Because this is very rare. You can always find outliers to justify your general attitude, but it ignores the wider and much more important data.

Escaping poverty is very rare? I don't think so.

"Recent research has uncovered striking racial differences in the likelihood of upward mobility (Corcoran & Matsudaira, 2005; Isaacs, 2007; Kearney, 2006; Mazumder, 2005). An analysis of data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) revealed that 42% of Blacks born in the bottom tenth of the income distribution remained in the same income bracket as adults. Only 17% of Whites showed this same pattern."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4108157/

Even with this racial inequality you still have most blacks escaping this situation.

I'm not talking about going from poor to rich. Going from poor to lower middle class is a huge accomplishment.

I'm interested in longitudinal studies which follow individuals across time here.

"If."

That issue is retirement. Shouldn't be too hard to recognize. If someone is earning decent money and does not save any of it and wakes up at age 65 one day and is annoyed that they have to keep working then I'm sorry but you've made your own bed.

but when it comes to the American Dream of "if you just work hard enough, sky's the limit," we all have to become delusional.

It's not just about hard work. You're putting up an easy, naive target here that no one really believes.

Yeah, and those grapes they eat are probably sour anyway.

I'm being 100% honest I would not want the job.

"Probably right." I love this. I guess you're a true believer in the American dream. Fine. Don't let me disillusion you if it makes you happy. But in my view, it's a complete delusion

Then why has my family done it? Why did I grow up around people who also did it? Apparently none of us exist in your world.

I honestly don't even care what people do or how much they earn, but if someone is going to do nothing to even attempt to get their situation in order and then blame the system on it I'm so done with them.
— BitconnectCarlos

Here is the relevant part of your response. It's exactly this sentiment that's wrong. It's in the same group as the old "Welfare Queen" belief, which still persists. Why? Because this is very rare. You can always find outliers to justify your general attitude, but it ignores the wider and much more important data. — Xtrix

Escaping poverty is very rare? I don't think so. — BitconnectCarlos

No, Welfare queens and other outlier examples, which are used to justify cutting funding and a general hatred towards the poor, are rare. I put the entire context in -- in case it was an accident that you left it out.

"If."

That issue is retirement. Shouldn't be too hard to recognize. If someone is earning decent money and does not save any of it and wakes up at age 65 one day and is annoyed that they have to keep working then I'm sorry but you've made your own bed. — BitconnectCarlos

Sure. What's your point?

"Probably right." I love this. I guess you're a true believer in the American dream. Fine. Don't let me disillusion you if it makes you happy. But in my view, it's a complete delusion

Then why has my family done it? Why did I grow up around people who also did it? Apparently none of us exist in your world. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm sure plenty of people do it, as I've stated before. Many more try very hard and fail to do so. This doesn't say anything about the economy being rigged for the wealthy, who own and control it. It's like saying we're a democracy because we get the option to push a button every four years, and if you criticize it you're "anti-democracy."

The bottom line is to drop the capitalist indoctrination in which we're all raised. That includes notions of an "American dream" and "rugged individualism."

No, Welfare queens and other outlier examples, which are used to justify cutting funding and a general hatred towards the poor, are rare. I put the entire context in -- in case it was an accident that you left it out.

This discussion isn't about welfare queens. I never mentioned that term or said that poor people are abusing the welfare system. I'm solely concerned with economic mobility and I cited data which stated that only 1 in 5 white people who grew up in the bottom 10% actually stayed as adults and 42% of blacks do. Sure, like winning the lottery.

Sure. What's your point?

Financial responsibility is first and foremost a personal responsibility.

I'm sure plenty of people do it, as I've stated before. Many more try very hard and fail to do so.

I just can't believe you when you say that the American dream is a myth or like winning the lottery when I grew up in a neighborhood where most people were maybe 1st or 2nd generation immigration who came over to the US with not much money and yet here we are in a decent neighborhood. You make out economic mobility to be a myth when I just don't think that's the case.

I get it. I’m not welcome here. I can take a hint. — NOS4A2

I think I saw a box of tissues in the lounge.

Financial responsibility is first and foremost a personal responsibility. — BitconnectCarlos

Are you saying that people are poor because they are not financially responsible?

Are you saying that people are poor because they are not financially responsible?

