Forum Post: $34,000 a year, after taxes, to be among the richest 1% in the world.
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 5, 2012, 8:20 p.m. EST by aries
(463)
from Nutley, NJ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
In the grand scheme of things, even the poorest 5% of Americans are better off financially than two thirds of the entire world.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/04/news/economy/world_richest/index.htm
So all the slogans have to be changed to we are the 1%? It is true we have the richest poor people on the planet.
No, Sweden has.
It depends what percentage of poor people you are making your calculations with. There are dirt poor people everywhere in the world, including Sweden.
not many in sweden - maybe those who have to be underground - dragon tattoo style - those nordic countries have done it better than anyone!
yes - poor people in the U.S. should count their blessings & show some gratitude.
Sorry when you're brought up to feel you're entitled to everything for free you don't seem to develop a sense of gratitude.
exactly !
Self Entitled is the Federal Reserve and Wall Street abusing the system and extracting wealth from our country, in the number of trillions of dollars, just because they can and they paid the government to make it legal.
"Is this the US congress or the board of directors meeting of Goldman Sachs?" - A good quote to sum up the problem
When you're brought to be an arrogant, self-righteous, sociopathic, prick, you don't seem to develop a sense of the genuine suffering of 2/3 of the people around you.
Grow the fuck up already you thoughtless, heartless, ignorant, dickweed.
I think your perception of the poor is a bit off.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/09/census-poverty-rate-record-2010.html
Two out of three? You need to improve your survey methods. Measured any way you like there are very few truly poor people in this country. Perhaps the homeless would qualify as truly destitute, but they make up less then one in a hundred. If you're thinking of the world, there isn't much we can do until we get our own act together.
As to the character assessment, you're entitled to your opinion. I've developed my beliefs through experience. People given things for a lifetime learn to expect it as owed to them.
It's you that needs to "grow the fuck up". You're a fucking drama queen and an irrational Proglodyte.
Wow that sounds like newt gingrich political slogan. "Thank goodness we are poor. We should count our blessings and thank the lord that we were raised in a country that doesn't care about poor people." What a crock. I get we should feel blessed just to be alive but counting our blessings can be done on one hand. The system has failed. Time to retire it and come up with a new one.
well you can by a house in china for $200 - try that here - you should count you money and go somewhere else
in the middle of the forest maybe.
no chance in the city - prices have been skyrocketing over the past 4 years.
true - most of china is rural though and lots of poverty still - A sharp upward revision in the official poverty line, announced by the government on Tuesday, means that 128 million Chinese in rural areas now qualify as poor, 100 million more than under the previous standard.
The new threshold of about $1 a day is nearly double the previous amount. While the revised poverty line is still below the World Bank threshold of $1.25 a day, the change brings China closer to international norms and better reflects the country's overall higher standards of living after three decades of buoyant growth.
Why should people be grateful for breaking their backs working to remain in poverty? 1 in 7 Americans are receiving food stamps. Most of them are the working poor. They should be grateful for the crumbs that are thrown to them by the greedy 1% who are running off with all the profits? Please.
I'm in favor of higher taxes in order to do what we should do as a nation. However if you took all of the assets, property, money, everything from the rich, you still wouldn't be able to cover the debt the nation is in.
The poor in the US have more than enough to be considered wealthy in three quarters of the world. If they are given the "crumbs" of food stamps, medicaid, or education then they should be grateful. The whole point of government programs was supposed to be to give you just enough help to climb out of poverty, not support you for life.
I don't agree with you. I think it is a weak and easy argument to say that the poor here are rich compared with the rest of the world. Of course, they are much better off than the poor around the world. Can you imagine if we had shanty towns like in South Africa? But our wealthy are far more wealthy than the wealthy in these developing or under-developed nations. So, how do you explain that? Maybe our wealthy are too wealthy.
I don't explain it or do anything at all with it. They have what they have, we should tax it more appropriately, and corporations too. Beyond that their life doesn't bother me all that much. As for the poor, my opinion is we've led them and the rest of us into a trap with government programs. The old slogan was a hand up not a hand out, but that isn't how it worked out.
The slogans didn't work.
The so-called "trap" of government programs was a myth generated during the Reagan Administration. It was based on zero data, zero evidence, but has nevertheless taken on a life of its own. It has been debunked so many times I have lost count, but myth seems impervious to fact. The myth was designed as a dog-whistle appeal to racial bias during Reagan's campaign and subsequent ideologically based assault on government. He wanted to repeal the entirety of FDRs New Deal, and said so on many occasions. The propaganda has clearly been effective. After all, the perception - utterly erroneous - was and is that Blacks get more government assistance that Whites.
But the number one expenditure of government programs, aside from tax break and subsidies to corporations, lower tax rates for the wealthy (subsidized by the middle class), and the funding of wars is White women over the age of 65.
It's called Medicare.
Medicare isn't working either. All government hand outs have a serious flaw. Politicians design them to make it look like they have solved today's problem. Medicare has a funding problem, it's got a design flaw to solve that, it reduces payments to doctors. Certain specialties are being hurt by the recent reductions and are being driven out of business.
Social Security was set up when most people didn't live to the age to collect. Now we're collecting for a decade or more and it will run out of money. It doesn't matter which program you pick government usually solves today's problems by making them tomorrows. There needs to be a better more thought out long term approach taken to our social problems.
I know the old argument about welfare in real terms more whites got it then blacks. Not at all relevant here it's only the result I'm interested in, did the program get people out of poverty or simply make it a permanent fixture in their life?
What specialties are being hurt? What numbers do you have to support that contention and what is their source?
Social Security is solvent, and will be for the foreseeable future. All Congress has to do is stop raiding it to pay for other things. Adjustments will undoubtedly have to be made by the middle of the century, but we are some ways off from that right now. Ending the cap on earnings would go a long way to fixing the problem all by itself, but God forbid we tax the wealthy at the same rate - let alone progressively - as the middle class.
Medicare has a lower overhead than any private insurance company in the country.
Welfare not only got people out of poverty, it reduced poverty itself. My mother was on welfare in the last three or four years of her life. It saved her from starvation and homelessness. She was so ashamed to be on it she called it by other names, and would cry any time it was mentioned. She didn't live long enough to get off of it, but her dependancy was due to dire need, not government largess.
We tend to look at people who re still on certain programs. We don't look at those who were helped by them.
I am much more concerned about the government's welfare given to corporations than to poor people. I have no problem with it going where it's needed.
