Metro Jacksonville

QuoteU.S. Poverty Rate, 1 in 6, at Highest Level in Years
By SABRINA TAVERNISE
The portion of Americans living in poverty last year rose to the highest level since 1993, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday, fresh evidence that the sluggish economic recovery has done nothing for the country’s poorest citizens.

An additional 2.6 million people slipped below the poverty line in 2010, census officials said, making 46.2 million people in poverty in the United States, the highest number in the 52 years the Census Bureau has been tracking it, said Trudi Renwick, chief of the Poverty Statistic Branch at the Census Bureau.

That figure represented 15.1 percent of the country.

The poverty line in 2010 was at $22,113 for a family of four.

“It was a surprising large increase in the overall poverty rate,” said Arloc Sherman, senior researcher at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “We see record numbers and percentages of Americans in deep poverty.”

And in new evidence of economic distress among the middle class, real median household incomes declined by 2.3 percent in 2010 from the previous year, to $49,400. That was 7 percent less than the peak in 1999 of $53,252.

“A full year into recovery, there were no signs of it affecting the well being of a typical American family,” said Lawrence Katz, an economics professor at Harvard. “We are well below where incomes were in the late 1990s.”

According to the census figures, the median annual income for a male full-time, year-round worker in 2010 â€" $47,715 â€" was virtually unchanged from its level in 1973, when the level was $49,065, in 2010 dollars, said Sheldon H. Danziger, professor of public policy at the University of Michigan.

“That’s not about the poor and unemployed, that’s full time, year round,” Professor Danziger said. Particularly hard hit, he said, have been those who do not have college degrees. “The median, full-time male worker has made no progress on average.”

The youngest members of households â€" those ages 15 to 24 â€" lost out the most, with their median income dropping by 9 percent. The recession continued to push Americans to double up in households with friends and relatives, especially those ages 25 to 34, a group that experienced a 25 percent increase in the period between 2007, when the recession began, and 2011. Of that group, 45.3 percent were living below the poverty line, when their parents’ incomes were not taken into account.

“We’re risking a new underclass,” said Timothy Smeeding, director of the Institute for Research and Poverty at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. “Young, less educated adults, mainly men, can’t support their children and form stable families because they are jobless.”

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: September 13, 2011


An earlier version of this article gave an incorrect figure for the number of people the Census Bureau found to be in poverty in the Unites States. The number is 46.2 million people, not 56.2 million.

Without jobs for americans, it is only going to get worse.

I love your signature line manasia!

If only we would know we are all vulnerable to bad luck, no matter how prepared we think we are.

On the Human Poverty Index, the US rates abysmal:

17th, behind all western european nations and Australia.

Something no doubt Republicans are proud of............it shows survival of the fittest to the max in the US.

The US only rates higher than Ireland and Italy.........no wonder the Italians and Irish have been flocking to this country in far larger numbers than other europeans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Poverty_Index

Yeah, nobody saw this coming like 25 years ago. 

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,962753,00.html

Quote from: Brian Siebenschuh on September 16, 2011, 02:23:36 AM
Yeah, nobody saw this coming like 25 years ago. 

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,962753,00.html

Brian all I can say is WOW.

Thank you Faye.

Thanks Brian

This is one of the better definitions of 'the middle class' that I've seen....

Quote
Says Lawrence Lindsey, assistant professor of economics at Harvard: "A middle-class person is someone who expects to be self-reliant, unlike the upper class with its unearned wealth or the lower class with its dependency on society. Far from declining, the middle class is bigger than ever, and its ethic is alive and well."

and while the so-called 'middle class' may be diminishing it's not due to quality of life, imo.  IE - I know I ONLY make $30k per year, but I really want a 60" Aquos LCD and a Mercedes.  Fucking, live within your means or better yourself, quit complaining and bitching about 'having it rough' because you ONLY have a 36" Vizeo and a Honda.

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 16, 2011, 01:58:42 PM
This is one of the better definitions of 'the middle class' that I've seen....

Quote
Says Lawrence Lindsey, assistant professor of economics at Harvard: "A middle-class person is someone who expects to be self-reliant, unlike the upper class with its unearned wealth or the lower class with its dependency on society. Far from declining, the middle class is bigger than ever, and its ethic is alive and well."

and while the so-called 'middle class' may be diminishing it's not due to quality of life, imo.  IE - I know I ONLY make $30k per year, but I really want a 60" Aquos LCD and a Mercedes.  Fucking, live within your means or better yourself, quit complaining and bitching about 'having it rough' because you ONLY have a 36" Vizeo and a Honda.

It's not about that.

Along with such deep bifurcation comes societal and political instability. At some point if you want to maintain order, it can't simply be 10% rich guys and the other 90% are living in slums. Look back through history, every time a developed country has wound up in that situation, the inevitable result is revolution. Your political ideals aside for a second, this country, no country, can or will survive the situation that is developing. It may take awhile to happen, as they say the gristmills of the gods grind slowly, but they grind finely. Any cursory review of history should show you where we're heading, if something isn't done to correct the wealth imbalance.

My thought on this matter isn't political, it's just life.

Society has been divided into three classes, and there is being a disinction made in the disparity from the top to the middle and the bottom to the middle - that the middle is sliding towards the bottom.  Why?  Maybe the top is just doing what it has always done, just they're doing it better. 

Idealogically, Middle Class to me is a state of mind.  Sure I envy those with high paying jobs or inheritances or those that win millions in the lottery.  I know that I could make the sacrifices to get there.  Get an MBA, pass the Series 7 and go to the legal casino.  Maybe I should have pursued a medical degree.  Maybe I should have taken some more chances on opportunities that I thought were really risky when I had less to lose.  I didn't and I'm not going to now.  I may be envious, but I don't really see myself living the mansion on the river and watching my bank account grow exponentially type of lifestyle.  (Maybe, but it's going to take more than a $5/wk lottery habit) 

On the flip side, I don't ever see myself so destitute that I have the government paying for my existence.  I have too many job skills, too much education and too much damn pride to accept that lifestyle. 

I see myself as the eternal middle class.  Content.  Not too concernced with how much richer the rich keep getting.  And not too concerned with how the bottom gets along. 

Why Inequality is the Real Cause of Our Ongoing Terrible Economy

THE 5 percent of Americans with the highest incomes now account for 37 percent of all consumer purchases, according to the latest research from Moody’s Analytics. That should come as no surprise. Our society has become more and more unequal.

When so much income goes to the top, the middle class doesn’t have enough purchasing power to keep the economy going without sinking ever more deeply into debt â€" which, as we’ve seen, ends badly. An economy so dependent on the spending of a few is also prone to great booms and busts. The rich splurge and speculate when their savings are doing well. But when the values of their assets tumble, they pull back. That can lead to wild gyrations. Sound familiar?

The economy won’t really bounce back until America’s surge toward inequality is reversed. Even if by some miracle President Obama gets support for a second big stimulus while Ben S. Bernanke’s Fed keeps interest rates near zero, neither will do the trick without a middle class capable of spending. Pump-priming works only when a well contains enough water.

Look back over the last hundred years and you’ll see the pattern. During periods when the very rich took home a much smaller proportion of total income â€" as in the Great Prosperity between 1947 and 1977 â€" the nation as a whole grew faster and median wages surged. We created a virtuous cycle in which an ever growing middle class had the ability to consume more goods and services, which created more and better jobs, thereby stoking demand. The rising tide did in fact lift all boats.

During periods when the very rich took home a larger proportion â€" as between 1918 and 1933, and in the Great Regression from 1981 to the present day â€" growth slowed, median wages stagnated and we suffered giant downturns. It’s no mere coincidence that over the last century the top earners’ share of the nation’s total income peaked in 1928 and 2007 â€" the two years just preceding the biggest downturns.

Starting in the late 1970s, the middle class began to weaken. Although productivity continued to grow and the economy continued to expand, wages began flattening in the 1970s because new technologies â€" container ships, satellite communications, eventually computers and the Internet â€" started to undermine any American job that could be automated or done more cheaply abroad. The same technologies bestowed ever larger rewards on people who could use them to innovate and solve problems. Some were product entrepreneurs; a growing number were financial entrepreneurs. The pay of graduates of prestigious colleges and M.B.A. programs â€" the “talent” who reached the pinnacles of power in executive suites and on Wall Street â€" soared.

The middle class nonetheless continued to spend, at first enabled by the flow of women into the work force. (In the 1960s only 12 percent of married women with young children were working for pay; by the late 1990s, 55 percent were.) When that way of life stopped generating enough income, Americans went deeper into debt. From the late 1990s to 2007, the typical household debt grew by a third. As long as housing values continued to rise it seemed a painless way to get additional money.

Eventually, of course, the bubble burst. That ended the middle class’s remarkable ability to keep spending in the face of near stagnant wages. The puzzle is why so little has been done in the last 40 years to help deal with the subversion of the economic power of the middle class. With the continued gains from economic growth, the nation could have enabled more people to become problem solvers and innovators â€" through early childhood education, better public schools, expanded access to higher education and more efficient public transportation.

We might have enlarged safety nets â€" by having unemployment insurance cover part-time work, by giving transition assistance to move to new jobs in new locations, by creating insurance for communities that lost a major employer. And we could have made Medicare available to anyone.

Big companies could have been required to pay severance to American workers they let go and train them for new jobs. The minimum wage could have been pegged at half the median wage, and we could have insisted that the foreign nations we trade with do the same, so that all citizens could share in gains from trade.

We could have raised taxes on the rich and cut them for poorer Americans.

But starting in the late 1970s, and with increasing fervor over the next three decades, government did just the opposite. It deregulated and privatized. It cut spending on infrastructure as a percentage of the national economy and shifted more of the costs of public higher education to families. It shredded safety nets. (Only 27 percent of the unemployed are covered by unemployment insurance.) And it allowed companies to bust unions and threaten employees who tried to organize. Fewer than 8 percent of private-sector workers are unionized.

