WP: Angry about inequality? Don’t blame the rich

[D'Pablo]

The original article provides another way of looking at reality. The poor in 1970 were worse off than they are today. Today, the poor have TV, A/C, and clothes dryers in their homes. I have been saying for years, America thinks they know poor but know nothing. Go to eastern Europe and see how the poor live. Go to South America and see how the poor live. Some of the poor in eastern Europe would like to be homeless in America.

I have my doubts as to whether you actually know how the poor live in America. Come up to Baltimore sometime and I will show you. There are no A/C units, clothes dryers, or even TVs. There are collapsing roofs and selectively working refridgerators. Seriously, do you have first-hand experience of the lifestyles of the bottom 10-20% in this country? Parts of this country are worse than the third world.

[mcsluggo]

Click on the link to read the rest.

[The “rich” in America are not a monolithic, unchanging class. A study by Thomas A. Garrett, economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, found that less than half of people in the top 1 percent in 1996 were still there in 2005. Such mobility is hardly surprising: A business school student, for instance, may have little money and high debts, but nine years later he or she could be earning a big Wall Street salary and bonus.

Mobility is not limited to the top-earning households. A study by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis found that nearly half of the families in the lowest fifth of income earners in 2001 had moved up within six years. Over the same period, more than a third of those in the highest fifth of income-earners had moved down. Certainly, there are people such as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates who are ensconced in the top tier, but far more common are people who are rich for short periods.]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/angry-about-inequality-dont-blame-the-rich/2012/01/03/gIQA9S2fTQ_singlePage.html

this part, at least, is illuminating. By my reading of this ^^^ Warren Buffet's children are the clearly stated definition of Horatio Alger-like income mobility, because from when they are 18 years old, and toiling away in school (and not earning income, nor have they inherited yet...) they are "poor", .....

but behold, a decade later they demonstrate that the system works!!!

when these stalwart souls are able to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps from the mean streets of Cambridge Mass, or Stanford, Cal... and fight their way into a higher income tier.... they show us all that hard work pays off! I get misty-eyed just thinking about the triumph of hard work over adversity. <snif, i am verklempt!>

[JMS]

We don't have the sort of economy that can organically support a middle class. We have professionals (bankers, lawyers, doctors etc), wealth managers (people that live off of capital gains), and content producers (media). Everyone else has to serve these folks. Through being a waitress, mechanic, barista, cook, clean, cater, protect etc. The information economy just does not require hundreds of millions of people. It can use them in marginal roles but not as a principle part of production.

I would say that the natural state of capitalism since the industrial revolution is not associated with a strong middle class but rather trusts and monopolies. The natural state of capitalism is associated with emerging and relatively backwards economies like the US in the 1860's - 1900...

Regulated Free market economies are associated with a strong middle class. Where the consumer is empowered to make choices because he has both information and a variety of products for any need. In this way the market rewards efficiency and productivity if it's been regulated to ensure choices exist.... In pure capitalism you get no such efficiencies because in such a system competition is removed as a financial calculation/justification freeing the corporations to soak the consumer.

The Robber Barron's didn't compete for market share... You used them as a price for doing business.

The desparity of income associated with the decay of the middle class and the immergence of the heredity upper class in this country are all throwbacks to this other time....

The Washington post article ( OP) was a travesty, because it didn't differenciate between folks making 180k paying 35% taxes who are in the top 1% and folks making 20 million dollars a year.and paying 13.9% taxest.

---------- Post added January-31st-2012 at 03:48 PM ----------

Psssst, Larry, if you don't provide a job, you can't eliminate a job.

So Mitt Romney is "providing jobs"... Right? We should endure taxing his 20 million annual income at 1/3rd of the basiss tax of the middle class guy making 180k because Mitt creates jobs...

Only Mitt's tax records show he's got more than 20 off shore bank accounts.. and Mitt responds that he doesn't invest his money but he has a blind trust which does so for him...

So Mitt's really not personally involved in his money's investment, and significant parts of his money do our economy no good... Anybody care to guess which is higher, Mitt's annual investment off shore or the 20% tax difference between what he is paying and what he should be paying.

