Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Succinct look at how America ranks currently in the world, and how the new slash and burn politics and continuing slicing of the social safety net, while increasing military spending as Goldman Sach's CEO triples his base salary, will have profoundly negative effects on America's long term future...

the worst in income inequality is especially troubling...that's simply an unsustainable way for a society to function.

Empire at the End of Decadence
By CHARLES M. BLOW
Published: February 18, 2011



It’s time for us to stop lying to ourselves about this country.


America is great in many ways, but on a whole host of measures — some of which are shown in the accompanying chart — we have become the laggards of the industrialized world. Not only are we not No. 1 — “U.S.A.! U.S.A.!” — we are among the worst of the worst.

Yet this reality and the urgency that it ushers in is too hard for many Americans to digest. They would prefer to continue to bathe in platitudes about America’s greatness, to view our eroding empire through the gauzy vapors of past grandeur.

Republicans have even submitted a draconian budget that would make deep cuts into the tiny vein that is nonsecurity discretionary spending, cuts that would prove devastating to the poor and working class.

At the very time that many Americans — and the very country itself — are struggling to emerge from a very deep hole, the Republican proposal would simply throw the dirt in on top of us.

This cannot be. Financing for education and social services isn’t simply about handouts to the hardscrabble, it is about building an infrastructure that can produce healthy, engaged and well-educated citizens who can compete in an increasingly cutthroat global economy.

One of President Obama’s new catchphrases is “win the future,” but we can’t win the future by ceding the present and romanticizing the past.

Here's a look at how the United States compares with other advanced economies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/19/opini ... ?src=twrhp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Great Recession and the slump that followed have triggered a jobs crisis that's been making headlines since before President Obama was in office, and that will likely be with us for years. But the American economy is also plagued by a less-noted, but just as serious, problem: Simply put, over the last 30 years, the gap between rich and poor has widened into a chasm.
Gradual developments like this don't typically lend themselves to news coverage. But Mother Jones magazine has crunched the data on inequality, and put together a group of stunning new charts. Taken together, they offer a dramatic visual illustration of who's doing well and who's doing badly in modern America.
Here are three samples:

This chart shows that the poorest 90 percent of Americans make an average of $31,244 a year, while the top 1 percent make over $1.1 million:


According to this chart, most income groups have barely grown richer since 1979. But the top 1 percent has seen its income nearly quadruple:


And this chart suggests most Americans have little idea of just how unequal income distribution is. And that they'd like things to be divvied up a lot more equitably:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookou ... h-poor-gap" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Unsustainable being the key word. We've gotten away with it for a number of years on credit - at least enough crumbs to keep the peasants quiet. But that aint gonna last forever. The other problem is that nearly every industry is dramatically overbuilt. 9% might be the new full employment rate.

Skelly, the Woody Guthrie of CS.

Pretty pathetic, but when an empire is in decline the process is irreversible. Better get some bigger walls around the gated communities.

What exactly on that chart is "the level of democracy"?

Op-ed writer Charles Blow. Cherry pick what you want and make it look good on graphs and charts. You do know that's what he does, right?

89Hen wrote: Op-ed writer Charles Blow. Cherry pick what you want and make it look good on graphs and charts. You do know that's what he does, right?

You're saying an op-ed writer slants his op-eds? Shocked...shocked I tell you....

Typical NY Times Blow job.

houndawg wrote:

89Hen wrote: Op-ed writer Charles Blow. Cherry pick what you want and make it look good on graphs and charts. You do know that's what he does, right?

You're saying an op-ed writer slants his op-eds? Shocked...shocked I tell you....

Not shocked at all. Also not shocked at all that Jelly would try to pass this off as a real story and not an op-ed piece. It's his MO.

I guess KY finished licking his wounds from the absolute a$$ beating he took on here a couple weeks ago.

Not real swift on the learning curve, though.

I notice this excludes China, who has terrible income disparity and is on pace to become the world's largest economy in about 10 years.

TL;DR.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:TL;DR.

I'll give you the cliff notes version:

We can afford a middle class, high standard of living, democracy, and really rich dudes.

We can't afford a middle class, high standard of living, democracy and really really really really really really...rich dudes.

89Hen wrote: Not shocked at all. Also not shocked at all that Jelly would try to pass this off as a real story and not an op-ed piece. It's his MO.

A real story? An op-ed piece? You know it was two stories I linked, right.

The New York Times op-ed had 1 graph. The Yahoo news one had 3 graphs. It was two stories, dickhead.

But, do you think income inequality in this country is ok? The gap between the rich and the poor is widening... rapidly to third world levels... do you think this is sustainable?

Pwns wrote:I notice this excludes China, who has terrible income disparity and is on pace to become the world's largest economy in about 10 years.

Our income disparity is surprisingly pretty damn close to China's.



might want to review this chart:

Skjellyfetti wrote:

89Hen wrote: Not shocked at all. Also not shocked at all that Jelly would try to pass this off as a real story and not an op-ed piece. It's his MO.

A real story? An op-ed piece? You know it was two stories I linked, right.