The recent cuts in payments have hurt family practice, cardiology and oncology in particular. Just google doctors going bankrupt you'll get a couple million hits. Doctors are coping by taking a early retirement, leaving private practice, some are filing for bankruptcy. It's a problem made worse because insurance reimbursements are tied to Medicare, so when it drops so do all the others.
I agree, all "welfare" has to be examined, but as you pointed out earlier Medicare is the biggest expense though. To balance the budget now, you'd have to cut all discretionary spending and all the military spending. It's more then just eliminating some waste here and there.
First, balancing the budget right now is not only unnecessary but would be the most disastrous thing anyone could possibly do during a recession. Greatly EXPANDING investment in jobs is what currently needed. As full employment returns and the tax base broadens (and the wealthy start paying their fair share, and corporations are cut off from sweetheart tax and subsidy deal), THEN we can start talking about what to cut, where and how much.
As to doctors going bankrupt, that' s for a whole host of reasons, and has very very little to do with medicare payment cuts.It has to do with demographics, the costs of malpractice insurance, and a dozen other things. If the success of their practice hinged on cutting 5 dollars of payment for a particular treatment, there was something already deeply wrong with their practice to begin with.
The real culprit here is not government spending, but an insistence on using profit based business as a template for medical practice. The fee for service model is obsolete and is hurting medicine more than anything else.
As for balancing the budget, that would be a long term goal, I was only saying based on the amount spent, improving things isn't a simple matter of cutting waste, in relative terms there isn't enough waste or discretionary spending that you could cut to make a difference. There also aren't enough rich people to tax to make up the difference either. It's going to take a major overhaul of our tax system and the will for all of us to pay more.
The idea of more spending now is attractive, but there are a few economists that believe Roosevelt's actions actually lengthened the Great Depression and make an argument for government to do nothing now.
I agree, in medicine, it's not one thing. Cuts to doctor's reimbursements is simply one more straw. Practices with a high proportion of older patients are hurt the most. Moving to a single payer system is best, but we seem to lack the will to do that.
About your first point, my apologies. I misunderstood what you were saying. I absolutely agree that simple waste-trimming would do very little. I don't, however, agree with the implication that taxing the rich won't go some ways toward solving the problem. To be sure a couple of hundred billion dollars won't solve debt problem, but its a hell of a good step in the right direction.
Second, those economists (mostly out of CATO) who have claimed Roosevelt's actions lengthened the Great Depression have been debunked repeatedly. Their assumptions were proved wrong, and they were caught red-handed cherry picking data. However, Roosevelt did make one huge mistake: in 1937 the worst of the depression was over. There was no full recovery yet, but all the trends were moving in the right direction. At that moment, he decided to listen to the deficit hawks and austerity genies in his administration and cut back on spending. It plunged the country back into, not full depression, but a deep and lasting recession. As soon as he reversed course the next year, things started improving again, only more slowly as damage had been done.
As to your third point, I agree: single payer would have been the best. And at one point I believe we had the ability to initiate it, but Rahm Emmanuel , opposed to initiating health care reform at all, and others in the White House convinced the President disallow it for serious debate in congress and especially the Senate. Max Baucus, firmly in the pocket of the insurance industry (his chief of staff was the former head of the largest insurance lobby) was delighted. At any rate, the political capital that had existed back them has now completely vanished, and there is no longer any chance for a single payer system to be implemented in my lifetime.
We can and should go back to that. Most poor people want to work who don't have jobs and the working poor work harder than anyone. And, som people will classify them as "lazy" because they haven't reached financial success. That is b.s. And, the wealthy get rich off the fruits of their labor. I'm just saying pay people fairly.
People are offered a wage for the job, if no one takes the offer the employer will increase it. Some jobs don't require any training and don't earn much in compensation. You could raise the minimum wage, it will likely cause prices to go up, and more outsourcing.
As for the wealthy, they are most likely involved with the big corporations that are able to move or outsource jobs. It's the small business that gets hurt by the artificial tampering with wages.
I wonder at the morality of making an entry level job comfortable enough to spend your whole life doing when it's the chance for better pay that motivates people to get an education and work for a promotion.
Most jobs in this country are very low paying and don't require skills so where are people to go for promotions? Half of all American workers earn less than $26,000 per year which is awfully hard to live on in any geographic area. Couldn't live on that in my town.
Small businesses are different than corporations, I agree. But corporations in this country have been making record profits but they have not trickled down to the workers. 30 years ago the average CEO earned 30 times the wage of the average worker. Today the average CEO earns 343 times the wage of the average worker. That's just plain greed. Prices of goods wouldn't necessarily have to go up if workers were paid a living wage if only the executives were willing to take some cuts to their own pay.
I don't necessarily see the salary of a CEO as being connected to what is paid out to minimum wage earners. Let's just assume for a moment that CEOs were given a pay cut to 30 times minimum wage and the corporation made a dividend payment out to its share holders with the money it saved. Would the minor hardship imposed on the CEO of having to sell his summer home or boat or whatever make you feel better? Would it make a $26,000 a year job worth more to the company?
As far as prices are concerned, we won't know what will happen to them until a change is made. Currently corporate executives and directors have a legal obligation to the stock holders to earn profit, not to assure social equality.
The only way to get the kind of equality you're after may be for the government to step in and regulate what people can be paid (for those at the high end) or must be paid (for those at the low end). That is a move I don't see as having enough support at this point in time. It would also be a major disruption to many of the pension systems that invest in the market and need those corporate profits.
First question. Yes. It would be a step in the right direction. Second question, yes, they might pay the $26k worker more.
2nd para - That's the problem with this country right now. Our economic system is set up to work for corporations and profits. An economic system should work for the people, not vice versa.
It's an old example, but it has stuck in my mind. Remember when Verizon (I think it was them) laid off several thousand workers. The directors of the company gave the CEO a massive bonus, because of the money he saved to company with those layoffs. Take what you want from the CEOs, no company would never give more to workers in the more menial positions. Not enough people believe those jobs are worth more.
Our economic system is based on self interest, that's an observation, not an endorsement of it. If change is at all possible it would be painfully slow in coming. Too many people entertain notions of somehow cashing in through the system themselves someday, too much fear of change, fear of socialism. I admire your devotion to the establishment of moral business world, but I believe your goal is a Quixotic one.
No. No. No. Join us. We are fighting to get our country back for the people. Greedy corporations can be regulated. Employees can once again be respected. We can get money out of politics and return this country to the people. Don't give up so easily. Notice all the trolls on here. They're worried.
When it comes to pay, I'm just not convinced increasing wages to some higher level will fix anything. Unions have managed to get very good contracts, medical plans, and pension plans. I do believe that those are part of the cause for outsourcing and the loss of factory jobs. As a consumer I'm not willing to pay higher prices so that someone with a $10 an hour job can be given $15. I believe the increase will cut my standard of living.
Fine then. Why are you in this forum? This is the Occupy Wall Street Forum. Just sayin'.
How much do you want to pay Verizon? Should they charge you more to maintain excess staff?
Ultimately, it is the consumer who drives the race to the bottom in costs and it hits manufacturing, food, service, medicine and every single sector. Businesses would love to charge more and pay their employees well but they have to remain competitive.
Sorry, I wasn't clear, I'm not judging the Verizon board, that's the CEO's job, to cut costs and turn a profit. In my back and fourth discussion with beautifulworld I was using it as an example to point out that a company won't ordinarily just give money without getting something it considers of value. My position is that jobs are rewarded based on their value to the company, not some ideal about what a fair wage is. I agree with you that the competition and cost cutting often benefits the consumer.
it's a strange thought that if some were less wealthy by comparison that it would make "the poor" better off.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if our poor are better off than the poor in developing countries, then you have to say that our wealthy are better off than their wealthy. That's all.
"being better off than their wealthy" is not equal to "maybe our wealthy are too wealthy". I agree with your reassessment.
No. I mean our wealthy are too wealthy. If you're going to say our poor aren't poor enough, then our wealthy are too wealthy.
why are "they" poor to begin with? Did they make all the right decisions in life? are they teenage mothers? are they on drugs? or are all of them victims who have all made the right decisions, kept out of trouble, worked hard in school, attained skills, didnt get pregnant, didnt do drugs, didnt get arrested, didnt get a tattoo on their neck - please tell me they did all the right things & then we can talk.
People are not robots programmed from birth to do the right things. We learn through experiences good and bad.
There is not one human being that walks this earth that has made exactly all the right decisions in his or her life.
This is a simple fact of reality. Obviously, you don't live in reality.
I've made a million bad choices. Hopefully you learn from your mistakes and improve on your decision making skills.
Hopefully, you will take your own advice and improve upon your own decision making skills. Think twice next time before saying insane things that contradict reality. It makes every thing else you say suspect to low credibility.
what exactly was my contradiction ?
Figure it out - I had no problem spotting the error. But, of course, I'm sane, so that probably helps.
hahaha! typical.
I think you need to go ask them yourself and stop pontificating as to why they are where they are. I'll tell you one thing, the working class have more loyalty and garner more of my respect than any suit and tie could ever. We are where we are because of the choices we make. Yes, that could be true but that is not necessarily bad. Also, to hate on a teenage mother for making the wrong choice, makes you someone who should never be admired and used as a modal of excellence.
how does trying to get at the root of the problem equate to "hating teenage mothers"? You want to make excuses for the problem & not address the root causes. then to call me a hater if I point out the crippling reality of why people wind up in poverty.
Actually, from My perspective, having a single mother raise me and my three siblings, I believe that the government's social safety net is the only reason I am here right now. And when I see people demonizing the choices people make when they are young, which are to get in trouble, work minimally, do drugs, get arrested and get a tattoo on their neck, I believe they are the clueless ones. Except for the tattoo, all those choices applied to me and the ones I care about. But I will tell you that eighty percent of the people that grew up with me doing what I did are doing well. But, It kills me to see that people like you, want to pigeon hole them as failures. Here Is a little knowledge I picked up going to college; all those people who go to college to find riches and fame, came off as pretentious, pathetic and pernicious. They should have spent more time kicking it as a child, and less time chomping the bit. maybe they would have became more humane.
I'm not pigeon holing anything. The number one contributing factor of people in poverty is being in a single parent household. Fact.
ok, maybe I am reading too much into your words. so you made an observation. What would you do if you were in a position to make policy?
pick a topic
Your compassion overwhelms me.
I don't think you can say that most of the Americans receiving food stamps are the working poor. I would be that most of them or unemployed or have some kind of disability. Throughout most of the world the poor starve to death. Here they develop obesity. Many have cars, cell phones, flat screen hdtvs with hundreds of channels, computers, free medical care, etc...Being poor in America really is not that bad relative to what goes on all over the world.
The poor in the US really aren't that bad off, as a group. The use of an income number is misleading.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/09/census-poverty-rate-record-2010.html
Here's an article for 2009 that shows that 40% of people who get food stamps work at low paying jobs and how their wages have dropped significantly during the recession:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c1e698a2-9984-11de-ab8c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1igP6SM5b
And what are the other 60% doing?
I guess they couldn't find a job, justthefacts. No surprise with an unemployment rate hovering in the high 9's throughout 2009.
Then that proves Mod's point that you can't call them the "working poor".
Yeah. So. There's the really abject poor and the working poor. Both stink.
http://blogs.reuters.com/david-rohde/tag/obama/ "What do we mean by “middle class”?
Here's the thing. No matter how much OWS shouts, or how many facts people use to attempt to prove how much "suffering" and "horror" the "poor" in this country experience, Americans THINK they are middle class EVEN when the "income definitions" say they aren't.
And what in the world is wrong with that? Not one damn thing! People ARE "pursuing happiness"-their OWN-and they are generally HAPPY about life. YOU want to shove facts in their faces and FORCE them to see how "awful and terrible their lives really are" because someone else has all this money and it's just so MEAN of them to have it!
I grew up "poor" even by today's standards. Single mom, food stamps, thrift store clothes, second hand toys. But the thing is-WE WERE HAPPY. I knew we weren't "rich" by any means, but my friends didn't care and our neighbors were all pretty much the same and we had food in the house clothes and my mother ALWAYS pointed out how important it was to serve those who were "less fortunate than we were!" (Can you imagine? "The poor" taking care of those who were even more poor?! And guess what? WE ENJOYED IT! IT made us HAPPY. It gave us GREAT JOY to do it. ) We were PROFOUNDLY grateful for what we had and for the American Taxpayers who supplemented things when what we had did not go far enough. It made me want to BE one of those people some day, so I could contribute to the system that had helped us.
Yet people like YOU want to rip that feeling away from those people. YOU are so arrogant that you don't even begin to realize how your attitude looks and feels to THEM! Your words come across as if you feel like poor people are just too STUPID and UNEDUCATED to know how "abused and discarded" they are. If it were not for YOU -the brave and educated OWS- standing up to inform them of their own lack of understanding and delivering them from their horror..they might never become smart enough to know how miserable they truly are!!