More generally, it stood by as big American companies became global companies with no more loyalty to the United States than a GPS satellite. Meanwhile, the top income tax rate was halved to 35 percent and many of the nation’s richest were allowed to treat their income as capital gains subject to no more than 15 percent tax. Inheritance taxes that affected only the topmost 1.5 percent of earners were sliced. Yet at the same time sales and payroll taxes â€" both taking a bigger chunk out of modest paychecks â€" were increased.

Most telling of all, Washington deregulated Wall Street while insuring it against major losses. In so doing, it allowed finance â€" which until then had been the servant of American industry â€" to become its master, demanding short-term profits over long-term growth and raking in an ever larger portion of the nation’s profits. By 2007, financial companies accounted for over 40 percent of American corporate profits and almost as great a percentage of pay, up from 10 percent during the Great Prosperity.

Some say the regressive lurch occurred because Americans lost confidence in government. But this argument has cause and effect backward. The tax revolts that thundered across America starting in the late 1970s were not so much ideological revolts against government â€" Americans still wanted all the government services they had before, and then some â€" as against paying more taxes on incomes that had stagnated. Inevitably, government services deteriorated and government deficits exploded, confirming the public’s growing cynicism about government’s doing anything right.

Some say we couldn’t have reversed the consequences of globalization and technological change. Yet the experiences of other nations, like Germany, suggest otherwise. Germany has grown faster than the United States for the last 15 years, and the gains have been more widely spread. While Americans’ average hourly pay has risen only 6 percent since 1985, adjusted for inflation, German workers’ pay has risen almost 30 percent. At the same time, the top 1 percent of German households now take home about 11 percent of all income â€" about the same as in 1970. And although in the last months Germany has been hit by the debt crisis of its neighbors, its unemployment is still below where it was when the financial crisis started in 2007.

How has Germany done it? Mainly by focusing like a laser on education (German math scores continue to extend their lead over American), and by maintaining strong labor unions.

THE real reason for America’s Great Regression was political. As income and wealth became more concentrated in fewer hands, American politics reverted to what Marriner S. Eccles, a former chairman of the Federal Reserve, described in the 1920s, when people “with great economic power had an undue influence in making the rules of the economic game.” With hefty campaign contributions and platoons of lobbyists and public relations spinners, America’s executive class has gained lower tax rates while resisting reforms that would spread the gains from growth.

Yet the rich are now being bitten by their own success. Those at the top would be better off with a smaller share of a rapidly growing economy than a large share of one that’s almost dead in the water.

The economy cannot possibly get out of its current doldrums without a strategy to revive the purchasing power of America’s vast middle class. The spending of the richest 5 percent alone will not lead to a virtuous cycle of more jobs and higher living standards. Nor can we rely on exports to fill the gap. It is impossible for every large economy, including the United States, to become a net exporter.

Reviving the middle class requires that we reverse the nation’s decades-long trend toward widening inequality. This is possible notwithstanding the political power of the executive class. So many people are now being hit by job losses, sagging incomes and declining home values that Americans could be mobilized.

Moreover, an economy is not a zero-sum game. Even the executive class has an enlightened self-interest in reversing the trend; just as a rising tide lifts all boats, the ebbing tide is now threatening to beach many of the yachts. The question is whether, and when, we will summon the political will. We have summoned it before in even bleaker times.

As the historian James Truslow Adams defined the American Dream when he coined the term at the depths of the Great Depression, what we seek is “a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone.”

That dream is still within our grasp.

http://robertreich.org/

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 16, 2011, 03:35:34 PM
My thought on this matter isn't political, it's just life.

Society has been divided into three classes, and there is being a disinction made in the disparity from the top to the middle and the bottom to the middle - that the middle is sliding towards the bottom.  Why?  Maybe the top is just doing what it has always done, just they're doing it better. 

Idealogically, Middle Class to me is a state of mind.  Sure I envy those with high paying jobs or inheritances or those that win millions in the lottery.  I know that I could make the sacrifices to get there.  Get an MBA, pass the Series 7 and go to the legal casino.  Maybe I should have pursued a medical degree.  Maybe I should have taken some more chances on opportunities that I thought were really risky when I had less to lose.  I didn't and I'm not going to now.  I may be envious, but I don't really see myself living the mansion on the river and watching my bank account grow exponentially type of lifestyle.  (Maybe, but it's going to take more than a $5/wk lottery habit) 

On the flip side, I don't ever see myself so destitute that I have the government paying for my existence.  I have too many job skills, too much education and too much damn pride to accept that lifestyle. 

I see myself as the eternal middle class.  Content.  Not too concernced with how much richer the rich keep getting.  And not too concerned with how the bottom gets along. 

It's not about how you see yourself, or how you see others for that matter.

The problem is that there is really a very short list of things that are absolutely destined to destabilize a country, and a catastrophic wealth imbalance happens to be one of them. If we head too far in this direction, we risk losing everything. Again, look back through history, nearly every time this situation developed anywhere across the globe the result has generally been revolution. Haven't you watched any of the news on the middle east lately? This has by and large been their chief complaint. It can and will happen here, given enough time, if this imbalance grows severe enough.

Stephen Dare posted a video by Bob Rubin that pretty much explained what has happened in this country since 1980. The rich have had more and more access to politicians therefore more and more policy tilted in their favor,
especially in terms of income taxes.

I think it is bizarre that Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have combined their vast fortunes into a trust (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) that is designed to help Third World Countries deal with the difficult issues they are facing. Maybe that Fund should be spent here in the USA.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 16, 2011, 03:57:04 PM
Haven't you watched any of the news on the middle east lately? This has by and large been their chief complaint. It can and will happen here, given enough time, if this imbalance grows severe enough.

And why are they revolting?  Lack of religious tolerance?  Lack of governmental assitance?  Lack of self-identity?  We, as a majority, don't have those issues here.  The poorest of the poor still have the opportunity to get a meal, have a roof over their heads, avenues for self-improvement, etc...  We have it pretty good collectively.

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 16, 2011, 05:50:05 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 16, 2011, 03:57:04 PM
Haven't you watched any of the news on the middle east lately? This has by and large been their chief complaint. It can and will happen here, given enough time, if this imbalance grows severe enough.

And why are they revolting?  Lack of religious tolerance?  Lack of governmental assitance?  Lack of self-identity?  We, as a majority, don't have those issues here.  The poorest of the poor still have the opportunity to get a meal, have a roof over their heads, avenues for self-improvement, etc...  We have it pretty good collectively.

Actually, the wealth disparities are the actual cause, especially in Egypt.

Say what you want.  IMO, it's not the disparity, it's the living conditions of the un-wealthy.  We provide assistance because their own gov'ts won't. 

Here is a different situation (today).  There may be a huge disparity between the top 5% and the bottom 30%, but the bottom 30 don't have it nearly as bad as the bottom 60% in other countries.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is collectively, it doesn't matter if the top 5% control 90% of the wealth in this country, it doesn't matter as long as 80% of  the bottom 30% still have cable television, a car and disposable income.

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 16, 2011, 06:48:00 PM
Say what you want.  IMO, it's not the disparity, it's the living conditions of the un-wealthy.  We provide assistance because their own gov'ts won't. 

Here is a different situation (today).  There may be a huge disparity between the top 5% and the bottom 30%, but the bottom 30 don't have it nearly as bad as the bottom 60% in other countries.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is collectively, it doesn't matter if the top 5% control 90% of the wealth in this country, it doesn't matter as long as 80% of  the bottom 30% still have cable television, a car and disposable income.

It's not the point I'm making, it's that these guys were all over CNN talking about how the wealth gap and impoverished living conditions in Egypt caused the revolution. You know, I guess at some point NRW, the proletariat needs to be able to buy that T.V. or whatever have you, when they want it. Life's short, and if most of your population spends it toiling away to enrich a select few people without adequate renumeration, then you're going to have trouble maintaining an orderly society.

Whether you want to maintain an orderly society is really the question. This orgasmic vision the Republicans and Libertarians have of everyone living in a slum fending for themselves, generally except (naturally) for them, won't actually come to pass. It never does. The result is normally revolution. This doesn't work out, you know. Money instantly becomes meaningless when a majority of the country no longer supports the government, I'd like to avoid that in this country, if it were up to me.

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 16, 2011, 01:58:42 PM
This is one of the better definitions of 'the middle class' that I've seen....

Quote
Says Lawrence Lindsey, assistant professor of economics at Harvard: "A middle-class person is someone who expects to be self-reliant, unlike the upper class with its unearned wealth or the lower class with its dependency on society. Far from declining, the middle class is bigger than ever, and its ethic is alive and well."

and while the so-called 'middle class' may be diminishing it's not due to quality of life, imo.  IE - I know I ONLY make $30k per year, but I really want a 60" Aquos LCD and a Mercedes.  Fucking, live within your means or better yourself, quit complaining and bitching about 'having it rough' because you ONLY have a 36" Vizeo and a Honda.

That sounds all good, but life isn't just about that stuff now is it. I hope you or a member of your family never get really sick. Yes, even with "good" insurance it would still crush you like a twig.

Or go through a messy divorce..or get your car almost totaled by some person who doesn't have insurance...or about a dozen other things that would be catastrophic to your living within your means lifestyle.

I'm just saying. Its really easy to pass judgement until you've been put through one of life's little shit storms & the system's screwed you 12 ways from Sunday.

P.S. Not to say you haven't experienced stuff like this. Maybe you have. But its not as cut & dry as you're making it out to be.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 16, 2011, 08:00:51 PM

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 16, 2011, 06:48:00 PM
Say what you want.  IMO, it's not the disparity, it's the living conditions of the un-wealthy.  We provide assistance because their own gov'ts won't. 

Here is a different situation (today).  There may be a huge disparity between the top 5% and the bottom 30%, but the bottom 30 don't have it nearly as bad as the bottom 60% in other countries.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is collectively, it doesn't matter if the top 5% control 90% of the wealth in this country, it doesn't matter as long as 80% of  the bottom 30% still have cable television, a car and disposable income.

It's not the point I'm making, it's that these guys were all over CNN talking about how the wealth gap and impoverished living conditions in Egypt caused the revolution. You know, I guess at some point NRW, the proletariat needs to be able to buy that T.V. or whatever have you, when they want it. Life's short, and if most of your population spends it toiling away to enrich a select few people without adequate renumeration, then you're going to have trouble maintaining an orderly society.

