• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

income inequality debate

Townie, are you telling me that a household making about $150K a year (3 times the median household) is at the 90th percentile? I was under the impression that anybody who makes $250K is "middle class".
 
Townie, are you telling me that a household making about $150K a year (3 times the median household) is at the 90th percentile? I was under the impression that anybody who makes $250K is "middle class".

Percentiles mean nothing. Almost everyone without regard to how much they make feels like they are middle class. Politicians never use actual data when using the term middle class. So your impression is probably correct from the perspective of persons earning around $250 K.
 
So a person making more than over 95% of the households in the US is justified in thinking they are middle class but someone who makes less than 95% of households isn't poor because they have a flat screen TV.
 

I will attempt to clarify, my earlier post can best be understood if read as - a rambling incoherant misguided rant on the misuse of the term middle class by the media, politicians and virtually everyone.
 
Statistics, millennials - not as reliable as you believe them to be.

sigh - so who is middle class?
 
So a person making more than over 95% of the households in the US is justified in thinking they are middle class but someone who makes less than 95% of households isn't poor because they have a flat screen TV.

Something like that.
 
Republicans would have all their constituents believe they're in a much higher tax bracket then they actually are, trying to perpetuate that class warfare myth. What would American politics look like if millionaires didn't have 65K earning families defending their interests for them?
 
Republicans would have all their constituents believe they're in a much higher tax bracket then they actually are, trying to perpetuate that class warfare myth. What would American politics look like if millionaires didn't have 65K earning families defending their interests for them?

Thanks gays, guns, abortion, flag-burning, voterID!
 
So a person making more than over 95% of the households in the US is justified in thinking they are middle class but someone who makes less than 95% of households isn't poor because they have a flat screen TV.

JHMD is on-record as saying the middle class is the 20th-80th percentiles.

You're both wrong, though; the 250k earner is middle class if they have a kid.
 
This post again just serves to underscore that you do not understand structural racism. I'm not having this discussion again. You can continue on your merry way

While this must be a tempting and convenient way to cast one's political opponents, you might consider that anything worth having is worth building correctly. Blaming self-destructive choices on "structural racism" might feel really good, but it doesn't solve anything (nor can the anxiety/guilt it is designed to engender be leveraged to solve anything, either). There aren't many shortcuts on the road to sustainable prosperity. The growth in impoverished communities has to be owned by those communities (and I firmly believe that they can and will do it, with the right types of help, ironically enough, by rebuilding and empowering the structures (family, schools, and community organizations, including churches) within those communities because those thinks actually work, rather than forcing it on them from "on high". Forcing it upon them with feel-good policies with little to no track record of success against must be irresistibly tempting, but it will not work. It has never worked. I marvel at the idea that there is a lab-engineered, cold-fusion in a liberal jar substitute for a functioning family unit. But remember, I'm "so dumb", so what do I know?

I do find the staunch resistance to discuss family structure (If you're looking for a foundational place to start, it is hard to imagine a factor more in the control of a given person, as compared to say evils of structural racism) telling. Are we trying to really solve this or not? Here you go: http://www.theatlantic.com/business...makes-income-inequality-so-much-worse/280056/
 
Last edited:
That article discusses a range of structural factors showing the marriage crisis is not a cause but an effect.
 
That article discusses a range of structural factors showing the marriage crisis is not a cause but an effect.

Sure. Tens of thousands of replicatable coincidences with no causal nexus whatsoever. Who could predict whether a supportive, nurturing environment that is focused on education is better for income growth than a single parent home with insufficient resources to meet short term and long term needs? I mean it's a tough call, right? #GTFOH

Are we trying to solve this or not?
 
Here we go again. Two parent households are wonderful. They should be preferable. The only problem folks really have with your crusade is the logic of cutting benefits promotes marriage. Essentially, starve the poors into marriage. I'm skeptical that it will work.
 
Here we go again. Two parent households are wonderful. They should be preferable. The only problem folks really have with your crusade is the logic of cutting benefits promotes marriage. Essentially, starve the poors into marriage. I'm skeptical that it will work.

How does pointing out the glaring deficiencies of the existing system---or even talking about the idea of a causal connection (no offense, Ph)---translate into this disingenuous mischaracterization?
 
Back
Top