Whatever happened to the belief that any American could get to the top?

[W*GS]

Meritocracy in America

Ever higher society, ever harder to ascend
Dec 29th 2004 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition

Whatever happened to the belief that any American could get to the top?

The United States likes to think of itself as the very embodiment of meritocracy: a country where people are judged on their individual abilities rather than their family connections. The original colonies were settled by refugees from a Europe in which the restrictions on social mobility were woven into the fabric of the state, and the American revolution was partly a revolt against feudalism. From the outset, Americans believed that equality of opportunity gave them an edge over the Old World, freeing them from debilitating snobberies and at the same time enabling everyone to benefit from the abilities of the entire population. They still do.

To be sure, America has often betrayed its fine ideals. The Founding Fathers did not admit women or blacks to their meritocratic republic. The country's elites have repeatedly flirted with the aristocratic principle, whether among the brahmins of Boston or, more flagrantly, the rural ruling class in the South. Yet America has repeatedly succeeded in living up to its best self, and today most Americans believe that their country still does a reasonable job of providing opportunities for everybody, including blacks and women. In Europe, majorities of people in every country except Britain, the Czech Republic and Slovakia believe that forces beyond their personal control determine their success. In America only 32% take such a fatalistic view.

But are they right? A growing body of evidence suggests that the meritocratic ideal is in trouble in America. Income inequality is growing to levels not seen since the Gilded Age, around the 1880s. But social mobility is not increasing at anything like the same pace: would-be Horatio Algers are finding it no easier to climb from rags to riches, while the children of the privileged have a greater chance of staying at the top of the social heap. The United States risks calcifying into a European-style class-based society.

The past couple of decades have seen a huge increase in inequality in America. The Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think-tank, argues that between 1979 and 2000 the real income of households in the lowest fifth (the bottom 20% of earners) grew by 6.4%, while that of households in the top fifth grew by 70%. The family income of the top 1% grew by 184%—and that of the top 0.1% or 0.01% grew even faster. Back in 1979 the average income of the top 1% was 133 times that of the bottom 20%; by 2000 the income of the top 1% had risen to 189 times that of the bottom fifth.

Thirty years ago the average real annual compensation of the top 100 chief executives was $1.3m: 39 times the pay of the average worker. Today it is $37.5m: over 1,000 times the pay of the average worker. In 2001 the top 1% of households earned 20% of all income and held 33.4% of all net worth. Not since pre-Depression days has the top 1% taken such a big whack.

More dynastic than dynamic

Most Americans see nothing wrong with inequality of income so long as it comes with plenty of social mobility: it is simply the price paid for a dynamic economy. But the new rise in inequality does not seem to have come with a commensurate rise in mobility. There may even have been a fall.

The most vivid evidence of social sclerosis comes from politics. A country where every child is supposed to be able to dream of becoming president is beginning to produce a self-perpetuating political elite. George Bush is the son of a president, the grandson of a senator, and the sprig of America's business aristocracy. John Kerry, thanks to a rich wife, is the richest man in a Senate full of plutocrats. He is also a Boston brahmin, educated at St Paul's, a posh private school, and Yale—where, like the Bushes, he belonged to the ultra-select Skull and Bones society.

Mr Kerry's predecessor as the Democrats' presidential nominee, Al Gore, was the son of a senator. Mr Gore, too, was educated at a posh private school, St Albans, and then at Harvard. And Mr Kerry's main challenger from the left of his party? Howard Brush Dean was the product of the same blue-blooded world of private schools and unchanging middle names as Mr Bush (one of Mr Bush's grandmothers was even a bridesmaid to one of Mr Dean's). Mr Dean grew up in the Hamptons and on New York's Park Avenue.

The most remarkable feature of the continuing power of America's elite—and its growing grip on the political system—is how little comment it arouses. Britain would be in high dudgeon if its party leaders all came from Eton and Harrow. Perhaps one reason why the rise of caste politics raises so little comment is that something similar is happening throughout American society. Everywhere you look in modern America—in the Hollywood Hills or the canyons of Wall Street, in the Nashville recording studios or the clapboard houses of Cambridge, Massachusetts—you see elites mastering the art of perpetuating themselves. America is increasingly looking like imperial Britain, with dynastic ties proliferating, social circles interlocking, mechanisms of social exclusion strengthening and a gap widening between the people who make the decisions and shape the culture and the vast majority of ordinary working stiffs.

