Re: [acb-chat] denial is not a river in Egypt

Good Easter Sunday, Bob and All. And a good April Fool's Day to my
eldest Nephew Joe, who turned 64 today...no joke!
And below find an article that speaks to the myth of equal opportunity.
Carl Jarvis
******
Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, a professor at
Columbia and a former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers and
chief economist
for the World Bank, is the author of "The Price of Inequality."

The gap between aspiration and reality could hardly be wider. Today,
the United States has less equality of opportunity than almost any
other advanced
industrial country. Study after study has exposed the myth that
America is a land of opportunity. This is especially tragic: While
Americans may differ
on the desirability of equality of outcomes, there is near-universal
consensus that inequality of opportunity is indefensible. The Pew
Research Center has found that some 90 percent of Americans believe
that the government should do everything it can to ensure equality of
opportunity.

Perhaps a hundred years ago, America might have rightly claimed to
have been the land of opportunity, or at least a land where there was
more opportunity
than elsewhere. But not for at least a quarter of a century. Horatio
Alger-style rags-to-riches stories were not a deliberate hoax, but
given how they've
lulled us into a sense of complacency, they might as well have been.

It's not that social mobility is impossible, but that the upwardly
mobile American is becoming a statistical oddity. According to
research from the Brookings Institution, only 58 percent of Americans
born into the bottom fifth of income earners move out of that
category, and just 6 percent born into the bottom fifth move into the
top. Economic mobility in the United States is lower than in most of
Europe and lower than in all of Scandinavia.

Another way of looking at equality of opportunity is to ask to what
extent the life chances of a child are dependent on the education and
income of his
parents. Is it just as likely that a child of poor or poorly educated
parents gets a good education and rises to the middle class as someone
born to middle-class
parents with college degrees? Even in a more egalitarian society, the
answer would be no. But the life prospects of an American are more
dependent on the
income and education of his parents than in almost any other advanced
country for which there is data.

How do we explain this? Some of it has to do with persistent
discrimination. Latinos and African-Americans still get paid less than
whites, and women still
get paid less than men, even though they
recently surpassed men
in the number of advanced degrees they obtain. Though gender
disparities in the workplace are less than they once were, there is
still a
glass ceiling:
women are sorely underrepresented in top corporate positions and
constitute a minuscule fraction of C.E.O.'s.

Discrimination, however, is only a small part of the picture. Probably
the most important reason for lack of equality of opportunity is
education: both
its quantity and quality. After World War II, Europe made a major
effort to democratize its education systems. We did, too, with the
G.I. Bill, which extended
higher education to Americans across the economic spectrum.

But then we changed, in several ways. While racial segregation
decreased, economic segregation increased. After 1980, the poor grew
poorer, the middle
stagnated, and the top did better and better. Disparities widened
between those living in poor localities and those living in rich
suburbs — or rich enough
to send their kids to private schools. A result was a widening gap in
educational performance — the achievement gap between rich and poor
kids born in
2001 was 30 to 40 percent larger than it was for those born 25 years
earlier, the Stanford sociologist Sean F. Reardon found.

Of course, there are other forces at play, some of which start even
before birth. Children in affluent families get more exposure to
reading and less exposure
to environmental hazards. Their families can afford enriching
experiences like music lessons and summer camp. They get better
nutrition and health care,
which enhance their learning, directly and indirectly.

block quote
Americans are coming to realize that their cherished narrative of
social and economic mobility is a myth.
block quote end

Unless current trends in education are reversed, the situation is
likely to get even worse. In some cases it seems as if policy has
actually been designed
to reduce opportunity: government support for many state schools has
been steadily gutted over the last few decades — and especially in the
last few years.
Meanwhile, students are crushed by giant student loan debts that are
almost impossible to discharge, even in bankruptcy. This is happening
at the same
time that a college education is more important than ever for getting
a good job.

Young people from families of modest means face a Catch-22: without a
college education, they are condemned to a life of poor prospects;
with a college
education, they may be condemned to a lifetime of living at the brink.
And increasingly even a college degree isn't enough; one needs either
a graduate
degree or a series of (often unpaid) internships. Those at the top
have the connections and social capital to get those opportunities.
Those in the middle
and bottom don't. The point is that no one makes it on his or her own.
And those at the top get more help from their families than do those
lower down
on the ladder. Government should help to level the playing field.

