This is a mind-blowing video about wealth inequality in America today.
These are facts to reflect upon this Christmas Day.
Inequality is huge and growing in our beloved nation.
A tiny proportion of our population owns a vast amount of our nation’s wealth.
Wealth inequality, like income inequality, has grown dramatically in the past generation.
There really is a 1% that owns an unbelievable amount of the nation’s assets.
Those who live in poverty have next to nothing, a statistical blip, and the share owned by the middle class is small.
Sometimes, I am inclined to think that all the ink spilled on “school reform” is misdirected.
Maybe our attention is being purposely diverted from far more important issues, like inequality and poverty.
Why are we indifferent to the fact that nearly a quarter of our children live in poverty?
Why do “reformers” insist that poverty doesn’t matter, that “great teachers” can overcome poverty, that charters can overcome poverty, that a certain curriculum can close the achievement gap?
Why do they refuse to acknowledge that poverty is the single most reliable predictor of low academic performance?
Why are we not embarrassed that we have more child poverty than any other advanced nation?
(The studies of inequality say that child poverty is higher in Romania, but Romania is a desperately poor nation that emerged from a harsh Communist dictatorship only twenty-five years ago.)
Do the big corporations support charters and TFA as a way of diverting our eyes from the singular cause of low academic performance?
Think about it.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Now you are talking, Diane! None of this is “by accident,” none of this “just happened.” It was planned, every step of the way. I don’t claim there were many overall plans but each effort–the attack on public school unions (through an attack upon public schools), the attack on taxes, the attack on government (which represents all of us), these were all planned. And the planners? The planners weren’t the middle class, and they weren’t the poor; they were all white, privileged, and rich.
LikeLike
Surprise, surprise, surprise!
LikeLike
“Why do they refuse to acknowledge that poverty is the single most reliable predictor of low academic performance?”
Correlation, of course, does not imply causation. Indeed, it is entirely possible that the oft assumed direction of causality (poverty causes low school performance) is, in fact the reverse: low school performance causes poverty later in life. I don’t know for sure, but the implications for public policy are profound. To wit: If it is the latter, then attacking poverty won’t help improve school performance. The truth is likely complicated and, perhaps, somewhere in between, and there are certainly additional factors to consider.
LikeLike
Poverty consistently turns out to mean less opportunities to learn inside and outside of public education… and research demonstrates that particular qualities of schools who receive less per pupil expenditure offer less educational opportunities than those who receive double the funding, for example. That is causal. However not every child that grows up in poverty, due to extraordinary parenting and the diverse experiences of a particular child living in poverty, is denied educational opportunities. Causation is a very carefully employed term in educational research. The use of broad generalized terms such as “poverty” are primarily used in correlational ways. I am sure you do not intend to seem callous, by suggesting that people who are less educated ahistorically cause poverty first and foremost.
Clearly the current economic slide was not caused by people who live in poverty, but include bailouts and issues on wall street. Meanwhile, Enterprise-Rent-A-Car brags about its workforce which is primarily comprised of workers who earned bachelor’s degrees and who have student loans. People who live in poverty are not only more and more educated, those who receive are lesser education are increasing vulnerable to declining economic resources and practices.
LikeLike
You cite no evidence to support your claims. Neither do I, but I do not present my statements as fact (“[C]learly the current economic slide…”. Personally, I have found educational research to be sloppy. And isn’t it possible that poorly educated people tend to get menial jobs that leave them in poverty?
LikeLike
SC is absolutely correct. Note that he’s not denying a causal link, just raising the question. I suspect they problem is somewhat cyclical. Poverty is a cause of lower educational performance which, in turn, leads to continued poverty. The links should not be ignored, but the solution may be more complicated than it seems. As a post above says, statistics are no substitute for judgment. In fact, statistics are nothing without judgment. But judgment should be informed by statistics and that means being aware of what statistics tell us as well as what they don’t tell us.
Statisticians search for truth. Sometimes the truth is not as easy or clear as we’d like. But as we look for truth, calling names is not helpful.
More correlation: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
There seems to be some evidence of causation implied in this talk. That may or may not be justified, but it’s an interesting talk.
LikeLike
SC and Corey are both absolutely incorrect. Additionally, their claims are not consistent with current US practices. We live in a country that is throwing billions of dollars into education “reform” policies which have no research whatsoever to support them, let alone research showing a causal relationship between those practices and student achievement, such as the Common Core, high-stakes testing, merit pay and VAM. And yet, proponents of such practices keep arguing that there must be research demonstrating causation between poverty and achievement before addressing poverty. What a bunch of bunk. We are not the idiots they like to assume we are.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well we know “weakly correlated” is not the case. The correlation is strong. The question is whether poverty is the cause and poor education is the effect. My feeling is that it is. At least in a large part. But SC is actually correct that we don’t KNOW that. And he’s got a point about not basing public policy on something we don’t know to be true.
Of course, you’re absolutely right that the current public policy is also not based on fact. And we actually have pretty good evidence that the current policy does NOT work and is making things worse.
AND, addressing poverty is a worthy end in itself. So I’m all for that. And if we do that, I suspect we’d see educational achievement improve in the long term. I doubt that the effect would be immediate.
However, we do have a bad habit in this country of jumping on any association we see and assuming there’s a causal relationship, and often there’s not. That leads us to think we’ve got the solution and that it’s easy. And that may not be the case. So I think it would be wise to stop assuming SC and I are trying to sabotage your efforts. We’re just suggesting that we don’t do what the reformers are doing, which is base policy on assumptions that are not backed up by facts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hogwash, Corey. This is about the diversionary tactics of politicians and corporate education “reformers” who do nothing to promote livable wages for the working poor, while throwing money at education projects for poor kids, which provide greater returns on investments than eradicating poverty ever would.
You are both just feeding into the diversion by jumping on their “prove it” with causation not correlation bandwagon. And the joke is they already know the truth, which is why they targeted poor kids first and created their “poverty is not destiny” slogan.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is a common argument and another diversion intended to prevent the implementation of policies that address the problems of poverty and inequity in America. We know there is a correlation between income and school achievement, and we also know that the achievement gap between lower income and higher income students is a global issue: “International Tests Show Achievement Gaps in All Countries” http://www.epi.org/blog/international-tests-achievement-gaps-gains-american-students/#sthash.tsO6sxE8.dpuf
Those are good incentives to address poverty, as if one in nearly four American children in poverty is not reason enough.
LikeLike
Arguing for public policy based on causation and not correlation is hardly diversionary. I agree that there is a correlation, but if poverty itself is not a causal factor, or if it is only weakly correlated, all of the typical solutions to end poverty won’t do a bit of good.
LikeLike
It is absolutely a diversion and you are no different from the lunatic fringes who deny a causal relationship between jobs that don’t pay a living wage and poverty. Any excuse to not address poverty will do for the self-serving and greedy.
Instead of demanding more proof of whether being poor matters to achievement, when every country on the planet has the very same problem, try growing a heart at least ONE day of the year.
LikeLike
Cosmic Tinker: maybe we could get into a rheeally involved discussion about correlation and causation about that critical age-old question—do longer arms cause longer shirt sleeve lengths, or do longer shirt sleeve lengths cause longer arms?
😃
Let’s work out the math…or not…
“Statistics are no substitute for judgment.” [Henry Clay]
Keep posting. I’ll keep reading.
😎
LikeLike
I don’t think SC is using diversionary tactics, he’s raising legitimate points. But, whether poverty is causing poor school performance or not (I think it is, but SC is right that the relationship may not be so simple) poverty is a problem that needs to be addressed. As well as income inequality. So I’d propose that we address poverty because it needs to be addressed, and then we can see if education improves. If it does, we probably have our answer. If not, at least we’ve addressed another important problem!
LikeLike
Austin Bradford Hill laid out some reasonable criteria for establishing causation. http://www.drabruzzi.com/hills_criteria_of_causation.htm
SC, which of these do you think have or have not been met in the case of poverty’s relationship with educational outcomes?
LikeLike
Maybe try reading the entire thread before responding, Corey. SC already argued against addressing poverty and stated that “if poverty itself is not a causal factor, or if it is only weakly correlated, all of the typical solutions to end poverty won’t do a bit of good.”
This is not just about education, Many of us believe that jobs with livable wages would go a long way towards decreasing poverty in this country.
LikeLike
Corey: “The links should not be ignored, but the solution may be more complicated than it seems” — Yes, especially if the “solution” is MORE INEQUITY as embodied in the policies of “running the schools like a business, busting unions and routinely firing senior staff before they can collect benefits — WITHOUT ANY PROOF THAT ANY OF THIS WORKS.
Corey: “There seems to be some evidence of causation implied in this talk. That may or may not be justified” — This is the classic waffling of a chronic bullsh*tter. “May or may not be justified”, indeed.
In complex systems such as human societies, multi-factor causation is the rule, unlike in the world of Newtonian physics that Corey and South Carolina and the teaching economist inhabit.
Causation always implies correlation but not the reverse. And strong correlation suggests causation more than weak correlation.
The fact that the “reformers” themselves send their own children to schools with small classes, no testing, lots of extras, and a stable teaching force, strongly suggests that deep down they know full well that McSchooling is fraudulent and has no purpose except to funnel public tax money into their own pockets.
LikeLike
If a child from a poor family does badly in first grade, how can that child’s bad academic performance be the cause of poverty? The family’s poverty pre-dates the child’s entry into school.
Are you arguing that the parents may have come from a middle class family, did poorly academically, and then slipped into poverty? That scenario is far less common than poverty that goes back generations.
If we agree that common sense tells us that there is a causative link between poverty and academic performance, the premise that poverty contributes to bad academic performance is far more logical a proposition than the other way around.
LikeLike
South Carolina, you are using the phase “correlation does not imply causation” as a slogan.
Correlation versus causation
Click to access Causation%20versus%20Correlation.pdf
Excerpt: Proving causation is a major challenge. There are no set “rules” or criteria for saying that a correlation is causation. In general, however, the more robust the correlations, the more likely they are to imply causation. An example of this is the link between smoking and cancer. Over the years, many studies have been conducted and the correlation between the incidence of cancer and smoking is strong enough that most today consider this to be a causal relationship. That is, smoking causes cancer. (Although as stated earlier, the reverse is not valid: cancer leads to smoking).
***
Note: in science and statistics, “Implies” is a technical term carrying the sense of ALWAYS and/or AUTOMATICALLY.
Obviously, some people sometimes, can get high marks despite living in poverty. Some do not get cancer despite smoking. Indeed, more is involved, but we know enough that if we want to raise academic performance or prevent many deaths from smoking, it is of signal importance to get rid of child poverty and discourage smoking.
Correlation Implies Causation
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation.html
“Correlation does not imply causation” is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not *automatically* imply that one causes the other (though correlation is necessary for linear causation, and can indicate possible causes or areas for further investigation… in other words, correlation can be a hint).[1][2]
Usage
………………………
In logic, the technical use of the word “implies” means “to be a sufficient circumstance”. This is the meaning intended by statisticians when they say causation is not certain. Indeed, p implies q has the technical meaning of logical implication: if p then q symbolized as p → q. That is “if circumstance p is true, then q necessarily follows.” In this sense, it is always correct to say “Correlation does not imply causation”.
Poverty may not be a necessary and sufficient cause of low academic performance but it is certainly an overwhelmingly important one.
LikeLike
Study upon study shows that children of affluent parents who do poorly in school earn more later in life than children of the poor who do well in school. Affluent kids with only a high school diploma end up earning more than poor kids who go on to earn a bachelor’s. Being as it’s Christmas Day and I’m too busy playing with my kids’ toys, I’m not going to bother to find the studies today, but if (when) this topic comes back up, I’ll find them then.
LikeLike
Correlation can lead to causation. There are prerequisites. One of the most important prerequisites is that there is a logical connection between the variables. I think we easily have that part covered. Another important prerequisite for making the transition depends on how robust the data is. After decades of collecting data, our databases are robust and the data say the same thing. Whether its PISA, TIMSS, NAEP, SAT, ACT, etc…, no poorer group of students has ever on average outscored their richer peers. EVER. Using logical gradations among income levels always produces this outcome. No group, with less wealth/income, outscores their wealthier peers on average.
It is time we stop calling the relationship between wealth/income and student outcomes something about correlation, and start talking about it as a causal relationship. The data have spoken, and it’s time we start listening.
LikeLike
Harlan, are you not going to chime in on this red-ridden, marxist hog wash?
If you did, it would be a perfect holiday gift for those of us in dire need of amusement . . . .
LikeLike
Robert Rendo: your wish has been granted albeit by another, because there is always someone else to take up the cause of the “new civil rights movement,” i.e., the defense of the badly misunderstood, unappreciated, and downtrodden BBC and their edubully allies and underlings. If you don’t believe me, read below and, well, laugh. *BBC = Billionaire Boys Club.*
😄
Nonetheless, in the generous spirit of today’s blog postings and most of the comments on today’s threads, let me say this: Mr. Harlan Underhill posted two comments re Diane’s recent health issues that were short, appropriate, and well-intentioned. They did him credit. On this day of remembering the better sides of our nature, let us err on the side of the angels and be equally generous in recognizing good deeds.
Of course, there’s always tomorrow, and I expect you will continue to remind one and all that here on Planet Reality we don’t cotton to the creative destructionists from RheeWorld.
Really!
Not rheeally!
And when you think of all those school boards run by the self-styled “education reformers,” just remember that Mark Twain had them pegged way back when:
“In the first place, God made idiots. That was for practice. Then he made school boards.”
