income inequality

[childofGod1]

I've heard it said that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. one half of that statement may be true, but the other is patently false. Except during the last few years, due to a severe economic downturn, the poor have not been getting poorer. Even during this current period of high unemployment, the lives of the poorest are changing little, but their numbers are growing.

The poorest in the US have a far better lifestyle than the middle class of a century ago. A century ago, two to three changes of clothes were considered plenty. The middle class had sufficient food, unless a famine or similar shortage made food scarce and had a house large enough that parents, girls and boys slept in separate rooms. A middle class family usually had a horse and carriage or wagon for transportation. A doctor was only called in the direst emergencies. Remember, that was middle class, not poor.

Now, a family with six children crowded into a three bedroom house with only three changes of clothes and one pair of shoes per person would be considered extremely poor. The possibility of starving to death in the US is all but eliminated, and our life spans have been expanded by decades. The poorest families have TVs, computers, cars, plenty of nutritious food, decent clothing, free healthcare, subsidized housing, and free daycare.


The definition of "poor" has changed so radically that our great grandparents wouldn't even recognize it in this society. We live in such a prosperous time that we don't know what poor is anymore.

This abundance is the reason behind the growing inequality. Of course, there are greedy people, and they exist at all income levels. The poorest people in any society will always be the poorest, but what defines poor can change. No matter how society tries to equalize things, somone will always have less and someone will always have more. The poorest usually have more than enough to meet their basic needs, as well as opportunities to earn more.

Instead of wringing our hands in woe over how rich the rich are, we should be concentrating on helping the few who are actually in need, who have fallen through the cracks for whatever reason. The rich are not the cause of anyone becoming a drug addict or criminal, two of the biggest causes of poverty. The rich are not the cause of low IQs or illness. The rich didn't make little Johnny drop out of school or make little Janey get pregnant at thirteen. It's not their sole responsibility to rescue the world.

To continue this class warfare can only be motivated by jealousy and personal greed.

 

[Harpuia]

At least it's got points. That's what I've liked about your posts.

I've heard it said that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. one half of that statement may be true, but the other is patently false. Except during the last few years, due to a severe economic downturn, the poor have not been getting poorer. Even during this current period of high unemployment, the lives of the poorest are changing little, but their numbers are growing.

In my case, it's not so much the lives of the poorest that are changing, but that people in the middle classes and youths expecting to at least start somewhere not in the bottom of the ladder with their college degrees but are doing so anyway, and likely will not get out of it no matter how hard they save until well into their 30's, mostly because they can't save much of anything. At this point, the middle class will make up of the kids who get lucky enough to land a decent job or those that get their money inherited from their parents, while so many who were told to work hard so they would avoid a downward spiral failed anyway.

And it is that blip in the error of what I feel is most fair, a meritocracy, is the cause for concern.

The poorest in the US have a far better lifestyle than the middle class of a century ago. A century ago, two to three changes of clothes were considered plenty. The middle class had sufficient food, unless a famine or similar shortage made food scarce and had a house large enough that parents, girls and boys slept in separate rooms. A middle class family usually had a horse and carriage or wagon for transportation. A doctor was only called in the direst emergencies. Remember, that was middle class, not poor.

That's true too. Many of these things were not invented, and thus even the Rockefellers of the 1800's didn't live as lavish as we did, except maybe with bigger houses. The thing is that the reason the supply of a certain service gets trickled down to the lower classes is because there is more of that supply to offer, so they can make it cheaper. Having only 1 shower in the entire world will make said shower magnitudes more expensive than if we had a shower in every house.

Now, a family with six children crowded into a three bedroom house with only three changes of clothes and one pair of shoes per person would be considered extremely poor. The possibility of starving to death in the US is all but eliminated, and our life spans have been expanded by decades. The poorest families have TVs, computers, cars, plenty of nutritious food, decent clothing, free healthcare, subsidized housing, and free daycare.

I think though there are some statistics for children going hungry at night in the U.S... and it's why nonprofits like ThreeSquare are trying to help.

Ooh, and I know this, Arby's started a No Child Goes Hungry campaign late last year. That was cool.

The definition of "poor" has changed so radically that our great grandparents wouldn't even recognize it in this society. We live in such a prosperous time that we don't know what poor is anymore.