MONEY doesn't make people HAPPY. The "poor" seem to know that instinctively. YOU can't get that through your thick, activist skulls, even though "the poor"-have made it a point to AVOID joining your movement in vast numbers.
Stop pretending that YOU know how they feel, and what they want, and that they can't possibly speak for themselves. They aren't children for God's sake! They are human beings with dignity and gratitude and the ability to CREATE happiness without CASH. That YOU haven't been able to do it in your own life is sad. The poor feel sorry for you. But for the love of all that is holy, stop using THE POOR and their plight as a battering ram to get more of what YOU want or THINK they need.
The entire freaking world, from it's beginning to it's end, only required ONE Savior to establish true and eternal and meaningful justice and peace and hope-and I hate to break it to you, but OWS ain't it.
There is no invisible man in the sky. Faith and religion are pure evil.
That's right, the poor hope for an egalitarian afterlife to make up for the inequities here on earth. That says it all.
YOU don't know WHAT the hell "the poor" hope for DO YOU? You don't even have the CLUE required to admit that maybe ALL of "the poor" don't want or hope for or even care about THE SAME DAMN THINGS!!!
You just pack them deep in your little specimen jars and hold them up on your street corner alters and cry to the world about how YOU...and the Great OWS have come to save us all-the rich from their greed and the poor from the rich!!! Erect a giant make-believe cross for yourselves and howl about the imaginary nails being driven into your hands and feet by the wicked soldiers (police) of the reigning rulers of Rome!!
Your WORDS "say it all" sister.
At least you're passionate, justthefacts.
REALLY? "At least"?? Oh thanks...thanks for letting me know what I "at least" am. Please...please tell me what I "at most" am!!!! I'm too stupid and abused from all that poverty I endured to know for myself!
You'll just never get it will you?
You need to relax. Not everyone in life is going to think the way you do.
"You need to relax. Not everyone in life is going to think the way you do."
Will you take your OWN advice beautifulworld? Or was that just more advice for "others" that doesn't apply to you?
I'll try to research how many people that get food stamps are working. That's a good question. It is an easy argument to compare the poor in America to the poor around the world. I can tell you this. If we can't take care of our own poor we will never do anything about the world's poor. Have some compassion. Here is an article from today's NY Times that shows how social mobility is at an all time low. People in poverty and rich people tend to be born and stay in that social class with little movement:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper
I think the mobility issue is subject to a lot of interpretation as to why. You article mentions single mothers as a major factor. Other studies link children from single parent households as at greater risk for dropping out of school, getting involved with drugs or crime. Things which certainly have an effect on one's ability to acquire a good job.
Social mobility is very complex, yes, but you can't deny the numbers. The rich and their poor tend to be born in their classes and stay there, while the middle class has some mobility within the middle.
Here's an article for 2009 that shows that 40% of people who get food stamps work at low paying jobs and how their wages have dropped significantly during the recession:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c1e698a2-9984-11de-ab8c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1igP6SM5b
Sorry I couldn't get that link, I'm not a registered user. I won't deny the statistic. Wages often drop when there are too many workers, it's just the way the system is. Higher wage and benefit costs drive jobs out of the country and that leaves more workers competing for fewer jobs.
Mobility in the US isn't impossible, going from the bottom to the top is most difficult here though. In European countries it may take as little as $45K a year more to go from the bottom to the top. In the US it takes a larger jump in salary, a little over $90K a year. Mobility up out of the bottom layer to the middle is still possible.
I think corporate profits could be shared more with employees, you know, the supposed "trickle down" that doesn't happen. 30 years ago the average CEO earned 40 times the wage of the average worker. Today, the average CEO earns 343 times the wage of the average worker. This is just plain greed. Maybe if executives paid themselves less, they could pay employees more.
Also, having an unemployment rate the way it is today leaves workers vulnerable and powerless when it comes to setting their wage. But, even in normal times, a 5% unemployment rate is considered acceptable. This still limits worker's ability to set their wage and keeps the power in the hands of employers.
The position from the corporation's point of view seems to be if you want to share the profit, then buy stock in the company, share the risk as well as the benefits. You may decide to share your good fortune if you come into money, but you're not obligated to, and it's fairly normal for people to resent the taxes taken from some small windfall. Why do we expect others to act differently and just give away money?
Labor is a commodity, you're payed based on how the company perceives your value to them. They apparently see 343 times more value in CEOs then they do in the average worker. It's not like it jumped up overnight, it happened gradually as corporations competed for what they perceived as good leadership. The wisdom of that is debatable, but it's no more my business then what some actor or athlete demands. Is Michael Jordan really worth the estimated one billion a year he gets from Nike?
So you're not upset that CEO's earn 343 times the wage of the average worker? You think that's okay.
When all is said and done, no I don't care what a CEO gets paid by a company I hold no interest in. Apparently someone thinks he's worth it to that company. Rather then being consumed with what a private company does with it's money, I'd rather focus on taxing more effectively and eliminating forms of corporate welfare.
Well I hate corporate greed but those ideas are good too.
who says we dont take care of the poor? what do you call food stamps? public housing? medicaid?
Okay, but that is not what I mean. I mean lift them out of poverty. Get them jobs that pay enough to live on! There is no reason to have any poverty all in this country.
Here's an article for 2009 that shows that 40% of people who get food stamps work at low paying jobs and how their wages have dropped significantly during the recession:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c1e698a2-9984-11de-ab8c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1igP6SM5b
people need to lift themselves out of poverty. you can lead a horse to water ...
No. People are not to blame for their position in life. It's pretty hard to lift yourself out of poverty if you've received a sub-standard education because you live in a poor area and there are few decent jobs to move up to even if you have managed to garner some skills.
plenty of people have pulled themselves out of poverty. stop with the excuses.
Again. You lack compassion.
and you lack a brain.
Your comment says it all....about you.
define "fairness" here's a post from one of my facebook friends just posted - Ironic "Dream big! You are the only one standing in your way!" surround yourself with positive people and it is contagious. surround yourself with toxic people that is also contagious. OWS is one big Toxic pool of negativity.
Right, aries. Because we want to make our country a better place for more people. We actually want our government back in the hands of the people so that it will actually promote the general welfare of the American people instead of corporations and the wealthy (check the preamble of the Constitution). Silly us.
"You need to relax. Not everyone in life is going to think the way you do."
LOL! You are ridiculous. Why do you come on our forum if you don't like our movement?
To protest unfairness of course. For the same reason you went to Wall Street when you don't like bazillionaires.
