Unlike other politicians, Palin understands that the middle class can take care of themselves.
Through all the debates, speeches, and interviews, I had not heard one candidate speak about the middle class in terms that make sense to me until Palin debated against Biden last Thursday.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Christopher Rose
And if you want to add happiness in to the mix, check out this article by Financial Jesus. Seven of the Top 10 are in Europe. The USA comes in at 17th and the UK at a lowly 22nd place...
27 - Jordan Richardson
There's also general standard of living, which if measured by the UN's Human Development Index, places the United States in 12th place in the world.
28 - Dr Dreadful
I meant my paean more in homage to the middle class group that's been dubbed the "Greatest Generation"...
Ahem...
"Middle class group", Clav?
29 - Dr Dreadful
My goodness, Jordan. You'll have to tell me exactly where on that 400-page report you're looking.
And Chris, unfortunately the Wikipedia page you linked to decided it would be fun to repeatedly crash my browser.
I'm not necessarily thinking in terms of happiness. I'm well aware that Americans for example work longer hours and enjoy patchy public services and healthcare, all of which contribute to the overall spirits, if you want to call it that, of a nation.
But in terms of general comfort and access to wealth, there's a palpable difference between America and the rest of the world (think of the size of houses and cars, and the personal possessions that are considered fairly normal in the US and luxuries in other countries).
By those criteria, of the countries I've visited only Australia even comes close.
30 - Jordan Richardson
Sorry, Doc. This should do the trick.
31 - Clavos
"Middle class group", Clav?
Not really sure of your question here, Doc, but I'll take a shot:
Yes, the majority of them. Just as the majority of the country is middle class.
32 - Christopher Rose
Doc, the Wiki site is working fine for me. you're not using a Mac again are you? :-)
Compared to Europe, the USA is relatively spacious and underpopulated so land is cheaper and that makes it easier to have bigger houses. Construction techniques are very different too and building in wood is a lot cheaper than brick or stone.
US cars all suck so they probably make them look swanky to compensate!
What personal possessions are you referring to? I can't think of anything that is normal in the US but a luxury here...
33 - Jordan Richardson
If you look at the CIA World Factbook, the United States is 10th in the world in terms of GDP.
34 - Cindy D
RE #15
Here you go Dave.
Income Inequality
"The following chart [please visit the link for the actual chart] shows the effectiveness of a progressive tax system. When the top rates were truly high from 1950 to 1978, American income at all levels grew at about the same pace. But when progressivity was lost in the 80s, the income of the poor began falling, while that of the rich continued growing."
Income Growth by Quintile
1950-1978
Lowest 20%: 138%
2nd 20%: 98%
3rd 20%: 106%
4th 20%: 111%
Highest 20%: 99%
1979-1993
Lowest 20%: -15%
2nd 20%: -7%
3rd 20%: -3%
4th 20%: 5%
Highest 20%: 18%
Oh and a quote from "My Favorite Marxist": "As I've often said... this [increasing income inequality] is not the type of thing which a democratic society"a capitalist democratic society"can really accept without addressing. - Alan Greenspan, June 2005
Here's another bit of info from the same page:
As of 2006, the United States had one of the highest levels of income inequality, as measured through the Gini index, among high income countries, comparable to that of some middle income countries such as Russia or Turkey,[15] being one of only few developed countries where inequality has increased since 1980.[16]
Second two Quotes from: Income Inequality in the United States
35 - zingzing
posing as dave: "your facts and figures mean nothing to me! i will now show you my set of facts and figures which will contradict yours! and even if they do contradict, mine will be the true facts and figures, while your facts and figures will cease to be facts and figures and will now become lies! terrible lies! liberal lies! socialist lies! communist lies!"
36 - bliffle
IMO, we have lost it in the past 15-20 years. Living, actual living, is much better these days in a number of countries.
All of the gadgets we couldn't get in foreign countries are now readily available at about the same price. 15 years ago when I went to Europe I dragged along an immense valise filled with gadgets requested by friends: electronic phones, computer printers, electric shavers, radios, VHS machines. Cripes! As recently as 8 years ago I dragged a big bag full of DeWalt power tools along.
Now all those things, or quality equivalents, are available everywhere, usually at lower prices.
And there's no denying that the quality of life is better in most foreign nations. One of the things that we USA citizens sacrificed in the pursuit of money is good living. Everyday living. We'll never get it back. In fact, most Americans have trouble adapting to life in a foreign country exactly because they can't believe things should be easy and pleasurable. They think that pleasure must be accompanied by a display of wealth, or else it makes the pursuit of wealth meaningless, and denigrates the life they live.
We blew it.
37 - Cindy D
Bwahahahaha!!!
ROFLOL @ zingzing
38 - Dr Dreadful
Doc, the Wiki site is working fine for me. you're not using a Mac again are you? :-)
Chris, that's just the problem... if I were using a Mac, I wouldn't be tearing my hair out!
Compared to Europe, the USA is relatively spacious and underpopulated so land is cheaper and that makes it easier to have bigger houses. Construction techniques are very different too and building in wood is a lot cheaper than brick or stone.
All true, but you must admit that those circumstances in themselves allow for a higher standard of living here.
US cars all suck so they probably make them look swanky to compensate!
Again true... which is why everyone buys Japanese!
What personal possessions are you referring to? I can't think of anything that is normal in the US but a luxury here...
Boats, swimming pools, > one car per family member, TVs and stereo systems built into the kitchen appliances, chest fridges etc.
39 - Dr Dreadful
And Jordan, I have to question the methodology of a report which puts Libya, Albania and Mexico in the category of 'high human development'.
Not doubting the accuracy of the numbers. But I can tell you for damn certain sure that there's no way the standard of living in Ireland (#4) is superior to that in the United States (#12).
40 - Jordan Richardson
Doc, I don't know what to tell you. There are countless pages of information to peruse to discern how the report came up with the numbers. Their explanation of it is as follows:
The HDI provides a composite measure of three dimensions of human development: living a long and healthy life (measured by life expectancy), being educated (measured by adult literacy and enrolment at the primary, secondary and tertiary level) and having a decent standard of living (measured by purchasing power parity, PPP, income).
You can click on each country on the list for a more detailed reference and, from there, can cross-reference for more information.
But there is no question that the United States is most assuredly not the "top drawer" in terms of standard of living.
The UN's report is far from the only one to reach that conclusion and I have yet to read a report that has designated America as "number one" in terms of standard of living.
And I'm sorry, Doc, but did you say in #38 that a boat and a swimming pool are "normal" in America? Perhaps I need you to define the term normal, but I'm having about as much trouble swallowing that notion as you are with the notion that Mexico is in the category of High Human Development.
41 - Clavos
And I know nuthin' about Libya and Albania, but plenty about Mexico. I won't bore everyone with a long litany of why the quality of life in Mexico is inferior to the quality of life here.
I'll just point out how many millions of us now live here, and how many more keep comin'.
42 - Jordan Richardson
Indeed, there is some interesting information when you click on the United States on the UN Human Development report.
For instance:
In the gender-related development index, which measures achievements in the same dimensions using the same indicators as the HDI (human development index) but captures inequalities in achievement between women and men, the United States places at 107th overall. Mexico, by contrast, ranks 90th overall.
And the GEM (gender empowerment measure) reveals whether women take an active part in economic and political life. In terms of the GEM, the United States ranks 15th out of 93 countries.
43 - Clavos
And I'm sorry, Doc, but did you say in #38 that a boat and a swimming pool are "normal" in America?
Perhaps boat ownership is a bit of a stretch, although in 2007, according to the "National Marine Manufacturers Association, there were 17 million pleasure boats registered in the US, with an average new cost of $35,810, and 59 million Americans "participated" in boating.
Although swimming pools are less common in northern states for obvious reasons, they are nearly ubiquitous in the Sun Belt, for equally obvious reasons. The next time you fly into a major southern city, glance down during the approach; you'll be surprised.
44 - Baritone
I suppose if "quality of life" is measured by the number and variety of "toys" available in the market place, I suppose the U.S. wins hands down (although, I presume Japan could give us a run for our money as regards electronic junk.)
I tend to measure quality of life through a more varied and complex prism. We live in a society in which the mantra "He who dies with the most toys wins." If that's all there is to it, then fuck it.
Life can be and often is far richer than just having and playing with material crap.
Keep in mind, too, that I'm not religious. I believe that this life is all we get. Yet, I find far more joy in less material things. I won't get all misty and sloppy here, but I think that list is easily conjured. Oft times, people with practically nothing appear to be generally happier than many with seemingly everything. That may be a cliche', but then, more often than not, cliche's are true.
All you people who are rabid about having guns often are so because you feel you must have them to protect your shit. Think about it. Maybe there's something wrong with that picture.
B
45 - Baronius
Cindy, you're not addressing Dave's point. The point is that people don't stay in the same quintile over time. Over the life cycle of earning, an individual will go from the bottom (college) to the top (at age 40-50) back down to near-poverty (in a house that you own, living comfortably off interest). If there was a guy who was The Poor, he'd be stuck in that bottom quintile, but he's not. Nor are there many people who are The Rich their entire lives.
46 - Baronius
One problem with the Human Development report is that it accepts each country's reporting. You'll find that countries without a free press tend to rank higher on the list than you'd expect, because their governments INSIST that things are fine. Albania's life expectancy is not what the Albanian government declares it to be.
Purchasing power parity is also a toughie, because it involves weighing what currencies are actually worth (often very different from the exchange rate). That doesn't mean that the statistic is worthless, only that they're best used as ranges.
47 - Clavos
In the gender-related development index, which measures achievements in the same dimensions using the same indicators as the HDI (human development index) but captures inequalities in achievement between women and men, the United States places at 107th overall. Mexico, by contrast, ranks 90th overall.
The UN is full of shit (as I've long suspected), plain and simple, on that score. There is NO way that Mexico, the land of machismo, a country where even the idea of feminism is barely taking hold, has less gender inequality than the US.
Especially among the campesinos (the majority class), women are not equal to men.
48 - Jordan Richardson
Clav, the index refers to the same factors as the HDI but refers to gender differences. There are less differences in terms of life expectancy, knowledge and education, and standard of living, in other words. It has nothing to do with how women are necessarily treated or viewed or even with gender equality in the traditional sense, but rather a direct comparison with those variables.
Albania's life expectancy is not what the Albanian government declares it to be.
I'm curious about this. While I don't doubt or support your statement, can you support it? Of course, I have to "take your word for it," which is "one problem I have" with the "system." Where is the real data hiding?
49 - Cindy D
Baronius,
Let me say that I do get your point, despite that unlikely example you gave. And my answer is:
Dave needs to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh.
Myth: Income mobility makes up for income inequality.
Fact: Income mobility in the U.S. is only moderate, not enough to forgive income inequality.
"The Conservative Response 3: Income Mobility"
This comes right below The Conservative Response 1: Denial, and Conservative Response 2: Taking Credit For Growth
Studies by the Urban Institute and the U.S. Treasury have both found that about half of the families who start in either the top or the bottom quintile of the income distribution are still there after a decade, and that only 3 to 6 percent rise from bottom to top or fall from top to bottom.
(snip)
Income mobility might in principle be an important offset to the growth in inequality, but in practice it turns out that it isn't. That did not stop conservatives [the noted scholar, Rush Limbaugh, for example] from trying to use it as a debating point.
50 - Jordan Richardson
Here we find the Human Development Report 2007/2008 regarding the life expectancy of Albania, which shows it as 76.2 in 2005.
Contrast that with the CIA World Factbook entry, which shows it as 77.78 in 2008. In fact, the CIA World Factbook showed it as 77.24 in 2005 when the UN Index was taken, which puts the UN stat as lower than the information from the CIA Factbook.
Now I'm not overly sure what, if anything, this means. But I think perhaps that as an "emerging democracy," it may not be all that unreasonable to suggest that a country with a 98.7% literacy rate could be growing in terms of the HDI's three components. Sure, you can't go to church there, but it seems that you can have reasonable access to education and that compared to large parts of the rest of the world, you can live a little longer.
Go Albania!
51 - DaveNalle
And if you want to add happiness in to the mix, check out this article by Financial Jesus. Seven of the Top 10 are in Europe. The USA comes in at 17th and the UK at a lowly 22nd place...
The mistaken assumption here is that people in the US want to be happy. We don't. We want to be left the hell alone to be happy or sad or goofy and work our asses off until we die on our own terms.
There's also general standard of living, which if measured by the UN's Human Development Index, places the United States in 12th place in the world.
Which is inherently flawed because it includes as positives things which people in the US neither want nor expect from their government.
Dave
52 - DaveNalle
Thanks for the links, Cindy, but they're all worthless because 'income inequality' is a meaningless term. It's based on the erroneous assumption that one person becoming wealthier causes other people to be poorer, when the truth is that if Person X makes $20K a year and Person Y makes $60K a year, if both of them go up in income by 20% the result is technically greater income inequality, but in reality the $4K gained by Person X is far more valuable to him as far as providing for basic needs than the $12K in income increase is to Person Y. Plus the fact that the distance in income between X and Y grew greater did not make X one penny poorer than he was.
So all arguments based on income inequality are fundamentally worthless because incomes do not exist in a state of equilibrium.
Dave
53 - Cindy D
Oh, I see it's the economists that are wrong.
54 - Clavos
Jordan,
I don't think you have enough information to justify your "Go Albania!" enthusiasm. Baronius' point is well taken, in particular in regard to countries with strong, authoritarian systems. You say:
Sure, you can't go to church there, but it seems that you can have reasonable access to education and that compared to large parts of the rest of the world, you can live a little longer.
To which I would reply, "there's education and there's 'education.'" The simple fact that Albania has a high literacy rate only means they can all read. WHAT they can read is not covered.
The Cubans score highly in a number of areas, including literacy, yet anyone who's visited there in recent years (easy for you Canadians, proscribed to Americans, but not Mexicans) knows that the "quality of life" as enjoyed by most developed nations, is sorely lacking in Cuba.
As the aphorism goes, there are "lies, damn lies, and statistics."
55 - Jordan Richardson
Which is inherently flawed because it includes as positives things which people in the US neither want nor expect from their government.
Which begs the question: what do people in the US expect or want from their government? And how do those things not relate to quality or access of education, health, or a decent standard of living?
56 - Jordan Richardson
I don't think you have enough information to justify your "Go Albania!" enthusiasm.
I was joking.
Albania does, however, seem good enough to partner with the United States for the War on Terror. They can't be all that bad, can they?
57 - Baronius
Cindy, I go with Thomas Sowell's analysis on this issue. He's the only expert I've read on it, but he is an expert. I notice that you describe 3-6% of the population going from bottom to top or top to bottom quintile. If we assume that 1.5-3% go in each direction, they represent 7.5-15% of their quintiles. That's amazingly fluid, that that many people will go from the lowest to the highest incomes in a decade. And those are just the extremes in ten years. Across a lifespan, between each quintile, there's got to be a lot more movement. People like Janica (great article, btw) and me.
58 - Baronius
Jordan, interesting question. A lot of Americans want government out of the health, education, and welfare business. The American instinct is to keep them as small and local as possible. Remember that we're anti-royalists who moved here to be free, and set up crazy Utopian communities. It's worth noting that these three areas (hostitals, schools, and care for the poor) used to be arenas for religious service.
One obvious exception is veterans' care, which we typically do at the grandest scale we can. But I think that's because war is an equally big endeavor.
59 - Cindy D
I am shocked that you go with Sowell! You're kidding! :-)
60 - bliffle
Why, we can't afford to have a nanny state for those whining citizens! We have to save that money and use it (and a lot of other money, too) to make a Nanny Bankers state. Oh, we also have to make a Nanny Corporation state for GE and the likes.
Priorities.
61 - Jordan Richardson
A lot of Americans want government out of the health, education, and welfare business. The American instinct is to keep them as small and local as possible.
Is it fair to refer to this as an "American instinct" when it's not an accurate representation of the people?
When nine out of ten people say that they think "presidential candidates should propose reforms that would improve the quality of health care, ensure that all Americans have affordable care, and reduce the number of uninsured," what do they mean? That they are against government health care despite wanting candidates running for PRESIDENT to do something about the health care situation?
It seems to me that you and many on the so-called "right" are very selective when it comes to what you want the government to do. While you certainly want the government out of your way in general, you sure count on them when it's time to put out fires or provide additional resources for the populus. And the "right" tends to have a remarkable distrust for the people, too, perhaps well-founded. By running elections on platforms that make people afraid of their own government's incompetence, the Republican party ensures that their alleged platform of "small government" stands firm. In fact, the more incompetent the GOP can prove themselves to be, the better chances they have of being elected because they'll propose to downgrade the "size of government" and be their own solution.
I think it is patently untrue to consider "small government" an American instinct. The fact is that Americans don't fully know what a government actually can do when it has the input and participation of the people. They haven't had the chance to experience it in a long time, if ever.
If recent polls are any indication, people want their governments to get the fuck out of Iraq, reform healthcare, create more jobs, secure the borders, change tax laws, be more ethical, spend more domestically and less internationally, be more disciplines fiscally, improve the schools, lower gas prices, fix social security, improve morality, and propose more help for the poor. That's from a 2008 Gallup poll taking during the primaries.
So it looks like the people of America really want their government to do an awful lot, doesn't it? But I suppose you insist that people want all of that AND they want their government to stay small. People are conservatives because the spending is done in a conservative fashion, right? That's the expectation. But that's not the reality, is it? Instead, the reality is that most conservative governments simply defer to corporations and so-called private enterprise to handle the dirty work that Dems leave in government. It's like swapping one form of incompetence for another and then lying about it.
The fact is that many people are hungry for real change in America and all you have to do is open your window to learn that. People want their governments to work for all of them, not just for some of them. People want justice, equality, compassion, efficiency, ethics, and honesty out of government. And they'll never get it, not with a leftie and not with a rightie. It's all a sham, kids. The difference between what the people want government to do and what government actually will do is immense. And under the current American two-party system, there's simply no reason to assume that the gap's gonna close anytime soon.
The real American instinct is shown when the people speak. It's about time somebody listened.
62 - Baronius
Cindy, I didn't know who he was - I didn't know what "conservatism" was - the first time I read Sowell on the subject of income inequality. One of life's great joys is finding a systematic intellectual demonstration of something you'd never thought about, particularly when it turns conventional wisdom on its head. Sowell probably influenced me more than I realize. His columns are bread-and-butter, but his pure research is phenomenal.
63 - Dr Dreadful
Dave @ #51:
Which is inherently flawed because it includes as positives things which
people in the US neither want nor expect from their governmentI, Dave, don't personally think are positives.There... fixed it for you.
Clav and Dave*, the point is that no-one's statistics are flawed. They're just numbers. Whatever interpretation you or I or Jordan or Chris or the UN wants to place on them is as valid as anyone else's... that is to say, not very.
What I'm going by is what I see with my own eyes. The typical American household is materially affluent on a scale which can't even be approached by the average family in any other nation - with the possible and partial exception, as I said before, of Australia.
That's not to say that I believe life is somehow better here. In some ways it is; in others, it sucks. Ask anyone anywhere and they'll probably tell you the same.
And I think lack of appreciation of this affluence may be what bumps the US down in Chris's happiness index.
* Chris... don't you think they'd make a good musical duo, huddled round the old joanna down the pub, wearing cloth caps and beards and singing cheerful songs about Tottenham Hotspur? ;-)
64 - Christopher Rose
Doc, please explain what this typical material affluence is then?
The UK South Coast looks pretty affluent to me, but I can't speak of your Geordie homeland, never having been that far North in England.
65 - Cindy D
Wow! I have been all over England, Scotland and Wales. It all looked marvelous to me!
66 - Clavos
What I'm going by is what I see with my own eyes. The typical American household is materially affluent on a scale which can't even be approached by the average family in any other nation - with the possible and partial exception, as I said before, of Australia.
I hope you didn't get the impression I'm disagreeing with you on this point, Doc; nothing could be further from the truth. I've even arrived at the same conclusion more or less the same way: By traveling extensively (during the thirty years I was able to do so for free).
67 - Cindy D
Dr.D,
Dee ye oonderstaand geordie dialect, like?
68 - Dr Dreadful
Why aye, man. Me aad gaffer grew oop in Whitley Bay. Used te gan doon Gallowgate ivvery Sat'dy ter watch the Toon back when wee Hughie Gallagher was playin'.
But you'd never know it to hear me speak. I'm London born. My mother was a Cockney transplanted to Essex. I'm proud of my Geordie heritage, though.
69 - Cindy D
A Girl goes into a hairdressers in Sunderland and asks, "Can you give me a perm?"
"Okay" says the hairdresser. "I wondad lurnley as a clood..."
70 - Christopher Rose
Cindy, that was brilliant! Thanks for the laugh.
71 - Cindy D
Christopher,
It took me about an hour to get that joke. :-)
72 - Lisa Solod Warren
Who here besides Christopher and the Dr has lived in another first world country? I have and I have to say that while the US is lovely, there are other ways of living that don't necessarily involve so many possessions but that involve living wonderfully nonetheless.... so the fridges aren't quite so big.... BFD. You get health care, retirement, baby care, etc. Lots of taxes, yes, but it's a trade off....
73 - Janica
A trade off?
It's not about materialism. It's about the freedom to choose to not buy a bigger fridge. Do what you want with YOUR money. If you really need the oh-so-efficient government to spoon feed you when you're born, educate you on what they see fit, take care of you when you're old, and bury you when you're dead, then move to those other first world countries.
But pleasantries don't mean anything in comparison to freedom.
74 - Clavos
When I was growing up in Mexico, my father made what was a good, though not outstanding, US level income, and we lived MUCH better than my parents' friends in the US did, including a half dozen live-in servants and a much larger and nicer house (we even had an indoor swimming pool) than those of their friends with comparable incomes back in the US.
And all the gringo families in Mexico lived the same way, with those working for US companies even better off than we were, with home leave and tuition allowances for kids to go to prep school, etc.
My father owned his own business, so didn't get those kinds of perks, but he had about the same income as the executive level guys working for companies like GM and 3M did.
75 - SteveS
I think a lot of the middle class got screwed by banks, mortgage companies and credit card companies. But I don't think they should be bailed out, because the money goes to the banks and companies that did the screwing over. I think these institutions need to just fail. So times get tough, it's necessary sometimes.
These ballooning mortgages should be criminal. So should a CEO making millions while the company crashes around him.