[Winstonm]

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?

[DrTodd13]

Part of the cause is government welfare programs that for a long time did not demand forward progress and so created a culture of dependence. Somehow the black culture has lost its way. 50 years ago there was a desire to integrate and succeed but this has been replaced with a disdain for intellectualism and laud for the dream of an athletic career. Part of the problem is just plain stupidity. If the only skills you have are ones shared by every one else in the population then there is a huge supply for that kind of labor. Supply and demand indicates a low resulting cost of that labor. Those with rare and desirable skills are highly compensated. You've got one class of people that are acquiring very marketable skills and they are getting rich. The other class are battling each other for a buck. All you can do is encourage people to make the most of themselves.

[pbleighton]

"Part of the cause is government welfare programs that for a long time did not demand forward progress and so created a culture of dependence. Somehow the black culture has lost its way. 50 years ago there was a desire to integrate and succeed but this has been replaced with a disdain for intellectualism and laud for the dream of an athletic career. Part of the problem is just plain stupidity. If the only skills you have are ones shared by every one else in the population then there is a huge supply for that kind of labor. Supply and demand indicates a low resulting cost of that labor. Those with rare and desirable skills are highly compensated. You've got one class of people that are acquiring very marketable skills and they are getting rich. The other class are battling each other for a buck. All you can do is encourage people to make the most of themselves.'

Oh, my.

Income inequality has been rising for decades among all races, including (and primarily) the lifetime employed. It is a complex problem with many causes. Perhaps the chief cause is globalization (and I speak as a supporter of globalization), but that's only one of many.

The above comment is the type of racist garbage cloaked in economic and sociological gobbledegook that was common in the Gingrich/Limbaugh-dominated GOP of the nineties.

Peter

[Winstonm]

More on the subject from the NT Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business...f8cf&ei=5087%0A

[whereagles]

Winstonm, on Mar 31 2007, 08:54 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?

Cause:

A natural tendency of wealth to flow into clusters. Ya know... the old saying, money attracts money. If you're rich, you have spare money to invest. The investments pay off and you get richer. If you're poor, you don't have spares to invest so your wealth cannot grow.


Cure:

There's only one cure. War. There will be other ways when mankind becomes truly adult, but until then, brute force is the only way to restore equity.

[mike777]

It is the more educated and richer who lead wars. The poor are too busy just trying to feed themselves and have a roof over their heads for the night than to plan and fight wars.

Btw exactly how is the author defining "severe poverty"? Are we really mainly talking about unwed mothers and their children who have been deserted by a man or what?

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Mar 31 2007, 07:08 PM, said:

It is the more educated and richer who lead wars. The poor are too busy just trying to feed themselves and have a roof over their heads for the night than to plan and fight wars.

Btw exactly how is the author defining "severe poverty"? Are we really mainly talking about unwed mothers and their children who have been deserted by a man or what?

I don't remember the exact numbers but extreme poverty was around $8000 annually for a family of 4.

[Winstonm]

In my estimation what we are viewing is not so much a matter of the rich growing richer while the poor grow poorer but a literal polarization into a two-class economic system. In 1994, the bottom 90% contributed 71% of total income taxes paid, while in 2004 that number reduced to 63% of total incomce taxes paid.

The great disparity over those ten years IMO was forecast by Ravi Batra in The Myth of Free Trade and has come to pass as higher-paying industrial jobs have been replaced by lower-paying service industry jobs.

On a national scale, the U.S. may well simply be in denial of how precarious is the situation - consumers keep frantically consuming with debt, banks and mortgage companies kept trying to sustain the unsustaibable by creating sub-prime loans that had no chance of being repaid, and all is well as long as the Blanche Dubois economy can depend "on the kindness of strangers" to buy the bonds.

It is interesting that many of today's circumstances have not been seen since 1928 - and, of course, we know what a good year was 1929.

[mike777]

Do we know who these severely poor are and where they are? That would seem to be a basic first step to solving the issue. Again I wonder if this is mainly unwed moms with young children and the man has left the family? In any case we need to know who they are and where they are.

[pbleighton]

IMO, little can be done about pretax inequality. Post-tax, however

Peter

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Mar 31 2007, 09:05 PM, said:

Do we know who these severely poor are and where they are? That would seem to be a basic first step to solving the issue. Again I wonder if this is mainly unwed moms with young children and the man has left the family? In any case we need to know who they are and where they are.

Mike, what is the purpose of concentrating only on "extreme" poverty and ignoring the rest of the quote: "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. "?

The U.S. is now the greatest debtor nation is world history - is there a connection between debt creation and the widening gap between classes?

[mike777]

Did not want to spread my concentration to thin. I thought this author said there were millions in the USA in severe poverty? Sounded like a good place to start.

Ok how many are there and do we know who they are? If not it may be a good place to start?

If yes, do they have a roof over their heads, a clean bed, food in their belly and medical care? Seem like good questions to at least start with and then move on from there.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Mar 31 2007, 10:14 PM, said:

Did not want to spread my concentration to thin. I thought this author said there were millions in the USA in sever poverty?  Sounded like a good place to start.

Ok how many are there and do we know who they are?  If not it may be a good place to start?

If yes, do they have a roof over their heads, a clean bed, food in their belly and medical care? Seem like good questions to at least start with and then move on from there.

Maybe we should remove "poor" from the debate - but it was a handy quote to find and post.

There is no denying that there has been and continues to be a widening gap between the top 10% and everyone else. I wonder if we are polarizing not only politically but economically, as well. Is America headed toward a class struggle between haves and have-nots?

[mike777]

More concerned with struggle between those with hightech and those with lesstech.
Not class warfare. Again I think this is refighting the last war or last century not the next one.

[hotShot]

The reason is that money rules and it is method is globalization.