When I first read your post I thought it said "To protect unfairness of course." You are really here to protest unfairness?
(below due to lack of ability to hit "reply" )
"When I first read your post I thought it said "To protect unfairness of course." You are really here to protest unfairness?"
Well of course! Lies are lies-even when applied to "the rich" aren't they? Or it is "ok" to be "unfair" and condemn a whole group of people (whether they are guilty or not) if they have a lot of money?
tell'em beautifulworld
you go ahead and tell'em . . .
their philosophy may be summed as no more than this:
let the poor pull themselves up by their own bootstraps
or eat them
the fuckers
Thanks, ZenDog. I asked aries why he defends the 1% but he never answered. He must be a millionaire. LOL!
they only see one side of the coin - and never mind the way basic opportunities to improve one's standard of living have shrunk over the course of the last fifty years -
or the numerous people who do put in honest effort and don't get anywhere because those opportunities no longer exist . . .
Amen.
Why yes, it's always perfectly reasonable to take something someone DID say, and run it down the ramp into the insane extreme opposite of it! Such a philosophy may be summed up as no more than lying idiot-headedness.
Some (note the word SOME does not mean ALL) people absolutely ARE to blame for their positions in life.
My brother in law was a VERY wealthy doctor who committed medical fraud, was caught, and spent 5 years in prison for it. He is totally and completely responsible for the position he is now in-free again, but broke, no-license, no job, and being taken care of by his family members.
My sister, dropped out of college to marry someone who is known to everyone who knows him as a verifiable jerk (including my sister) and they live a glorious white trash life living off of "disability" payments because he's deaf and does not WANT to work. She has kicked his ass out MANY times, and taken his ass back again by CHOICE. She'll even admit it to you. Every effort by her family to help "pull them up" has been rejected.
I have no desire to eat either one of them OR a rich person.
what skills are we talking about for "breaking their backs"? If you haven't made the effort to be able to perform more than a minimum wage job then why should you get more than the minimum benefit. minimum effort = minimum benefit.
Really? You don't know what I mean by "breaking their backs? Yet, you say I have no brain.
if you want your government back you are occupying the wrong people lol! The 1% could care less about your occupation. what do you expect them to do say "ok - we wont lobby for special privileges anymore because a few punks outside in the cold are mad they dont want to take it anymore lol!
Oh, they care. That's why you guys are here, on our forum.
Right on!!!
believe me - I am not 1%. I just get it when it comes to how the world works. I live in reality - you live in fantasy.
You want to accept things the way they are. I want to make them better.
I accept the world as it is. If I want to make things better it is up to me to improve myself. You expect the world to bend to your desires instead of taking responsibility for yourself.
I disagree. You live in fear so you kowtow to the powers that be.
Well said! Hear, hear!
hahahaha! Yes - I fear being a loser who refuses to better themselves & expects others to subsidize me.
I told you, you live in fear.
I'd rather live in fear than be dependent on others for my well being.
Okay.
Typical Troll B.S.
you cant answer a simple question. typical liberal. ask a yes or no question & you get a 50 word answer lol!
If you don't know what "breaking their backs" means when talking about the working class, then I don't know what else to say to you, aries.
like I asked before - what skills are these "exploited" people bringing to the table? you never answered that one.
Look, aries. Read about the labor theory of value. Setting wages is complex. Even unskilled jobs have value if they are creating profit/wealth/increased capital. Hard work used to be respected in this country and fairly compensated. Today, half of all Americans earn less than $26,000 per year. Now, I know for a fact you can't live in Nutley, NJ if you earn $26,000 per year. You'd have to live in Paterson or Newark or someplace like that. Would you want your kids to go to school in those districts as opposed to Nutley? I'm not sure you could even make it in those towns on such little money.
what skills are you bringing to the table for the < 26K ? you seem to not be able to answer. If you want more than 26K develope the skills to get a job that rewards those skills. minimum wage jobs are for high school & college age kids - entry level. If you are 40 years old earning 8 bucks an hr Look at yourself !
You're ridiculous. Half of all jobs in this country pay less than $26,000. Even if people can get a decent education and develop skills there are few good jobs out there.
You don't want to talk facts, you just want to hurl insults. Read about the labor theory of value, would you please.
Yea Marxist "theory". I live in reality. If you want to remain at the lowest rung of production don't expect to be compensated more than the lowest value. That's where the skills come in that you so reluctantly avoid to address.
There are many labor theories of value. You don't have to be a Marxist to understand how well he described capitalism.
What's your obsession with my skill level, anyway, aries? I couldn't care less what your skill level is. We're having a discussion. We answer posts. Why are you so interested?
skills are the way to prosperity. If you haven't figured that out yet you never will. Get away from toxic people & surround yourself with positive people & you will be much better off.
Well, then. I better get away from you. You are trying to drag me into your morass of moral bankruptcy. LOL!
And the 1% should show, what?
Yeah, ain't it funny when they say this stuff?
I think they should test it out.
Take their claim of $34,000, equating to to the 1%, and move to.................................I don't know..........
Paraguay?
I'm sure there, since they are 1%ers, they will be able to build sky scrapers and own yachts, buy the president, have all the cute chicks.
This thread is pure, unadulterated BULLSHIT!!!!
I'll remember you posted this from CNN, the next time you want to talk about the "liberal" press.
yea - thats my point CNN - left leaning organization - cant deny Ted Turner is a card carrying communist. Too bad anything that upsets your view of the world is considered BS
Care to show a copy of that card?
Propaganda!!!
He's one of, if not the, top private land owner in the US.
Keep drinkin' that RuprtRush Juice.
Not a shred of nutrition.
There is NO such thing as liberal press.
There never was.
Are you the ghost of McCarthy?
hahahaha! you must be kidding
this is a joke right?
No, it's not.
The joke is this thread.
True, but the grand userpation of wealth by the international corporate oligarchy is just as responsible for poverty elsewhere in the world as it is here. Furthermore, you cannot equate the buying power of $34,000 a year in American with the same amount of income in the third world. You have to factor in cost of living. Finally, the top hedge fund manager a few years ago earned (and this is from memory) 54 billion dollars. The salary of that one single individual could eliminate poverty in a number of entire third world nations. So what really is your point?
how exactly is the corporate oligarchy responsible for poverty around the world? pleas provide specific example.
That's so self-explanitory I don't even want to bother, but try this for one "specific" example: going into foreign countries and taking their resources with no compensation whatsoever to the people of the country. Please read "Confessions of an economic hit man."
Just as I thought - nothing specific. Just a Communist parrot.