😎
LikeLike
KTA,
Thank you for the reminder of balancing kindness with appropriate vitriol. HU was kind with regard to Diane’s health as I recall.
Please keep posting, as I shall keep reading…….
LikeLike
Love the Mark Twain words of wisdom;^)
LikeLike
Dear Diane,
Thank you for continuing to push this point home. As a former math teacher, alternative high school principal and a sociologist of education, youth who live in poverty do perform just as well as those given considerable more advantages in intensive school programs that “equalize” advantages… Those advantages include homes and summers full of books. Schooling through music lessons, the teamwork learned in sports’ programs and the understanding of how to gain advantage, behave entitled, take opportunities not given to others and advocate for themselves instead of “respecting” authority.
As an early career scholar, I am grateful for your endurance and clarity. I writing my own blog about who benefits from CC. Happy Holidays and please continue doing all you need to do to stay happy, healthy, inspired, and strong!
LikeLike
When asked about the hours outside of the school day as influencing a students’s ability to learn, one very influential reformer in Colorado told me five years ago, “We can only be responsible for what happens in the classroom. We cannot be responsible for poverty and other conditions and situations going on in a child’s life.” Education reform is a diversion and a money making proposition and an anti-intellectual movement.
Jeannie Kaplan
Denver, Colorado
LikeLike
In this interview with Henry Giroux by Bill Moyers, Giroux really nails the problem.
http://billmoyers.com/segment/henry-giroux-on-zombie-politics/
LikeLike
“when Margaret Thatcher married Ronald Reagan”
Ain’t it the truth. Has it occurred to anyone that all the craziness of the Reagan-Thatcher era, which continues to impact us economically and socially today, may have been born from dementia –since they both had Alzheimers? Talk about a marriage made in hell…
LikeLike
And we might add when Thatcher “married” Pinochet, the bloody dictator of Chile that all the free market laissez-faire capitalists are so in love with.
LikeLike
A menage a trois made in hell!!
LikeLike
How sad that the anti-social feel the need to come here and defend inequity and oppression on Christmas day. Keep revealing the truth, Diane! Haters may be vocal but they are the minority and good will ultimately prevail.
LikeLike
Take a minute to think through the causality here. The dispossessed American poor aren’t “the problem”, but mobilizing to defend ourselves is the solution.
In terms of causality, the driving force of the obscene poverty is the obscene wealth, not “the unfettered market”. This is no free market. Instead, our current work output and the accumulated wealth of generations is awarded (by stealth, deception, and corruption) to the oligarchs, who pretend to have somehow created it.
For instance, the Walton family corrupts and cripples our productive capacity, undermines democratic control of own government, and also bribes and corrupts the rulers of our slave-wage, environmentally degraded “competitors”.
A tiny class of parasites has bought up the advocacy industry, so writers and pundits say whatever will attract their attention and approval. Their wealth bends the power of the state itself to uphold their monopoly rents, and to facilitate their theft of ever more resources.
I think the neoliberals overreached when they specifically went after the teachers. As John Dewey famously said, “It’s the power of action that calls reason into being.” Once we find ourselves acting to defend ourselves, our communities, and our people, we call up clear analyses like this one.
And, united by analyses like this, our actions can and must become ever more effective.
LikeLike
Wealth does not cause poverty, though it can create inequality. There is a sense here that the economy is zero sum, that is for A to gain wealth, B must lose. That is not the case. The economy is positive sum: both A and B can gain, though one matey gain more than the other.
LikeLike
While, theoretically, it IS true that wealth is not zero-sum, the wealthy sure think it is a zero-sum game. This is considering the threats big corporations and big sports teams and other groups of powerful and wealthy individuals give when they want taxpayers to fund their stadiums or give them tax breaks or whatever. It seems that many of the 1% feel that the only way they can get more wealth and power is to take it from someone else.
LikeLike
TE,
I strongly recommend that you read a book called “The Spirit Level.” It contains impressive evidence that societies are happier, more productive, and healthier when there is less inequality. Income I equality and wealth inequality are in themselves sources of misery. It is possible to imagine a society with a 1% composed of billionaires living harmoniously with a strong and vibrant middle class, and no poverty. But that does not describe our society. Our middle class is shrinking while a large portion of our population lives in degrading poverty. I am not ok with that. Are you?
LikeLike
I certainly agree that income inequality can make people unhappy. My comment concerned the claim that wealth created poverty. This is not true. Poverty existed long before wealth.
Would folks here be stunned to know that the US poverty rate in the late 1950s was 22.4% while in 2010 it was 15.1%? That in 1950 34% of all US households lacked complete indoor plumbing? Poverty was worse in the 1950s than today by every reasonable measure other than vague childhood memories.
The good news is that the increase in inequality in the US is most likely caused by the reduction in poverty in the developing world, especially China. Now that Chinese citizens are participating in the global economy and have a shrinking labor force that is earning higher and higher wages, it is likely that the income distribution in the United States will become more equal.
LikeLike
I don’t buy it. Just like in America, China does not have enough jobs with decent wages for college grads: http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2013/08/22/213833434/chinas-college-grads-face-a-new-reality-fewer-jobs
LikeLike
“Poverty existed long before wealth”?? What a ridiculous statement. When did wealth ever *not* exist?
Further, if wealth creates inequality, then indirectly it does create poverty. If it were possible to have a society in which everyone earned and owed exactly the same (a conservative’s nightmare, I know), there would be no poverty. Poverty is a direct result of vastly uneven distribution of wealth – the wealthy control so much of the wealth that the little remaining wealth buys almost nothing.
LikeLike
Actually hunter gatherer societies typically have very equal income distributions and often live on the edge of survival. You would not consider members of those societies poor?
Let’s think of some concrete examples. Bill Gates is an unpopular fellow here, so this should be easy. How did Bill Gates becoming rich cause someone else to become poor? What is the causal mechanism?
LikeLike
TE, yes obscene wealth causes poverty. You may argue that it need not, but it has. The proof is the condition of the American people.
The thin crust is abusing its clout to extract an ever greater tribute, for no return to the overall productive capacity. Krugman calls that “monopoly rents”.
When the wealthy corral regulatory control and just bleed the infrastructure, it freezes people out of productive contribution. The downward spiral profits the oligarch, but it’s wasteful, and it isn’t sustainable.
LikeLike
The poverty rate in the late 1950s was 22.4%, in 2010 it was 15.1%. Was the much higher poverty rate in the 1950s caused by much higher rates of obscene wealth?
LikeLike
The inequitable distribution of wealth in this country is not just about poverty rates. It’s also about “America’s Sinking Middle Class”
And no, I am not going to bite the bait and ride any more Mobious strips concocted by you, TE, so don’t ask me any questions.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t think of it.
LikeLike
The causes of our current economic collapse are different from the situation in the fifties, TE, and I suspect you know that. You’ve put a couple of beans in a can, and are maybe just rattling them to distract yourself.
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/papers/htrssmiv.htm
There were a number of poverty lines around in 1958, and right-leaning apologists for the current financial mess have bent them to silly arguments, instead of trying to think clearly. Nobody said all poverty is caused by speculative market capture by the super rich, but that’s the kind we’re talking about now.
The situation before the War on Poverty and the civil rights triumphs of the sixties has been explored at length. Yes, I was there, and yes, indoor plumbing hadn’t yet reached large areas of the rural South. I remember being glad when Martin Luther King spoke out against poverty, and I remember the editorial wars about the location of the statistical line for poverty, when Lyndon Johnson noticed I was hungry. I do remember being hungry.
But also, the aftereffects of the economic death spiral of the thirties still clutched at devastated small towns. Is that where you want to steer? I don’t think an honest economist would need to reduce any of these serious questions to silly soundbites.
LikeLike
So what was the cause of the 22.4 percent of households living in poverty in the late 1950s if not obscene wealth? How is it that the current poverty rate is so much lower?
“Obscene wealth causes poverty” is your bumper sticker, not mine.
LikeLike
Focusing on the 1950s is another distraction to avoid addressing the decline of the middle class over the past 30 years.
LikeLike
I posted about the 50s and early sixties because that is the earliest time that we have comparable data and because it was also the time when we had very high marginal tax rates.
My thought on the decline of the middle class in the United States is that it has come about in large measure because of the recovery of the rest of the world from the devastation of WW2, from ending of absurd economic policies, especially in China and the former soviet block, and the reduction in transportation and communication costs which have enlarged markets. What are your thoughts about it?
LikeLike
Sounds like chemtchr knows his/her economics better than teachingeconomisot. Social Security was enacted in the 1930s, but its impact on poverty rates gradually increased over the decades as the percentage of SS-covered elderly increased. Medicare and Medicaid were enacted in the 1960s, and immediately reduced poverty rates, again particularly for the elderly. Food stamps were also enacted in the 1960s and the earned income tax credit was enacted in 1975 and has been expanded over the years. These govt transfer programs all contributed to the cited reduction in the poverty rate since the 1950s.
However, changes in national policies since the late 1970s (particularly tax and labor, but also trade, immigration, corporate governance, and financial regulation) have increased income inequality by rechanneling an increasing percentage of national income and wealth from the middle class to the rich. Not sure if, on balance, the poor have suffered very much as a result of these changes in national policies; the growth of food stamps, housing subsidies, and the EITC have buffered the effect on the poor. Its the middle class that have suffered the most as a result of these changes in national policies.
The middle class have suffered in two ways. First, and most obviously, changes in tax and labor policies have rechanneled income from middle class workers to the rich. Second, and more importantly, all these changes in national policies have caused $ to escape from the US economy (by rechanneling $ from the spending middle class to the non-spending rich, by allowing US businesses to buy abroad but not sell abroad, and by dramatically increasing the number of immigrants working in the US and sending $ back to their home countries). This escaping $ means that there is insufficient demand for goods/services in the US economy; this, in turn, deters businesses from expanding; flat growth, in turn, causes under/unemployment to increase and causes downward pressure on wages. The net result is that middle-class families are working longer hours to bring home the same real income. All this is Eco 101. It’s depressing that so few prominent economists (other than Krugman) are explaining this in the media.
LikeLike
Lots of things to talk about here. Social security does have a large impact on poverty and poverty rates of the elderly, though there is a lot of leakage under current law. Medicare and Medicare both reduce poverty, but of course have no impact on poverty rates because they have no impact on before tax income. I think we agree that expanded transfer programs have reduced poverty and measured poverty since the small government days of the 1950s and earlier.
Where I think we disagree is in the causes of the stagnation of labor earnings in the United States. In my view the major cause has been the sudden expansion of the world economy to include the developing world, especially China. This has made what the middle class owned, skilled labor, less valuable relative to other assets in the economy. Add to that technical change which is always biased to try to reduce the use of expensive inputs, and high wage countries will experience low wage growth until the rest of the world catches up. National economic policy is not powerful enough to combat these trends.
LikeLike
It was our national and international policies, such as NAFTA, that resulted in the outsourcing of jobs and manufacturing to foreign countries and I see no reason why reigning that in, such as through regulation and taxation, could not reverse those trends.
LikeLike
>>A tiny class of parasites has bought up the advocacy industry, so writers and pundits say whatever will attract their attention and approval. Their wealth bends the power of the state itself to uphold their monopoly rents, and to facilitate their theft of ever more resources.<<
RIGHT ON
LikeLike
The alternative to higher taxes for the rich is to pay their workers a higher wage. Why is that supervisors/CEOs, the like, are paid 10xs more than their workers? I find this disparity discriminating. Look at the starting pay for a teacher versus a principal. Who works longer hours? Who is in the front lines w/kids everyday whose needs aren’t met at home? Who is being evaluated unfairly? What about pensions, benefits, etc.
Low wage workers should be able to at least afford groceries, a car, modest house in this country. Seems like we are persecuting workers to make a decent living. The cliche’ hard work will payoff makes it harder to believe in the American dream.
We are working harder and faster which has become humanly impossible to meet absurd demands. Like kids in Finland who have multiple recess; the same goes for adults. We are working harder for less. The banks who brought on the recession should be accountable. A slap on the wrist is like suspending a kid from school–increases the recidivism rate.
These billionaires need to distribute their wealth by paying higher taxes which should be earmarked for social services, affordable housing, creating jobs, education, etc. to help those on the other end of the spectrum. We don’t do a good job of holding the proper people accountable.
LikeLike
Good points, Jon. The top marginal tax rate in the 1950s was 91% and the country did not fall into ruin because the rich were paying more in taxes. The effective tax rate in the 1950s was about 51% because of all the tax loopholes. Now the top marginal tax rate is 39.6% and there are still a myriad of loopholes for the rich to pay even less taxes not to mention tax havens like the Cayman Islands. Many giant corporations don’t pay corporate income taxes for years on end, they get all kinds of tax cuts, tax abatements and sweetheart deals when they locate their plants in the 50 states; they get the states in bidding wars to see how little taxes they can get away with. Hedge fund managers pay a tax rate of about 17% on their capital gains.
LikeLike
YA THINK? And let’s not forget that your average numbers show CEO’s are making– not 10X– but– 276X– their average employee’s pay. What is so freaking complicated about this? Could it be,perhaps, time for workers to organize???
LikeLike
And when the multiple was much lower, poverty in the US was higher. I don’t think there is a simple relationship between the two.
LikeLike
Not only are the billionaires hell bent on privatizing the public schools with this phony baloney school choice ruse but they are also determined to gut, cut, slice, dice and destroy Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment insurance and any other social programs that assist the poor, the working poor and the disappearing middle class. The billionaire Pete Peterson has spent many millions of dollars in his war against Social Security, it’s like his own personal jihad. Peterson is just one of many billionaires who are determined to destroy all these social programs and to destroy public education as we know it. Thanks so much Diane for having the courage to bring up the horrible wealth, wage and income inequality of this nation. The usual suspects will scream socialism, socialism, socialism, socialism, socialism, socialism. If you were a socialist, you would be in good company because the author of our Pledge of Allegiance, Francis Bellamy, was a socialist, a democratic socialist NOT a Castro or Stalin type “socialist.” Too many in the billionaire class are not satisfied with all their wealth, that is not enough for them; they want to make sure that the poor stay poor with no minimum wage and no paid sick leave. The top one per centers are also hell bent on destroying defined benefit pensions, unions, worker bargaining rights and genuine health benefits (just look at Walmart and Target). Mikefromlongisland is one big predictable yawn. Should I accuse him of being a fascist? I won’t because Diane conducts a civilized decent blog.
LikeLike
Thank you, Diane. Please know that IMO your work is among the very most important education and organizing being done to take on the whole picture. The whole thing. Children are the most vulnerable, and also the most touching victims of this horror. Our work to protect them via the institutions where they spend most of their time is, therefore, cutting edge when it comes to making people aware of the huge issues. AND because schools have not yet been completely privatized, and still belong to “the public,” we can in good conscience call on our sister and brother citizens to take responsibility here. For many this can be a first step in understanding this reality which, as you point out, is so huge and yet so wel hidden.
LikeLike
Good discussion on income inequality with Amy Goodman and Robert Reich: http://www.democracynow.org/2013/9/13/inequality_for_all_robert_reich_warns If that link doesn’t work just google for the show.
LikeLike
When confronted with the fact that 80% of the country controls only 7% of the wealth, it becomes absolutely absurd to me that Congress would be diligently trying to cut entitlements.
LikeLike
How about the GOP Congressman from GA, Jack Kingston, who, like New Gingrich a couple years ago, said last week that poor children on the federal food program should have to work for their lunches, because they shouldn’t be sent the message that they can get a free lunch?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/18/jack-kingston-school-lunch_n_4467711.html
No concern was expressed about all the privileged kids who are getting that same message when their parents buy their lunch. Why should any child have to worry about where their food is coming from? Thank goodness we have child labor laws to protect kids from anti-social politicians who want to send messages to certain populations of children.
LikeLike
watch out for those child labor laws– they may be next on the agenda.
LikeLike
They already are next on the agenda. Was it McCain or Romney who openly wanted poor kids to have to work for their free lunch? Apparently they thought that would be a good campaign issue, so they at least believe (probably correctly) that they are speaking to a like-minded crowd. And I believe some other nut case just recently raised the issue again.
LikeLike
It was Newt Gingrich previously and Jack Kingston last week, as mentioned in the post by Not a Public School Teacher.
LikeLike
Absolutely no coincidence. The question is why the “look over there” away from poverty is persuading so many liberals and civil rights leaders to be distracted.
LikeLike
Because when most politicians claim to be “liberal”, what they’re actually saying is neoliberal.
LikeLike
CaChing: Because “Corporate Funding of Urban League, NAACP & Civil Rights Orgs Has Turned Into Corporate Leadership”
http://www.blackagendareport.com/corporate-funding-urban-league-naacp-civil-rights-orgs-has-turned-corporate-leadership
LikeLike
Diane has certainly earned her place on the cover of the Jan 6/13 issue of The Nation as one of the top names of the “2013 Progressive Honor Roll”.
LikeLike
Please write to your representatives and ask them to repeal the law that forces you to read Diane’s blog.
LikeLike
Perfect example of how the anti-social are a cocktail mix of a shot of false pretense, a shot of hubris and two shots of Schadenfraude.
LikeLike
And we have a winner! (to be clear: Reteach, NOT Mike!)
LikeLike
“[Rich Business] Man,” said the Ghost, “if man you be in heart, not adamant [i.e. not made of stone], forbear that wicked cant [i.e., the canting phrase, “correlation does not imply causation”] until you have discovered What the surplus [population] is, and Where it is. Will you decide what men shall live, what men shall die? It may be, that in the sight of Heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man’s child. Oh God! To hear the Insect on the leaf pronouncing on the too-much-life among his hungry brothers in the dust.” — Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol.
