Didn't miss your point at all ... it was very clear. And I can see why you think the way you do ... citing that HACK Thomas Sowell and his article on the poor. He's the right wing extremist answer to the loony left .. and an advocate for torture, among many other dubious opinions which hold about as much water as a sieve.
Such opinions on issues like torture in many respects are subjective, from a philosophical perspective, so long as you are prepared to ignore the moral implications. But making claims that are patently untrue and in direct contradiction to the facts, as is clearly the case regarding the poor and income distribution, is not a subjective opinion ... it's a distortion at best, and a lie by definition.
As I already stated, the data for the past 50 years shows an increase decade to decade of poor. It also shows that the average earnings have been stagnant for those 50 years also, while costs have risen dramatically due to the loss of purchasing power of the dollar. The mind numbing reality is that the bottom 50% possess just 2.5% of the wealth. Extrapolating further, the top 1% possess more wealth than the combined wealth of 80%, and the top 10% possess more than double the wealth of the other 90%.
There are even more astounding facts and figures (if such things are of any interest) that contradict your ideas that being poor is a temporary state to which most will work there way out of with time.
1) Between 1983 and 1995, the bottom 40 percent of households lost 80 percent of their net worth. The middle fifth lost 11 percent. By 1995, 18.5 percent of households had zero or negative net worth.
2) Household debt as a percentage of personal income rose from 58 percent in 1973 to an estimated 85 percent in 1997.
3) As of 1995 (the latest figures available), Federal Reserve research found that the wealth of the top one percent of Americans is greater than that of the bottom 95 percent, up trend of 5% from 1983's 90% figure.
4) Adjusting for inflation, the net worth of the median American household fell 10 percent between 1989 and 1997, declining from $54,600 to $49,900. The net worth of the top one percent is now 2.4 times the combined wealth of the poorest 80 percent.
5) In 1998, weekly wages were 12 percent lower than in 1973 on an inflation-adjusted basis. Productivity rose 33 percent over that period. At the same time, the average hours worked increased by over 165 hours, equivalent to an additional month's worth of work, for effectively less pay.
6) In 1999 top executives earned 419 times the average wage of a blue-collar worker, up from 326:1 in 1998. In 1980, the ratio was 42:1.
7) In 1982, Forbes 400 list of richest Americans started with $91million. The list then included 13 billionaires. By 1998, $500 million was required and the list grew to
189 billionaires.
Now these figures have only gotten worse over the past decade, which shows that your "Things will be better in 20 years" is hogwash
Here are some even more long term numbers that might be a surprise to many ... figures from the Census Bureau:
Family Income of the 20th Percentile 1967 - $14,002 ... 2003 - $17,984 a rise of $3,982 over a 36 year period ... or $100 Bucks per year. Think the costs of everything didn't double or triple over that time span ? Boy ole boy, those poor people are making PROGRESS ... a whole 100 Bucks at a time. They'll be dead long before they change tax brackets. The reality? They start out poor, and end up POORER.
The 50th Percentile Family income (median income) in 1967 - $36,847 to 2006 $48,201. Wow, the median income rose a whopping $291 Bucks per year for 39 years for a major life altering $11,300 increase in income, which again didn't even come close to keeping up with the times. Your average automobile price increased over $20,000 during that 36 year period.
By now your eyes should be rolling back inside your head
For the sake of length, my answer to this is .... PROPAGANDA .. fashioned by and for the top 10%, justifying the royal screw that the bottom 80% are getting.
Bubba, this nonsense comes from the same crowd that says OH NO ... you can't raise the minimum wage to $10 bucks an hour, it will kill the economy!! HA!! Sorry, but what is killing the economy is the jump from 13 Billionaires in 1982, to 189 Billionaires in 1998. I dare say 189,000 Millionaires would generate more economic benefits than does 189 Billionaires. In reality, if the top 10% chose to spend 50% of their annual incomes (not the 95% to 105% that everyone else spends by necessity) the US economy would be BOOMING, and everyone would be making progress. And those top 10% would still be able to stash away large sums, and wouldn't have to forgo the caviar, champagne, and boats on the lake.
The dense concentration of massive wealth in just a small percentage of hands is an economy killer, because there is only so much one person can spend, and the rest, if not circulated, is hoarded, and not benefiting the society.
There is something fundamentally wrong, and quite evil really, when you have 40 million people relying on food stamps ... 30 Million children living under the poverty line, and a small group at the top squeezing the life out of the country and the society at large so that they can amass more Billions in their quest to all beat Bill Gates, who himself has more wealth than half of the US population combined. But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of good propaganda.
Sure, everybody has a chance ... just like Vegas, there is always the outside chance of winning, which keeps everyone playing the game ... but the reality is, the house never really loses, and there is a sucker born every minute.
As George Carlin said "They call it the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it".
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
