American Empire at the End of Decadence

[89Hen]

There's just a whole slew of people who wish we were more socialist like the Europeans. I just wish those people would have the gumption to move.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

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).

the long term health of our nation is in serious jeopardy when the middle class - the underpinning of our economic success and strength - has spent the last decade sliding back toward poverty and new overclass of ultra-wealthy individuals have begun ensuring our country looks more and more like it did in 1928 than it did in 1958 or 1998...

that's a long-term problem... and it has serious and far-reaching consequences.

[89Hen]

the long term health of our nation is in serious jeopardy when the middle class - the underpinning of our economic success and strength - has spent the last decade sliding back toward poverty

Baloney.

[JoltinJoe]

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.

Check out this list of nations' debt as a % of their GDP. Note where the US is, and then see if you can find a single industrialized nation below it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_so ... ublic_debt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[kalm]

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.

I was looking at this more from a domestic standpoint, comparing our current economy with where we were at during other periods rather than comparing it to what's happening elsewhere. And don't forget personal debt is out of control too. In case you haven't noticed I'm a big fan of manufacturing and a strong middle class. Concentrating more wealth and power at the top in a global economy benefits the risk takers at the expense of the average joe.

[Skjellyfetti]

There's just a whole slew of people who wish we were more socialist like the Europeans. I just wish those people would have the gumption to move.

Very difficult to move to those countries.

[kalm]

There's just a whole slew of people who wish we were more socialist like the Europeans. I just wish those people would have the gumption to move.

Oh yeah, well you're a self-loathing American Socialist.

[JoltinJoe]

the long term health of our nation is in serious jeopardy when the middle class - the underpinning of our economic success and strength - has spent the last decade sliding back toward poverty

Baloney.

Yup, baloney.

Fact is, but for periods of recession, the percentage of people living below the poverty line has been on a long-term and significant decrease.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

There's just a whole slew of people who wish we were more socialist like the Europeans. I just wish those people would have the gumption to move.

heh - it's funny, I say the same thing about the "slash government and kill taxes" crowd...

I found a place that should be their utopia...

[JoltinJoe]

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.

I was looking at this more from a domestic standpoint, comparing our current economy with where we were at during other periods rather than comparing it to what's happening elsewhere. And don't forget personal debt is out of control too. In case you haven't noticed I'm a big fan of manufacturing and a strong middle class. Concentrating more wealth and power at the top in a global economy benefits the risk takers at the expense of the average joe.

I agree with you on these points, except I don't see wealth at the top as alarming if it is genuine reward for hard work, risk taking, and in turn returning benefit to the economy as a whole, in the form of jobs and benefits.

[89Hen]

I was looking at this more from a domestic standpoint, comparing our current economy with where we were at during other periods...

Would seem that it's almost impossible to do that for various reasons: standard of living, cost of living, interest rates, home prices, etc...

I often think about how my dad made ends meet on his paltry salary. Then I start thinking about the fact that I pay: $180 per month for cable, internet and home phone, $175 for family cell phones, $45 for blackberry (don't ask why this is separate, long story)... then add in that housing prices have outpaced inflation by a LOT, as has insurance costs (health, home, auto), and tuition, and energy costs. I could get by without some of these things, but they are now pretty much standard monthlies.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Baloney.

Yup, baloney.

Fact is, but for periods of recession, the percentage of people living below the poverty line has been on a long-term and significant decrease.

1. we haven't adjusted the "poverty line" properly in about 12 years... the poverty line in this county is less than $11,000 for one person... that's obscenely low - for a family of 4, it's 22k/yr - maybe that's enough to get by (barely) in Fargo, ND... but in any major metropolitan area - there are plenty of people not in "poverty" who are damned poor.

2. as for the long term trend... it's amazing what a New Deal and a War on Poverty will do to poverty rates

[89Hen]

There's just a whole slew of people who wish we were more socialist like the Europeans. I just wish those people would have the gumption to move.

heh - it's funny, I say the same thing about the "slash government and kill taxes" crowd...

I found a place that should be their utopia...

Ha. I'm not the one showing charts how socialist European countries are "better off".

[Grizalltheway]

Baloney.

Yup, baloney.

Fact is, but for periods of recession, the percentage of people living below the poverty line has been on a long-term and significant decrease.

So you're saying Johnson's War on Poverty has been effective? AZ has some 'splaining to do..

[Grizalltheway]

heh - it's funny, I say the same thing about the "slash government and kill taxes" crowd...

I found a place that should be their utopia...

Ha. I'm not the one showing charts how socialist European countries are "better off".

, Sweden, Norway and Switzerland all have a higher GDP per capita, if you want to look at it that way.

[89Hen]

, Sweden, Norway and Switzerland all have a higher GDP per capita, if you want to look at it that way.

Good for them.

Malta, Cyprus and Israel have lower unemployment than the US too.

[JoltinJoe]

Yup, baloney.

Fact is, but for periods of recession, the percentage of people living below the poverty line has been on a long-term and significant decrease.