Whether you want to maintain an orderly society is really the question. This orgasmic vision the Republicans and Libertarians have of everyone living in a slum fending for themselves, generally except (naturally) for them, won't actually come to pass. It never does. The result is normally revolution. This doesn't work out, you know. Money instantly becomes meaningless when a majority of the country no longer supports the government, I'd like to avoid that in this country, if it were up to me.

This is a greatly oversimplified explanation of the Egyptian revolution. Economic issues such as rampant unemployment and inflation affected more than just the poor and were only one of the various factors at stake. The autocratic rule of Hosni Mubarak, the lack of free speech and democratic process, and governmental corruption and brutality was equally important. Egypt's situation isn't really a good comparison to the US.

Quote from: Tacachale on September 17, 2011, 11:28:53 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 16, 2011, 08:00:51 PM

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 16, 2011, 06:48:00 PM
Say what you want.  IMO, it's not the disparity, it's the living conditions of the un-wealthy.  We provide assistance because their own gov'ts won't. 

Here is a different situation (today).  There may be a huge disparity between the top 5% and the bottom 30%, but the bottom 30 don't have it nearly as bad as the bottom 60% in other countries.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is collectively, it doesn't matter if the top 5% control 90% of the wealth in this country, it doesn't matter as long as 80% of  the bottom 30% still have cable television, a car and disposable income.

It's not the point I'm making, it's that these guys were all over CNN talking about how the wealth gap and impoverished living conditions in Egypt caused the revolution. You know, I guess at some point NRW, the proletariat needs to be able to buy that T.V. or whatever have you, when they want it. Life's short, and if most of your population spends it toiling away to enrich a select few people without adequate renumeration, then you're going to have trouble maintaining an orderly society.

Whether you want to maintain an orderly society is really the question. This orgasmic vision the Republicans and Libertarians have of everyone living in a slum fending for themselves, generally except (naturally) for them, won't actually come to pass. It never does. The result is normally revolution. This doesn't work out, you know. Money instantly becomes meaningless when a majority of the country no longer supports the government, I'd like to avoid that in this country, if it were up to me.

This is a greatly oversimplified explanation of the Egyptian revolution. Economic issues such as rampant unemployment and inflation affected more than just the poor and were only one of the various factors at stake. The autocratic rule of Hosni Mubarak, the lack of free speech and democratic process, and governmental corruption and brutality was equally important. Egypt's situation isn't really a good comparison to the US.

It's not oversimplified, each of those factors is at play in the US, and that's exactly why I made the comparison.

We haven't reached the level Egypt had arrived at (yet), but that's unarguably the direction in which we're headed.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 17, 2011, 11:35:15 AM

Quote from: Tacachale on September 17, 2011, 11:28:53 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 16, 2011, 08:00:51 PM

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 16, 2011, 06:48:00 PM
Say what you want.  IMO, it's not the disparity, it's the living conditions of the un-wealthy.  We provide assistance because their own gov'ts won't. 

Here is a different situation (today).  There may be a huge disparity between the top 5% and the bottom 30%, but the bottom 30 don't have it nearly as bad as the bottom 60% in other countries.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is collectively, it doesn't matter if the top 5% control 90% of the wealth in this country, it doesn't matter as long as 80% of  the bottom 30% still have cable television, a car and disposable income.

It's not the point I'm making, it's that these guys were all over CNN talking about how the wealth gap and impoverished living conditions in Egypt caused the revolution. You know, I guess at some point NRW, the proletariat needs to be able to buy that T.V. or whatever have you, when they want it. Life's short, and if most of your population spends it toiling away to enrich a select few people without adequate renumeration, then you're going to have trouble maintaining an orderly society.

Whether you want to maintain an orderly society is really the question. This orgasmic vision the Republicans and Libertarians have of everyone living in a slum fending for themselves, generally except (naturally) for them, won't actually come to pass. It never does. The result is normally revolution. This doesn't work out, you know. Money instantly becomes meaningless when a majority of the country no longer supports the government, I'd like to avoid that in this country, if it were up to me.

This is a greatly oversimplified explanation of the Egyptian revolution. Economic issues such as rampant unemployment and inflation affected more than just the poor and were only one of the various factors at stake. The autocratic rule of Hosni Mubarak, the lack of free speech and democratic process, and governmental corruption and brutality was equally important. Egypt's situation isn't really a good comparison to the US.

It's not oversimplified, each of those factors is at play in the US, and that's exactly why I made the comparison.

We haven't reached the level Egypt had arrived at (yet), but that's unarguably the direction in which we're headed.

It is oversimplified, because the Egyptian revolution wasn't caused by economic disparity. That was one factor among many, including many factors that aren't in place in the US. In fact, Egypt probably has less economic desparity than the US.

Quote from: Tacachale on September 17, 2011, 11:59:45 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 17, 2011, 11:35:15 AM

Quote from: Tacachale on September 17, 2011, 11:28:53 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 16, 2011, 08:00:51 PM

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 16, 2011, 06:48:00 PM
Say what you want.  IMO, it's not the disparity, it's the living conditions of the un-wealthy.  We provide assistance because their own gov'ts won't. 

Here is a different situation (today).  There may be a huge disparity between the top 5% and the bottom 30%, but the bottom 30 don't have it nearly as bad as the bottom 60% in other countries.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is collectively, it doesn't matter if the top 5% control 90% of the wealth in this country, it doesn't matter as long as 80% of  the bottom 30% still have cable television, a car and disposable income.

It's not the point I'm making, it's that these guys were all over CNN talking about how the wealth gap and impoverished living conditions in Egypt caused the revolution. You know, I guess at some point NRW, the proletariat needs to be able to buy that T.V. or whatever have you, when they want it. Life's short, and if most of your population spends it toiling away to enrich a select few people without adequate renumeration, then you're going to have trouble maintaining an orderly society.

Whether you want to maintain an orderly society is really the question. This orgasmic vision the Republicans and Libertarians have of everyone living in a slum fending for themselves, generally except (naturally) for them, won't actually come to pass. It never does. The result is normally revolution. This doesn't work out, you know. Money instantly becomes meaningless when a majority of the country no longer supports the government, I'd like to avoid that in this country, if it were up to me.

This is a greatly oversimplified explanation of the Egyptian revolution. Economic issues such as rampant unemployment and inflation affected more than just the poor and were only one of the various factors at stake. The autocratic rule of Hosni Mubarak, the lack of free speech and democratic process, and governmental corruption and brutality was equally important. Egypt's situation isn't really a good comparison to the US.

It's not oversimplified, each of those factors is at play in the US, and that's exactly why I made the comparison.

We haven't reached the level Egypt had arrived at (yet), but that's unarguably the direction in which we're headed.

It is oversimplified, because the Egyptian revolution wasn't caused by economic disparity. That was one factor among many, including many factors that aren't in place in the US. In fact, Egypt probably has less economic desparity than the US.

I'd like to see some figures supporting your theory that pre-revolutionary Egypt had a lesser wealth disparity than the U.S.

FWIW, my earlier comment is correct, your political views notwithstanding.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 17, 2011, 12:02:17 PM

Quote from: Tacachale on September 17, 2011, 11:59:45 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 17, 2011, 11:35:15 AM

Quote from: Tacachale on September 17, 2011, 11:28:53 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 16, 2011, 08:00:51 PM

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 16, 2011, 06:48:00 PM
Say what you want.  IMO, it's not the disparity, it's the living conditions of the un-wealthy.  We provide assistance because their own gov'ts won't. 

Here is a different situation (today).  There may be a huge disparity between the top 5% and the bottom 30%, but the bottom 30 don't have it nearly as bad as the bottom 60% in other countries.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is collectively, it doesn't matter if the top 5% control 90% of the wealth in this country, it doesn't matter as long as 80% of  the bottom 30% still have cable television, a car and disposable income.

It's not the point I'm making, it's that these guys were all over CNN talking about how the wealth gap and impoverished living conditions in Egypt caused the revolution. You know, I guess at some point NRW, the proletariat needs to be able to buy that T.V. or whatever have you, when they want it. Life's short, and if most of your population spends it toiling away to enrich a select few people without adequate renumeration, then you're going to have trouble maintaining an orderly society.

Whether you want to maintain an orderly society is really the question. This orgasmic vision the Republicans and Libertarians have of everyone living in a slum fending for themselves, generally except (naturally) for them, won't actually come to pass. It never does. The result is normally revolution. This doesn't work out, you know. Money instantly becomes meaningless when a majority of the country no longer supports the government, I'd like to avoid that in this country, if it were up to me.

This is a greatly oversimplified explanation of the Egyptian revolution. Economic issues such as rampant unemployment and inflation affected more than just the poor and were only one of the various factors at stake. The autocratic rule of Hosni Mubarak, the lack of free speech and democratic process, and governmental corruption and brutality was equally important. Egypt's situation isn't really a good comparison to the US.

It's not oversimplified, each of those factors is at play in the US, and that's exactly why I made the comparison.

We haven't reached the level Egypt had arrived at (yet), but that's unarguably the direction in which we're headed.

It is oversimplified, because the Egyptian revolution wasn't caused by economic disparity. That was one factor among many, including many factors that aren't in place in the US. In fact, Egypt probably has less economic desparity than the US.

I'd like to see some figures supporting your theory that pre-revolutionary Egypt had a lesser wealth disparity than the U.S.

FWIW, my earlier comment is correct, your political views notwithstanding.

On the Gini Index, which rates disparity in family income from 0-100, Egypt rated 34.4 in 2001, compared to the U.S., which rated 40.8 in 1997 and rose to 45 in 2007. I got these numbers from the CIA World Factbook.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.html

And you can check virtually any news sources for analyses of the factors behind the revolution.

I do agree with you on one thing - it's clear we're heading towards more economic disparity in the U.S., and have been for decades.