How do you define the word specific? The way you define everything else, I assume, through the lenze of your own ignorance.
give me an example of what you are talking about. something that can be researched & verified.
I already did.
when? I must have missed it. please restate if you dont mind.
Our corporations going into foreign countries and extracting their resorces without any compensation to the people. That is but one specific example.
which corporations? pick one & lets examine it in some detail "our corporations" is not specific.
Please read :Cofessions of an economic hit man, if you are relly interested in obtaining evidence of this absolutely documented state of affairs. It has been going on for generations, and the examples are so numerous that I couldn't even begin to scratch the surface here.
I am interested in your knowledge not some propaganda piece. So far you are just parroting what you have been told. I want you to explain to me how a specific company has exploited a specific foreign country.
As I said, I'm not going to bother with people who can't be bothered to educate themselves. I could waste hours on the subject and you would still cling to your ignorant views. Facts are easily attainable, but some people have their entrenched opinions and aren't swayed by facts.
as I suspected. you cant explain yourself hahaha! thank you for confirming what I suspected from the start. A Parrot.
[Deleted]
again nothing specific here for us to debate.
nothing specific. you haven't answered anything you are a parrot for the communist movement. You cant explain to me in any detail how one specific company is exploiting another country's resources & people. Seems simple enough to me. If this were an essay exam in a college course you would get an F lol!
If you have no interest in propaganda pieces?
Why did you start this thread?
You seem VERY interested in propaganda.
hahahaha! ok - just thought it interesting that the Communist National Network would put a story out like that.
Communist?????
Ted Turner?
Keep drinkin' the RupertRush Juice.
So interested in propaganda, you spew it.
This is just another form of deception. This article only states that the highest percentage of rich people are American. So what? It says nothing about inequality, Nor does it prove that having no money is the only aspect of poverty. The high percentage is due to the fact that the US is the major proffiteer of the suffering brought upon all non-western civilisations. Learn some history.
why is inequality so important to you? how does the U.S. bring suffering to non western civilization. specifically please.
Every empire has done so. The American empire brought untold suffering to the world: Palestinians (for support of Israel), Iraqis, East-Timorese, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Afghani, Panamanians, Guatemalans, Mexicans, Chileans, Hondurans, Nicaraguans, Colombians, shall I continue? Denying the US is an aggressive empire that parasites on less develloped peoples for the prosperity of private companies. Not that any European kolonial force was any better off course.
Don't even bother, this guy is completely ignorant of the history of the past century, or else is simply here to obfuscate. He's not here to learn, but merely to make a fool of himself. I said, read one book - Confessions of an Economic Hit Man - but no, I guess he can't read and wants to be spoon fed. I don't have the time.
you listed a lot of stuff but you didnt tell me specifically how the U.S. brings the suffering. give me a specific example with details
Never heard of the Iraq war? That's just one. Reagan buying guns for right wing death squads in Nicaragua? All of the coup d'etats that brought to power psychotic and murderous dictatorships? Do you learn any history?
so lets stick with Iraq. overwhelming bi partisan support to authorize the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein who violated 17 UN sanctions. and also we had 39 coalition nations with us. France & Germany had secret loan deals with Hussein in violation with UN res. All in all - Iraq is looking to be a success at the moment.
So, just because there are countries that are worse than we are in their governance, that makes it okay?
make what ok?
Makes it okay to do nothing to improve our own society.
define "improve our own society"
Eliminate corruption in politics, and particularly limit how much money can be spent, which would mean rescinding Citizens United; revise all laws on the books to reflect the world as it is today, modify and streamline the Tax Code, eliminate the practice of gerrymandering geographic districts to create lopsided elections, find ways to encourage cooperation as fervently as we have favored competition in the past.
so why are you not occupying the govt? they are the ones who pass the laws. the 1% could care less about OWS.
Many are "occupying" government by organizing new candidates for the existing political parties to replace those currently in power by using the system; others are establishing new political parties. Some did, indeed, occupy Congress. As you have discerned, this is not a cohesive, managed protest; it is people working together to make things better however any given group feels they can have the most effect. Nothing is going to happen overnight for the Occupy movement, any more than it happens overnight for anybody else trying to change things. Thinking is shifting and that in itself is an accomplishment.
The Washing Machine statistic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sqnptxlCcw
The world could be a better place if we can elevate the poor in other countries..
and we are - look at American industry lifting people out of poverty in China, India etc.
Cost of living in each area is a factor as well, just looking at income values unattached to basic reality is useless. Looking at the levels of rent and other living expenses in America vs India or China for example, would be more useful when reading these numbers. Yes America is (or was?) the richest country by just counting the money (there are many other measures), so it is also more expensive for people to live here. The fact remains that when looking just at America the wealth divide is vast and growing. This is the point of the 99% calling out the 1%. And when that issue is sorted out locally then we can turn to global inequity as well.
nonsense - do you know what the household income for the poorest 5% is - how about the poorest 30% - fool or tool - which are you - fool, i am thinking - you are not smart enough to make money off the koch brothers - unless you drive for them - maybe!
Three words for you..
Cost of Living.
tax companies whcih out source
Actually according to the American Heritage Institute and the Cato Institute, if u add in the slug worm creatures of Epsilon Eradani 6 and other sentient creatures within 20 light yrs. of Earth, these folks are among the top earners .00000001% in the local Star system group. So, STFU and stop complaining you losers!
Really?
Does that mean I can get a condo facing Central Park?
A new yacht?
This is pointless skewing of numbers.
I read this article the other day and it's merely just a crock of shit.
It takes a simple argument against the Occupy Wall Street motives and spins them on their head.
Yes, we can play the number game and argue that most Americans are well off compared to other countries, making us seem like the 1% we have so adamantly spoken against.
Perhaps we are, but that just proves that the true elitists in this world, who have the money and power to corrupt absolutely, are less than a fraction of 1%.
That is an unbelievably small number and is even more sickening than the original claim.
count your blessings
That's hard to do when people keep screaming in your face to "look at how many blessings these other people have that you don't"!!!!!
I doubt the poorest 5% of Americans are raking in that kind of money. You did read the text that says the number is calculated at $34,000 per person, yes? So a single person at $34,000, a husband and wife at $68,000, a family of four at $136,000. This does not seem to represent the poorest 5% of Americans. I would check your math, if I were you, and let us know what you come up with. I am sure you don't want people to disregard everything you say because you refuse to check your figures.
Plutonomics http://whataboutmarx.blogspot.com/2012/01/citigroup-tells-it-like-it-is.html
In the grand scheme of things, I shouldn't have to measure my success to other countries for the simple fact I don't live in those countries. I do live in this country.
