Please don't vote...

[wellard]

Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: You know, anyone who says they vote strictly Dem. or Rep. is not looking at issues closely enough. Neither side and no single politician encompasses my opinion on all the issues.

Spot On .... If only we could pick and choose or vote for individual policies

Good post all round Sir Kenyth And a LOL at MagiK and Timber. I hope Azred does not read this [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

[Lucern]

That's an interesting point VulcanRider, and I'm glad you disagree - it makes me find support for my position! What I learn in lecture isn't at my fingertips after all.

I had not heard of TMND. It seems to be a unique and valuable work in studying a group that few study: the nouveau rich. However, due to my own murky language, I believe I directed your attention off of the broader point I was trying to make. I said 'wealth' and talked about the 'super rich', but I should have talked about social mobility among all Americans. So I'm talking about the billionaires, the penniless, and everyone in between here. 3.3% of households aren't the norm.

I tried to find some good information on the book, and it seems quite popular among groups that promote the acquisition of personal wealth (investment clubs, and the like). The number of copies sold approach the number of nouveau rich in America. I also found it in the book-lists of ethics classes for discussions of wealth acquisition and materialism. What I didn't find is a serious critique of TMND as a work of important social science. I don't know what kind of claims the authors make inside, but time and time again (even by a committee of the House of Representatives) I saw it used to singlehandedly assert that working up from very little is a reality that is attainable for all but the poorest Americans. I can't claim to know what the book says, but I read that it is written in a self-help style that refers to economic underachievers; more or less implies behavioral reasoning that explains why so few attain the status of his millionaires (by wasting money). While this holds appeal from just looking at our materialist culture, what kind of basis can there be for this claim? I read that his study was on a segment of the upper class, so the aforementioned common claims about this book can't explain "the rest" of us; it can only hypothesize.

In sum: from what I've read: I think the book's focus does not allow for such a broad claim about the whole of society, though you definately have a point about that small sliver of lower-upper class noveau rich. Of course, you didn't make the claim about the whole of society - I'm just supporting the broader position I intended to take. The most interesting point I read about the book is that 80% of those surveyed worked up to wealth. I'd like to see more research on that.

These links may provide a more wholistic view of American social strata. Data, social factors, and policy factors seem, to me, to point to a reality of limited but present social mobility - and not in the ways expected by any myth of a meritocratic social hierarchy. Note that in some instances, social mobility is in downwards over decades, especially among the working class. If you read only one, I'd pick the Frontline interview.

Collection of interesting raw statistics:
http://www.poppolitics.com/articles/...borstats.shtml
http://www.faireconomy.org/research/..._Data.html#p41
Another focus on millionaires:
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/archives/000405.php
Forbes being snotty about the Super Rich, Old Money and New Money
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1999/10...50a_print.html
Op-Eds of strong relevance:
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0428-01.htm (Guardian)
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mh...0105&s=krugman (Liberal Alert - the Nation)
An Interview with a sociologist who studied social mobility since the late 70's:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../roseintw.html
An old academic understanding of social mobility in all its archaeic glory:
http://www2.pfeiffer.edu/~lridener/D.../SOCMOBLT.HTML
And the jackpot, this has an article that involves TMND, and none have commented yet. It has many articles of various quality from numerous sources.
http://socialclass.org/


And finally, behold! the same topic occurred on another forum. IW'ers of all flavors are infinitely superior to the orks and trolls of this forum Seriously, read the quality of the commentary on that thread and this one. The difference between an elementary school yard and Cambridge
http://moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/comments/414/

[Sir Kenyth]

Lucern

Stuff like that link at the bottom of your post simply backs up my beliefs. It takes a blended wing approach to make things work. Rampant capitalism doesn't work because eventually those in control of the money will drive the working class to an insufferable low to maximize profits. If you let liberalism go wild and go pseudo-communist then it slows down the flow of money at the top of the pyramid and strangles businesses and corporations, which are the driving force behind the job market. You have to adequately reward investors in order to get them to spend the money, but too much reward and the working class suffers. Most of us still have the ability to accumulate a bit of wealth if we try hard. Let's keep it that way!

[Lucern]

It's a reasonable assessment Sir Kenyth, but I'll suggest that we find ourselves at the top of 25 years of the "too much reward" stage if you look at some of the raw stats. My opinion.

And did you mean the real links, or the Moorewatch link? lol I'd laugh more if I wasn't so sure that most of them are fully grown adults.

[Azred]

Originally posted by wellard: I hope Azred does not read this [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

*gasp* Do I have some sort of reputation around here? [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] Is that a good thing or a bad thing? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

**********

Statistically, most university professors are quite liberal. Note that many professors today were liberal students 20 - 30 years ago, though. One's ideology is normally formed long before one's career path is chosen.

It is possible to work one's way to wealth and financial security. $311 saved per month for 40 years = $1M; other combinations include $467 for 35 years, $710 for 30 years, etc. It all depends upon how dedicated you are to reaching the "magic number" of $1M. A wiser course is to total your monthly expenses and save to a goal such that the investment income = monthly expenses. Example: if it takes $1500 to pay your bills, then aim for $300,000--invested at 6% interest this earns $1500/month. This represents financial security because you could lose your job and still live at your current standard of living. (by the way, $300k = $311 per month for 26 years). ...but I digress....

Although one's vote is the only way to try and have one's vision of the future become the vision that is manifested, if you let your political ideology cloud your judgement too much then your vote is not cast wisely. Like the author of the article quoted at the beginning of the thread, I agree that those who vote for candidate A because that person opposes candidate B is wasting a vote in the sense that they are voting a person and not the issues. Candidates are meaningless politically; only issues matter.

Also, never forget that emotion must be removed from political thought or discussion--pointing out the foibles in someone's opinion of how Social Security should be handled is not the same as a personal attack. For an example of how emotion can mislead politicians, look to Florida and the debacle Jeb Bush et al caused over Terri Schaivo.

*sigh* My professional speechwriter has the day off. I cannot find an adequate way to conclude such a cacophony of topics. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 10-22-2004, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Azred ]

[Timber Loftis]

Do I have some sort of reputation around here?

Well, if you didn't before....