This week, Congress issued a report, titled “Equality in Job Loss: Women are Increasingly Vulnerable to Layoffs During Recessions,” that may — if read in its entirety — finally, officially and definitively sound a death knell for the story of the Opt-Out Revolution. The report, commissioned by Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, states categorically that mothers are not leaving the workforce to stay home with their kids. They’re being forced out.

Women — all women, mothers or not — were hit “especially hard” hard by the recession of 2001 and the recovery-that-never-really-was, the report states. “Unlike in the recessions of the early 1980s and 1990s, during the 2001 recession, the percent of jobs lost by women often exceeded that of men in the industries hardest hit by the downturn. The lackluster recovery of the 2000s made it difficult for women to regain their jobs — women’s employment rates never returned to their pre-recession peak.”

While prior recessions tended to spare women’s jobs relative to men’s, that trend has been reversed in the current downturn, thanks in part to women’s progress in entering formerly male industries and occupations, and in part to the fact that job sectors like service and retail, which still employ disproportionate numbers of women, have suffered disproportionate losses. And this — not a calling to motherhood — accounts for the fall, starting in 2000, of women’s labor force participation rates.

“Women may be more susceptible to the impact of the business cycle than they were when they were more highly concentrated in a smaller number of non-cyclical occupations, like teaching and nursing,” the report states. “There is no evidence, however, that mothers are increasingly ‘opting out’ of employment, in favor of full-time motherhood. For this story to be true, the employment rate of non-mothers would have had to diverge sharply from that of mothers, which has not been the case.”

In fact, Heather Boushey, a senior economist at the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, which released the report, proved in earlier research that there was no evidence at all for the belief that having children was causing women to drop out of work. On the contrary: the likelihood that a woman with children at home would leave the labor force decreased dramatically from 1984 to 2000, and continued to fall significantly right up to 2004. This downward trend held for women of all age groups and educational levels — except for women in their thirties with advanced degrees, for whom the numbers remained stable over time. “The data stand in opposition to the media frenzy on this topic,” Boushey wrote for the Center for Economic and Policy Research in 2005. “The main reasons for declining labor force participation rates among women over the last four years appears to be the weakness of the labor market.”

Men, of course, were hit hard by the recession and weak recovery, too; in fact, as Louis Uchitelle of the Times reported earlier this week, the workforce participation rates of men aged 25 through 54 have dropped from 96 percent in 1953 to 86.4 percent today.

But when men in their prime working years drop out of the workforce we don’t say they’ve gone home to be with their kids.

We say they’re unemployed.

Read all of it

Adam Shepard was sick of hearing the impoverished in America whine and complain. He was “frustrated with the materialistic individualism that seems to be shaping every thirteen-year-old to be the next teen diva,” Shepard wrote in the introduction to Scratch Beginnings: Me, $25, and the Search for the American Dream. In a move that is reminiscent of Jon Krakauer’s Into the Wild, Shepard boarded a train to Charleston, S.C., with nothing more than $25 in his pocket, the clothes on his back, a sleeping bag, and a tarp.

Shepard set out to disprove books like Barbara Ehrenreich’s Nickel and Dimed and Bait and Switch. He wanted to achieve the so-called American Dream—without using his college degree, friends, or exemplary credit history—proving that it is still possible in America to break one’s way out of poverty. Shepard gave himself just one year to break from poverty and homelessness. Completion of his project would be considered successful if Shepard was able to own a functioning automobile, be living in a furnished apartment, have $2,500, and have the prospects to go to school or start his own business.

Shepard later concludes that poor people could live the American dream if they'd just stop being so damn pessimistic. Hey, um, maybe they're pessimistic because they and their families have been trying for generations to get ahead and they haven't been able to make their hope turn into reality? Hey, maybe if society gave poor people a reason to be optimistic about the future that didn't self-righteously blame them for their own predicaments, they'd see the future a little more brightly?

Hey, maybe you should admit that being an educated person who is able to dig your way out of a hole after a year of an arrogance soaked experiment which you went into with the least sympathetic presumptions I've ever heard does not qualify you to diagnose the causes of poverty in the U.S., when the people who are actually poor have done a pretty good job of diagnosing the roots of it themselves?

Kayla makes a great point as she acknowledges the obvious point that inequality is related to immobility, and it's poverty itself that reinforces the conditions of poverty. Of course temporary, self-inflicted deprivation for a highly privileged person won't render him socioeconomically immobile. Why are the reproductive, cyclical conditions of poverty so difficult for otherwise logical people to understand?

Ok, ok, I'm being hard on this Shepard guy, considering I haven't even read his book. But God, even the very basic facts of his little experiment are dripping with so much privilege I really struggle to give him the benefit of the doubt.

However, if you really want to understand the East Side, you have to realize that back in the day, you were scum if you lived (speaking in terms of the UES only here) anywhere but 5th Avenue and Park Avenue. If you lived on 3rd avenue, you were pretty much not allowed to brag that you lived on the East Side. In fact, nobdoy cared what side you lived on, they cared what avenue you lived on (thus Central Park West, though you'll have to read about the UWS on another blog. Uh-oh, I gotta start another blog.)

Okay, now for some econo-speak. A theory exists that, essentially, more rich people are trying to cram into the same fixed space that is Manhattan. Compare that with, say, other cities that are not bounded by natural water borders. Also couple that idea with the rising inequality in the United States (meaning more rich people) and mix in a little globalization (those French jet-setters who want an extra apartment in New York).

This is basically how things like Avenue A, B and C got turned around. I would also acknowledge some healthy crime-reversing tactics by the NYPD, but also the fact that we are locking more people up for longer. When Europeans get snarky about unemployment rates, they say the US is just as bad as the EU when you count all the people in jail in the US. Anyways, Avenue ABC used to be the kiss of death, but now with more rich people crammed into the same place, even the biggest, grimiest areas of Manhattan are getting bought up. Unfortunately the middle class is totally losing out and getting booted from the island. And Harlem is going through a gentrification process that is crossing some touchy lines.

I'm thinking of investing in Inwood.

Well, we are about to discover that the importance of the Liberal/Conservative spectrum is becoming secondary to the far more primordial spectrum, that of the Haves vs Have-Nots. Yes, we will still have elections decided on the issue of whether gay guys should be able to have abortions on demand, but when people have to decide whether their kids will get food or medicine this week, at least some of them will get the picture that they must (at least temporarily) set aside their differences and concentrate on physical survival.

We used to have a middle class in this country. But no one will die middle class any longer. In a generation, all middle class jobs will be done by cheap imported or offshored labor for a fraction of their current wages, and anyone who manages to last until retirement will find anything they saved will be eaten up inflated food or energy or transportration costs, by medical costs not reimbursed by their medical plan, or they will have to sign over all their assets to some nursing home.

