Census finds record gap between Rich and Poor

[Trajan]

millions, student loans

My student loans cost me 7% in interest and took me 10 years to pay off... and I only borrowed 7K. How on earth is someone supposed to pay off 100K and start a family, buy a house, start a business, plan for retirement, invest etc. Do you not think that starting out in this big of a hole is a problem for millions in this country??? An electrical engineer is a very important, skilled worker, but you don't start out making six figures, you know. Do you think that the high price of education, especially in science, technology and medicine are some of the reasons that we are lacking educated people in these areas so much that we have to import them from Europe and the far east? Did that ever occur to you?

uhmm, how old are you?

 

[Bern80]

Good for him.. glad to hear it... glad to see someone made some great choices in what they did, how they did it, etc.... just as many now need to take care of their personal wants and needs with proper choices and actions...

Point is, you cannot even get away with this by working a FULL TIME job and going to school these days and being able to pay for it outright. That has nothing to do w/choices...

No. YOU are missing the point. Who says the way things were is the best way to do it? The reason some of the practices of businesses in the 'glory days' stopped is because they were unsustainable. Like, as I mentioned before, defined benefit retirement plans. Businesses, I imagine, looked at their books and said 'wait a minute we simply don't have the money to pay half salaries to all of these people once they retire until they die.

The point is your premise. And the premise seems to be that x amount of pay is 'supposed' to be able to pay for x amount of 'stuff' whether that be cars, chidlren's education, etc. Wells say who? Business doesn't operate that way. Can you imagine you go into an interview and you start not only dictating to your potentional employer what you need to make, but what you want your standard of living to be? As oppossed to say what your skills are actually worth.

 

[Bern80]

This is as good a place as any for this little rant:

People and especially the left absouletely refuse to see the effect that human nature and personal decisions shape society and how it progresses as a whole.

The gap between rich and poor is as good an example as ay. What are the variables that are contributing to this widening gap? Libs go about blaming everything under the sun for this problem EXCEPT for one thing. Themselves. By themselves I mean the attitutudes and decisions of individuals. You people talk about the middle class as if it is something that is just suppossed to happen to you. Like it requires no effort on your part. Like you are ENTITLED to be middle class. First it indeed did take effort on the part of your parents to achieve middle class. I know it did mine. Second of all middle class now is not what middle class was then. Then you were middle class if you had ONE TV and it was in color. Now middle class is a TV in every room with satelite or cable. There was no such thing as cell phone bills or internet bills. To paraphrase it take more 'stuff' to be considered middle class now then it did then. Thus it's going to take more relative income. The problem is everyone wants those things but no one wants to hold themselves responsible for attaining them. As Dave pointed out, have that 'stuff' is the sole 'problem' of the person who wants that 'stuff'. Society doesn't owe you the status symbols that denote being middle class. It takes X amount of effort to get those things and probably more than it once did. Either you are willing to do the work or you're not. And another shift people need to wake up to is that the work is no longer about how hard you work. It's about how smart you work.

The other problem is that society tends to move toward greater and greater convenience. We move to that becuase we want things now and we want it to be easy. If it's too hard we won't do it. We are an instant gratification society. We have grown to expect things to happen with little effort. Unfortuantely attaining middle class takes effort and the reason it is disappearing is not because of whose getting what tax cuts, or 'evil' corporate america holding people down. It's because more and more people do not hold themselves accountable for why they are where they are and aren't willing to do what it takes to achieve more.

Sorry, but that is not true. The middle class is shrinking because the cost of goods and services has now outstripped wages. Wages have been stagnant since the 70's and are now in decline. It is exactly the "corporate culture", globalization and "free trade" agreements that hve caused this.

the u.s. middle class is being wiped out here's the stats to prove it: Tech Ticker, Yahoo! Finance

Afraid I can't agree. If you have to pay for things that didn't even exist 20-30 or even 10 years ago just to be considered middle class then the cost of being middle class has gone up and you need to adjust your decisions accordingly. To do a real analysis you would have to compare something like what kind of car you can get for $20,000 then vs what you can get now for he same adjusted for inflation. If you can do a comparison like that of some type I'm more than willing to entertain you.

