How the middle class became the underclass!

The comparison of the 1988 average income and 2008 average income was adjusted for inflation. Perfect, that means that the inflation factor that they used was correct. In other word, if they see very different numbers, then they have used the wrong inflation numbers.

For the top 5% people, good for them. They have done better than average.

Amazing, vic! You just typed 5 sentences that are devoid of any discernible meaning whatsoever.

Vic should join MidtownerEast

Now let me hold your hands and guide you through the reasoning. In 1988, a fresh college graduate with a computer science degree entered the work force as a programmer. He earned $33K/year at that time, about right. His managers four levels up was a top 5% earner. Twenty years has passed, the 1988 graduate is now an excutive in the company. Lets compare his knowledge in the field with the so called manager twenty years ago. Who do you think have more advanced knowledge in computers. The fact is technology has advanced so much in the last 20 years, in so many fields of professions. The productivities of the new top earners are so much higher than those 20 years ago.

While average is still average when adjusted for inflation, the top earners will do much better than the top earners 20 years ago. They are the people contributing to the skyrocketing of our technology in the last 20 years.

Another example. The average time to finish a 100 meter sprint 20 years ago was about 13 seconds for an average healthy adult. You were a top sprinter if you can finish in 10 seconds. Nowadays, the average time for an average guy to finish is still about 13 seconds if not slower because of wide spread obesity. To be qualified as a top sprinter, you must be able to break the 10 second barrier.

omg!

"Now let me hold your hands and guide you through the reasoning. In 1988, a fresh college graduate with a computer science degree entered the work force as a programmer. He earned $33K/year at that time, about right. His managers four levels up was a top 5% earner. Twenty years has passed, the 1988 graduate is now an excutive in the company. Lets compare his knowledge in the field with the so called manager twenty years ago. Who do you think have more advanced knowledge in computers. The fact is technology has advanced so much in the last 20 years, in so many fields of professions. The productivities of the new top earners are so much higher than those 20 years ago."

By your reasoning, then, this 1988 graduate should lose his job to a recent graduate of TODAY, since these kids today know so much more than he does now.

Today's new graduate is still a new graduate. Today's new graduate knows more than the 1988 new graduate then, but not the veteren now. The 2010 fresh graduate will likely know more than his current manager if he can survive another 20 years and never stop learning.

20 years ago, all the scientists worshiped you if you can clone a sheep. Nowaday...

Vic: What about the grads of today?

TO buy the same amount you bought in 1988, with $33,000, you would need to spend over $60,000.

Put another way, your current $33,000 is worth $17,000 in 1988 dollars.

So today's grads are only worth $17K?

What about today's CEO's? They make 400X what their workers make, which 10X what 1988 CEO's made. I don't think they know 10x more than they did in 1988.

Not from what I've seen from today's CEO's.

I just wrote all this on another forum (they just shut that thread down, BTW). I am having thread de ja vu this morning. . .

"Today's new graduate knows more than the 1988 new graduate then..."

So how come the 2008 new grad isn't making 33% more than the 1988 new grad?

needsadvice, I think both numbers were adjusted for inflation already.

20 years ago, my company's server had a 1G shared drive. I remember our IT guy told us that we now had all the spaces to save all of our files. Nowadays, my sons toy camara has more storage than that.

20 years ago, we lobbied our boss to get us a T3 line and upgrade our 28K modem to 56K modem. Nowadays, I watched my nightly news thru fiber optics.

Where are the protests going to be held?

Let's agree not to beat up the journalists.

needadvice, Sunday is right, the numbers were adjusted for inflation. I just used the computer science graduate 20 years ago as an example. That was what IBM paid a fresh college grad at that time. They of course paid much more than that nowadays to adjust for inflation for entry level positions.

For other professions, on average, they earned $33K now but only $17K 20 years ago BEFORE adjusting for inflation.

Housing price is EVERYTHING.
In 2008, it cost at least 6 to 10 times more $ to buy the same house sold in 88.
Don't you think that would put a dent in your budget?

In the case of CEO, there is only one per company. The data we are looking at now are more macroscopic than that. The top 5% population is much higher than the CEO's population.

In the case of CEOs. Their pay are more related to the size of their companies. The capitalization of the surviving large companies were many times larger than they were 20 years ago. Dow Jones were about 2000 points in 1988. Not saying the CEO pay scale SHOULD follow this trend, but the board seemed to measure their PRODUCTIVITY by company size. They probably will adjust that in the new world reality in the near future.