[Popeman38]

I have my doubts as to whether you actually know how the poor live in America. Come up to Baltimore sometime and I will show you. There are no A/C units' date=' clothes dryers, or even TVs. There are collapsing roofs and selectively working refridgerators. Seriously, do you have first-hand experience of the lifestyles of the bottom 10-20% in this country? Parts of this country are worse than the third world.[/quote']Worse than the third world? Seriously? Have you seen the ghetto's in eastern Europe? Have you seen the shanty towns in Venezuela? Haiti? DR? This country has some serious ghetto problems, but to compare the worst in America to the third world? Where the infant mortality rate is over 10%? The poor in America have it hard, but it doesn't compare to the third world, or even eastern Europe.

And I came from the bottom 10% in America, single mom working part time as a cashier at Giant.

[Predicto]

this part, at least, is illuminating. By my reading of this ^^^ Warren Buffet's children are the clearly stated definition of Horatio Alger-like income mobility, because from when they are 18 years old, and toiling away in school (and not earning income, nor have they inherited yet...) they are "poor", .....

but behold, a decade later they demonstrate that the system works!!!

when these stalwart souls are able to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps from the mean streets of Cambridge Mass, or Stanford, Cal... and fight their way into a higher income tier.... they show us all that hard work pays off! I get misty-eyed just thinking about the triumph of hard work over adversity. <snif, i am verklempt!>

Bwahahaahaaa!

[Prosperity]

Worse than the third world? Seriously? Have you seen the ghetto's in eastern Europe? Have you seen the shanty towns in Venezuela? Haiti? DR? This country has some serious ghetto problems, but to compare the worst in America to the third world? Where the infant mortality rate is over 10%? The poor in America have it hard, but it doesn't compare to the third world, or even eastern Europe.

And I came from the bottom 10% in America, single mom working part time as a cashier at Giant.

the ghettos in america are certainly better off than the ghettos of the "third world"

but then again, a middle class neighborhood in Iran is probably better off than a ghetto in baltimore

[Wrong Direction]

Just looking at the sections Brave quoted, anybody else notice what the author is doing?

Here's what the author has presented:

• (More than) half of the top 1% "move" within 10 years.
  
• (Nearly) half of the bottom 20% "move" within six years.
  
• Many of the bottom 20% don't move

Therefore, it's all the fault of those lazy, stupid poor folks?

He looks at the top 1%. Sees that half of them are "transients", while some are "permanent residents", and concludes that "this proves that there is mobility".

He looks at the bottom 20%. (A group which, I'll point out, is 20 times larger, and which, therefore, ought to be considerably harder to move into or out of.) Sees that half of them are "transients", while some are "permanent residents", points at the permanent residents, and yells "it's their fault!"

This is exactly what is wrong with politics today.

I can respect people who want to end tax loopholes for the rich. Heck, I agree and so do most Republicans. I can respect people who want more unionism to raise wages. I don't exactly support the tactic, but am on the fence on some details.

I can't respect any opinions that call out people who simply point out things that are correlated with success in this country, like marriage, having kids after being married, graduating high school, etc.

If you want to focus hatred on the top 1%, be my guest. However, while that may be useful here and there, it's completely devoid of a solution to actually helping those stuck in the bottom 20%.

When my wife taught in an inner city school, she regularly came across kids who had no chance because their parents were worthless. Parent-teacher night was very poorly attended, and some parents inevitably showed up drunk or high. Should the 1% pay those parents $50k/year? She regularly was asked to pass kids who didn't earn a passing grade? She regularly had to teach down to students that weren't at grade levels. Are the 1%ers responsible social promotion? She had no recourse beyond her own professional ability to control a classroom. The bad kids would get kicked out one day and be right back in there the next day or the next week, disrupting class. Imagine being a good kid, surrounded by bad kids and other kids that aren't at grade level. Dropout rates in inner cities are alarming. Now, tell me how that's the fault of the 1% and tell me how the 1% can fix that, please.

Or, support some idea that actually addresses the problems with the employability of the bottom 20%.

[Larry]

deleted post.

[D'Pablo]

Worse than the third world? Seriously? Have you seen the ghetto's in eastern Europe? Have you seen the shanty towns in Venezuela? Haiti? DR? This country has some serious ghetto problems, but to compare the worst in America to the third world? Where the infant mortality rate is over 10%? The poor in America have it hard, but it doesn't compare to the third world, or even eastern Europe.

And I came from the bottom 10% in America, single mom working part time as a cashier at Giant.

