View Full Version : Wealth inequality in America
http://mashable.com/2013/03/02/wealth-inequality/
The saddest part for me is that I have labored under the myth of hard work gets one ahead. It's simply not true. Being born into wealth is the best way to be wealthy.
Of course, being born into wealth is a pretty good way to be wealthy, but it's certainly not the only way.
Personally, I've found that getting ahead is not so hard to do over the course of a lifetime if you work at it. I've also found it to be self-defeating to think in terms of wealth inequality, and empowering to focus on gradual improvement. If I focus on who has more than me I'll probably be unhappy and yet if I focus on how far I've come, I consider myself blessed.
Perspective is everything.
I heard of an "economy" kind of game played in some classrooms but the name escapes me. The interesting thing about it is that at some in the game those winning get to start altering the rules. An interesting side effect is those on top really get intense about playing but the ones underneath tend to lose all interest. Which may not sound fair for a game but it certainly sounds closer to reality.
Since I'm not in the wage earning work force, I suppose talk is easy. But even with the loss of middle class jobs to automation and overseas I don't think advancing into the ranks of middle or upper class is all that difficult for most. It is more than working hard, but choosing job skills that are in demand and retooling for a changing work environment. There are obviously some who get dealt a bad deal in life and struggle to prosper regardless. The few uber-rich I met in my day worked extremely hard, had excellent organizational skills, and could sell a refrigerator to an Eskimo. I would not want the burden of their work life or their rewards.
Then again, I consider "The Great Gatsby" as the great American novel of wealth and am occasionally reminded of the opening lines...In my younger and more vulnerable years my father gave me some advice that I’ve been turning over in my mind ever since.
"Whenever you feel like criticizing any one,” he told me, “just remember that all the people in this world haven’t had the advantages that you’ve had.”
There will always been some folks who think they're going to strike it rich and that's what's going to save them. Look at all the people who spend lots of money on the lottery or think a crazy business venture is going to do the trick.
On the contrary, it's getting an education and/or learning a trade, working hard, and living within your means.
My motto is "Work smarter, not harder."
When I realized that others with a similar income as me seemed to be managing their money better. I knew I had to get smarter with what I was earning. Will I ever be rich? Not likely, but then I have so much of what makes me happy already that more money is unlikely to make me happier.
There has always been a disparity between rich & poor in the world, I just don't see that changing in my lifetime.
Here's another good fact sheet (though I wish they'd update it; it's almost two years old now).
Wealth Inequality (http://inequality.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/wealth-inequality-charts.pdf?4c9b33)
I think there are always going to anecdotes about people who beat the odds and make out well, just like there are always going to be anecdotes about people who under-perform reasonable expectations, but the real story here with wealth inequality is the long-term overall trend. It cannot help but increase the odds against working one's way out of poverty, and making the current lack of financial independence more of a barrier to future financial independence. So while it is true that there will always be rich and poor in the world, is it a good thing that we're now very clearly on the backside of the hill, descending from the peak of wealth equality? Does anyone know of a reasonable justification for what is effectively an economic offensive against those less fortunate?
The power in the data for me is not at the individual level, though it is grimly good to have the data confirm my own experience of pedaling fast and going backwards. The value is in driving public policy.
Our society does better when everyone does better. The trajectory we have been on as a society is the anti-model. It's beyond time to reverse this trend, with distribution of wealth approaching the Robber Baron era. It is time to redistribute wealth by governmental policies.
It is time to redistribute wealth by governmental policies. I tend to agree, but cannot conceive of a fair way to do this. Heavy taxation doesn't seem like the answer, at least to me.
It is time to redistribute wealth by governmental policies.
Probably no surprise that I'm going to disagree with that redfox. There is a big difference between making wealth achievement easy and making it possible. Redistribution implies making it easy (but please feel free to rebut if you have a different thought in mind). Opportunity implies making it possible. There will always be those who gain wealth and power as a birthright, no policy will change that. What we should really be concerned with is making sure anyone who didn't inherit that has a chance to achieve it on their own. Btw, that should be true for any dream, not just wealth in the monetary sense. Anyway, wealth is not static, not zero sum. We can create as much as we want to. Rather than taking from one to give to another why not just help the ones who don’t have it generate more? In any structure I’m familiar with it is always more practical to reinforce the bottom rather than tear off the top. If you redistribute the opportunity the wealth will quickly follow without anyone having to be penalized because their achievement came before the rules changed.
ETA: Redistributing opportunity is fairly easy needn't be painful to do using public policy. It would boil down to redistributing money in the budget. For example only, but you could take 5% of the DOD budget and apply that to aid for the bottom 5% of high schools in the country. That kind of redistribution I could get behind. I think most people could.
goldensmom
3-4-13, 11:10am
I am happy for people of wealth whether by birth or otherwise and of which I am not one. Inequality is a fact and I am just glad to make financial ends meet in a right/ honest way and I am happy for me too.
flowerseverywhere
3-4-13, 11:47am
It's beyond time to reverse this trend, with distribution of wealth approaching the Robber Baron era. It is time to redistribute wealth by governmental policies.
All we can do is control the things we can. Encourage our children to get a useful trade or education. Taking $100,000 in student loans to major in English is a pretty big hole to dig out of. $20,000 to go to Nursing school at a community college or hospital is probably an excellent investment. Also, having children young, not limiting family size, impulse spending, eating out, buying too big of a house and fancy cars, and getting divorced are big factors that make many people much more poor than they ever need to be from my observations of people from years working all kinds of people in nursing.
Many people have gotten the short end of the stick, they haven't won the life lottery and do just fine. Learning basic skills like cooking, living in small places in inexpensive neighborhoods, limiting spending on anything not essential goes a long way towards becoming financially secure. It is really hard if you don't have the right color skin, or have a single mom or a drug addicted parent, and giving opportunities to better themselves seems a much better way to do things. Unfortunately, it is hard for some kids to even get through high school.
You know I am reminded of the saying that goes something like this "give a person a fish, and they eat for a day, but teach them to fish and they eat for life".
There will always be someone who is better off than you and someone who is far worse than you. I have to be learn to be content with what I have, who I am, and my blessings in the present moment. Once you can master that, you realize that you are wealthy beyond belief....at least that is what I am finding out :) Money is a piece of paper...yes, it can make life easier for you, but it is not the end all, be all.
There will always be someone who is better off than you and someone who is far worse than you. I have to be learn to be content with what I have, who I am, and my blessings in the present moment. Once you can master that, you realize that you are wealthy beyond belief....at least that is what I am finding out :) Money is a piece of paper...yes, it can make life easier for you, but it is not the end all, be all.
Exactly how I feel!!!
I was born dirt poor and I will probably die dirt poor but oh the experiences and life I have had!!!
This is why my Nanna and Papa are my heroes. They came from nothing, had nothing their whole lives and died with nothing but they were the nicest, happiest people I can think of. They enjoyed life, even if they didn't have what others had and no amount of hard work would make them "rich" in the pocket.
I wish that all successful people would donate of their time to mentor youth at that critical stage when their lives can go either way. I know if I had some positive role models when I was 10-12, I probably would been a much more productive and satisfied adult.
I thought we resolved this reasonably well the last time it was discussed. We shouldn't drag people down just because they succeed. These inequality arguments are based on flawed zero sum thinking. I don't know what our gini ratio is here, but if one of us has the good fortune to invent the next big dot com idea or get drafted by the Yankees the rest of us aren't any worse off for that, even though inequality has increeased. We should make sure people at the bottom have a reasonable situation and opportunity, but they don't deserve a cut of someone else's success just because. So let's work on a fair floor and ladders up, but don't impose an artificial ceiling.
I thought we resolved this reasonably well the last time it was discussed.Perhaps, instead, you just thought your comments should be acknowledged as overriding by all, when it reality that wasn't the case.
We shouldn't drag people down just because they succeed.Economic fairness doesn't drag successful people down - it lifts everyone up. Your characterization would only make sense if you assess your own value solely by how much money you have.
These inequality arguments are based on flawed zero sum thinking.This comment indicates that you really never cared enough to actually read and/or understand the arguments you disagree with, or you have chosen to mischaracterize them as an ongoing rhetorical tactic. The reality is that arguments against economic inequality are based on rather sound historical data - evidence of what has actually happened in reality. If you are concerned about zero-sum thinking, then propose changes whereby economic resources are arrayed in a reasonable manner, by simply placing comfort and luxury at the end of the line, as their actual priority would warrant, rather than in a manner that flies in the face of human decency.
We should make sure people at the bottom have a reasonable situation and opportunity, but they don't deserve a cut of someone else's success just because.Good thing that nobody has suggested that anyone get a cut of someone else's success "just because". You seem to be relying heavily on this Straw Man argument, whenever the matter gets raised.
Perhaps, instead, you just thought your comments should be acknowledged as overriding by all, when it reality that wasn't the case.
Er, no, they weren't really my comments, and you never get all, just a working consensus.
Your characterization would only make sense if you assess your own value solely by how much money you have.
Yep, that's me, Scrooge McDuck.
This comment indicates that you really never cared enough to actually read and/or understand the arguments you disagree with, or you have chosen to mischaracterize them as an ongoing rhetorical tactic. The reality is that arguments against economic inequality are based on rather sound historical data - evidence of what has actually happened in reality. If you are concerned about zero-sum thinking, then propose changes whereby economic resources are arrayed in a reasonable manner, by simply placing comfort and luxury at the end of the line, as their actual priority would warrant, rather than in a manner that flies in the face of human decency.
I'm not smart enough to follow all that so I'll just give you a simple example. If the Google guys had been living in Russia, the economic inequality in the US would be lower. How would that be a good thing?
Good thing that nobody has suggested that anyone get a cut of someone else's success "just because". You seem to be relying heavily on this Straw Man argument, whenever the matter gets raised.
Then please don't talk about economic inequality again. We can talk about adequate access to education, healthcare, job opportunities, etc as making sure that people have the right opportunities. But once you reach that level, then it doesn't matter what someone else has so any relative comparing is off base. On what basis do you make policies when comparing the relative wealth of Larry Ellison and Bill Gates? None, Larry has enough, we don't expect Bill to give him any regardless of how unequal their wealth is. But when you propose redistribution to lower income people just because you think the inequality is too high, that's redistribution just because, not because you have identified some basic need that is unmet. That's why IMHO it's better to focus on what folks need, not the amount the top end has. Once everyone has what they need, or at least a fair shot to get it if they work for it, the relative differences should be irrelevant absent some abuse.
One of the problems is see with the trends in income distribution is that with money comes power and influence. I think the true drivers in social, economic, and political arenas could be at risk of being more and more under the influence of a smaller and smaller handful of people that may not have the well being of the majority as a primary consideration.
One of the problems is see with the trends in income distribution is that with money comes power and influence. I think the true drivers in social, economic, and political arenas could be at risk of being more and more under the influence of a smaller and smaller handful of people that may not have the well being of the majority as a primary consideration.
+1
I can't relate to the jealousy and acrimony toward others who are perceived as having "more." Anyway, true wealth redistribution would be worldwide and would cause a big drop in the standard of living for any rich American citizen on these boards for we are rich, you know. But maybe that would be ok with the unhappy folks here because then everyone is equal, or equally miserable, or ?
I really don't know because I don't understand the mindset.
My sense is that our Founding Fathers weren't trying to craft a society with a tiny percentage of wealthy "royals" at the top running the show to benefit themselves and a mass of peasants below them grubbing in the muck for leftovers, which I sometimes fear is where we're headed.
I was struck not long ago listening to an interview in which a high-ranking European politician asserted that he had no desire to be a rich man in a country of poor people, and thus approved of their progressive tax structure. He would be considered the worst kind of turncoat among his peers stateside.
My sense is that our Founding Fathers weren't trying to craft a society with a tiny percentage of wealthy "royals" at the top running the show to benefit themselves and a mass of peasants below them grubbing in the muck for leftovers, which I sometimes fear is where we're headed.
I was struck not long ago listening to an interview in which a high-ranking European politician asserted that he had no desire to be a rich man in a country of poor people, and thus approved of their progressive tax structure. He would be considered the worst kind of turncoat among his peers stateside.
Agree. It's the "more" that they have is more power, which is undermining our democracy. One man, one vote is becoming an antiquated notion.
But maybe that would be ok with the unhappy folks here because then everyone is equal, or equally miserable, or ?
I really don't know because I don't understand the mindset.
As for myself I am pretty happy living with less and rather pity those think they need financial wealth and belongings. My concerns are that we are becoming a polarized society where only a small end of the polarization is running the show.
And I take issue with the idea that jealousy is behind protesting continual wealth redistribution upwards. I might envy individuals their youth, their strong knees, their focus or energy levels, or any one of a number of attributes, but I've never once thought to myself "Oh how I wish I were a billionaire."
gimmethesimplelife
3-5-13, 1:56am
My sense is that our Founding Fathers weren't trying to craft a society with a tiny percentage of wealthy "royals" at the top running the show to benefit themselves and a mass of peasants below them grubbing in the muck for leftovers, which I sometimes fear is where we're headed.
I was struck not long ago listening to an interview in which a high-ranking European politician asserted that he had no desire to be a rich man in a country of poor people, and thus approved of their progressive tax structure. He would be considered the worst kind of turncoat among his peers stateside.And this right here, sums up nicely why I so respect many of the European countries.....unfortunately, many of them are not doing well right now - but then again neither are we in the US.....Rob
I tend to agree, but cannot conceive of a fair way to do this. Heavy taxation doesn't seem like the answer, at least to me.
Here are the government subsidies which I know of, that proved to be very effective in getting my parents into the middle class, after being born into rural America in 1927, and these need to be enhanced & further supported:
1. GI Bill. Got my Dad an education; a BA & a law degree.
2. GI bill again. Mortgage assistance for their first home.
3. Higher tax rates on upper income earners to pay for GI bill programs.
" Few government programs have delivered on america's promise as a land of opportunity as explicitly as the GI Bill. When it was signed in June 1944, the Servicemen's Readjustment Act (the policy's official name) offered a college scholarship to all those who had served in uniform, whether or not they had fought on the front lines. In the decades since, benefits have fallen far behind the cost of university tuitions, prompting Senators Jim Webb and Chuck Hagel to draft a new GI Bill that would offer soldiers full tuition at any state school.As generous as that sounds, the 1944 bill--among the most significant pieces of legislation ever passed by the U.S. Congress--included much more. Its education benefits threw open the doors of élite academies to the masses: in 1947, veterans made up almost half the nation's college students. It also offered low-interest, no-money-down mortgages, backed by the U.S. government, that allowed millions of families to purchase their first homes. The move helped spark the postwar baby boom and the suburbanization of America in the 1950s: it effectively created the American middle class.
By 1956, when the initial program ended, close to half the nation's 16 million veterans had either gone to college or received job training. A generation flourished."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1810309,00.html#ixzz2Me0lb9UI
Here are the social realities that proved to be very effective for my parents, which government policies can affect for the better for all:
1. They are caucasian, and have the immediate advantage of race in a racist society.
2. They are heterosexual, and had access to legal marriage. Thank goodness this is changing, as filing married makes a difference.
3. They got educated, with lots of federal support, as noted above, and at affordable tuition rates.
Our various levels of government have the power and the role of creating policies to support all the people who live here, not just some of them. Wealth disparity is inexcusable, most especially when the end results are vast numbers of people dying in poverty, hungry, homeless, without access to the VERY BASICS - health care, housing, food, education, safety. Our great country was founded to create equality and equal opportunity. Those very foundational qualities have been systematically undone, and regardless of intent, the impacts are the disasters we have today. Redistribution of wealth by taxation creates opportunities in both the public & private sectors to further growth. If the wealthy having virtually all of the resources and power led to a society of equality, we would not be having this conversation.
We are better than that.
ApatheticNoMore
3-5-13, 3:35am
They benefitted from the GI bill and almost certainly achieved more economically than they ever would otherwise, but it's folly to romanticize those times. Because THEY THEMSELVES might have much rather have lived in a world that was not at war!! But the world was at war and there was a draft. War is hell, always has been, even if it's one of the more justifiable wars, and even you get a few bennies afterward.
By the way you can get a low interest almost no money down mortgage backed by the U.S. government today, it's what FHA loans are (it doesn't benefit that many people today of course because the housing stock is so restricted and the prices so high - it was designed as a bank bailout me thinks).
They benefitted from the GI bill and almost certainly achieved more economically than they ever would otherwise, but it's folly to romanticize those times. Because THEY THEMSELVES might have much rather have lived in a world that was not at war!! But the world was at war and there was a draft. War is hell, always has been, even if it's one of the more justifiable wars, and even you get a few bennies afterward.
By the way you can get a low interest almost no money down mortgage backed by the U.S. government today, it's what FHA loans are (it doesn't benefit that many people today of course because the housing stock is so restricted and the prices so high - it was designed as a bank bailout me thinks).
Did my post suggest I was romanticizing the era? The point was that in my immediate family, this one robust program, funded by taxes, made a huge difference, for us & millions of others. It's a worthy model. And, given the numbers of returning vets, it would restart this economy.
There are many other programs that give a much needed assist for those hoping to get into middle class. Head Start, equal opportunity college admissions, public housing, etc. Yes, it is time to raise taxes, on the wealthiest first. Like I said, if the 1% really were job creators, we'd be in fine fettle in the US.
ETA: Redistributing opportunity is fairly easy needn't be painful to do using public policy. It would boil down to redistributing money in the budget. For example only, but you could take 5% of the DOD budget and apply that to aid for the bottom 5% of high schools in the country. That kind of redistribution I could get behind. I think most people could.
This is how I "read" what redfox wrote.
I immediately thought of better and more appropriate spending of our tax dollars, plus also reforming certain industries such as regulating banks and the like (since it's the deregulation that caused some of the problem in the first place).
I don't necessarily believe in take from the rich and give to the poor, but I do believe that there are economic and social policies and methods that the government could consistently employ that would create better opportunities and long-term outcomes for individuals and the society.
And, I think a certain measure of social safety net (this is the poverty line in our country -- agreeing to what is acceptable in our developed nation) is also a viable area to look at the distribution of tax contribution.
I just feel like everyone is so short-sighted.
In terms of individuals, I agree about education, re-tooling, and being flexible in the market place. I also believe in real entrepreneurship -- which requires creativity, ingenuity, flexibility, adaptability, and good work ethic -- as well as living within your means/simplicity.
I work to educate the 22 yr olds on how to create their own opportunities, because becomng a company man/woman is dumb as in this modern coprorate environment.
Yep, that's me, Scrooge McDuck.If you say so.
I'm not smart enough to follow all that so I'll just give you a simple example. If the Google guys had been living in Russia, the economic inequality in the US would be lower.And ice cream has no bones.
Then please don't talk about economic inequality again.You think the fact that you argue against things no one has said means that you get to dictate what other people discuss? Who died and made you God?
On what basis do you make policies when comparing the relative wealth of Larry Ellison and Bill Gates?No one does that. That's just your Straw Man argument. Reasonable people who disagree with your overall policy bent make policy proposals based on what is fair and reasonable, building from the foundation up, not from some arbitrary and irrelevant comparison between different people within. Until you learn that, you'll never understand the matters that are being discussed.
Case in point:
I don't necessarily believe in take from the rich and give to the poor, but I do believe that there are economic and social policies and methods that the government could consistently employ that would create better opportunities and long-term outcomes for individuals and the society. Some people continually blind themselves to the merit in this by mischaracterizing the rightful manner that this intention affects taxes.
flowerseverywhere
3-5-13, 9:45am
My sense is that our Founding Fathers weren't trying to craft a society with a tiny percentage of wealthy "royals" at the top running the show to benefit themselves and a mass of peasants below them grubbing in the muck for leftovers, which I sometimes fear is where we're headed.
from the following articles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States
Thomas Jefferson owned plantations totaling thousands of acres and owned hundreds of slaves during his lifetime.[ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_slavery#cite_note-William_Cohen_1969_p._510-2)Like other slave-owning presidents, Jefferson brought trusted members of his household to work in the white house. Slavery was firmly established by the time the United States sought independence from Great Britain in 1776. From the 16th to 19th century almost 700,000 slaves were bought from Africa to the US.
