18 ms·

All Hollowed Out: The lonely poverty of America’s white working class

213 points by saadmalik01 11y ago

alvern 11y ago
My biggest takeaway is that in 2013 two-thirds of the North American workforce did not have a 4 year degree. [1] http://victortanchen.com/educational-attainment-united-states-canada/ http://victortanchen.com/educational-attainment-united-state...
- kevin_thibedeau 11y ago
  That in itself isn't such a bad thing because an economy can't actually function if everyone has a degree and expects a high-value white-collar job. The problem is that no effort has been made to guard against the outflow of jobs for less skilled workers that pay well enough to live comfortably.
  - nickff 11y ago
    When you "guard against the outflow of jobs for less skilled workers", you are both implying that those people are capable of nothing more, and guarding against rapid progress in less advanced countries where the world's poor suffer terribly from poverty.
- a3n 11y ago
  That didn't used to be a problem. You could earn a living, support a family, retire, get a broken bone set, etc.
FussyZeus 11y ago
It's been obvious for a decade that the "go to the factory every week for 40 years and retire" job sector is on the decline, a decline which has accelerated rapidly more recently. There is no place in our economy for a bolt turner to earn $25 an hour, end of discussion. This is why I like the idea of at least reducing the cost of a college education, or preferably eliminating it. A regular high school degree is quickly becoming useless to have, if you don't have some white collar skill-set to apply after your school, you're going to be very hungry. It's not fair in my mind to raise the standards of what it means to be "qualified" without giving the various social groups a fair chance to get there. And of course the problem here is that there aren't enough service jobs for everyone, which is also why I support basic income so that while we retain the option for people to achieve more if they want to that we don't leave everyone else who either doesn't have a particular skill (yet) or just doesn't want to out in the cold to freeze and die. If nothing else, they're valuable consumers.
- smt88 11y ago
  I personally disagree that college is the solution. Some people lack the financial stability required to excel in what is essentially a long, expensive vacation learning things that won't directly impact their earnings. I vehemently believe in liberal arts and the importance of people studying philosophy/literature/etc., but studying impractical things is a luxury. Other countries have robust retraining programs, so the bolt turner could become something else when bolt turning isn't useful anymore. This works in tandem with trade schools, which are also better-supported by governments outside the US. (And I also am a huge fan of the concept of universal basic income!)
  - poppysan 11y ago
    I'm glad Basic Income was brought up. If we continue to see automation and outsourcing grow, and as a result corporate profits soar, then as a country we need to plan for the loss of a host of "traditional' jobs.
  - FussyZeus 11y ago
    > I personally disagree that college is the solution. Some people lack the financial stability required to excel in what is essentially a long, expensive vacation learning things that won't directly impact their earnings. Which is why like I said, it needs to be greatly reduced or preferably free.
    - smt88 11y ago
      Let me clarify that excellence in college is expensive, even if tuition is waived, at least the way it's currently structured. It's very, very hard to get good grades while working enough hours to support yourself, especially if you have no skills (and even affluent college students rarely have marketable skills).
      - FussyZeus 11y ago
        That's because the way it's structured sucks. It's more or less a requirement now (or will be very soon) to earn a decent living, it shouldn't cost you half of your lifetime income to attend. You can't make something that important to a life and then charge such asinine amounts for it, especially when there's ample precedent showing that college grads on the whole improve our society by stimulating more economic activity and adding to the white collar workforce. As romantic as it is to tell tales of how we bootstrapped ourselves through college, working off hours and earning our way, it's stupid to demand the next generation do it out of some misguided sense of tradition. We have the capability to make it better for our kids, why the hell aren't we?
Moshe_Silnorin 11y ago
I think it's worth pointing out that education is a filtering mechanism, if a terribly inefficient one. After basic maths and literacy are learned, it imparts little on the average student. A collage degree is a proxy for a reasonable IQ and moderately high conscientiousness. Thinking of education as an inefficient filtering mechanism helps illustrate why our frenzy for more education is misguided. Certainly more efficient filtering mechanisms (like a test-based credentialism where instruction and assessment are separated) would be very useful but they will not increase the amount of people with the mental characteristics (high intelligence and conscientiousness) that are becoming increasingly valuable in the modern economy, nor will it decrease the portion that lack these things. Panning does not create gold. I think a good assumption is this separation was and is a basicly unavoidable result of technology and economics, not any policy or set of policies. We wrestle not with flesh and blood:http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/07/we-wrestle-not-with-flesh-and-blood-but-against-powers-and-principalities/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/07/we-wrestle-not-with-fle...
- nickff 11y ago
  What you are describing is the signaling model of education (, which I agree with).[1] [1] http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/11/the_magic_of_ed.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/11/the_magic_of_ed....
- greggman 11y ago
  But more panning in more places finds more gold does it not? Maybe I misunderstood your point. Stories like that of Jaime Escalante suggest that there's a huge number of undiscovered talent and/or that better teaching makes more talent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaime_Escalante https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaime_Escalante
  - Moshe_Silnorin 11y ago
    That's impressive, but seems more like filtering. Taking the top 15 students in a high school and teaching them calculus doesn't prove that one can make people more intelligent through education, as 15 out of thousands is a huge filter - though still helping those kids was very nobel. As for the higher numbers later in his career, you have to imagine that with his fame intelligent students from other districts were likely filtered to his school. I also don't see a pass rate for the later years. I've investigated many of the claims that one can teach intelligence. From Dual-N-Back to Head Start, they have all proven to have negligible effects on future outcomes and no effect on measured G. I think there are also pretty solid theoretical reasons to think that "learning how to learn" is not possible, as intelligence is that capacity that enables you to learn, you are strictly limited by your intelligence even when learning how to learn. There is also increasing evidence in the literature that the theorized transfer effect (that learning one skill increases your capacity to learn other unrelated skills) does not exist. These are not conclusions that I relish; I advocate them because I think they're true. Better a bitter truth than a sweet fiction.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
meric 11y ago
What is society's ideal for the average white working class? What is "success"? Is it better looking houses? More expensive cars? Fresher food? Is it getting to live in a very expensive nursing home when they retire? Is it equality where both husband and wife are responsible exactly 50% in finances, chores and taking care of the kids? Or have the time & money to spend a lot more time with the kids; Will welfare help that cause? Or are the ideals something America's white working class is leaving behind? Such as, belonging in religion with compassionate & authentic people; as people no longer believe in religion and the ones who still do are less compassionate and less authentic? Or, is it to be in an marriage with a partner who you can trust will stay with you through thick and thin, until death; as society thinks a marriage where one partner is unhappy should end in divorce, because society thinks that will be better for the children than to be in a unhappy marriage? Or is it to have children who you can trust will take care of you when you grow old; as society says children have the right to do whatever they choose to do and should not be burdened with the responsibility of taking care of their parents, because that's the government's obligation? Are America's white working class ideals in front of them, or behind them? I suggest when as a collective, they finally have clarity to see what they really do want, rather than what other people say they should be wanting, they will move towards their ideals, instead of away from them, and then things will get "better" all on their own.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- maxmax 11y ago
  >What is "success"? Is it better looking houses? More expensive cars? Fresher food? You need to think much more basic than that: Success is having a savings account, a roof over your head in a safe stable location so the kids can stay in the same school, reliable transportation, and a job that provides enough income for all of the above.
  - ams6110 11y ago
    I don't like defining "success" as some kind of bare minimum. Success is, at least, being better than average.
bitL 11y ago
As a non-american I would like to ask: did the affirmative action go too far up to the point of endangering another group? If so, what correction steps would you take?
- Gibbon1 11y ago
  As an American my impression is blue collar white working class Americans decided they'd rather give up the benefits of unionized employment in return for not having to give up the racially based pecking order.
  - lkrubner 11y ago
    Absolutely. We can repurpose the old quote from Winston Churchill "We had the choice between war and shame. Now we have chosen shame – we’ll get war later." Shameful behavior was the choice of the USA's white working class: They had the choice between prosperity without racism, or immiseration with the continuance of racism. They chose the latter. They voted against pro-growth policies because those policies were promoted by a political coalition that was also committed to extending prosperity to every citizen, regardless of race.
  - greggman 11y ago
    This is a new concept to me. Do have any good references for this I could read up on?
    - Futurebot 11y ago
      It's called "Last Place Aversion": http://www.npr.org/2011/09/04/140116142/avoiding-last-place-some-things-we-dont-outgrow http://www.npr.org/2011/09/04/140116142/avoiding-last-place-...
- Spooky23 11y ago
  Affirmative action is a non issue, a straw man at best. The plight of the working class is about free trade and reprioritizing economic policy. Union busting sent business to the South, NAFTA sent it packing. Now even high end service jobs are at risk. A local hospital voted to unionize, and immediately afterwards the ER fired everyone and ships in visiting nurses from 400 miles away. It keeps the local labor hungry and costs down in the long term.
watmough 11y ago
There is simply not enough 'work' any more. Here's a thought. Why can't we as a society ensure that everyone is paid a living wage according to their need. It may take a while, but I believe this will be the only way that we can hold this society* together. * Deep irony here, speaking as one of 'Thatcher's children'.
- orangecat 11y ago
  Deep irony here, speaking as one of 'Thatcher's children'. Not really; there's a fair amount of support for a basic income from conservatives and libertarians, for good reason. We've decided that we aren't going to let people starve in the streets if they can't find a job. Given that, it makes much more sense to just give people money than to have a huge bureaucracy with dozens of programs trying to alleviate individual aspects of the problem of not having money.
  - JackFr 11y ago
    The social services bogeyman of present day conservatives is no longer the mythical 'welfare queen' but the extensive poverty industry taking their cut as the money sluices through the pipes.
    - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
      In the UK a number of government funded orgs have admitted that they are: 1. Unreasonably expensive 2. A net negative for the social problem they're supposed to solve The underlying problem isn't poverty or lack of education. It's a complete collapse of public moral leadership since the 80s - not in the sexual sense, but in the business sense of "Fuck everyone in the world, because money." Politics and business have always been corrupt. But from the 30s to 60s you could still find good people trying to do good things. Now they're institutionally corrupt, and politics and business - especially finance, which is the de facto government in the US - have become industrial asshole factories. This is barbarism, and it can only lead to more barbarism.
- collyw 11y ago
rdlecler1 11y ago
The problem is, is that 'good jobs' are hard to find even if you have a good education. If you do, you can look forward to 60-80 work weeks, expensive housing and child care, and of course massive student loan debt. Very few of the things that were available to the middle class 25 years ago are available to the best and brightest today. The question is, is there anything that can be done about it, it was the period between the 1920-1980s so special that it can't be repeated for generations.
- vacri 11y ago
  > Very few of the things that were available to the middle class 25 years ago are available to the best and brightest today. This is such millenialist bullshit. Overall people are better off now than ever before. Yes, there are problems now, but there have always been problems. 25 years ago, the internet was unknown to the general public. Housing is more expensive, but food and clothing are cheaper, something these statements usually ignore. Civil rights for women and minorities are better - advances there far outweigh erosion in places like intellectual property. The further back you go, the better life is today. Remember when women were legally paid less than men for identical jobs? Remember being conscripted against your will? Remember when being visibly pregnant in public was a source of shame? Remember when you had to ensure you had all your food shopping done by a certain time, because shops were only half open on Saturdays and not open at all on Sunday? Remember how expensive appliances were, and that you actually had to take the time to go into the store to talk about the issue rather than ring a number or look online? Remember how time-locked (and expensive!) entertainment was, and none of it was 'on-demand'? Remember the fear of living under the nuclear umbrella and Mutually Assured Destruction? This last one has been replaced somewhat by nebulous 'terrorism', but the fear of our western democracies being literally overrun by a terrorist military doesn't really compare. Remember when 'good job' meant 'regular pay packet', and not 'comfortable work in an office that you like'? The 'good jobs' of yesteryear were more gruelling and less fulfilling than the 'good jobs' of today. Want cheaper childcare? Then stop outsourcing to professionals and shame working women back into the home, because that's why childcare was cheap in the old days. It's become more and more prevalent in the past couple of years to look at student debt and housing costs and simply declare that life now is worse than previously, without actually looking at what it was like to live in past days in an overall sense. Cherrypick a data point and declare that life is worse now. Yes, there are problems today, significant problems, but that doesn't mean life in previous generations was a breeze.
zeteo 11y ago
> For generations, factories provided good jobs to people who never went to college, allowing families [...] to be upwardly mobile [...] unions at their prime helped create a “moral economy” in which wages rose both in firms with unions and those without them, and in which the average worker had a notable voice [...] lobbying on their behalf in Washington This might be overstating the case somewhat. The very term "mass production" wasn't introduced until 1926 [1]. Some of the biggest unions were only formed in the 1930s [2] and their activity was largely suppressed during WWII. The golden age of union manufacturing jobs lasted 30 years at best (late 40s to late 70s' oil shocks). The 50 year old whites are thus at the same time beneficiaries and victims of the success created by the "greatest generation". Their parents went through the Great Depression, fought WWII, and worked out a great compromise that shared the bounty of mass production equitably between unions and factory owners. The subsequent generation encountered far fewer hardships and inevitably took for granted a status quo that had, in fact, been difficult to achieve (and long in the making). It's hardly surprising that, in their middle to old age, many have trouble adapting to the computerization of the work place (a transformation at least as momentous as mass production). In addition, winning the Cold War has proved a very mixed blessing by bringing direct competition with billions who went through their own version of great depression (and possibly warfare) within living memory. Interestingly enough, computerization (with the official end of Moore's law) and globalization (with China's pathologically slowing growth) are now leveling off. Will this allow a reprieve for downtrodden baby boomers? The upcoming years should make for very interesting politics. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_production [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Automobile_Workers#1930s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Automobile_Workers#1930...