It's sticky out there

All this may sound a bit impressionistic. But more and more evidence from social scientists suggests that American society is much “stickier” than most Americans assume. Some researchers claim that social mobility is actually declining. A classic social survey in 1978 found that 23% of adult men who had been born in the bottom fifth of the population (as ranked by social and economic status) had made it into the top fifth. Earl Wysong of Indiana University and two colleagues recently decided to update the study. They compared the incomes of 2,749 father-and-son pairs from 1979 to 1998 and found that few sons had moved up the class ladder. Nearly 70% of the sons in 1998 had remained either at the same level or were doing worse than their fathers in 1979. The biggest increase in mobility had been at the top of society, with affluent sons moving upwards more often than their fathers had. They found that only 10% of the adult men born in the bottom quarter had made it to the top quarter.

The Economic Policy Institute also argues that social mobility has declined since the 1970s. In the 1990s 36% of those who started in the second-poorest 20% stayed put, compared with 28% in the 1970s and 32% in the 1980s. In the 1970s 12% of the population moved from the bottom fifth to either the fourth or the top fifth. In the 1980s and 1990s the figures shrank to below 11% for both decades. The figure for those who stayed in the top fifth increased slightly but steadily over the three decades, reinforcing the sense of diminished social mobility.

Not all social scientists accept the conclusion that mobility is declining. Gary Solon, of the University of Michigan, argues that there is no evidence of any change in social-mobility rates, down or up. But, at the least, most people agree that the dramatic increase in income inequality over the past two decades has not been accompanied by an equally dramatic increase in social mobility.

Take the study carried out by Thomas Hertz, an economist at American University in Washington, DC, who studied a representative sample of 6,273 American families (both black and white) over 32 years or two generations. He found that 42% of those born into the poorest fifth ended up where they started—at the bottom. Another 24% moved up slightly to the next-to-bottom group. Only 6% made it to the top fifth. Upward mobility was particularly low for black families. On the other hand, 37% of those born into the top fifth remained there, whereas barely 7% of those born into the top 20% ended up in the bottom fifth. A person born into the top fifth is over five times as likely to end up at the top as a person born into the bottom fifth.

Jonathan Fisher and David Johnson, two economists at the Bureau of Labour Statistics, looked at inequality and social mobility using measures of both income and consumption. They found that mobility “slightly decreased” in the 1990s. In 1984-90, 56% and 54% of households changed their rankings in terms of income and consumption respectively. In 1994-99, only 52% and 49% changed their rankings.

Two economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston analysed family incomes over three decades. They found that 40% of families remained stuck in the same income bracket in the 1990s, compared with 37% of families in the 1980s and 36% in the 1970s. Aaron Bernstein of Business Week points out that, even though the 1990s boom lifted pay rates for low-earners, it did not help them to get better jobs.

There is also growing evidence that America is less socially mobile than many other rich countries. Mr Solon finds that the correlation between the incomes of fathers and sons is higher in the United States than in Germany, Sweden, Finland or Canada. Such cross-national comparisons are rife with problems: different studies use different methods and different definitions of social status. But Americans are clearly mistaken if they believe they live in the world's most mobile society.

Back to the 1880s

This is not the first time that America has looked as if it was about to succumb to what might be termed the British temptation. America witnessed a similar widening of the income gap in the Gilded Age. It also witnessed the formation of a British-style ruling class. The robber barons of the late 19th century sent their children to private boarding schools and made sure that they married the daughters of the old elite, preferably from across the Atlantic. Politics fell into the hands of the members of a limited circle—so much so that the Senate was known as the millionaires' club.

