Poverty Facts and Stats

[allix]

So you've been to Cuba and are sharing personal experience? I am surprised you didn't stay and enjoy Fantasy Island. If you believe that, I have a bridge for sale, cheap.

There was no need for the sarcasm.
I have been to America and i never saw the "American dream"

[Wally Balljacker]

So you've been to Cuba and are sharing personal experience? I am surprised you didn't stay and enjoy Fantasy Island. If you believe that, I have a bridge for sale, cheap.

There was no need for the sarcasm.
I have been to America and i never saw the "American dream"

I don't condone many of the things Castro has done, or some of governmental policies of Cuba, but there are certainly some things to admire, such as their focus on education and health care. Cuba does have extremely good and efficient nationalized health care that every citizen is entitled to. The Cuban constitution actually considers health care a fundamental human right, something the U.S. could take a cue from. Education is also fairly good in Cuba when you consider the severe lack of resources and trade options that exist.

[allix]

I don't condone many of the things Castro has done, or some of governmental policies of Cuba, but there are certainly some things to admire, such as their focus on education and health care. Cuba does have extremely good and efficient nationalized health care that every citizen is entitled to. The Cuban constitution actually considers health care a fundamental human right, something the U.S. could take a cue from. Education is also fairly good in Cuba when you consider the severe lack of resources and trade options that exist.

Its ashame not all of us can see that

[shopRatt]

Here's what we do, we cut off all foreign aid for two years. All of it; even to our friends. Enact a two-year moratorium that prohibits US citizens from donating money to charities that help people abroad (this would really piss off many Americans, the millions and millions who donate to charities regularly). Then, my friends, you will see poverty and endless war and probably a few revolts too that would produce a few more Cubas. However, we would not do such a thing because we know what would happen and it wouldn't be pretty.

++ No truer words were ever said. Everyone has a problem with the US, but no one is complaining about the money we give or the crap we purchase from them.

[Tsuroerusu]

Here's what we do, we cut off all foreign aid for two years. All of it; even to our friends. Enact a two-year moratorium that prohibits US citizens from donating money to charities that help people abroad (this would really piss off many Americans, the millions and millions who donate to charities regularly). Then, my friends, you will see poverty and endless war and probably a few revolts too that would produce a few more Cubas. However, we would not do such a thing because we know what would happen and it wouldn't be pretty.

++ No truer words were ever said. Everyone has a problem with the US, but no one is complaining about the money we give or the crap we purchase from them.

But we do have a problem with all the weapons you sell to fucked up countries like Saudi Arabia (Who executes women for getting raped), and countries being invaded for no good reason.

[Patrick]

Chavez orders troops to seize 500 tons of food:
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/536641/1555965

What's next? Seizing property of companies operating in Venezuela? Seizing the property of his political opponents? That's what his hero Castro did in Cuba.

[Brian]

So you've been to Cuba and are sharing personal experience? I am surprised you didn't stay and enjoy Fantasy Island. If you believe that, I have a bridge for sale, cheap.

There was no need for the sarcasm.
I have been to America and i never saw the "American dream"

The American Dream isn't a guarantee or an certificate to be redeemed at the local SSI office. It's something you have to achieve. Listen to someone like MLK, Jr. He fought for opportunity, not handouts. Many of today's so-called champions of the poor or disadvantaged preach just the opposite. They preach that it's not opportunity that's important, but outcome and if you fail, it's not your fault, it's someone else's. Socialists preach the same. Life's not fair and the best counter to that is freedom of opportunity, not guarantee of outcome.

[Brian]

So you've been to Cuba and are sharing personal experience? I am surprised you didn't stay and enjoy Fantasy Island. If you believe that, I have a bridge for sale, cheap.

There was no need for the sarcasm.
I have been to America and i never saw the "American dream"

I don't condone many of the things Castro has done, or some of governmental policies of Cuba, but there are certainly some things to admire, such as their focus on education and health care. Cuba does have extremely good and efficient nationalized health care that every citizen is entitled to. The Cuban constitution actually considers health care a fundamental human right, something the U.S. could take a cue from. Education is also fairly good in Cuba when you consider the severe lack of resources and trade options that exist.

