stevendedalus stevendedalus

Class Warfare: or telling it like it is?

▼

Class Warfare: or telling it like it is?

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com/newpost.asp
from JoeUser Forums

Upward mobility has dropped dramatically since the golden years immediately following WWII and the GI Bill— thanks to college grads saddled with huge student loans and the fact there are fewer opportunities in an economy rigged for those of the inherited class — affirmative action for those with connections. Oh, one can argue till blue in the face that there are greater opportunities for the Horatio Algers by falling back on those who made it during the internet bubble by ignoring that these are exceedingly rare cases. But the glaring fact remains that the number of dead-end jobs have grown astronomically since the Reagan Revolution.

Still, this is not a Right or Left matter: both progressives and conservatives have contributed to this sad state of domestic affairs by allowing the money class with its huge contributions access to legislation that protects and enhances its capital, putting the nation right back into the 20s when no one gave a damn but ever conscious of his own self-seeking gains. It was out of control then as it is now, resulting in more and more of those who are at a dead-end. Even most of the post college people trying to make a buck for themselves are stymied by huge personal debt and no well-off parents to bail them out.

Those of suburbia are dwelling in a pasteboard world of SUVs under lease, fine homes they can’t really afford and spend increasing sums to shuttle their kids into nursery and private schools because of the dire need of two incomes. Then there are those — I hesitate to classify them — who, under stress knowing they are never becoming upward mobile, who will continue to work their rumps off and pray they never have children, not because they wouldn’t want them, rather, cannot afford them.

Despite this calamitous trend toward upward mobility limited to 15% of the population, we are led to believe that it not politics, stupid, but the natural capitalistic progression of the beautiful people who know how to manipulate those of the Haves.
politics
16,666 views 48 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
Nobody wants to be poor, but that doesn't mean that those who are poor are doing what they can to end their poverty.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top

Brad seems to be confusing standard of living with upward mobility. Granted standard of living is obviously better, but upward mobility, implying the ability to move up in society, has definitely declined.

I grew up in a 2 bedroom apartment raised by a mother who was supporting us on minimum wage. Today I am, to put it mildly, significantly better off. Maybe I'm an exception but I see exceptions all around me then. So perhpas you can explain how upward mobility has "definitely declinded".

But I am not confusing standard of living with upward mobilty. The standard of living that a dollar can purchase (adjusted for inflation) is far greater than it was 50 years ago. I have yet to see someone actually put forth any evidence to the contrary other than their firm opinion.

Technology is one reason naturally but I don't see how that can be dismissed as if it doesn't count. What basic necessities can people no longer afford today that they could afford in 1950?  Food, Clothing, and shelter are all cheaper today than they were 50 years ago when adjusted for inflation.

I personally believe that most homeless and jobless would rather be anything else.

How many homeless people have you come into contact with? Ever looked at why they're homeless? Overwhelmingly it's because they're addicted to drugs or mentally off. The stats say that but having traveled a great deal and seen a lot of homeless people, my experience bears that out.

There will always be homeless people. It has nothing to do with the job situation or upward mobility. Ever looked at the stats on "the poor"? The average poor person works very few hours per week. You can blame all kinds of things why they aren't working but interview after interview with these people has shown that many people simply don't want to work. And what's wrong with that? Many poor people simply have made the choice not to work. I'm sure many wish they had all the money they could possibly want but when given the choice between working or not they choose not to.

It's really too bad most people don't bother to look into this stuff because if they did, they might be able to advocate for programs that specifically target the minority of people who want to work but cannot find work or have legitimately gotten screwed by the system in some way.

CursorFX - Customize your Windows cursor
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
The stats say that but having traveled a great deal and seen a lot of homeless people, my experience bears that out.


And my experience differs. Shall we agree to disagree with that?

Cheers
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh, and I've come into contact with a lot of homeless people, and barring the mentally ill, who should be taken care of and not left out on the street, the ones I've met would generally rather be working.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
My mother used to have a job in which she dealt with many welfare recipients and in her opinion, around 75% of those with whom she dealt were merely lazy and wanted free money.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ah yes, in her opinion is the operative phrase. My sister used to work for Child services and 75% of the people she dealt with were child molesters or child abusers. Would it be fair to say that all parents are child molesters or child abusers?
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't see what makes her opinion any less valid than yours, especially when she dealt with them on a regular basis. Besides, just because somebody says they'd rather be working doesn't make it true, just like a child molestor saying he or she doesn't molest children doesn't make it true.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
The stats say that but having traveled a great deal and seen a lot of homeless people, my experience bears that out.



And my experience differs. Shall we agree to disagree with that?

 

No, all we can do is say that my experiences are typical and your experiences are atypical. Unless you have access to some super-secret study on the homeless that contradicts every major homeless research paper that's ever been put out.

Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
A lot of good topics.

The welfare/homeless problem is.. difficult.. so I won't comment on that sub-thread.

Upward mobility has DECREASED, lets say [being conservative] since the 70s. This is not an opinion but fact. The Business Week article sited in post #11 is a good "factual" reference. So let's say Brad's first post...

>> "You might want to research your topics a bit more. Where do you get these stats?"

Is a bit, ahem, hasty.

A related phenomenon and I think more troubling is the shrinkage of the middle class - lets say the "widening" of the bracket. The haves and have-nots are quickly being pushed farther and farther apart. Class warfare - the original blog title which I suspect was a teaser fishing for reaction - is possibly not much of an exaggeration. (BIG assumption: the 50% of the population that doesn't take place in the political process get off their butts, but.. thats another story). You can attempt to dispute this statement, but the facts again are in US census data - I did a bit of digging on this subject over the christmas break and I'm too lazy right now to post a coherent reference.

Back to Brad again..

>> "The fact is that the mean salary of an American today buys a vastly better standard of living than it did in 1950. I just can't see how anyone can possibly argue against that."

Wages for most workers since the 1970s (again I will not claim going back to the 50s and the post-war boom) have actually NOT kept up with inflation. I know.. I was simply baffled at hearing this but it's true. Those facts cannot be disputed (check the census data). However I see where Brad is going - so we have to ask how inflation is defined and what it means to say that real inflation adjusted wages are LOWER than 30 years ago.

An extreme example - how much computer horsepower could you buy with $1000 ten years ago, how much today ? It's one of those "duh" scenarios (a poster so eloquently said "The money we make today isn't the same as we made in the '50s".. ) illustrating progress and the "real" purchasing power of money over time. At the other end - a loaf of bread is a loaf of bread - so indisputably, for the average worker food costs more relative to their salary 30 years ago.

I would really like to see a chart showing average $ per square foot of housing in the US say over the last 100 years. My gut tells me housing is cheaper because we're living in larger houses but data would be nice (anyone?). Pricing may be too regional for this kind of study to be useful.

An interesting angle on progress is the work being done by people who question the "accuracy" of GDP (which has been going constantly up up up). Consider - a man gets brain cancer requiring hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical treatment. All of these monies contribute to the GDP. How do you value a cure for cancer which would have avoided the medical costs, and thus LOWERS the GDP? By tradional measures of progress a cure would be going backward!! Similar arguments can be made for catestrophic events like oil spills (think of all the cleanup money!), crime (lots of cops on the beat), fires (.. and firemen), etc. Google GPI (Genuine Progress Indicator) and "Redefining Progress" or try this link for a quick overview. http://www.rprogress.org/projects/gpi/
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't see what makes her opinion any less valid than yours, especially when she dealt with them on a regular basis.


Right, so perhaps she's to close to the problem, which is what the example of my sister was meant to illustrate. I'm not saying that people on welfare are/are not looking for a job, I'm saying homeless people would rather be anything but, and usually that means employed. A good number of welfare people are not homeless, and a good number of homeless people are not on welfare.

Unless you have access to some super-secret study on the homeless that contradicts every major homeless research paper that's ever been put out.


Nope, no super secret research paper or even a deep intuitive link with people who are homless, now, I freely admitted it was based off my experience and not using any stats, but now twice Brad you have quoted "stats" without actually providing any. If your only refutation is that papers out there disagree with me, I'm willing to be convinced on this issue. But, as you called it on me in a different post, back yourself up.

Cheers
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
No, all we can do is say that my experiences are typical and your experiences are atypical.


And we should do this because? Maybe we should look at where you meet your homeless and where I meet mine. I do work in soup kitchens and day centers, where do you do your work? If you work in mental institutions or rehabs, perhaps we could work out where the difference lies
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
Right, so perhaps she's to close to the problem, which is what the example of my sister was meant to illustrate. I'm not saying that people on welfare are/are not looking for a job, I'm saying homeless people would rather be anything but, and usually that means employed. A good number of welfare people are not homeless, and a good number of homeless people are not on welfare.


Yes, and I'd much rather be a millionaire than being what I am now, which isn't a millionaire. Does that mean that I'm doing what I can to become a millionaire? Besides, if the homeless really want to escape poverty, why not take advantage of such services as welfare unless they are lazy? If anything, it seems as though those on welfare are taking some steps to ending their poverty.
One thing I've noticed about homeless people, especially those with cardboard signs is that they never have on the signs: "Hey, I'm just lazy." It's always something meant to gain sympathy. I guess it must be true if they say it.
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top

Nope, no super secret research paper or even a deep intuitive link with people who are homless, now, I freely admitted it was based off my experience and not using any stats, but now twice Brad you have quoted "stats" without actually providing any. If your only refutation is that papers out there disagree with me, I'm willing to be convinced on this issue. But, as you called it on me in a different post, back yourself up.

I don't normally back up assertions that are widely known to be true by anyone remotely familiar with the topic. But this one time I'll make an exception.

Hear's a tip: GOOGLE: "homeless statistics".

http://www.fresnorescuemission.org/4_HOMELESS/NatHomelessStats.htm

This is just one that's particularly clear. You can pour through government statistics, even homeless advocate studies and find the same sort of thing and it's always the same story:

About 2/3rds of homeless people are addicted to drugs or alcohol. About a third to nearly half have significant mental problems.

