Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit Aine MacDermot's column >>

AINE MACDERMOT

Home Page
Legalize Cannabis
Articles Posted: 49  Links Seeded: 5742
Member Since: 2/2006  Last Seen: 5/01/2012

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Our Way of Life

Sat Apr 1, 2006 12:41 AM EST
politics, terrorism, democracy, poverty, aine-macdermot
By Aine MacDermot
Advertise | AdChoices

In almost every venue where the Bu@!$%#es defend the War on Terror, they mention that the terrorists hate "our way of life" or that our military is defending "our way of life"... it irritates me. Why? Because apparently they think we all share the same way of life, that this is one monocultural American society of white Christians who must all agree on the same so-called "moral values," and anyone who doesn't feel that way should just "shut up"... which is just plain bullsh*t.

What kind of "moral values" do you have to have to not see the poverty and the unjust disparity among Americans... and then to extend that sight to peoples around the world? Do you have to wear some kind of America-centric blinders NOT to see reality as it is?

Wake up. We don't all share "our way of life." Americans need to understand that both the Republican and Democratic parties represent corporate interests, rather than genuine democracy. As such, when they talk about "promoting democracy" overseas, they are not talking about democracy the same way you or I think of it.

A disservice is being done to those who died in that tragedy on 9-11, and those who are even now dying around the world as a result of terrorism if the world fails to search out and remedy the causes of terrorism. It does not take a genius or an elitist intellectual to figure out what causes terrorism, but it certainly seems as though the military-industrial complex and the CEOs that run it cannot figure it out for themselves. They likely believe that a continuance of economic disparity is good for business, and perhaps in the short-term, it was, but now those chickens come home to roost, and they seem either unable or unwilling to recognize the problem or the solutions.

Economic disparity is a global concern that frequently fuels hatred, violence, and terror. The great financial differences between nations, socio-economic classes, members within the same class, and in a family cause unequal access to resources and the failure to fulfill the basic necessities of life. Resources imply connections, money, representation within government, and free and open access to information.

Additionally, basic necessities include adequate nutrition, water, shelter, healthcare, education, employment, legal identity, and respect -- and to that I would also add compassion, which is a general tenet of pretty much every religion in the world. Equal access to resources and the fulfillment of these necessities create equal opportunities, increase security, and reduce terrorism and violence. Attacks of terror and hatred, as we have witnessed throughout history, and in our own lives, might be prevented if the right measures are taken to guarantee people all over the world their basic necessities.

Respecting a local culture, its history, and its people is critical. Not everyone wants to work for, much less have visible in their community, a Wal*Mart or a McDonald's or a Kentucky Fried Chicken. Not everyone wants to attend your favorite religious sect's house of worship. Not everyone wants to contribute to the oppression of minorities or the suppression of their dissenting viewpoints. Not everyone wants to help spread corporatism, and all that it implies, around the world. Not everyone believes that the explicit and illicit arms trade and its proliferation worldwide are good things.

As long as there remain people anywhere who lack the basic necessities, there will be no chance for them to have a viable and fulfilled life, a situation that is more than likely to foster violence. Global economic disparity is fundamentally incompatible with global security; and poverty, along with other forms of marginalization that engulf the lives of so many people, is a breeding ground for terrorists.

- - -

"I assume the president's going to say he got bad intelligence... I think that wherever you see poverty, whether it's in the white rural community or the black urban community, you see that the resources have been sucked up into the war and tax cuts for the rich." -- Congressman Charles B. Rangel on the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina

"Many black people feel that their race, their property conditions and their voting patterns have been a factor in the response... I'm not saying that myself, but what's self-evident is that you have many poor people without a way out." -- Rev. Jesse Jackson on the delayed response to Hurricane Katrina

"In New Orleans, the disaster's impact underscores the intersection of race and class in a city where fully two-thirds of its residents are black and more than a quarter of the city lives in poverty. In the Lower Ninth Ward neighborhood, which was inundated by the floodwaters, more than 98 percent of the residents are black and more than a third live in poverty." -- David Gonzalez, NY Times