Cuba is a such a paradise. Look at all the American people who turn '55 Buicks into boats and risk the dangerous seas to paddle their way from Florida to Cuba and beg Cuba for asylum. Look at all those great freebies you get. Why anyone would risk life and limb through desert heat or rough seas to come the the US is beyond me; sounds like they'd be better off in Castroville.

Cuban Constitution; I bet that's a model for humanity. Hmmm, let me see - US Constitution - Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of the Press, right to peacefully assemble and petition the Gov't for a redress of grievances; and that's just the 1st Amendment of a constitution that has worked, and worked well, for 201 years. Looks like the Cuban government can learn a thing or two++ from the US, too.

[Brian]

Here's what we do, we cut off all foreign aid for two years. All of it; even to our friends. Enact a two-year moratorium that prohibits US citizens from donating money to charities that help people abroad (this would really piss off many Americans, the millions and millions who donate to charities regularly). Then, my friends, you will see poverty and endless war and probably a few revolts too that would produce a few more Cubas. However, we would not do such a thing because we know what would happen and it wouldn't be pretty.

++ No truer words were ever said. Everyone has a problem with the US, but no one is complaining about the money we give or the crap we purchase from them.

But we do have a problem with all the weapons you sell to fucked up countries like Saudi Arabia (Who executes women for getting raped), and countries being invaded for no good reason.

Yeah, they need to work on that woman's rights issue. In general, woman are seeing more opportunity in that part of the world, even if it is a slow go. But, like it or not, Saudi Arabia is US ally, albeit I think it is bit strained at times. Being dependent on them for oil is, of course, the cause of this. They don't need us so in order to get on their good side, we need to look the other way on some things and support them when they seek arms.

As for Iraq, what's done is done, right or wrong. Many people in the US disagree with the Iraq invasion but the key point is that they can protest and disagree with it.

[Wally Balljacker]

I don't condone many of the things Castro has done, or some of governmental policies of Cuba, but there are certainly some things to admire, such as their focus on education and health care. Cuba does have extremely good and efficient nationalized health care that every citizen is entitled to. The Cuban constitution actually considers health care a fundamental human right, something the U.S. could take a cue from. Education is also fairly good in Cuba when you consider the severe lack of resources and trade options that exist.

Cuba is a such a paradise. Look at all the American people who turn '55 Buicks into boats and risk the dangerous seas to paddle their way from Florida to Cuba and beg Cuba for asylum. Look at all those great freebies you get. Why anyone would risk life and limb through desert heat or rough seas to come the the US is beyond me; sounds like they'd be better off in Castroville.

Cuban Constitution; I bet that's a model for humanity. Hmmm, let me see - US Constitution - Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of the Press, right to peacefully assemble and petition the Gov't for a redress of grievances; and that's just the 1st Amendment of a constitution that has worked, and worked well, for 201 years. Looks like the Cuban government can learn a thing or two++ from the US, too.

I think you missed this part,

"I don't condone many of the things Castro has done, or some of the governmental policies of Cuba".

The American Dream isn't a guarantee or an certificate to be redeemed at the local SSI office. It's something you have to achieve. Listen to someone like MLK, Jr. He fought for opportunity, not handouts. Many of today's so-called champions of the poor or disadvantaged preach just the opposite. They preach that it's not opportunity that's important, but outcome and if you fail, it's not your fault, it's someone else's. Socialists preach the same. Life's not fair and the best counter to that is freedom of opportunity, not guarantee of outcome.

You do know that Martin Luther King was a socialist, right?

Freedom of opportunity means nothing in this country. If you're a poor, black child living in the slums of any inner city in this country, you largely have no opportunity. You don't have adequate education, most don't have decent health care, and many don't have health care at all. Your success in life is largely determined by the success of your parents. White kids born to rich parents in expensive suburbs will likely go to Harvard or Yale and end up on the United States Senate. Less fortunate kids living in poverty will likely end up dead or in jail. That's freedom of opportunity for you.

