|
|
Post by JOEBIALEK on Jun 16, 2005 20:00:09 GMT -5
I had the opportunity the other day to watch a most enlightening program broadcast by UCTV. The one-hour program was called "How Unequal Can America Get Before We Snap?" presented by President Clinton's former labor secretary Robert Reich.
"Inequality of income, wealth, and opportunity in America is wider now than it's been since the 1920s, and by some measures since the late 19th century. Yet the nation seems unable or unwilling to do much of anything to reverse these trends. What happens if we allow the trends to continue? Will they "naturally" reverse themselves? Or will we get to a point where disparities are so wide that we finally find the political will to take action? Alternatively, will the disparities themselves grow so wide as to discourage action, by fostering resignation among the losers and indifference among the winners? And if the latter, where will it all lead?" SOURCE: Goldman School of Public Policy UC, Berkley
The presentation made excellent use of economic graphs to demonstrate how large of a gap has developed between the upper class and the middle class (not to mention the lower class) with regards to income, wealth, and opportunity in the United States between the years 1962 to the present. The trends are alarming to say the least. The speaker correctly points to birthright as the beginning of the disparity that allows for advantages in everything from diet and healthcare to education and connections. Being born into a middle-class family myself, I have truly benefited from my birthright in terms of these advantages right from the starting gate. Some people would argue that many a poor person has risen up by their "own boot straps" but I would argue that in today's society, most (not all) poor people can only rise up with a good pair of athletic shoes or a willingness to sell drugs. Otherwise they have to remain content with working in the service industry for comparatively lower wages than their upper-class counterparts. Mr. Reich further points out that one of the elements keeping our society glued together is the belief or perception by the lower class that opportunity in this country still exists and that if one is willing to work hard, they can be successful.
The speaker talks of two potential outcomes for this growing disparity. He uses the metaphor of the rubber band to illustrate his point. Our society will either "snap back" with a series of reforms supported by all three classes and the government to regain a sense of fairness when it comes to income, wealth, and opportunity in the United States. This has occurred at least once before in the history of our country during a time referred to as the progressive movement. The other potential outcome is for our society to "snap break" whereby this country exists with two entirely different societies. The problem with the latter outcome is that it often leads to the arrival of a demagogue who plays upon the emotions of the middle and lower classes all for the hidden intention of personal gain. We have seen this all too often in history with the likes of Napoleon, Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin etcetera. Mr. Reich suggests somehow that the upper class are not a group with malicious intent but rather are nothing more than a naive self-indulgent class of people who don't know any better. Here I beg to differ. I believe the upper class is guilty of a careless disregard for their fellow countrymen. They have the arrogance to believe they are superior and deserving of extravagance regardless of how they attained it and regardless of how it affects the rest of society. Once again, history shows us what happened to those monarchs who behaved the same way. Do I think there will be a violent revolution in this country? I hope not. Do I prefer a new progressive movement over even a peaceful revolution? Absolutely. My fear however, is that we are already rapidly approaching the point of "critical mass" beyond which there is no turning back. The question today before the American people is what are YOU prepared to do?
