Income inequality in the US

[Dreadnaught]

Humming? How about picking up the gasping corpse from the emergency room floor?

1) Yes, our standard of living has risen for most everyone in the US, and that's great. Public education is the key for accessibility and continued progress. But we're failing at that. The ones that don't drop out aren't keeping up with the rest of the world. There's been such a systemic LAG between education and skills to match the changing world, that we're playing catch-up for at least 2 generations, maybe 3.

2) We focus too much on wealth and not enough on the basics, while the definition of Basic has escalated and progressed. This isn't romanticism about The Good Old Days (when an 8th grade education landed a job in a Detroit auto-assembly line), but a condemnation about our slowness to evolve with the world.

No, we bicker about teacher pensions, the DoE, charter schools, property taxes, costs per pupil, government grants and student aid for college....all about the money aspects....but little toward making the US a First Class A-One nation for education. The proof is in our willingness to cut funding for public education (save some bucks), at a time when education is more important than ever. Go go USA #1!

I don't see why you're sidetracking this. We spend more money on education per student than most, but we get sub-par results in some of the most high-spending areas. That's not about income inequality, it's about ineptitude.

[GGT]

I have a feeling that if someone would give you a million dollars, you'd find a reason to complain. You complain about action and inaction. You complain about support and opposition to the same policies. You complain about programs being immune from cuts and then complain about programs not being immune from cuts.

Critique would be a better word. And why the hell not? Is Professor Loki the only legitimate critic in these here parts?

As I see it, the US is full of ambivalence and duality, and millions of people are asking for a reality check. That might be why our politics has become so polarized. That's just conjecture, though.

Do I need to apply for a government grant to conduct a study or poll, under the umbrella of a "reputable" university, with a federally and state subsidized TA to grade my thesis --- before I can opine on a fucking forum?

[GGT]

I don't see why you're sidetracking this. We spend more money on education per student than most, but we get sub-par results in some of the most high-spending areas. That's not about income inequality, it's about ineptitude.

Actually, that was my point. We spend a lot of money on education, we bitch about the money spent, because the results have not paid off. Ditto for healthcare, by the way. We've ended up with vast inequality in both, because we were too focused on the money and not about the goal.

[Illusions]

Community colleges are virtually free. Most 4-year public colleges can easily be paid for by student loans. Many people are able to get through college while working part-time, and most colleges are fairly flexible when it comes to people who hold full-time jobs.

This reply explicitly illustrates the fact that I should not have even said anything, as you're either not going to put in the effort to think of all the effects going to college is going to have on a poor person's time and money, or lack the ability to do so.

[Being]

Remind me what prevents a poor person from going to college and getting a decent salary as a result?

Community colleges are virtually free. Most 4-year public colleges can easily be paid for by student loans. Many people are able to get through college while working part-time, and most colleges are fairly flexible when it comes to people who hold full-time jobs.

Reality check 2010. Grads from 2008 and 2009 are competing with 2010 grads for jobs.


A law degree ain’t what it used to be.

The market is so rough that the American Bar Association felt compelled to issue a striking warning to prospective students.

“Far too many law students expect that earning a law degree will solve their financial problems for life,” a bar commission warned in a November 2009 paper. “All too often, students who bank on reaping a positive financial return from law school lose out.”

[GGT]

This reply explicitly illustrates the fact that I should not have even said anything, as you're either not going to put in the effort to think of all the effects going to college is going to have on a poor person's time and money, or lack the ability to do so.

But he's just being professorial. With his state-funded university stipend, and state-subsidized bus line to shop for groceries, with other federal subsidies hidden under his belt, it must look so clear and easy! Anyone else just isn't doing it right.

[agamemnus]

Yes, many super-rich robbed their way to wealth, but many others earned it.

I'm less concerned about the super-rich, and more concerned about the growing poor. Compare average housing prices in my state in a few highly populated relatively poor urban cities with housing prices to the north, west, and south: they are two, three, four times higher. (and the poor ones vote Democratic a proportionate amount more...)

It should be that the poor occupy a small percentage of the total population, but it is more like they are eclipsing the middle class. (And yes, basic subsistence existence (with no savings) and using cheap, smelly detergent makes you poor.)

