Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Wealth and Income Inequality: America’s Moral Crisis
@ Dakini, Dunno about free college,anywhere. However, I am relocating to a new state in 10 days (yeah, I have kept it quiet), and you have to establish residency for a year, unless you care to pay the higher out of state fees. Not to wish time away, but...
I mentioned in my other post that LGBT scholarships often require activism in exchange for scholarship money, I can poke around and find one if you are interested.
All this fiscal craziness makes me feel like a gerbil on a wheel. Blah. :wtf:
Here's a snippet of criteria for an LGBT scholarship from PFLAG in Florida:
Judging Criteria The selection committee will judge applicants for the scholarship awards based on the following criteria: Academic potential and/or evidence of academic achievement of grades C or higher. Evidence of participation and leadership in school and community activities Clarity of future goals and determination to achieve them Sense of personal integrity, ethical judgment, and honesty Maturity and positive sense of self as a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender person Service to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community Financial need and participation in efforts to supplement educational costs
That's just one of many that have such criteria, I see both sides....they need to promote their agenda to continue to try and get LGBT rights pressed, however as a student it's hard to maintain a good GPA, much less "be of service"...you know, in your free time when you are not working to be able to eat, or sleeping. That may be fine for a 20-something, but not an older person.
Oh, I didn't know you were speaking specifically about LGBT scholarships. Many scholarships like to see volunteer work or leadership work on the part of applicants. OK, so you have to wait a year until you can go to community college in FL? Do you belong to any oddball ethnic group that might have a fund for college study? Work all the angles... Private colleges often are in a position to offer full scholarships. Don't give up! I think you should apply for the LGBT scholarship anyway. But I know how you feel. I was never a rah-rah type in school. Didn't work for the school newspaper or do any of that stuff. maybe you can come up with something for community activities...dig. Or find something to do in that regard once you move.
There are Pell Grants, US gov't grants. One of our (former?) members got one of those for her college study, and her college gave her a scholarship, but she still had to take out a loan to cover living expenses.
Oh, I didn't know you were speaking specifically about LGBT scholarships. Many scholarships like to see volunteer work or leadership work on the part of applicants. OK, so you have to wait a year until you can go to community college in FL? Do you belong to any oddball ethnic group that might have a fund for college study? Work all the angles... Private colleges often are in a position to offer full scholarships. Don't give up! I think you should apply for the LGBT scholarship anyway. But I know how you feel. I was never a rah-rah type in school. Didn't work for the school newspaper or do any of that stuff. maybe you can come up with something for community activities...dig. Or find something to do in that regard once you move.
There are Pell Grants, US gov't grants. One of our (former?) members got one of those for her college study, and her college gave her a scholarship, but she still had to take out a loan to cover living expenses.
I was using LGBT scholarshi[ps as an example to show you what some ask for in return for granting funding....not for myself. Just to be clear.
I had researched them for a friend who is in school for Graphic Design, and needed money. I am not in any special ethnic group, and by looking at me could not even begin to pretend that I am,haha!
Once I have done my year, yes, I will look into Pell Grants, etc, as I have gone that route before with school a couple of decades ago. Eesh,decades??? Wow, I am old.
I want to avoid as many loans as possible, since I am 47, and do not want to paying student loans well into retirement.
Anyway, now that I have sufficiently hijacked this thread (Sorry OP) I want to say again that it is my hope that Warren Buffett is starting a trend, and that the 1% start anteing up.
I am not in any special ethnic group, and by looking at me could not even begin to pretend that I am,haha!
Anyway, now that I have sufficiently hijacked this thread (Sorry OP) I want to say again that it is my hope that Warren Buffett is starting a trend, and that the 1% start anteing up.
What I had in mind was--you never know what immigrant communities have strong community associations that could offer financial aid to descendants. For example, Armenian-Americans, Scandinavian associations, etc. Leave no stone unturned in the quest for financial aid.
It's not just Warren Buffett. Lee Iaccoca, a staunch Republican and former corporate whiz, is rabid about the need for the 1% to pay their share and rescue a decaying country. He's very inspiring. His book, "Where have all the leaders gone?" is hilarious and informative, both. I wish people like him could have more impact on their peers.
I did quite well for myself without a degree in the workforce working my way up through the ranks of a painting company. A degree is by no means a requisite...or a guarantee of success. A lot of degrees are just worthless (history, humanities, to name a few) and you'd be better off starting at minimum wage since you'll be there anyway after 4 years and in a lot more debt.
I recommend all my younger friends not go to universities and start at community schools first.
That said, I don't see it as a "moral crisis" that some people make phenomenal money and I don't. Why should I care? Successful businessmen I know are not rich by virtue of me having to live life on the cheap, and I am certainly not flirting with brokeness because other people happen to be wealthy. Congratulations to them! I hope to join them in the future. And I intend to.
Being sad or angry about my own plight and bitter towards those better off...is just childish.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
The issue is one at a society level. I agree that being sad or angry about the situation isn't the proper reaction, thats not the issue though.
I don't have a college degree. I'm self employed and while not rich I have a mortgage, health insurance and a retirement account. So for any individual working hard and being ethical is the proper course of action on the level of a society a large income inequality isn't healthy.
It's about opportunity, it's not that every one should make the same. It's that when wealth becomes too concentrated it detracts from the institutions that allow for the less fortunate to better themselves.
I did quite well for myself without a degree in the workforce working my way up through the ranks of a painting company. A degree is by no means a requisite...or a guarantee of success. A lot of degrees are just worthless (history, humanities, to name a few) and you'd be better off starting at minimum wage since you'll be there anyway after 4 years and in a lot more debt.
I recommend all my younger friends not go to universities and start at community schools first.
That said, I don't see it as a "moral crisis" that some people make phenomenal money and I don't. Why should I care? Successful businessmen I know are not rich by virtue of me having to live life on the cheap, and I am certainly not flirting with brokeness because other people happen to be wealthy. Congratulations to them! I hope to join them in the future. And I intend to.
Being sad or angry about my own plight and bitter towards those better off...is just childish.
I think it's horrible to say that degrees in history and humanities "are just worthless". I know history teachers, researchers at the Smithsonian, and college professors that are very happy and successful with their history degrees.
Well, I'm not being mean about it. I'm a History major myself and love reading history as a hobby. However, I'm going into the defense establishment, so the degree was simply a box to check.
I'm just finishing my senior year of history studies. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who seriously wants to be an attractive hire at the age of 22, especially in the miserable economy. It's just not something that offers a lot of opportunities.
If you want to be a history teacher, then by all means, it's the career to go into. But barring that, it doesn't hold much water in private sector work.
B.A.'s in the humanities are mainly for the sake of the B.A. It gives you that needed diploma for qualifying for entry-level jobs. I've spoken to job placement advisers at universities who said they've taken people like you, Knight, and plugged them right into banking careers and business careers right after graduation. That was in a different economy, though. Still, these days you need a B.A. to get even a basic job. In a down economy, it's an employer's market, so they can require a B.A. for what used to be a high school grad's job, and they can required an M.A. for what used to be a job for B.A.'s.
B.A.'s in the humanities are mainly for the sake of the B.A. It gives you that needed diploma for qualifying for entry-level jobs. I've spoken to job placement advisers at universities who said they've taken people like you, Knight, and plugged them right into banking careers and business careers right after graduation. That was in a different economy, though. Still, these days you need a B.A. to get even a basic job. In a down economy, it's an employer's market, so they can require a B.A. for what used to be a high school grad's job, and they can required an M.A. for what used to be a job for B.A.'s.
