[pbleighton]

"How to do that and reduce "Moral Hazard" the negative consequences of overprotecting people from loses is a very important second step, but a second step."

Yes, but let's do step one first

In any case, the biggest, toughest issue here is about the gradual income loss of the bottom 70%, not the relatively small fraction of the long term unemployed.

Peter

[mike777]

1) Even in the much smaller town I live in now, since day one all the talk here on the local news is the school system. This city was the first city in the country to have forced busing. As a result private schools blossomed in every church and neighborhood. More than 30 years later there are still federal lawsuits brought by one group or another ongoing over this issue. Neverending lawsuits I add. Our local schools seem great, but I still notice many of our closest neighbors send their kids either to Christian schools and the two next to us to the Latin School about a mile away that costs 15-20 k per year for grammer school.

2) Ya I see economic mobility in my family and people I know. My Grandmother scrubbed toilets. My family did not own a car during much of my childhood. One girl I know quite well grew up without central plumbing, electricity, phones and coal dug out of the mountain for heat in the winter. No central plumbing means no indoor running water or toilets. Ya this was the USA. I had one relative live in caves in the 1940's during the Japanese occupation. So ya I see economic mobility.

3) Ya, I do wonder if IQ is the overriding factor..those under 100 compared to those over 100, or those over 150 etc....I thought I read somewhere of some studies on this years ago, but my memory is foggy at times.

[pbleighton]

" Our local schools seem great, but I still notice many of our closest neighbors send their kids either to Christian schools and the two next to us to the Latin School about a mile away that costs 15-20 k per year for grammer school."

Nice for them that they can afford it.

Relevant to the thread, too

Peter

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Mar 31 2007, 03:54 PM, said:

Quote

By Tony Pugh
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The percentage of poor Americans who are living in severe poverty has reached a 32-year high, millions of working Americans are falling closer to the poverty line and the gulf between the nation's "haves" and "have-nots" continues to widen.

What is the cause? Is there a cure?

If family members can go from living in a Cave to being rich enough to own their own personal computer in 2 generations, exactly what class struggle are we talking about here? If you are saying there is room for improvement ok but is that a debate for a cure or a cause?

If in one generation they go from outdoor toilets and no running water to indoor toilets and showers, does that count as a good start?

When I was a kid I had to eat my veggies because kids in China or India were starving, who tells their kids that now? Now they tell their kids to learn Chinese so they can get a job when they grow up. Is that not a good start?

That all sounds like something is working more than not working. And we all have more to give to those that need a bit of help.

[Winstonm]

As I have said before, I cannot debate with this elite group on even footing as far as scholarly considerations are concerned, so I must voice what to me makes logical sense and ask the group for either verification (or in the case of Richard, vilification ) of my positions.

If one were to take what was termed "Reaganomics" or "Trickle Down Theory", where higher incomes are rewarded via tax benefits, it seems to me this would work within a closed-end system, i.e., an isolationist/protectionist America, as Capex would be reinvested internally.

However, taking the same tax benefit model and adding globalization/free trade, the benefit of Capex is globally spread - in fact, one might argue the only Capex worthy of the cost would be increasing homeland technology in order to increase productivity. But even this tech Capex is spread globally. Hence, the benefit to the homeland is marginalized.

So it seems to me we are using an Apples kind of tax structure with an Oranges type of economy.

I'm also not so sure that all the excellent points noted are not the result of the gap in wealth rather than a cause of the gap in wealth.

[pclayton]

Quote

I love seeing real estate developers lecturing about social mobility...

Yeah, well I love to get judged by someone who doesn't know jack ***** about how I was raised, and who feels they are clever enough to make assumptions about me and my past, my parents and my children.

Quote

I'm not claiming that it's impossible to someone to raise themselves from poverty.  For all I know, Phil's parent's were poor dirt farmers or maybe he was raised by a poor single mother in Watts.  However, the odds are stacked heavily against it.

Richard; I'm willing to bet you were raised in a wealthier, happier home than me.

A few snippets of my silver-spoon past:

1. I grew up in many places in the West, but we settled in Havre, MT. Not exactly the epicenter of real estate development. We weren't rich, but we never had to worry about eating either. Most of my classmates are farmers, or drunks, or meth addicts (pick 3). But a few left town and did something.

2. I had an alcoholic mother who died when I was 23.

3. I've been married (19 years now) since I was 24 and we had our first child 3 months after we were married. Probably not the stereotype you envision.