There are so many variables that go into this and the above may be part of it. But you can't deny that there are things we take for granted, things we just have to have, that didn't even exist a couple days ago that have increased the cost of middle class standard of living. Another variable is the skill sets employers find valuable. That goes back on you. If you want more money it's your responsiblity to figure out what the labor market values. Assuming climbing telephone poles is going to yield the same income today as it did 20 years ago is ridiculous.

 

[Bfgrn]

That's what big government gets yous... Look at FDR and see...

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

There were two massive failures of extreme ideology in my lifetime...the Bolshevik revolution and the Reagan revolution. Unfettered communism and unfettered capitalism led to the same ends...FAILURE.

"Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country—they are America."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

[Wry Catcher]

I agree that acquiring luxury items one cannot afford is no way to live.

Yet people do it all the same.

And that is still not my problem... or at least it shouldn't be.

It is your problem, or have you not noticed how banks passed out credit cards for decades, and because banks loaned far beyond their means, many of them failed (and your money was needed to protect those who had deposits in such banks).

since the fdic is a federal agency what do you mean they would need our money to protect them?

Good grief, you need a road map?
Where does the FDIC get it's money? [The savings and loan and bank crisis of the 1980's cost the tax payers and estimated $150 billion (1980 dollars, btw)]. It is funded by Congress.

 

[Againsheila]

And you have the freedom to succeed that goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail...

Your earning or money envy has no end, wrongwinger

Yeah, right, that's why they gave the wealthy more than $140 billion in bailouts while ignoring the middle and lower classes.

 

[Againsheila]

The standard of living for the middle class is disappearing and we continue to reward the wealthy for it

Yeah right.
More people own cars, homes, TVs, computers, etc.
Most people have cell phones, I-Pads, pods etc.
TVs in evey room. Internet, cable, entertainment systems.
And that is just a small sample.

We are far better off then just 30 years ago.

My car is 14 years old, we have no cable. We have no modern tv, we had to get the boxes, which are really bad. In truth, analog was better, at least then if the signal wasn't perfect, you could still watch the show.

You are making things up to justify your position.

In the 70's, my parents had a newer, bigger home that wasn't a fixer upper. They bought a new car and trailer. We had enough money for our family to travel over the summer all over Canada. And we weren't wealthy by a long shot. Upshot is, my parents were better off in the 70,s when minimum wage had more spending power and the upper tax rate was 70% than we are now with minimum wage having the lowest spending power in history and the upper tax rate being on the middle class instead of just the wealthy.

 

[The T]

Census finds record gap between rich and poor Americans -

The income gap between rich and poor Americans grew to the widest amount on record and represents the greatest disparity among Western industrialized nations, according to U.S. Census data.

The census finds that the top-earning 20% of Americans (those making $100,000 each year) received 49.4% of all income generated in the U.S., compared with the 3.4% earned by those below the poverty line.

That ratio of 14.5-to-1 was an increase from 13.6 in 2008 and nearly double a low of 7.69 in 1968, the Associated Press reports.

At the top, the wealthiest 5% of Americans, who earn more than $180,000, added slightly to their annual incomes last year, the data show. Families at the $50,000 median level slipped lower.

Is this of any surprise? Class warfare on the march.

 

[Bfgrn]

Even the useful idiot Bush questioned his own tax cuts for the rich, but he caved into his 'puppetmasters'

Paul O'Neill, George Bush's first Treasury Secretary

Bush questioned second set of tax cuts for the rich - 60 Minutes - CBS News

The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress. But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, Suskind writes that O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.

“Cheney, at this moment, shows his hand,” says Suskind. “He says, ‘You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.’ … O'Neill is speechless.”

”It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society,” says O’Neill. “And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction.”

...

“It's a huge meeting. You got Dick Cheney from the, you know, secure location on the video. The President is there,” says Suskind, who was given a nearly verbatim transcript by someone who attended the meeting.

He says everyone expected Mr. Bush to rubber stamp the plan under discussion: a big new tax cut. But, according to Suskind, the president was perhaps having second thoughts about cutting taxes again, and was uncharacteristically engaged.

“He asks, ‘Haven't we already given money to rich people? This second tax cut's gonna do it again,’” says Suskind.

“He says, ‘Didn’t we already, why are we doing it again?’ Now, his advisers, they say, ‘Well Mr. President, the upper class, they're the entrepreneurs. That's the standard response.’ And the president kind of goes, ‘OK.’ That's their response. And then, he comes back to it again. ‘Well, shouldn't we be giving money to the middle, won't people be able to say, ‘You did it once, and then you did it twice, and what was it good for?’"

But according to the transcript, White House political advisor Karl Rove jumped in.

“Karl Rove is saying to the president, a kind of mantra. ‘Stick to principle. Stick to principle.’ He says it over and over again,” says Suskind. “Don’t waver.”

In the end, the president didn't. And nine days after that meeting in which O'Neill made it clear he could not publicly support another tax cut, the vice president called and asked him to resign.

With the deficit now climbing towards $400 billion, O'Neill maintains he was in the right.

 

[Dick Tuck]

This is as good a place as any for this little rant:

People and especially the left absouletely refuse to see the effect that human nature and personal decisions shape society and how it progresses as a whole.

OTOH, those on the right fail to see how collective decisions shape society and progresses it as a whole. Did central water and sewage treatment advance society?

The gap between rich and poor is as good an example as ay. What are the variables that are contributing to this widening gap? Libs go about blaming everything under the sun for this problem EXCEPT for one thing.

An exaggeration and a strawman argument.

Themselves. By themselves I mean the attitutudes and decisions of individuals. You people talk about the middle class as if it is something that is just suppossed to happen to you.

My attitudes and decisions didn't facilitate off shoring of traditional middle class jobs like software engineering. Right wing tax policy did.

Like it requires no effort on your part. Like you are ENTITLED to be middle class. First it indeed did take effort on the part of your parents to achieve middle class. I know it did mine.

More Limbaugh style bullshit. The converse is that only the well to do, and their children, are entitled to opportunities.

Second of all middle class now is not what middle class was then. Then you were middle class if you had ONE TV and it was in color. Now middle class is a TV in every room with satelite or cable.

All you need is a hook up under that bridge if you've lost your job, your family, your home because of the bad dice roll that's always crooked toward the most wealthy.

The bottom line is still the bottom line. The upper class will remove your opportunities, and buy a right wing government to enable them, if that's what they see as putting more money in their pockets. They'll get the middle class to shoulder the lions share of the tax burden, and right wingers will screech cut taxes and lower the deficit.

Only a fool believes there's a level playing field. The rich will grant just enough social safety nets to protect them from armed insurrection, and the middle class can go pound sand if they find they can make more money by having their customer service centers in India.

 

[Intense]

Census finds record gap between rich and poor Americans -

The income gap between rich and poor Americans grew to the widest amount on record and represents the greatest disparity among Western industrialized nations, according to U.S. Census data.

The census finds that the top-earning 20% of Americans (those making $100,000 each year) received 49.4% of all income generated in the U.S., compared with the 3.4% earned by those below the poverty line.

That ratio of 14.5-to-1 was an increase from 13.6 in 2008 and nearly double a low of 7.69 in 1968, the Associated Press reports.

At the top, the wealthiest 5% of Americans, who earn more than $180,000, added slightly to their annual incomes last year, the data show. Families at the $50,000 median level slipped lower.

Obviously we have too many employed Government workers.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Even the useful idiot Bush questioned his own tax cuts for the rich, but he caved into his 'puppetmasters'

Paul O'Neill, George Bush's first Treasury Secretary

Bush questioned second set of tax cuts for the rich - 60 Minutes - CBS News

The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress. But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, Suskind writes that O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.

“Cheney, at this moment, shows his hand,” says Suskind. “He says, ‘You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.’ … O'Neill is speechless.”

”It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society,” says O’Neill. “And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction.”

...

“It's a huge meeting. You got Dick Cheney from the, you know, secure location on the video. The President is there,” says Suskind, who was given a nearly verbatim transcript by someone who attended the meeting.

He says everyone expected Mr. Bush to rubber stamp the plan under discussion: a big new tax cut. But, according to Suskind, the president was perhaps having second thoughts about cutting taxes again, and was uncharacteristically engaged.

“He asks, ‘Haven't we already given money to rich people? This second tax cut's gonna do it again,’” says Suskind.

“He says, ‘Didn’t we already, why are we doing it again?’ Now, his advisers, they say, ‘Well Mr. President, the upper class, they're the entrepreneurs. That's the standard response.’ And the president kind of goes, ‘OK.’ That's their response. And then, he comes back to it again. ‘Well, shouldn't we be giving money to the middle, won't people be able to say, ‘You did it once, and then you did it twice, and what was it good for?’"

