Posted on 05/27/2005 7:51:18 PM PDT by blam
China is about half way there.
Actually, I read a study somewhere on the net that there is more inter-generational economic mobility in the UK than the US. The economic mobility in the US is way overdone. It is part of the national ethos, and that has its own import, but the numbers don't support the assertion.
CAPITAL By DAVID WESSEL
How Parents, Genes and Success Intersect May 26, 2005; Page A2
Incoming email suggests that recent Wall Street Journal stories on mobility from one generation of Americans to the next confirm readers' prejudices: Some read the stories as proof that the American glass is half full; others read it as evidence that it's half empty.
The opening story reported several facts: Escalators of social mobility haven't compensated for the growing distance between economic cellar and penthouse; America has become more unequal in the past 35 years, but it's no more common for people to rise from poverty to prosperity or to fall from wealth to the middle class. Researchers find less intergenerational mobility in the U.S. than academics believed a couple of decades ago. And available evidence suggests that an American's economic fate is more closely tied to his or her parents than a continental European's.
Interesting. What if we look only at the subset of immigrant families?
Immigrants are another whole ball of wax for obvious reasons. You have to look at native born generations.
I have family living and working in the City of Detroit(albeit not in the worst parts). My parents lived for several years in Detroit(city itself) before tiring of the city, and left for the country(even bypassing the suburbs).
Americans are willing for those places to be like that, because to make them markedly better - to make them like tough blue collar working class neighborhoods - would cost far more money than Americans are willing to spend on that segment of society
Disagree. Michigan, as well as the feds, have spent billions and billions (if not trillions) of dollars trying to fix Detroit over the last 30+ years. You can give away the combined incomes of George Soros, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett, and nothing will happen to fix Detroit....unless the people of Detroit choose to fix their city themselves - which I hope happens, as Detroit is the face of Michigan to the entire world.
There are several reasons why most of the city Detroit is in the shape it is in today. Some of them are:
1. Corruption. Coleman Young ran the city for 20 years destroying it. He was a racist who aliented all the whites. He was also so corrupt, that he made Chirac look like George Washington. There's rampant corrpution with the city council and also Wayne County governments.
2. Taxes and services. Detroit has higher tax rates than the rich surburbs of Grosse Pointe, Birmingham, and Bloomfield Hills. The city services are also poor despite the high taxes. There is also an income tax for those who live or work in the city that doesn't exist in those areas. Anyone who wants to raise a family in Detroit better pay major $$$ for private schools, since Detroit schools are among the worst in the state.
3. Dependence on one industry - The auto industry is to Detroit, like wine is to Bordeaux. The business cycle has always affected Michigan and Detroit more than the rest of the country. Currently, Michigan leads the nation in unemployment.
4. Crime.
5. Lack of will of Detroiters to change. Detroiters keep electing the same people to the city council and mayors office time and time again. They elected the corrupt school boards time and time again. Until this changes, Detroit will still keep giving downtown a facelift while ignoring the problems in many of their neighborhoods.
But why does Detroit have higher taxes?
Is it not that there is a smaller base of taxes, but a large population with great needs?
Is it not that the value of land is very low there, and the value of income of the people living in Detroit is very low. But the cost to educate a student or to provide health care for people on welfare is the same as elsewhere. And so is it not true that in order to get enough money to run those services from poorer people, that Detroit must tax more?
Isn't it true that schools in America, instead of being part of a uniform national system and funded based upon needs from the national state so that there is parity, are instead funded and directed by each and every separate community? Doesn't that mean that poorer areas, like Detroit, have bad schools because the only money is from Detroit, while wealthy areas, like Beverly Hills, have very good schools because the property values in such areas are very high, so even with lower tax rates more money is taken in?
You say that Detroiters do not WANT to change, but isn't this a matter of a lack of education? In France, the national education system would be imparting the national values there. But in America, each locality is on its own. So, places that have intelligent residents do well, but places that are already blighted are relying on people who already don't know what they are doing to direct the school systems that are supposed to teach children to not be like their parents, where their parents are not functioning well.
But what needs do Detroit have that any other community does not also need? Schools, Trash collection, city police, water system, fire department, and a park system. Even my middle-class community of 10,000 people needs those. What is more important? One household with a $200,000 home paying $6000+ in taxes, or 5 households in 200,000 homes paying $3000 in taxes? The lower taxes increase revenues since more people will be apt to move to Detroit if the costs there are a bargain elsewhere. Currently, it costs more to live in a poorer neighborhood in Detroit because of taxes, than it does in a working or middle class area in the surburbs. The city services in the burbs are much better than Detroit.
