OK, that's groovy (at least you don't live in Oklahoma! ), but that was a tiny bit of my post. Does the kid's parents have serious money? Does he have a large trust fund? Because someday he'll be on his own, or with his wife, hopefully. My point was that it's easy to slam the poor in this country (which is what he's doing), when Daddy's taking care of you. I'm old enough to know that this situation won't last forever. Try helping relatives live in a decent retirement home. It is incredibly expensive. Try paying for medical care if one has a stroke and is impaired and retired and the government wants you to spend every one of their assets before they will pay towards assisted living. Sorry, but these are realities that face the kids of everyone, someday. When you're young, your parents have been around forever, and it seems unthinkable that something could change. As some here know, it can, big time. D&D. Attempt to Be Civil! Impeach Bush.
I was watching that yummy Maria Bartiromo on Tim Russerts interview show (not meet the press) and she was blathering on about how it's a good thing for us as the rest of the world gets more wealthy. Well... that may be true if you have invested overseas and it's fine while the rest of the world is financing the war in Iraq by buying our debt.... but I can't help but wonder what happens when people stop wanting dollars as much, and the middle class tries to compete for finite resources in what is now a world market. I think it will bring the average person in the U.S. closer to third world living conditions than the other way around. I don't see how having less purchasing power translates into a better way of life.
Well I was not really arguing that fact because I believe the assistance will come back to bite him in the rear, just like you. I am not sure what his family has setup for him, if anything at all. I am pretty sure that his family has some loot though, I mean his father is a heart surgeon and the house he bought them is huge.
I dont buy that there will be a huge underclass. There is more upward mobility in this country than any other. Lots of millionaires are people who did not start out as millionaires.
It's a fallacy to think that the lower classes here should be content/happy/not get any aid/not complain because they're "doing alright" compared to people in 3rd world countries. In America, you can be dirt poor, living in a weekly-rent efficiency, and taking the bus to your **** job while living 5 blocks away from someone who was born better off and who owns 3 cars and has a swimming pool. That's a damn sight worse than being a poor person in a country where everyone is poor.
OK, in America realistically, there are tons of opportunities to get out of that situation. As far as your point of not getting any aid, that is not the case in America.
No, they either started out in the boomtimes between the end WWII towards the latter half of the century, or they were born middle/upper-middle class. Upward mobility is becoming less and less of a reality for those born poor. College costs are rising at (at least) twice the rate of inflation and of the increase in family incomes (particularly at the lower end of the scale). The relative value of a Pell Grant has decreased in the past two years. Beyond college, other opportunities for economic bettering are disappearing as manufacturing/industrial jobs continue drying up. The situation is NOT getting better - each passing year, the income gap is increasing. This is going to lead to very, very unstable times in the future if some corrective measure isn't taken. It's one thing to oppose price controls/government aid because you believe (erroneously) that everyone who "works hard" will do well - it's another thing to hold onto that belief even when your own country is rapidly on its way to turning into Brazil.
Yes and no. In modern society, there has to be a such thing as the under class, if there was no underclass in our society, then monopoly (or even corporate) capitalism would probably fail to exists. First, I think that if there were more business owners, it would be harder to monopolize certain industries with so competitors, look at how many banks existed in pre 1930s compared to what it is today. You had your powerful, elite banks, but at the same time you had your small community banks. More competition equals more competitive rates, which could an advantage or disadvantage to the consumer. In most cases, I think it would be benefit the consumer, simply because of options. While today, you would be hard press to find good percentage of people who don't have their money, stocks, trust, or funds tied to big bank (like the Merill Lynchs or JP Morgans of the World). That's another story. To original question, you need (lower) under class to support and upper class, you have to have a domestic workers, as well as unskilled labor to get basic task down. If there was no under class who would serve. There has to be underpaid class or working class to do day to day task and duties, if all the garbage men, mail workers, police officers, teachers, maids/butlers, gardners, day laborers, and etc all decided "we're tired of doing this stuff and say we quit....it actually would hurt the upper class much more than it would them...these people would leave society in disarray. It would be an utter mess. While the former underclass could technically leave society or start their own in theory, because you need people in all forms and walks of life for a society to function properly. If one or two parts on car doesn't work or are damaged, your car is not going to run as well or even run at all. Everyone or good percentage of the people have to buy into the concept of that given society. If people in the masses start to disbelieve or challenge the popular notions of the society or the elite class, then society has good chance of failure (French Revolution or even Nazi Germany-as some Germans started to see that this ship of Hitler's was about to sink or he was just crazy mad man). Yes, it would be possible, if there were far fewer people. Think of societies that weren't federalized or so industrialized....think of pre 1700 societies with out predominate monarchies and I would say like Vikings, AMerican Indians, or etc for example. In most of those communities, you could say that class didn't exist, since everyone lived off the land and most everyone had equal access to it and so much space. Even though, there was territory and beligerent groups, it would be almost impossible for them to control society over so much of land with a lack of technology or advancement....which is much easier nowadays because of such. and generally (in our society) people do like to see themselves as above others or believe in sense of superiority .... Certain stature or prestige in society give them a certain attitude or outlook in life and gives a stronger ability to acquire things, possessions, and power over people. That was my best shot....