No need to worry about the "death tax" because only the super-rich will have anything left but debts when they die.

I'm seeing small groups of people starting to get together, getting past old differences, and cooperating on getting ready to survive the coming hard times. I'm seeing networks where leftie Pagans are getting with right-wing Fundie Christians on common issues.

The coming wars (acknowledged or not) will be between the top one tenth of one percent who will own everything and the rest of us who will own nothing...not even ourselves.

If those of us who are prey can get together soon enough to defend ourselves from the predators, we have a chance to make a society with a substantial middle class again and lessen the growing inequality. But so far it's just a chance...

But what I find to be more compelling (and more worrisome) is found in the chart below from the Education Trust. It comes as no surprise -- Kati Haycock shows us that the nation's "dumbest" rich kids go to college at the same rate as the nation's "smartest" poor kids. Goes to show how colleges are serving as agents of social stratification and keeping class barriers neatly in tact, rather than acting as agents of social change...something ain't right here.

The term Poverty is nowadays a common term and in recent years the Western world has seen an increase in the awareness of poverty, mainly in Africa. Through often celebrity driven projects such as LiveAid and the ONE campaign, the issue has rightfully received more and more attention. Furthermore it could be argued that this increased awareness also positively affected the discussion of the poverty and third world debt at recent G8 summits. However, the issue of poverty in Africa, however pressing and urgent, is not the only issue of poverty and perhaps a look closer at home, in fact at home, here in Britain could reveal that poverty apart from being a global issue, also is a national issue. This paper aims to explore several poverty related issues in order to establish whether poverty exists in Britain. More importantly, however, on the premise of establishing this it will discuss whether class inequalities generated by the capitalist system are the fundamental reason for persistent poverty in Britain. It will conclude that although class plays a role within social inequality, this cannot solely be held responsible and the death of class argued by some sociological thinkers, require a consideration of other issues responsible for social inequality. Finally this paper will propose that the real poverty lies perhaps within the human spirit through its acceptance of inequality.

Although Poverty is now a common term, its definition is not entirely agreed upon. More so as a result, Poverty is often split in two separate understandings: Absolute Poverty and Relative Poverty (Macionis & Plummer, 2005). Absolute Poverty is perhaps that what most people would generally think of in terms of Poverty. It is the poverty that spreads all too often over our television screens. It is the poverty of starving children and beggars. Absolute Poverty refers to the kind of Poverty where there is a severe lack of resources that is life threatening (Lister, 2004). This kind of poverty, although usually attributed to third world countries, does in fact exist even within Britain (The Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2007). However, with that in mind it becomes increasingly clear there is an important and crucial underlying issue to all this: the measurement of Poverty. Not only will that help us to understand Absolute Poverty better, it will also aid us to explore the concept of Relative Poverty in due course.

Measuring Poverty is often done in terms of a so called 'poverty lines' proposed by Lipton (1983). Lipton based his poverty line on survival criteria and linked this to calorie intake. This very neat understanding of measuring poverty was soon criticised for not taking into account other factors which could attribute to Poverty (Rodgers, 1984). Furthermore Lipton's view failed to recognise that based on his poverty line, Britain would know very little absolute poverty, something which politically is a very positive outcome for obvious reasons. Subsequently it provides us with the understanding that much research into poverty is government funded and for that reason alone should be assessed critically. Furthermore it highlights once again the need to establish an appropriate method for measuring poverty.

Establishing such a method remains a difficult task and has been approached from many perspectives. Wright (1996) even proposes mathematical formulas to calculate poverty in an attempt to standardize poverty measurement, which in turn is based on much previous work within the same area. Sociological approaches to a poverty lines also exist. At the start of the previous century work by Charles Booth sets perhaps the first example of a poverty line, which was based on a breadline of nutritional needs (MacPherson & Silburn, 1998). Rowntree's research from the beginning of the 20^th century up to the 1950's followed Booth's work and his measurement focused on the maintenance of physical health (Constantine, 1983). Although he made the arguably false judgement in 1951 that poverty no longer existed in Britain (Macionis & Plummer, 2005), his studies into Poverty provide us with the first pointer to the most common measure of absolute poverty: minimum income.

Minimum income became the defining way of measuring poverty within society through the work of Townsend (1979). However, Townsend also provides us with a connection to the term Relative Poverty. As we previously explored, up to the 1950's the focus in defining poverty was with the bare minimum. As soon as you had enough to survive, you were no longer considered poor. Perhaps this is why Rowntree made the debatable statement of Britain no longer knowing poverty, however, Townsend and subsequently other researchers started to take into account the act of 'participation'. This relative need to be able to participate within society as most others are able to, was further explored by Mack & Lansey in the 1980's and 1990's (Macionis & Plummer, 2005). Their definition of poverty was much more socially orientated and one could argue it shifts poverty from the personal realm to the societal realm. They recognised poverty as being excluded from a society, due to not being able to participate and live life like most others within that society (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2004).

Townsend and Mack & Lansey aid us in gaining an understanding that Poverty within industrialised nations, including Britain, is often a relative phenomenon. Relative Poverty is commonly defined in line with Townsend and Mack & Lansey's research. It states that poverty is relative is relation to the wealth of others within that society (Giddens, 2006), hence it could be argued someone could be poor in Britain and yet rich in any third world country. Whether that makes one kind poverty worse than the other kind is debatable, but not beneficial for our discussion. What is more beneficial for our discussion and certainly justified to consider against the backdrop of relative poverty, is whether a wealthy nation, such as Britain, should know the terms rich and poor even if they are just relative. It is perhaps better therefore not to speak of issues of poverty, rather ultimately the focus needs to be on issues of equality.

Discussing equality and therefore inequality deals far more effective with the issue of poverty in Britain. Defining Equality depends strongly on who is doing the defining. Affluent and prosperous individuals would define equality in negative terms. The Ludwig von Misses institute, which is unashamedly individualistic in its economic approach to equality believes that when each and every individual is equal at every level this results in a world seen in fictional horror. They argue equality creates a world of identical people, unknown to variety, individuality or special creativity (Carden, 2003). It is obvious that this view of equality will not necessarily be shared by those who find themselves at the other end of the economic spectrum. Hogg & Vaughan (2002) assert that a more Socialist efforts remove the individualistic aspect of Equality and subsequently focus on a more equal distribution of wealth. However, according to (Fulcher & Scott, 2007) when moving this focus to issues of equality and wealth distribution, we cannot isolate them from the wider social construct of class.

