Class Struggle

[Traveler]

Class Struggle
By Jim Webb
The Wall Street Journal

Wednesday 15 November 2006

The most important-and unfortunately the least debated-issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country. Few among them send their children to public schools; fewer still send their loved ones to fight our wars. They own most of our stocks, making the stock market an unreliable indicator of the economic health of working people. The top 1% now takes in an astounding 16% of national income, up from 8% in 1980. The tax codes protect them, just as they protect corporate America, through a vast system of loopholes.

Incestuous corporate boards regularly approve compensation packages for chief executives and others that are out of logic's range. As this newspaper has reported, the average CEO of a sizeable corporation makes more than $10 million a year, while the minimum wage for workers amounts to about $10,000 a year, and has not been raised in nearly a decade. When I graduated from college in the 1960s, the average CEO made 20 times what the average worker made. Today, that CEO makes 400 times as much.

In the age of globalization and outsourcing, and with a vast underground labor pool from illegal immigration, the average American worker is seeing a different life and a troubling future. Trickle-down economics didn't happen. Despite the vaunted all-time highs of the stock market, wages and salaries are at all-time lows as a percentage of the national wealth. At the same time, medical costs have risen 73% in the last six years alone. Half of that increase comes from wage-earners' pockets rather than from insurance, and 47 million Americans have no medical insurance at all.

Manufacturing jobs are disappearing. Many earned pension programs have collapsed in the wake of corporate "reorganization." And workers' ability to negotiate their futures has been eviscerated by the twin threats of modern corporate America: If they complain too loudly, their jobs might either be outsourced overseas or given to illegal immigrants.

This ever-widening divide is too often ignored or downplayed by its beneficiaries. A sense of entitlement has set in among elites, bordering on hubris. When I raised this issue with corporate leaders during the recent political campaign, I was met repeatedly with denials, and, from some, an overt lack of concern for those who are falling behind.

A troubling arrogance is in the air among the nation's most fortunate. Some shrug off large-scale economic and social dislocations as the inevitable byproducts of the "rough road of capitalism." Others claim that it's the fault of the worker or the public education system, that the average American is simply not up to the international challenge, that our education system fails us, or that our workers have become spoiled by old notions of corporate paternalism.

Still others have gone so far as to argue that these divisions are the natural results of a competitive society. Furthermore, an unspoken insinuation seems to be inundating our national debate: Certain immigrant groups have the "right genetics" and thus are natural entrants to the "overclass," while others, as well as those who come from stock that has been here for 200 years and have not made it to the top, simply don't possess the necessary attributes.

Most Americans reject such notions. But the true challenge is for everyone to understand that the current economic divisions in society are harmful to our future. It should be the first order of business for the new Congress to begin addressing these divisions, and to work to bring true fairness back to economic life. Workers already understand this, as they see stagnant wages and disappearing jobs.

America's elites need to understand this reality in terms of their own self-interest. A recent survey in the Economist warned that globalization was affecting the U.S. differently than other "First World" nations, and that white-collar jobs were in as much danger as the blue-collar positions which have thus far been ravaged by outsourcing and illegal immigration. That survey then warned that "unless a solution is found to sluggish real wages and rising inequality, there is a serious risk of a protectionist backlash" in America that would take us away from what they view to be the "biggest economic stimulus in world history."

More troubling is this: If it remains unchecked, this bifurcation of opportunities and advantages along class lines has the potential to bring a period of political unrest. Up to now, most American workers have simply been worried about their job prospects. Once they understand that there are (and were) clear alternatives to the policies that have dislocated careers and altered futures, they will demand more accountability from the leaders who have failed to protect their interests. The "Wal-Marting" of cheap consumer products brought in from places like China, and the easy money from low-interest home mortgage refinancing, have softened the blows in recent years. But the balance point is tipping in both cases, away from the consumer and away from our national interest.

The politics of the Karl Rove era were designed to distract and divide the very people who would ordinarily be rebelling against the deterioration of their way of life. Working Americans have been repeatedly seduced at the polls by emotional issues such as the predictable mantra of "God, guns, gays, abortion and the flag" while their way of life shifted ineluctably beneath their feet. But this election cycle showed an electorate that intends to hold government leaders accountable for allowing every American a fair opportunity to succeed.

With this new Congress, and heading into an important presidential election in 2008, American workers have a chance to be heard in ways that have eluded them for more than a decade. Nothing is more important for the health of our society than to grant them the validity of their concerns. And our government leaders have no greater duty than to confront the growing unfairness in this age of globalization.

-------

Mr. Webb is the Democratic senator-elect from Virginia.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009246

[Rohirrim]

Damn. That dude should run for president. He's hit it right on the head. Now, we'll see if the Dems actually believe their rhetoric, or will just line up on K Street for their buy off. The other facet that Webb doesn't mention is what I call the Marie Antoinette effect. Historically, there is a tipping point in societies. The arrogant rich feed off the working classes up to a certain degree of abuse. Suddenly, the working classes decide they will no longer stand for it. They burn the society down and fire up the guillotine.

Another fascinating development in this American era that I see is the campaign against labor. At one point in the U.S., labor was revered. Hard work was a virtue. Now it's seen as something "Americans just won't do." Something to be shipped oversees, for our own good. We don't make our own steel. That's grunt work. We don't build our own houses or take care of our own yards or cook in our own restaurants or clean up our own hotels or raise our own kids. That's work for illegal immigrants. Remember McCain insulting the American farmer? If an American politician made those statements in the 50s, he would never have been elected again. Now, the implicit message is sent down from on high in our society: If you're working for a living, you're a loser. To work is to be stupid. To just not "get" it, in this new society. Don't work! Invest! To my ear, such attitudes toll the death knell of a society. It sounds so much like the last days of Rome that it's downright eerie.

The Romans shopped out all their labor too, until finally, they were even shopping out their military service to mercenaries. To be Roman was to lie on a pillow, eating till you barfed it up, so you could eat some more, wallowing in luxury while your mercenaries stole the wealth of the world to feed your greed. As a Roman, you paid no taxes. Let the poor bastards your armies had conquered pay the taxes. Your job was to roll in their wealth. Finally, when the Visigoths came, there were no soldiers left to man the walls of Rome. Of course, by then the spirit of Rome was already long dead and buried. The Romans had already committed societal suicide by flushing the very values that had built the empire. Rome was a carcass. The Visigoths just cleaned up the mess.

[W*GS]

The interesting thing about Webb's speech is that one thing about the cleavage of American society into the haves and the have-nots these days (as compared to 100 years ago) is that this time around, it's not the old rich who are the elite, it's the capable.

