International Studies Show Upward Mobility in US a Myth.

It's one of those entrenched American myths, that even people from humble beginnings, if they work hard, and keep their nose to the grindstone, can pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and achieve the American Dream. It's the "land of opportunity", right?  Wrong. The reality is much different, so what leads people to embrace an idea that is contradicted by evidence and often times by their own experiences?

Sorry, "bootstrap" success is only possible when the playing field is level. While there is an infinitesimally small uber-successful "class" who reap untold benefits, the rest of us continue to spiral down the ladder. But despite evidence of declining mobility and structural inequalities, this idea of the American Dream is so anchored within our culture that most Americans continue to believe that perspiration is more important to mobility than the state of the economy or socioeconomic circumstances as a child.

You must take into consideration that our poverty rates are much higher than the poverty threshold or federal poverty measures acknowledge. The line above which a family can be reasonably expected to be able to pay their bills is far lower than it should be because  it doesn't include food or fuel in its calculus, and is  based on 3 times a thrifty basket of food, priced in 1978. The real poverty threshold is at least 3 to 4 times that rate. 2/3 of the poor remain hidden giving the illusion that the U.S. is still the "land of opportunity".

So it should come as no surprise that international studies show that exceptional upward mobility in the US is, indeed, a myth. 

Mobility Regimes and Parental Wealth: The United States, Germany, and Sweden in Comparison

Read more...

The Assault on Our Living Standards in Full Gear.

The jobs are leaving. Wages are stagnant. Basic necessities such as food, water and energy prices are skyrocketing. The social safety net is in tatters. Yet, despite the fact that living standards in the US are starting to resemble that of a third world nation, Social Security and Medicare are on the chopping block.  You see, in order to get the debt ceiling increase, Republicans, "the very people who exploded the debt," are demanding the end of the Social Security and Medicare programs, as we know it.  Hoping to resolve this, behind closed doors, before they break for summer vacation (full month of August), the push is on to pass the bill to see what's in it, according to Rosiland Peterson.  Sound familiar?

President Obama and members of the U.S. House and Senate have placed Social Security and Medicare on the chopping block in ongoing debt ceiling negotiations. In these secret negotiations, far away from public enlightenment or debate, deals are being cooked-up to undermine, cut or privatize these important and highly beneficial programs.

Withdrawing government spending literally “takes money out of the economy.” We have a crisis because of lack of demand. Republican solutions of giving the wealthy and corporations even more money and tax cuts obviously will not work because the rich don't create jobs, we do. The rich are already richer than ever, with a greater share of the income and wealth than ever, and giant corporations are already sitting on tons of cash.

Currently, there are seventeen bills pending in either the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate that are related to changes in Social Security. All but two of the seventeen bills undermine Social Security.

H.R. 1052: Social Security Guarantee Act of 2011 Introduced Mar 11, 2011
H.R. 1332: Social Security Fairness Act of 2011 Introduced Apr 1, 2011
H.R. 1118: Social Security Protection Act of 2011 Introduced Mar 16, 2011
S. 582: Social Security Protection Act of 2011 Introduced Mar 15, 2011
H.R. 219: Social Security Preservation Act of 2011 Introduced Jan 7, 2011
S. 123: Social Security Lock-Box Act of 2011 Introduced Jan 25, 2011
 H.R. 149: Social Security Beneficiary Tax Reduction Act Introduced Jan 5, 2011
H.R. 160: Social Security Fairness for the Terminally Ill Act of 2011 Introduced Jan 5, 2011
H.R. 311: Social Security Number Fraudulent Use Notification Act of 2011 Introduced Jan 18, 2011
H.R. 787: No Social Security for Illegal Immigrants Act of 2011 Introduced Feb 17, 2011
 H.R. 1538: Social Security Identity Defense Act of 2011 Introduced Apr 14, 2011
S. 181: Social Security Totalization Agreement Reform Act of 2011 Introduced Jan 25, 2011
H.R. 1630: Social Security and Medicare Protection Act Introduced Apr 15, 2011
 H.R. 98: Illegal Immigration Enforcement and Social Security Protection Act of 2011 Introduced Jan 5, 2011
S. 804: Social Security Solvency and Sustainability Act Introduced Apr 13, 2011
H.R. 797: No Loopholes in Social Security Taxes Act Introduced Feb 18, 2011
 H.R. 796: Social Security Protection and Truth in Budgeting Act of 2011 Introduced Feb 18, 2011

The Toll Free Telephone Number for all members of the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives: (1866) 220-0044

Links:

Debt-Ceiling Deal's Cuts Could Crash Economy

Govtrack

Social Security and Medicare Alert 2011

Read more...