4. I started my first job in real estate when I moved to LA, but it was managing, among other things, strip centers in places like Crenshaw and Macarthur Park. Not exactly the glamorous life. I had the joy of being called into a LAPD meeting where I was told that one of my centers was the #2 crack distribution point in Los Angeles.

Quote

Out of curiousity Phil, did you send you kids to public schools?

I believe the word is curiosity.

No, I SEND them to public schools. They are the most well adjusted, average students you will ever meet, just like their Dad. They won't attend MIT, or Harvard, or even a UC. But they will discover things at their own pace, and will become unbelievably successful. I won't have a thing to do with it either, except being there when they are young, and keeping them out of harms way.

And I couldn't be prouder.

[luke warm]

it's hard being a dad... believe me phil, your kids know you're a good dad... and one day they'll let you know they know (if they haven't already)

[mycroft]

My family:

Grandfather's family were all coalminers. A great social upheaval happened in about 1940(1), and Grandfather volunteered for the RAF and saw more of the world than the bottom of a company pit. Plus he got some serious education for a Grade 8 grammar school boy - he even learned to teach. He decided that he would do something - anything - else than go back to the pits.

Became a painter after the war, but there were no jobs after apprenticeship(2). Moved to Canada where there was an crying need for people. Did whatever he could do for 5 or so years, raising three children. Eventually became a sign-painter for Alberta Provincial Parks; stayed there for 30 years and was eventually head of the department.

Children were able to go to University because they were smart, hard workers, space was available(3) and tuition was minimal(4) - and Canadian universities have nowhere near the variance in quality of the U.S. college system, so they could stay local and still get a near-top-class education(5). Became Engineer, Teacher and Computer Programmer in the 1960s. They became serious middle-class, and their children had all the opportunity they had, because they were smart and had the money for non-minimal tuition(6) - though it's still much lower than comparable U.S. tuition (say $3000/semester).

Also, we live in Canada, so we aren't burdened with $1500/month health insurance costs or $20000 bills when it goes wrong.

Note all of the "lucky" things (n) that aren't here today. Class mobility, such as it was, is partly due to luck, partly due to those policies that fostered a unimodal income system Richard was talking about, and partly due to the fact that our family is both intelligent and educable - and their strengths are marketable.

In other words, class mobility through the post-World-War-II period doesn't say all that much about potential class mobility now. Oh, yeah, we're WASPs in Texas North - I'm sure that doesn't hurt, either.

Michael.

[pbleighton]

First of all, good for you Phil, and for everyone else who rises above their parents' economic level. I know many of you, and I know that you mostly had to work harder than people like me (father went to Yale, I went to Harvard) have had to, to get to the same places.

That being said, I've worked with a lot of upper-middle plus folks (say 80K in today's dollars), and most of them have parents who were either affluent or well-educated (i.e. children of school teachers seem to do quite well), or both.

Upward mobility is quite possible. It's just not that likely for a lot of people. Some people start out with a big head start, and it's mostly those people who wind up with the best jobs.

Peter

[pclayton]

pbleighton, on Apr 3 2007, 09:52 AM, said:

First of all, good for you Phil, and for everyone else who rises above their parents' economic level. I know many of you, and I know that you mostly had to work harder than people like me (father went to Yale, I went to Harvard) have had to, to get to the same places.

That being said, I've worked with a lot of upper-middle plus folks (say 80K in today's dollars), and most of them have parents who were either affluent or well-educated (i.e. children of school teachers seem to do quite well), or both.

Upward mobility is quite possible. It's just not that likely for a lot of people. Some people start out with a big head start, and it's mostly those people who wind up with the best jobs.

Peter

Thanks Peter.

Downward mobility is quite possible too. There's plenty of riches to rags stories out there.

That being said, I do agree with you that your propensity for success is a lot higher when you come from successful parents. Contacts help, but they are no guarantee of a high paying salary. Many of my children's peers work their tails off in school, and will be able to get into good colleges, although it helps greatly that their parents can shell out the $45K per year.

30 years ago, I think it was more common for Daddy to make a phone call and get their "C" student into USC with a donation to the b-school. I don't think much of that happens anymore since the applications process is a lot more transparent.

These are hardly artificial barriers to entry. I went to a public college and turned out fine, and the cost was minimal. What helped me out was being dependable and not doing stupid things. My career path has been steady, but not exactly meteoric. In the past few years, I took some risks, that paid off in a rising real estate market. I am doing much better than my peers that stuck to the corporate path, but with the downturn, I'm concerned about some of my projects.