Reality check: the unemployment rate for college grads is far lower than of non-grads, and the average salary is still significantly higher.

Nice one, my Prince. While that may be true in general for college educated people, we are talking about new college grads!

[Loki]

Yes, many super-rich robbed their way to wealth, but many others earned it.

I'm less concerned about the super-rich, and more concerned about the growing poor. Compare average housing prices in my state in a few highly populated relatively poor urban cities with housing prices to the north, west, and south: they are two, three, four times higher. (and the poor ones vote Democratic a proportionate amount more...)

It should be that the poor occupy a small percentage of the total population, but it is more like they are eclipsing the middle class. (And yes, basic subsistence existence (with no savings) and using cheap, smelly detergent makes you poor.)

Many Americans are poor (in terms of wealth, not income) because they spend too much, not because they earn too little. There's a high proportion of doctors and lawyers who are living paycheck to paycheck. Many prefer getting a new fancy car to paying back their student loans. Only a few percent of the population earns a minimum wage, and even that's not a problem outside of a handful of major cities. I'd like to know by what standard the poor are eclipsing the middle class. Last I checked, only about 20% of the population made under $20k.

Nice one, my Prince. While that may be true in general for college educated people, we are talking about new college grads!

Yeah, because non-college grads right now are having an easier time getting jobs.

[GGT]

You're speaking to someone who spoke no English, and whose parents spoke no English, had no money, and were working for the minimum wage as of a decade and a half ago. You're also speaking to someone who's never lived in anything larger than a one-bedroom apartment, never stepped foot into a private school, never had a car, and never made more than $20k a year. I spent half of my life living in a fairly poor immigrant neighborhood, and almost everyone I've met until the last few years were decidedly lower/lower-middle class. So please stop it with your brand of champagne socialism and your pretensions of knowing more about what poor people want and need more than they do.

Again with the name-calling? Loki, it just doesn't work.

I could tell a much more difficult and challenging anecdotal story about my brother-in-law, arriving in the US speaking no English at the age of 13, with parents who didn't speak English, public schools with no ESL program, being ridiculed for having dark skin and an accent, no internet network to help him, working a fucking hot dog trailer in downtown Philly.....to finally make it to Drexel.

But you dismissed anecdotes as being relative to the discussion. tsk

[Loki]

I know reading isn't your specialty, but I was responding to Illusion's claim that I didn't know what poor people went through or how they thought. An existence proof (i.e. one piece of data) undermines his hypothesis.

[agamemnus]

I added a reply to another one of your posts... but anyway, Loki, if $20K is the cutoff point for you... well, that's a problem. How do you buy a $500K house (which is often low range price) in the suburbs with a $20K salary? You'd be hard-pressed to buy half the junk-crap in my city's central area for a family making $50K. And that $500K house? It's junk, too.

Edit: Maybe I am just too high-brow for you people. I guess most mansions wouldn't be good enough for me.

[GGT]

Many Americans are poor (in terms of wealth, not income) because they spend too much, not because they earn too little. There's a high proportion of doctors and lawyers who are living paycheck to paycheck. Many prefer getting a new fancy car to paying back their student loans. Only a few percent of the population earns a minimum wage, and even that's not a problem outside of a handful of major cities. I'd like to know by what standard the poor are eclipsing the middle class. Last I checked, only about 20% of the population made under $20k.

Too many broad, undefined terms, Professor. "Many", "wealth", "prefer", "problem", "handful", "middle class".

You're also using a national metric to define true poverty-income ($20K). Maybe you should look at national numbers of recipients for food stamps, section 8 housing, Medicaid, unemployment benefits. Or look at the growing numbers of people without health insurance, numbers of medical bankruptcies, or the millions of foreclosures. There are real people behind all those numbers, and it's not painting a pretty picture.

I know reading isn't your specialty

The last person here you should be calling a CHAMPAGNE SOCIALIST is Illusions. Excuse me for saying so. You donkey.

[Loki]

I added a reply to another one of your posts... but anyway, Loki, if $20K is the cutoff point for you... well, that's a problem. How do you buy a $500K house (which is often low range price) in the suburbs with a $20K salary? You'd be hard-pressed to buy half the junk-crap in my city's central area for a family making $50K. And that $500K house? It's junk, too.

