by kublikhan » Mon 18 Mar 2013, 17:47:46
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dsula', 'I')t's not that simple. The game is surely rigged in favor of the super rich. But claiming the poor only being victims is also wrong. As hard as it sounds, but poor/uneducated/unskilled/unreliable people are in no short supply and can be easily replaced. Highly skilled, motivated, productive people are not as easy to get.
That is another part of the problem. What does it takes to make a highly skilled, motivated, productive employee? A good start is a good education, sound upbringing, good role models, etc. How many of those growing up poor have all of that? They often have poorly funded schools, made all the worse by state level cut backs. One or more parents in jail, often brought about by bad policies like zero tolerance and 3 strikes. California now spends more money on jails than higher education.
I think you have a bit of a false dichotomy there with your "employee vs employer" thinking. There are many policies that could be implemented that would help both groups. The poor do not want to be unskilled, unmotivated, and unproductive. Education is traditionally a route for social mobility in this country, a route that is being increasingly closed off. With higher educated and skilled employees, both the employee and employer would benefit. Then there is the bad bankruptcy laws. Making it more difficult to declare bankruptcy(bush bankruptcy laws) hurts both the poor who are chained down by debt and the entrepreneur who just saw his business fail. And laws that promote multinationals at the expense of the small and medium business owner hurt the employees of that business too, who often have to get a walmart like job nowadays to replace his former well paying job.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hether by default or conscious implementation, a variety of institutional policies contribute to ongoing poverty. These include federal policies around poverty assistance and student debt, institutional barriers to upward social mobility and criminalization of poverty. It's clear that the edifice - the socioeconomic and political framework that drives these trends - has failed.
The ongoing loss of the middle class in inner cities further evidences the fact that current policies favor a wealthy few, resulting in the return of once-modestly-integrated cities to near apartheid-like economic segregation. In the San Francisco Chronicle, Tyche Hendricks wrote in 2006, "The gentrification of San Francisco's neighborhoods reflects one facet of a national trend: the decline of middle-income neighborhoods in metropolitan America." The acceleration of economic inequity and social immobilization is not an artifact of nature or natural forces; like poverty itself, it stems from the powerful "edifice" King describes.
Changes in tax policies have allowed an elite few to escape the forces of gravity in terms of wealth and income, permitting large corporations to escape taxes almost altogether. A parallel trend is also seen in trade policy, where a failure to enforce antitrust laws and unregulated finance has promulgated business models that undermine the viability of the independent small- to medium-size businesses that were once the bedrock of communal prosperity across America. These conjoined policies have also resulted in the creation of lower paying "McJobs", increasing the ranks of the working poor.
Changes in bankruptcy laws over the last 20 years have made it harder to declare personal bankruptcy and to escape certain kinds of debts - discouraging entrepreneurs and students, and condemning many people to perpetual debt servitude. The bigger issue here is the new [Bush administration] bankruptcy laws, which leave many people in debt for decades."
Other government policies that reduce access to education - once the great driver of social mobility - make the prospect of escaping from poverty even more difficult. A case in point: The University of California (UC), California State University (CSU) and California Community Colleges (CCC) are the primary systems that constitute the (public) higher education system for the State of California. These systems used to receive far more state funding than did correctional facilities (prisons). However, higher education now receives slightly less funding than California's prison system. This shift in both state and federal policies is traceable through the shift in budgetary priorities. Instead of providing the poor with an opportunity to learn their way out of poverty, the poor are being offered to the prison-industrial complex as commodities. the current public education system is failing America's youth - especially kids of color - in achieving a better life.
The problem of educational access overlaps with the personal debt debacle: As the need for student loans has steadily increased, so has the number of borrowers who have fallen behind on making payments. According to The New York Times, "Nearly one in every six borrowers with a loan balance is in default." This is a number "greater than the yearly tuition bill for all students at public two- and four-year colleges and universities."
More and more loans have become necessary to finance a higher education, as Pell grants and other government sources of funding for lower-income students have decreased - and as states, including California where the public higher education system was once a public pride and glory - have significantly reduced funding to universities.
"When the state spends $200,000 to lock up a youth in a broken system, it's a divestment away from creating opportunities and lifting up impoverished communities," Kim said, speaking specifically of California. "Other states have provided real rehabilitation programs that not only improve youth outcomes but they do it at a fraction of the cost."
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dsula', 'Y')eah, here we go. Non-home wealth. Counting the value of Bill Gates Microsoft shares at face value is simply wrong. The richest americans are probably not as rich as you think they are. But it sure is comforting to bitch about them.