Slaveholders and the commodities of the South had a strong influence on American politics: "in the 72 years between the election of George Washington and the election of Abraham Lincoln 50 of those years [had] a slaveholder as president of the United States, and, for that whole period of time, there was never a person elected to a second term who was not a slaveholder."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant
Indentured servitude was a form of debt bondage established in the early years of the American Colonies. Farmers, planters, and shopkeepers in the colonies found it very difficult to hire free workers, primarily because it was so easy for potential workers to set up their own farms. Consequently, a common solution was to transport a young worker from england or germany who would work for several years to pay off the debt of their travel costs. During the indenture period the servants were not paid wages but were provided with food, accommodation, clothing and training.
One of the more interesting things I have done is toured a plantation. While the owners lived in big beautiful houses the slaves toiled in the hot sun, doing things like clearing swamps for planting and picking cotton.
Prostitution, child labor and horrific work conditions kept many people from starving to death but there is a reason that the laws that exist today got on the books. In fact, in many countries around the world, there are children in sweatshops and women in prostitution, as well as horiffic working conditions for low wages.
Since the beginning of time there has been violence, poverty and slavery. Iris Lilly commented on the fact that if we really were worried about wealth distribution our last worry would be here in the US which I heartily agree with. All around the world people are living in slums, shacks, on the streets etc. at a much higher rate than we can ever imagine here. Our idea of poverty is so skewed that I wish everyone would have the chance to visit a third world country and see real poverty. It changes you forever.
As I mentioned in another thread, why not get away from thinking it has to be "socialiism/redistribution of my hard earned wealth" vs. "what's mine is mine" Can't we think creatively about other solutions? Like demurrage?
From Charles Eisenstein in Ascent of Humanity:
"our present system of money-with-interest generates the necessity for endless growth, .. it embodies linear thinking, .. it defies the cyclical patterns of nature, and .. it drives the relentless conversion of all forms of wealth into money. As well, interest is the wellspring of our economy's ever-intensifying competition, systemic scarcity, and concentration of wealth."
And he explains how demurrage would keep the flow going in a more natural cycle:
Demurrage produces a number of profound economic, social, and psychological effects. Conceptually, demurrage works by freeing material goods, which are subject to natural cyclic processes of renewal and decay, from their linkage with a money that only grows, exponentially, over time. As established in Chapter Four, this dynamic is what is driving us toward ruin in the utter exhaustion of all social, cultural, natural, and spiritual wealth. Demurrage currency merely subjects money to the same laws as natural commodities, whose continuing value requires maintenance.
Gesell writes:
Gold does not harmonise with the character of our goods. Gold and straw, gold and petrol, gold and guano, gold and bricks, gold and iron, gold and hides! Only a wild fancy, a monstrous hallucination, only the doctrine of "value" can bridge the gulf. Commodities in general, straw, petrol, guano and the rest can be safely exchanged only when everyone is indifferent as to whether he possesses money or goods, and that is possible only if money is afflicted with all the defects inherent in our products. That is obvious. Our goods rot, decay, break, rust, so only if money has equally disagreeable, loss-involving properties can it effect exchange rapidly, securely and cheaply. For such money can never, on any account, be preferred by anyone to goods.
Only money that goes out of date like a newspaper, rots like potatoes, rusts like iron, evaporates like ether, is capable of standing the test as an instrument for the exchange of potatoes, newspapers, iron and ether. For such money is not preferred to goods either by the purchaser or the seller. We then part with our goods for money only because we need the money as a means of exchange, not because we expect an advantage from possession of the money.
In other words, money as a medium of exchange is decoupled from money as a store of value. No longer is money an exception to the universal tendency in nature toward rust, mold, rot and decay—that is, toward the recycling of resources. No longer does money perpetuate a human realm separate from nature.
This is a very good video to watch. It doesn't take much time, but will open your eyes about wealth inequality in America. It explains it, for those of you who can't quite wrap your mind around this concept.
http://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2?g=2&c=ag
peggy, that's the same video that the OP, redfox, posted. It's gone viral. I saw it on FB from The New Economics Institute.
I don't hate rich people either... In fact, I rather like them, being a non-profit fundraiser. I hate the structures we have in place that create poverty. It drags us all down, is inhuman & cruel. Blaming the victims is further inhumanity. I'll say it again; we're better than that.
I hate the structures we have in place that create poverty.
Me too. The breakup of family, the soft bigotry of low expectations, drug usage, the welfare state, the decline of moral values, etc., all contribute to poverty. I'm not sure what effect the redistribution of wealth would have on those underlying factors.
Thomas Jefferson had slaves? Who knew... http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/grin.gif
This is how I "read" what redfox wrote.
I immediately thought of better and more appropriate spending of our tax dollars, plus also reforming certain industries such as regulating banks and the like (since it's the deregulation that caused some of the problem in the first place).
I don't necessarily believe in take from the rich and give to the poor, but I do believe that there are economic and social policies and methods that the government could consistently employ that would create better opportunities and long-term outcomes for individuals and the society.
And, I think a certain measure of social safety net (this is the poverty line in our country -- agreeing to what is acceptable in our developed nation) is also a viable area to look at the distribution of tax contribution.
I just feel like everyone is so short-sighted.
In terms of individuals, I agree about education, re-tooling, and being flexible in the market place. I also believe in real entrepreneurship -- which requires creativity, ingenuity, flexibility, adaptability, and good work ethic -- as well as living within your means/simplicity.
I work to educate the 22 yr olds on how to create their own opportunities, because becomng a company man/woman is dumb as in this modern coprorate environment.
Exactly Zoebird. +1 (Emphasis mine.)
Me too. The breakup of family, the soft bigotry of low expectations, drug usage, the welfare state, the decline of moral values, etc., all contribute to poverty. I'm not sure what effect the redistribution of wealth would have on those underlying factors.
There are lots of influences at play, but we had a very solid economy back when the top federal tax rate was in the nineties (more like Europe). Of course the robber barons hadn't yet shipped all our jobs overseas...
I will get up on my soapbox and say how much of what we percieve about the world and the state of the US and various groups is created by the "shows" put on by our media. Our media is not "news" it is 99% commentary from a particular perspective. They are telling us what to think and so many give in and believe that if it is on the media, it must be true.
Do your own reading and analysis and check the real statistics of your city, state and country.
There are lots of influences at play, but we had a very solid economy back when the top federal tax rate was in the nineties (more like Europe). Of course the robber barons hadn't yet shipped all our jobs overseas...
Really? During the 1950's (the only full decade with 90% or higher tax rates) the national average poverty rate was above 22% of the population. For the past decade, it's been below 15%. So, I'm curious about the relationship between wealth redistribution through excessive tax rates and poverty.
Really? During the 1950's (the only full decade with 90% or higher tax rates) the national average poverty rate was above 22% of the population. For the past decade, it's been below 15%. So, I'm curious about the relationship between wealth redistribution and poverty.
We do have a much stronger safety net today, but due to unrelenting tax cuts, we don't have the revenue to fund it reliably.
Interestingly I was going to make a comment to Alan's post that greed, which might be a factor in economic malaise of any kind, cuts across socioeconomic lines. But I chose not to make the comment--and interestingly enough, I just saw in CNN how the Dow is way up, which let me to this Fear and Greed index (http://money.cnn.com/data/fear-and-greed/?iid=EL) that specifically states that the market is driven by one of two things: Fear and Greed. Today, and last month, Greed has been driving the train--but as you can see in the graphic, there were times when it was Fear.
Wow. That's what our economic health is based on. We're better off with greed than fear, but those are the two metrics we're stuck with when gauging the market. Are we happy with that?
There are many folks who base their personal financial security on perpetuating that dichotomy. The idea that there could be something else, where no one need fear poverty and no one benefits from greed, is an anathema to them.
ApatheticNoMore
3-5-13, 1:27pm
Did my post suggest I was romanticizing the era? The point was that in my immediate family, this one robust program, funded by taxes, made a huge difference, for us & millions of others.
Yea but probably the only way to sell such a program to americans is to make it about war though. My family saw some benefits to the GI Bill (though definitely were in no rush to settle into suburban life!), but generations prior to the GI Bill pretty much all managed to go to college ALSO, none came from money, in fact all came more from some degree of poverty and sometimes discrimination as well. College was just affordable and available in those days period (it's both less affordable and less available nowdays). Tuition was pretty near free in those days.
Really? During the 1950's (the only full decade with 90% or higher tax rates) the national average poverty rate was above 22% of the population. For the past decade, it's been below 15%. So, I'm curious about the relationship between wealth redistribution through excessive tax rates and poverty.
I'm not sure there is any good correlation with taxes and the poverty rate. Tax rates for upper incomes were still high from the 60's through the early 80's and the poverty rate was not hugely different from now. You need to look at a bigger picture.
If, for example, taxes are used to bolster the military, it's probably not going to help the poverty rate much.
I'm not sure there is any good correlation with taxes and the poverty rate.
That sort of makes most of this discussion moot then doesn't it? :laff:
That sort of makes most of this discussion moot then doesn't it? :laff:
Well, I don't know whether if I'm any fan of big increases or not. I think I comes down more to job creation, health care costs, and education. Which seems to have been forgotten in the background while congress quibbles over the difference between three 15 shot magazines versus one 50 shot and endless debates about how to reduce the national debt with spending reductions, which are the antithesis to job creation.
What I do really like is increasing revenues by closing loopholes that are used heavily by the wealthy. For example, caps on interest on home loans or revamping of the tax structure on capital gains. Which as I understand it really isn't increasing tax rates.
I'm curious about the greed/fear metric. Is greed the only reason the markets rise? What about optimism and opportunity? Those are the reasons I choose an investment and/or the time to make one. Greed implies that the motive is purely self-serving, but there seems to be a significant correlation between stock market gains and charitable donations that indicates otherwise.
On the other side I suppose fear implies a panicked exit from a declining market, or at least rumors of one. No one wants to lose their capital, I agree, but if an investment is not performing as expected and you get out is that not, by definition, prudent behavior? The labels some would use to stereotype others are tiresome at best. Personal financial philosophies are as varied as personal choices of who to love. What is the point of assuming someone with an ambitious style is greedy or someone who is cautious is fearful? Certainly some are, but all of them? It’s not hard to think of other stereotypes that have been perpetuated throughout history that seem to have more exceptions than followers of the rule. I can’t see a big difference here.
Here are the government subsidies which I know of, that proved to be very effective in getting my parents into the middle class, after being born into rural America in 1927, and these need to be enhanced & further supported:
1. GI Bill. Got my Dad an education; a BA & a law degree.
2. GI bill again. Mortgage assistance for their first home.
3. Higher tax rates on upper income earners to pay for GI bill programs.
" Few government programs have delivered on america's promise as a land of opportunity as explicitly as the GI Bill.
There are still many benefits provided to vets (even older vets who mayu be eligible for educational benefits of approx. $1700/month for those up to age 60) as well as active duty and reserve members and dependants. I certainly benefited from them myself. Of course the key is that you have to serve for a number of years - and often make huge personal sacrifices - to earn those benefits. Something many people are not willing to do I have found.
www.gibill.va.gov/benefits/index.html
Really? During the 1950's (the only full decade with 90% or higher tax rates) the national average poverty rate was above 22% of the population. For the past decade, it's been below 15%. So, I'm curious about the relationship between wealth redistribution through excessive tax rates and poverty.
Data source?
That sort of makes most of this discussion moot then doesn't it?
Not at all. Income reallocation is done with more than taxes, but that's a good start!
Gardenarian
3-5-13, 4:44pm
Thanks for posting the video. I watched it with no sound, but I think I got the gist. The reality is frightening.
I think it's tragic, not only for the very poor, but for the middle classes (now most dual-income, too.)
This report is from the Simplicity Institute: "Can A Collapse of Civilization Be Avoided?" (http://simplicityinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/EhrlichPaper.pdf)
The more money the one percent has, the more control they have over our government. While the report discusses many different issues, all of them need to be addressed politically. I do not trust the 1% to behave in a sane and reasonable manner but rather to look out for their short term self-interest as they have in the past.
Very chilling.
If we are to survive as a nation, and perhaps even as a species, higher taxes on the wealthy must be part of the equation. It should be clear to everyone that the trickle-down theory is nonsense.
Approximately 100 people died of starvation while I was typing this message.
peggy, that's the same video that the OP, redfox, posted. It's gone viral. I saw it on FB from The New Economics Institute.
Oh whoops! sorry.
Data source?
What? you don't trust me?
Poverty rate in 1950's: http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/
Top income tax rates, 1913 to 2011: http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html
What? you don't trust me?
Poverty rate in 1950's: http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/
Top income tax rates, 1913 to 2011: http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html
Dude, I think you know that it's not a trust issue, it's that I prefer to see data. And, I have seen these charts. They data is pretty basic, without any context or larger picture. As well, the bias of the organization is an anti-tax one, definitely not my bias. I do like to know what informs an opinion. It's that middle class education I was able to get, thanks to my parents.
My thinking is this: using my own family as an example, the GI bill & my father's education led our family into the middle class, over the course of his career, not instantaneously. So, the baseline data points of poverty in the US in the 50's is a good jumping off place.
The creation of the robust middle class that I & my sibs have been the beneficiaries of happened because of the complex weave of post-war boom, business growth brought on by wartime investments in infrastructure, which served the post-war country well. Think interstate highways, for instance. Originally built for war reasons, they became the bloodlines to commerce. All government funded. And, driving autos continues to be be government subsidixed, both the hgihway systems & the prices of oil & gas. One example of many that supported the growth of the middle class. The mortgage interested deduction is another.
Over the course of the next 30 years, until the election of Reagan & his dismantling of many workers protections & government spending, the economy went up & down, but the middle class stayed pretty solid. The last 30 yrs has been a systematic dsmantling of our safety nets, by both R's & D's. I have no love for Clinton & so-called welfare reform.
Many a doctoral thesis has been written about these complexities that we're talking over here! It's a complicated picture. Here are my questions:
How do we create a world that works for all?
How do we end poverty? Hunger? Homelessness?
How do we provide for for the basic welfare of all, not just a few?
How do we distribute resources for the benefit of all?
The underlying values I hold that contextualize my questions are these:
-The human family is one family.
-The reasons we organize into societies are for the protection & betterment of all.
-We have all the resources necessary to support a basic, healthy life for all human beings alive today.
-As a species, we make choices that reflect a continuum of a larger vision of sustainability, towards the narrower one of self-interest.
-When we all do better, we all do better.
-We must, for the survival of all of us, choose public policies that reflect a much more equal distribution of resources than currently exists, as shown by the graphic I originally posted.
-The economy is of human design. It's time to redesign it.
Here are my questions:
How do we create a world that works for all?
How do we end poverty? Hunger? Homelessness?
How do we provide for for the basic welfare of all, not just a few?
How do we distribute resources for the benefit of all?
Really nice post redfox. I love that you are able to identify and so clearly state your underlying values. I think a little more of that kind of clarity might help guide policy in a direction that most people would find agreeable. As for creating a world that works for all, answering your questions might give you a good start.
Some problems are easy to define on any scale. Poverty, which I consider a root problem, not so much. The bottom 10% in the US would still be in the top few % almost anywhere else in the world, so who is poor? I think the problem with the definition is that it is so relative and that it almost always deals in strictly monetary terms. Opportunity and availability, or lack there of, are probably better measures. How do we increase those without the need to take something away from those who already have it?
My overly simplistic thought is that everyone, everywhere has something of value to bring to the table. The opportunity lies in developing what you have and using that to increase your availability to what you lack. If Chad and Sudan need food because they can't grow enough in the desert they could develop solar farms and trade the power for food grown elsewhere. A really crude example, but you get the idea. It's not that that approach will completely level the field, that probably isn't possible. And that shouldn't be our goal (IMO). We just have to figure out creative ways to bring the bottom up, whether its globally or down the street.
Thanks, Gregg. I do believe that poverty is socially specific, and that we can end it. However, I also believe that there are some basic measurements - Who is hungry? Cold? In ill health? Unsheltered or unclothed? Regardless of the relative measurement of money, as you point out, homeless, hungry, ill people in my neighborhood, my city, my country, is inexcusable. We are each other's keepers.
I was trained in Asset Based Community Development, a model that originated on the South side of Chicago. It too postulates that everyone has something to bring to the table, and that community development is most successful when the assets of a community are cultivated, rather than the deficits. The gifts we each bring are what's needed, and having access to capital is one of the things that is often needed form the outside. That's the role government plays. I am not averse to taking some away from the very privileged if other are starving. I'd prefer it be a voluntary sharing, but it's clear to me that the 1% is not interested in helping out those who are starving & struggling, and they need to be given adult boundaries.
Creating a world that works for all are Sharif Abdullah's words, not mine. Please read this book. I think you'll find his work highly congruent with your religious beliefs, however different they may seem on the surface. He came from poverty & racism, and is a brilliant man, doing powerful work, inspired internationally.
http://www.amazon.com/Creating-World-That-Works-All/dp/1576750620
This is an interesting thread - thanks for starting Redfox. I live in the UK where we have been redistrubuting for many years. Unfortunately, as I discovered when working in the NHS (most of my patients were poor) all that happens is that people who live in mental, relational and aspirational squalor get to do so with TVs, microwaves and so on. The root problem as far as I can see in the UK is a poverty of aspiration and not pursuing habits of life which lead out of poverty. Thus, drinking heavily, taking drugs, failing to work hard at education, having children outside of marriage, serial divorces, gambling, buying indulgences on credit are all common in the 'underclass' - these things are almost certain to lead to poverty. Better benefits doesn't fix the problem - a change of life habits and aspiration is required. Hence, asian immigrant families who value hard work and solid marriages tend to do very well whereas our indigenous working class children fail. It was a shock to me to realise this - my parents were left wing and I grew up thinking that all would be well if incomes could just be levelled.
I don't know what the answer is - how can we help families to behave in ways which tend to lead to prosperity and to value things other than casual sex and getting drunk? Our culture is really in a mess here.
The root problem as far as I can see in the UK is a poverty of aspiration
It certainly is a complex problem, but I love that term: poverty of aspiration. I don't know how you fix that, but to be honest, that's why I'm a HUGE fan of immigration to the US. One of the reasons for this country's success is that its residents self-selected on the basis of the degree to which they were inspired to change their lives for the better--and that still holds true.. at least for the time being. People who have come here voluntarily for a better life have grit and determination. We still are getting tons of people who want to come here and are working incredibly hard--many are highly educated from their own countries. How long will that last?
To the extent that a political system fosters that kind of mindset--I really don't know. Are immigrants with aspirations for America pursuing a political system, a system of safety nets, an ideology, or a story?
This is an interesting thread - thanks for starting Redfox. I live in the UK where we have been redistrubuting for many years. Unfortunately, as I discovered when working in the NHS (most of my patients were poor) all that happens is that people who live in mental, relational and aspirational squalor get to do so with TVs, microwaves and so on. The root problem as far as I can see in the UK is a poverty of aspiration and not pursuing habits of life which lead out of poverty. Thus, drinking heavily, taking drugs, failing to work hard at education, having children outside of marriage, serial divorces, gambling, buying indulgences on credit are all common in the 'underclass' - these things are almost certain to lead to poverty. Better benefits doesn't fix the problem - a change of life habits and aspiration is required. Hence, asian immigrant families who value hard work and solid marriages tend to do very well whereas our indigenous working class children fail. It was a shock to me to realise this - my parents were left wing and I grew up thinking that all would be well if incomes could just be levelled.