Were there more CEOs per company in 1988? You seem to have a Palinesque grasp on facts and logic, yielding a random mish-mash of platitudes and misunderstandings, woven into absurdist non-sequiturs.

The housing price was very high in 1988 when adjusted for inflation. Plus interest rate was at near 12% or higher then.

Americans may be paying less in real money terms now for shelters (rent or buy)than in 1988. I personally felt very blessed living in this era. My money usually can buy better products than 20 years ago, despite that many are made in overseas now.

Vic is trying the drown the fish with his non sense.

the drown = to drown

Maly, my point clearly stated that the population of big corp. CEO could not affect the top 5% earner proportions in statistics. Nothing to do with more CEO per company then over now. I further suggested that the CEO's escalated rate in pay were directly related to big corp. capitalization. Anyting wrong with that?

"So how come the 2008 new grad isn't making 33% more than the 1988 new grad?"

Because the 2008 grad's CEO needs his eight-figure salary to come from SOMEWHERE ...

What about if all the ones who, according to vic64, don't deserve higher incomes since 1988, in contrast to the top 5% of society, stop working for the top 5%? Then the latter can see how they get their incomes, since former aren't really needed for it.

Btw: The higher the income of a member in society, the less the income comes from salary or wages and the more it comes from gains on owning capital (means of production, investments) on average, i.e., not from the earner's own labor and productivity, but from other people's labor and productivity.

"He earned $33K/year at that time, about right. His managers four levels up was a top 5% earner. Twenty years has passed, the 1988 graduate is now an excutive in the company"

No, today he's unemployed after his compnay figured it would be cheaper to dump him and replace him with a younger worker.

As stated by the Op, making $338K a year put you in the top 1% already (I would say top 3%, not top 1%. That amount in most cases still came from working and earning. Most of the people who comprised of this top 3% were professionals, top managers and small business owners (company size below $75M cap)

CEOs are very much like movie stars. Movie stars in the last decade or two earned so much more than their counterparts 40-50 years ago. Does Emma Watson have more talents than Shelly Temple? Was Tom Cruise better than Clark Gable? The current stars earn more only because the pies are bigger. They cashed in not just on ticket revenues, but DVD and other royalties.

Think again when the Dow went form 2000 in 1988 to 12000 now. They can argue that they are managing companies 6 times bigger and more complex. At that level, that is how productivity being measured.

Socialist, your comment could be funny. However, statistics still showed most prime earners are in their 40s.

Tech companies are notorious for dumping older workers. There's no such thing as an old programmer.

Those being dumped are no longer the top 5%. Those who survived earned their places.

"CEOs are very much like movie stars. Movie stars in the last decade or two earned so much more than their counterparts 40-50 years ago. Does Emma Watson have more talents than Shelly Temple? Was Tom Cruise better than Clark Gable? The current stars earn more only because the pies are bigger. They cashed in not just on ticket revenues, but DVD and other royalties."

No, CEOs are NOT like movie stars in this respect. Movie stars are able to enjoy significantly higher paydays thanks to Hollywood profits being multiplied by DVD and other royalties.

Corporate profits, however, by and large have come at the expense of workers through wage stagnation and outsourcing.

true thatt matt
and therin lies one component of the enriching of the richest by the "lowered and lowering further" "middle" class

our society has wrung productivity from the middle class, and now outsourced and allowed immigrants to do its work, enriching the wealthy....all to the detriment of our hasbeen middle-class

hey vic...youre a moron...and a dic brain

And the middle class will take even more of a beating if Republican scum like Scott "Mubarak" Walker get their way.

The point being made was some people can easily take credit of the sucess of others. Movies stars get more not because of better acting. CEOs get more by making companies bigger, not necessarily better.

Remember the trend of cutting dividends in the last 2 decades? That was one good way to expand the capitalization of a company when there were plenty of so called good investment opputunities. Do you as an invester like that practice and see your stock price keep going higher. That is the delimma.

@vic64:

How has a young programmer who is hired, because his labor force is cheaper, "earned" to get the job and to replace an older programmer who is fired instead? Those decisions are based purely on profitability for the company. That's how capitalism works. The purpose of any business isn't the welfare of its labor force, it's making money for the owners/investors, instead. It has nothing to do with "earned" on the side of a young programmer who replaces an older one.

rootless,

We were talking about the 40 something years old surviving the competition and is now the manager. He earns his place. Who says climbing the coperate leader is easy. Not in a capitalist society. In fact, this process is often cruel but needed. This sort of competition is probably the best part in capitalism. So that no one should get too laid back and instead push for innovations.