Yet the late 19th and early 20th centuries saw a concerted attempt to prevent America from degenerating into a class-based society. Progressive politicians improved state education. Philanthropists—many of them the robber barons reborn in new guise—tried to provide ladders to help the lads-o'-parts (Andrew Carnegie poured millions into free libraries). Such reforms were motivated partly out of a desire to do good works and partly out of a real fear of the implications of class-based society. Teddy Roosevelt advocated an inheritance tax because he thought that huge inherited fortunes would ruin the character of the republic. James Conant, the president of Harvard in 1933-53, advocated radical educational reform—particularly the transformation of his own university into a meritocracy—in order to prevent America from producing an aristocracy.

Pushy parents, driven brats

The evils that Roosevelt and Conant worried about are clearly beginning to reappear. But so far there are few signs of a reform movement. Why not?

The main reason may be a paradoxical one: because the meritocratic revolution of the first half of the 20th century has been at least half successful. Members of the American elite live in an intensely competitive universe. As children, they are ferried from piano lessons to ballet lessons to early-reading classes. As adolescents, they cram in as much after-school coaching as possible. As students, they compete to get into the best graduate schools. As young professionals, they burn the midnight oil for their employers. And, as parents, they agonise about getting their children into the best universities. It is hard for such people to imagine that America is anything but a meritocracy: their lives are a perpetual competition. Yet it is a competition among people very much like themselves—the offspring of a tiny slither of society—rather than among the full range of talents that the country has to offer.

The second reason is that America's engines of upward mobility are no longer working as effectively as they once were. The most obvious example lies in the education system. Upward mobility is increasingly determined by education. The income of people with just a high-school diploma was flat in 1975-99, whereas that of people with a bachelor's degree rose substantially, and that of people with advanced degrees rocketed.

The education system is increasingly stratified by social class, and poor children have a double disadvantage. They attend schools with fewer resources than those of their richer contemporaries (school finances are largely determined by local property taxes). And they have to deal with the legacy of what Michael Barone, a conservative commentator, has labelled “soft America”. Soft America is allergic to introducing accountability and measurement in education, particularly if it takes the form of merit pay for successful teachers or rewards for outstanding pupils. Dumbed-down schools are particularly harmful to poor children, who are unlikely to be able to compensate for them at home.

America's great universities are increasingly reinforcing rather than reducing these educational inequalities. Poorer students are at a huge disadvantage, both when they try to get in and, if they are successful, in their ability to make the most of what is on offer. This disadvantage is most marked in the elite colleges that hold the keys to the best jobs. Three-quarters of the students at the country's top 146 colleges come from the richest socio-economic fourth, compared with just 3% who come from the poorest fourth (the median family income at Harvard, for example, is $150,000). This means that, at an elite university, you are 25 times as likely to run into a rich student as a poor one.

One reason for this is government money. The main federal programme supporting poorer students is the Pell grant: 90% of such grants go to families with incomes below $41,000. But the federal government has been shifting resources from Pell grants to other forms of aid to higher education. Student loans are unrelated to family resources. Federal tax breaks for higher education benefit the rich. State subsidies for higher education benefit rich and poor alike. At the same time, colleges are increasingly using financial aid to attract talented students away from competitors rather than to help the poor.

Another reason may be “affirmative action”—programmes designed to help members of racial minorities. These are increasingly used by elite universities, in the belief that race is a reasonable proxy for social disadvantage, which it may not be. Flawed as it may be, however, this kind of affirmative action is much less pernicious than another practised by many universities: “legacy preferences”, a programme for the children of alumni—as if privileged children were not already doing well enough out of the education system.

In most Ivy League institutions, the eight supposedly most select universities of the north-east, “legacies” make up between 10% and 15% of every class. At Harvard they are over three times more likely to be admitted than others. The students in America's places of higher education are increasingly becoming an oligarchy tempered by racial preferences. This is sad in itself, but even sadder when you consider the extraordinary role that the same universities—particularly Conant's Harvard—played in promoting meritocracy in the first half of the 20th century.

All snakes, no ladders

America's great companies are also becoming less successful agents of upward mobility. The years from 1880 to 1960 were a period of great corporate behemoths. These produced a new class of Americans—professional managers. They built elaborate internal hierarchies, and also accepted their responsibilities to both their workers and their local communities. But since the 1970s the pressure of competition has forced these behemoths to become much leaner—to reduce their layers, contract out some activities, and shift from full-time to part-time employees. It has became harder for people to start at the bottom and rise up the company hierarchy by dint of hard work and self-improvement. And it has also become harder for managers to keep their jobs in a single company.

