[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2013-March-29, 06:18, said:

Yes, perhaps so Mike.

As far as financial inequality goes, again life used to be simpler. Growing up, I saw it as the corporations take care of making profits for the owners, the unions take care of the working man. This pretty much worked. Yes I saw On The Waterfront but all in all, as I saw the process in action, it worked. Somehow it's not working so well anymore. Globalization is the obvious culprit but that oversimplifies matters. Some forty years ago everyone was talking about converting from a manufacturing economy to a service economy. At that time I thought this meant that we would all become servants. Something to that, I think.

A guy who is willing to learn a skill and hold a job should be able to raise a family. If we start with that as the fundamental axiom, we might be able to prove some theorems.

Therein lies the argument for progressive rather than regressive tax policies.

[mike777]

I dont buy the study if it says that our standard of living is basically the same as 1966 for 90% of us.

btw I also just watched On the Waterfront last week.
Keep in mind the backstory which was his reaction to the liberal outrage and blacklisting in Hollywood due to his testimony to Congress.

[kenberg]

 mike777, on 2013-March-29, 10:40, said:

I dont buy the study if it says that our standard of living is basically the same as 1966 for 90% of us.

btw I also just watched On the Waterfront last week.
Keep in mind the backstory which was his reaction to the liberal outrage and blacklisting in Hollywood due to his testimony to Congress.

I know, but it was still a really good movie. Everyone knows the scene with Rod Steiger in the back seat of the car but my favorite line came from Eva Marie Saint.. Edie is telling Terry that he must go and leave her alone. He says something like "You know you love me". She replies "I didn't say I didn't love you, I said to leave me alone".

Anyway, back to the thread.

[awm]

There are big differences in family structure between now and the 1950s and 1960s. In those days, it seemed that one working adult could support a family of four or five at a reasonable level, even if the one working adult lacked a college education. This is very far from true today! In most two-parent families, both parents work. This enables them to obtain a reasonable standard of living (probably better than the one-working-parent homes of the 1950s and 1960s) but it has a lot of side effects since the kids are getting much less care/education at home. They become more reliant on school and/or daycare providers, meaning that modern schools often have to deal with issues that kids growing up with a parent caring for them full-time at home didn't present. Note that this problem is less of an issue for very affluent families which can afford good child-care (either one parent staying home, or a nanny).

This issue is compounded by the increase in single-parent households. There are a lot of causes for that, including high divorce rates, people waiting longer to marry (but not waiting longer to have sex), and high incarceration rates (especially of minorities for minor drug-related offenses).

It's certainly arguable that standards of living are still higher now, in part because of technological advances (no one had a computer in their home in the 1960s for example). However, if you look at things that are less tech-dependent like say: median age to purchase a house, median age to be free of debt, median retirement savings relative to income.... I think we are quite a bit behind the 1950s and 1960s.

While globalisation plays some role in this issue (globalisation is a net GDP positive but definitely hurts people in low-skill jobs) I would also blame: technological advances leading to automation of low-skill jobs, reduction in union membership and rights nationwide, replacement of defined-benefit pension plans with 401(k) type plans, high incarceration rates, vastly reduced tax rates on capital income and mega-corporations along with reduction in spending on infrastructure and public universities, refusal to provide birth control and accurate information about family planning to young people, exorbitant health care costs due to price opacity combined with government inaction sucking up money that could otherwise go to workers. There are probably some more things I could list.

[y66]

Easter Morning

by Jim Harrison

On Easter morning all over America
the peasants are frying potatoes in bacon grease.

We're not supposed to have "peasants"
but there are tens of millions of them
frying potatoes on Easter morning,
cheap and delicious with catsup.

If Jesus were here this morning he might
be eating fried potatoes with my friend
who has a '51 Dodge and a '72 Pontiac.

When his kids ask why they don't have
a new car he says, "these cars were new once
and now they are experienced."