I'm white and male, perhaps that helped some, I don't know. One odd thing I'll mentioned is a lot of the successful people in L.A. real estate are Jewish, which I am not. I think there is a very strong, perpetuating network on the westside that I have never been able to tap into.

But going back to the original post about the disparity in incomes. I'll reiterate my feelings. I don't think we have such a widepsread problem that rioting in the streets is imminent. This seems like rhetoric to me.

[mike777]

I think we can all agree there are advantages to being rich, if not why bother. If more poor kids on average were more successful than rich kids, that would say something about being rich.

My point is why be surprised or want to change the system, whatever system to make it a disadvantage or only equal to be rich? It does seem the elitist thinking is that if you are poor you have something close to zero chance for their children/grandchildren to rise.

Just look at China/Korea or India, do not the grandchildren have a significantly higher standard of living today than their grandparents did as children? I would call that a good start.

[Al_U_Card]

And like China, these children's grandchildren won't have a country left to live in....We reject and refuse sustainable exploitation of our planet. No one looks to tomorrow except perhaps to figure out how much more they will have than today. One of these days, (before they run out) we should wise up.

[mike777]

Ahh finally someone brings up the old old we are running out of......and the country/world will end.

So much for tech changing the world in wonderful and mysterious ways the next 43 years.

Better those darn chinese/Indians/Koreans lower their standard of living now before it is too late.

[pbleighton]

"30 years ago, I think it was more common for Daddy to make a phone call and get their "C" student into USC with a donation to the b-school. I don't think much of that happens anymore since the applications process is a lot more transparent."

It still happens, but much less. My dad was a "legacy" I wasn't

On the other hand, how far you go in school and where you went matter more than ever. There are enough college graduates to make corporate opportunities minimal for the rest. At the lower end of the spectrum, failing schools screw most of their graduates for life. This to me is the real scandal and tragedy. It's not just inner-city, majority-minority schools, either. This is a broadly based problem.

"But going back to the original post about the disparity in incomes. I'll reiterate my feelings. I don't think we have such a widepsread problem that rioting in the streets is imminent. This seems like rhetoric to me."

I think rioting is very unlikely. I think raising taxes on upper-income people is very likely. You gotta preference

Peter

[pclayton]

mycroft, on Apr 3 2007, 09:29 AM, said:

My family:

Grandfather's family were all coalminers. A great social upheaval happened in about 1940(1), and Grandfather volunteered for the RAF and saw more of the world than the bottom of a company pit. Plus he got some serious education for a Grade 8 grammar school boy - he even learned to teach. He decided that he would do something - anything - else than go back to the pits.

Became a painter after the war, but there were no jobs after apprenticeship(2). Moved to Canada where there was an crying need for people. Did whatever he could do for 5 or so years, raising three children. Eventually became a sign-painter for Alberta Provincial Parks; stayed there for 30 years and was eventually head of the department.

Children were able to go to University because they were smart, hard workers, space was available(3) and tuition was minimal(4) - and Canadian universities have nowhere near the variance in quality of the U.S. college system, so they could stay local and still get a near-top-class education(5). Became Engineer, Teacher and Computer Programmer in the 1960s. They became serious middle-class, and their children had all the opportunity they had, because they were smart and had the money for non-minimal tuition(6) - though it's still much lower than comparable U.S. tuition (say $3000/semester).

Also, we live in Canada, so we aren't burdened with $1500/month health insurance costs or $20000 bills when it goes wrong.

Note all of the "lucky" things (n) that aren't here today. Class mobility, such as it was, is partly due to luck, partly due to those policies that fostered a unimodal income system Richard was talking about, and partly due to the fact that our family is both intelligent and educable - and their strengths are marketable.

In other words, class mobility through the post-World-War-II period doesn't say all that much about potential class mobility now. Oh, yeah, we're WASPs in Texas North - I'm sure that doesn't hurt, either.

Michael.

(Off-topic)

Texas North LOL

Michael: I've downtown Calgary is going nuts right now with all of the building. Whats your take?

[pclayton]

pbleighton, on Apr 3 2007, 01:58 PM, said:

I think rioting is very unlikely. I think raising taxes on upper-income people is very likely. You gotta preference

Peter

Then you'll have investment bankers looting Tiffany's!

Better call the National Guard.

[pbleighton]

"Then you'll have investment bankers looting Tiffany's!"