You'll note that my statistics about the homeless have to do with -- the homeless and not some subset of people who go to soup kitchens. It is nice that your experience with homeless people have been so positive. But they don't match the general truth about the homeless. My experience with homeless has been from walking the streets and just seeing pan handlers and others just curled up often mentally retarded or hopelessly addicted to something.

Like I said, my experiences have, sadly, been typical. Yours have been atypical.

Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thanks Brad, I admit my experiences have been more than average positive. However your statistics show that more should be done to help those people who are addicted to drugs and/or alcohol and those who are mentally ill.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
A couple of completely randomly (sic) chosen quotes made by Brad/Frogboy on another thread:

"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Take a pre-determined position and you can almost always find a way to use statistics to back it up"

"If you play with stats you can reach anything"

Both taken from this thread
Link

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with anyones arguement, just that surely you can't have it both ways
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
Interesting things being said here. Incredible to read comments saying that poor people should be killed and that they don't want to work.
What world do you guys live in?
Why are you still talking of welfare when it is practically nonexistent? The people that get "welfare" assistance work for that money and are very limited on the amount and length of assistance they can receive.
I can keep coming back to this article but haven't had the stomach to really comment until now.
I will not try to sway any of you, I have better things to do with my time, but I will continue to try to reach others.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thank God for you Wisefawn, now I have some backup against the forces of anti-poor people. By the way, I just read some interesting statistics that come from the U.S. department of Labor. There has been, admittedly this is just in Oregon so I can't say for everyone else, a steadily growing percentage of working people who are below the poverty line. Not good, oh and for those people who want to know the when of it, starting during George Bush's first term in office.
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top

Who's arguing that the poor should be killed?

I don't consider a 3 year period a "steady" anything. I tend to think steady as involving decades. The US went into a recession 1Q2001 (which means that it actually started 4Q2000 or during Clinton's last quarter). Blaming the recession on Bush or Clinton is ridiculous. Neither had anything to do with it. If you want to blame someone, blame the millions of idiots who bought dot-com stock without putting any thought into it.

Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
If three years aren't steady what would you like a decade? I was speaking of trends here, and statistically speaking three years is a trend setting number. I'm not blaming anyone despite the way my post was set up, and I do apologize for that. I was merely putting a start date for anyone who wanted to know, since I knew someone would ask. I was just commenting on the sad state of affairs in Oregon.

Cheers
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm thoroughly confused! Whatever happened to the discussion on upward mobility relentlessly in decline--not to mention the systemic protection of capital prohibiting true opportunity?
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
yah! I have one point [grins ear to ear]

Please select the "Trolling" button below and click "Submit", lets see how far negative I can go.

serious reply forthcoming. too much work right now.
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
Good point 'poet philosopher'. The number of replies may be a proof of good blogging here, but it shows me the point is not well made in the post. Personally, I try to be informative and let the excerpt make the point. I try to be respectful in my reply - sometimes failing to accomodate others feelings as well as they'd like - but try to stay on topic and not use it as pretense for other sidereal issues, unless they springboard us on to more information.
Overall, I think my articles and blogs, (I do post my opinions and such but tend to save them for replies, as here. My style no different than a news anchor who introduces the topic and let's the info flow raw for one to integrate and form a informed opinion from) are informative. More impotant than the blog though, the replies are ones that add to the knowledge and let others know of other points without being dis-respectful. Maybe I've been lucky to have intelligent and objective minded people read them, but I also think my restraint in letting the one-sentence flames stand on their own in the midst of intelligent comments affects it. There, they bake in the light of reasoned statements and fizzle away, a testament to the lack of contribution they made to the blog subject.
If one wants to dispute the information that is good. To let it go down to a argument over minutiae of each reply, in debate of semantics, source of statistics,etc. - as here - takes away from the topic and it goes off on its own. It sits there as a thesis which has no resolution or no apparent stand-on-its-own value.
If I say White people are no good, I could get into nonsense over a nonsense blog for days. What would that do for any of us? Here, we have a argument over whether or not homeless want to work, which has no relation to the claim made that there is upward mobility in the original blog.
Now I could have posted this as a blog, but it is relevant here and now, so I post it here and now. It won't show up as a blog post in my column, but the objective is to inform and dis-agree, using reason and intelligence in a timely and relevant manner. Otherwise, blogging would be but a message board, and I want it to evove into an improvement on that 'lol', tbs' 'ftw' style. Am I wrong to hold out such a hope for blogging's future?
Oooh, I know this will not go over well, I really put my a-- out there in firing range, and my fingers already burn from the minutiae to come, but why not put your reply up as a new blog and claim points for yourself?
Returning you to your regularly scheduled flames, attacks, off-topic issues, and one sentence thoughts now. Blog ON - if that's what you call this.
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
Anathema, just to let you know that i enjoy your enriched comments--keep it up