@vic64:

"Remember the trend of cutting dividends in the last 2 decades?"

No, I don't remember such a trend. What are you talking about? Dividends had gone up since at least 1988, both absolute and on per share basis, until they peaked in 2007/08. Dividend yields have gone down, though, but not due to a trend of dividend cuts.

"That was one good way to expand the capitalization of a company when there were plenty of so called good investment opputunities. Do you as an invester like that practice and see your stock price keep going higher. That is the delimma."

Stock prices or market capitalization went up not due to dividend cuts. They went up because of speculation in the secondary market. This speculation drove share prices up to book valuations, which were totally detached from any longer-term cash flow investors could expect from their investments. Why would I like this as an investor, if I wasn't delusional about the sustainability of such excess valuations?

Today PE10 has reached about 24 again, i.e., the stock market is in a territory of excess valuations again. With a PE10 of 24, the stock market in the past went only higher before the 1929 crash, and during the super stock market bubble after the late 90ies and in the years before the market crash of 2008/09.

hogwash. a decent cell phone cost in $1000 in 1988. i saw a disposable at duane reade for $9.99 today. microwaves: 2-3 grand...today $59 for a basic model. consumer flat screen tv's? didn't exist in 88 but you could get a 42" in '97 for $15,000 including installation. today well under $500. on and on and on you can find the presence of extremely high quality & time-saving miracle consumer products available to the so-called Poor and middle class that would be simply unimaginable 23 years ago. so adjusted for inflation incomes may have not risen for the lower classes...but so what.

660incontract,

Well said. In a straight sense, there is only inflation when you need to pay more for comparable products or services. In this sense, most people's buying power had increased in the last 2 decades.

@vic64:

"We were talking about the 40 something years old surviving the competition and is now the manager."

Let's see:

socialist said: "Tech companies are notorious for dumping older workers. There's no such thing as an old programmer."

vic64 replies: "Those being dumped are no longer the top 5%. Those who survived earned their places."

And what is your rationalization for that median income haven't increased since 1988, and below median incomes have even decreased? People of these strata of society haven't "earned" to get higher incomes? Or they don't "deserve" it?

"This sort of competition is probably the best part in capitalism. So that no one should get too laid back and instead push for innovations."

Why and for whom is this the "best part"? Because you think the purpose of everyone is supposed to be a little well functioning part in the machinery of profit making and capital accumulation for the capitalists?

You know one thing is to understand why things are how they are. How it works. Another thing is to make up moral justifications why it is "good" or "best" how things are.

In 1982 the dividend yield on the S&P 500 Index reached 6.7%. Over the following 16 years, the dividend yield declined to just a percentage value of 1.4% during 1998, because stock prices increased faster than dividend payments from earnings, and public company earnings increased slower than stock prices.

A lower tax rate for capital gain than dividends may have contributed to this trend.

Who was it who once said "I ain't got no breaks but howza bout a party [well alright!]"?

What a couple of you are basically saying is "I ain't got food, shelter, healthcare or education, but howza bout a TeeVee and mobile phone [well alright!]"

"on and on and on you can find the presence of extremely high quality & time-saving miracle consumer products available to the so-called Poor and middle class that would be simply unimaginable 23 years ago. so adjusted for inflation incomes may have not risen for the lower classes...but so what."

Right. Why don't people eat their high tech cell phones, if they can't afford food anymore. And at least they will have Internet under the bridges, if they don't have housing.

All the ones who think increasing income and wealth disparities don't matter should be aware that the political and social stability of a society decreases with increasing divergence of income and wealth. This increasing disparities are a quasi-natural process in capitalism, though. Both in the vertical within countries and in the horizontal between countries and regions of the world. The outcome of this can be observed in history and present of various parts of the world.

@vic64:

"In 1982 the dividend yield on the S&P 500 Index reached 6.7%. Over the following 16 years, the dividend yield declined to just a percentage value of 1.4% during 1998, because stock prices increased faster than dividend payments from earnings, and public company earnings increased slower than stock prices."

So, I see you are confirming what I wrote.

Competition is definitely the better part of capitalism. Over leveraging is one of the worse part of capitalism.

Machines being the new slaves of production is the better part of technology advancement. Compared to the human slavery system was the only system throughout the world as close as 200 years ago.

People all over the world, not just Americans will need to learn to adapt. On average, any average earners will have better living standard than the older generations of average earners before us, as stated by 660incontract. The gap between average earners and top 5% will remain higher. It will serve as the incentive for anyone to work extra harder.

