[DrTodd13]

pbleighton, on Apr 1 2007, 07:05 PM, said:

DrTodd:

Since the subject of the post was:

"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."

why did you immediately start talking about the supposedly inferior black culture (which BTW you display total igorance of), when a substantial majority of those below the poverty line aren't black, and most of those above but close to the poverty line aren't black?

Why did you immediately see this in racial terms? I believe your rant:

"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."

gives you away.

Peter

Did you look at the statistics? What is your reason for the discrepancies?

What you are saying can trap you. I can ask you...what do you think of German culture? If you say you like it then I can accuse you of being a Nazi because at one time Nazism was the dominant culture of Germany. If you say no, then I call you a racist for disliking an entire country. Personally, I believe it can be consistent to say you like the German culture today but dislike the culture 65 years ago. Cultures change and the values change, sometimes for good and sometimes for bad. Do I hate Germans because I think Nazism was bad? Call it what you will but look at the statistics. I don't believe it is something external forcing them into this situation so it must be an internal cultural thing and something in their culture is causing this.

I mentioned several things in my initial post as causes. I mentioned black culture after I talked about the culture of dependence because they are related and the culture of dependence most heavily affected blacks because of their circumstances when the Great Society began.

[pbleighton]

"Did you look at the statistics? What is your reason for the discrepancies?"

There are many complex reasons for income inquality between balcks and whites. Nonsense like "a disdain for intellectualism and laud for the dream of an athletic career" doesn't even make the list.

"What you are saying can trap you. I can ask you...what do you think of German culture? If you say you like it then I can accuse you of being a Nazi because at one time Nazism was the dominant culture of Germany. If you say no, then I call you a racist for disliking an entire country. Personally, I believe it can be consistent to say you like the German culture today but dislike the culture 65 years ago. Cultures change and the values change, sometimes for good and sometimes for bad. Do I hate Germans because I think Nazism was bad? Call it what you will but look at the statistics. I don't believe it is something external forcing them into this situation so it must be an internal cultural thing and something in their culture is causing this."

Huh? I'm not the one making b******t generalizations about black culture.

Peter

[luke warm]

DrTodd13, on Apr 1 2007, 10:22 PM, said:

Did you look at the statistics? What is your reason for the discrepancies?

it's been my experience with him that this won't get answered... i could be proven wrong, but i doubt it

[Gerben42]

I have a question to those who are saying they are against globalization. Great, you've identified something you are against.

I'm against rain falling between 8:15 and 8:30 am between my home and my work. Really, I'd prefer the rain to fall later in the day where it does not bother me.

It's nice being against something you cannot influence, that means you can get loud and all and others will think you are cool because you are so obviously against A Bad Thing ™ without actually doing anything about it.

[mike777]

If BBO is not globalization what is? How can we stop this madness?



Well is it really right for someone from Canada, to come to America and set up a free Bridge site that may take jobs away from Americans in Calif who have a pay for play bridge site? How are the Calif people suppose to feed their families and pay the mortgage if too many people end up not paying for that site anymore or they have to cut their salaries? Should Americans be allowed to buy stuff cheaper if it may hurt other Americans? Should Canada really be allowed to send people over the border and take jobs from American bridge pros? Who next the Dutch, Polish or Italians?

What next tech jobs going to India? People buying clothes from third world countries rather than American textile jobs? If BBO is not globalization what is?

[Winstonm]

Gerben42, on Apr 2 2007, 05:52 AM, said:

I have a question to those who are saying they are against globalization. Great, you've identified something you are against.

I'm against rain falling between 8:15 and 8:30 am between my home and my work. Really, I'd prefer the rain to fall later in the day where it does not bother me.

It's nice being against something you cannot influence, that means you can get loud and all and others will think you are cool because you are so obviously against A Bad Thing ™ without actually doing anything about it.

Globalization and free trade have both pros and cons - you don't necessarily have to be for or against either to debate the values compared to the losses.

[helene_t]

Winstonm, on Apr 2 2007, 02:47 AM, said:

Japan ranks right near the top in protectionist countries - try to sell Japan non-Japanese rice and see who far you get.

Yes, Japan is an interesting example. Popular theories on the causes of inequality predict that Japan is an egalitarian country:
- it's protectionist
- female labor-marked participation is low
- immigration is low
- illiteracy is virtually zero
- it's not a raw material economy

Yet Japan has one of the highest (maybe the highest) levels of income inequality in the developed World.

