of the "have not's" by behavior and custom with just a few seconds of interaction.

Technological advancements improve both productivity and quality of life. I didn't say "cell phones and TVs."

Air conditioning, electricity, refrigeration, education access, communication infrastructure, transportation, information access, affordable food access, healthcare, etc. are all things that are used as a baseline for measuring quality of life and directly related to technological innovation/incremental societal advancement.

Over time, every single one of those has improved and continues to improve. Compare each of those categorically from one generation to the next and it becomes apparent that the following generation is better off than the previous. My point was simply that the author, who chose to go with the dramatic "IT'S A HORROR STORY AND EVERYTHING IS GOING TO HELL!!!" direction, was being ridiculous when you look at the inarguable direction of society and what is considered "poor" or "poverty" from year to year. The lot of worst-off might suck relative to those who are well-off, but it is still gradually improving relative to the "status quo" for that segment of society.

 

[NDBoiler]

With today's standards of living, the real gap is in attractiveness. Think about it: when you're ugly, life sucks, and when you're very attractive the world is your oyster. Particularly for women, but it's true for men as well.

As an extremely attractive man, I can verify this issue first hand.

 

[GowerND11]

I think the exportation of jobs from this country is clearly a cause of some kind to the problems we have in our economy/society. Those jobs often payed decent wages to unskilled labor or at least semi-skilled labor (I use semi-skilled since odds are the workers got some OTJ training for the specific job at hand,but may not be well versed in other areas). These jobs have been replaced by what? Low paying jobs through massive corporations such as Wal Mart. People should never see their cashier job at Wally World as a career choice, but many do. Wal Mart, and many other massive corporations, do a terrible job at compensating their workers, but the problem is where are these people to go? Yeah there are other jobs available, but in our economy today most of these are lateral moves with a small percentage chance for upwards mobility.

I think the first thing that needs to be done is work on education in this country. It has been discussed over and over and over again in the Lep Lounge so I won't go into detail. We need to educate our youth, not so that all can go to college and obtain 4 year degrees, but for them to be educated about our society and provide them with the tools necessary to succeed in this nation. Whether they choose to obtain higher education, go to trade school, join the military, or enter the work force is the student's decision, but educating that student to make the best possible decision for him/herself is essential.

Next we need to provided better jobs. I say we a lot in here, and I mean that in a general term, not so much as in government provided. We need people to have jobs that have upwards mobility available. Even as a floor worker there needs to be some enticement of at least a middle level management gig in the future if you work hard enough. Too many Americans are working for no chance at a better job in the company. I saw while working at the lumber plant this summer guys even admitting they can't get anywhere in that company. They are paid too little for what they do, and even moving up isn't a huge return of their time and energy that has been invested in the company. Too many of these companies do look at the bottom line. Profits are essential to a proper business, that's key. Without profit it isn't a successful business, but there needs to be some way companies can understand who and what causes the success. CEOs, board members, and upper management require, usually, a great deal of education and experience so in a sense their high pay is justifiable, but that doesn't mean those blue collar workers in the factory can't be compensated competitively for hard work and dedication.


I am merely a young 24 yr old substitute teacher struggling with student loans and finding a full time job. I cannot claim to know much about the world, but I offer my opinion and I always welcome feedback to what I have wrote.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Technological advancements improve both productivity and quality of life. I didn't say "cell phones and TVs."

Air conditioning, electricity, refrigeration, education access, communication infrastructure, transportation, information access, affordable food access, healthcare, etc. are all things that are used as a baseline for measuring quality of life and directly related to technological innovation/incremental societal advancement.

Over time, every single one of those has improved and continues to improve. Compare each of those categorically from one generation to the next and it becomes apparent that the following generation is better off than the previous. My point was simply that the author, who chose to go with the dramatic "IT'S A HORROR STORY AND EVERYTHING IS GOING TO HELL!!!" direction, was being ridiculous when you look at the inarguable direction of society and what is considered "poor" or "poverty" from year to year. The lot of worst-off might suck relative to those who are well-off, but it is still gradually improving relative to the "status quo" for that segment of society.

I will give you a perfect for instance. Insurance. Second. Reliable transportation.

You want people to move from where jobs aren't to where they are? How will they get there, obtain shelter, or training to get the new jobs.

Do you realize that a young mother who is dependent on the government for health insurance and collecting child support, cannot have any savings, and if she gets a lump sum of back support, must provide the government with an affidavit showing that she spent the money within a certain period of time to continue her benefits? I am not even talking about someone receiving "welfare" or "cash assistance!"