I wouldn't deny that's possible, though I would take it with a grain of salt from placement advisers. Not to say that they are dishonest, but that they have a vested interest in telling people they are college material, whatever the truth may be.
I happen to believe that businesses are silly for making a BA a requisite for entry level employment. They miss out on some exceptionally smart, ambitious people who for whatever reason did not attend college. I would not suffer such a policy in my own business.
In a lot of college students I have met, the university environment cuts you off from reality, encourages immaturity and debauchery. This is not the fault of schools themselves, but it is the culture on campus just the same. For young aspiring collegiates I meet, I encourage them to: go to a community college, or at the very least, be a commuter to college, learn a hard science or trade, and above all, work a job while at school. Developing a solid work ethic will catapult you miles ahead of the over-educated and under-worked.
"Debauchery"? That's a minority of students. But definitely: those who get job experience while going to school are a step or two ahead of the others.
The job of job placement advisers is to hook graduating students up with employers. It has nothing to do with telling anyone they're college material. Maybe you're thinking of admissions advisers?
Oh yes, I misread your post. I was thinking about admissions.
As for the question of fairness, I still fail to see even how inordinate success of someone hurts others. The rich are then capable of employing more people.
unless one has achieved complete pureland, otherwise it is wise for the wealthy to help the less fortunate as materialism can't be brought to next life, but your generosity does. even if one has achieved complete pureland, in the society of large country like America with vast disparity of income status between the rich and the poor, it's ought to be generosity giving. what that can be shared is blessing like wealth etc, what cannot be experienced is those heartfelt sharing enjoy from the glittering bliss of the less fortunate and the filth rich. if quality education is the prerequisite to secure a stable life for themselves, those destined with lack of intellectual ability cannot survive with joys. it is also thankful to the farmer for if without them, world never enjoy stable income
What we are talking about is maintaining a society where a child from a lower income home has the opportunity to get a quality education and secure a stable life for themselves.
Medicare, Medicaid
it is about good health and good health has to be on the way one enjoy their good food and pleasing joys of the mind :coffee:
As for the question of fairness, I still fail to see even how inordinate success of someone hurts others. The rich are then capable of employing more people.
They don't employ more people when they get a windfall tax break, though.
And the main point is that they should pay their share of taxes to contribute to society, to maintenance of common infrastructure, etc. There's nothing wrong with people becoming wealthy, as long as they pay taxes. And let's not forget, corporations are people, too. They should be paying taxes, but some of the biggest ones don't.
I did quite well for myself without a degree in the workforce working my way up through the ranks of a painting company. A degree is by no means a requisite...or a guarantee of success. A lot of degrees are just worthless (history, humanities, to name a few) and you'd be better off starting at minimum wage since you'll be there anyway after 4 years and in a lot more debt.
I recommend all my younger friends not go to universities and start at community schools first.
That said, I don't see it as a "moral crisis" that some people make phenomenal money and I don't. Why should I care? Successful businessmen I know are not rich by virtue of me having to live life on the cheap, and I am certainly not flirting with brokeness because other people happen to be wealthy. Congratulations to them! I hope to join them in the future. And I intend to.
Being sad or angry about my own plight and bitter towards those better off...is just childish.
I am neither sad nor angry, because I can change MY "plight"...or shall we say, circumstances.
The part that is terrible is those who cannot, and the fact that the "haves", take away from the "have nots" programs rather than pay more (taxes) when they have more to give.
Until recently I too did pretty well without a degree, however now the years of experience I have now mean naught, and I am competing for less money than I used to start a job at for the same job that they now require a FOUR year degree for.
I have 19 years of experience, far more than someone just out of school. It's very disheartening and demeaning to be told you cannot get hired without that piece of paper when you have paid your dues. Also, the workforce does not value older workers.
That said, I do not desire wealth of that magnitude, however I would like to retire with some money in the bank so that I may live comfortably in my latter years. It is a cultural thing that has been ingrained in Americans that in order to be considered successful you need to do or have "X".
It took me awhile to realize that really everyone has their niche, and without them the world could not function. We need garbage collectors, ditch diggers and yes, CEO's. I am not unhappy with the role I have, though I am ready for a change...not to CEO however.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited January 2012
As for the question of fairness, I still fail to see even how inordinate success of someone hurts others. The rich are then capable of employing more people.
I laid out most of the reasons why I feel that the level of income inequality is harmful to society earlier in the thread and don't want to repost it all. If you've read it and still feel that way then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Over the past 30 years worker productivity has gone up like %30-%40, wages for the bottom %90 of americans has gone up something like %10-%20, while the income of the top %1 has increased by %280. I don't have any issue with capitalism per se, I just feel that its gotten out of whack and the basic bargain for the working american, that you can work hard play by the rules and you'll be able to support your family, as well as ease of upward mobility, isn't what it used to be.
The issue isn't about fairness of income, its about fairness of opportunity. When schools suffer, when families spend %17 of their income on poor health insurance. The opportunity to better oneself suffers. So its not that anothers success hurts people, its when that success isn't reinvested into the social infrastructure upon which much of that success depends that the average american gets hurt.
Also, like @Hubris says, an individual can work themselves to a better job. But even if they get out from pumping gas someone else will still need to do that job.
As for the question of fairness, I still fail to see even how inordinate success of someone hurts others. ...
...
Over the past 30 years worker productivity has gone up like %30-%40, wages for the bottom %90 of americans has gone up something like %10-%20, while the income of the top %1 has increased by %280. I don't have any issue with capitalism per se, I just feel that its gotten out of whack and the basic bargain for the working american, that you can work hard play by the rules and you'll be able to support your family, as well as ease of upward mobility, isn't what it used to be.
The issue isn't about fairness of income, its about fairness of opportunity. When schools suffer, when families spend %17 of their income on poor health insurance. The opportunity to better oneself suffers. So its not that anothers success hurts people, its when that success isn't reinvested into the social infrastructure upon which much of that success depends that the average american gets hurt.
Also, like @Hubris says, an individual can work themselves to a better job. But even if they get out from pumping gas someone else will still need to do that job.
I agree with several points here:
1. That the inordinate success of someone else necessarily has any negative effect on me. In my view, my success was due to my abilities. Others did not work as hard as I did or take the right path in their careers, and each of us was rewarded somewhat accordingly. Sometimes old-fashioned "bad luck" had as much to do with someone's failure. The principal, for example, that got a job in a community that was a poor match, was eventually driven out amidst much vitriol...then placed in a different community that loved her and her success there was practically unrivaled.
2. That capitalism has gotten out of whack, but inherently is as reasonable a system as any other.
But I disagree with a few assertions:
1. When you speak about worker productivity. Worker productivity isn't always about how hard the worker works. It's OFTEN about technology in the workplace. I remember the days when to produce our school's monthly newsletter we had our secretaries working on the old mimeo stencils, and if a serious mistake was made the stencil had to be thrown out, and that page started all over again. It took days. When computers came along, all that was eliminated, and editing was a breeze. A multi-day project turned into a multi-hour project, but it was due to the technology...the secretary didn't work any harder at all. Henry Ford was instrumental in the early days of American industrialism, using the assembly line to improve worker productivity.
2. In terms of schools suffering, I was principal is very large system. For example, we had over 20 middle schools and 20 high schools. Each school got an equal share of resources, and some of the lower-performing schools got additional resources. I could go into a dozen reasons some schools excelled and others failed, so the reasons some schools fail is not directly related to the issue which is being discussed.
3. Poor health insurance. What I worry about is people that cannot get health insurance. My mother had none and suffered. In reality, she had none because of poor decisions she made throughout her work life. My nephew has none. He spent time in prison and cannot find a decent job since then. My neighbor is 77 years old, barely makes it by each month on her fixed income, but through Medicare and Human has excellent care...recently getting through major back surgery and now a new-found heart condition. I have excellent health insurance in my retirement because when I chose which school system to go with, I took benefits into consideration. So my concern about health insurance is the haves versus the have-nots.
A concern that I have in general in the United States isn't that many have more than I do, or that many have less than I do. My concern is that there is a lack of understanding that we should be the UNITED States of America, where to some extent all Americans share in the bounty of this nation. For example, sufficient health care for every American may not be a "right" under the Constitution, but it should be an expectation based on this being one of the wealthiest nations of the world.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited January 2012
1. When you speak about worker productivity. Worker productivity isn't always about how hard the worker works. It's OFTEN about technology in the workplace. I remember the days when to produce our school's monthly newsletter we had our secretaries working on the old mimeo stencils, and if a serious mistake was made the stencil had to be thrown out, and that page started all over again. It took days. When computers came along, all that was eliminated, and editing was a breeze. A multi-day project turned into a multi-hour project, but it was due to the technology...the secretary didn't work any harder at all. Henry Ford was instrumental in the early days of American industrialism, using the assembly line to improve worker productivity.
Yes, the point I didn't really make was that the productivity gains made over the past decades has disproportionatly gone to the top and the average worker has only seen modest gains from them.
2. In terms of schools suffering, I was principal is very large system. For example, we had over 20 middle schools and 20 high schools. Each school got an equal share of resources, and some of the lower-performing schools got additional resources. I could go into a dozen reasons some schools excelled and others failed, so the reasons some schools fail is not directly related to the issue which is being discussed.
I don't have any actual experience in education so I'll defer to yours. I just hear that schools are failing and that they face lots of cutbacks. So maybe they aren't related.
My concern about health care in economic terms is that a sick worker is an unproductive worker. A healthy workforce is a productive workforce. Of course there are many humanitarian reasons to ensure people have healthcare but in economics the dollar is king. Also if ERs are required to help sick people then people without healthcare and/or the means to pay for ER care wait for a chronic condition to get to the point of emergency care then that care is much more expensive. I don't hear a peep from the right about denying care to those without insurance, in fact it was the Reagan administration that mandated it. But a system that only takes care when people are seriously ill and doesn't help to prevent that in the first place is really inefficient.
A concern that I have in general in the United States isn't that many have more than I do, or that many have less than I do. My concern is that there is a lack of understanding that we should be the UNITED States of America, where to some extent all Americans share in the bounty of this nation. For example, sufficient health care for every American may not be a "right" under the Constitution, but it should be an expectation based on this being one of the wealthiest nations of the world.
@person, the point about worker productivity going up (just clarifying your posts) is that before this great disparity in income, before runaway executive pay, etc., those gains in worker productivity would be reflected in the workers' paychecks. Now the profit goes to the top and stays there.
Until recently I too did pretty well without a degree, however now the years of experience I have now mean naught, and I am competing for less money than I used to start a job at for the same job that they now require a FOUR year degree for.
I have 19 years of experience, far more than someone just out of school. It's very disheartening and demeaning to be told you cannot get hired without that piece of paper when you have paid your dues. Also, the workforce does not value older workers.
I'm sorry to hear this, Hubris. This is exactly what I was speaking to in my earlier post. Having that piece of paper helps college graduates survive in a downturn. When the economy is doing well, high school grads may think they don't need a further degree, because jobs are plentiful and they can have a decent standard of living. Come a downturn, though, and they can end up being the first fired.
And Hubris is in a bind, because if he does go to school, he may bump up against age-discrimination by the time he completes the degree and is out in the job market.
Choose carefully, get degree-related jobs or volunteer work while you're in school, and network like crazy. Do what you can to develop contacts in your chosen field, who might be in a position to hire you when you're done. Develop your schmoozing skills, lol!
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Here's the next episode of the Moyers & Company show. I haven't watched it yet so don't know about its quality.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Watched the episode. My takeaway is that things haven't been fixed since the meltdown. In particular 'too big to fail'. When an institution is so big that its failure means an unacceptable hit to the overall economy and a bailout is seen as neccessary it removes the moral hazard from the capitalist system and we end up with crony capitalism.
Education does not guarantee success. Social class does not guarantee success. I don't have much more than a high school education and I consider myself reasonably successful with opportunities. I also consider myself reasonably intelligent. I work with my hands in a physical labor job.
The attitudes that I see in threads like these, across multiple boards of varying topic, I find absolutely disgusting. People seem to think that just because you have a degree or some particular station in life you are to do something particular. You are supposed to be something because of something that you are or have. I disagree.
I think America is great because a homeless man can become a millionaire. I'm sure that's the case in many other countries too. The idea that anyone is owed anything is ridiculous. You earn what you want and get what you earn. If your life isn't what you want it to be who's fault is it? Doesn't Buddhism teach self-reliance? Am I wrong that I take that to mean all aspects of life?
I don't think we're saying that we're owed anything, any more than every American is owed part of the bounty of this nation. And I sense that you think we are being snobs because many of us have various college degrees. But I think when we talk about our education that we're talking about it because it's what we know.
I think some of us are actually saying that how hard a person works at his profession ought to account for something. Let me give you 3 examples.
My best friend in high school started out community college with me, but after those 2 years he stopped any further education, got a job as a machinist in a small-town company (and I mean very small town company) in rural Pennsylvania. He lives in a run-down house, is barely making ends meet, and became a Bible thumper. He isn't going to have much of a retirement income. Or health insurance. The sad thing about his life -- from my perspective -- is that he was an incredibly intelligent young man who could have pursued any field, could have excelled at university, and had the kind of personality that would have taken him far in almost any work environment. He could easily have gone into the scientific field. Instead, he's been making metal parts in a machine shop for 40 hours a week for 35 years. There's nothing wrong with that, if he is happy. But, he fell far short of his potential.
My other best friend in high school was one of those people that no one can dislike. Talk about leadership potential. Every one wanted to be around Brian and do whatever Brian wanted to do. Also very intelligent. But, he was too lazy to go to college. And so, for 30 years he's been a car salesman. Nothing wrong with that. Lives a rather exotic life in Guam and has a nice wife. The only issue is that he fell far short of his potential.
And then there was me. Got my B.S. and M.S. degrees in geology and education. Did it working my way through college...nothing handed to me. Decided on the field of education, rather than being a geologist. Worked extremely hard at being a really good teacher, went back to university and worked on a modified doctoral program. Became a school administrator and principal. Highly respected in the community. Nice house. Lived for a while overseas (Thailand) after retirement. I'm no better than John or Brian. But I worked harder than they did. Went further than they did. Earned more than they did. Am better off in my retirement years than they will be (in fact, I could retire at 58, while they will have to work until 63 or 65). But, in some ways I envy certain aspects of their lives.
I haven't seen them in years. But, we do communicate. And if we ever do get back together, the friendship and respect we feel for each other will not have changed. While I envy certain things about them, I know they envy certain things about me. But that envy is not the same as being jealous. I think we each know we earned our lives.