I've seen the ghettos of eastern Europe and I've seen the shanty towns of Brazil, which I'll bet are similar to Venezuela's. The slums of Baltimore, Cleveland, and Detroit easily rank amongst these territories. You may have come from the bottom 10%, but just because you're in that group doesn't mean you experience the same issues plaguing others in that group. If you are in the bottom 10% living on certain parts of North Ave. in Baltimore, chances are that your education opportunities are limited, your housing is collapsing, there's a drug dealer on every corner, and you run the risk of getting shot as soon as the sun sets. In other words, it's a third world country under seige.

[Predicto]

Wrong Direction, you completely missed Larry's point.

He was pointing out that the author of the piece used the same statistic (roughly 50%) to make exactly the opposite conclusions about the top 1 percent and the bottom 20 percent. And Larry is completely right. And your comments have absolutely nothing to do with what Larry said.

Before you call out posters for their ignorance, you should try to understand what that poster is actually saying.

[elkabong82]

We don't have the sort of economy that can organically support a middle class. We have professionals (bankers, lawyers, doctors etc), wealth managers (people that live off of capital gains), and content producers (media). Everyone else has to serve these folks. Through being a waitress, mechanic, barista, cook, clean, cater, protect etc. The information economy just does not require hundreds of millions of people. It can use them in marginal roles but not as a principle part of production.

Those folks are rich because they provide a product or service that the rest of us demand. Without a middle class the rich have little to no demand and the economy devolves into 1% holding 90+% of the wealth through hoarding, while the rest are just serfs. Our economy absolutely can support a middle class, and is dependent on that support. Our economy dipped down because the middle class was marginalized by corrupt policies and practices instituted by the elites.

[Jumbo]

Just a note that people who sometimes get upset about a temp ban on themselves or others--in the latter, btw, it's usually only those of the same demographic as them who's ban disturbs their sense of "justice"---rarely seem to understand how many bannable posts they're given a pass on, especially in the political threads.

It often works well in their favor if they have at least some history of offering decent commentary, regardless of position or topic, and no extensive user notes.

So remember that the next time a ban happens.

[elkabong82]

Now, tell me how that's the fault of the 1% and tell me how the 1% can fix that, please.

Or, support some idea that actually addresses the problems with the employability of the bottom 20%.

Those parents in poor situation would have the ability to help their kids if they made more. Low education attainment and poverty correlate for a reason. Education gets funding from things such as property and income tax. Few, if any, wealthy people live in a poor area. They typically send their kids to private school and they, along with many in the upper middle class, don't want their taxes going outside of their school district. So schools in wealthy and well-off areas get better, schools in poor areas get poorer. What kid has motivation to improve in education when the school is poor, has terribly insufficient resources, and gives them no pride in education?

The gang problem also contributes to poor environment and hurts education, as do inattentive parents. You don't think better income would reduce those problems? What parent working two jobs, or working night shifts, has the ability to attend parent-teacher night? What parent cares when they themselves were given up on in school?

Perhaps if the job creators would sacrifice some of their multi-millions to payroll it would increase income and increase general well-being of the lower income bracket.

It's a perpetuation problem. Teachers give up on kids they think can't be reached, but also don't have the resources to best help those kids. their environment is poor, education is devalued, and again the cycle perpetuates itself.

The problem is more economic, though, than just a violent area problem, though that obviously does play a significant role. Appalachian kids have the same problem of poor areas and poor schools, but don't deal with gang problems. However, if the elites paid their fair percentage of taxes and funds were allocated equally to all schools in a state, instead of by district, then perhaps the school environment and resources would improve and kids would value education from an early age instead of learning to hate it. Over time a better educated and better paid populace would move away from violence and poverty, and their kids would value education as they did, and that cycle would perpetuate itself instead of the poverty cycle.

It's not solely the fault of the 1%. It's an institutionalized problem that few actually care to fix, so it's the fault of many, and yes, the bottom 20% also have fault. But the 1% certainly do play a role.

[Prosperity]

Those folks are rich because they provide a product or service that the rest of us demand. Without a middle class the rich have little to no demand and the economy devolves into 1% holding 90+% of the wealth through hoarding, while the rest are just serfs. Our economy absolutely can support a middle class, and is dependent on that support. Our economy dipped down because the middle class was marginalized by corrupt policies and practices instituted by the elites.

"our economy" is in the tanks and those with money are still getting richer, so maybe "we" don't need a middle class all that much.

[Wrong Direction]

Wrong Direction, you completely missed Larry's point.

He was pointing out that the author of the piece used the same statistic (roughly 50%) to make exactly the opposite conclusions about the top 1 percent and the bottom 20 percent. And Larry is completely right. And your comments have absolutely nothing to do with what Larry said.