The lower end jobs are in competition with third world country payments. So these jobs are exported from the most industrialized nations. The result is a growing rate of unemployed people. The market forces result in the reduction of the the price payed for human labor. This results in jobs, where the payment is not high enough to make a living.
This effect has started with higher qualified jobs now, as we see it in the IT-area, where e.g. India is getting the world main software developing country.

The final result will be the extinction of the middle class. You will be either rich or poor, with a wide gap in between. The standard for poor will be set by the pay level of the world poorest nations in addition with the costs of transportation for raw materials and products.

The EU is fighting to level this withing Europe, it was one of the reasons for the fast growth over the last years. But leveling means that high levels go down while low levels go up. The big question is:
Are politics fast enough to keep pace with "global players" from the money world.

[mike777]

hotShot, on Apr 1 2007, 06:29 AM, said:

The reason is that money rules and it is method is globalization.

The lower end jobs are in competition with third world country payments. So these jobs are exported from the most industrialized nations. The result is a growing rate of unemployed people. The market forces result in the reduction of the the price payed for human labor. This results in jobs, where the payment is not high enough to make a living.
This effect has started with higher qualified jobs now, as we see it in the IT-area, where e.g. India is getting the world main software developing country.

The final result will be the extinction of the middle class. You will be either rich or poor, with a wide gap in between. The standard for poor will be set by the pay level of the world poorest nations in addition with the costs of transportation for raw materials and products.

The EU is fighting to level this withing Europe, it was one of the reasons for the fast growth over the last years. But leveling means that high levels go down while low levels go up. The big question is:
Are politics fast enough to keep pace with "global players" from the money world.

So is this good news or bad news, I am confused. Am I rooting for poor countries, the EU, India or China or who? Which is which and when is when?

[Winstonm]

hotShot, on Apr 1 2007, 06:29 AM, said:

The reason is that money rules and it is method is globalization.

The lower end jobs are in competition with third world country payments. So these jobs are exported from the most industrialized nations. The result is a growing rate of unemployed people. The market forces result in the reduction of the the price payed for human labor. This results in jobs, where the payment is not high enough to make a living.
This effect has started with higher qualified jobs now,  as we see it in the IT-area, where e.g. India is getting the world main software developing country.

The final result will be the extinction of the middle class. You will be either rich or poor, with a wide gap in between. The standard for poor will be set by the pay level of the world poorest nations in addition with the costs of transportation for raw materials and products.

The EU is fighting to level this withing Europe, it was one of the reasons for the fast growth over the last years. But leveling means that high levels go down while low levels go up. The big question is:
Are politics fast enough to keep pace with "global players" from the money world.

I believe that many who support glogalization would admit that at least in the short run it hurts the U.S. middle class. I have serious doubts whether this is a positive for economically distressed countries or whether it is simply taking advantage of the economically distressed. Maybe it is both.

[luke warm]

pbleighton, on Mar 31 2007, 05:55 PM, said:

"Part of the cause is government welfare programs that for a long time did not demand forward progress and so created a culture of dependence. Somehow the black culture has lost its way. 50 years ago there was a desire to integrate and succeed but this has been replaced with a disdain for intellectualism and laud for the dream of an athletic career. Part of the problem is just plain stupidity. If the only skills you have are ones shared by every one else in the population then there is a huge supply for that kind of labor. Supply and demand indicates a low resulting cost of that labor. Those with rare and desirable skills are highly compensated. You've got one class of people that are acquiring very marketable skills and they are getting rich. The other class are battling each other for a buck. All you can do is encourage people to make the most of themselves.'

The above comment is the type of racist garbage cloaked in economic and sociological gobbledegook that was common in the Gingrich/Limbaugh-dominated GOP of the nineties.

Peter

i believe the above response by peter to todd's post is another example of the pseudointellectual gobbledegook he uses in an attempt to discredit another poster

he uses, imo, more fallacious arguments in his posts than anyone here... he calls todd's post "racist" ... just another in a long line of assertions without an attempt at proof, and a thinly veiled ad hominem attack... he did the same with me, calling me a racist for a post of mine but never once attempting to show how or why he'd use that word... what gets me is that the seemingly more fair-minded, honest people who post here are willing to let him get away with it... i can only assume it's because they agree with his political view.. even so, that's a poor reason for allowing a person the carte blanche privilege of committing the most elementary of logical fallacies

btw, the definition of racist is:
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

did todd's post show "... the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others...?" if so, where? did it show a "... hatred or intolerance of another race or other races...?" imo it did not, yet nobody seems even a little outraged when peter uses words like "racist" with impunity

[Winstonm]

Quote

Somehow the black culture has lost its way. 50 years ago there was a desire to integrate and succeed but this has been replaced with a disdain for intellectualism and laud for the dream of an athletic career.

Quote

btw, the definition of racist is:
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement

I won't flat out say that Dr. Todd's post was racist; however, I can certainly understand how one might view the post as having racist "flavor". It is a gross generalization, no matter what else it is, to speak about black culture as a group with disdain for intellectualism.

The U.S. educational system as a whole lags the world in science and math - this is not a cultural issue. Enrollment at 2-year community colleges has skyrocketed - this is not a cultural phenomenon but a financial necessity. If intellectualism is on the decline, I would argue that the reason is perceived rewards do not justify the added expense, while it is growing harder for the lower 90% brackets to afford the higher-cost educational opportunities that offer substantial rewards.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Apr 1 2007, 11:34 AM, said:

I won't flat out say that Dr. Todd's post was racist; however, I can certainly understand how one might view the post as having racist "flavor".

i can understand how one might view any number of things without personally subscribing to those views... it would take much more than that for me to label someone a racist, a hateful term for a hateful point of view