why are the American poor refused to do jobs that are there?

CTK thinks we don't have an unemployment problem, we have an attitude problem.

AW is inclined to agree with him.

I think the playing field is heavily skewed towards corporate profits and investment returns, and most aspects of our economic system are controlled those who stand to benefit the most.

Corporations are people, after all.

I think the government's job is to fill the gap between what is best for quarterly earnings & hedge funds and what is best for the widest number of Americans (and people of the world), especially the least advantaged and the ones with the least access to money and political power.

I have no faith whatsoever in the decency or viability of "free" markets and libertarianism.

Definitely, there are two (related) comparisons to be made:

Life as an American vs another country, and life in the US as someone born to, say, the wealthiest 25-50% and parents who didn't go to college, vs those that were luckier.

Likewise, the more privileged people may have to take a step downward.

That's not usually how it works though. Those at the bottom are hit the hardest. It's the same logic/mathematics as why a flat tax such an awful idea.

BG, I totally agree with your last post (except I reserve judgment on your characterization of CTK's beliefs).

We obviously have an employment problem, caused in part by an education problem (i.e. too many people too poorly educated to compete for non-menial jobs in modern industries), which in turn is caused by social problems, such as parents who do not or can not support their kids' educational needs, peer groups who elevate parties and popularity, or in some cases drugs and gangs, over math, science, foreign languages, etc., etc.

If there is to be a debate about this, perhaps the debate should focus on how best to educate kids and young adults so that they are capable of holding down jobs more demanding than those at Walmart and Burger King.

Otherwise we're reduced to discussing whether and to what extent the rich should provide a safety net for the poor and the middle class, which would put us in the same pathetic position as the US Congress.

Of course, there is an alternative strategy: rather than begging for a safety net, simply kill the rich, steal all of their assets, and live like kings until the army walls off Connecticut, the Upper East Side and other privileged communities, and lets the rest of the country turn into a giant lawless ghetto.

Silly though that may sound, that is the likely outcome of a dystopian society in which the rich the keep getting richer and everybody else keeps getting poorer. Sooner or later all hell will break loose.

booklaw said:

Silly though that may sound, that is the likely outcome of a dystopian society in which the rich the keep getting richer and everybody else keeps getting poorer. Sooner or later all hell will break loose.

Dead on. I don't think it's silly at all.

I appreciate your thoughtful response and agree with much of it.

A starting point for the discussion would be how one defines "safety net" and "obligations/dues" to society.

I don't need revolution.

I'd settle for reasonable progressive reform in a handful of areas.

Boygabriel said:

CTK thinks we don't have an unemployment problem, we have an attitude problem.

AW is inclined to agree with him.

I think the playing field is heavily skewed towards corporate profits and investment returns, and most aspects of our economic system are controlled those who stand to benefit the most.

Boygabriel said:

I think the government's job is to fill the gap between what is best for quarterly earnings & hedge funds and what is best for the widest number of Americans (and people of the world), especially the least advantaged and the ones with the least access to money and political power.

I have no faith whatsoever in the decency or viability of "free" markets and libertarianism.

Well that's like, your opinion, man

Since we're making crass presumptions about those who disagree with us I still think you have an unhealthy obsession with punishing the rich... only that's based on what you actually said, not just me disagreeing with you

I think as is gov't is grossly inefficient and shouldn't be depended on to solve all our problems. HOWEVER, I do think there is an unholy matrimony between gov't and corporations that is detrimental to the country that has manifested itself in bought policy that hurts the avg person

For example, if banks hadn't bought the gov'ts guarantee on principal for student loans, they would not make those loans, which in turn would prohibit schools like NYU from charging $40K/yr tuition, which prices normal folks out of a decent higher education

Or how about govt's manipulation of the housing market & mortgages that also enable housing bubbles and artificial propping up of home prices, beyond the realm of the avg American household... also to the benefit of the financial industry and of course by no coincidence

You can't talk intelligently about what is good for the country w/o really delving into the mechanisms & driving forces of the changes that got us to this point... talk of "punishing the rich" might garner applause at local progressive party meetings, but logical measures like banning lobbying and moving away from gov't intervention(i.e., arbitrary "equalizing" taxation on those some interested party deems as having too much w/no regard for gov't spending etc) and towards government regulation (i.e., forcing banks & financial entities to remain transparent and adequately capitalized) is really what it will take.

And as far as "attitude", yes, its a legit problem. When you have industry in Alabama shutting down because illegal immigrants get forced out and the remaining Americans don't want to do the work they were doing at the level of efficiency they were, even for legal + significantly higher pay, I think its safe to say Americans have an attitude problem. Platitudes of "the good old days" when Americans could work at a leisurely pace as they had no competition on the global front is meaningless... we don't have the luxury of those old times, and most companies, ESPECIALLY those that are process/manufacturing based, have nowhere NEAR the profit margins or room for inefficiency that defined work in the old days. And financial markets/the US economy doesn't have the pools of guaranteed growth to provide pensions (plus those pensions progressives romanticize have proved to be unsustainable anyway- see Rhode Island).

The bottom line is your POV just doesn't line up with the real world... talk of saving the poor and spiting the rich are meaningless, such dialogue doesn't lead to solutions that will actually move anyone forward

Again, I find myself agreeing with everything CTK just said, whereas before I agreed with everything BG said. Is it possible that they're not all that far apart in their views, and that they've both been harping on relatively minor differences, rather than on the major points on which they agree?

I'll pick one trivial nit with one of CTK's comments: I have little doubt that if you dismantle the loopholes and pay to play rules that enrich American corporations (assuming you could get their toadies in Congess to do that, which is highly improbable), the corporations, their managements, shareholders, and lobbyists, and their Congressional servants would all agree that you were "putting a gun to their heads".