There are a few shafts of sun on the horizon. George Bush's No Child Left Behind Act tries to use a mixture of tests and punishments for lousy schools to improve the performance of minority children. Senator Edward Kennedy bangs the drum against legacy preferences. But the bad news outdoes the good. The Republicans, by getting rid of inheritance tax, seem hell-bent on ignoring Teddy Roosevelt's warnings about the dangers of a hereditary aristocracy. The Democrats are more interested in preferment for minorities than building ladders of opportunity for all.

In his classic “The Promise of American Life”, Herbert Croly noted that “a democracy, not less than a monarchy or an aristocracy, must recognise political, economic, and social distinctions, but it must also withdraw its consent whenever these discriminations show any tendency to excessive endurance.” So far Americans have been fairly tolerant of economic distinctions. But that tolerance may not last for ever, if the current trend towards “excessive endurance” is not reversed.


Copyright © 2005 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.

[alkemical]

wags,

do you read anything besides the economist?

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by amesj523

do you read anything besides the economist?

I've tried the usual set of American news magazines (TIME, Newsweek, US News and World Report) and have found them dreadful. I started reading The Economist some years ago and it's far far superior in comparison. On a scale of 1 to 100, TIME and Newsweek are tied at about 4, USN&WR is about a 6, and (IMHO) The Economist is about a 95.

Sadly, I just don't have the time for entertaining reading that I used to (having three kids tends to make that happen) so I get most of my news from The Economist and the web. I watch the local news mainly for the weather and other minor things, occassionally I check in on CNN and/or Fox. I don't spend much time in the car so I don't get to hear too much NPR.

I like The Economist because its biases lie fairly close to my own - reasonably libertarian in most aspects. Their style is punchy and clean, they have excellent graphics, they write provocative opinion pieces, and they cover the world far better than any other US newsweekly I've seen. It's quite worth its rather expensive subscription cost.

[alkemical]

Cool wags, i wasn't trying to 'knock' it i just noticed you put alot on here from there.

I read alot from mises for econ.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by amesj523

Cool wags, i wasn't trying to 'knock' it i just noticed you put alot on here from there.

I wasn't taking your query as a "knock" - I proselytize reading it every chance I get. I suppose I'm in violation of copyright when I copy articles here, but oh well...

Originally Posted by amesj523

I read alot from mises for econ.

Hayek and Friedman are good too.

[alkemical]

thanks wags,

I figured you didn't take it as a dig. But on a message board without inflection sometimes i like to make sure i'm clear on it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Whatever happened to the belief that any American could get to the top?

Very few thinking people have ever taken this belief all that seriously to begin with.

Honestly, how does such a belief jibe with the the real history of a nation founded upon the genocide of the indigenous inhabitants of the very land it occupies; a nation which fought a civil war over the right to enslave other human beings?

Can anyone honestly say that they can envision a time when a woman or an African American will be elected president? (I hope to be proven wrong on this account.)

Anticipated response from the right-wingers:

"LABF hates America! Waaaaaaaah!"

Bullsh*t! I don't hate America - I just think we can do better, and I think being a real patriot means being willing to "make the crooked places straight," as the man said.

[TexanBob]

I disagree with the premise from the get-go. Geez, look at all the millionaires from nothing we see today - in sports, in entertainment, in computing, in business. People are getting wealthy overnight in all sorts of ways without having any real connections to "old money".

These "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" types usually have their heads up their asses. Our "poor" go out and buy DVDs and the latest fashion sneakers, etc. Most of today's poor are poor because they either don't know how to access opportunity or they choose not to. That's not to say life is easy for everybody, particularly the chronically ill or disabled, and even those who work hard all their lives aren't assured of being "rich", but we live in a society where most of the real-life day-to-day needs get met. It's the "wish list" (better this, newer that) that is often lacking. We shouldn't confuse need and want.

[enjolras]

Default
I disagree with the premise from the get-go. Geez, look at all the millionaires from nothing we see today - in sports, in entertainment, in computing, in business. People are getting wealthy overnight in all sorts of ways without having any real connections to "old money".

