Quote:
Originally Posted by tmg19103
Some complain that a "culture of poverty" with its ensuing violence that you see in parts of Philly has encouraged a sense of dependency on government in the form of a welfare state, and to an extent I agree. Of course, in recent months, this same bureaucracy - the Federal Reserve, the Federal Housing Authority, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - has generally ignored the struggles of middle class homeowners, but they jumped right into action, inclusive of printing hundreds of billions of dollars out of thin air, to save multi-millionaire Wall Street bankers from their own disastrous bets, allowing them to keep their yachts, lear jets and second and third homes. . . .
|
I agree with much of what you said in your entire post.
Couple things to consider. The Wall St. bankers that got bailed out not only employ many thousands of middle class workers but are also critical to a free flow of capital that allows many others to employ thousands of middle class workers. There's much more to it than Lear jets and yachts. That said, it does just go to show that both the poor and the rich have some major issues with discipline and responsibility, and it does point out how easy it is to blast the poor for lack of responsibility while ignoring the failings of the Lear jet set.
Likewise, those at the top do not destroy the middle class or keep wages down all on their own. Those at the top are the shareholders who both follow the "golden rule" (heh, heh) and provide the build up and investment of capital needed to provide all those middle class jobs. As long as the fat cats in management bring home the bacon, the shareholders are not going to get over-excited about disparity of wages.
Wages are a function of supply and demand and are affected by globalization. In some sense, (we) workers bear some responsibility for lack of competitiveness and relatively recent changes in terms of globalization have added a lot of pressure. As unfortunate as it may seem, expectations may need to be adjusted in the short term to retain jobs that will add to our economic power over the long haul. Nobody, not the shareholders and not the workers, have really been willing to make any sacrifices on that score (with some exceptions, such as certain union give backs to save jobs).
The focus on management salaries may be misplaced in terms of relative total cost. Millions to a CEO is a spit in the ocean in terms of the total labor costs of a large organization. But it does get headlines.
Well, I've rambled enough. The important points, I guess, are the ones you made concerning opportunity for lower skilled workers. Until we all are willing to pay more for a head of lettuce or a McDonald's lunch, illegal immigration remains on the radar as an excused way to fill the jobs "Americans won't do." Until we are all willing to make the sacrifice to steer clear of WalMart cheap Chinese goods and buy what's made here and pay what it really costs to make stuff here, none of us can really complain that jobs keep fleeing overseas and that there are few options for a lower skilled worker to climb out of poverty. Last, until some in this country learn that the regulatory and tax structure here, while maybe well meaning, stifles growth and actually ends up causing great harm to the poor (as well as the middle class), nothing will ever really change.
Locally and in the short term, we need more cops, more DAs, more prison beds and more recidivist programs.
