What is Occupy Wallstreet?

[kandrathe]

Well, kandrathe; FIT is right actually.

Thanks for your supporting data.

No, FIT is trolling me. There is ample evidence (such as from George Borjas) to show that social mobility is alive and well in America. To be clear, I never said there was absolute equality, only that there is a relative equality of opportunity. A young adult is certainly influenced by their parents circumstances, including that parents success in the labor market. That same young person may have negative societal pressures, such as discrimination to overcome. But, "The Law" clearly is on the side of the discriminated, and "The Law" in fact seeks to counter those discriminatory pressures by implementing EEO policies, minority business vendor preferences, and affirmative action. Is it perfect, no, and I've never claimed that every person experiences upward only social mobility. I'm limiting my view to "The American Dream", and I'll leave "The Dutch Dream" to you.

I think that instead of being happy what you have (because you were born in a good place) and telling it is the best of the best you better look into the future and see how we can make things better.

On the other hand, of you just keep repeating the capitalist mantra (because it works so great for us now) you always have chance to win the 'nobel price' in economics.

It's not a Capitalist mantra to believe in the possibility of success. They would be happy with docile sheeple, accepting their low wage and dutifully reporting to the factory for work 6 days a week, for their 20 hour shift (hence their interest in robotics). The "American Dream" encapsulates also the idea that individual success is tied to individual qualities and liberties. If I am smarter, more diligent, riskier, or just luckier, I can improve my station. And, it is contrary to the root of this, communism or socialism, which merely levels the means, dolling out equal wages regardless of merit. I have argued that with certain changes, we could make the US more of a place where ingenuity, and entrepreneurship are more embraced, but I wouldn't say that the US is devoid of these opportunities.

[Lissa]

And to add to that. The american dream only works if for every winner you have a whole bunch of losers. So yes, of course there are people climbing up the socioeconomic ladder. But for every person that clims up, several fall down.

Not really, no. This isn't a zero sum game. New wealth is created nearly every year. Someone at the mean real US income today would have been very well off in the 1910s, and downright rich in the 1820s.

This also depends on where you are in the country too. Someone making the median in New York and it's surrounding burrows is going to be hard pressed to make ends meet. Someone making the median where I and Voiceman and his brothers grew up would be considered down right rich (don't know if Voiceman remembers the Berneys or not, but it was crazy to consider what that family had with their ranch).

Also, take a look at what is being considered Middle Class now in China and what kind of daily income those people are making with respect to converting to US dollars.

Wealth is really dependant on location.

---

Well, kandrathe; FIT is right actually.

Thanks for your supporting data.

No, FIT is trolling me. There is ample evidence (such as from George Borjas) to show that social mobility is alive and well in America. To be clear, I never said there was absolute equality, only that there is a relative equality of opportunity. A young adult is certainly influenced by their parents circumstances, including that parents success in the labor market. That same young person may have negative societal pressures, such as discrimination to overcome. But, "The Law" clearly is on the side of the discriminated, and "The Law" in fact seeks to counter those discriminatory pressures by implementing EEO policies, minority business vendor preferences, and affirmative action. Is it perfect, no, and I've never claimed that every person experiences upward only social mobility. I'm limiting my view to "The American Dream", and I'll leave "The Dutch Dream" to you.

But it isn't even relative equality of opportunity either. Have you looked at any of the studies out there? There are numerous studies saying that the future generations of America are doomed to be worse off than their parent generations. That shows that there isn't equality of opportunity when the overall effect is that there will be less people doing better than their parent's generation and all it takes is looking at the present unemployment situation here in the US.

Some of the rough statistics running around right now on unemployment rates:

9% overall Unemployment

5% unemployement rate for those with a college degree and over the age of 34.

13% to 14% unemployement rate for those without a college degree over the age of 34.

High teens, low 20s percentage unemployement rate for those under the age of 34.

These numbers are not exact, but this is what has been shown over the last few months for labor statistics. You cannot tell me that there is equal opportunity when the situation is like this, especially when you are using statistics from studies that show the equality of opportunity eroding over the course of your study (take a look back at your own posts where you show that poverty is increasing, not decreasing as time has gone on).

[LavCat]

This is definitely wrong. Population increase does not drive economic growth, not by a long shot. Otherwise, India would be rich, and Luxembourg poor. Research drives growth. Innovation drives growth. Capital accumulation drives growth. Competition drives growth. Population growth actually decreases economic growth, all else equal - more people fighting over the same resources means less for each.

-Jester

If you consider economy a local national thing yes. But of course it isn't.
Our wealth in the west is made possible by the fact that there are so many indians and chinese. If we couldn't get cheap cloths, gadgets, food, oil etc. we would have to think of something else.....at least we wouldn't have time to enjoy our holidays a lot.

I don't claim to understand economics but my most recent gadget purchase was an item made in Luxembourg, a drill press. There are drill presses made in China, but in my opinion Luxembourg makes better drill presses.

[kandrathe]

Have you looked at any of the studies out there?

Yes.

There are numerous studies saying that the future generations of America are doomed to be worse off than their parent generations. That shows that there isn't equality of opportunity when the overall effect is that there will be less people doing better than their parent's generation and all it takes is looking at the present unemployment situation here in the US.

They can be flawed. Often the studies I've seen are sensational, probably to sell magazines, newspapers, or to garner more grant money to produce more flawed research. Narrow minded Malthusians have predicted our impending demise long before Malthus published "An Essay on the Principle of Population". We face many challenges, such as peak oil, and other resource depletion, overpopulation and consumption, climate change, globalization, technological change, increasing longevity, reduced fertility, etc. But, as in the past, our brinksmanship with these challenges is legendary.

But, take for example, employment demand. Yes, we are at a very bad place for employment demand, but that is due to a number of circumstances, with the obvious current trough in boom/bust cycles being just one. You need to also consider the huge number of boomers who will retire over the next 20 years. This will create a labor shortage in those places currently held by 50-60 year old, not to mention the increases in demand in those areas who provide services for the retired, age 60+ demographic. So, we ask ourselves some fundamental questions. Will there suddenly be a dramatic downturn in population? No, to the contrary. There is a continual growth in world population, and a dramatic increase in the demand for goods and services. Who will provide these goods and services? Those over 60 years old? No, probably not. The US, Europe, and China will experience a dramatic reduction in their labor forces in the near term (20 years). Meaning, everyone will become more valuable to the economy -- to the risk of the economy itself.

The current asymptotes project a negative trend line, while just 4 years ago, it would have been equally misguided to project only an upward trend line. We tend to look at things linearly, while the real world works more curvy or chaotically.

Some of the rough statistics running around right now on unemployment rates:

...

These numbers are not exact, but this is what has been shown over the last few months for labor statistics.

I'll take your word for it, and the gist is sufficient.

You cannot tell me that there is equal opportunity when the situation is like this, especially when you are using statistics from studies that show the equality of opportunity eroding over the course of your study (take a look back at your own posts where you show that poverty is increasing, not decreasing as time has gone on).

I have also claimed an eroding of opportunity (not in equality). And, my only difference is that I don't see it as dead, but merely dying a little.

The dying a little to me is instigated by the cozy relationship between governance and industry, globalization, and in the restrictions on individual liberty (such as the CPSIA of 2008, signed by GWB. Subsequently, stepwise repealed as the unintended consequences of attempting to remove all lead from children's products (such as minibikes) are better understood.) It is troubling to me that those 42% in the lowest quintile in 1996, were still in the lowest quintile 10 years later. The problems and solutions are known, although the efficacy of our solutions are what we debate. People remain poor or become poor due to a lack of education, addiction, health issues, discrimination, and as you pointed out earlier, their local economy (and it's opportunities).

A town near where my Mom used to live went from somewhat prosperous with 10,000 people to struggling, and less than 5000 people, due to the crash of the auto industry, and the closing of the towns big employer who supplied parts. The people had to leave to go get a new job in a new town. Now, the remaining 5000 have to pay for infrastructure designed for 10,000 or more. This over built condition is another topic, but it is an ongoing risk in the US due to the unsustainability of maintaining urban sprawl on projects financed with federal, or state grants. Simply put, the tax base per square mile is not sufficient to maintain the infrastructure in that same square mile.