Bad science, just because your experience indicates something doesn't make it so. The people who have actually investigated this seem to have drawn a far different conclusion (particularly when it pertains to the the bottom percentile moving to the top).

The article, however, is also bad science. It takes correlation evidence and draws some rather strong conclusions. I'd need to delve into the studies further to draw any conclusion about their validity. However, if the information is valid it's certainly eye-raising. I have no issue with an income gap, but a self-perpuating economic elite (particularly a political elite) HAS to be concerning. We know from history that when the power is concentrated in the few, the many almost always suffer. I beleive that Americans will eventually respond as they always have.. by creating a new ruling class from within the ranks of the majority. You only need to look at the relative weakness in BOTH parties to see that the political landscape is due to change in a major way.

These "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" types usually have their heads up their asses. Our "poor" go out and buy DVDs and the latest fashion sneakers, etc. Most of today's poor are poor because they either don't know how to access opportunity or they choose not to. That's not to say life is easy for everybody, particularly the chronically ill or disabled, and even those who work hard all their lives aren't assured of being "rich", but we live in a society where most of the real-life day-to-day needs get met. It's the "wish list" (better this, newer that) that is often lacking. We shouldn't confuse need and want.

The purpose of these studies is to identify trends. We've seen before the amount of wealth possesed by the the lower middle class has actually DECLINED over the last 25 years. That's troubling.

I'm currently attempting to be socially mobile myself, and I can promise you that the 'haves' have done a remarkable job of locking the 'have-nots' out of so many areas of business. In order to start a software company I'm having to traverse an incredibly expensive patent minefield. The actual property and tools (computers and infrastructure) are actually incredibly cheap. It should be EASY to start a software company (and it traditionally has been). However, large software companies have succeeded in creating a artifical barrier through the patent system. Trivial algorithms have been patented, trivial concepts enjoy patents, and the patent office seems intent on granting patents on almost anything submitted.

While most of these patents are defeatable, it almost always involves a long and expensive court battle that most small companies simply can't afford to fight. This has very REAL consequences for you, as our domination of the high tech industry is rapidly coming to an end. Economies (such as those found in India and China) are not encumbered by our absolutely stupid IP laws, which allows them to innovate in ways Americans used to enjoy. This means less jobs for Americans, and a rapidly declining economy.

The social mobility studies do a great job of spotting these trends and compel us to investigate how to fix them. Any decline in social mobility almost inevitably means a decline in basic innovation (and wealth building) which has dire implications for every member of American society.

[W*GS]

Despite the past few decades of presidents and presidential candidates coming from the superelite (Bush, Kerry, Dean, Gore, Kennedy, FDR, et.al.) there have also been men from very modest means making it to the Presidency - Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Nixon.

There's life left in the American Dream yet.

[TexanBob]

Originally Posted by enjolras

The social mobility studies do a great job of spotting these trends and compel us to investigate how to fix them. Any decline in social mobility almost inevitably means a decline in basic innovation (and wealth building) which has dire implications for every member of American society.

Only because you want to believe that to be true. And while you whine about the roadblocks others have put up to keep you from building your business, who put them there? Was it not others who staked their turf and don't want to see others like you intrude on it? And how did they get in those positions? For most, it wasn't because Daddy bought them that software company. It's because somebody before you took the risks and made the innovations and were so successful that they found the means to patent what they made - just as you could be if you stopped looking at the roadblocks and looked instead at how to work around them. Perhaps you need to form a partnership with someone who can work to challenge some of the existing patents or grant you a license to work with those patented items to allow you to pursue your goal.

Those opportunities didn't dry up right after Michael Dell and Bill Gates got big. The opportunities are still there. You just have to figure out the way to prosper in spite of the boundaries.

Becoming "rich" isn't supposed to be easy. If it were, we'd all be rich.

[TexanBob]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Despite the past few decades of presidents and presidential candidates coming from the superelite (Bush, Kerry, Dean, Gore, Kennedy, FDR, et.al.) there have also been men from very modest means making it to the Presidency - Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Nixon.

There's life left in the American Dream yet.

