Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Accepting the existence of different classes is not 'warfare' Doctor Fate. If you are tired of it, simply stop reading and responding to it (because you know that it is likely to provoke a reponse back).

Ah, but insisting that America is a structured (by class) country is class warfare.

No, it's doing what I said: 'Accepting the existence of different classes'.

Class warfare would be agitating conflict between those classes.

What I would say is that denying that the USA has a class structure is delusional. And inconsistent how often do you rail at 'elitists'? The 'elite' are a class, dontchaknow?

Not quite, I am saying that if you take the Bart Simpson approach (can't win; don't try), then America is a land lacking in mobility. However, I come from very humble roots. I've worked hard, put myself through school, and am doing just fine. The vast majority of folks in my situation can, but they can also fail if they will not work hard.

Yet some people work hard and do not succeed. Ever wondered why?

And some people manage to remain comfortable with little effort, because they already started out rich.

This is a land of equal opportunity, not equal outcome.

It's neither.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Accepting the existence of different classes is not 'warfare' Doctor Fate. If you are tired of it, simply stop reading and responding to it (because you know that it is likely to provoke a reponse back).

Ah, but insisting that America is a structured (by class) country is class warfare.

No, it's doing what I said: 'Accepting the existence of different classes'.

Class warfare would be agitating conflict between those classes.

Which is the point of his (and Obama's) rhetoric.

What I would say is that denying that the USA has a class structure is delusional. And inconsistent how often do you rail at 'elitists'? The 'elite' are a class, dontchaknow?

The question is whether the game is rigged. It's not.

Not quite, I am saying that if you take the Bart Simpson approach (can't win; don't try), then America is a land lacking in mobility. However, I come from very humble roots. I've worked hard, put myself through school, and am doing just fine. The vast majority of folks in my situation can, but they can also fail if they will not work hard.

Yet some people work hard and do not succeed. Ever wondered why?

Nope.

I know people who spent half their lives addled by drugs, had no money to speak of, yet, somehow, were able to buy a house and hold down a job. How? Work!

And some people manage to remain comfortable with little effort, because they already started out rich.

That is a very small percentage. http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/mo ... ir-wealth/

This is a land of equal opportunity, not equal outcome.

It's neither.

We disagree.

I'm shocked.

Doctor Fate wrote:Which is the point of his (and Obama's) rhetoric.

Can't go long without bringing Obama into it, huh? Not that you are obsessed or anything...

The question is whether the game is rigged. It's not.

Firstly, how do you know it isn't rigged? Secondly, even if it isn't it's not actually a 'game'. It's life. And there's a difference in the chances depending where you start out.

Yet some people work hard and do not succeed. Ever wondered why?

Nope.

Oh well, a lack of curiosity is just something to live with, I guess.

I know people who spent half their lives addled by drugs, had no money to speak of, yet, somehow, were able to buy a house and hold down a job. How? Work!

And yet I know people who work hard all their lived and can't buy a house and are not secure in their jobs. How?

Oh, I forget, you don't concern yourself with that side of the equation. How about you handwave it away with some bogus stat about the other end of society?

And some people manage to remain comfortable with little effort, because they already started out rich.

That is a very small percentage. http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/mo ... ir-wealth/

So, about a third did not get there just by work. And that's not actually necessarily a representative sample of the wealthy - just of those who had a certain amount to spend and go through a particular company. It also doesn't show those people who start out rich and end up not quite so rich.

Why do some, who have wealth to begin with, falter and have adversity? Could it be for the same reasons?

Perhaps some could consider that it is just something that happens (either way). Why do you think some people do not achieve, after there is so much that has been given to them, Danivon?

There are no guarantees in life. There just isn't. Providing EVERYTHING will not guarantee prosperity.

danivon wrote:Oh well, a lack of curiosity is just something to live with, I guess.

Oh, you are so smart--not.

I know why people don't succeed. I've watched it my entire life.

They spend more than they make.

They get involved in substance abuse and never recover.

They live for pleasure without a care about tomorrow.

They live as though Social Security is a panacea and a real retirement program.

They create babies with no idea how to pay for them, or even who should care for them.

And yet I know people who work hard all their lived and can't buy a house and are not secure in their jobs. How?

Socialism is one culprit.

The other is spending more, or even equal, to what you make.

Oh, I forget, you don't concern yourself with that side of the equation. How about you handwave it away with some bogus stat about the other end of society?

It's called "individual responsibility." You should investigate it.

As a you are a socialist, I know you find wealth a difficult concept. That's not my problem.

DF,
Please let Danivon respond. I agree that individual responsibility is the root issue. Let us see what your nemesis has to say.

I'm not going to respond to Doctor Fate when he's being like that. I would haver responded a bit earlier but the site is up and down like a yoyo today.

bbauska wrote:Why do some, who have wealth to begin with, falter and have adversity? Could it be for the same reasons?

It happens. It could also be very bad luck. But how often does it happen, and how often can people who start out wealthy coast along and do 'just enough' to remain comfortable?

Perhaps some could consider that it is just something that happens (either way). Why do you think some people do not achieve, after there is so much that has been given to them, Danivon?

It is something that happens, sure. But it seems you are noticing that some people get given a lot. Does everyone get the same start in life? Do they all get the same 'so much' given to them? Do you think that this might also affect their life chances?

There are no guarantees in life. There just isn't. Providing EVERYTHING will not guarantee prosperity.

I know that. I'm not talking about guarantees. I'm talking about chances - probabilities - opportunities.

So, a great start in life - rich parents who send you to a good private school and set up a trust fund, and have friends who are looking for 'bright young things' as you get out of college - is not a guarantee. But it gives one a greater probability of success, and makes it likely that one does not need to work as hard to achieve a lot.

Similarly, a really bad start - maybe only one parent, who's got no job, a low income and no assets, perhaps a substance problem - doesn't guarantee failure. But it does make it more probable and means that to achieve it's going to take more hard work.

It seems that you, like DF are assuming that I am talking about equality of outcomes, even though I'm talking about differences in opportunity. Even though I've explicity said I'm not alraedy and tried to explain the difference.

I'm not advocating total equality, or giving everyone 'EVERYTHING', bbauska. I'm saying that you take it for granted that your society (as my society) give equality of opportunity. Mainly because your entire system keeps repeating the message. Probably because you have worked hard to improve your lot, and are more comfortable than your family was when you were a kid, and so your experience gives you a subjective bias to think that's how it works.

But as we know, sometimes things 'just happen' and even hard working folk who aren't (as in DF's stereotypes) feckless or lazy fail through no fault of their own. You know, they get ill and find that they health insurance doesn't cover them fully. Or they have a new boss who sacks them just as a recession starts. Or they have a business but the banks just refuse to extend credit to get them over a bad patch because, you know, things changed in 2008 and it goes bust.

Surely we've seen this. Surely we've had friends or acquaintances who have worked hard just to tread water?

danivon wrote:I'm not going to respond to Doctor Fate when he's being like that.

Hmm, I guess I'm not supposed to respond when you say:

Oh well, a lack of curiosity is just something to live with, I guess.

After all, I had the temerity to respond in the negative when you asked:

Yet some people work hard and do not succeed. Ever wondered why?

How rude of me.

All I said was I've seen it. Let's see how you respond to my years of personal experience working with tens of thousands of people in poverty:

So, a great start in life - rich parents who send you to a good private school and set up a trust fund, and have friends who are looking for 'bright young things' as you get out of college - is not a guarantee. But it gives one a greater probability of success, and makes it likely that one does not need to work as hard to achieve a lot.

Similarly, a really bad start - maybe only one parent, who's got no job, a low income and no assets, perhaps a substance problem - doesn't guarantee failure. But it does make it more probable and means that to achieve it's going to take more hard work.

It seems that you, like DF are assuming that I am talking about equality of outcomes, even though I'm talking about differences in opportunity. Even though I've explicity said I'm not alraedy and tried to explain the difference.

Let's see . . . paragraph 1 is a stereotype, paragraph two is a stereotype, and paragraph 3 is a "re" explanation of what you've not explained previously.

bbauska wrote:Why do some, who have wealth to begin with, falter and have adversity? Could it be for the same reasons?