This abundance is the reason behind the growing inequality. Of course, there are greedy people, and they exist at all income levels. The poorest people in any society will always be the poorest, but what defines poor can change. No matter how society tries to equalize things, somone will always have less and someone will always have more. The poorest usually have more than enough to meet their basic needs, as well as opportunities to earn more.

While I agree that poverty cannot be completely eliminated because some will always be the poorest, we can take steps to at least mollify the situation. After all, there will also always be hardcore homeless, and there will also be those that put in the effort to try to move up, and if their efforts don't allow them to move up, they will stop putting in that effort. That's the problem that we have now is that the poor that try hard to move up cannot move up without a significant amount more of luck than previously.

Instead of wringing our hands in woe over how rich the rich are, we should be concentrating on helping the few who are actually in need, who have fallen through the cracks for whatever reason. The rich are not the cause of anyone becoming a drug addict or criminal, two of the biggest causes of poverty. The rich are not the cause of low IQs or illness. The rich didn't make little Johnny drop out of school or make little Janey get pregnant at thirteen. It's not their sole responsibility to rescue the world.

A-men!

To continue this class warfare can only be motivated by jealousy and personal greed.

I agree with you to a point. I agree with Buffett's statement that the rich (specifically financial institutions) started the class war, so they should be the first to stand down and then I would call on the Occupiers to stand down next following reform.

 

[heymikey80]

I was musing recently on the fact that my grandmother (b. 1915) grew up in a house with four rooms (and two fireplaces). She had two brothers she shared a room with. Her younger brother died of scarlet fever I believe it was. Her dad was proud of providing for the family with its farm, my grandmother mentioned that he was always pleased he could put enough on the table for his children.

 

[fenix144]

I was musing recently on the fact that my grandmother (b. 1915) grew up in a house with four rooms (and two fireplaces). She had two brothers she shared a room with. Her younger brother died of scarlet fever I believe it was. Her dad was proud of providing for the family with its farm, my grandmother mentioned that he was always pleased he could put enough on the table for his children.

My grand-father had 12 brothers and sisters. Hopefully my great grand-father was a lumberjack. Didn't pay too bad lol.

 

[heymikey80]

My grand-father had 12 brothers and sisters. Hopefully my great grand-father was a lumberjack. Didn't pay too bad lol.

My grandfather died in 1948 of a blood clot to the brain. Grandma raised two boys.

 

[childofGod1]

At least it's got points. That's what I've liked about your posts.



In my case, it's not so much the lives of the poorest that are changing, but that people in the middle classes and youths expecting to at least start somewhere not in the bottom of the ladder with their college degrees but are doing so anyway, and likely will not get out of it no matter how hard they save until well into their 30's, mostly because they can't save much of anything. At this point, the middle class will make up of the kids who get lucky enough to land a decent job or those that get their money inherited from their parents, while so many who were told to work hard so they would avoid a downward spiral failed anyway.

And it is that blip in the error of what I feel is most fair, a meritocracy, is the cause for concern.

Younger workers have ALWAYS started at the bottom of the ladder. That's just a part of being young and inexperienced. There have been a few blips in history when they could move up at lightning speed, but generally the thirties are the age when success starts to get rolling. If a large number of workers are unable to join the middle class by the time they reach forty, there's a problem. The technological age requires more specialized education, so young workers are starting the climb a bit later, but it all comes out pretty much the same in the end.

That's true too. Many of these things were not invented, and thus even the Rockefellers of the 1800's didn't live as lavish as we did, except maybe with bigger houses. The thing is that the reason the supply of a certain service gets trickled down to the lower classes is because there is more of that supply to offer, so they can make it cheaper. Having only 1 shower in the entire world will make said shower magnitudes more expensive than if we had a shower in every house..

Yes, that's my point. We have so much more now, even to poorest have enough to satisfy their basic needs. If the poor have food, clothing, shelter, and so on, what's the problem? Does it somehow make little Johnny dirtier when a rich guy has ten showers in his house? As long as little Johnny has one, what more does he need?

I think though there are some statistics for children going hungry at night in the U.S... and it's why nonprofits like ThreeSquare are trying to help.

Ooh, and I know this, Arby's started a No Child Goes Hungry campaign late last year. That was cool..

Hey, that's nice of Arby's. I'm familiar with threesquares and one local program, the backpack program, run by a local food shelf. They send backpacks of food home from school nightly with kids. Those are the kinds of things that plug up the cracks people fall through. Most of the kids who go hungry at night are hungry because their parents have sold the foodstamps for drugs or some similar situation. The kids shouldn't have to suffer, and the only way to make sure they have enough to eat is to give them food. Money will just be taken away.