Americans are coming to realize that their cherished narrative of
social and economic mobility is a myth. Grand deceptions of this
magnitude are hard to
maintain for long — and the country has already been through a couple
of decades of self-deception.

Without substantial policy changes, our self-image, and the image we
project to the world, will diminish — and so will our economic
standing and stability.
Inequality of outcomes and inequality of opportunity reinforce each
other — and contribute to economic weakness, as Alan B. Krueger, a
Princeton economist
and the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, has
emphasized. We have an economic, and not only moral, interest in
saving the American
dream.

Policies that promote equality of opportunity must target the youngest
Americans. First, we have to make sure that mothers are not exposed to
environmental
hazards and get adequate prenatal health care. Then, we have to
reverse the damaging cutbacks to preschool education, a theme Mr.
Obama emphasized on Tuesday.
We have to make sure that all children have adequate nutrition and
health care — not only do we have to provide the resources, but if
necessary, we have
to incentivize parents, by coaching or training them or even rewarding
them for being good caregivers. The right says that money isn't the
solution. They've
chased reforms like charter schools and private-school vouchers, but
most of these efforts have shown ambiguous results at best. Giving
more money to poor
schools would help. So would summer and extracurricular programs that
enrich low-income students' skills.

Finally, it is unconscionable that a rich country like the United
States has made access to higher education so difficult for those at
the bottom and middle.
There are many alternative ways of providing universal access to
higher education, from Australia's income-contingent loan program to
the near-free system
of universities in Europe. A more educated population yields greater
innovation, a robust economy and higher incomes — which mean a higher
tax base. Those
benefits are, of course, why we've long been committed to free public
education through 12th grade. But while a 12th-grade education might
have sufficed
a century ago, it doesn't today. Yet we haven't adjusted our system to
contemporary realities.

The steps I've outlined are not just affordable but imperative. Even
more important, though, is that we cannot afford to let our country
drift farther
from ideals that the vast majority of Americans share. We will never
fully succeed in achieving Mr. Obama's vision of a poor girl's having
exactly the
same opportunities as a wealthy girl. But we could do much, much
better, and must not rest until we do.

Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, a professor at
Columbia and a former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers and
chief economist
for the World Bank, is the author of "The Price of Inequality."

A version of this article appears in print on 02/17/2013, on page SR4
of the NewYork edition with the headline: Equal Opportunity, Our
National Myth.


On 4/1/18, Ashley Bramlett via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
> Dear Bob,
>
> I'm also confused as to the identity of Mr. Heim.
> Maybe Jack is his dad or brother.
>
> I think you raise some good points. I would say I'm in between the views of
>
> you and Carl.
> I think some major corporations are way too greedy and do not care about
> their workers. In this view, I sound like Carl. For instance, Wall Mart.
> However, some do. I remember the recent decissions of Dicks Sporting Goods
> stores to stop selling certain guns. IMO this is a good decision and I
> commend them for being proactive rather than waiting for government
> regulations.
> There are definitely positive things corporations do.
>
>
> You make a good point about the nation running on many small businesses and
> their earnings. Also, corporations do have shareholders. But they
> also might exploit their workers.
>
> Personally, I think capitalism can work. But I'd like to see their be more
> regulation of internet selling. Also, with two parents working, we need more
>
> businesses with family friendly policies such as more paid leave and
> flexible work schedules.
>
> On a positive note, I know of many examples of companies offering family
> friendly policies. LL Bean treats its workers well.
>
> As I go forward and continue to face discriminatory practices in employment,
>
> I know we do not have equal opportunity.
> For one thing, not all job applications are accessible to a screen reader.
>
> For another, prospective employers are uncomfortable with a vision impaired
>
> applicant.
> You as the applicant can advocate and try to put them at ease and reassure
> them you can work, but it makes no difference.
>
>
> One thing we do have in common is the belief in Christ.
>
> With that said, I enjoyed my Easter feast today with my brother's family.
>
> So, Happy Easter Bob, and all who honor Jesus rising today!
>
> Ashley
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob via acb-chat
> Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2018 4:41 PM
> To: General discussion list for ACB members and friends where a wide range
> of topics from blindness to politics, issues of the day or whatever comes to
>
> mind are welcome. This is a free form discussion list.
> Cc: Bob
> Subject: Re: [acb-chat] denial is not a river in Egypt
>
> Hello Carl and Jack/John:
>
> I assume that Jack & John are the same person. It's interesting
> that you have a website with no content on it other than an email
> address to send problems. How can there be problems if there is no
> content?
> I have received three emails that basically speak to the same set of
> issues but are under different subject lines. I, however, will make
> my comments on just one of these email threads.
> Despite differing views from Carl and Jack, I contend that in fact,
> there is equal opportunity for all in this nation.
> Equal opportunity does not equate to equal achievement as Jack and
> Carl suggest for not having equal opportunity. This is a faulty
> rationale for suggesting that there is not equal opportunity. Like
> William, I believe that each individual is responsible for their level
> of achievement in life. Apparently, Carl and Jack believe that this
> is the responsibility of the "state".
> Carl has still not answered my question: why have some people in
> "poverty" achieved and others have not? Still waiting for
> clarification.
> Wikipedia is a source of information but it is certainly not the
> Holy Grail. If you read the disclaimer, information is
> provided/updated by anybody that chooses to post. there is a
> statement to that effect. Information can be added or update by
> anybody.
> Carl, it amazes me that you continue to parrot the left-wing
> propaganda mill without any facts other than your opinions and/or
> emotional perspective.
> When called out on the positions that you take, You accuse me of
> circular thinking while you either ignore the facts that are presented
> to you or come back with your baseless opinions again.
> Examples of these include:
> *. You state that corporations are too large to fail. In the
> past, I provided you with specific examples of numerous corporations
> that have in fact failed.
> *. You claim that corporations control the courts. Again, I
> provided you several examples to the contrary.
> *. You claim that corporations make the laws. Again, I provided
> you evidence to the contrary. Legislators make the laws: corporations
> obey the laws or are severely penalized.
> *. You claim that corporations control religion. When
> questioned, you ignore my curiosity for your statement.
> *. You totally ignore the fact that corporations are comprised of
> shareholders which include individuals and/or other entities.
> Corporations are not the faceless monsters that you contend. In
> essence, they are individuals.
> *. You claim that corporations own the media but ignore the power
> of the internet.
> *. You claim that corporations control the jobs but ignore my
> statement that small businesses are responsible for the majority of
> job growth, not corporations.
> This nation is no longer an agrarian society. You are living in the
> past. This nation has moved from an agrarian society to an
> industrialized society to an information society. Of course, this
> transition mandated the need for evolution.
> This nation evolved to capitalism. Again, I am waiting for you to
> tell me, given the evolution of this society, what is a better
> political structure?
> Finally, the Denial river flows through Washington and I believe
> that it flows right through your property. You are in perpetual
> denial.
> You have an idealistic view of the way society should be, (an
> agrarian society) and the left-wing propaganda that you constantly
