Back to basics: economic justice (political)

[Roxanne Appleby]

She lost me a couple of years ago when she made clear her views on the place of the mentally ill in the world she envisions.

You've been lying about that for two years. Why don't you look up and post the exchange.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Are there kids who are born into poverty and socialized, by their parents and/or the community they live in, to be non-achievers?

Yes. There are some. But I can't imagine that it's an epidemic. Most people want something better, and try to achieve it to the best of their abilities.

Is it possible to "pull oneself up from the gutter by one's own bootstaps" and make a good life for oneself and one's kids, despite being born into poverty?

Yes. But it involves two things. Hard work and luck.

Some people do all the right things, work hard, study hrad, stay out of trouble and away from bad company... and they're still stuck in the same bog. Because breaks are few and far between and they were too busy staying afloat to catch one when it passed by. A fair society needs to eliminate the need for luck. Or rather eliminate the situation where a streak of bad luck (for instance, illness) spells disaster.

A good society IMO, isn't one that makes life "at the bottom" comfortable, but one that doesn't allow people who really try their hardest, to fail. A good society is one that makes sure there's always a ladder, for those who wants to climb it.

Today there isn't. Not in your country, nor in mine. And that is just plain undignified.

I agree with you except you are mistaken about one thing: In this country there are some communities in which being "socialized to be nonacheivers" is the norm.

 

[Guest]

<snip>
Finally, I can't imagine how you could read my post about an underclass characterized by destructive habits and imagine I was talking about you. That almost suggests that you are looking for an excuse to unload on me for reasons that I don't understand.

Nope. Interesting that you would toss that back at me.

But as a matter of fact, I keep giving you the benefit of the doubt. Time and time again.

The fact that you cannot comprehend the situation that so many of us are attempting to manage shows that you are indeed completely disconnected from a reality that affects a great many people.

I'm sorry you don't see it or can't believe it. But it's there. My family is just one of many.

Hence my frustration. Many people are living paycheck to paycheck, barely managing matters. One major situation, then a string of bad luck makes it impossible to dig out from beneath.

Our government helps those who have nothing, and those who have everything. There isn't a great deal of assistance for those in the middle, but they do tax us hugely, so at least we are noticed.

I'm not looking for some ridiculous pity party. I am fucking tired of being considered a "non-citizen" or a "less-than citizen" just because I don't have cash to burn.

Your comments the other day, Rox, the Joe and Mary Six-pack? Those numbers were a lot closer to my situation than you know. Vehicles, too.

Better take a second thought at the Ivory Tower.

I agree with Liar. This should not be the situation in a dignified and fair society.

 

[Pure]

some graphics and info

neat graphic for social mobility.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515_CLASS_GRAPHIC/index_03.html

hover the pointer over the class on the left. where do they end up is on the right
===
http://kriswager.blogspot.com/2007/06/social-mobility-in-us.html
Sunday, June 10, 2007

Social mobility in the US

The classic American Dream is about how anyone can become rich in the US through hard work and endurance, no matter how humble a background they come from.

There are many stories out there about how someone got out of poverty and became rich - among them Kirk Douglas' auto-biography The Ragman's Son, in which he describes his childhood in absolute poverty, and how he worked his way up to become a world-famerous actor (and how he had to hide his Jewish background to be able to do so).

However, for each such tale, there are literately hundred of thousands of untold stories about those who didn't make it. Those that grew up in poverty, and stayed in poverty. Or those that sank into poverty either through bad decisions, or sheer ill luck.

What I want to do with this post, is to provide an place for links to articles and papers about social/income mobility in the US. The idea is to make it easier for people to find out the true state of affairs of the American dream. Something that large groups of the US don't seem to know. As a NY Times article from their 2005 special feature about class in the US made clear:

Most Americans remain upbeat about their prospects for getting ahead. A recent New York Times poll on class found that 40 percent of Americans believed that the chance of moving up from one class to another had risen over the last 30 years, a period in which the new research shows that it has not. Thirty-five percent said it had not changed, and only 23 percent said it had dropped.


