You don’t think that they (they 500 million estate group) have a control over government, which in turn has a control over you, impacting your life? (i.e. George Soros having Obama on speed dial and vice versa)?I was not talking about any of the people you mention. I was talking generally about the accumulation of wealth by ordinary people. I don’t have a classification for people who make 5 million/year or have estates of $500 million, one way or another, and don’t call them anything. They do not affect my life except on those occasions when I am called upon to do work for them. On those occasions, I charge them a fair amount for what I am doing.
I don’t know what the percentages of the various kinds of nurses are. I only know that there are significant differences in their earnings depending on a number of things. I have a daughter who is an NP. I don’t think anyone would say her earnings are not “middle class”. But she still doesn’t make as much as she did as a PRN charge nurse, though she likes what she’s doing better. It was astounding to me how many hospitals rely on PRN charge nurses, and how much they’re paid in a significant hospital. But I guess it makes sense when you consider that a full time charge nurse not only gets a salary, but vacation days, sick days, health insurance, retirement. It adds up in a hurry. And there’s no hassle if you “fire” a PRN. No lawsuit follows, no unemployment claim, no workers’ compensation claim, no nothing. If you’re good, you come back. If you’re not, you don’t.Thanks for your reply, I enjoyed reading it.
Based on your post I would say that I would consider maybe 5% of single adult nurses to be middle class. As far as being ‘poor’ we definitely have a considerable difference of opinion when it comes to what that means (I’m only considering people in the USA for the purposes of this discussion, not people across the world).
As far as one individual’s wealth having anything to do with anothers, I would agree with you if we happened to live in a capitalistic society. But in the USA we have a government, with individuals who hold considerable power over the population and can be bought. Since they can’t really be bought by anyone except the rich, and since the rich definitely buy political favors, votes, influence, etc I would have to say that there are rich people whose wealth is connected to other peoples lack of wealth. I don’t agree with the concept of the redistribution of wealth, but I firmly believe that there is a portion of rich people who are richer than they would be because government exists and they can buy political influence, essentially owning a piece of government. And they use this influence to get government to do their bidding, which in turn impacts other individuals incomes. If there were no government and simply people living and owning businesses and individuals working I would agree with you that one indiviudals wealth does not have a causitive effect on anothers wealth, or lack thereof.
Peace,
Bill
It’s not the ‘finding’ of loopholes or ‘circumventing’ regluations that concerns me (well circumventing regulations might concern me depending on what the regulation was and what means the individual choose to circumvent it). What concerns me is individuals who manufacture laws and regulations for their own financial gain whilch create barriers for other individuals (some of which they must also pay to have enforced by being taxed).Yes, there are plenty of people who will live beyond their means and buy things they don’t need with money they don’t have, but there are also people who treat their workers unjustly to gain their success. Yes, there are people who have incomes too low to pay income tax, but why are they condemned when those who CAN afford to pay are praised for finding loopholes to avoid paying? Yes, there are people who abuse the system and get what they aren’t entitled to, but again-they are condemned while the bankers and Wall Streeters who find ways to circumvent regulations are praised for their “street smarts”.
George Soros undoubtedly affects my life. He aided in bringing me the Obamacare disaster, terrible international policies and a limp defense posture. But I doubt the $500 million person does. Even wealthier people than that don’t. Locally, the Sam Walton heirs have an effect. They can even aid senatorial and gubernatorial candidates, but they don’t affect national politics or much of anything else. And they’re worth a whole lot more than $500 million. Don Tyson’s heirs don’t either. I know some of the O’Reilley Automotive heirs and they don’t affect politics except locally, either.You don’t think that they (they 500 million estate group) have a control over government, which in turn has a control over you, impacting your life? (i.e. George Soros having Obama on speed dial and vice versa)?
Peace,
Bill
I would agree that 150-175K is middle class for an individual adult (with the exception of living in a few area’s in the USA, assuming we would be using thier neighbors in the same city as the measure of what middle class is or isn’t).But one of her NP friends specializes in, and is certified in giving Synvisc injections and makes $175,000/year. Not Obama’s “rich person”, (yet) but not bad. Nurse anaesthetists get about $150,000 on average. Not bad either. Around here, on the other hand, the two year RN in a nursing home will earn around $30,000. Not as good.
Some of the wealthy have always had power, and power often translates into even more wealth. But that does not necessarily mean any of it affects me, and in my occupation, it probably doesn’t at all.
Except in taxes. I do not appreciate it that governmental people favor their donors and expect me to pay for it. I have jokingly said many times that it would undoubtedly be cheaper just to let legislators, presidents and governors steal from the treasury directly, eliminating the middlemen.
Nor do I appreciate “middle class welfare”
IMO just about every politician has a Soros who they will get into bed with.And, while some politicians are base enough to get in bed with someone like Soros, not all are.
Around here, that’s more than most bankers make and about comparable to what factory managers make in a sizeable factory. But this is a low cost of living area. I don’t know what comparable people make in, say NYC or Southern California. The truly odd thing is that a lot of big clinic doctors don’t make any more than that if they’re Family Medicine doctors. ER “rent-a-docs” in rural hospitals (almost all “outreach” subs of major organizations) make considerably less. Only the ER docs in the mega-state-of-the-art hospitals and the specialty surgeons make considerably more. But then, the major ER elite docs are specialists like neurosurgeons and such.I would agree that 150-175K is middle class for an individual adult (with the exception of living in a few area’s in the USA, assuming we would be using thier neighbors in the same city as the measure of what middle class is or isn’t).
Interesting point of view, but I don’t accept it. Possibly one of the most interesting political conversations I ever had was with a senator. The situation was one of those times when people suddenly relax and, out of near-exhaustion, might even tell the truth. He and I discussed lobbyists and contributors and all of that. One of the things he told me was that part of the “art” of being a Senator was to accept the money of some (but not all) of the favor-seekers, yet to thread the pitfalls of obligation. He said they expected a senator to turn against them from time to time, but not all the time. One of my school friends is a lobbyist for banking, and he confirmed that a good lobbyist seeks out those who are probably favorable to his industry or position anyway, and curry that legislator.IMO just about every politician has a Soros who they will get into bed with.
Peace,
Bill
This sums up the problem that the world faces as I see it.George Soros undoubtedly affects my life… wealthy…anti-American who wants capitalism for himself and socialism for me.
So you disagree that most all politicans, most all people?, have the potential to be corrupted?Interesting point of view, but I don’t accept it. Possibly one of the most interesting political conversations I ever had was with a senator. The situation was one of those times when people suddenly relax and, out of near-exhaustion, might even tell the truth. He and I discussed lobbyists and contributors and all of that. One of the things he told me was that part of the “art” of being a Senator was to accept the money of some (but not all) of the favor-seekers, yet to thread the pitfalls of obligation. He said they expected a senator to turn against them from time to time, but not all the time. One of my school friends is a lobbyist for banking, and he confirmed that a good lobbyist seeks out those who are probably favorable to his industry or position anyway, and curry that legislator.
And it isn’t all money. The senator explained that it would be almost impossible for senators to function if the lobbyists didn’t do a lot of the “homework” for them; gathering statistics, working out bill language with staff, figuring out the costs of various things, identifying problems on and on. Of course, it’s all “spun”, but he said you learn who spins to the point of lying and who just spins moderately, and you have to learn how to sort it out. In any event, there are competing lobbyists presenting different points of view.
One can think of it all as being repulsive. But somehow I didn’t.
Young,I really do think wealth is the number one reason we have such apathy and hatred toward the faith rampant in historically Christian countries.
My point was that, to even a senator who intends and practices honesty, lobbyists have a useful function in that they provide a sort of “adjunct staff” to do research, drafting and reporting. If one cuts oneself off from them completely, one cuts oneself off from information because senatorial staffs are nowhere big enough to do all the work senators have to review and do. How, for example, would a senator assess something as simple as the effect of Obama’s regulations on the coal industry if the information was not provided to him by the coal industry? How many mines get flooded and useless forever if they’re not active? How many collapse when the “continuous miners” are withdrawn? How much are the utility companies going to have to add to your utility bill to pay for the switch to natural gas and the pipelines to get it to the power plants? Does anyone think the Obama people will provide the senator with reliable information on that?So you disagree that most all politicans, most all people?, have the potential to be corrupted?
Everything you say sounds like what I would expect to be par for the course in politics. If you beleive what the senator and your friend say, the only difference I see us as having is the % of politicans who participate. If someone has another person do their homework for them isn’t that cheating when it school? In the senate it’s business. You say you disagree with my point, but then describe how it’s ‘almost impossible’ for senators to fuction without lobbyists out of the mouth of a senator. I’m confused.
Peace,
Bill
Well, yes, that’s exactly my point. The average person over the 240+ year lifespan of this country has had a steadily INCREASING standard of living judged in objective measures. So where does all this talk of “deterioration in standard of living” come from?While I recognize and agree with what your saying, I wouldn’t put a whole lot of weight behind it with respect to it being used as the basis for argument because the same thing could be said by past generations about the generations before them… no electricity… no plumbing… the ‘rich’ caveman having all the meat and fruit he wanted to eat… the poor caveman eating nuts and seeds and grass…
The US standard of living has steadily improved, even while real income has dropped on average, as a result of ever cheaper goods and services. Interesting paradox, because it is precisely the decrease in the cost of production which has also eliminated US middle class jobs by moving them overseas.Well, yes, that’s exactly my point. The average person over the 240+ year lifespan of this country has had a steadily INCREASING standard of living judged in objective measures. So where does all this talk of “deterioration in standard of living” come from?