"Congo's economy remains at a virtual halt. Most people eke out a living not on $1 a day, which is considered desperate poverty, but on 25 cents. The idea that Congo is mineral rich, full of diamonds, platinum, cobalt and other valuable minerals, is an abstraction to most of the populace." -- Hope Glimmering as War Retreats From Congo, NYTimes 10/21/03

"These widening disparities are often attributed to the increasing importance of education. But while it's true that, on average, workers with college education have done better than those without, the bulk of the divergence has been among those with similar levels of education. High-school teachers have not done as badly as janitors but they have fallen dramatically behind corporate CEOs, even though they have about the same amount of education." -- Paul Krugman, economist

"I personally think that society is responsible for a very significant percentage of what I've earned. If you stick me down in the middle of Bangladesh or Peru or someplace, you'll find out how much this talent is going to produce in the wrong kinds of soil." -- Warren Buffett

"The United States of America is the most capitalistic of the major industrialized nations. This is not because America is a leader in per-capita gross domestic product, per-capita income, or productivity growth, for it is not. America does, however, have one of the most pro-business, inequitable, and inhumane socioeconomic systems in the industrialized world... It certainly does not benefit the average citizen, nor does it benefit the country as a whole." -- David E. Driver, former Wall Street executive turned Progressive

"Why did corporate governance checks and balances that served us reasonably well in the past break down? ... An infectious greed seemed to grip much of our business community." -- Alan Greenspan, June 9, 2005, testimony to Joint Economic Committee

"Having 37 million people living in poverty in this country is wrong. We have a moral responsibility to do something about it. We saw the face of poverty right here in America during Hurricane Katrina. These people live on the edge every single day terrified that something bad is going to happen to them where they fall off the edge and into the ditch and are never, ever be able to get out. When you walk into a poverty center in this country you see a lot of single mothers who work hard and are responsible. They have never had a champion. I'm not talking about me; I'm talking about us. [. . .] When the president submits his budget, this is a moral document. It says a lot about America's priorities. How could America embrace a document that does so little for so few? We have a void in moral leadership… the leaders we've been waiting for are us." -- John Edwards, former Senator from North Carolina

"The major issues that I see the United States has during this affluent period is the question of distribution of income. No society succeeds unless virtually all of its participants believe that it's fair and gives people opportunities." -- Alan Greenspan, Jan. 26, 2000, to Senate Banking committee (note that this was said while we still had the Clinton budget surplus)

"From a spiritual point of view, it cannot be true that the work of the CEOs of some companies is worth a thousand times that of some other of their employees, just as it cannot be true that because you can get people to work full time for minimum wage they are justly compensated." -- Gregory F.A. Pierce, co-founder, Business Executives for Social Justice, 2001

"What we have here is a form of looting... The rich don't need the money and are a lot less likely to spend it - they will primarily increase their savings. Remember that wealthier families have done extremely well in the US in the past twenty years, whereas poorer ones have done quite badly. So the redistributive effects of this administration's tax policy are going in the exactly wrong direction... I think this is the worst government the US has ever had." -- George A. Akerlof, 2003 interview with Der Spiegel

"Plato told Aristotle no one should make more than five times the pay of the lowest member of society. J.P. Morgan said 20 times. Jesus advocated a negative differential - that's why they killed him." -- Graef Crystal, compensation expert, 1998

"Unlimited inequality is inconsistent with community, no matter how well-off the poorest are. Even relative poverty breeds resentment, and riches insulate and harden the heart. Conviviality, solidarity, and brotherhood weaken with economic distance." -- Herman Daly, in Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development, 1996

"In a rich society, no one should be allowed to suffer from deprivation such as homelessness, starvation and illness. This ideal is essential, not simply as a matter of human good, but as the price we pay for a measure of domestic tranquillity." -- John Kenneth Galbraith

"I am hard-pressed to believe that this is a period where we've got a rising tide that has lifted all boats. There are millions of workers who have never seen the harbor, let alone even know what a boat looks like." -- Stephen Roach, chief economist, Morgan Stanley

"We're becoming an oligarchic society, with an extreme concentration of wealth. This concentration of wealth is protected through a political process that's making it difficult for anyone but the monied class to have a voice." -- Edward Wolff, 1999

