Hey, there! Log in / Register
'A little messy down there, but it is democracy at work'
By adamg on Wed, 10/05/2011 - 10:54am
NorthEndWaterfront.com posts video from a Greenway Conservancy board meeting at which board members discussed the Occupy Boston encampment at Dewey Square.
Meanwhile, it looks like Occupy Boston might be putting down some roots in Copley Square.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Wait! Wait!!
Where's the reactionary outrage over these skanky, lazy asses making a mess when the rest of us have to work for a living!! Damnit! Didn't this woman get the script??? /snark
It's been almost a little worrying how .... nice? accommodating? condescending? all the authorities have been. Feels like they're patting the protesters on the head and saying "you be nice now." I guess I shouldn't complain (ohmigawd, my ray-zon detruh!!), as I don't really want to see treatment similar to the NYPD's treatment of the Occupy Wall Street protesters. But it does make you wonder if it's a kill'em with kindness (and the resulting boredom) sort of strategy being implemented by the City.
I suspect that Greenway folks are just happy that the space is being used.
That's a farmers market,
That's a farmers market, actually.
If anyone gets in the way of me getting to Mr. Frosty for a chocolate dipped, they'll be feeling 100% - of my anger!
Farmers' market is on the paved plaza
Occupy Boston is on the grass north of the market. The Occupy folks have been careful to keep clear the semi-paved driveway that trucks use to serve the market.
So now you hippies are mad
So now you hippies are mad that the cops are being too nice? That is awesome.
A refreshing
statement by the stewards of this public space. Can this be the rebirth of the concept of the commons?
Agree, But...
It's The Common, not the commons. Folks get particular about that sort of stuff around here.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
@suldog
Friendly amendment accepted!
@ JP Gal
Thank you.
(Wow. We got that accomplished in two comments! We're beating the crap out of the general batting average for this thread!)
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
I believe he was speaking more
I believe he was speaking more generally, as in the phrase "tragedy of the commons," rather than about a specific park.
And yes, it's the Common, not the Commons, and the Public Garden, not the Gardens. Yet elsewhere there can be commons and gardens, and even common gardens.
Pretty nice environments
The Greenway, Copley Square - pretty nice digs if you gotta "rough it". I wonder if anyone told them that without the "1%" paying for all the nice greenery and the surrounding buildings (including public buildings like the Church and the library) none of that or anything around it would even exist.
I don't know why everyone hates rich people. I like them because I go to places like the free Pops concerts, 4th of July fireworks,the esplanade, the MFA, the Aquarium, Peabody Essex, the Public Garden, The ISG museum, the Greenway, Copley Square etc. all paid for mostly by rich people.
I find it perplexing that there are people in this country desperate to tear down those that have achieved the American Dream that many of us aspire to. Rather than blaming the rich their time would be better spent figuring out how to become rich.
Anecdote from a friend in Hong Kong (told to me 15 years ago):
What's the difference between a homeless person in the US and a homeless person in HK? His answer - the homeless person in the US sees a guy drive by in a limo and says - damn him - he's so rich he should give me some of his money. Homeless person in HK - damn me - what do I have to do to get my own limo?
Interesting comment from way before any of this happened.
Yeah, Right.
Let's all thank our benevolent corporate overlords for letting us live in the world they've created for us. It was so nice of them!
Rich People Paid for the Greenway?
...funny, I thought that the 14.6 BILLION dollar project known as "The Big Dig" had been funded largely by federal taxpayers.
Yep
so that means $7.3 billion of that came from the 1% and about 13 Billion of that came from 10% of the population. 50% of the population paid little or nothing for it. Without the 1% the occupados would still be sitting under a highway.
ASSuming ...
it was all Federal money.
That bottom 50% may pay little in federal taxes, but they pay for the brunt of local taxes.
So ... if there is any state money in there, thank a poor person for having to buy feminine hygiene products and other "unnecessary" taxible items that aren't clothing and food.
What?
SwirlyGirl says: "That bottom 50% may pay little in federal taxes, but they pay for the brunt of local taxes."
I say: Swirly is curly. You pay local taxes on what you buy and where you live. So the so-called poor pay less if they are so poor. Though I do hear them griping about the luxury tax on their SUV's and Wide Screen TVs. Let 'em eat cake! Sick of whiners.
What a crock
Somehow, people in highly developed countries with far far less of a disparity between upper and lower income populations seem to have just as rich and vibrant a culture (and economy) as do we (eg Germany, all of Scandinavia, the Netherlands, etc).
Also, that apocryphal story of the homeless dude in HK? I heard that the authorities grabbed him up and threw him in prison for 10 years - for loitering and unlicensed staring.
And your point is?
That in the countries you cite their rich are poorer or that their poor are richer? Or both? And while these are nice places to visit - I don't see the world beating a path to their door to live there. For some reason people still want in here instead.
This is where we differ - I think the poor (and everyone for that matter) should take responsibility to make themselves richer if that is what they desire.
You and yours believe that we should make the rich poorer. I fail to see what that accomplishes.
We live in a land where cleaning ladies charge $30-40 an hour and it's hard to find a good one that won't rob you blind. Union carpenters make more than teachers (scary and disturbing on many fronts). Cops and firemen average over $100k a year with OT and many make $200k with very generous bennies. None of these jobs requires a college degree.
I don't blame the rich for being rich and if you have a physical or mental disability I don't blame you for being poor (and in my opinion our social contract demands we provide for these people - there but for the grace of God...) However, for the other 99% of the 99% get out of the G-D tent and do something productive or go home and live with Mommy.
So you don't blame the rich
So you don't blame the rich for being rich, but you blame the carpenter for making more than the teacher? The carpenter and teacher are in the same boat, so you are basically pitting one against the other when it's in their interest to work together.
I don't have an issue with people making money, even huge amounts of money. But at a certain point, there becomes a mismatch between actual value and income. It happens on the low end and on the high end. A guy at McDonalds makes $8 an hour so that a franchise owner can make $1,000,000. That isn't equitable. The only thing the franchise owner did of significance was have access to investment money. Otherwise, both he and the line cook work their butts off so that the franchise is successful.
The man who was able to borrow seed money, or who inherited it, gets $1,000,000 for his hard work. The man who actually makes the product that sells and produces revenue gets $8 an hour. Our system is designed in such a way that it favors the few rather than the many.
And your point is?
"I think the poor (and everyone for that matter) should take responsibility to make themselves richer if that is what they desire."
Ah, the good old "pull yourself up by your bootstraps people!" reasoning. Why don't you throw in: The poor and poor because they don't work hard enough. Or how about: The poor are poor because they are not favored by God. Or how about: The poor are lazy. Or how about...I could go on and on. My point is that those who are born into poverty face a very different life than those who are born with wealth, the challenges that they face, environmental, emotional as well as financial, the lack of resources to be able to just do. The playing fields are not level at the get go and I direct you to the myriad of research done around the affects of poverty on an individual as well as how difficult it is to rise out of poverty and/or jump into a higher economic class. Horatio Alger is a myth, my friend.
I don't know if you realize this, but we live in one of the most expensive places in the country. I don't have an issue with those making a six figure salary (and, no, I do not make one and never have). I have never hired a cleaning lady (maybe you have the disposal income to do that) and if they charge $30-40 a hour, good for them.
I am glad, at the end, that you really don't blame the poor for being poor (even though your earlier comment contradicts your final thought) but a country that shows serious signs of becoming only a two class society, the rich and the poor, is not a healthy country (I direct you to Brazil, for example) and maybe those that protest are aware of this fact.
