2 ms·

nowhere as easy to escape nor self-created nor eradicated as you suggest Um, yes it is. 100 years ago almost everyone was "poor" by absolute standards. Today,

nowhere as easy to escape nor self-created nor eradicated as you suggest Um, yes it is. 100 years ago almost everyone was "poor" by absolute standards. Today, almost no one is. Poverty has been all-but eradicated and it's something you almost have to aim for now. And the income gap appears to only be getting worse This is a make-believe problem. If I get a raise, the income gap has just increased (or decreased, depending). Whichever might occur doesn't change the basic advantage of getting a raise. around 50k. Good luck trying to raise a family (food, car, rent/mortgage) and save for their education on that Um, let's see...90 percent of the people I new growing up (actually much less than 50K), including my family, would fall in this category. So, you may have a very pampered sense of what is required to survive in this world, because it's totally foreign to me. it's possible to redistribute wealth through a Horatio Alger ethos generation after generation If that is your goal by itself, then a good mugging will do the job with much, much less in the way of administrative costs than redistributing money through a school system or some other structure. At any rate, the prices for schools are strictly nominal and are invariably lower for low-income students. This is just how schools segment the marketplace, and the fallacious sticker-price of schooling shouldn't distort one's view of society. But fewer than 50% of the American populace goes on to attend And fewer than 25 percent should attend. Your average person should enter vocational training rather than pretending to become a professional by spending 1000s of dollars on art history classes.

pg 19y ago
There is no absolute standard of wealth. It's true though that nearly everyone 100 years ago was poor by present standards.
robg 19y ago
"Um, yes it is. 100 years ago almost everyone was "poor" by absolute standards. Today, almost no one is. Poverty has been all-but eradicated and it's something you almost have to aim for now." Depends on what your standards are. Me, I think we can do much better at redistributing wealth. And that need not be in the form of social programs but simply in more level playing fields. "This is a make-believe problem. If I get a raise, the income gap has just increased (or decreased, depending). Whichever might occur doesn't change the basic advantage of getting a raise." I don't see your point. The poor are staying poor while the rich are getting richer, relative to today's standards. That's a fact. "Um, let's see...90 percent of the people I new growing up (actually much less than 50K), including my family, would fall in this category. So, you may have a very pampered sense of what is required to survive in this world, because it's totally foreign to me." When you were growing up twenty years ago (or so) this median was much lower. And you merely want people to "survive"? I want everyone to have the opportunity to thrive while advancing society. Where it might be less true for the US today, poverty still runs rampant. To take it to an extreme in today's world, how would you feel about carrying your daily water 3 miles (even as I've seen kids do so with the biggest smile you'll ever see)? Those folks might "survive" (for thirty or forty years) but humanity can do much, much, better. "If that is your goal by itself..." Take a moment to look at reading and writing scores in impoverished areas. Whereas our government assures a free education it is far from equal. That's really all I care about. The achievement gap is real and will be because wealthier kids get to school already better prepared. Further, they live in neighborhoods where the differences cascade. Fixing divergent school districts is a very hard problem so I see the best hope at the college level, so long as the opportunities are there (i.e. the point of this op-ed). "And fewer than 25 percent should attend. Your average person should enter vocational training rather than pretending to become a professional by spending 1000s of dollars on art history classes." That's a different argument (and one where we are probably on the same side). The point, for me, is equal opportunities. And too many start off too far behind. Just because one person can fight the tide, doesn't mean everyone has that capacity or the support necessary.
- mynameishere 19y ago
  When you were growing up twenty years ago Not quite, but for what it's worth, I've spent a long time in the category of which you speak (quote poor endquote people). I've known people who did perfectly well with respect to economics on much less money than you think necessary within the last few years. I want everyone to have the opportunity to thrive while advancing society They do. You get your wish. Outside of people under the thumb of re-distributive regimes like the one in Zimbabwe, we are all pretty much free agents (and even Zimbabweans are as well, if they flee their country.)
  - robg 19y ago
    Let me get this straight: You're saying the playing field is even for almost everyone on the planet? Or that it's even enough? And "perfectly well" defined how? Working diamond or coal mines? Or cleaning deep fryers or hotel rooms? It's their fault they work those jobs?

pg 19y ago

There is no absolute standard of wealth. It's true though that nearly everyone 100 years ago was poor by present standards.

robg 19y ago

"Um, yes it is. 100 years ago almost everyone was "poor" by absolute standards. Today, almost no one is. Poverty has been all-but eradicated and it's something you almost have to aim for now." Depends on what your standards are. Me, I think we can do much better at redistributing wealth. And that need not be in the form of social programs but simply in more level playing fields. "This is a make-believe problem. If I get a raise, the income gap has just increased (or decreased, depending). Whichever might occur doesn't change the basic advantage of getting a raise." I don't see your point. The poor are staying poor while the rich are getting richer, relative to today's standards. That's a fact. "Um, let's see...90 percent of the people I new growing up (actually much less than 50K), including my family, would fall in this category. So, you may have a very pampered sense of what is required to survive in this world, because it's totally foreign to me." When you were growing up twenty years ago (or so) this median was much lower. And you merely want people to "survive"? I want everyone to have the opportunity to thrive while advancing society. Where it might be less true for the US today, poverty still runs rampant. To take it to an extreme in today's world, how would you feel about carrying your daily water 3 miles (even as I've seen kids do so with the biggest smile you'll ever see)? Those folks might "survive" (for thirty or forty years) but humanity can do much, much, better. "If that is your goal by itself..." Take a moment to look at reading and writing scores in impoverished areas. Whereas our government assures a free education it is far from equal. That's really all I care about. The achievement gap is real and will be because wealthier kids get to school already better prepared. Further, they live in neighborhoods where the differences cascade. Fixing divergent school districts is a very hard problem so I see the best hope at the college level, so long as the opportunities are there (i.e. the point of this op-ed). "And fewer than 25 percent should attend. Your average person should enter vocational training rather than pretending to become a professional by spending 1000s of dollars on art history classes." That's a different argument (and one where we are probably on the same side). The point, for me, is equal opportunities. And too many start off too far behind. Just because one person can fight the tide, doesn't mean everyone has that capacity or the support necessary.

mynameishere 19y ago
When you were growing up twenty years ago Not quite, but for what it's worth, I've spent a long time in the category of which you speak (quote poor endquote people). I've known people who did perfectly well with respect to economics on much less money than you think necessary within the last few years. I want everyone to have the opportunity to thrive while advancing society They do. You get your wish. Outside of people under the thumb of re-distributive regimes like the one in Zimbabwe, we are all pretty much free agents (and even Zimbabweans are as well, if they flee their country.)
- robg 19y ago
  Let me get this straight: You're saying the playing field is even for almost everyone on the planet? Or that it's even enough? And "perfectly well" defined how? Working diamond or coal mines? Or cleaning deep fryers or hotel rooms? It's their fault they work those jobs?