Class, which for the purpose of this paper we will debate regarding to Britain, is mostly linked to income and furthermore a positive correlation appears to be present between class, wealth and status (Fulcher & Scott, 2007). Traditionally three classes have been recognised, Upper Class, Middle Class and Working Class, although all these classes have subclasses which provide certain nuances. What is more important to note is that in Britain the Upper Class, although only making up between 5-10% of the population, owns 40% of the British land (Macionis & Plummer, 2005). This apparent inequality is overwhelming. However, as Gumplowicz (1999) notes all social classes contribute to the functioning of society. And Giddens (2006) assesses that often the upper class and upper-middle class earnings are disproportionate when assessing the societal benefit of their labour. Perhaps for these reasons alone one could argue for a better distribution of wealth within a society!

It is important, however, to fully understand the connection between class and social inequality, to look at the work of Max Weber, done against the backdrop of Karl Marx' thoughts. Weber made distinctions in the two class system of Karl Marx (Noll, 2001) to develop a more complex, multi-dimensional model of social inequality, encompassing economic inequality, inequality related to status/social prestige and power inequality (Berberoglu, 1994). Although differing from Karl Marx on significant points within his work (Sadri, 1992), Weber agreed with Karl Marx that social class and subsequently social inequality were products of the Capitalist system (McAll, 1990). However, Weber did not agree with Karl Marx that such inequality could be changed by a revolution (Macionis & Plummer, 2005). Nevertheless, from both Marx' and Weber's perspective class is strongly connected to social inequality. As we have established earlier, relative poverty, which is the Poverty most commonly found in Britain, at the core is to do with social inequality. Furthermore it is reasonable to expect from Marx' and Weber's perspective that the persistence of class and class inequalities will lead to the persistence of poverty within Britain.

However, certainly from Marxist perspective there is another important dimension to note. As established, social inequality is not just concerned with wealth, it is also concerned with power. It comes perhaps not as a surprise that the upper class and to a certain extent a minority of the upper middle class, possess most power (Fulcher & Scott, 2007). When Marx developed his theory, this inequality of power in Tsarist Russia was even greater. For Marx there was a strong relationship between this power of the Bourgeoisie and their use of this power through established social systems such as Class to ensure their power remained (Marx, 2001). Furthermore Marx believed that the upper class purposely created class conflicts, amongst other conflicts, to ensure the lower classes were too occupied with solving these conflicts to address issues of class (Avineri, 1971).

Although both Marx and Weber provide us with valuable and valid considerations that cannot be denied in assessing the state of persistent poverty in Britain, there is other explanations possible. As earlier established, Hogg & Vaughan (2002) note that socialist approaches to poverty reject the individualistic view of poverty many other approaches hold. Britain's political landscape does not know a Socialist Party or any other major party for that reason except the Conservative party, the Labour party and a minority Liberal Democrat party. Kinnock, Andrews & Jacobs (1990) assert that during the leadership of Margaret Thatcher the poor were punished and that government policies at every level ensured the rich got richer and the poor poorer. Even though Labour would like to say they did things differently, various reports say otherwise (BBC, 2001; The Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2007) and inequality in fact grew further under Blair.

Political explanations and the belief that the lack of strong Socialist ideals could bring a difference in the area of social inequality, still leave a viable place for the class system. However, Bottomore (1965) asserts that social inequality no longer can be attributed to a class, rather it proposes social inequality now affects certain groups within society. Macionis & Plummer (2005) also document this move within certain levels of sociological thinking where there is now a belief that class is dead. They recognise social inequality in modern day Britain mainly affects children, the elderly, ethnic minority groups, women and the disabled. Consumerism and increased inequality even within traditionally defined classes, they argue, now define the differences between the rich and the poor. However, on a critical note one needs to ask the question whether this polarisation within classes really signals an end to classes on the whole and in general or whether it only diverts the attention away from the upper and upper-middle class and their obvious high proportions of wealth and power.

The polarisation of the working class, however, could signal a poverty which is not found within Sociology textbooks or even within much critical reading. Where once class bound people together, now people within that class take a very, arguably post modern and mainly individualistic approach and leave others within that class behind. But this attitude only mirrors a widespread attitude throughout society. Perhaps underlying all issues of poverty and inequality, whether it concerns Absolute Poverty and Trade Inequality in most African and South American nations or Relative Poverty and Social Inequality within industrialised nations such as Britain, we find one much larger issue of poverty: The widespread poverty of the human spirit which fails to recognise that inequality at any level is simply morally wrong. Perhaps the one single reason for inequality worldwide is that those blessed with talents, gifts and wisdom fail to use these for the greater good of humanity and subsequently individual societies. This kind of poverty unashamedly cuts through class, religion and political affiliation and consequently affects us all.

Recognising poverty in its different forms and dimensions lies at any discussion concerning poverty and its related issues. Although this world knows a harrowing amount of Absolute Poverty, Britain knows very little Absolute Poverty. However, within Britain Relative Poverty remains. Furthermore Relative Poverty points towards larger issues of Social Inequality, which in Britain is still growing today. Class inequalities also remain a large part of Social Inequality and more importantly continue to affect most of British society. It is clear there is a connection between class inequalities and persistent poverty within the UK, however, political issues and the polarisation of traditional classes cannot be denied within formulating reasons for persistent poverty. Nonetheless, perhaps the most pressing issue of Poverty is the Poverty of the human spirit in accepting and even promoting issues of inequality.

This paper is part of an academic study of the author, please do not plagiarise and provide references when quoting. Thank you.

REFERENCES

Avineri, S. (1971) Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

BBC News UK (2001) Poverty under Labour. [online] Available at: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/vote2001/hi/english/newsid_1323000/1323885.stm> [Accessed 9^th April 2008]

Berberoglu, B. (1994) Class Structure and Social Transformation. Westport, CT, USA: Praeger Publishers

Bottomore, T. (1965) Classes in Modern Society. London: George Allen & Unwin

Carden, A. (2003) What is Wealth Inequality? [online] Available at: <http://www.mises.org/story/1229> [Accessed 9^th April 2008]

Constantine, S. (1983) Social Conditions in Britain: 1918-1939. London: Methuen & Co Ltd

Dixon, J. (1998 ) Poverty: A Persistent Global Reality. London: Routledge

Fulcher, J. & Scott, J. (2007) Sociology. 3^rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Giddens, A. (2006) Sociology. 5^th ed. Cambridge: Polity

Gumplowicz, L. (1999) The outlines of Sociology. Ontario: Batoche Books

Hogg, M. & Vaughan, G. (2002) Social Psychology. 3^rd ed. Harlow, Essex: Prentice Hall

Kinnock, N., Andrews, K. & Jacobs, J. (1990) Punishing the Poor: Poverty under Thatcher. London: MacMillan

Lipton, M. (1983) Poverty, Undernutrition and Hunger (Staff Working Papers No.