It seems counter intuitive, but this is the type of economic upheaval that will produce the next "Apple". Peoples backs are against the wall, they are forced to take risks, and the economic destruction shatters the weaker entrenched industries creating opportunities for innovative new upstarts. Technology advances continue to make traditional methods (like a brick and mortar university) obsolete, and these dinosaurs need to evolve or risk fossilization. Consider this time period akin to that time just after the asteroid struck. The world changes now, and what emerges afterwards will be dependent on who survives and is positioned to take advantage of the new economic ecosystem.

[Lissa]

Have you looked at any of the studies out there?

Yes.

Judging by your comments below, that would be a big no. If you had been looking at those studies, you would see what you've said below is wrong.

There are numerous studies saying that the future generations of America are doomed to be worse off than their parent generations. That shows that there isn't equality of opportunity when the overall effect is that there will be less people doing better than their parent's generation and all it takes is looking at the present unemployment situation here in the US.

They can be flawed. For example, employment demand. Yes, we are at a very bad place for employment demand, but that is due to a number of circumstances, with the obvious current trough in boom/bust cycles being just one. You need to also consider the huge number of boomers who will retire over the next 20 years. This will create a labor shortage in those places currently held by 50-60 year old, not to mention the increases in demand in those areas who provide services for the retired, age 60+ demographic. So, we ask ourselves some fundamental questions. Will there suddenly be a dramatic downturn in population? No, to the contrary. There is a continual growth in world population, and a dramatic increase in the demand for goods and services. Who will provide these goods and services? Those over 60 years old? No, probably not. The US, Europe, and China will experience a dramatic reduction in their labor forces in the near term (20 years). Meaning, everyone will become more valuable to the economy -- to the risk of the economy itself.

The current asymptotes project a negative trend line, while just 4 years ago, it would have been equally misguided to project only an upward trend line. We tend to look at things linearly, while the real world works more curvy or chaotically.

The studies have shown, that even with the retirement of boomers, the general trend is that future generations will be worse off than present generations. This has nothing to do with employment demand, but everything to do with worsening employment conditions. Things are getting worse generationally, not better and this has been a trend for atleast a decade or more now and the trends show thing worsening, even when looking at the boom years of the mid to late 90s.

You cannot tell me that there is equal opportunity when the situation is like this, especially when you are using statistics from studies that show the equality of opportunity eroding over the course of your study (take a look back at your own posts where you show that poverty is increasing, not decreasing as time has gone on).

I have also claimed an eroding of opportunity (not in equality). And, my only difference is that I don't see it as dead, but merely dying a little. The dying a little to me is instigated by the cozy relationship between governance and industry, globalization, and in the restrictions on individual liberty (such as the CPSIA of 2008, signed by GWB. Subsequently, stepwise repealed as the unintended consequences of attempting to remove all lead from children's products (such as minibikes) are better understood.) It is troubling to me that those 42% in the lowest quintile in 1996, were still in the lowest quintile 10 years later. The problems and solutions are known, although the efficacy of our solutions are what we debate. People remain poor or become poor due to a lack of education, addiction, health issues, discrimination, and as you pointed out earlier, their local economy (and it's opportunities). A town near where my Mom used to live went from somewhat prosperous with 10,000 people to struggling, and less than 5000 people, due to the crash of the auto industry, and the closing of the towns big employer who supplied parts. The people had to leave to go get a new job in a new town. Now, the remaining 5000 have to pay for infrastructure designed for 10,000 or more. This over built condition is another topic, but it is an ongoing risk in the US due to the unsustainability of maintaining urban sprawl on projects financed with federal, or state grants. Simply put, the tax base per square mile is not sufficient to maintain the infrastructure in that same square mile.

It seems counter intuitive, but this is the type of economic upheaval that will produce the next "Apple". Peoples backs are against the wall, they are forced to take risks, and the economic destruction shatters the weaker entrenched industries creating opportunities for innovative new upstarts. Technology advances continue to make traditional methods (like a brick and mortar university) obsolete, and these dinosaurs need to evolve or risk fossilization. Consider this time period akin to that time just after the asteroid struck. The world changes now, and what emerges afterwards will be dependent on who survives and is positioned to take advantage of the new economic ecosystem.

