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 3)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Feb 02, 2004
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?
on Feb 02, 2004
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.
on Feb 02, 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?

 

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.

on Feb 02, 2004
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/

on Feb 02, 2004
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
on Feb 02, 2004
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
on Feb 02, 2004
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.
on Feb 02, 2004

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.

on Feb 03, 2004
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.
on Feb 03, 2004
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
on Feb 03, 2004
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.
on Feb 03, 2004
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.
on Feb 03, 2004

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.

on Feb 04, 2004
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
on Feb 04, 2004
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?
4 Pages1 2 3 4