The capable have the better-paying, more-secure jobs, have the right circle of friends, send their kids to the better schools, and have the advanced degrees. They got to where they are not by virtue of being the latest generation of a rich family, they got there via hard work, going to college, and being flexible in their employment (assuming they're not entrepreneurs) that job security isn't an issue - they can get another better job with someone else, because of their skills and abilities.

We're becoming a meritocracy.

How do you correct that without punishing accomplishment? The lefties conveniently forget that caveat - they're relying in their old neo-Marxist assumptions, without noticing that while things may look similar as they were 100 years ago, the reasons are entirely different. Their cure may be worse than the "disease".

[Rohirrim]

The interesting thing about Webb's speech is that one thing about the cleavage of American society into the haves and the have-nots these days (as compared to 100 years ago) is that this time around, it's not the old rich who are the elite, it's the capable.

The capable have the better-paying, more-secure jobs, have the right circle of friends, send their kids to the better schools, and have the advanced degrees. They got to where they are not by virtue of being the latest generation of a rich family, they got there via hard work, going to college, and being flexible in their employment (assuming they're not entrepreneurs) that job security isn't an issue - they can get another better job with someone else, because of their skills and abilities.

We're becoming a meritocracy.

How do you correct that without punishing accomplishment? The lefties conveniently forget that caveat - they're relying in their old neo-Marxist assumptions, without noticing that while things may look similar as they were 100 years ago, the reasons are entirely different. Their cure may be worse than the "disease".

You're more full of it than the turkey I'm cooking tomorrow. Ha!

[Spider]

You're more full of it than the turkey I'm cooking tomorrow. Ha!

but he tries to have a valid opinion ;D

[Rohirrim]

If we divided the income of the US into thirds, we find that the top ten percent of the population gets a third, the next thirty percent gets another third, and the bottom sixty percent get the last third. If we divide the wealth of the US into thirds, we find that the top one percent own a third, the next nine percent own another third, and the bottom ninety percent claim the rest. (Actually, these percentages, true a decade ago, are now out of date. The top one percent are now estimated to own between forty and fifty percent of the nation's wealth, more than the combined wealth of the bottom 95%.) David Schwiekart

That top 1% consists almost entirely of those who have inherited their wealth. In previous eras, they would have been known as the "aristocracy." Your meritocracy is nothing but Friedman's wet dream. Modern capitalism is inherently exploitive, and is simply new clothes on a very old human failing: Greed.

[Rohirrim]

A lawyer with his briefcase can steal more than a hundred men with guns.

Don Corleone, in The Godfather

[W*GS]

[...]David Schwiekart[...]

A more-clear example of the left-wing's assertion that "wealth" is a fixed pie that gets divvied up (always unjustly in their view) just isn't possible. Thanks for providing proof of where you're coming from.

That top 1% consists almost entirely of those who have inherited their wealth.

Wrong.

But I'll let you prove otherwise.

In previous eras, they would have been known as the "aristocracy." Your meritocracy is nothing but Friedman's wet dream.

Also wrong.

Modern capitalism is inherently exploitive, and is simply new clothes on a very old human failing: Greed.

Also wrong.

You know what "they" say? "Capitalism is man exploiting man. Socialism is the other way around".

How do you clearly delineate between "greed" and "ambition"?

[Ninjafied]

I’m waiting for the regular crowd to dismiss this article as the standard generalities you’d normally see form a WSJ ed piece. No?
Still, the article definitely had some good points to it, at least as far as diagnosing some of the problems. It’s the solutions that are a bit more vague, like “bring fairness back to economic life.” That stinks of socialism.
I think what Webb and some of the people here are overlooking is that the US system, though hardly the perfect utopian society, is much better than the alternatives.
Sure you can tweak it and try to make it better, but the fundamentals are sound.
Fairness is what they have in Europe, where unemployment is stuck above 10%, there’s no labor flexibility, welfare states abound and economic growth lags. And the Euros are still outsourcing regardless that illegals are flooding in there too. Wealth equality - Europe still has more millionaires than the US. Anyone who thinks the US system is rotten to the core just need look elsewhere.
The great thing about the US and modern capitalism is that is flexible and adaptable. Just look at the technological advancements made in the past 50 years and where they’ve been made. The French economy is what protectionism buys you.
So let’s define “fairness in economic life” and then we can get in to defining a solution.

And Rohirrim, if the US "empire" lasts half as long as Rome I’d be seriously impressed.

[Ninjafied]

That top 1% consists almost entirely of those who have inherited their wealth. In previous eras, they would have been known as the "aristocracy." Your meritocracy is nothing but Friedman's wet dream. Modern capitalism is inherently exploitive, and is simply new clothes on a very old human failing: Greed.

Here’s an idea, tax the living sh*t out of them when they die. Something like 50% should do. Then who cares how much they make when they’re alive, half is going to the state when they’re gone.

[Rohirrim]

And Rohirrim, if the US "empire" lasts half as long as Rome I’d be seriously impressed.

The Roman republic lasted for five hundred years. We're at a little over two hundred. After that, I'm sure we wouln't want to emulate them, although maybe you could argue the similarities between Dubya and Claudius. ;D

[Rohirrim]

A more-clear example of the left-wing's assertion that "wealth" is a fixed pie that gets divvied up (always unjustly in their view) just isn't possible. Thanks for providing proof of where you're coming from.



Wrong.

But I'll let you prove otherwise.



Also wrong.



Also wrong.

You know what "they" say? "Capitalism is man exploiting man. Socialism is the other way around".

How do you clearly delineate between "greed" and "ambition"?

I like how you can just shout "Wrong!" and assume the rest of the world has bowed down. I'm glad to see you have no self-esteem issues. Ha!

[Ninjafied]

The Roman republic lasted for five hundred years. We're at a little over two hundred. After that, I'm sure we wouln't want to emulate them, although maybe you could argue the similarities between Dubya and Claudius. ;D

They had 500 out of a republic and 500 out of an empire, but the senators were just as bad as the emperors so what’s the difference.

And I would have thought you’d peg Bush as a Nero.

[Rohirrim]

Here’s an idea, tax the living sh*t out of them when they die. Something like 50% should do. Then who cares how much they make when they’re alive, half is going to the state when they’re gone.


In the 1950s, a CEO made 20 times more than his average worker. Now, that same CEO makes 400 times more. In the 1950s, the tax burden on the wealthy was as high as 70%, a working man could own his own home, his wife could stay at home while their children were young, he could send all his children to college, and he could look forward to a well-earned retirement.

[Rohirrim]

They had 500 out of a republic and 500 out of an empire, but the senators were just as bad as the emperors so what’s the difference.

And I would have thought you’d peg Bush as a Nero.

I don't think Bush has any musical talent.

[Ninjafied]

I don't think Bush has any musical talent.

Hilarious!