Is it not that the value of land is very low there, and the value of income of the people living in Detroit is very low.
There's actually diverse income ranges in Detroit, although as a whole, Detroiters are poorer than most of the rest of the state. In order to gain more tax revenue, Detroit needs to attract more residents. By raising taxes, they will be driving out (as they have) the rest of the working and middle class to neighboring Southfield(surburban) and other areas. All of the Detroit metropolitan area's communities compete against one another.
But the cost to educate a student or to provide health care for people on welfare is the same as elsewhere. And so is it not true that in order to get enough money to run those services from poorer people, that Detroit must tax more?
All of the federal(national) funds (outside of Social Security) are given through revenue sharing systems (From USA to State to County) with states(provinces) or through subsidities. It's complicated, and hard for me to explain, and even I don't know all the particulars on revenue sharing. In its most simplistic view, Detroiters pay the federal income tax, Social Security Tax, state income tax, state sales taxes, local property taxes, and city income tax. Much of the state money also funds county and city services through bureaucratic revenue sharing. Most of the local money is funded through taxes on homeowners and businesses' property values.
Isn't it true that schools in America, instead of being part of a uniform national system and funded based upon needs from the national state so that there is parity, are instead funded and directed by each and every separate community?
It depends on the state. In Michigan's case, it is a combination of the state and local communities. Each community elects a school board for their local district. They have the most say on matters. Schools in Michigan are funded by the sales taxes, and also by property taxes. The funding by the state depends on how much money per student. Detroit actually gets more money per student than the school district I went to. However, my district was highly rated.
Doesn't that mean that poorer areas, like Detroit, have bad schools because the only money is from Detroit, while wealthy areas, like Beverly Hills, have very good schools because the property values in such areas are very high, so even with lower tax rates more money is taken in?
California and Michigan operate under different state governments. I am unaware of how California funds their schools. There is some disparity between the rich districts (Bloomfield Hills) and poor districts in Michigan (Not sure actually what Detroit was considered since they had a lot of corporate tax money in their property tax revenues), although the passage of "Proposal A"(which changed funding from all property taxes to mostly sales taxes, with some property taxes) fixed much of that, but raising the funding of the poorer areas, which were mostly rural areas with little revenue from businesses. The rich districts pay more in taxes and have more revenue for their schools, as that was the compromise for proposal A to pass.
You say that Detroiters do not WANT to change, but isn't this a matter of a lack of education?
I don't believe so. I believe it is due to lack of effort, and also a lack of trust. The lack of trust is due to anamosity between the city of Detroit and it's surburbs. The city blames the suburbs for its decline as they are mostly white(outside of Southfield and a few others). After 1967(riot), there was a mass exodus of white residents from the City of Detroit, which has continued for 30 years. It is tough for someone today who is 'too close' to white surburbanites to win election in Detroit. It's about as popular as being "too friendly" with President Bush over at the Le Monde newspaper offices.
The lack of effort is a problem that affects not just Detroit, but everywhere, including wealthy white areas. Very few citizens are truly well informed about government and politics Most can name our president, and some can name our governor, vice president, and some senators. Very few know who their representatives are at the local level. Most just have the attitude of "I hate politics. I'm not voting since I don't like any of them, and my vote doesn't count anyway." Anyone can read a paper, or even turn on the TV, let alone the internet, to find out information on their local representatives running for office, including the school board. And even when they do not know most of the information, they should know better when their current representatives are doing a poor job and vote for someone better next time.
So, places that have intelligent residents do well, but places that are already blighted are relying on people who already don't know what they are doing to direct the school systems that are supposed to teach children to not be like their parents, where their parents are not functioning well.
For all the jokes here on FR about Detroit, I truly believe that there is a group of intelligent citizens in that city capable of learning on their own, and who are intelligent enough to fix the city if they chose to. Unfortunatly, there is a large toleration of corruption because "That's just the way it's always been." My great-grandfather (a Detroiter) was the son of Irish immigrants and only had an 8th grade education. He invented balancing machines. He used that intelligence to survive the Great Depression, which made the poverty of 2005 Detroit look like a rich area.
