Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 10 to 18 of 40

Thread: Seperate but unequal=growing chasm between rich and poor in America

  1. #10
    World Champ ODH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,960

    Default Re: Seperate but unequal=growing chasm between rich and poor in America

    I strongly disagree with statement:
    Quote Originally Posted by quinn14 View Post
    As a person who worked unskilled labor for several years, I will tell you that jobs going over seas are the least of the worries. What people either don't know or don't want to admit is that most of the unskilled labor is being replaced by technology. ...
    I work in manufacturing and the jobs that can't be improved by technology are the ones going overseas. The option to replace 100 with 10 through technology is usually a better deal than shipping all 100 jobs overseas. The more technology is used the higher pay and more sercurity are available for the 10 "unskilled" workers who still remain on the job. This also supports more higher paid engineering and technician positions.



    Strongly agree you on this one:
    Quote Originally Posted by quinn14 View Post
    As a person who worked unskilled labor for several years, I will tell you that jobs going over seas are the least of the worries. What people either don't know or don't want to admit is that most of the unskilled labor is being replaced by technology. What used to take maybe 100 people on an assembly line to do, now takes about 10 because of technology. You then add in the fact that ALL kids are told to go to college so they can "become something" and you have a recipe for disaster.

    Not every person is made for college. But if you listen to the media (and all kids do) all you hear is that you need to go to college to get a good job. So, those who don't like school, yet would be great on an assembly line are made to think they aren't as good as others. Therefore, many American kids come out of high school thinking that they have to go to college and when they can't make the grades, they feel like failures....
    I have often flet that our society's glorifying college sports does not serve the below average student who is DI scholarship level athlete. He could be better off being able to compete on a local club team and learning how to be become a plumber rather than trying to pretend that he is in college to get an education and athletics is secondary.

  2. #11
    World Champ ODH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,960

    Default Re: Seperate but unequal=growing chasm between rich and poor in America

    Quote Originally Posted by quinn14 View Post
    I am no math wizard. But in simple terms this shows that 90% of our country makes at least 31k. That means for every person making 11k there has to be someone making 51k. They are all grouped together, in this statistic, as "poor". This proves to me that we have the "richest" poor people in the world.

    Also, it says that the top 1% makes an average of 1.1million. That would mean that for every Billionaire (Gates, Buffet) there would have to be someone making 100K to even it out.

    This study, to me, reads like it is trying to divide people. Why don't they do an entire breakdown of who is making what and the percentages to go with it? I would suggest that they include welfare and/or unemployment packages in their assesments because those are forms of income. A study like that would give a better look at income disparities than this one that just says rich vs poor.
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlottke View Post
    I'd like to see a chart of the wealth lost by each group since the recession started... then we can tax the people who lost the least - it's only fair.
    I assume this being said tongue in cheek, but it might work if you look at percentage of wealth lost. Bill Gates loses a few billion is a smaller percentage than the spare change I have lost in my couch.

    On a more serious note most of the wealth lost is fictitious. If I bought my house for $150K and at the peak it was worth $250K and now it is valued at $185K have I lost wealth?

  3. #12

    Default Re: Seperate but unequal=growing chasm between rich and poor in America

    Quote Originally Posted by ODH View Post
    That is not how averages work when the median is used to for the average and median is typically used for this type of statistic. What a median means is half the people make more and half the people make less, that way people who are at the very extremem (i.e. Gates and Buffet) do not skew the statistics.

    There also nothing in that graphic that is saying the bottom 90% are being group as poor.
    To your first paragrah, that is why I said I wasn't a math wizard. Obviously, I forgot or never did learn what a median was. For your second comment, I guess "technically" you are right. But the first post said "the poorest 90% of America make an average of $31,244 per year." It didn't mention a median and did say POOREST, so therefore I took it to mean poor. Which is why I commented that 31k was not poor.

    About how much people make on welfare, I don't really think they do. Here is my only example.

    My buddy's friend went through a divorce. Got depressed and quit his job. After applying for welfare, for no good reason, he got 1k per month paycheck. $200 per month food card. His duplex was approved for $450 per month section 8 and his kid got a medical card. All that added up is $1650 per month in payments plus a medical card for a kid you have shared parenting with. That is over 20k per year to a guy who just got depressed and chose not to work. The real shame of it is that he stayed on welfare for 4 years until he found an entry level job that could offer him more on day 1. I don't call that poor. Yet, I don't deny that there are poor in America.