[Garcia Bronco]

Bush repeatedly asked congress to scrap the tax code and they never did. And the bastards shut out the democrats, while the demo crats laid down like a bunch of dogs the past 6 years. Our government better start doing practical things to address the problems of the middle class and lower classes or the visagoths will come.

[Ninjafied]

In the 1950s, a CEO made 20 times more than his average worker. Now, that same CEO makes 400 times more. In the 1950s, the tax burden on the wealthy was as high as 70%, a working man could own his own home, his wife could stay at home while their children were young, he could send all his children to college, and he could look forward to a well-earned retirement.

A lot’s changed since the ’50s. For starters, you mean a white man could……
And a wife had to stay at home.
And who the hell told all of them they should vote anyway.
Then the 70s inflation shot right through the pension plans. :afro:

All that and people still seem just as happy, maybe more if they have a flat screen, high speed and a cell phone.
Call it ignorance, either then or now. :peace:

[Ninjafied]

I don't think Bush has any musical talent.

Clearly he’s a poet without a lute.
(hmmm, that made me think of Gaff)

[Spider]

nice spin , still doesnt address the CEO problem outsourcing , or the war on the middle class , i noticed on another post you called welfare socialism , Tell me right now you would quit your job to get on welfare ...............
Thought so . Welfare is for those of us in our society that cant fend for themselfs ........ dont know about you but I love my Job , I could probably qualify for alot of handouts for having 6 kids , triplets ....... but I dont look for these things , I have a rock solid job , great pay .......... you people on the right act as if no one wants to work , just live off of welfare , well I am here to tell you , you are full of Shít .......... Some day you might just find yourself needing Welfare ..... then lets hear all your Socialism Bullshít ......

[Rohirrim]

I just remember what Gandhi called one of his seven, modern sins: Capitalism without conscience. To me, the mere idea (Adam Smith, Friedman and the free marketeers) that human beings represent nothing other than competitors in a battle for resources makes me puke.

[W*GS]

(Ro and others, see the references at the end. I can supply URLs if needed. Also note the bolded part I've added).

Inequality in America

The rich, the poor and the growing gap between them
Jun 15th 2006 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition

The rich are the big gainers in America's new prosperity

Americans do not go in for envy. The gap between rich and poor is bigger than in any other advanced country, but most people are unconcerned. Whereas Europeans fret about the way the economic pie is divided, Americans want to join the rich, not soak them. Eight out of ten, more than anywhere else, believe that though you may start poor, if you work hard, you can make pots of money. It is a central part of the American Dream.

The political consensus, therefore, has sought to pursue economic growth rather than the redistribution of income, in keeping with John Kennedy's adage that “a rising tide lifts all boats.” The tide has been rising fast recently. Thanks to a jump in productivity growth after 1995, America's economy has outpaced other rich countries' for a decade. Its workers now produce over 30% more each hour they work than ten years ago. In the late 1990s everybody shared in this boom. Though incomes were rising fastest at the top, all workers' wages far outpaced inflation.

But after 2000 something changed. The pace of productivity growth has been rising again, but now it seems to be lifting fewer boats. After you adjust for inflation, the wages of the typical American worker—the one at the very middle of the income distribution—have risen less than 1% since 2000. In the previous five years, they rose over 6%. If you take into account the value of employee benefits, such as health care, the contrast is a little less stark. But, whatever the measure, it seems clear that only the most skilled workers have seen their pay packets swell much in the current economic expansion. The fruits of productivity gains have been skewed towards the highest earners, and towards companies, whose profits have reached record levels as a share of GDP.

Even in a country that tolerates inequality, political consequences follow when the rising tide raises too few boats. The impact of stagnant wages has been dulled by rising house prices, but still most Americans are unhappy about the economy. According to the latest Gallup survey, fewer than four out of ten think it is in “excellent” or “good” shape, compared with almost seven out of ten when George Bush took office.

The White House professes to be untroubled. Average after-tax income per person, Mr Bush often points out, has risen by more than 8% on his watch, once inflation is taken into account. He is right, but his claim is misleading, since the median worker—the one in the middle of the income range—has done less well than the average, whose gains are pulled up by the big increases of those at the top.

Privately, some policymakers admit that the recent trends have them worried, and not just because of the congressional elections in November. The statistics suggest that the economic boom may fade. Americans still head to the shops with gusto, but it is falling savings rates and rising debts (made possible by high house prices), not real income growth, that keep their wallets open. A bust of some kind could lead to widespread political disaffection. Eventually, the country's social fabric could stretch. “If things carry on like this for long enough,” muses one insider, “we are going to end up like Brazil”—a country notorious for the concentration of its income and wealth.

http://www.economist.com/images/20060617/CSF841.gif

America is nowhere near Brazil yet (see chart 1). Despite a quarter century during which incomes have drifted ever farther apart, the distribution of wealth has remained remarkably stable. The richest Americans now earn as big a share of overall income as they did a century ago (see chart 2), but their share of overall wealth is much lower. Indeed, it has barely budged in the few past decades.

http://www.economist.com/images/20060617/CSF838.gif

The elites in the early years of the 20th century were living off the income generated by their accumulated fortunes. Today's rich, by and large, are earning their money.In 1916 the richest 1% got only a fifth of their income from paid work, whereas the figure in 2004 was over 60%.

The not-so-idle rich

The rise of the working rich reinforces America's self-image as the land of opportunity. But, by some measures, that image is an illusion. Several new studies* show parental income to be a better predictor of whether someone will be rich or poor in America than in Canada or much of Europe. In America about half of the income disparities in one generation are reflected in the next. In Canada and the Nordic countries that proportion is about a fifth.

It is not clear whether this sclerosis is increasing: the evidence is mixed. Many studies suggest that mobility between generations has stayed roughly the same in recent decades, and some suggest it is decreasing. Even so, ordinary Americans seem to believe that theirs is still a land of opportunity. The proportion who think you can start poor and end up rich has risen 20 percentage points since 1980.

That helps explain why voters who grumble about the economy have nonetheless failed to respond to class politics. John Edwards, the Democrats' vice-presidential candidate in 2004, made little headway with his tale of “Two Americas”, one for the rich and one for the rest. Over 70% of Americans support the abolition of the estate tax (inheritance tax), even though only one household in 100 pays it.

Americans tend to blame their woes not on rich compatriots but on poor foreigners. More than six out of ten are sceptical of free trade. A new poll in Foreign Affairs suggests that almost nine out of ten worry about their jobs going offshore. Congressmen reflect their concerns. Though the economy grows, many have become vociferous protectionists.

Other rich countries are watching America's experience closely. For many Europeans, America's brand of capitalism is already far too unequal. Such sceptics will be sure to make much of any sign that the broad middle-class reaps scant benefit from the current productivity boom, setting back the course of European reform even further.