Not necessarily, but this is the case for some people.

Looks like being poor is a lifestyle choice, one that holds back the rich from even greater success.

I don’t call people names and compare them to cartoon characters. That’s the bag of you and your fellow travellers, who opine about character and divisiveness out of one side of the mouth while engaging in snark and ridicule out the other. Politics is all about division. If you cannot handle an opposing opinion it’s probably not for you.

I'm a political cartoonist, or hadn't you noticed? This is the only time I have used satire in referring to you.

Politics is not about division, it's about running the country in a way which avoids corruption and despotism. The fact that politics in the US has become about division is a failure of politics in the US.

Personally, I think people should work with their strengths. I have a few friends who are quieter guys and good students and they do fine as engineers. I know other who, while okay students, are much more charismatic and have been doing well as salespeople. School shouldn't break the bank. There's also trade school, but in practice many of the upper middle class wouldn't want to send their child there out of pride. It's totally a pride thing. — BitconnectCarlos

Well, you are talking to people on a Philosophy Forum, so I think a lot of people are familiar with the juxtaposition "what is interesting" / "what is good for your career and future income" when picking subjects to study.

What people many times forget is that a university degree, with the exception of a medical or legal degree, seldom open a path for certain jobs, it's more of the show that you are intelligent enough to innovate, think and handle more advance issues.

And in the end most important thing we often forget (when only looking at education) is that it's the actual training that you get in work life that truly defines one career. And there either the economy works or it doesn't. Government programs have little say in this: it genuinely gives only the supporting institutions, but in a free market capitalist system isn't the major player. When there isn't that working private sector and functioning economy, even an OK education system, low corruption etc. doesn't solve the problem. I think in the West and especially in the US one can understand this difference easily: just carve out the "rust belt" or the poor places from the economic hubs.

And this in fact important to understand especially in the case of social democracy (or Democratic Socialism in Bernie's case). Yes, people can make the argument for the welfare state. It has it's positive effects. Universal Health Care is nice and so is free education up to the university level. Absolute povetry and widescale crime can be eradicated. However, the economy has to work, it has to have the ability to create that tax income for the government. Because socialism in the Marxist-Leninist way doesn't work! It ruins the economy and creates in the end in the best case a stagnant backward economy with few incentives and a multitude of problems. At worst it create a catastrophe, just like in Venezuela.

The real problem with social democrats is not that they are out to destroy capitalism, those are the marxists, but that they stay ignorant of the economic reality and in their idealogical agenda start making it difficult for the economy to perform and do this rather unintentionally. Once that vibrant economy is choked off, then the real problems emerge only afterwards.

Yes on both counts; I'm on the mend, and the surgery didn't involve the vocal cords. The tonsil and lymph nodes were the sites of the malignancy, and the pathology report showed no cancerous cells in any of the margins. A 'robotic' system was used to remove the internal tissue (the "Davinci surgical robot") which is entirely under the control of the surgeon, and then the external surgery (removing lymphatic tissue) was the traditional knife and fork method. It took about 4 hours. Radiation is not necessary, ditto for chemo--for the future, as far as they can tell, but no guarantees. — Bitter Crank

Glad to read that you are on the mend! And that you didn’t need radiation or chemo... :smile: :up:

I had a fantasy of the surgical robot getting loose and stalking humans in the hospital hallways, over-powering them, and forcing its favorite surgical procedures on them. — Bitter Crank

:rofl: Coming soon to a theater... or hospital... near you! (I’m thinking maybe Patrick Stewart as the voice of the surgery-happy CGI robot. Or Judy Dench. Maybe the robot can have an automatic-type weapon that shoots horrendously overpriced and jagged prescription pills?).

I'm sure plenty of people do it, as I've stated before. Many more try very hard and fail to do so.

I just can't believe you when you say that the American dream is a myth or like winning the lottery when I grew up in a neighborhood where most people were maybe 1st or 2nd generation immigration who came over to the US with not much money and yet here we are in a decent neighborhood. You make out economic mobility to be a myth when I just don't think that's the case. — BitconnectCarlos

Where do I say that in the above quotation? I'll repeat: plenty of people do it.

