Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:19AM   Printer-friendly
from the need-a-ladder dept.

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.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:25AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:25AM (#499826)

    In the civilised world we have child labour laws that actually work.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Whoever on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:38AM (20 children)

    by Whoever (4524) on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:38AM (#499828) Journal

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:50AM (#499831)

      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)

        by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:39AM (#499851)

        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

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @09:05PM (#500359)

          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)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:59AM (#499878)

        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)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @07:04AM (#499879)

          Scrotums and/or labia, Shirley.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @07:22AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @07:22AM (#499884)

            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

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:22PM (#500177)

              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

            by Gaaark (41) on Wednesday April 26 2017, @10:21AM (#499916) Journal

            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

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @07:43AM (#499890)

          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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:54AM (#499833)

      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: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @07:22AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @07:22AM (#499885)

      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:23PM (#500250)

        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)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 26 2017, @02:20PM (#500040) Journal

      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)

        by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Wednesday April 26 2017, @02:58PM (#500066) Homepage Journal

        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)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 27 2017, @02:14AM (#500472) Journal

          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)

            by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Thursday April 27 2017, @04:36PM (#500775) Homepage Journal

            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

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 28 2017, @05:26PM (#501235) Journal
              I think California will be very educational. They're gradually implementing a $15 per hour wage. Places with low current wages such as Fresno (which last I looked had a median wage barely above $15 per hour) will be badly effected.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:41PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:41PM (#500201)

        > 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.

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:48AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:48AM (#499829)

    Chicago would be the next Detroit if not for the financial sector keeping the city from crumbling down and falling into Lake Michigan. Outside of downtown where the quants work and gentrified condo neighborhoods where the quants live, Chicago is all vacant lots, abandoned storefronts, failing businesses, homeless on every street corner, and dejected unemployed losers wandering the streets at all hours.

  • (Score: 2) by Fluffeh on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:06AM (29 children)

    by Fluffeh (954) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:06AM (#499838) Journal

    Given that Trump got in with the slogan "Make America Great" and seemingly little else of substance, I do wonder what the sentiment is like in the average US citizen? How do stats like this not hit some serious wake-up calls that the country isn't going in the right direction at the moment? I've never been there, but I can tell you that if the country I lived in had stats like this coming out, I would be seriously thinking about relocating elsewhere. Is this the sort of thinking that is happening in the US at the moment, or is there still the belief that the US is the best place in the world - which stereotypes have taught me to think about US citizens?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:13AM (27 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:13AM (#499842)

      How do you think it happened? New guy comes in and promises golden rainbows in the midst of doom-and-gloom, while the other candidate is the same as the previous guy.

      PS If anybody is leaving the US, can we exchange citizenship or something? America still better than the other hellholes, by a huge margin.

      • (Score: 2) by Fluffeh on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:17AM (11 children)

        by Fluffeh (954) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:17AM (#499844) Journal

        ... in the midst of doom-and-gloom

        That's what I am asking though - is it actually doom and gloom in the US at the moment (moment being the last say 1-2 years or longer) or is there still that pervasive belief that it is the best place in the world? I am just curious.

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:28AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:28AM (#499847)

          I guess it depends on your occupation, if you're blue collar, it's been doom and gloom since the 70s.

        • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:32AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:32AM (#499849)

          It's been doom and terror for the past 16 years. They hate us for our freedoms to drive an Uber and be poor! Support the troops in our designated overseas warzones.

        • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:58AM (5 children)

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:58AM (#499859) Homepage Journal

          It is the best place in the world only if you value standard of living (not relative wealth, actual standard of living) and liberty. If those don't matter to you, you're probably better off elsewhere.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:30AM (4 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:30AM (#499869)

            Yes as an American I'm aware of my standard of living. No jobs, no healthcare, crumbling roads, library hours dwindling, museum admission prices skyrocketing, bus drivers too apathetic to stop at bus stops. And wherever I go I see people spitting on the street. I hate America as much as the next American but let me tell you, the one thing I won't do is spit on the street.

            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 26 2017, @10:26AM (3 children)

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday April 26 2017, @10:26AM (#499918) Homepage Journal

              S'funny, the jobs numbers have done nothing but increase since Obama left office and you lot were touting his "recovery" every chance you got. Oh, I get it, reality only exists when it fits your narrative.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:07PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:07PM (#500124)

                Troll troll troll, no opinions of substance, troll troll troll

                ARE WE HAVING FUN YET?

              • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:32PM

                by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:32PM (#500139) Journal

                :-) I think you're looking at last year's numbers. Not that it makes much difference since the jobs being offered are hardly what anybody would call 'upwardly mobile', or even anything close to being stable, just two of the hallmarks of a civilized society.

                --
                La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @07:05PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @07:05PM (#500275)

                The labor non-participation rate (people who want a job and can't find one) remains at 23 percent, same as it's been for years.
                Anything else is numbers games.
                (Thanks for the "improved" counting method, Slick Willie.)

                Meanwhile, Trump has claimed to have saved jobs, but anything that has happened in the job market since January 20, 2017 had been planned for many months before that date.

                Trump has made exactly zero difference in unemployment so far.
                He has gotten zero legislation passed and even his anti-Proletariat executive orders have been negated by courts.

                ...which is not to say that the results on the job front would be any different with Hillary.

                What's needed in USA is a program to turn workers into worker-owners e.g. Italy's Marcora Law. [google.com]

                -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday April 26 2017, @01:41PM (2 children)

          by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Wednesday April 26 2017, @01:41PM (#500007) Journal

          The two are (surprisingly) not mutually exclusive. Americans are continuously concerned about economic issues (well, it comes and goes in waves a few times each generation), but the pervasive belief in American exceptionalism is pretty much unquestioned for many folks. Thus, while expressing belief that politicians, big business, and even the entire government, etc. are failing most people, they will fight anyone who dares to say America is no longer "the greatest country in the world." It's a very odd pairing of beliefs, but the American jingoism isn't about logic.

          • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:27PM (1 child)

            by kaszz (4211) on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:27PM (#500089) Journal

            The constitutional freedom to speech is quite different from many other countries. Something that various other countries like Canada [wikipedia.org], Germany [wikipedia.org] etc indirectly undermines. In Britain various companies and (rich) people (ab)uses slander laws to silence criticism.

            Free enterprise is perhaps also something unique and the right to bear arms. One has however to keep in mind that were important in 1788 may not be so in 2017 ..!

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @07:27PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @07:27PM (#500297)

              Free enterprise is perhaps also something unique

              You're gonna have to explain that one.
              Specific examples of places to the contrary of which you are aware would be useful.

              -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by julian on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:46AM (14 children)

        by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:46AM (#499853)

        Bullshit false equivalence.

        Democrats hold the line on inequality because that's all you can hope to do in 4 or 8 years. Then the GOP gets in there and makes things worse, every time, and people get fed up. Then Democrats get in and stem the tide of rising inequality while undoing the damage done by the previous 4 or 8 years. They can't turn the graph around because 8 years isn't enough time, so people change their minds again and elect the same people who fucked them last time. Thus we end up slowly trending downward.

        Democrats do what we can, but when the rubes keep electing movie stars and game show hosts every other decade it's hard to sustain progress. Ironically the "liberal" states always weather the storm better and so blue states prosper on average while the lowest scoring states on every measure all have solid Republican governments.