[Brian]

If one doesn't see any opportunity in America, either:

1. You aren't looking hard enough
2. You aren't working hard enough

Education is what you make of it. If you don't want to learn, then no teacher, no matter how good, can help. Look at people like Lincoln or Franklin - very little formal schooling. Why were they successful? Because they worked harder and smarter than others. Look at Henry Ford - he was completely ignorant of world affairs yet he managed to do one thing, and do it extremely well. Business and politics are full of people who where never formally educated much and they still managed to achieve great things. The converse is true too, there are a lot of very smart and highly educated people (highly educated != smart, by the way) who just never seem to achieve any kind of success.

As for MLK, I wouldn't say pure socialist, at least. He was liberal, of course, but he advocated equal opportunity as being more important than equal outcome. Modern socialism says that life is unfair if not everyone can afford a new car or plasma TV or if a lazy person doesn't want to work for something, he should still be entitled to a $15/hr job and free medicine. His approach advocated justice through believing in yourself, being proud of who you are, not being afraid to work for what you believe in and creating goals for yourself and not letting anyone stop you from achieving those goals, not asking for handouts or freebies. MLK would be quite disappointed to see how is ideals have been warped by today's so-called civil rights leaders.

I have no problem with social programs that aim to help the down and out. However, the system is being abused too much and politicians don't help the matter any when they grandstand and say that you are entitled to anything and everything. Unfortunately, politicians have to say these things to get elected now. If they say that you have to work for want you want, they are called hate-mongers and often their career in politics is over. That's what we need to fix. Get rid of the career politician. People like Ted Kennedy or former Klansman Robert Byrd need to get the heave-ho. Too bad the voters in MA or WV aren't progressive enough for change. Maybe term limits are unconstitutional but the voter needs to smarten up; otherwise, we get what we deserve - an entitlement mentality and anyone with an entitlement mentality is a hollow, insipid, and feckless soul who eventually will develop an inability to think for himself and be unable to function when any adverse situation arises.

And, in general, the rich are rich because they work harder and smarter. Not everyone will succeed in life. It's a harsh fact and the sooner we can accept this as a society, the sooner we can move on and stop throwing money at problems that are an inevitable result of society.

“I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have” - Thomas Jefferson

So true, Mr. President, I have found the same. Amazing how that works. I've been down and out, too. I worked myself out of it. I didn't cry about lack of opportunity. I fixed MY problem MYSELF. It wasn't easy but who said life was easy? If things don't go your way, try again. Try harder. Educate yourself. Think about what you're doing wrong and fix it. Oh, but, no, we can't have that. Personal responsibility is SOOOO unfair.

[Wally Balljacker]

How many times do I have to say this? Upward mobility is largely a myth if you look at the statistics. *Most* people do not climb the "class ladder". That's just the reality. The absurd argument that people can simply "educate themselves" or "work harder" is laughable. Without decent housing, health care and schools, kids will get nowhere in life.

"Children from low-income families have only a 1 percent chance of reaching the top 5 percent of the income distribution, versus children of the rich who have about a 22 percent chance."

"Children born to the middle quintile of parental family income ($42,000 to $54,300) had about the same chance of ending up in a lower quintile than their parents (39.5 percent) as they did of moving to a higher quintile (36.5 percent). Their chances of attaining the top five percentiles of the income distribution were just 1.8 percent."

"Since 1990-91, there has been an increase in the share of households who experienced significant downward short-term mobility. The share that saw their incomes decline by $20,000 or more (in real terms) rose from 13.0 percent in 1990-91 to 14.8 percent in 1997-98 to 16.6 percent in 2003-04."

"Education, race, health and state of residence are four key channels by which economic status is transmitted from parent to child."

"African American children who are born in the bottom quartile are nearly twice as likely to remain there as adults than are white children whose parents had identical incomes, and are four times less likely to attain the top quartile."

"By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among high-income countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom had a lower rate of mobility than the United States."

"The middle class is experiencing more insecurity of income, while the top decile is experiencing less. From 1997-98 to 2003-04, the increase in downward short-term mobility was driven by the experiences of middle-class households (those earning between $34,510 and $89,300 in 2004 dollars). Households in the top quintile saw no increase in downward short-term mobility, and households in the top decile ($122,880 and up) saw a reduction in the frequency of large negative income shocks."