And in this country,..
The 1% got bailed out and the 99% got stuck holding the bag.
It was banks that were bailed out and not individual people. TARP was a loan program and the banks paid the money back.
The Auto Industry and "green energy" companies did not pay the money back since that was "stimulus" and not TARP.
This statistic doesn't justify the income disparity in this country. I also don't think they took geographic cost of living into account at all.
The Washing Machine statistic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sqnptxlCcw
You probably don't do laundry. It's a pain in the ass.
Hans seems like a decent fellow and I enjoyed the video, thanks. But I think we need to be careful about assuming that everyone in the world wants to live the way we do in a materialistic society. You can eliminate abject poverty without forcing people into material consumerism.
In the end, I think, if we can't eliminate the income disparity in our own country, we will not even attempt to eliminate it globally.
I think it would be very, very, very, hard to find someone who would say "No I do not want electricity, a toilet, and a washing machine...."
If we can provide it I think it would be a batter world. No one should have to wash their clothes and shit near or in the water that they drink.
I agree about your last sentence for sure, but I'm not sure they'd all want to be consumerist drones like we are here.
I do not see anything wrong with consuming. I love my material things like my clothes, bed, couch, kitchen table, crockpot, bath towels, fluffy pillow, laptop, rocking chair, fireplace, candles, stereo, flower pots, shoes...
I don't necessarily need these things but they sure make life enjoyable.
Doesn't mean everyone wants to consume and consume and consume. Consumption is not the goal of every society.
While no one should be forced to, it would be great if everyone had the same opportunity to consume.
Okay. That's a good point.
ok. stay miserable & keep blaming things outside your control. Occupying wall street will get you far in life. What are your skills by the way? what do you bring to the table?
@ aries...I bring a PhD, et tu?
What am I supposed to be impressed lol? I wasn't asking you anyway buphiloman I was asking Beautiful world.
I'm not miserable. I'm angry. I want my country back from these corporations that have bought it. I want my government to promote the general welfare of the American people and abide by the Constitution. And, I've got plenty of skills and education. This isn't really about me. I'm actually fighting for others. What do you bring to the table, Aries?
you didnt answer my question so forget it. obviously you just want to make excuses. Just another toxic person.
Thanks for the ad hominem attack. I don't post personal information on the internet. Do you?
Don't do anyone any favors. Nobody gives a shit about your phony altruistim.
Why do you defend the 1%? Are you part of the 1%? If not, why do you defend the interests of the rich instead of your own?
I don't need people thinking they are defending me from the bogey man. I fight with my vote and send letters to the ass holes in congress that are screwing us around. I make calls to them too. I don't buy products from corporations I deem as dickheads, like GM, and Chrysler.
I'd like to think I fight with my vote, but I know I don't because I know corporations have bought our government.
And, I write to the assholes in Congress too.
That is good. I think our main difference in view, is you blame the corporations for buying off the politicians, I blame the politicians for selling out. Both are extremely immoral, but the what the politician has done is treason, because they are the ones that write the laws, yet they are above the laws they write.
They're all morally bankrupt in my opinion, yes. But, I blame the greedy corporations more because it would be hard for any politician to not accept the money given the fact that he/she would lose their election. Greedy corporations don't let enough of the profits "trickle down" to the workers, whose sweat makes that profit, either. That pisses me off. Let's not let the Supreme Court off the hook, either.
Right.
Ah such grandiose sense of self importance, 'fighting for others'. Wow...
Why do you defend the 1%? Are you part of the 1%? If not, why do you defend the interests of the rich instead of your own?
So the only reason you are not defending the 1% is because you are not a part of that club. Ah, I see. No altruism there then, mere greed and jealousy.
I have been a non 1% guy for most of life and I didn't whine then. Instead, I studied, got useful degrees and finally joined the one sector that hires the smartest of people and pays them well based on their talent, the financial sector.
No, there are plenty of people in the 1% who support OWS. I just can't understand why you wouldn't support OWS unless you are in the 1%.
I'm glad for your success, but do you really think this economy could handle 300 million "success stories." No. Of course not. The working class are a necessity to run this economy, to run any economy. With half of all jobs paying less than $26,000 per year exactly how is everyone supposed to smarten up and move up?
The median salary has dropped and yes $26000 a year is not enough. I agree. Hopefully, things will start looking up again. But people will have to adjust and upgrade their skills. Some types of jobs will be outsourced, like it or not.
And may be executive salaries do need some rationalization. certainly not what OWS suggests. But may be a little trimming is required.
Thank you. Maybe you are a smartcapitalist!
[Removed]
There is no way to justify the income disparity in this country. And the above statistics don't do that. But I think Americans should take "into account" just how damned blessed and lucky they are-even in "our" poverty-compared to the rest of the world.
I don't feel that way, but I'll just leave that up to each reader to decide. I hate poverty here and I certainly hate it around the world.
http://blogs.reuters.com/david-rohde/tag/obama/ "What do we mean by “middle class”?
Here's an article that works well with your aries. Most Americans perceive themselves as entirely different than the numerical stats say they should. And I think it's a GREAT thing.
Its true, American homeless can always pick bottles or dive into dumpsters... whereas African homeless stand a realistic chance of starving to death.
Nonetheless, that doesn't mean its ok; it means that we should be looking after our African brothers and sisters more. Propping up their dictators, or letting the IMF prop up their dictators in exchange for throwing open their borders to be raped by American corporations.... not cool.
Doesn't matter, as long as there's a single rich American we won't rest until we control them through government.
In other words, America's "poorest" are in the world's top 1%.
The top1% in America are viewed by OWS as "evil" or "greedy" for wanting more than they already have. The rest of the world views Americans-which includes OWS, as "evil" and "greedy".
how do you know how the rest of the world views us? If that's the case - why is everyone coming here?
Oh I'll happily admit that I don't know how the rest of the world views us. I'm sure some of them DO find us abhorrent for a variety of reasons...none of which I believe are true myself.
I was trying to get through to "beautifulworld". Trying to point out that SHE belongs in a 1% that others could hate or envy WITHOUT her actually having to be a "greedy" evil" jerk.
:-)
[Removed]
[Removed]
The OP is a propaganda tool, this is also a report from CNN, when was the last time you could not get agenda reports from mainstream news channels who are funded by rich corporations?
No 34 grand is not the 1% since not even a normal family could live on a budget like that for a year
ha - you didnt even read the article it says 34k per person after taxes. and you are questioning the accuracy of CNN lol!
