Here is an interesting article about class in the US. See where you fit.
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/nationa.../index.html?hp
One thing surprising to me is that there is actually more class mobility in England than the US.


Here is an interesting article about class in the US. See where you fit.
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/nationa.../index.html?hp
One thing surprising to me is that there is actually more class mobility in England than the US.





Arguably, it has been democratic taxation, spending, and social welfare policies which have accomplished the following ...
The 'earned incomes' of middle class workers are taxed at progressively higher and higher rates, creating a 'half a step to the door' scenario in regard to ever being able to improve their position in life. Meanwhile, the tax loopholes, tax exempt and tax favored high ticket offerings allow the rich to avoid taxes altogether, and low cap gains tax rates allow the 'unearned incomes' of the rich to pay taxes at much lower levels than on earned income, thus insuring that the rich can stay rich.
The aggregate cash value/standard of living stemming from social benefits received by a typical unskilled 'poor' person exceeds the amount of cash they could earn and the standard of living they could achieve if they were to start work at a menial job and lose eligibility for those social benefits, thus assuring that the 'poor' person will remain poor as well as dependent on government.
The American public education system, and the constraints placed upon that educational system by the liberal courts, insures that all students will learn at a rate defined by the lowest common denominator present in the class. Thus the very poor education actually provided by the public system, and the lack of general respect for the education provided by the public school system, creates a two class system i.e. public schools vs private schools. Those who can afford private schools make the connections necessary and learn the skills necessary to join the future 'rich/elite'. Those who cannot afford private schools are doomed to a second class education and second class post graduation opportunities. Thus the rich/elite remain the rich/elite, and everybody else faces second rate opportunities despite individual talent or effort.
The wild card of course is the occasional person like David Packard of Steve Jobs or say Barack Obama or even Vin Diesel, who find themselves in the right place at the right time with the right tools to make the 'leap'. However, this is more a matter of fortunate coincidence than anything else.
Last edited by Melonie; 05-15-2005 at 02:22 PM.
Well, now that we have Melonie's side of things, lets look at it from degree 2 of some 360 other degrees of perception people are going to have on this.
Worker wages are continously held low by the wealthy. Is there any reason why in the billion dollar empire of Walmart (my favorite example) the workers should qualify for food stamps?
Class is shown in other ways also. Low income people are more often than not forced to take a pee test. Know your place, as some are forced to strip down to their underwear and watched as they urinate. Can you imagine stripping for a job? (OK, my little joke there - but their stripping is far less lucritive.)
Many, more than half the population, are made aware that they can have their purse, backpack, jacket or what have you searched by the employer at the employer's discretion. Sure you may squawk, but you will be out of the job for some reason, like "profanity" or such.
While we are at it, lets open the gateways on the border to all kinds of non-skilled low wage workers to keep the pressure on what one can ask for in the marketplace. And to keep those middle class people in line also, let's open up the doors to H1-Bs, L-1s, and flat out outsourcing of manufacturing and R&D/Science jobs too. We'll just tell people it is for competitiveness and give ourselves multi-million dollar bonuses and tell them the lie that it is about your price (which we are going to jack up as high as we think we can make it) that is effected by laying off your fellow americans.
These illegals and foreign workers can compete with you in the housing market too, so you end up in a seedy motel or on a friend's couch.
When "they" are not doing that, they are doing everything in their power to prevent so called "time theft" - you know - talking to your co-worker or maybe walking out to your car for your lunch bag without yet being clocked out - but don't you dare clock out before your appointed 15 minute break. Some of the big box retailers don't like employee's speaking to each other, because sometimes that horrible word "union" appears in the conversation. No sense in letting them get organized.
Lets keep the wages down as low as possible too. We will offer "mother's hours" - ie, work days till 3:00pm (suppossedly) but appoint tasks that will put a worker beyond that time anyhow. We'll give out free breakfasts and/or donuts until we decide the labor market is appropriate for us to yank that aside ("Don't like the lacking donuts motherfucker, go find someplace else - if you can - now get back to work mothboy.")
In short, for low income people, often America is not a democracy, but a dictatorship held by those with land to rent and wages to provide. The freedom's from search, to speak one's mind, to associate with people - they don't exist in what amounts to more and more time of people's lives controlled by those who are so burdened by their taxes that they have to buy a lexus every two years instead of one.
Hell, even the soccer mom pays the maid under the counter and doesn't ask questions to save a buck. These people are not making a living wage and then we complain what a "burden" they are on the system.
There is a great majority of people in this country who are the true philantropists(sp) who give away their time so a few can have sparkling floors, who give up caring for their children so that other's children may be cared for, and who give up hours and hours of thier lives to pick up the messes a few make.
And welfare? Welfare doesn't exist anymore unless you live in one of the liberal states - like California or Massachusettes. All the other states - it is welfare for children - not the parent. Not the individual. Welfare reform has been done and welfare is gone. Food pantries can't keep up with the demand. Shelters close their doors in the afternoon after reaching more than capacity and low income housing are filled up and there are waiting lists.
No, those taxes that are being paid are going into pork barrel funding the government provides to their campaign contributors and sponsers. It is not the "welfare queen" - which is more of a myth than a reality - who takes up all that tax money. It is the AARP making sure their people get what they want.
Am I a bleeding heart democrat? No not really. I like capitalism. Before the H1-Bs and the offshoring of my industry I was in the top 5% of the income earners across the nation. They sure figured out how to put my ass down, now didn't they?
The system is broken - it is obvious. People are working and still getting food stamps. People are loosing their jobs to bussing tables and folding clothes at big box stores - or at least to 40% of their income previously. Debt is sky high. We don't have anything to sell the world wants to make a trade surplus. The government is up to it's ears in hock even though it does take nearly 45% of everyone's money in taxes.
Last edited by Deogol; 05-15-2005 at 03:40 PM.
Worker wages are held down by low skills. Wal-Mart's customers seek the best combination of quality vs. price, within what they are able to pay. Are you any different? Wal-Mart's main cost advantages compared with other retailers are its economies of scale and its super-efficient distribution. The majority of retail workers are low-income, not just at Wal-Mart.Originally Posted by Deogol
Perhaps they don't move as well to music as I do?Class is shown in other ways also. Low income people are more often than not forced to take a pee test. Know your place, as some are forced to strip down to their underwear and watched as they urinate. Can you imagine stripping for a job? (OK, my little joke there - but their stripping is far less lucritive.)
So what's your solution? Pay people more than they are worth and call it a "living wage"? Build more slums (a/k/a government housing)? The answer is simple. We have too many low-skilled workers in this country. If low skilled workers are unhappy with the situation, they need to obtained some new, more profitable skills.Many, more than half the population...And we are pissed about it.
Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle
Nope, Walmart's advantage is being China's major trading partner. And you call the US socialist? Walmart (and it's ilk) total means of existance is based on the remaining communist and socialist nations around the world.Originally Posted by Destiny
It also is not based on what they are "able" to pay - but what they are
"willing" to pay. Don't like it - go down and work for Uncle Andy's Hardware - oh - sorry - he's out of business. He was a big believer in the American Worker and the American Form of Capitalism. Us, we'll take the communist any day. Tough luck, guess you're gonna have to deal with what your given.
"Pay people more than they are worth." Hmmmm. I think that is the whole point under dispute.So what's your solution? Pay people more than they are worth and call it a "living wage"? Build more slums (a/k/a government housing)? The answer is simple. We have too many low-skilled workers in this country. If low skilled workers are unhappy with the situation, they need to obtained some new, more profitable skills.
Some would say this mechanized flesh is worth only so much, while others say they are people and worth a bit more than doritos and spheghetio's based incomes.
Who is to say "what they are worth?" A market system manipulated by the inlet of millions and millions of illegals and foreign workers via the government and it's corporate backers?
When selling an item the companies say "Yea, well, there are certain costs involved that need to be re-imbursed." Yet the low income have no place to say that, even though it is just as true. Costs are passed down to the consumer - in this case it should be the employer.
Don't fall for the education myth. In my circles I know of plenty of people with $40,000 school loans and no jobs.
The value of certain jobs MUST be defined (at least partially) by the cost incurred by the employee to remain alive to perform that task. Unless you're accepting as our "destiny" that
1. certain people don't deserve enough to eat, safe places to live or a life
2. certain people should have to work 2-3 jobs to break even, preventing further education
3. everyone should have family to "fill in the gaps" (welcome to the real world...not everyone does)
4. we the taxpayer should subsidize people
then the reality is the company MUST bear the full cost and pass that cost (proportionally) on to customers or (HORROR) take a cut in profits to remain competitive. Trust me...it won't kill WalMart or the other box stores to pay more competitively.
Funny, no company asks whether the machines they buy to do a job add enough value...if they want the job done, they buy the tools and equipment (and pay the maintenance) - but human labor doesn't have the same solid concept of "value"
Anyone read Grapes of Wrath? Remember all the talk of the big grape growers setting wage scales and arbitrarily dropping them, forcing people to starve or work for less than livin wage...with no other option (since social programs were not in place yet)...and with no small employers left in a position to fight back?? do we really want this in 2005?





Discrete, I hate to say this but it sounds like you've fallen victim to "the Tyranny of the Suffering" ...
"Everybody knows about the tyranny of the powerful, but there is something worse, and Peppino knew how to use it. It is worse because you cannot understand it, you feel too guilty to fight it, and you cannot even define it until it has taken what it wants from you. It is the tyranny of the suffering." - Robert Anton Wilson 'The Earth Will Shake' p115





My goodness, I quite agree. Do we all realize that if the cap on taxable SS income was lifted, the SS crisis wouldn't exist?Originally Posted by Melonie
It's abundantly true that real wages have fallen over the years, making the "middle class" all but disappear. Unless you come from money, you're going to have to be creative to improve your station in life. It's no longer possible to simply work hard and have that guarantee former givens such as home ownership, higher education for your children, and a secure retirement.
I really do think that corporate America owes its workers something, though--if you're going to profit from access to the great market of the U.S., there should be a price. And I'm fairly confident there will be--of course, that price might be that the segment of the U.S. market in a position to buy their products will shrink and shrink and shrink.





This is the essence of the dilemma. If America's economy were a 'closed system' then I could go along with this. But to make America's economy a 'closed system' means erecting 20ft high fences on every border and coastline to keep foreign workers and products out of the American market. Doing this would also double or triple the price of many 'essential' everyday things, and generally lower the American standard of living. Doing this would also mean forcing welfare recipients to take jobs left vacant as illegal aliens are chased back across the border. Then, and only then, can you seriously talk about American corporate responsibility. But without a 'closed system' it is irresponsible and unfair (and some would argue, suicidal) to hold American corporations to one standard with associated costs, while simultaneously allowing foreign corporations to import their underpriced products stemming from operating under a different (or nonexistant) standard without those same associated costs.I really do think that corporate America owes its workers something, though--if you're going to profit from access to the great market of the U.S., there should be a price. And I'm fairly confident there will be--of course, that price might be that the segment of the U.S. market in a position to buy their products will shrink and shrink and shrink.
Oh, agreed. But this would mean conceding that Social Security is and has been nothing other than a welfare program for the elderly from its inception. This would also mean decimating the 'middle class' whose earned incomes are subject to Social Security tax, while at the same time exempting the 'rich/elite' whose unearned incomes and dividends are exempt from Social Security tax. A very Democratic proposal indeed.My goodness, I quite agree. Do we all realize that if the cap on taxable SS income was lifted, the SS crisis wouldn't exist?
Hmmm...I'll try again. Wal-Mart's customers seek the best combination of quality vs. price, within what they are able to pay. Are you any different? Now maybe you do pay more and buy all your stuff from Uncle Andy's Hardware. If so, I'd suggest that the feeling you get for having helped, "the little guy" factors into your purchase decision, and that's fine for you. But don't blame others for not placing as high a value on good feelings as you and seeking the lowest price. Like I said, the majority of retail jobs are low-income, not just at Wal-Mart.Originally Posted by Deogol
Gee, I'm really sorry Uncle Andy couldn't compete in a global markerplace. Buy what would you suggest I do? Continue to pay Uncle Andy twice as much for light bulbs as I can get them at Wal-Mart for? That's called charity, not commerce. I'm not denying the difficulties the market changes have brought to people like Uncle Andy. But it's not the first time this has happened and won't be the last. The steam engine replaced man, and animal power, and put people out of work. I suppose congress could have passed a law forcing farmers to keep paying their farmhands a "living wage", whether their work was needed or not. I'm glad they didn't. The automobile replaced carriages and wagons, and put people out of work. What do you want to do, pass a law freezing the world in the 20th century?It also is not based on what they are "able" to pay - but what they are "willing" to pay. Don't like it - go down and work for Uncle Andy's Hardware - oh - sorry - he's out of business. He was a big believer in the American Worker and the American Form of Capitalism. Us, we'll take the communist any day. Tough luck, guess you're gonna have to deal with what your given.
All human beings have worth. But I'm not talking about their worth as people, I'm talking about the value of their labor. That can be easily calculated. I'm sorry if such a cold hard computation offends your sensibilities, but that doesn't make it invalid."Pay people more than they are worth." Hmmmm. I think that is the whole point under dispute.