If only the top 1% of the population paid taxes
maybe Stevil would have a point, but most of us paid into the federal highway funds that created the Greenway and help support the various institutions he lists. If only the top 1% supported charities, maybe Stevil would have a point, but every study shows that folks lower down the economic ladder give proportionally more to charities and nonprofits than the folks at the top. If your world view is so blinkered that you don't count people's labor as contributing any value to our public institutions, maybe Stevil has a point.
This isn't about "hating the rich." It's about regaining the balance in the tax code that used to exist in this country and made a middle class possible. Taxes have never been lower for the wealthiest and if that continues, we will simply continue on our current path: the small number of the wealthy will grow only wealthier, while the rest of us grow poorer and the middle class disappears.
Ronald Reagan Explains things for Stevil
I know this starts with Obama, but hang in there - President Reagan explains it all in simple language in due time.
what's up..
..with that other 27%? Do they not know what they think or are there actually people participating in that survey that said "I don't think millionaires should pay their fair share!"
Question
What is Warren Buffet's marginal income tax rate?
What is his secretary's marginal income tax rate?
(hate to break it to you - Warren Buffet's is A LOT higher)
This is a manipulation of people who don't understand the calculations.
I have a high income friend in NY I did some work for. We needed to sell a certain stock position that would be taxed at the client's marginal income tax rate - roughly 50% including federal, state and local (NYC). How much more do you want from them? Funny - New York just put in some kind of a new tax on yachts. Everybody moved their yachts to other states so now NY collects less in taxes - brilliant.
I agree with some of the suggestions (like the taxes on hedge fund managers and changing the depreciation schedule on private jets). But let's face it - even the older rates would only add a few percent in taxes to the wealthy and it's not going to add much to the US treasury.
We ALL have to either do more with less or pay more taxes. Taxing the top 1% is a ridiculous red herring. There simply aren't enough of them. And hey - President Clinton says people like him would gladly pay more. Go ahead - nobody's stopping you and it's even tax deductible. Pony up Billary and swirly and then get back to me.
All I've Got's This Sunny Afternoon
Didn't you hear what Reagan said about loopholes? And here you are explaining EXACTLY how it is that many, if not most, wealthy people move shit around to avoid taxes.
The actual rate doesn't really matter - it is the fact that the rich guy gets away with hiring people to shuffle stuff around to avoid taxes, and the rest of us pony up or get audited for sneezing on the return.
Where do you people get this stuff
The actual rate doesn't really matter - it is the fact that the rich guy gets away with hiring people to shuffle stuff around to avoid taxes, and the rest of us pony up or get audited for sneezing on the return.
Comic books?
a) that's the way the world works - there will always be "loopholes" (the case above is really to illustrate mobility of assets and capital - if the tax rate is too high you move to another jurisdiction - why do you think so many professional athletes live in florida - NO INCOME TAX). You want loophole examples - look at 529 savings plans and trust law - those things were written by a bunch of rich Senators over drinks to avoid estate taxes - go after that stuff and I agree with you. Thanks to Reagan there are very, very few personal loopholes left - the exceptions are usually in that blurry line between individuals and their closely held businesses (which is why Buffett says go ahead and raise taxes on the rich - his assets and income are mostly sheltered because he makes his money in investments - not income and he knows it - hey and I like Warren a lot - but he's a bit disingenuous on this call). Not as easy for say a pro athlete or even a highly compensated corporate employee to shelter their assets like this.
B)As for audits - you are many,many times more likely to get audited if you are high income and the odds increase if you are a business owner taking business deductions on your taxes - either directly or through a pass through entity - your statement is patently false. The IRS learned long ago to fish where the big fish swim.
Untruth
I say "untruth", rather than "lie", because I believe you mean to say that the current rate of taxation, combined with the current level of income, equals more dollars in the pockets of the wealthiest individuals currently alive. Perhaps.
In point of fact, though, the federal income tax (with certain wartime exceptions) didn't come into existence until 1913, and even then the highest rate was 7%. At other times during its history, the maximum withholding rate was far less than the 33% which it is now. Even as late as 1990 it was, I believe, 28%.
Sometimes, hyperbole is useful and will help win an argument. It does depend upon whom you're feeding the hyperbole to, though. I'm hardly in favor of higher taxes on anyone, but if you want to bolster your argument for them, sticking to facts may be more helpful.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
@suldog
I'm keeping my day job and depending on you to help clarify when my hyperbole overtakes my facts -- which, by the way, I thought was sort of a requirement for blogging, particularly blogging about the subject at hand (i.e., Stevil's comments).
Income and Wealth Disparities
I found this Slate article helpful:
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/20...
Never Been to Hong Kong
Does everyone start out on a level field there? I mean, were the limo guy and the homeless guy neighbors on the same street who went to the same grade school and college and stuff? Because I could understand the Hong Kong homeless guy's question if that were the case.
The thing is, we all know that the rich are born rich and the poor are born poor in America. I don't blame you for wanting to believe something else, such as that the limo guy worked hard all his life and the homeless guy slacked off, even though it's probably the reverse that's more true in terms of hours worked and calories expended and sheer difficulty of jobs.
I don't blame you at all for wanting to believe that, because it makes the world, or at least our world, seem more fair. But if you do actually believe it, then I suggest you rewind the television in your head to Saturday mornings with Bugs Bunny and the giant lollipop that appears above Elmer Fudd's head when he's been fooled: You're a sucker.
Bullshit
You didn't really expect to make a blanket statement like that and not be called on it, did you? If you want to fall in lockstep with the "no such thing as success stories" crowd, fine. But I'm tired of listening to such outright crap.
There are many avenues to wealth in America. I'll list a few occupations and let some of you fill in the blanks with people who made millions even though some didn't start with much dough. I'm sure you'll be able to do so.
Athlete
Author
Inventor
Actor/Actress
Agent
Musician
Chef
Television/Radio Personality
Politician
I could waste your time and mine, listing more occupations, but I don't believe there's anyone dense enough, on this normally erudite board, who wouldn't be able to pair up at least a couple of names with each of those categories already given.
Does it require luck to succeed, in some instances? Absolutely. And if you haven't had any? Too bad. That's the way it goes. Many avenues to success have the obstacle of being in subjective pursuits, rather than objective, and that may rankle you, but that's the way it is.
I am NOT in favor of corporate welfare, or handouts to billionaires. I've made that clear in previous postings here, I believe. But, while I have some serious problems with America, and with American government, the idea that it is impossible to succeed here, without being born into success, is ludicrous. All it sometimes takes is ONE spectacularly silly idea and the ability to see it through to fruition. Remember the Pet Rock?
Rant over, and thanks for pushing me to the point where I finally just had to get it off of my chest or else explode on some innocent bystander later on today. Feel free to continue on with whatever miserable fantasies, concerning the impossibility of life, you wish to indulge in.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
What are the odds ...
... that a kid born in poverty will be a sports star? Don't we deride inner city youth for thinking like that?
Therein lies the problem: our society provides very few ways for mobility anymore - $100,000 in student loans to pay off after 4 years of undergraduate study? Housing crises right and left? Lack of employment to pay off that money owed on loans.
I don't buy the born poor = stay poor as an automatic situation, but the statistics are not good and they are getting grimmer. It is very difficult to get out of poverty if you started there - and the current policies are making it harder and harder to do as I did because they have removed public money from promoting merit.
Sports stardom no guarantee
Most professional sports players end up in poverty after retiring.
Statistical Back-Up?
Please? Otherwise, see the title of my rant above.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Ye olde news report.
Here's the story in Sports Illustrated.
Points like:
• By the time they have been retired for two years, 78% of former NFL players have gone bankrupt or are under financial stress because of joblessness or divorce.
• Within five years of retirement, an estimated 60% of former NBA players are broke.
