Some Questions on Income Disparity

[punisher73]

As I've posted on another thread, the 'class' structure in America seems totally decided by how much money you have, thus you can go from being working class to middle class to back, here it's different. Class is decided less by money more by what your ancestors were! it takes several generations to move up or down a class. Here if you were born middle class you will always be middle class. If you are rich working class it will take at least three generations before you are accepted as having changed class and maybe not even then. A friend of my daughters is the son of a Lord, while coming from a very long pedigree and owning land and a castle nearby they actually have less money than I do but they are and always will be upper class. Me, because of my parents and theirs etc, will always be middle class even when I'm skint.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class

In our country we have a concept of "old money" vs. "new money". It's a way that the elite and rich distinguish themselves. Old money is large inheritances passed down to future generations and they will look down upon the new money, or people who had to really work at it (at least that's the impression that is made, haven't had the chance to personally talk with anyone from the old money group lol).

I think we base our classes on money because we never had titles, etc. that were passed on like in England and other countries that had kings and nobility.

 

[JohnEdward]

http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/economic-cycle-theory/2009/10/15/

Bill you might find this interest.

 

[elder999]

In our country we have a concept of "old money" vs. "new money". It's a way that the elite and rich distinguish themselves. Old money is large inheritances passed down to future generations and they will look down upon the new money, or people who had to really work at it (at least that's the impression that is made, haven't had the chance to personally talk with anyone from the old money group lol).

I think we base our classes on money because we never had titles, etc. that were passed on like in England and other countries that had kings and nobility.

Only sometimes. Only somewhat. I have a friend who comes from "old money." Near as I can tell, it practically came over on the Mayflower with them-an exaggeration, but he said, rather famously, that he was the first person in his family to actually have a job in the entire 20th century.

My family's money is nearly as old as some others, but we'll never be "old money," because of the color of our skin, and because we worked all along, and because it usually isn't quite as much, though in some cases it's a bit more......

In any case, the "middle class" is the foundation of this country, and one of the key elements of a democracy, or democratic republic like ours-it's an altogether American creatio-and part of what alluded to in the "illegal Declaration of Independence" thread-what our founders did was contrary to the way things had been done in most other countries for thousands of years.Since ancient sumeria, an unrestrained economy and heirarchichal social organization have always resulted in a ruling elite and a large number of impoverished workers. Because the founders borrowed so much to form our government and society-especially from American Indians-they produced a govenrment and society that not only empowers and creates a middle class, but requires one.The closest equivalent for the founders was what Thomas Jeferson called yeomanry-his greatest fear for the new nation being not a king, but a new economic elite. They created a middle class by creating and regulating the rules of the game of business, by protecting jobs inside the country with rational tariffs and trade policies and by providing a healthy social safety net and the means for social mobility, such as free public education-all the way through college-thus it was that the post WWII period was the one of greatest economic growth, and growth of the middle class. The first middle class of our nation was land-based, and lasted from founding through the Civil War:average people living in relative self-sufficiency on "free land."

We're seeing an end to the middle class for a lot of reasons, Bill-chief among them that corporations have been taking jobs elsewhere. The jeans made by the company that pretty much created them here in this country, Levi Strauss, haven't been made in this country since 2004. At one time, a person could work in a Levi Strauss factory in this country, make a fair wage, and be reasonably lower middle-class. The workers had health benefits and a savings plan for their retirement, and could own homes and have continue their children's education. With the coming of trade agreements like NAFTA, though, those workers-some 100 million of them in this country, have to compete on a level playing field with 5 billion of the world's most impoverished people. This is a result of "free trade," and deregulation. This country lost some 785,000 jobs in the apparel industry alone between 1994 and 2004, because it's cheaper for a Malaysian child to make our jeans than it is for an American homeowner-those jobs will be back, though, because pretty soon all those people occupying Wall Street (you know, if they had jobs, they mostly wouldn't have the time to be there, right?) are going to need them, and they'll do them for a lot less. This has all been engineered, and going on for a long, long time.'

So, yes Bill, losing the middle class is a bad, bad thing for the U.S.-it's who we are.

 

[Sukerkin]

Very well expressed, Elder. I've banged on about the globalisation of labour several times here but have never managed to encapsulate the problem so well in terms of American historical perspective.

For an example of the way that the Bean Counters have enriched the few at the expense of the many, you need look no further than the fate of my 'home' city, Stoke-on-Trent. In twenty years it went from a power-house of the global ceramics industry to a crumbing ruin infested with unemployment. The only thing that flourishes there now are the drug dealers. That's what happens when you allow the corporate mind-set to 'outsource' labour - in our case a thousand years of expertise in the craft and art of ceramics lost in the passing of a generation to put an extra wad of cash in the back pockets of share-holders.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Bill you might find this interest.