Study after study has shown that income mobility in the US has declined in recent decades, as the article also makes clear

One study, by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, found that fewer families moved from one quintile, or fifth, of the income ladder to another during the 1980's than during the 1970's and that still fewer moved in the 90's than in the 80's. A study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics also found that mobility declined from the 80's to the 90's.


What the study (.pdf) by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston also shows, is that the poorest quintile was the least mobile of all the quintile - 53.3% of all from the poorest quintile stayed there.
=======
http://www.suttontrust.com/reports/IntergenerationalMobility.pdf


Intergenerational Mobility in Europe and North America:

A Report Supported by the Sutton Trust --

by Jo Blanden, Paul Gregg and Stephen Machin1
April 2005

[...]
Implications
International comparisons of intergenerational mobility show that Britain, like the United States, is at the lower end of international comparisons of mobility. Also intergenerational mobility has declined in Britain at a time of rising income inequality. The strength of the relationship between educational attainment and family income, especially for access to higher education, is at the heart of Britain’s low mobility culture.

The results in Table 2 that compare intergenerational mobility across the eight countries suggest a clear pattern. America and Britain have the highest intergenerational persistence (lowest mobility). Germany is around the middle of the estimates, while the Nordic countries and Canada all appear to be rather more mobile.

Among the Nordic countries the levels of mobility are similar: Norway has the greatest mobility and Sweden the least. The estimates shown here are broadly in line with what we would expect from the current literature which takes one country at a time (as reviewed by Corak, 2004)

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

One major situation, then a string of bad luck makes it impossible to dig out from beneath.

That helps me understand. I agree with Liar too.

I'm not looking for some ridiculous pity party.

I'm not throwing one. But you have my sympathy anyway. You deserve better.

 

[Xelebes]

Economic justice: that every transaction be done out of a sober minds and that the transaction be not done out of the absolute necessity. If so, a general rule must be established to ensure that what is an absolute necessity be provided in an equitable manner - the role of the government, per say.

 

[Guest]

That helps me understand. I agree with Liar too.


I'm not throwing one. But you have my sympathy anyway. You deserve better.

Thanks.

It's our kids who deserve better, really. We can manage. They're the ones I lose sleep over.

With their eventual academic scholarships and the money we've been putting into annuities we'll make college a reality for them.

They have strict orders not to go into teaching, though. It's not a respected field and it doesn't pay - even exemplary teaching or service isn't rewarded.

Do you know I received a city award for volunteerism last spring? Picture in the paper with the leaders and everything. A shame I can't capitalize on any of that hard work.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SARAH

Damn! Right twice in one day.

I think I need to go lie down.

 

[Guest]

SARAH

Damn! Right twice in one day.

I think I need to go lie down.

Me, too.

 

[Pure]

question for sweetss

the mystery, sarah, maybe you can explain, is why all of the south, midwest and west, except the w. coast is going to vote mccain. why it remains staunchly rep'n, *apparently* against its interests

 

[Belegon]

the mystery, sarah, maybe you can explain, is why all of the south, midwest and west, except the w. coast is going to vote mccain. why it remains staunchly rep'n, *apparently* against its interests

Don't you think that this very thing frustrates all of us who support Obama and are aware of it?

Roxy, I want you to specify the people that make up your "underclass." Give me stats. Give me your personal experiences with them. Tell me what you think are the causes of their situations and their attitudes.

ETA

Post #63
In this country we do have an underclass, which I argue is the product of self destructive habits, and Pure argues is the product of economic exploitation. Even if I'm correct (I am), what about the kids - they aren't born with those destructive habits; it's just bad luck that they are socialized in ways that set them up for failure. They are victims.

Post #74
Are you implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) teaching your children that education is not important? Are you inculcating a non-work ethic in them, and an attitude of entitlement? Do you put getting high and hanging out with your friends ahead of spending quality time with your children? Do the examples you set for your teenage daughter tell her that it's OK to get pregnant even though she has no education, no prospects and no real relationship with the boy, who also has no prospects or education?

Of course not. The group that describes are the people I am talking about when I refer to the underclass. They primarily inhabit urban cores but there are pockets of them in many other places. I do not have a "blame the victim" attitude toward them because those bad parents also had bad parents and never had an opportunity to learn any better habits themselves.