Quote from: Tacachale on September 17, 2011, 12:13:43 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 17, 2011, 12:02:17 PM

Quote from: Tacachale on September 17, 2011, 11:59:45 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 17, 2011, 11:35:15 AM

Quote from: Tacachale on September 17, 2011, 11:28:53 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 16, 2011, 08:00:51 PM

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 16, 2011, 06:48:00 PM
Say what you want.  IMO, it's not the disparity, it's the living conditions of the un-wealthy.  We provide assistance because their own gov'ts won't. 

Here is a different situation (today).  There may be a huge disparity between the top 5% and the bottom 30%, but the bottom 30 don't have it nearly as bad as the bottom 60% in other countries.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is collectively, it doesn't matter if the top 5% control 90% of the wealth in this country, it doesn't matter as long as 80% of  the bottom 30% still have cable television, a car and disposable income.

It's not the point I'm making, it's that these guys were all over CNN talking about how the wealth gap and impoverished living conditions in Egypt caused the revolution. You know, I guess at some point NRW, the proletariat needs to be able to buy that T.V. or whatever have you, when they want it. Life's short, and if most of your population spends it toiling away to enrich a select few people without adequate renumeration, then you're going to have trouble maintaining an orderly society.

Whether you want to maintain an orderly society is really the question. This orgasmic vision the Republicans and Libertarians have of everyone living in a slum fending for themselves, generally except (naturally) for them, won't actually come to pass. It never does. The result is normally revolution. This doesn't work out, you know. Money instantly becomes meaningless when a majority of the country no longer supports the government, I'd like to avoid that in this country, if it were up to me.

This is a greatly oversimplified explanation of the Egyptian revolution. Economic issues such as rampant unemployment and inflation affected more than just the poor and were only one of the various factors at stake. The autocratic rule of Hosni Mubarak, the lack of free speech and democratic process, and governmental corruption and brutality was equally important. Egypt's situation isn't really a good comparison to the US.

It's not oversimplified, each of those factors is at play in the US, and that's exactly why I made the comparison.

We haven't reached the level Egypt had arrived at (yet), but that's unarguably the direction in which we're headed.

It is oversimplified, because the Egyptian revolution wasn't caused by economic disparity. That was one factor among many, including many factors that aren't in place in the US. In fact, Egypt probably has less economic desparity than the US.

I'd like to see some figures supporting your theory that pre-revolutionary Egypt had a lesser wealth disparity than the U.S.

FWIW, my earlier comment is correct, your political views notwithstanding.

On the Gini Index, which rates disparity in family income from 0-100, Egypt rated 34.4 in 2001, compared to the U.S., which rated 40.8 in 1997 and rose to 45 in 2007. I got these numbers from the CIA World Factbook.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.html

And you can check virtually any news sources for analyses of the factors behind the revolution.

I do agree with you on one thing - it's clear we're heading towards more economic disparity in the U.S., and have been for decades.

Your link contains data for Egypt that is 11 years old, and even the U.S. data is still 5 years old. I don't suppose you're going to argue that nothing has happened economically in that time frame that would change the look of that data?

We have had this little global depression thing going on, you know. A lot changes in the middle east in 11 years.

Specifically, you don't believe the spike in oil prices since 2001 would have created a large wealth disparity?

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 17, 2011, 12:25:21 PM

Quote from: Tacachale on September 17, 2011, 12:13:43 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 17, 2011, 12:02:17 PM

Quote from: Tacachale on September 17, 2011, 11:59:45 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 17, 2011, 11:35:15 AM

Quote from: Tacachale on September 17, 2011, 11:28:53 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 16, 2011, 08:00:51 PM

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 16, 2011, 06:48:00 PM
Say what you want.  IMO, it's not the disparity, it's the living conditions of the un-wealthy.  We provide assistance because their own gov'ts won't. 

Here is a different situation (today).  There may be a huge disparity between the top 5% and the bottom 30%, but the bottom 30 don't have it nearly as bad as the bottom 60% in other countries.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is collectively, it doesn't matter if the top 5% control 90% of the wealth in this country, it doesn't matter as long as 80% of  the bottom 30% still have cable television, a car and disposable income.

It's not the point I'm making, it's that these guys were all over CNN talking about how the wealth gap and impoverished living conditions in Egypt caused the revolution. You know, I guess at some point NRW, the proletariat needs to be able to buy that T.V. or whatever have you, when they want it. Life's short, and if most of your population spends it toiling away to enrich a select few people without adequate renumeration, then you're going to have trouble maintaining an orderly society.

Whether you want to maintain an orderly society is really the question. This orgasmic vision the Republicans and Libertarians have of everyone living in a slum fending for themselves, generally except (naturally) for them, won't actually come to pass. It never does. The result is normally revolution. This doesn't work out, you know. Money instantly becomes meaningless when a majority of the country no longer supports the government, I'd like to avoid that in this country, if it were up to me.

This is a greatly oversimplified explanation of the Egyptian revolution. Economic issues such as rampant unemployment and inflation affected more than just the poor and were only one of the various factors at stake. The autocratic rule of Hosni Mubarak, the lack of free speech and democratic process, and governmental corruption and brutality was equally important. Egypt's situation isn't really a good comparison to the US.

It's not oversimplified, each of those factors is at play in the US, and that's exactly why I made the comparison.

We haven't reached the level Egypt had arrived at (yet), but that's unarguably the direction in which we're headed.

It is oversimplified, because the Egyptian revolution wasn't caused by economic disparity. That was one factor among many, including many factors that aren't in place in the US. In fact, Egypt probably has less economic desparity than the US.

I'd like to see some figures supporting your theory that pre-revolutionary Egypt had a lesser wealth disparity than the U.S.

FWIW, my earlier comment is correct, your political views notwithstanding.

On the Gini Index, which rates disparity in family income from 0-100, Egypt rated 34.4 in 2001, compared to the U.S., which rated 40.8 in 1997 and rose to 45 in 2007. I got these numbers from the CIA World Factbook.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.html

And you can check virtually any news sources for analyses of the factors behind the revolution.

I do agree with you on one thing - it's clear we're heading towards more economic disparity in the U.S., and have been for decades.

Your link contains data for Egypt that is 11 years old, and even the U.S. data is still 5 years old. I don't suppose you're going to argue that nothing has happened economically in that time frame that would change the look of that data?

We have had this little global depression thing going on, you know. A lot changes in the middle east in 11 years.

Specifically, you don't believe the spike in oil prices since 2001 would have created a large wealth disparity?

Hence why I said "probably", though these do appear to be the best available figures. Egypt's income disparity has probably grown significantly over the last ten years, but I doubt it was at a pace that would not only overtake the US (where it has also grown significantly) but put them at a point that it caused a revolution in and of itself. Like I said, there was a lot more at play in Egypt than just this.

Quote from: Tacachale on September 18, 2011, 10:53:29 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 17, 2011, 12:25:21 PM

Quote from: Tacachale on September 17, 2011, 12:13:43 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 17, 2011, 12:02:17 PM

Quote from: Tacachale on September 17, 2011, 11:59:45 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 17, 2011, 11:35:15 AM

Quote from: Tacachale on September 17, 2011, 11:28:53 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 16, 2011, 08:00:51 PM

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 16, 2011, 06:48:00 PM
Say what you want.  IMO, it's not the disparity, it's the living conditions of the un-wealthy.  We provide assistance because their own gov'ts won't. 

Here is a different situation (today).  There may be a huge disparity between the top 5% and the bottom 30%, but the bottom 30 don't have it nearly as bad as the bottom 60% in other countries.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is collectively, it doesn't matter if the top 5% control 90% of the wealth in this country, it doesn't matter as long as 80% of  the bottom 30% still have cable television, a car and disposable income.

It's not the point I'm making, it's that these guys were all over CNN talking about how the wealth gap and impoverished living conditions in Egypt caused the revolution. You know, I guess at some point NRW, the proletariat needs to be able to buy that T.V. or whatever have you, when they want it. Life's short, and if most of your population spends it toiling away to enrich a select few people without adequate renumeration, then you're going to have trouble maintaining an orderly society.

Whether you want to maintain an orderly society is really the question. This orgasmic vision the Republicans and Libertarians have of everyone living in a slum fending for themselves, generally except (naturally) for them, won't actually come to pass. It never does. The result is normally revolution. This doesn't work out, you know. Money instantly becomes meaningless when a majority of the country no longer supports the government, I'd like to avoid that in this country, if it were up to me.

This is a greatly oversimplified explanation of the Egyptian revolution. Economic issues such as rampant unemployment and inflation affected more than just the poor and were only one of the various factors at stake. The autocratic rule of Hosni Mubarak, the lack of free speech and democratic process, and governmental corruption and brutality was equally important. Egypt's situation isn't really a good comparison to the US.

It's not oversimplified, each of those factors is at play in the US, and that's exactly why I made the comparison.

We haven't reached the level Egypt had arrived at (yet), but that's unarguably the direction in which we're headed.

It is oversimplified, because the Egyptian revolution wasn't caused by economic disparity. That was one factor among many, including many factors that aren't in place in the US. In fact, Egypt probably has less economic desparity than the US.

I'd like to see some figures supporting your theory that pre-revolutionary Egypt had a lesser wealth disparity than the U.S.

FWIW, my earlier comment is correct, your political views notwithstanding.

On the Gini Index, which rates disparity in family income from 0-100, Egypt rated 34.4 in 2001, compared to the U.S., which rated 40.8 in 1997 and rose to 45 in 2007. I got these numbers from the CIA World Factbook.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.html

And you can check virtually any news sources for analyses of the factors behind the revolution.

I do agree with you on one thing - it's clear we're heading towards more economic disparity in the U.S., and have been for decades.

Your link contains data for Egypt that is 11 years old, and even the U.S. data is still 5 years old. I don't suppose you're going to argue that nothing has happened economically in that time frame that would change the look of that data?

We have had this little global depression thing going on, you know. A lot changes in the middle east in 11 years.

Specifically, you don't believe the spike in oil prices since 2001 would have created a large wealth disparity?

Hence why I said "probably", though these do appear to be the best available figures. Egypt's income disparity has probably grown significantly over the last ten years, but I doubt it was at a pace that would not only overtake the US (where it has also grown significantly) but put them at a point that it caused a revolution in and of itself. Like I said, there was a lot more at play in Egypt than just this.