But according to the transcript, White House political advisor Karl Rove jumped in.

“Karl Rove is saying to the president, a kind of mantra. ‘Stick to principle. Stick to principle.’ He says it over and over again,” says Suskind. “Don’t waver.”

In the end, the president didn't. And nine days after that meeting in which O'Neill made it clear he could not publicly support another tax cut, the vice president called and asked him to resign.

With the deficit now climbing towards $400 billion, O'Neill maintains he was in the right.

Bush was a tea bagger. He did everything within his power to bankrupt this nation, while giving the top 5% more wealth and power.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Census finds record gap between rich and poor Americans -

The income gap between rich and poor Americans grew to the widest amount on record and represents the greatest disparity among Western industrialized nations, according to U.S. Census data.

The census finds that the top-earning 20% of Americans (those making $100,000 each year) received 49.4% of all income generated in the U.S., compared with the 3.4% earned by those below the poverty line.

That ratio of 14.5-to-1 was an increase from 13.6 in 2008 and nearly double a low of 7.69 in 1968, the Associated Press reports.

At the top, the wealthiest 5% of Americans, who earn more than $180,000, added slightly to their annual incomes last year, the data show. Families at the $50,000 median level slipped lower.

Obviously we have too many employed Government workers.

Actually we do. Teachers, fire fighters, and cops are bearing the brunt of the shortfalls in state revenues.

 

[rightwinger]

Good for him.. glad to hear it... glad to see someone made some great choices in what they did, how they did it, etc.... just as many now need to take care of their personal wants and needs with proper choices and actions...

Point is, you cannot even get away with this by working a FULL TIME job and going to school these days and being able to pay for it outright. That has nothing to do w/choices...

No. YOU are missing the point. Who says the way things were is the best way to do it? The reason some of the practices of businesses in the 'glory days' stopped is because they were unsustainable. Like, as I mentioned before, defined benefit retirement plans. Businesses, I imagine, looked at their books and said 'wait a minute we simply don't have the money to pay half salaries to all of these people once they retire until they die.

The point is your premise. And the premise seems to be that x amount of pay is 'supposed' to be able to pay for x amount of 'stuff' whether that be cars, chidlren's education, etc. Wells say who? Business doesn't operate that way. Can you imagine you go into an interview and you start not only dictating to your potentional employer what you need to make, but what you want your standard of living to be? As oppossed to say what your skills are actually worth.

If they were unsustainable the gap between the wealthy and the working class would have remained the same. While corporate America was telling workers they were going to have to accept salary freezes, lost benefits and temporary status they were at the same time raising top executive salaries tenfold

 

[Intense]

Even the useful idiot Bush questioned his own tax cuts for the rich, but he caved into his 'puppetmasters'

Paul O'Neill, George Bush's first Treasury Secretary

Bush questioned second set of tax cuts for the rich - 60 Minutes - CBS News

The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress. But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, Suskind writes that O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.

“Cheney, at this moment, shows his hand,” says Suskind. “He says, ‘You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.’ … O'Neill is speechless.”

”It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society,” says O’Neill. “And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction.”

...

“It's a huge meeting. You got Dick Cheney from the, you know, secure location on the video. The President is there,” says Suskind, who was given a nearly verbatim transcript by someone who attended the meeting.

He says everyone expected Mr. Bush to rubber stamp the plan under discussion: a big new tax cut. But, according to Suskind, the president was perhaps having second thoughts about cutting taxes again, and was uncharacteristically engaged.

“He asks, ‘Haven't we already given money to rich people? This second tax cut's gonna do it again,’” says Suskind.

“He says, ‘Didn’t we already, why are we doing it again?’ Now, his advisers, they say, ‘Well Mr. President, the upper class, they're the entrepreneurs. That's the standard response.’ And the president kind of goes, ‘OK.’ That's their response. And then, he comes back to it again. ‘Well, shouldn't we be giving money to the middle, won't people be able to say, ‘You did it once, and then you did it twice, and what was it good for?’"

But according to the transcript, White House political advisor Karl Rove jumped in.

“Karl Rove is saying to the president, a kind of mantra. ‘Stick to principle. Stick to principle.’ He says it over and over again,” says Suskind. “Don’t waver.”

In the end, the president didn't. And nine days after that meeting in which O'Neill made it clear he could not publicly support another tax cut, the vice president called and asked him to resign.

With the deficit now climbing towards $400 billion, O'Neill maintains he was in the right.

Bush was a tea bagger. He did everything within his power to bankrupt this nation, while giving the top 5% more wealth and power.

What is your position on Cuomo, the housing crisis, Fannie and Freddie, who are still screwing us over as we speak?????

What is your position on Value for Value? Are we just entitled????? Should there be a fair exchange????? If we are just entitled, who should we put into servitude to provide for our wants?????

 

[Dick Tuck]

Even the useful idiot Bush questioned his own tax cuts for the rich, but he caved into his 'puppetmasters'

Paul O'Neill, George Bush's first Treasury Secretary

Bush questioned second set of tax cuts for the rich - 60 Minutes - CBS News

The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress. But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, Suskind writes that O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.

“Cheney, at this moment, shows his hand,” says Suskind. “He says, ‘You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.’ … O'Neill is speechless.”

”It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society,” says O’Neill. “And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction.”

...

“It's a huge meeting. You got Dick Cheney from the, you know, secure location on the video. The President is there,” says Suskind, who was given a nearly verbatim transcript by someone who attended the meeting.

He says everyone expected Mr. Bush to rubber stamp the plan under discussion: a big new tax cut. But, according to Suskind, the president was perhaps having second thoughts about cutting taxes again, and was uncharacteristically engaged.

“He asks, ‘Haven't we already given money to rich people? This second tax cut's gonna do it again,’” says Suskind.

“He says, ‘Didn’t we already, why are we doing it again?’ Now, his advisers, they say, ‘Well Mr. President, the upper class, they're the entrepreneurs. That's the standard response.’ And the president kind of goes, ‘OK.’ That's their response. And then, he comes back to it again. ‘Well, shouldn't we be giving money to the middle, won't people be able to say, ‘You did it once, and then you did it twice, and what was it good for?’"

But according to the transcript, White House political advisor Karl Rove jumped in.

“Karl Rove is saying to the president, a kind of mantra. ‘Stick to principle. Stick to principle.’ He says it over and over again,” says Suskind. “Don’t waver.”

In the end, the president didn't. And nine days after that meeting in which O'Neill made it clear he could not publicly support another tax cut, the vice president called and asked him to resign.

With the deficit now climbing towards $400 billion, O'Neill maintains he was in the right.

Bush was a tea bagger. He did everything within his power to bankrupt this nation, while giving the top 5% more wealth and power.

What is your position on Cuomo, the housing crisis, Fannie and Freddie, who are still screwing us over as we speak?????

What is your position on Value for Value? Are we just entitled????? Should there be a fair exchange????? If we are just entitled, who should we put into servitude to provide for our wants?????

My position is you're exaggerating and diverting blame. You're bitching about nickels and dimes, when anyone with a brain understands that chopping down the fire wall in investment banking and allowing them to create investment instruments, like CDS, was a primary cause of the current economy. If I were to pick a scapegoat, who I believe most responsible, it would be Phil Graham, the tea bag hero.

 

[The T]

Census finds record gap between rich and poor Americans -

The income gap between rich and poor Americans grew to the widest amount on record and represents the greatest disparity among Western industrialized nations, according to U.S. Census data.

The census finds that the top-earning 20% of Americans (those making $100,000 each year) received 49.4% of all income generated in the U.S., compared with the 3.4% earned by those below the poverty line.

That ratio of 14.5-to-1 was an increase from 13.6 in 2008 and nearly double a low of 7.69 in 1968, the Associated Press reports.

At the top, the wealthiest 5% of Americans, who earn more than $180,000, added slightly to their annual incomes last year, the data show. Families at the $50,000 median level slipped lower.

Obviously we have too many employed Government workers.

Way too many...and overpaid IMHO.

 

[Intense]

Census finds record gap between rich and poor Americans -

The income gap between rich and poor Americans grew to the widest amount on record and represents the greatest disparity among Western industrialized nations, according to U.S. Census data.

The census finds that the top-earning 20% of Americans (those making $100,000 each year) received 49.4% of all income generated in the U.S., compared with the 3.4% earned by those below the poverty line.

That ratio of 14.5-to-1 was an increase from 13.6 in 2008 and nearly double a low of 7.69 in 1968, the Associated Press reports.

At the top, the wealthiest 5% of Americans, who earn more than $180,000, added slightly to their annual incomes last year, the data show. Families at the $50,000 median level slipped lower.

Obviously we have too many employed Government workers.

Way too many...and overpaid IMHO.

Like even a 40 hour week is too much to ask for.

Administrative is a nice Pandora's Box too.

 

[Intense]

Bush was a tea bagger. He did everything within his power to bankrupt this nation, while giving the top 5% more wealth and power.

What is your position on Cuomo, the housing crisis, Fannie and Freddie, who are still screwing us over as we speak?????

What is your position on Value for Value? Are we just entitled????? Should there be a fair exchange????? If we are just entitled, who should we put into servitude to provide for our wants?????

My position is you're exaggerating and diverting blame. You're bitching about nickels and dimes, when anyone with a brain understands that chopping down the fire wall in investment banking and allowing them to create investment instruments, like CDS, was a primary cause of the current economy. If I were to pick a scapegoat, who I believe most responsible, it would be Phil Graham, the tea bag hero.

I'm exaggerating, Really????? How????? Nickels and dimes?????

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/nyregion/24hud.html

 

[Intense]

My point is that it's easy to find fault on all sides. Below is another example. However, in seeking resolution Government must take the commitment to protect "We The People", from all enemies, foreign and domestic. That does include Corporations and even Government Itself. Seeing through the chaos, the smoke screen, too often we find a unholy alliance between the two, unfortunately this is not coincidence.


The Hidden Scam in Universitiesby Dr. Ronald L. Trowbridge
The public is not aware of what’s happening within higher education, and for good reason: the self-serving universities want to keep it that way. Even worse, they will excoriate those on the inside who reveal the truth about the scam.



Ben Franklin said that “an example is the best sermon.” Let us look at a real example from an insider whose name must remain anonymous? Why? Because the tenured professor pleaded to me that if the instructor’s name is revealed along with disclosures, “I’m dead.” There are ways to punish even tenured professors.

I know this to be the case the hard way: I once crossed a university picket line and encountered the most traumatic experience in my life, exceeded only by my wife’s death. My professorial colleagues and friends treated me brutally.

Professor X writes in a private e-mail that at X Texas university, even despite the state budget crunch, that “tenured faculty will be not be teaching more classes. . . . Regular faculty must pursue research to generate prestige to enhance each college’s ranking.”

Prof. X adds: “The number of classes offered will decline. Remaining classes will be much larger and not particularly well taught: faculty don’t want to take time away from their research. . . . Many courses once taught by competent lecturers will be handed over to graduate students.”

It gets much worse.


The average tenured professor, reports Prof. X, teaches now at this Texas university just “two three-hour classes, or six hours per week, per semester in classes with small enrollment numbers.”

Now for the bombshell: These professors make around $100,000, plus one-third more in fringe benefits for a two-semester, nine-month teaching load. This amounts to approximately $33,250 per class. No wonder they do not want the public to know about this and claim nebulous duty to research.

Though it is a bit apples to oranges, I make $1,814 per semester, with no fringe benefits, at Lone Star community college for my one comp class with 24 students. Hence, it’s $33,250 v. $1,814 per class. There is something wrong with this picture. Are the big dogs some 30 times more valuable to students than the unheralded dogs in the trenches?

Well, of course, the defense it—the research, the research. So let’s look at that. I worked as an instructor at the University of Michigan, then as a tenured professor at Eastern Michigan University—for a total of 18 years. I know how sausage is made.

To be sure, much research is valuable to society, but much is not. Harry Lewis, former Dean of Harvard College, reveals in Excellence Without a Soul, that “professors have become specialized in their interests, which are ever more distant from what ordinary citizens understand or care about.” This leads, he reports, “to the production of much more nonsense.” Do we need the 500th essay on Hamlet?

Nor do professors publish as much as they let on. Former Harvard president Derek Bok reveals in Our Underachieving Colleges that “fewer than half of all professors publish as much as one article per year.”

The American public should be outraged by these findings, especially given the staggering increase in college costs. Do not write university administrators: they will defend the status quo, lest they are scathingly attacked by professors. Write, instead, trustees. Often they are, as Harry Lewis reported, only “cheerleaders.” But some will take their fiduciary responsibilities seriously and do the right thing.

The Hidden Scam in Universities - Big Government