In an Age of Plenty, Why Nothing Stands Between You and Financial Ruin

This is the American prosperity paradox. Even though our economy has grown gangbusters since the 1980's -- the GDP doubled from seven to fourteen trillion dollars, and high employment and low inflation predominated -- we, Americans are more insecure than ever before, growing increasingly anxious about our future. Many people state they feel they are one "crisis" away from financial ruin.

High Wire: The Precarious Financial Lives of American Families, by Peter Gosselin, explains why this prosperity paradox exists, a paradox not limited to the working class; it affects people all across the income spectrum. Here's what Gosselin has to say in a nutshell:

After the economic turbulence of the 1970's, decisions were made to deregulate industries and reel in safety nets with the understanding that an unrestricted free-market would solve the economic problems generated in the previous decade.

This did wonders for the GDP; however, the cost of empowering the private sector came at the expense of the average American's financial security. No longer could American employees plan their future with confidence because the economic burden was transferred from government/ business to the individual household. Health insurance, retirement, disability insurance etc., which at one time, employed Americans could take for granted, became each American's responsibility.

Today, half of all Americans work for a company today that offers no retirement plan at all. The companies that do offer retirement plans have switched from traditional pensions to 401K plans. Under traditional pensions, the employer was responsible for putting aside the money, investing it to make it grow, delivering on the promised amount. Now, the job of managing your retirement rests with you. In other words, instead of the company assuming the risk, each individual assumes the risk without the time, money, or resources that the employer has when it was their responsibility.

To make matters even worse, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), enacted to protect the interests of employee benefits and their beneficiaries, stating in the preamble, "protect … participants in employee benefit plans and their beneficiaries," now protects the insurance companies. Through a series of insurance company-favorable Supreme Court decisions, it is now much easier for insurance companies to deny the very benefits the law was designed to protect. The courts now defer to the decisions of the insurance companies.

The insurance claims departments have the same status as the IRS and Social Security Administration, even though, unlike those two entities, profit is the controlling or directing power, clearly presenting a conflict of interest. Claims adjusters in many insurance companies are encouraged and rewarded for denying claims, and large employers, under ERISA, are immune from most insurance regulation. Where does this leave the average to above average American? Well, if you take a significant hit, and do not have an abundance of wealth, the answer is you are on your own, as ERISA trumps all state laws and is the only law of the land as far as your benefits are concerned.

Debra Potter Peter Gosselin's LA Times article that inspired him to write the book.

Health Insurance Coverage

Read more...

Red-Scare Rhetoric Still Packs a Mean Punch

If you ask any American today what they think of McCarthyism, the vast majority will condemn it as a dark period in our nation's history yet more than likely these same people will cringe at anything associated with "Communism" even if what is associated, has nothing at all to do with that form of government.

Conservative politicians, very aware of the power "McCarthyism" still holds, figured out that by appropriating certain parts of the English language under the banner of communism, they could make most Americans vote counter to their own interests. In other words, they select benign words; soak them in a "communist red" solution until the whole spectrum of "red-scare rhetoric" is represented, ranging from "commie pinko" to full-blown "soviet crimson”, and then apply them to anything that interferes with their agenda. This tactic is so powerful it can convince the majority to deliver themselves into the hands of the enemy.

"Socialized" is an example of one of the words this group has chosen to soak in their "communist red" solution, allowing the word to absorb just enough of the color to manifest a distinct shade of pink. Any government-sponsored program that tries to level the playing field between the haves and the have-nots is labeled with this pink word. Yet, what about all the Republicans who are in favor of publicly funding defense? What about publicly funding capitalism?

If the word socialized is defined as any program that is publicly financed or under government control, our defense program, and capitalism are most certainly, socialized. True, President Bush is trying to semi-privatize the military by using independent contractors in Iraq; however, defense and military spending consumes most of his budget, therefore it is socialized.