It happens. It could also be very bad luck. But how often does it happen, and how often can people who start out wealthy coast along and do 'just enough' to remain comfortable?

Do you know?

Perhaps some could consider that it is just something that happens (either way). Why do you think some people do not achieve, after there is so much that has been given to them, Danivon?

It is something that happens, sure. But it seems you are noticing that some people get given a lot. Does everyone get the same start in life? Do they all get the same 'so much' given to them? Do you think that this might also affect their life chances?

It could. However, I would like to offer one more thing that absolutely does: two good parents. Very few people I have met, whether in jail or in some other sad situation, had two parents who cared about them and were involved in their lives.

You can't legislate that.

One other factor: character. Some people get knocked down and don't get back up. Others get knocked down many times and never stop getting up.

You can't legislate that either.

There are no guarantees in life. There just isn't. Providing EVERYTHING will not guarantee prosperity.

I know that. I'm not talking about guarantees. I'm talking about chances - probabilities - opportunities.

There is nothing in my life that could not be duplicated by anyone on the lower end of the spectrum. I was so poor when I graduated high school that I was eligible for a massive bit of student aid. It didn't help. I was not ready for college. After the Army, when I had to pay for college, things changed.

I am not unique in the sense of my opportunities. That's why this whole conversation bothers me so. There is nothing I was given by the government. There is nothing any rich person gave me. I was not advantaged in any measurable sense. I grew up in a single-parent household.

I could go on and on, but my point remains: anyone COULD do what I've done. They choose NOT to do that. That is not my fault.

I'm not advocating total equality, or giving everyone 'EVERYTHING', bbauska. I'm saying that you take it for granted that your society (as my society) give equality of opportunity. Mainly because your entire system keeps repeating the message.

Or, because it is true.

We were your castoffs. You had a stratified class system. We had far more mobility. We still do. It's not a legend. I see it everyday.

Probably because you have worked hard to improve your lot, and are more comfortable than your family was when you were a kid, and so your experience gives you a subjective bias to think that's how it works.

I would love for Brad to answer. I'm sure he took a unique path, unavailable to anyone else.

But as we know, sometimes things 'just happen' and even hard working folk who aren't (as in DF's stereotypes) feckless or lazy fail through no fault of their own.

Now, it is true that "things happen." It is also true that you were guilty of stereotyping (see above). I have actual life experience with tens of thousands on the bottom end of the economic and social ledger--do you? Do you spend all your time surrounded by them? I did for more than 20 years.

Please, do tell us your expertise.

You know, they get ill and find that they health insurance doesn't cover them fully. Or they have a new boss who sacks them just as a recession starts. Or they have a business but the banks just refuse to extend credit to get them over a bad patch because, you know, things changed in 2008 and it goes bust.

And, what of those for whom none of your scenarios is true? You are wringing your hands over a sliver of the population. I am certain a far higher percentage have sabotaged their own chances in life and/or stopped trying to improve them. I know many of them.

Surely we've seen this. Surely we've had friends or acquaintances who have worked hard just to tread water?

Yes, but these are historically bad times. You are talking about a relative handful of folks when there are myriads who were impoverished before the downturn and will be impoverished after the recovery (whenever it actually arrives).

Stop lecturing about stereotypes when it's all that you've got, or better yet, put forth your expertise in dealing with the downtrodden.

Danivon, I understand that a family with wealth can live off that wealth.... Unless their investments go for crap...But most middle class families aren't living off their investments for generations...Especailly since 2008.

I notice that this discussion was once littered with links to sources, and data, and evidence but that now we're down to the personal experiicen of a couple of gentlemen offered uup as conclusive evidence. I remind you gentlemen that the neutral data report a different reality.... Earlier ...

http://www.religiondispatches.org/blog/ ... _mobility/
Don't want to bother reading it, its summarized in two paragraphs.