 

[Guest]

the mystery, sarah, maybe you can explain, is why all of the south, midwest and west, except the w. coast is going to vote mccain. why it remains staunchly rep'n, *apparently* against its interests

Oh, I wish I knew.

In Kansas, the areas around major universities tend to vote Democrat. The rest of the state, many small towns, is generally staunchly conservative.

Church membership is actually down across the country, including the Midwest, so I'm not certain using the excuse of Bible Belt is accurate any longer.

There are several military bases in Kansas with airports and many of the soldiers serve and have served in Iraq. Support for the military is high.

Income Taxes are in the medium to high range, nationally.
If your income range is between $0 and $15,000, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 3.5%.
If your income range is between $15,001 and $30,000, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 6.25%.
If your income range is $30,001 and over, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 6.45%.

Always a Free State, I think KS got its nose snubbed when the Supreme Court chose Topeka for the location of the desegregation case Brown vs. Topeka (there were several cases up at the same time and they picked Kansas). That decision had resounding financial implications for the city, then and even today.

Demographically Kansas runs about 90% white and just under 3 million total population, though that number is changing with an influx of Hispanic folk.

From Wiki -
Kansas is one of the slowest-growing states in the nation. Known as a rural exodus, the last few decades have been marked by a migratory pattern out of the countryside into cities.

Out of all the cities in these Midwestern states, 89% have fewer than 3000 people, and hundreds of those have fewer than 1000. In Kansas alone, there are more than 6,000 ghost towns, according to one Kansas historian.

At the same time, some of the communities in Johnson County (metropolitan Kansas City) are among the fastest growing in the country - and they vote Democrat. (my addition in bold)


But we can see a change beginning. There were a great many people at Obama's caucuses. This was new.

We have a Democratic governer - re-elected. (I actually had her kids in class. Like her very much.) She is very popular and doing an exceptional job.

Since we're not originally from Kansas, it did take some adjustment to live here. We do notice a serious "stick-in-the-mud" sort of attitude about change, about new things.

People are afraid of change. But it seems just maybe we're beginning to move past that.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Don't you think that this very thing frustrates all of us who support Obama and are aware of it?

Roxy, I want you to specify the people that make up your "underclass." Give me stats. Give me your personal experiences with them. Tell me what you think are the causes of their situations and their attitudes.

ETA

Exhibit A: Look at the city of Detroit, home of a huge black underclass, and surrounding communities, home of a growing black middle class.

The underclass is not exclusively a black problem, but a larger proportion of the black population belongs to it.

I don't want to overgeneralize, but neither will I ignore a tragic reality.

 

[Belegon]

Exhibit A: Look at the city of Detroit, home of a huge black underclass, and surrounding communities, home of a growing black middle class.

The underclass is not exclusively a black problem, but a larger proportion of the black population belongs to it.

I don't want to overgeneralize, but neither will I ignore a tragic reality.

I'll be honest here. I wanted you to make the point that the people you are discussing are largely made up of African-Americans. Because I want to talk about the ECONOMIC situation. I don't want to turn this into being ONLY about race.

However, there is a racial element to it. And to ignore that is to make it impossible to honestly talk about how to repair the problems.

ETA: Thing is, I'm watching a football game and I have a column due shortly after it ends. This discussion deserves my full attention. And I can't give it that right now.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Sadly, the problem's not going away anytime soon so there's no rush to discuss it.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Where is it written that the fruits of ones labour are the property of the labourer?

Is that one of those inalienable rights?

If my labour involves guns and masks and banks is it my right to retain those fruits?

If the answer is no then you're talking about laws made by other people in the society to which you belong.

Socialism as a word that comes from the same roots as society. Without society the fruits of your labour are farm produce.

Bank robbery is not legitimate labor. There are some inherently wrong careers. Businessman isn't one of those bad careers, complaints about "robber barons" to the contrary notwithstanding.

That doesn't mean that I think that all capitalists are angels of light. I've said it before, I'm a cynic. Which means that I trust neither business nor labor nor government. I just trust myself. I firmly believe that if I ran a business, I would do so competently and honestly. I just don't believe that small business is a worthwhile way to get ahead anymore. Capital gains taxes and government super-regulation have fucked it over too much. I would do a damn good job and still end up losing my shirt, I suspect.