It did, and that was the reason for the revolution.

Again, these guys were all over CNN naming that as the reason they were fighting. It doesn't get more horse's mouth.

I tend to doubt you have any statistics to support that assumption. And there were other guys also all over the news saying they were protesting because of police brutality, lack of freedom of speech, unemployment, rampant government corruption, etc. It's not as black and white as you're making it.

Quote from: Tacachale on September 18, 2011, 12:03:31 PM
I tend to doubt you have any statistics to support that assumption. And there were other guys also all over the news saying they were protesting because of police brutality, lack of freedom of speech, unemployment, rampant government corruption, etc. It's not as black and white as you're making it.

Who's talking statistics?

I'm sure you saw all the same news interviews as I did, with the rebels running around with guns describing why they were fighting, and wealth disparities and poverty topped the list every time. Are you saying the rebels lied about why they revolted against their own government? I mean, let's remember everything we learned in college here. We're talking primary sources vs. secondary sources. You have a host of direct primary sources, and you're saying it's invalid because there is not (yet) any secondary source? That's kind of ridiculous, really. Someone tells you why they did what they did, and you're going to wait for some other random person to put it in graph format before you'll accept it? This is silly.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 20, 2011, 01:02:05 PM

Quote from: Tacachale on September 18, 2011, 12:03:31 PM
I tend to doubt you have any statistics to support that assumption. And there were other guys also all over the news saying they were protesting because of police brutality, lack of freedom of speech, unemployment, rampant government corruption, etc. It's not as black and white as you're making it.

Who's talking statistics?

I'm sure you saw all the same news interviews as I did, with the rebels running around with guns describing why they were fighting, and wealth disparities and poverty topped the list every time. Are you saying the rebels lied about why they revolted against their own government? I mean, let's remember everything we learned in college here. We're talking primary sources vs. secondary sources. You have a host of direct primary sources, and you're saying it's invalid because there is not (yet) any secondary source? That's kind of ridiculous, really. Someone tells you why they did what they did, and you're going to wait for some other random person to put it in graph format before you'll accept it?

Whatever you say, Chris.

I love it when people use terms like "revolution"... and "proletariat"...  8)

Quote from: Tacachale on September 20, 2011, 01:03:15 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 20, 2011, 01:02:05 PM

Quote from: Tacachale on September 18, 2011, 12:03:31 PM
I tend to doubt you have any statistics to support that assumption. And there were other guys also all over the news saying they were protesting because of police brutality, lack of freedom of speech, unemployment, rampant government corruption, etc. It's not as black and white as you're making it.

Who's talking statistics?

I'm sure you saw all the same news interviews as I did, with the rebels running around with guns describing why they were fighting, and wealth disparities and poverty topped the list every time. Are you saying the rebels lied about why they revolted against their own government? I mean, let's remember everything we learned in college here. We're talking primary sources vs. secondary sources. You have a host of direct primary sources, and you're saying it's invalid because there is not (yet) any secondary source? That's kind of ridiculous, really. Someone tells you why they did what they did, and you're going to wait for some other random person to put it in graph format before you'll accept it?

Whatever you say, Chris.

It's not what I said, it's what the people fighting the revolution which we were debating said. So my apologies if their stated reasons don't fit your foregone conclusion. Maybe you should fly over to tell them they're all wrong about things?

QuoteMiddle class income fell 7% in the last 10 years, to $49,445, a level not seen since 1996.

(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2011/09/21/news/economy/middle_class_income/chart-income.top.jpg)

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- It's official. The first decade of the 21st century will go down in the history books as a step back for the American middle class.

Last week, the government made gloomy headlines when it released the latest census report showing the poverty rate rose to a 17-year high. A whopping 46.2 million people (or 15.1% of the U.S. population) live in poverty and 49.9 million live without health insurance.

But the data also gave the first glimpse of what happened to middle-class incomes in the first decade of the millennium. While the earnings of middle-income Americans have barely budged since the mid 1970s, the new data showed that from 2000 to 2010, they actually regressed.
For American households in the middle of the pay scale, income fell to $49,445 last year, when adjusted for inflation, a level not seen since 1996.

And over the 10-year period, their income is down 7%.
"Economists talk about the lost decade in Japan. Well, with these 2010 data, we can confirm the lost decade for the American middle class," said Jared Bernstein, senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/21/news/economy/middle_class_income/index.htm

The Moral Question

Posted: 9/30/11 09:16 AM ET

We dodged another shut-down bullet, but only until November 18. That's when the next temporary bill to keep the government going runs out. House Republicans want more budget cuts as their price for another stopgap spending bill.

Among other items, Republicans are demanding major cuts in a nutrition program for low-income women and children. The appropriation bill the House passed June 16 would deny benefits to more than 700,000 eligible low-income women and young children next year.

What kind of country are we living in?

More than one in three families with young children is now living in poverty (37 percent, to be exact) according to a recent analysis of Census data by Northeastern University's Center for Labor Market Studies. That's the highest percent on record. The Agriculture Department says nearly one in four young children (23.6) lives in a family that had difficulty affording sufficient food at some point last year.

We're in the worst economy since the Great Depression -- with lower-income families and kids are bearing the worst of it -- and what are Republicans doing? Cutting programs Americans desperately need to get through it.

Medicaid is also under assault. Congressional Republicans want to reduce the federal contribution to Medicaid by $771 billion over next decade and shift more costs to states and low-income Americans.

It gets worse. Most federal programs to help children and lower-income families are in the so-called "non-defense discretionary" category of the federal budget. The congressional super-committee charged with coming up with $1.5 trillion of cuts eight weeks from now will almost certainly take a big whack at this category because it's the easiest to cut. Unlike entitlements, these programs depend on yearly appropriations.

Even if the super-committee doesn't agree (or even if they do, and Congress doesn't approve of their proposal) an automatic trigger will make huge cuts in domestic discretionary spending.

It gets even worse. Drastic cuts are already underway at the state and local levels. Since the fiscal year began in July, states no longer receive about $150 billion in federal stimulus money -- money that was used to fill gaps in state budgets over the last two years.

The result is a downward cascade of budget cuts -- from the federal government to state governments and then to local governments -- that are hurting most Americans but kids and lower-income families in particular.

So far this year, 23 states have reduced education spending. According to a survey of city finance officers released Tuesday by the National League of Cities, half of all American cities face cuts in state aid for education.

As housing values plummet, local property tax receipts are down. That means even less money for schools and local family services. So kids are getting larger class sizes, reduced school hours, shorter school weeks, cuts in pre-Kindergarten programs (Texas has eliminated pre-Kindergarten for 100,000 children), even charges for textbooks and extra-curricular activities.

Meanwhile the size of America's school-age population keeps growing notwithstanding. Between now and 2015, an additional 2 million kids are expected to show up in our schools.

Local family services are being cut or terminated. Tens of thousands of social workers have been laid off. Cities and counties are reducing or eliminating their contributions to Head Start, which provides early childhood education to the children of low-income parents.

All this would be bad enough if the economy were functioning normally. For these cuts to happen now is morally indefensible.

Yet Republicans won't consider increasing taxes on the rich to pay for what's needed -- even though the wealthiest members of our society are richer than ever, taking home a bigger slice of total income and wealth than in seventy-five years, and paying the lowest tax rates in three decades.

The president's modest proposals to raise taxes on the rich -- limiting their tax deductions, ending the Bush tax cut for incomes over $250,000, and making sure the rich pay at the same rate as average Americans - don't come close to paying for what American families need.

Marginal tax rates should be raised at the top, and more tax brackets should be added for incomes over $500,000, over $1,500,000, over $5 million. The capital gains tax should be as high as that on ordinary income.

Wealth over $7.2 million should be subject to a 2 percent surtax. After all, the top one half of 1 percent now owns over 28 percent of the nation's total wealth. Such a tax on them would yield $70 billion a year. According to an analysis by Yale's Bruce Ackerman and Anne Alstott, that would generate at least half of $1.5 trillion deficit-reduction target over ten years set for the super committee.

Another way to raise money would be through a tiny tax (one-half of one percent) tax on financial transactions. This would generate $200 billion a year, and hardly disturb Wall Street's casino at all. (The European Commission is about to unveil such a tax there.)

All this can be done, but only if Americans understand what's really at stake here.

When Republicans recently charged the president with promoting "class warfare," he answered it was "just math." But it's more than math. It's a matter of morality.

Republicans have posed the deepest moral question of any society: whether we're all in it together. Their answer is we're not.

President Obama should proclaim, loudly and clearly, we are.


Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future, now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/repbulicans-stop-gap-budget-cuts-_b_988640.html

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 17, 2011, 11:35:15 AM

Quote from: Tacachale on September 17, 2011, 11:28:53 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 16, 2011, 08:00:51 PM

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 16, 2011, 06:48:00 PM
Say what you want.  IMO, it's not the disparity, it's the living conditions of the un-wealthy.  We provide assistance because their own gov'ts won't. 

Here is a different situation (today).  There may be a huge disparity between the top 5% and the bottom 30%, but the bottom 30 don't have it nearly as bad as the bottom 60% in other countries.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is collectively, it doesn't matter if the top 5% control 90% of the wealth in this country, it doesn't matter as long as 80% of  the bottom 30% still have cable television, a car and disposable income.

It's not the point I'm making, it's that these guys were all over CNN talking about how the wealth gap and impoverished living conditions in Egypt caused the revolution. You know, I guess at some point NRW, the proletariat needs to be able to buy that T.V. or whatever have you, when they want it. Life's short, and if most of your population spends it toiling away to enrich a select few people without adequate renumeration, then you're going to have trouble maintaining an orderly society.

Whether you want to maintain an orderly society is really the question. This orgasmic vision the Republicans and Libertarians have of everyone living in a slum fending for themselves, generally except (naturally) for them, won't actually come to pass. It never does. The result is normally revolution. This doesn't work out, you know. Money instantly becomes meaningless when a majority of the country no longer supports the government, I'd like to avoid that in this country, if it were up to me.