He can fix anything and when rich folks
call to get a toilet repaired he pauses
extra hours so that they can further
learn what we're made of.

I told him that in Mexico the poor say
that when there's lightning the rich
think that God is taking their picture.
He laughed.

Like peasants everywhere in the history
of the world ours can't figure out why
they're getting poorer. Their sons join
the army to get work being shot at.

Your ideals are invisible clouds
so try not to suffocate the poor,
the peasants, with your sympathies.
They know that you're staring at them.

from Saving Daylight. © Copper Canyon Press, 2007.

[Winstonm]

I believe most people in the upper middle class on up do not realize how little money most people in lower classes actually make. Here is an article that deals with that subject.

[mycroft]

My cousin has determined that for the price of daycare for two, they can hire a live-in nanny, who will also make some meals, do some cleaning, and other housekeeping activities. Because they're a standard example of my family, she's probably treated better than most, not only the letter of the law and agreement being adhered to but reasonable allowances not actually required.

Yes, that's a "rich enough to..." solution; but how many of these "two-working parent" households have to find something - which costs something, even if it's "grandparents, can you help watch?" - for two children, too? I don't want to go back to the good old days where the only acceptable occupation for a woman was the MRS. degree; but similarly, I don't think "same family standard of living" applies when both have to work, even with the same amount of household buying power exists (and that likely hasn't either in general; the same amount of money, maybe).

[mike777]

 Winstonm, on 2013-April-01, 11:39, said:

I believe most people in the upper middle class on up do not realize how little money most people in lower classes actually make. Here is an article that deals with that subject.

Perhaps what surprises me the most about this subject is how many people can afford a car and a cell phone and all the related expenses that come with both of them.

I think people dont realize what life was like for most of us in 1966. We did not own a car, a phone, air cond, a washing machine, a dishwasher, a home. My mom did not have a nanny or grandparents to care for 4 kids. She went to work, made dinner or we might make dinner as we got older and somehow we survived.

For some posters to talk about having a nanny or affordable day care is naive at best to life in 1966.
For some posters to think mom did not work and pay all the bills is to have no idea about life in 1966.

[Winstonm]

The issue behind this issue is the value we as a society place on each other. There is no doubt that higher educated individuals for the most part contribute more value to society and therefore should be entitled to greater compensation. The question is how to share the wealth with the less fortunate. As we are dealing with a population of around 400 million in a huge area it seems best to utilize a national organization and national leadership - we just happen to have such an outfit and we call it the US federal government.

Of all the methods of sharing the wealth, national socialized healthcare would be the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people. If you think the young people who work at McDonalds or WalMart should die from untreated infections because they cannot afford to go to the doctor, then you will probably be staunchly opposed to the idea of national healthcare provided by progressive taxation policies.

If you view your neighbors as a fellow human beings, all equally valuable, you probably support the idea.

[mike777]

 Winstonm, on 2013-April-01, 14:53, said:

The issue behind this issue is the value we as a society place on each other. There is no doubt that higher educated individuals for the most part contribute more value to society and therefore should be entitled to greater compensation. The question is how to share the wealth with the less fortunate. As we are dealing with a population of around 400 million in a huge area it seems best to utilize a national organization and national leadership - we just happen to have such an outfit and we call it the US federal government.

Of all the methods of sharing the wealth, national socialized healthcare would be the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people. If you think the young people who work at McDonalds or WalMart should die from untreated infections because they cannot afford to go to the doctor, then you will probably be staunchly opposed to the idea of national healthcare provided by progressive taxation policies.

If you view your neighbors as a fellow human beings, all equally valuable, you probably support the idea.

I understand you and many others have this view regaring education, formal education and creating wealth.

I would put forth another idea. That of the risk taker or entrepreneur as the driving force of wealth or increasing the standard of living. That is not to disregard education which can be and is important. I do think government can play an important role such as enforcing and supporting private property rights.