|
|
|
|
Post by Patriot on Jun 16, 2005 20:30:41 GMT -5
Joe: Welcome back after your two year hiatus. Interesting post. Inequality has always been a given in American society. That's because inequality is the opposite of equality, and equality is the polar opposite of liberty. In a free society, people can rise or fall as they choose. Because liberty is our main cornerstone, it invokes the reverse of its opposite pole-- namely, inequality. Make sense? If not, let me give it to you in propositional logic. Below, each term or statement is represented by a letter which follows it. ______________________________ Proposition 1: Liberty (L) is the cornerstone of the American system (A). L=AConclusion A: Therefore an individual's rise or fall by his own merits (I) is the cornerstone of the American system, because Liberty is the cornerstone of the American system. I=A Proposition 2: Liberty (L) allows an individual to rise or fall by his own merits (I). Not everyone rises and falls equally (E). Thus, equality is the opposite of liberty. (L=I) + (-E).Conclusion B: Because Equality (E) is the opposite of Liberty (L), the reverse of Equality (-E) equals Liberty (L). Therefore, Inequality (-E) equals Liberty (L). L=(-E). _______________________________ Does this bode ill for America? Will we split as your article suggests? No, because, as the cornerstone of our system, inequality goes hand in hand with liberty. The greater the inequality, the greater the liberty, and vice versa. On the other hand, the greater the equality, the lesser the liberty on a polar scale. Can another Napoleon or Stalin exploit the lower ranks to seize power? No, because in the American system, liberty is the safeguard against government encroachments. Our Constitution upholds a system of laws whereby only ELECTED officials are legitimate. Can a lower-class candidate, as a voice for the people, be elected? Yes! Can they instsitute reforms? Yes, insofar as the reforms are constitutional. But, because liberty is the cornerstone of the American system, no reform is constitutional if it breaks the liberty constant, thus, no dictator will be able to "revolutionize" America.  |
|
|
|
Post by midcan5 on Jun 17, 2005 19:47:49 GMT -5
Good post, one the conservatives will argue with as reality has no part in their imagination. It is amazing that the policies of FDR which lead us out of the depression and into the nation we have become are now criticized for their success. Liberty has no meaning if one is starving or out of work or out in the street. Freedom only comes from the ability to be a part of something as ironic as that sounds. as an example the French revolution Certainly, causes of the revolution must include all of the following: Resentment of royal absolutism. Resentment of the seigneurial system by peasants, wage-earners, and, to a lesser extent, the bourgeoisie The rise of enlightenment ideals. An unmanageable national debt, both caused by and exacerbating the burden of a grossly inequitable system of taxation. Food scarcity in the months immediately before the revolution. Resentment at noble privilege and dominance in public life by the ambitious professional classes. Influence of the American Revolution. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution |
|
|
|
Post by Patriot on Jun 17, 2005 21:08:57 GMT -5
And there's Midcan, again trying to appear intelligent.
Yes, it does. It still has the same meaning as if one were raking in several hundred grand per year. For instance, if the guy on the street is starving, that doesn't change the fact that he has the liberty to make a left turn.
Your definition of liberty is flawed. You are conflating liberty with success. They are not one and the same. Freedom is a 2 way street: and there are those who take the path to failure, intentionally or unintentionally.
No, freedom comes with the ability to run your own life.
Which one? It might interest you to know there were 3 French Revolutions. But I wouldn't suspect you'd know much about the House of Orleans or the July Monarchy, as the pseudo-intellectual fool you are. Even so, using the French Revolution (of 1797) as a compatible example to the American system is greatly off-base, because the cornerstones of each Revolutionary system were different. In the American Revolution, the cornerstone was Liberty. In the French Revolution, the cornerstone was Equality. Don't commit the fallacy of equivocation by conflating the two!
As I showed via propositional logic above, equality and liberty are polar opposites.
We are now treated to a resounding display of blubbering:
Wakeup call. Because Liberty was the crux of the American Revolution, and Equality of the Classes was the crux of the French Revolution, the latter can't serve as a parallel example of the US system.
Nice try.
|
|
|
|
Post by TNRighty on Jun 17, 2005 22:34:20 GMT -5
Its late here in the eastern time zone, and I have to work tomorrow. The VAST majority of those whom you feel so sorry for will not be at work tomorrow or anytime next week. Anyways, I need to go to bed, but when I have more time to respond to this garbage I will reply viscously to this notion of the "equality gap".
|
|
|
|
Post by midcan5 on Jun 18, 2005 17:54:59 GMT -5
Thinking more about this it could be said that FDR and the policies of the new deal and then even LBJ's Great Society made society more equal, they leveled society so all citizens felt like they could make it. Add Unions to that as they were a great force and Law as it fought for worker rights. These ideas stand behind freedom as the US during the depression did not move towards Fascism even though the ingredients were there. Patriot's view of freedom is not freedom as we cannot do as we please or we have no job; if we did not abide by the rules of the workplace we will no longer be needed. Your "freedom" "lLiberty" is the stuff of the primitive man who has less a concept of responsibilities. Once we have society, once we are industrialized we become part of that structure and freedom in a certain sense is lost. Also consider that it is the freedom again generated from the New Deal and Great Society (I am simplifying) that allows conservatives the ability to criticize, for sure as heck had we become a theocracy, a Fascist state , a communist state of some form, the give and take of our great democracy would not work. The fact we have so much is due to the past 60 plus years of liberal policy. Once again you guys need to thank a liberal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Patriot on Jun 18, 2005 21:59:01 GMT -5
Midcan writes:
The US didn't move toward fascism because we were, and are, anchored in a Constitution which decries and outlaws arbitrary government.