Society is a necessary evil. Socialism is that evil without the necessity. Society exists for the sake of individuals, and only because individuals created it.

Like I said, I'm a cynic and a pessimist, and I freely admit as much these days.

And, yes, I believe in the fruits of one's labor, as long as one's labor isn't to steal the fruits of someone else's labor.

On the other hand, socialism does tempt one side of me. I just resist that temptation. It's tidier. But that doesn't make it better, no matter how much my OCD might be tempted. My paranoia about trusting politicians with an economic monopoly naturally wins out. As it should. Monopolies are bad. Politicians are bad (in fact, if I were a dictator and allowed to work my will, most politicians would be crucified). Mixing the two is doubly bad.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

The irony is that if I were a dictator, I wouldn't be a libertarian, like I am as a private citizen.

I'd probably institute a welfare state, for the following reasons:

1. If I abandoned my principles of republicanism and libertarianism in terms of form of government, it would be a small step to do so in economics. One vice easily leads to another.
2. It's easier to be a dictator if you're popular, and the welfare state is very popular. Panem et circenses and all (that's bread and circuses to the layman).
3. I would be in charge, so my paranoia about others wouldn't be a factor, and so my OCD would win out over the issue of untidy enterpreneurial capitalism.
4. Since it would make me more popular, it would reduce the number of dissidents to worry me and make a revolution against me less plausible. I could simply bribe the people to submit to me.
5. If I could override my conscience about the issue of tyranny, petty theft through wealth redistribution would be a small matter.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SEVERUSMAX

Calling yourself a capitalist doesnt make you one. Calling yourself anything doesnt make you one.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

SEVERUSMAX

Calling yourself a capitalist doesnt make you one. Calling yourself anything doesnt make you one.

That's a given.

My point is that there is a difference between me and evil-me. Evil-me would be very different in some ways. Like acting on my hatred of fashion and neckties.

There would be plenty of crucified fashion designers.

 

[Pure]

rox's 'underclass'

always irks me. the word is forgiveable when used by those with an ounce of sympathy.

bel //Roxy, I want you to specify the people that make up your "underclass." Give me stats. Give me your personal experiences with them. Tell me what you think are the causes of their situations and their attitudes.//

ETA

Exhibit A: Look at the city of Detroit, home of a huge black underclass, and surrounding communities, home of a growing black middle class.

The underclass is not exclusively a black problem, but a larger proportion of the black population belongs to it.

I don't want to overgeneralize, but neither will I ignore a tragic reality

this isn't really a definition. but upon reflection this concept has the following function for rox: it describes those who (apparently) are getting royally fucked, *and have only (mainly) themselves to blame.*

these folks function somewhat as 'unrepentant sinners' do in the Xian worldview.

the commonality is that these are folks with *irredeemable* and unremediable defect of moral fiber. it is not an emprically based category: rox *knows* its signs, just as the priest does.

while i don't say i never use the concept 'has only himself to blame', applied to certain individuals, e.g those who go winter hiking and ignore the 'avalanche danger' signs.

what i don't do is when driving through large sections of Detroit, make a sweeping gesture with my hand, and say 'here are the underclass; those with only themselves to blame.'

one rightly suspects that those making such gestures have a certain political agenda in place. it's not based in empirical reality, but rather seeks 'uplift' (or damnation) to another plane.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

the mystery, sarah, maybe you can explain, is why all of the south, midwest and west, except the w. coast is going to vote mccain. why it remains staunchly rep'n, *apparently* against its interests

Probably for the same reason that so many people still believe that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

...Society is a necessary evil....

What an odd statement! Why would you possibly say that?

Do you really think we should all live separately in our own caves?

