In Response to Unsigned

I wanted to take a moment and respond to an "epic" comment I received on one of my posts earlier in the week. Although the commenter goes by the name "unsigned," he/she is a frequent commenter on some of the other blogs I visit. "unsigned" raised some interesting arguments - ones that I felt were worthy of a response. I've not addressed all of the issues raised as I was working with some limited information (i.e. where it is that "unsigned" lives).

In my country income tax statistics prove that almost 90% of our citizens with a net worth in excess of one million dollars inherited all of their money.

Here in the U.S., the statistics are much different. In 1916, the wealthiest 1% of the population lived almost entirely on previously made wealth (only 20% of their income was generated from actual work). Today, about 60% of the money made by the wealthiest 1% of the population is generated from actual work.

In the 1950's the father would work while mom stayed at home and raised the kids. They had a house and a new car every three years. Try doing that on the pay from a factory job.

In 1973 (I couldn't find any earlier data), the median size of a single family home was 1525 square feet - in 2006 it was 2248 square feet. "Average" families in the 1950's owned one, moderately sized vehicle - today, "average" families own at least two vehicles, one of those is often an SUV or minivan. It's not unusual for there to be an additional vehicle in the home for every child of legal driving age. In the 1950's, there was one TV in the home - today there are an average of 2.24 TV's per U.S. home and 66% of all U.S. homes have more than 3 TV's. You are essentially comparing apples to oranges as what used to be the "standard" of living and what is the "standard" of living now are like night and day.

Try finding a factory job today. They're all in India or China.

I would contend that this is due, in large part, to the demands of the U.S. consumer. The competition for the consumer dollar is such that manufacturers must decrease their costs. Labor costs in the U.S. are extremely high (this actually refutes your minimum wage comment addressed later in this post) so jobs are moved to other countries.

The notion that wealthy people have "earned" what they have is false.

Although this may be your experience, the statistics in the U.S. prove otherwise.

My country also has socialized medicine. My country is a capitalist democracy and we never leave a person to die on the curb because they don't have health insurance.

The U.S. has many social programs in place that pay for, or assist in paying for, medical costs. Hospitals do not turn down patients requiring care if they cannot pay. I'm not sure where you got the vision that the U.S. is leaving people to die on curbs because they do not have health insurance. This simply isn't true.

We also don't get involved in wars and bombing people in other countries for the wrong reasons.

I am assuming you are referring to Iraq, but without knowing that for sure, I cannot respond to this accusation.

Socialism isn't bad. It's like salt. You just need a dash.

Socialism may not be bad for your country, but it is not what this country was founded on, nor is it what has made this country successful. Even if you don't care for our political stance, this country has done quite well for its citizens in quite a short period of time. People here are living better than they ever have. Capitalism is what makes this possible.

The decision to go to war is an expensive decision made by rich people. Poor people think harder about the decision to make war. They know they will be the ones fighting it while the rich folks are safe back home.

The decision to go to war is made by politicians, and yes, they often earn above the median income. They don't make this decision because they know they'll be safe at home, they make this decision because it is in the best interest of the country and, often times, for the world. The military in the U.S. is an all VOLUNTEER military - no one is forced/required to enlist, and not a day goes by that I am not grateful for each and every one of those volunteers.

Social programs don't hurt anyone.

I disagree - social programs reinforce the attitude that citizens cannot make it on their own. Social programs become a necessity rather than a temporary help in a difficult time.

Wealth does not trickle down.

Nor should it! People standing at the bottom of the hill waiting for the trickle need to climb up the hill and fill their own bucket.

Try to get a university education while working for an "American" minimum wage.

Relatively few Americans earn the federal minimum wage. In 2005, 1.9 million Americans reported earning $5.15 the Federal minimum wage) or less per hour (this includes workers who earn tips, but tips are not included in this hourly wage). This translates to 2.5 percent of all workers in the U.S. earning hourly wages and only 1.5 percent of ALL workers in the United States. In other words, MOST students in the U.S. are earning ABOVE minimum wage.

It's not impossible to move up but it sure is hard when you have no inherited wealth.

Well, of course it is! I guess I don't understand your point. Is bettering your life supposed to be easy? No challenge? This argument baffles me.

There aren't enough Mc Jobs to sustain your poor population.

Not true ... not at all. There are plenty of jobs to sustain the economy, but due, in part, to social programs currently in place, an illegal immigration problem that has yet to be addressed and the sense of entitlement many of our younger generation seem to have developed, many U.S. citizens refuse to start at the bottom and work their way up. They "deserve" more ... just ask them.

Social programs are a good way to get poor people to "fit in" to the system. Otherwise they get excluded from the system.

Social programs are a good way to keep poor people poor. Study after study shows that poor people on social programs STAY on social programs.

Let me share a personal example. I gave birth to my son as a single mother. My monthly income was $98 TOO MUCH for me to qualify for over $750/month in social program benefits. For a $0.57/hour pay decrease, I stood to make an additional $4.33/hour in social program benefits. Had I not been one who believed I needed to learn to live with the decisions I made in life, I'd have most certainly taken the "low" road.

I suggest that you go to a poor area in your town and talk to the people there about your view on money.

You know, I actually don't need to do that because I am an example of how one can come from moderate upbringings, loose it all, them climb back up and be successful. My views on money are based on not having any and working my ass off (without social programs) to be where I am today. Not wealthy in material things, but certainly not going without.

It's part of being an open minded person.

Wait ... do I hear the implication that because my views tend to lean in the conservative direction, I am not open minded? Hmmm ... dangerous assumption to make.

In my country the average person is healthier, living longer, making more money, better educated, has a better standard of living, and is in a better economy. When it comes to your economy...You're doing it wrong.

You know, if I *knew* what country you lived in, I'd be much better equipped to address your position, but you have neglected to share that information. It's unfortunate because I have no doubt that your country is not as peachy-keen as you might want us to believe. You've got a bit of an advantage in your argument - you know where I live!

Here's the deal. Does the U.S. have it all figured out? Not by any stretch of the imagination, but for a county that is 232 years old (a new country by comparison) we are doing a damn good job. Can we do better? Absolutely!

But do you know what the best part about living in the U.S. is? If I decide some other country is doing it better, I can leave! I can benefit one last time from all of the freedoms this great country offers me.