Your views are amateurish and lack both historical and logical cogency.
1. My view of freedom is the American view of freedom, where "American" is defined by the US Constitution. By attempting to pigeon-hole me, you are attempting to pigeon-hole the Constitution.
2. Your statement...
if we did not abide by the rules of the workplace we will no longer be needed...
Does not bar a person from breaking the rules of the workplace. The person may get fired as a result, but they still have the choice to break the rules. They choose not to break the rules in order to retain their jobs. In the same manner that they have the choice to break the rules, they also have the choice to follow the rules. Either is an exercise in liberty.
In other words, my idea of freedom-- which is the Constitutional view of freedom-- is the stuff of primitive man, according to Midcan. This is an excellent example to prove the danger posed by revisionist liberals to the American system of free enterprise. Midcan states directly that "freedom is lost" once society becomes industrialized. Well, that shows how much he knows. He's a pawn of democratic socialism-- unable to comprehend that the liberty of the individual to control his own acts is the microcosm of civilization in the first place.
What a load of tripe. First of all, there's no need to "simplify". You, friend, are a simpleton. No, the US would never have become a Fascist state or a Communist regime regardless of FDR's policies. The Republican depth-- including the military-- would have prevented such an outlandish scheme by first generation socialists.
The only thing I'll thank you for, is that you are a fine specimen of the sheer ignorance and blind acquiescence inherent to the democratic donkey-- or should I say, democratic ass.
|
|
|
|
Post by midcan5 on Jun 19, 2005 20:25:57 GMT -5
Why do you guys feel it necessary to parse dialog? Can you not hold a complete thought in your mind or is it because your argumentative skills are such that you can only think in small pieces? Often when writing it is important the entire piece be read so that the nuance is understood. You know no history if you think the things you mention alone would have or could have prevented the breakdown of any particular government. Look at the power of Russian military and then look what happened to their particular breed of communism. Time, its systemic failure and other factors contributed to its breakdown. Look to Germany after WW1 for the breakdown of government caused by economic conditions. Ideas only work if the ground in which they exist allows for them.
They do not have a choice as they need to abide my the laws of business/society just a you abide my the many laws that control society - some good some bad. Paying taxes is good, too much personal regulation or disallowing gay marriage for instance is bad in my book. Mill wrote that government should not control too much the personal lives of its citizens and yet government controls drug use or gay marriage or prostitution.
Yes the constitution does establish a system of checks and balances to establish freedom, but again as the original poster stated that has no meaning if you are not a part of the system due to poverty or alienation os one sort or another. You do not have to consider only economic alienation but political as well in the forms of right wing militarists who would destroy democracy in the name of their own concept of freedom.
You are not understanding me so simply: Democracy or a working constitutional republic as some call it, requires citizens who are a part of that society who have a stake in it and the ability (possibility) to prosper. Liberals such as fdr and lbj did much to make that stake reality.
By the way Happy Fathers day to all
|
|
|
|
Post by Patriot on Jun 20, 2005 20:55:34 GMT -5
Midcan continues to insist that the US would have turned toward communism or fascism, in the Depression years, had it not been for the democratic policies of FDR.
That is simply baloney on several levels. The first consideration that Midcan chooses to overlook is the cultural spirit of the early 20th century found in the US, as contrasted with other nations in which a communist or fascist takeover occurred. The cultural spirit in the USA was far different from that of Russia or Germany in the early 20th century. As a result it is illogical to assume that the same political outcome would have ensued amid such variance.
Secondly, Midcan is crediting liberals in the the US for saving America from communism or fascism, thanks to the policies of FDR (a democrat). What Midcan fails to understand is that FDR's "New Deal" wasn't inherently liberal, or inherently democratic. It was a means to palliate, and not alleviate, the economic pressures of the day. Any president in FDR's position would have been running a similar agenda due to the state of the country and to boost popular appeal.
