SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In a sign of the fading American Dream, 92 percent of children born in 1940 earned more than their parents, but only half of those born in 1984 can say the same, researchers said Monday. Greater inequality in the distribution of growth is largely to blame, said the findings in the US journal Science. "Children's prospects of earning more than their parents have faded over the past half century in the United States," said the study, led by Raj Chetty of Stanford University. "Absolute income mobility has fallen across the entire income distribution, with the largest declines for families in the middle class."
Since little data exists linking children to their parents in terms of economic performance, researchers combined US census data with tax records, adjusting for inflation and other confounding variables. They found the sharpest declines in income in the industrial Midwest, including states like Indiana and Illinois. "The smallest declines occurred in states such as Massachusetts, New York and Montana," said the study.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Whoever on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:38AM (20 children)
If only those Republican-voting snowflakes who they think that they might some day be wealthy would realize that they won't ever join the ranks of the wealthy, and that the Republican tax breaks for the wealthy will never benefit them.
They should realize that Republican policies are aimed at increasing wealth inequality, not helping people move upwards in society.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:50AM (8 children)
If only we can jail ambitious people and stop them from ever becoming wealthy in the first place.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by julian on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:39AM (1 child)
Thankfully no liberal actually wants to do that or promotes a policy which would even inadvertently cause this. I'm glad that's just an absurd right wing hyperbolic scaremongering tactic to fool gullible rubes into voting against their own self-interest.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @09:05PM
You assume that "own self-interest" would be to oppose inequality and get more benefits. I doubt even the typical liberal feels that way. Conservatives sure don't.
People feel better if they earn their keep. People hate freeloaders. People tolerate lots of inequality if they feel it is well-deserved. Being on welfare is depressing.
Traditional belief systems strongly endorse inequality: some get Heaven, while others get Hell. Nothing could be more unequal! The key is that the inequality is 100% deserved. We instinctively prefer things that way. Getting anything more or less than your share, according to merit, feels wrong.
Self-interest is much more than mere material goods. Self-interest includes feeling OK with yourself. That means being as self-supporting as possible. For most people, that means productive no-nonsense legitimate employment. Factory jobs are particularly appealing because they feel very legit: you made something is useful.
Liberal ideas like welfare will never satisfy the human urge to be a productive/independent member of society.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:59AM (5 children)
I say we identify early, and staple their scrotums to the bench, to save them from committing later crimes against humanity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @07:04AM (3 children)
Scrotums and/or labia, Shirley.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @07:22AM (1 child)
No, pretty sure it would only be scrotums, unless you want to include Betsy DeVos. But even then, I am not convinced that a) she had anything substantial in the raking in millions from the barely legal pyramid scheme that is Amway, or b) that she does not actually have a scrotum.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:22PM
Eh, who cares. It's basically the same body part either way. Scrotums are just fused together and floppier so easier to staple.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday April 26 2017, @10:21AM
And don't call me surely..... Wait a sec......
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @07:43AM
I'll volunteer to identify them, you'll snatch them up in the middle of the night!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:54AM (2 children)
If only those snowflakes would have voted Democrat, they could have received small business loans to open their own coffee shops to compete with Starbucks, because, aw crap. Small business is dead in this country.
If only those snowflakes would have voted Green! Then we'd all have Basic Income by now! Yeah!
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:37AM (1 child)
You have a good point, in that no party seems to be offering serious solutions to this problem. Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, does seem to get both the problem and its magnitude.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:11PM
At the heart of the problem is Capitalism (the concentration of wealth among non-producers).
Bernie is not an Anti-Capitalist.
Neither does Bernie have a strong position supporting the collective ownership of the means of production by the workers e.g. no stated support for a USAian version of Italy's Marcora Law.
Bernie politics isn't even as committed to the 99 Percent as FDR's let's-not-allow-the-workers-to-get-too-pissed-off (still Capitalist) position.
Bernie is an improvement over Neoliberal Hillary (O'Bummer's 3rd term) and zero-experience-in-government, privatize-everything, make-lots-of-empty-promises, screw-the-workers Trump, but, at best, Bernie is a baby step in the right direction.
The Socialist Party Platform Of 1936 Shows How Far Away From "Socialist" Bernie Sanders Is [wsws.org]
.