So, I don't really see where you are coming from. You sound as if you are happy with your job. So fine. What's the issue?
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited January 2012
I think America is great because a homeless man can become a millionaire. I'm sure that's the case in many other countries too. The idea that anyone is owed anything is ridiculous. You earn what you want and get what you earn. If your life isn't what you want it to be who's fault is it? Doesn't Buddhism teach self-reliance? Am I wrong that I take that to mean all aspects of life?
That's the promise of the American Dream, though if you look at the statistics its becoming less and less so.
---
Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana recently noted that "upward mobility from the bottom is the crux of the American promise." In early 2009, the Economist noted that "71% still agreed that hard work and personal skill are the main ingredients for success." Americans particularly care about intergenerational opportunities. They believe that their economic system allows hardworking children of working class citizens the chance to move up the income ladder. In fact many successful politicians frequently cite their working class upbringing as evidence that the US is "greatest" country in the world. Optimism has declined since the financial crisis of 2008. News reports cite curveys that indicate Americans are much more pessimistic about their near and long-term economic futures. The notion that the next generation will be better off is no longer assumed.
When it comes to (intergenerational) upward mobility, how does the US stack up against other countries? Among conservatives the answer is clear: Scandinavian countries are less dynamic, and thus upward mobility pales in comparison to the US. But as we've seen above, when entrepreneurial opportunities are measured using a range of metrics, Denmark, Sweden, and Finland compare favorably with the US.
In a 2006 study, German researchers studied Intergenerational Earnings Mobility in several countries including the US. Since there aren't any long-term longitudinal survey data sets that cut across all the countries in their study, the researchers chose well-known survey data for each of the countries1. Intergenerational mobility is measured by looking at the probability that offsprings move up to higher-income groups.
It turns out that compared to the equivalent set of parent-offspring pairs in Scandinavian countries, sons whose Fathers are in the bottom 20% are much less2 upwardly mobile in the US. Throw in the fact that compared to the US, there is much less concentration of wealth and income in Sweden, Finland, and Denmark, you begin to wonder why other countries aren't emulating at least some features of these 3 economies. (A good place to start is for countries to consider Sweden's approach to financial sector regulation!)
Here are the results of the multi-nation study on Intergenerational Upward Mobility:
•Estimated quintile group mobility: Assuming a Father is in the bottom 20% of all earners, what is the probability3 that his offspring will be in the same income group? Perfect Mobility implies that offsprings of a parent in the bottom (or top) 20% income group, are equally distributed across each of the five income quintiles.
•Father is in the BOTTOM 20%: The upward mobility of sons is much less likely in the US. In the US, 42% of sons stay in the bottom 20%. Moreover 66% (or two-thirds) of all sons remain within the bottom 40% of all earners. Outside the US the comparable proportion who remain in the bottom 40% of all earners are: UK (53%), Sweden (50%), Norway (51%), Finland (51%), and Denmark (47%). Put another way, in the US a son whose father was in the bottom 20% of all earners has only a 1 in 3 chance of ending up in the top 60%. His odds of ending up in the top 60% would be much higher in Sweden (1 in 2).
•On the other hand, intergenerational upward mobility for daughters whose Fathers were in the BOTTOM 20%, is only marginally worse in the US.
If you follow the link there's a graph at the bottom clearly showing how economic mobility in the US is behind other countries.
I do think we are owed something in the US. The opportunity to better oneself through hard work and ability. That isn't as true as it once was.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I also feel economic and social policy should be adjusted to allow everyone to have a basic safety net and minimum standard of living. The reason I feel this is that while each individual can take steps to improve their own status in life there will always remain a need for grave diggers and dishwashers. These lowly jobs are neccessary for society to function, society needs them, since they are required the people who work them should be able to put food in their mouths and a roof over their head.
Another reason I think resources should be more equally distributed is one of supply and demand. Workers that have extra money to spend increase demand and grease the economic wheels.
person, I think what hasn't been fixed--the crux of the problem--is that the Depression-era regulations preventing savings and loan banks from dealing in securities haven't been restored. That, and other regs that were removed during Reagan-Clinton-Bush. It's still a free-for-all. I think the Dodd-Frank bill was intended to fix that, but it didn't.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited January 2012
aristocracy 1.a privileged class of people usually of high birth; the nobility 2. such a class as the ruling body of a state 3. government by such a class 4. a state governed by such a class 5. a class of people considered to be outstanding in a sphere of activity
meritocracy 1. rule by persons chosen not because of birth or wealth, but for their superior talents or intellect 2.the persons constituting such a group 3. a social system formed on such a basis
I view the American system, and the modern social system in general, is intended to be a meritocracy but appears to be slipping more to an aristocracy.
Meritocracy<-------------->Aristocracy
There is a continuum between the two not entirely one or the other but the closer to meritocracy the more people will benefit. Take the estate tax, for example, inherited wealth doesn't do anything for the person who's effort and ability earned their wealth. The only ones who suffer from the tax are the children of the super rich, trust fund kids. This simply passes wealth from one generation to the next making the circumstances of birth more important than ability, thus sliding the system more towards aristocracy.
There was some debate about it effecting businesses that were passed on, but the solution to that is to increase the level which the estate tax kicks in or to exempt business assests.
During the debate to repeal it politicians claimed the estate tax was crushing farmers. According to IRS data, almost no working farmers pay the estate tax. One prominent Iowa economist actually searched for families who had lost their farms to estate taxes but failed to find a single one. When the New York Times wanted to write a real-life feature about a farmer who lost his farm because of the estate tax, it went to the American Farm Bureau. The newspaper expected the organization to match its fiery rhetoric against the estate tax with hundreds of examples. The Farm Bureau was unable to produce even one.
That last paragraph is lifted from Hostile Takeover by David Sirota
It's a misconception to say the estate tax only affects the rich. What about the poor, whose only inheritance might be their parents' house? They get socked, too. That makes it more difficult for the poor to get a leg up. Maybe the estate tax should be a graduated tax, like the income tax used to be.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
It's a misconception to say the estate tax only affects the rich. What about the poor, whose only inheritance might be their parents' house? They get socked, too. That makes it more difficult for the poor to get a leg up. Maybe the estate tax should be a graduated tax, like the income tax used to be.
When it was in effect it didn't kick in until one million dollars. With rising house prices in some markets a modest home can get to a value of over a million. The solution in that case is to raise the level to 5 million or something.
It's a misconception to say the estate tax only affects the rich. What about the poor, whose only inheritance might be their parents' house? They get socked, too. That makes it more difficult for the poor to get a leg up. Maybe the estate tax should be a graduated tax, like the income tax used to be.
Very few common people pay an estate tax. Been there, done that. Varies from state to state.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited January 2012
Don't want to leave the Brits out of all the fun. This doc from the BBC goes into how the super rich make all their money. There's an interesting tidbit about the social competition between the haves and the have-mores. There's a thorough explanation of the subprime fiasco. It finishes up with the problem of 'too big to fail' and the negative consequences of the super rich's money games on the rest of us.
Is it ok to forcefully take from some to give to another? Does the income tax violate the Second Precept (Not taking what is not given)
"I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given."
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
sometimes, there's little difference (if any) between the drug-crazed mugger, coshing an old-aged pensioner over their head, for their meagre pension, and a power-crazed politician coshing a citizen over their salary, for their not-so-meagre tax deduction...
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Is it ok to forcefully take from some to give to another? Does the income tax violate the Second Precept (Not taking what is not given)
"I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given."
