I don’t have any statistics to back this up, but I read both American and Norwegian message boards, and the Americans I read about seem to have much more of a real fear of becoming sick or ending up in a dire situation.
That’s a very interesting position, in that video. I would love to see a peer-reviewed study of this movement up the economic ladder, covering a span of time up to the present. Income “inequality” does seem to be framed as if the poor are this monolithic, unchanging group, whose station in life continues to get worse and worse. The theory in this video (I call it a theory because he seems to stop at 1997) throws cold water on that. I was “poor” 30 years ago because I was 20, working an entry level job. I am reasonably affluent now (certainly not lower tier in income) because all kinds of stuff occurred (college, promotions, etc.) in the last 30 years. That apparently is true for about 80% or so of the “poor,” if this guy is right.
I am just a single data point, I realize, but that’s how it worked for me, and most of my social group. None of us had @#$% thirty years ago. We had to pool resources to pay the bridge toll. Now we all seem to be doing at least pretty good, and some are doing very well.
Based on some of the responses in this thread, I suspect some people have not actually watched the video. And I love how people toss around “truisms” like “power is a zero sum game” as a counter to this. What the hell does that even mean? Here, I have one: True economic equality is a function of breakfast cereal. Dispute that, I dare you!
Why is this a distraction?
The clear and obvious implication of the phrase ‘the poor are getting poorer’ is that the position of the poor is materially worsening.
The OP wishes to clarify whether this is actually the case, or are the positions of the rich merely improving at a faster rate than those of the poor.
Is the actual, absolute standard of living of the poor going down?
It’s an important discussion to have if you want to actually understand the phrase, and it is not in any way irrelevant.
Various studies have shown that America is at the bottom of the industrialized world when it comes to economic mobility. I don’t find a video from a libertarian think tank claiming otherwise to be even slightly convincing. They’d certainly never admit that the poor tend to stay poor regardless of how talented they are or how hard they work, regardless of how much evidence there was for it.
That did rather seem to be a fairly gaping hole in the guy’s argument. But again, also possibly explained by a high rate of immigration and the aftereffects of slavery/segregation creating a poverty cycle.
They don’t have to, but it’s easier than living in a moated castle.
At No. 1 for the third year in a row: Norway. What’s it got that the rest of the world doesn’t? For one thing, a stunning per capita GDP of $54,000 a year. Norwegians have the second-highest level of satisfaction with their standards of living: 95% say they are satisfied with the freedom to choose the direction of their lives; an unparalleled 74% say other people can be trusted.
Lessee - suicide rate: Norway - 11.9 per 100,000, Greece 3.5 per 100,000. I would say Greece is happier.
Norway is farther to the north; northerly countries naturally tend to have higher suicide rates.
And by nature suicide rates represent the extremes of a society, not what most people feel like.
Except that it is by definition a zero sum game in our country ruled as a constitutional republic. Do you not understand how laws are enacted? Senators and representatives vote, their votes are added, all votes added together equal total congress people. There are no residual extra votes (except for unusual tie breaker cases). There is no way by which any political adversaries can all get their way, all with more power.
Terr: I realize that you feel comfortable with the amount of wealth that you have accumulated and are in no need to catch up to the worlds fifth wealthiest person. But, are you not concerned that wealth can be taken away if you don’t have some marginal power to prevent that?
OMG: I think that some wealthy individuals need to clarify their positions why they deserve their money (ie, Citi CEO with a $200 million bonus package during the economic collapse).
I made some arrangements, just in case. The way this country is moving, I may need to use them some time.
Not to rain on your parade, but we had a long thread on last year’s version of this Gallup-created list, in which I was the only Doper to bother noting the basis for the rankings in this list. :smack: This basis is clearly stated: “The percentage of [self-described] thriving individuals in each country determined our rankings.” The U.S. cannot do well in such a survey, with its growing rich-poor gap.
Now, if pollees were restricted to the top 5% of earners, and the “happiness” question were phrased “Do you feel superior to your fellow countrymen?” I think U.S.A. would score quite well, perhaps near the top of the list along with some of the Arab countries and Somalia.
Speaking as a Brit, you’ve taken the words out of my mouth.