The conventional tale is that the changes of the past few years are simply more steps along paths that began to diverge for rich and poor in the Reagan era. During the 1950s and 1960s, the halcyon days for America's middle class, productivity boomed and its benefits were broadly shared. The gap between the lowest and highest earners narrowed. After the 1973 oil shocks, productivity growth suddenly slowed. A few years later, at the start of the 1980s, the gap between rich and poor began to widen.

The exact size of that gap depends on how you measure it. Look at wages, the main source of income for most people, and you understate the importance of health care and other benefits. Look at household income and you need to take into account that the typical household has fallen in size in recent decades, thanks to the growth in single-parent families. Look at statistics on spending and you find that the gaps between top and bottom have widened less than for income. But every measure shows that, over the past quarter century, those at the top have done better than those in the middle, who in turn have outpaced those at the bottom. The gains of productivity growth have become increasingly skewed.

If all Americans were set on a ladder with ten rungs, the gap between the wages of those on the ninth rung and those on the first has risen by a third since 1980. Put another way, the typical worker earns only 10% more in real terms than his counterpart 25 years ago, even though overall productivity has risen much faster. Economists have long debated why America's income disparities suddenly widened after 1980. The consensus is that the main cause was technology, which increased the demand for skilled workers relative to their supply, with freer trade reinforcing the effect. Some evidence suggests that institutional changes, particularly the weakening of unions, made the going harder for people at the bottom.

Whether these shifts were good or bad depends on your political persuasion. Those on the left lament the gaps, often forgetting that the greater income disparities have created bigger incentives to get an education, which has led to a better trained, more productive workforce. The share of American workers with a college degree, 20% in 1980, is over 30% today.

The excluded middle
In their haste to applaud or lament this tale, both sides of the debate tend to overlook some nuances. First, America's rising inequality has not, in fact, been continuous. The gap between the bottom and the middle—whether in terms of skills, age, job experience or income—did widen sharply in the 1980s. High-school dropouts earned 12% less in an average week in 1990 than in 1980; those with only a high-school education earned 6% less. But during the 1990s, particularly towards the end of the decade, that gap stabilised and, by some measures, even narrowed. Real wages rose faster for the bottom quarter of workers than for those in the middle.

After 2000 most people lost ground, but, by many measures, those in the middle of the skills and education ladder have been hit relatively harder than those at the bottom. People who had some college experience, but no degree, fared worse than high-school dropouts. Some statistics suggest that the annual income of Americans with a college degree has fallen relative to that of high-school graduates for the first time in decades. So, whereas the 1980s were hardest on the lowest skilled, the 1990s and this decade have squeezed people in the middle.

[n]First, pick your parents[/b]
The one truly continuous trend over the past 25 years has been towards greater concentration of income at the very top. The scale of this shift is not visible from most popular measures of income or wages, as they do not break the distribution down finely enough. But several recent studies have dissected tax records to investigate what goes on at the very top.

The figures are startling. According to Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley, and Thomas Piketty of the Ecole Normale Supérieure in Paris, the share of aggregate income going to the highest-earning 1% of Americans has doubled from 8% in 1980 to over 16% in 2004. That going to the top tenth of 1% has tripled from 2% in 1980 to 7% today. And that going to the top one-hundredth of 1%—the 14,000 taxpayers at the very top of the income ladder—has quadrupled from 0.65% in 1980 to 2.87% in 2004.

Put these pieces together and you do not have a picture of ever-widening inequality but of what Lawrence Katz of Harvard University, David Autor of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Melissa Kearney of the Brookings Institution call a polarisation of the labour market. The bottom is no longer falling behind, the top is soaring ahead and the middle is under pressure.

Superstars and super-squeezed
Can changes in technology explain this revised picture? Up to a point. Computers and the internet have reduced the demand for routine jobs that demand only moderate skills, such as the work of bank clerks, while increasing the productivity of the highest-skilled. Studies in Britain and Germany as well as America show that the pace of job growth since the early 1990s has been slower in occupations that are easy to computerise.

For the most talented and skilled, technology has increased the potential market and thus their productivity. Top entertainers or sportsmen, for instance, now perform for a global audience. Some economists believe that technology also explains the soaring pay of chief executives. One argument is that information technology has made top managers more mobile, since it no longer takes years to master the intricacies of any one industry. As a result, the market for chief executives is bigger and their pay is bid up. Global firms plainly do compete globally for talent: Alcoa's boss is a Brazilian, Sony's chief executive is American (and Welsh).

But the scale of America's income concentration at the top, and the fact that no other country has seen such extreme shifts, has sent people searching for other causes. The typical American chief executive now earns 300 times the average wage, up tenfold from the 1970s. Continental Europe's bosses have seen nothing similar. This discrepancy has fostered the “fat cat” theory of inequality: greedy businessmen sanction huge salaries for each other at the expense of shareholders.

Whichever explanation you choose for the signs of growing inequality, none of the changes seems transitory. The middle rungs of America's labour market are likely to become ever more squeezed. And that squeeze feels worse thanks to another change that has hit the middle class most: greater fluctuations in people's incomes.

The overall economy has become more stable over the past quarter century. America has had only two recessions in the past 20 years, in 1990-91 and 2001, both of which were mild by historical standards. But life has become more turbulent for firms and people's income now fluctuates much more from one year to the next than it did a generation ago. Some evidence suggests that the trends in short-term income volatility mirror the underlying wage shifts and may now be hitting the middle class most.

What of the future? It is possible that the benign pattern of the late 1990s will return. The disappointing performance of the Bush era may simply reflect a job market that is weaker than it appears. Although unemployment is low, at 4.6%, other signals, such as the proportion of people working, seem inconsistent with a booming economy.

More likely, the structural changes in America's job market that began in the 1990s are now being reinforced by big changes in the global economy. The integration of China's low-skilled millions and the increased offshoring of services to India and other countries has expanded the global supply of workers. This has reduced the relative price of labour and raised the returns to capital. That reinforces the income concentration at the top, since most stocks and shares are held by richer people. More important, globalisation may further fracture the traditional link between skills and wages.

As Frank Levy of MIT points out, offshoring and technology work in tandem, since both dampen the demand for jobs that can be reduced to a set of rules or scripts, whether those jobs are for book-keepers or call-centre workers. Alan Blinder of Princeton, by contrast, says that the demand for skills depends on whether they must be used in person: X-rays taken in Boston may be read by Indians in Bangalore, but offices cannot be cleaned at long distance. So who will be squeezed and who will not is hard to predict.

The number of American service jobs that have shifted offshore is small, some 1m at the most. And most of those demand few skills, such as operating telephones. Mr Levy points out that only 15 radiologists in India are now reading American X-rays. But nine out of ten Americans worry about offshoring. That fear may be enough to hold down the wages of college graduates in service industries.

