Life as a poor American is a life of slavery

[Unkotare]

No American would submit to slavery.

I thought your business card said you'd do 'things' for food, Swallow.

Does this LOOK like the flame zone?

I'm not judging him, just sayin'.

 

[Katzndogz]

The OWS are born to be slaves. They are willing to work, if the can do as little as possible, preferably a job smoking dope and banging a pot they call a drum.

They would be happiest in a life of slavery where every facet of their lives was the responsibility of the master. As long as it was a generous master.

"The OWS are born to be slaves"?

You make them sound like a 'people' that can only be saved if Moses parts the East River and leads them into Jersey.

I think that schtick was already used, successfully to, from what I understand.

Except these slaves can't be saved by anyone at all. OWS is not salvageable. They are like mold. As Mark Steyn said, they live like animals begging to be treated like household pets. Perhaps, and it's a stretch, some OWS shitter might be trained to perform a simple task. Much like a smart dog is trained to fetch.

If the shitters HAD a Moses who told them that freedom would mean tilling the fields, herding goats, raising food, working hard from sun up to sun down for nothing more than a little food. No one would donate a tent, or a sleeping bag. Whatever they had would be made or built with their own hands. They would never leave the slave hovels. Even if they were lazy, Master would stll have to give them something.

 

[American Horse]

There has been a lot of talk in this country for years about the erosion of the middle class, however when I look at the income distribution in this country today I see that the income of the upper 50% of citizens is 87.3% of all the money earned in the country, and the income of the lower 50% is only 12.7%. There is in fact no middle class in America today; there is only us and them.

There are those who call this country is the land of opportunity, but as I live and breathe today I know without a doubt that this is a lie, it may have been true in the year 1900, but not having lived then I cannot say if it was just as much a lie in those days. The reality is there’s a glass ceiling in this nation at the 50% mark, if one is born above that line, one can have any opportunity under the sun and go as far as ones individual capabilities allow, but if one is born below that line ones only purpose in living so far as American society is concerned, is to work. And furthermore to work always for the benefit and profit of someone born above that 50% line.

Want your kids to go to college? Better be prepared to pay. Contrary to what the upper-class would have you believe federal student aid is of little use, the maximum a person of the lower class may receive is just over 30,000. This may sound like a significant amount to some, however in reality it will not even pay for an education at a state level university, to say nothing of the ivy league. Think your kids smart enough to earn a scholarship? Keep dreaming, the vast majority of scholarships offered are given to children from families who are already above that 50% line. Said scholarships are just given out as free benefits to coax kids with “the right breeding” in, or in some cases to help schools meet their minimum standards under affirmative action. Said scholarships will never go to a child from the lower 50% simply because of the kids own intellect. And as for that federal student aid money you can get, it will just about pay for community college, a degree that will get one nothing except a low level office job at best.

So in what other ways might the lower 50% “pull themselves up by the bootstraps” as republicans like to claim they should?
[snip ....]

Want to start any kind of business? Go give it a shot. While we have all heard the “success stories”, the reality is that such a small percentage of such ventures succeed as to make the real number of success’s insignificant. Of course good luck getting backing from the banks. The reality is if your born to the upper 50% like that idiot James O’Keefe, the banks will extend you a 50,000 dollar line of credit at the drop of a hat no matter how stupid your business model is, just like it did for him. But if you’re born to the lower 50%, good luck with the banks, No matter how good your business model is! Unlike the studios you will get the chance to be laughed out of every bank in town.

In the end it’s all a lie. If you’re born to the lower class, your sole purpose in this society is to work your ass off for the benefit of the upper class. Frankly I’m at the point where I would love nothing more than for a REAL class war to break out, because as far as I’m concerned that upper 50% can just kiss my fucking ass.

What is this OP... a farce? If not a farce you are, with all due respect, full of crap. My own case is a good example of that. I was born into a family which could not be called middle class. Except for managing to own our own home, we fit none of the parameters of the middle class. Neither of my parents went beyond the eighth grade. They raised 6 children during the depression, and all but one of us kids graduated from high school, and none went to college. I was the exception; by being the one who did NOT graduate high school, only getting a GED while in the military.

Getting a job straight out of the USMC in 1964 I declined drawing any unemployment compensation and went seventy miles outside my hometown to find and take a job as a junior engineer for $500 a month. Within seven months I was able to, without benefit of a co-signer, buy a half acre parcel on contract and use it along with sweat-equity to then build a brand new home for my fiancé and myself before we were married. It was ready to move into on our wedding day in August, 1965, one year and two weeks after I was discharged from the Marine Corps. Meanwhile I had moved back to the hometown to take a manufacturing job 36 miles from home base at $100 more a month.

We were able, on our very small combined salaries (added together they were about $900 a month) to make advanced payments, as a method of savings, and sell it in four years and build another home four times the value, using the equity from the first one to leverage the construction and mortgage loans. Three years later we repeated that, doubling the value of our second home with our third new one in a row. Meanwhile, I had been helping people build their new homes, using a hammer the first time when I added a carport on my first one back in '66. By '72, in partnership with my brother, we built his new house, and then got a job to build another one for one of the guys in my engineering office. (In 1969 I had left the manufacturing job, applying to Westinghouse Electric Corporation as a junior industrial engineer) Then, together, we found a four acre tract for sale by an old land-baron in the area, who liked to sell on contract – if the contract defaulted he would give the defaulter all the principle back, but take the land back too for resale to another buyer - and we developed that into 7 residential lots on which we built houses for the next couple of years.

In the meantime I left my engineering job, now recognized as a full engineer, to build homes and develop land into residential subdivisions separate from my brother. My next project was a ninety acre tract I developed into 30 estate sized lots suitable for luxury homes. During that time I had a half million dollar line of credit, and to get my business a new comer bank in our city (Chase) offered to and gave me a line of credit for $50K, based solely on my financial statement and my signature. This was pre-Fannie and Freddie, in the days of the 80% loan to principle ratio, and for spec homes and land development it was 60% loan to principle ratio.

At that time my financial statement showed a net worth of about a half million (assets minus liabilities) but that included my rolling stock, so I expected it would be drawn down as the stock (lots and spec houses) sold off. When my last lot sold, the money from that and my home, and another twenty lots in partnership with my brother were about all we had, amounting to usold inventory, but I bought more land sans partner and started the process again. This time, once the value was established, I liquidated my lots and raw land so as to retire with a large part of my net worth in the bank instead of being drawn down as regular income.

My older brother (unlike me he was a high school graduate) followed about the same path ( after leaving a failed masonry business in Chicago in 1969) but after a few years of seeing how the net worth was spent down he decided he could accrue wealth better by building and renting the units and retaining ownership of them; all duplexes. He is today a multiple-millionaire and has, after selling the first few hundred units of as condominiums a few at time, bought, loan free, another three-quarter-million dollars of rental housing in separate (individual) older homes scattered in the two county area.

My own son, like I didn't go to college, probably because, (again like me) he wasn't college material. But today he has a solid HVAC business, and his daughter did get a scholarship to I.U. under the guidance of her high school admin.

I don't want to write a novel; I couldn't. I don't want to be a famous actor, I proved I didn't have talent for acting when I forgot my lines my first time on stage in the Christmas play while in the third grade. As for an inheritance, we six kids each got six thousand from the sale of our parent’s home in 1973 when they both passed away.

I would say that at the time I built up my own family's wealth, that I know of six or seven more of my peers who did about the same thing; some better, some not as well. But the main difference between them and me is that I didn't even graduate from high school, leaving highschool in the middle of my senior year. That has to prove something about opportunities in America even if it is only anecdotal.

Coming out of the depression my daddy had a more constructive view of banks and lending. He was loaned $500 by his sister to build a home for his family, which he later sold and bought more real estate on land contract, and atwhen I was 14 he introduced me to financing through local merchants to buy the things I wanted but didn’t have enough of my own funds for ready purchase. There is utility in borrowing money one doesn’t have if it can put it to use earning a return on investment. I have, and always have had the top credit rating. I accomplished what I did by never giving up, and working as many hours as it took to get the job done, even though at times I felt that I couldn’t make it – like in the bad years of '79 and '80.

 

[Katzndogz]

What really bothers me about America today, is how inaccessible a good college education is to kids from really poor families. Yes, there are scholarships for the top 5%. You can get a student loan that puts in you hock the rest of life but it may only cover half your cost.

When I went to college back in the 60's, I had a $400/yr government scholastic that paid for my tuition to a state university. Anyone who graduated from high school with above average grades could get one. There was no college savings plan, because it wasn't needed. I earned enough working summers to pay for my dorm room. My parents paid for my meal ticket and some misc. expenses. I just saw where our state university raised the tuition to $15,000/yr, $60,000 for 4 years and that's for in state students. The total cost would be about $80K for 4 years. A kid could go to a junior college for 2 years and 2 years in a cheaper state school and get the total cost down $40K, but for so many kids that just as well be a million dollars.

Then there is problem of being accepted at a university. Due to limited number of seats for new students, in most states if you're not in the top 15% with a good SAT score, you won't qualify. When you consider that really poor kids usually go to rather poor schools with poor college prep classes, their chance of qualifying for a good college is at best poor. Add in the financial costs and there are very few poor kids that can make it.

Of course they can. They just have to work harder to make up for their shortcomings. I did it. I've known plenty of people who have done it too.

Here is where they fail. They go to college, maybe not a good college, get out and think that's it. Sink or swim, they put on the only lifejacket in the boat. To truly successful people, it NEVER stops. They never work at the job they have but the job they want. The ladder has no top step. That's what I have seen common among very successful people no matter what area they choose. Someone else might go to a not so good a college and get the best job that college education brings them. Then they go to another, better university, they advance, they get an advanced degree, but it can't stop there. There are workshops, seminars, classes, courses. It never stops for the truly successful.

I not only have seen, but am one of those that overcame the not great university with extensive post graduate training.

If you REALLY want a scholarship, go to work at a company that provides scholarships for willing employees. Wal Mart, Coca Cola, Ford, Home Depot. It's a VERY long list.

No one should use poverty as an excuse for failure.

 

[Katzndogz]

How can someone come here from another country, with no education, can't speak the language, no money, doesn't even know anyone and be successful? So successful, they can and SHOULD tell lazy good for nothing Americans to kiss their fucking asses.

 

[American Horse]

How can someone come here from another country, with no education, can't speak the language, no money, doesn't even know anyone and be successful? So successful, they can and SHOULD tell lazy good for nothing Americans to kiss their fucking asses.

Friend of mine arrived here in 1957 as an immigrant from Hungary. He couldn't speak a word of english, but managed to get along, got work on pipeline surveys in North Carolina (he was a surveyor in Hungary), and by 1970 he had established himself in our county in Indiana as a land surveyor. Ran for and was elected as the county surveyor. He ran a successful business doing land surveys and subdivision plats, and eventually expanded his business into aerial surveys (hiring planes to fly-over) for pipeline mapping anywhere in the US.

Before he passed away from a stroke about four years back he was successful enough to visit Hungary annually, and to own a stable of race horses, and these were high priced animals.

He managed to live the good life with all the constraints you mention. His favorite saying was "Too late smart, too soon old" which he spun into an ethnic Hungarian humor piece. His English was never anywhere near fluent midwest, but he mostly mastered the grammar and even the native midwest idiom.

 

[Unkotare]

What really bothers me about America today, is how inaccessible a good college education is to kids from really poor families. Yes, there are scholarships for the top 5%. You can get a student loan that puts in you hock the rest of life but it may only cover half your cost.

Then there is problem of being accepted at a university. Due to limited number of seats for new students, in most states if you're not in the top 15% with a good SAT score, you won't qualify. When you consider that really poor kids usually go to rather poor schools with poor college prep classes, their chance of qualifying for a good college is at best poor. Add in the financial costs and there are very few poor kids that can make it.

You seem to overlook quite a lot there.

There are many more scholarships than just those for the top 5%. There are a wide variety of scholarships available for many types of students and many circumstances, more than a few specifically for good students with financial hardship. Individual institutions also have their own aid packages and programs. You also seem to forget that there are many community colleges. Not every institution of higher learning is the most expensive private university in the country. And, if you set out to obtain something of great value you can expect that it will come at greater expense. This is not shocking or unfair. If I want a really, really nice car it is going to cost more than some shitbox, and it is in no way unfair that I may incur significant debt to get it if it is important enough to me to do so. As for getting accepted to a university, competititveness is what has made American Universities the best in the world. Watering that down in the name of some weepy BS 'everyone gets a trophy' nonsense would do no one any good. Again, there are many, many options for students who can't make it to the top schools right away.

 

[Douger]

No offense but this is what happens to Americans who have never travelled outside the U.S. and have never observed real poverty. America's poor have it far better than any other nation on this Planet. If you're gonna be poor,this is the place to do it. Trust me,i've seen real poverty. Americans are from being slaves. In fact i would call thet assertion downright insulting & preposterous. Travel people,travel.

Travel ? I live it. The "poor" here are far better off than the murkin poor.

 

[WatertheTree]

I think comparing it to slavery is a bit over the top. I would put it more like a life of serfdom.

The problem is there is no demand for low skill workers, but there is a high supply thanks to our policy of open borders.

Dumb corrupt assholes in Washington is the problem.

 

[editec]

The American MAKING IT INTO PROFESSIONAL SPORTS DREAM

Have you ever stopped to consider what the chances are of earning a scholarship to play college baseball, basketball or even football? Not only must you be tops in your sport but you also need to be a good student because your grades and test scores are vital to your chances of landing a scholarship.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has compiled the following chart that estimates the probability of high school athletes competing in college athletics.

Women’s Basketball Men’s Basketball Baseball Men’s Ice Hockey Football Men’s soccer

High School Athletes 452,929546,335470,67136,2631,071,775358,935

High School senior athletes129,408156,096134,47710,361306,221102,553

NCAA Athletes15,09616,57128,7673,97361,25219,797

NCAA Freshman Positions4,3134,7358,2191,13517,5015,655

NCAA Senior Athletes3,3553,6826,39388313,6124,398

NCAA Senior Athletes Drafted32446003325075Percentage:

High School To NCAA3.3%3.0%6.1%11.0%5.7%5.5%Percentage:

NCAA To Professional 1.0%1.2%9.4%3.7%1.8%1.7%
Percentage:

High School To Professional 0.02% 0.03% 0.45%

source

Now what does the above have to do with this thread?

One of the most cherished myths of the American Dream is the RAGS TO RICHES story.

And there are always going to be anecdotal examples of people making it from rags to riches.

That is true. Some people are going to make it to the top of the heap in every field. THAT the nature of reality.

But the mistake folks make is to focus on the winners of the DREAMSTAKE and completely ignore the statistical reality of the non-winners

What one must REALLY do to establish the validity of the RAGS TO RICHES kinds of stories is to look at the ENTIRE GROUP OUTCOMES.

Yes, some people climb out of server poverty into great success.

Yes some people climb from the middle clas into great success.

But the reality check on the AMERICAN DREAM will always be found by considering not the winners, but the entire group outcomes.

And to establish REAL SOCIAL MOBILITY statistics, and to make some real sense out of them one must study social mobility over multiple generations since part of the American dream is based on the upward mobility of BAMILIES over generations.

Here's one such study.

<H1>Intergenerational social mobility: the United States in comparative perspective.

Beller E, Hout M.
Source

University of California, Berkeley USA.

Abstract

Emily Beller and Michael Hout examine trends in U.S. social mobility, especially as it relates to the degree to which a person's income or occupation depends on his or her parents' background and to the independent contribution of economic growth.

They also compare U.S. social mobility with that in other countries.

They conclude that slower economic growth since 1975 and the concentration of that growth among the wealthy have slowed the pace of U.S. social mobility. In measuring mobility, economists tend to look at income and sociologists, occupation.

The consensus among those measuring occupational mobility is that the average correlation between the occupations of fathers and sons today ranges from 0.30 to 0.40, meaning that most variation in the ranking of occupations is independent of social origins.

Those measuring income mobility tend to agree that the elasticity between fathers' and sons' earnings in the United States today is about 0.4, meaning that 40 percent of the difference in incomes between families in the parents' generation also shows up in differences in incomes in the sons' generation.

Beller and Hout show that occupational mobility increased during the 1970s, compared with the 1940s-1960s, but there is some evidence to suggest that by the 1980s and 1990s it had declined to past levels.

Existing data on income mobility show no clear trends over time, but increases in economic inequality during the 1980s made mobility more consequential by making economic differences between families persist for a longer time.

In international comparisons, the United States occupies a middle ground in occupational mobility but ranks lower in income mobility.

Researchers have used the variation in mobility to study whether aspects of a country's policy regime, such as the educational or social welfare systems, might be driving these results.

There is as yet, however, no scholarly consensus about the sources of cross-national differences in mobility.

</H1>

I don't have access to this study, but the abstract gives us some indication of social and income mobility in the USA.

It isn't the best in the world, neither is it the worst in the world.

There are (or at leat were in the times studied) however, still opportunities for social and income mobility.

We do not live in a CASTE society.

But we certainly DO live in a CLASS society.

ACtually I see no alternative BUT to have a classED society.

That is the nature outcome of a capitalism, and that is ALSO the nature outcome of nature itself.

 

[Unkotare]

Clearly some people don't understand, appreciate, or deserve 'opportunity.'

 

[WillowTree]

There has been a lot of talk in this country for years about the erosion of the middle class, however when I look at the income distribution in this country today I see that the income of the upper 50% of citizens is 87.3% of all the money earned in the country, and the income of the lower 50% is only 12.7%. There is in fact no middle class in America today; there is only us and them.

There are those who call this country is the land of opportunity, but as I live and breathe today I know without a doubt that this is a lie, it may have been true in the year 1900, but not having lived then I cannot say if it was just as much a lie in those days. The reality is there’s a glass ceiling in this nation at the 50% mark, if one is born above that line, one can have any opportunity under the sun and go as far as ones individual capabilities allow, but if one is born below that line ones only purpose in living so far as American society is concerned, is to work. And furthermore to work always for the benefit and profit of someone born above that 50% line.

Want your kids to go to college? Better be prepared to pay. Contrary to what the upper-class would have you believe federal student aid is of little use, the maximum a person of the lower class may receive is just over 30,000. This may sound like a significant amount to some, however in reality it will not even pay for an education at a state level university, to say nothing of the ivy league. Think your kids smart enough to earn a scholarship? Keep dreaming, the vast majority of scholarships offered are given to children from families who are already above that 50% line. Said scholarships are just given out as free benefits to coax kids with “the right breeding” in, or in some cases to help schools meet their minimum standards under affirmative action. Said scholarships will never go to a child from the lower 50% simply because of the kids own intellect. And as for that federal student aid money you can get, it will just about pay for community college, a degree that will get one nothing except a low level office job at best.

So in what other ways might the lower 50% “pull themselves up by the bootstraps” as republicans like to claim they should?

Want to be a movie star? Better be prepared to pay. The only way to get ones foot “in the door” of Hollywood is to pay an agent, an incredible expense that a performer just entering the field can’t hope to pay unless they are already members of the upper class, already born to that upper 50%. Without an agent, you won’t get laughed out of every studio in town, because you’ll never set foot in one.

Want to write a great movie? Same thing, better get an agent, and don’t think you can afford one unless you make over 100 grand a year already. Without an agent you will never sell a script in Hollywood, but take it from me, if your movies good enough you will darn well get it plagiarized in Hollywood, in fact you can get that in no time flat.

Want to write the great American novel? Better pay out the nose for an agent because without one no legitimate publisher in the country will look at your manuscript, unless it’s to allow an established writer from the upper 50% plagiarize you. Think you’re going to self-publish it? Dream on. The volume of material available for sale on amazon, kindle, and similar sites and services dictates that unless you pay out the nose for advertising, you will have zero sales.

Want to start any kind of business? Go give it a shot. While we have all heard the “success stories”, the reality is that such a small percentage of such ventures succeed as to make the real number of success’s insignificant. Of course good luck getting backing from the banks. The reality is if your born to the upper 50% like that idiot James O’Keefe, the banks will extend you a 50,000 dollar line of credit at the drop of a hat no matter how stupid your business model is, just like it did for him. But if you’re born to the lower 50%, good luck with the banks, No matter how good your business model is! Unlike the studios you will get the chance to be laughed out of every bank in town.

In the end it’s all a lie. If you’re born to the lower class, your sole purpose in this society is to work your ass off for the benefit of the upper class. Frankly I’m at the point where I would love nothing more than for a REAL class war to break out, because as far as I’m concerned that upper 50% can just kiss my fucking ass.

Here's a thought.. Move to a country like Africa or India.. you'll blend right in..

 

[Neotrotsky]

Wasn't the liberal "Great Society" going to be "an end to poverty..."
What happened ?
Another failed liberal plan...
I'm shocked !





The upside to being 'poor' in America

During the year 4% of the poor became temporarily homeless. Forty percent live in apartments, less than 10% in mobile homes or trailers and about 50% live in standard one-family homes. In fact, 42% own their own home.

The vast majority are in good repair, with more living space per person than the average non-poor person in Britain, France or Sweden.

Ninety-six percent of poor parents say their children were never hungry during the year due to an inability to afford food.

Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning and 92% have a microwave.

One-third of poor households have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV, 70% have a VCR and two-thirds have satellite/cable TV, the same proportion as own at least one DVD player.

Half of the povery households have a personal computer and one-in-seven have two or more.

And half of those with children have a video game system like Xbox.

Almost 75% have a car or truck and nearly a third have two.​

To be honest, I do agree with the comparison to slavery

Being poor and on the system in some way...
The gov't tell you what, where to eat, sleep
Tries to control the number of children you have
Poorly educate the children you do have
Limits your opportunities

Really, in economic exchange, at least with slavery, you got work out of people before
you gave them all those things


Poor and in the system equates to "Sugar coated slavery "

 

[AVG-JOE]

I'll bet that same dollar that slavery is older than war. It doesn't stretch the imagination too far to see family groups taking in orphans, feeding and sheltering them in exchange for work - You don't expect those little bastards to get any of the family inheritance do you? How unfair is that?

War is as old as prostitution. But not as much fun.

If the first war wasn't over property, it was over pussy.

No. I don't have a link - look around you.​

Then again, up until the 20th Century, pussy (and the women who kept the pussy warm) were considered property.

Good thing I didn't bet on THAT one!

 

[AVG-JOE]

Big Picture statistics:

The American economy is skewed - The distribution of wealth in a healthy economy resembles a nice bell curve - ours does not.

How to fix it is THE discussion of our day - but the first step to fixing the problem is to admit we have one. As long as the conservative voice continues to simply ignore the big-picture problem, our national economic debate will be stuck in the mud.

Conservatives also need to admit that "Personal Responsibility" and "lives protected by Corporate Paper" are mutually exclusive ideas.

 

[Katzndogz]

ALL work is considered a form of slavery to liberals. That's why it can never change.

 

[Neotrotsky]

ALL work is considered a form of slavery to liberals. That's why it can never change.

Very good

and all money "belongs" to the gov't
which is why the liberals think one has to "pay" for a tax cut since
it is unconceivable that there should be less gov't

 

[spectrumc01]

No offense but this is what happens to Americans who have never travelled outside the U.S. and have never observed real poverty. America's poor have it far better than any other nation on this Planet. If you're gonna be poor,this is the place to do it. Trust me,i've seen real poverty. Americans are from being slaves. In fact i would call thet assertion downright insulting & preposterous. Travel people,travel.

The physicality of the poor overseas is much different. The feelings of helplessness and frustration are the same. The knowledge that the chances of getting out of poverty is slim to none, is also the same.

As for the slavery comparisson, I see it a little different. Slavery was unsustainable as the cost was huge to feed, clothing, shelter and provide medical treatment for the slaves. It is much more cost effective and profitable to free them, pay them a pittance, and than reap all their money by charging them for food, clothing, shelter and medical treatment. They discovered that if we pay them a minimum wage that doesn't cover their basic needs they will be forever indebted to the wealthy class. They will forever keep working and producing wealth for the upper classes for the illusion of freedom and getting out of poverty.

 

[Neotrotsky]

No offense but this is what happens to Americans who have never travelled outside the U.S. and have never observed real poverty. America's poor have it far better than any other nation on this Planet. If you're gonna be poor,this is the place to do it. Trust me,i've seen real poverty. Americans are from being slaves. In fact i would call thet assertion downright insulting & preposterous. Travel people,travel.

The physicality of the poor overseas is much different. The feelings of helplessness and frustration are the same. The knowledge that the chances of getting out of poverty is slim to none, is also the same.

As for the slavery comparisson, I see it a little different. Slavery was unsustainable as the cost was huge to feed, clothing, shelter and provide medical treatment for the slaves. It is much more cost effective and profitable to free them, pay them a pittance, and than reap all their money by charging them for food, clothing, shelter and medical treatment. They discovered that if we pay them a minimum wage that doesn't cover their basic needs they will be forever indebted to the wealthy class. They will forever keep working and producing wealth for the upper classes for the illusion of freedom and getting out of poverty.

The system we have today is unsustainable, as well
Except the poor get their food, clothing and shelter paid for by the gov't
We even feed the kids at some schools breakfast lunch and some are now trying supper
They don't even have to get a cut in foodstamps

Again, "sugar coated" slavery

 

[editec]

NOt everything in nature or about mankind leads to a bell curve.

For those interested in a short explaination?

A power law is a special kind of mathematical relationship between two quantities. When the frequency of an event varies as a power of some attribute of that event (e.g. its size), the frequency is said to follow a power law. For instance, the number of cities having a certain population size is found to vary as a power of the size of the population, and hence follows a power law. There is evidence that the distributions of a wide variety of physical, biological, and man-made phenomena follow a power law, including the sizes of earthquakes, craters on the moon and of solar flares,[1] the foraging pattern of various species,[2] the sizes of activity patterns of neuronal populations,[3] the frequencies of words in most languages, frequencies of family names, the sizes of power outages and wars,[4] and many other quantities.

It also underlies the "80/20 rule" or Pareto distribution governing the distribution of income or wealth within a population.

For those interested in a somewhat deeper exploration of this p[henomena?

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]
Abstract
[/FONT]
The Pareto (power-law) wealth distribution, which is empirically observed in many countries, implies rather extreme wealth inequality.

For instance, in the U.S. the top 1% of the population holds about 40% of the total wealth. What is the source of this inequality?

The answer to this question has profound political, social, and philosophical implications.

We show that the Pareto wealth distribution is a robust consequence of a fundamental property of the capital investment process: it is a stochastic multiplicative process.

Moreover, the Pareto distribution implies that inequality is driven primarily by chance, rather than by differential investment ability.


This result is closely related to the concept of market efficiency, and may have direct implications regarding the economic role and social desirability of wealth inequality.

We also show that the Pareto wealth distribution may explain the Lévy distribution of stock returns, which has puzzled researchers for many years.

Thus, the Pareto wealth distribution, market efficiency, and the Lévy distribution of stock returns are all closely linked.

​

So much for the genius of this years winners on the market, eh?

​

[/FONT]