I do, but I cannot say I am convinced by reading it that:

Or as Michael Hudson said in a previous interview, "The economy has reached its debt limit and is entering its insolvency phase. We are not in a cycle but the end of an era. The old world of debt pyramiding to a fraudulent degree cannot be restored."

It may be true, but such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.

 

[JohnEdward]

I do, but I cannot say I am convinced by reading it that:



It may be true, but such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.

The article was written in 2009. But it has, demonstrated by history near and far. There are models that prove it. We are in it as well proven on lesser scales. Look at the last century, and the wealth structure and its disparity of wealth. Much of the arguments now are then same then due to the similar wealthy structure. Of course our cheap labor wasn't immigrants from the south, but rather children granted, but the was the similar disparity in wealth and the same reason for the disparity. Then the Stock Market Crash which didn't effect everyone with wealth, but all who didn't have wealth, making a correction in wealth disparity. Lots of poor and poor people. But in a short time, there was significant recovery and later it produced a strong stable economy. Starting the current falter, in the late 70's, has continued until today, we not since then had significant periods of an strong stable economy in comparison. Before the last century the economy functioned and was based on a whole new model. There this and the last century are uncharted economic territory in many ways, and in terms of proving or not cyclic economic theory. But we are not when it comes to seeing the importance disparity of wealth has. When the country was economically the strongest there was the same proportion of the disparity of wealth as today. Today, we are in a major economic crisis where our economy isn't stable or healthy, which effect the whole world. With no recovery in sight. Especially if this administration takes office again, and other players remain in charge. Basically, forecasting and where ever model you use to the economy is a being behind the eight ball. Just as meteorologist trying to predict the next hurricane, it's strength, size, force etc. it can't be done. No matter why cyclic theorem they come up this.

Am basically saying what ever side you are on what tends to happen is the most fundamental is over looked in favor of the more complex. It isn't a matter of claims or proofs. It is a matter of changing the gap of disparity to strengthen the economy.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The article was written in 2009. But it has, demonstrated by history near and far. There are models that prove it. We are in it as well proven on lesser scales. Look at the last century, and the wealth structure and its disparity of wealth. Much of the arguments now are then same then due to the similar wealthy structure. Of course our cheap labor wasn't immigrants from the south, but rather children granted, but the was the similar disparity in wealth and the same reason for the disparity. Then the Stock Market Crash which didn't effect everyone with wealth, but all who didn't have wealth, making a correction in wealth disparity. Lots of poor and poor people. But in a short time, there was significant recovery and later it produced a strong stable economy. Starting the current falter, in the late 70's, has continued until today, we not since then had significant periods of an strong stable economy in comparison. Before the last century the economy functioned and was based on a whole new model. There this and the last century are uncharted economic territory in many ways, and in terms of proving or not cyclic economic theory. But we are not when it comes to seeing the importance disparity of wealth has. When the country was economically the strongest there was the same proportion of the disparity of wealth as today. Today, we are in a major economic crisis where our economy isn't stable or healthy, which effect the whole world. With no recovery in sight. Especially if this administration takes office again, and other players remain in charge. Basically, forecasting and where ever model you use to the economy is a being behind the eight ball. Just as meteorologist trying to predict the next hurricane, it's strength, size, force etc. it can't be done. No matter why cyclic theorem they come up this.

Am basically saying what ever side you are on what tends to happen is the most fundamental is over looked in favor of the more complex. It isn't a matter of claims or proofs. It is a matter of changing the gap of disparity to strengthen the economy.

Sorry, not seeing it. My overall impression remains a simpler one; that our economy a) experiences cycles and b) that they continue. I see nothing that tells me that the current recession is never-ending.

 

[JohnEdward]

Sorry, not seeing it. My overall impression remains a simpler one; that our economy a) experiences cycles and b) that they continue. I see nothing that tells me that the current recession is never-ending.

That is what am saying we don't know if it will end or if it does when? Therefore it is hard to apply a cyclic theory to our situation. But history and other economics do give us indication that the cycles are not consistent or uniform. Just in the same way we look at past hurricane data and models in terms of cycles telling us the difficulty of prediction. All we can say for sure is statically the frequency of the number of storms through out the year. i.e. July - November has the highest frequencies. But under the right conditions a hurricane season can last well before or past that window. Yes, never ending means never, at that is an extreme but not unrealistic. As when a recession doesn't end it usually means the on set of collapse. Recession that doesn't end is because it turns into something worse. Are we at that point, don't know. We have to ride it out. Hopefully, it will end. But am not basing that on models or theories, as models and theories never predicted or factored in the Great Depression. Rather then trusting models and theories fortune tellers to let us know when things will recover. I rather employ the simple fix, painful for some, and put in place safeguards to lessen the effects of a recession so it will not last long and will end. POV.