All in all, America's income distribution is likely to continue the trends of the recent past. While those at the top will go on drawing huge salaries, those in the broad middle of the middle class will see their incomes churned. The political consequences will depend on the pace of change and the economy's general health. With luck, the offshoring of services will happen gradually, allowing time for workers to adapt their skills while strong growth will keep employment high. But if the economy slows, Americans' scepticism of globalisation is sure to rise. And even their famous tolerance of inequality may reach a limit.

SOURCES

“The Polarisation of the U.S. Labour Market”, by David H. Autor, Lawrence F. Katz and Melissa S. Kearney. NBER Working Paper No 11986. January 2006

“Trends in U.S. Wage Inequality: Re-assessing the Revisionists”, by David Autor, Lawrence F. Katz and Melissa Kearney. NBER 11627. September 2005

“The Evolution of Top Incomes: A Historical and International Perspective”, Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez. NBER Working Paper 11955. January 2006

“Top Wealth Shares in the United States, 1916-2000: Evidence from Estate Tax Returns”, by Wojciech Kopczuk and Emmanuel Saez. National Tax Journal. June 2004

“Trends in the Transitory Variance of Earnings in the United States”, by Robert A. Moffitt and Peter Gottschalk. Economic Journal. March 2002

“Understanding Mobility in America”, by Tom Hertz, American University. Centre for American Progress. April 2006

“American Exceptionalism in a New Light: A Comparison of Intergenerational Earnings Mobility in the Nordic Countries, the United Kingdom and the United States”, by Markus Jantti, Knut Roed, Robin Naylor, Anders Bjorklund, Bernt Bratsberg, Oddbjorn Raaum and Tor Eriksson. IZA Discussion Paper No 1938. January 2006

“Do Poor Children Become Poor Adults? Lessons from a Cross Country Comparison of Generational Earnings Mobility”, by Miles Corak. IZA Discussion Paper No 1993. March 2006

“Where Did the Productivity Growth Go? Inflation Dynamics and the Distribution of Income”, by Ian Dew-Becker and Robert Gordon. NBER Working Paper 11842. December 2005

“How Computerised Work and Globalisation Shape Human Skill Demands”, by Frank Levy and Richard J. Murnane. May 2006

Copyright © 2006 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.

[W*GS]

I just remember what Gandhi called one of his seven, modern sins: Capitalism without conscience. To me, the mere idea (Adam Smith, Friedman and the free marketeers) that human beings represent nothing other than competitors in a battle for resources makes me puke.

This from the guy who wants to make "20somethings" slaves to the State.

[Spider]

I tell you this , we spend more on the Military the entire world combined , yet we are bogged down in iraq .......... Want to know how to become the laughing stock of the world ?
with the money we have spent on Iraq , we could have health care , Jobs .....
great infrastructure through out America , Why not make life better here ?
all of this is called socialism bad and evil , meanwhile whats going on in iraq is a good thing ...........
Republicans have turned this country into a laughing stock ..........

[Ninjafied]

nice spin , still doesnt address the CEO problem outsourcing , or the war on the middle class , i noticed on another post you called welfare socialism , Tell me right now you would quit your job to get on welfare ...............
Thought so . Welfare is for those of us in our society that cant fend for themselfs ........ dont know about you but I love my Job , I could probably qualify for alot of handouts for having 6 kids , triplets ....... but I dont look for these things , I have a rock solid job , great pay .......... you people on the right act as if no one wants to work , just live off of welfare , well I am here to tell you , you are full of Shít .......... Some day you might just find yourself needing Welfare ..... then lets hear all your Socialism Bullshít ......

Not sure I’ve ever linked welfare purely to socialism. It is a major part of it. Nonetheless, it’s also a necessary though small part to free enterprise; and for the reasons you just outlined.
The problem is that you people on the left can not believe that, yes, there are people who will live off welfare, gladly – many of them are call Europeans.

On a side note, Clinton and Rubin’s welfare reform was pure genius – or are you now calling that an attack on America’s poor.

[Spider]

Not sure I’ve ever linked welfare purely to socialism. It is a major part of it. Nonetheless, it’s also a necessary though small part to free enterprise; and for the reasons you just outlined.
The problem is that you people on the left can not believe that, yes, there are people who will live off welfare, gladly – many of them are call Europeans.

On a side note, Clinton and Rubin’s welfare reform was pure genius – or are you now calling that an attack on America’s poor.
Best welfare program is a job . we both know that , but alot of people cant hold down a job for whatever reason , so what I support is workfare , aka almost like Wrangles National draft , give the unemployable jobs to do for the city and states , even if it is cleaning up parks , painting curbs etc, nothing that demands alot from them ...... and for those that cant preform these tasks , well then they get the free ride , you know what company you need to admire , Coors , the people there dont need a union , Coors takes care of their employees , Coors has a program called the golden door , gives people a second chance , or a chance to have some pride about having a Job , and Coors is very republican , but their company is Gasp Socialist ....shudder hey

[Ninjafied]

Best welfare program is a job...
Workfare – does that also mean making prisoners work for their rent too, because I’m all for that.


you know what company you need to admire , Coors , the people there dont need a union , Coors takes care of their employees , Coors has a program called the golden door , gives people a second chance , or a chance to have some pride about having a Job , and Coors is very republican , but their company is Gasp Socialist ....shudder hey

Coors is a great company. Reasonably environmental too. Still, we’d better slap some government regulation on them just so that don’t change ;) .
And another company you might admire, Walmart.
No one wants the minimum wage to go up more because they already pay well above that. The nation’s largest private employer and they know raising the minimum wage will only make it harder on their local competition. No union because management seems to be taking care of everyone (evil bastards) and they give jobs to the hard-to-employ crowd ie. seniors, illiterates and beginners.
Now if they could just stop selling me that cheap sh*t from China.

[Rohirrim]

This from the guy who wants to make "20somethings" slaves to the State.

When I spent three years in the army I certainly didn't feel like a slave. I felt I was doing some good for my country. I am now proud that I gave back, at least a little, to the country that I owed so much. I guess it did interrupt my capitalist pursuits a bit. It's a shame that another American would look upon those who serve their country as "slaves," but as those Doonesbury cartoons pointed out, this seems to be the ethics of the new, capitalism-driven young Americans.

[Rohirrim]

(Ro and others, see the references at the end. I can supply URLs if needed. Also note the bolded part I've added).
...
Copyright © 2006 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.

This entire, massive, Friedman inspired, Economist derived post is completely warped by all of those philosophies that it takes for granted as fact. The biggest error of this whole thing is contained within this single mistake: It accepts that the rules of capitalism are the best final arbiters of the societal value of labor. That, my friend, is :bs: But it's the reason the guy who fixes your plumbing makes ten times more than the guy who teaches your children. What we're discussing in this long-winded article is the validity of images seen within the Hall of Mirrors, without addressing the possibility that the images themselves are skewed.