I repeated that dividend rate was declining, not agreeing with you. Read carefully

The logic was that there are many factors affecting stock prices. I was merely stating one that coincidentally could expand the companies capitalization and the CEO's earning power.

Companies that give out high dividends such as utility companies and established industrial companies rarely are considered growth stocks.

There is no more "corporate ladder." It has not existed for many years. Today most executives are recruited from OUTSIDE the company... in some cases outside of the industry. Stories have entry level workers making their way to a high ranking executive title are very rare.

You make it sound like job mobility is a bad thing.

didn't mean for my simple observations to bust up the pitchfork party. understand some other facts: those consumer goods that are so easily dismissed cost money. and food (wait for it) costs money! isn't that interesting? people happily make choices and buy these things *voluntarily*. nobody used force to make anybody buy a $400 phone or $750 flat screen when they should have been feeding their family, saving, and investing for the future. so tell me again: who's fault is it when one has a sweet iPhone4 but is hungry and homeless? what does a man who's made $50 million dollars have to do with a lazy and/or dumb person who is shining my shoes? the answers are "he is" and "nothing".

and btw i was raised on beans n rice for less than $100/month and i loved it. so don't start talking to me about how people are going hungry in this country. instead of teaching me to hate on the guy down the street, my daddy took me with him to clean rugs in the Bronx and Yonkers since before i was 10 years old.

>> ... the political and social stability of a society decreases ...

uh huh... in no small part because of groups that try very hard to spread the notion that something unjust has been done to people. it's not because they don't work hard, or that they are not smart, or that they had some bad luck, or are unwilling to adapt to change. it's because of this guy over here with more property. he's GREEDY because...well...because he has more property than me obviously! of course taking his property by force or coerican because he "has too much" is not greedy at all.

@vic64:

"I repeated that dividend rate was declining, not agreeing with you. Read carefully"

No, you had claimed above there has been a trend of dividend cuts in favor of capitalization of the companies for the last two decades (Thu Feb 17 14:06:25 -0500 2011). I replied that there hadn't been such a trend. Dividends had gone up, but dividend yields have gone down. Stock market speculation drove share prices up (Thu Feb 17 14:38:28 -0500 2011).

Then you changed your argument by talking about decreasing dividend yields since 1982 and about stock prices increasing faster than dividends increased (Thu Feb 17 15:00:40 -5000 2011). So, suddenly, no trend of dividend cuts anymore. How is this not confirming what I replied? And now you deny that you have changed your argument and basically are repeating what I have said regarding dividends? C'mon! Everyone can read who wrote what and check for him/herself.

@vic64:

"Companies that give out high dividends such as utility companies and established industrial companies rarely are considered growth stocks."

I don't understand the meaning of this statement. Does it refer to anything I said? Is this a counter argument to something? To what?

Could it be that the middle class "became the underclass" because they expected the world to remain small and static?

When I refer to dividend cut, I always meant its rate in comparison of its stock price. In another term, the dividend yield. I don't expect people would misunderstand on that. Sorry for the confusion.

@vic64:

"The gap between average earners and top 5% will remain higher. It will serve as the incentive for anyone to work extra harder."

Are you saying that people with lower incomes and no increases have those incomes because they don't work hard enough?

Why are you cheering that machines have been replacing human slavery, if your ideal is a society where everyone works like slaves? Corporate slaves.

> Stories have entry level workers making their way to a high ranking executive title are very rare.

Because the actress from Working Girl was spotted years later buying drugs from her street level apartment at the Dakota.

"people happily make choices and buy these things *voluntarily*. nobody used force to make anybody buy a $400 phone or $750 flat screen when they should have been feeding their family, saving, and investing for the future."

The point is, a generation ago, the middle class bought these things AND had enough money left over to save for the future.

Adjusted for inflation, actually, TELEPHONES were very expensive in the '70s. I've actually researched old New York Telephone records, and adjusted for inflation, the average phone bill with "long-distance" charges approached $150/month. Add an extension phone for another $35/month. Want that extension phone to *not* be black or white? Add another $20/month for a "designer" phone like a Princess or Trimline.

And the average tricked-out 25-inch console television set, back in 1975, in today's dollars cost over $3,000.