I think thats a fair question. Would it be ok then, if one didn't pay taxes, to use a road paid for by taxes or send your kid to a public school? You'd be using things you didn't pay for. In my view taxes are the price we pay to live in an organized, functioning society.
There is the libertarian free market view that all these things could be paid for as a private service. How good would the police or fire service be in a poor neighborhood or the roads for that matter? Would public transportation go to poor neighborhoods and if not who would serve the better off their coffee or dinner?
Some things need to be done as a group in order for the social structure to function properly. The wealthy depend on the less well off for many of the things they need. If the poor can't travel to jobs or if their neighborhoods are too crime ridden for them to leave home or send their kids to school, or if whole neighborhoods burn down because of no fire department, the social fabric breaks down and everyone is worse off. Maybe we could do like Mexico does, where the super rich travel in armed caravans with personal security from one protected area to another while the rest of us sell gum on the streets.
"Some things need to be done as a group in order for the social structure to function properly. The wealthy depend on the less well off for many of the things they need. If the poor can't travel to jobs or if their neighborhoods are too crime ridden for them to leave home or send their kids to school, or if whole neighborhoods burn down because of no fire department, the social fabric breaks down and everyone is worse off. Maybe we could do like Mexico does, where the super rich travel in armed caravans with personal security from one protected area to another while the rest of us sell gum on the streets."
One of those things "done in a group" like you say is pay taxes...well the less well off bear the burden of that, and then their programs get cut so the more well off do not have to pay as much tax, how is that not breaking down the fabric of society? Especially since THEY "depend" upon the less well off? It's a vicious cycle.
Maybe the "have's" need to fear the "have nots", give them what they need, and there will be less reason to have fear. Once survival mode kicks in for the "have nots" its not as if they are thinking entirely rationally, the will to survive is instinct, and not a thought process. No one does not fight back in some fashion.
Armed caravans clearly show what I am saying, in Mexico at least. People reduced to selling chicle in the streets are in survival mode, wondering where their next meal comes from, and these caravans drive through without so much as a care as to these poor people. Instead they arm themselves against fellow humans who are suffering, thinking of them as waste. I see something terribly wrong with that.
Maybe the "have's" need to fear the "have nots", give them what they need, and there will be less reason to have fear. Once survival mode kicks in for the "have nots" its not as if they are thinking entirely rationally, the will to survive is instinct, and not a thought process. No one does not fight back in some fashion.
Someone pointed out to me once, that gangs used to be a major problem in the US back in the 40's and 50's (West Side Story portrayed that). But after LBJ's "War on Poverty", using tax money to provide opportunity to the have-nots, gang activity disappeared to a significant extent. It reappeared more or less after Reaganomics, and rumors of federal agents spreading illicit drugs in have-not communities.
It used to be a basic principle taught in political economics courses that if you have a large disparity between rich and poor, you create the conditions for leftist insurgencies to take hold. Economic disparity is one root cause of political instability. I don't know if they still teach that. Looks like those on top have turned a deaf ear, to their eventual detriment.
@Compassionate_Warrior, I am not sure I believe the illicit drug story, however I have theories on other things like a cure for HIV/AIDS, which is sort of relative to drug use and marginalized communities.
Millions of dollars are pumped into research for a cure, enabling the already wealthy medical community, but 30-odd years later no cure? Hmm.
For the most part...no, not EVERY circumstance, HIV/AIDS wipes out what are still considered undesirables. Gays, African-Americans,prostitutes, and drug addicts. Now is it really so unclear as to why there has not been a cure?
That said, IF that is true they are shooting themselves in the foot...well, no, they are shooting the taxpayers in the foot. The taxpayers are the ones paying for the social services that these patients need, and now that they live longer, it's a bigger burden. HIV meds are extremely expensive.
Rumor has it that there has long been a cure for cancer - now that may also be a conspiracy theory, however again the millions of dollars pumped into research and development is astounding. Shut that down, and what? The doctors and big pharma suffer, and since they have money to support the fat cat politicians who run this place they will not allow that. Wrap your mind around that!
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I listened to a very good public radio forum on how American's view wealth today. The guests were very level and informative and also the callers. Some things were raised that challenged my assumptions and some things that explained my views better than I have. Its about 40 minutes long if anyone is interested. Afterwards there was 10-15 minutes or so on Romney's tax return which was kind of related to the other topic, not sure that portion is included in the webcast or not.
One of the speakers is arguing that Americans "love a good rags-to-riches story". But the fact is that upward mobility has become much more difficult than before. Those stories are much fewer than before. Especially in the current economy. The poor aren't able to take on massive loan debt to get a college education in a collapsed job market. There was a time when people could get a college education and even post-graduate degrees completely on scholarships.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Let me assure you, this is not an American problem. It's a global problem... We have a major prominent soccer club manager facing charges of tax fraud, because he's been evading paying tax.... When you consider most soccer players in this country earn three times as much in one week as some people do in a year. you can see how obscenely greedy this is.... He even opened an off-shore account in the name of his dog....
so who's been paying his taxes for him (that is, filling the gap and making up the short-fall his avoidance has left)? Of course - the middle-band tax-payer. That may not sound much, but tax evasion is big business.... add it all up, and it's a massive bill that has to be footed....
Couple that with those who fall below the poverty level, and are entitled to tax credits, income support, unemployment and housing benefits.... even though there is no income assessment, and income evaluation - and - oh look - guess who's footing this bill as well??
Of course...Mr law-abiding, hard-working, over-worked and underpaid middle-income mug....earns too much to qualify for any benefits or assistance, but not enough disposable income to enjoy the fruits of his labour....
Something has to be done legislatively to close that offshore-account loophole.
Actually, the middle-class couldn't possibly make up for the tens of billions in shortfall caused by tax evasion. What happens is that the state simply runs short of funds and has to cut services, leave roads unrepaired, lay off workers, and face defaulting on debt.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@federica Media coverage here is only concerned with what happens in America. International reporting has really shrunk over the years and is nearly non existent, unless a cruise ship sinks. So thanks for some perspective from the rest of the world.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Something has to be done legislatively to close that offshore-account loophole.
What?? Are you crazy?? and close all those savings accounts our politicians have quietly opened up? Perish the thought....!
Actually, the middle-class couldn't possibly make up for the tens of billions in shortfall caused by tax evasion. What happens is that the state simply runs short of funds and has to cut services, leave roads unrepaired, lay off workers, and face defaulting on debt.
Probably right...but it doesn't stop the chancellor of the exchequer trying... All the cuts you mentioned, have, and are, happening. But mysteriously. our local council tax is still rising....
@person, Thanks...I think it helps you guys know you're not alone - what's more, the problems we all face, are very similar. What the heck these guys in office think they're doing to their countries.... defies belief, sometimes.....
It's nice to have a glimpse at the situation across the Pond, thanks. We don't get this info in our news.
btw, Fede: have you heard? Hollywood has just released a film on the Iron Lady (I believe that's the title).
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Yes, I think it stars Meryl Streep....Oscar nominated, it seems.....
Early news clips of Margaret thatcher reveal she had quite a high voice....
later, when she came into Power as leader of the Conservative party, she had voice-coaching to help lower her voice and make her sound more authoritative....more....'male'.....
people associate high-pitch with weakness, and deeper tones with strength.... I wonder if that will be demonstrated in the film....?
I've thought about getting voice coaching myself, for that reason.