Before you call out posters for their ignorance, you should try to understand what that poster is actually saying.

I didn't call Larry ignorant. I don't think Larry is ignorant.

I don't think I misunderstood at all. In two sentences, he accused the author of blaming the lazy stupid poor folks. A statistal critique is fine. Twisting the argument in the way he did is not helpful, and it happens all too frequently in politics. It's the equivalent of a conservative saying Democrats want as many people as possible on welfare. It takes the discussion away from differing opinions about actual solutions and instead simply makes the person with an opposing opinion look like a terrible person.

Those parents in poor situation would have the ability to help their kids if they made more. Low education attainment and poverty correlate for a reason. Education gets funding from things such as property and income tax. Few, if any, wealthy people live in a poor area. They typically send their kids to private school and they, along with many in the upper middle class, don't want their taxes going outside of their school district. So schools in wealthy and well-off areas get better, schools in poor areas get poorer. What kid has motivation to improve in education when the school is poor, has terribly insufficient resources, and gives them no pride in education?

The gang problem also contributes to poor environment and hurts education, as do inattentive parents. You don't think better income would reduce those problems? What parent working two jobs, or working night shifts, has the ability to attend parent-teacher night? What parent cares when they themselves were given up on in school?

Perhaps if the job creators would sacrifice some of their multi-millions to payroll it would increase income and increase general well-being of the lower income bracket.

It's a perpetuation problem. Teachers give up on kids they think can't be reached, but also don't have the resources to best help those kids. their environment is poor, education is devalued, and again the cycle perpetuates itself.

The problem is more economic, though, than just a violent area problem, though that obviously does play a significant role. Appalachian kids have the same problem of poor areas and poor schools, but don't deal with gang problems. However, if the elites paid their fair percentage of taxes and funds were allocated equally to all schools in a state, instead of by district, then perhaps the school environment and resources would improve and kids would value education from an early age instead of learning to hate it. Over time a better educated and better paid populace would move away from violence and poverty, and their kids would value education as they did, and that cycle would perpetuate itself instead of the poverty cycle.

It's not solely the fault of the 1%. It's an institutionalized problem that few actually care to fix, so it's the fault of many, and yes, the bottom 20% also have fault. But the 1% certainly do play a role.

I don't disagree with much of this post, but I do wonder what the rich would employ these people to do. There IS blue and brown collar work in this country for people who are willing to do it. We shouldn't ignore the fact that many of our permanantly in the bottom 20% don't seek out and/or stick with this work. Instead it has been insourced in large numbers to a demographic that doesn't even speak our language, or does so relatively poorly. I have a friend who works for an asphalt company. They hire illegals for $16-$20/hour for unskilled labor (unless it's a federally funded job, which requires $30+/hour). My neighbor has a job but also has her own local cleaning business. Her husband has a job and supplements his salary doing landscaping, snow removal, etc. The going rates for this type of work aren't exactly minimum wage.

Beyond the education issue, we should also be asking ourselves why people are not seeking out this work (many answers), why our "poor" aren't more willing to be transient to move to the work (many answers), what if any role government has in that and what those people are doing instead of building up their professional capacities. Raising these questions isn't just another method to attack the poor. It's an honest discussion about what the poor can do to become employed.

[Larry]

I don't disagree with much of this post, but I do wonder what the rich would employ these people to do. There IS blue and brown collar work in this country for people who are willing to do it. We shouldn't ignore the fact that many of our permanantly in the bottom 20% don't seek out and/or stick with this work. Instead it has been insourced in large numbers to a demographic that doesn't even speak our language, or does so relatively poorly. I have a friend who works for an asphalt company. They hire illegals for $16-$20/hour for unskilled labor (unless it's a federally funded job, which requires $30+/hour). My neighbor has a job but also has her own local cleaning business. Her husband has a job and supplements his salary doing landscaping, snow removal, etc. The going rates for this type of work aren't exactly minimum wage.

Beyond the education issue, we should also be asking ourselves why people are not seeking out this work (many answers), why our "poor" aren't more willing to be transient to move to the work (many answers), what if any role government has in that and what those people are doing instead of building up their professional capacities. Raising these questions isn't just another method to attack the poor. It's an honest discussion about what the poor can do to become employed.

I do think you've got a point. There is low level but still not poverty-level work that's out there. Paving. Construction. The building trades. (Although I assume that that segment of the economy took a big hit when the housing bubble burst.)