- blisterpeanuts 11y ago
  +1 for pointing out that the post-War economy was a one-time boom created by the unique situation in 1945. For the white middle class, life in 1950 was pretty good (unless you were sent to Korea). Life in 1960 was fabulous. At that time, a man could work as a clerk in a hardware store or an assistant in a butcher shop and support a stay-at-home wife and four children in his own middle class home with one car, one television, one phone, etc. It was the American dream, based partially on generous union contracts for some, and general prosperity for others. Writers were in great demand; musicians could play 365 nights a year. Housing was cheap, jobs were plentiful, and salaries and wages rose every year. Life in 1970 was different; the Japanese had beaten the Americans at steel, the Vietnam wartime economy was winding down even as Americans perceived we had lost the war, 50,000+ young Americans killed and hundreds of thousands of others traumatized and damaged. The Sixties had taken a massive toll on church, marriage, and society's general cohesiveness and morale, and suddenly things seemed awfully uncertain. Around that time, Europe and Japan had rebuilt and were starting to compete vigorously, taking away the easy monopoly that American companies enjoyed for the previous 30 years. It's no surprise that this same socioeconomic group is going through tough times today. The technology economy has no room for people with a high school diploma and good manual labor skills. Some car mechanics in the old days were barely literate, but fixing cars today requires knowledge of digital circuitry and software. There are some silver linings, though. Shale energy has created a boom for drivers, roughnecks, welders, waitresses, etc. in places like North Dakota. Now that oil is legal to export, and assuming oil goes north of $40/BBL again, the U.S. will probably emerge in another decade or two as the world's largest energy exporter. Cheap domestic natural gas from shale formations has been a boon to the chemical and plastics industries. New technologies such as 3-D printing, as well as rising wages in the 3rd world, notably in China, are bringing manufacturing back to the U.S. We probably won't see a golden age such as we experienced from 1945-1970, and unions have lost much of their clout since that time, but perhaps there will be more opportunities in coming years for blue collar and middle class workers than since the 1980s. Someone in this thread points out that technology workers may some day find themselves on the other side of the prosperity wall, as well. Nothing lasts forever.
ageek123 11y ago
The best book on this topic is "Coming Apart" by Charles Murray. I highly recommend it.
vinceguidry 11y ago
I will never miss an opportunity to trot out my favorite quote: “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” - Ronald Wright Americans are just going to have to get over themselves and figure out how to cooperate with their peers. We will take any opportunity to lash out at the ones we love. Dude's wife left him after he lost a job, he must not have been a very likable person. Most everywhere else in the world, living conditions have approximately tripled. People with nothing hold on to what they have. The US is the richest nation in the world, lots of people born here never really wanted for anything. So they fritter away things they really should hold on to, like a rich idiot jonesing for "self-actualization". Fuck the unions, we don't need 'em. Fuck that bitch wife of mine, I have Facebook and Tinder. I'll drink and smoke weed every day, that's what keeps me sane. These are people that need Sanders but will vote Trump. These people are not middle class. They don't have middle class values or sensibilities. They're lower-class Americans that rode the success of the 70s-90s up to a degree of stability but never built a real life out of it, frittering away the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity they had. You can't tailor policy to them with a prayer of allowing them to maintain their lifestyle. That lifestyle was predicated on a boom time and the party is now over. Unless you want to directly subsidize it, it's gone. You can't bring unions back because they won't join them, it's why the unions left in the first place. All you can do is alleviate some of the symptoms.
- taurath 11y ago
  I hope when all the software and entrepreneurial people on this forum are going through hard times instead of good as we are now we are not judged as harshly as you judge those going through harder times now.
  - sangnoir 11y ago
    > I hope when all the software and entrepreneurial people on this forum are going through hard times instead of good as we are now we are not judged as harshly as you judge those going through harder times now While the tone is harsh - he has a point on voting against their own interests. I think a similar argument for developer is already being made on HN, concerning taking a pay cut in exchange of worthless common stock. I see no need to sugar-coat calling out poor decision making in any sphere.
analyst74 11y ago
As a foreigner, I have to ask, is life very different for non-white working classes? Is it better, worse or equally suck in different ways?
- nkurz 11y ago
  It's dangerous to generalize, but as a white American originally from a poor rural part of the US with few minorities, I'd say that the regional and economic differences usually trump the racial differences. In most communities being white would be an advantage, but the rich/poor divide is often greater than the white/non-white divide. Prejudice certainly plays a role in the opportunities people have, but I think that may be more of a hindrance in more lucrative and prestigious positions than for general labor. I'd guess the difference is also larger for the unemployed than the employed.
  - alphonsegaston 11y ago
    I'm from a similar background and this is unfortunately untrue. The average white household, for example, has something like 12 times the wealth as the average black household, a near historic high. What this means is that despite an appearance of greater equality in some circumstances, minority populations are still in a much more tenuous position. A white household is more likely to survey an inevitable crisis like losing a job or problems with health than their black counterpart. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/12/racial-wealth-gaps-great-recession/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/12/racial-wealt...
    - mason240 11y ago
      You simply can't in good faith compare the averages of the two groups because the range is different. You are treating a range of people from destitute trailer park residents to Bill Gates as a homogeneous group.
      - goldbrick 11y ago
        Oh brother. Jay-Z and Floyd Mayweather are black, why don't you complain about them being counted?
mback00 11y ago
"Not lucky enough" - that just gauls me every time I hear it. If someone chooses to slack off (only HS education w/o trade and w/o entreprenurial ambition)... They are automatically ranked by the willfully ignorant as "unlucky." Please! There has never been a place and time in the history of mankind when a man with a will could not make something of himself as today! A man with an idea can easily and quickly form a company of one... And can hire overseas to build his idea... Get it shipped to any market he chooses, advertise his idea in any way he chooses, and make a profit in any way he chooses. Today, the world is open to any individual that chooses to work.
- bcook 11y ago
  Judging others is an impossible task. We use the word "unlucky" because we do not truly know that person. Yes, they could be lazy, but they could also have mental or physical problems that are beyond their control. So, we say "unlucky" because it hints at the fact that many of the gifts that we humans have were not individually earned (intelligence, will-power, mental sanity, life, general health, your parents, etc). Nobody is in full control of their life, so we cannot judge them with impunity for the way their life worked out.
- rawTruthHurts 11y ago
  Those working lads extracting diamonds in Congo with their bare hands don't have much of an opening in the world either. I'm sure they don't work hard enough to deserve it.
  - mason240 11y ago
    It's pretty clear the domain of this discussion is first world, Western countries of Canada, US, and the EU.
    - rawTruthHurts 11y ago
      But of course! Let me cater to those of your kind: Those low class lads working for less than the minimum wage without any means nor family support don't have much of an opening in the world either. I'm sure they don't work hard enough to deserve it. Refer to wikipedia for any futher clarifications on "poverty" or "poverty in the First World" in general.
jurassic 11y ago
This level of inequality makes me sad. Really sad. I know I can't be the only working stiff in the valley whose poor siblings and family think they are rich for earning in the $100-150k range. Nevermind that I can't afford to buy a house here. I can't enjoy my success because of the near-desperate financial situations I see my relatives enduring. My sister gave me a $50 gift for christmas, and it brought tears to my eyes because she's a single mother making the federal minimum wage of $7.15/hr. That comes out to $290/wk, before taxes, if she's lucky and gets a full week's worth of hours. To earn that pittance, she is physically laboring and might have to work 7 days a week to get enough hours in the schedule. It makes me feel like a douche every time I think about it. Me sitting there in my Aeron chair, eating free snacks while reading code. And making ~10x what she does. When I really think about it, from similar beginnings, only a relatively small number of key decisions separate our two economic outcomes. I try to give generously to assuage my guilt. But I've found that there are limits to what can be given without stirring resentment, or provoking attempts at reciprocity. That's how this $50 gift came about... I bought some nice stuff for her kid, and she wanted to show her gratitude.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Would you be more sad if her salary went up to $15/hour (~2x), but yours went up to $210/hour (~3x, assuming you started from $70 ~= 10 x $7)? If this would not make you sad, then inequality isn't really the problem.
  - anon4 11y ago
    Well, of course inequality itself is not the problem. If a loaf of bread costs 0.20$ and rent is 50$/month, while keeping all salaries at their current level. However, inequality has a definite effect on economics and prices, so we can deduce that if the ratio of the two salaries were greater than it already is, while the job remains the exact same, then his mother would be in a worse position.
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      I should have clarified that I meant those dollar figures in real terms. In the scenario I'm describing one of them can buy 2x as many things while the other can buy 3x. Inflation is a separate problem.
WalterBright 11y ago
As a counterpoint, I'd like to point out that it has never been easier to start your own business and instantly reach a worldwide marketplace. It has never been less expensive to make things to sell. It has never been more practical to work from your home for a company anywhere in the world.
- miseg 11y ago
  Agreed, and of course some people make use of this. I have for a long time worked online to sell products (and also have a day job). My wife talks about liking the idea of selling something online, but can never find a calling.
- mtbcoder 11y ago
  This isn't a counter-point to the themes in the article at all. While starting a business from a legal and paperwork standpoint is quite easy, maintaining a business is still incredibly difficult and is not even remotely fathomable for the vast majority of white collar, working individuals and families, let alone even blue collar folks. Most businesses still fail, regardless of how easy it is to start one. Furthermore, making things to sell online from ones home simply isn't a panacea to working class America's economic woes and trivializes the true plight of the situation.
  - WalterBright 11y ago
    > incredibly difficult and is not even remotely fathomable Running a business can be as easy as mowing peoples' lawns, cooking meals for the elderly, trolling garage sales for things you can resell on ebay, fixing washing machines, etc. I know a guy who bought a trunk full of garage door springs, paid for a yellow page ad, and charges $200 a pop to replace peoples' broken door springs. I could go on for pages. Banking on the next President to fix anything is a bit naïve. There have been quite a few elected on the promise to fix everything :-)
Wildgoose 11y ago
Not just America, America is just leading the pack. And from an English perspective I certainly wouldn't eulogise the Unions in the way this article does either. My father (now retired) was a member of the EETPU (Electrician's Union). It was seen as a "right-wing" Union because its constitution banned communists from holding any positions within the Union - but that was because communist activists and their aggressive confrontational policies had almost wrecked the Union. The EETPU dealt with the problem, other Unions, the NUM (National Union of Mineworkers) did not. It was their aggressive confrontational policies that wrecked worker solidarity in private industry. The article touches on the breakdown of other social support as well. Marriage for example. And yet doesn't touch on why this might be. I have a son and two daughters. I have told my daughters that they must get married, and my son that he should definitely not. Why? Because divorce laws are so anti-male that nowadays it makes no sense for a man to marry. (And yes, I cynically want my daughters to gain this protection). In the UK there used to be a massive culture of socialising in "pubs" (public houses, or "bars"). Legislative changes ranging from allowing the 24 hour sale of cheap alcohol in supermarkets coupled with anti-smoking legislation that makes it illegal to smoke inside pubs have driven away a large chunk of that trade. I am a non-smoker but would prefer an open pub that allows smoking than no pub at all. This is important because pubs are also traditionally where different social classes meet and mingle as equals as well as where young people used to learn to drink responsibly under the watchful eye of the landlord and older drinkers - now they are likely to get totally smashed on alco-pops out of sight. Then there's the impact of mass immigration on social housing and the resultant disruption of traditional communities. The traditional working classes (my background) are already under assault even before we add in the coming tide of job losses through automation. These are all good reasons for supporting a move to a Basic Citizen's Income as soon as possible.
- irremediable 11y ago
  I really like your point about pubs. Your point about mass immigration is good too, though I think it omits the impact that automation and outsourcing have already had on employment. Not so sure about your view on marriage, though. Are you saying your son shouldn't marry because, if he finds a girlfriend and has children, marriage would disadvantage him should they ever divorce?
la6470 11y ago
It is sad situation but it is true for all races and nationalities. Low skilled work will be valued less and less. A structure of extended family is important which modern society has forgotten.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
pc86 11y ago
Am I the only one that finds it odd after reading an article about someone making $11/hr in factory losing their job, the top-voted comment (and a good number of the replies) is one lamenting their $150k salary?
- sosuke 11y ago
  I think that illustrates, emphasizes even, how unbalanced the society is. You feel poor at $15k, $50k, $100k and even the dual income families of $250k feel on a razors edge.
  - pc86 11y ago
    I think it illustrates very little about society, but quite a bit about human nature.
    - laotzu 11y ago
      What does it say about human nature?
      - Retric 11y ago
        We get used to excess really easily. "What if people find out my husband only made 85 million last year." Note: That conversation actually happened and the person was worried about how they were going to cut back their lifestyle. With the clear implication that 85 million was just not enough.
        laotzu 11y ago
        It is not so much indicative of human nature as a whole as it is of "civilized" or industrialized cultures. Tribal cultures often exhibit the opposite sort of sentiment. >Primitive commodity money, like the magical words of non-literate society, can be a storehouse of power, and has often become the occasion of feverish economic activity. The natives of the South Seas, when they are so engaged, seek no economic advantage. Furious application to production may be followed by deliberate destruction of the products in order to achieve moral prestige...Potlatch is very widespread, especially where there is ease of food-gathering or food-production. For example, among the Northwest coast fishermen, or rice-planters of Borneo, huge surpluses are produced that have to be destroyed or class differences would arise that would destroy the traditional social order. In Borneo the traveler may see tons of rice exposed to rains in rituals, and great art constructions, involving tremendous efforts, smashed. At the same time, in these primitive societies, while money may release frantic energies in order to charge a bit of copper with magical prestige, it can buy very little. Rich and poor necessarily live in much the same manner. Today, in the electronic age, the richest man is reduced to having much the same entertainment, and even the same food and vehicles as the ordinary man.[1] [1]Understanding Media, Ch. 14 Money: The Poor Man's Credit Card, Marshall McLuhan