> I've actually researched old New York Telephone records

Like 660incontract, there is usually a story of struggle behind any successful person. By saying that, I don't mean to say those not successful deserve to any suffering. In fact, no concious soul or mind deserve suffering. On the contrary, most successful people (law abiding people)deserve their success with their hard work. Society's role is to set a base of minimum living standard for those not too willing to climb. In this regard, our country has done a pretty good job when compared to the rest of the world. That is something all American should be proud of. As long as this minimum living standard platform is set reasonably, and we as a society still have a lot to work on, the widening income gap between the more successful group and the average group is most the biggest problem.

I meant the widening income gap between the more successful group and the average group is NOT the biggest problem

Now compare the first statement by 660incontract, where he dismisses the importance of increasing income disparities by saying electronic consumer goods had become so much cheaper,

"hogwash. a decent cell phone cost in $1000 in 1988. i saw a disposable at duane reade for $9.99 today. microwaves: 2-3 grand...today $59 for a basic model. consumer flat screen tv's? didn't exist in 88 but you could get a 42" in '97 for $15,000 including installation. today well under $500. on and on and on you can find the presence of extremely high quality & time-saving miracle consumer products available to the so-called Poor and middle class that would be simply unimaginable 23 years ago. so adjusted for inflation incomes may have not risen for the lower classes...but so what."

and, after he got the reply that cheap gadgets aren't so important, but food, housing, health care, education are, how he twists his own argument now:

"didn't mean for my simple observations to bust up the pitchfork party. understand some other facts: those consumer goods that are so easily dismissed cost money. and food (wait for it) costs money! isn't that interesting? people happily make choices and buy these things *voluntarily*. nobody used force to make anybody buy a $400 phone or $750 flat screen when they should have been feeding their family, saving, and investing for the future. so tell me again: who's fault is it when one has a sweet iPhone4 but is hungry and homeless? what does a man who's made $50 million dollars have to do with a lazy and/or dumb person who is shining my shoes? the answers are "he is" and "nothing"."

"and btw i was raised on beans n rice for less than $100/month and i loved it."

Why didn't you stay poor then, if you loved it so much?

"so don't start talking to me about how people are going hungry in this country. instead of teaching me to hate on the guy down the street, my daddy took me with him to clean rugs in the Bronx and Yonkers since before i was 10 years old."

Great! I guess society should return to legalizing child labor, so that everyone learns early how to "work hard".

"uh huh... in no small part because of groups that try very hard to spread the notion that something unjust has been done to people. it's not because they don't work hard, or that they are not smart, or that they had some bad luck, or are unwilling to adapt to change."

Many, if not most people with low income from labor work hard. So what's the purpose of pointing to some who don't, except for the purpose of distraction using the fallacy of hasty generalization? And why is it just that someone who is not as smart or who has had bad luck or is chronically ill lives in poverty? I don't see it.

Sounds to me like a case of social envy. That someone is looking for justifications why others don't "deserve" higher incomes, out of fear to lose some of its own pie that was acquired in what way ever.

"it's because of this guy over here with more property. he's GREEDY because...well...because he has more property than me obviously!"

This would mean attributing the symptoms or crisis phenomena of capitalism to some character flaws of individuals or members of a group or class in this society. This isn't my argument. I consider it wrong. It's not the key to understanding the working principles of capitalism and the causes of its symptoms like the increasing income and wealth disparities all over the world. I also see some projecting going on here, since you seem to like to attribute the income disparities to character and other flaws of the members of the low income groups yourself. You seem to believe that you "deserve" what you have, and if the others didn't have it it must be because they didn't "deserve" it due to their individual shortcomings. It's just like the "greed"-argument, just the other way around.

vic64 makes lots of logical, intelligent comments, and the inane liberals counter with unverifiable anecdotes and nonsense. Hilarious!

I don't see how a positive thing as simple as "teaching people early to work hard" becomes a negative linkage as to return to legalizing child labor. I always teach my kids to work hard. Working hard at least will give you a fighting chance. Waiting for the society to become a paradise won't work. I would just make sure my kids won't make direct links between poor people and lazy people. Some people just cannot make it no matter how hard they try. That is why the safety net provided by society is so important.

@vic64:

"I don't see how a positive thing as simple as 'teaching people early to work hard' becomes a negative linkage as to return to legalizing child labor."

Legalizing child labor is just consequential, when it seen as a virtue that a little kid under the age of 10 had to do paid labor. You don't see the linkage?

"I always teach my kids to work hard. Working hard at least will give you a fighting chance."

So the purpose of life, which has to be taught to children, is to fight against the competition.