I don't know what the answer is - how can we help families to behave in ways which tend to lead to prosperity and to value things other than casual sex and getting drunk? Our culture is really in a mess here.
Wow! Great post! This just goes right to the bone of the matter. I don't know how you treat that, but I do think the powers that be in Washington recognize this is the problem. They really aren't stupid, but the catch is, we know what the problem is, but in the meantime, actual children are going to bed hungry, with drug addicted parents. Take away the help and it's the kids who will suffer, every time. The parents aren't going to give up their cigarettes and booze or drugs to feed the kids.
This is why head start and school lunch/enrichment programs are so very important. In so many cases the parents are a lost cause, but the kids can still be reached, hopefully.
flowerseverywhere
3-6-13, 9:57am
Thomas Jefferson had slaves? Who knew... http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/grin.gif
there is no need to be sarcastic in an adult discussion. The more I read history the more examples I see of stealing, taking advantage, slavery, greed etc. Certainly no one is proud of the way the Native Americans were treated by our government. The black hills gold rush is one of the greatest examples of our government making treaties then allowing the greedy not to adhere by them for instance.
Dogmom, you write an interesting post from a different point of view, although I think many of us in other countries have seen similar things. Following the Greek news and also some of the European countries that have had great difficulty with the Euro transition certainly shows that they all have flaws. And countries that have embraced theories of everyone working for the greater good, like communism have seen the downfall due again to the wealth at the top while everyone else labors and is lower middle class. I certainly see a lot of advantages to capitalism but again it is not perfect.
... I also believe that there are some basic measurements - Who is hungry? Cold? In ill health? Unsheltered or unclothed? Regardless of the relative measurement of money, as you point out, homeless, hungry, ill people in my neighborhood, my city, my country, is inexcusable.
Agreed. Since this discussion revolves around policy I'll limit the reply to the USA, but the thought can easily extend globally. In a country with such immense resources there is no reason anyone should be cold, hungry or ill except by there own choice. There will always be the horses you can lead to water that won't drink, but the point is we should be providing the chance to get relief if they so desire.
I was trained in Asset Based Community Development, a model that originated on the South side of Chicago. It too postulates that everyone has something to bring to the table, and that community development is most successful when the assets of a community are cultivated, rather than the deficits. The gifts we each bring are what's needed, and having access to capital is one of the things that is often needed form the outside. That's the role government plays. I am not averse to taking some away from the very privileged if other are starving. I'd prefer it be a voluntary sharing, but it's clear to me that the 1% is not interested in helping out those who are starving & struggling, and they need to be given adult boundaries.
I'd be fascinated to learn more about asset based community development, how it is intended to work and how it actually ends up working in the real world. The only stumbling block I have with the rest of your statement is where you talk about "taking some away from the very privileged if others are starving". Whether at the point of a sword or a pen "taking" implies force and I just can't condone that. There are moral arguments at work on both sides. I feel, as I'm pretty sure you do, that all of us have a certain moral obligation to help those less fortunate than ourselves regardless of the level of achievement. But to attempt to legislate that morality is, IMO, wrong. Who sets the standards of privilege? Or of need? How do we go about "taking some away"? Confiscation? Nationalization? Do we simply storm the castles and plunder the treasure? Not trying to be snarky, I just can't get behind the use of force to "take" from anyone. There has to be a better way. Our challenge is to figure out what that is and work to implement it. And FWIW, I've had dozens of extremely wealthy clients over the years. A few have bee so tight they squeaked, but most have been quite generous supporting all kinds of charitable causes. I point that out only because promoting stereotypes of any group is bad form.
Creating a world that works for all are Sharif Abdullah's words, not mine. Please read this book. I think you'll find his work highly congruent with your religious beliefs, however different they may seem on the surface. He came from poverty & racism, and is a brilliant man, doing powerful work, inspired internationally.
While I don't identify with any particular religious philosophy I'm always inspired to learn about someone who is working to change the world. I'll check it out.
Unfortunately, as I discovered when working in the NHS (most of my patients were poor) all that happens is that people who live in mental, relational and aspirational squalor get to do so with TVs, microwaves and so on. The root problem as far as I can see in the UK is a poverty of aspiration and not pursuing habits of life which lead out of poverty. Thus, drinking heavily, taking drugs, failing to work hard at education, having children outside of marriage, serial divorces, gambling, buying indulgences on credit are all common in the 'underclass' - these things are almost certain to lead to poverty. Better benefits doesn't fix the problem - a change of life habits and aspiration is required.
...Our culture is really in a mess here.
And our culture is no less messy in the US. I also love the "poverty of aspiration" thought because it is absolutely a significant part of the problem. We have, intentionally or not, developed a whole cultural sub-set that grows more dependent on the government with every generation. You can't logically blame the people caught up in that for not working to break out of it because it is their normal and because there is a serious lack of opportunity shoring up the lack of aspiration. They depend on the government because other options are either not recognized or are simply unavailable so the various entitlements easily become the path of least resistance. That is a hard cycle to break.
But here I think you are wrong Gregg. I don't think the population of the ' poverty of aspiration' IS growing. Sure, the number who need help may be growing, but I don't think it's a 'cultural poverty'. I think it's just that the rising tide is only carrying some up,( that tiresome 2%) and others are being swamped. These folks, 20 or 30 years ago, working no harder than they are now, were able to provide a comfortable existence for their families. Now, with the same level of effort, they are unable to keep up with the growing economy (prices of everything), and expectations. They are paddling as fast as they can, but just can't keep their heads above water. Add an illness, (again, manageable 30 years ago, impossible at today's prices) and they are devastated. i think it's kind of clueless, bordering on a sort of arrogance that says they are just taking the easy way out. Shuffling these folks into a 'takers' column without wondering why they need the help in the first place. Remember, most people on government assistance ARE working, and not just laying on the couch eating bon bons and watching Oprah.
But here is where the disconnect really is. The tea baggers, and others on the right demand that these people be tossed out to make their own way, yet fight tooth and nail against the very things that would help them 'make their way', like Obama-care, and a decent minimum wage. Or help with education costs, or jobs programs aimed at them. Or head start and school lunch programs that maybe get the kids, if not on equal footing, at least a little closer.
And then you have the stunningly myopic disconnect that says, I didn't/don't see MY government assistance as entitlement, but MY DUE. Everyone else are moochers!
awakenedsoul
3-6-13, 9:57pm
This is an interesting thread - thanks for starting Redfox. I live in the UK where we have been redistrubuting for many years. Unfortunately, as I discovered when working in the NHS (most of my patients were poor) all that happens is that people who live in mental, relational and aspirational squalor get to do so with TVs, microwaves and so on. The root problem as far as I can see in the UK is a poverty of aspiration and not pursuing habits of life which lead out of poverty. Thus, drinking heavily, taking drugs, failing to work hard at education, having children outside of marriage, serial divorces, gambling, buying indulgences on credit are all common in the 'underclass' - these things are almost certain to lead to poverty. Better benefits doesn't fix the problem - a change of life habits and aspiration is required. Hence, asian immigrant families who value hard work and solid marriages tend to do very well whereas our indigenous working class children fail. It was a shock to me to realise this - my parents were left wing and I grew up thinking that all would be well if incomes could just be levelled.
I don't know what the answer is - how can we help families to behave in ways which tend to lead to prosperity and to value things other than casual sex and getting drunk? Our culture is really in a mess here.
Brilliant post. Bravo! I couldn't agree more. One thing I've noticed in myself is the difference in our lense between when we are in debt and when we have savings and cash flow. For me, it's like two different people. I racked my brain for 15 years trying to figure out why I was struggling. I realized the main difference in my lifestyle was that I didn't have any savings. So, one car problem, or late paycheck, or cracked tooth was a disaster. It can make you feel suicidal and like a complete failure. Many people are living this way now. It's hard to see a way out when you are stuck in that groove.
redfox,
You have written in other posts that your mortgage is underwater and that you have been using cannabis to self treat. I just think this really affects your viewpoint. It's so much harder to see a way out when you feel like you're in quicksand. It becomes a vicious cycle, because you lose confidence, self belief, and strength.
I had to study every financial book in the library to find a cure for my financial problems. (Which amounted to overspending by $3,600. a year.) It should have been an easy fix, an obvious solution, but I couldn't see it. Debt does that. Oprah says that "Struggle means you're off track." I think she's right. There are a lot of Dave Ramsey books and programs out there that can help people on a personal level. When you change your habits, you change your vibration, and you attract what you need. Using your talents, developing self discipline, setting written goals, listening to people who are succesful in personal finance, and living beneath your means can make a huge difference. I studied every article written by Suze Orman. I ran those numbers and applied her formulas to my situation.
ApatheticNoMore
3-6-13, 10:32pm
redfox,
You have written in other posts that your mortgage is underwater and that you have been using cannabis to self treat. I just think this really affects your viewpoint. It's so much harder to see a way out when you feel like you're in quicksand. It becomes a vicious cycle, because you lose confidence, self belief, and strength.
I don't think this thread is about redfox's personal life. I don't even think she takes the positions she does based on that. I mean really who knows, she'll have to speak for herself, but my assumption would be: she's working for a non-profit in some type of managerial social work role I think, and I figure working those types of roles gives you a lot of view of the down and out who she's advocating for.
Of course many of those helping roles don't make you yourself rich either but I think it's a choice people make, to choose things other than money, I respect that. As for what substances may be involved, well really noone's business, and actually even legal now :), if she has a problem it's hers to work out, but it could be no more a problem than a single glass of wine after a hard day at work, or treating oneself with chocolate.
But here I think you are wrong Gregg. I don't think the population of the ' poverty of aspiration' IS growing. Sure, the number who need help may be growing, but I don't think it's a 'cultural poverty'.
I don't know peggy, I can see a combination of forces. I agree that there are more people that need help right now. We're just coming through the worst economic downturn since the depression so it's not hard to believe that a lot of folks who would be fine under normal circumstances might be in trouble now. My blood pressure still goes up thinking about $700B going to the big banks vs. what it could have done for several million homeowners, but (as before) I'm not privy to all the details and it's water under the bridge anyway.
What resonates with me about dogmom's "poverty of aspiration" is that it can be applied to multiple levels. I firmly believe that our elected leaders, in general, have no aspiration to fix our country. They seem completely content to continue offering hollow promises to their constituents and to pander to special interests in a never ending election cycle. There are exceptions, of course, but those good men and women are spitting in the ocean in Washington. That's one level of aspirational poverty.
Another is, and this may be where we disagree, that I see increasing dependence on the government, especially the federal government and I hear a lot of people who want it to do even more. Granted, there are some needs that are so big the federal government is the only way to deal with it. National defense, air traffic control, maintenance of the interstate highway system, oversight of federal lands, etc. And even healthcare. Not to hijack the thread that direction, but even though I think the government will be inefficient administrators of healthcare and I would rather find any other solution, I just don't see a way that we can get close to 100% coverage purely in the free market. Anyway, those parts of the government's duties are necessary evils. The various safety nets that we have in place are not evils, but are morally correct in a wealthy society like ours and, again, the government is the only one equipped to administer those on such a large scale.
What becomes a problem is when the safety nets turn into ongoing programs and people get trapped in them. I'm not talking about anyone eating bon bons here and not judging anyone who is caught up in this. It just truly scares me that I see increasing dependence on the government. Almost every aspect of our lives is already subsidized by the government and will be paid for by our kids, but now there are people who want it to do even more! Food, clothing and shelter, the classic big three for survival (need to add water, but that's a different thread...). Also three of the most heavily subsidized industries we have. The government is already working to make sure we don't have to pay too much for any of these, but I hear people waxing poetic about how wonderful it would be if we could just "take the profit out of them". Aka, hand over a few more layers of personal responsibility and just let the government provide. Everybody has their own view on it, mine is that when we get to that level we are no longer a society in which I wish to participate.
there is no need to be sarcastic in an adult discussion. The more I read history the more examples I see of stealing, taking advantage, slavery, greed etc. Certainly no one is proud of the way the Native Americans were treated by our government. The black hills gold rush is one of the greatest examples of our government making treaties then allowing the greedy not to adhere by them for instance...
Sure, our country--like most others, I'd wager--was built on genocide and oppression, nothing to be proud of. (And don't get me started on the Puritans!) But my point was that the Founding Fathers were careful to avoid crafting an oligarchy or de facto monarchy for us, not that they were poor shoeless peasants or anything. Most of them were solidly upper middle class or above.
Brilliant post. Bravo! I couldn't agree more. One thing I've noticed in myself is the difference in our lense between when we are in debt and when we have savings and cash flow. For me, it's like two different people. I racked my brain for 15 years trying to figure out why I was struggling. I realized the main difference in my lifestyle was that I didn't have any savings. So, one car problem, or late paycheck, or cracked tooth was a disaster. It can make you feel suicidal and like a complete failure. Many people are living this way now. It's hard to see a way out when you are stuck in that groove.
redfox,
You have written in other posts that your mortgage is underwater and that you have been using cannabis to self treat. I just think this really affects your viewpoint. It's so much harder to see a way out when you feel like you're in quicksand. It becomes a vicious cycle, because you lose confidence, self belief, and strength.
Wow, that's a weird pairing of random information I've disclosed! You have a highly inaccurate picture of my cannabis use, and the impacts. I use micro amounts about once a month for osteoarthritis, and it's very effective. The type & amount I use has little cognitive effects; rather like a small dose of tylenol 3 or a glass of red wine, as ApatheticNoMore mentioned. And it is now legal in WA! Also, I am not worried about the mortgage, the market is rebalancing here.
I definitely agree that being in debt can cause one to lose confidence. Imagine how being in poverty feels.
ApatheticNoMore
3-7-13, 1:31pm
My blood pressure still goes up thinking about $700B going to the big banks vs. what it could have done for several million homeowners, but (as before) I'm not privy to all the details and it's water under the bridge anyway.
QE3 (ie bank bailouts) are ongoing. Forever and ever? How should i know ... but now.
Almost every aspect of our lives is already subsidized by the government and will be paid for by our kids,
The kids benefit too, if grandma is on Social Security they don't personally have to support her (if they could afford to anyway). They might have to otherwise, can't let grandma starve right?
but now there are people who want it to do even more! Food, clothing and shelter, the classic big three for survival (need to add water, but that's a different thread...).
I'm not aware of any government subsidies that exist for clothing, there's such a glut we ship it to the 3rd world, there are charities that exist to help the poor get interview attire and so on, charities not government as far as I know. For shelter programs to help the poor with shelter like HUD exists, a few cities have rent control (never federal, always local). But OVERALL I don't see government involvement in housing as even aimed at making housing affordable! In other words I don't see it as a redistribution program that redistributes downward, that combats income inequality etc.. I think government involvement in housing in the last 10 years have been *aimed* mostly at propping up housing prices (in other words making housing unaffordable), there have been dozens and dozens of programs and tweaks to accounting rules and etc. etc. toward this end, a list I'm sure could be produced but that I've forgotten off hand because there's been program after program. Do I see it as government programs gone wrong due to unintended consequences? No ...... most of the programs are indeed disasterous, but I see it as more as bank bailouts plain and simple. The existing movers and shakers (the financial system) need massive, absolutely massive, government intervention to stay in power and they got it. It's not a failure of welfare policies or redistribution downward efforts (redistribution perhaps but not in that direction!). Take the profit out of it? All the banks who profitered on housing would be completely bankrupt if not for government. As for food I'm not sure farming can be made entirely free market, it is based on wild unpredictable fluctuations of natural conditions (even without climate change). However current subsidies definitely subsidize the WRONG model, they subsidize mass industrial production over family farms, cheap junky calories over vegetables etc.. Not to mention that not having to pay for the cost of the environmental destruction caused by industrial farming is a subsidy too.
I don't think this thread is about redfox's personal life. I don't even think she takes the positions she does based on that. I mean really who knows, she'll have to speak for herself, but my assumption would be: she's working for a non-profit in some type of managerial social work role I think, and I figure working those types of roles gives you a lot of view of the down and out who she's advocating for.
Of course many of those helping roles don't make you yourself rich either but I think it's a choice people make, to choose things other than money, I respect that. As for what substances may be involved, well really noone's business, and actually even legal now :), if she has a problem it's hers to work out, but it could be no more a problem than a single glass of wine after a hard day at work, or treating oneself with chocolate.
Exactly. And while I think those "helping" jobs (teachers, social workers, public saftey, etc...) should be much higher paid then they are since they are so valuable and needed, people who enter those job field do so knowing the kind of pay they will get. In many cases the career choices (or lack of) we make for ourselfs will mean that we never achieve wealth or even a middle class lifestyle. Like redfox, and several other's on this forum, I choose a career path that I knew would would never pay enough to live anything more than a very modest working class lifestyle thru out my life. One that would not allow me to buy anything more then a working class house (or rent) and then only with the help of a couple of roommates and a second job, or much of anything else, or fund my education (or my kids), or even have a good retirement fund. But, probably like Redfox and other's here, I chose that path for reasons that were of greater importance to me, and in which I felt I was making a difference, then merely aquiring wealth. I could have done something else - something that would allow the possibility to generate a much higher income - yet I didn't. However, I don't feel that those who choose to follow a different path and gained wealth, or were born to it, have any greater obligation to provide me with a higher lifestyle. yes they should pay their fair share of taxes just like the rest of us do and receive the same write-offs the rest of us are entitled to - no different. And yes corporation should pay taxes on their profits with write-offs only for losses or "real" job creation for others (start a few small manufacturing companys in the USA and hire US citizens). Otherwise we should all be treated the same. Higher earner will pay higher taxes even if we keep the same sliding tax rates (35 or so percentish for high earners) but it extremely unfair to ask them to pay 90% of their earned income (as well as a jarger percent on their passive income) to subsidize someone because they chose a working class income (or that was all they could attain), or to pay for their kids college or pay off their home loan when they borrowed against the equity to pay for theri kids college and now the house is underwater - or bail out banking institutions! With moderate taxes and budget cuts (military cuts too) there should be plenty to fund the poor, the sick, the disabled, the impoverished elderly, etc... all who may truely need it. Even to fund universal healthcare for all (something I feel we need as healthcare costs are crazy and can financially destroy even the high-income earner in a NY minute if they become sick or injured - often times through no fault of their own and leaving them unable to ever work again - heck it can destroy the average middle class family financially just trying to pay the $1,000/month premuims for each family member and meeting the $5000 - $10,000 annual deductiable before the insurance even kicks in!)) - as well as everything else without stealing 90% of the wealthy's income..
ApatheticNoMore
3-7-13, 2:55pm
Well there is a certain class of individuals (not speaking about anyone on this board but I have met them) that I would classify as voluntarily low income, they usually come from middle class backgrounds and have things like advanced degrees, but don't earn much because they are doing good rather than well. I figure if they have the wherewithall to get masters degrees and so on (sometimes at very expensive colleges!) they could have chased the money if that's what they wanted! I don't see their situation as particularly analagous to a kid growing up to a crackhead mother in the ghetto or something, intergenerational poverty is quite a different thing that choosing to pursue something other than money. I don't even see their situation as analagous to some kid who really thought any old degree would get them a good job or something and it doesn't and they are depressed about it, because that situation is much sadder - it's one of ignorance and bad luck rather than choice.
Well there is a certain class of individuals (not speaking about anyone on this board but I have met them) that I would classify as voluntarily low income, they usually come from middle class backgrounds and have things like advanced degrees, but don't earn much because they are doing good rather than well. I figure if they have the wherewithall to get masters degrees and so on (sometimes at very expensive colleges!) they could have chased the money if that's what they wanted! I don't see their situation as particularly analagous to a kid growing up to a crackhead mother in the ghetto or something, intergenerational poverty is quite a different thing that choosing to pursue something other than money. I don't even see their situation as analagous to some kid who really thought any old degree would get them a good job or something and it doesn't and they are depressed about it, because that situation is much sadder - it's one of ignorance and bad luck rather than choice.