Now look at the second sentence, because it's here that the issue lies. Given your use of standard talking points about personal responsibility, hard work, upward mobility, excuses, and "blaming the system," it seems to me you believe we're not in fact living in a rigged economy and plutocracy, and that systemic biases either don't exist or are minimal. If this isn't your position, you're certainly not acknowledging or highlighting these factors. And they are real and powerful.

Are you saying that people are poor because they are not financially responsible?

Not necessarily, but this is the case for some people. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, and for many others it isn't. They work very hard and are still screwed. To highlight and rail on one and not the other, particularly when there's far more evidence to support the latter, exposes your own prejudices.

it seems to me you believe we're not in fact living in a rigged economy and plutocracy, and that systemic biases either don't exist or are minimal.

When you say "rigged" I think casino games. I don't believe that there is a council of evil billionaires at the top who spend their time trying to keep poor people poor. I do believe that certain laws and regulations work against the poor though.

Obviously some people have advantages and others have disadvantages. Come to think of it, even if the system were 100% meritocratic I think a strong case could be made that it would still be unfair. After all, it's no one's fault if one were to have a learning disability or autism.

Remember when we were talking about having a productive conversation? I feel like this isn't it. I'm happy to steer the convo into my productive waters though.

When you say "rigged" I think casino games. — BitconnectCarlos

Ah, ok. Thank you. Yes, that comes to mind for me as well and definitely has that connotation, but in this context I don't mean a conspiracy or anything as dramatic or blatant as rigging a Roulette table or slot machine or something like that.

When I use "rigged" I mean legislation and policies (e.g. deregulation) that get proposed and passed based not on what the majority of people are demanding, but what serves the interests of only a small portion of society -- call them the plutocratic class or the "the wealthy elites." That's not to say that the population at large don't get some of what they want, as they still have the power of the vote and the politicians know that, but if you watch the values and interests of the classes (the top .01% vs 20% vs 80%), it's the donor class -- those who can afford to spend extra money on campaign contributions, sometimes very large -- which gets closer to 100% of what they want. As you go up the amount scale, you find a stronger correlation.

This is exactly what we would expect, too, given that those who get elected are those with the funds to buy advertising, hire consultation and staff, rent a campaign office, etc. The more powerful the positions, the more money is usually required. And most of them aren't millionaires or billionaires, although most of them come from wealthier backgrounds who could afford to attend Harvard and Yale.

If the money to become a senator is large, the only people who have the means to meet that amount of money are "special interest groups," and this in turn can buy a seat at the table and a sympathetic ear for lobbyists. Lobbyists are representatives of the special interest that contributed money to the campaign. The larger the contribution, the more important it is to listen to what they want.

All of this is basic and obvious. Takes no genius to figure out. So how is any of this related to what's meant by a "rigged economy"?

Well, did you know lobbyists and lawyers of corporations can write bills? What would you expect to find within those bills?

Very favorable terms. What legislation would we expect to come out of this lobbying from the corporate (big business) world? Exactly what we see in both party's administrations: favorable trade deals (NAFTA under Clinton), tax cuts (Reagan, Bush II and Trump), deregulation (Trump, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Obama), bailouts, maintaining the status quo, large subsidies (grants -- free money given to big business to help keep their prices low, particularly in agriculture and energy), union busting, corporate personhood, unlimited corporate spending, etc. The last few were favorable court rulings, but just as relevant as they deal with laws as well.

Look at the consequences of these policies. It's been around 40 years or so, since Reagan and the beginning of the "neoliberal" era, and had run though every administration. We're living with the results.

If you are OK with all of this because you happen to be happy where you are in life right now, or had a run of luck, or were born into a family that was fairly well-off, etc., then it's worth remembering how interconnected we are (and everything is) in today's world. The coronavirus spread is a good topical example. I don't like the hysteria, of course, but even give all these precautions it still spreads. Look at the economic domino effect as well.

The same is true of ideas, of environmental degradation, of nuclear radiation, of popular movements. They can be good or bad, but there's no running away to a desert island or burying yourself in your personal life anymore. We're at a time when we're being forced to become global-minded. You can choose to ignore it or sit it out, I suppose. I have done and continue to do too much of that. But I'm reminded every day that there is a world outside my room, filled with all kinds of people just like me. To at least acknowledge that fact is a start.

I needed to lay it all out like this, because there's no sense going back and forth with snippets.

