<p>I didn’t say anything about voting or politics. My comment was directed at those who are seasoned adults–with college and graduate degrees–who gripe on message boards about the unfairness of life.</p>
<p>I think as we near thanksgiving some here should realize we’re all pretty much , one layoff, one takeover, one audit, one lawsuit, one business decision or one natural disaster from joining the less fortunate side of this arguement. </p>
<p>Be thankful for what you have, it can go away quickly, even without government intervention.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I just haven’t seen these. I’ve only seen complaints about government policy.</p>
<p>Hanna, your assumptions may be skewed. No gifts here, no parents past age 13, and no formal education beyond 10th grade. Haven’t earned (net) less than six figures in over seven years, and, I have my sights on seven figures within the next ten years, if I keep my eye on the ball, keep working hard, and make the right decisions. </p>
<p>ANYONE can do it, given a few very important non-negotiables, such as hard work, the right choices, and a positive attitude. One of those very important right choices is to stop whining, and take action. Example, if an employer isn’t compensating or promoting fairly or is being discriminatory, find another employer who doesn’t discriminate - there’s plenty to choose from, and it really isn’t that hard. And so on…</p>
<p>Of course, one can sit around and whine in hopes that some magical government comes along and fixes whatever is imagined to be wrong, but, where’s the fun in that? </p>
<p>Attitude is about 90% of it.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>How do you know? How do you know that you don’t have extraordinary talents and gifts that made this possible for you? If 50% of middle class kids will eventually reach your level of success and only 5% of working class kids do, do you think that it’s because the middle class kids have more ambition and drive? Or is it because given enormous disadvantages, only the most specially gifted kids of the poor will have a chance to make it? I don’t think that only the uniquely talented ought to have a shot at middle-class comfort.</p>
<p>(I’m assuming that you are black or Hispanic; otherwise, you couldn’t be sure that your race played no role in smoothing the way for you.)</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I’m young and childless and I have a financial cushion; I can expect 50% or more of the employers where I apply will offer me a job; I could easily move to another state if I found the employers hostile in my city. But not everyone has that freedom. I don’t know how many single mom hotel maids you know personally (I’m thinking of my first client). How certain can you be that it’s just a simple matter of inflexibility? How do you know that it doesn’t take 30 applications for her to find one job?</p>
<p>Furthermore, I don’t think that it’s so unreasonable to expect employers to obey the law. Nor do I think we should expect people to simply adapt to their illegal activity. I know that many meritless suits are filed (I wrote the opinions dismissing them), but that does not mean that discrimination doesn’t happen.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Where is the sitting around and whining? Would you please point out these lazy people you’re talking about who aren’t working hard because they’d rather hang out and wait for the government to help them?</p>
<p>ROTFL, Hanna, I am blonde and green-eyed, and with no extraordinary gifts, except, maybe, I refuse to allow negative, unproductive, whining people into my orbit. And, yes, anyone CAN do it. Not having “flexibility” is an excuse. EVERYONE has flexibility - to move to another state, choose a different job, a new employer, to learn a new language, new skills, etc. I don’t have to look in the mirror - I can look across the street here in, ah, north Cuba, to any number of persons with black hair and brown eyes who came to the U.S. in makeshift boats with no money and no resources, got past the wet foot dry foot thing, learned a new language, and yikes MANY of them earn more than I do, and they’re smiling the whole way…and guess what? When a hurricane comes through and decimates everything? They get out with whatever hand tools they can find, and pull trees off roofs, clean up debris, and figure out how to feed the rest of the neighborhood off the grills, and supply the rest of us with the food that we didn’t have the foresight or common sense to stock. Of course, my blonde peer group - they are collectively sitting around and whining and pleading for FEMA, oh, and gripping about how much noise the Cubans are making while they’re cleaning up the mess! LOL!!!</p>
<p>If currently only 5% of working class young people can manage to reach an earning level of $100K/year in their lifetimes, I would suggest that being surrounded by negative people, receiving guidance that says “you can’t” combined with counsel that says “wait, the government is supposed to do that for you, you’re not supposed to have to do it for yourself” and all sorts of other bs is as much a determinant of success as their societal starting place and whatever governmental magic is absent. </p>