I don't think we have to take a huge hit in how we live. Bear in mind, a lot of basics are out of the reach of many Americans, but we also make a lot of bad financial choices to live beyond our means. Yes, even poor people.

I just think BG's solutions are short sighted. Even if he wants to punish the rich, his methods wouldn't be effective. The most effective "punishment" would be systematic destruction of the power structure that enables them to enrich themselves at the cost of others... which can't be done through forced wealth reassignment. We have to divorce gov't from the corporations. Period. Do away w/the goofy "robber baron" laws, make lobbying illegal, make corporations pay taxes on foreign income. Pay off the deficit and get the country out of slavery to the Federal REserve. Etc. It seems very simple to me.

Yes, WN, I think it's wrong. It leads to a society I wouldn't choose to live in, and one in which I don't want my children to be forced to live.

I think (and I'm pretty sure BG would agree with me on this) that accepting the status quo is giving up, and to be frank giving up is unacceptable

Much of the changes Americans have faced over the last 50 years (mainly increased competition from abroad, reasonable spikes in workplace efficiency) have been beyond their control... but the changes in how our gov't operates were completely within our control. Reagan/Bush I+II were elected, not ordained

If accepting the status quo and "hoping for the best" within that context is all we can do, there's nothing to talk about and nothing to be changed. It's a gross dismissal of the gravity of the problems our country is facing.

Where the disagreement is is what the problems are, and how we should fix them... not whether or not the problems are worth fighting for. We don't know if whether "fighting" will put us in a worse position than we are now for sure; that's a pessimistic outlook. But given the course the country has taken over the last 50 years I KNOW that doing nothing will put us in a continually worse position than we are in now

I am not so sure I agree that the economy is ONLY generating jobs that are worse/lower paying. I know from experience there are a lot of jobs out there for people with the right skills... talk of "privilege" is just a meaningless excuse. Where there is a will there is a way.

And even still, a $40K a year job is good money. The problem is not the income gap as much as it is the skyrocketing costs of housing, higher education and healthcare, which are ALL as they are due to varying degrees of corporately influenced gov't intervention. The great irony of the progressive movement is that they seek salvation in the very gov't that continues to fail the American people.

The solutions are very simple. Housing- gov't has to stop guaranteeing + buying mortgages... home prices will drop significantly (even now!) as a result. Higher education- gov't has to stop guaranteeing principal on private student loans. No bank would lend $100K to a 18 year old kid w/o any collateral. Healthcare is more complex but a single payer system w/various caveats + incentives + requirements on the part of the participant is a start IMO. The discussion on how the country needs to be fixed can't be one sided...

I think it comes down to being able to redistribute income.

If we are unable to do this, our poor have no rights to live better lives than other countries in the same situation. Without government assistance, everyone (be them rich or poor) has their wages and work conditions dictated by the market.

...and, of course, their ability to manipulate it.

I agree. As I mention on the previous page, I view many of the super wealthy as being independent from the US economy.

BG wrote: There isn't a ton of evidence which supports your assertion that such things "drive business away". There is certainly an absence of evidence that the balance effect on the nation's economy is negative.

Aren't lower wages and high taxes a primary reason for companies locating elsewhere?

BG wrote: Many developments are new. Especially things like our current taxes,or our increasingly distorted distribution of wealth.

Please reverse globalization, and bring back a need for labor to the degree that we can demand wage increases. If you were to take the billions from the billionaires, would it be enough to balance the trade deficit and raise wages? (answer: It might help a little, but the big problems would remain)

BG wrote: WN: I see BG believing that Americans can enjoy the standard of living they have enjoyed for the past 50 some years,

BG wrote: Wrong.

BG-

We seem unable to tax the 10% to help the 90%, and even if we did, it would not eliminate the effects of globalization. So, I believe the question is how far do you think we should let the standard of living of the 90% fall?

My sense is that it must fall to the level that businesses are willing to do business in the US again.

Boygabriel said:

Spoken like someone of privilege.

It implies that these things are the way they always were, which is emphatically false.

Many developments are new. Especially things like our current taxes,or our increasingly distorted distribution of wealth.

It's disingenuous to argue that we have to accept the changes that occur to favor the wealthy, but we should accept that we can't change things for the other 90%.

How new are we talking? We have to break things up as things don't all fall under the "the wealthy are rigging the game in their favor" umbrella.

Like I said before much low skilled labor has declined in relative value because of the relatively recent entrants of players like China, India, east Europe into the global labor market place, as well as automation & higher efficiency.

Something I talked about on another board was the mis-definition of the term "distribution of wealth"... like I said, wealth is not some finite sum... and the word "distribution" in this context is purely statistical; there's no absolute force siphoning wealth in one direction or another

Again though I agree that just throwing our hands up and saying "this is just the way things are" is wrong. Many things, mainly the 3 biggies I keep harping on, as well as the drop in tax receipts in the interests of the rich (and the corresponding deficit) are all pretty recent developments. But again we have to make sure when we talk about all these factors we don't confuse tangle threads of cause/effect.

Boygabriel said:talk about wealth distribution… downward.

Again, the term "wealth distribution" here is no different from the term "height distribution" when talking about a basketball team. The centers don't steal height from the guards, there is much more at play here.

It's less, "the rich stealing from the poor" and more "shit becoming so expensive the poor can't afford it or save anything after buying it", which is partially the theft you speak of, but definitely more the result of shitty gov't policy. Reversing bad policy, NOT arbitrarily raising taxes + "actively" redistributing wealth, is the answer here.