While I agree that poverty cannot be completely eliminated because some will always be the poorest, we can take steps to at least mollify the situation. After all, there will also always be hardcore homeless, and there will also be those that put in the effort to try to move up, and if their efforts don't allow them to move up, they will stop putting in that effort. That's the problem that we have now is that the poor that try hard to move up cannot move up without a significant amount more of luck than previously..

Times are tough right now, and the economy needs to be fixed. It's always going to take a bit of luck to move past a basic living, but it's definitely harder now than it was just a few years ago.

A-men!.

Can I get a Hallelujah?

I agree with you to a point. I agree with Buffett's statement that the rich (specifically financial institutions) started the class war, so they should be the first to stand down and then I would call on the Occupiers to stand down next following reform.

I really don't care who "started it". It's time to grow up and stop it. Hey, I'm a mom.

BTW, thanks for a thoughtful and intelligent reply!!! I truly appreciate that.

 

[fenix144]

My grandfather died in 1948 of a blood clot to the brain. Grandma raised two boys.

I was wondering what was the average size of an american family back in the 1930-1950's.

 

[childofGod1]

I was musing recently on the fact that my grandmother (b. 1915) grew up in a house with four rooms (and two fireplaces). She had two brothers she shared a room with. Her younger brother died of scarlet fever I believe it was. Her dad was proud of providing for the family with its farm, my grandmother mentioned that he was always pleased he could put enough on the table for his children.

I was just remembering my father (b. 1921) talking about welfare when he was a kid. They went down to the welfare office and were issued a couple welfare uniforms for the year, and bags of potatoes and macaroni. He used to go hungry fairly often. Can you imagine what would happen if the welfare ofice issued uniforms instead of checks now? The rioting would be unthinkable.

 

[childofGod1]

I was wondering what was the average size of an american family back in the 1930-1950's.

I'll bet you could find out on a US census website.

 

[Assuredcw]

It doesn't matter how much you repeat this idea of "jealousy" or "envy," ChildofGod - the issue isn't what rich people HAVE, but what they are DOING with what they have. Citizens United has changed the paying field, tilting it sharply in favor of those who have money. They in turn are re-writing the tax laws and other regulations to acquire even more for themselves (which with finite resources ultimately means taking from the rest of us). The net result will be that middle class and poor people will pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes, and will have even less representation than they do now.

It has nothing to do with envy. Most people are too busy to know or care what rich people HAVE. It's what they are DOING that's the problem, because what they are doing affects us.

 

[Viren]

I agree that we are much richer than past generations thanks in large part to technilogical innovations, but I also don't think that it's wrong to want to keep up the the standard of living we have now. Maybe we will go back to the way things were in the early 1900's, but what's the problem with wanting raise the standard of living for more and more people? And what's wrong with fighting against government corruption? It's easy to say that OWS is driven by greed, but that's ignoring the fact that much of the growing inequality is caused by relatively recent changes in government policies. I'll repeat what Warren Buffet had to say regarding the issue. If there is class warfare the wealthy are winning.

 

[lordbt]

It doesn't matter how much you repeat this idea of "jealousy" or "envy," ChildofGod - the issue isn't what rich people HAVE, but what they are DOING with what they have. Citizens United has changed the paying field, tilting it sharply in favor of those who have money. They in turn are re-writing the tax laws and other regulations to acquire even more for themselves (which with finite resources ultimately means taking from the rest of us). The net result will be that middle class and poor people will pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes, and will have even less representation than they do now.

It has nothing to do with envy. Most people are too busy to know or care what rich people HAVE. It's what they are DOING that's the problem, because what they are doing affects us.

The Citizens United ruling has been in effect for less than two years. Since you are convinced that this has changed the playing field so dramatically that the little people can no longer get a fair shake, why dont you tell me what, exactly, has changed. You claim they are "re-writing tax laws and other regulations to acquire even more for themselves" so why dont you tell me which tax laws and regulations have been re-written and what regulations have been changed to have you all up in arms.

The truth is, it is envy. You covet what they have, seek to confiscate it for your own purposes, and make sure what they have left is not used to influence politics. You wish to deny them their rights, their property and their freedom of speech. That is quite the tyrannical triple play you just turned. Congrats.