Interesting
I would still prefer to see more evidence before I'm willing to buy the assertion that most end in poverty. Some of the terms ("financial stress", for instance) are a bit ambiguous. In any case, the point wasn't whether folks might lose what they have acquired, but that they can, in fact, acquire it.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Acquiring vs keeping
If you're talking about social mobility - starting as a member of the poor class and ending up as a member of the middle class - then you're talking about a lot more than just having some money at some point in your life.
Professional athletes do get paid a lot of money for a while. For many (most, per the article) of them, this does not change their lives in the long run. They are entertainers. We pay them money as long as they are entertainers. When we are no longer entertained by them, they blow their wad and go back to what they were doing before. If they were middle class, they probably go back to being middle class, and work at insurance companies or something. If they were rich, they probably knew how to take care of their money in the first place, and they hired Stevil. If they were poor, they end up working at the car wash. A minority of players actually get somewhere else, and stay there, because of their time as sports entertainers.
Not only is professional athlete not a reasonable aspiration for a young fellow - the odds are overwhelmingly against you - but it's not even a good aspiration. Even if you succeed, you probably won't hold on to it. It's like winning the lottery - most lottery winners just blow the dough and end up as poor as they started.
The same is probably true of most of the professions on your list. Most authors never make a buck off it, most musicians never make a good living off it, and end up teaching lessons to snotty kids, most chefs live in poverty... a very few authors, musicians, or chefs become superstars and make a lot of money... and many of those superstars end up right back where they started once their fifteen minutes is up.
Let's go back to your Pet Rock example, because it's a good one. It was invented by a fellow named Gary Dahl. Was he poor and unconnected? No. He was a middle-aged advertising executive when he invented it. He had friends in the ad business who were backers. He knew how advertising works. He struck gold and made fifteen million dollars off the rock.
And afterwards? He quit his job, opened a bar, became a drunk, sold the bar, came up with several follow-on fad attempts, which failed cataclysmically, got involved in legal trouble, made a few lawyers rich, and eventually... went back to what he was doing before. He's an advertising executive again.
Dahl didn't move anywhere socially because of the pet rock. After the flash in the pan, he was back where he started. If he'd been poor, he'd likely have gone back to being poor.
In America, to an extent greater than in many other countries, if you are born poor, you are likely to die poor (here lie the bones of Sophie Jones...) and if you are born rich, you are likely to die rich. This is becoming more the case as the middle class shrinks and equality of opportunity diminishes. There will always be unusual Horatio Alger type stories, but they are hyped up to seem more likely than they are. We love the stories, so we keep making them up. But by and large, real social mobility is a multi-generational thing, each generation building a little on the previous, and counting on no great setbacks. Becoming and remaining middle class, for someone who was born poor, typically takes years of steady work in a good profession, and conservative habits, not a flash in the pan.
I'd like to see less devotion to the fantasies of instant wealth and superstardom and more devotion to the virtues of dedication and perseverance. There are probably more limos dedicated to brief displays of conspicuous consumption than there are privately owned limos used as regular transportation. I don't feel envy when I see a limo. I feel pity that someone in there is stupid enough to waste their money on trying to impress people with that foolishness.
Sock Puppet
As I've said, the keeping of wealth was not my point. I was only pointing out that it is entirely possible to acquire wealth without having it handed to you by Mommy or Daddy. Some folks here seem to believe that's an impossibility.
Keeping it is another discipline altogether.
Certainly, luck plays a factor on both acquiring it and in keeping it. It always does, for all of us, no matter what social condition we were born into. Does being born with advantages mean you are more likely to succeed and remain successful? Well, duh! Of course! I'd have to be pretty thick to argue that it doesn't, and I've not argued that at all. The fellow born into a rich family, with access to many other advantages, has a better chance at remaining rich. That doesn't obviate the fact that a person without such advantages may also attain similar stature. That has been my only argument.
Horatio Alger stories are, indeed, unusual. Being unusual is often the key to great wealth. People rarely part with their money, in great quantities, for the mundane and easily replicated.
Might we agree that such wealth acquisition is possible, but you perhaps believe the system should be changed to allow for a greater number of such stories to occur? I truly believe that unfettered capitalism (and I mean with no government interference to prop up multi-millionaires who made ridiculous mistakes) is the best system for that. It rewards innovation, daring, uniqueness, and other such rare commodities, with outrageously good return. You may believe there is a better system. If so, please expound. I'll enjoy reading those thoughts, just as I've enjoyed your others thus far. It's an interesting debate, all around.
Anyway, let's go to your next point, with which I absolutely agree...
Indeed. Just because there are ways to quick cash (which, as we agree, will pan out for the few, not the many, which is why they are avenues to big bucks) does not mean I endorse those roads for everyone to take. Sure, if you have a dream, pursue it, but it always pays to be realistic about what talents you have, what opportunities exist, what length of time you can afford to pursue the gold ring, and what other opportunities you may lose in doing so.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Swirly...
Of course, the odds are extremely poor. I never said they weren't. The odds of extreme success, in any endeavor, are poor. That doesn't mean it never happens. That was my argument. If you wish to pursue the discussion concerning exactly how difficult it is to rise above a poor start, I'll leave that to others. My problem is only with those who have been postulating that it is impossible.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Here's a helpful hint: Don't
Here's a helpful hint:
Don't take out loans for degrees in the humanities. Take out loans for a degree in something that pays money and provides a marketable skill. Go ahead and take advantage of college to study the humanities, but never go into debt for it. That's just dumb.
Here's a Reality Check
It really doesn't matter what you took out loans to study. The jobs simply aren't there for recent graduates.
In fact, humanities graduates may even have an edge right now if they can parlay their degrees into teaching certificates, as there are mass retirements of older teachers going on in the next couple of years.
So what you're saying is...
The only way to go rags-to-riches is by being an entertainer and letting the corporations use you to keep the proletariat entertained at the Colosseum? Or you could invent something, hope you don't get sued into oblivion by a corporation in the same field, and ultimately become your own corporation willing to sue anyone in the same field. How many recent inventors (isn't the Pet Rock from the 60's, old-timer??) have turned into millionaires without selling out to a corporation who would corrupt their invention into oblivion?
Look at your list: entertainer, entertainer, inventor, entertainer, entertainer-leech, entertainer, entertainer (the only chefs that make millions are the entertainer ones), entertainer, and
entertainerpolitician.Face it. The idea that ANYONE doing ANYTHING could succeed and rise up out of the dregs is D.O.A. these days. The only people who succeed like that are those the corporations decide to use as tools. Your list is pretty clearly indicative of that.
Kaz...
Believe what you wish. I didn't expect to change anyone's mind via my rant, much as I suspect, in your heart of hearts, you aren't truly expecting anyone to shout your praises after coming to this with an opposite opinion.
I do realize my listing of jobs is weighted towards entertaining. That's because that's what I know. I do voice-overs. I interact with other entertainers. I made a tenuous living playing in bands, back in the day (and, by the way, the Pet rock was from the 1970's, not the 1960's, although I suspect that still means I'm moldy.) I write a bit. I've been involved in politics. The point was not that those are the ONLY ways out. They are some that you or anyone else, with a modicum of knowledge concerning public figures, could readily see as valid examples of the ability to escape poverty. There are others, less high profile, and I'm sure folks involved in those fields could find examples in those. For you to act as though what I wrote was a be-all-end-all listing, when I think it's fairly clear it wasn't, is beneath your level of intelligence.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Sometimes
Sometimes a person is adamant because it's psychological nature to defend what your brain tells you is right even in the face of evidence to the contrary. It's what you seem to accuse me of on this topic. What about those times when the person is adamant because they are right given the facts/reality of the situation being discussed?
I criticize your list because while it may only be who you know to have accomplished the rags-to-riches feat...it is by-and-large the only way out there to pull it off these days because the corporations are the ones with ALL of the money and so going to bat for them, in its many forms, is the only way to get that money to gain that upward social mobility. However, I don't have to go ask all around to find out who knows the ONE plumber in the world who turned shit-to-gold, literally, and now makes millions as the biggest plumbing company in the New England area. I can look for items such as this 2006 report on social mobility which attempts to answer this question in a far more generic approach that should apply to ANY means of going rags-to-riches. The report summary says things like:
I also have a feeling that nothing that's happened between 2006 and today has made the situation any better. In fact, it's probably worse than ever before. So, we're talking about less than 1% of those born into the poorest quintile having a chance to become part of the top 5% (which means about a $500,000/yr salary). So, sure, it's not technically impossible...you're right to slam the door on THAT exaggeration. But is <1% really something you want to hang that hat on?
Interesting Side Discussion?
I think this possibility may have been brought up earlier, in an oblique way, but might the lack of social mobility in such places as the US and the UK, which you cite from that 2006 report, be somewhat due to the generally decent standard of living overall in those locales? While a hideous situation can be either a strong motivator or a dampener of spirit, general satisfaction with one's circumstances can also lead to complacency.
(I'm not saying that's the way it is, nor saying that either you or I necessarily totally believe/disbelieve such a theory, but it's a thought. If you believe it's a stupid one, well, I'm somewhat tired of the parry and thrust at this point, so no prob.)
I find something else you say of more interest, though, and perhaps you'd like to expand on this thought...
When in history has this not more-or-less been the case? What other source of wealth has there ever been, for one without wealth, than to strike some sort of deal with those who hold more wealth, in (as you say) their many forms? I'm somewhat expecting you to limit your response to capitalist systems, since that is what the main argument seems to concern, but if you have an alternative that allows for one to become (to co-opt a Vonnegut phrase) fabulously well-to-do, I'm sure I'd find it fascinating (no sarcasm - I'm always willing to learn.)
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
I think you might have that backwards
The increased social mobility in countries such as France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark is related to the better standard of living for poor and working folks.
One of the peculiar theories of the right is that the reason poor people don't get ahead is that they haven't suffered enough - just make them suffer a bit more and maybe they'll discover some motivation to stop being poor.
Another way of looking at things is to consider the amount of stress a person is under in this country when s/he is really poor. If you've got to make four figure rent, pay Harvard-level daycare costs, and pay the world's highest health care costs, all out of single digit wages, when are you going to have time to think about advancement? If you're sneaking out to donate blood plasma on your lunch break and a busted ride is an insurmountable obstacle, how are you going to change careers? This is a great country to be rich in; it's a lousy country to be poor in.
In those Northern European countries, the social support network is much greater - everybody gets vacations, everybody gets healthcare, everybody has a real shot at higher education - and one of the results is higher intergenerational mobility. Part of the reason may simply be that people at the lower end of the scale are suffering less. As such, they are less concerned with immediate material needs like heat, food, and physical safety, and can think about getting somewhere.
I agree with you completely that if you want to get more money, mostly what you do is figure out who has the money and what they'd like done in exchange. It's how I got my money. It's how Leonardo da Vinci got his money too. It's how Stevil gets his money. We're all renaissance men. I don't see the problem with that that age-old tradition that Kaz does. Working for da man beats donating blood plasma any day - that saline is cold when it comes back in.
But the idea that intergenerational mobility is lower in the US because the standard of living is higher? That just doesn't match up with the facts. If you look at our averages, we're super. But segment it out, and the standard of living for the bottom 50% here is significantly lower than it is in northern Europe. It is not an accident that those other nations top the poverty index list at the same time as they rock for intergenerational mobility. It's connected.
I'm going to propose a modification to Suldog's Theorem
Rather than viewing the lack of mobility as an indicator that people are comfortable as is, I've always assumed the lack of revolution was just such an indicator. To protest and revolt requires that we have nothing left to lose (to borrow from Janice Joplin). The argument then becomes that we have disparity, but the bottom quintiles are comfortable enough that they won't complain.
I firmly believe that a vast majority of the so-called 99%, do in fact, have more to lose than gain, which is why the protestors are mostly the dispossessed, rather than a general cross section of society.
Suldog's Theorem?
Oh, Henry, PLEASE don't give me the "honor" of having a theorem named after me! If you wish to call it "Suldog's Truly-Curious-About-The-Answer-So-He-Suggested-It-As-A-Topic Question", maybe that would be best :-)
I think you've nailed it, actually. The lack of revolution would be a much better indicator of people in the lowest stratum being satisfied with conditions in general. The lack of upward mobility may be more an indicator of the middling classes being satisfied, or having more to lose than they might wish to risk.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Counterpoint
North Korea hasn't had a revolution. I doubt the lower stratum are satisfied by their conditions.
Theorem broken.
Counter-Counterpoint
Just because we haven't heard of a revolution, that doesn't mean there hasn't been one.
(I'm just picking theoretical linguistic nits now. Never mind me. Go back to your sandwich. It looks yummy!)
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Don't be silly Kaz
the two societies aren't remotely comparable. Brutal repression can certainly delay or even prevent revolution. But is that what you see here? Is it reasonable to suggest that we lack revolution in this country because we have North Korea style repression? You aren't going to win any converts to your cause with such an outlandish claim.
Get back to me
Get back to me when the poor aren't going to jail at rates disproportionate to their crime's effects on society compared to the rich. You don't see repression against the parts of our society, already forced to live on the margin between life and death, that are effected the most by our current political and judicial system?
Just because we aren't ALL subject to the same repression that you see in North Korea doesn't mean these elements don't exist and keep people from revolting for fear of a system that's already shown it doesn't trust them just to live. There are states that want to harass citizens just because they "look Hispanic" and therefore *might* be illegal immigrants. Do you think they're going to be the first ones to stand opposite a line of cops and exercise their rights to self-assemble? Will you personally go to Occupy Wall Street knowing how the cops have so far treated the protestors like cattle and chattel?
No, we're not North Korea...but our system has its own built-in methods of repression.
Argument Fail
You are reaching so far, it's almost funny. Of course we have some imbalances and some politicians espousing stupid ideas that play to fear, but people in this society know that. And we talk about it, litigate it, and protest it. And we evolve. The things you describe do not amount to repression, at least not enough to cause people to fear speaking and acting out. People aren't starving here, though they may lack broadband Internet. The worst off 1% here, is better off than all but the top 1% in North Korea. Your comparison is offensive. To make it is tantamount to telling me you are either a fool, or a liar with an agenda. You want to change the system? Better start with some realistic and honest appraisal of what it is.
I try not to be harsh in my assessments, but when you make such a ridiculous claim, I can't simply acknowledge it as a different point of view. It's wrong, blatantly wrong, and reckless for you to make such a claim.
With all due respect....
... you are missing his point.
Actually
North Koreas bottom 1% are probably pretty happy with their lives. Because they have been told to be happy. And I don't want to put words in Kaz's mouth, but it seems that his point was that in North Korea protests, revolutions, etc are impossible. We should be thankful here in America that all we have to deal with are a few tents on public property.
But this is where the issue is in my opinion. I think the whole thing about these protesters is that they might have the right to protest, and seem to be doing it peacefully, but at some point there is going to be a line that needs to be crossed. At what point do we (citizens of Boston and America) let people camp out on public property? What if they were protesting something different? Would we let the Westboro Baptist Church set up camp on the Greenway? What if they wanted to camp out on the sidewalk? Or block the street?
You are out of touch
50 million people in America last year couldn't afford enough food. We're the richest country in the world and 1 of every SIX people couldn't put food on their table 3 times a day.
They couldn't afford internet?! THEY COULDN'T EVEN AFFORD FOOD!!