Of A Christmas Carol, Dickens wrote in 1843:
“I have endeavoured in this Ghostly little book, to raise the Ghost of an Idea, which shall not put my readers out of humour with themselves, with each other, with the season, or with me. May it haunt their houses pleasantly… ”
****
173 years later, conservatives are still out of humour with Dickens’ simple ideas, kicking against the pricks impelling them to basic decency. — From David Atkins favorite quotation from “A Christmas Carol” via Hullaballoo, by Digby — Annotations added
LikeLike
Dickens? That Charles Dickens? Why he’s just a damn commie, a socialist like Jesus and the current pope. All lousy socialists who want to help the poor with other people’s money, yeah that sounds about right. (sarcasm alert)
LikeLike
http://www.upworthy.com/take-two-normal-people-add-money-to-just-one-of-them-and-watch-what-happens-next?c=ufb2
And then comes the sense of entitlement.
LikeLike
Thanks for that link – that’s astounding. Not surprising, but astounding.
LikeLike
If “edu-reformers ” wanted to truly improve public education, they would directly address the conditions of poverty. They do not because there is no money to be made in the process of improving the lives of the poor.
LikeLike
It will bite them in the end. (Pun intended.)
LikeLike
readingexchange, you took the words right out of my mouth.
LikeLike
Seems pretty clear to me. After working in school systems for 40 years I have seen a multitude of programs come and go…all promising to close the achievement gap. (1) It is preferable in a capitalistic state to oppress the masses, including there knowledge base and (2) there is a great deal of money being poured into this [supposed] challenge. Between publishing, assessing and distribution it’s enough to keep at least part of the 1% vacationing in the Cajun Islands where their money is kept warm. One need only to ask, “whose relative is affiliated with this vendor?” to usually find the connection. Let’s face it poverty can promote many jobs, interns, fellowships, foundations, mentors, special supervisors and collection agencies to just the right people. I knew of a new school principal who was being mentored by a retired school principal while she mentored an up and coming principal to be……….
LikeLike
I think you are absolutely right. But action needs to be taken, no?
LikeLike
The article ends with, “Do the big corporations support charters and TFA as a way of diverting our eyes from the singular cause of low academic performance?..” I think most of us know the answer to this question … steering education away from the “pvoerty issue” enables the 1 percent to maintain their wealth at our expense. Sadly, how do “we the people” gain our voice back??? This is the question!!!
LikeLike
Yes. I’m beginning to think the answer is: workers unite!
LikeLike
There are several other names for “edu-economics”, namely, junk science and flat earthism.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Transparent Christina.
LikeLike
Generational poverty does produce hunger, stress, worry, exhaustion, hopelessness, fear, illness, ignorance, learning disabilities, continued dependency, complacency, and apathy.
Generational poverty does limit personal motivation, language acquisition, natural curiosity, quality of life experiences, reading and speaking skills, educational expectations, personal expectations, and overall school readiness.
To debate whether [generational] poverty correlates with, or causes, poor school performance is a fool’s errand. To suggest that educational reform through tougher standards and impossible exams will somehow magically over ride the above makes you just a fool.
LikeLike
Well said, NY teacher.
LikeLike
Diand,
Thanks for keep your eyes on the real iss. The ‘reformers’ play a ‘shell game’, to keep the public from identifying the causes, Now, if we has a history of respecting inellectuals, rather than demeaning them, the prognosis would be far more optimistic. How many years ago, did Richard Ho,write “Anti Intellectualism in American Life”? If anything, we sink deper into the hole.
LikeLike
Some folks might be interested in reading “What is the Point of Equality” by Elizabeth Anderson. Dr. Anderson is the Arthur F. Thurnau Professor and John Dewey Distinguished University Professor of Philosophy and Women’s Studies at the University of Michigan.
Here is a link: http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/ElizabethAndersonWhatIsthePointofEquality.pdf
LikeLike
Interesting indeed. Again, for the umpteenth time: Would recommend the book: “Why Nations Fail”. Identify their impeccable research with what is happening in the U. S. today. Read and weep.
LikeLike
Once again, agin, how about confronting Richard Hofstadter’s brilliant work : “Anti Intellectualism In American Life”. As to the direct and causal connection between SES and educational achievement, that is what used to be called “black letter law”. It is a huge waste of time and energy to be diverted into arguing with those who believe otherwise. We have before us the virtual dismantling of the American public schools. Given that the question of increasing direct inputs into rebuilding the social safety net and/or stripping the one per cent of what they seem to believe is their god given entitlement to rule in the manner that best meets their needs, how can we slow down this seemingly inexorable process. There are alternatives to the current social and political paradigm, if only the dominant paradigm could be made problematic.
LikeLike