You're deflecting. You're own listing a few posts pack show that poverty grew between 2010 and 2009 and further grew even more since 2000. The only lessening, was between 1993 and 2000 when the US entered a boom time that has been unprescidented in decades prior or sense.

Likewise, if you agree than we have eroding opportunity, it logically follows that the equality of opportunity is also eroding. You cannot have opportunity erode while saying at the same time that everyone has an equal chance of oportunity. Oportunity would have to stay even for the equality of chance to stay the same. You cannot have an erosion of one and expect the other aspect to stay the same or even grow.

[kandrathe]

You're deflecting. You're own listing a few posts pack show that poverty grew between 2010 and 2009 and further grew even more since 2000. The only lessening, was between 1993 and 2000 when the US entered a boom time that has been unprecedented in decades prior or sense.

And, I think you may be myopic. I'm saying that the doom and gloom is the meat and potatoes of an industry.

"And no longer do Americans share the great expectations of generations past. For the first time, public-opinion polls show that the average U.S. citizen is not at all sure that his children's lot will be better than – or even as good as – his own." -- Newsweek, 1980, "An Economic Dream in Peril"


Gallup - public opinion -- is a measure of current optimism, more than anything else. But, still... In the face of the worst recession ever, 44% of all people still are optimistic that youth will be better off than their parents. When limited to actual youth (18-29) that percentage of optimists climbs to 57%. No, the studies show that over time, most everyone is better off than they were a decade ago in real inflation adjusted measures of "well off". Where today's "Occupy Wallstreet" crowd are complaining is in their relative proportion of the larger pie. Their aggregate piece of the pie grew only a little, while that nebulous upper 1%'s portion grew much larger. But, as the Treasury department study I posted earlier showed, the people in that top 1% change over time as well. More like a hotel, where people are constantly moving in and out of the lower quality, middle quality, and higher quality rooms. But, overall, most everyone benefited from a larger economy, and many more people moved up, than moved down.

Poverty trends -- as bad now as in 1983, or 1993. And, maybe it will get worse.

Looking at the American experience, from the rapid economic boom bust cycles in the mid to late 1800's, the Civil War, WWI, WWII, that there were times when a majority of people must have seen the end of the "American Dream", if not the end of civilization itself.

Likewise, if you agree than we have eroding opportunity, it logically follows that the equality of opportunity is also eroding. You cannot have opportunity erode while saying at the same time that everyone has an equal chance of opportunity. Opportunity would have to stay even for the equality of chance to stay the same. You cannot have an erosion of one and expect the other aspect to stay the same or even grow.

How does it follow? When employers stop employing, they don't just stop employing minorities. It happens that since young people enter the work force (at about 18), they are being unintentionally discriminated upon by the shortage of employment opportunities. The shortage of jobs is also worsened due to the economic down turn, where more older people are hanging onto their jobs longer than they otherwise would have.

But, it really depends on that youths circumstances. For example, our university will graduate about 100 new accountants next spring. They all have jobs already lined up. But, another approach is to realistically look at expected US GDP growth over the next 20 years. Who is going to earn that money?

For perspective -- 200 countries over 200 years in 5 minutes I just don't see the world regressing. World wide, there is more wealth creation, and people are better off than ever before, and I think that trend will continue for another hundred years (at least).

[FireIceTalon]

I've come to the conclusion that the far-right, cherry-pick their stats and sweep everything else under the rug that proves the contrary to their claims. Or that evidence which supports the contrary to their claims is just written to be used as "propaganda" to sell magazines (which, ironically enough, is the goal in the contradictory capitalistic system you defend - to maximize profits) or is based on flawed research

You are completely ridiculous. No one is trolling here but you. Must be quite the life in that little Herbert Spencer bubble where that little figment of your imagination called reality ceases to exist. I have to say though, your comments make for great comedy, we had quite the laugh at some of your assertions in my History class today.