> promote. Of course, that is your right. However, it would be nice if
> you dealt on a logical/factual basis rather than an emotional or
> idealistic basis.
> Are you suggesting that we should revert back to an agrarian society
> and do away with the industrialized and now information revolution?
> Happy Easter. Of course, if I were politically correct like the
> leftist want me to be, I would wish you a happy holiday instead.
> Have a great day.
>
> Bob Clark
>
>
>
>
> On 4/1/18, Carl Jarvis via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
>> denial is not a river in Egypt.
>> In fact, denial is a Wall. When we don't want to discuss an issue, we
>> simply put up the Wall.
>> William demonstrates this technique well. When presented with an
>> article that contains statistics he disagrees with, his first instinct
>> is to deny the authenticity of the article. He writes, "...Wikipedia
>> is not a trustworthy source of information. They are a
>> non-profit organization that uses donations and volunteers. They are
>> fundamentally opposed to capitalism as are many of their editors."
>> And just to make certain your attention is on the unworthiness of
>> Wikipedia, he drives home his point by writing, "...But all these
>> statistics mean nothing".
>> Done and done! William hath spoken. His statistics are well
>> grounded. But statistics to the contrary are dismissed out of hand.
>> Finally, after a great amount of what we in government used to call,
>> "Fog"(miles of verbiage to say absolutely nothing), William ends by
>> saying, "The fact of the
>> matter is that no science can prove that people are not responsible
>> for themselves and their lives. Whatever their circumstances, they
>> can always work hard to raise themselves above it. No one is stopping
>> you from going to the public library and reading books on your own for
>> your own education. No one is stopping you from saving your money and
>> investing it instead of spending it on drugs and alcohol."
>> Denial. Denial and blame. Refuse to accept that the System needs
>> reforming and turn the blame for failure back onto the victims.
>> Capitalism is never to blame, say its Worshipers, the blame is on all
>> of those lazy or drugged up bums. In fact, Capitalism also points the
>> finger at Government as being responsible for our troubles. And far
>> too often we go right along, believing that government is incompetent
>> or corrupt...or both, in spite of that same government being so
>> clever that it can build a mighty military force. And in the same
>> breath it can't solve its poverty issue? Does that mean that the
>> poverty exists because those living in poverty just are too damn lazy
>> or drugged up to care?
>> Remember, this nation was founded back in a time when Capitalism did
>> not exist.
>> It's high time we stopped allowing ourselves to be blamed for a
>> government that does not care about the majority of its people.
>> William tells us that we must be responsible for ourselves. But that
>> goes equally for the government. It must be held responsible for its
>> actions, too. At the moment the government is owned by Capitalism,
>> and it is responsible for keeping Capitalism in power.
>> We began as an Agrarian Class Structure. In Colonial America,
>> agriculture
>> was the primary livelihood for 90% of the population, and most towns
>> were shipping points for the export of agricultural products. Even
>> with the establishment of our Republic, democracy continued to govern
>> local politics. But with the advent of Capitalism, democracy was
>> unable to compete. As Capitalists began to gather enough wealth to
>> buy politicians, Capitalism spread like a cancer, eating up all the
>> wealth it touched.
>> The current System is not offering equal opportunity. The 1% of
>> Americans are in control of over 60% of the nation's wealth, and
>> growing. Laws are set to favor the wealthy. Courts are becoming far
>> too costly for the average citizen to use. Public holdings are being
>> given over to private corporations to exploit, and public services
>> such as the VA and Public Education is being Privatized. Even
>> sections of interstate highways are being sold to private foreign
>> interests. The mass media has long been the puppet of Capitalism.
>> Not only pushing products, but creating discontent and suspicion by
>> one group of citizens toward others. Union has become a dirty word.
>> Socialism is believed to be a sign of weakness. We are being taught
>> to live in "the now", and to "take care of ourselves first, last and
>> always". We even defend the right of the Capitalists to set our wages
>> and working conditions. Already we are faced with Corporations that
>> are Too Big To Fail. In other words, they are more powerful than the
>> government they should be answerable to. As this transference comes
>> to pass, Corporations will write their own rules, laws and
>> regulations. Corporations will replace those entities we now call
>> Nations. And as these Mega Corporations turn on one another, our
>> children will pledge allegiance to the Flag of their chosen
>> Corporation, and take up arms to defend it. But just like the Cancer
>> that it is, Capitalism will suck up all life until there is no more,
>> and then it too will die.
>>
>> Carl Jarvis
>> _______________________________________________
>> acb-chat mailing list
>> acb-chat@acblists.org
>> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> YOUR HEALTH IS YOUR MOST IMPORTANT PERSONAL ASSET!!!
> TAKE THE CHALLENGE AT:
> HTTP://BOB-CLARK.COM
> Telephone: 800-345-9760
> _______________________________________________
> acb-chat mailing list
> acb-chat@acblists.org
> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> acb-chat mailing list
> acb-chat@acblists.org
> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-chat
>