213 points by saadmalik01 11y ago

My biggest takeaway is that in 2013 two-thirds of the North American workforce did not have a 4 year degree. [1] http://victortanchen.com/educational-attainment-united-states-canada/ http://victortanchen.com/educational-attainment-united-state...

kevin_thibedeau 11y ago
That in itself isn't such a bad thing because an economy can't actually function if everyone has a degree and expects a high-value white-collar job. The problem is that no effort has been made to guard against the outflow of jobs for less skilled workers that pay well enough to live comfortably.
- nickff 11y ago
  When you "guard against the outflow of jobs for less skilled workers", you are both implying that those people are capable of nothing more, and guarding against rapid progress in less advanced countries where the world's poor suffer terribly from poverty.
a3n 11y ago
That didn't used to be a problem. You could earn a living, support a family, retire, get a broken bone set, etc.

FussyZeus 11y ago

It's been obvious for a decade that the "go to the factory every week for 40 years and retire" job sector is on the decline, a decline which has accelerated rapidly more recently. There is no place in our economy for a bolt turner to earn $25 an hour, end of discussion. This is why I like the idea of at least reducing the cost of a college education, or preferably eliminating it. A regular high school degree is quickly becoming useless to have, if you don't have some white collar skill-set to apply after your school, you're going to be very hungry. It's not fair in my mind to raise the standards of what it means to be "qualified" without giving the various social groups a fair chance to get there. And of course the problem here is that there aren't enough service jobs for everyone, which is also why I support basic income so that while we retain the option for people to achieve more if they want to that we don't leave everyone else who either doesn't have a particular skill (yet) or just doesn't want to out in the cold to freeze and die. If nothing else, they're valuable consumers.

smt88 11y ago
I personally disagree that college is the solution. Some people lack the financial stability required to excel in what is essentially a long, expensive vacation learning things that won't directly impact their earnings. I vehemently believe in liberal arts and the importance of people studying philosophy/literature/etc., but studying impractical things is a luxury. Other countries have robust retraining programs, so the bolt turner could become something else when bolt turning isn't useful anymore. This works in tandem with trade schools, which are also better-supported by governments outside the US. (And I also am a huge fan of the concept of universal basic income!)
- poppysan 11y ago
  I'm glad Basic Income was brought up. If we continue to see automation and outsourcing grow, and as a result corporate profits soar, then as a country we need to plan for the loss of a host of "traditional' jobs.
- FussyZeus 11y ago
  > I personally disagree that college is the solution. Some people lack the financial stability required to excel in what is essentially a long, expensive vacation learning things that won't directly impact their earnings. Which is why like I said, it needs to be greatly reduced or preferably free.
  - smt88 11y ago
    Let me clarify that excellence in college is expensive, even if tuition is waived, at least the way it's currently structured. It's very, very hard to get good grades while working enough hours to support yourself, especially if you have no skills (and even affluent college students rarely have marketable skills).
    - FussyZeus 11y ago
      That's because the way it's structured sucks. It's more or less a requirement now (or will be very soon) to earn a decent living, it shouldn't cost you half of your lifetime income to attend. You can't make something that important to a life and then charge such asinine amounts for it, especially when there's ample precedent showing that college grads on the whole improve our society by stimulating more economic activity and adding to the white collar workforce. As romantic as it is to tell tales of how we bootstrapped ourselves through college, working off hours and earning our way, it's stupid to demand the next generation do it out of some misguided sense of tradition. We have the capability to make it better for our kids, why the hell aren't we?

Moshe_Silnorin 11y ago

I think it's worth pointing out that education is a filtering mechanism, if a terribly inefficient one. After basic maths and literacy are learned, it imparts little on the average student. A collage degree is a proxy for a reasonable IQ and moderately high conscientiousness. Thinking of education as an inefficient filtering mechanism helps illustrate why our frenzy for more education is misguided. Certainly more efficient filtering mechanisms (like a test-based credentialism where instruction and assessment are separated) would be very useful but they will not increase the amount of people with the mental characteristics (high intelligence and conscientiousness) that are becoming increasingly valuable in the modern economy, nor will it decrease the portion that lack these things. Panning does not create gold. I think a good assumption is this separation was and is a basicly unavoidable result of technology and economics, not any policy or set of policies. We wrestle not with flesh and blood:http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/07/we-wrestle-not-with-flesh-and-blood-but-against-powers-and-principalities/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/07/we-wrestle-not-with-fle...

nickff 11y ago
What you are describing is the signaling model of education (, which I agree with).[1] [1] http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/11/the_magic_of_ed.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/11/the_magic_of_ed....
greggman 11y ago
But more panning in more places finds more gold does it not? Maybe I misunderstood your point. Stories like that of Jaime Escalante suggest that there's a huge number of undiscovered talent and/or that better teaching makes more talent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaime_Escalante https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaime_Escalante
- Moshe_Silnorin 11y ago
  That's impressive, but seems more like filtering. Taking the top 15 students in a high school and teaching them calculus doesn't prove that one can make people more intelligent through education, as 15 out of thousands is a huge filter - though still helping those kids was very nobel. As for the higher numbers later in his career, you have to imagine that with his fame intelligent students from other districts were likely filtered to his school. I also don't see a pass rate for the later years. I've investigated many of the claims that one can teach intelligence. From Dual-N-Back to Head Start, they have all proven to have negligible effects on future outcomes and no effect on measured G. I think there are also pretty solid theoretical reasons to think that "learning how to learn" is not possible, as intelligence is that capacity that enables you to learn, you are strictly limited by your intelligence even when learning how to learn. There is also increasing evidence in the literature that the theorized transfer effect (that learning one skill increases your capacity to learn other unrelated skills) does not exist. These are not conclusions that I relish; I advocate them because I think they're true. Better a bitter truth than a sweet fiction.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

meric 11y ago

What is society's ideal for the average white working class? What is "success"? Is it better looking houses? More expensive cars? Fresher food? Is it getting to live in a very expensive nursing home when they retire? Is it equality where both husband and wife are responsible exactly 50% in finances, chores and taking care of the kids? Or have the time & money to spend a lot more time with the kids; Will welfare help that cause? Or are the ideals something America's white working class is leaving behind? Such as, belonging in religion with compassionate & authentic people; as people no longer believe in religion and the ones who still do are less compassionate and less authentic? Or, is it to be in an marriage with a partner who you can trust will stay with you through thick and thin, until death; as society thinks a marriage where one partner is unhappy should end in divorce, because society thinks that will be better for the children than to be in a unhappy marriage? Or is it to have children who you can trust will take care of you when you grow old; as society says children have the right to do whatever they choose to do and should not be burdened with the responsibility of taking care of their parents, because that's the government's obligation? Are America's white working class ideals in front of them, or behind them? I suggest when as a collective, they finally have clarity to see what they really do want, rather than what other people say they should be wanting, they will move towards their ideals, instead of away from them, and then things will get "better" all on their own.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
maxmax 11y ago
>What is "success"? Is it better looking houses? More expensive cars? Fresher food? You need to think much more basic than that: Success is having a savings account, a roof over your head in a safe stable location so the kids can stay in the same school, reliable transportation, and a job that provides enough income for all of the above.
- ams6110 11y ago
  I don't like defining "success" as some kind of bare minimum. Success is, at least, being better than average.

bitL 11y ago

As a non-american I would like to ask: did the affirmative action go too far up to the point of endangering another group? If so, what correction steps would you take?