<p>I once heard a motivational speaker say that the average American child - by age two - hears the word “no” vs. “yes” at a ratio of 2000:1. Negative, defeatist thinking is ruinous to motivation, causes illness, robs us of our beauty, and is linked to simply incalculable damage. </p>
<p>Where are the posts? Drill back in this thread somewhere…</p>
<p>LTS, you are obviously one of the lucky ones. You must be quite special. MY hat’s off to you, seriously.</p>
<p>Considering that most people do not achieve your level of success, it is clearly not simply a matter of motivation, since there are plenty of motivated people who still cannot get out from the noose of poverty. Many people are lucky to maintain a middle class status despite exceptionally hard work. I know such people. </p>
<p>To act as if anyone with a positive attitude can earn six figures, just like that, is a bit disingenuous. So much of life is a matter of the luck of the color of your skin, your zip code of birth, your parents’ education. Sure, there are exceptions. But they are exceptions, not the rule.</p>
<p>LTS also believes that crime victims bring it on themselves. It’s all of a piece.</p>
<p>And remember on the internet I’m the King of England. Just don’t ask me to prove it. :)</p>
<p>Hanna, you’ll never get past standard platitudes and anecdotal “evidence” in any discussion of social or economic policy with most of the posters on the right here on CC, I’m afraid. And from one perspective, they’re right: if all you care about is yourself, ignore what goes on outside your own pocketbook and just grab as much as you can. You will probably do okay. If you care about the rest of the world, your kids, their friends, your grandkids, and their friends, it just gets complicated and messy, and it’s easier to fall back on - platitudes and anecdotes, and calling anyone who disagrees with you a communist, a whiner, etc. </p>
<p>But on to substance. It’s only a zero sum game in a static view; in a dynamic view, it doesn’t have to be. In the perfect world - the one I’d like to alert people to the fact that we’re drifting away from, not towards - a “rising tide lifts all boats.” In that world there are the rich, the middle class, and the poor. People can move between those groups, by virtue of hard work or laziness, good choices or bad, etc. Nobody’s locked in place, and the ratio of wealth between the different groups - as groups, not individuals - stays about the same. As the economy grows all groups rise. The righ get richer, the middle class gets more comfortable, the poor less poor. And that’s apparently how things went throughout the twentieth century, until some time in the 70’s or 80’s, when the rising tide stopped lifting all boats, and began to only lift the boats at the top. I don’t have primary data before 1985, but here is a small group of numbers from the IRS which illustrate what I’m talking about:</p>
<p>The inflation-adjusted average income of the top 1% of taxpayers, then at the 90th percentile, the 75th percentile, and then the 50th percentile, in 1985 and 2004:</p>
<p>1985: $218,000, $43,050, $28,743, $15,509
2004: $530,000, $52,468, $31,785, $15,946*</p>
<p>As you can see, the rising tide hasn’t lifted those at the 50th percentile at all.<br>
At the 75th percentile the actual increase in income over 20 years was about 10%; at the 90th percential you see a 20% increase in actual income. The top 1% have seen their actual, inflation-adjusted income increase by 140% in that same span. While there are fluctuations from year to year the trend over time is clear and consistent.</p>
<p>The issue isn’t who is in which percentile, or what it takes to get there - there will always be winners and losers in the game of life - it’s what this bodes for the future of our society. Even if all my kids manage to stay on the upper end of that spectrum, I don’t like the looks of the society I see developing over time if that kind of economic stratification continues - for any member of it.</p>
<p>*Current dollar figures, by the way, are $1,000,000, $99,112, $60,041, and $30,122</p>
<p>Allmusic, I am neither “lucky”, or “special”. There are many, many people just like me, and good many more who are far better off. Sure enough, skin color, zip code, parent’s positioning, and even physical appearance can be positive or negative influencers. But in reality they are only STARTING places. Where a person ENDS is utterly, entirely up to that person, wholly dependent on the choices he or she makes, and how hard he or she chooses to work.</p>
<p>Garland, crime tends to take the path of least resistance. Predators don’t usually attack persons who are stronger, project a greater degree of body confidence, or who present an image of higher self worth and ability to offer a significant defense. They also don’t tend to attack groups and pairs of women, or men. Sort of like a thief intent on home invasion passes by the well maintained, illuminated house with the alarm system in favor of the shabbier, dark house with the newspapers uncollected on the front steps. </p>