Running (again) in 2016 on the Socialist Equality Party ticket was Jerry White [1] [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [wikipedia.org]
[1] Scroll up to Section 2.5 for Gloria La Riva.
(That page is a cache with a bit of markup; if you click anything, that will load a different page.)
Quickie description of SEP [2] [uselections.com]
On the Peace and Freedom Party ticket (and other parties' tickets) was Gloria La Riva.
Quickie description of P&F [2] [uselections.com]
Summary Platform of the Peace and Freedom Party [peaceandfreedom.org]
[2] Same page
Those are the 2 most worker-oriented individuals/parties that I have identified in presidential politics in the recent election cycle.
.
In between those folks and Bernie's platform is Dr. Stein.
The 2016 Green Party Platform Includes Some Anti-Capitalism Window Dressing [gp.org] (orig) [gp.org]
Jill Stein's Platform Is More Viable Than Bernie's [dissidentvoice.org]
...but Jill Stein's Pro-Working Class, Anti-Imperialist Platform Doesn't Stand A Chance With Uninformed USAian Voters (A Pre-Mortem) [counterpunch.org]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @07:22AM (1 child)
increasing wealth inequality, not helping people move upwards in society
So long as the rich get richer, those aren't mutually exclusive.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:23PM
Over the last 4 decades, China's workers have seen a 4x increase in their wealth.
For USAian workers, there has been exactly zero increase.
Prof. Wolff discussed this in his Economic Update for the week of March 17, 2017.
The good stuff is between 17:20 and 26:50. [kpfa.org]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 26 2017, @02:20PM (5 children)
If only those Republican-voting snowflakes who they think that they might some day be wealthy would realize that they won't ever join the ranks of the wealthy, and that the Republican tax breaks for the wealthy will never benefit them.
Why should they be the ones to vote against their self interests? I'll note that I don't vote Republican, but I have benefited from Republican tax breaks both directly through income saved from the tax man and from my employers having more money to employ people and pay higher wages.
They should realize that Republican policies are aimed at increasing wealth inequality, not helping people move upwards in society.
Perhaps that is true though I don't see the Democrat policies being any different in outcome. But here the real factor in creating greater wealth inequality in the US is labor competition with the developing world. Republicans didn't create seven billion people in the world and then create extremely efficient global trade infrastructure. But if they had, we probably should be thanking them for it.
(Score: 3, Informative) by mcgrew on Wednesday April 26 2017, @02:58PM (3 children)
I'll note that I don't vote Republican, but I have benefited from Republican tax breaks both directly through income saved from the tax man and from my employers having more money to employ people and pay higher wages.
They don't pay higher wages out of the goodness of their hearts! The do so only when forced, either by minimum wage laws (that Republicans oppose) or by a shortage of labor.
In 1971 the minimum wage was #1.40 an hour. A gallon of gasoline or pack of cigarettes or loaf of bread was a quarter. Prices of most things are ten times as high as then, why isn't the federal minimum wage $14.00 today? Republicans. And remember what Reagan said: "A rising tide raises all boats".
LINK and the EITC don't benefit the poor, they benefit the poor's employers. Section 8 only benefits landlords.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 27 2017, @02:14AM (2 children)
They don't pay higher wages out of the goodness of their hearts! The do so only when forced, either by minimum wage laws (that Republicans oppose) or by a shortage of labor.
The problem here is most such measures that allege to fix these problems, instead make them worse. Minimum wage laws for example, can create an underclass that is unemployable, because they aren't worth the minimum that they can be paid (otherwise simply have little effect because the practical minimum wage from shortage of labor is already higher). In practice, people can and do move to areas that have higher market wages. I believe we'll see how this works with a significant depopulation of California's Central Valley (which has notoriously low wages compared to the big cities).
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday April 27 2017, @04:36PM (1 child)
Minimum wage laws for example, can create an underclass that is unemployable, because they aren't worth the minimum that they can be paid (otherwise simply have little effect because the practical minimum wage from shortage of labor is already higher).
That's the same bullshit Republicans spew, and history says it's bullshit. Read a book or two!
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 28 2017, @05:26PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:41PM
> Republicans didn't create seven billion people in the world ...
Well, judging by their lack of support for birth control programs (in USA and as part of foreign policy & aid), they are not helping this problem at all.