I suppose the biggest difference when it comes to an expanding govt to help our fellow human beings is the whether you have faith that an expanding govt will not become fascist in many elements.

I hope I dont overgeneralize too much on this next point. But it is really my main point. Many view the risk taker or entrepreneur as the more likely to become fascist while many others view "too much govt" becoming so.

[kenberg]

This thread has led me to more discarded drafts than any other. It's tough to address some of these issues without sounding moralistic or naive. . To the best of my knowledge I am not regarded by others as lacking in proper concern for my fellow man. I was once called a Nazi, but it had to do with how I wanted to organize calculus final exams. Various events in my life have given me enough experience with the troubles of not having enough money so that I do not need to read any studies. But where we go from there is not so easy to see.


Events that are beyond individual control play a big role in creating poverty. But it is also caused, at times, by some really stupid behavior. A person who has only observed one of these causes and never observed the other has led a very sheltered life.

[Winstonm]

 mike777, on 2013-April-01, 15:08, said:

I understand you and many others have this view regaring education, formal education and creating wealth.

I would put forth another idea. That of the risk taker or entrepreneur as the driving force of wealth or increasing the standard of living. That is not to disregard education which can be and is important. I do think government can play an important role such as enforcing and supporting private property rights.

I suppose the biggest difference when it comes to an expanding govt to help our fellow human beings is the whether you have faith that an expanding govt will not become fascist in many elements.

I hope I dont overgeneralize too much on this next point. But it is really my main point. Many view the risk taker or entrepreneur as the more likely to become fascist while many others view "too much govt" becoming so.

I find it telling (and interesting) that you seem more concerned with risk of fascism than risk of thy neighbor suffering - and my understanding is that this difference in way of thinking is what divides conservative/liberal viewpoints. Recent research suggests conservatives tend to be concerned with security whereas liberals tend to be risk takers.

Myself, I don't worry about the risks of fascism - I'm concerned about good healthcare for everyone, not just those few who are lucky enough to afford it.

[mike777]

 Winstonm, on 2013-April-01, 17:25, said:

I find it telling (and interesting) that you seem more concerned with risk of fascism than risk of thy neighbor suffering - and my understanding is that this difference in way of thinking is what divides conservative/liberal viewpoints. Recent research suggests conservatives tend to be concerned with security whereas liberals tend to be risk takers.

Myself, I don't worry about the risks of fascism - I'm concerned about good healthcare for everyone, not just those few who are lucky enough to afford it.

I had not heard that being liberal means being more of a risk taker. If true great!

I just wonder about what Erasmus called ingratitudo vulgi, the ingratitude of the masses is increasing in the age of globalization and the internet.


http://en.wikipedia....iderius_Erasmus
As someone suggested perhaps we could have a National Entrepreneur Day to celebrate and honor risk takers. That may actually do more to fight inequality and pull others out of poverty than anything else we could do.

[Winstonm]

Here is a snippet that explains right/left psychology:

Quote

...there is a vast body of research from the field of psychology showing differences in personality and psychological needs between the average liberal and the average conservative. Most broadly, liberals seem to be more open to new experiences, to trying new things, and more tolerant of ambiguity, uncertainty, nuance and change. Conservatives are less open, with all that implies, but more conscientious, meaning they appreciate order and structure in their lives—being on time, driving to work the same way every day, keeping organized, and so on.

[mike777]

"Most broadly, liberals seem to be more open to new experiences, to trying new things, and more tolerant of ambiguity, uncertainty, nuance and change"


Now this guy sounds like a risk taker....just not sure if true of most liberals but ok......so I pause at using liberal or conservative but ok....


If being a liberal means you are comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty, I hope they keep this in mind the next time they want to spend money on a centrally run govt program rather than other options such as free capital markets run by risk takers.

[kenberg]

I associate risk-taking with my youth. My political views were fairly simple-minded at the time, and the risks that I took were not very well thought out either. The best that can be said is that despite my best efforts, I lived through it. Somehow, talking about risk-taking without the discussion of hoped for positive outcome seems odd.