Other than Bush, who among the top echelon of current political power is a product of "old money" influence? Cheney? Powell? Rice? Hastert? Delay? Frist? Sure, you'll find a few still running around on Daddy's money but, for most, they got there by their own wits and talents. Yes, it takes a lot of money to win an election and, because of it, the rich have an advantage. They always have the advantage but it is people that were born with drive and determination that ultimately succeed - no matter what status they began with in life.

And I believe that is MORE true now than ever because America no longer shuns people of other races from achieving power. There are extremely wealthy blacks, Hispanics and Asians today who would have been kept out decades ago. And their numbers and influence will continue to grow because it is human nature to want to improve and achieve. It sickens me that some would rather tell them that they can never make it because of their heritage or, even worse, tell them they shouldn't even try.

Certainly, nobody could have predicted the path Arnold Schwarzeneggar's life has taken, or Bill Cosby or Alberto Gonzales. But they didn't let their beginnings prevent them from being as successful as they could - they worked hard at it and dared to dream.

I believe America is a land of opportunity moreso now than ever. It's just a matter of seeing the opportunity and wanting it badly enough to see it through. Because we all know that the world will keep on changing. The trick is getting ahead of the wave rather than behind it. Easier said than done, sure, but nobody promises it will be easy.

[Sideburn]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Whatever happened to the belief that any American could get to the top?

Very few thinking people have ever taken this belief all that seriously to begin with.

Honestly, how does such a belief jibe with the the real history of a nation founded upon the genocide of the indigenous inhabitants of the very land it occupies; a nation which fought a civil war over the right to enslave other human beings?

Please tell me you don't believe this. Please take another shot at why the civil war was fought. I'll give you a hint. It has alot to do with the reasons of why the Revolutionary War was fought.

[errand]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Whatever happened to the belief that any American could get to the top?

Very few thinking people have ever taken this belief all that seriously to begin with.

Honestly, how does such a belief jibe with the the real history of a nation founded upon the genocide of the indigenous inhabitants of the very land it occupies; a nation which fought a civil war over the right to enslave other human beings?

Can anyone honestly say that they can envision a time when a woman or an African American will be elected president? (I hope to be proven wrong on this account.)

Anticipated response from the right-wingers:

"LABF hates America! Waaaaaaaah!"

Bullsh*t! I don't hate America - I just think we can do better, and I think being a real patriot means being willing to "make the crooked places straight," as the man said.

You need to open up a history book my liberal clown. this nation was not founded on the genocide of the indigenous inhabitants.....it was founded by people who came here in search of a better life.....BTW, those indigenous inhabitants enslaved others themselves.....

The War between the States wasn't fought over slavery...it was about state's rights...it was about limiting the federal governm,ent's role in issues that concerned the states. Sure slavery was an issue, but if you think it was the issue...then you are as looney as you sound.

Will there ever be a black or woman president? Who knows? And are you sure you could handle that?

Afterall, you have blasted the current president's appointments of the first black Secretary of State, the first black woman National Security Advisor, who later became the first black woman to become Secretary of State, and have criticized his nomination of black and hispanic judges....and we won't even bring up that you hate the presidents that nominated the first woman and black to sit on the US Supreme Court.

Now tell us again how the Democrats are all for the advancement of minorities, specifically women and blacks?

[TexanBob]

Can anyone honestly say that they can envision a time when a woman or an African American will be elected president?

So I can put you down for a contribution to the Condeleezza Rice in '08 campaign?? Maybe there's hope for you after all...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by errand

You need to open up a history book my liberal clown. this nation was not founded on the genocide of the indigenous inhabitants.....

The War between the States wasn't fought over slavery...

You forgot "war is peace," "freedom is slavery," and "ignorance is strength," my banana republican clown.

Banana Republican America

On January 6, 2005 the United States Congress certified the results of the election that took place last November 2nd and declared that George W. Bush had been duly elected president. They certified a lot more than an election outcome. It is now official. This nation has become the world's most powerful banana republic. Perhaps the Bush family will have presidents for life, just like the Duvaliers in Haiti.