This is a greatly oversimplified explanation of the Egyptian revolution. Economic issues such as rampant unemployment and inflation affected more than just the poor and were only one of the various factors at stake. The autocratic rule of Hosni Mubarak, the lack of free speech and democratic process, and governmental corruption and brutality was equally important. Egypt's situation isn't really a good comparison to the US.

It's not oversimplified, each of those factors is at play in the US, and that's exactly why I made the comparison.

We haven't reached the level Egypt had arrived at (yet), but that's unarguably the direction in which we're headed.

Yup Chris, and our response is already being compared to what went on in Cairo and Athens!

Occupy Wall Street protesters driven by varying goals
Almost two weeks into an anti-greed sit-in, the 'leaderless resistance movement' is at a crossroads.

Day 13 of Occupy Wall Street begins with a march through the streets of Lower Manhattan around the time the opening bell rings on the stock exchange. (Carolyn Cole, Los Angeles Times / September 30, 2011)


Women on Wall Street: Small group at the top gets smaller


By Tina Susman, Los Angeles Times

September 29, 2011, 5:48 p.m.
Reporting from New Yorkâ€" Michael Moore and Susan Sarandon have dropped in. A seasoned diplomat dispenses free advice. Supporters send everything from boxes of food and clothes to Whole Foods gift cards. They even have their own app, for the legions of fans following them on iPhones and Androids.

Nearly two weeks into a sit-in at a park in Manhattan's financial district, the "leaderless resistance movement" calling itself Occupy Wall Street is at a crossroads. The number of protesters on scene so far tops out at a few hundred, tiny by Athens or Cairo standards. But the traction they have gained from run-ins with police, a live feed from their encampment and celebrity visits is upping expectations. How about some specific demands, a long-term strategy, maybe even … office space?

So far the group, which generally defines itself as anti-greed, has none of those.

"At a certain point, there's a valid criticism in people asking, 'What are you doing here?'" protester Chris Biemer, 23, said on Wednesday, Day 11 of the demonstration. In an exchange that illuminated one of the dilemmas that any movement for change faces in trying to sustain momentum, Biemer and protester Victoria Sobel made it clear they had different visions for Occupy Wall Street.

Biemer, who recently moved to New York from Florida with a degree in business administration, says that ideally the group should team up with a nonprofit organization and get office space.

"It's possible to stay here for months or longer, but at some point we're going to become a fixture," he said of their home in Zuccotti Park, a privately owned, publicly accessible plaza dotted with trees and flower beds about midway between the Stock Exchange and the former World Trade Center site.

Sobel, who like Biemer serves on Occupy Wall Street's finance committee, disagrees and said the group's strength lies in its ability to remain highly visible and in a place where anyone can visit and participate. The 21-year-old New York University student happily reported Wednesday that bookshelves had been delivered to the UPS store where the group receives mail. They'll sit beneath a tarp in the park, all part of Sobel's vision to solidify the group's foothold.

"It's a moment of clarifying for us," Sobel said, confident that as autumn's chill turns to winter's subfreezing temperatures, Occupy Wall Street will stay put. "We'll layer," she said with a laugh, when asked how they'll manage the cold.

The protest, which evolved from a network of individuals and groups galvanized by the demonstrations in Egypt last winter, has moved far beyond what it was on Sept. 17, when police barricaded the streets outside the Stock Exchange to prevent a march there to protest corporate greed.

A map in Zuccotti Park pinpoints scores of other cities with Occupy Wall Street events either underway or planned, including sit-ins planned for Los Angeles on Saturday and Washington on Oct. 6.

But its proximity to the real Wall Street and its series of high-profile visitors have made the New York protest the focal point. So have inflammatory videos posted online that show a New York police officer using pepper spray on some protesters last Saturday.

Now, its settlement has gelled into an organized community that hums along almost Zen-like, coexisting with the city that rages around it and ignored by many either too busy or too uninterested to stop. Harried commuters seem to barely notice the mishmash of humanity a few feet away as they rush down the sidewalks skirting the park.

Tourists stroll in to snap pictures and read the protest signs scattered across the ground, then wander off to their next sightseeing stop. Executives drop in on lunch breaks to talk politics and economics. Police hang back on the sidewalks, and follow along when groups of protesters stage marches.

Protest numbers vary as people drift in and out of the park. Some live in the area and come by for a few hours each day or week. Others stay there around the clock, their sleeping bags, guitars and clothing bundles spread on the ground. On Wednesday, they included a sleepy-eyed young man in a rumpled T-shirt cuddling a pet rat, and a woman who pranced about in her underwear.

There are committees, including one for finance, food and comfort, which ensures that anyone who needs blankets, dry clothing or perhaps a hug gets it. There are twice-daily meetings called general assemblies, where anyone can make a brief announcement. The assemblies draw everyone together in a tight huddle. To avoid violating a ban on bullhorns, the crowd obediently repeats in unison every phrase uttered by the main speaker, to ensure everyone hears.

Each morning, protesters stage a "morning bell march" through the neighborhood, to coincide with the clanging at 9:30 a.m. of the bell that marks the start of trading at the Stock Exchange. Most days, a "closing bell" march also takes place in the afternoon.

On its website, Occupy Wall Street describes itself as a "leaderless resistance movement" drawn from people of all backgrounds and political persuasions.

"The one thing we all have in common is that we are the 99 percent that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1 percent," the website says. The posters in Zuccotti Park speak to the lack of a narrow platform: "End financial aid to Israel"; "End greed, end poverty, end war"; "No death penalty"; "Tired of racism."

Some supporters of the premise wonder how far Occupy Wall Street can go in galvanizing others if it does not translate its anger into specific demands.

"I see something beautiful here. I've never had a more interesting political debate," said Carne Ross, a former British diplomat who resigned in protest over the invasion of Iraq, and who now owns a consulting business in New York. But Ross, who stops by regularly to advise Occupy Wall Street, said it needs "far broader outreach" and a narrower message.

"They need to get a message to people who can't be here," Ross said.

"I'd prefer to see a list of demands," one fan wrote on the Occupation Wall Street Facebook page, echoing the concerns of a woman who tweeted something similar to Moore as he did his MSNBC interview. She asked for "some specific, tangible goals."

Michael T. Heaney, a University of Michigan political science professor who has studied social protest movements, said such groups often bump up against pressure to become more focused and to either build or join institutions that can support them.

"What you're talking about is a degree of buying into a political system," Heaney said. "But the more you use tactics that we recognize as getting you influence, the more you buy into the system, and the more you buy into the system, the more you open yourself up to compromise."

In Occupy Wall Street's case, Heaney said demands could be as vague as simply calling for financial bailout programs to apply to individuals rather than banks.

Most of those in Zuccotti Park, though, don't see the need for a change in tactics. At least not yet.

"There isn't a consolidated message, and I don't think there needs to be," said Andrew Lynn, 34, who drove the three hours from his home in Troy, N.Y., to help the demonstrators' media team.

On Wednesday, he hunched over a laptop sheltered from the clammy air by an umbrella. A generator rumbled beside him, ensuring the group's activities continued to stream live to audiences.

Added Kobi Skolnick, a young Israeli American who by Wednesday was in his ninth day of participating in the protest: "I think the main thing we're doing is knocking on the walls of ignorance in this country so people wake up."

tina.susman@latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-wall-street-protest-20110930,0,6859500.story

Patriotic Millionaires Echo Occupy Wall Street


First Posted: 10/3/11 08:55 PM ET   Updated: 10/3/11 09:23 PM ET

At last week's Occupy Wall Street San Francisco protest, demonstrators gathered in the Financial District chanting, "Why is life a bitch? 'Cause we don't tax the rich." And according to Bay Area-founded Patriotic Millionaires, many of the rich agree.

Now a national organization, the Patriotic Millionaires is a group of super wealthy individuals urging the government to increase taxes on those with incomes over $1 million -- the very tax group they represent. Members are largely made up of successful alumni from start-ups like Google, Esprit and Aardvark, and argue that if the 375,000 Americans with incomes over $1 million were taxed more aggressively, the nation could maintain the federally funded programs that helped make them rich in the first place. The group also encourages the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts for the wealthy -- cuts that, the group points out, were never meant to be permanent, and are crippling the economy.

(SCROLL DOWN FOR PHOTOS AND VIDEO)

"I'm a millionaire," said member Dal LaMang, co-managing partner at IceStone, in a video interview posted on the group's website. "My government gave me student loans and I got a great education. Then the small business administration lent money to my company which then made me millions." LaMang argues that without crucial government loans, his success would never have been possible.

Ron Garret, a software engineer turned angel investor agrees. "Millionaires are not the cause of a robust economy," he said in another video interview. "They are the result of a robust economy." Garret argues that cutting crucial social projects and public services will stifle opportunities to create companies like the start-up he helped grow: Google.

Of course, the "Millionaires" are not without their critics. One of the most vocal opponents has been Utah Senator Orrin Hatch. In a letter to the Millionaires, Hatch called the proposed tax increase "a fool's errand," claiming that the money gained would barely scratch the surface of the nation's $14 trillion debt crisis.

However, according to the group's website, allowing the scheduled tax cuts expire as planned would pay down the national debt by $700 billion. And while the figure is no solution, the Millionaires argue that it's certainly a start.

The Millionaires also argue that Hatch is missing the point.

"There are thousands and thousands and thousands of very well off people with very high incomes whose effective tax rate is substantially below the middle class, the lower middle class and lower wage earners," said Dennis Mehiel, Chairman of US Corrugated Inc. "There's a fundamental inequity and it contradicts the progressive nature of our internal revenue code and our tax policies over generations in this country." For Mehiel, the proposed plan is as much about creating a level playing field as it is about alleviating debt.

Mehiel's argument is especially sensitive this week, as it echoes those on the signs marching down California street in San Francisco -- and the ones in New York, and in Boston, and in Los Angeles...


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/03/patriotic-millionaires-occupy-wall-street_n_993360.html

Even if you could convince me that this would make much of a difference... the article denotes "rich" as 1 million in income... pretty sure the Obama gang defines it as 250k. 

You guys talk about the the taxes of the "super rich"... but the target is clearly on the large number of folks beginning at 250k... they certainly do not qualify to join the "Patriotic Millionaires" club...