The New York Times op-ed had 1 graph. The Yahoo news one had 3 graphs. It was two stories, dickhead.

But, do you think income inequality in this country is ok? The gap between the rich and the poor is widening... rapidly to third world levels... do you think this is sustainable?

Hey dickhead, there's no such thing as Yahoo news... they picked the story up from Mother Jones, you know, the one that's more partisan than Fox News, Rush and Hannity put together. The "chart" that you want to draw extra attention to is a fucking joke. It's a perception chart, nothing more. You might want to review the text with the chart:

Most thought that it’s more balanced than it actually is. Asked to choose their ideal distribution of wealth, 92% picked one that was even more equitable.

GMAFB.

CID1990 wrote:I guess KY finished licking his wounds from the absolute a$$ beating he took on here a couple weeks ago.

Not real swift on the learning curve, though.

It's hard to keep track of the the a$$ bearings KY takes. Pretty much every time he posts something ...

JoltinJoe wrote:

CID1990 wrote:I guess KY finished licking his wounds from the absolute a$$ beating he took on here a couple weeks ago.

Not real swift on the learning curve, though.

It's hard to keep track of the the a$$ bearings KY takes. Pretty much every time he posts something ...

what's an a$$ bearing? something that occurs after the altar boy is invited to the rectory?

Appaholic wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
It's hard to keep track of the the a$$ bearings KY takes. Pretty much every time he posts something ...

what's an a$$ bearing? something that occurs after the altar boy is invited to the rectory?

An ass beating/bearing is what is going on this thread.

Income disparity is a non-issue. If the top 1% are making an average of $1.1 million, who cares? Many of them are the risk takers essential for an economy to prosper. They provide jobs and benefits to others. Of course, some have some scam going, but many of those who make the most in our society shouldn't be made into the villains.

Moreover, a lot of the data on the chart lack context. Comparing unemployment figures isn't too helpful, because there is no uniform way which countries measure their "unemployment." So ours is currently 9%; another country reports something lower. It is hard to compare these numbers because they are not calculated the same way. Indeed, as skyass learned in another thread when he tried to argue that the 1982 recession was worse than the 2007 recession, the US itself changed the way it calculated unemployment in the mid-1990s.

What does "thriving" mean? So 57% of our country is "thriving" while other countries report higher rates. Does that have something to do with income disparity, i.e., comparative to others in your own economy? If so, who cares?

The only number I'd be concerned with is number of persons living below the poverty line. And asking people in a survey if they ever have not had enough money for food in the past 12 months isn't an accurate way of measuring the poverty rate. I can only guess that, when objectively measured, our poverty rate is not embarrassingly high enough for the people who created this chart ... and so there is no reference to it.

If you are making $31,000 and can provide for your needs, you're fine. Perhaps you can do better, and quite obviously there is a lot of upside in our economy for people who work hard and take risks.

JoltinJoe wrote:

Appaholic wrote:
what's an a$$ bearing? something that occurs after the altar boy is invited to the rectory?

An ass beating/bearing is what is going on this thread.

Income disparity is a non-issue. If the top 1% are making an average of $1.1 million, who cares? Many of them are the risk takers essential for an economy to prosper. They provide jobs and benefits to others. Of course, some have some scam going, but many of those who make the most in our society shouldn't be made into the villains.

Moreover, a lot of the data on the chart lack context. Comparing unemployment figures isn't too helpful, because there is no uniform way which countries measure their "unemployment." So ours is currently 9%; another country reports something lower. It is hard to compare these numbers because they are not calculated the same way. Indeed, as skyass learned in another thread when he tried to argue that the 1982 recession was worse than the 2007 recession, the US itself changed the way it calculated unemployment in the mid-1990s.

What does "thriving" mean? So 57% of our country is "thriving" while other countries report higher rates. Does that have something to do with income disparity, i.e., comparative to others in your own economy? If so, who cares?

The only number I'd be concerned with is number of persons living below the poverty line.

If you are making $31,000 and can provide for your needs, you're fine. Perhaps you can do better, and quite obviously there is a lot of upside in our economy for people who work hard and take risks.

Agree, but I was just busting your balls since I noticed D1B had retired again...just want to keep you on your toes...

JoltinJoe wrote:

Appaholic wrote:
what's an a$$ bearing? something that occurs after the altar boy is invited to the rectory?

An ass beating/bearing is what is going on this thread.

Income disparity is a non-issue. If the top 1% are making an average of $1.1 million, who cares? Many of them are the risk takers essential for an economy to prosper. They provide jobs and benefits to others. Of course, some have some scam going, but many of those who make the most in our society shouldn't be made into the villains.

Moreover, a lot of the data on the chart lack context. Comparing unemployment figures isn't too helpful, because there is no uniform way which countries measure their "unemployment." So ours is currently 9%; another country reports something lower. It is hard to compare these numbers because they are not calculated the same way. Indeed, as skyass learned in another thread when he tried to argue that the 1982 recession was worse than the 2007 recession, the US itself changed the way it calculated unemployment in the mid-1990s.

What does "thriving" mean? So 57% of our country is "thriving" while other countries report higher rates. Does that have something to do with income disparity, i.e., comparative to others in your own economy? If so, who cares?