We could deport every illegal and completely seal our borders. That would not change the fact that we compete in a global market. The American worker would still have to compete with those people.Who is to say "what they are worth?" A market system manipulated by the inlet of millions and millions of illegals and foreign workers via the government and it's corporate backers?
If you raise the cost of a product, people will buy less of it. Period. This idea that you can impose any costs on employers and that they will just raise the cost of their products is silly. Let's say the government passed a law requiring Wal-Mart pay a higher wage to all its workers and that such a law raised the cost of a can of green beans 10 cents. People would buy fewer cans of green beans. That is basic economics. They fact that you wish it weren't so, doesn't nullify it.When selling an item the companies say "Yea, well, there are certain costs involved that need to be re-imbursed." Yet the low income have no place to say that, even though it is just as true. Costs are passed down to the consumer - in this case it should be the employer.
I'm sorry you and your friend got degrees in Liberal Arts. If its any comfort, my dad spent more than that for me to get my degree and I dont' use mine either.Don't fall for the education myth. In my circles I know of plenty of people with $40,000 school loans and no jobs.
Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle
And those 20 ft. high fences wouldn't do a damn thing to stop all the information, which is where the real trade is going on, from going back and forth. If you go to the hospital at 2:00 a.m. and have a CAT scan done, that CAT scan may actually be read by a Doctor in India. It's hard to get American Doctors to work the graveyard shift, so increasingly, hospitals are getting Indian Doctors to do it. When it's the middle of the night here, it's mid-day in India. What kind of fence is going to stop that type of foreign trade?Originally Posted by Melonie
Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle
Destiny....just because you BELIEVE that if green beans were priced to reflect their entire cost people would buy less DOESN't MAKE IT SO. Truth is, discrecionary spending MAY change (debatable since that's the area of our economy least affected by last recession figures are large-ticket discrecionary items)...but certainly daily "needs" spending (such as the food example you provide) won't and can't. People need to eat.
What it boils down to is: are we going to allow an underclass to continue / grow in the US and ignore that ever-growing sector of our population and the unrest/crime/unfairnes that breeds? I'm not.
Know what? It doesn't really matter if you're right (less beans will sell) or I am...the fact is, we'll finally live in a CAPITALIST society RUN BY FREE MARKET forces and NOT DEPENDENT ON SUBSIDIES, AN UNEDUCATED UNDERCLASS or CORPORATE WELFARE. THe same amount of $$ will be circulating (if you're right, and consumption contracts) or MORE MONEY will be circulating if I'm right. So what are we really fighting over? Doing what's right because it will change status quo and create balance?
BTW...I know lots of engineers, techies, business majors, etc that have unused/underused degrees....while ineffective in this discussion, it's not just the LA majors getting screwed.
Well, like I have said before. If people do not feel like the system is working for them - they will not be a part of it. If they feel that it is going out of it's way to damage them - they will go out of their way to damage it.
Then where will we be?
It's not me believing it that makes it so.Originally Posted by discretedancer
Economics Basics: Demand and Supply
The law of demand states that, if all other factors remain equal, the higher the price, the less people will demand a good. In other words, the higher the price, the lower the quantity demanded.
If you raise the price of green beans, people will buy fewer green beans. That is basic economics.
Last edited by Destiny; 05-15-2005 at 09:09 PM.
Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle
Huh....gas prices go up, so does consumption.Originally Posted by Destiny
Car prices go up (price a Hummer lately) so does consumption
Milk prices go up...ditto.
People pay what tey have to for what they need....even more for what they want'
So if gas goes up to $10 a gallon this year, people will use the same amount? No, they won't.Originally Posted by discretedancer
So if Hummer cut the cost of their SUV in half, they would sell the same number? No, their sales would skyrocket.Car prices go up (price a Hummer lately) so does consumption
Adjusted for inflation, what has the price of milk done? I'd bet it's been pretty stagnant.Milk prices go up...ditto.
So you're telling me that the basic laws of economics don't apply?People pay what tey have to for what they need....even more for what they want'
Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle
Wal-Mart is anti-employee, frankly. Very few people, and none I know of with Wal-Mart's size, goes to the extent it does to keep wages low as possible, work people part-time to keep benefits from occurring, fight tooth-and-nail over every Workers Comp claim, clear-cut or not, among other things.
Oh, I'm not advocating legislation or boycotting. There's a number of things that make Wal-Mart pretty distasteful, really, stuff that you and I wouldn't do with our people, just out of a sense of decency. I hope. And I realize that decency doesn't pay the bills, but the ethics discussion is a divergent matter.