I agree. And those kinds of low income situations - the voluntary ones when they had a choice - are the ones i don't feel tax payers should fund - although higher pay for teachers, etc... would be nice. It's those severely impoverished people who really have no alternatives who we should focus tax money on. And I'm not talking about providing an unlimited lifetime supply of welfare money and food stamps, I talking about grants and scholorships and job training so that they can better themselves (give a man a fish.. yadda yadda). Fund programs like Welfare to Work, ROP, trade apprentishships, and similair (programs that are already out there for the taking) rather than just fund the continued lifestyle of poverty. Those are the people who should be helped, not the average Joe who choose a career path that doesn't pay much, or choose a lifestyle that gave them large chunks of time off work to do other things like travel. However, in any case, I don't think our goal as a society should be income or wealth equality, but that of providing the means for people (lower income people with no other resources) to better themselves and be able to live a modest working class lifestyle. Once they are on a better footing, then they can make the choice to pursue wealth (with much of it's inherent risks financially) or not.
I was a social worker for nearly 2 decades, and have been in the non-profit sector my entire career - except for a stint at sheep farming! In the last 35 years, here is what I have seen of poverty...
1. It's mostly women who are in poverty, usually because they are fleeing an abusive home. They're protecting their children the best they know how, and are immediately deeply reliant on huge supports for everything. The data is that these women will succeed on their own if they get 2 full years of all basic needs met, so they can heal, and get whatever they need in place to go to work, and then they still need assistance with child care, and ongoing help meeting housing, food & medical bills. Women who divorce are in poverty for an average of 5 years.
2. People in poverty are deeply depressed. They cannot function to support themselves without a lot of intervention. I have NEVER met anyone who doesn't want to be independent, who chooses dependency. When someone appears to be doing so, look deeper, and mental illness, usually intractable depression, is underneath it.
3. Everyone needs a sense of purpose & belonging. Rather than penalize, judge, condemn, and vilify those in poverty, as we do in this country ('takers', etc.), compassion and understanding needs to be what leads efforts to provide tools for support. It may take a generation or two to get a family out of poverty, not a few years. It's intractable, but not impossible. How much do we actually care for our species?
4. Poverty is a crisis of spirit, of economics, and a failure of will and compassion.
Thank you for that, Redfox. It can't be said often enough.
Even thinking of that "47%" speech can set me off. How dare he!
Redfox, I'd deeply value your opinion on this. I don't think of people trapped in poverty as takers, but it seems to me that we (as a society) only do enough for them to keep them strung out in our programs and nothing more. When the only hope a person has is that a check will arrive before the bills do or before the food runs out I would think that person could easily become depressed. I would.
What we do strikes me as a give-a-man-a-fish scenario. All we do for people is feed them for a day and then tomorrow they wake up right where they started the day before. Sisyphus had it easier than that. So my question is how do we make a shift to a place where we teach-a-man-to-fish instead of just offering handouts and can we use that approach to help people acquire a sense of purpose and independence and dignity? It seems so incredibly obvious that people realizing that kind of lift up would, in turn, become a huge asset to our our larger society. Am I just missing something? Where are the roadblocks?
Poverty is a crisis of spirit, of economics, and a failure of will and compassion.
+1
Redfox, I'd deeply value your opinion on this. I don't think of people trapped in poverty as takers, but it seems to me that we (as a society) only do enough for them to keep them strung out in our programs and nothing more. When the only hope a person has is that a check will arrive before the bills do or before the food runs out I would think that person could easily become depressed. I would.
What we do strikes me as a give-a-man-a-fish scenario. All we do for people is feed them for a day and then tomorrow they wake up right where they started the day before. Sisyphus had it easier than that. So my question is how do we make a shift to a place where we teach-a-man-to-fish instead of just offering handouts and can we use that approach to help people acquire a sense of purpose and independence and dignity? It seems so incredibly obvious that people realizing that kind of lift up would, in turn, become a huge asset to our our larger society. Am I just missing something? Where are the roadblocks?
+1
Thanks. I really appreciate your humanity. First of all, the language we use... takers, cheats, losers, deadbeats, it goes on and on and on. Dear God, I cringe when I hear that hate speech. Can you imagine being a single mom, fleeing abuse, getting your children safe, and being called a cheat & a loser?? Where is the humanity? I'd like to get rid of the word handout too. It's so demeaning. People need our help! We all need help. I am just facing a huge medical challenge, it will hit us hard financially, it scares the heck outta me, and I need help! If I didn't have a dependable spouse, friends & family, I would be on the streets too.
Instead of hand out, can we call it worthy assistance? And make it real! I agree that we string people along, and it's gotten worse & worse & worse, R & D alike. How do we even think it's cheaper, much less defensible, to allow for starvation level assistance, meagre, mean-spirited, prove-you're-not-a-cheat pennies?? It's hugely expensive, in displaced costs: ER visits, subsistence crime, delayed education, health deteriorating & child neglect - because it's so easy to maintain health & be a calm parent when you're terrified & hungry - but no, someone might get a few hundred of even a few thousand dollars they're not "eligible" for. I hate the welfare system, because it punishes people for being poor. It could be different.
What is our collective phobia about poor people? Why do we vilify the least among us? The amount of time & $$ spent making someone who needs our help beg, via forms that are often hard to decipher, is a system designed to fail. Two decades ago, the University of Washington School of Social work did a study that determined that it took a MA level command of English to correctly fill out an application for food & income assistance. That is no accident, and the impact is that it was a HUGE barrier for hungry people to get fed.
I am on a tear here, folks. We can do better. We are each other's keepers. Ok, gotta breathe...
My parents did not have college degrees. They did not have special skills or training. They were able to find good corporate jobs with good wages, job security and excellent benefits. We did not lack for anything. They worked 9-5. Took vacations. Got pensions and did not even have to work more than 15 ywars to get them. They retired early. Never had to relocate or re-train in middle age.
That is an impossible scenario today. Workers are far more productive, work much harder and have far less of everything now. Yet we are constantly told that our financial insecurity is all our fault. That we made poor choices, are lazy, are greedy, envious, unwise. That it is somehow unfair and unjust to ask the people at the top to shoulder more of the burden for the commin good. That we are moochers and takers for wanting public policies that help us, like more funding for public education or avoiding the risk of bankruptcy due to medical costs.
Res ipsa loquitor. The income gap is just a system of economic policies that are geared to the elite.
My parents did not have college degrees. They did not have special skills or training. They were able to find good corporate jobs with good wages, job security and excellent benefits. We did not lack for anything. They worked 9-5. Took vacations. Got pensions and did not even have to work more than 15 ywars to get them. They retired early. Never had to relocate or re-train in middle age.
That is an impossible scenario today. Workers are far more productive, work much harder and have far less of everything now. Yet we are constantly told that our financial insecurity is all our fault. That we made poor choices, are lazy, are greedy, envious, unwise. That it is somehow unfair and unjust to ask the people at the top to shoulder more of the burden for the commin good. That we are moochers and takers for wanting public policies that help us, like more funding for public education or avoiding the risk of bankruptcy due to medical costs.
Res ipsa loquitor. The income gap is just a system of economic policies that are geared to the elite.
The world is definitely not what it was. Economic policies have always been geared to the elite. The thing that has changed is, like you have noted above, the elite are much less dependent on those that aren't. And as that increases, they have less and less incentive to have money pushed to those they no longer need.
I think one thing that gets overly discounted is we live in a different world - the rules and fundamentals have changed. And everything is shifting as a result.
What is our collective phobia about poor people? Why do we vilify the least among us? The amount of time & $$ spent making someone who needs our help beg, via forms that are often hard to decipher, is a system designed to fail.
As I've been thinking through this the word "investment" keeps coming up. I get up on a soapbox fairly often yelling about how we need to 'invest' in our infrastructure and how, if we do, it will pay handsome dividends for generations to come (just like the first round of that investment has). Why is it so hard for us to think of people that way? I'm not comparing a person to a highway, just saying that if we invest in people we will all receive a dividend later. Instead we stop our support as soon as basic survival needs are met. Even if you take the humanity completely out of the equation that still makes no sense. There basically isn't any hope that those people will ever be bale to turn their situation around and contribute (economically) back to society. The only possible explanation for this behavior, IMO, is that there is a motivation to keep this group dependent on the government. If that is correct then the questions become who is behind it and why?
I think it's a deeper cultural phenomenon than keeping folks dependent upon government, which is more effect than cause, IMO. The root causes seem subliminal, deeply rooted prejudices, like racism; illogical, fear based, unconcious. It's not the "there will always be the poor" myth, it's the degradation and vilification that is so repugnant, which indicates a deeper phobia and loathing. I simply do not understand it, yet I see it & hear it everywhere, all the time. I find it heartbreaking, that we treat the least of us as the worst.
I completely concur with the long term investment thinking! How many jobs could our government provide by diving into infrastructure renewal & rebuild? It is so needed, and so worth it.
ApatheticNoMore
3-10-13, 3:58pm
Hmm, I would think the root cause would be there aren't enough good jobs to go around and there haven't been for decades if ever, and so even if we provided boatloads of training and social work and whatever for everyone to "rehabilitate" them and everyone wanted to work etc. etc., there still aren't enough good jobs to go around, end of story! And if you have such a social system, then what to do with those left out? Government help is one answer, starving on the streets another, criminality is one answer but the number of jobs for criminals may be limited too! Of course businesses in their employer role also benefit from high unemployment but that's an aside. Oh I don't mind funding training and college etc. (I've voted for it), but unlike many I don't believe that it changes the underlying reality re jobs.
My parents did not have college degrees. They did not have special skills or training. They were able to find good corporate jobs with good wages, job security and excellent benefits. We did not lack for anything. They worked 9-5. Took vacations. Got pensions and did not even have to work more than 15 ywars to get them. They retired early. Never had to relocate or re-train in middle age.
That is an impossible scenario today. Workers are far more productive, work much harder and have far less of everything now. Yet we are constantly told that our financial insecurity is all our fault. That we made poor choices, are lazy, are greedy, envious, unwise. That it is somehow unfair and unjust to ask the people at the top to shoulder more of the burden for the commin good. That we are moochers and takers for wanting public policies that help us, like more funding for public education or avoiding the risk of bankruptcy due to medical costs.
Res ipsa loquitor. The income gap is just a system of economic policies that are geared to the elite.
+1 Well said, rosebud.
I think it was Fareed Zakariah who said that when he visited this country as a young man, he was taken to an American friend's house. He met the friend's parents, learned a little about their background, but he absolutely marveled at the fact that they had a decent middle-class home and supported the family with just a regular job. I'm paraphrasing what he said, but even in that short time since then, that same level of living now usually takes two incomes and that has had a drastic effect on our society.
I saw this video clip for the first time today. A friend also shared with me another article I referenced in my blog post.
I'm coming at Simple Living from a slightly different view than some here. The political arguments aren't as relevant to me. Each system has its haves and have-nots. What's important to me is how am I living my life. If the stuff is preventing me form living well, living generously, or harming another I don't want it.
Here is my reflection after seeing the video.
The Rich Young Ruler - Who Me? (http://simplelivingwithgod.org/the-rich-young-ruler-me/)
Does anyone have any links to resources that would help me further research exploitive practices by global mega corporations?
- Kevin
Hmm, I would think the root cause would be there aren't enough good jobs to go around and there haven't been for decades if ever, and so even if we provided boatloads of training and social work and whatever for everyone to "rehabilitate" them and everyone wanted to work etc. etc., there still aren't enough good jobs to go around, end of story!It doesn't have to be. The remedy requires society as a whole changing what it means for a job to be "good" to something that is sustainable (and indeed that's going to result in changes to all jobs in society), and then fulfilling the obligation of making every job good.
Of course businesses in their employer role also benefit from high unemployment but that's an aside.No, it isn't. Rewarding exploitation legitimizes it and works against society changing what it means for a job to be "good" to something that is sustainable.
I completely concur with the long term investment thinking! How many jobs could our government provide by diving into infrastructure renewal & rebuild? It is so needed, and so worth it.
I have always thought the WPA was a great government project that provided employment, some on the job training, and infrastructure improvements. There are still many projects left in my area that display the WPA plaque. It probably was not perfect, but better than just an unemployment or welfare check with no return on investment.
I sort of doubt that something like it would fly these days. I suppose people would consider it a cog of big government and put it in the hands of the private sector through contracts.
something else I see is the lack of dignity in lower paying jobs. I don't think that used to be the case.
I have always thought the WPA was a great government project that provided employment, some on the job training, and infrastructure improvements. There are still many projects left in my area that display the WPA plaque. It probably was not perfect, but better than just an unemployment or welfare check with no return on investment.
It's the same in our area and I think it could work today if enough pressure was put on political leaders to retool. Personally I'd be much happier with a bridge than a drone. But then my representatives already know that so it is obviously going to take a lot more than letter writing.
It is important to understand the root causes of any problem we are trying to solve, but at the same time those roots might not be the best sales pitch to gather support. Take climate change for example. Most people who have been watching will agree that human activity is at least exacerbating a natural warming cycle, but trying to push legislation through based on melting ice caps immediately divides the voters, Congress, etc. The people who plead for us to rally to save the penguins may be great humanitarians and may be right, but they will remain notoriously underfunded.
OTOH, if you take a very simple approach of showing how reducing carbon emissions is better for all of us humans economically (more mpg = less $$$ for gas, etc.) then a lot more people will jump on the band wagon. It's not that people don't care about such things, they just care more about their own lives. My hunch is that its much the same with the poor. If we take the approach of showing people how it is hugely beneficial for society, and as a result for them, to help people out of poverty rather than hold them in it I bet a lot more folks would get behind the cause. If someone trades in the SUV for a hybrid because they want to save money on gas rather than save the planet, who cares? The net result is the same. If they support helping a million underprivileged kids get scholarships (example only) because they know those kids will be more likely to get 'good' jobs and pay more taxes adding money to the pool rather than drawing it out, but they don't really think about the tragedy of poverty, who cares? Either way it would be the poor who benefit.
IMO, the biggest hurdle for the good people who want to help is salesmanship. They tend to forget who it is that can help them do the most, the fastest. It may sound silly to some and shallow to others, but we have to ask whether the goal is to force people to realize their fallacies or to help the poor? If it is the latter then it is necessary to push the right buttons of the people who hold the power to initiate change. Show those people how it will benefit THEM and things will start to move pretty quickly because, almost inevitably, those are people who understand investment strategies.
ApatheticNoMore
3-11-13, 2:24pm
Hmm, I would think the root cause would be there aren't enough good jobs to go around and there haven't been for decades if ever, and so even if we provided boatloads of training and social work and whatever for everyone to "rehabilitate" them and everyone wanted to work etc. etc., there still aren't enough good jobs to go around, end of story!
It doesn't have to be. The remedy requires society as a whole changing what it means for a job to be "good" to something that is sustainable (and indeed that's going to result in changes to all jobs in society), and then fulfilling the obligation of making every job good.
By a "good job" I really only meant paying enough so that you aren't working and falling into the working poor, I meant paying enough so that working manages to lift one out of poverty. It was shorthand, I had nothing grander in mind, and was merely saying that the economic situation of having enough jobs to both employ everyone AND make sure they are lifted out of poverty by work alone without any government aid doesn't exist, so therefore ... government aid becomes a necessary part of any such system.
Of course businesses in their employer role also benefit from high unemployment but that's an aside.
No, it isn't. Rewarding exploitation legitimizes it and works against society changing what it means for a job to be "good" to something that is sustainable
Well by "an aside" I mean this high unemployment situation seems to be of benefit to employers so one might get conspiratorial (and I don't consider the term conspiratorial insulting) and say that no wonder we get dozens of bills on everything under the sun many that are wildly unpopular and yet what is the one bill that never passes: a jobs bill or any bill that addresses the unemployment situation! Even though it might be extremely popular! So you might start to wonder about things like intent and so on and if *they* (powers that be) want this high unemployment situation. But conspiracy, and all getting together in a room over cigars to plan the situation, is not necessary, even in good times you have the so called "natural unemployment rate", which is that unemployment that is considered naturally part of the economy, so if we're going to live in a system that naturally always has some unemployment then ... government aid naturally exists alongside it to plug that gap.
Does anyone have any links to resources that would help me further research exploitive practices by global mega corporations?
If you just want to raise your blood pressure a little check into Veolia, Suez, Nalco, Thames Water and the rest. Their work is setting up the potential for exploitation the likes of which has never been seen.
something else I see is the lack of dignity in lower paying jobs. I don't think that used to be the case.Well, actually, it was - society was less mature then. Remember, we're just we're just 150 years past slavery, and though society has made great progress with regard to treatment of women, they're are still not treated as equals in our society. We're growing up, slowly, as a society - still pulling ourselves out of the muck, to some extent. And though you don't see many people claiming that workers should be sanguine about being treated like dirt like in the old days, such cretins are out there.
If you just want to raise your blood pressure a little check into Veolia, Suez, Nalco, Thames Water and the rest. Their work is setting up the potential for exploitation the likes of which has never been seen.
Gregg, are you turning in to a liberal?? ;)
Gregg, are you turning in to a liberal?? ;)
Buuuhahahah! That'll be the day, eh Lainey? But I do believe in calling a spade a spade and the whole issue of global water is one that really concerns me because of the direction its heading. Of course that's another thread...
If you just want to raise your blood pressure a little check into Veolia, Suez, Nalco, Thames Water and the rest. Their work is setting up the potential for exploitation the likes of which has never been seen.
Thank you.
- Kevin
Here is how I view the problem. Wealth, power over others, and the desire for it is the "Mammon Spirit". It's like the one ring in Lord of the Rings. We weren't meant to have it and it only leads to destruction - of others first, and of its owner eventually.
The problems we have are not systems driven or resource driven. They are spiritually driven. We lack in love. Capitalism or socialism would work equally well if the pervasive tendency of the heart was to consider the needs of others ahead of our own (or at least as important as our own.) That just isn't the general way of thinking in most people, and for those of us who think that way, it isn't the case all of the time.
Philosophically I'm a libertarian leaning conservative, or a conservative leaning libertarian based on the day. These recent quotes from Dallas Willard really strike at the core of my thinking on this. . .
"Knowledge is our ability to represent things as they are on an appropriate basis of thought and experience."
"Claims to knowledge are not the same as knowledge. Because knowledge is so influential in human life, people tend to claim knowledge they don't have. And then claims to knowledge become instruments of oppression."
"Authority institutionalized or vested in individuals tends to drift away from knowledge to power. Power to harm or hurt - to cause people to do things . . ."
"Knowledge is still in the area of freedom and truth and openness and inquiry. But when a person in power is put in a corner they want to disregard that and just use the power. Thus it becomes oppressive and it often opposes truth."
"We are meant to live by our own thoughts and our own convictions, our own insights and feelings. That isn't an easy project, but somehow if you take that away, you crush human life. So authority can blot out this extremely important thing of living from your own thoughts, understandings, and choices."
The struggle for me is this. How do those who don't believe in "power over" and "authority" use as little as is necessary to keep those who are self-seeking and strong from exploiting the weak? How do we take care of the truly weak ones while not contributing to the delinquency of those who are self-seeking and lazy?
The "Mammon Spirit" places a value on things over people and it feeds on weakness of character to foster desire for that which is really not necessary for life. It creates all kinds of false wants, that become needs, that cause all kinds of unwanted behavior. We utilize it to manipulate others to get what we want and others utilize it to manipulate us to get what they want. If we don't slay it, it will eventually slay us.