        Enjoying your obesity, illiteracy, teen pregnancy, diabetes, and early death, Mississippi? Elect some more Republicans, that'll cure what ails you.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:55AM (4 children)

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:55AM (#499856) Homepage Journal

          It's truly sad to think that you actually believe that. "How do you know when a politician is lying? His lips are moving." may be a joke but it's also a statistical fact. Aside from brief moments of altruism after Thanksgiving dinner when they're too stuffed to scheme, not a one of them ever stops thinking of being reelected or scheming up more money long enough to give one single fuck about you or me.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @09:29AM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @09:29AM (#499907)

            Your nihilism is tedious.
            Just because you are a social retard doesn't mean everybody else is.
            If you have half a brain you'd realize your own ignorance and work to figure out why you so utterly suck at understanding people.
            But that takes work and humility. So instead you take the easy out and just lie to yourself that you are a genius and everyone else are ignorant fools.
            Despite the fact that you've never done one socially relevant thing in your life. Everybody else who has, they're the fools.

            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 26 2017, @10:20AM (1 child)

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday April 26 2017, @10:20AM (#499915) Homepage Journal

              You should let go of all that hatred you've got festering there in yourself. It's going to make you nothing but miserable until you do.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @07:23PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @07:23PM (#500290)

                Copypasta: TMB he has a malfunctioning brain.

            • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday April 26 2017, @10:32AM

              by Gaaark (41) on Wednesday April 26 2017, @10:32AM (#499922) Journal

              Yes, Alex, I'd like to take the assinine response for $2000!

              What is "a pathetic response to a truth?"

              --
              --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday April 26 2017, @12:19PM

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday April 26 2017, @12:19PM (#499962)

          Oh, come on, W wasn't a movie star or a game show host, he was a spoiled rich and powerful frat boy - just like all the rubes wish they were.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:04PM (7 children)

          by hemocyanin (186) on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:04PM (#500073) Journal

          Democrats' main job seems to be make Republican bullshit, the new normal. For example, globalism is just wonderful, until regular people might want to use such a system. 13 Democrats who helped kill Bernie Sanders' bill to allow Americans to buy drugs in Canada: https://theintercept.com/2017/01/12/cory-booker-joins-senate-republicans-to-kill-measure-to-import-cheaper-medicine-from-canada/ [theintercept.com]

          In addition, look at how it took Democrat administrations to pass Nixon's healthcare plan, excuse torture, expand and extend drone bombing with countries at which we aren't at war, get NAFTA and the slew of other trade agreements passed, unchain banksters from regulations, kill welfare, expand the prison population, give us due process free execution based on secret legal memos as an expansion of GWB's Gitmo policy -- seriously, it seems like Democrats' main job is looking at the very worst the GOP has to offer, giving it a polish and passing it, so that we start the whole process over with even crazier stuff.

          You can take your nostalgia for what the Democrats might have been in the 60s and 70s, and shove it straight down your warmongering, Wall Street coddling, job crushing, Constitution destroying, lying gob. Democrats: the Effective Republicans.

          • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:31PM (1 child)

            by kaszz (4211) on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:31PM (#500094) Journal

            Perhaps this is because Democrats has to collect funding unlike Republicans that may be rich from the start. And so whoever holds the money bag sets the agenda.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @08:19PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @08:19PM (#500327)

              The maximum anyone can give to a primary campaign is $2700.
              Bernie got some donors who hit the limit [google.com] but his average donation was 0.01 of that. [google.com]

              In chasing mega-donors, the Elite Blues have lost their claim to being "The party of the people".
              That goes back to their loss in 1972.
              They have been Republican-Lite since then.
              They are beholding to the rich folks they pursue to get money, so workers are left out in the cold.
              ...and Hillary outspent Trump 2:1 and still lost.

              -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

          • (Score: 2) by julian on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:38PM (4 children)

            by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:38PM (#500099)

            I agree with you more than you probably realize. The last good Democratic President IMO was Carter, who has been the victim of a massive and slanderous campaign of historical revisionism. After that the Clintons sold out this party to Wall Street and abandoned the white working class, who are natural Democrats.

            But HRC was still the better choice last election.

            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:39PM (3 children)

              by hemocyanin (186) on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:39PM (#500142) Journal

              No. HRC was the worst choice because it would cement the Clinton wing for decades. With her loss it has given the Democrats a chance to reform itself. Whether they'll embrace that chance remains to be seen, but it doesn't appear that they will, which will necessitate additional defeats until they get it.