[Spider]

Workfare – does that also mean making prisoners work for their rent too, because I’m all for that. Damn right briong back the chain gangs ..... no reason at all why these guys cant work



Coors is a great company. Reasonably environmental too. Still, we’d better slap some government regulation on them just so that don’t change ;) .
And another company you might admire, Walmart.
No one wants the minimum wage to go up more because they already pay well above that. The nation’s largest private employer and they know raising the minimum wage will only make it harder on their local competition. No union because management seems to be taking care of everyone (evil bastards) and they give jobs to the hard-to-employ crowd ie. seniors, illiterates and beginners.
Now if they could just stop selling me that cheap sh*t from China.
Wal mart used to be a great company , and the ywould have me as a customer back ( mind you ispend around 400.00 per week in food ) but Wal mart practices hiring part time IE 30 hours a week employees ....

[-Slap-]

In the 1950s, a CEO made 20 times more than his average worker. Now, that same CEO makes 400 times more. In the 1950s, the tax burden on the wealthy was as high as 70%, a working man could own his own home, his wife could stay at home while their children were young, he could send all his children to college, and he could look forward to a well-earned retirement.

There is a cultural phenomenon in this country that demands certain people be elevated to superstar status and be treated accordingly. CEO pay is just one of dozens of examples of the diefication of celebrities in our society.

[W*GS]

When I spent three years in the army I certainly didn't feel like a slave. I felt I was doing some good for my country. I am now proud that I gave back, at least a little, to the country that I owed so much. I guess it did interrupt my capitalist pursuits a bit. It's a shame that another American would look upon those who serve their country as "slaves," but as those Doonesbury cartoons pointed out, this seems to be the ethics of the new, capitalism-driven young Americans.

There's a huge difference between your choosing to go into the military, and being forced to do so as some part of "national service requirement". You're misstating, clumsily so, my argument about "slaves".

I expect this sort of crap from LABF and others, but not you, Ro. You're better than that.

[W*GS]

The biggest error of this whole thing is contained within this single mistake: It accepts that the rules of capitalism are the best final arbiters of the societal value of labor. That, my friend, is :bs: But it's the reason the guy who fixes your plumbing makes ten times more than the guy who teaches your children.

You'd prefer the politicians and bureaucrats decide what our labor is worth, then.

We humans already ran that experiment. It failed, horribly. But, given your adoration of the "mandatory service to the State" idea and what you state above, it's pretty clear that even recent history is beyond your grasp.

That's pathetic. You must be a graduate of the State-run diseducation system we have in this country.

[BroncoInferno]

When I spent three years in the army I certainly didn't feel like a slave. I felt I was doing some good for my country. I am now proud that I gave back, at least a little, to the country that I owed so much. I guess it did interrupt my capitalist pursuits a bit. It's a shame that another American would look upon those who serve their country as "slaves," but as those Doonesbury cartoons pointed out, this seems to be the ethics of the new, capitalism-driven young Americans.

So, I'm being a greedy capitalist because I feel it is wrong to ask people to involuntarily risk their lives and limbs fighting stupid wars our politicians thrust us into? Does "doing good for your country" obligate an individual to be thrown into any meatgrinder the gov't feels compelled to create?

[Rohirrim]

You'd prefer the politicians and bureaucrats decide what our labor is worth, then.

We humans already ran that experiment. It failed, horribly. But, given your adoration of the "mandatory service to the State" idea and what you state above, it's pretty clear that even recent history is beyond your grasp.

That's pathetic. You must be a graduate of the State-run diseducation system we have in this country.

What's pathetic is your fawning over the morally bankrupt ideology of the free marketeers. You're wearing blinders if you think nobody could do a better job than the capitalists when it comes to valuing labor. The average free market capitalist is no less dogmatic than the average apparatchik Bolshevik. Different religions. Same obeisance to failed principles. Same adoration of systems over people. Based on the evidence, we can all see that free market capitalism is simply a new name pasted over another anachronism: Feudalism. We need new experiments and new economic philosophies that accept the value of every human being realistically living in a world of finite resources. Quality of life for all, rather than quantity of wealth for the few. One of the chief benefits of being sentient beings SHOULD be that we can choose not to live by the Darwinian rules of capitalism.

[sisterhellfyre]

And another company you might admire, Walmart.
No one wants the minimum wage to go up more because they already pay well above that. The nation’s largest private employer and they know raising the minimum wage will only make it harder on their local competition. No union because management seems to be taking care of everyone (evil bastards) and they give jobs to the hard-to-employ crowd ie. seniors, illiterates and beginners.
Now if they could just stop selling me that cheap sh*t from China.

Walmart?

Do you mean the corporate giant that routinely moves into rural communities, undercuts prices to close local businesses, and THEN raises the prices on the very same commodities after the competition is gone?

Or are you referring to the "Bully of Bentonville" that routinely drives American suppliers out of business by demanding more improvements and more features to more products at ever-lower prices until the supplier literally CANNOT make enough money to keep the doors open? (Ever wonder whatever happened to Huffy bicycles, formerly made in Ohio? Once upon a time, Huffy was a major name in kids' bikes... but they're long gone, now.)

Or are you referring to the arrogant monolith that's been convicted over and over again in state AND federal courts for discrimination against women? And forcing employees to work overtime off the clock or risk losing their jobs?

Oh, right, THAT Walmart...

Regards,
m.

[Rohirrim]

So, I'm being a greedy capitalist because I feel it is wrong to ask people to involuntarily risk their lives and limbs fighting stupid wars our politicians thrust us into? Does "doing good for your country" obligate an individual to be thrown into any meatgrinder the gov't feels compelled to create?

Actually, that post was directed at W*gs. Besides, nowhere do I advocate the abolition of civil disobedience. I simply agree with Rangel, that service to your country should be spread across economic divisions. You know, during the civil war, the wealthy could simply purchase a deferment from the draft, or they could "sponsor" some poor hick to fill in for them. I guess we've gone back to that. Rangel's point is that, as long as politicians can start wars without fearing that their own children will be forced to take part in the fighting, the more likely they are to start wars.

[BroncoInferno]

Actually, that post was directed at W*gs.

I know, but it seemed you were making an argument against those who disagree that involuntary service to the state is virtuous. If that isn't what you intened to imply, I apologize.

Besides, nowhere do I advocate the abolition of civil disobedience. I simply agree with Rangel, that service to your country should be spread across economic divisions. You know, during the civil war, the wealthy could simply purchase a deferment from the draft, or they could "sponsor" some poor hick to fill in for them. I guess we've gone back to that. Rangel's point is that, as long as politicians can start wars without fearing that their own children will be forced to take part in the fighting, the more likely they are to start wars.