Gasoline, Hummers and Milk are three perfect examples of how government meddling has distorted supply and demand and/or directly affected pricing levels via government regulation, vs allowing free market economic forces to drive the equation.
Gasoline price/availability is obviously affected by gov't de-facto bans on building new refinery capacity, plus boutique additive regulations. Hummer 'prices' are the result of an unintended consequence of a small business incentive change in tax law which vastly distorts the 'after tax' cost of a small business purchasing a Hummer. Milk prices and availability are the result of a vast gov't mechanism to limit US milk production and artificially regulate prices.
FIRST...you completely avoid the point that as prices have gone up on these items, consumption hasn't gone down
SECOND...Your example doesn't work for 2 reasons:
1. The price of milk is regulated to keep it low, but (less importantly) to regulate the income to the farmer....not to incentivise demand
2. the demand on super-priced Hummers was high WAY before the stupid tax incentive.
THIRD...the basic questions I asked is still being avoided...and we need to wonder why.





Boy, I'll advocate boycotting! Actually, my grandmother made the whole family agree not to shop there when their pharmacies said they wouldn't fill prescriptions for the morning-after pill. And when I read about how they make employees clock out to go to the bathroom, it sealed the deal.Originally Posted by Jay Zeno
Also, most wage-earners are paid way, way, way less than they are worth, if you calculate their "worth" as the amount of money they make for the companies they work for.





The system is broken. I don't think it's capable of fixing itself. I think the sooner it destroys itself the better off the earth (as a whole unit including humans) will be.





My best guess in regard to an answer is that human beings are creatures of habit, and pricing pressures are somewhat analogous to a 'chemical buffer solution'. In other words, people will stick with their routines / wants / preferences over some certain price range and not make any changes in their lives other than paying the somewhat higher price. However, once the price range becomes significant enough to warrant serious attention, or becomes serious enough to affect other wants / preferences, people WILL change their routines / wants / preferences as a result.THIRD...the basic questions I asked is still being avoided...and we need to wonder why.
Gasoline purchases are somewhat of a special case, in that gasoline spending is for the most part not a discretionary item. If it requires x gallons per week to drive to and from work, then x gallons will get purchased regardless of price. However, sunday drives, highway vacations etc. may indeed experience reductions as these truly are discretionary. In regard to the possibility of gas consumption going up along with gas prices going up, I would argue that this is a corrolary to the special case. As real estate prices are rising even faster than gasoline prices, increased gas consumption often corresponds with a choice to stop renting in/near the city and to purchase a house in the suburbs/country thus increasing the gasoline needed to support the daily job commute.
Your questions are based on false assumptions.Originally Posted by discretedancer
What is the real Price of Gas?
In real (inflation adjusted dollars) gas is actually still cheaper than it was back in 1980! Even though a gallon of unleaded in the US has shot up 21 cents per gallon recently...And Gasoline is fast approaching the peak prices seen during both Gulf Wars...When adjusted for inflation, it is clear that gasoline prices are far below the 1981 inflation-adjusted peak of $2.94.
The Cost of Driving a Car
AAA reports each year on the average cost of owning and operating a car. The estimation includes vehicle depreciation, insurance, maintenance, fuel costs, tires, license, registration, taxes, and finance charges. From this information, the U.S. Department of Energy, charts the cost of owning and operating a car. In 1994, driving a car one mile cost on average 48.9 cents. In 2004, it cost 54.7 cents. Had the cost of owning and operating a car kept up with inflation, the per mile cost in 2004 would have been 62.3 cents per mile. While car prices have increased, the cost of personal transportation has actually decreased in historical terms.
U.S. dairy markets since 1970
Although milk and dairy product prices are influenced by a Federal price support program, market prices are not determined in a vacuum, void of effects exerted by supply and demand conditions...Productivity gains have been important to the dairy industry and the American consumer. Such advances result in either lower input costs or more milk per cow. They also increase the availability of milk and dairy products at prices favorable to consumers...If the trends of the early 1980's prevail through the 1990's, a propensity for dairy farmers to produce more milk at lower real prices might exist. Real farm milk prices and real retail dairy product prices would continue to fall.
Surprise! The law of supply and demand works. Now explain why you refuse to believe it.
Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle
If I may interject, possibly at peril:Originally Posted by Destiny
I think the issue is that the law of supply and demand is not absolute, and it is not strictly constructed. No, production and price do not occur in a vacuum. Other factors are involved. If you say, "Supply goes up, demand goes down, prices go down," and, "Supply goes down, demand goes up, prices go down," strictly in a vacuum, without consideration of other factors, there's plenty of examples where that doesn't strictly apply. However, as a generalized principle, it's well-recognized and, indeed, relied upon by those in a market economy.
Bookmarks