1. we haven't adjusted the "poverty line" properly in about 12 years... the poverty line in this county is less than $11,000 for one person... that's obscenely low - for a family of 4, it's 22k/yr - maybe that's enough to get by (barely) in Fargo, ND... but in any major metropolitan area - there are plenty of people not in "poverty" who are damned poor.

2. as for the long term trend... it's amazing what a New Deal and a War on Poverty will do to poverty rates

Well, you can't have it both ways. Either poverty is actually decreasing or these programs have been ineffective.

I have no problem with the 'War on Poverty" except that some have turned this "War" into a dependency program. It is fine and good to help lift someone out of poverty, but at some point, we have to let the free market sustain them.

Notice how the Clinton-era welfare reforms actually, as predicted, caused a steep drop in the then-existing poverty levels. Indeed, from that point until the brutal 2007 recession, our economy was trending near historical lows.

[kalm]

I was looking at this more from a domestic standpoint, comparing our current economy with where we were at during other periods rather than comparing it to what's happening elsewhere. And don't forget personal debt is out of control too. In case you haven't noticed I'm a big fan of manufacturing and a strong middle class. Concentrating more wealth and power at the top in a global economy benefits the risk takers at the expense of the average joe.

I agree with you on these points, except I don't see wealth at the top as alarming if it is genuine reward for hard work, risk taking, and in turn returning benefit to the economy as a whole, in the form of jobs and benefits.

I don't either, but the growth we've seen at the top for the last decade or so ain't doin that.

[JoltinJoe]

I agree with you on these points, except I don't see wealth at the top as alarming if it is genuine reward for hard work, risk taking, and in turn returning benefit to the economy as a whole, in the form of jobs and benefits.

I don't either, but the growth we've seen at the top for the last decade or so ain't doin that.

If you mean Wall Street wealth, I agree with you.

[kalm]

I was looking at this more from a domestic standpoint, comparing our current economy with where we were at during other periods...

Would seem that it's almost impossible to do that for various reasons: standard of living, cost of living, interest rates, home prices, etc...

I often think about how my dad made ends meet on his paltry salary. Then I start thinking about the fact that I pay: $180 per month for cable, internet and home phone, $175 for family cell phones, $45 for blackberry (don't ask why this is separate, long story)... then add in that housing prices have outpaced inflation by a LOT, as has insurance costs (health, home, auto), and tuition, and energy costs. I could get by without some of these things, but they are now pretty much standard monthlies.

I think about this as well. How did we ever survive the 70's without these things? And perhaps, just like home ownership we should re-define our goals regarding who should be eligible for these type of possessions.

"We stand for a living wage. Wages are subnormal if they fail to provide a living for those who devote their time and energy to industrial occupations. The monetary equivalent of a living wage varies according to local conditions, but must include enough to secure the elements of a normal standard of living--a standard high enough to make morality possible, to provide for education and recreation, to care for immature members of the family, to maintain the family during periods of sickness, and to permit of reasonable saving for old age."

- Teddy Roosevelt

This seems like a reasonable benchmark, of course just like most American families would have to go without the trinkets, most American families are also only one serious illness away from bankruptcy.

[kalm]

I don't either, but the growth we've seen at the top for the last decade or so ain't doin that.

If you mean Wall Street wealth, I agree with you.

You were teetering on the verge of conkdom there for awhile. Glad I could walk you back.

[89Hen]

"...The monetary equivalent of a living wage varies according to local conditions..."

- Teddy Roosevelt

Boy do I wish the government recognized that one.

I'm on the verge of being "wealthy" according to Obama, but I'm really just a middle class person here.

[Chizzang]

I often think about how my dad made ends meet on his paltry salary. Then I start thinking about the fact that I pay: $180 per month for cable, internet and home phone, $175 for family cell phones, $45 for blackberry (don't ask why this is separate, long story)... then add in that housing prices have outpaced inflation by a LOT, as has insurance costs (health, home, auto), and tuition, and energy costs. I could get by without some of these things, but they are now pretty much standard monthlies.

Bingo..!!! (well said 89hen) but you're still a douchenozzle

In an America where "The Poor" have cell phones, two cars and 300 channels of cable... I'm suspicious

[kalm]

I often think about how my dad made ends meet on his paltry salary. Then I start thinking about the fact that I pay: $180 per month for cable, internet and home phone, $175 for family cell phones, $45 for blackberry (don't ask why this is separate, long story)... then add in that housing prices have outpaced inflation by a LOT, as has insurance costs (health, home, auto), and tuition, and energy costs. I could get by without some of these things, but they are now pretty much standard monthlies.

Bingo..!!! (well said 89hen) but you're still a douchenozzle

In an America where "The Poor" have cell phones, two cars and 300 channels of cable... I'm suspicious

Me too. And it appears that they're spending on cell phones, two cars, and 300 channels of cable, versus saving up for retirement or their kids education, or a cataustrophic illness.

[Grizalltheway]

Bingo..!!! (well said 89hen) but you're still a douchenozzle

In an America where "The Poor" have cell phones, two cars and 300 channels of cable... I'm suspicious

Me too. And it appears that they're spending on cell phones, two cars, and 300 channels of cable, versus saving up for retirement or their kids education, or a cataustrophic illness.

Well, what would be left of our economy if they stopped buying all these things?