• 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

150 years isn't a good comparison, but 10-20 years is and should be. My phone is much more powerful than my computer was 10 years ago.
 
RJKarl said:
"I'm not even convinced that standards of living have begun to fall in the US. The poor today have access to many things today that even the richest didn't have access to a couple of decades ago. I work daily with large numbers of "poor" children who have smart phones. They have access to the internet and can text. Many have large flat screen televisions with cable or dishes that provide them with hundreds of channels. They have access to medicines, electricity, running water and plumbing that was not available to kings 150 years ago and much of the upper class less than 100 years ago. We simply don't have a good way to factor these kinds of advancement into our standard of living measures. "

This is such nonsense. You don't compare to what the rich or poor had 20, 50 or 100 years. You compare who has access to what today. A perfect example is Wake Forest. Other than the athletes I knew there, I'd say less than 25% of the people I knew when I was there would have a prayer of affording wake today.
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight...You're arguing that a system that allows someone who is poor today and who remains poor for the next ten years to have access to things that the rich don't have access to today isn't relevant to this conversation? The longer time frames were just used to demonstrate that this isn't a new phenomenon. We have, almost without exception been making steady progress in our standard of living.

Frankly, I'm glad you brought up the example of the cost of higher education. For decades our government has been providing access to ever increasing amounts of below market rate loans in an effort to make higher education more affordable; and for decades the cost of education has been increasing at a rate significantly higher than the rate of inflation. It is more difficult to work your way through college now than it was before we started the program and many graduate from college essentially paying a mortgage without the benefit of owning a home. This is one of the examples I had in mind when I indicated that sometimes "doing something" might make us feel like we are making things better when we are actually making things worse.
 
WakeandBake said:
Why would we measure with 150 year old standards?

Seems to me the new paradigm for a country like ours - given all our technological advances and massive wealth - would be a standard of living that was immeasurable 150 years ago in terms of educational opportunity, health care opportunity, environmental opportunity -- in harmony with economic and investment opportunity.

You make a good point, but your standards are antiquated and myopic. What you are describing the poor as having today are equivalent to crumbs being snatched by peasants 150 years ago. Yes their standard of living has raised, but the standards of all classes has risen much farther much faster.
Click to expand...

Are you saying you'd prefer a system where everyone is worse off as long as their lifestyles are closer together?

If you don't like phones and televisions how about the ever increasing life expectancy that PH referenced?
 
The Mangler said:
Are you saying you'd prefer a system where everyone is worse off as long as their lifestyles are closer together?

If you don't like phones and televisions how about the ever increasing life expectancy that PH referenced?
Click to expand...

Are you saying that since the poorest among us are a little bit better off than they were 30 years ago, that that is good enough since the best-off, a very small and shrinking percentage among us, are exponentially better off?
 
Last edited:
PhDeac said:
Nice answer Mangler but it kind of misses the point. We've got a lot of untapped talent just sitting around underutilized. That's a problem that keeps getting worse due to a number of factors. Increasing life expectancy among many factors distinguishes the problem now from the problem 150 years ago.
Click to expand...

I agree that it's a problem but I'm not sure the government can effectively resolve it without making things worse. If you've got a plan I'm willing to listen but I think we are foolish if we think we can understand the distortions to our economy that will likely arise from any sort of massive intervention.

Should we retrain people who have been displaced? Why should we believe the people offering the training will know which jobs will be eliminated five to ten years down the road. Again, what did we do our governments do in the past when entire industries were wiped out due to advancements in trade and technology?
 
Last edited:
ChrisL68 said:
150 years isn't a good comparison, but 10-20 years is and should be. My phone is much more powerful than my computer was 10 years ago.
Click to expand...

Sure but the amount of computing power needed to be a player in this economy has gone up too.
 
WakeandBake said:
Seems to me the new paradigm for a country like ours - given all our technological advances and massive wealth - would be a standard of living that was immeasurable 150 years ago in terms of educational opportunity, health care opportunity, environmental opportunity -- in harmony with economic and investment opportunity.




Are you saying that since the poorest among us are a little bit better off than they were 30 years ago, that that is good enough since the best-off among us are exponentially better off?
Click to expand...

Pieced together a couple of your previous thoughts so that I could make one response here....

I don't accept that the poorest among us are a little better off today than they were 30 years ago. I believe they are significantly better off.