I only read the first paragraph when propaganda garbage is involved, I also don't read anything from mainstream news.
Aries, finally, you said something that I can agree with.We do take care of our most vulnerable. I just wish our society would not ostracize them, especially when some of our poor are there because of health issues and family issues. But just because you are right, don't mean we can't do more to raise all boats. Universal Health care would go along way towards making all boats rise a little higher.
universal healthcare isn't about healthcare - it's about controlling your vote.
I guess your argument is that the party that gives us UH will get our votes for a few cycles. If that is your argument, well I'd say the logic cuts both ways. I believe any insurance scheme is more efficient when a greater majority participate than don't. If we all pony up for a service and only a minority use the service, then there is more money for said service. The biggest problem I have with private insurance is that services are cut so profit can be made. This don't bother me when we talk about consumer goods but seems inhumane when the profit motive dictates who lives and who dies. Or who gets top shelf services and who gets nickled and dimed. If a group of politicians, no matter the party, give the people UH, then they will for once deserve my vote.
thats why the pols use healthcare - it's emotionally driven.
Maybe, this self-entitled generation that you perceive, is actually a generation who has been brought up to worship efficiency, and they have turned their eyes to the most inefficient thing in the union, consumerism and the one percent who profit from it. And I’ll end this presumption of mine with a real world political, economic question. Why is it more efficient to pay a city manager 4 to 5 times more than an elected official? To fallow up, what is it called when a community can’t fire their property manager, oops, I mean city manager?
everyone benefits from efficiency - not just the 1%.
Very true. Now, I just hope there is not a majority who believe that wealth, prestige and consumerism are inefficient, and the people who go to Tahiti because of them are wasting resources and are not contributing their fare share. Because You chose not to address My fallow up, It is called a tyranny when people are subjected to magisterial, oops, I mean managerial restraint. Some times managers can be a good thing and some times they suck, but it is always nice to vote them out with your votes, your money and, or, your protests and words. I find the third the most foolfilling, oops i mean thrilling maybe even forefilling.
I don't know about other countries, but you can barely scrape by with $34,000 here in the US. Especially if you have a family.
Depends on what you do with your money. There is a lot we look at as necessity that really isn't. The statement above in the post is misleading though. They do say in the original article that that is $34K after taxes per person.
you didnt read the article. it says 34k after taxes per person. no wonder you are a confused occupier - you cant even read !
I was told that if the increased per capita income since the since the1950's were distributed according the profile then, the average worker would get another $5,500 per year. Add that to your $34,000 and life would be a little easier? Can't imaging the rich missing it that much, since their slice has gone up 275% since 1972.
Wow. Poorest 5% of Americans are better off than 2/3 of the rest of the world.
The poorest 5% of Americans have a higher infant mortality rate than Calcutta.
The size of the gap in income distribution WITHIN any given country is the number one correlate to the infant mortality rate of that county's poor, not the total absolute dollars they might own. This has been known by economists and social scientist for at least two decades that I personally know of.
Poverty is poverty. Instead of debating how much better off our poor are than those in Somalia or Bangladesh, why don't we instead focus on how to help them get less poor? The focus on comparative nation's poverty is nothing more than a blatant attempt by the media to misdirect popular attention from domestic problems that are very real.
Could you tell me where you got your statistics from? And you are comparing bottom 5% of American with a whole city which has billionaires, millionaires as well as people living on less than $1 a day. Not a very fair comparison to begin with. And on top of that I doubt your data
It was from a graduate school textbook I used to own that contained sociological studies. It s a fairly well-known series of studies among sociologists and developmental psychologists studying the relationships of various socio-economic factors on birth weight, infant mortality, child development and education in America.
The correlation was of income gap, low birth weight, and infant mortality rates. The results were stable regardless of community, whether East Harlem, Appalachia, Chicago, LA or any other of dozens of towns and cities across the country. And access to prenatal care, nutrition, etc, had no effect on the numbers. The single defining variable was the size of income gap. The phenomena is not well understood, and is suspected to be the result of stress, but that's only a suspicion and nothing has been solidly demonstrated other than the correlation of income gap itself. The studies have also been more recently updated and confirmed with international research.
I think I came across them in either the Journal of American Sociology or the American Sociological Review: I can't remember which one.
I am asking how you compared the data with Calcutta. finding relations among those variables that you mentioned isn't much of a big deal. So I wouldn't doubt that income and access to health care would be the primary factors.
The per capita infant mortality rates were compared between various localities and countries around the world. Among other things, they were compared to where on the income distribution curve these folks were on within their own societies, as well as overall in the world, their value in absolute dollars, the size of the distribution curve, and the comparisons between different countries. The availability of medical care, good nutrition and social services were also factored in.
Access to health care cancelled out, as did nutrition. The sole correlate that remained stable was the size of income distribution. The greater the gap, the more infant mortality, regardless of absolute poverty (in dollars). Various localities in America show higher rates of infant mortality among the lowest economic percentile than in Calcutta and many other even poorer areas of the world. Whether the country is rich overall or poor overall, the size of the income gap, not the actual wealth of the population proved to be the determining factor in infant mortality rates. An area where earnings on average are, say $50.00 per day per family can exhibit a higher IMR than one where the earnings are 1/10th of that, if that 50 dollars is farther away from the top of the local distribution curve than the 5 dollars is on the other local curve.
I am obviously giving you a very simplified breakdown of the methodology: it has been years since I read the study. I do remember analysing it back then and it was pretty sound. Peer review found no evidence of flaws.
Maybe it's an attempt to put OUR domestic problems in perspective.
Getting you to feel all warm and fuzzy about our poor is what you consider perspective? It's misdirection, plain and simple.
Just like all the spin and crap about "the top 1%" of Americans is. Getting people to feel all cold and prickly about our rich is what YOU consider perspective. Sucks when your own methods are used against ya don't it?
And "poverty" is relative. The "poverty" in Africa is nowhere near the "poverty" in America.
I don't feel all cold and prickly about our rich. It is the system I feel that way about.
Besides, I even if I felt that way about the rich, they can weather my scorn and will be just fine. Abandoning the destitute, however, results in greater and real human misery. You don't seem to give a shit about that though.
Perhaps one day you'll become human. Even trolls have been known to evolve occasionally.
It's how nationalism is used to make people falter.
Damn.. I don't even come close. Need to be at $170,000 for a family of 5.
[Removed]
Betcha' CATO paid them to publish that.
So much for the myth of liberal press.
[Removed]