I see the point here, but I just can't agree that people ought to be forced into participating in savage, generally pointless slaughter.

[epicSocialism4tw]

The illegal immigration issue is not about race, culture, or jobs. That is a facade. Rupert Murdoch and his cronies are feeding you candy with poop in the middle. It is about dropping real wages for the blue collar worker and reducing the cost of services to businesses that suffered after 9/11.

If you are a practical entrepreneur, you know this and exploit it now while the house, senate, and the president stall so that money can pile up in the pockets of their benefactors. Im thinking about hiring a bunch of illegal Mexicans right now to build an empire of my own. Why not, right? If they're going to treat them like slaves to feed their own insatiable hunger for wealth and power, why cant I?

[Rohirrim]

I know, but it seemed you were making an argument against those who disagree that involuntary service to the state is virtuous. If that isn't what you intened to imply, I apologize.



I see the point here, but I just can't agree that people ought to be forced into participating in savage, generally pointless slaughter.

Rangel's other point, that he was arguing the other night on Dobbs, is that a large part of the reason that opposition to Vietnam was so strong, was the draft. Today, college age men can pretty much go on with their lives, oblivious to what the politicians in Washington are up to. Who should care about Iraq? If you don't want to join, don't worry about it. Back then, you'd better pay attention. Your number might be next. It focuses the mind.

[W*GS]

What's pathetic is your fawning over the morally bankrupt ideology of the free marketeers.

Thanks for the unintentional laugher of the day. "Morally bankrupt"? Compared to your slaves-to-the-State ideology? Have you ever heard of the USSR?

You're wearing blinders if you think nobody could do a better job than the capitalists when it comes to valuing labor.

Whom do you suggest? Society as a whole votes on what you get paid?

Remember, capitalists aren't just your Rockefellers, Carnegies, and other "robber barons". It's the two women who run the consignment shop down the street, the guy who has his own auto repair garage, the guy who comes to your house to fix your PC, the couple who has the independent bookstore that keeps a steady supply of "Das Kapital" on the shelf because they're radical leftists.

According to you, they're all greedy SOBs who suck the life out of oh-so-glorious Labor and are driving us all into poverty and starvation, because they're "morally bankrupt".

Same obeisance to failed principles.

Dare I ask what's "failed" about capitalism? That you personally aren't living the same life as Puff Daddy, or P. Diddy, or whatever his name is this week?

What comes out of your posts is nothing more than odious envy.

Same adoration of systems over people.

This from the guy who advocates putting the needs of the State over the rights of individuals. The irony is sickeningly rich.

Based on the evidence, we can all see that free market capitalism is simply a new name pasted over another anachronism: Feudalism.

Get yer nose out of your hard-left screed that passes itself of as critical analysis and look at the real world.

We need new experiments and new economic philosophies that accept the value of every human being realistically living in a world of finite resources.

Come up with a system that allocates finite resources (is technology finite? Is human creativity) better than supply and demand. The Soviets tried it - and the only way they could get it to "work", even barely, was with the Gulag. Why go over that old path and its millions dead?

Quality of life for all, rather than quantity of wealth for the few.

Capitalism has created a better quality of life for more people than any other economic system. Show me evidence of another system that's done as well.

Besides, if the Working Man is so downtrodden, start your own business, hire him, and value him as you think he should be valued. There's nothing stopping you from doing that. Then you'll see how capitalism truly works.

[W*GS]

I simply agree with Rangel, that service to your country should be spread across economic divisions.

What's the penalty for refusing to be a slave to the State?

Why should anyone be forced into "service to your country"?

[Rohirrim]

Thanks for the unintentional laugher of the day. "Morally bankrupt"? Compared to your slaves-to-the-State ideology? Have you ever heard of the USSR?



Whom do you suggest? Society as a whole votes on what you get paid?

Remember, capitalists aren't just your Rockefellers, Carnegies, and other "robber barons". It's the two women who run the consignment shop down the street, the guy who has his own auto repair garage, the guy who comes to your house to fix your PC, the couple who has the independent bookstore that keeps a steady supply of "Das Kapital" on the shelf because they're radical leftists.

According to you, they're all greedy SOBs who suck the life out of oh-so-glorious Labor and are driving us all into poverty and starvation, because they're "morally bankrupt".



Dare I ask what's "failed" about capitalism? That you personally aren't living the same life as Puff Daddy, or P. Diddy, or whatever his name is this week?

What comes out of your posts is nothing more than odious envy.



This from the guy who advocates putting the needs of the State over the rights of individuals. The irony is sickeningly rich.



Get yer nose out of your hard-left screed that passes itself of as critical analysis and look at the real world.



Come up with a system that allocates finite resources (is technology finite? Is human creativity) better than supply and demand. The Soviets tried it - and the only way they could get it to "work", even barely, was with the Gulag. Why go over that old path and its millions dead?



Capitalism has created a better quality of life for more people than any other economic system. Show me evidence of another system that's done as well.

Besides, if the Working Man is so downtrodden, start your own business, hire him, and value him as you think he should be valued. There's nothing stopping you from doing that. Then you'll see how capitalism truly works.

Nice screed. It not only encapsulates your blindness, but your arrogance as well. What you choose to completely ignore is the evidence. Perhaps it is you who needs to look at the real world? What is happening right now in the U.S.? The largest percentage of America's wealth is being funneled into fewer and fewer hands. And that percentage increases every year. The American worker is being dissolved into a worldwide labor market which will have the effect of devaluing his labor even more than it has been devalued already by capital and its coercion of Washington against labor for three decades. This is not an unregulated market system. It is a rigged system.

Labor in America now works longer hours for the same, or in many cases, less than they made thirty years ago. I suppose to the free marketeer, that's progress, since they generally see labor as the enemy. Health care goes beyond the reach of more every year. Advanced education goes beyond the reach of more every year. Even the idea of an old age pension is evaporating. The rolls of poverty in the world are expanding every year, not decreasing.

We should also throw into the pot that capitalism has now burst its borders. The global capitalist no longer owes allegiance to any state. Hell, there are corporations in the world now worth more than numerous countries put together. Global corporatism is turning us into the Borg. "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated." Quality of life is not only represented by the money it takes to live. That's only a piece of the equation. It is also represented by the time you get to enjoy life. Corporate globalism is no longer just devouring all our wealth, but our time as well.

[Rohirrim]

What's the penalty for refusing to be a slave to the State?

Why should anyone be forced into "service to your country"?

I guess you're just pretending that government coercion is the only kind of coercion that exists in this world? If you were to accept the concept of economic coercion, of course your perfect concept of free market utopia would come crashing down.

[W*GS]

I guess you're just pretending that government coercion is the only kind of coercion that exists in this world?