  4. #13

    Default Re: Seperate but unequal=growing chasm between rich and poor in America

    Quote Originally Posted by ODH View Post
    I strongly disagree with statement:

    I work in manufacturing and the jobs that can't be improved by technology are the ones going overseas. The option to replace 100 with 10 through technology is usually a better deal than shipping all 100 jobs overseas. The more technology is used the higher pay and more sercurity are available for the 10 "unskilled" workers who still remain on the job. This also supports more higher paid engineering and technician positions.
    Actually, I think we were saying the same thing. I said that MORE jobs are lost through technology, not the remaining jobs. So, you are right that the 10 remaining jobs are being shipped overseas, but the first 90 jobs lost were due to technology. And, yes, higher technology supports higher paid engineering and technician positions. No question about it. The problem is, a generation ago a guy could get out of high school and get a job in a factory that could support a family and buy a house, without a college degree. Now, you can't do that because of this same technology. Yet I always hear people and politicians complain about our loss of manufacturing jobs. That just seems like a talking point instead of reality. Manufacturing jobs are fewer due to technology and need to be skilled labor, due to the same technology.

  5. #14
    World Champ ODH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,960

    Default Re: Seperate but unequal=growing chasm between rich and poor in America

    Quote Originally Posted by quinn14 View Post
    To your first paragrah, that is why I said I wasn't a math wizard. Obviously, I forgot or never did learn what a median was. For your second comment, I guess "technically" you are right. But the first post said "the poorest 90% of America make an average of $31,244 per year." It didn't mention a median and did say POOREST, so therefore I took it to mean poor. Which is why I commented that 31k was not poor.

    About how much people make on welfare, I don't really think they do. Here is my only example.

    My buddy's friend went through a divorce. Got depressed and quit his job. After applying for welfare, for no good reason, he got 1k per month paycheck. $200 per month food card. His duplex was approved for $450 per month section 8 and his kid got a medical card. All that added up is $1650 per month in payments plus a medical card for a kid you have shared parenting with. That is over 20k per year to a guy who just got depressed and chose not to work. The real shame of it is that he stayed on welfare for 4 years until he found an entry level job that could offer him more on day 1. I don't call that poor. Yet, I don't deny that there are poor in America.
    The graphic doesn't say the 90% poorest people are "poor" and the graphs are all about income distribution not how little the poorest in the US have.
    There is no other good way adjective to describe the population that makes the least. Again if you are making around $31K you are right in the middle of what Americans make and nowhere is that implied to be poor.

    I would like to know what you consider to be poor. I Googled income distribution and found 20% of households make less than $18K. The governemnt defines povery of a single person making less than $10,890 and a family of four making less than $22,350.

    I am always amused by many conservative prove how much waste there is in government social programs by pointing out one example that they personally know of or read about or know "someone who knows someone". Anectdotal information is powerfully convincing but does not provide real evidence.
    As far as yor friend's friend, if he was truly suffereing from depression, that is a crippling mental illness that incapcitates people as much as any physical illness. There is a big difference from depression and feeling down and not wanting to work.

    I am not knowledgable at all about the current welfare rules, but I thought Clinton's welfare reforms was successful "ending welfare as we know it" and it is now only a temporary relief program and if you were healthy you could only stay on it for a short period of time and you could only be on it for a small number of times in your life. I laos remember hearing that the Earned Income Tax Credit (that much derided program were the poorest AMericans get more back in income tax that they pay) was a major part of the success of this program.

  6. #15
    World Champ ODH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,960

    Default Re: Seperate but unequal=growing chasm between rich and poor in America

    Quote Originally Posted by quinn14 View Post
    Actually, I think we were saying the same thing. I said that MORE jobs are lost through technology, not the remaining jobs. So, you are right that the 10 remaining jobs are being shipped overseas, but the first 90 jobs lost were due to technology. And, yes, higher technology supports higher paid engineering and technician positions. No question about it. The problem is, a generation ago a guy could get out of high school and get a job in a factory that could support a family and buy a house, without a college degree. Now, you can't do that because of this same technology. Yet I always hear people and politicians complain about our loss of manufacturing jobs. That just seems like a talking point instead of reality. Manufacturing jobs are fewer due to technology and need to be skilled labor, due to the same technology.
    I think, in general, we are agreeing, but I believe "Manufacturing jobs are fewer due to technology and need to be skilled labor, due to the same technology" is a good thing for this country. Feweer people making more stuff means lower prices for everyone and better pay for those who remain in manufacturing.
    there are still "unskilled" manufacturing jobs available. They are not great paying jobs and we have them at our plant, but you need to be able to learn on the job and most importantly you need to show up every day on time. There is a huge percentage of people who cannot do this.