You're an ass.
Not trying to be funny here but....
I bet about 5 million out of that 50 million chose to keep paying for delux cable instead of giving their children the right food to eat.
I bet...
I bet 1 person in America took home enough money to feed all of those people AND pay for them to have cable AND buy them 3 cars each.
Your contempt for people having to choose between food and what the rest of us often consider a regular "utility" bill doesn't go unnoticed though, thanks for your input.
Ok
And I bet that person you are talking about paid enough in taxes to pay the exact same thing.
And no, deluxe cable is not just another utility bill for me, because I choose to get a cheaper package so I can afford other things.
And yes, I do have some contempt for a lot of people. I have contempt for selfish rich people, and I have contempt for poor people that could be doing more for themselves or their families.
Food insecurity <> starvation
Don't be the ass you think I am. I realize you see no difference between North Korea and the US in terms of political repression, but when I say starving, I mean it in the North Korean sense, as in dying for lack of nutrition. Food insecurity, which I acknowledge is a problem, means living on fewer calories than recommended, it most emphatically does not mean dying. And again, this all goes back to the larger point, which is that people in this country are not suffering enough to rebel. Where are these 50 million? Why aren't they rioting? You suggest it is fear of North Korean style repression, I suggest it is because they are not as bad off as a British tabloid would have us believe.
I'm gonna go with fool, I don't think you're artful enough to lie with an agenda.
Response below
Response below
For your enlightenment Kaz
This map uses data from the UN world food program. The green countries do not have a significant hunger issue.
Don't bolster your case with made up bullshit. It hurts the cause. I hope for the sake of our country that the rest of the protestors aren't so ignorant in the claims they advance.
One other possible variable
Is it possible that the prevalence of a drug culture in the lower socioeconomic classes of the UK and the US is a contributing factor to the lack of mobility as you move to lower quintiles?
I'm not that familiar with Germany and the Scandanavian cultures - but it's my impression that while drugs certainly exist, it's not as pervasive as it is here. That and other social phenomenon may have a lot more to do with it that makes apples to apples comparisons difficult (which always are in cross cultural and cross national comparisons).
Hey - I'll give this to the occupados - it spurs an interesting discussion - and I'll still give 'em a job if they'll fix the elevator in our building competently for $100 an hour! :-)
Plenty of not the cases
Any small company that's succeeded on its own, by building its customer base and then expanding out, hasn't done it through corporate parenthood or by signing itself away to some giant corporation. There's wealth in putting together a business plan that satisfies a need and then growing it. Google wasn't formed because Larry and Sergey had a good idea...and then Microsoft bought them up and grew a search division. Then again, it doesn't cost all that much to personally develop software.
One of the biggest differences these days is that if you do want to start small and work your way up, then you're faced with a growing number of costs (that themselves are rising faster than wages). Before, you might have started a nest egg that you were willing to use to risk striking out on your own. Succeed or fail, you weren't too bad off from where you started. These days, it costs too much to live to afford saving that kind of money. Most people can not deal with a calamity that would cost them about $10,000...let alone putting aside extra to start a business. Wages just can't support the "do it yourself" mechanism of starting a business plan and working your way up to greatness.
On top of that, at some point if you are succeeding at your new business then the industry leaders might be interested in taking you over or keeping you down. Before, by the time you were big enough to be a concern, you were also big enough to survive and not be taken over if you wanted it to be that way. Now, the industry leaders are giant conglomerates who would just as easily squash you or buy you. They hold such a stranglehold on pretty much everything that you either play ball by their rules or not at all. You're almost foolish NOT to sell your best ideas or whatever to a big corporation than take the risk of failure given the current environment. It's a total flip from where it used to be.
Kaz
I think we're both more on the same page than not, so I'll try not to go on and on (as is my wont.)
Even small companies that grow larger have to get money to begin (unless somebody homesteads, builds his headquarters from logs, and barters for his start-up.) So we're still talking about an appeal to those with more money than you, unless you have the capital yourself. In that case, the point is moot.
Your illustrations are exactly what I was saying are possible in other fields outside of entertainments. Find a need, and satisfy it. If you do so in a way that pleases lots of folks, you can get them to part with lots of cash.
I absolutely agree that the hurdles are more numerous now than they once were. I'd wish to see many of those hurdles gone, as it seems you would. My way would be by dismantling many of the governmental hurdles. I'm not sure you'd quite agree with that, but maybe you do.
As for being bought out, well, it may be reprehensible morally to sell out to some of these folks who have no soul, but it IS another avenue to wealth acquisition.
Anyway, fun conversation, Kaz. I don't think any the less of you just because you're an atheistic tool of the socialists :-)
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Okay
You're a minority kid educated at underfunded public schools with outdated materials and no investment in nutrition or reproductive health. Your mother didn't go to college and can't impress upon you the study habits that, say, a kid in Winchester has through two-parent support and test prep classes and a private tutor.
You make it through your elementary school and even finish high school, losing one friend to murder (I recall a stat that the majority of kids in BPS know one person who's been killed) in the process. At every step, your classes have been larger, your school's budget has been lower, your diet less healthy, and your surroundings less conducive to learning than the kid from Winchester, but you graduate and go to community college. You take a shitty job because your family financial support is minimal, and you run about a 14-hour day between work and school.
Meanwhile, the kid in Winchester gets accepted to the same Ivy League college his father went to. Imagine that. He has abundant free time to study and socialize with other well-heeled students who followed their own parents' successful arcs. When he gets a bachelor's degree, he decides to pursue advanced study and goes to grad school on a scolarship.
Not every single person born poor will stay poor. Not every single person born rich will stay rich. But if your proposition is that an impoverished kid from Athol, whose friends and contacts are also impoverished, has the same chance at a life above the poverty line as a wealthy kid from Winchester, whose friends and contacts are also wealthy, and more specifically that any poor kid has the same chance as any rich kid because kids in either group can grow up to be pro athletes, then you're completely deluded.
Yes, there are success stories of children from humble beginnings who achieved great things. And there are cautionary tales of proud men laid low. But the reason anyone knows them is because they're the exception and not the rule. And the rule is that if you're born poor, you'll stay poor, and if you're born rich, you'll stay rich.
"Become a TV personality" is not a realistic counterpoint here.
Anon (Okay)
It's as realistic as anything else. If you what you mean is that it's not a great possibility for loads of people, sure. I agree totally. I never said "You must choose one of these options I've listed!" I only offered them as possibilities. There are others.
I've talked to the point about exceptions and rules, more or less, in a comment above this, addressed to Sock Puppet.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Be part of the solution by first recognizing the problem
Your folksy bullshit about the "American Dream" is pure confirmation bias. You don't make 7-plus figure salaries in America by "living the American Dream". You can only accomplish this by standing on the heads of those around you. Furthermore, you don't get any higher than that (and there are about 400 who have) without stomping down on the ones you're standing on. And worse yet, they've discovered that the harder and more the stomping, the higher they get!
THEN, in order to reap these overblown personal incomes, you are probably piloting a runaway corporate machine with its own overblown profiteering. That gives you more strength to do more stomping. On other corporations? NO, on other companies AND on the very same people you've personally been stomping on! AND UP YOU GO! SKY'S THE LIMIT!
The ultrarich are maintaining their income through market manipulation, unchecked corporate plundering of the federal piggy bank, no-bid military contracts, lying directly to their clients (the rest of us and our pensions, etc.) while using the false advice to do more market manipulation, and the beat goes on. They take a portion of those proceeds and pay off the legislature and executives to write the rules to allow them access to novel ways to do more of the same. They fight hard against the few times a rule comes up that would shut a door on them to their current lies, manipulations, and public theft. They take stints as regulatory agency heads long enough to protect from any enforcement of the rules that would stop their illegality and then return back to positions within their corporations again.
I find it perplexing that you ascribe zero culpability to the rich when it comes to the current shitty economic situation of 99% of Americans given ALL of the vast evidence piling up at their doorstep every time ANYONE looks beyond surface deep at their actions.
Imagine if the rest of us were even given the CHANCE to live your bullshit folksy American Dream story. The 99% is not. If we did, it would be a threat to those who have already established their place above us and they have EVERY POSSIBLE MEANS at their disposal to make sure that doesn't happen. They are a monopoly, a monopoly of wealth...and just like Ma Bell, it's time for a reckoning on how they are using their monopoly to keep all of the rest of us out of the game...or letting us in only to take everything and kick us back out again.
You think only 1% of America wants to pull itself up and live the American Dream? No? What percentage then, Stevil? How many Americans have earnestly worked to "achieve the American Dream"? Why have only 1% succeeded? Should it be that hard to succeed at it? Is it conceivable that the ability to succeed is rigged? Is it conceivable that the richest 1% have the means, desire, and propensity to do ANYTHING necessary to protect the level to which they've reached? Wouldn't you? Then, isn't it also conceivable that in order to do so, they might need to get that wealth from the rest of us in order to remain that richest 1% by default? Wouldn't that then explain how the game might be rigged and why the success rate at "achieving the American Dream" is so small?
No, you're right...I'm sure it's just because all 99% of us are just lazy.
1% ha ha ha ha ha
Who said anything about lazy - although that might apply to 5-10% of the population - nothing radical there - just a normal distribution of human behavior depending on your definition.
about 5% of American households have a net worth of $1 million or more EXCLUDING home equity. Even after the recent downturn if you add home equity in it probably at least doubles the number of households with a total net worth over $1 million.
Market Manipulation - please let me know where you see that. I do this every day and I see little sign of manipulation (possibly in thinly traded commodity markets or securities which is why I avoid them).
American Dream - you mean the moving target - hey if it's the old dream of a house, a car, a job, decent clothes and a full belly - probably 80% of America has achieved that dream (and most of the remaining 20% are immigrants - they'll be there in a generation or two).
The problem is the New American dream - all of the above, plus luxury vacations, fancy summer camps, sporting activities with beautiful pro quality uniforms, cell phones, cable, internet, netflix, dining out 5 times a week etc. etc. etc. - that's probably 10-20% of America that can really afford that. the problem is another 30% wants to put the new American dream on their credit card.
Sorry - when I have setbacks (and I have) I blame them squarely on me and my failings. Not some anonymous rich guy in a top hat and tails. You do that and you stay where you are. You want to get ahead you leave the Oliver Stone theories in the closet and go out and make it happen. You'll need a bit of luck but as I think Gary Player once said - it's amazing how the harder I work the luckier I get.
Deliberately obtuse or just stupid?
Ah...so your HK anecdote has a guy who wants a handout from the limo owner. He's not lazy, he's just what? You said "Rather than blaming the rich their time would be better spent figuring out how to become rich." So, if they're not spending their time figuring out how to be rich, they're doing what? Nothing about their income situation? Are you calling them lazy or are you calling all 99% too stupid to figure out how to become rich?
Furthermore, I talked about people with 7-figure SALARIES not NET WORTH so who cares how much anyone's home is worth? Also, how much of that home is in mortgage...so they don't "own" a home...they're borrowing it from the bank until it's paid off. And really? Do you want to quibble over 1% or 5%? Because, if 5% have $1M worth excluding home...there's 95% that don't (must all be too busy hating the rich). Meanwhile, ONE guy took home a personal salary worth FOUR THOUSAND times that in only one year. 4000x more than your 5% who are only WORTH $1M regardless of how much of that they just got in the last year alone. Yeah, I'm sure he did it all by himself just living the American Dream, right?
If you don't know about front running through high frequency trading, try Google. I'm not going to do your homework for you. It's market manipulation plain and simple and it goes on every day.
Considering we have about 16% unemployment, your estimate that 80% have a car, house, JOB, and full belly is already pretty implausible on face value. You're the one who said all these Occupy people hate the rich because they "succeeded at the American Dream". You brought up the term, don't then request that I be the one to explain what it means. You figure it out and tell us because you're the one that thinks the rich succeeded at it and the rest of us choose to hate them for it. It's your straw man, not mine.
Of course, it's easy for you to overestimate how many people have cars, homes, food, and jobs. You haven't got a clue what the rest of the world around you looks like. Your carefully constructed walls in life let you see the reflection of what you want to build up around you as the reality you think the rest of us live under. Bully for you. How much do you make in a year? Is it over $500,000? No? Over $200,000? Well, that just makes you far enough down the tip of the 99% that you can act like you're not like the rest of us. You have just enough upward mobility that you don't realize how close to the bottom you're still floundering...and it gives you the illusion that you're somehow better than the rest of us but you're just going to be one of the last ones they need to stomp on.
PS
Here's some more market manipulation terms for you to check out through Google (unless you're too lazy):
oil speculation bernie sanders
manipulation mortgage cdo
bear raid
apple weekly options market
quote stuffing
But, hey, you do this every day...I'm sure you knew all about these things and there's nothing to worry about. I'm probably just too busy blaming the rich.
Way ahead of you Kaz
I know of all of those kinds of things and unless you are an idiot trading things you have no business trading or a large institutional trader (in the case of quote stuffing) they have zero material impact on you (bear raid - seriously - did you go back in a time machine and work for Joe Kennedy? I agree that they should bring back the uptick rule - although even that in modern day high speed decimalized trading probably makes bear raids almost impossible).
One man's manipulation is a another man's trading strategies. There are a lot of questionable things going on out there - when they start handing out indictments I'll believe it's truly manipulation. There will always be the rogue breaking and bending the rules - true manipulation is extraordinarily difficult - most of the markets are just too big - but it happens (e.g. -Enron in the CA energy trade).
Anon below - would that be your reality or the one that comes through my door every day? Your comment is like telling a doctor that he should give up traditional medicine and tell his patients to just do a rain dance to get healthy. I see what it takes to be successful - it's never exactly the same but usually it's hard work, frugality and a little bit of luck. The few people I know that inherited their wealth are some of the hardest workers and the most generous with their money. I think the problem is you and kaz don't know many "rich" people. I do both professionally and personally and just about to a person they are extraordinarily wonderful people - although like anywhere I've met a few of the exceptions too.
Again, are you being deliberately obtuse?
The first thing I quoted you was evidence of manipulation through oil speculation. If you can't figure out the material impact of that on everyone, then I'm glad I'm not one of your clients.
Ahh who's being obtuse?
Last time I checked speculation was a legal activity (though not one I engage in).
Market manipulation, if proven, is not. Sanders is a demagogue. He's a senator - he and his buddies get to make the rules. If there is a legal practice that is so blatantly not in the public interest that it drives up oil prices by 40%, make it illegal (if that's true, I would actually agree with the legislation). Don't blame the trader in the pit for doing his job or the boss of Goldman Sachs for doing what his shareholders expect of him within the bounds of the law. Blame Bernie.
Like I said - get back to me when they are pulling people off the floor of the NYMEX in shackles.
But this returns to one of my main points early
The corruption that the ultrarich enjoy will never allow for "pulling people off the floor of the NYMEX in shackles" because the very people who are breaking the letter of the law are the ones temporarily hired/appointed to positions of power within the regulatory body. On top of that, all of the people with an eye for how to break the rules and who might be doing so are paid far more to do the breaking and thus the regulatory bodies are devoid of any talented regulators either. So, the SEC upper management turn a blind eye to their pals, leave their SEC jobs and go get hired by the very people they enabled to continue breaking the law. The SEC grunt employees aren't skilled enough to notice laws being broken in the first place amid the chaos of the unclear and over-engineered financial system and when they do see the hint of illegal activity they're told to drop it and burn the files.
So, get back to ME when we even put in place a set of regulators capable and willing to actually do anything about the rampant corruption inherent in today's market in the first place. Then, I'll show you shackles.
Focus on the luck part for a moment
I'm not going to disagree regarding inheritance. It happens, but mostly, that's not a factor. But what I think you might not see or appreciate is how momentous other lucky inputs are in determining whether somebody has a chance to become wealthy through hard work. I have better chances than plenty of other people simply because I was born to a middle class family. It's an automatic head start, because it facilitates better access to education and other foundational resources. Having a parent with a strong credit rating means I had a co-signer when I needed to borrow at a young age. It opened doors to events and activities that brought me opportunity. I have a head start over somebody born in poverty. I can even be more successful with less effort because of this head start. Yes, there are always the counter-examples, but for the vast majority of people born without resources, the deck is permanently stacked against them.
And had I been born to a wealthy family
I would have had instant access to a network of successful people, well positioned to nudge me in the right directions, ready to invest on my behalf, etc.
Again, I would need to work hard to take advantage of these resources, but without them, how can you claim an equivalence of opportunity?
Or, in honor of Steve Jobs today, just time and access
to your parent's garage while you were growing up, where you could fool around building computers. Instead of working after school and weekends all through junior high and high school to help pay for groceries, or babysitting your younger siblings every afternoon, evening and weekend because both your parents work every waking hour to keep a roof over your family's heads, or taking care of an elderly or ill relative because he doesn't speak English and someone has to be there to translate during his appointments and hospital visits.
This is what growing up looks like in a lot of poor families. Where is a poor kid with the genius of a Jobs or Gates supposed to find the time and resources to realize that genius?
Hate to tell ya
but the junior/senior high worker bee would be me and the baby sitting bee would be my wife - the oldest of 6 kids - and we managed just fine even if we are not part of the 1%.
speaking of Jobs - he's one of the 1% - is the plight of the poor his fault - think of the jobs and the wealth, philanthropy and tax revenue that one man created.
Again - all this angst against the 1% is grossly misguided. You think we'd be better off without them? Good luck. Rather than railing about the anonymous "rich" think about who they are individually - bet the number of good guys outnumbers the bad guys by a factor of 10-1, maybe 100-1 - kinda like the rest of society.
Again the point we are all missing is you would be better served building up the poor and the middle class than tearing down the rich. This is not a zero sum game.
Hate to tell ya
but the junior/senior high worker bee would be me and the baby sitting bee would be my wife - the oldest of 6 kids - and we managed just fine even if we are not part of the 1%.
speaking of Jobs - he's one of the 1% - is the plight of the poor his fault - think of the jobs and the wealth, philanthropy and tax revenue that one man created.
Again - all this angst against the 1% is grossly misguided. You think we'd be better off without them? Good luck. Rather than railing about the anonymous "rich" think about who they are individually - bet the number of good guys outnumbers the bad guys by a factor of 10-1, maybe 100-1 - kinda like the rest of society.
Again the point we are all missing is you would be better served building up the poor and the middle class than tearing down the rich. This is not a zero sum game.
Count Your Federal And State Supports
You really do like to think you moved up in life all on your own?
You didn't get student loans? Pell Grants? You went to a private high school and paid for it yourself? There was no federal or state money involved in your education? Right.
I'm not that deluded.
Don't forget the Warren Thesis too
Not only did he more than likely directly use government services, but the rest of the world around him came from government services too. The internet that lets him trade without having to pay someone to go down to the floor of the NYSE, the public transit he uses to get from home to the office, the police force that keeps him from needing to privately contract for security services of his home, the FDIC that gives him trust in keeping his money in the bank....
Did I say I made it all on my own?
If I did I didn't mean to - I had a lot of legs up.
Is this a diversion - the point is that rich people are not to blame for anyone's station in life and while not all of us who aspire to the 1% can achieve it - the vast majority of Americans can easily lead a middle class or better lifestyle which by world standards is pretty damned good (and if you're poor in a land of $100 an hour plumbers learn how to plumb and charge $80 an hour and you won't be poor or if you really want to make it become one of the $160 an hour union elevator repairmen and charge $100 an hour - I'll hire you tomorrow and get you 50 new clients in a month).
And if you see better opportunities elsewhere in the world - by all means pursue them. There's an unemployed Occupado on the Greenway who would love your job - if s/he has the wherewithal to get out of their tent and draft a resume.
There you go...
You had a lot of legs up. That, Stevil, puts you in a very fortunate category, indeed. Consider yourself blessed.
And the folks that do not have alot of legs up. Do you realize that we are in the worst recession since the Great Depression? Do you understand that it is not just getting off of your butt and drafting a resume? Do you realize that there are so many people out of work looking for work in relation to how many jobs are out there?
How difficult do you think it is for someone who has a family to survive on a minimum wage job (maybe not even a full time job or maybe without health insurance)? Do you understand that just having the basic necessities in life: housing, food, clothing, are difficult for many to meet? How about if you need car to get to work (no public transit available) but can't afford one and/or the upkeep (gas, maintenance). Can you afford a car? (Or two?) Great for you! Many can't.
The solutions are not as simplistic as you make them. And why so defensive of the rich, anyway? Really.
Last point first
I know a lot of people you consider "rich" - and very few are really rich - although many are comfortable - keep in mind that few of the "rich" have a pension as one example. If you want to replace a $200k salary in retirement you need about $4-5 million in retirement savings (EXCLUDING home equity)- how many people making $200k have the ability to set that kind of money aside - by your standards they are "rich" - by my standards they will probably go broke just trying to maintain their comfortable but not luxurious standard of living in retirement.
As for the truly rich - I am fortunate to know a handful of people that are megawealthy - on top of the fact that they are extremely good and generous people - they paid their dues - and then they got lucky - I don't begrudge them that - I would love those same opportunities.
As for me - both my grandfathers had an elementary school education. I'm the grandson of an immigrant baker that didn't speak English when he showed up here and a milkman that got screwed out of his pension when the dairy went under. In two generations we went from literally dirt poor to comfortable - including most of my cousins. When I got out of business school (which I paid for out of my own savings) there was also a recession and it took me months to find a job - in the meantime I needed money. I didn't have time to camp out on the Greenway - I laid my Ivy League diploma aside and picked up a paint brush for like $12 an hour to paint houses.
So no - I have less than zero sympathy for the punks in the tents and I don't begrudge rich people their money. They are the spoiled brats that got trophies for showing up on the soccer field and now at age 23 they want another trophy - that someone else really earned.
And those of us who have moved up ...
... have done so because we had a couple of generations of people who fully understood the social contract and the concept that meritocracy strengthens the country.
For instance, I was raised in a rotting trailer amid drugs, crime, and people struggling to both keep their head above water and keep their kids out of drugs and crime.
Assisting my rise from that environment were:
1) economically desegregated schools, which made it possible for me to
2) get scholarships to attend universities which were
3) supported by public funding, with loans and Pell Grants supported by public funding which,
4) allowed me to pay off my modest loan debt so that I could
5) attend a public university for graduate school, with grant support and without debt and with a federal grant supporting my dissertation work; which means
6) my kids will still be able to attend college without crippling debts that now befall kids in my natal situation, because I make enough to pay for that luxury.
See what has gone wrong here? The social contract is broken, and, while my kids will be able to hold position, hardly anybody can rise any more because of the crippling debt loads and costs that bar entry. A strong country means taking the best and brightest and supporting them, not promoting the continued hegemony of the wealthy but mediocre.