In addition, Midcan is overlooking the fact that the Democrats largely sanctioned the American Socialist Party, whereas Conservatives did not. Therefore, the liberals are not to be thanked for staving off the threat of a communist regime in the US at any time (not that it would have occurred).
Comparing Russia and Germany's alterations in regime to what "might have been" the case in the US is both shortsighted and revisionist. Midcan is attempting to re-write a history that never occurred, based on the events of other nations-- which had a far greater degree of long-term difficulties, instability, upheaval, and autocracy than the US during the Depression years.
The bottom line is that Midcan's theory doesn't hold water. It doesn't holds water because, historically, it never panned out.
In propositional logic, DeMorgan's Rule states that once a negative value-function is moved inside a set of brackets, everything in the brackets shifts to disjunctive value. For instance:
1. - (y and x)
2. (- y OR - x)
In this case, the negative sign is symbolic of the Depression. "Y" represents the conservative population and "X" represents the liberal population. At first, both categories are equally affected by the Depression (negative outside the brackets), but by moving the negative sign into the brackets (real-world effect), either Y will prevail or X will prevail.
Historically, Y prevailed, because Midcan's theoretical outcome (of X) failed to materialize.
Therefore, Midcan's theory is simply revisionist history. He is trying to make a case for "X" when it was "Y" which took the cake. As such, his theory merits little regard.
|
|
|
|
Post by TNRighty on Jun 22, 2005 18:08:18 GMT -5
Anytime you hear a politician talk about social or economic equality, they are using those ideas as a justification for wealth redistribution. They'll tell you that we cannot as Americans allow someone to work for minimum wage, but what they convienently forget to tell you is that the vast majority of people who work for minimum wage are under the age of 24. They will also not tell you that the vast majority of Americans who are classified as wealthy have at some point in their lives worked for minimum wage. The point is, you can't climb to the top of the ladder of wealth without getting on the first rung.
Using the ladder analogy, if you're 35 and you're still on the first rung of the ladder, then capitalism is not the problem, you are, and 9 times out of ten your plight can be directly linked to the personal and financial decisions you've made in your life. Its not my fault you financed the 22-inch rims or the plasma TV and now can't afford rent or food.
There's a great book titled, "The Millionaire Next Door", by Thomas J. Stanley. In the book he talks about people who earn middle class incomes, but through discipline and saving have made themselves wealthy. They are people who have not earned extraordinary salaries, but have made wise decisions with their money and their lives. The main theme of his book is that they don't look, dress, or act like millionaires, and that is exactly why they have become millionaires. They don't drive expensive cars or live in lavish homes. Their wealth is in the bank, not in the driveway. They don't have plasma TV's, and they don't go out to eat at expensive restaurants or take Carribean vacations every year, but they've got a pile of money a showhorse couldn't jump over. And all of them have said that the source of their wealth was hard work and disciplined spending, not income.
Not all, but most people you see driving around in expensive cars and living in lavish houses are living paycheck to paycheck no differently than the person driving the bondo-buggy. The point is, in most personal financial situations, the budget expands to meet the funds available, and in the end, a lot of people who have financed their lavish lifestyle have no more net worth than anybody else. Whether you finance a Benz or finance a Hyundai, you're spending money you don't have, and you can't build personal wealth when 30% of your paycheck is handcuffed by a car payment.
In America poverty is measured yearly by income, and that's not a correct correlation. If I had $5 million in the bank and decided to quit my job and retire, I would be classified as "living in poverty" in 2006 because I had no income. Net worth (financial liabilites vs. assets) would be a more correct indicator of personal financial circumstances. If we measured it that way you'd be astounded how many people who earn 6 figures have less net worth than someone earning 40 grand.
I know this is long, but I've been away for a while, so just bear with me.