 

[Viren]

The truth is, it is envy. You covet what they have, seek to confiscate it for your own purposes, and make sure what they have left is not used to influence politics. You wish to deny them their rights, their property and their freedom of speech. That is quite the tyrannical triple play you just turned. Congrats.

That facts point to them envying what we have....or at least what little we have left.

 

[childofGod1]

It doesn't matter how much you repeat this idea of "jealousy" or "envy," ChildofGod - the issue isn't what rich people HAVE, but what they are DOING with what they have. Citizens United has changed the paying field, tilting it sharply in favor of those who have money. They in turn are re-writing the tax laws and other regulations to acquire even more for themselves (which with finite resources ultimately means taking from the rest of us). The net result will be that middle class and poor people will pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes, and will have even less representation than they do now.

It has nothing to do with envy. Most people are too busy to know or care what rich people HAVE. It's what they are DOING that's the problem, because what they are doing affects us.

I was just curious when and how you acquired the right to decide what others do with their property?

I don't see a single ripple of the alleged "wrongs" you accuse the rich of perpetrating, perhaps you could elaborate?

I take it you wish to prolong and promote class warfare, since you've defended it so vociferously, if not comptently.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The Citizens United ruling has been in effect for less than two years. Since you are convinced that this has changed the playing field so dramatically that the little people can no longer get a fair shake, why dont you tell me what, exactly, has changed. You claim they are "re-writing tax laws and other regulations to acquire even more for themselves" so why dont you tell me which tax laws and regulations have been re-written and what regulations have been changed to have you all up in arms.

The truth is, it is envy. You covet what they have, seek to confiscate it for your own purposes, and make sure what they have left is not used to influence politics. You wish to deny them their rights, their property and their freedom of speech. That is quite the tyrannical triple play you just turned. Congrats.

Conservatives use the word "envy" for its emotional effect, but they don't understand it. When someone envies something, they envy it for themselves. They don't desire that other people should possess it also. A situation that reflects envy would be one where an individual wants to "swap places" with another, not one where he wants to see the less well off have better opportunities.

 

[lordbt]

That facts point to them envying what we have....or at least what little we have left.

What facts are those?

 

[MachZer0]

Conservatives use the word "envy" for its emotional effect, but they don't understand it. When someone envies something, they envy it for themselves. They don't desire that other people should possess it also. A situation that reflects envy would be one where an individual wants to "swap places" with another, not one where he wants to see the less well off have better opportunities.

Or envy could be a case where one believes the rich should have their taxes increased in order to pay for universal healthcare, free college tuition or tuition loan forgiveness as we've seen from OWS

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Or envy could be a case where one believes the rich should have their taxes increased in order to pay for universal healthcare, free college tuition or tuition loan forgiveness as we've seen from OWS

No, that isn't envy, and reinforces my point that conservatives don't understand what envy is. Envy isn't wanting people to have better lives. Envy is wanting to swap one's own life for somebody else's. Envy is wanting to live in their mansion, to drive their car, to swim in their pool. Needless to say that nothing of what OWS has demanded will give them the ability to do that. So no, despite your misuse of the word, it is not envy.

 

[childofGod1]

I agree that we are much richer than past generations thanks in large part to technilogical innovations, but I also don't think that it's wrong to want to keep up the the standard of living we have now. Maybe we will go back to the way things were in the early 1900's, but what's the problem with wanting raise the standard of living for more and more people?.

What are you talking about? I don't think anyone has said our standard of living is going down or that anyone wants it to go down.

And what's wrong with fighting against government corruption?.

Nothing, as far as I know?!?! Gee, that was kind of random...

It's easy to say that OWS is driven by greed, but that's ignoring the fact that much of the growing inequality is caused by relatively recent changes in government policies.

You are contrasting two unrelated items here. OWS can be motivated by greed independent of government actions. I can't accept as "fact" your assertion that income inequality is caused by recent government changes, especially with the complete absence of data to back it up. You haven't even named which changes you blame.

I'll repeat what Warren Buffet had to say regarding the issue. If there is class warfare the wealthy are winning.

As very wealthy man, he ought to at least know if class warfare happening. Since he seems ignorant on that basic point, I'll take his statement for exactly what it's worth.

 

[childofGod1]

That facts point to them envying what we have....or at least what little we have left.

What facts?