The issue is not just income inequality, rather the much bigger issue is the
disparity in wealth ownership. The 400 wealthiest individuals own more equity
than the bottom half of the entire population! And the inequality is
accelerating. American capiltalism is changing and not for the better. In
essence American capital has abandoned American labor in favor of foreign labor.
Without some kind of change toward some sort of socialism the American working
class is doomed.
tell me, do the poor of today live in more adverse conditions than they did 30
years ago? I think not.
The neocon dream of the 80's is coming to fruition, thank you republican
The one problem I've observed as an elementary school teacher is this: In
poorer areas, parents who have the means move their children into another school
with richer demographics. This leaves the local schools with more children who
come from homes that are poorer, especially ones with single parents. Because
the single parents must work, the school their child attends does not get the
support it needs at the school or home level to succeed. Teachers don't
have parents to even help with classroom parties and field trips. That is why I
stayed at my school for 25 years. I couldn't afford to live there, but
there were not the challenges to be found at the schools nearer to my home. 25
years without ever seeing lice. I'm so glad I never changed schools.
"tell me, do the poor of today live in more adverse conditions than they did
30 years ago? I think not." This is probably a true statement, but the
ranks of the "poor" are swelling, and the top heavy disbribution of
wealth is finihsing off democracy. Is this of any importantce to you?
This is why there was absolutely no harm in ending the Bush-era tax break for
the top earners. I'm thankful for a president who understands that. Now
we just need to stop electing people in congress whose policies would ultimately
end the middle class.
One of the major problems in America today in Entitlements, and it affects both
ends of the class system. Many in the Upper Class believe that they are entitled
to all they can get regardless of who it hurts or kills. For example, the
banking CEO's that received millions in "bank bail-out" funds,
after helping to cause the banking crisis, just because they donated to some
politicians campaign. Many in the Lower Class have been taught that they are
entitled to everything for nothing. There are more special programs, for low
income people everyday, i.e., the new cell phone programs, that enable the Lower
Class to have cell phones. Instead of new hand-out programs, that enable the
Lower Class to have something for nothing, they need programs to help them
become self-relient. and see how many more workers could be hired if the
management took less.
"Not surprisingly Reardon found that students at schools that draw from
high-income neighborhoods score better on math and reading tests than schools
that draw from low-income neighborhoods."--------There are many reasons people, on average, perform differently than one
another. The twisted implication of this story is that differences in income
produces the different performance. I'm sure there is some correlation of
that type. However, a much more likely and strong correlation exists showing
that differences in performance produce differences in income.I came
from a very poor background. My father made the most money in his life when he
received a raise to $750/month a few months before his death. Nevertheless,
with the pitiful income he made and the money generated from the many odd jobs
held by all of his six children and my Mom, the expectation was that all of us
would pursue an education and that starting college was simply the next grade
after High School. Consequently, we all graduated college and have all been
steadily employed in variety of careers ever since.The lesson is
simple and as old as civilization. Expand your capabilities and you expand your
The problem is in the demographics of our population.
@lost in dc actually yes they do have less access, real wages and aid to
the poor has fallen far behind the cost of living index.
First of all, every time I hear or see an American who thinks (or the government
say they are poor) I shake my head. I lived in a country in Asia for two years
where real poverty exists, where many people do not eat everyday (literally).
The definition of poverty in America is much different than in any other
country.Secondly, and I know I will be excoriated by the left for saying
this but anyone in America who is poor is either handicapped, addicted or lazy.
In other words, the vast majority of people living in poverty in America are not
only not really poor by all other standards, but are poor because of personal
choices. Single mothers are the largest demographic of poor people in America
which is solvable: don't have sex out of wedlock!Lastly, does our
entitlement society lock people into permanent poverty by creating dependency?
Answer: yes it does! Welfare as it is administered by the government is creating
more poverty in America, not solving it.
Happy valleyUntil 49.2% constitutes a majority, you have no
credibility.Spring street,None of what you said indicates
their standard of living is worse than it was 30 years ago. Nice apples to
bedspreads comparison, though.
@Mountanman -- You seriously don't know anyone in your ward who is poor?
My ward has lots of people who need help. (I am not poor -- I always hate to
add comments like that, but I know if I don't, everything I say will be
discounted). Some of them are single women, but none of them had their children
out of wedlock. Most of those who are divorced came from marriages that were
pretty bad -- married to an alcoholic, married to an abuser, etc. Some are
widows. Others are poor because dad didn't get an education and is working
at a job that doesn't pay much. Yes, it's his fault that he
didn't get an education....but for some people it's tough. Maybe they
aren't as bright as others. Maybe they got married and had children so
young that it was difficult to continue on in college. There are lots of
reasons why people are poor, and while I think public policy should encourage
marriage to decrease poverty, I don't think it's as simple as
you've painted it.