Nurses, plumbers, electricians, won't necessarily get above-median income. But they aren't exactly minimum wage jobs, either. They'll probably get somebody out of the bottom 20%. Maybe even out of the second 20%

That said, though, I'm already seeing a lot of pressure in the market to cut the wages of those workers, too.

"Oh, there's a shortage (of people willing to take what we're offering). I guess we'll have to import workers from other countries."

See, I think that the evidence does suggest that our government is being pressured to drive wages down, across the board.

[Wrong Direction]

Upon further review, I can see how you would take personal offense to my first post. I should be better than that. I apologize, and will go back and edit.

---------- Post added January-31st-2012 at 07:59 PM ----------

That said, though, I'm already seeing a lot of pressure in the market to cut the wages of those workers, too.

"Oh, there's a shortage (of people willing to take what we're offering). I guess we'll have to import workers from other countries."

See, I think that the evidence does suggest that our government is being pressured to drive wages down, across the board.

Right. Illegal immigration is allowed for a reason. I think it's time for some politician to make the case that those jobs are being taken away from Americans who need them.

[elkabong82]

I didn't call Larry ignorant. I don't think Larry is ignorant.

I don't think I misunderstood at all. In two sentences, he accused the author of blaming the lazy stupid poor folks. A statistal critique is fine. Twisting the argument in the way he did is not helpful, and it happens all too frequently in politics. It's the equivalent of a conservative saying Democrats want as many people as possible on welfare. It takes the discussion away from differing opinions about actual solutions and instead simply makes the person with an opposing opinion look like a terrible person.

I don't disagree with much of this post, but I do wonder what the rich would employ these people to do. There IS blue and brown collar work in this country for people who are willing to do it. We shouldn't ignore the fact that many of our permanantly in the bottom 20% don't seek out and/or stick with this work. Instead it has been insourced in large numbers to a demographic that doesn't even speak our language, or does so relatively poorly. I have a friend who works for an asphalt company. They hire illegals for $16-$20/hour for unskilled labor (unless it's a federally funded job, which requires $30+/hour). My neighbor has a job but also has her own local cleaning business. Her husband has a job and supplements his salary doing landscaping, snow removal, etc. The going rates for this type of work aren't exactly minimum wage.

Beyond the education issue, we should also be asking ourselves why people are not seeking out this work (many answers), why our "poor" aren't more willing to be transient to move to the work (many answers), what if any role government has in that and what those people are doing instead of building up their professional capacities. Raising these questions isn't just another method to attack the poor. It's an honest discussion about what the poor can do to become employed.

I was just talking about the already-employed, basically alluding to raising the minimum wage and an payrolls so that average family income is raised to a level which matches a reasonable cost of living.

The labor costs on those low-skill, high labor jobs aren't 40 hours a week jobs. They come and go in spurts, hence "day" laborers. The poor really can't afford to move. They are stuck. Imagine for whatever reason you have 2 kids but you get laid off and are struggling to find a job because all you have is a HS degree since you're family support wasn't there and you couldn't afford college/get good loans for college. When you don't make a lot but still have kids to support, it's not exactly like you have a lot of money saved up to afford first and last months rent and the security deposit at a new place, if you can even pass the credit check and get a place w/o having a job or a low-paying job. Heck, you're lucky if you have a car and aren't reliant on public transportation. Poverty is like quicksand. So being transient isn't a viable, or in many cases even a doable, option.

Not everyone is physically fit enough to perform daily, intensive manual labor, especially if they grew up poor and have poor health.

Transiency becomes viable when there are regular, decent-paying jobs with consistent hours, and the wage matches cost of living while also leaving some room for savings. The job creators need to increase payroll to match product inflation necessary for living, specifically food price increases and gas.

Either that or the state and federal governments should increase public transportation viability.

[NoCalMike]

People confuse the overall wealth of a nation with income equality. America is still by far the wealthiest nation overall, but the that wealth is being consolidated to fewer and few people.

---------- Post added February-1st-2012 at 06:49 AM ----------

People confuse the overall wealth of a nation with income equality. America is still by far the wealthiest nation overall, but the that wealth is being consolidated to fewer and few people.

I don't think anyone's issues with folks who got wealthy from creating a product or service that the rest of us wanted. However that is very different then a guy like Romney who was good with numbers and percentages who made his fortune by creatively moving around numbers and dividends at the right time. Romney never created an actual product or service that benefit people.