Median salaries in the suburbs are substantially above the national average. And if you still can't afford it, maybe you shouldn't be living in suburbs where houses cost $500k. Or maybe you shouldn't own a house. Last I checked, it wasn't a constitutional right, despite many Americans treating it like one. I'm from Brooklyn. Most people in Brooklyn don't own houses (house ownership is at about 32%) and don't have much of a shot of getting them. The world hasn't ended, people aren't committing suicide en masse, or going on a crime spree.

Too many broad, undefined terms, Professor. "Many", "wealth", "prefer", "problem", "handful", "middle class".

You're also using a national metric to define true poverty-income ($20K). Maybe you should look at national numbers of recipients for food stamps, section 8 housing, Medicaid, unemployment benefits. Or look at the growing numbers of people without health insurance, numbers of medical bankruptcies, or the millions of foreclosures. There are real people behind all those numbers, and it's not painting a pretty picture.

Maybe you should make sense. Too much to ask, I know.

[Being]

Yeah, because non-college grads right now are having an easier time getting jobs.

Your comparison is invalid. You brought up college education as the cure-all to being poor. I showed you a flaw in your argument. No comparison with non-grads will prove your argument correct.

[Loki]

It is a cure all for being poor because it gives you better job prospects than someone without a college degree. And making broad conclusions about a college education based on labor conditions following a severe recession is idiotic even by your standards.

[Illusions]

You're speaking to someone who spoke no English, and whose parents spoke no English, had no money, and were working for the minimum wage as of a decade and a half ago. You're also speaking to someone who's never lived in anything larger than a one-bedroom apartment, never stepped foot into a private school, never had a car, and never made more than $20k a year. I spent half of my life living in a fairly poor immigrant neighborhood, and almost everyone I've met until the last few years were decidedly lower/lower-middle class. Most people in my undergrad college was from a background similar to mine. So please stop it with your brand of champagne socialism and your pretensions of knowing more about what poor people want and need more than they do.

I'm fairly certain an anecdote war isn't going to be productive, and neither is the tired fallacy of "I did it, others should be able to as well". I also don't see how being realistic is champagne socialism. I'm also fairly certain that there are people with backgrounds similar to yours who are much better off than you are or are more successful than you (monetarily). Does that imply that you are somehow lazier than they are, dumber, less motivated, not as hard working, less desiring of success, etc.? No? Then why do you choose to view it that way for people less successful than yourself?

Edit: Suggestions for an alternative to "Fairly certain"...I need a new phrase...

[Loki]

I'm fairly certain an anecdote war isn't going to be productive, and neither is the tired fallacy of "I did it, others should be able to as well". I also don't see how being realistic is champagne socialism. I'm also fairly certain that there are people with backgrounds similar to yours who are much better off than you are or are more successful than you (monetarily). Does that imply that you are somehow lazier than they are, dumber, less motivated, not as hard working, less desiring of success, etc.? No? Then why do you choose to view it that way for people less successful than yourself?

Edit: Suggestions for an alternative to "Fairly certain"...I need a new phrase...

It suggests that there's an easy way out of poverty (albeit one that requires hard work), and that the only problem is that most poor people choose not to take it. You made it seem like poor people find impenetrable obstacles when it comes to getting a college education, and that's simply a lie. Hell, as of 2005, a poor person New York state was actually paid money to go to the CUNY system (most New Yorkers I knew not only didn't pay tuition, but received a check of ~$500 every year).

I have absolutely no idea where your rant comes from. I don't see where I said anything negative about people "less successful than myself". My entire point was that we have low social mobility because many poor people do not go to college (and many drop out of high school), in contrast to the view of several others here that being poor somehow precludes one from advancing in society.

[agamemnus]

The world hasn't ended, people aren't committing suicide en masse, or going on a crime spree.

There's a difference between renting decent housing and living in (and owning!) squalid housing. And btw, in my city at least it seems like crime is edging up.


Edit:

You made it seem like poor people find impenetrable obstacles when it comes to getting a college education, and that's simply a lie.

Well, I don't think that at all. It's what comes after the college education that's the troubling part.

