Constructive gadfly

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.

Comments (Page 2)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Jan 05, 2004
Welfare is what keeps the poor around, which brings the statistical percentage of upward mobility down. Before, in the fifties, it wasn't as much of a problem, since poor people did not have as much opportunity to sustain their livelihood. What I'm saying, if we want statistics to look good on upward mobility again, then we have to kill poor people. After all, compare a place that helps the homeless such an California with a state without any help for homeless people. Which one has a worse homeless problem?
I'm not saying that's a good thing, but if people really think it's worse now, then we should make it more like how it was before welfare.
on Jan 06, 2004
"Do you really need to read a statistical analysis to see that the average home is much larger than it was in 1950?"
Brad, how much did a cheeseburger and some fries cost back then. Was it the same as it costs now?
Or..did inflation happen?

The money we make today isn't the same as we made in the '50s..
Likewise, nothing costs the same it did back then, either.

Keep that in mind when arguing now vs then.
on Jan 07, 2004
Thanks for the support, Lunaticus; also Brad's obsession with obesity could be answered that in the 50s there was no McDonalds--they eat real, high protein hamburgers.
on Jan 08, 2004
Things are just different, Dedalus.

Don't forget, in ther 50's eating out every day wasn't as popular as it is now. Some people live their life on fast food from resturants and haven't had anything healthy or homecooked in years. The modern businessman on the go!
(But not going anywhere remotely upward, mobility wise. Today you have to compete to stay where you are..or lose ground)
on Jan 08, 2004

steven - the words used were standard of living. Not money adjusted for inflation.

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.

To have the lifestyle one had in in say 1955, one needs to make a fraction (in inflation adjusted dollars even) of what they did in 1955.

Food is cheaper overall adjusted for inflation. Gas is nearly the same adjusted for inflation. Access to credit is vastly easier than it was in 1955 (did they even really have credit cards back then?).

Do any of you realize just how ridiculous you sound arguing that our standard of living has fallen when you have 25 year olds posting from their own homes in their air conditioned rooms on their own personal computers bitching about how their wife may have to work in order for htem to afford that second or third car and 2,500 square foot house?

The difference between 1955 and 2004 in my opinion is that the generation of 1955 didn't confuse the terms NEED and WANT.

on Jan 31, 2004
No one is arguing the standard of living is better than it was. That's thanks to everything from technology to medicine.
But what we ARE stating is that while the WAGE EARNING CAPACITY has went UP...The POWER OF THE DOLLAR has went down. It Takes More to Have More.
Upward Mobility is stangant. That doesn't mean we have to be living in chicken coups and sleeping in crap to be considered poor.

Now, if a person was to live Now in 2004 as a family did back in 1950...Well, I'm sure some of you were alive then, You tell us what it was like and what you'd have to go without.

I'd like prices on how much a color TV was back in the 50's and how much it is now. Let's get comparisons going on.
on Jan 31, 2004
wow, I wish I would've seen this before I wrote on hunger.
on Jan 31, 2004
Discussing economics in forums such as this is frustrating to readers, or at least me I read insightful comments interspersed with "...we have to kill poor people." and the point of the blog goes spinning off into another orbit as we debate minutiae of each others comments.
If 'upward mobility' is the topic, I say I do agree with the blogger.
"Credit" cards did not exist in the 1950's because there was largely no need for it. My father, raised in the depression, was a vocal foe of credit to all his kids, arguing it was not money but debt. That we are offered 'credit' by every scam shylock on the WallSt. block is not a point against the blog. Buying a home with cash was rather normal in the 1950's.
I agree that people can 'exist' today with as little as in the 1950's, but the hope of upward mobility is all but gone. The factors contributing to this are too numerous to list. We've passed civil rights acts, doubled the work force in introducing women to the workplace, passed NAFTA, GATT, gone through Korea, Vietnam, etc. invented the micro-chip, transistor, satellites, all having impact on economy and altering varous factors.
I note that not all these are good. Just as a E.G., I argued to the feminists that Reagan did more for "women's lib" than anyone before or since him. He cut male wages in half (actually I think the number was 40%), and put the wives and mothers(who used to be able to stay home and raise the kids on one income) to work beside them. Whoopee, now both parents can put in twice the hours for the same volume of money. Divorce increased, 'latch-key kids' were born and we could all go to our daycare and read of the innumerable "bumps to the head"(posted usually on clipboards inches thick as Law mandates child assault must be documented in these over-crowded 'businesses' where cramming even more kids in means good business, and the stress on kids- like mice in overcrowded cages - causes anti-social and violent rebellious behavior. Oh, don't get me started on that one), our kid 'accidentally' sustained while we were away making ends meet. This does not show up in our 'upward mobility' list of comparisons of 1950's to today though does it? What is the price of such child-rearing? Go look at the booming prison construction industry as some are showing up in that column even now.
If I were to cite one main reason for the problem though, it would be that the business owner is dis-sociated from his Nation and fellow-American employees. Making a profitable living is a worthy goal of business. TAKING market share from other American business is not. The goal of it all is skewed by such economic premises in the business circles.
"Lost in this world it's so hard to find us..." We have lost our basic premises, the impetus to action is altered, and we have become cannibals who eat each others life-blood under the banner, "Live and let Die".
The amount of savings necessary to live on the interest has increased not decreased, and our savings are at an all-time low. I fail to see how the blog is even open to serious challenge as stated. The NWO, like the devil, has stolen our dreams away.
on Jan 31, 2004
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. The gap between have and have not is vastly wider than is was, the top is higher and the bottom is still the bottom. The problem is that the 'top' isn't takaing anyone with them, only getting smaller and smaller. Granted GDP, etc. continues to rise, but that doesn't mean that people have better access to climb the ladder. If the topic is mobility, lets not confuse the issue with standard of living stats, apples and oranges, though not unrelated.
on Feb 01, 2004
Reply #10 By: Lunaticus Minimus - 1/2/2004 2:02:30 PM
Wait wait wait, you're all overlooking an important definition of homelessness. Are they on welfare due to necessity, or choice?
Are they unemployed due to circumstances or "fate" ? (i.e., given up hope of ever becoming upwardly mobile and therefore staying in the slump they have fallen into)
I am referring to the Majority. There are special cases in which yes, someone has no other option, but those are few and far between. Let's take a look at the masses.


No one was commenting on it yet Lunaticus, so here goes. I recommend you go down to a homeless shelter or soup kitchen and ask people if they want to be there. Sure there are those people we all hear about who refuse offers to get burgers when they are begging for money, but whether they are the majority? I honestly can't prove one way or the other, and neither can you, the statistics don't exist, and even if they did, they would be suspect because who would confess to wanting to be on welfare. So, go and ask, and make up your own mind. I personally believe that most homeless and jobless would rather be anything else.

Cheers
on Feb 01, 2004
Nobody wants to be poor, but that doesn't mean that those who are poor are doing what they can to end their poverty.
on Feb 01, 2004

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.

on Feb 01, 2004
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
on Feb 02, 2004
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.
on Feb 02, 2004
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.
4 Pages1 2 3 4