My main point is, when you start talking about income redistribution for the sake of equality, you're barking up the wrong tree. Lack of income is not what leads to poverty, and thus poverty should not be defined by income. Financial hardship is caused by poor decision making and poor spending habits. A person who has no personal financial discipline is not going to learn the lessons of personal finance by receiving a check in the mail from our government each month. Poverty is a behavior, and government can't solve it, you have to.
|
|
|
|
Post by midcan5 on Jun 22, 2005 19:45:59 GMT -5
Geez you mean all these very complicated topics can be easily understood by a simple rule of propositional logic. What are you in an introductory logic course as that has about as much relevance to the discussion as fusion does. Spice it slice it and dice it however you want the fact FDR did so well for America will always be a scourge on the heads of the right wing laissez faire capitalists who brought the depression to us in the first place. Somewhere between anarchy and totalitarianism liberty lies I am not insisting anything I am saying FDR did a great job in preventing the kinds of things that happened in other countries during that time. What exactly did Hoover do? Consider he is rated one of the worst presidents. And bits and pieces of socialism or whatever you want to call it is integral to a fair working society, consider work laws, or cooperative businesses as small pieces.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jun 23, 2005 0:53:19 GMT -5
TNRighty's post was clear, concise and very relevant to the posted thread topic. Stats prove most of the facts contained in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Patriot on Jun 23, 2005 7:34:26 GMT -5
Midcan writes:
Not that your benumbed little brain is capable of applied thinking, but yes, logic does apply in this discussion. Because you have relegated historical logic as completely irrelevant to this discussion, I am letting the matter drop as it has become a waste of my limited time. I won't discuss further with someone who chooses illogical reasoning over logical reasoning.
Your posts show an abundant lack of understanding when it comes to the subtle nuances of history. Your analyses are consistently a hatchet-job rather than a clean cut. So, feel free to continue with the jagged edges. I for one am on my way to a huge breakfast of pancakes, eggs, bacon, toast, and cranberry juice. Praise our great God for Cracker Barrel's country cooking.
|
|
|
|
Post by midcan5 on Jun 24, 2005 19:31:39 GMT -5
"Anytime you hear a politician talk about social or economic equality, they are using those ideas as a justification for wealth redistribution. They'll tell you that we cannot as Americans allow someone to work for minimum wage, but what they convienently forget to tell you is that the vast majority of people who work for minimum wage are under the age of 24." This post is so full of assumptions and bad logic it is hard to know where to start. Take the first paragraph, the point is not the statement above but rather the separation of rich and poor. There is a difference. I love the words wealth distribution one a great rhetorical device sorta sets the stage, scary socialism will get you. Too funny. So should workers get a fair wage? The author know nothing of the seat shops and the power that changed them in the US. <b>"Who are minimum wage workers?"</b> "An estimated 7.3 million workers (5.8% of the workforce) would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage to $7.25 by June 2007. Of these workers, 72.1% are adults and 60.6% are women. Close to half (43.9%) work full time and another third (34.5%) work between 20 and 34 hours per week. More than one-third (35%) of the workers who would benefit from an increase to $7.25 are parents of children under age 18, including 760,000 single mothers. The average minimum wage worker brings home about half of his or her family's weekly earnings." www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefaqTNR, rich people inherit their wealth it is in the family, you gonna tell me W worked for min wage I suppose. If he did his allowance would have made up for it. So those people driving beat up cars are really rich and the mercedes owners are the poor people. They sure had me fooled. I have to admit though they even dress the part, isn't that great, and many talk and have missing teeth, who would have known? And poverty is measured by what you earn and that is wrong too omg this is too weak to even argue with or even have fun with. lol |
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jun 24, 2005 22:56:33 GMT -5
Most people in the top 10% of wage earners did indeed work for minimum wage at one point. The % of wealthy people who inherited great wealth is actually very small.
Minimum wage is just like any other price control- it's a communist concept. if I had my druthers, there would be no minimum wage. Even many of the fast food joints in my area advertise to start people off at more than that, anyway. Let the market decide what a job should pay. Forcing employers to pay more through minimum wage increases hurts small business, and it does nothing to lift the poor. The inflation rate just goes up to compensate for the extra the large companies are paying. The only segment of the population that is lifted by minimum wage hikes are the already overpaid union laborers who have the minimum wage x so much = their salary in their contracts. Screw them. The people making $60 an hour to grunt and lift heavy things have chased enough American companies away.
|
|