Well, typically, the conditions of the middle class is the key to upward mobility for the poor. When the middle class is doing well, it has a giant sucking effect on the poor, pulling them up into middle class jobs. If you want the poor to do better economically, you need to work to improve the economy in ways that impact the middle class. Focussing on the poor will not help much.
Now, as far as improving the lives of the poor, a strong social safety net so that the poor can eat, get medical care, etc., while unemployed is the thing, because they are typically the ones who catch it the worst when the economy stutters. So, naturally, the Republicans are all for dismantling our social safety net.
Worrying about whether “the poor are getting poorer” is a side issue.
While we can argue whether the poor are literally getting poorer, there is no doubt that there are certainly more of them, and that is the problem. Our society is getting poorer, because more people have fallen into poverty.
So long as you have more comfortable people than desperate, no problem. Nothing is easier than convincing someone who is comfortable that they deserve it. Then all you need do is convince them that the poor are poor because they are lazy, or stupid, or it can’t be helped because its God’s Will. And then convince them that they are at risk, because the Dems want to give all their money to the poor, to buy drugs.
People may be willing to do quite a lot to help the poor. But they will do damned near anything not to join them. I would love to believe that the Pubbies would not stoop so low. But this year, once again, no pony under my tree, much less a unicorn.
You will hear this theme, from subtle dog whistle to blatant lies.
I found it interesting that he used a very specific time period (that stopped in the early 90’s) to wrap his presentation around. Whenever I hear something like that my BS detector immediately goes off.
That said, his other talk on Are we Running out of Resources seemed spot on to me, and should be a must watch for the Peak Oil folks, or anyone who doesn’t understand the basics of commodities markets, so I’m not sure if the one that sparked this thread is complete BS or not. I’ve read similar assertions about how over time a large percentage of the folks in the poorest quintiles tend to move up over time, and that a lot of people in those quintiles tend to be younger folks just getting started or immigrants. However, using such an obviously cherry picked time frame, as well as the fact that this was from LearnLiberty.org, which is a libertarian oriented think tank tends to make me a bit suspicious.
(sorry, haven’t read through the thread yet, just watched the video)
-XT
In Norway the suicide rate is 10.9 per 100,000. In the United States it is 10.1 per 100,000.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/suiciderate.html
If 10.9 out of 100,000 people kill themselves it does not mean that 100,000 people are unhappy. It means that those 10.9 people are unhappy. What matters is that the United States no longer has the highest standard of living in the world. Nevertheless, those on the right continue to think that it does, and the only alternative to the American free enterprise system is something like what exists in Cuba or North Korea.
Whenever I point this out on an internet forum people tell me I should leave the United States. I would rather they leave.
[QUOTE=New Deal Democrat]
Whenever I point this out on an internet forum people tell me I should leave the United States. I would rather they leave.
[/QUOTE]
What they ought to tell you instead is it’s an apples to oranges comparison. Were I to guess, I’d say there are more people in the average American state than live in Norway. You are trying to compare the average standard of living in a country composed of hundreds of millions to a country of less than 6 million, and you think this is a meaningful comparison. To put this in another perspective, there are more ‘rich’ people (not SUPER rich…just rich) in the US than in the entire population of Norway. And there are more ‘poor’ people in the US than the entire population of Norway as well. So, it’s pretty amazing that we are even close wrt average standard of living since it’s such a lopsided comparison, no? A better comparison would be to compare the US to the entire EU. I haven’t seen such a comparison, but at a guess I’d say we’d come out on top in such a comparison.
As for leaving…well, why would you want too? Is this a great country or what?!? 
-XT
I’m guessing that America is the richest, most powerful nation in human history. I will go way out on a limb and guess that Norway is not. Yet, despite this disparity in wealth, Norway manages to take care of its citizens rather well, and we do not.
You offer an intriguing explanation, its about population size. Well, where does this mechanism apply, and at what ratio? Germany has many more citizens than Norway, and does pretty much the same. So the population disparity doesn’t enter into it in those instances. At what point does it kick in, then? If Germany has fifty times the population of Norway, and we have seventy, then the magic ratio must be somewhere between fifty and seventy, yes? Is it fifty-three? Sixty-four?
Or is it simply that Norway has decided to do so, and we have not?