<p>As I’ve already posted, no one has the right to harm another person, but, there are ways to minimize the risk of being a crime victim, and I believe everyone here knows what they are. On the other hand, people can set themselves up to be victims by placing themselves in situations where they are easy targets. Or, worse, by behaving in a manner that invites abuse (whining on the internet is sort on that list too).</p>
<p>Then I suggest you go on a book tour, LTS, since you have at least as important message as Tony Robbins! </p>
<p>Heck, if you think that anyone, whomever they are, can be whatever he or she wants to be…well, that is a marketable message, and I am sure there are lots of people out there who would just love to be in on how to do it…since millions struggle daily, despite working two jobs, going to night school, having substandard day care and housing, no health insurance. despite working really, really, <em>really</em> hard!!! I’ll bet these folks would just love to know that if they only tried a little harder, made some better choices, were a bit more motivated, they could have a piece of the six figure pot!</p>
<p>You have a future LTS! Go for it!</p>
<p>Kluge, you make some unfortunate assumptions. There are some people - many in fact - who are perfectly, totally o.k. with the concept of earning <$61,000 or even <$31,000. They want a lighter workload or perhaps they love their profession even if it doesn’t pay well - or they want to spend time doing activities that don’t generate revenue - who knows why. Whatever the case, it’s THEIR call, THEIR choice, and I support their choices.</p>
<p>Then, there are other people who do want to earn more, but who simply cannot or will not engage in the sort behavior that tends to support achievement of higher financial goals. Oh, they’ll get a job and work, but, they’ll whine and cry when passed over for promotion, etc., instead of developing new skills, learning to get along better with peers, or even just finding a new employer who will treat them better. And it certainly doesn’t occur to them to make life changes that might position them more appropriately for success. </p>
<p>Then, there are a group who - through no fault of their own - are likely beaten down so badly by life’s problems health issues, discrimination, crime, etc. that they cannot possibly ever recover, no matter how hard they try or how positively they try to view their options. </p>
<p>Now, if someone wants to propose tax cuts and every other possible cash and material benefit to this third group, sign me up. I’ll be the first one in line to write a HUGE personal check. </p>
<p>But the first two groups? Never. I’ve worked to hard, ridiculous long hours for years on end to earn mine, and I have zero interest in supporting members of society who cannot or will not exert the same effort.</p>
<p>Pls see both #132.</p>
<p>LTS–yes, in fact, all bad things only happen to people who deserve it/ask for it. Like my D’s vicious mugging–i gave you the circumstances, but you persist in maintaining it was her fault. </p>
<p>Just keep saying it: Anyone can keep bad things from happening. Everyone can be rich. No one is born smarter than anyone else, no one is discriminated against because they’re not lily white like you, and the tooth fairy is real.</p>
<p>You don’t have to prove any of that. You can just keep calling the converse “whining.” Then you don’t have to give a damn. Which you obviously don’t.</p>
<p>Garland - “The Gift of Fear” by Galvin DeBecker (I might have the last name wrong but the title is correct) - it’s an outstanding book in terms of practical advise and background information, one I highly recommend for all young women, but especially those who have been the target of violent crime.</p>
<p>Edited to add: Garland, my comments are meant to be interpreted in general, not specific to your daughter’s experience. I don’t know that park, don’t know the situation, etc. Unfairness abounds everywhere: Mini’s wife faces breast cancer; I’d bet real money that she doesn’t smoke and lives a very healthy lifestyle, and that there are a few three-pack a day chainsmokers in Mini’s zip code who will never see cancer and who will live to be 100.</p>
<p>Latetoschool, after reading your post #133, I can’t figure out if you’re unable to follow the (pretty simple) theme of my post, or unwilling to confront it, or actually do understand what I was saying and are determined to distract attention from it by talking about something totally off-point.</p>