If you see the film, give us a review. Let us know if it's true to style.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
As requested the third in Bill Moyers series on income inequality. This one is mostly about Glass-Steagel, how it came to be repealed and the consequences of that.
YES!! Thank you, person! Glass-Steagal & it's repeal--that's what I was referring to on a related thread, as to the causes of the current economic problems.
Comments
I mentioned in my other post that LGBT scholarships often require activism in exchange for scholarship money, I can poke around and find one if you are interested.
All this fiscal craziness makes me feel like a gerbil on a wheel. Blah. :wtf:
Judging Criteria
The selection committee will judge applicants for the scholarship awards based on the following criteria:
Academic potential and/or evidence of academic achievement of grades C or higher.
Evidence of participation and leadership in school and community activities
Clarity of future goals and determination to achieve them
Sense of personal integrity, ethical judgment, and honesty
Maturity and positive sense of self as a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender person
Service to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community
Financial need and participation in efforts to supplement educational costs
That's just one of many that have such criteria, I see both sides....they need to promote their agenda to continue to try and get LGBT rights pressed, however as a student it's hard to maintain a good GPA, much less "be of service"...you know, in your free time when you are not working to be able to eat, or sleeping. That may be fine for a 20-something, but not an older person.
OK, so you have to wait a year until you can go to community college in FL?
Do you belong to any oddball ethnic group that might have a fund for college study? Work all the angles... Private colleges often are in a position to offer full scholarships.
Don't give up!
I think you should apply for the LGBT scholarship anyway.
But I know how you feel. I was never a rah-rah type in school. Didn't work for the school newspaper or do any of that stuff. maybe you can come up with something for community activities...dig. Or find something to do in that regard once you move.
There are Pell Grants, US gov't grants. One of our (former?) members got one of those for her college study, and her college gave her a scholarship, but she still had to take out a loan to cover living expenses.
I had researched them for a friend who is in school for Graphic Design, and needed money. I am not in any special ethnic group, and by looking at me could not even begin to pretend that I am,haha!
Once I have done my year, yes, I will look into Pell Grants, etc, as I have gone that route before with school a couple of decades ago. Eesh,decades??? Wow, I am old.
I want to avoid as many loans as possible, since I am 47, and do not want to paying student loans well into retirement.
Anyway, now that I have sufficiently hijacked this thread (Sorry OP) I want to say again that it is my hope that Warren Buffett is starting a trend, and that the 1% start anteing up.
It's not just Warren Buffett. Lee Iaccoca, a staunch Republican and former corporate whiz, is rabid about the need for the 1% to pay their share and rescue a decaying country. He's very inspiring. His book, "Where have all the leaders gone?" is hilarious and informative, both. I wish people like him could have more impact on their peers.
I recommend all my younger friends not go to universities and start at community schools first.
That said, I don't see it as a "moral crisis" that some people make phenomenal money and I don't. Why should I care? Successful businessmen I know are not rich by virtue of me having to live life on the cheap, and I am certainly not flirting with brokeness because other people happen to be wealthy. Congratulations to them! I hope to join them in the future. And I intend to.
Being sad or angry about my own plight and bitter towards those better off...is just childish.
I don't have a college degree. I'm self employed and while not rich I have a mortgage, health insurance and a retirement account. So for any individual working hard and being ethical is the proper course of action on the level of a society a large income inequality isn't healthy.
It's about opportunity, it's not that every one should make the same. It's that when wealth becomes too concentrated it detracts from the institutions that allow for the less fortunate to better themselves.
I'm just finishing my senior year of history studies. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who seriously wants to be an attractive hire at the age of 22, especially in the miserable economy. It's just not something that offers a lot of opportunities.
If you want to be a history teacher, then by all means, it's the career to go into. But barring that, it doesn't hold much water in private sector work.
I happen to believe that businesses are silly for making a BA a requisite for entry level employment. They miss out on some exceptionally smart, ambitious people who for whatever reason did not attend college. I would not suffer such a policy in my own business.
In a lot of college students I have met, the university environment cuts you off from reality, encourages immaturity and debauchery. This is not the fault of schools themselves, but it is the culture on campus just the same. For young aspiring collegiates I meet, I encourage them to: go to a community college, or at the very least, be a commuter to college, learn a hard science or trade, and above all, work a job while at school. Developing a solid work ethic will catapult you miles ahead of the over-educated and under-worked.
The job of job placement advisers is to hook graduating students up with employers. It has nothing to do with telling anyone they're college material. Maybe you're thinking of admissions advisers?
As for the question of fairness, I still fail to see even how inordinate success of someone hurts others. The rich are then capable of employing more people.
unless one has achieved complete pureland, otherwise it is wise for the wealthy to help the less fortunate as materialism can't be brought to next life, but your generosity does. even if one has achieved complete pureland, in the society of large country like America with vast disparity of income status between the rich and the poor, it's ought to be generosity giving. what that can be shared is blessing like wealth etc, what cannot be experienced is those heartfelt sharing enjoy from the glittering bliss of the less fortunate and the filth rich. if quality education is the prerequisite to secure a stable life for themselves, those destined with lack of intellectual ability cannot survive with joys. it is also thankful to the farmer for if without them, world never enjoy stable income
And the main point is that they should pay their share of taxes to contribute to society, to maintenance of common infrastructure, etc. There's nothing wrong with people becoming wealthy, as long as they pay taxes. And let's not forget, corporations are people, too. They should be paying taxes, but some of the biggest ones don't.
The part that is terrible is those who cannot, and the fact that the "haves", take away from the "have nots" programs rather than pay more (taxes) when they have more to give.
Until recently I too did pretty well without a degree, however now the years of experience I have now mean naught, and I am competing for less money than I used to start a job at for the same job that they now require a FOUR year degree for.
I have 19 years of experience, far more than someone just out of school. It's very disheartening and demeaning to be told you cannot get hired without that piece of paper when you have paid your dues. Also, the workforce does not value older workers.
That said, I do not desire wealth of that magnitude, however I would like to retire with some money in the bank so that I may live comfortably in my latter years. It is a cultural thing that has been ingrained in Americans that in order to be considered successful you need to do or have "X".
It took me awhile to realize that really everyone has their niche, and without them the world could not function. We need garbage collectors, ditch diggers and yes, CEO's. I am not unhappy with the role I have, though I am ready for a change...not to CEO however.
Over the past 30 years worker productivity has gone up like %30-%40, wages for the bottom %90 of americans has gone up something like %10-%20, while the income of the top %1 has increased by %280. I don't have any issue with capitalism per se, I just feel that its gotten out of whack and the basic bargain for the working american, that you can work hard play by the rules and you'll be able to support your family, as well as ease of upward mobility, isn't what it used to be.
The issue isn't about fairness of income, its about fairness of opportunity. When schools suffer, when families spend %17 of their income on poor health insurance. The opportunity to better oneself suffers. So its not that anothers success hurts people, its when that success isn't reinvested into the social infrastructure upon which much of that success depends that the average american gets hurt.
Also, like @Hubris says, an individual can work themselves to a better job. But even if they get out from pumping gas someone else will still need to do that job.
1. That the inordinate success of someone else necessarily has any negative effect on me. In my view, my success was due to my abilities. Others did not work as hard as I did or take the right path in their careers, and each of us was rewarded somewhat accordingly. Sometimes old-fashioned "bad luck" had as much to do with someone's failure. The principal, for example, that got a job in a community that was a poor match, was eventually driven out amidst much vitriol...then placed in a different community that loved her and her success there was practically unrivaled.