One can argue that the rich are getting richer faster than the poor and middle class, but on an objective basis, the poor are richer than they used to be too.
The U.S. insatiable appetite for goods and services at cheaper prices (which nations like China services us with) has had an adverse effect on the U.S. economy. It’s like a Catch 22 kind of thing.The US standard of living has steadily improved, even while real income has dropped on average, as a result of ever cheaper goods and services. Interesting paradox, because it is precisely the decrease in the cost of production which has also eliminated US middle class jobs by moving them overseas.
Estimated median household income in 2009: $34,868 (it was $32,216 in 2000)
Milwaukee: $34,868
Wisconsin: $49,993
Estimated per capita income in 2009: $18,290
From the link: Milwaukee city income, earnings, and wages data.Milwaukee city income, earnings, and wages data
I know a guy who is a lobbyist for a city. The city pays him to represent it’s interests to the state legislators. Lobbying isn’t an evil job. If anyone wants something from the state legislature—or any legislature–one does the homework and presents the best case possible.My point was that, to even a senator who intends and practices honesty, lobbyists have a useful function in that they provide a sort of “adjunct staff” to do research, drafting and reporting. If one cuts oneself off from them completely, one cuts oneself off from information because senatorial staffs are nowhere big enough to do all the work senators have to review and do. How, for example, would a senator assess something as simple as the effect of Obama’s regulations on the coal industry if the information was not provided to him by the coal industry? How many mines get flooded and useless forever if they’re not active? How many collapse when the “continuous miners” are withdrawn? How much are the utility companies going to have to add to your utility bill to pay for the switch to natural gas and the pipelines to get it to the power plants? Does anyone think the Obama people will provide the senator with reliable information on that?
I’m not saying that everything about lobbying is good. Surely it isn’t. But it’s not totally without useful purpose either.
This, of course, is a huge social justice issue, which has not been even mentioned in the Presidential campaign by either candidate. Part of the solution may be related to some changes to the tax rates, as Mr Obama suggests, but that is a pittance compared to the larger issue, which is the structural change to the work economy. I am very disappointed that neither candidate has even mentioned that it is an issue.The U.S. insatiable appetite for goods and services at cheaper prices (which nations like China services us with) has had an adverse effect on the U.S. economy. It’s like a Catch 22 kind of thing.
At any rate… the U.S. standard of living has dramatically declined for Black-Americans within the generations of Generation X on down. It has already been reported - but I knew this from blatant observation - that said generations almost certainly move into the poor class if they were raised middle-class.
I like to tell black folks - because few of them realize it - that if it weren’t for all the middle-class housing of the black Baby-Boomers (parent of Gen X) the vast majority of the younger generations of Black-Americans would be forced to live in make-shift housing. Essentially forming the vast stretches of squatter camps called “favelas” in Brazil. Or the squatter camps that were typical in the U.S. during the Great Depression.
So, previous generations glories cosmetically, architecturally cover-up the true extent of the economic problem. Consider that at my age of 41 as a black male in Milwaukee with an income of roughly $12,000 a year I’m regarded as not great but pretty well off relative to most other black males my age and younger. Many haze the income of $0 (zero).
Furthermore, roughly 600 people are shot in my city annually, some years a little less and some years maybe a couple hundred more than that. But the actual homicides never exceed 100 usually. This in a span of 365 days within a year. And this with almost all the shootings and homicides occurring on the black sides of town.
So, the quality of life for black by both the Baby-Boomers and WWII Generation of blacks has plummeted astronomically for the younger generations. My generation (Gen X) is in fact often referred to as “The Lost” generation (meaning a whole generation wiped out to drugs, murder, prison, and unemployment).
Most the poor ethnic White-Americans like the Italians, Sicilians, and Irish left poverty in the 1960’s. Most of their Generation X and younger generations do better than their Baby-Boomer and WWII Generation.
For Black-Americans no loss - I hypothesize - has been so great since the end of Reconstruction Era when the KKK essentially took over various city and state governments.
City-Data.Com is pretty awesome site for statistical data on cities of the United States.
Source: city-data.com/city/Milwaukee-Wisconsin.html
From the link: Milwaukee city income, earnings, and wages data.
(a) city-data.com/income/income-Milwaukee-Wisconsin.html
For Whites: Distribution of median household income in 2009 (number of people). You can see for ages 25 - 44 the chart peaks at $60k - $75k.
For Blacks: Distribution of median household income in 2009 (number of people). You can see for ages 25 - 44 the chart peaks at < $10k [the symbol < means “less than”]
They are mere actors, and that stuff simply was not in the script!This, of course, is a huge social justice issue, which has not been even mentioned in the Presidential campaign by either candidate. Part of the solution may be related to some changes to the tax rates, as Mr Obama suggests, but that is a pittance compared to the larger issue, which is the structural change to the work economy. I am very disappointed that neither candidate has even mentioned that it is an issue.