 

[Pure]

an explanation:

i said,

the commonality [ between rox's underclass and unrepentant sinners] is that these are folks with *irredeemable* and unremediable defect of moral fiber. it is not an emprically based category: rox *knows* its signs, just as the priest does.

why do i say, NOT empirically based, i.e. NOT based in fact.

rox's "underclass" is an extension of efforts going back at least to Victorian times to distinguish the DESERVEDLY POOR, from the UNDESERVEDLY POOR. the motive is obvious: then as now, the good samaritans do not want a 'spendthrift' government wasting funds on those who voluntarily bring about their misfortunes through morally deficient acts-- e.g. spending the family's money on booze.

the category "poor" can be empirically defined, either absolutely or relatively (for the latter, the lowest quintile or decile with respect to income from all sources.)

the category "unemployed" can be empirically defined reasonably well; those who have not worked (for pay) in the last, X months.

even the category 'petty criminals' can be defined: those who've been convicted of [named set of] petty crimes.

what cannot be done, without Rox's supernatural powers is define the DESERVEDLY POOR, her underclass. among all the poor, she proposes to tell us who "has themself to blame." for example, the one who quit the last job, as opposed to the one who was laid off. pressed, of course rox would have to make a refinement: "OK, if the person quits due to serious sexual or racial harassment, they are not to blame. they will be UNdeservedly short of funds." and so goes the subjective process.

rox purports to be able to tell whose behavior is 'self destructive,' these being those with "themselves to blame" for their bad position.
for example: perhaps someone who drank so much they were fired from the last job? he is deservedly poor. why? this would be for rox, a "free choice" of the person to carry on with alcoholic behavior. hence 'self destructive' in a way that makes them DESERVE the consequent lack of funds after being fired.

the irony of all this is that right wing economists like Hayek, and right wing opinionators like Rand claim to analyse economics hard headedly. rox refuses to get into the "moral" concept of "fair wage," or "unconscionable contract". that's fuzzy, feel good socialism.

however her economics is permeated with moral judgements that have blatantly political objectives. THESE people are deservedly poor; they brought about their positions through voluntary, chosen, 'self destructive behavior.' the objective, of course, is reduction of gov't spending: nanny-ish or 'compassionate' programs should not be wasted on those who have an unlimited appetite for public funds, "handouts."

 

[Varian P]

Post #63
In this country we do have an underclass, which I argue is the product of self destructive habits, and Pure argues is the product of economic exploitation. Even if I'm correct (I am), what about the kids - they aren't born with those destructive habits; it's just bad luck that they are socialized in ways that set them up for failure. They are victims.

Post #74
Are you implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) teaching your children that education is not important? Are you inculcating a non-work ethic in them, and an attitude of entitlement? Do you put getting high and hanging out with your friends ahead of spending quality time with your children? Do the examples you set for your teenage daughter tell her that it's OK to get pregnant even though she has no education, no prospects and no real relationship with the boy, who also has no prospects or education?

Of course not. The group that describes are the people I am talking about when I refer to the underclass. They primarily inhabit urban cores but there are pockets of them in many other places. I do not have a "blame the victim" attitude toward them because those bad parents also had bad parents and never had an opportunity to learn any better habits themselves.

Exhibit A: Look at the city of Detroit, home of a huge black underclass, and surrounding communities, home of a growing black middle class.

The underclass is not exclusively a black problem, but a larger proportion of the black population belongs to it.

I don't want to overgeneralize, but neither will I ignore a tragic reality.

Like Belegon, I've been waiting for this to come up, as well.

You cite the example of a "huge black underclass" in Detroit in support of your assertion that the underclass in our country is the product of its own self-destructive habits, and of course statistics bear out that African Americans have a higher rate of poverty and lower average household incomes than Whites do.

Following your logic, it seems you are asserting that Blacks are inclined to have more self-destructive economic habits than Whites, and I'm curious to know what you believe the reason for that to be (you say bad parents teach their children bad habits, but why, in this theory of yours, are the bad parents disproportionately Black?).

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

VP

Blacks such as Bill Cosby and Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell make the same assertions about black-inflicted poverty and community disintegration.

One theory for this phenomena is economic niche exploitation. That is, in 1965 the Federal Government offered blacks an economic package that was identical to the subsistence living they were accustomed to, but without the toil of picking veggies and fruit. The women agreed to make babies, and the men agreed to rot in jail. The black middle-class got affirmative action in exchange for their consent to the new arrangement. Between 1948 and 1965 black men used the military to escape poverty.