That's why I believe the intelligence is there, but I question the effort.
"The particle "de" in French names indicated nobility.
Thus, Valery Giscard d'Estaing (a distant descendant of the Admiral who won the American Revolution battle off of Yorktown), "
The "de" means nothing of the kind in the case of Giscard, and in many other cases. Giscard's family purchased the "de" ... DUH! That doesn't make him anything but a phony and a fake.
Your entire analysis of society rests on a Marxist model which has been totally discredited and has no validity .After the colossal failure of Socialism and Communism which brought only misery, poverty, terror, and repression, it has been rejected by almost everyone.
The entire EU vote in France was ginned up using the class warfare arguments. Class divisions still are very stroing in France. Much less so, or not at all so in the US. We are a nation with a strong middle class 80% of the population.
People who are not middle class want to get into the middle class.
70% of all Americans own their own home.
In your Socialist paradise, France, the percentage is....?
"when an American hears the words of his founding Declaration "all men are created equal, and are endowed by his creator with certain unalienable rights..."
How dare you pretend to assume what Americans think on that? You are wrong.
Most Americans hear that and understand very clearly that "all men are created equal" has absolutely NOTHING to do with race, but that we are all created equal in the imagee of God and are equal in the eyes of God. " endowed by the Creator with with certain unalienable rights..." It means that all rights are given by God, not by man or governments and are inalienable, therefore cannot be taken away by man or governments.
Where do you pick up this hooey about the US?
Hey Monsieur blue blood. I probably know more French people and have more in my family from truly aristocratic families that you do.
Many of them are intelligent, some are dullards and slobs.
Most of them are unassuming, modest and discreet. They regard braggarts like you as phoneys and outsiders trying to rise above their station in life.
America banned a nobility for reason, and Americans are prohibited from bearing, receiving and using titles.
One more reason to respect the wisdom of the Founders, and thank God we have our Constitution and way of life instead of a society driven by class warfare.
Where is the solidarity and social responsibility in a country that refuses to contribute a day's pay to aid the elderly, and goes on strike to protest against it?
Far from the Euro weasels to give us lessons in democracy, equality, or generosity.
How much volunteer work do you and your ilk do a week? How much does your "noble" family contribute to charity every year?
You wrote this: "By raising taxes, they will be driving out (as they have) the rest of the working and middle class to neighboring Southfield(surburban) and other areas."
But later you wrote about a riot in 1967 after which white people fled the city.
Was it high taxes that drove out the middle class, or was it a riot? (And why was there a riot? High taxes?)
I wonder if things are being attributed to an economic philosophy that have more to do with violence and warfare. People flee war zones even if they are popular.
"70% of all Americans own their own home.
In your Socialist paradise, France, the percentage is....?"
According to the United States Census Bureau, in the United States 68% of Americans own their homes. (However, 70% of inhabitants of New York City, 60% of inhabitants of Chicago, and 65% of inhabitants of San Francisco rent.)
In France, 62% of inhabitants own their homes.
In other words, the countries are very comparable.
This is completely off topic, but why are the French so fascinated by Richard Nixon?
France is fascinated by Richard Nixon?
I had heard of the supposed fascination with Jerry Lewis, but Richard Nixon?
If one wished to find an iconic political figure with whom the French might be described as "fascinated" in the world today, one would have to look...well...nobody is fascinated with any political leaders of today.
Probably the figure of recent history for whom the French have the greatest respect, in the sense of wishing that politicians in France would stand up for them like that - is La Dame de Fer: Margaret Thatcher.
Mme. Thatcher banged her handbag on the table and all of the leaders of Europe cowered and fawned and gave the UK billions in allowances that were not justifiable on the formal economic logic of things. But of course politics is not a game of numeric logic but emotional. La Dame de Fer emasculated the leaders of Europe and created a separate regime for her country that suited Britain's interests, and which allowed the British to operate apart and with special advantages until her less fearsome successors bargained these advantages away.
France wants a Margaret Thatcher. Unfortunately, what France gets is Dominique de Villepin, Chi-Chi's little trained poodle. And the one politician who has Mme. Thatcher's spine has Hitler's mentality (Le Pen).
Forecast: much heat. More fog.
It was(and is) a combination of the two, as well as schools, city services, and rampant corruption.
"They should face facts and just name it old Europe."
Touche.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.