 

[Twin Fist]

I dont buy your ******** "it was a literary device" retraction.

You insulted every nurse with your claptrap, I am 100% sure you meant it, and and trust me, we both know you would never say it to me or any other male nurse in person.

Since your moving up, let me know when you make the transition from nurse part-time to Doctor. We need to flood the field with doctors, so that it isn't any longer insulated. And what has taken you so long. Why be a lowly nurse? That isn't a strong profession it is on the bottom level of medical professions. Nurses usually are the one who can't hack medical school. especial male nurses. Won't it be pertinent to take your own advice. Lead by example, not by words.

 

[Sukerkin]

Calmly now, gentlemen. Such literary pawing-of-the-ground will not do.

Mr. Edward, if you really meant a clarification or an apology, there is no shame in reiterating it so that those taking offence know with more surety that that is indeed what you meant.

John, altho' I understand why your blood was up, it's not good form to be so challenging in your mode of speech in the Study. As we know from past experience, that can lead to harsher still exchanges, which, given the relatively recent, new, tighter, guidelines on behaviour, is not a good thing.

When discourse descends into 'wrangling', with participants taking and giving insult, then it is generally not long before the Moderators have to step in to keep the peace. It's much better if that doesn't have to happen and members show that they can moderate themselves, generating interesting and productive debate for all readers.

Mark A. Beardmore
MT Mentor

 

[billc]

Voting Obama and as many other democrats out of office as possible will go a long way towards bringing the current recession to a close...whoever the republican may be...even that Paul guy.

 

[granfire]

Voting Obama and as many other democrats out of office as possible will go a long way towards bringing the current recession to a close...whoever the republican may be...even that Paul guy.

You are either demented or simply ignorant.

I do hope you know this downward spiral started with the hero of the Republican army, I mean party, Ronald Reagan, and just because George W was freshly out of office, the bail outs do also fall on his head.

So far any republican is the last nail in the coffin...maybe that Romny guy as the lone exception.

 

[billc]

Sorry, the mess started with Jimmy Carter, with the final push by Bill Clinton, aided by Barak "the organizer" obama, and protected by the likes of Barney Frank and his boyfriend as well as Chris Dodd. Bush did try to bring some control back over fannie and freddie, but the dems, and some republicans, stopped any attempt to fix the situation.

The timeline and the criminals...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/what_really_happened_in_the_mo.html

[FONT=times new roman,times]1990s[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]With the mechanisms in place, the community organizing groups began developing directed strategies to exert more and more pressure on the lending industry in the cloak of complicity with CRA. Community organizer Barack Obama worked closely with ACORN activists. Employing the radical Alinsky intimidation tactics Obama had learned and was teaching -- "direct action" -- activists crowded bank lobbies, blocked drive-up teller lanes and demonstrated at the homes of bankers to browbeat risky lending in poor and minority communities. Those who resisted were accused of racism to the media and government officials.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]The agitators could now stall or hijack bank mergers by filing complaints of non-compliance against the institutions. Lawsuits alleging redlining and racism began flooding the court system. With the prospect of expansions and mergers threatened, banks settled cases and, significantly, increasingly made loans they would not have normally made. The net effect, as ACORN litigation increased, was that credit standards lowered.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Initially the GSEs resisted purchasing these risky mortgages but [/FONT]

 

[Twin Fist]

bll is right, the facts are the facts, the whole thing was caused by the DEMOCRAT protected fannie and freddy following DEMOCRAT thery of "everyone deserves to own a home" which is bull crap in it's purest form

no person deserves ANYTHING other than a chance to pursue happiness

not results, but a chance at tryng to work for them

 

[Sukerkin]

Aye, I am a firm believer in equality of opportunity rather than outcome :nods:. But you've got to have a reasonably fair game for that to happen.

As to the roots of the present crisis, then, sorry to say, they do start in the 'soil' of the Reagan era. Like I've said before, actions then were the pebble that started setting the conditions for the avalanche. However, if what I've heard from John and Don and now BillC is true about the policies that twisted lenders arms to lend (where there was no realistic expectation of the borrower making good on the loan) then that is the charge that actually triggered the slide.

Of course, if the houses hadn't been ludicrously over-valued then it still wouldn't have been a banking crisis as the assets would not have been toxic - but that's a more complicated tale.

 

[Twin Fist]

no it isnt

it is simple

DEMOCRATS FORCED banks to make loans to people that were not qualified

those people (of course) couldnt make the payments so they were foreclosed on

the fact that the properties were overvalued made matters worse, but the CAUSE of the problem was DEMOCRAT theory of social engineering

 

[elder999]

Sorry, not seeing it. My overall impression remains a simpler one; that our economy a) experiences cycles and b) that they continue. I see nothing that tells me that the current recession is never-ending.