Quote from: BridgeTroll on October 04, 2011, 07:33:49 AM
Even if you could convince me that this would make much of a difference... the article denotes "rich" as 1 million in income... pretty sure the Obama gang defines it as 250k. 

You guys talk about the the taxes of the "super rich"... but the target is clearly on the large number of folks beginning at 250k... they certainly do not qualify to join the "Patriotic Millionaires" club...

BT, the "rich" are quite uniformly denoted as 1 million in income.

What most folks want though is a roll back of the Bush tax cuts for incomes of $250 and uo, which unfortunately was implement right before we started waging two wars on the Nation's credit card.

Two different issues, that both need to be adressed.

Taxes are the price we pay to succeed in a civilized and stable nation. It is the patriotic duty of the rich to pay for the wars rather than put them on our nation's credit card.

The poor already pay for the war with their lives, as joining the military often seems like their only option of getting out of their misery of flipping burgers.

Hmmm... not sure about that.  There seems to be quite a few interchangeable and and moving targets of "rich".

Rich = 250k+
Super rich = 1 mill +
uber/ultra rich = 100 mill +

What if a millionaire no longer has income?

Quote from: BridgeTroll on October 04, 2011, 07:58:14 AM
Hmmm... not sure about that.  There seems to be quite a few interchangeable and and moving targets of "rich".

Rich = 250k+
Super rich = 1 mill +
uber/ultra rich = 100 mill +

What if a millionaire no longer has income?

So most people talk about the uber-rich not paying their share, and the over $250 folks needing their Bush tax cuts be rolled back. Two distinct groups.

The Bush tax cuts were supposed to be temporary, and the uber-rich need to start paying their share.

For every 3 jobs that produce something, there is one job that keeps the lid on, yet our security personel are under-paid.

You don't get to make or keep your wealth in an unstable society. Taxes are the price you pay for a civilized society that enables you to:

1. Make the wealth
2. Keep the wealth

Nobody ever makes their wealth in a vacuum.

Complain, complain, complain.....you want to surpass the Republicans? Get your people educated to where they can stand on their own without having to rely on the Government. Can't keep running up debts with spend, spend, spend mentality, so get educated, get out and build a business and see what building something on your own can be like. Tax cuts are a drop in the bucket if just 5% of unemployed went back to school to get educated in some growth area of the economy. Kids stay in school, go to a college, get loans from Government for education, it is a great cycle and could be a great economy once again, but you have to get up off the coach and decide you WANT to do it.

Quote from: mtraininjax on October 04, 2011, 11:03:22 AM
Complain, complain, complain.....you want to surpass the Republicans? Get your people educated to where they can stand on their own without having to rely on the Government. Can't keep running up debts with spend, spend, spend mentality, so get educated, get out and build a business and see what building something on your own can be like. Tax cuts are a drop in the bucket if just 5% of unemployed went back to school to get educated in some growth area of the economy. Kids stay in school, go to a college, get loans from Government for education, it is a great cycle and could be a great economy once again, but you have to get up off the coach and decide you WANT to do it.

Mtrain are you sure mass numbers of people accumulation debt via student loans is a good cycle?

QuoteMtrain are you sure mass numbers of people accumulation debt via student loans is a good cycle?

Sure, why not? Education loans are different than property loans. If you default on your property loan, you lose your house, but if you default on an education loan, you still have the knowledge you gained and the degree to go with you through life.

Plus the government has more money available, easier to get to for student loans than property loans. I am a huge proponent for higher education, we need more people pushing the envelope in tech, medicine, our way of life, and you cannot do that while you are sitting on the sofa, watching Oprah reruns and happy you are on Medicare. Cause soon, your health will deteriorate, and we will all end up paying for bad health. It will break our country, if it continues.

Quote from: mtraininjax on October 04, 2011, 11:30:44 AM

QuoteMtrain are you sure mass numbers of people accumulation debt via student loans is a good cycle?

Sure, why not? Education loans are different than property loans. If you default on your property loan, you lose your house, but if you default on an education loan, you still have the knowledge you gained and the degree to go with you through life.

Plus the government has more money available, easier to get to for student loans than property loans. I am a huge proponent for higher education, we need more people pushing the envelope in tech, medicine, our way of life, and you cannot do that while you are sitting on the sofa, watching Oprah reruns and happy you are on Medicare. Cause soon, your health will deteriorate, and we will all end up paying for bad health. It will break our country, if it continues.

From that perspective that debt makes more sense.

QuoteFrom that perspective that debt makes more sense.

Manasia- I hate debt, but sometimes, you need to use the resources available to you to get a leg up on society. I'd much rather see National Debt created to re-invest in the people of the nation, because I know what we put into the debt, we will get back 100x greater in the output of the citizens who are educated.

Quote from: mtraininjax on October 04, 2011, 11:36:12 AM

QuoteFrom that perspective that debt makes more sense.

Manasia- I hate debt, but sometimes, you need to use the resources available to you to get a leg up on society. I'd much rather see National Debt created to re-invest in the people of the nation, because I know what we put into the debt, we will get back 100x greater in the output of the citizens who are educated.

That is not a bad idea.

Quote from: FayeforCure on October 04, 2011, 09:27:52 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on October 04, 2011, 07:58:14 AM
Hmmm... not sure about that.  There seems to be quite a few interchangeable and and moving targets of "rich".

Rich = 250k+
Super rich = 1 mill +
uber/ultra rich = 100 mill +

What if a millionaire no longer has income?

So most people talk about the uber-rich not paying their share, and the over $250 folks needing their Bush tax cuts be rolled back. Two distinct groups.

The Bush tax cuts were supposed to be temporary, and the uber-rich need to start paying their share.

For every 3 jobs that produce something, there is one job that keeps the lid on, yet our security personel are under-paid.

You don't get to make or keep your wealth in an unstable society. Taxes are the price you pay for a civilized society that enables you to:

1. Make the wealth
2. Keep the wealth

Nobody ever makes their wealth in a vacuum.

QuoteThe Bush tax cuts were supposed to be temporary, and the uber-rich need to start paying their share.

Mr Obama had two full years of absolute majorities to fix that.  Instead... he extended them.

In fairness...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/04/majority-of-millionaires-tax-increases_n_994219.html

QuoteWASHINGTON (Reuters) - Less than a quarter of wealthy Americans support raising taxes on households making $250,000 or more a year, the level being targeted by President Barack Obama, though tax increases further up the income scale have broader support, said a poll released on Tuesday.

Nearly half of those polled approved of income tax increases on discretionary household incomes of $500,000 or more annually, said the poll sponsored by two marketing and publishing companies.

For those earning $1 million or more annually, 65 percent of respondents said they would support income tax increases.

Only 23 percent of respondents said they support tax increases for households making $250,000 a year.

The poll was conducted in September by the Harrison Group, a research and marketing firm, and American Express Publishing Corp., a media subsidiary of American Express Co. It surveyed 769 respondents with minimum discretionary income of $100,000.

Only 43 percent said tax increases would improve the overall economy, while confidence in the economy dropped from 50 percent in September 2010 to 33 percent this year.


The poll found 55 percent of those surveyed do not blame the Obama administration for economic woes.

Obama has called for tax cuts to expire for households earning $250,000 a year. The president is also looking to pass a new levy that would tax Americans earning $1 million or more a year to ensure they do not pay taxes in a lower bracket.

(Reporting by Patrick Temple-West, editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Gerald E. McCormick)

Quote from: mtraininjax on October 04, 2011, 11:03:22 AM
...stay in school, go to a college, get loans from Government for education, it is a great cycle and could be a great economy once again, but you have to get up off the coach and decide you WANT to do it.

Education does provide many individuals with a pathway out of poverty, but educating a workforce doesn’t change what jobs are available to society as a whole. Our economy produces more jobs that do not require degrees than jobs that do, and a college degree will not make those jobs pay any more than the pittance they already do. Barring radical changes in our economy, the vast majority of those extra college graduates will end up in jobs that don’t require degrees, and don’t pay.

Quote from: finehoe on October 04, 2011, 04:53:07 PM

Quote from: mtraininjax on October 04, 2011, 11:03:22 AM
...stay in school, go to a college, get loans from Government for education, it is a great cycle and could be a great economy once again, but you have to get up off the coach and decide you WANT to do it.

Education does provide many individuals with a pathway out of poverty, but educating a workforce doesn’t change what jobs are available to society as a whole. Our economy produces more jobs that do not require degrees than jobs that do, and a college degree will not make those jobs pay any more than the pittance they already do. Barring radical changes in our economy, the vast majority of those extra college graduates will end up in jobs that don’t require degrees, and don’t pay.

Also, you have to take into account the cost of higher education. Pre-1970s, it was quite expensive relative to most incomes, conscious efforts to make it more accessible and to have states subsidize college tuitions brought the price down to affordable levels. The percentage of college-educated adults in the U.S. is already completely woeful by European standards, only 22% have a bachelors degree. A stunning 2.94% of the population has a secondary professional degree.

So what's our solution to this problem? Especially as the entire rest of the world is overtaking us in innovation? Well, naturally, we are going in and removing tuition caps, eliminating state subsidies, etc., and allowing the cost of higher education to increase 600% in the last 10-15 years, with absolutely no end in sight.

If this keeps up at the pace it's going, we will be back to the 1950s and earlier, where education was a wealthy man's hobby and the rest of the country can just suck an egg. Which is a regression, and will hurt our ability to compete in the long run. I have read numerous articles in the WSJ and typical pro-business right-leaning publications, arguing that if anything there are too many people with higher education competing for too few positions, which is ludicrous and is a self-serving explanation that glosses over the economic crisis and the root causes, namely outsourcing and misbehavior.

We are rapidly getting back to where only the top layer of society will be able to afford it. This perpetuates the wealth gap.

Quote from: manasia on October 04, 2011, 11:22:06 AM

Quote from: mtraininjax on October 04, 2011, 11:03:22 AM
Complain, complain, complain.....you want to surpass the Republicans? Get your people educated to where they can stand on their own without having to rely on the Government. Can't keep running up debts with spend, spend, spend mentality, so get educated, get out and build a business and see what building something on your own can be like. Tax cuts are a drop in the bucket if just 5% of unemployed went back to school to get educated in some growth area of the economy. Kids stay in school, go to a college, get loans from Government for education, it is a great cycle and could be a great economy once again, but you have to get up off the coach and decide you WANT to do it.

Mtrain are you sure mass numbers of people accumulation debt via student loans is a good cycle?

manasia, it's actually an excellent cycle for the only high-growth sector in Jax: Private For-Profit Colleges.

Somebody is getting rich off of government loans, and private student debt............and it isn't the students who find themselves without jobs after completing their studies.

Currently roaming around in the western end of South Carolina and must make note of the empty business's all over the area's. I am wondering just what, if any, is growing at all. From my viewpoint, not many at all!

Quote from: finehoe on October 04, 2011, 04:53:07 PM

Quote from: mtraininjax on October 04, 2011, 11:03:22 AM
...stay in school, go to a college, get loans from Government for education, it is a great cycle and could be a great economy once again, but you have to get up off the coach and decide you WANT to do it.

Education does provide many individuals with a pathway out of poverty, but educating a workforce doesn’t change what jobs are available to society as a whole. Our economy produces more jobs that do not require degrees than jobs that do, and a college degree will not make those jobs pay any more than the pittance they already do. Barring radical changes in our economy, the vast majority of those extra college graduates will end up in jobs that don’t require degrees, and don’t pay.

Really??  What is our HS dropout rate?  How many of those are employable?

http://blackcareers.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/available-jobs-not-enough-skilled-workers/

QuoteAvailable Jobs, Not Enough Skilled Workers
Posted by Alex Barillas on April 21, 2010



Two years after the start of the recession, the unemployment rate is still near double digits, which translates to millions of Americans looking for work. For every open job, employers have dozens or even hundreds of applicants eager to get hired. Yet many employers insist that finding qualified candidates is difficult, even in this economy. How can that be?

These employers don’t have a shortage of applicants â€" they have a shortage of qualified applicants. For most positions, the necessary skills, experience and education requirements are firm and can’t be loosened because of a lack of suitable candidates. Bad economy or not, employers need to know their workers are the best possible people for the job.

A good worker is hard to find
“These jobs were difficult to fill prior to the economic downturn,” says Julian L. Alssid, executive director of the Workforce Strategy Center in New York. “Hopefully, they will be less difficult to fill as we move more toward a more demand-driven work-force development system in the  U.S. This means local employers working directly with community colleges, trade schools and other post-secondary institutions that help people gain skills that are in demand by employers.”

Education is an invaluable asset for any applicant, but as many job seekers can attest, it isn’t the only prerequisite for employment. When employers are choosing the right candidate for their organizations, they want to see years of experience and an education that isn’t outdated. As you can imagine, any worker who falls at extreme ends of the spectrum â€" such as a new graduate or an industry veteran â€" can be at a disadvantage. New graduates know the latest research and technology, but they don’t have the years of firsthand experience that employers value.

“We do hear employers complain that younger workers fresh out of school often lack a practical understanding of how to apply what they have learned in their classrooms to the workplace,” Alssid  says. “That said, we have heard from several experienced workers that they feel they are losing out on jobs to younger â€" less costly â€" candidates.”

Education matters
Don’t mistake a need for experience as a reason to dismiss education. The problem is that job seekers have to take responsibility for their education because many employers no longer have the time and budget to groom new hires.

“Employers seem to be less willing to invest in training in this economy. Again, it is the combination of the right credential and practical experience they look for,” Alssid says.

Take the initiative to improve your credentials so employers see a candidate they’re ready to hire now.

“Many job seekers can make themselves more competitive by getting industry-recognized credentials that are valued in today’s  workplace,” Alssid says. “In many cases, that might mean a short-term certificate, not another college or graduate degree.”

But many employers are ready to hire.
“We hear about the skills shortage from industries including health care, advanced manufacturing, IT and energy,” Alssid says. Although no specific job title is in constant need, any positions relying on math and technical expertise are consistently difficult to fill. “I have heard from several advanced manufacturers that they would hire engineers and engineering technicians in a heartbeat.”

Supporting his assessment is the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which expects biomedical engineers and network systems and data communications analysts to be the fastest-growing occupations between 2008 and 2018. As a result, job seekers who are applying to these fields and who have the qualifications need to put their experience and skills front and center. In the cover letter, résumé and interview, don’t let hiring managers forget that you already have the skills they need. After all, you are just one job seeker in a competitive market; show employers that you’re different from the rest.

Even Al Franken...

http://franken.senate.gov/?p=news&id=1168

QuoteSen. Franken Op-Ed: "Preparing Our Workforce for 21st Century Jobs"
Thursday, October 28, 2010 As our economy continues to recover, manufacturers across Minnesota are facing a surprising challenge.  Many good-paying manufacturing jobs in central Minnesota and across our state are going unfilled because there are not enough qualified employees to fill them.   That's tragic when so many people are out of work.

This week, as we celebrate "Minnesota Manufacturer's Week," we are not only reminded of the important role manufacturing will play in our state's economic recovery, but also of the need for industry leaders and policymakers to work together to ensure that we produce enough well-trained workers to allow employers to expand and innovate.

There is no disputing that manufacturing is critical to Minnesota's economic success.  It accounts for one in every seven jobs in our state.  In central Minnesota alone, 36,000 people-or 14 percent of the region's workforce-are employed in manufacturing.  They earn an average of $40,000, with some jobs paying as much as $94,000.

My son Joe recently went back to school to study engineering and business because since he started taking apart car engines in 8th grade, he's wanted to make things right here in America.   For him to succeed, his generation and the generations to follow will need the core tools and the training to prepare them for the 21st century economy.

Unfortunately, as the first baby boomers begin to retire next year, the number of well-trained entry-level workers to replace them could leave Minnesota employers tens of thousands of workers short.

The looming shortage of qualified workers is partly due to the outdated perceptions that many young people have about manufacturing jobs. Educators and employers around the state have told me that students often are unaware of manufacturing job opportunities and the skills they need to pursue them.

We can rekindle student interest by showing them that manufacturing is alive and well in Minnesota. The days of assembly line workers doing routine tasks in dirty factories are largely gone.  They've been replaced by workplaces that need tech-savvy employees who are trained to compete in a global marketplace.

I have visited manufacturers all over Minnesota and found that today's employers need workers with science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) skills who can quickly master multiple tasks, using high-tech machinery and tools.  They wince when they hear about education cuts and declining enrollment in our technical colleges.  Even cuts in high school Industrial Arts classes mean students are less exposed to manufacturing and the STEM skills that employers need.

Earlier this year, I toured Pine Technical College in Pine City, and was amazed at the high-tech education students need to prepare for manufacturing careers.  As I tried the school's computer simulators, I realized how dramatically manufacturing jobs have changed and how manufacturing represents a whole world of good-paying career opportunities for people with the right training.

As a member of the Senate's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, I know that arming students with the core STEM skills they need should be a central priority as we update federal education laws like "No Child Left Behind" in the coming months.

In Central Minnesota, manufacturers are proactively pointing students toward STEM careers by sponsoring student tours of local businesses.  And many high schools in the region have adopted Project Lead the Way, a curriculum which helps students develop STEM skills and get excited about technical careers.

During Minnesota Manufacturer's Week, our state should not only celebrate the strength of Minnesota's manufacturers, but also work to teach the next generation of workers that a career in manufacturing means a good-paying career in the jobs of the future.

People interested in a manufacturing career can learn more by visiting the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development's new website, www.MNManufacturingCareers.org.

The articles that I've read here keep referring back to 'manufacturing' jobs.  Maybe it's because I've been in my trade for so long that I don't really remember, but since when did it take an engineering degree to extrude plastics or machine metal or fabricate cabinet parts?  I've always believed that these are skills that you learn in either a trade school or on the job. 

What am I missing here?

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on October 05, 2011, 08:01:42 AM
The articles that I've read here keep referring back to 'manufacturing' jobs.  Maybe it's because I've been in my trade for so long that I don't really remember, but since when did it take an engineering degree to extrude plastics or machine metal or fabricate cabinet parts?  I've always believed that these are skills that you learn in either a trade school or on the job. 

What am I missing here?

+1 I have been saying the same thing.

It's easier and less messy for investors to go overseas for their manufacturing projects...no regulations..slave wages..who would'nt...the rules have to change...we are to blame for this bs...we want everything cheap as can be and then bitch because we don't make them...trade war sounds good about now does'nt it?

(http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/315740_259296307435415_100000651442523_809940_250611821_n.jpg)

I rarely agree with Al Franken on anything... but he seems to corroborate what Julian L. Alssid, executive director of the Workforce Strategy Center in New York is saying.  Plenty of recruiters and HR execs say the same thing...

"We have openings but few are qualified."

HS dropouts and GED grads are not EVER going to get hired for those jobs... without adult education.  Dropout rates vary between 10 and 35% depending on definitions and area.  They are likely to be doomed to poverty and no amount of "living wage" BS is gonna help because they are not employable.  Unless they go back to school...

What types of jobs are they referring to then?

Last I checked, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to build a rocket - it takes sheetmetal craftsmen and electricians and pipefitters, etc....  You don't learn these kinds of trades at a university. 

 

I am currently interviewing for a position where I work.  The requisition that the corporate office has put out for the job wants the candidate to have fifteen years experience (which is more than I, who will be this person's boss, have), yet the salary they are offering is about half of what I make.  The truth of the matter is, we could get a bright recent collage grad and train them for the position and everyone would be happy, but instead we get these over-qualified candidates who once they find out the pay, aren't interested.

So when I hear this line about "we can't find any qualified applicants" I think about what is going on in my own line of work and I can't help but wonder how many of these employers are doing the same thing:  Setting the qualification bar way too high, low-balling the salary, and then crying because they can't find anyone.

QuoteHS dropouts and GED grads are not EVER going to get hired for those jobs... without adult education.  Dropout rates vary between 10 and 35% depending on definitions and area.  They are likely to be doomed to poverty and no amount of "living wage" BS is gonna help because they are not employable.  Unless they go back to school...

+1