              • (Score: 2) by julian on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:10PM (2 children)

                by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:10PM (#500239)

                I understand the logic of thinking this way, I just believe the price we had to pay (Trump) is too high.

                • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @09:18PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @09:18PM (#500366)

                  Not only is hemocyanin correct, he's not alone. [google.com]
                  4 (or, $DEITY forbid, 8) more years of Democrat elites and their Neoliberalism would have done no good for Joe Average.

                  It's worth noting that about half of the nitwits who voted for Trump^W^W against Hillary now have buyer's remorse.

                  That said, the first thing the Blue Elites did after losing the presidency and a bunch of down-ticket races was elect Nancy Pelosi (a Neoliberal) as House Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer (a Neoliberal) as Senate Minority Leader, and Tom Perez (a Neoliberal) as DNC Chairman.
                  Clearly, the incumbent Blues have learned nothing.

                  The 2018 midterm elections are a chance for The Blues to take back the House and Senate.
                  Progressive Democrats must do what The Tea Party did and take over local congressional districts and, once inside the structure, get non-Neoliberals nominated and elected.
                  As he has repeatedly noted on The Ralph Nader Radio Hour, Ralph says it only takes 3 percent in a congressional district getting involved to make big changes happen.
                  After that threshold has been reached, folks by the dozen see the light and get on board.

                  If rank-and-file Blues continue to allow Neoliberals on their ticket, The Blues will continue to lose elections.
                  Wanna see better electoral results? BE THE CHANGE.

                  The alternative way to beat the Reds is to launch a third party and gain enough momentum to win in 19 months.
                  Five-time presidential candidate Ralph Nader thinks that's a daunting task.

                  -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

                • (Score: 1) by toddestan on Saturday April 29 2017, @03:54AM

                  by toddestan (4982) on Saturday April 29 2017, @03:54AM (#501430)

                  Well, with any hope the Republicans will also reform themselves thanks to Trump. Whether they can do that or just continue to tear themselves apart is yet to be seen.

                  Electing Clinton would have changed absolutely nothing.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:15PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:15PM (#500129)

      I would estimate that a decent chunk (10-20%) of people see the charade for what it is. Another 40-60% see problems but still believe the US is good and everything will get worked out. Then the remaining people are true believers, "America" is the only free nation in the world (and would be offended if you point out that calling the US "America" is a bit presumptuous. These true believers are nuts, and apparently no amount of fact checking will get them to change their beliefs. They may concede a point if you overwhelmingly prove it to them, but the next day they've forgotten and are back to their sound bite propaganda news opinions.

      You can see the effect on this site, supposedly intelligent people still supporting the status quo because CAPITALISM! FREE MARKETS! BUSINESSES BEING KEPT DOWN BY THE MAN! etc. The culture of corruption and greed is rampant, most people operate from such perspectives without truly realizing it. Others do it consciously because they see a way to gain power and stomp on people they don't like. When you boil it down, probably a good 25% are straight up supporters of "fuck you I got mine" but they'll do it with a smile and call you friend.

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:10AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:10AM (#499841)

    Part of the problem is that all the economic growth is in the cities, but cost of housing in the cities is increasing even more rapidly, mostly due to limited supply.
    That makes it hard for people to move from a rural area to a city to look for a better paying job.

    • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:44PM

      by kaszz (4211) on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:44PM (#500104) Journal

      Part of that problem in turn is that investment capital is limited to .. cities, really large ones.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:57AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:57AM (#499858)

    http://requiemfortheamericandream.com/watch/ [requiemfortheamericandream.com]

  • (Score: 1) by lcall on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:23PM (7 children)

    by lcall (4611) on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:23PM (#500085)

    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-28/how-utah-keeps-the-american-dream-alive [bloomberg.com]
    https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/632a2t/utah_has_the_highest_social_mobility_in_the_us/ [reddit.com]
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14016858 [ycombinator.com]

    (Disclaimer: I'm from there, and I love it. I've seen and experienced a great deal of kindness during hard times. Have also lived in other states and abroad and seen similar kindness. Pls, if you have negative comments, try to make it more thoughtful than a hit-and-run cheap shot. I think we can converse intelligently. Also note much has been discussed already at the above links.)