  7. #16

    Default Re: Seperate but unequal=growing chasm between rich and poor in America

    Don't see too many folks getting rich off of these numbers (ecept those receiving corporate welfare). I apologize for formatting problems. This is a Word document that I created for my research purposes on social welfare.

    Keep in mind that social welfare programs are means tested and it is very difficult to qualify for every service available. However, corporate welfare is NOT means tested, and the wealthier the company, the more welfare dollars they get! Nice gig, eh?



    Social Welfare
    • Annual state and federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) expenditures: $18.6 billion.<O</O
    • Annual Food Stamps expenditures are $56 billion. <O</O
    • Total expenditures are $74.6 billion. <O</O
    Source: Dept. of Health and Human Services, 2009.<O</O
    • With 154.3 million working Americans, TANF and food stamps cost each of us:<O
      • $483 per year
      • <O$40 per month
      • <O$9 per week
    National average maximum family TANF benefit received: <O

      • Monthly: $425 ($426 in Iowa)
      • Annually $5,100 ($5,112 in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com</st1:State><ST1Iowa)
      • <st1:State w:st="on"></st1:State>Source: Dept. of Health and Human Services, 2009<O
    • National average maximum family Food Stamp amount received:<O
      • Monthly: $537 ($526 in <st1:State w:st="on"><ST1Iowa)</st1:State>
      • <st1:State w:st="on"></st1:State>Annually: $6,444 ($6,312 in <st1:State w:st="on"><ST1Iowa</st1:State>
      • <st1:State w:st="on"></st1:State>Source: <st1:country-region w:st="on"><ST1U.S. </st1:country-region>Department of Agriculture, 2009<O
    • Total maximum benefits (TANF + Food Stamps):<O
      • Family (monthly): $962
      • <OFamily (annually): $11,544

    • <O<OFamily Composition for TANF recipients:<O
      • Average family size: 2.9
      • <OAverage number of recipient children: 1.8 <O
        • 50% of all TANF families have 1 recipient child
        • <O28% of all TANF families have 2 recipient children
        • <O13% of all TANF families have 3 recipient children
        • <O5% of all TANF families have 4 recipient children
        • <O2.5% of all TANF families have 5 or more recipient children
        • <O78% have 2 or less children; 91% have 3 or less children

      • <O<OAverage length of time spent on TANF: 35.4 months
      • <OSource for above: <st1:country-region w:st="on"><ST1U.S.</st1:country-region> Dept. of Health and Human Services, 200
    • Prior to our new laws going into effect in 1997, average time spent on AFDC (name prior to TANF):
      • 56% of recipients spent anywhere from 1-11 months on AFDC
      • <O14% of recipients spent 2 years on AFDC
      • <O21% of recipients spent anywhere from 3-7 years on AFDC
      • <O9% of recipients spent 8+ years on AFDC (Nearly all of whom are disabled)
      • <OAll told, 70% of recipients used the program for 2 years or less
    • Source: <st1:country-region w:st="on"><ST1U.S.</st1:country-region>Census Bureau, 1995
    <O
    • Furthermore, no scientific study has ever found a relationship between the size of welfare benefits and the number of births by welfare recipients. In fact, and before 1996, states that offered the most ?generous? welfare benefits had lower birth rates among AFDC recipients than states that offered less generous benefits.Source: Sociology, Margaret Anderson and Howard Taylor, 2002



    Corporate Welfare
    • <OAnnual federal expenditures for corporate welfare: $170 billion.
    <OSource: Citizens for Tax Justice, 2004<O


    <O
    • With 154.3 million working Americans, corporate welfare costs each of us:<O></O>
      • $1,101 per year
      • <O$91 per month
      • <O$21 per week
    • <O<OAll in all, corporate welfare costs us nearly two and a half times what welfare expenditures for the poor do.<O<O
      <O

    • 75% of all government financial aid goes to the non-poor.
    <OSource: <st1:country-region w:st="on"><ST1U.S. </st1:country-region>Dept. of Health and Human Services; Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2002<O


    <O
    • 66% of all farm subsidies (government assistance to farmers) go to the wealthiest 10% of farmers in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><ST1U.S.</st1:country-region>
    <st1:country-region w:st="on"></st1:country-region>Source: NPR News, 2007<O

    <O
    • Corporations pay about 10% of our Federal tax revenues each year, compared to over 80% that citizens (you and I) pay. 50 years ago, this situation was exactly reversed. In <st1:State w:st="on"><ST1Iowa today, </st1:State>corporations account for just 3% of all total state tax revenues
    Source: Des Moines Register, 2005<O


    <O
    • If the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><ST1U.S.</st1:country-region> had an equitable system of taxation, all of us would pay 25% less in taxes each year.
    <OSource: Citizens for Tax Justice<O


    Present Social Welfare Laws (into effect in 1997)<O


    1. Five year lifetime limit on TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families).

    2. All TANF recipients must either be working or in school within a certain time period to receive assistance.

    3. Legal(not illegal) immigrants are barred from TANF and food stamps until they have been in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><ST1U.S. for 5 years.</st1:country-region>
    UNI Panthers...Because it's just right.