America is governed by one party rule, the press does not dare provoke that one party, the opposition party is afraid to oppose, the wealthy are getting wealthier by using the national treasury as their private piggy bank, civil liberties are under assault, workers think themselves lucky to earn starvation wages at Wal-Mart, and the man nominated to become the chief law enforcement official in the land has put in writing that torture is not such a bad thing after all.

http://www.blackcommentator.com/121/...ublic_usa.html

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by errand

Now tell us again how the Democrats are all for the advancement of minorities, specifically women and blacks?

If irony is funny, then you're the official board laughing stock.

Republican values: GOP wants Congress exempt from antidiscrimination laws

WASHINGTON -- House Republican leaders want to exempt members of Congress from laws against discrimination that apply to private employers, despite the Republicans' Contract With America pledge that "all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress" and a decade-old law that placed Congress under antidiscrimination statutes.

Last week, in response to a discrimination lawsuit filed against a Democratic House member, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, majority leader Tom DeLay, and majority whip Roy Blunt submitted a "friend of the court" brief on behalf of the House, saying members of Congress should be shielded from discrimination suits.

They said the Constitution protects representatives' ability to study and craft legislation with the staff members they choose, regardless of laws that prohibit employment decisions based on factors such as age, race, gender, and disabilities.

But Democratic House leaders refused to sign off on the House brief, saying that if the court accepts that reasoning, the 10-year-old Congressional Accountability Act would be rendered meaningless. That law, passed shortly after the Republican takeover of Congress in 1995 and designed on the first plank of the Contract with America, specifically stated that Congress should be covered by the same statutes against discrimination that apply to private-sector employers.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...on_to_bias_law

[enjolras]

Only because you want to believe that to be true. And while you whine about the roadblocks others have put up to keep you from building your business, who put them there? Was it not others who staked their turf and don't want to see others like you intrude on it? And how did they get in those positions? For most, it wasn't because Daddy bought them that software company. It's because somebody before you took the risks and made the innovations and were so successful that they found the means to patent what they made - just as you could be if you stopped looking at the roadblocks and looked instead at how to work around them. Perhaps you need to form a partnership with someone who can work to challenge some of the existing patents or grant you a license to work with those patented items to allow you to pursue your goal.

Those opportunities didn't dry up right after Michael Dell and Bill Gates got big. The opportunities are still there. You just have to figure out the way to prosper in spite of the boundaries.

Becoming "rich" isn't supposed to be easy. If it were, we'd all be rich.

How insulting. These roadblocks DID NOT EXIST when Dell and Gates where busy getting to the top. The software patent system is a relatively new invention. Hell, Gates literally stole the iconic windows interface from Apple (he was doing work with Apple at the time) who stole it from Xerox in the first place.

The point is (that you seem unable to comprehend) that the currently rich have added new barriers and roadblocks to prevent others from succeeding. They don't want to compete fairly, they want to turn America into an aristoracy designed only to protect their wealth. If the patent system/lawyer economy was the same in the '70's as it is today you would have never HEARD of Gates, Dell, or even Steve Jobs. Those rags to riches stories would have been stomped down by the likes of HP and IBM.

I agree that getting rich isn't supposed to be easy, but at the same time it's not supposed to be artifically hard either. It's supposed to be about competition. The better company, with the better products is supposed to win. What we have now is a system that makes it difficult to impossible for companies to even get off the ground. Economies grow because of new ideas and philosophies and the current system is actively discouraging that..

It's funny.. as a Republican you should very much support what I'm saying. After all, it's a central piece of your platform.

[TexanBob]

Originally Posted by enjolras

The point is (that you seem unable to comprehend) that the currently rich have added new barriers and roadblocks to prevent others from succeeding. They don't want to compete fairly, they want to turn America into an aristoracy designed only to protect their wealth.

Go rent the movie "Tucker" and you will find that this is nothing new and nothing that started with Gates and Jobs. As natural as it is to want to be wealthy, it is natural to try to protect your wealth. This is nothing new. And yet, upstart businesses keep trying to build better products that they will either sell to larger companies or take them on until they outperform them.