Gibbon1 11y ago
As an American my impression is blue collar white working class Americans decided they'd rather give up the benefits of unionized employment in return for not having to give up the racially based pecking order.
- lkrubner 11y ago
  Absolutely. We can repurpose the old quote from Winston Churchill "We had the choice between war and shame. Now we have chosen shame – we’ll get war later." Shameful behavior was the choice of the USA's white working class: They had the choice between prosperity without racism, or immiseration with the continuance of racism. They chose the latter. They voted against pro-growth policies because those policies were promoted by a political coalition that was also committed to extending prosperity to every citizen, regardless of race.
- greggman 11y ago
  This is a new concept to me. Do have any good references for this I could read up on?
  - Futurebot 11y ago
    It's called "Last Place Aversion": http://www.npr.org/2011/09/04/140116142/avoiding-last-place-some-things-we-dont-outgrow http://www.npr.org/2011/09/04/140116142/avoiding-last-place-...
Spooky23 11y ago
Affirmative action is a non issue, a straw man at best. The plight of the working class is about free trade and reprioritizing economic policy. Union busting sent business to the South, NAFTA sent it packing. Now even high end service jobs are at risk. A local hospital voted to unionize, and immediately afterwards the ER fired everyone and ships in visiting nurses from 400 miles away. It keeps the local labor hungry and costs down in the long term.

watmough 11y ago

There is simply not enough 'work' any more. Here's a thought. Why can't we as a society ensure that everyone is paid a living wage according to their need. It may take a while, but I believe this will be the only way that we can hold this society* together. * Deep irony here, speaking as one of 'Thatcher's children'.

orangecat 11y ago
Deep irony here, speaking as one of 'Thatcher's children'. Not really; there's a fair amount of support for a basic income from conservatives and libertarians, for good reason. We've decided that we aren't going to let people starve in the streets if they can't find a job. Given that, it makes much more sense to just give people money than to have a huge bureaucracy with dozens of programs trying to alleviate individual aspects of the problem of not having money.
- JackFr 11y ago
  The social services bogeyman of present day conservatives is no longer the mythical 'welfare queen' but the extensive poverty industry taking their cut as the money sluices through the pipes.
  - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
    In the UK a number of government funded orgs have admitted that they are: 1. Unreasonably expensive 2. A net negative for the social problem they're supposed to solve The underlying problem isn't poverty or lack of education. It's a complete collapse of public moral leadership since the 80s - not in the sexual sense, but in the business sense of "Fuck everyone in the world, because money." Politics and business have always been corrupt. But from the 30s to 60s you could still find good people trying to do good things. Now they're institutionally corrupt, and politics and business - especially finance, which is the de facto government in the US - have become industrial asshole factories. This is barbarism, and it can only lead to more barbarism.
collyw 11y ago

rdlecler1 11y ago

The problem is, is that 'good jobs' are hard to find even if you have a good education. If you do, you can look forward to 60-80 work weeks, expensive housing and child care, and of course massive student loan debt. Very few of the things that were available to the middle class 25 years ago are available to the best and brightest today. The question is, is there anything that can be done about it, it was the period between the 1920-1980s so special that it can't be repeated for generations.

vacri 11y ago
> Very few of the things that were available to the middle class 25 years ago are available to the best and brightest today. This is such millenialist bullshit. Overall people are better off now than ever before. Yes, there are problems now, but there have always been problems. 25 years ago, the internet was unknown to the general public. Housing is more expensive, but food and clothing are cheaper, something these statements usually ignore. Civil rights for women and minorities are better - advances there far outweigh erosion in places like intellectual property. The further back you go, the better life is today. Remember when women were legally paid less than men for identical jobs? Remember being conscripted against your will? Remember when being visibly pregnant in public was a source of shame? Remember when you had to ensure you had all your food shopping done by a certain time, because shops were only half open on Saturdays and not open at all on Sunday? Remember how expensive appliances were, and that you actually had to take the time to go into the store to talk about the issue rather than ring a number or look online? Remember how time-locked (and expensive!) entertainment was, and none of it was 'on-demand'? Remember the fear of living under the nuclear umbrella and Mutually Assured Destruction? This last one has been replaced somewhat by nebulous 'terrorism', but the fear of our western democracies being literally overrun by a terrorist military doesn't really compare. Remember when 'good job' meant 'regular pay packet', and not 'comfortable work in an office that you like'? The 'good jobs' of yesteryear were more gruelling and less fulfilling than the 'good jobs' of today. Want cheaper childcare? Then stop outsourcing to professionals and shame working women back into the home, because that's why childcare was cheap in the old days. It's become more and more prevalent in the past couple of years to look at student debt and housing costs and simply declare that life now is worse than previously, without actually looking at what it was like to live in past days in an overall sense. Cherrypick a data point and declare that life is worse now. Yes, there are problems today, significant problems, but that doesn't mean life in previous generations was a breeze.

zeteo 11y ago

> For generations, factories provided good jobs to people who never went to college, allowing families [...] to be upwardly mobile [...] unions at their prime helped create a “moral economy” in which wages rose both in firms with unions and those without them, and in which the average worker had a notable voice [...] lobbying on their behalf in Washington This might be overstating the case somewhat. The very term "mass production" wasn't introduced until 1926 [1]. Some of the biggest unions were only formed in the 1930s [2] and their activity was largely suppressed during WWII. The golden age of union manufacturing jobs lasted 30 years at best (late 40s to late 70s' oil shocks). The 50 year old whites are thus at the same time beneficiaries and victims of the success created by the "greatest generation". Their parents went through the Great Depression, fought WWII, and worked out a great compromise that shared the bounty of mass production equitably between unions and factory owners. The subsequent generation encountered far fewer hardships and inevitably took for granted a status quo that had, in fact, been difficult to achieve (and long in the making). It's hardly surprising that, in their middle to old age, many have trouble adapting to the computerization of the work place (a transformation at least as momentous as mass production). In addition, winning the Cold War has proved a very mixed blessing by bringing direct competition with billions who went through their own version of great depression (and possibly warfare) within living memory. Interestingly enough, computerization (with the official end of Moore's law) and globalization (with China's pathologically slowing growth) are now leveling off. Will this allow a reprieve for downtrodden baby boomers? The upcoming years should make for very interesting politics. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_production [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Automobile_Workers#1930s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Automobile_Workers#1930...