And that's been true for most of our lives. There's every indication that this is different.

A good example from history: that land-based middle class I was talking about earlier? It lastd from the founding and though the Civil War. Then "free land" (INDIAN land) started becoming scarce,and the Industrial Revolution started drawing workers back into cities. As big business grew in the 1880s, the farm-based middle class collapsed, in part because the predecessors to ConAgra gained control of the sale and distribution of farm produce-this led to middle class farmers rising up and creating the Grange Movement to push back on big-agriculture, but the country was moving from an agricultural base to an industrial one, further eroding the farmers' power. As industry grew, the country entered a period sometimes referred to as the Robber Baron Era. Wealthy capitalists gaine monopolies over new technology and the resources it required: railroads, steel, oil, and coal, and amassed huge amounts of wealth.

That wealth did not trickle down.

By the start of the twentieth century, the average worker's income was less than $10k/yr. in today's dollars. Americans pushed back, limiting corporations with the Sherman Anti-trust act (essentially meaningless since Reagan scaled it back) . In 1907, that great Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, made it illegal for corporations to give money to politicians, a law which is still on the books. Even with all this pushing back, though, the established aristocracy (meritocracy?) was frimly entrenched, and most Americans had no control over their own economic destiny, for the most part. The Robber Baron Era saw a very Dickensian America: from the 1880s through the Great Depression, things really only got worse for the working man.

There's every indication we're entering a similar period now. We're about to enter a very foolish trade war with China, over our misperception of the valuation of their currency. Additionally, there is a very real limitation on natural resources-while our own use actually isn't growing that much, the energy use of countries like China and India is growing at a remarkable rate. The list-my list-goes on and on, but the current recession may only be the beginning of a very dark period in American economic history.

(Buy LAND)

 

[JohnEdward]

Calmly now, gentlemen. Such literary pawing-of-the-ground will not do.

Mr. Edward, if you really meant a clarification or an apology, there is no shame in reiterating it so that those taking offence know with more surety that that is indeed what you meant.

John, altho' I understand why your blood was up, it's not good form to be so challenging in your mode of speech in the Study. As we know from past experience, that can lead to harsher still exchanges, which, given the relatively recent, new, tighter, guidelines on behaviour, is not a good thing.

When discourse descends into 'wrangling', with participants taking and giving insult, then it is generally not long before the Moderators have to step in to keep the peace. It's much better if that doesn't have to happen and members show that they can moderate themselves, generating interesting and productive debate for all readers.

Mark A. Beardmore
MT Mentor

Please, my apologies are extended if my rhetoric device is seen as beyond that to invoke emotional and unproductive petty insults is far from what I was doing. My comment was directed and calculated to stress a point as I said before, and was not intended to be anything else then to present and point out parallels in analogies. I believe nursing is a noble profession and I personally don't believe otherwise. And really it would be silly to think it otherwise, nurses are the backbone of the hospital, clinic or office. I am sorry if any nurses found my comment slighting their profession. Again the use was specific and representational. My apology if anyone who may have mis-read my comments as being a petty knee jerk response to a perceived insult. Which is understandable as it happens allot on comment boards such as these, it is often done in lieu of a meaningful and intelligent response. I didn't take Twin Fist's comment personally, or as a slight though that is a well known device intended to be a slight toward a whole class of people. Something I think Twin Fist failed to realize and wasn't sensitive to.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

That is what am saying we don't know if it will end or if it does when? Therefore it is hard to apply a cyclic theory to our situation. But history and other economics do give us indication that the cycles are not consistent or uniform.

Not at all. History tells us that we have booms and busts. Both end. In the absence of compelling evidence that the sun will not come up tomorrow, I choose to believe that it will. It's simply the smartest bet; that doesn't mean it is right, it means it's the best odds.

 

[Twin Fist]

is there an apology in there to all the nurses your insulted ?

Please, my apologies are extended if my rhetoric device is seen as beyond that to invoke emotional and unproductive petty insults is far from what I was doing. My comment was directed and calculated to stress a point as I said before, and was not intended to be anything else then to present and point out parallels in analogies. I believe nursing is a noble profession and I personally don't believe otherwise. And really it would be silly to think it otherwise, nurses are the backbone of the hospital, clinic or office. I am sorry if any nurses found my comment slighting their profession. Again the use was specific and representational. My apology if anyone who may have mis-read my comments as being a petty knee jerk response to a perceived insult. Which is understandable as it happens allot on comment boards such as these, it is often done in lieu of a meaningful and intelligent response. I didn't take Twin Fist's comment personally, or as a slight though that is a well known device intended to be a slight toward a whole class of people. Something I think Twin Fist failed to realize and wasn't sensitive to.