And Communism and Socialism (Socialism being an intermediary stage after Capitalism, Communism being the ultimate goal), for whatever flaws they might have, far outweigh the imperialistic, profits at any cost (including those of humanitarian concerns), wage slavery driven, dehumanization, waste of resources, million and one other vices of Crapitalism. A meritocracy and capitalism, are not compatible, though a meritocracy is not necessarily the most desirable system either. Merit is just as subjective as politics or religion are.

[Lissa]

You're deflecting. You're own listing a few posts pack show that poverty grew between 2010 and 2009 and further grew even more since 2000. The only lessening, was between 1993 and 2000 when the US entered a boom time that has been unprecedented in decades prior or sense.

And, I think you may be myopic. I'm saying that the doom and gloom is the meat and potatoes of an industry.

"And no longer do Americans share the great expectations of generations past. For the first time, public-opinion polls show that the average U.S. citizen is not at all sure that his children's lot will be better than – or even as good as – his own." -- Newsweek, 1980, "An Economic Dream in Peril"


Gallup - public opinion -- is a measure of current optimism, more than anything else. But, still... In the face of the worst recession ever, 44% of all people still are optimistic that youth will be better off than their parents. When limited to actual youth (18-29) that percentage of optimists climbs to 57%. No, the studies show that over time, most everyone is better off than they were a decade ago in real inflation adjusted measures of "well off". Where today's "Occupy Wallstreet" crowd are complaining is in their relative proportion of the larger pie. Their aggregate piece of the pie grew only a little, while that nebulous upper 1%'s portion grew much larger. But, as the Treasury department study I posted earlier showed, the people in that top 1% change over time as well. More like a hotel, where people are constantly moving in and out of the lower quality, middle quality, and higher quality rooms. But, overall, most everyone benefited from a larger economy, and many more people moved up, than moved down.

Poverty trends -- as bad now as in 1983, or 1993. And, maybe it will get worse.

Looking at the American experience, from the rapid economic boom bust cycles in the mid to late 1800's, the Civil War, WWI, WWII, that there were times when a majority of people must have seen the end of the "American Dream", if not the end of civilization itself.

Once again, you're deflecting. Opportunity is eroding, you even said so yourself, and thus so too is the equality of opportunity. You cannot have one erode and another stay the same when they are essentially the same. This is not arguing apples and oranges, this is arguing apples to apples. You cannot have opportunity erode while having the equality of opportunity stay the same, either both have to stay the same, both have to increase, or both have to decrease. They are tied together. If one erodes, so to does the other have to erode, they are not exclusive to each other, they are inclusive of each other.

Likewise, if you agree than we have eroding opportunity, it logically follows that the equality of opportunity is also eroding. You cannot have opportunity erode while saying at the same time that everyone has an equal chance of opportunity. Opportunity would have to stay even for the equality of chance to stay the same. You cannot have an erosion of one and expect the other aspect to stay the same or even grow.

How does it follow? When employers stop employing, they don't just stop employing minorities. It happens that since young people enter the work force (at about 18), they are being unintentionally discriminated upon by the shortage of employment opportunities. The shortage of jobs is also worsened due to the economic down turn, where more older people are hanging onto their jobs longer than they otherwise would have.

But, it really depends on that youths circumstances. For example, our university will graduate about 100 new accountants next spring. They all have jobs already lined up. But, another approach is to realistically look at expected US GDP growth over the next 20 years. Who is going to earn that money?

For perspective -- 200 countries over 200 years in 5 minutes I just don't see the world regressing. World wide, there is more wealth creation, and people are better off than ever before, and I think that trend will continue for another hundred years (at least).

Once again, try staying on topic. The fact is, opportunity has decreased and it continues to decrease. Jobs are being lost and not coming back because of the push for automation along with decreases in working condition (and s'posed increase in productivity which, in essence, is having less people do more).

Likewise, the wealth creation you state isn't really wealth creation, but wealth concentration as high paying jobs are being destroyed to create more low paying jobs that do not even come close to the same amount of wealth going out and that difference in wealth is going into the pockets of a few. As much as you want to say that rest of the world is better off, it is not. Those with large amounts of wealth are concentrating more wealth at the expense of those that were being paid good salaries now being decimated, those with extremely low salaries getting a few more pennies, and those with a high amount of wealth continue to concentrate that difference wealth lost from those that lost good salary positions as those positions were redistributed to much, much lowered salary positions.