blisterpeanuts 11y ago
+1 for pointing out that the post-War economy was a one-time boom created by the unique situation in 1945. For the white middle class, life in 1950 was pretty good (unless you were sent to Korea). Life in 1960 was fabulous. At that time, a man could work as a clerk in a hardware store or an assistant in a butcher shop and support a stay-at-home wife and four children in his own middle class home with one car, one television, one phone, etc. It was the American dream, based partially on generous union contracts for some, and general prosperity for others. Writers were in great demand; musicians could play 365 nights a year. Housing was cheap, jobs were plentiful, and salaries and wages rose every year. Life in 1970 was different; the Japanese had beaten the Americans at steel, the Vietnam wartime economy was winding down even as Americans perceived we had lost the war, 50,000+ young Americans killed and hundreds of thousands of others traumatized and damaged. The Sixties had taken a massive toll on church, marriage, and society's general cohesiveness and morale, and suddenly things seemed awfully uncertain. Around that time, Europe and Japan had rebuilt and were starting to compete vigorously, taking away the easy monopoly that American companies enjoyed for the previous 30 years. It's no surprise that this same socioeconomic group is going through tough times today. The technology economy has no room for people with a high school diploma and good manual labor skills. Some car mechanics in the old days were barely literate, but fixing cars today requires knowledge of digital circuitry and software. There are some silver linings, though. Shale energy has created a boom for drivers, roughnecks, welders, waitresses, etc. in places like North Dakota. Now that oil is legal to export, and assuming oil goes north of $40/BBL again, the U.S. will probably emerge in another decade or two as the world's largest energy exporter. Cheap domestic natural gas from shale formations has been a boon to the chemical and plastics industries. New technologies such as 3-D printing, as well as rising wages in the 3rd world, notably in China, are bringing manufacturing back to the U.S. We probably won't see a golden age such as we experienced from 1945-1970, and unions have lost much of their clout since that time, but perhaps there will be more opportunities in coming years for blue collar and middle class workers than since the 1980s. Someone in this thread points out that technology workers may some day find themselves on the other side of the prosperity wall, as well. Nothing lasts forever.

ageek123 11y ago

The best book on this topic is "Coming Apart" by Charles Murray. I highly recommend it.

vinceguidry 11y ago

I will never miss an opportunity to trot out my favorite quote: “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” - Ronald Wright Americans are just going to have to get over themselves and figure out how to cooperate with their peers. We will take any opportunity to lash out at the ones we love. Dude's wife left him after he lost a job, he must not have been a very likable person. Most everywhere else in the world, living conditions have approximately tripled. People with nothing hold on to what they have. The US is the richest nation in the world, lots of people born here never really wanted for anything. So they fritter away things they really should hold on to, like a rich idiot jonesing for "self-actualization". Fuck the unions, we don't need 'em. Fuck that bitch wife of mine, I have Facebook and Tinder. I'll drink and smoke weed every day, that's what keeps me sane. These are people that need Sanders but will vote Trump. These people are not middle class. They don't have middle class values or sensibilities. They're lower-class Americans that rode the success of the 70s-90s up to a degree of stability but never built a real life out of it, frittering away the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity they had. You can't tailor policy to them with a prayer of allowing them to maintain their lifestyle. That lifestyle was predicated on a boom time and the party is now over. Unless you want to directly subsidize it, it's gone. You can't bring unions back because they won't join them, it's why the unions left in the first place. All you can do is alleviate some of the symptoms.

taurath 11y ago
I hope when all the software and entrepreneurial people on this forum are going through hard times instead of good as we are now we are not judged as harshly as you judge those going through harder times now.
- sangnoir 11y ago
  > I hope when all the software and entrepreneurial people on this forum are going through hard times instead of good as we are now we are not judged as harshly as you judge those going through harder times now While the tone is harsh - he has a point on voting against their own interests. I think a similar argument for developer is already being made on HN, concerning taking a pay cut in exchange of worthless common stock. I see no need to sugar-coat calling out poor decision making in any sphere.

analyst74 11y ago

As a foreigner, I have to ask, is life very different for non-white working classes? Is it better, worse or equally suck in different ways?

nkurz 11y ago
It's dangerous to generalize, but as a white American originally from a poor rural part of the US with few minorities, I'd say that the regional and economic differences usually trump the racial differences. In most communities being white would be an advantage, but the rich/poor divide is often greater than the white/non-white divide. Prejudice certainly plays a role in the opportunities people have, but I think that may be more of a hindrance in more lucrative and prestigious positions than for general labor. I'd guess the difference is also larger for the unemployed than the employed.
- alphonsegaston 11y ago
  I'm from a similar background and this is unfortunately untrue. The average white household, for example, has something like 12 times the wealth as the average black household, a near historic high. What this means is that despite an appearance of greater equality in some circumstances, minority populations are still in a much more tenuous position. A white household is more likely to survey an inevitable crisis like losing a job or problems with health than their black counterpart. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/12/racial-wealth-gaps-great-recession/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/12/racial-wealt...
  - mason240 11y ago
    You simply can't in good faith compare the averages of the two groups because the range is different. You are treating a range of people from destitute trailer park residents to Bill Gates as a homogeneous group.
    - goldbrick 11y ago
      Oh brother. Jay-Z and Floyd Mayweather are black, why don't you complain about them being counted?

mback00 11y ago

"Not lucky enough" - that just gauls me every time I hear it. If someone chooses to slack off (only HS education w/o trade and w/o entreprenurial ambition)... They are automatically ranked by the willfully ignorant as "unlucky." Please! There has never been a place and time in the history of mankind when a man with a will could not make something of himself as today! A man with an idea can easily and quickly form a company of one... And can hire overseas to build his idea... Get it shipped to any market he chooses, advertise his idea in any way he chooses, and make a profit in any way he chooses. Today, the world is open to any individual that chooses to work.

bcook 11y ago
Judging others is an impossible task. We use the word "unlucky" because we do not truly know that person. Yes, they could be lazy, but they could also have mental or physical problems that are beyond their control. So, we say "unlucky" because it hints at the fact that many of the gifts that we humans have were not individually earned (intelligence, will-power, mental sanity, life, general health, your parents, etc). Nobody is in full control of their life, so we cannot judge them with impunity for the way their life worked out.
rawTruthHurts 11y ago
Those working lads extracting diamonds in Congo with their bare hands don't have much of an opening in the world either. I'm sure they don't work hard enough to deserve it.
- mason240 11y ago
  It's pretty clear the domain of this discussion is first world, Western countries of Canada, US, and the EU.
  - rawTruthHurts 11y ago
    But of course! Let me cater to those of your kind: Those low class lads working for less than the minimum wage without any means nor family support don't have much of an opening in the world either. I'm sure they don't work hard enough to deserve it. Refer to wikipedia for any futher clarifications on "poverty" or "poverty in the First World" in general.