Look at how the Japanese companies overcame obstacles in the auto industry. They fought to get their products into the U.S. by building better, less expensive cars and took 30 years to the point that they now make a lot of their cars outside Japan, some of it inside the U.S. They had to deal with protectionism, tariffs, etc on their way to success.

b****ing about roadblocks isn't going to help your business. Maybe you'll need to start this up overseas where some of these patents and laws don't apply or maybe you'll need to make a prototype you can then sell to a larger company that has the muscle to get this through American courts.

But if the product and the business plan are solid, they will eventually succeed, maybe not the way you envision it but it will if you have the patience and perseverence to see it through.

How that translates to the overall subject of social mobility is just one minute example, no different than rich athletes or rappers which were my original examples.

[enjolras]

b****ing about roadblocks isn't going to help your business. Maybe you'll need to start this up overseas where some of these patents and laws don't apply or maybe you'll need to make a prototype you can then sell to a larger company that has the muscle to get this through American courts.

THAT's THE F*ING POINT! The thread has to do with whether or not social mobility is even important. I brought up a case that showed how America is suffering because mobility is becoming more and more limited.. and your suggesting that I A) sell-out to a larger company (not an option in the type of business I'm in) or B) move out of America. That's the point.. our aristocracy has created an environment in which moving out of America is the best chance for success. That doesn't bode well for this country does it?

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Despite the past few decades of presidents and presidential candidates coming from the superelite (Bush, Kerry, Dean, Gore, Kennedy, FDR, et.al.) there have also been men from very modest means making it to the Presidency - Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Nixon.

There's life left in the American Dream yet.

Yet strangly all of these men have been tapped for power. (clinton, reagan, carter, nixon). Clinton was a rhodes scholar, rhodes is a door to enter the elites.

[TheDave]

Originally Posted by enjolras

THAT's THE F*ING POINT! The thread has to do with whether or not social mobility is even important. I brought up a case that showed how America is suffering because mobility is becoming more and more limited.. and your suggesting that I A) sell-out to a larger company (not an option in the type of business I'm in) or B) move out of America. That's the point.. our aristocracy has created an environment in which moving out of America is the best chance for success. That doesn't bode well for this country does it?

That is just beautiful... the man spends 3+ paragraphs saying that there are no problems with upward mobility in america, then his first suggestion is to leave the country! Thanks for the laugh Bob!

[alkemical]

I think it is hard to move up in the class system of the US.

You & I couldn't be president. No way in hell.

[TexanBob]

I was addressing an individual situation, not a nationwide epidemic. Enjolras claims that patent laws have prevented him from moving forward in his business. If that's the case, I was suggesting an option to go around the problem - nothing more complicated than that.

I know, as liberals, you'd rather believe that America sucks, that Bush and Cheney have fixed all the rules so little guys like you can be squashed like bugs in the windshield, absolving you from any blame for your own failures rather than relying on your own ingenuity and creativity to succeed. It's just easier (and more convenient) to believe that America sucks and you're screwed.

With an attitude like that, it's no wonder your business is having trouble. You'd rather curse the darkness than turn on the light.

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by TexanBob

I was addressing an individual situation, not a nationwide epidemic. Enjolras claims that patent laws have prevented him from moving forward in his business. If that's the case, I was suggesting an option to go around the problem - nothing more complicated than that.

I know, as liberals, you'd rather believe that America sucks, that Bush and Cheney have fixed all the rules so little guys like you can be squashed like bugs in the windshield, absolving you from any blame for your own failures rather than relying on your own ingenuity and creativity to succeed. It's just easier (and more convenient) to believe that America sucks and you're screwed.

With an attitude like that, it's no wonder your business is having trouble. You'd rather curse the darkness than turn on the light.

With people like you who think that there are no problems that need to be fixed, it's no wonder that our country is shifting.

I COULD still be a millionaire. But the chances are slim. I am looking at opening my own business though, which as long as i make enough to live i could care less.

My problem is that only if you are rich and donate to your politicians are you able to keep your money. For instance, a big corporation (airlines for example) keep cutting workers wages, but not those at the top. Then file for bankruptcy and take my tax dollars.

Meanwhile we have bills to tax rain water that's collected on your property and other such ways to milk you out of money. the state's job is only to collect $$$$.