[FireIceTalon]

Increased wealth creation over time for every class means little anyway, due to the rising cost of living. A working class person of today would have been pretty well off a century ago, but again, this means little. Wages and salaries for the majority are not keeping pace with increased cost of living. But anyway, he will just deny it, so this discussion is pointless. Peace.

[Jester]

Increased wealth creation over time for every class means little anyway, due to the rising cost of living. A working class person of today would have been pretty well off a century ago, but again, this means little. Wages and salaries for the majority are not keeping pace with increased cost of living. But anyway, he will just deny it, so this discussion is pointless. Peace.

This is incoherent. Either *real* wages are increasing, or they are not. The data show they are increasing. A worker today, even accounting for any conceivable version of cost-of-living increase, but *not* accounting for the benefit of new goods and services, is vastly richer than they were a century ago.

If that means little to you, you're welcome to your opinion. But the income data speak for themselves.

-Jester

---

You are completely ridiculous. No one is trolling here but you. Must be quite the life in that little Herbert Spencer bubble where that little figment of your imagination called reality ceases to exist. I have to say though, your comments make for great comedy, we had quite the laugh at some of your assertions in my History class today.

Seriously?

That's just sad.

-Jester

[ShadowHM]

You are completely ridiculous. No one is trolling here but you. Must be quite the life in that little Herbert Spencer bubble where that little figment of your imagination called reality ceases to exist. I have to say though, your comments make for great comedy, we had quite the laugh at some of your assertions in my History class today.

Seriously?

That's just sad.

-Jester

What Jester said! I am sorry to know that all the energy spent giving you reasoned responses here has been a waste.

[FireIceTalon]

*Yawn*

I guess I am supposed to put my caring face on now, yes? Oh sorry, I seem to have lost it.

Anyways, nothing wrong with having a little discourse about someone who is completely out of touch with reality. It's like a big train wreck, you CAN'T help but talk about it, lol. What's the fuss? Oh well, I guess he can take some satisfaction knowing he was mentioned along side a few other reactionary greats and their picture perfect portrayals of our society and how it works, namely Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, and Mitt Romney. Hey, at least we didn't mention Hitler or General Pinochet. LOL.

[Jester]

Anyways, nothing wrong with having a little discourse about someone who is completely out of touch with reality. It's like a big train wreck, you CAN'T help but talk about it, lol. What's the fuss?

This kind of unironic self-reference was hilarious the first few times. Now it's just getting stupid.

-Jester

[eppie]

a place where ingenuity, and entrepreneurship are more embraced, but I wouldn't say that the US is devoid of these opportunities.

Kandrathe, I know there is social mobility in the US, it would be stupid to ignore that but I have many problems with the american dream. The american dream might exist despite the way the US social and political system is setup.
It is probably a lot easier for someone from a low social class to 'make it' in the Netherlands, or Sweden than it is in the US, and indeed we don't whine about the 'Dutch or Swedish dream' all the time.

The amount of taxes someone (let's say an enterpreneur) has to pay over his profits will not define how succesful he is.

And for that.....if you just look at money....you are probably right about communist states but I think that even in the sovjet union it was easier for someone fromk the lower classes to become succesful and rise up in the ranks because of his or her talents, efforts. Anyway, again not stating that that society was better than yours, but just to indicate that the concept of 'the american dream' can better be forgotten.
it is a concept made up by the wealthy and famous to keep the people happy.

[kandrathe]

Once again, you're deflecting. Opportunity is eroding, you even said so yourself, and thus so too is the equality of opportunity. You cannot have one erode and another stay the same when they are essentially the same. This is not arguing apples and oranges, this is arguing apples to apples. You cannot have opportunity erode while having the equality of opportunity stay the same, either both have to stay the same, both have to increase, or both have to decrease. They are tied together. If one erodes, so to does the other have to erode, they are not exclusive to each other, they are inclusive of each other.

Say I'm a business owner, and in 2008 I hire 100 new employees a year, and then due to recession and lack of sales I entrench and decide for 2009 and 2010 to hire 50, or zero new employees. This equally denied the opportunity to the pool of potential applicants. There is no inequality in presenting, or retracting the opportunity.

But, this is a much bigger picture as well. Being hired is one piece. How about education? Part of the stimulus bill increased the amount of money going to student aid. Opportunity is increased in that case. What about new business ventures? Again, part of the stimulus went to the Small Business Administration for expanding grants and loans to small business. Things are hampered by a credit crunch as banks swing the pendulum away from ridiculously easy credit.

I'm not deflecting here. I'm swirling around a bigger picture of what opportunity means both at the present, and historically. It means more than railing at the disproportionate wealth of the top 1%. It means more than a poverty rate that oscillates between 10% and 16% over three decades. It means more than getting every child through high school, and every high school graduate through college.

I think I've shown that mostly people are better off than they were a decade ago, and that most people do advance upwards in social mobility. I've acknowledged the current challenges and I've given my opinions on why I believe real opportunities contributing toward "The American Dream" are eroding. But, I believe it would be natural for people to be more pessimistic in the trough of a deep recession, or in the midst of a civil war, etc. Despite the hard times, more young people still believe they will do better than their parents.

Once again, try staying on topic. The fact is, opportunity has decreased and it continues to decrease. Jobs are being lost and not coming back because of the push for automation along with decreases in working condition (and s'posed increase in productivity which, in essence, is having less people do more).

I tend to step back from a problem and view it in it's larger context. I feel I am on topic. We don't know that lost jobs would not return. It would take some stepwise changes, such as reform of our tax code, to return the US as THE place to start or move your business.

Likewise, the wealth creation you state isn't really wealth creation, but wealth concentration as high paying jobs are being destroyed to create more low paying jobs that do not even come close to the same amount of wealth going out and that difference in wealth is going into the pockets of a few. As much as you want to say that rest of the world is better off, it is not. Those with large amounts of wealth are concentrating more wealth at the expense of those that were being paid good salaries now being decimated, those with extremely low salaries getting a few more pennies, and those with a high amount of wealth continue to concentrate that difference wealth lost from those that lost good salary positions as those positions were redistributed to much, much lowered salary positions.

You'd have to show some evidence to back this up. There are many service industry jobs being created, and manufacturing is taking a beating. But, the service sector also includes lawyers, doctors, nurses, financial, computer, etc.

Pete and I had a great exchange along these lines a couple of years ago. I was wondering what happens when people aren't really needed to run the economy. If you look at the productivity of farming, for example, where very few people produce the same or greater amounts of food. Or, more fully automated production, where machines and robots do most of the work. You put a roll a denim on one end of the machines, and various sizes of blue jeans get spit out the other end, and automatically bundled by size, and sent off to the inspectors. Instead of hundreds of people sitting at sewing machines, you've employed a few engineers, machinists, and repair technicians, and eliminated a lot of tedium. I still don't have an answer, because our psyche's are entrenched in the idea that everyone must find gainful employment in order to be a productive member of society.

So, this may be radical for me... But, one way to alleviate some of the unemployment problem would be to lower the age for social security, and to set the federal and state employee work weeks to 32 or 36 hours. Eventually, the rest of the culture would follow and a 32 hour work week would become normal. Then, maybe we'd go to a 24 hour work week, some day in the future.

[ShadowHM]

*Yawn*

I guess I am supposed to put my caring face on now, yes? Oh sorry, I seem to have lost it.

Thanks for making it easy for me put you on the ignore list. If you don't care about the feedback you get, I see no reason to waste my time reading your drivel anymore.

I can't usher you out of this forum but the second best thing is to make you invisible.

[kandrathe]

This kind of unironic self-reference was hilarious the first few times. Now it's just getting stupid.

For me it's like water off a duck's back. If the kids don't want to participate in the grown ups discussion, c'est la vie.

I'm ignoring the troll with the flame thrower in the corner. If he happens to say something intelligent, I may respond.