In contrast to the word, socialized, the term capitalism is pink-free, all-American, and totally supported by all those who circulate among the right-winged, wealthy elite. Yet despite the American flag, wrapped letters, only a very small part of the private sector reap the rewards of capitalism, and "we the people" always pay for its failure, especially every time the government bails out an industry or company. Not only that, between corporate welfare, rules, and regulations or lack thereof, created to benefit the rich, and a 28th grade level of education - or the money to hire people with that level of education required to figure it all out - American capitalism sounds pretty socialized to me.

As long as the socialized program does not enable or prop up the part of the population who struggle to make ends meet or who may have hit hard times, then, not only is it OK to bankroll, according to conservatives, its perfectly patriotic to run a deficit so large we can barely keep track of what it truly is.

Those who embody conservatism, whether they like Ayn Rand or not, embrace her egoistic ethics and believe in her "every man for himself" philosophy, totally discounting the importance of social structure and co-operation that allowed humanity to survive and evolve over time.

I am certainly not advocating Socialism, merely pointing out that just as each one of us is a complex composite of many different qualities, our society is also a composite of capitalism, democracy and yes, even socialism. Our job is to adjust, balance, and tweak the ratio of each element to create the kind of society our Founding Fathers so eloquently established in the Constitution.

Read more...

How the Republican Gospel Came to Be

The Infamous Brad eloquently explains the history of how the "Republican Gospel" came to be all about upper-middle class white suburban values, and instead of basing it on Jesus' life, based it on the TV show Father Knows Best . He also explains the why and how they,

"convinced the public that God Himself hated uppity Negros, feminists, rock-and-roll, and above all homosexuals, and anything else that might make a white conformist upper middle class family uncomfortable."

Read more...

Determine Your Socioeconomic Status.

Occupation, education, income and wealth are the four major factors used to determine a person's socioeconomic status. Check out this interactive graphic and see what category you fall into... lower, middle or upper class.

Read more...

Diminished Sense Of Moral Outrage Key To Holding View That World Is Fair And Just

People who see the world as essentially fair can just maintain this perception through a diminished sense of moral outrage, according to a study by researchers in New York University's Department of Psychology. The findings appear in the March issue of the journal Psychological Science, which is published by the Association for Psychological Science.

Psychologists have long studied system-justification theory, which posits that people adopt belief systems that justify existing political, economic, and social situations or inequities in order to make themselves feel better about the status quo. Moreover, in order to maintain their perceptions of the world as just, people resist changes that would increase the overall amount of fairness and equality in the system People who see the world as essentially fair can just maintain this perception through a diminished sense of moral outrage, according to a study by researchers in New York University's Department of Psychology. The findings appear in the March issue of the journal Psychological Science, which is published by the Association for Psychological Science.

Psychologists have long studied system-justification theory, which posits that people adopt belief systems that justify existing political, economic, and social situations or inequities in order to make themselves feel better about the status quo. Moreover, in order to maintain their perceptions of the world as just, people resist changes that would increase the overall amount of fairness and equality in the system. Instead, they often engage in cognitive adjustments that preserve a distorted image of reality in which existing institutions are seen as more equitable and just than they are.

The NYU research sought to explain how individuals make these cognitive adjustments in maintaining their world view, despite evidence of ongoing social and economic inequality. In the first part of the study--an experiment involving a series of questions and scenarios--the researchers found that the more people endorsed anti-egalitarian beliefs, the less guilt and moral outrage they felt. The reduction in moral outrage (but not guilt) led them to show decreased support for helping the disadvantaged and redistributing resources.

In the second part of the research, the team presented half of the study's subjects with Horatio Alger, rags-to-riches stories, which implicitly endorse system-justification beliefs, and half with stories describing the plight of innocent victims, which underscore the unfairness of the system. The results showed that subjects exposed to the rags-to-riches stories reported less negative affect and less moral outrage than subjects exposed to the innocent-victim essays. As with the first study, moral outrage mediated the effect of system justification on support for redistribution, but general negative affect did not.

"These results demonstrate both the existence of palliative consequences of ideology and their impact," said NYU graduate student Cheryl J. Wakslak, the study's lead author. "These results show that people who see the world as essentially fair and just can maintain this perspective if their sense of moral outrage is diminished."

Read more...