[barmar]

Something else I've heard about on this subject is much more difficult income mobility has become.

Many of us in the US are 2-4 generations removed from immigrants (I'm 3 removed on my father's side, 2 on my mother's). Most of them came over very poor, but they worked hard and were able to send their children to college, and they made it into the middle class.

These days, if you grow up in a lower-class environment, it's much harder to raise yourself and your family out of poverty. This obviously adds to the income inequality problem: the rich get richer, but the poor stagnate.

[kenberg]

This lack of mobility, perceived and actual, is probably my single biggest concern with the economic structure. There is always the risk of getting too personal in these discussions, but the personal part is at the core of my views. I was born to an unmarried farm girl and adopted. My (adoptive) father came to this country in 1910 when he was ten, brought by his older brother who was 16. He finished eighth grade with his brother's help and went to work. My (adoptive) maternal grandfather came from Denmark. My mother ran away from home when she was fourteen or so.
Me, I have a Ph.D., a pretty easy life, and most of the hard stuff was my own damn fault.
I'm not sure that "Only in America" is entirely correct, but close to it.

Campers are supposed to pass the campsite on to the next campers in better condition than they found it. I think it applies here, on a larger scale, but how do we do it?

[akwoo]

I'm going to bring the aborted technology thread back in here.

I think we're just screwed here. Technology has simply made it so that there are people who due to their intelligence and education are thousands if not millions times as productive as others.

If the looming resource shortage is real, then it'll be in the interests of these people to get rid of everyone else and use the remaining resources and lots of automation to create a luxurious life for a few million, and the remaining six billion or so can just go starve themselves.

Besides the engineer overlords (which includes the businesspeople who organize their work), the ones who will survive are groups like the Amish who have voluntarily restricted their technology and resource use with concomitant restrictions on their standard of living - so that the resources they use will be so few that wiping them out won't be worth the trouble.

We're headed for a combination of Brave New World and Player Piano. The only question is how generous the welfare benefits for the 95% of society made redundant by automation will be.

[Cyberyeti]

 barmar, on 2013-April-02, 10:14, said:

Something else I've heard about on this subject is much more difficult income mobility has become.

Many of us in the US are 2-4 generations removed from immigrants (I'm 3 removed on my father's side, 2 on my mother's). Most of them came over very poor, but they worked hard and were able to send their children to college, and they made it into the middle class.

These days, if you grow up in a lower-class environment, it's much harder to raise yourself and your family out of poverty. This obviously adds to the income inequality problem: the rich get richer, but the poor stagnate.

It's very similar in the UK, although college fees are lower than in the US and obtaining government backed loans to go to university is pretty much automatic if you want them (don't know how this compares to the US). You only repay these loans if you earn a decent salary, and they're written off at a certain age (40 ?)

My great grandparents were all born in Eastern Europe, my grandparents all born in London, my parents were the first generation of their families to go to university, basically all sides of my family originally were small businessmen of varying sorts.

The problems in the UK are multifaceted:

Jobs that have never required a degree before now do.
Because of this, too many people go to university.
They emerge with massive debts which the salaries from the jobs that were not graduate jobs before won't repay.
The university courses have seriously dumbed down to cope with the people who shouldn't really have gone to university in the first place.
The government have cranked up the course fees to pay for the excess of people, they could be a lot more generous if there were less people there.
There is a widespread fear of being saddled with a student loan for 20 years, without understanding that if you don't get a decent job, you don't pay it back. This is putting off the people that university would enable to make the biggest move up socially.

A friend of the family (no longer with us, but would be about 75 now) wanted to go to university, but was told by his family to go out to work as they needed the money. He got a job as the office junior at a firm of solicitors. After being there a few years, they got him qualified as a lawyer, and he became a well known London solicitor. That would not happen now.