    --
    Personal organizer for touch typists at http://onemodel.org [onemodel.org] . AGPL, fast, free with tutorial. Data "sharing" features & other improvements in the works (no mobile support yet).

    • (Score: 1) by lcall on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:26PM (5 children)

      by lcall (4611) on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:26PM (#500088)

      ...which is another reason I hope the federal government stops trying to solve every problem and let states, communities, or families do it. Because we are not all alike and can learn from each others' efforts, but that is much harder if the federal level takes so much money and makes so many rules. Someone wise said ~"the greater the distance between the giver and the receiver, the greater the sense of entitlement".

      • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:59PM (4 children)

        by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:59PM (#500119) Journal

        I hope the federal government stops trying to solve every problem and let states, communities, or families do it.

        Show some effort in reducing state/local corruption, and you might get your wish.

        --
        La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
        • (Score: 1) by lcall on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:00PM (3 children)

          by lcall (4611) on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:00PM (#500157)

          Yes, corruption is a bad thing, and we should all do our part to elect honest people and promote honesty and the Golden Rule, in every level and setting. I've studied soviet communism in college, observed things, have family with a degree in Asian Studied who traveled to China, learned some Russian, lived abroad myself, and I read a lot of history and current events. I have yet to see an example where more centralized government power leads to less corruption. At least sometimes, the problem gets worse, the more government power is centralized: ie the corruption affects more people more strongly. Corruption is the very reason that such power should be limited. I also think it is easier to have an impact locally. For those national issues where one is passionate and able, the constitution should be our guide (limited federal power, independent states). One's energy to make the nation and world better can also be invested in fundraising for charities that meet one's own criteria, campaigning for honesty, etc etc., without making laws that compel faraway others to a forced charities that the givers might not agree with or which is largely mismanaged.

          I've also dealt with both private and public (SSA) disability insurance, and there are distinct pros and cons in both. After several months, the SSA couldn't even so much as tell where an application was in the queue (though the individuals I spoke with were usually trying to do a good job, and spoke kindly). (But on the other hand, the private company only covered the disabling condition for one year, but that was in the contract. Years later it is hoped but unknown whether SSA will cover it.)

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:50PM (2 children)

            by kaszz (4211) on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:50PM (#500211) Journal

            In other words governments geographical range should be small so people can vote system with their feet.

            • (Score: 1) by lcall on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:09PM (1 child)

              by lcall (4611) on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:09PM (#500237)

              For many things, yes, heartily agreed. I am glad the US is big enough to defend ourselves though. Like, if we hadn't have been able to access our combined resources (and ship goods around effectively e.g. via rail, air, & water), WW2 might have gone differently (ouch). And things like the bill of rights etc are great. :)

              • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday April 27 2017, @12:11PM

                by kaszz (4211) on Thursday April 27 2017, @12:11PM (#500619) Journal

                If Germany didn't support the communists to overthrow their enemy in Russia then there might had been less of communism there but still a revolution. Big capital in US would then been less keen on supporting the Nazi movement to counter communism. And US wouldn't needed the A-bomb etc to counter Nazis. Then there would not be any A-secret to steal and so on. So there is one critical point where this event chain could been halted. And that is where the support of big capital helped the Nazis to secure power. IBM machines were actually used to keep track of people. The result of that can be read in the history books.