  8. #17

    Default Re: Seperate but unequal=growing chasm between rich and poor in America

    [QUOTE=ODH;390122]
    The graphic doesn't say the 90% poorest people are "poor" and the graphs are all about income distribution not how little the poorest in the US have.
    There is no other good way adjective to describe the population that makes the least. Again if you are making around $31K you are right in the middle of what Americans make and nowhere is that implied to be poor.
    Well, if by saying that the "poorest 90% of Americans" doesn't imply they are poor then I guess I read that wrong. Why not just say "90% of Americans make 31k per year" and not have "poor" in there at all? Probably because whoever wrote it wanted to imply that if you aren't part of the "evil" 1% then you are poor. But, maybe I read it wrong.

    I would like to know what you consider to be poor. I Googled income distribution and found 20% of households make less than $18K. The governemnt defines povery of a single person making less than $10,890 and a family of four making less than $22,350.
    Those numbers sound poor for America, but that's about it. And if a family of 4 is making 22k per year and get a food card and Section 8 on top of that, then I wouldn't even call them poor for America's standards. People in Egypt make 2 dollars a day. That is poor.

    I am always amused by many conservative prove how much waste there is in government social programs by pointing out one example that they personally know of or read about or know "someone who knows someone". Anectdotal information is powerfully convincing but does not provide real evidence.
    As far as yor friend's friend, if he was truly suffereing from depression, that is a crippling mental illness that incapcitates people as much as any physical illness. There is a big difference from depression and feeling down and not wanting to work.
    Let me first reply to this by saying that I am glad to amuse you. Laughter and smiles are always nice Now, the reason I said it was the only example I had was because I don't go around asking people what they make off of welfare. Call me old-fashioned, but I was taught not to ask someone what they make. But I do have a couple of friends who rent houses and apartments to people on Section 8. You would be amazed at the people who qualify for this. They drive cars as nice as mine, have big screen tvs, decent furniture and decent clothes. I'm sorry, but I don't call that poor. And before anyone freaks out, I'm not saying everyone on Section 8 is like that. I'm saying that a portion of Section 8 IS like that and those people probably don't need it. Again, go to Africa and look at their poor and tell me if most of what is called poor in America really is poor.

    As far as my buddy's brother having actual depression, I don't know. I'm not a doctor. What I do know is that he was over it in a couple of months but got "hooked on welfare" and couldn't get off of it. It made financial sense to stay on it until he did find a decent paying job, but he was not hurting for anything while he was on it.

    I am not knowledgable at all about the current welfare rules, but I thought Clinton's welfare reforms was successful "ending welfare as we know it" and it is now only a temporary relief program and if you were healthy you could only stay on it for a short period of time and you could only be on it for a small number of times in your life. I laos remember hearing that the Earned Income Tax Credit (that much derided program were the poorest AMericans get more back in income tax that they pay) was a major part of the success of this program.
    I don't know that much about welfare rules either. I am sure that Clinton probably meant to pass a law that ended welfare as we know it, but just like almost everything the government runs, it didn't work as promised. There are just too many people recieving aide in America for the government to keep track of. I am sure thousands slip through the cracks, while thousands more don't slip through.

  9. #18

    Default Re: Seperate but unequal=growing chasm between rich and poor in America

    [QUOTE=ODH;390126]
    I think, in general, we are agreeing, but I believe "Manufacturing jobs are fewer due to technology and need to be skilled labor, due to the same technology" is a good thing for this country. Feweer people making more stuff means lower prices for everyone and better pay for those who remain in manufacturing.
    That is why I said it is just a talking point and not reality. It is better for everyone, but politicians still think it is cool to say that we need more manufacturing jobs.

    there are still "unskilled" manufacturing jobs available. They are not great paying jobs and we have them at our plant, but you need to be able to learn on the job and most importantly you need to show up every day on time. There is a huge percentage of people who cannot do this.
    I think this goes back to my point of Americans feeling like failures. When you feel that way you don't give it your all and don't show up to work on time every day. You said it better than I did, but I agree. That is why the plants I worked in were filled with older men and young immigrants. There just weren't enough young Americans who valued the job.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •