George has done a good job highlighting the way certain business target the poor with shady deals. But there is also he fact of the huge growth in the numbers of people incarcerated in the US since since 1980 has primarily affected poor people. Of course, African- Americans have been hardest hit, but a college educated African American born from 1975-1979 was only slightly more like to have gone to prison than a white male who had graduated from high school. The increases in persons having gone to prison between the 1945-1949 cohort and the 1975-1979 cohort except for college graduates have been staggering. http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf ... ED_a_00019
This article says that in the past 50 years the percentage of those in jail who are poor has gone from 43 percent to 80 percent and that a high school drop-out is 63 times more likely to be in jail than a college graduate.http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/c ... ext=facpub
Of course prison hinders chances in life. (From employers not wanting to hire felons to not qualifying for many types of benefits). The article cited above from MIT journal that only 1 in 4 low income men who had been incarcerated had risen out of the bottom quintile of earnings as opposed to almost 2/3 of low income men overall. And of course incarceration negatively affects families and the chances for the next generation.
Getting a college degree is still a huge advantage even among recent college graduates. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/02/ ... o-college/
Yet, only 11 percent of poor kids get a college degree. http://nation.time.com/2013/05/09/were- ... to-college
It's not just a matter of good or bad parenting. In middle-class suburbia that may be true (you have two college- educated parents, they are actively involved in their kids' activities, they have good incomes, their kids go to good school, the parents stay together-- yeah, their kids have a good chance to be successful, though not always, kids are not robots) poor kids have extrinsic circumstances that make it tougher to make it.

bbauska wrote:Thank you. I agree with all of that. I would limit the time because education on financial matters would have a light at the end of the tunnel plan. I know you don't agree, though.

You don't know jack.

I oppose a lifetime limit. That does not mean I don't agree with reasonable time limits for particular benefits.

What happens if people don't attend the education classes?

Pesky homeschoolers, huh?

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Thank you. I agree with all of that. I would limit the time because education on financial matters would have a light at the end of the tunnel plan. I know you don't agree, though.

You don't know jack.

I oppose a lifetime limit. That does not mean I don't agree with reasonable time limits for particular benefits.

What happens if people don't attend the education classes?

Pesky homeschoolers, huh?

Don't be snide. I was pointing out our agreements, and agreeing that we would disagree on time limits. That was just plain rude of you.

Were you afraid to give me your answer about what would happen if a recipient chose to not attend the financial classes you said should be part of the program.

Perhaps you are having a bad day. I don't know, but another less snide attempt is hopefully forthcoming.

I consider it to be 'snide' when someone tells me what my position is, despite it actually being a caricature or just a plain misrepresentation of my position.

I was having a great day until I saw you put words into my mouth, yet again.

The education I am talking about is at schools age, and for all kids. If they miss those classes, it should bear the same result as any other mandatory classes.

danivon wrote:I consider it to be 'snide' when someone tells me what my position is, despite it actually being a caricature or just a plain misrepresentation of my position.

I was having a great day until I saw you put words into my mouth, yet again.

The education I am talking about is at schools age, and for all kids. If they miss those classes, it should bear the same result as any other mandatory classes.

I am sorry that you took it in a way that it was not meant. I am seeing why many do not wish to discuss with you. have a good day.

danivon wrote:I consider it to be 'snide' when someone tells me what my position is, despite it actually being a caricature or just a plain misrepresentation of my position.

I was having a great day until I saw you put words into my mouth, yet again.

You've accused me of this. Sometimes rightly so.

In this case, bbauska did not do what you accused him of.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Thank you. I agree with all of that. I would limit the time because education on financial matters would have a light at the end of the tunnel plan. I know you don't agree, though.

You don't know jack.

I oppose a lifetime limit. That does not mean I don't agree with reasonable time limits for particular benefits.

Bbauska did not deserve your "You don't know jack." His "I know you don't agree" was not snide and did not put words in your mouth. You don't agree with bbauska--by your own admission. He did not say anything about your disagreement, only that you disagree. He did not "caricature" your position or "misrepresent" it. In fact, he gave no details about it.

You then hit him with the "Pesky homeschoolers" crack.

I think you are having a bad day. You don't have to treat everyone as if you're responding to me.

I appreciate the back up, DF. I think I was clear in what I said, and surprised at the lack of response about education.

I am a big boy, and not offended by Owen's response. Surprised yes; offended... no.

I look forward to Owens response about what the penalty would be for not attending the financial management classes that he said would be supporting.

Bbauska,

If you did not intend to tell me my own mind, then I apologise for reacting that way. However, it came not long after you did exactly that to RickyP, and it looked a bit similar. My bad.

Seriously, DF, I am not 'having a bad day' (if I were a woman would you accuse me of having a bit of PMS?).

bbauska wrote:I look forward to Owens response about what the penalty would be for not attending the financial management classes that he said would be supporting.

I already responded. As the intention was for financial management classes during normal education (at High School level), it would be the same as for missing any other mandatory class. Now I have responded twice.

I don't intend to prescribe for all schools what punishments they should put in place for when a kid misses a class/some classes.

danivon wrote:Seriously, DF, I am not 'having a bad day' (if I were a woman would you accuse me of having a bit of PMS?).

I can't rule that out.

Honestly, I had quite a chuckle at your comment and took it, appropriately I trust, as you having your tongue firmly in your cheek.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Seriously, DF, I am not 'having a bad day' (if I were a woman would you accuse me of having a bit of PMS?).

I can't rule that out.

Honestly, I had quite a chuckle at your comment and took it, appropriately I trust, as you having your tongue firmly in your cheek.

it is. It was when I mentioned homeschooling as well. Ho hum.

For you data geeks, this has got to be some of the clearest data and charts about wealth inequality in the USA and how it has changed over time:

http://datatools.urban.org/Features/wealth-inequality-charts/

Wealth is vastly more important than income, yet we normally focus on income inequality, which masks positively giant differences in wealth. Income pays the bills. Wealth is power. I find it amazing how things have changed.

geojanes wrote:Wealth is vastly more important than income, yet we normally focus on income inequality, which masks positively giant differences in wealth. Income pays the bills. Wealth is power. I find it amazing how things have changed.

There is a relationship as well - wealth means either being insulated from income issues, or a much greater ability to get income. Usually both.

And of course the very top income earners will soon be able to accrue wealth - there comes a point where it's pretty much impossible to spend at a level without gaining some assets, even for the most frivolous.

The main observations are that the bulk of Americans are not much better off in real terms than they were a generation ago, but the top echelon are much better off.

geojanes wrote:For you data geeks, this has got to be some of the clearest data and charts about wealth inequality in the USA and how it has changed over time:

http://datatools.urban.org/Features/wealth-inequality-charts/

Wealth is vastly more important than income, yet we normally focus on income inequality, which masks positively giant differences in wealth. Income pays the bills. Wealth is power. I find it amazing how things have changed.

The data and charts are clear, but that doesn't mean they are accurate. You want to more carefully analyze the data before reaching conclusions. Note that they use pre-tax income, but it is after tax income that counts. Also note that they include "cash" government benefits, but not other government benefits. Therefore, government paid health care or rent is not included. Over the 50 years examined, these components have changed dramatically. There have also been substantial changes in retirement assets from defined benefit to defined contribution. I do agree that looking at wealth is valuable.

Ray Jay wrote:The data and charts are clear, but that doesn't mean they are accurate. You want to more carefully analyze the data before reaching conclusions. Note that they use pre-tax income, but it is after tax income that counts. Also note that they include "cash" government benefits, but not other government benefits. Therefore, government paid health care or rent is not included. Over the 50 years examined, these components have changed dramatically. There have also been substantial changes in retirement assets from defined benefit to defined contribution.

Dang, man, only one of those charts looked at annual income, and it came with a helpful link that described everything you're talking about:

http://blog.metrotrends.org/2015/02/addressing-income-inequality-requires-knowing-were-measuring/

And the chart on income inequality is the one that looks the "best" in terms of equality: reasonable people could look at it and say, "I don't see a problem." With the exception of 5, which looked at lifetime earnings, all of the others look at assets (or liabilities) and show extremely large differences that have nothing to do with taxes or benefits.

So if I may press you, you'd like to see adjustments in the second chart, and perhaps the 5th chart. Fine. But are the other data not accurate as your first sentence suggests?

In all honesty I would have to look at it more carefully, but there is no data for the 18 year period between 1964 and 1982 (which they honestly note) yet they are willing to make conclusions going back 50 years. That tells me that there is a political agenda and they are not serious from an academic perspective.