What a party trick. Not you but those who did this from both sides of the isle. Create a system that actually enslaves people. Then bitch about it and demonize those who need it or become dependent on it!

So this is my point. Saying the world is a better place because there is penicillin is great! I am with you TV's, cell phones, porn on my computer, all make the world awesomely better. But why is the TB rate skyrocketing among the poor? Why is hunger growing? Why is almost every manageable disease on the rise? And why is the number of young children of divorce so disproportionately over-representative of those living beneath poverty? And why would anyone who loves this country and wants to see it remain free, allow so many of our children to be so affected?

LAX, I agree with every one of your points, point by point, but the overall gestalt of the mosaic they paint leaves me absolutely short.

I was just reading a tech med article. I couldn't believe how close we are to really making inroads with diseases, or identifying "predictors" so we can eliminate environmental or genetic issues. We are at an incredible frontier! We have friends, for instance, who have a daughter with CF. She takes one pill a day. It actually alters the production of (huma, huma TransferRNA). Twice a day test show she does not have Cystic fibrosis! Think about it! fifteen years ago, CF kids died a horrible death, almost always preteen. One of the first Make-A-Wish kids I worked with was a little girl who wanted an Apple computer and printer. I helped her to write a Christmas list to Santa in 1985. She died in March of 1986. Had she been born not even 30 years later, she may have had a full life, and a normal life span! This times 10,000! Your point.

There is just no evidence that someone with the heart or intelligence is stepping forward to help. One would think that with technology one could "obsolete" poverty. Instead, the opposite is happening.

In my lifetime the purchasing power of the middle class has eroded, and diminished. Many of who I knew as middle class, are working poor. Some of you who think you are UMC, yeah, really? Survey says the above middle class has a large soft spot that is living paycheck to paycheck!

 

[Irish YJ]

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.

Didn't have to read down that far to get set off.

EddytoNow.... You have to be f'ing kidding me. You're a typical socialist who believes nothing is anyone's fault, and hard work is not necessary as everyone is entitled to inalienable wealth and the same lifestyle. My mother was raised one of 11 and crapped in an outhouse. My grandfather worked on the railroad, literally all his life for pennies, but still raised 11 kids in a 4 room tiny farm house with a garden. My mother raised me skipping meals at times to make sure I had enough to eat as a baby. I didn't have near the benefit of kids raised around me but I still worked my way through college and now I have an executive job, with an executive salary. I enjoy the spoils of my hard work, my mother's hard work, and my grandfather's hard work. I volunteer, donate, and spoil the hell out of my family. Should my wealth be redistributed? My family never took government assistance. They sacrificed and were proud people that wanted to improve their situation, and the situation of their kids. I'm 43 right now, and daily I see people working the system. Daily I hear workers talking about working the FMLA system to get the maximum days off without getting fired. This has nothing to do with color, so don't incite the race wars. This has to do with people wanting something bad enough to succeed. My mother never graduated from HS, but still didn't give up and had a very long management career with a large corp after several menial jobs. I worked my @$$ off doing menial jobs going through college. I didn't have a student loan, government grant, etc.. I survived on ramon noodles, bologna sandwiches, and totino's pizza. I drove a Ford Grenada. Now I have 3 personal automobiles and various toys. I worked for all of them. I still work my @$$ off for 10+ hours a day, and I do dine at the finest restaurants, etc.. Should I be embarrassed with myself. Should I give my savings away that it took me 20+ years to create. I will never forget the outhouse or working the garden at my grandfather's house. It's why I have what I have now. Nobody redistributed $#!+ for me. I earned it. Others need to as well.

 

[nsideirish]

I'll post this video (embedded this time). Please take the 6 minutes and watch this to get a grasp on just how bad wealth inequality has gotten in America. And it is only getting worse.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/QPKKQnijnsM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Ndaccountant]

Until we understand what is driving this, solutions thrown out by anybody need to be taken with a grain of salt.

Consider the following when looking at any inequality study:

1. Comparison time line. If the comparison goes back too far (1950's), farm families in-kind income was not counted in Census data, and elderly families were not counted, many of whom were ineligible for the Social Security program. Studies need to neutralize this.

2. Family trends. Over time, the two-parent, one-earner family was increasingly replaced by low-income single-parent families and higher-income two-parent, two-earner families. A part of the top quintile’s increased share of income reflects the fact that the average family or household in the top quintile contains almost three times as many workers as the average family or household in the bottom quintile.

3. Immigration. In 2002, immigrants who had entered the country since 1980 constituted nearly 11 percent of the labor force. A relatively high proportion of these immigrants had low levels of education and increased the number of workers competing for low-paid work.

4. Market Expansion. As technology increased, competition for labor is no longer local, it is national and international. Those with differentiating skill sets can demand premiums where those who do not posses those skills cannot.

5. Many studies look at pre-tax income. This is VERY flawed. First, increases in governmental aid to the poor have been concentrated in nonmoney benefits such as Medicaid and food stamps and through tax credits under the Earned Income Tax Credit. Nonmoney benefits are excluded from standard statistics, and EITC tax credits are typically underreported. Second, an increasing proportion of wage-earners’ total compensation goes to health insurance and pension benefits—which are not counted in standard statistics. Third, taxes themselves modify the income distribution.

 

[nsideirish]

And to the boomers here talking about how they did the whole pulling their bootstraps up thing ITT. Guess what? Those manufacturing, well-paying blue collar jobs barely exist in America anymore. It isn't like it was in the "good old days". Those jobs have been replaced by barely above (or right at) minimum wage jobs at the local retailer or fast food store. Try "pulling up your bootstraps" on $8.50 an hour.

 

[Wild Bill]

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.

Tell me, where will we find these angels who will organize society and distribute wealth equally?

 

[Cackalacky]

Tell me, where will we find these angels who will organize society and distribute wealth equally?

I am willing to do it but nobody is willing to pay me a nominal fee and by nominal I mean shit tons of money.

 

[Irish YJ]

I'll post this video (embedded this time). Please take the 6 minutes and watch this to get a grasp on just how bad wealth inequality has gotten in America. And it is only getting worse.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/QPKKQnijnsM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I wonder how much the poverty line takes into account retirement, those who are content to live off of social programs, and those with illegal income. I offered a person a basic admin job last year for 38k and she declined saying it wasn't enough to offset the government assistance she would not be able to collect anymore.

 

[nsideirish]

I wonder how much the poverty line takes into account retirement, those who are content to live off of social programs, and those with illegal income. I offered a person a basic admin job last year for 38k and she declined saying it wasn't enough to offset the government assistance she would not be able to collect anymore.

That wasn't quite the point of the video...

 

[Irish YJ]

And to the boomers here talking about how they did the whole pulling their bootstraps up thing ITT. Guess what? Those manufacturing, well-paying blue collar jobs barely exist in America anymore. It isn't like it was in the "good old days". Those jobs have been replaced by barely above (or right at) minimum wage jobs at the local retailer or fast food store. Try "pulling up your bootstraps" on $8.50 an hour.

I've promoted 3 guys up from the field (cabling guys) in the last 2 months to management salaries doing project management jobs, staging, etc.. There are many that stay in the field and make less, but the hard working, hungry ones move up, and are replaced by new hires in the field. There are still companies out there that offer a chance to move up. I expect to promote/hire 30+ in the next 6 months. My original plan was 50+ but new cost (taxes, obamacare) has caused me to reduce that number.

 

[Irish YJ]

That wasn't quite the point of the video...

My point is that a lot of data out there is misleading if not inaccurate. Pretty graphics though.

 

[nsideirish]

I've promoted 3 guys up from the field (cabling guys) in the last 2 months to management salaries doing project management jobs, staging, etc.. There are many that stay in the field and make less, but the hard working, hungry ones move up, and are replaced by new hires in the field. There are still companies out there that offer a chance to move up. I expect to promote/hire 30+ in the next 6 months. My original plan was 50+ but new cost (taxes, obamacare) has caused me to reduce that number.

Your individual experience =/= what is really going on countrywide. The stats don't lie.

 

[nsideirish]

My point is that a lot of data out there is misleading if not inaccurate. Pretty graphics though.

You picked out a relatively arbitrary point from a 6 minute video and attack it for having "misleading data" and then you say it has "pretty graphics" in a patronizing way.

The simple fact is: The top 1% in the America has 40% of the nation's wealth. The bottom 80% only has 7% between them. The richest 1% take home 25% of the income (up from 9% 30 years ago).

Listen, I know there are many success stories out there. I consider myself one of them (grew up in one of the roughest areas in Chicago, I was the "white minority" throughout a lot of my schooling, single mother with an income well under the poverty line, etc. etc. and now I am in grad school at one of the top universities in the world and will be earning a great salary when I am out of here). However, I am not naive enough to think that these possibilities are possible for everyone. You need to have more than an individualized perspective to really grasp what is going on in America.