[Jester]

So, this may be radical for me... But, one way to alleviate some of the unemployment problem would be to lower the age for social security, and to set the federal and state employee work weeks to 32 or 36 hours. Eventually, the rest of the culture would follow and a 32 hour work week would become normal. Then, maybe we'd go to a 24 hour work week, some day in the future.

That sounds like... Europe.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Kandrathe, I know there is social mobility in the US, it would be stupid to ignore that but I have many problems with the American dream. The American dream might exist despite the way the US social and political system is setup.

I believe there is a tipping point where it costs an average (or above salary) just to live, leaving very little for savings or investing. If the government subsidizes low incomes, then people are comfortably trapped in the bowl, without the means to climb out. Otherwise, civic unrest would break the structures holding people in their gilded societal cage. I'm not saying that the government shouldn't help the disadvantaged. I'm saying that a collusion of making people comfortable, AND removing all opportunities is what creates a de facto gilded social prison.

It is probably a lot easier for someone from a low social class to 'make it' in the Netherlands, or Sweden than it is in the US, and indeed we don't whine about the 'Dutch or Swedish dream' all the time.

I haven't really looked into it. The one thing fascinating and also somewhat repugnant (if it is true) to me about Europe is it's apparent entrenchment. For example, you go a a place in Haarlam, and the same buildings are owned by the same hereditary people for hundreds of years. The "who's who" never really changes. In places, I think we are also getting towards that more and more in the US, where there really is an advantage to being born in the right family. But, here it is still fairly dynamic, with some instances of 2nd generation "new money", like Donald Trump, son of real-estate tycoon Fred Trump.

The amount of taxes someone (let's say an entrepreneur) has to pay over his (or her) profits will not define how successful he (or she) is.

Fixed that for you. Well, yes it does. having run a small business, taxes are a part of the expense that eliminates "profit". Profitless enterprises cease to exist, and eliminate the source for the taxation, and the employment. So... Like an ecosystem, you need to have the proper balance of all things to keep it thriving. If costs are too high, then prices become too high, and people stop buying your product or service.

And for that.....if you just look at money....you are probably right about communist states but I think that even in the Soviet Union it was easier for someone from the lower classes to become successful and rise up in the ranks because of his or her talents, efforts.

Or, their quality of life. There were some things, like science, or parts of academia that flourished in the Soviet Union, as long as it was in the interest of the State. But, others, like being Jewish, or an open member of the Orthodox church that suffered. If your interests aligned with State interests, then you were subsidized, if not, you were ignored or persecuted.

Anyway, again not stating that that society was better than yours, but just to indicate that the concept of 'the American dream' can better be forgotten.

It is mostly a romantic notion resurrected by literary people to stir up consternation, and ultimately to promote various media and sell more advertising. "Woe is us, the American Dream is dead".

It is a concept made up by the wealthy and famous to keep the people happy.

I don't think so, really. The wealthy people I know don't worry about coercing the lower classes. We are very good at deluding ourselves, they just go along with our current passions, and make hay with it. They are the ones selling "Occupy Wallstreet" t-shirts.

[Jester]

I believe there is a tipping point where it costs an average (or above salary) just to live, leaving very little for savings or investing. If the government subsidizes low incomes, then people are comfortably trapped in the bowl, without the means to climb out. Otherwise, civic unrest would break the structures holding people in their gilded societal cage. I'm not saying that the government shouldn't help the disadvantaged. I'm saying that a collusion of making people comfortable, AND removing all opportunities is what creates a de facto gilded social prison..

I've heard you make this argument dozens of times, and it still makes no sense to me. It seems to run like so:

1) People on a low-middling salary earn barely enough to scrape by.
2) This leaves little surplus to invest with for future wealth.
3) Government helps out poor people.
4) Poor people become trapped in poverty.

I do not comprehend. Number three sounds, if anything, like a potential solution to problems 1 and 2 - and a counter to 4. How does giving poor people more money, make them poorer? Anyone living in situation 1 and 2 is surely not doing so because of how incredibly comfortable it is. Poverty sucks, and people work damn hard just to get by.

Or, put another way, in countries where they have very generous social security nets, they also have fewer people "trapped" in poverty. Why is that true, if your argument is sensible? Are only Americans affected by this particular trap?

-Jester