Education: Today anyone with a computer, laptop or smartphone and an internet connection (the "toys" you mentioned before) can access, for free, sites like Kahn Academy and get high quality instruction in their own home or wherever they happen to be at a given time. Many of our top Universities are now offering some of their courses in the same manner, again for free.

Healthcare: Life expectancies continue to rise what better measure is there?

Environment: Any decline in the environment is more a result of an expanding population and a growing world economy not a lack of advancement in efficiency. Imagine what the environment would be like today if our only source of fuel was chopping down trees to burn, or burning coal. In the last decade we've created vehicles with vastly superior fuel economy to those of the past and more and more consumers are choosing them. Improvements are being made in solar and wind power at this moment no?
 
By that measure is there any sustained period of time in which the poor were worse off than 30 years before?

That doesn't seem like a great measure.
 
You are simply wrong. As shown here, if you American father was in the lowest 20% of US earners, you have a 66% chance of never getting above the bottom 40%:

http://www.verisi.com/resources/prosperity-upward-mobility.htm

The chances of getting out poverty in the US is lower than EU countries and other nations. The income equality is growing in the US making this even more difficult.

Yes, the poor in America is doing better than the poor in Mali, but the poor in America have less of a chance of improving their economic status than the poor in other industrialized nations.

Owing a few trinkets doesn't change this.
 
PhDeac said:
By that measure is there any sustained period of time in which the poor were worse off than 30 years before?

That doesn't seem like a great measure.
Click to expand...

It's the measure I was presented with only a claim was made that our poor were a little bit better off. I on the other hand claim that they are much better off.
 
RJKarl said:
You are simply wrong. As shown here, if you American father was in the lowest 20% of US earners, you have a 66% chance of never getting above the bottom 40%:

http://www.verisi.com/resources/prosperity-upward-mobility.htm

The chances of getting out poverty in the US is lower than EU countries and other nations. The income equality is growing in the US making this even more difficult.

Yes, the poor in America is doing better than the poor in Mali, but the poor in America have less of a chance of improving their economic status than the poor in other industrialized nations.

Owing a few trinkets doesn't change this.
Click to expand...

Have you not been reading this thread?
 
Your concepts are of little value. Your idea that the poor are "better off" in spite of falling farther behind the middle class and the rich is of no value. If your life sucks because you are poor, who cares if you might have electricity when your great-great grandparents didn't.

Your idea about the poor having access to the Kahn Academy is ludicrous. They still don't get into better schools. Many don't qualify for loans to go to second and third level schools. They are also preyed upon by the scammers of for profit schools.

Your premise has no value.
 
The Mangler said:
It's the measure I was presented with only a claim was made that our poor were a little bit better off. I on the other hand claim that they are much better off.
Click to expand...

If the odds are stacked against you getting out of poverty. if the odds of being a minority male in the US and being in the prison system is still ridiculously high, your premise is BS.

You have a paternalistic, white upper-middle class position. it doesn't fly in the real world.
 
Mangler's "the poor are better off" is exactly what white southerners said about blacks in the south under Jim Crow and legalized segregation. "They are better off that if segregation didn't exist."

It's exactly what white South Africans told me about blacks during apartheid. "Our blacks are better than they ever have been or than blacks in other countries."
 
PhDeac said:
Nice answer Mangler but it kind of misses the point. We've got a lot of untapped talent just sitting around underutilized. That's a problem that keeps getting worse due to a number of factors. Increasing life expectancy among many factors distinguishes the problem now from the problem 150 years ago.
Click to expand...

The boomers need to start exiting the workforce to make way for younger employees.
 
RJKarl said:
Your concepts are of little value. Your idea that the poor are "better off" in spite of falling farther behind the middle class and the rich is of no value. If your life sucks because you are poor, who cares if you might have electricity when your great-great grandparents didn't.

Your idea about the poor having access to the Kahn Academy is ludicrous. They still don't get into better schools. Many don't qualify for loans to go to second and third level schools. They are also preyed upon by the scammers of for profit schools.

Your premise has no value.
Click to expand...

You're not an abrasive poster. Nope. Never.
 
RJKarl said:
Mangler's "the poor are better off" is exactly what white southerners said about blacks in the south under Jim Crow and legalized segregation. "They are better off that if segregation didn't exist."

It's exactly what white South Africans told me about blacks during apartheid. "Our blacks are better than they ever have been or than blacks in other countries."
Click to expand...

Wait, what?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top