2. That capitalism has gotten out of whack, but inherently is as reasonable a system as any other.
But I disagree with a few assertions:
1. When you speak about worker productivity. Worker productivity isn't always about how hard the worker works. It's OFTEN about technology in the workplace. I remember the days when to produce our school's monthly newsletter we had our secretaries working on the old mimeo stencils, and if a serious mistake was made the stencil had to be thrown out, and that page started all over again. It took days. When computers came along, all that was eliminated, and editing was a breeze. A multi-day project turned into a multi-hour project, but it was due to the technology...the secretary didn't work any harder at all. Henry Ford was instrumental in the early days of American industrialism, using the assembly line to improve worker productivity.
2. In terms of schools suffering, I was principal is very large system. For example, we had over 20 middle schools and 20 high schools. Each school got an equal share of resources, and some of the lower-performing schools got additional resources. I could go into a dozen reasons some schools excelled and others failed, so the reasons some schools fail is not directly related to the issue which is being discussed.
3. Poor health insurance. What I worry about is people that cannot get health insurance. My mother had none and suffered. In reality, she had none because of poor decisions she made throughout her work life. My nephew has none. He spent time in prison and cannot find a decent job since then. My neighbor is 77 years old, barely makes it by each month on her fixed income, but through Medicare and Human has excellent care...recently getting through major back surgery and now a new-found heart condition. I have excellent health insurance in my retirement because when I chose which school system to go with, I took benefits into consideration. So my concern about health insurance is the haves versus the have-nots.
A concern that I have in general in the United States isn't that many have more than I do, or that many have less than I do. My concern is that there is a lack of understanding that we should be the UNITED States of America, where to some extent all Americans share in the bounty of this nation. For example, sufficient health care for every American may not be a "right" under the Constitution, but it should be an expectation based on this being one of the wealthiest nations of the world.
My concern about health care in economic terms is that a sick worker is an unproductive worker. A healthy workforce is a productive workforce. Of course there are many humanitarian reasons to ensure people have healthcare but in economics the dollar is king. Also if ERs are required to help sick people then people without healthcare and/or the means to pay for ER care wait for a chronic condition to get to the point of emergency care then that care is much more expensive. I don't hear a peep from the right about denying care to those without insurance, in fact it was the Reagan administration that mandated it. But a system that only takes care when people are seriously ill and doesn't help to prevent that in the first place is really inefficient. Amen, brother.
And Hubris is in a bind, because if he does go to school, he may bump up against age-discrimination by the time he completes the degree and is out in the job market.
Choose carefully, get degree-related jobs or volunteer work while you're in school, and network like crazy. Do what you can to develop contacts in your chosen field, who might be in a position to hire you when you're done. Develop your schmoozing skills, lol!
The attitudes that I see in threads like these, across multiple boards of varying topic, I find absolutely disgusting. People seem to think that just because you have a degree or some particular station in life you are to do something particular. You are supposed to be something because of something that you are or have. I disagree.
I think America is great because a homeless man can become a millionaire. I'm sure that's the case in many other countries too. The idea that anyone is owed anything is ridiculous. You earn what you want and get what you earn. If your life isn't what you want it to be who's fault is it? Doesn't Buddhism teach self-reliance? Am I wrong that I take that to mean all aspects of life?
I don't think we're saying that we're owed anything, any more than every American is owed part of the bounty of this nation. And I sense that you think we are being snobs because many of us have various college degrees. But I think when we talk about our education that we're talking about it because it's what we know.
I think some of us are actually saying that how hard a person works at his profession ought to account for something. Let me give you 3 examples.
My best friend in high school started out community college with me, but after those 2 years he stopped any further education, got a job as a machinist in a small-town company (and I mean very small town company) in rural Pennsylvania. He lives in a run-down house, is barely making ends meet, and became a Bible thumper. He isn't going to have much of a retirement income. Or health insurance. The sad thing about his life -- from my perspective -- is that he was an incredibly intelligent young man who could have pursued any field, could have excelled at university, and had the kind of personality that would have taken him far in almost any work environment. He could easily have gone into the scientific field. Instead, he's been making metal parts in a machine shop for 40 hours a week for 35 years. There's nothing wrong with that, if he is happy. But, he fell far short of his potential.
My other best friend in high school was one of those people that no one can dislike. Talk about leadership potential. Every one wanted to be around Brian and do whatever Brian wanted to do. Also very intelligent. But, he was too lazy to go to college. And so, for 30 years he's been a car salesman. Nothing wrong with that. Lives a rather exotic life in Guam and has a nice wife. The only issue is that he fell far short of his potential.
And then there was me. Got my B.S. and M.S. degrees in geology and education. Did it working my way through college...nothing handed to me. Decided on the field of education, rather than being a geologist. Worked extremely hard at being a really good teacher, went back to university and worked on a modified doctoral program. Became a school administrator and principal. Highly respected in the community. Nice house. Lived for a while overseas (Thailand) after retirement. I'm no better than John or Brian. But I worked harder than they did. Went further than they did. Earned more than they did. Am better off in my retirement years than they will be (in fact, I could retire at 58, while they will have to work until 63 or 65). But, in some ways I envy certain aspects of their lives.
I haven't seen them in years. But, we do communicate. And if we ever do get back together, the friendship and respect we feel for each other will not have changed. While I envy certain things about them, I know they envy certain things about me. But that envy is not the same as being jealous. I think we each know we earned our lives.
So, I don't really see where you are coming from. You sound as if you are happy with your job. So fine. What's the issue?
---
Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana recently noted that "upward mobility from the bottom is the crux of the American promise." In early 2009, the Economist noted that "71% still agreed that hard work and personal skill are the main ingredients for success." Americans particularly care about intergenerational opportunities. They believe that their economic system allows hardworking children of working class citizens the chance to move up the income ladder. In fact many successful politicians frequently cite their working class upbringing as evidence that the US is "greatest" country in the world.
Optimism has declined since the financial crisis of 2008. News reports cite curveys that indicate Americans are much more pessimistic about their near and long-term economic futures. The notion that the next generation will be better off is no longer assumed.
When it comes to (intergenerational) upward mobility, how does the US stack up against other countries? Among conservatives the answer is clear: Scandinavian countries are less dynamic, and thus upward mobility pales in comparison to the US. But as we've seen above, when entrepreneurial opportunities are measured using a range of metrics, Denmark, Sweden, and Finland compare favorably with the US.
In a 2006 study, German researchers studied Intergenerational Earnings Mobility in several countries including the US. Since there aren't any long-term longitudinal survey data sets that cut across all the countries in their study, the researchers chose well-known survey data for each of the countries1. Intergenerational mobility is measured by looking at the probability that offsprings move up to higher-income groups.
It turns out that compared to the equivalent set of parent-offspring pairs in Scandinavian countries, sons whose Fathers are in the bottom 20% are much less2 upwardly mobile in the US. Throw in the fact that compared to the US, there is much less concentration of wealth and income in Sweden, Finland, and Denmark, you begin to wonder why other countries aren't emulating at least some features of these 3 economies. (A good place to start is for countries to consider Sweden's approach to financial sector regulation!)
Here are the results of the multi-nation study on Intergenerational Upward Mobility:
•Estimated quintile group mobility: Assuming a Father is in the bottom 20% of all earners, what is the probability3 that his offspring will be in the same income group? Perfect Mobility implies that offsprings of a parent in the bottom (or top) 20% income group, are equally distributed across each of the five income quintiles.