For many in America, there are opportunities - because mom and dad pay your tuition, make sure you have good healthcare with the insurance from dad's job, and maybe even help you buy a car before you head out into the big bad world. I'm not arguing that aid is unavailable - I'm thinking of the argument that people make about cutting funding from the government to people in the lower classes because "they're just being lazy" or something. I'm not sure government has any interest, or even has the capability, to curtail the side-effects of a problem like this because, like most well-off people, they think the lower classes are just a shiftless bunch who are perfectly content to live down the street from someone else's opulence. But that's just not true. I'm not entirely sure what the solution is, but the widening income disparity in this country, and its attendant social stratification, is not going to be good for ANYONE in the coming decades.
I'm guessing a lot of people have made huge fortunes since the '80s, a time during which the American economy has been mostly a huge bull market. I seriously doubt most started from the boomtimes of WWII. Price controls are simply stupid and make things worse. This has been proven time and again. I agree that manufacturing and the falling dollar, increasing debt, etc. are huge issues for the economy. But not just the poor, it's going to suck for the middle class as well. A huge problem is that we seem to be going from one bubble to another- the superrich and financial savvy get rich off the bubble, while the poor get laid off when the bubble bursts. This requires better monetary policy, IMO. I am not against government aid- college support, job training, etc.
Yeah, this is one thing that's genuine evidence of how exactly the widening income gap effects society - on one side, you got those who can't lose, on the other, those who can't win - no matter WHAT the economy is doing. This is more than just an economic problem. But, like I said, I don't know what the solution is. These problems MUST be fixed though because this will cause more damage and instability in American society than a million terrorists will.
SM, it's just havin' some fun. When I was growing up, poking fun at Arkansas and Oklahoma were something we did. Probably because some of my friends Dads were into the Southwest Conference, and those two universities always had killer football teams. My ties were to a well known Houston university that was an independent (the SWC powers were afraid that if that university were "allowed" into the SWC, they'd take names and kick ass, which was exactly what they did!), so it wasn't a big deal to me. Just something I remember. And my Grandpa had a ranch in Oklahoma for several years, so I spent a lot of time there. Nice state and nice people. D&D. Attempt to Be Civil! Impeach Bush.
There will always be an under class. But the defination of under class changes due to advancement in society. Today the poor people in the US mostly have food and housing, unlike in previous times where even the middle class might not always enjoy these kind of living (which still happens in many parts of the wold).
It'll be harder for Americans to receive aid and other entitlements once the debt burden gets more and more unmanageable.
Might it be argued that taxes are as irrelevant to the upper class as their wealth is to the poor? If their relative power and influence is the same as it was ten years ago, they are in no worse a position even if their taxes go up 20 or 30%.
Why is that interesting? That's been the big issue for a long time now. Social Security and Medicare are going to cost a lot of money.
From what I gather, Medicare is the bigger issue, b/c of an aging population, soaring healthcare costs, with a fun, cost-no-object perscription drug plan to top the whole thing off. I could be wrong, if someone wants to point me to the numbers I'll be grateful. The other big question... what happens when other countries stop buying our debt? What will trigger such a thing, and what are our options at that point?