I think this a a very complex issue. First, there's the problem of defining what the problem is:
- If the sex bias in salaries decreases, inequality at the income level will increase but inequality at household level will not (expect for individual and same-sex households).
- Increased frequency of divorces lead to more inequality at the household level but (indirectly) to less inequality at the individual level.
- Decreasing age bias on salaries mean less inequality at the yearly level but not a the lifespan level (or the family level, if there is solidarity between generations)
- Large countries like the U.S. seem to have more inequality than smaller countries like the European ones, because between-country inequalities do not appear at the first glance at European statistics while between-state inequalities for the U.S. do.
- When globalization levels incomes of industry workers in rich and poor countries, global inequality decreases while inequality in the rich countries increases.

As for possible causes, there are a lot of obvious ones. Today's service workers are much less motivated for joining unions that the factory workers of the 60s. There are many reasons for this.

Personally, I'd prefer to blame income inequality (and other evils) on my pet peves such as Marx, Freud, post-modernism, religion, Microsoft, rock music and inferior bidding methods (Capp, strong 1NT):

When I went to basic school in the 70's we were told by our Marxist teachers that society sucks so we'd better not waste our time learning a profession (which would just turn us into brain-dead puppets of the capitalist political economy) but that we were better of expanding our own horizon by smoking marijuana and by spending 15 years at college studying culture-relativist anthropology. As soon as the revolution wins we will find nice meaningful jobs as cultural innovators at the Ministry of Truth, Love and Existentialism, and in the meantime we can contribute to the decline of the capitalist society by being welfare parasites.

This was all fine and dandy for all us smart, rich kids who eventually got well-paid jobs at government offices, thanks to our rethoric gifts and the influence of friends and family. But many less gifted youngsters got inadequate educations and ended up being, well, social parasites.

In the meantime, the spirit of the time changed, so it's not so cool to be a social parasite anymore. We still pay them reasonable amount of parasite bonuses because we (the bureaucrat elite) still remember some of what we were taught at basic school or, more likely, because we realize that it's more convenient keeping them as welfare parasites instead of turning them into beggars, prostitutes and criminals.

It's often said that the modern knowledge-based economy leaves no niche for people without natural gifts required for becoming knowledge workers. This may be partially true, but I think a more apt explanation for the growing inequality is the influence from Marxist teachers, social workers, shrinks, child-rearing counselors, journalists etc. who created an anti-enterprise mentality in the general public. Starting up your own business is just beyond the fantasy of a whole generation of spoiled kids. "Society" is responsible for providing employment for you.

[hrothgar]

This is an incredibly complex issue and, unfortunately, there aren't any easy answers. For example, most of my academic studies focused was in economics. Most formal branches of economics steer deal with issues like “efficiency” and steer far away from more normative topics. Unfortunately, debates surrounding income distribution are, by definition, normative.

Here are a few quick thoughts: Historically, here in the US there seemed to be a rough consensus that a unimodal income distribution was inherently superior to a bimodal distribution. (The core arguments in favor of a unimodal standard typically dealt with a desire for fairness and political stability) Many of the policies that were implemented back during the Great Depression and post World War II were specifically intended to try to promote a unimodal standard. Progressive income taxes, heavy investment in public education, the GI bill, and the like were some of most obvious examples. These policies were (broadly) successful.

More recently, a couple significant forces combined to skew income distributions. The first was a deliberate assault on progressive taxation models. The tax code was flattened significantly. Capital gains taxes were dramatically reduced. Both of these policies predominantly benefited owner's of large amounts of capital rather than laborers. At the same time, transportation networks improved dramatically. Goods and services could suddenly be shipped across enormous distances. This is putting a lot of downward pressure on wages. (Admittedly, purchasing power is increased enormously)

For what its worth, I actually agree with certain elements of DrTodd's argument. I agree that large portions of American society are dysfunctional. I suspect that we disagree about the nature of an appropriate remedy. I believe that combating this type of problem requires heavy investment in public programs (particular pre-natal care, improved public schools, and the like).

[Al_U_Card]

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?

Human nature as it relates to greed and survival. Those that have something don't want to share it, they want to keep it. Our culture promotes this and our institutions allow the interested parties to continue and enhance it.

Cure?.......you've got to be kidding

[mike777]

I think the ultimate fear seems to be right out of science fiction when it comes to class struggle or income inequality when you listen to the debates.

A tiny upper class will live literally above the clouds in luxury while the massive underclass will end up working the mines on a polluted Earth like moles.

[pclayton]

Al_U_Card, on Apr 2 2007, 05:47 AM, said:

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?

Human nature as it relates to greed and survival. Those that have something don't want to share it, they want to keep it. Our culture promotes this and our institutions allow the interested parties to continue and enhance it.

Cure?.......you've got to be kidding

Somehow I don't see a big problem with this.

Maybe its my cold-hearted capitalist heart.

[hrothgar]

pclayton, on Apr 2 2007, 08:55 PM, said:

Somehow I don't see a big problem with this.
Maybe its my cold-hearted capitalist heart.

I'm sure that Louis the 16th and Marie Antoinette felt much the same way right before the mob lopped their heads off.

