Here is a fascinating examination of growing inequality in America:

By and large, the biggest leisure gains have gone precisely to those with the most stagnant incomes—that is, the least skilled and the least educated. And conversely, the smallest leisure gains have been concentrated among the most educated, the same group that’s had the biggest gains in income.

That raises a pretty interesting chicken-and-egg question, doesn’t it? Do people with less money have less money, at least in some instances and to some extent, because they work less?

The author also makes another gotcha point:

[Y]ou could conclude that something must be done to reverse the trends of the past 40 years—say, by rounding up all those folks with extra time on their hands and putting them to (unpaid) work in the kitchens of their “less fortunate” neighbors. If you think it’s OK to redistribute income but repellent to redistribute leisure, you might want to ask yourself what—if anything—is the fundamental difference.

“If you think it’s OK to redistribute income but repellent to redistribute leisure, you might want to ask yourself what—if anything—is the fundamental difference.“

Well, there must be some difference. Many well-to-do people spend time volunteering in hospitals (redistributing their leisure) and such…but if someone asks them for a little money, WATCH OUT! They’ll bite your head off. Just another way to look at the question, that’s all.

I don’t disagree with the overall point of Landsburg’s column. (With a last name like that how could he be wrong?!) Whether someone is a White Collar, Blue Collar or Other Collar, that person will not make decent money unless they can really ‘kick-out the goods’ on a regular basis. And kicking-out the goods requires a lot of work—desk, conveyor belt, it does not matter. There is NO such thing as easy money.

So if someone is making a lot of dough at their job, more than likely they deserve it.

Margie, I hear you. Keep in mind I did not personally write the GP platform. I have a little more preference for personal responsibility myself.

Note to Patrick: I don’t know about poverty pimps, but I do know that all empires eventually fall. As long as they don’t fall directly on top of me…

Hey Scott! Mandatory military training, a two-year universal draft with NO exemptions,for any reason, would be the best social move for the US. It would take every 18yr.old and strip him/her of the Hood, suburbia, rich, poor experiences and provide TRUE equality for two years. These kids would be FORCED to INTEGRATE and learn about each other. Watch cultural and racial hatred disapate over time and the positive effect on society.

Unfortunately the liberals, left-wingers, DEMs and poverty pimps do not want it to happen. Their empires would disappear.

Please someone define “inequality” or the flip-side “equality” between human beings. Is “1984” equality the ideal for 21st Century America? If so, why study, go to school, or even bother learn new things. Why not just hunt and fish for your food knowing that anything more will be split-up and given to someone else regardless of merit?

The issue of equality has become a political sham and a social nightmare. The poverty pimps use it to enslave others while the politicians use it to control the rest of us. Unfortunately the view of equality by most Americans is very naive. It is more about “you have what I want and I will get someone to take it from you and give it to me”.

Whoa, Scott! No way could I begin to advocate some of the things on this social justice link!

If we are all to receive support above the poverty level, regardless of whether we work or not, you have just shot down the heart of what being an American means. It means oppertunity to determine your own future, not having it handed to you. What would be anyone’s motivation to even see to their own survival, let alone exceed that standard? I would hate to see what our citizens would be like after a couple of generations of abdicating responsibility for themselves.

You will find me in the trenches on fair wages, help for the truly helpless, more educational mentoring and financial aid for those lagging behind, some form of universal health care, at least for all children, ect. But when you remove all incentive for struggling to improve, you have short-changed humanity and doomed us to a stagnant situation which must crumble under it’s own weight. Better to give your brother a hand up and let him continue on his own than to try to be his perpetual keeper. There are snakes in this socialist Eden.

“Do people with less money have less money, at least in some instances and to some extent, because they work less?“

Sure, and with an aging population, its sure to increase.

But I think you are trying to duck out of dealing with social justice.

http://gp.org/platform/2004/socjustice.html#1001034

I remind you that your predecessor argues strongly for mandatory youth service at the same time he argues against “income redistribution”. As much as I would love to force ol’ ROSS MACKENZIE to work in a soup kitchen during his retirement, I don’t believe in that, even though he wants to force younger folks into servitude.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RossMackenzie/2001/10/02/compulsory_service_for_the_young

The least skilled and least educated are usually working hourly jobs where overtime is not allowed. Why pay time and a half when you can hire another worker cheaper, as benefits are not generally an issue?

I have clocked out many times in resturant work because overtime was not allowed and yet had to stay to do end -of -shift sidework and wait for customers to leave. Probably not legal, but the only alternative was unwanted time off.

On the other hand, many professionals do hourly billing, as in lawyers offices, electricians, plumbers, ect. It is up to them, how many hours they wish to work. Type A’s abound in competitive fields.

Should I have taken my aching feet to the nearest nursing home for gratis service solely,(excuse the pun), because I was not allowed to work over 40 hours? I wonder who was more exhausted, me or that lawyer, sitting in his office for 80 hours because his future pardnership depended on his billable hours?

The physical nature of low-skilled labor is being ignored here. My leisure constitued going home to clean, cook, do laundry, try to keep up with what my kids were doing while my husband worked on the prennenial old Ford problems or cut grass. We’ve both worked two jobs for extra income and we swiftly concluded that our kids were worth more than a less tight budget. So sue me.

Automatically associating hard working people who struggle and make it on their own with social programs is a cheap shot. We neither asked for nor received any help from anyone. The majority of low-skill, low-paid workers don’t.

Post Your Comments: