In her book "Marriage and Caste in America," Kay Hymowitz makes a very compelling argument that the growing divide in family structure seen between different segments of the United States is a major factor in the increase in economic equality. Most "progressives" will recoil at me "blaming the victim," so I will break this down to the simplest facts:
1. The majority of households headed by single mother has one income and the majority of households with two parents have dual incomes.
2. If a single mother was wealthy and educated, this would not be as much of an economic issue. But, single mothers are far more likely to be poor and uneducated.
3. Together these two factors dramatically increase the probability that a single parent household will be low income and economically immobile.
4. There has been a tremendous growth in single motherhood. Since 1980 the number has risen from 18% to nearly 40%. Among African-Americans it has surpassed 70%, among Hispanics it has surpassed 50% and among whites it has risen to 28%.
5. Conversely households headed by two parents are far less likely to be poor and tend to advance economically and socially relative to their single parent counterparts.
6. In addition, traditional families generally are better equipped to provide their children an upbrining and environment that will help them advance educationally and economically.
7. Clearly these socio-economic developments are contributing to the growing economic inequality among American families.
8. Without a debt welfare in its present form has subsidized pathological behaviors such as having children out of wedlock.
9. So, paradoxically welfare has indirectly contributed to the growing economic inequality.
http://chicago-freedom-forum.blogspot.com/2009/02/can-anyone-explain.html
Valid points here. But they don't explain coorporate tax breaks, no-bid government contracts, diversion of funds, $30 NSF fees, $30 late fees, oil 'futures', obscene health care profits, excessive medical testing, health care charity/research and development scams, bogus Hollywood/pro sports charities, coorporate welfare, multi-million endorsement deals, multi-million dollar lawsuits, commercial lobbyists, capital to divend conversions, or Wall Street accounting scams. These have all contributed to growing economic divide and economic instability. All were motivated by a particular form of evil. Or is the 'G' word word off limits here? Thats just an assumption on my part based on the partisan vibes I'm getting here. Let me take a wild guess. You lean to the right?
ReplyDeleteBy the way. The vast, overwhelming majority of politicians from both sides of the isle were also raised in traditional two parent households. Still, they sold out. How can that be? 'G' I wonder.
It does not have to be an either-or equation. The factors you listed may be valid, but so is the changing family structure.
ReplyDeleteMy take on greed is:
1. The definition of greed is someone who wants $1 more than you deem necessary.
2. The desire for personal gain is always present and is an incentive for economic activity.
3. Often the biggest limitation of excessively expensive goods and service is a competitive free-market. I want to charge $10,000 for my apartment, but market forces only allow me to charge $1,000 and so on.
4. So, the question to ask is why do these market forces not push us towards more cost effective health care. Is it ill conceived government regulation? Is it a lack of regulation? Is it 3rd factors like law suites and demographics (an aging population)?
You make it seem as if defining greed in any way is a shallow effort. It surely is in some cases but some of us consider the impact had on others. Real hardship felt in the real world. A complete disregard for that hardship on the part of the 'greedy' or an absolute refusal to do the right thing. In my state, ordinary people have been laid off by pro-sports teams because attendance is down. Its down because the transfer of wealth from poor to rich can no longer be sustained at the same rate. Something has to give. Still, the filthy rich players havn't made any sacrifice. In fact, those running Lebron James' charitable 'foundation' (what a sham) decided to roll back some of the goals set for 2009. That makes my blood boil. Lebron wouldn't be paid millions to throw a ball or endorse a product if it weren't for those ignorant fans in so many major cities dumb enough to pay $150 for a pair of shoes with his name on them just to get mugged by another celebrity junkie who can't afford the $150. Others can't afford to keep donating money to bogus celebrity charities. Still, the goals set for his 'foundation' have ben rolled back because Lebron is too stingy to fund the projects of his foundation/PR firm with his own name on it with more of the money that came from those big cities and neglected neighborhoods to begin with. I don't care how polite he is for the camera. That means nothing to me. He epitomizes greed. Its another collosal injustice.
ReplyDelete