High concept, dude!

Peter

[Winstonm]

Quote

I'll reiterate my feelings. I don't think we have such a widepsread problem that rioting in the streets is imminent. This seems like rhetoric to me.

I congratulate you on your own personal rise, Phil. Although we are not at the point of rioting, statistical evidence backs up the claim that the divergence between what we might call rich $300,000+ per year incomes, and everyone else is growing wider. Obvioulsy, there are many causes, but some of the substantial problems this has caused for the U.S. as I see it is a diminishing middle class, 46 million uninsured, and a negative saving rate compounded by massive debt.

Our economy is 70% driven by consumption, yet we keep paying less and less while demanding the same consumption appetite, which has caused the sonsumer to use every debt trick available, from spending savings dry to MEWs to credit cards to sustain an unsustainable lifestyle - at some point in the future, something has to give.

Last time we were in this negative savings, high debt situation was 1928 - and 1929 didn't turn out to be such a good year.

And we may have recently seen the canary in the coalmine - M&T bank decided to hold their own Alt-A loans (not subprime) because the prices offered were not sufficient. If banks and mortgage companies start having problems selling their debt, this will cause a tightening of lending standards - tightening lending will eventually effect consumption - and then the wheels fall off.

[pclayton]

Winstonm, on Apr 3 2007, 04:39 PM, said:

Quote

I congratulate you on your own personal rise, Phil.

Thanks Winston, but I have miles to go before I sleep

Quote

Although we are not at the point of rioting, statistical evidence backs up the claim that the divergence between what we might call rich $300,000+ per year incomes, and everyone else is growing wider.

I don't dispute this. What I dispute is the severity of the problem. What is considered an 'optimal' distribution of wealth?

Quote

Obvioulsy, there are many causes, but some of the substantial problems this has caused for the U.S

Quote

46 million uninsured

Insurance is a personal choice to transfer risk, although personally I think auto insurance should be mandatory to obtain vehicle registration. I would argue that a healthy person doesn't need health insurance if he is prudent if he chose to save an equivalent amount into investments. Please explain why this is a problem. You say that indigent people will be lining up at public hospitals to get help? I say turn them away if they cannot afford medical coverage. THIS will cause people to purchase at least catastrophic coverage. but if they know that an emergency room will treat them regardless of their insurance situation, they are disincentivized from purchasing health insurance.

Do you have disability insurance? I don't, and arguably I need it. I assume the risk of getting run over by an uninsured driver. Life insurance? Again, a personal choice and I hope folks don't read too much into uninsured 'lives'.

Quote

...and a negative saving rate compounded by massive debt.

Personal spending is a function of personal responsibility. Anyone can live beyond their means. However, the thread is about the discrepancy in wealth and income, not about materialism. The tightening of bankruptcy requirements hopefully will curtail come of this out of control spending. I don't think its government's place, but I wouldn't mind better disclosures on credit.

Quote

Last time we were in this negative savings, high debt situation was 1928 - and 1929 didn't turn out to be such a good year.

People tightened their belts and the fall off in demand caused a downward spiral of job layoffs. A liquidity crisis from under capitalized banks caused a financial crisis. Smoot-Hawley didn't help either.

Quote

And we may have recently seen the canary in the coalmine - M&T bank decided to hold their own Alt-A loans (not subprime) because the prices offered were not sufficient.  If banks and mortgage companies start having problems selling their debt, this will cause a tightening of lending standards - tightening lending will eventually effect consumption - and then the wheels fall off.

There was a time when banks didn't sell their paper. Alt-A loans are 'no-doc' loans; borrowers that have good credit but cannot (or want to) prove their income. They are non-conforming, and aren't resold in the normal secondary market. A bank actually holding its own paper will lessen the dollars for lending, but then the demand will increase for purchasing this paper, or purchasing derivatives and tranches of the loans. This hardly spells a death spiral.

And I'm still at a loss why you think this is connected to income disparity.

[mike777]

btw an emergency room must treat the poorest of the poor...In fact this is the main reason why the poorest of the poor have better health care than most of the world.

We all pay for this in higher hosp and ins costs.

Can we do better, sure, should we discuss it, sure.

Again I bet high tech will make alot of this stuff cheaper and cheaper for the poorest of the poor and widely available.

In other countries I bet the main issue will be politics and the government not a lack of science.

Off track side note

The Dutch are the tallest in the world at 6'1"'. Usa far shorter.