It's too bad DN doesn't either print the study or do a more thorough
summary of its findings. This article, as written, doesn't provide much
information and how many people go on to actually read the article?At least one has to credit Mountanman for honesty. Yes, we know Republicans
look at the poor as lazy, addicted etc. Republicans in general seem ignorant of
the welfare reform enacted by a Republican Congress and Bill Clinton. Relative inequality is a concern. Increasing inequality is a threat to
democracy, when more power becomes concentrated in fewer hands. When life
becomes more difficult for the majority, making higher education less attainable
etc. the opportunity for personal advancement declines, creating a perpetual
MM, sometimes your comments are just plain sickening. There are thousands of
Americans who work their tails off, but are rewarded with pay cuts, or cuts in
working hours.I know an older lady whose husband ran off and left
her to raise her children. No support from him and no help from the state or
anyone else to try to collect. She is reasonably well educated, but has no
degree herself because she worked to put him through college.She
works today for a large "non-profit" hospital chain. She is paid just
above minimum wage as a receptionist / filing clerk. Even at that, they
recently cut her hours from 40 to 34. Don't have to pay as much. She
still has health insurance, but employee share of premiums has shot up along
with deductible. A single abscessed tooth cost her $1600 out of pocket. Her
health is on the poor side, but she's looking for a second job.
Hasn't been able to find one that will allow her to continue working at the
hospital.Perhaps you need to come out of your gated community and
look around at what is really happening in the world.
Sometimes it is difficult to know who is poor, middle class, or wealthy. With
the popularity of filing bankruptcy in Utah, one can appear to have more
material goods, yet they have a low income. Many times, in our society life is
more about greed than need. I remember a preacher saying, "A poor person
(of all income levels) buys what they want and begs for their needs."
Dividing people up into socioeconomic levels does not tell the whole story of
what is going on.
I find it surprising for a state with a majority of people who belong to a
church which sends missionaries to all parts of the world, that so many hold
similar views to Mountanman. Because one would think former missionaries and
families would have gained a more Christ-like respect and attitude toward
others, especially the less fortunate. One would think those who
are religious and profess a belief in God would be less judgemental. Instead,
in the public square the religious, from many different denominations, appear to
be extremely intolerant and judgemental.
@MountanmanBoy what a solution. I never thought of that before.
Clearly its only the single mothers having sex. Men have nothing to do with it,
right. In fact lets teach them a lesson. No medicaid, no WIC, no food stamps.
And if they don't get the message I am sure the malnurished kids won't
"Income inequality" is a phony issue, a sleight of hand to redirect
attention. Politicians like to bring it up so people blame all their woes on
"the rich." Then of course comes the fix. The solution is to tax the
rich even more (75 percent if you live in France). The dirty secret though is
that even though "income inequality" can be reduced, quality of life
improves for no one, except for the rich friends of the politicians. This is the
aristocracy at work.So if ever you hear a politician talking about
income inequality or a need to redistribute income, I can guarantee you she is
trying to pull the wool over your eyes.We need to return to the
liberal ideals that this country was founded on, and stop the progressive march.
@lost in dc what part of their real wages went down decreasing their
ability to maintain the same standard of life is comparing oranges to
bedspreads? please stop with the childish retorts.
@lost in dcDo you understand what the standard of living index is? please
actually address my post instead of using empty retorts.
Brigham Young stated it best when he said something to the effect, the ways of
the world (capitalism included) tend to sink the masses into poverty and
degradation while exalting a few to unfathomable wealth. This not only was the
premise in the plan of the adversary of all mankind, to ironically save all
mankind, alas the biggest lie ever told as amply manifest by this very extreme
inequality gap in temporal affiars--this greed and selfishness is literally the
source of all evil in our society even now.
The main problem with income and wealth inequality is macroeconomic. When the
consumer classes have less disposable income (and this has been the trend for
the past 30 years), demand remains depressed, which discourages the wealthy from
investing in increased domestic production. This is why supply-side economics
never worked. More and more of the profit keeps going to the top. For a while we
were able to buy all the products corporate America kept producing (in Third
World countries) by purchasing on credit. But the 2008 crash ended that fantasy.
If corporations really want to stay in business, they need to start hiring
American workers, paying them better, and giving the CEO what he really deserves
(maybe 8 to 10 times the pay of the average worker). Only with more balance in
where the wealth goes will we be able to pull ourselves out of the hole we
started digging with Reagonomics.
Spring street,It appears we have a misunderstanding/miscommunicationthe poor today I believe have a much better standard of living than they
did in the 1980sthey have:cell phonesPCsinternet
accessgame systems, etc.subscription TVthe medical care
they receive is modern, not 1980s treatmentstheir cars generally do not
burn leaded gas and get 12 miles per gallon.Did I ever say they are
able to take advantage of as many things as those better off or that their life
was a breeze? No.I said their standard of living is better than it
was 30 years ago.They ARE able to take advantage of most, if not all, of
the technological advantages that make life today better than it was 30 years
ago.In some ways, our treatment of the poor is much better than it
was before.When I was in school, the poor kids worked in the
cafeteria during lunch and got one meal a day. now they get breakfast and lunch
and do not have to work.That is just one example, my 200 word limit
prevents further explanation