The only number I'd be concerned with is number of persons living below the poverty line. And asking people in a survey if they ever have not had enough money for food in the past 12 months isn't an accurate way of measuring the poverty rate. I can only guess that, when objectively measured, our poverty rate is not embarrassingly high enough for the people who created this chart ... and so there is no reference to it.

If you are making $31,000 and can provide for your needs, you're fine. Perhaps you can do better, and quite obviously there is a lot of upside in our economy for people who work hard and take risks.

43 million, in the richest country in the history of mankind, isn't embarrassingly high?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... year-high/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course, I'd like to see our poverty level lower, but my suspicion that the US poverty level was not embarrassingly high enough, when compared to other nations, for the makers of that chart, has proven correct.

JoltinJoe wrote:

Of course, I'd like to see our poverty level lower, but my suspicion that the US poverty level was not embarrassingly high enough, when compared to other nations, for the makers of that chart, has proven correct.

I don't think sub-Saharan Africa is the standard by which we should gauge ourselves. Nor Russian and Kazakhstan, for that matter.

Grizalltheway wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:

Of course, I'd like to see our poverty level lower, but my suspicion that the US poverty level was not embarrassingly high enough, when compared to other nations, for the makers of that chart, has proven correct.

I don't think sub-Saharan Africa is the standard by which we should gauge ourselves. Nor Russian and Kazakhstan, for that matter.

But those European countries where people are "thriving" have about the same level of poverty as we do.

Remember, the point of this exercise was to show how bad living in the US is, and that was done by comparing unemployment numbers without any explanation as to how each country calculates unemployment; by showing a percentage of people who are "thriving" (which is apparently a function of "income disparity); and by suggesting more people here are living in poverty through some survey evidence (and by ignoring genuine poverty statistics).

JoltinJoe wrote:

Appaholic wrote:
what's an a$$ bearing? something that occurs after the altar boy is invited to the rectory?

An ass beating/bearing is what is going on this thread.

Income disparity is a non-issue. If the top 1% are making an average of $1.1 million, who cares? Many of them are the risk takers essential for an economy to prosper. They provide jobs and benefits to others. Of course, some have some scam going, but many of those who make the most in our society shouldn't be made into the villains.

Moreover, a lot of the data on the chart lack context. Comparing unemployment figures isn't too helpful, because there is no uniform way which countries measure their "unemployment." So ours is currently 9%; another country reports something lower. It is hard to compare these numbers because they are not calculated the same way. Indeed, as skyass learned in another thread when he tried to argue that the 1982 recession was worse than the 2007 recession, the US itself changed the way it calculated unemployment in the mid-1990s.

What does "thriving" mean? So 57% of our country is "thriving" while other countries report higher rates. Does that have something to do with income disparity, i.e., comparative to others in your own economy? If so, who cares?

The only number I'd be concerned with is number of persons living below the poverty line. And asking people in a survey if they ever have not had enough money for food in the past 12 months isn't an accurate way of measuring the poverty rate. I can only guess that, when objectively measured, our poverty rate is not embarrassingly high enough for the people who created this chart ... and so there is no reference to it.

If you are making $31,000 and can provide for your needs, you're fine. Perhaps you can do better, and quite obviously there is a lot of upside in our economy for people who work hard and take risks.

This would all make sense if we didn't have a massive debt problem in this country. But we do so it doesn't.

kalm wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
An ass beating/bearing is what is going on this thread.

Income disparity is a non-issue. If the top 1% are making an average of $1.1 million, who cares? Many of them are the risk takers essential for an economy to prosper. They provide jobs and benefits to others. Of course, some have some scam going, but many of those who make the most in our society shouldn't be made into the villains.

Moreover, a lot of the data on the chart lack context. Comparing unemployment figures isn't too helpful, because there is no uniform way which countries measure their "unemployment." So ours is currently 9%; another country reports something lower. It is hard to compare these numbers because they are not calculated the same way. Indeed, as skyass learned in another thread when he tried to argue that the 1982 recession was worse than the 2007 recession, the US itself changed the way it calculated unemployment in the mid-1990s.

What does "thriving" mean? So 57% of our country is "thriving" while other countries report higher rates. Does that have something to do with income disparity, i.e., comparative to others in your own economy? If so, who cares?

The only number I'd be concerned with is number of persons living below the poverty line. And asking people in a survey if they ever have not had enough money for food in the past 12 months isn't an accurate way of measuring the poverty rate. I can only guess that, when objectively measured, our poverty rate is not embarrassingly high enough for the people who created this chart ... and so there is no reference to it.

If you are making $31,000 and can provide for your needs, you're fine. Perhaps you can do better, and quite obviously there is a lot of upside in our economy for people who work hard and take risks.

This would all make sense if we didn't have a massive debt problem in this country. But we do so it doesn't.

And the nations who are "thriving" don't have a national debt problem?

Check and see which nation still gets the best debt terms. Yes, our government owes too much money, but other nations have greater problems, and this is evident when assessing current credit terms. As you know, the better risks get the better terms.