I never would force my children to do paid labor to teach them. Children are supposed to go to school and get a good education, to play, and besides that to be carefree. Life will be shitty enough once they are grown ups.

"Some people just cannot make it no matter how hard they try."

And not everyone is reckless and abusive toward other people.

In all fairness, rootless, vic said that he accompanied his father, the owner of a carpet cleaning business, to the Bronx to watch him get minimum-wage (or under) workers with no benefits to clean carpets. He didn't child-labor over the floors himself.

rootless,

I tried to be polite, but you seem to twist every word that I said.
When a parent tells his childeren to work hard, it means working hard in school when they are in school. and to work hard as a citizen when they grow up. How can it be interpreted that as advocating child laboring?

And alanhart, did I ever have a father owning a carpet cleaning business? I don't know about that myself.

"So the purpose of life, which has to be taught to children, is to fight against the competition."

genius, competition is not the purpose of life because we taught it to our children

"I never would force my children to do paid labor to teach them."

you never reward your kids for chores? that guy's father didn't force him, he showed him what he had to do to support the family.

"Children are supposed to go to school and get a good education, to play, and besides that to be carefree. Life will be shitty enough once they are grown ups."

but your children won't know how to deal with the shittynes of life, because you never taught them how

@alanhart:

It actually wasn't vic64, it was another poster who said:

"instead of teaching me to hate on the guy down the street, my daddy took me with him to clean rugs in the Bronx and Yonkers since before i was 10 years old."

There is nothing about just watching in there. His father took him with him "to clean rugs", apparently on a regular basis, "since before" he "was 10 years old".

@vic64:

"When a parent tells his childeren to work hard, it means working hard in school when they are in school ... How can it be interpreted that as advocating child laboring?"

I didn't say you advocate child labor, in general. I interpreted your statement that you teach your own children to do hard labor, though. If you meant something else I couldn't know that since you referred to my comment which I made in reply to the statement of the other poster who praised that he has had to work since he was a little kid. I interpreted your statement in the context of what was said before. But since you have clarified now that you mean something else, don't worry, I won't claim that you didn't.

Thanks and apologies, vic & rootless, I stand corrected.

"Sounds to me like a case of social envy. That someone is looking for justifications why others don't "deserve" higher incomes, out of fear to lose some of its own pie that was acquired in what way ever."

that is not what social envy means

" You seem to believe that you "deserve" what you have, and if the others didn't have it it must be because they didn't "deserve" it due to their individual shortcomings. It's just like the "greed"-argument, just the other way around. "

that is not what greed means. greed is not entitlement. it is desire and accumulation.

what a funny way with words. is it giving you too much credit to think it's intentional?

>>> and, after he got the reply that cheap gadgets aren't so important, but food,
>>> housing, health care, education are,

with respect you are focused on the distinction, not me. they are all things that cost money. the accessibility of property to the Poor that was the exclusive domain of the top 1% just 25 years ago is a fact. and somehow that means nothing to you. uggh.

>>> "and btw i was raised on beans n rice for less than $100/month and i loved it."
>>> Why didn't you stay poor then, if you loved it so much?

i loved the beans and rice silly. it's nutritious, delicious, and cheap. and as a result i got a new pair of jeans once in a while to go with my hand-me-downs. and all the while i felt no animus for the top 5% of wage earners in this country.

>> Great! I guess society should return to legalizing
>> child labor, so that everyone learns early how to "work hard".

maybe. until then let's make a deal: i'll keep my life lessons and upbringing of which i'm proud. you keep your notions which mean just as little as they did when i was 10 as they do now. fair? oh, and those notions mean zippo to a poor kid who wants to be successful in life one day.

>>> Many, if not most people with low income from labor work hard.... not as smart or who has
>>> had bad luck or is chronically ill lives in poverty? I don't see it.

sir or maam: please get real. with exceptions the vast overwhelming majority of the Poor do not work as hard, are not as smart, do not take the risks; and will not adapt. sorry. proper values have been substituted with the Entitlement Culture and the resentment that is in full view on this board. and for sure it's not fun to be chronically ill or have some other catastrophe impoverish a family. but as much as people want to make it so, and regardless of how much property is confiscated from me to "fix" it, it will never be my family's fault or responsibility.

>> ... You seem to believe that you "deserve" what you have, and if the
>> others didn't have it it must be because they didn't "deserve" it
>> due to their individual shortcomings. It's just like the "greed"-
>> argument, just the other way aroun

oh no...i don't believe i deserve what i have. i do. i really don't care much about what other people do and do not have. you do! see the difference?