Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Movin' On Up?
With apologies to George and 'Ousie, I take note of a recent article in that well-known liberal rag, The Economist. This article explores the issues of class and income in the US, and compares findings with those in other western nations.
How it plays is dependent on your perspective. Americans continue to believe, even more so in the past 20 years, in class mobility. This despite the fact that the biggest indicator of wealth and upper class status is how you were born rather than anyone's gumption.
"The rise of the working rich reinforces America's self-image as the land of opportunity. But, by some measures, that image is an illusion. Several new studies* show parental income to be a better predictor of whether someone will be rich or poor in America than in Canada or much of Europe. In America about half of the income disparities in one generation are reflected in the next. In Canada and the Nordic countries that proportion is about a fifth.
It is not clear whether this sclerosis is increasing: the evidence is mixed. Many studies suggest that mobility between generations has stayed roughly the same in recent decades, and some suggest it is decreasing. Even so, ordinary Americans seem to believe that theirs is still a land of opportunity. The proportion who think you can start poor and end up rich has risen 20 percentage points since 1980.
That helps explain why voters who grumble about the economy have nonetheless failed to respond to class politics. John Edwards, the Democrats' vice-presidential candidate in 2004, made little headway with his tale of “Two Americas”, one for the rich and one for the rest. Over 70% of Americans support the abolition of the estate tax (inheritance tax), even though only one household in 100 pays it.
Americans tend to blame their woes not on rich compatriots but on poor foreigners. More than six out of ten are sceptical of free trade. A new poll in Foreign Affairs suggests that almost nine out of ten worry about their jobs going offshore. Congressmen reflect their concerns. Though the economy grows, many have become vociferous protectionists. "
With apologies to George and 'Ousie, I take note of a recent article in that well-known liberal rag, The Economist. This article explores the issues of class and income in the US, and compares findings with those in other western nations.
How it plays is dependent on your perspective. Americans continue to believe, even more so in the past 20 years, in class mobility. This despite the fact that the biggest indicator of wealth and upper class status is how you were born rather than anyone's gumption.
"The rise of the working rich reinforces America's self-image as the land of opportunity. But, by some measures, that image is an illusion. Several new studies* show parental income to be a better predictor of whether someone will be rich or poor in America than in Canada or much of Europe. In America about half of the income disparities in one generation are reflected in the next. In Canada and the Nordic countries that proportion is about a fifth.
It is not clear whether this sclerosis is increasing: the evidence is mixed. Many studies suggest that mobility between generations has stayed roughly the same in recent decades, and some suggest it is decreasing. Even so, ordinary Americans seem to believe that theirs is still a land of opportunity. The proportion who think you can start poor and end up rich has risen 20 percentage points since 1980.
That helps explain why voters who grumble about the economy have nonetheless failed to respond to class politics. John Edwards, the Democrats' vice-presidential candidate in 2004, made little headway with his tale of “Two Americas”, one for the rich and one for the rest. Over 70% of Americans support the abolition of the estate tax (inheritance tax), even though only one household in 100 pays it.
Americans tend to blame their woes not on rich compatriots but on poor foreigners. More than six out of ten are sceptical of free trade. A new poll in Foreign Affairs suggests that almost nine out of ten worry about their jobs going offshore. Congressmen reflect their concerns. Though the economy grows, many have become vociferous protectionists. "
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Veni, Vidi, Vento
Not to delve too deeply into the newfound (in)famy of my local anglo-speakin' cheesesteak purveyor, but Kevin Drum and his pals poke a little fun at St. Joey, the patron of South Philly monolingualism.
The folks I feel bad for are neighboring Philly photo-op cheesesteak peddlers Pat's Steaks. Turns out being one of the two biggest names in cholesterol history has a downside. Pat's owner reports getting lots of email and letters confusing him with his competitor that use words like "never again" and "boycott."
And if you happen to follow the comments in the above link. . . the word is wit', not wid, halfwit. And for that matter, provolone is for Main Line candyasses. Cheez Wiz or nothing!! Though if you like your condiments spicy, screw both of these blowhard tourist traps and head to Chubby's in bee-utiful Roxborough (one-time contender for home to the United Nations, seriously!)-- the free hot pepper bar will flame you out big time. Buy a six-pack while you're there, you'll need it.
Not to delve too deeply into the newfound (in)famy of my local anglo-speakin' cheesesteak purveyor, but Kevin Drum and his pals poke a little fun at St. Joey, the patron of South Philly monolingualism.
The folks I feel bad for are neighboring Philly photo-op cheesesteak peddlers Pat's Steaks. Turns out being one of the two biggest names in cholesterol history has a downside. Pat's owner reports getting lots of email and letters confusing him with his competitor that use words like "never again" and "boycott."
And if you happen to follow the comments in the above link. . . the word is wit', not wid, halfwit. And for that matter, provolone is for Main Line candyasses. Cheez Wiz or nothing!! Though if you like your condiments spicy, screw both of these blowhard tourist traps and head to Chubby's in bee-utiful Roxborough (one-time contender for home to the United Nations, seriously!)-- the free hot pepper bar will flame you out big time. Buy a six-pack while you're there, you'll need it.
and speaking of t-shirts. . .
It's nice to know what kind of results our HOMELAND Security are yielding now that all of the scofflaw databases are linked up to all of our personal and electronic information. Oh, I'm sorry, they're not yet, right? Well, wouldn't that be unconstitutional? "Why, whadda ya got to hide, Pinko, er uh, I mean Islamunist?!"
Anyway, no fears since the TeamBush Administration assures us they're not. Ed note: Do not recall they said the same thing about tapping phones, and recording all of our cel phone conversations, and detaining people, including citizens, without charges, la la la la la. . . I can't hear you. . . la la la la la!!!!!!
Ahem. Excuse me. Still, check out this tale from the literal crypt of JFK airport. Ask yourself why exactly the homeland had to be made safe from this guy who, years before, peddled unlicensed t-shirts in college? Not to mention someone who once also got in a fight with a valet in NYC over a parking space. Check that man's parking stub for traces of C-4!!!!
Still it's all out there, and you, my fellow travelling Americans (ok, even the stationary ones), are being watched and recorded and electronically probed. Best clear up those unpaid parking tickets and unresolved jury duty summonses before you try to board a plane, or you might just take a detour to sunny Guantanamo, Cuba!!!!!!
It's nice to know what kind of results our HOMELAND Security are yielding now that all of the scofflaw databases are linked up to all of our personal and electronic information. Oh, I'm sorry, they're not yet, right? Well, wouldn't that be unconstitutional? "Why, whadda ya got to hide, Pinko, er uh, I mean Islamunist?!"
Anyway, no fears since the TeamBush Administration assures us they're not. Ed note: Do not recall they said the same thing about tapping phones, and recording all of our cel phone conversations, and detaining people, including citizens, without charges, la la la la la. . . I can't hear you. . . la la la la la!!!!!!
Ahem. Excuse me. Still, check out this tale from the literal crypt of JFK airport. Ask yourself why exactly the homeland had to be made safe from this guy who, years before, peddled unlicensed t-shirts in college? Not to mention someone who once also got in a fight with a valet in NYC over a parking space. Check that man's parking stub for traces of C-4!!!!
Still it's all out there, and you, my fellow travelling Americans (ok, even the stationary ones), are being watched and recorded and electronically probed. Best clear up those unpaid parking tickets and unresolved jury duty summonses before you try to board a plane, or you might just take a detour to sunny Guantanamo, Cuba!!!!!!
And speaking of conservatives. . .
Turns out they're not very good at governance, mainly because they hate government. At least according to the current Washington Monthly cover article. Here's my favorite sentence, combining as it does both political and food references:
"Conservatives cannot govern well for the same reason that vegetarians cannot prepare a world-class boeuf bourguignon: If you believe that what you are called upon to do is wrong, you are not likely to do it very well."
Turns out they're not very good at governance, mainly because they hate government. At least according to the current Washington Monthly cover article. Here's my favorite sentence, combining as it does both political and food references:
"Conservatives cannot govern well for the same reason that vegetarians cannot prepare a world-class boeuf bourguignon: If you believe that what you are called upon to do is wrong, you are not likely to do it very well."
Get that whiny brat a Bush-Cheney T-Shirt
The Toronto Star reports on a study the likes of which will amuse lefties to no end while making the Hannity-Limbaugh-O'Reilly crowd rush to the barricades faster than they can defend Ann Coulter.
Turns out a long-term longitudinal behavioral/psychological study indicates that whiny, insecure toddlers grow up to be political and social conservatives while self-confident, secure ragamuffins tend to develop a liberal, open worldview and political stance.
Now of course there are a whole lot of caveats here. The researcher himself, Jack Block, notes that the study of 95 kids over 20 years was done in Berkeley, and that results may vary in, shall we say, less-Uber-granola settings. Still, to my thinking, that anyone could grow up there and actually turn out ultra-conservative should be at least a marginal hat tip to the study's predictive ability.
Also there's the notion of 'social science' itself. This study explained seven percent of the variance (which is pretty conclusive as far as the discipline goes) but once again leaves 93 percent unaccounted for.
Which really, though off-topic, was and is my basic problem with social science. Put another way, if your mechanic figured out (without any doubt) seven percent of the reason why your brakes had been failing, would you be inclined to embark on that drive through the Rockies you'd been planning?!
I thought not.
Screed notwithstanding, just shoot this link to your conservative friends and enemies, and watch the vitriol rise!!!
The Toronto Star reports on a study the likes of which will amuse lefties to no end while making the Hannity-Limbaugh-O'Reilly crowd rush to the barricades faster than they can defend Ann Coulter.
Turns out a long-term longitudinal behavioral/psychological study indicates that whiny, insecure toddlers grow up to be political and social conservatives while self-confident, secure ragamuffins tend to develop a liberal, open worldview and political stance.
Now of course there are a whole lot of caveats here. The researcher himself, Jack Block, notes that the study of 95 kids over 20 years was done in Berkeley, and that results may vary in, shall we say, less-Uber-granola settings. Still, to my thinking, that anyone could grow up there and actually turn out ultra-conservative should be at least a marginal hat tip to the study's predictive ability.
Also there's the notion of 'social science' itself. This study explained seven percent of the variance (which is pretty conclusive as far as the discipline goes) but once again leaves 93 percent unaccounted for.
Which really, though off-topic, was and is my basic problem with social science. Put another way, if your mechanic figured out (without any doubt) seven percent of the reason why your brakes had been failing, would you be inclined to embark on that drive through the Rockies you'd been planning?!
I thought not.
Screed notwithstanding, just shoot this link to your conservative friends and enemies, and watch the vitriol rise!!!
