Nine Pictures of the Extreme Income/Wealth Gap

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

If as a child no one ever taught you how to make good decisions, then how do you suddenly learn how to do those things?

---

Well, you don't learn by receiving handouts. That just creates an entitlement mentality that will never motivate you to learn to do for yourself. My parents didn't teach me finance. I had to learn the hard way.

A new country was formed that, albeit imperfectly, rewarded those with talent and initiative, rather than strictly the class/family into which they were born.

Along the way the ills of the Old World infected this country.

I tend to agree with Yonivore that the American ethic, at least what vestiges remain, will preclude any permanent change in this distribution and that it will not change the underlying factors. Also, must we change this distribution, more to our liking? Personally, as it reflects the rewards to talent that create actual value to society, I say no.

But, as it reflects the rewards that accrue through gaming the political process and not the returns on productive enterprise and investments, sure. But let's change that through ending the gaming rather than some kind of heavy handed policy that impacts the incentives to invest and create.

As for the habits of the bottom 90%, sure, a lot of what people do is not conducive to building and creating wealth. Also, entrepreneurs are a different breed. The ability to take significant financial risks while providing for a family is not for everyone. Of course, consistent thrift, an avenue through which those in the bottom 90% can build some financial security, is not for everyone. And, of course, people have rotten luck.

Though being born into the upper 10% has no permanent guarantees. I've seen people blow through their inheritances. Perhaps more germane to this discussion, I've seen people who have grown up and been groomed to take over a secure family business fail miserably.

As far as public policy goes for the bottom 90%, I'd say it should be geared towards self-reliance and, yes, intellectualism. I'm thinking in particular of educational policy. The bastardized program we have now is ill-suited to preparing the majority of American students for the reality of life today. If you are going to throw people into a hyper-individualist, globalized society, then they need to be strong of mind and character, rather than ready to step into a job on an assembly line.

Quote:

---

If you have no money to save, and you don't make enough money to be considered worthy of a loan, how do you start a business?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

By modeling people who were once in your position and have risen out of it.

The vast majority of "poor" have made themselves that way through overspending, under saving, and impulsive poor choices.

I look at the vast majority of my friends -- some of whom make considerably more that I do -- who complain about being poor and living paycheck to paycheck.

I make slightly above that median income of $31,000, in the first graph at the link, and I have a fully funded emergency fund, an investment portfolio, retirement savings, growing college fund for my kids, etc...

I don't live paycheck to paycheck. I live below my means and save or invest the rest. I don't have credit and I don't need it. I don't buy new cars, I don't eat out more than 8 or 9 times a year (unless traveling).

We will always have the poor; some of whom are not responsible for their circumstances. But, I reject the premise that more than a small minority of the 90% (described in the graph) are incapable of surviving on the incomes they make. They just choose to be undisciplined.

---

Empty, unfalsifiable platitudes. I don't deny there are people who make bad decisions. I know a few that do as well.

What happens if you or your kids get sick?

Are these empty platitudes all you have to offer?

The problem with your assertion is that the US has much more "sticky" poverty than countries with much more generous social benefits.

If the entitlement culture is the problem, then that should be the other way around.

The problem is, in my opinion, that we don't offer enough social services to poor people to allow them the ability to lift themselves out of poverty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Well, you don't learn by receiving handouts. That just creates an entitlement mentality that will never motivate you to learn to do for yourself. My parents didn't teach me finance. I had to learn the hard way.

---

What if the "handouts" are designed to result in self-reliance and sufficiency (ie student loans/grants, work training programs, etc..)?

Quote:

---

If as a child no one ever taught you how to make good decisions, then how do you suddenly learn how to do those things?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Well, you don't learn by receiving handouts. That just creates an entitlement mentality that will never motivate you to learn to do for yourself. My parents didn't teach me finance. I had to learn the hard way.

---

Welfare is dead, and it died a while back.

People who actualy study poverty have found that the ability to access things like daycare, and job training programs actualy do benefit from this.

I agree that some people need "tough love" to overcome a sense of entitlement.

What about those that don't, and just need help?

Charity is not dead in this country, is it? The US social net is relatively private.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Welfare is dead, and it died a while back.

People who actualy study poverty have found that the ability to access things like daycare, and job training programs actualy do benefit from this.

I agree that some people need "tough love" to overcome a sense of entitlement.

What about those that don't, and just need help?

---

That's what charity, private charity, is for. I also tithe 10% of my income to my church and to three other organization I think serve a need in the community and the world; one feeds and clothes locally and, the other two medically treat and feed/clothe globally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

That's what charity, private charity, is for. I also tithe 10% of my income to my church and to three other organization I think serve a need in the community and the world; one feeds and clothes locally and, the other two medically treat and feed/clothe globally.

---

Won't relying on private charity create the same sense of entitlement you say is prevalent?

Charity is needed, more than ever, as the breakdown of the family continues and a globalized, financialized economy results in accelerated change, particularly in the middle-class. For what the family provided before, not only materially, but socially and psychologically, something must fill the void, as people will search for something to fill the gap and the result can be devastating (ie alcohol, drug abuse, etc...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Won't relying on private charity create the same sense of entitlement you say is prevalent?

---

You know that's a good question. I'm not sure I can answer it in any other way than anecdotally. I work as a volunteer with a disadvantaged women's organization. I teach office skills...MSOffice...filing conventions..etc to a population who generally have either been just released from jail, or have recently had a catastrophic life event (children taken by state, etc...). This program not only offers life skill/job skills classes, but they also help pay bills, rent and living expenses for these women. The instances of recidivism (not always a fair term to use but the best I can think of) are extremely low. I would hazard a guess as to them being much, much lower than a public assistance program.
That being said, the Work In Texas program is pretty awesome, and it's a state run agency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Won't relying on private charity create the same sense of entitlement you say is prevalent?