The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) has released a report that should deflate this nation’s inflated sense of self and fundamentalist devotion to “free-markets.” According to their findings, social mobility measured according to earnings, wages and education across generations is relatively low in relation to other developed nations such as Canada, Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Spain.
For instance, in terms of earnings levels, nine developed countries, including France, offer greater mobility than the United States. The U.S. only tops Italy and Great Britain. And the U.S. ranks the highest in terms of the influence of parental background on student achievement in secondary education

I wonder how it is that you consider equal access, (or more equal) to higher education or health insurance as "legislating equal outcomes".?

rickyp wrote:For instance, in terms of earnings levels, nine developed countries, including France, offer greater mobility than the United States. The U.S. only tops Italy and Great Britain. And the U.S. ranks the highest in terms of the influence of parental background on student achievement in secondary education

Problem with these facts and statistics is that for some, subjective experience trumps it. Oh, and I expect someone will suggest that the OECD is some kind of CP front...

I wonder how it is that you consider equal access, (or more equal) to higher education or health insurance as "legislating equal outcomes".?

Precisely. It boggles the mind. But it's as logical as saying that observing class differences is the same thing as class warfare?

rickyp wrote:Danivon, I understand that a family with wealth can live off that wealth.... Unless their investments go for crap...But most middle class families aren't living off their investments for generations...Especailly since 2008.

I notice that this discussion was once littered with links to sources, and data, and evidence but that now we're down to the personal experiicen of a couple of gentlemen offered uup as conclusive evidence. I remind you gentlemen that the neutral data report a different reality.... Earlier ...

http://www.religiondispatches.org/blog/ ... _mobility/
Don't want to bother reading it, its summarized in two paragraphs.

The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) has released a report that should deflate this nation’s inflated sense of self and fundamentalist devotion to “free-markets.” According to their findings, social mobility measured according to earnings, wages and education across generations is relatively low in relation to other developed nations such as Canada, Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Spain.
For instance, in terms of earnings levels, nine developed countries, including France, offer greater mobility than the United States. The U.S. only tops Italy and Great Britain. And the U.S. ranks the highest in terms of the influence of parental background on student achievement in secondary education

I wonder how it is that you consider equal access, (or more equal) to higher education or health insurance as "legislating equal outcomes".?

I'd like to (critically and open-mindely) read your study but the link doesn't take me to it or a summary. Can you provide the link?

Thanks,

RJ

http://www.oecd.org/document/14/0,3343, ... _1,00.html

sorry. didn't realize the link had dated. theres a direct link to the newest study here.

danivon wrote:

rickyp wrote:For instance, in terms of earnings levels, nine developed countries, including France, offer greater mobility than the United States. The U.S. only tops Italy and Great Britain. And the U.S. ranks the highest in terms of the influence of parental background on student achievement in secondary education

Problem with these facts and statistics is that for some, subjective experience trumps it.

Weak, but expected.

You have no experience, so you fall behind rickyp's linked study.

Is the OECD an unbiased organization? If demonstrably so, I will accept their study. However, it appears to be rather progressive.

Mitchell writes, “Like the IMF, the OECD has moved well beyond its original charter (which was as a progressive force on the World stage), and is now a major part of the problem.” He proceeds to call the OECD study “a disgraceful piece of work” and “5.9 mbs of nonsense.”

Recently, critics have objected to the $93 million Congress appropriates to the OECD annually. The Coalition of Tax Competition wrote a letter to Congress asking that it stop funding an organization that releases policy recommendations “contrary to US interests” that support a “leftist economic agenda.”

too funny.

In a response study, commissioned by America Movil

So you think that a mobile phone industry critique of a OECD study on the comparative cost of mobile phones offers a fair and balanced examination of the OECD and more specifically the OECD research on economics?

Why don't you read the OECD study and try and understand their methodology and analysis...and offer a criticism of that somehow.

rickyp wrote:too funny.

In a response study, commissioned by America Movil

So you think that a mobile phone industry critique of a OECD study on the comparative cost of mobile phones offers a fair and balanced examination of the OECD and more specifically the OECD research on economics?

Why don't you read the OECD study and try and understand their methodology and analysis...and offer a criticism of that somehow.

I went through their website. They are liberal to the core. Now, that does not mean they are wrong. It does mean they are not objective.

And, again, if the US is such a horrible place to live, anyone who desires can leave.

Here's the thing: if the OECD study concluded the US was "the land of opportunity," I don't believe they would publish the study. It doesn't fit their paradigm.