State coercion is what you're advocating.

If you were to accept the concept of economic coercion, of course your perfect concept of free market utopia would come crashing down.

Define "economic coercion" - and make sure it applies to the real world.

[W*GS]

Nice screed. It not only encapsulates your blindness, but your arrogance as well. What you choose to completely ignore is the evidence.

If anyone has selective vision in this debate, it's you.

[...]This is not an unregulated market system. It is a rigged system.

Indeed. That's why I argue in favor for a free market system, not the mixed system that we currently have. Get the State (mostly) out of the rigging-the-market game.

Labor in America now works longer hours for the same, or in many cases, less than they made thirty years ago. I suppose to the free marketeer, that's progress, since they generally see labor as the enemy.

I don't see labor as "the enemy" - but you're merely projecting, as you apparently see everyone but labor (and the wise bureaucrat) as the "enemy".

Health care goes beyond the reach of more every year. Advanced education goes beyond the reach of more every year. Even the idea of an old age pension is evaporating.

The increasing demands of the many for the wealth of the few is the bigger problem. The above three instances are clear examples of the State's manipulating of markets, and the root cause of those problems is the same.

The rolls of poverty in the world are expanding every year, not decreasing.

They are?

We should also throw into the pot that capitalism has now burst its borders.

Much to the relief of billions - their quality of living has never been so good.

Places that reject interacting with the global market (like North Korea) are hells on earth. Why?

Corporate globalism is no longer just devouring all our wealth, but our time as well.

Wealth is not some fixed quantity that's "devoured". Besides, life expectancy worldwide has never been higher.

In what era of the past were things better for so many people?

[yavoon]

more socialist meanderings. we can take over 50% of a person's income, how much more do u want to take? 80%? there will never be an end to the populist rhetoric because its only goal is to steal power.

I fully recommend every american make as much money(legally) as humanly possible. be as fantastically rich as ur imagination and desire could possibly make u.

I agree though that there is always a danger of a backlash, there will always be opportunistic politicians who whisper things into ppl's ears about entitled, and deserved, about things they've never earned, but since they are related by nationality to ppl whom they could steal the money from they will say that justifies it all.

[yavoon]

When I spent three years in the army I certainly didn't feel like a slave. I felt I was doing some good for my country. I am now proud that I gave back, at least a little, to the country that I owed so much. I guess it did interrupt my capitalist pursuits a bit. It's a shame that another American would look upon those who serve their country as "slaves," but as those Doonesbury cartoons pointed out, this seems to be the ethics of the new, capitalism-driven young Americans.

I'm a pretty hardcore capitalist and I believe in the draft:). so maybe there's hope for us capitalists afterall!

[yavoon]

Nice screed. It not only encapsulates your blindness, but your arrogance as well. What you choose to completely ignore is the evidence. Perhaps it is you who needs to look at the real world? What is happening right now in the U.S.? The largest percentage of America's wealth is being funneled into fewer and fewer hands. And that percentage increases every year. The American worker is being dissolved into a worldwide labor market which will have the effect of devaluing his labor even more than it has been devalued already by capital and its coercion of Washington against labor for three decades. This is not an unregulated market system. It is a rigged system.

Labor in America now works longer hours for the same, or in many cases, less than they made thirty years ago. I suppose to the free marketeer, that's progress, since they generally see labor as the enemy. Health care goes beyond the reach of more every year. Advanced education goes beyond the reach of more every year. Even the idea of an old age pension is evaporating. The rolls of poverty in the world are expanding every year, not decreasing.

We should also throw into the pot that capitalism has now burst its borders. The global capitalist no longer owes allegiance to any state. Hell, there are corporations in the world now worth more than numerous countries put together. Global corporatism is turning us into the Borg. "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated." Quality of life is not only represented by the money it takes to live. That's only a piece of the equation. It is also represented by the time you get to enjoy life. Corporate globalism is no longer just devouring all our wealth, but our time as well.

our education and heatlh care systems are VASTLY better than they were 30 years ago. u assume because they still fall under the same headings of 'health care' and 'education' they are due some law of equivalency.

and if ur worried about suppression of wages for the poor, stop immigration. that is whats killing ur wages.

[yavoon]

u wanna see real class warfare u should stay tuned to france in the next 10 years. france's socialism, overpaying workers, making them unfirable and strangling expansion has caused rising unemployment and a creation of a new class of worker. the temporary worker(they work on temporary contracts).

there are now two REAL classes(not imaginary ones) in france now. those that have a real job that is guarenteed by law, are almost impossible to fire, get all sorts of benefits. and an entire underclass of temporary worker who get few of the protections but still shoulder the taxload of the socialist system.

france is discombobulating itself into a pretzel.

[loborugger]

I voted for Webb. I like the guy, a feeling I feel for few politicians. He makes some valid points. However...

This is still a country where people can rise up from the lower class. This feat, while difficult, is not impossible. Look at people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.

If you go out and spend every pay raise buying Ipods and new sports cars, and the latest fashion, then you will live paycheck to paycheck. If you have a kid at 16 and miss out on your education, well then its even tougher.

Its becoming more difficult in this country, but you can - absolutely - make a million dollars. However, its not easy (dont think it was ever meant to be).

Shop at the thrift store, go to the library, buy economy cars, live in mediocre housing, never eat out, learn how to and actually fix things yourself, and you too will be on your way.

The simple problem is all the fun stuff in life gets in the way. I would like to fix my car myself, but there is a game on the TV... I wouldnt mind wear 20 dollar slacks, but my friends will laugh at me... I could cook dinner for 5 bucks, but I wanna spend the afternoon on the Mane, so I will pay 30 bucks to eat out.

Its all in what you want.

[yavoon]

I voted for Webb. I like the guy, a feeling I feel for few politicians. He makes some valid points. However...

This is still a country where people can rise up from the lower class. This feat, while difficult, is not impossible. Look at people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.

If you go out and spend every pay raise buying Ipods and new sports cars, and the latest fashion, then you will live paycheck to paycheck. If you have a kid at 16 and miss out on your education, well then its even tougher.

Its becoming more difficult in this country, but you can - absolutely - make a million dollars. However, its not easy (dont think it was ever meant to be).

Shop at the thrift store, go to the library, buy economy cars, live in mediocre housing, never eat out, learn how to and actually fix things yourself, and you too will be on your way.

The simple problem is all the fun stuff in life gets in the way. I would like to fix my car myself, but there is a game on the TV... I wouldnt mind wear 20 dollar slacks, but my friends will laugh at me... I could cook dinner for 5 bucks, but I wanna spend the afternoon on the Mane, so I will pay 30 bucks to eat out.

Its all in what you want.

there is no way to have an economy truly thrive if u dont embrace and dare ppl to become fabulously wealthy.