---

Not in the same sense that it does when government provides it.

Most private charities require recipients to qualify for assistance each time it is requested. Government entitlement programs generally sign 'em up and forget about them. Many welfare recipients continue to receive government assistance long after it is no longer needed because the recipient is not motivated to stop the gravy train and there are few checks -- and, where there is periodic re-qualification, you will find government employees that aren't exactly diligent. Hell, there are dead people still getting checks from Uncle Sam.

Local private charities tend to stay in relationship with those they serve and can tailor the assistance to the need.

"Government entitlement programs generally sign 'em up and forget about them"

The French do it better, and it could be done this way in USA:

When you're on unemployment, you have to go every week and check in with the neighborhood unemployment agency, that you showed up is recorded, and agree go to job interviews from the huge list of job openings the agency maintains, and you must return with a signed/stamped sheet by the employer that you actually showed up.

:lol Yoni.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

That bottom 10% makes $31,000 a year because that's all they're capable of doing. If they knew how to save, invest, and build wealth, they wouldn't be making $31,000 a year;

---

Gotcha. All poor people are poor because they're incapable of making more money....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

in fact, many of those in the top 10% used to be in the bottom 90%.

---

Huh? Didn't you just say those poor people don't know how to save and invest and build wealth? How did "many" of these poor people do it then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Many welfare recipients continue to receive government assistance long after it is no longer needed because the recipient is not motivated to stop the gravy train and there are few checks -- and, where there is periodic re-qualification, you will find government employees that aren't exactly diligent.

---

Quantify "many" in terms of percentage of recipients.

If you can't do that, then we can't know how large the problem is.

Everytime I have read up on welfare, it is structured to avoid this.

The actual data on welfare recipients that I have seen says that people don't spend more than a few years on it over the course of their lives. Many states have welfare that pays very little. Texas' maximum benefits are something on order of

Sorry, reality once again does not match your perception of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

:lol Yoni.

Gotcha. All poor people are poor because they're incapable of making more money....

---

Never said "all."

Quote:

---

We will always have the poor; some of whom are not responsible for their circumstances. But, I reject the premise that more than a small minority of the 90% (described in the graph) are incapable of surviving on the incomes they make. They just choose to be undisciplined.

---

That's what I said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Huh? Didn't you just say those poor people don't know how to save and invest and build wealth? How did "many" of these poor people do it then?

---

Again, not what I said. Hell, you even quoted me and got it wrong.

"Many" of the people, in the top 10%, who made their way from poverty doesn't tranlate to "many" of the people, in poverty, making it to the top 10%.

What would constitute "many" in a subset of people comprised of 10% of the populations, would not constitute "many" in the other 90%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Quantify "many" in terms of percentage of recipients.

If you can't do that, then we can't know how large the problem is.

Everytime I have read up on welfare, it is structured to avoid this.

The actual data on welfare recipients that I have seen says that people don't spend more than a few years on it over the course of their lives. Many states have welfare that pays very little. Texas' maximum benefits are something on order of

Sorry, reality once again does not match your perception of it.

---

That's why entitlements are over a Trillion dollars a year.

The protestant work ethic reigns supreme in American society. That is, there remains the expectation that if you have the ability to support yourself, you should. This can be a good and bad thing. I'd say a good thing when it motivates one to take care of themselves and their dependents. It can be a bad thing when it precludes someone from seeking assistance. Still, in my view of how a society should operate, those who are mentally and physically able to take care of themselves should be expected to, with the less fortunate provided for with charity and also charity for the able who are truly down on their luck.

Unfortunately, there is also the view that a failure to succeed, or just to provide, is a result of a deficiency in character, rather than external factors.

Poverty is a complex thing, one without an easy solution. I think it requires a kind of 'tough love' to address. That doesn't mean a militaristic badgering, but it also doesn't mean an enabling cushion. Finally, nobody wants to be poor. The prevalent assumption that there are people who do doesn't help the charities who seek to help our fellow man out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Never said "all."

---

It seemed implied by your statement. You didn't qualify it with "some".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

That bottom 10% makes $31,000 a year because that's all they're capable of doing. If they knew how to save, invest, and build wealth, they wouldn't be making $31,000 a year; in fact, many of those in the top 10% used to be in the bottom 90%.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

That's what I said.

---

Not in the post I responded to. That comment was from another poster, which I didn't see (because I was responding to this one, and it hadn't appeared yet.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

What would constitute "many" in a subset of people comprised of 10% of the populations, would not constitute "many" in the other 90%.

---

Fair enough. Poor reading on my part. I might ask you to back up this claim, but I'm willing to accept it. :tu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

It seemed implied by your statement. You didn't qualify it with "some".

---

I re-posted my quote with the word "some" bolded in red.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Not in the post I responded to. That comment was from another poster, which I didn't see (because I was responding to this one, and it hadn't appeared yet.)

---

I still said it and it tends to dispose of the inference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Fair enough. Poor reading on my part. I might ask you to back up this claim, but I'm willing to accept it. :tu

---

:tu :toast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

That's why entitlements are over a Trillion dollars a year.

---

Translation:

"No, I can't back up my unfalsifiable assertions, so I will just change the subject."

Whatever.

I may not ever be able to simply logically dismiss an idea simply because you believe it, but you say so much shit that you can't or won't back up with actual data or even plausible/logical interpretations of reality, it almost makes me wonder if you are deliberately aiming to be some sort of court jester.

For someone who bitches about monkeys in the political forum flinging poo, you certainly seem to be well armed in that regard.