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by kaszz on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:48PM

      by kaszz (4211) on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:48PM (#500148) Journal

      The Utah compassionate conservative program [bloomberg.com] seems to be about:
        * Housing first, before trying to address the problems that contributed to their homelessness.
        * Mormon Church support, ie the virtue of the population matters.
        * Functional bureaucracy.
        * Food and furniture for the poor but with expectations to find work.
        * Letting social workers push people (with risk for arbitrary judgements).
        * Emphasizing going to school and not having children until you can support them.
        * When the poor people are, by and large, the same race as the richer ones, people find it easier to talk about them the way they might talk about, well, family members (see Robert Putnam [wikipedia.org] on societal trust) .
        * Mormon Church forbids drinking and encourage marriage.
        * “The people who are doing the research are the people who don’t need marriage.”
        * Cultural homogeneity.

      Economists Isabel Sawhill and Ron Haskins famously estimated that we could reduce poverty by 71 percent if the poor did just four things: finished high school, worked full time, got married and had no more than two children — and the number of children was the least important factor in that calculation.

      Marriage seems to have more of a correlation with mobility than race does.

      As a redditor said: [reddit.com]

      If you trust the people you are dealing with, you have to waste as many resources vetting them and guarding fraud. So you have good connections, a strong internal reputation system, and high levels of trust, all of which are excellent for business.

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:20PM (7 children)

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:20PM (#500131) Journal

    I will be the first to point out that income inequality in the U.S. has been increasing, and lower classes have not shared in the gains of the top 1% (or 0.1% or 0.01% or whatever, where wealth is increasingly concentrated).

    But I do have to wonder a bit about the metrics used in this study. The implication is that kids will be "worse off" than their parents. But what does "worse off" mean? When you say salary is "less," how is that calculated? From TFA:

    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.

    But "adjusting for inflation" carries a lot of assumptions and depends on what metric you use to calculate inflation or "purchasing power" of the dollar.

    And what constitutes the expectations of "middle class life" today is radically different from those born in 1940.

    According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 1950 [bls.gov] households spent 68.4% of their income on food, clothing, and housing. Prior to the 1950s, few households had any significant "discretionary" spending, instead putting it mostly into necessities. They spent 29.7% on food alone, and the vast majority of that was eaten at home.

    For comparison, in 2015 [npr.org] Americans spent less than 10% on food in their budgets on average, and only 6.6% on food eaten at home, the lowest percentage [usda.gov] out of a list of comparison countries.

    BLS stats for today [bls.gov] have seen the percentage of income spent on food, clothing, and housing drop from ~70% to ~50%. The main reason it hasn't dropped further is due to the rise in housing costs, but those have accompanied a general increase in what people expect from houses. Compare houses built in the early 20th century to those built today. Rooms were small. Closets were small (or non-existent in some rooms). A typical 3-bedroom house would generally only have one bathroom.

    Today, the average American house is about 2.5 times [npr.org] the size it was in 1950. Living space per person has doubled since the 1970s. So, yes, we're paying a lot higher percentage of budget for housing, but we're paying for bigger and bigger houses.

    Meanwhile, amount of discretionary/non-essential income in the average budget has grown significantly over the decades. To have a middle-class life in 1950, you didn't have the expectations of cable TV and internet, cell phones, etc. 70 years ago few worried about planning for extended retirement; Social Security was originally designed with the assumption that 65 was the mean lifespan. It was essentially "insurance" against living longer than average. Now people still expect to retire at 65, but need to plan for 20 or even 30 years of expenditures -- so percentages of income going toward "retirement accounts" have gone up significantly for the lower classes.

    All of this is to say that the "American dream" is a moving target. If middle-class folks expected the same stuff Americans expected in 1950 -- small houses with few modern labor-saving devices and random gadgets, a decent percentage of income on food and clothing and other necessities, and dying at around age 65 so "retirement" savings was unnecessary -- the percentage of people achieving the "American dream" these days has likely skyrocketed by those standards.

    But our standards of living have risen significantly and our expectations have changed. Obviously our expectations SHOULD go up, and the lower classes should get a "bigger piece of the pie" given the profits the 1% are making.

    Nevertheless, let's be clear about what's buried in the "adjusted for inflation" and "adjusted for other confounding variables" means. It means that we've changed the goalposts significantly over the past 75 years. Again, I absolutely agree that we should do so -- but making this sound like people today are going to be "worse off" than their parents makes a LOT of assumptions about what "worse off" means as "good" changes its meaning over time.

    • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:53PM

      by kaszz (4211) on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:53PM (#500152) Journal

      I think many find it hard to establish a steady work income to at least have a 1960s level of material standard. The shifting job market makes it hard to establish a stable economy.

    • (Score: 2) by julian on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:03PM

      by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:03PM (#500160)

      Elizabeth Warren gave an interesting lecture [youtube.com] on this subject. The middle class's gains have been eaten up by 3 expenses that have risen faster than their income: health care, housing, education. Also, the increases in real wages slowed or even stopped a couple decades ago, driving a massive increase in consumer debt.

    • (Score: 1) by i286NiNJA on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:19PM (3 children)

      by i286NiNJA (2768) on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:19PM (#500172)

      Why did it take you a college freshman size essay to say you're not sure.

      • (Score: 2, Touché) by lcall on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:21PM

        by lcall (4611) on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:21PM (#500175)

        I don't think that is at all what he said. Rather, that the meaning of "good" has changed over time, and direct comparisons are hard to do non-deceptively.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:30PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:30PM (#500190)

        "And there was a time in this country, a long time ago, when reading wasn't just for fags and neither was writing. People wrote books and movies, movies that had stories so you cared whose ass it was and why it was farting, and I believe that time can come again!"

        - Not Sure

      • (Score: 3, Touché) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday April 26 2017, @11:04PM

        by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Wednesday April 26 2017, @11:04PM (#500408) Journal

        I didn't say I wasn't sure -- I'm pretty sure about the trends I noted. The question of whether people are "better off" at a future date is complex. And my post was longer because if I just said "People spent money differently back then so this study's claims need qualification" without any links, no one would believe me or understand why this is issue isn't so simple.

    • (Score: 2) by darkfeline on Thursday April 27 2017, @03:12AM

      by darkfeline (1030) on Thursday April 27 2017, @03:12AM (#500497) Homepage

      Uh, no. No no no. No.

      For comparison, in 2015 Americans spent less than 10% on food in their budgets on average, and only 6.6% on food eaten at home, the lowest percentage out of a list of comparison countries.

      That graph there shows that the lowest 20% spent 36% of their income on food. That "less than 10%" only applies to the top 20%. We're not pulling biased statistics out of our ass, are we?

      BLS stats for today have seen the percentage of income spent on food, clothing, and housing drop from ~70% to ~50%.

      What about healthcare? One doctor's visit easily costs one month's paycheck for many families.

      Today, the average American house is about 2.5 times the size it was in 1950.

      Oh, goody. I don't suppose that metric includes the house sizes of all of the homeless? Might bring it down a few orders of magnitude.

      Meanwhile, amount of discretionary/non-essential income in the average budget has grown significantly over the decades.

      Averaged how? I can see how the multibillion dollar increase in discretionary income of the 1% has increased the average over the decades, but I don't think the bottom 50% living paycheck to paycheck have any non-negative discretionary income to speak of.

      --
      Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by kaszz on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:59PM (2 children)

    by kaszz (4211) on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:59PM (#500156) Journal

    Some things is maybe missing in the current scheme of things:
      * Good and free education from elementary to a college degree (and let kids switch schools if needed).
      * Social security that gives a poor standard of living but still food and shelter.
      * Decent health care for every citizen. Even if you happen to be destitute.
      * Working housing market that enables people to live where work is.
      * Legal minimum wage and health standards for work such that works equals food and shelter in a sustainable manner.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @12:09AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @12:09AM (#500430)

    That idiotic plan drove money away from the Middle Class up to the 0.1%. That was our path to destruction.

(1)