Look at the consequences of these policies. It's been around 40 years or so, since Reagan and the beginning of the "neoliberal" era, and had run though every administration. We're living with the results. — Xtrix

One thing you should remember. The US has also done well. That it has avoided the ugly side of socialism has it's positive side too. Don't think that things couldn't be worse! They surely could.

The following graph is interesting when it shows one country that has chosen the most reckless, most destructive economic policies thanks to populism and that is Argentina. Just look at how prosperous it was in 1909. Argentina was far wealthier than my country, for example. (The Chinese economic ascent only starts in the time frame.)

Because socialism in the Marxist-Leninist way doesn't work! It ruins the economy and creates in the end in the best case a stagnant backward economy with few incentives and a multitude of problems. At worst it create a catastrophe, just like in Venezuela. — ssu

This comparison is unjust. Sanders is by all means not fixated of nationalizing everything in the market. Only some more regulation and much needed higher taxes on the ultra-rich. His policies should lead to higher GDP growth in the long term if that's the only thing that matters to Joe or Sandy.

Furthermore, I'm tired of having the stigma of privatized prisons in the US. This is something spawned out of some lunacy and needs to stop.

Bernie just got the endorsement of Jesse Jackson. Will help cut into Biden's popularity among African-Americans. Will be a bitter, divided convention. Hillary to the rescue. That's my prediction. DNC will nominate Hillary. The only possible conclusion to the long American Clintonian psychodrama.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/08/politics/jesse-jackson-bernie-sanders-endorsement/index.html

Hillary to the rescue. That's my prediction. DNC will nominate Hillary. — fishfry

Wait you actually think this?

Hillary to the rescue. That's my prediction. DNC will nominate Hillary.
— fishfry

Wait you actually think this? — StreetlightX

It's a definite possibility. And I'm not the only one who thinks that. Plenty of political commentators have made the same point.

Just say no to drugs.

lmao OK.

Plenty of political commentators have made the same point. — fishfry

I'm honestly curious who these commentators are

Plenty of political commentators have made the same point.
— fishfry

I'm honestly curious who these commentators are — Maw

You can enter "Hillary presidential speculation" into Google and get dozens more similar links. Have you not noticed that she's all over the airwaves lately? New documentary out? Bill making blowjob excuses? You see this and it never occurs to you that she's positioning herself for a brokered convention?

https://nypost.com/2020/03/07/democrats-hunt-for-trump-slayer-may-lead-to-hillary-clinton-comeback-goodwin/

https://www.newsweek.com/dick-morris-hillary-clinton-presidential-run-1468035

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/10/whos-driving-the-clinton-2020-rumor-mill

https://www.foxnews.com/media/hillary-clintons-the-only-one-who-can-end-2020-campaign-speculation-brazile

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/25/politics/hillary-clinton-2020/index.html

Collective idiocy is no excuse for individual idiocy.

This comparison is unjust. Sanders is by all means not fixated of nationalizing everything in the market. Only some more regulation and much needed higher taxes on the ultra-rich. His policies should lead to higher GDP growth in the long term if that's the only thing that matters to Joe or Sandy. — Shawn

Your counterargument doesn't make the point, because I've made the distinction quite clear between social democrats and true marxist-leninists and I've said multiple times that Sanders is a social democrat.

What Bernie wants is classic social democratic goals, universal healthcare, free education and to tax the wealthy more than others. And raise taxes. And create a lot of new regulation and fees and taxes. A lot of red tape from rules from diversifying corporate boards to worker participation and requirements for stakeholder charters. All kinds of new programs and laws that companies have to make. Just massive amounts of red tape.

That is the socialist part Bernie's program. And of course that there is absolutely nothing about keeping the US economy going. How to keep the US competitive. The only thing is that Green New Deal will create jobs and free trade has to be curbed. And that's basically it with Bernie. Just like with social democrats all over, the economy and the private sector is more of this nuisance, that can and ought to be milked as much it can be because it's inherently bad and wrong I guess.

You can enter "Hillary presidential speculation" into Google and get dozens more similar links. — fishfry

Damn these are some super duper serious commentators!

I Googled crystal healing and now I can cure cancer gee thanks Google.

I love how he included an article from Chris Cillizza, who is easily one of the dumbest political commentators around.