- Kevin
Levels of wealth inequality in the US have simply reached levels that aren't healthy for the society as a whole--including the rich. Do wealthy people really want to end up living in walled-off communities with armed guards to protect them from ever-growing hoards of have-nots? I don't think so.
I have no problem with people getting rich. Problem is, it's getting harder and harder to do, even here in the "land of opportunity." It's unfortunately true that in this country, the best way to get rich is to be born rich. I don't even have a problem with folks who are born rich, except when they keep insisting that their station in life is the result of virtue rather than luck. All that claptrap about how hard they work and all the obstacles they've overcome. I once saw a guy on TV who was born without arms and who had trained himself to play the guitar with his feet. When he talks about overcoming obstacles, I listen. When someone like Mitt Romney or George W. Bush talks about overcoming obstacles, I laugh derisively.
Do wealthy people really want to end up living in walled-off communities
I would imagine that many of them would like that just fine. And it may come to that when only the wealthy can enjoy the things we all have a right to like clean air and water especially as these things become scarcer.
I would imagine that many of them would like that just fine. And it may come to that when only the wealthy can enjoy the things we all have a right to like clean air and water especially as these things become scarcer.
The best real estate is always the most expensive and, as a result, only the people with the most money can afford it. There may not be armed guards lurking in every shadow (yet), but a quick tour of tony zip codes around the country will show you some awfully nice places to live. The best that money can buy. That has been and always will be the case.
Question: What is "wealthy" described as for purposes of this discussion? For example, "only the wealthy can enjoy the things we all have a right to like clean air and water especially as these things become scarcer".
My husband and I have saved and saved for over 35 years and invested wisely ala Your Money or Your Life. While I don't live in a fancy house, I do live in our downtown and have a 2 car garage. I have almost complete security for the future. Am I the wealthy?
What is your dividing line?
To me, wealthy would mean the top five percent or so.
I had a little difficulty finding what I needed but one article puts us in the top 5% of net worth in the US. It is not hugely wealthy though. As I said, no inheritance, no business, just incredibly hard work and persistence in investment. We paid off debt early and did not go out and buy bigger and better "because we could". I never believed the advice of "professionals" that we should leverage and take out huge debt.
So even though all I have was earned as wage earners (not in management)and saved for the future, do you feel we should have our wealth redistributed? After all, I made choices that were available to anyone. I do not have a college degree and it took hubby over 10 years to get his.
By most standards and studies we fall into that top 5% too, sweetana3. We owned our business, but other than that have pretty much the same story you do. We don't have a jet, no mega-yacht, no Maserati salesman calling to let me know the new models have arrived. We don't season in Palm Beach or gamble in Monte Carlo. We are just about to move into a small, mortgage free house that will be perfect for two empty-nesters. We have comfortable, reliable vehicles that are paid for. We can do the things we want to do and go where we want to go. We both feel that we have a very rich life, but wealthy? Nope.
You crack the top 1% with an annual income of $380,000. There is no denying that you can lead a very comfortable life and have a very secure retirement on that income as long as you're reasonable with spending and saving/investing. But that income won't get you anywhere close to being able to afford the trappings of real wealth. At that level a private jet costs more to operate for a year than you make, let alone what it takes to buy in. Its totally subjective, of course, but in my mind you aren't really wealthy until you start to crack that top couple 1/10ths of a percent.
Doesn't everyone who lives in a civilized country pay taxes and have their wealth redistributed? It seems like that's part of the bargain.
We're in the top 5% - 10% as well in net worth. My mom left me $60,00 which is a nice chunk of change, but that did not propel us into this position. Nor did our income.
It's not how much money you get, it's how much you hang onto. That's the lesson of The Millionaire Next Door. Hanging onto it takes focus, making choices every day that support the goal of wealth building.
flowerseverywhere
3-18-13, 11:16pm
You know, whether people bought and sold property at the right time, earned a good income and lived below their means, took risks that paid off , or inherited their wealth I have a hard time looking at the top five or ten percent as the bad guys. It seems like so many like to portray those wealthier than they are in a non favorable light, where many have used their wealth to better things for countless around them. It would be a shame for the goverment to decide to take more so they can waste it when so much good can be done.
It would be a shame for a government to ever waste money, regardless of the circumstances. The issue really isn't about securing the ability for government to "waste" more money. That's just silliness.
The issue is about fairness. What would be a shame is to allow the level of inequity double again, as it has since the 1960s. Indeed, it would be a shame to not reverse the trend since the 1960s - it would be a shame if we fail to halve inequity, i.e., fail to bring fairness in society back to 1960s levels.
The issue is about fairness. What would be a shame is to allow the level of inequity double again
Sounds like classic newspeak to me. Fairness is providing equal opportunity and allowing people who work hard and save and make good decisions to benefit from their efforts. Fairness is not imposing equal outcomes on people who have made different decisions and contributed different amounts of effort or value.
If we insist on handicapping the game of life, aren't there better ways of doing that than the tax code?
Sounds like classic newspeak to me.Newspeak? Seems to me I recall some folks talking about this sort of thing a couple of thousand years ago, and its been a very common matter of consideration for at least the last four hundred years.
Fairness is providing equal opportunity and allowing people who work hard and save and make good decisions to benefit from their efforts. Fairness is not imposing equal outcomes on people who have made different decisions and contributed different amounts of effort or value.Fairness is neither of the extremes you outlined. Fairness is promoting and affirming the worth and dignity of all members of society, and recognizing the parameters of human decency society affords its members are not to be affected by relative success or failure in financial ventures.
If we insist on handicapping the game of life, aren't there better ways of doing that than the tax code?I wouldn't call society fulfilling fundamental obligations of decency to be "handicapping" or a "game", but I do agree that there could be other ways of serving those moral imperatives other than a tug-o-war over tax laws. Unfortunately, such approaches are likely opposed even more heavily by those who benefit from unfairness, but what did you have in mind?
Fairness is promoting and affirming the worth and dignity of all members of society, and recognizing the parameters of human decency society affords its members are not to be affected by relative success or failure in financial ventures.
Success and failure carry purely individual definitions. Your idea if success and mine may be quite different. All I want from a government is for it to not hinder either of us in our pursuit. That would be fair and decent. As soon as a government tries to guarantee we will end up in the same place it has overstepped its purpose. It is every bit as indecent to apply an artificial disadvantage to those who strive for success as it is to chastise those who don't.
As soon as a government tries to guarantee we will end up in the same place it has overstepped its purpose.However, that's a Straw Man. No one talks about guaranteeing everyone ends up in the same place, but rather that no one is forced to live below a certain threshold. While surely the threshold is a matter of opinion, compromise should establish a common threshold and society should be structured to build the variety you're talking about starting from that threshold and going up from there.
It is every bit as indecent to apply an artificial disadvantage to those who strive for success as it is to chastise those who don't.Another Straw Man. This isn't about protecting those who don't strive for success but rather about those who don't achieve it.
And working from there, it is absolutely not indecent to work to address the basic needs of some over working to safeguard the incremental comfort and luxury of others.
I wouldn't call society fulfilling fundamental obligations of decency to be "handicapping" or a "game", but I do agree that there could be other ways of serving those moral imperatives other than a tug-o-war over tax laws. Unfortunately, such approaches are likely opposed even more heavily by those who benefit from unfairness, but what did you have in mind?
I would agree with Yossarian on providing equal opportunity through things like education and a legal framework that allows people to compete fairly. I don't see a focus on tearing down the rich as all that productive in that pursuit. I don't see government as a provider of "worth and dignity". Those are things you have to derive from your own accomplishments, although not necessarily in the financial sphere.
... I don't see government as a provider of "worth and dignity". Those are things you have to derive from your own accomplishments, although not necessarily in the financial sphere.
I agree with this, wholeheartedly.
I would agree with Yossarian on providing equal opportunity through things like education and a legal framework that allows people to compete fairly.I'm all for that too, but first, such efforts at imposing fairness are not always successful, and society's failure in that regard results in an obligation to make up for its failure through its social safety net, and second, a prosperous society has no right to employ barbarism of "survival of the luckiest" with regard to access to the basics human decency demands. We're not talking about luxury automobiles or Caribbean vacations here. We're talking about living with dignity, something all human beings are worthy of.
I don't see a focus on tearing down the rich as all that productive in that pursuit.Me neither. Neither has anyone else in the conversation, unless one equates people with their money, and therefore see any kind of taxation as tearing part of the income earner down. I find the idea of reducing people down to money very offensive.
I don't see government as a provider of "worth and dignity".Those aren't things that are provided but rather things that are served. Society does absolutely have a role in determining whether such things are accessible, especially with regard to the less fortunate.
I'm all for that too, but first, such efforts at imposing fairness are not always successful, and society's failure in that regard results in an obligation to make up for its failure through its social safety net, and second, a prosperous society has no right to employ barbarism of "survival of the luckiest" with regard to access to the basics human decency demands. We're not talking about luxury automobiles or Caribbean vacations here. We're talking about living with dignity, something all human beings are worthy of.
Me neither. Neither has anyone else in the conversation, unless one equates people with their money, and therefore see any kind of taxation as tearing part of the income earner down. I find the idea of reducing people down to money very offensive.
Those aren't things that are provided but rather things that are served. Society does absolutely have a role in determining whether such things are accessible, especially with regard to the less fortunate.
Here is a current example: marriage equality. The government is critical in establishing legitimacy of marriage for legal & financial purposes.
ApatheticNoMore
3-19-13, 12:06pm
Another Straw Man. This isn't about protecting those who don't strive for success but rather about those who don't achieve it.
Not that there's anything wrong with protecting those who don't strive for sucess. I mean yea the picture gets unflattering if you assume they are exclusively those sitting around eating bon-bons and laying on the couch all day, but remember success here is actually being defined extremely narrowly, purely monetarily, someone could have never earned much because they strived at something that did a lot of good but just wasn't high on renumeration.
People should work hard, and save and take risks and blah blah. Yea well, working hard and saving aren't super controversal, though it may not get you where you think it will, but I'm not sure if most people don't subconsciously, often below the level of full conscious awareness, conclude that risk taking in American society is a really bad deal. Because there's no safety net and you fall hard? Well that's it at the level of economics. But also because of the utter and complete social disgust and scorn with which a failed risk is treated. It's the fricken scarlet letter. Look how we treat say some kid who gets a liberal arts degree and can't get a job for it, just pure blame that he got a liberal arts degree. But he was taking a risk that could have paid off, well maybe he was by going for his dream, which after all he was socially programmed to do as well, but in many cases of these youngsters I think we're just dealing with naifs much of the time rather than conscious risk tasking. But that's how naifs that fail are treated, why would anyone sign themselves up voluntarily in full adulthood aware of this, for any risk of failure? 9-5 gets you basic social respect, you work for a living. A business that fails where you end up in poverty, gets you not just poverty, no healthcare, etc. but the social scorn we heap upon the poor. All such undercurrents run deep in the collective unconscious.
Suffice to say that other countries are surpassing the U.S. in income mobility (the ability mostly to move to a higher income bracket), many countries equal or surpass it in business formation, and they do it with guaranteed healthcare. Not that I don't like some aspects of the U.S. um government (uh no!), economic system (not really!), character (actually yes).
Those aren't things that are provided but rather things that are served. Society does absolutely have a role in determining whether such things are accessible, especially with regard to the less fortunate.
How do you legislate dignity? That would seem to flow from an individual's sense of himself.
I think the real issue isn't so much wealth per se, defined as a person's absolute net worth or standing terms of what percentile he or she occupies. It's about proportion. I don't oppose the wealth gap because some people have more than others, but because I don't think it's socially healthy for some people to have so much more than others. The upward transfer of wealth that's taken place in the US over the past three decades has bloated the bank accounts of a tiny minority while middle-class wages have stagnated. The huge productivity gains made possible by technology have not been equitably distributed--not even close.
I think the situation is analogous to the two wars this country was involved in during the past decade. A tiny minority of military families bore the sacrifice while most of the rest of the population remained oblivious. My view is that when a country is at war, everybody fights or nobody fights. If everybody doesn't fight, you've no business going to war in the first place. Similarly, when the economy prospers, everybody should reap some share of the benefits. We've moved farther and farther away from that ideal.
Here is a current example: marriage equality. The government is critical in establishing legitimacy of marriage for legal & financial purposes.
That's mere contract law. Whether someone on the outside views gay marraige as a sacred right or an obscene parody of a sacrament lies outside the purview of government. Government can determine rules about benefits or inheritance. It has no role in blessing unions.
Here is a current example: marriage equality. The government is critical in establishing legitimacy of marriage for legal & financial purposes.
I think that's a bad example. The "marriage equality" issue is more of a demonstration of the problems that can happen when The State intervenes in mutually-acceptable agreements between consenting adults.
Yossarian
3-19-13, 12:53pm
No one talks about guaranteeing everyone ends up in the same place, but rather that no one is forced to live below a certain threshold. While surely the threshold is a matter of opinion, compromise should establish a common threshold and society should be structured to build the variety you're talking about starting from that threshold and going up from there.
Uh, I don't get it. This is exactly what I said like 10 pages ago to which you got all snarky and unpleasant. We need to improve the safety net and avenues of opportunity. That's different than trying to impose an equality (i.e. opposing an "inequality") of results. I think almost everyone is for the former, maybe not so much for the latter (see e.g. the thread on confiscating savings).
I find the idea of reducing people down to money very offensive.
You have to be careful then of using income as a measure of fairness. It's a convenient measure, but you can't have it both ways.
However, that's a Straw Man. No one talks about guaranteeing everyone ends up in the same place, but rather that no one is forced to live below a certain threshold. While surely the threshold is a matter of opinion, compromise should establish a common threshold and society should be structured to build the variety you're talking about starting from that threshold and going up from there.
Another Straw Man. This isn't about protecting those who don't strive for success but rather about those who don't achieve it.
And working from there, it is absolutely not indecent to work to address the basic needs of some over working to safeguard the incremental comfort and luxury of others.
If the chatter was purely about improving the safety nets of our society, then I would agree that #1 is a straw man, but that is not the case. Lets talk about how to improve the nets and provide equal opportunity to the lower end of the spectrum (ie. raise the floor) and I think just about everyone here will be on board.
It is my experience that those who strive for success usually find it and that those who don't almost never will. It is also my experience that getting everyone to the same starting line is an impossibility. If you wish to remove practical references from the real world and simply state that we need to strengthen the floor I will still support the idea. What I said above is, "It is every bit as indecent to apply an artificial disadvantage to those who strive for success as it is to chastise those who don't." That in no way implies a lack of support for anyone who does not achieve success. It means that it is wrong to handicap those who wish to try. There is a straw man lurking, but not where you think.
How do you legislate dignity? That would seem to flow from an individual's sense of himself.The issue is society treating someone with dignity. Dignity is, specifically, the innate right to be valued and receive ethical treatment. It shouldn't be confused with respect (either respect afforded to people by others or self-respect).
I don't oppose the wealth gap because some people have more than others, but because I don't think it's socially healthy for some people to have so much more than others.And the fact that that disparity has actually doubled in a generation and is still widening underscores the problem. That kind of sustained, radical change did not come about by accident. It was deliberate, anti-social policy, promulgated to favor the affluent at the expense of the less affluent.
Similarly, when the economy prospers, everybody should reap some share of the benefits.In another thread, someone (I think accidentally) revealed what I would consider a moral perspective related to the "how much" question, when they were actually trying to support the rich-favoring perspective. The discussion was about the amount below which people shouldn't be taxed, and the comment granted that amount should be "something less than per capita GDP." Though of course it still begs the question how much less, at least it acknowledges the important point that the starting point for figuring that out is per capita GDP. The heavier burden of supporting society's costs should be borne by those receiving from society's economy more than their equal share of society's increase in value, and those who are working and earning money but earning less than their equal share of society's increase in value should bear a much lesser burden. And anyone who works and earns less than enough to afford what a reasonable person would consider, if they were being honest and honorable, a basic standard of living, shouldn't be expected to carry any more burden than the lack of income equity already places on them.
I think that's a bad example. The "marriage equality" issue is more of a demonstration of the problems that can happen when The State intervenes in mutually-acceptable agreements between consenting adults.
I was thinking specifically of Federal tax advantages to being married. And, while I agree with your basic premise, the state intervenes to protect the interests of minors & itself; specifically wanting to make sure that minors are supported so that the state does not incur impacts from abandoned or neglected minors.
Uh, I don't get it. This is exactly what I said like 10 pages ago to which you got all snarky and unpleasant.If you'd like to, please specify which message of yours you're talking about, so I can be sure to understand you correctly, and I'll then be happy to post the two comments next to each other and explain the differences, if I am able.
We need to improve the safety net and avenues of opportunity. That's different than trying to impose an equalityWhich, again, no one in this thread has suggested.
(i.e. opposing an "inequality") of results.Opposing a doubling of economic inequality in a generation is not "imposing an equality". Opposing the still-increasing rate of widening economic inequality in a generation is not "imposing an equality". I've said that my own personal hope is that within my lifetime we could get back to the level of economic inequality of the 1960s, that's all. Do you have a problem with that objective?
You have to be careful then of using income as a measure of fairness. It's a convenient measure, but you can't have it both ways.This much is true. What matters is the extent to which society, including its economy, treats its members with worth and dignity, and that's more a matter of standard of living and allowing people the freedom to express their own individual values within their own skin, their own family, and their own worship or analog, rather than actual dollar amounts.
The issue is society treating someone with dignity. Dignity is, specifically, the innate right to be valued and receive ethical treatment. It shouldn't be confused with respect (either respect afforded to people by others or self-respect).
How do you honor "the right to be valued"? With a specific package of goods and services? Equality of opportunity? Restricting the range og unequal outcomes?
How do you honor "the right to be valued"? With a specific package of goods and services? Equality of opportunity? Restricting the range og unequal outcomes?
Equal rights is a good start. Equality of opportunity is as well, and that translates to equal funding for public services, like education, as well as federal oversight that equal access is assured, such as at voting places, and places of business. I am thinking of the civil rights gains our country has made regarding access for those with disabilities, access for people of color and women to the vote, etc.
Since income taxes are how we currently pay for government, I do believe that taxation should be allocated in a way that higher earners pay more of their overall income than lower wage earners. I am still open to data that demonstrates that the wealthy, so-called job creators, keeping their large sums benefits the whole, but I have yet to see this data. Since all of us benefit immensely from public sector infrastructure, we all must support it. The consequences of allowing our Commons to degrade is all around us.
I am with President Obama when he pointed out that those who do exceedingly well financially still reply on the Commons to profit.
Opposing a doubling of economic inequality in a generation is not "imposing an equality". Opposing the still-increasing rate of widening economic inequality in a generation is not "imposing an equality". I've said that my own personal hope is that within my lifetime we could get back to the level of economic inequality of the 1960s, that's all. Do you have a problem with that objective?
Your metric, "inequality", is relative where I think it should be nominal, and frankly is inconsistent with what you said here:
No one talks about guaranteeing everyone ends up in the same place, but rather that no one is forced to live below a certain threshold. While surely the threshold is a matter of opinion, compromise should establish a common threshold and society should be structured to build the variety you're talking about starting from that threshold and going up from there.
Equality does focus on getting people closer to the same place. If you try to accomplish that through redistribution, then yes, I guess I do have a problem with that. If you try to do it by improving the productivity of the lower income strata, then no, no problem at all. That was inherent in what I said before
We should make sure people at the bottom have a reasonable situation and opportunity ..... So let's work on a fair floor and ladders up, but don't impose an artificial ceiling.