Wow Stevil
You got one warped view of reality going by that dreck.
Shhhh ...
I'm not sure he knows how much cyanide is in that delusional kool-aid he's been tippling.
Copley Splinter
I hope members of the Copley splinter cell come to their senses and just walk the 15 minutes over to Dewey Square. The consistent criticism of left-wing assemblies is that they're so fractured by various causes that they lack the punch of a unified front. There's no need for an Occupy Copley when Occupy Boston is already underway in a known location. Just get down to South Station and multiply your numbers, visibility and impact.
Copley Splinter
I walked by there around 2:00, and nobody was in evidence. Maybe it's just a lunch time group or something, without enough time to spend the day down at Dewey Square. Or maybe they just aren't.
Relative deprivation
The concept you're missing is Relative deprivation.
The people don't rise up in North Korea because they're getting just what they thought they'd get, just what they thought all their lives - a bare subsistence, with many starving. They don't see many people who have it better, either. (Also, they'd get shot).
What's happening in the States now has a lot to do with the discrepancy between what people thought they'd get and what they're actually getting. The people flooding the squares in the 99% protests aren't absolutely deprived, but they are deprived relative to their expectations.
Our society is changing, has been changing, for decades. The great middle-class society is disappearing. The country is getting more uneven. States and towns are closing libraries, returning paved roads to gravel, accepting Detroitification as a permanent condition. This process is not hitting everybody the same way. The upper middle class are doing peachy keen. Boston is looking spiffy. The lower middle class are losing the "middle." Michigan is looking like another country. This reality is in great contrast with our collective expectations coming out of the eighties, which was that it was "Morning in America" and a "rising tide would float all boats," and that the great improvement in living conditions seen from the forties through the seventies would continue indefinitely.
People who went to college in the sixties, seventies, and eighties saw their status and prospects improve immensely over those of their parents who hadn't. As college was extended to broader sectors of the population, the assumption was it would work the same magic for everybody, and everybody who went to college would become upper middle class, and have those things that come with it - a new car, a big house, great vacations, etc.
For more than a decade, the polarization and impoverishment of large parts of our country and populace have been masked by debt. The big house became the ATM to pay for the new car and the great vacations (not to mention the college education itself). Millions of people pretended, or deluded themselves, to have achieved their goals. "Fake it till you make it" is the American way, but when making it never comes, the faking can fall apart spectacularly.
The housing bust ripped the mask off what's been happening. It's not a temporary downturn. It's an adjustment to where we really were all along. Those people who fell down probably aren't getting back up, ever. Those who graduated into a maelstrom of debt and joblessness are starting to realize that their dreams were already securitized and they've got a lifetime to pay back the banks, during which there won't be enough prosperity to go around. Instead of reaching higher than their parents did, they'll be falling lower.
The first rule of the casino is the house always wins. In the casino capitalism we've been running since the eighties, the house is the financial sector and the military-industrial complex. Some people get lucky, most people lose, and a select few make money off it, no matter what happens.
When the 99% look and see there are some folks laughing all the way to the bank about this, they get upset. And if you don't understand why, you just haven't been paying attention.
My objection is narrow and specific to Kaz
I don't disagree particularly with what you are saying, but it seems to me very different from what he has said. What he has said really just cheapens the real (rather than relative) suffering in North Korea. I can't respect that.
regarding your analysis, I think it's pretty accurate. But where does it leave the substantial group of people who didnt get caught up in the wave of consumption beyond reason? I blame the banks, but I also blame the borrowers. I don't support either group's notion that they should get a pass on their mistakes.
Revisit how this started
Between you and Suldog, a theory as to why lack of social mobility vs. lack of revolution/protest was an indicator of a country's content-ness. It was agreed upon that since there's been no protest, then a country's people must be content with their current situation and economic trends. In bringing up North Korea, I example and point out that there are easily situations where suppression of the people gives rise to artificial content-ness.
Since then, you've wanted to claim that I'm calling us North Korea. I'm not. However, if you think that we've been content through the past 20 years and lacked protest because we were actually content, I think you're missing, as Sock Puppet linked to, our relative deprivation. People are aware that we are the richest country in the world, but if you look around, you'd never guess it at this point. All of our indicators predict otherwise.
The people have appeared content because they've been placated. On top of that, the recent drumbeat has been one of jingoistic solidarity as we face a new(?) common enemy in "Terrorism". It was enough to ignore the realities of your ever-increasingly horrible life and take one for the team. But I think the veneer has worn thin. All the discontent has been there all along. When you're promised the American Dream and all of the points that Sock Puppet has made prove true and you look around and realize a very limited few people are taking home "firing bonuses"(!) worth more money than you will ever make in a lifetime, then maybe it finally slaps you in the face.
I think I've already said it, but I'll repeat: We're not North Korea. I never said we were. However, their society doesn't exist in a vacuum and neither does ours. Human behavior is human behavior and we've been entreated to some of the same repression and depression that has also been their place in life in recent years. It's just sourced from an economic stranglehold of power instead of a dictatorial one.
Okay, fine. I think my
Okay, fine. I think my objection is that brutal repression isn't an element of the scenario Suldog and I theorized. When you brought it up, it seemed you were claiming NK represented a proof that our theory was wrong. Inherent in the proof, is the idea that the scenario describes an environment similar to NK. Since you agree that NK is, in fact, not representative of Suldog's and my thesis, I guess this was all a wasteful diversion.
that said, what do you think about my second paragraph in response to Sock_Puppet? How does this issue fit into the 99% concept?
They are just as screwed
I count myself among the people who haven't borrowed beyond their means or "consumed beyond reason". I am just as screwed as the person who did although I'm less tenuously on the brink of financial disaster in the event of a financial problem, like an illness, job termination, etc. The problem for many of these people is that they feel like they did everything right but they never benefit the way the extremely stupid, the extremely unlucky, the extremely greedy, nor the extremely lucky do.
I'd say that the problem is framed incorrectly for them. The problem for the group of hard-working, fiscally-responsible people is that they are doing just well enough not to feel the collapse around them (look at Stevil's opining today above for a prime example). The bottom half of this group *are* just one big financial problem away from a collapse of their own...but without that trigger event, they think they're doing so much better than they are. For the entire group, the problem needs to be more accurately posed: "Imagine where you could have been if you hadn't been abused by the system like everyone else in the 99%!"
In other words, you think you've done everything right...and yet you're still barely treading water when you should be on the boat. We should be more than capable of helping out the stupid and unfortunate below you AND you should be moving upwards and away from that because you've been doing everything right. The fact that helping those below you means that they suddenly seem to keep pace with you (and thus you feel shafted in the process) should tell you something's wrong WITH YOUR SITUATION. Instead, it's been allowed to be posed that helping out the people below you would be wrong because then they'd be just the same as you even though they screwed up (or got screwed, mind you)...and how is THAT fair to YOU that they can fail miserably but be brought up to your standards!?
Of course, that latter current mindset is also conveniently satisfying to the crowd that also wants to alienate the poor. So, you get a lot of synergy by arguing the case that the poor shouldn't be helped for fear of upending the social construct that "those people" were too stupid/lazy/whatever to be as good as you were in getting where you did. Of course, look at the graph. Where you got isn't all that much different than where they are these days...but the line of subsistence is a harsh one. On one side, you're completely screwed...on the other, you're content enough to disparage the ones on the other side of the line. The star-bellied sneetches need to realize we're all just sneetches compared to the 1%.
UH is screed central
When did UH comments section become screed central?
Unfortunate trend.
Twitter
is this way.
Congratulations, Kaz. Your
Congratulations, Kaz.
Your first non-boring post.
Remember- brevity is the soul of wit.