"Households whose adult members all worked more than 40 hours per week for two years in a row were more upwardly mobile in 1990-91 and 1997-98 than households who worked fewer hours. Yet this was not true in 2003-04, suggesting that people who work long hours on a consistent basis no longer appear to be able to generate much upward mobility for their families."

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/ ... 79981.html

The statistics don't lie.

[allix]

The US has always prided itself on a rising standard of living and a fair chance for those at the bottom of the economic pile to rise to the top.

And it is has tolerated a higher degree of inequality than many European countries, as long as the chance of social mobility remained strong. But new research suggests that the belief that poor Americans can rise to the top is increasingly a myth.

And the changes to social mobility may help explain why concerns about the economy have become such a pressing issue in the US presidential election.

No rags-to-riches

According to research by the Brookings Institution, a respected Washington think-tank, social mobility is less likely in the next generation than it was in the 1950s and 1960s.

Homeless person on street
It is harder to rise from the bottom now

The study finds that 42% of children whose parents were in the lowest 20% of the income distribution were likely to remain there, while only 6% moved up to the top 20%.

In contrast, children born to the richest fifth of parents had a 40% chance of staying in that group, and 60% stayed in the top two-fifths of the income distribution.

Because incomes have generally risen across the population, the Brookings study found that around one-third of families were downwardly mobile, one-third were upwardly mobile, while most of the rest stayed in the same place in the income distribution, but had an average income that was higher than their parents.

Trends

Family income, however, grew much more strongly in the early post-war years, between 1945 and 1973, than in recent years.

And the incomes of those higher up the income scale have grown faster, leading to greater inequality in the overall income distribution.


Most studies point also to a levelling-off of income mobility for children who entered the labour force in the 1970s and 1980s compared with earlier cohorts.

Although records are still incomplete, as more recent generations have not yet completed their work career, some studies have suggested that mobility may have fallen by as much as half for the younger cohorts of adults.

There are also strong racial and gender elements in these trends.

Women have recently improved their relative mobility as opportunities, especially in higher education, have increased.

Black families, however, show lower mobility at all levels of income.

Education the key

The key to future mobility among American citizens appears to be education.

Those with college degrees can increasingly enjoy a higher level of income than those who have not finished college or who just have a high school education.


CHILDREN WITH COLLEGE DEGREE
US university campus
Bottom 20%: 11%
Second lowest 20%: 20%
Middle 20%: 25%
Fourth highest fifth: 38%
Top fifth: 53%
By Quintiles of parental income
source: Brookings

But just 11% of children whose parents were in the lowest 20% of the income distribution had a college degree, as opposed to 53% of children whose parents were in the top quintile.

Students from poor backgrounds are also less likely to complete their studies at four-year colleges, rather than smaller two-year community colleges, and to get help in applying for college and for financial aid.

The growing expense of education, which has led some elite institutions to provide financial aid even to parents with incomes over $100,000 a year, has also inhibited poorer students from attending college.

"There is good evidence to suggest that education will continue having only a moderate impact on economic mobility until... schools are more effective in imparting basic skills... and until more poor students enter and complete college," said Ron Haskins, the Brookings scholar who authored this section of the report.

International comparisons


US shoppers
Americans have always been more optimistic about getting ahead

More agree with statements such as "people get rewarded for their effort" and disagree with statements such as "it is the responsibility of government to reduce differences in income" than in most other developed countries.

But the reality is that children's incomes are more closely linked to those of their parents in the US (and the UK) than in many other industrialised nations.

"What is new and striking about the findings is the amount of stickiness at the bottom for American males," the report states.

Men who were born into poor US families in the 1950s had a 42% chance of staying poor - a worse outcome than in Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and the UK, where the comparable percentages range from 25% to 30%.

When compared to some developing countries, however, such as Mexico, Brazil or Pakistan, US social mobility is in the same range.

The differences may reflect the greater welfare expenditure by those European countries whose governments have often aimed to reduce inequalities, as well as the more rapid expansion of educational and job opportunities in European economies in recent years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7256316.stm