Working on those minimum standards and opportunities is worthwhile independent of how many successful people get rich elsewhere. Posit a society where we actually have universal healthcare, affordable education for the deserving, effective access to childcare, training programs that produce competitive workers, reasonably unfettered economic mobility, etc... Now simply consider two alternative additions to that, in one case we have Silicon Valley as an effective generator of millionaires, in the other that whole industry moves offshore to India and China.
In your focus on "inequality" you would seem to favor the scenario with no Silicon Valley producing millionaires in the US, as creating millionaires makes us less equal. As I said previously, I would favor what you said recently- "no one is forced to live below a certain threshold. While surely the threshold is a matter of opinion, compromise should establish a common threshold..." But beyond that - can other people play by the rules, work hard, and get as far ahead of that as they can? Or do we hold them back in a desire to ensure there isn't more inequality than someone deems appropriate?
Equal rights is a good start. Equality of opportunity is as well, and that translates to equal funding for public services, like education, as well as federal oversight that equal access is assured, such as at voting places, and places of business. I am thinking of the civil rights gains our country has made regarding access for those with disabilities, access for people of color and women to the vote, etc.
Since income taxes are how we currently pay for government, I do believe that taxation should be allocated in a way that higher earners pay more of their overall income than lower wage earners. I am still open to data that demonstrates that the wealthy, so-called job creators, keeping their large sums benefits the whole, but I have yet to see this data. Since all of us benefit immensely from public sector infrastructure, we all must support it. The consequences of allowing our Commons to degrade is all around us.
I am with President Obama when he pointed out that those who do exceedingly well financially still reply on the Commons to profit.
Ah yes. The "You didn't build that" meme. What the President failed to consider is that what you refer to as "the Commons" has always been disproportionately funded by the same people he says disproportionately benefit. So in a sense, the people he targets could respond, "Yes, we did build that". I'm not particularly troubled by the argument that the wealthy should pay a bit more. I am troubled by the assumption that what they have is only held on suffrance by the State. Nobody needs to demonstrate private wealth serves some public good. Rather, the burden rests with government to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the governed that what it takes fromn them is justified.
Your metric, "inequality", is relative where I think it should be nominal, and frankly is inconsistent with what you said here:I disagree with both your claim that there is a problem with a comparative metric, and that the metric is inconsistent with an objection to interpreting the use of the metric as an insistence on achievement of an absolute extreme for the metric.
Equality does focus on getting people closer to the same place.Decreasing inequality does not equal achievement of an absolute extreme for the metric. Let's be clear: The problem is how much inequality there is, and how much more inequality there is than there used to be. The solution is less inequality, perhaps a return to that lower level of inequality we enjoyed in the past, and saying so does not constitute setting an objective to achieve absolute equality, even though it would make it easier for you to object.
It is important to remember that what I'm putting forward are my perspectives rather than something that necessarily needs to be easy for you to argue against. If you're just going to corrupt my advocacy for a re-balancing of priorities, which I highlight, into one of the unbalanced extremes, just so you can have something to say in response, it's going to be pretty pointless.
If you try to accomplish that through redistribution, then yes, I guess I do have a problem with that.I cannot remember what forum I just read it in, but someone made the point that what is being discussed is not "redistribution" but rather returning to a fairer distribution, i.e., the laws and other structures of our society have been twisted by forced of greed so badly that a morally-offensive portion of every dollar of GDP is being channeled to a small group of people. Again, don't think that you can pervert that into an an assertion of the extreme, as you've demonstrated you like to do. It means effecting a balanced change - in my lifetime, perhaps as far as back to where the distribution was back in the 1960s.
If you try to do it by improving the productivity of the lower income strata, then no, no problem at all.This statement demonstrates either a shockingly callous perspective or a lack of knowledge of the actual relationship between worker productivity in the United States and its GDP. The reality is that not only has the increase in GDP attributable to increase in worker productivity not been honorably distributed among all those who have contributed to it, but actually as worker productive has contributed more and more to GDP, effective worker income has decreased, gone the opposite direction. Again, this is a reflection of corruption of the laws and structures of society, abusively exploiting power entrusted, to bring about a more greed-centric end-result.
"We should make sure people at the bottom have a reasonable situation and opportunity ..... So let's work on a fair floor and ladders up, but don't impose an artificial ceiling."What specific part of my reply did you think objected to any part of that? I suspect that if you actually feel there I did post such objections to either of these specific sentences that you perhaps decided to misinterpret my comments, as I've demonstrated you've done earlier in this reply, perverting a balanced assertion into an extreme, because those specific sentences wouldn't be the focus of any specific replies of mine.
For example, an example of that perversion of assertions would include the claim that progressive taxation represents any kind of "ceiling". Even a 91% tax rate, which was incidentally the top tax rate when I was a child, isn't a "ceiling", even though folks opposed to progressive taxation want to try to deceive folks into thinking that it is.
In your focus on "inequality" you would seem to favor the scenario with no Silicon Valley producing millionaires in the US, as creating millionaires makes us less equal.Your premise is incorrect, so your whole argument falls apart.
Your premise is incorrect, so your whole argument falls apart.
Well let's start there then.
Population set 1: 10 people make $100 each
Population set 2: 9 people make $100, 1 makes $200.
Is the income inequality greater in set 1 or set 2?
Ah yes. The "You didn't build that" meme. What the President failed to consider is that what you refer to as "the Commons" has always been disproportionately funded by the same people he says disproportionately benefit. So in a sense, the people he targets could respond, "Yes, we did build that". I'm not particularly troubled by the argument that the wealthy should pay a bit more. I am troubled by the assumption that what they have is only held on suffrance by the State. Nobody needs to demonstrate private wealth serves some public good. Rather, the burden rests with government to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the governed that what it takes fromn them is justified.
I disagree that the Commons has been disproportionally built by the wealthy. The level of volunteerism that contributes to building our Commons is immeasurable. And, I don't think measuring who paid for what is a worthy inquiry, since we benefit as both individuals and as communities from such things as solid public schools, roads in good repair, public utilities that are dependable, etc. I really love this illustration... it describes my experience of how the private sector relies on every other layer below it. How can we create a world that works for all? Model credit: Economist Hazel Henderson
1194
In your focus on "inequality" you would seem to favor the scenario with no Silicon Valley producing millionaires in the US, as creating millionaires makes us less equal.Your premise is incorrect, so your whole argument falls apart.Well let's start there then. If you are going to say "start there" then actually start there, instead of going off on a tangent.
You made an assertion based on what you claimed I would "seem to favor". You were wrong about that. You have been wrong every time you've taken a qualified statement and chose to misinterpret it as an extreme. There is no way you can understand what someone else is saying when you insist on perverting their comments in that manner, just to make it easier for you have something to say in response.
And, I don't think measuring who paid for what is a worthy inquiry, since we benefit as both individuals and as communities from such things as solid public schools, roads in good repair, public utilities that are dependable, etc.
But if you want to argue that some segment gets "more than their share", how can you simultaneously say considering their contribution isn't worthy of inquiry?
If you are going to say "start there" then actually start there, instead of going off on a tangent.
You made an assertion based on what you claimed I would "seem to favor". You were wrong about that. You have been wrong every time you've taken a qualified statement and chose to misinterpret it as an extreme. There is no way you can understand what someone else is saying when you insist on perverting their comments in that manner, just to make it easier for you have something to say in response.
Fabulous! I'm glad you actually support higher income inequality then. Maybe there is hope for you after all.
Stop lying about what I've written. I never wrote that I support absolute economic equality and I never wrote that I support higher inequality. If you have to lie about what others post to have something to say in response, then it demonstrates that you know you have nothing worthwhile to say in response, and most folks would use that as a clue to not post a reply. Please show that there is "hope for you" by not lying about what I've written again.
I never wrote that I support absolute economic equality and I never wrote that I support higher inequality.
LOL, very funny. Suffice to say there are good reasons why equality, or reduced inequality, is poor policy and actually hurts the people you purport to want to help. Would be nice if you would discuss instead of pontificate, but that obviously isn't going to happen.
LOL, very funny.No: It is actually quite unfunny.
Suffice to say there are good reasons why equality, or reduced inequality, is poor policy and actually hurts the people you purport to want to help.No, it doesn't "suffice to say". That's simply a creative way for you to try to assert your personal preference by edict, something for which you don't have standing. The reality is that you haven't provided a shred of evidence that returning to the level of economic inequality of the 1960s hurts anyone.
Would be nice if you would discuss instead of pontificate, but that obviously isn't going to happen.It would be nice if you participated in the discussion with integrity rather than lying about what others have written just to have something to say in response. You've done this before, if I recall correctly. You seem to react this way whenever I've raised moral considerations that undercut perspectives of yours that focus strictly on financial considerations that benefit some people (perhaps including yourself, though I don't know enough about your situation to know that for sure).
Yossarian
3-20-13, 10:08am
I've raised moral considerations that undercut perspectives of yours that focus strictly on financial considerations that benefit some people
I haven't seen you express any valid moral considerations, and I guess that's why your perspective seems, well, morally bankrupt to me. Karen used to have some considerations that were respectable, maybe you have some to that you just haven't expressed? So let's explore it from the beginning to see what those considerations are.
Population set 1: 10 people make $100 each
Population set 2: 9 people make $100, 1 makes $200.
Is the income inequality greater in set 1 or set 2? Which would be a better goal for our society?
I haven't seen you express any valid moral considerationsYes, you have; you just don't agree with them. So going forward please say that, and move on, instead of engaging in silly games.
So let's explore it from the beginning to see what those considerations are.I'll let you explore only if you're willing to let me define the parameters, i.e.,
Population set 1: 20 people make $100 each
Population set 2: 9 people make $100, 1 makes $1100.
I'd say that that there is a substantial amount of economic inequality in that model.
To allow others to gauge whether "your perspective seems, well, morally bankrupt", please indicated whether you agree with my appraisal, without equivocating or otherwise trying to impose the scenario you want to impose.
What about this...
Scenario #1:
Worker Bee: $7.25/Hour
CEO: $725/Hour (100x Worker Bee)
Scenario #2:
Worker Bee: $15/Hour
CEO: $1000/Hour (67x Worker Bee)
Is the income inequality greater in scenario 1 or 2? Which would be a better goal for our society?
Yossarian
3-20-13, 11:32am
Yes, you have; you just don't agree with them. So going forward please say that, and move on, instead of engaging in silly games.
I'll let you explore only if you're willing to let me define the parameters, i.e.,
Population set 1: 20 people make $100 each
Population set 2: 9 people make $100, 1 makes $1100.
I'd say that that there is a substantial amount of economic inequality in that model.
To allow others to gauge whether "your perspective seems, well, morally bankrupt", please indicated whether you agree with my appraisal, without equivocating or otherwise trying to impose the scenario you want to impose.
Yes, there is economic inequality in that model, as any difference in earnings is by definition unequal. But as expressed there is nothing necessarily wrong with that, and why you can't assume that just because you have identified an inequality that it raises a valid moral issue, which is basically all you have done.
If person 10 makes $1100 by virtue of inventing something beneficial or more efficient that adds value to the lives of the group, and that contribution is recognized by earning more, why does it matter how much more? We have already agreed that people deserve a certain floor of support and equal opportunity for advancement, so all 10 of our people in the group have what they need and had an equal opportunity to be the one to earn more. Why is it a problem if someone in fact adds value and is rewarded for it?
Yossarian
3-20-13, 11:38am
What about this...
Scenario #1:
Worker Bee: $7.25/Hour
CEO: $725/Hour (100x Worker Bee)
Scenario #2:
Worker Bee: $15/Hour
CEO: $1000/Hour (67x Worker Bee)
Is the income inequality greater in scenario 1 or 2? Which would be a better goal for our society?
I would say #2 is better. The ratio should be irrelevant, what we want is to raise everyone's standard of living.
I would suggest scenario #3 would be more relevant:
Worker Bee: $17/Hour
CEO: $2000/Hour (118x Worker Bee)
In scenario #3 the inequality ratio is higher than #1, but I would argue Worker Bee is better off than in #1 which ought to be the measure. I would also argue that #3 is better than #2 in that Worker Bee is a little better off (certainly no worse off) but we are richer as a society. The higher inequality shouldn't matter.
ApatheticNoMore
3-20-13, 12:15pm
I would suggest scenario #3 would be more relevant:
Worker Bee: $17/Hour
CEO: $2000/Hour (118x Worker Bee)
Such wonderful increases can be yours just through the magic of inflation alone ...
But seriously I don't think worker bee is necessarily better off in this scenairo at all! It depends on if there are enough CEOs to basically set prices especially of basic things, not yaughts because really who cares, beyond the point where worker bees can afford it. What if rich investors buy up much of the housing stock for cash and two income worker bee struggles to find an appropriate house they can take out a mortgage on (scenario may be modeled on actual events). What if the end result threatens to transfer most claims of home ownership to rich or corporate investors rather than individuals? Is that the American dream? Maybe it is, I don't know. What if not the CEO but a doctor earns 118 times worker bee. Hey, a hard working doctor who spent decades in school who can have a problem with this? Well actually, yes, if it gets to the point worker bee can no longer afford to go to the doctor it *IS* a problem! (never mind if he's funding some CEO in his medical bill as well). What if CEOs use their money to buy up politicians, get subsidies by it, pass off the cost of their operations (environmental, financial, legal etc..) on to everyone else but them including worker bee, own the media and buy endless propaganda to distract from this fact - so even the most blatent of criminality is near hidden, and worker bee looks at his puny paycheck and the situation and knows he has no political voice (scenario may be modeled on actual events). No, it's a disaster, which the masses having more access to IPads (all richer - in rare earth metals and so on!) doesn't make up for.
I recently heard/read that in the past--pre-Reagan Revolution--as productivity increased, so did average hourly wage to the degree that if the trend had continued, the average wage would now be $33 an hour. I wonder what the economy would look like given that alternative reality.
What about this...
Scenario #1:
Worker Bee: $7.25/Hour
CEO: $725/Hour (100x Worker Bee)
Scenario #2:
Worker Bee: $15/Hour
CEO: $1000/Hour (67x Worker Bee)
Is the income inequality greater in scenario 1 or 2? Which would be a better goal for our society?
It's a two-way street - people are not just being paid, they are generating wealth for the company:
Scenario #1:
Worker Bee: $7.25/Hour (generate $30/hr to company)
CEO: $725/Hour (100x Worker Bee) (generate $850/hr to company)
Scenario #2:
Worker Bee: $15/Hour (generate $30/hr to company)
CEO: $1000/Hour (67x Worker Bee) (generate $850/hr to company)
Is the income inequality greater in scenario 1 or 2? Which would be a better goal for our society?
I recently heard/read that in the past--pre-Reagan Revolution--as productivity increased, so did average hourly wage to the degree that if the trend had continued, the average wage would now be $33 an hour. I wonder what the economy would look like given that alternative reality.I believe that came from Senator Warren's Q&A session with an economist and several business owners, although I don't recall any mention of Reagan in the questioning.
As I listened, I was struck by how the good Senator and her hand picked economist left the laws of supply and demand out of the equation, as if automation through technology had no impact on the various economies of scale they highlighted.
She also used numbers as they related to McDonalds to enquire why a small business owner in the fast food industry couldn't pay their help 3 to 4 times what they currently do. I'm not sure she understood his explanation about the disparity in efficiencies between the average business owner and the super chains.
Overall, I think her numbers were flawed.
It's a two-way street - people are not just being paid, they are generating wealth for the company:
Some clever fellow once wrote a couple of influential books on this problem:
"Surplus-value and the rate of surplus-value are... the invisible essence to be investigated, whereas the rate of profit and hence the form of surplus-value as profit are visible surface phenomena"
I believe that came from Senator Warren's Q&A session with an economist and several business owners, although I don't recall any mention of Reagan in the questioning.
...
That was it. I believe she cited "since the eighties," and perhaps because I consider All Things Evil sprang from the Reagan administration*, I just extrapolated from that.
*note slight hyperbole
Yes, there is economic inequality in that model, as any difference in earnings is by definition unequal. But as expressed there is nothing necessarily wrong with that,Only if you assume the scenarios are made up of utterly unrelated people instead of the only rational interpretation for two scenarios presented in this manner, in this thread, i.e., direct alternatives for the distribution of the value from the work of a unit of people. That's why it is pretty pointless talking in terms of vacuous scenarios, especially when we have real work examples, i.e., CEO versus line worker, for a company, and available data to compare the present day level of inequality to the level of inequality from twenty, thirty, forty and fifty years ago. Not to mention the data that shows this same situation and change at the macro level.
It still strikes me that any talk of distribution or re-distribution is a farce. I do agree that a great concentration of resources in a few hands can be, and usually is, problematic. But the wealthy at the top probably don't want to give up what they have and no one has the right to take if from them. Since wealth is not static, not zero sum, the logical, everyone wins, no one gets hurt scenario is to make the tools of wealth creation available to as many people as possible in the lower socio-economic tiers and let them build their own. Give people what they need to raise the floor. Government can do that to a degree, but it can not and should not try to do the actual work for us (IMO) beyond placing the basic safety nets already discussed. People need choices and unobstructed opportunities. Some will pick up the ball and run with it, some will stay home and watch TV. That's just how people are. As long as the opportunities are present and the barriers are not we will have done our job.
What about this...
Scenario #1:
Worker Bee: $7.25/Hour
CEO: $725/Hour (100x Worker Bee)
Scenario #2:
Worker Bee: $15/Hour
CEO: $1000/Hour (67x Worker Bee)
Is the income inequality greater in scenario 1 or 2? Which would be a better goal for our society?
It shouldn't matter if CEO makes a million an hour - the goal should be to ensure that the worker bees make a livable wage, have affordable healthcare, and be able to pursue a very modest version of the American dream. And that those who are deeply impoverished and lack the opportunities to improve their circumstances should be helped via tax payer supported govmint social programs like education and job training (not just giving them money) so that they can become worker bees and earn a livable wage to be self-supporting in a modest fashion. Why should everyone be able to live like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet? Why should Bill Gates or Warren Buffet have their income reduced so thay can live like working class me?
Only if you assume the scenarios are made up of utterly unrelated people instead of the only rational interpretation for two scenarios presented in this manner, in this thread, i.e., direct alternatives for the distribution of the value from the work of a unit of people. That's why it is pretty pointless talking in terms of vacuous scenarios, especially when we have real work examples, i.e., CEO versus line worker, for a company, and available data to compare the present day level of inequality to the level of inequality from twenty, thirty, forty and fifty years ago. Not to mention the data that shows this same situation and change at the macro level.
Sure, our examples are simplified for the sake of discussion, but if you can't even discuss your view in a simplified context then there isn't much hope of figuring things out in a more complex setting. There are varying levels of inequality and income in the world. Our most commonly discussed comparrison is the US vs EU. More equality in the EU, but also 50% less income per person. Even on a median income basis it's 33% less per person. So you can be for more equality, but it may come at a price. Our last recession saw median income drop something like 6-7%, and that was painful. I don't think people really want to see it drop 33%.
No system is perfect, but overall we get a lot of benefit from having a dynamic system that rewards inititative, and that leads to more wealth for everyone. And yes I know some people prefer the choices on how to spend that wealth that some other countries make. Me too sometimes. But those are political or social issues, not necessarily economic ones. At the end of the day I think most people want to have a system that works for as many people as possible, but running around squawking "inequality!" with out looking at the drivers that provide the resources to create the society we want isn't really helping if you don't look at the big picture.
We have been talking about this issue on this forum for the 15 or so years I have been here. I'm sure we won't reach agreement today. Or probably in the next 15 years. But as it stands I don't think your view of the world or the economy as a fixed pie to be divided is either supported by any data or argument you've submitted, and it also runs contrary to my personal experience of working with entrepreneurs.
It still strikes me that any talk of distribution or re-distribution is a farce. I do agree that a great concentration of resources in a few hands can be, and usually is, problematic. But the wealthy at the top probably don't want to give up what they have and no one has the right to take if from them.But that's actually the difference between distribution and re-distribution, in the context of this discussion. As thing are now, our society does indeed empower its government to apply measures that effectively (though not directly) affect distribution. It is true that, at least with regard to financial assets (i.e., "savings"), our society has not empowered its government to apply measures that effectively re-distribute.
Since wealth is not static, not zero sum,However income is zero-sum, specifically because the difference between wealth and income is the difference between savings and earnings, between enduring and of-an-instant.
the logical, everyone wins, no one gets hurt scenario is to make the tools of wealth creation available to as many people as possible in the lower socio-economic tiers and let them build their own. Give people what they need to raise the floor.Though many in society resist all measures to have the economy to do as you suggest here, furnishing access to living wage jobs to all who seek them.
Government can do that to a degree, but it can not and should not try to do the actual work for us (IMO) beyond placing the basic safety nets already discussed.And those that perhaps are missing from the current system. Obvious gaps (read: health care) should not be allowed to remain just because one person decided to stick a post in the ground on a specific date and said, "No more improvement!"
Sure, our examples are simplified for the sake of discussionYou didn't simplify them: You trivialized them, making them irrelevant to the matters we're discussing.
but if you can't even discuss your view in a simplified context then there isn't much hope of figuring things out in a more complex setting.Which is bull. If you "simplify" something so much that it retains none of the critical relationships and correlations of what you're trying to model, then you've reduced the example into triviality.
There are varying levels of inequality and income in the world.Correct, and it used to be better in this country, and now it is worse. You want simple? There it is. If all you want to discuss is the simple things, then discuss that.
No system is perfect, but overall we get a lot of benefit from having a dynamic system that rewards inititative, and that leads to more wealth for everyone.And at the level of inequality of the 1960s we sent spaceships to the moon for the first time. Are you saying that that wasn't an impressive enough feat for you? Nonsense.
At the end of the day I think most people want to have a system that works for as many people as possible, but running around squawking "inequality!" with out looking at the drivers that provide the resources to create the society we want isn't really helping if you don't look at the big picture.Economic inequality is just one of many matters of interest. The reality is that your contentions are all supported only by ignoring all factors other than the one factor that you care about, while I'm advocating a balancing between moral and financial factors.
But as it stands I don't think your view of the world or the economy as a fixed pie to be divided...You couldn't resist lying about my perspective yet one more time, could you?
ROTFLMAO.
Back to back posts:
Originally Posted by Yossarian http://www.simplelivingforum.net/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.simplelivingforum.net/showthread.php?p=134698#post134698) But as it stands I don't think your view of the world or the economy as a fixed pie to be divided...
You couldn't resist lying about my perspective yet one more time, could you?
However income is zero-sum
If you don't mean what you say I'd invite you to be more articulate, but your manners aren't very conducive to further conversation.
Good day.
I've already outlined the difference between income and wealth. You appear to be uninterested in what I have to say.
I'd like to call a brief time-out, to offer a reflection: this topic is really hard to discuss in this format! I so wish we could all be in the same room, as I'd love to hear more from each person posting, with the benefits of body language, in-person affect, and perhaps sharing a meal, a cuppa, beer, wine, tea coffee, whatev. I love the passion that everyone has exhibited. Thank you for being part of a powerful online community, and for caring about our country as we all do. Every time there is an intense convo with strong positions on many sides, I am reminded of how grateful I am to live in a pluralistic country, with the ability to speak our minds freely.
Ok, time out over...
I'd like to call a brief time-out, to offer a reflection: this topic is really hard to discuss in this format! I so wish we could all be in the same room, as I'd love to hear more from each person posting, with the benefits of body language, in-person affect, and perhaps sharing a meal, a cuppa, beer, wine, tea coffee, whatev. I love the passion that everyone has exhibited. Thank you for being part of a powerful online community, and for caring about our country as we all do. Every time there is an intense convo with strong positions on many sides, I am reminded of how grateful I am to live in a pluralistic country, with the ability to speak our minds freely.
Ok, time out over...I want a pink fruity rum cocktail with an umbrella please :-)!!
Whisky for me. And what the hell, put it in a dirty glass.
Though many in society resist all measures to have the economy to do as you suggest here, furnishing access to living wage jobs to all who seek them.
"Living wage jobs" are at once an admirable goal and a tool of repression. Taken literally, a job that pays enough to live, its not much different than a welfare state in which people are handed just enough every month to insure survival, but have no hope of ever getting off the treadmill. We should be able to do better than that.
ApatheticNoMore
3-20-13, 7:21pm
"Living wage jobs" are at once an admirable goal and a tool of repression.
Only to the extent jobs are. J.O.B.S., why yes it is a 4 letter word (and those last two letters .... *blushes*). But really if your job doesn't pay you enough to have a few basics *of course* you want a "living wage job"!
I could see how it could be a tool of repression if imposed from top down (and very little from top down is strictly about the workers - um duh - nothing happens there that much more powerful interests don't have a hand in - so whose interest are *really* likely to get served?). Although yes, ceteris paribus, an economy with more living wage jobs would likely be positive for employees and most people in general (except if the point is to keep down wages). From bottom up (unions striking for living wages etc..)? No, of course that's not a tool of repression, very far from it.
Whisky for me. And what the hell, put it in a dirty glass.
"Living wage jobs" are at once an admirable goal and a tool of repression. Taken literally, a job that pays enough to live, its not much different than a welfare state in which people are handed just enough every month to insure survival, but have no hope of ever getting off the treadmill. We should be able to do better than that.
Why give people just enough every month to insure survival in exchange for their labor, if you can give them less?
"Living wage jobs" are at once an admirable goal and a tool of repression.We'll have to agree to disagree with the latter half of that. We're talking about people working for the money. Not doing nothing. Not sitting at home watching soaps. Working. No employer should expect to be able to exploit the work of others without those others receiving a living wage. If anything in this regard is a tool of repression, it is the claims that requiring jobs to pay a living wage would somehow magically eliminate the demand for the work that is currently done by workers being exploited through being paid less than a living wage. When talking about such exploitation, if an employer could do without paying even an inadequate wage, then they would. For exploiters, less cost is less cost.
Right now I am very concerned about the hundreds of thousands who are caught in the not full time and not really part time jobs. Being on call or on crazy schedules so another job can be found to fill out the time and yet being given less than 30 hours per week at the whim of the employer.
I don't know about that, Jane! The Founding Fathers went to some trouble to protect their status as the wealthy literate powermongers, by stringently restricting the vote to those whose vested interests would tend to them keep voting the right way. Voters had to be free, white, male, over 21, and be property owners with a minimum amount of property... those lacking these qualifications had no voice and often no legal rights...There was a huge amount of social snobbery among the Founding Fathers too - not a whole lot of Mr. and Mrs. Joe Publics invited to their jollifications or political deliberations. Then there's the problem of slavery and the very free hand with violence in slaughter and dispossession of the Native Americans whose treaties were violated, often violently, as soon as their lands were wanted.
I don't know about that, Jane! The Founding Fathers went to some trouble to protect their status as the wealthy literate powermongers, by stringently restricting the vote to those whose vested interests would tend to them keep voting the right way. Voters had to be free, white, male, over 21, and be property owners with a minimum amount of property... those lacking these qualifications had no voice and often no legal rights...There was a huge amount of social snobbery among the Founding Fathers too - not a whole lot of Mr. and Mrs. Joe Publics invited to their jollifications or political deliberations. Then there's the problem of slavery and the very free hand with violence in slaughter and dispossession of the Native Americans whose treaties were violated, often violently, as soon as their lands were wanted.
To give them credit though, they created a framework with checks and balances to prevent a single faction from running the country--or so they thought--and freed us from the yoke of monarchy.
Being on call or on crazy schedules so another job can be found to fill out the time and yet being given less than 30 hours per week at the whim of the employer.
Jim Hightower calls these "jobettes." And much of the so-called job creation consists of these minimum wage "jobettes" with little or no benefits.
We'll have to agree to disagree with the latter half of that.
Ok, so now I'm confused. I said people who have jobs that pay them only enough to live, as in to just stay alive, aren't really any better off than someone who is on welfare and only gets enough each month to survive. In my mind the worker might actually be worse off. But you disagree with that? "Living wage" is a meaningless term. Its meaningless because its never been defined and never will be. Figure out what it costs to rent a safe and well kept place, purchase decent clothes, have a reasonably healthy diet, etc. and set the minimum wage at exactly that level and then you will have something that can clearly be defined as a living wage.
Personally I'd love to see leadership make a deal with corporate America. We will eliminate corporate taxes, but in return the minimum wage goes from $7.25 to $20.00. Sure, it would have a bigger impact on companies that hire mostly unskilled or low skill level workers, but the extra expense should largely be offset with the diminished tax bill. A hundred million or so Americans on the bottom rungs make almost three times more money. The federal government stays even because every dollar lost from company taxes is gained back from income taxes. If you want to help raise the floor you're going to need to use the "opponents" momentum to produce your outcome. Its the art of war (and a different thread).
gimmethesimplelife
3-21-13, 8:46pm
Ok, so now I'm confused. I said people who have jobs that pay them only enough to live, as in to just stay alive, aren't really any better off than someone who is on welfare and only gets enough each month to survive. In my mind the worker might actually be worse off. But you disagree with that? "Living wage" is a meaningless term. Its meaningless because its never been defined and never will be. Figure out what it costs to rent a safe and well kept place, purchase decent clothes, have a reasonably healthy diet, etc. and set the minimum wage at exactly that level and then you will have something that can clearly be defined as a living wage.
Personally I'd love to see leadership make a deal with corporate America. We will eliminate corporate taxes, but in return the minimum wage goes from $7.25 to $20.00. Sure, it would have a bigger impact on companies that hire mostly unskilled or low skill level workers, but the extra expense should largely be offset with the diminished tax bill. A hundred million or so Americans on the bottom rungs make almost three times more money. The federal government stays even because every dollar lost from company taxes is gained back from income taxes. If you want to help raise the floor you're going to need to use the "opponents" momentum to produce your outcome. Its the art of war (and a different thread).Gregg I gotta say I really like and respect your idea here, it shows creativity and thinking out of the box. I am a big believer in the welfare state BUT if workers could seriously be paid at such a level, I would be ok with a much more sink or swim type of system.....Rob
Ok, so now I'm confused.You're confused because I objected to trying to pass-off living wage as a "tool of repression" - because I objected to your using over-the-top prejudicial language that has no real foundation in the context you're using it? If that's really true, and you're not just struggling to find something to say in response, then it would seem we have no common basis on which to discuss the matter. In order to appreciate the point, you need to have empathy for the working poor, earning wages at a rate which is an offensively small fraction of that earned by the executives they report up through to. Living wage laws would reverse the fifty year trend toward increasing unfairness, during which income inequality has doubled in this country.
I said people who have jobs that pay them only enough to live, as in to just stay alive, aren't really any better off than someone who is on welfare and only gets enough each month to survive. In my mind the worker might actually be worse off. But you disagree with that?Yes, I disagree that they might actually be worse off.
"Living wage" is a meaningless term. Its meaningless because its never been defined and never will be.Except, of course, you then went ahead and provided a definition for it of your own:
Figure out what it costs to rent a safe and well kept place, purchase decent clothes, have a reasonably healthy diet, etc. and set the minimum wage at exactly that level and then you will have something that can clearly be defined as a living wage.So given that conflict between that one sentence and those that followed, I suppose now I'm "confused".
Personally I'd love to see leadership make a deal with corporate America. We will eliminate corporate taxes, but in return the minimum wage goes from $7.25 to $20.00.Make that $20.00 indexed to the CPI-U, make the first $40k of income free from federal income tax, and leave the ACA subsidies in place, and I'll hold the other side of that banner, with you. However, in the struggle of economic fairness, you have to work with the society we've got, and respect the fact that there are many folks within it that will object more strongly to such a radical expression of human decency. Just getting to a living wage will be difficult enough.
Gregg I gotta say I really like and respect your idea here, it shows creativity and thinking out of the box. I am a big believer in the welfare state BUT if workers could seriously be paid at such a level, I would be ok with a much more sink or swim type of system.....Rob
Rob, in no way do I advocate removing safety nets or any kind of assistance for someone in need. There is no way to simply abolish poverty or other situations that cause people to need help. When that happens the rest of us should be there to to lend support. I consider that an axiom in a successful society. There will always be a few that sink no matter what. If its by their own design, fine, otherwise the approach should be swim or grab a life preserver until you get to shallow water.
Personally I'd love to see leadership make a deal with corporate America. We will eliminate corporate taxes, but in return the minimum wage goes from $7.25 to $20.00. Sure, it would have a bigger impact on companies that hire mostly unskilled or low skill level workers, but the extra expense should largely be offset with the diminished tax bill. A hundred million or so Americans on the bottom rungs make almost three times more money. The federal government stays even because every dollar lost from company taxes is gained back from income taxes. If you want to help raise the floor you're going to need to use the "opponents" momentum to produce your outcome. Its the art of war (and a different thread).
Wouldn't that level of interference in the markets generate a rush into automation and manufacturing outsourcing?
You're confused because I objected to trying to pass-off living wage as a "tool of repression" - because I objected to your using over-the-top prejudicial language that has no real foundation in the context you're using it? If that's really true, and you're not just struggling to find something to say in response, then it would seem we have no common basis on which to discuss the matter. In order to appreciate the point, you need to have empathy for the working poor, earning wages at a rate which is an offensively small fraction of that earned by the executives they report up through to. Living wage laws would reverse the fifty year trend toward increasing unfairness, during which income inequality has doubled in this country.
Nothing prejudicial about it (my statement, that is). It doesn't matter to me what executives make because their pay is not coming out of the pockets of the working poor. The minimum wage has the same effect on the working poor that survival level payouts have on people stuck in the welfare system. It creates a treadmill. People earning minimum wage have almost no chance to get ahead without some significant change in their situation. Barring the opportunity to get an education, start their own business or buy a winning lottery ticket their situation will not improve. They will remain stagnant, held in place by economic forces beyond their control. I consider that a form of repression. You don't. Fair enough.
Yes, I disagree that they might actually be worse off.
I think the working poor might actually be worse off because their situation is really no better than someone who receives welfare. But one of them has to work, often in a very physical fashion, to earn a check that is too small to meet all their needs. Not to say that the other is eating the proverbial bon bons, but they are not expected to bust their hump to earn a check that is too small to meet all their needs.
Make that $20.00 indexed to the CPI-U, make the first $40k of income free from federal income tax, and leave the ACA subsidies in place, and I'll hold the other side of that banner, with you. However, in the struggle of economic fairness, you have to work with the society we've got, and respect the fact that there are many folks within it that will object more strongly to such a radical expression of human decency. Just getting to a living wage will be difficult enough.
Yes, an effective change to the minimum wage laws would have to be indexed to hold water for more than a few weeks. Simple enough.
I was thinking, and have said before, that no taxes of any kind should be taken from checks until a person's earnings cross the poverty line from the previous year. Either way, it appears there is some consensus that such a line should be established.
Healthcare is obviously a deep concern for everyone. We have never come to an agreement regarding the best way to get everyone covered in these forums, let alone in the country. All bickering about whether it is a right or a service and all the other talking points aside, I think everyone here believes everyone else should have access to healthcare. We'll just have to keep working out the details.
However, in the struggle of economic fairness, you have to work with the society we've got, and respect the fact that there are many folks within it that will object more strongly to such a radical expression of human decency. Just getting to a living wage will be difficult enough.
Maybe its about time we start to work to change the society we've got.
Wouldn't that level of interference in the markets generate a rush into automation and manufacturing outsourcing?
Possibly LDAHL, but I'm not really sure how setting a minimum wage at $20 is any more of an interference than setting one at $7 is. And I think the trend toward automation and outsourcing of our manufacturing has been going on for quite a while already. We are now a service economy after all. I'm as far from being an economist as you can get, but it seems like the elimination of a corporate tax structure might make a US base very attractive for a lot of companies, especially those with a workforce that is paid above the minimum wage anyway. Wouldn't that lead to the creation of more and better jobs?
iris lily
3-22-13, 10:26am
Possibly LDAHL, but I'm not really sure how setting a minimum wage at $20 is any more of an interference than setting one at $7 is...
It about 3 times the interference for you non-accountant types.;)
Possibly LDAHL, but I'm not really sure how setting a minimum wage at $20 is any more of an interference than setting one at $7 is. And I think the trend toward automation and outsourcing of our manufacturing has been going on for quite a while already. We are now a service economy after all. I'm as far from being an economist as you can get, but it seems like the elimination of a corporate tax structure might make a US base very attractive for a lot of companies, especially those with a workforce that is paid above the minimum wage anyway. Wouldn't that lead to the creation of more and better jobs?
I think we need to be careful not to let the tail wag the dog when it comes to taxes. Even if taxes were a complete non-issue, you would still need to get twenty an hour (plus benefits and overhead costs) worth of value out of that labor before you broke even. I would think firms that rely heavily on low-skilled labor would have a real problem maintaining their business models under those circumstances.
ApatheticNoMore
3-22-13, 11:41am
Make that $20.00 indexed to the CPI-U, make the first $40k of income free from federal income tax
That's a lot of income to leave tax free even in a high cost of living area.
I think we need to be careful not to let the tail wag the dog when it comes to taxes. Even if taxes were a complete non-issue, you would still need to get twenty an hour (plus benefits and overhead costs) worth of value out of that labor before you broke even. I would think firms that rely heavily on low-skilled labor would have a real problem maintaining their business models under those circumstances.
While the $20/hour was just an arbitrary figure for example, I completely agree than an employee has to bring more value to the table than cost. If they don't there is no reason an employer would take them on and that won't change no matter what legislation is enacted. Overhead is another important consideration that many who focus on minimum wage overlook. In a company we had some years ago a $30/hour employee cost us right around $44/hour. An additional cost of almost 50% above salary matters to employers. Overall there should be a point of diminishing return that, when reached, would erode the workforce that the action was intended to bolster. I suppose that threshold would ultimately be market driven (how much are we willing to pay to have our hamburger flipped or our hotel room cleaned every day?). It would be interesting to see where the line ended up.
It doesn't matter to me what executives make because their pay is not coming out of the pockets of the working poor.I'd like to try this again: I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about that: While there may not be a strong relationship between how much a specific executive gets paid and how much the working poor working for that executive get paid, there is a well-documented, fifty-plus-year trend directing wealth away from the working poor and a trend directing wealth into the hands of those who are already affluent.
The minimum wage has the same effect on the working poor that survival level payouts have on people stuck in the welfare system.Here's another opportunity to try it again: I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about that: I feel that the treadmill effect you refer to is political propaganda with regard to the specific issues I raised, and you yourself alluded to in your own suggestion (the one for which I volunteered to hold the other side of the banner, subject to terms and conditions). Reasonable people disagree about the effect of what is essentially the eliminating of the exploitation of the working poor and the shifting to a system whereby they receive a living wage. I believe that such changes will result in a significant net-positive.
People earning minimum wage have almost no chance to get ahead without some significant change in their situation.True. (Credit where credit is due.) When I think about adding subtle nuances in, I've typically termed that which is needed as, "enough to afford the basics and a little bit more".
Barring the opportunity to get an education, start their own business or buy a winning lottery ticket their situation will not improve.Highlighting the living wage as a necessary but not sufficient condition.
I think the working poor might actually be worse off because their situation is really no better than someone who receives welfare.The living wage would be superior, by definition if necessary. If someone considers the welfare rate to be a living wage, then we simply have something else to disagree about.
I was thinking, and have said before, that no taxes of any kind should be taken from checks until a person's earnings cross the poverty line from the previous year. Either way, it appears there is some consensus that such a line should be established.Maybe a limited consensus, but I can assure you that, out there in the wild, the idea that there should be any (what I would consider reasonable) income threshold below which workers shouldn't be taxed is routinely and viciously attacked. I believe in the Senate, especially, we'd see even just a few people hold the entire nation hostage to get their way in that regard. In another forum, the related subject of a flat tax came up, and someone suggested that the threshold should be $32k for a typical family. I threw the number $75k into the mix, as an equally extreme perspective in the opposite direction, and it caused the very predictable response, even I offered to come down a bit if the other side would negotiate in good faith, in that regard. ;)
Healthcare is obviously a deep concern for everyone. We have never come to an agreement regarding the best way to get everyone covered in these forums, let alone in the country. All bickering about whether it is a right or a service and all the other talking points aside, I think everyone here believes everyone else should have access to healthcare. We'll just have to keep working out the details.You're more optimistic than I am. I see people on both sides of all these issues who simply aren't willing to move off of the spot they are on right now - though to be fair, far more people, and far more intransigence, on one side: I ask them whether they really are advocating for a return to less affluent people dying in the streets and such, and don't get a reply. Their perspective seem to be that the ramifications aren't part of the discussion. <shrug>
Maybe its about time we start to work to change the society we've got.That's what this all is, but when you change society, you have to, as I said, work with the society we've got. We can aim for a goal, but we cannot just hop the tracks onto the new path.
I'm as far from being an economist as you can get, but it seems like the elimination of a corporate tax structure might make a US base very attractive for a lot of companies, especially those with a workforce that is paid above the minimum wage anyway. Wouldn't that lead to the creation of more and better jobs?
Given the exploitative tendencies of the folks we're talking about, I think it would be fair to assume that if you offer dessert without making the eating of vegetables a prerequisite, that those folks will just elect to exploit the dessert. In other words, the relief from corporate taxation would necessarily need to be tied to domestic employment, or there wouldn't be any benefit for the nation realized.
I think we need to be careful not to let the tail wag the dog when it comes to taxes. Even if taxes were a complete non-issue, you would still need to get twenty an hour (plus benefits and overhead costs) worth of value out of that labor before you broke even. I would think firms that rely heavily on low-skilled labor would have a real problem maintaining their business models under those circumstances.Maybe $20 per hour isn't the right number for all circumstances, but the question is whether it is better for society to have businesses paying people $7 an hour and effectively dumping those working poor into society without the means to afford the basics ("and a little bit more"), thereby establishing them as a financial burden on society (to which there is a significant cost, of course), or better to force those industries earning profits by exploiting the ability to capitalize on a system that furnishes it labor at a price lower than what is necessary for those workers to afford the basics ("and a little bit more") to switch to a different business model that reflect a more conscientious and responsible use of the labor society makes available to that business.
I'd like to try this again: I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about that: While there may not be a strong relationship between how much a specific executive gets paid and how much the working poor working for that executive get paid, there is a well-documented, fifty-plus-year trend directing wealth away from the working poor and a trend directing wealth into the hands of those who are already affluent.
I don't get overly concerned with top executive pay because it is rarely the executives who set the pay scale (in publicly traded companies anyway). The board of directors usually handles that and they have a fiduciary duty to the shareholders who own the company. If the owners of a company think the CEO is worth $XX million/year who am I to argue, its their money?
It may only be a matter of semantics, but my thought is that it is the creation of new wealth that has trended into fewer hands. The important difference is that this recognizes that wealth is not static. That is important because it means wealth can be created for a much larger group than just the top brass. If that's true then the only thing we need to redistribute is opportunity* because the money automatically follows it. A broad brush stroke to be sure, but creating something new sidesteps all those prickly little arguments about who has what, how unfair it is, how the government should play Robin Hood, etc.
*Opportunity to get an education, not go to sleep hungry, find quality housing, receive healthcare, stay warm in the winter, pursue happiness, etc. All the same things that should be available with your "living wage".
there is a well-documented, fifty-plus-year trend directing wealth away from the working poor and a trend directing wealth into the hands of those who are already affluent.I don't get overly concerned with top executive payBut what do you feel about the comment you replied to?
It may only be a matter of semantics, but my thought is that it is the creation of new wealth that has trended into fewer hands.The contention that only "new wealth" accounts for the doubling of economic inequality in a generation would require a substantive proof, to be given any credence.
Maybe $20 per hour isn't the right number for all circumstances, but the question is whether it is better for society to have businesses paying people $7 an hour and effectively dumping those working poor into society without the means to afford the basics ("and a little bit more"), thereby establishing them as a financial burden on society (to which there is a significant cost, of course), or better to force those industries earning profits by exploiting the ability to capitalize on a system that furnishes it labor at a price lower than what is necessary for those workers to afford the basics ("and a little bit more") to switch to a different business model that reflect a more conscientious and responsible use of the labor society makes available to that business.
If you force a business to spend more on labor than is justified by what that labor can produce, it simply won't (and shouldn't) make the investment.
If you force a business to spend more on labor than is justified by what that labor can produce, it simply won't (and shouldn't) make the investment.
If you increase the cost of a plastic spoon to be comparable to a silver spoon, the market for plastic spoons will evaporate. Not all spoons are created equal.
The contention that only "new wealth" accounts for the doubling of economic inequality in a generation would require a substantive proof, to be given any credence.
In the past thirty years, the US GDP has tripled from around $5T to approx $15T. That's a lot of new wealth.
If you increase the cost of a plastic spoon to be comparable to a silver spoon, the market for plastic spoons will evaporate. Not all spoons are created equal.
Thank goodness!
The contention that only "new wealth" accounts for the doubling of economic inequality in a generation would require a substantive proof, to be given any credence.
See what Alan said above. Ok, so not all wealth factors into GDP. In your example of the past 50 years you give a starting point. Set the scale to zero in 1963 and any wealth created from that point forward IS new wealth. The new rich and the new wealth are not necessarily the same thing, maybe that is a source of confusion. New dividends paid on old money is new money. It also pays to remember that there has been an incredible breadth of wealth created in those same 50 years. The US millionaire count is up somewhere close to 6 million people. It doesn't do much for the bottom percentages, but it certainly proves that wealth can be created by someone outside the Brahman caste.
That is important because it means wealth can be created for a much larger group than just the top brass.
Greg, I agree with what you say so I hate to throw gas on the fire, but part of the problem with this discussion is that it is so provincial. To figure out the full benefit you have to figure out who is your "group"? There have been changes over the last 30 years, but rather than producing an increase in inequality, there has been a redistribution that, by many measures, has decreased inequality.
I know I get a lot of crap here for saying non-Americans are people too, but the shift has really been to raise the incomes of the poor. It's just that most of the poor don't live in the US.
https://americancenturyblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/urbanwages_wh.gif
And it is not just China, wages have gone up in places that have learned how to compete globally, not so much in protectionist countries or developed countries (e.g. the US).
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---asia/---ro-bangkok/---ilo-hanoi/documents/image/wcms_195281.jpg
There is a lot of new growth leading to new wealth
http://www.accenture.com/SiteCollectionImages/Research_and_Insights/Accenture-Age-aggregation-10.11-Growth-engines_v2.jpg
And that leads to many people rising from poverty into the "middle class" that we claim to favor.
http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/images/graphics/2011/0523-weekly/the-global-middle-class-wave/10154981-1-eng-US/The-global-middle-class-wave_full_600.jpg
If you force a business to spend more on labor than is justified by what that labor can produce, it simply won't (and shouldn't) make the investment.And perhaps that capital will go toward fostering a business that will pay a living wage. Win win.
In the past thirty years, the US GDP has tripled from around $5T to approx $15T. That's a lot of new wealth.Casually-expressed correlation is not causation.
See what Alan said above.See what I said in response. We're going to have to agree to disagree until you present proof of causation.
The US millionaire count is up somewhere close to 6 million people. It doesn't do much for the bottom percentagesWhich is of course what we were talking about.
OMG, data. <faints>Unfortunately, the percentage data doesn't project what will happen within the United States in absolute terms. We know that the percentage share of consumption will decrease radically, thereby resulting in the United States having far less say about what is produced with the available resources, but that's a minor concern as compared to what the burgeoning financial power of other nations' consumers will have vis a vis American's buying power today.
Furthermore, as offensively as the poverty situation has been swept under the rug in this country over the last fifty years, it boggles the mind how things will go over the next fifty years, given that this increase in financial power in other nations will preclude the United States from exploiting its business relationships with those other nations as it has in the past, to bolster our own standard of living. Does China want a large portion of that almost-two trillion dollars of GDP growth being shipped off to the United States, to purchase goods and services from here? Definitely not.
So while all this growth is great, we can expect that the vast majority of the benefits of that growth will be realized by those emerging economies themselves, economies that are far more (for lack of a better term) liberal about their use of central coordination to both protect and foster their own standard of living and foster broad-based realization of benefits from foreign markets. With the exception of Russia, none of the six countries listed in the third chart are as likely as the US has been to foster policies that foster concentration of wealth at the expense of broad-based growth of wealth.
And remember: It isn't about, as LDAHL tried to deceive us into thinking, making it impossible for business to justify the cost of labor. Quite the opposite really: It's about making paying a living wage part of the way to achieving gains with capital. If exploiters think they can make more profit investing in money market accounts, then they're crazy.
I know I get a lot of crap here for saying non-Americans are people too, but the shift has really been to raise the incomes of the poor. It's just that most of the poor don't live in the US.
After slapping my forehead and saying "duh" a few times I realized you're probably right about this Yos. Kind of the elephant in the room going forward, isn't it? I'm thinking our illustrious leaders are having as hard a time as I am shifting from provincial thinking to a more global pattern. I'm not sure how we derive a benefit for our lower economic tiers from India's growing middle class (for example) beyond trying to move some of their production back onshore, which sounds like a very cumbersome way to approach the issue.
Even those leaders who are aware and have reconciled themselves to the shift probably recognize that there is no way to build a campaign integrating this shift into proposed policy, because the American voter generally isn't ready to make the shift in their thinking.
A related article:
WHAT HAPPENED TO WAGES? March 20, 2013
http://visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2013/3/4/wages
And perhaps that capital will go toward fostering a business that will pay a living wage. Win win.
Perhaps, but isn't it more likely that capital will be allocated to funding a substitute for that labor; either through automation or finding a substitute labor source outside the reach of the "central coordinators"? And even if we were were to erect the regulatory or trade barriers that would make that more difficult, wouldn't that create a permanent flow of capital to more congenial climes?
Maybe it's time to look down the road a little bit. As a practical matter stemming the move toward automation is akin to holding back the tides. In the long run there is zero incentive for producers to allocate work to humans that can be accomplished by machines. Machines don't need healthcare, medicare, vacations, sick days, personal days, workman's comp, coffee breaks, social security, other retirement plans, bathrooms, maternity leaves, labor unions, training, incentive pay, bonuses, day care, a cafeteria or anything else beyond routine maintenance and the occasional repair. The living wage jobs of the future will be held by people that know how to fix machines, that can operate the machines that haven't been completely automated or by people who do something machines can't do. My guess is that the middle class will fit into those three categories. The top economic tiers will own the machines. The low skill/low wage segment of the workforce will be replaced by the machines at an ever increasing rate. If we don't open our minds to other possibilities regarding how to make the lower tier viable in our economy and instead continue on our present course they are S.O.L.
http://www.amazon.com/The-End-Work-Decline-Post-Market/dp/0874778247
This is a book I read in grad school. Published in 1995.
From Publishers Weekly"In this challenging report, social activist Rifkin (Biosphere Politics) contends that worldwide unemployment will increase as new computer-based and communications technologies eliminate tens of millions of jobs in the manufacturing, agricultural and service sectors. He traces the devastating impact of automation on blue-collar, retail and wholesale employees, with a chapter devoted to African Americans. While a small elite of corporate managers and knowledge workers reap the benefits of the high-tech global economy, the middle class continues to shrink and the workplace becomes ever more stressful, according to Rifkin. As the market economy and public sector decline, he forsees the growth of a "third sector"-voluntary and community-based service organizations-that will create new jobs with government support to rebuild decaying neighborhoods and provide social services. To finance this enterprise, he advocates scaling down the military budget, enacting a value-added tax on nonessential goods and services and redirecting federal and state funds to provide a "social wage" in lieu of welfare payments to third-sector workers."
A few years back, a local agricultural business I help own and operate decided to figure out how we could arrange things to pay our workers a living wage.
We streamlined operations somewhat, changed our cultivation practices, changed our marketing, mechanized a few production steps, and other textbook-type stuff.
Our product now costs twice as much, and still sells out every year, just to a very different market.
And we now pay our workers a living wage.
However, we have far fewer workers. The ones we have left are far more productive.
If they weren't, we'd be out of business, since unlike the Federal government, we have to balance our books and can't simply print more money.
flowerseverywhere
3-24-13, 2:57pm
Our product now costs twice as much, and still sells out every year, just to a very different market.
And we now pay our workers a living wage.
However, we have far fewer workers. The ones we have left are far more productive.
If they weren't, we'd be out of business, since unlike the Federal government, we have to balance our books and can't simply print more money.
how interesting. Your fewer workers sound like they have a good deal if they are willing to work hard. But it leaves the people who are not interested or unable to be hard productive workers out. Maybe the answer is that all through history there have been beggars, lazy people, drunkards, con men, layabouts etc. and no matter what you call them or how you feel about them or what the causes are there always will be some people who are not interested or maybe not able to do hard work.
Perhaps, but isn't it more likely that capital will be allocated to funding a substitute for that labor; either through automation or finding a substitute labor source outside the reach of the "central coordinators"?First, since automation is the cost-reduction gift that keeps on giving, there is almost no chance that automation will not be employed, in a situation it could be, regardless of the wage rates. Self-serve gasoline stations are the norm in 49 states, I believe. Banks charge more for walking up to teller rather than using the ATM. And we generally check ourselves out of the supermarket these days, never interacting with cashiers. None of these things were the case when I was born... how about you?
Second, the vast majority of jobs that fail to pay a living wage cannot be off-shored, so much so that I'd love for you to present a nice list of such jobs you think can be, to help the discussion along. I don't know about you, but I'm not traveling to Viet Nam to pick up my morning coffee, to buy groceries, etc. And the last instruction manual I leafed through that was written and edited in some other country was so devoid of cogency that there's really no risk there.
There is something to be said regarding farm wages, but I feel that reciprocal tariffs (charge them what they charge us) obviate some of those concerns. Regardless, I know a lot of people don't think about the fact that they're essentially eating someone else's misery, but that unfeeling nature is a moral failing that we should be looking to remedy, not reward. Sometimes, education is the best way to deal with such problems.
And even if we were were to erect the regulatory or trade barriers that would make that more difficult, wouldn't that create a permanent flow of capital to more congenial climes?We're still one of the largest markets in the world. When China start exporting rice to us while we're exporting rice to them, then we had better start thinking about waste on a global scale.
It's almost CSA season up here in the Northeast - our annual effort to get our neighbors to try to think about how much petroleum gets expended to keep the store shelves stocked with field greens. Foreign trade is good stuff, don't get me wrong, but sometimes we're better off keeping things local. Why are we the last nation, it seems, to do anything to protect its markets from being unilaterally raided by exploitative foreign players?
how interesting. Your fewer workers sound like they have a good deal if they are willing to work hard.
I don't think they are necessarily working harder, or more hours, rather, they are working much smarter, doing higher-value work with their hours.
I will note however that some hand operations, such as properly pruning grape vines, an experienced, skilled person can easily do 10x the work of an "OK" worker, and do a much better job of it. You may need to change your cultivation methods to allow this sort of skilled work to occur though. If you don't have access to such pruners, you may need to adopt methods more suitable for your "average" pruner to avoid damage.
I noticed the same thing when I was in engineering - some engineers were 10-20x more productive than their quite-good peers. And if you designed your processes around the average, you couldn't really make use of the super-productive people.
First, since automation is the cost-reduction gift that keeps on giving, there is almost no chance that automation will not be employed, in a situation it could be, regardless of the wage rates. Self-serve gasoline stations are the norm in 49 states, I believe. Banks charge more for walking up to teller rather than using the ATM. And we generally check ourselves out of the supermarket these days, never interacting with cashiers. None of these things were the case when I was born... how about you?
Second, the vast majority of jobs that fail to pay a living wage cannot be off-shored, so much so that I'd love for you to present a nice list of such jobs you think can be, to help the discussion along. I don't know about you, but I'm not traveling to Viet Nam to pick up my morning coffee, to buy groceries, etc. And the last instruction manual I leafed through that was written and edited in some other country was so devoid of cogency that there's really no risk there.
There is something to be said regarding farm wages, but I feel that reciprocal tariffs (charge them what they charge us) obviate some of those concerns. Regardless, I know a lot of people don't think about the fact that they're essentially eating someone else's misery, but that unfeeling nature is a moral failing that we should be looking to remedy, not reward. Sometimes, education is the best way to deal with such problems.
We're still one of the largest markets in the world. When China start exporting rice to us while we're exporting rice to them, then we had better start thinking about waste on a global scale.
It's almost CSA season up here in the Northeast - our annual effort to get our neighbors to try to think about how much petroleum gets expended to keep the store shelves stocked with field greens. Foreign trade is good stuff, don't get me wrong, but sometimes we're better off keeping things local. Why are we the last nation, it seems, to do anything to protect its markets from being unilaterally raided by exploitative foreign players?
Given the way technology is improving and American educational competiveness seems to be declining, I would thing saying it will be impossible to automate or outsource brewing your coffee, delivering your groceries or producing readable tech manuals has a certain "man-will-never-fly" aroma to it.
So what to do about the Eloi? I don't see interfering with markets is a good answer.
ApatheticNoMore
3-24-13, 4:49pm
So what to do about the Eloi? I don't see interfering with markets is a good answer.
Direct cash transfers on top of wages then really, earned income tries to do that, only it only applies to a subset of the working poor.
As the market economy and public sector decline, he forsees the growth of a "third sector"-voluntary and community-based service organizations-that will create new jobs with government support to rebuild decaying neighborhoods and provide social services. To finance this enterprise, he advocates scaling down the military budget, enacting a value-added tax on nonessential goods and services and redirecting federal and state funds to provide a "social wage" in lieu of welfare payments to third-sector workers."
Whether the market economy and public sector decline or not this is a logical assumption. Right now a lot of the folks who would end up in that third sector are not producing anything that benefits society (no blame, just how it is). That is not sustainable over the long haul so at some point we will have to figure out how to reverse it. The CCC and other work programs of the 1930's weren't perfect, but had significant benefits for the participants and for the country as a whole. It might just be time to move again in that general direction.
. . The CCC and other work programs of the 1930's weren't perfect, but had significant benefits for the participants and for the country as a whole. It might just be time to move again in that general direction.
My grandfather did construction for the WPA, and as for so many other families, it saved his from losing their home.
But today, that same construction work (dam building, etc.) uses a lot less labor and fewer jobs would actually be created.
I'd like to see the same work programs but with a green focus: training people to do semi-skilled work to retrofit houses and buildings to use less energy. win-win.
My grandfather did construction for the WPA, and as for so many other families, it saved his from losing their home.
But today, that same construction work (dam building, etc.) uses a lot less labor and fewer jobs would actually be created.
I'd like to see the same work programs but with a green focus: training people to do semi-skilled work to retrofit houses and buildings to use less energy. win-win.
Lainey, that plays directly into the automation discussion that's been going on. You're exactly right that similar work today requires much less labor than it did 80 years ago, but the other side of the coin is that we have so much more in the way of work that needs to be done than we did back then. Every aspect of our infrastructure needs work (much of it was built in the middle of the last century after all). It shouldn't be terribly difficult to prioritize what projects are most critically needed and what ones give the most bang for the buck to identify starting points.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.