Timothy Noah
All my life I've heard Latin America described as a failed society (or collection of failed societies) because of its grotesque maldistribution of wealth. - But according to the Central Intelligence Agency (whose patriotism I hesitate to question), income distribution in the United States is more unequal than in Guyana, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, and roughly on par with Uruguay, Argentina, and Ecuador.
Read more
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Americans won't believe this. The rest of the world probably suspected it.
ReplyDeleteThe type of posts which used to make fleming go insane..He probably would now as well but since I stopped checking on the banned IPs I have no idea if he still posts comments or not..my guess is that he still does but I don't bother..
ReplyDeleteThere is almost universal agreement that education is the key to economic success. Most people know that the family income of those who drop out of school falls far below the family income of those who complete college. Less well known is the fact that the income of those with less than a college degree has not increased for three decades or more. Promoting education is promoting opportunity.
ReplyDeleteOur research shows that children whose parents were in the bottom 20 percent of earners tripled their odds of earning $85,000 or more per year by obtaining a four-year college degree. Yet kids from poor families are both less likely to enroll in and graduate from college as compared with kids from families with more income.
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/0329_economic_mobility_haskins_sawhill.aspx
Oh please. There is a great deal of debate about this topic. What caused the gap and how to address it. Nobody denies it exists. Your comment is very strange indeed.
ReplyDeleteThey have only themselves to blame, I suppose.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely not! Its the fault of the capitalist running dogs, of course! Sigh. If only we had guys like some of your Labour luminaries of the past, to steer us in the Soviet way, why, we would have totaliatarian... oops, I mean total equality of income today!
ReplyDelete<span>Absolutely not! Its the fault of the capitalist running dogs, of course! Sigh. If only we had guys like some of your Labour luminaries of the past, to steer us in the Soviet way, why, we would have totalitarian... oops, I mean total equality of income today!</span>
ReplyDeleteI see it happening. Where I work I've seen the number of homeless going up. The number of empty storefronts is going up too. And that is in a fairly affluent suburb, not on the outskirts of cities, where I hear there are entire homeless encampments.
ReplyDeleteCorrect me if I'm wrong, but doesn't higher education have to be bought and paid for in the US? Perhaps that pushes it down the list of priorities for the poor. Does the phrase "poverty trap" have any currency over there?
ReplyDeleteThis is another trend that fits in the trend toward inequality. When I was growing up, California was building state universities and colleges and community colleges. The idea was that everyone should have access to higher education. They were inexpensive and there was financial assistance for poor students. Now, it is increasing out of reach financially especially for the poor. People come out of college with enormous loans to pay off. As far as poverty being a trap, there is this attitude that is heavily pushed by the right that anyone can pull him or herself up by the bootstraps. I would venture to say most people, at least most white people, buy into that. It's a convenient belief if you don't want to acknowledge that the system has privileged you.
ReplyDeleteJemmy, If you had wanted a serious response, you should have started with a serious comment instead of some snark implying that I or we or whomever blame poverty solely on the poor. The article I linked to does no such thing.
ReplyDeleteI still don't know which side you're on, vza.
ReplyDeleteI must choose a side? Is there a "side" that is all good and another that is bad? I am on the side of programs and policies that will work. If that means government intervention or market forces or a combination of the two, so be it.
ReplyDeleteI neither infantalize nor romanticize "the poor".
"... neither infantalize nor romanticize ...", and who does that, pray? Anyone who says that the poor are at a disadvantage? Better to ignore the whining mass, and concentrate on highlighting the successful few.
ReplyDelete