597), Washington, DC: World Bank

Cited in: MacPherson, S. & Silburn, R. (1998 ) The Meaning and Measurement of Poverty. In. Dixon, J. (1998 ) Poverty: A Persistent Global Reality. London: Routledge

Lister, R. (2004) Poverty (Key Concepts). Cambridge: Polity

Macionis, J.J. & Plummer, K. (2005) Sociology. A Global Introduction. 3^rd ed. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Limited

MacPherson, S. & Silburn, R. (1998 ) The Meaning and Measurement of Poverty. In. Dixon, J. (1998 ) Poverty: A Persistent Global Reality. London: Routledge

Marx, K. (2001) Communist Manifesto. London: Elecbook

McAll, C. (1990) Class, Ethnicity and Social Inequality. London: McGill-Queen's University Press

Noll, H.H. (2002) Class, Stratification and beyond: the German case. In. Lemel, Y. (2002) Changing Structures of Inequality: A Comparative Perspective. London: McGill-Queen's University Press

Rodgers, G. (1984) Poverty and Population: Approaches and Evidence. Geneva: ILO

Cited in: Stewart MacPherson and Richard Silburn. (1998 ) The Meaning and Measurement of Poverty. In. Dixon, J. (1998 ) Poverty: A Persistent Global Reality. London: Routledge

Sadri, A. (1992) Max Weber's Sociology of Intellectuals. Oxford: Oxford University Press

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (2007) Poverty and Ineqality in the UK: 2007. [online] Available at: <http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications.php?publication_id=3932> [Accessed 7^th April 2008]

Towsend, P. (1979) Poverty in the United Kingdom. London: Penguin

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2004) Measures of Material Hardship: Final Report. [online] Available at: <http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/material-hardship04/index.htm> [Accessed 10^th April 2008]

Wright, R.E. (1996) 'Standardized Poverty Measurement' Journal of Economic Studies, vol. 23, part 4: pp. 3-17

]]> http://complexsystemofpipes.wordpress.com/?p=436 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:22:11 +0000 Dave (The Void) http://complexsystemofpipes.wordpress.com/?p=436

Quite rightly there is national uproar when the victims of knife crime are innocent. However, when the victim is involved in a gang or caught up in violence it is a different story.

The press demonises them, and their families are further victimised, humiliated and treated with disrespect.

...

Statistics about exclusions, violence and black deaths belie human tragedies, and Leon is yet another tragic victim that can all too easily be forgotten.

However, both his life and his death emphasise the drastic and urgent need for more preventative, innovative and timely measures to be developed for all young people who have been excluded from school or who are subject to anti-social behaviour measures.

We should not fall for the myths of poor parenting, absent fathers, family breakdown or demonise our youth like the media often does.

Instead we must try to understand the complex reality of young people’s struggles and provide them with proactive support and an earned second chance. That is their right!

But it's not bad for everybody. Yesterday's Business Times lead with the following headline: "SA's dollar-millionaire club gets bigger, faster". The story explains that the growth in the number of South Africans with wealth of over a million US dollars was greater than the global average. In South Africa there are now almost 14% more dollar millionaires than there were this time last year. The global average was a 6% increase in dollar millionaires.

In fact the biggest growth in dollar millionaires was in the Middle East, and there are significantly more millionaires in South America too. And lest you think our continent is being left out, South African millionaires weren't the only ones doing well.  This year there are 10% more dollar millionaires in Africa than there were last year.

That might all be wonderful news, except for the fact that in Africa, unlike almost everywhere else in the world, poverty is increasing, and intensifying. In an era where governments and international organisations have set the goal of halving poverty by 2015, that is shocking. It's shocking that between 1990 and 2004, the number of Africans living on less than 1 US dollar a day increased by 20%. But it's worse than that. The number living on less than 50 US cents a day rose by a third during the same period. That means that in sub-Saharan Africa there are now over 121 million people trying to survive on less than 50 US cents a day. At the current exchange rate, that's the equivalent of about 4 South African rands a day.

Now all this is happening while economies are growing. The rich are getting richer, and the poor, poorer. Economies are growing, but unemployment is increasing. Clearly something is very wrong.

I'm not an economist and don't have easy answers, but surely we have to question the political and economic leadership of our countries and continent. We also have to look to ourselves. How have we allowed this to happen? In South Africa, are those of us in the middle classes so caught up in the pursuit of material wealth, the latest clothes, and the flashiest cars, that we have been prepared to ignore the increasing misery of our fellow citizens? What can and should we be doing to turn this around?

To give a picture of just how insane this is, the Sunday Times article also mentions that among the ultra-rich -- those worth more than 30-million US dollars, the biggest increase was in Latin America, followed by Africa.

Now let's get real. How much money does any one person need? Let's say, it's fine and acceptable to do well and be comfortable, and let's be very accommodating and say it's not excessive to have $1 million US dollars. But over $30 million? What do you do with money like that? You can only sleep in 1 bed at night, eat so many meals, drink so much fine wine. What do you do with the rest? What is the point?

Especially when your fellow citizens are spending every waking hour trying to scrape together enough money for just one daily meal.

(This was first posted on the Citizen Journalism in Africa site on June 30th, 2008: www.citizenjournalismafrica.org)

In July 17, 2008, The Nation, "McCain Opposes Contraception -- Pass it On," Katha Pollitt's ponders,

... But can't the commentariat take a break from itself and let the world know how much John McCain opposes birth control? Vastly more people rely on contraception than read The New Yorker or know Bernie Mac from mac'n' cheese. In fact, vastly more people use birth control than believe Obama is a secret Muslim. They might like to know that when it comes to contraception, McCain is no maverick.

... Last week, Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard who has been helping McCain look bright-eyed and estrogen-friendly, told reporters that women wanted more choice in their health care plans; for example, it bothered women when plans covered Viagra but not contraception. Big mistake! McCain had voted against a bill that would have required plans to cover birth control if they covered prescription meds at all, like, um, Viagra. McCain's nonresponse when queried about this by a reporter was astonishing. As posted on Youtube, he squirms and grins and smirks (Viagra! Embarrassing!) and fumfers about evasively. "I don't know enough about it to give you an informed answer," he manages to splutter, "because I don't recall the vote, I've cast thousands of votes... it's something I've not thought much about."

So. John McCain is so opposed to contraception he voted against requiring  insurance plans to cover it like other drugs, and either so indifferent to women's health and rights or just so out of it he doesn't even  remember how he voted.  That's the way to show American women you really care. This is not a trivial issue. There's the basic unfairness of not covering these essential, even life-saving drugs and devices, so fundamental to women's health and well-being, and the added insult of denying coverage while men are lavished with cut-rate erections. And there's the craven submission to religious extremists that moves the politics of that denial.