jurassic 11y ago

This level of inequality makes me sad. Really sad. I know I can't be the only working stiff in the valley whose poor siblings and family think they are rich for earning in the $100-150k range. Nevermind that I can't afford to buy a house here. I can't enjoy my success because of the near-desperate financial situations I see my relatives enduring. My sister gave me a $50 gift for christmas, and it brought tears to my eyes because she's a single mother making the federal minimum wage of $7.15/hr. That comes out to $290/wk, before taxes, if she's lucky and gets a full week's worth of hours. To earn that pittance, she is physically laboring and might have to work 7 days a week to get enough hours in the schedule. It makes me feel like a douche every time I think about it. Me sitting there in my Aeron chair, eating free snacks while reading code. And making ~10x what she does. When I really think about it, from similar beginnings, only a relatively small number of key decisions separate our two economic outcomes. I try to give generously to assuage my guilt. But I've found that there are limits to what can be given without stirring resentment, or provoking attempts at reciprocity. That's how this $50 gift came about... I bought some nice stuff for her kid, and she wanted to show her gratitude.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
Would you be more sad if her salary went up to $15/hour (~2x), but yours went up to $210/hour (~3x, assuming you started from $70 ~= 10 x $7)? If this would not make you sad, then inequality isn't really the problem.
- anon4 11y ago
  Well, of course inequality itself is not the problem. If a loaf of bread costs 0.20$ and rent is 50$/month, while keeping all salaries at their current level. However, inequality has a definite effect on economics and prices, so we can deduce that if the ratio of the two salaries were greater than it already is, while the job remains the exact same, then his mother would be in a worse position.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    I should have clarified that I meant those dollar figures in real terms. In the scenario I'm describing one of them can buy 2x as many things while the other can buy 3x. Inflation is a separate problem.

WalterBright 11y ago

As a counterpoint, I'd like to point out that it has never been easier to start your own business and instantly reach a worldwide marketplace. It has never been less expensive to make things to sell. It has never been more practical to work from your home for a company anywhere in the world.

miseg 11y ago
Agreed, and of course some people make use of this. I have for a long time worked online to sell products (and also have a day job). My wife talks about liking the idea of selling something online, but can never find a calling.
mtbcoder 11y ago
This isn't a counter-point to the themes in the article at all. While starting a business from a legal and paperwork standpoint is quite easy, maintaining a business is still incredibly difficult and is not even remotely fathomable for the vast majority of white collar, working individuals and families, let alone even blue collar folks. Most businesses still fail, regardless of how easy it is to start one. Furthermore, making things to sell online from ones home simply isn't a panacea to working class America's economic woes and trivializes the true plight of the situation.
- WalterBright 11y ago
  > incredibly difficult and is not even remotely fathomable Running a business can be as easy as mowing peoples' lawns, cooking meals for the elderly, trolling garage sales for things you can resell on ebay, fixing washing machines, etc. I know a guy who bought a trunk full of garage door springs, paid for a yellow page ad, and charges $200 a pop to replace peoples' broken door springs. I could go on for pages. Banking on the next President to fix anything is a bit naïve. There have been quite a few elected on the promise to fix everything :-)

Wildgoose 11y ago

Not just America, America is just leading the pack. And from an English perspective I certainly wouldn't eulogise the Unions in the way this article does either. My father (now retired) was a member of the EETPU (Electrician's Union). It was seen as a "right-wing" Union because its constitution banned communists from holding any positions within the Union - but that was because communist activists and their aggressive confrontational policies had almost wrecked the Union. The EETPU dealt with the problem, other Unions, the NUM (National Union of Mineworkers) did not. It was their aggressive confrontational policies that wrecked worker solidarity in private industry. The article touches on the breakdown of other social support as well. Marriage for example. And yet doesn't touch on why this might be. I have a son and two daughters. I have told my daughters that they must get married, and my son that he should definitely not. Why? Because divorce laws are so anti-male that nowadays it makes no sense for a man to marry. (And yes, I cynically want my daughters to gain this protection). In the UK there used to be a massive culture of socialising in "pubs" (public houses, or "bars"). Legislative changes ranging from allowing the 24 hour sale of cheap alcohol in supermarkets coupled with anti-smoking legislation that makes it illegal to smoke inside pubs have driven away a large chunk of that trade. I am a non-smoker but would prefer an open pub that allows smoking than no pub at all. This is important because pubs are also traditionally where different social classes meet and mingle as equals as well as where young people used to learn to drink responsibly under the watchful eye of the landlord and older drinkers - now they are likely to get totally smashed on alco-pops out of sight. Then there's the impact of mass immigration on social housing and the resultant disruption of traditional communities. The traditional working classes (my background) are already under assault even before we add in the coming tide of job losses through automation. These are all good reasons for supporting a move to a Basic Citizen's Income as soon as possible.

irremediable 11y ago
I really like your point about pubs. Your point about mass immigration is good too, though I think it omits the impact that automation and outsourcing have already had on employment. Not so sure about your view on marriage, though. Are you saying your son shouldn't marry because, if he finds a girlfriend and has children, marriage would disadvantage him should they ever divorce?

la6470 11y ago

It is sad situation but it is true for all races and nationalities. Low skilled work will be valued less and less. A structure of extended family is important which modern society has forgotten.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

pc86 11y ago

Am I the only one that finds it odd after reading an article about someone making $11/hr in factory losing their job, the top-voted comment (and a good number of the replies) is one lamenting their $150k salary?

sosuke 11y ago
I think that illustrates, emphasizes even, how unbalanced the society is. You feel poor at $15k, $50k, $100k and even the dual income families of $250k feel on a razors edge.
- pc86 11y ago
  I think it illustrates very little about society, but quite a bit about human nature.
  - laotzu 11y ago
    What does it say about human nature?
    - Retric 11y ago
      We get used to excess really easily. "What if people find out my husband only made 85 million last year." Note: That conversation actually happened and the person was worried about how they were going to cut back their lifestyle. With the clear implication that 85 million was just not enough.
      - laotzu 11y ago
        It is not so much indicative of human nature as a whole as it is of "civilized" or industrialized cultures. Tribal cultures often exhibit the opposite sort of sentiment. >Primitive commodity money, like the magical words of non-literate society, can be a storehouse of power, and has often become the occasion of feverish economic activity. The natives of the South Seas, when they are so engaged, seek no economic advantage. Furious application to production may be followed by deliberate destruction of the products in order to achieve moral prestige...Potlatch is very widespread, especially where there is ease of food-gathering or food-production. For example, among the Northwest coast fishermen, or rice-planters of Borneo, huge surpluses are produced that have to be destroyed or class differences would arise that would destroy the traditional social order. In Borneo the traveler may see tons of rice exposed to rains in rituals, and great art constructions, involving tremendous efforts, smashed. At the same time, in these primitive societies, while money may release frantic energies in order to charge a bit of copper with magical prestige, it can buy very little. Rich and poor necessarily live in much the same manner. Today, in the electronic age, the richest man is reduced to having much the same entertainment, and even the same food and vehicles as the ordinary man.[1] [1]Understanding Media, Ch. 14 Money: The Poor Man's Credit Card, Marshall McLuhan