<p>Suffice it to say your post #133 is an almost complete non sequitur. The issue isn’t about who makes $60,000, or who makes $30,000, or why. Nor is it (at least directly) about taxes, or how government spends those revenues. It’s about the growing distance between the top wealth level people and the middle and lower level people, regardless of how any of them came to be at the 50th or 90th or 99th percentile of income. Unless you adopt the theory that people collectively started being qualitatively different in 1980 than they were for the previous 80 years, discussing why one individual makes $30,000 instead of $60,000 is completely irrelevant to the issue I have been discussing.</p>
<p>Fair enough, Kluge, I stand corrected. But I wonder if - and I lack the economic background to guess - if the 1% currently positioned at $530K grew 140-ish% over time, if it is possible that the “rising tide rises all boats equally” theory isn’t more of an iterative process. </p>
<p>In otherwords, if this has been trending since the 70’s/80’s, is there any possibility that it simply takes longer for the next levels to catch up? Because I’m not sure it makes sense to assume that all categories would rise at the same rate, regardless of how terrific the economy or any combination of tax rates or policies.</p>
<p>If the argument is that prior to the 70s/80s all boats did indeed rise equally, I almost wonder if it’s more of an accounting or statistical treatment, rather than based in any combination of government or social policies.</p>
<p>Oh, and what about anomalies - is there any chance the likes of Bill Gates is impactive to the growth rate of that 1%?</p>
<p>Valid point, lts. I don’t want to indulge in Malthusian oversimplification by simply projecting current data blindly forward. As to the lower levels “catching up”, I expect that they will. The thing is the manner in which that catching up is implemented can get ugly. The larger the disparity of wealth in a society the larger the risk that the “have nots” will resort to violence or raw political power to correct the imbalance - and even overcorrect in the opposite direction - becomes. That’s the future I’d like to see my kids avoid having to live through.</p>
<p>Also: the cause of the recent trend isn’t a simple tax or overt policy matter. In fact, I became sensitized to it as a lawyer by noting legal trends which, while not overtly seeming to be based on social policy in any way, nonetheless when taken as a whole tended to create outcomes which shifted risk and loss away from the wealthy and relatively powerful and onto the poor and middle class.</p>
<p>An example of how obscure and abstract this can be: Probably the biggest trigger for me was reading the 1991 Supreme Court case of Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute, about forum selection clauses. (I see lots of rolled eyes and snores - can’t blame you.) Punchline is: The wealthy - whether individuals or corporations, have the right and the ability to enforce their legal rights, anywhere, any time. But the ability of middle class individuals to seek redress for their losses and injuries which are caused by another is restricted. In many cases there’s literally nothing a person can do even if they’ve been cheated out of a signifcant portion of their life savings. The just have to eat the loss and go on. I’ve faced this with my clients in the real world.</p>
<p>It’s one subtle point in a million things that happen every day. A discussion of the miriad ways in which that trend is facilitated is well beyond the scope of this thread (or website) I could recite lots more. But the first step, to me, is to raise awareness that that trend exists. Which means wading through the distracting taunts of 2dsdad and Driver, et al, and posting repetitively to the point of annoying people. </p>
<p>And see: I got your attention. “Mission Accomplished” for the day as far as I’m concerned. :)</p>
<p>(Edited to respond to comment re: Bill Gates) Gates, Rockefeller, Morgan - there will always be a top dog. But although Gates would still be obscenely wealthy in my dream world, he’d be somewhat less so. Remember, Gates didn’t invent a better mousetrap; he just bought a decent mousetrap and then used connections to make a sweet deal to capitalize on it, then followed that up by buying or copying some more mousetraps and using old-fashioned bare-knuckled capitalist arm twisting and monopoly power to build an economic empire. There’s nothing different about the source of Gates’ wealth.</p>
<p>“In otherwords, if this has been trending since the 70’s/80’s, is there any possibility that it simply takes longer for the next levels to catch up? Because I’m not sure it makes sense to assume that all categories would rise at the same rate, regardless of how terrific the economy or any combination of tax rates or policies.”</p>
<p>More likely, the increasing disparity is a result of Reaganesque/neo-conservative “social engineering”. And since income, as opposed to assets, is what for the most part gets taxed, the chances of significant change without substantial new “social engineering” (unlikely from the crop of neo-liberals who reinforced the Reaganesque approaches with NAFTA, “free trade”, etc.) is likely apocryphal.</p>
<p>Stay the course.</p>