On the same day, in The New York Times, "Trust Buster" Judith Warner wrote an opinion piece pointing out that while McCain and his campaign propaganda are trying to make it sound like he is pro-women's issues, the reality is quite different. Here are some quotes from Warner's article:

... McCain has opposed legislation aimed at helping women sue in cases of pay discrimination on the grounds that it could make businesses vulnerable to frivolous lawsuits. He criticized Barack Obama’s latest woman-friendly proposals — guaranteed sick days and more family leave — as “big-government” extravagances. He has voted to restrict women’s access not just to abortion but to birth control and affordable prenatal health care, and — though his own memory failed him in recalling this last week — he voted against legislation that would have required insurance companies to include contraceptives as part of their prescription drug coverage.

In other words, he has time after time put up roadblocks to any legislative measures that could help make women’s abstract equality a reality. While that’s standard Republican politics, it’s not really the stuff of a maverick — particularly not one who’s now trying his darndest ... to woo Hillary Clinton’s most die-hard female supporters.

The U.S. is the most unequal.

However, these data are based on households' income in a single year. Averaging income over multiple years tends to reduce measured inequality. This is because of mobility; some people move up and/or down in the distribution over time. If the United States has more such mobility (relative intragenerational mobility) than other countries, the conventional single-year measure shown in this chart may overstate U.S. inequality relative to other countries.

Does the U.S. improve if we measure inequality using income averaged over a longer period of time?

Markus Gangl (University of Wisconsin), Joakim Palme (Institute for Futures Studies in Stockholm), and I have a paper that averages income over 18 years in Germany, Sweden, and the United States. Eighteen years isn't a full work life, but it's the best we can do with existing panel data sets. The following chart shows the findings. As the number of years over which income is averaged increases, the amount of measured inequality decreases. But it decreases at the same rate in each of the three countries. America's position does not improve.

The full paper is here.

__________

* These numbers are my calculations from the Luxembourg Income Study database. To make them as comparable as possible to the data in the second chart here, they're for households with a head age 25 to 59. Income is with government transfers included and taxes subtracted.

The residue are left with the choice to serve the ascent, compete to join the ascent or be buried by it.

The use of the profligate as grease in the machine of advance achievement is correct.

(*H.B. 71908*)

(source)

Economic growth is the increase in value of the goods and services produced by an economy or a country. It is the percent rate of increase from one year to the next in gross domestic product or GDP of an economy or a country. In order to correct for the population sizes of different economies and countries, GPD per capita rather than national or total GPD is used.

GDP per capita of an economy is often used as an indicator of the average standard of living of individuals in that country, and economic growth is therefore often seen as indicating an increase in the average standard of living. "Average" means that GDP growth is not the same as poverty reduction. GDP growth per capita does not provide information on the distribution of income in a country/economy. A rise in the average standard of living can be accompanied with greater inequality and poverty for some or even many.

Therefore separate measurements of distribution or inequality and poverty are necessary.

However, there is a strong correlation between these measurements. As an empirical matter, economic growth (annual growth in GDP per capita) and poverty reduction go hand in hand.

(source)

(source)

Since growth and poverty reduction go hand in hand, it is of the utmost importance that those who care about poverty reduction do everything possible to promote economic growth. Even though our knowledge about the kinds of policies that stimulate growth is limited, we know that some things in some circumstances drive economic growth and others do not. Good institutions, good education, investments, respect for human rights and the rule of law, free markets etc. are generally considered to be good for growth.

This doesn't mean that economic growth is all that matters, that poverty reduction follows automatically from growth or that only policies that are targeted on growth can generate poverty reduction. This kind of "invisible hand" theory, or "trickle down" theory has been discredited. Other policies such as redistribution are also necessary for poverty reduction. Policies specifically aimed at poverty reduction can even benefit growth. It's interesting to note that poverty reduction is one of the drivers of growth. So the causation goes both ways, as is often the case in correlations.

Policies that are effective in increasing the incomes of the poor--such as investments in primary education, rural infrastructure, health, and nutrition--are also policies that enhance the productive capacity of the economy in aggregate. (source)

So specific policy measures aimed at improving the lives of the poor are necessary. An exclusive focus on fostering growth is wrong. One could even say that the focus on the poor is the priority, and that measures aimed at growth are only a means to help the poor, and only one means among many. This has become known as the difference principle of John Rawls: social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society.

"From this perspective, it can be entirely rational and proper for a government to select, among two competing growth strategies, the one that has greater potential payoff for the poor even if the aggregate growth impact is less assured. (source)

The necessity of a double priority - pro-growth combined with anti-poverty measures - is known as the Poverty-Growth-Inequality Triangle:

(source)

Another concept that has been invented is that of "pro-poor growth".

There is a correlation between poverty reduction and economic growth, not because economic growth automatically and single-handedly reduces poverty, but because policy makers consciously try to reduce poverty and thereby promote growth. Growth is good for the poor, but growth without poverty measures will be unequal growth, growth which doesn't benefit everyone equally. When the pie gets bigger and the slices stay of the same relative size, then the poor benefit from growth equally in absolute terms because their slice also gets bigger in absolute terms. But not in relative terms compared to their fellow citizens. However, this is the debate about inequality and relative poverty which is distinct from the more urgent debate about absolute poverty. Growth can indeed lead to lesser gains, no gains at all or even absolute losses for some people at the bottom of the income distribution scale, for example those people who were previously working in factories that were closed because of the industrial reforms necessary for overall growth (such as liberalization). However, this is unlikely because the available evidence suggests that measures of income distribution such as the Gini coefficient are quite stable over time within countries (source). This is undoubtedly the result of policy makers embracing the double priority.

Just a note about some of the negative aspects of economic growth: the costs for the environment aren't factored in, disasters create economic growth because of the reconstruction...

More on poverty.

One was in the comfort of care; a private ambulance easing, paramedics by her in humour

The other was positioned in a rickety cab she kinked and turned as though she had tumour

Their destination was hospital but different maternity homes

The former was at rest while the latter stretched on seat barely with foams

On arrival, one was received by neatly dressed smart and courteous looking matrons

While the other was smuggled in amidst rowdiness by auxiliary nurses in dull looking aprons

The former was rested on a delivery bed surrounded by nurses relieving her labour pains

The latter was placed on a couch with sternness by warders interested more in gains

While one was basking in the comfort of an air conditioned well adorned delivery ward

The other was grappling with poor ventilation neighbourhood stench musing inwardly to God

Delivery time was smooth for one with enough attention and standby emergency surgeons

Delivery for the other was hell of a period with repeated screams and non comforting doctors

Baby finally arrives and was received in gloves and thoroughly scrutinized. What a beautiful day in summer

Baby finally arrives and was pulled with bare hands, the pains were too much that she slumped into coma

Different strokes for different folks

(source: http://groups.msn.com/EricArthurBlair/)

Excerpt from George Orwell's Animal Farm:

Benjamin felt a nose nuzzling at his shoulder. He looked round. It was Clover. Her old eyes looked dimmer than ever. Without saying anything, she tugged gently at his mane and led him round to the end of the big barn, where the Seven Commandments were written. For a minute or two they stood gazing at the tatted wall with its white lettering.

‘My sight is failing,’ she said finally. ‘Even when I was young I could not have read what was written there. But it appears to me that that wall looks different. Are the Seven Commandments the same as they used to be, Benjamin?’

For once Benjamin consented to break his rule, and he read out to her what was written on the wall. There was nothing there now except a single Commandment. It ran:

ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS

After that it did not seem strange when next day the pigs who were supervising the work of the farm all carried whips in their trotters.

More on equality.

The federal member of parliament for my area (I will not name either the area or the MP), belongs to the Bloc Québécois, the federal wing of the Quebec sovereignty movement. Having exchanged some correspondence concerning SSHRC he/she has agreed that SSHRC funding, a federal program, should be devolved to the provinces ("Nous croyons aussi que les fonds du SSHRC devraient aller aux provinces").

Hopefully, slowly but surely, we can start to make some room for this issue.

To grossly summarize, my contention was that funding for education in Canada is a provincial matter, including higher education, and that SSHRC involves federal trespass on provincial territory. I also argued that the funding reinforces provincial inequalities, and that both aspects appear to go against either the letter or the spirit of laws and government policies regulating education, and access to education.

© Carey Lenehan

We ran in the same streets, but we walk in different worlds

You and I,

poles apart, thinking, not thinking about understanding each other,

no chance of ever, seeing eye to eye

Equality unequally distributed, you see you

at the top of the food chain,

whereas I,

a mere reflection of yourself,

am somewhere down deep in the pond

Skin, stature, sex, sin, sisterhood,

you will never see what I see, only

the walls of the world

that fence you in to conformity

with me

on the outside because I,

dressed in the threads of exception,

find conformity too straight a jacket

You see the world numerical, divisible, distributable,

Whereas I,

who came from the earth and never left,

perceive symbiosis, unity, the absolute

art of the whole,

that radiant goddess

from whom you cut chunks

and pretend there flows no blood

You cannot make us alike, because of a deed,

a slash of pen on paper

You drown in misconceptions as we circle each other

swimming in different waters

bound only by a name,

same same, but different

You have lost the real world as you count profits

and study the Nasdaq,

allergic to green grass and fresh air

but I am still living there,

treading the wet earth between my toes,

watching the seasons change,

listening to the fading heartbeat of your cash cow

My earth will take me back when I am done

but where will you go to my brother?

Will you be divisible too?

Will your company count your profit and loss

and the trees

mourn your passing?

Will the pipelines shed a tear, will your office be refilled with

a clone of you?

Will we be equal?

Can you ever, be my equal?

Ah yes, the first news of the bunch. I don't know if you caught the little reference above, but I am working. Every day I get up, eat breakfast (because I have to) and toddle off on the walk to work. Then, similarly, at the end of the day I pack my bag and head off home. It's great. For the first time in a long time I get relaxing time yet I'm also kept busy, I'm doing a nice variety of stuff and time is whizzing past like a boy racer on speed. In case you missed my excited post a few weeks ago, I'm actually a Marketing assistant now - my foot is one rung higher on the ladder to success. However, it does seem to be one rung higher on the ladder to cheesiness as well!

Secondly, on Monday I made the odd transition from Graduand to Graduate - and now I officially own a degree! It's nice and reassuring to know this. Graduation day was an odd time - it was lovely to see everyone, but I am not a fan of the actually ceremony of graduation itself. I was much more interested in seeing the physical certification that I had really done the past three years and hadn't simply dreamt them. I feel that the graduation ceremony is archaic, which alone is harmless. However, I feel that the outdated division between the genders (girls wear their hats indoors, guys don't, etc.) is actually one of the most dangerous cases of sexism - mainly because it is still in today's enlightened society regarded as "what has always been done". If this is "what has always been done", then why does society change and move on - why are some things unacceptable, but more hamrless forms of sexual discrimination allowed and enforced. Mixed messages, I feel, are never the best route towards equality. I also refused to stand to song the antional anthem - it is after all my perrogative and choice as to whether I support the monarchy or nor. There may be an element of childish rebellion in my actions, but I'd rather stand up to my morals and be seen as silly than let them lapse in select situations. Plus, havbing never met the queen I don't really care whether she lives for a long time or not - I have no vested interest, callous as it may sound to say it.

So, rant aside, I have passed two milesones in my period in absentia from Wordpress. I am now a working woman, nay, a working graduate.

Long may this continue.

p.s I shall write a post on Irregular choice shoes tomorrrow, and post some graduation photos whenever I get the oppurtunity!

But this survey includes different households each year. It therefore misses any mobility -- movement of households up and down in the distribution over time -- that occurs. If mobility has increased, the conclusion that there is more inequality might be misleading. Even if the gap between the top and bottom increases over time, if households change places with greater frequency, the inequality of their average income -- "true" inequality -- may have stayed more or less the same. Rising mobility can offset rising single-point-in-time inequality.

The type of mobility at issue here is relative intragenerational income mobility. Has it increased in recent decades?

To find out, we need panel data -- data for the same households (or individuals) over a number of years. There are three main sources of such data. Each suggests the same conclusion: relative intragenerational income mobility in the United States has not increased.

A standard way to assess mobility is to divide households into quintiles (five equally-sized groups) based on their income at the starting time point. Then we look at the share of each of these groups that moves up (or down) in the distribution between time 1 and time 2. More movement indicates more mobility.

One source of data is the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), a panel survey of nearly 8,000 households begun in 1969. The following chart shows the share in each of the bottom four quintiles that moved up over three successive decades beginning in 1969. (There's no significance to the choice to show movement up; the graph could just as well show the share moving down. The point is whether the shares increase over time.) The shares were calculated by Katharine Bradbury and Jane Katz. (See also this earlier analysis by Peter Gottschalk and Sheldon Danziger.) There is no indication of an increase in mobility from the 1970s to the 1980s to the 1990s.

A second data source is income tax returns, which are analyzed in a U.S. Treasury Department report (see table A-5). The data are from a sample of returns filed by taxpayers age 25 or older in the initial year. Here too the period examined is roughly a decade. In this study there are two periods: 1987-96 and 1996-2005. The next chart shows the shares moving up in each of the two periods. Again the data do not indicate an increase in mobility.

A third data source is Social Security earnings records. These records are available since 1937. Wojciech Kopczuk, Emmanuel Saez, and Jae Song have used them to study changes in earnings mobility. They conclude that "short-term and long-term mobility among all workers has been quite stable since 1951."

The fact that all three data sources suggest the same conclusion doesn't necessarily mean it's correct, but it offers good reason to favor that conclusion. Rising income and earnings inequality in the United States does not appear to have been offset by increased mobility.

In fact, McCain seem to tap into his inner feminist when he told an audience of full of the conservative faithful that "Women in America not only take care of the children, manage the household budgets and balance the pressures of work and family, they also run the enterprises that keep our country running." He also assured the women dominated audience that he was for "equal pay for equal work" and that he wanted to make sure "there is equal opportunity in every aspect of our society."

And according to Fox News Embeds, Mr. Straight Talk Express told women that Obama's policies "would make it harder for women to start news businesses, harder for women to create or find new jobs, harder for women to manage the family budget, and harder for women and their families to meet their tax burden."

If McCain decided that he wants to genuinely adopt a more progressive stance on women's issues, that's fine with me. We need more politicians to do so. But first he needs to account for why he did not support fair pay legislation when it came to a vote earlier this year.

The legislation in question is called the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The legislation was named after an Alabama women who was a victim of pay discrimination for more than 19 years at the Gadsen, Alabama Goodyear plant, and sued her employer as soon as she found out she was being discriminated against.

Initially, she won her claim at the federal trial court level where was awarded back pay and other damages. But Goodyear appealed the decision all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where under a cramped interpretation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, a narrow majority ruled that Ms. Ledbetter filed her claim too late.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act says a plaintiff must file a complaint within the 180 days “after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.” The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, sex, creed, disability, age, and national origin. For decades, the Supreme Court and lower courts understood this provision to mean that employees could sue within 180 of receiving a discriminatory paycheck since each check represented a related yet distinct instance of discrimination in a series of discriminatory acts.

Justice Alito, however, had a different interpretation. Writing for the majority, Justice Alito found Ms. Ledbetter should have filed her suit with the EEOC within 180 days of the original decision to pay her differently. “Current effects alone cannot breathe life into prior, uncharged discrimination,” declared the Justice.

I suppose it did not matter much to the five Justices that Ms. Ledbetter only found out that she was a victim of pay discrimination through an anonymous note from a fellow co-worker and thus impossible for her file the charge within the time Alito recommended given the secrecy surrounding salary pay in the workplace.

But in April of this year, Democrats tried to rectify this by passing a fair pay bill that will among other things rectify this seemingly small ambiguity in the law. Now most reasonable people would consider this a nonpartisian issue worth solving. But not everyone saw it that way.

Apparently, some lawmakers are worried that allowing workers to take their employers to court would be bad for big business and designed to enrich trial lawyers. Republican Senator Mitch McConnell at the time said, “We think that this bill is primarily designed to create a massive amount of new litigation in our country, and I think that is the reason for the resistance to its passage on our side”

And the presumptive Republican nominee Senator John McCain also concurred:

I am all in favor of pay equity for women, but this kind of legislation, as is typical of what's being proposed by my friends on the other side of the aisle, opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems…This is government playing a much, much greater role in the business of a private enterprise system

So in April he was against voting for a bill that would help combat pay discrimination, but now in July he is all for "equal pay for equal work." That's definitely not straight talk, thats flip flop and pander for more votes talk.

For the record, both Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton took time from campaigning to vote for the bill and enthusiastically supported it.

Watch Lilly Ledbetter tell her story.

(H/T: Fox News Embeds)

Note: According to a 2006 U.S. Census Bureau report, median annual income earnings for men were greater than women in every single state. And in 2005, men’s median annual earnings amounted to $41,965 compared to $32,168 for women. In other words, women earned, 76.7 percent of what men made. The same study also found that the wage gap persisted across gender and racial lines.

• Asian American women made 80.7 percent of what white men earned.
• African American men made 73.5 percent of what white men earned.
• African American women made 63.2 percent of what white men earned.
• Hispanic men earned 58.4 percent of what white men earned.
• Hispanic women made 52.2 percent of what white men earned.
• Native American men made 71.6 percent of what white men earned.
• Native American women made 59.7 percent of what white men earned.
• White women made 73 percent of what white men earned.

The only outlier here are Asian men who tend to be over represented among high wage earners as a group in the U.S. and earned $1.04 for every dollar made by white men. This is in no small part is due to how our immigration laws favor high skilled and highly educated workers. For example, another 2006 study, found that 69 percent of all Asians are foreign born, and 44 percent of all Asians, compared to just 24 percent of the general U.S. population, had a Bachelor's degree or better.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau and Ameredia.

Note II: Even when you account for education, profession, and hours work, etc., the pay gap among men and women still persists. For example, a report by the American Association of University Women found that even among recent grads:

In education, a female-dominated major, women earn 95 percent as much as their male colleagues earn. In biological sciences, a mixed-gender major, women earn only 75 percent as much as men earn. Likewise in mathematics—a male dominated major—women earn only 76 percent as much as men earn.

Women of all races and ages better find a way to understand one another and move ahead together as genuine equals.

My own personal vignette on the issue:

I spent three years of my academic career living in a co-ed dorm at Bryn Mawr College. In 1969 Bryn Mawr students (and some of us Haverfordian guys) started the "Bryn Mawr College Women's Studies Group" which did many good things, including agitating to get a Womens Studies curriculum started at Bryn Mawr.

The college agreed, and in its infinite wisdom brought in Kate Millett the following year to conduct a Sociology of Women class and discuss her new book, Sexual Politics".

A few minutes into the first class meeting, a Black woman, confused by the hate spewing from Kate's mouth regarding all men, including Black men, and the need to avoid men at all costs, asked Kate, "Are you saying that we Black women have to choose between supporting our Black brothers and our white sisters?" And Kate answered, "Yes, you have to support your white sisters, and you cannot support your Black brothers. You simply have to choose."

At that point every Black women in the class (pretty much every Black woman at Bryn Mawr at the time) walked out, never to been seen again in the Women's Movement. And after Kate's class, the Women's Studies group lost all the credibility it had started with, and I have no idea how long it took to recover, if it ever did.

The women's movement, at Bryn Mawr and elsewhere, was never able to come to grips with its Eleventh Commandment, "Thou shalt never speak ill of another feminist," ... no matter how far over the edge someone went. The white women in that class ought to have walked out to support their Black sisters, but they didn't. They just sat there, in stunned befuddlement at the ironic fruits of their labors of the previous year.

And so, in their inaction, they allowed the forces of hate to become the public face of feminism.

That happened all too often over the years.

And apparently a vocal minority with the desire to make enemies rather than friends is still there. And so still is the desire of the many not to make waves within the movement by confronting the issue.

Last time I expounded my ideas about why those in the lower and working classes who have some thing to lose (it may not be a lot, but it is something) acquiesce to inequality even though they don't really accept it as legitimate, and even vote for conservatives in what might appear to some to be counter to their economic interests.  But there are people who really don't have anything to lose, and everything to gain from rebelling against the inequalities. Why don't those who are truly at the bottom, with nothing to lose, strike out against the structures of inequality in our society?

Well, first up, many  do strike out  -- at least against individuals, groups and businesses that are close at hand, and are perceived as representing the hand of repression. This is what happens in riots, and acts of looting and vandalism. The striking out may also be expressed through theft, burglary and robbery. But its not just the big crimes, petty shoplifting and minor vandalism, violation of school rules, may also be attacks on what is viewed (accurately I might add) as a biased and unfair system. That these actions have no effect on the over all structure of inequality does not negate the intent behind them -- to strike back, to tear down or to take something that is not otherwise available. One reason why these actions are particularly non-effective for changing inequality, is that they are directed at available targets -- small business people and residents in poor neighborhoods -- not at the upper class owners of corporate America.

Most street crime (theft, robbery, burglary is exercised by individuals or small groups. It does not represent a coming together of people with a common cause against an unjust system, to do something systematic about changing it.  Why not? One reason is that racism, ethnic animosities, and xenophobia are routinely cultivated in our society in such a way that when young people do create groups to engage in criminal behavior, their animosities are focused upon other young people  in similar groups, especially groups of different races and ethnicities. In other words, gang warfare is a mechanism by which our society bleeds off anger and frustration of the poor and powerless, and prevents it from becoming a unified revolutionary force.  As long as gang members kill and injure other gang members law enforcement does little about gangs. When gang violence spills over into "innocent bystanders" attempts are made to punish transgressors.  Not always, of course, because most innocent bystanders are also lower and working class members who lack power and resources in our society.

When punishment occurs it involves being sent to correctional facilities or prisons, in which the daily life of prisoners is dominated by gangs.  Gang organization in prisons serves the interests of those in charge of the prisons. Gangs create order, mete out punishment, and create divisions that prevent prisoners from developing awareness of common, economic or class interests. This is why gangs are tolerated and allowed to flourish within the American prison system; most of the time, the existence of gangs facilitates greater control over the prisoners, than could be accomplished through the formal structures, security personnel and sanctions of the prison.

The United States imprisons a higher percentage of their population than any other country on the face of the earth. The vast majority of those imprisoned come from the ranks of the lower and working classes.  They are more poorly educated, more likely to be illiterate, and more likely to have been unemployed before engaging in criminal activity.

One indicator that the U.S. uses its prisons to control those at the bottom and defuse revolutionary potential, is to compare how street criminals are treated by the police, legal and penal systems, compared to the "white collar" criminals who steal far more money every year through fraud, price fixing, embezzlement, and other crimes that require access to high economic positions and power just to commit them.  Take folks found guilty of embezzling -- most get off with no jail/prison time at all.  For one thing, many of the institutions (such as banks) that they embezzle from don't want their customers to know about the losses. The argument frequently made by their (private, highly paid) lawyers is that they are "upstanding" citizens, responsible members of the community -- who have just stolen huge amounts of money, but never mind.  Of those who do get incarcerated, their sentences are shorter than those doled out to not violent thieves, and they serve less of those already short sentences than street thieves do.

There are even more people at the bottom of our structure of inequality, who have nothing to lose, who do not strike out through crime, but rather who check out through drug and alcohol abuse.  Addiction is a powerful method of controlling those at the bottom of society. Oh, sure there's been a "war on drugs" for the past quarter of a century -- a highly ineffectual war, that primarily places low level producers, traffickers and users in prison [pardon me a few statistics: More than half a million people were behind bars for drug offenses in the United States at the end of 2004; people sentenced for drug crimes accounted for 21% of state prisoners and 55% of all federal prisoners.]. The "war on drugs" does little to stop the flow of drugs and money into poor communities. Indeed, keeping a certain amount of law enforcement pressure on drug transactions at the lowest level, helps keep the profits high for those at the top of the drug supply pyramid -- who are not poor and not powerless, and who have used their money and power to support politicians who are "anti-drug".

Societal outrage over drugs generally kicks in when addictive substances, or drug related violence, encroach on middle class communities.  Even then the primary response is a punitive one, focused on locking up the dealers (see above). Very little money is put into drug treatment and rehabilitation facilities.  Keeping a large percentage of the lower class hooked on drugs is a good way of absorbing their energy in ways that will not threaten the status quo.  Someone who is just looking for their next fix is not going to be involved in trying to engineer political and economic change by legitimate or violent means.

Moreover, it provides a superior means to delegitimize the complaints of the poor in the eyes of those higher on the stratification ladder. One does not feel sympathy for the economic plight of the drug addict or wino in the way one might for a sober beggar. Clearly the addict deserves his/her position at the bottom.

So to answer the question at the beginning, many of those at the very bottom of American society who have little or nothing to lose by challenging the system, and trying to change the distribution of resources, are co-opted through gangs, cooled out of society in prisons, and silenced by addictions.

The lifespan of Israeli Jews is four years longer than that of Arabs, a new report revealed Wednesday. The report was composed by the SIKUI organization which monitors the situation of Arabs within Israel vis a vis their civil and human rights.

The report, which presents the past year’s data, displayed a somber picture, indicating that not only has no improvement been made, but some of the gaps between the two populations have grown.

For instance, the gaps in infant mortality rates are significant showing that in 2007, 8 Arab babies died for every 1,000 births and amongst the Jews, 4 babies died for every 1,000 born.

The report also showed that 65.7% of Arab children live under the poverty line while 31.4% of Jewish children do. Moreover, “The country’s welfare investment in Jewish citizens is NIS 508 ($160) on average as opposed to 348 shekel ($110) on Arabs,” the report said.

Another survey found-

A recent opinion poll conducted by Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government found that 77 percent of Israeli Arabs would rather live in Israel than in any other country in the world.

The survey of 1,721 Israelis, both Arab and Jewish, also showed that 73 percent of the Jews and 94 percent of the Arabs want Israel to "be a society in which Arab and Jewish citizens have mutual respect and equal opportunities."

The Kennedy School said in a statement that the poll produced a number of results it termed surprising, pointing to a higher level of co-existence than might have been anticipated.

According to the poll, 68 percent of Jewish citizens support teaching conversational Arabic in Jewish schools to help bring Arab and Jewish citizens together.

The data also showed that more than two-thirds of Israeli Jews (69 percent) said they believed that contributing to co-existen