In the early ’80s, when researchers in Britain began studying office workers in Whitehall, the foreign service office, they found some surprising results: The death rates for the lowest-level staff were three times higher from all causes—and four times higher from heart disease—than those of the senior administrators. Differences in smoking, exercise, diet and other behavior that affects health explained less… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (6)Page 1 of 1 pagesHaving met many CEOs and business leaders, I am still amazed that anyone can possibly believe that the average CEO deserves 431 times the average workers pay. Although I have known for some time that our country is not a meritocracy, it would be nice to think that greed would not become the institutionalized standard of conduct. Today’s corporate management structure revolves around a group of well connected individuals, who sit on each other’s boards, voting massive compensation packages for their comrades, while moving their operations to other countries without regard to the effect on their own country. Their only allegiance is to themselves.
This systematic looting of corporations by their managers has, of course, been extended to the Federal Government. In both cases, the principle focus is “what’s in it for me”. Those who are in a position to take advantage of the system will do so without reservation, as they feel a sense of entitlement with respect to their undeserved fortunes.
One thing is certain, they will not stop on their own. Stockholders and voters need to become aware that these people do not bring any value to the table. Hopefully, we will come to our senses before they have destroyed the system by bleeding it dry.
Avarice is not beautiful. Greed is not a virtue.
Posted by BMiller on Nov 25, 2005 at 4:08 AM I largely agree with the premise about mobility and overpaid corporate CEOs ... but I would note one misleading section, and one which seems to belie your contentions:
You say, and I quote, that “More than 40 percent of children born into the poorest fifth of families remain in the poorest fifth as adults; less than 10 percent make it to the top fifth. But 30 percent of children born in the top 10 percent remain there.”
You cite this as an example of stagnation classwise. But simple math says that therefore, about SIXTY percent from the bottom fifth therefore DO escape the bottom, and “less than ten percent” jumping from the bottom to the top is a pretty significant chunk!
Meanwhile if SEVENTY percent of those who start on top fall out of the group, that indicates a fairly sizable “churn factor” at play.
In short, this manipulation of statistics does nothing to support your concept of a stagnant society, but instead tends to destroy the argument.
Otherwise, a good analysis ... :{
Posted by livingliberty on Nov 26, 2005 at 9:20 PM Here’s a Wall Street Journal article, “As Rich-Poor Gap Widens in the U.S.,Class Mobility Stalls.” It has more on percentages of income and mobility. Here’s a quote:
“Bhashkar Mazumder, a Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago economist, recently combined the government survey with Social Security records for thousands of men born between 1963 and 1968 to see what they were earning when they reached their late 20s or 30s. Only 14% of the men born to fathers on the bottom 10% of the wage ladder made it to the top 30%. Only 17% of the men born to fathers on the top 10% fell to the bottom 30%.”
Posted by Wbblack on Nov 27, 2005 at 3:42 PM Yes livingliberty is correct but misses the point. So what if 60% of the bottom fiifth move up they probably only move up to the next fifth part. Almost half, 40 %, stay in the bottom 1/5. No less than 10% jump to the top is NOT a significant amount. If 70% of the top fall out of the top group they fall probably 1 group down so this too is not a significant “churn factor” at all. We need less categories or a better presentation of the lack of social mobility in these stats. The bottom line is inequality is evil and not inevitable. More government is not neccessarly the answer but a change in the relations and means of production on how they are socially organized is neccessary for a just and decent society in which to live.
Posted by TK777 on Nov 27, 2005 at 11:38 PM While I agree witht the majority of the points in this argument I believe there is a rather “easy” way to reach our goals.
EDUCATION! EDUCATION!
Think about education in this country and how is it a issue of the states. And think of how in most states education is paid by property taxes. Thus the schools in the rich and middle class districts are better funded than those in the lower districts.
At the same time we now know that EDUCATION has a large effect on a persons comittment and knowledge of politics and the political system of the country. By expanding the EDUCATION system to a true equality of opportunity in which schools recieve a per capita value per student thus recieving the same cash value per student and allocating the same amount of dollars to all students EDUCATION can be equalized in a large part.
While some may argue that the rich will just enroll their children in private schools, well yes that might be true, but the proportion of their property taxes that go toward EDUCATION will still go to the public schools and moreover simultaneously all public allocations to private schools will be removed(that is to K-12 public schools will still allocating funds to private universities but with conditions). The force of this will raise the price of private schools dramatically and thus likely put them out of business(yes business they are businesses not schools) and achieve the ultimate goal of integrating students into a sound equal environment.
Now from there the average education an American recieves should increase with the percentage of Americans of all economic levels attending university thus rising dramatically. Upon university study the student becomes more aware of the world around them and the factors that play in our world today and what they could do about it.
The second part of this concept involves the effect this EDUCATION will have on our political system. As the people become better educated(and yes I do endorse a system which would not tolerate drop outs no matter what, thus all Americans becoming at least high school graduates) more persons will realize that the two parties do not offer much too them(as our goals: national health care, ending corporate welfare and crime, etc. usually fall on deaf ears among both parties)and thus increased attention and pressure too these issues which affect inequality will be recieved as the growth of third parties and new ideas grow(I am mainly speaking of the Green party here).
Thanks
If you have any comments questions suggestions on my proposal please submit a response and I will write back to you
Posted by NaderRaider on Dec 6, 2005 at 10:28 AM Hey NaderRaider,
More money into the public schools will not produce smarter students. The reason poor kids in public schools are not as advanced as rich kids in public schools is not due to money .. it’s due to the parents.
The poor kids in our country are “screwed” and it will never get better, only worse. It’s too late, nothing we can do about it.
Here is the problem: about 20 years ago there were too many single un-educated females that got pregnat and dropped out of high school. How can that un-educated mom help her kids with homework? CAN’T
Then those kids dropped out and got pregnant ... and now we have this cycle of single un-educated moms and their kids become single un-educated moms. This has already happened .. it’s too late. We are on the 3rd cycle now.
Go drive thru any low-income area in america during the summer and then go drive thru a middle class area and then drive thru a wealthy neighborhood. This is what you will see .... the poorer the area, the more kids you will see. The very people that can’t afford children, have the most children. (and we wonder why poverty is increasing). lol .. hello .. McFly ...
I’m 41, my sister is 52, brother is 55 and oldest brother is 57. My sister’s husband makes about $300,000/yr (2 kids). Brother that is 53 makes about $200,000/yr (2 kids). Brother that is 55 has his own insurance agency and his wife is a principal (1 kid) .. and I have 2 kids. And that is about average for those incomes .. just drive thru the areas .. you won’t see kids everywhere. But, drive thru the projects ... and you will nothing but kids.
As long as poor un-educated females keep having 2, 3, 4 or 5 kids .. we will never break the cycle.
Posted by tina1 on Jan 21, 2006 at 11:16 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by David Moberg
- Out of Control
Too big to regulate, the banks need to be broken up. - Labor’s New Leader
The AFL-CIO stakes its future on Richard Trumka. - The Retail Devolution
Two new books explore corporate evil. - Who’s Got the Power?
Progressives find themselves outmaneuvered on healthcare reform. - Not Your Parents’ Labor Movement
Why the Republic sit-in failed to inspire other worker actions. - Solidarity Reunited?
Unions rally around shrunken UNITE HERE as it takes on its former ally.
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