[GGT]

Median salaries in the suburbs are substantially above the national average. And if you still can't afford it, maybe you shouldn't be living in suburbs where houses cost $500k. Or maybe you shouldn't own a house. Last I checked, it wasn't a constitutional right, despite many Americans treating it like one. I'm from Brooklyn. Most people in Brooklyn don't own houses (house ownership is at about 32%) and don't have much of a shot of getting them. The world hasn't ended, people aren't committing suicide en masse, or going on a crime spree.

Maybe you should make sense. Too much to ask, I know.

An existence proof (i.e. one piece of data) undermines his hypothesis.

I see. Your pieces of data are undermining your own argument.

What's your argument, again? That income inequality doesn't affect our power structure, because YOU pulled yourself up by your Brooklyn Bootstraps?

Back to median income. You could live the lifestyle of a Manhattanite, on an income of about $30,000, but you'd have to live in Mississippi to do that. It's obviously not so easy to transfer a Mississippi education to a NYC job, though. The barista and cashier jobs are filled. Any open applications for a hot dog cart or t-shirt street vendor?

[Loki]

There's a difference between renting decent housing and living in (and owning!) squalid housing. And btw, in my city at least it seems like crime is edging up.

If you think the houses in your town are crap, what exactly is preventing you from getting a house in another town?

Crime always edges up when unemployment goes up. It's not because of people not owning houses.

[wiggin]

You might want to check the trend of our Gini Coefficient.

Did you read the links in the OP? Anyways, the Gini coefficient, while an interesting measure, is a somewhat flawed statistic for these purposes. Comparing apples to oranges is pretty meaningless in terms of consumption, and more importantly, a Gini coefficient can easily be thrown out of whack by a small proportion of very rich or very poor. That doesn't really tell you anything about whether the living conditions of most Americans have improved in the last 40 years. That's not even taking into account the more esoteric problems with using the Gini coefficient as some rubric of income inequality, since the distributions aren't very well represented by a single number. Lastly, I'd bet that demographics have more to do with shifting Gini distributions rather than any underlying inequality.

These are complex issues, which is why I brought it up in the first place. It is by no means clear that the standard trope of flat or declining real wages is true.

[GGT]

I have absolutely no idea where your rant comes from. I don't see where I said anything negative about people "less successful than myself". My entire point was that we have low social mobility because many poor people do not go to college (and many drop out of high school), in contrast to the view of several others here that being poor somehow precludes one from advancing in society.

Because even if every HS graduate in the US attended college, there still wouldn't be enough jobs for them. There aren't even enough jobs for the stream of new college grads. Plenty decide to go to graduate school, to wait it out or increase their chances, even though that may not increase their odds of actually finding a job.

[Being]

I say we borrow our way out of this. And since we're borrowing anyway, let's give tax cuts to everybody. Let's sell our wealth to China. Let's become Squanderville.

[Loki]

Because even if every HS graduate in the US attended college, there still wouldn't be enough jobs for them. There aren't even enough jobs for the stream of new college grads. Plenty decide to go to graduate school, to wait it out or increase their chances, even though that may not increase their odds of actually finding a job.

Thinking in anything but absolute terms is hard, isn't it? Going to college doesn't guarantee you a well-paying job (or any job for that matter). It does significantly increase your chances of getting such a job. By not getting a college degree (at least an associate's), these people are almost guaranteeing themselves a life of poverty (or something approaching it). And it's ridiculous to speak of only conditions right now. The labor market will improve in a few years, and college grads will go back to having an unemployment rate of 2-3%. Why anyone would willingly pass that up is beyond me.

I say we borrow our way out of this. And since we're borrowing anyway, let's give tax cuts to everybody. Let's sell our wealth to China. Let's become Squanderville.

Or let's make 1,830 inane posts on a forum without ever engaging in a serious conversation.

[agamemnus]

If you think the houses in your town are crap, what exactly is preventing you from getting a house in another town?

Because all the other towns have higher house prices unattainable to those making a low wage.

Crime always edges up when unemployment goes up. It's not because of people not owning houses.

That's not what I was saying... poor housing (and poor city planning) causes problems, which causes crime. That in turn creates poor housing areas (think noise from unemployed vagrants and being unable to walk outside, even in the daytime, near your house), which makes living there even worse and causes even more crime.