Simply put, systems with a wildly skewed income distribution tend to be quite unstable. You can only distract the rubes with "the gays are coming" for so long before they wise up.

[Al_U_Card]

Indeed, people with nothing to lose, have everything to gain.....so once you reduce them to less than subsistance......get ready for trouble.

[pbleighton]

Globalization, the decline of private-sector unions, and immigration of people from low-wage countries combine to put huge downward pressure on wages. This has been true of blue-collar factory jobs for decades, and has fairly recently been extended to (gasp! horror!) professional jobs as well. I'm a systems analyst and programmer, and I've been personally touched by this

This is the primary cause of large numbers of people below and near the poverty line, as well as the sinking real median income in the U.S.

I understand that the problem is not (yet?) as acute in many European countries. Greater levels of unionization (pre-tax) and a stronger welfare state (post-tax)seems to be the reasons. Strange that countries with stronger welfare states have lower levels of income inequalaity. Someone should call Mr. Limbaugh and tell him. Oh, he's too busy using his illegally obtained drugs? Never mind

In the U.S., private sector unions seem to be on an irreversible decline. There's not a lot that can be done about pretax inequality. This, along with the fact that mobility has always been far less prevalent than our national mythology would have it, means that people whose parents aren't well-educated (including a disproportionate number of black people) will continue, as a group, to see their pretax incomes drop.

OTOH, there will IMO be a groundswell of opinion (you can see it now on health care) for post tax support of the bottom 70%. This will of course upset the hard core right-wingers, but no matter.

Peter

[pclayton]

hrothgar, on Apr 2 2007, 10:07 AM, said:

pclayton, on Apr 2 2007, 08:55 PM, said:

Somehow I don't see a big problem with this.
Maybe its my cold-hearted capitalist heart.

I'm sure that Louis the 16th and Marie Antoinette felt much the same way right before the mob lopped their heads off.

Simply put, systems with a wildly skewed income distribution tend to be quite unstable. You can only distract the rubes with "the gays are coming" for so long before they wise up.

Yeah, and Leona Helmsley too.

If we had artificial barriers in the U.S. against changing someone's lot, I'd be more sympathetic, and open-minded toward income redistribution.

[mike777]

Entropy.

[hrothgar]

pclayton, on Apr 2 2007, 10:38 PM, said:

If we had artificial barriers in the U.S. against changing someone's lot, I'd be more sympathetic, and open-minded toward income redistribution.

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

Most recent studies show that the US ranks quite low on inter generatational social mobility compared to other developed countries.

http://www.suttontrust.com/reports/Interge...nalMobility.pdf is a representative example. The NYT has a decent set of graphics

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/natio...cC6Zm7iQQMT9f3w

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.

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

[mike777]

Economic mobility is certainly of utmost importance. If this study is saying there is less mobility here in the USA than in many other countries I would be shocked. I am not quite sure what the study is really saying or what it studied and how immigrants were factored in. In any event mobility is crucial.

As for economic success, I wonder if simply the IQ one is born with is the overriding and perhaps unjust key factor.

As for public schools, having lived in Chicago and attended some of the public grammer schools there( years ago) and also living in LA. It does seem as if the public school system in major metro areas is broken to the tipping point. I can only surmise they can continue to exist in any successful form by somehow being more independent. Yes that sounds pretty vague. How we can be one nation with similiar values and common backgrounds needs to be solved without the current public school system.

I do note that when I graduated from the public grammer school, 8th grade, back in the 60's my working class parents did yank me out of the Chicago system. I had no idea why at the time. They never commented and I never heard any comments about the quality of the school system even back then.

[mike777]

To comment on the other posts, as I mentioned I do believe I have a moral duty to feed and shelter and care for the poor, esp the poorest of the poor.


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.

[pbleighton]

"Economic mobility is certainly of utmost importance. If this study is saying there is less mobility here in the USA than in many other countries I would be shocked. I am not quite sure what the study is really saying or what it studied and how immigrants were factored in. In any event mobility is crucial."

You're shocked because our mythology says we are the most mobile society in the world. We are not. Actually no society is very mobile.

"As for economic success, I wonder if simply the IQ one is born with is the overriding and perhaps unjust key factor."

Based on my 30 years working for many companies, this is quite counter to my experience. There is some intelligence/financial success correlation, but "overriding"? Nah.

"As for public schools, having lived in Chicago gone to public schools there( years ago) and also living in LA. It does seem as if the public school system in major metro areas is broken to the tipping point. I can only surmise they can continue to exist in any successful form by somehow being more independent. Yes that sounds pretty vague. How we can be one nation with similiar values and common backgrounds needs to be solved without the current public school system."

I agree with you here completely. Educational opportunities are hugely unequal.

Peter