•Father is in the BOTTOM 20%: The upward mobility of sons is much less likely in the US. In the US, 42% of sons stay in the bottom 20%. Moreover 66% (or two-thirds) of all sons remain within the bottom 40% of all earners. Outside the US the comparable proportion who remain in the bottom 40% of all earners are: UK (53%), Sweden (50%), Norway (51%), Finland (51%), and Denmark (47%). Put another way, in the US a son whose father was in the bottom 20% of all earners has only a 1 in 3 chance of ending up in the top 60%. His odds of ending up in the top 60% would be much higher in Sweden (1 in 2).
•On the other hand, intergenerational upward mobility for daughters whose Fathers were in the BOTTOM 20%, is only marginally worse in the US.
http://www.verisi.com/resources/prosperity-upward-mobility.htm
---
If you follow the link there's a graph at the bottom clearly showing how economic mobility in the US is behind other countries.
I do think we are owed something in the US. The opportunity to better oneself through hard work and ability. That isn't as true as it once was.
Another reason I think resources should be more equally distributed is one of supply and demand. Workers that have extra money to spend increase demand and grease the economic wheels.
1.a privileged class of people usually of high birth; the nobility
2. such a class as the ruling body of a state
3. government by such a class
4. a state governed by such a class
5. a class of people considered to be outstanding in a sphere of activity
meritocracy
1. rule by persons chosen not because of birth or wealth, but for their superior talents or intellect
2.the persons constituting such a group
3. a social system formed on such a basis
I view the American system, and the modern social system in general, is intended to be a meritocracy but appears to be slipping more to an aristocracy.
Meritocracy<-------------->Aristocracy
There is a continuum between the two not entirely one or the other but the closer to meritocracy the more people will benefit. Take the estate tax, for example, inherited wealth doesn't do anything for the person who's effort and ability earned their wealth. The only ones who suffer from the tax are the children of the super rich, trust fund kids. This simply passes wealth from one generation to the next making the circumstances of birth more important than ability, thus sliding the system more towards aristocracy.
There was some debate about it effecting businesses that were passed on, but the solution to that is to increase the level which the estate tax kicks in or to exempt business assests.
During the debate to repeal it politicians claimed the estate tax was crushing farmers. According to IRS data, almost no working farmers pay the estate tax. One prominent Iowa economist actually searched for families who had lost their farms to estate taxes but failed to find a single one. When the New York Times wanted to write a real-life feature about a farmer who lost his farm because of the estate tax, it went to the American Farm Bureau. The newspaper expected the organization to match its fiery rhetoric against the estate tax with hundreds of examples. The Farm Bureau was unable to produce even one.
That last paragraph is lifted from Hostile Takeover by David Sirota
"I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given."
There is the libertarian free market view that all these things could be paid for as a private service. How good would the police or fire service be in a poor neighborhood or the roads for that matter? Would public transportation go to poor neighborhoods and if not who would serve the better off their coffee or dinner?
Some things need to be done as a group in order for the social structure to function properly. The wealthy depend on the less well off for many of the things they need. If the poor can't travel to jobs or if their neighborhoods are too crime ridden for them to leave home or send their kids to school, or if whole neighborhoods burn down because of no fire department, the social fabric breaks down and everyone is worse off. Maybe we could do like Mexico does, where the super rich travel in armed caravans with personal security from one protected area to another while the rest of us sell gum on the streets.
One of those things "done in a group" like you say is pay taxes...well the less well off bear the burden of that, and then their programs get cut so the more well off do not have to pay as much tax, how is that not breaking down the fabric of society? Especially since THEY "depend" upon the less well off? It's a vicious cycle.
Maybe the "have's" need to fear the "have nots", give them what they need, and there will be less reason to have fear. Once survival mode kicks in for the "have nots" its not as if they are thinking entirely rationally, the will to survive is instinct, and not a thought process. No one does not fight back in some fashion.
Armed caravans clearly show what I am saying, in Mexico at least. People reduced to selling chicle in the streets are in survival mode, wondering where their next meal comes from, and these caravans drive through without so much as a care as to these poor people. Instead they arm themselves against fellow humans who are suffering, thinking of them as waste. I see something terribly wrong with that.
It used to be a basic principle taught in political economics courses that if you have a large disparity between rich and poor, you create the conditions for leftist insurgencies to take hold. Economic disparity is one root cause of political instability. I don't know if they still teach that. Looks like those on top have turned a deaf ear, to their eventual detriment.
Millions of dollars are pumped into research for a cure, enabling the already wealthy medical community, but 30-odd years later no cure? Hmm.
For the most part...no, not EVERY circumstance, HIV/AIDS wipes out what are still considered undesirables. Gays, African-Americans,prostitutes, and drug addicts. Now is it really so unclear as to why there has not been a cure?
That said, IF that is true they are shooting themselves in the foot...well, no, they are shooting the taxpayers in the foot. The taxpayers are the ones paying for the social services that these patients need, and now that they live longer, it's a bigger burden. HIV meds are extremely expensive.
Rumor has it that there has long been a cure for cancer - now that may also be a conspiracy theory, however again the millions of dollars pumped into research and development is astounding. Shut that down, and what? The doctors and big pharma suffer, and since they have money to support the fat cat politicians who run this place they will not allow that. Wrap your mind around that!
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/01/24/midmorning1/
It's a global problem...
We have a major prominent soccer club manager facing charges of tax fraud, because he's been evading paying tax....
When you consider most soccer players in this country earn three times as much in one week as some people do in a year. you can see how obscenely greedy this is....
He even opened an off-shore account in the name of his dog....
so who's been paying his taxes for him (that is, filling the gap and making up the short-fall his avoidance has left)?
Of course - the middle-band tax-payer.
That may not sound much, but tax evasion is big business.... add it all up, and it's a massive bill that has to be footed....
Couple that with those who fall below the poverty level, and are entitled to tax credits, income support, unemployment and housing benefits.... even though there is no income assessment, and income evaluation - and - oh look - guess who's footing this bill as well??
Of course...Mr law-abiding, hard-working, over-worked and underpaid middle-income mug....earns too much to qualify for any benefits or assistance, but not enough disposable income to enjoy the fruits of his labour....
Actually, the middle-class couldn't possibly make up for the tens of billions in shortfall caused by tax evasion. What happens is that the state simply runs short of funds and has to cut services, leave roads unrepaired, lay off workers, and face defaulting on debt.
Are you crazy??
and close all those savings accounts our politicians have quietly opened up?
Perish the thought....! Probably right...but it doesn't stop the chancellor of the exchequer trying...
All the cuts you mentioned, have, and are, happening.
But mysteriously. our local council tax is still rising....
@person, Thanks...I think it helps you guys know you're not alone - what's more, the problems we all face, are very similar.
What the heck these guys in office think they're doing to their countries.... defies belief, sometimes.....
btw, Fede: have you heard? Hollywood has just released a film on the Iron Lady (I believe that's the title).
Early news clips of Margaret thatcher reveal she had quite a high voice....
later, when she came into Power as leader of the Conservative party, she had voice-coaching to help lower her voice and make her sound more authoritative....more....'male'.....
people associate high-pitch with weakness, and deeper tones with strength....
I wonder if that will be demonstrated in the film....?
If you see the film, give us a review. Let us know if it's true to style.
Glass-Steagal & it's repeal--that's what I was referring to on a related thread, as to the causes of the current economic problems.