We have a large community college in our city, but that really does not make a dent in average education here. Better housing is often unattainable for these people. I won't go into why; I'm just saying that the divide is not between the super-rich and everyone else: it's between the poor and those who managed to get "away" from the poor.

[Loki]

Because all the other towns have higher house prices unattainable to those making a low wage.

The median cost of a house in the northeast is currently $240k. Clearly you're looking in the wrong towns.

That's not what I was saying... poor housing (and poor city planning) causes problems, which causes crime. That in turn creates poor housing areas (think noise from unemployed vagrants and being unable to walk outside, even in the daytime, near your house), which makes living there even worse and causes even more crime.

We have a large community college in our city, but that really does not make a dent in average education here. Better housing is often unattainable for these people. I won't go into why; I'm just saying that the divide is not between the super-rich and everyone else: it's between the poor and those who managed to get "away" from the poor.

I'm not going to disagree with that. There are plenty of areas I wouldn't walk in at night. And while people living there face structural problems, it's ultimately individuals who make the choice to commit crimes, get knocked up, take drugs, not finish school, etc. If enough people in these areas wouldn't make these stupid decisions, then those areas wouldn't be nearly as bad as they are now.

[GGT]

Thinking in anything but absolute terms is hard, isn't it?

Then you should stop doing that.

Going to college doesn't guarantee you a well-paying job (or any job for that matter). It does significantly increase your chances of getting such a job. By not getting a college degree (at least an associate's), these people are almost guaranteeing themselves a life of poverty (or something approaching it). And it's ridiculous to speak of only conditions right now. The labor market will improve in a few years, and college grads will go back to having an unemployment rate of 2-3%. Why anyone would willingly pass that up is beyond me.

We all hope the labor market will improve. Current conditions will affect the future, surely you know that. Maybe check back here after your PhD is completed, and you tell us how this advanced degree has helped you land a better job, than having worked with your undergrad degree for the past X years.

Or let's make 1,830 inane posts on a forum without ever engaging in a serious conversation.

His point was about borrowing money for an education, hoping for the best. When in doubt, promise a tax cut. Similar to borrowing money from China, hoping for the best. When in doubt, promise tax cuts. That's not inane. That IS part of the serious conversation we're (supposedly) conducting.

[Loki]

We all hope the labor market will improve. Current conditions will affect the future, surely you know that. Maybe check back here after your PhD is completed, and you tell us how this advanced degree has helped you land a better job, than having worked with your undergrad degree for the past X years.

The kind of jobs you could get in my field without a Ph.D. are extremely limited (unless you're willing to take a job not strictly in the field). So having work experience with a job that required a BA would not in any way improve my future job prospects.

His point was about borrowing money for an education, hoping for the best. When in doubt, promise a tax cut. Similar to borrowing money from China, hoping for the best. When in doubt, promise tax cuts. That's not inane. That IS part of the serious conversation we're (supposedly) conducting.

You're reading far too much into it. When it doubt, assume he's trolling.

[GGT]

The median cost of a house in the northeast is currently $240k. Clearly you're looking in the wrong towns.

Clearly.

I'm not going to disagree with that. There are plenty of areas I wouldn't walk in at night. And while people living there face structural problems, it's ultimately individuals who make the choice to commit crimes, get knocked up, take drugs, not finish school, etc. If enough people in these areas wouldn't make these stupid decisions, then those areas wouldn't be nearly as bad as they are now.

Hello? The structural problems are why people end up making bad choices. You're deluded if you think "those people" (who grow up in poverty with crappy schools and crappy role models, gang powers and constant violence), have the same type of individual choices that others "more fortunate" have.

You make it sound like they're victims by choice, and just have to choose to be smarter to do better. If enough of "them" could just see the err of their ways, the world would be ponies and butterflies.

[agamemnus]

The median cost of a house in the northeast is currently $240k. Clearly you're looking in the wrong towns.

That would be perhaps misleading, for a number of reasons. If that figure you're giving me is the price of a house sold in 2010, here's one way it can get distorted--

There are many houses being sold that are very cheap, bringing both the mean and the median down. (who would sell -- or buy -- a decent house in this economy, with housing prices artificially depressed because of the deteriorated neighborhood quality? Not many.)

Anyway, just go on homes.com and search houses in Massachusetts inner cities and suburbs. You'll find a clear and enormous disparity.