"A line of Army convoy trucks filled with food, stretching to the moon and back. This is food taken from the poor by the wealthiest nation in the world." -- Larry Brown, after Congress cut $30 billion from nutritional programs, 1997

"In Appalachia, children were stunted by poverty. In Affluencia, children are stunted by wealth." -- Steve Blow, Dallas Morning News, March 4, 2001

"To do good, blood must circulate. Money must circulate, too. Money must be distributed throughout the body politic, not be concentrated in the pockets of a few... In the natural order, all life must exist within limits. Human society, as part of the natural order, must live within limits as well. A maximum wage linked to a decent minimum wage would help every family and every community live healthy lives – and restore balance to a nation ravaged by unbridled greed." -- Jeff Vogel, 1996

"The rich have decided that, since they don't use public services any more, they shouldn't have to pay for them." -- Ed Finn, Vancouver, B.C., Sun, May 16, 1996
[Perhaps they should keep that in mind when they want someone to call 911 for them for any reason whatsoever.]

"Sooner or later this country's politics will get back to the core issue: economic inequality. I hope this happens in my lifetime. Actually, I think the subject is bearing down on the politicians faster than they imagine." -- William Greider, Rolling Stone, November 2, 1995
[A little more than ten years later, and the issue still isn't right there in their faces. But it should be.]

"Perhaps I am too cynical, but I believe there is a separate class of people in this country called Too Rich to Go to Prison." -- Molly Ivins

"To suppose, as we all suppose, that we could be rich and not behave the way the rich behave, is like saying that we could drink all day and stay sober." -- L. P. Smith
[Actually, that's not impossible. I've done that. Try mourning.]

"We used to think of Great Britain, with its castles and peerages, as being the epitome of a class-based society. Today, we far surpass Britain in the disparity of income. That is economically disastrous and morally wrong." -- David Obey, 1996

"Every time Jesus offers an opinion about riches, it is negative. Every time he teaches about the use of wealth, he counsels disciples to give it away." -- Thomas Schmidt, The Midas Trap, 1990

"I can't stand the pompous among us who complain about welfare. The biggest welfare recipients in the United States are the richest people." -- Larry King, 1995

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Aine MacDermot's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (21)
Fennec

Wow, what a rant! :) You have lots of cute sound bytes. You have more sound bytes than your article. (You should really cut back next time.) Your point seems to be something about America's imperfection. But I'll start with your bit on Islam first.

Islam- well, at least the portion of Islam that's particularly politically active- does hate our way of life. They do hate the West, for many reasons. The cartoon controversy is an example of that. It's not all about the cartoons, it's about a system which would allow them to be published. They're not offended by the cartoons, they're offended that those who published the cartoons aren't being tried for blasphemy. I seem to recall a recent poll showing that about half of UK Muslims thought the country should set up administrative districts where Islamic law would be enforced. Islam won't ever be really, truly happy with a secular society, a society of free speech and free reigion. Yes, that's a generalization, as there is no one single thing called Islam, but it's no less true. Nuke Denmark!

And no, America isn't perfect. But for all your worries of "economic disparity", things are pretty darned good for everybody. It's easy, I suppose, to complain that Bill Gates has billions more dollars than you do, but your life is pretty darned cushy too. And it's easy to point and blame the Wal-Marts of the nation for all that- way too easy. But you take it too far. You say that "Not everyone wants to work for [them], much less have [them] visible in their community". And now you're invoking your moral values and trying to impose them on the world. Excuse me if I don't feel this way. Should I just "shut up"?

If "the Community" truly didn't want to work for them, or shop there, then they wouldn't, and they would go out of business. But people do want to shop at Wal-Mart, because it's cheaper, because stuff there is much cheaper. It's especially popular among poor people; our local Hispanic community frequents it in quantity. You can say that it "destroys local businesses", and maybe that's true, and maybe it does mean that less people have jobs- but it destroys them by being better, by needing fewer people, and being more efficient. Are you saying that people should be compelled to spend an extra fraction of their grocery dollars going to the overhead on the local store, because you think it's prettier? More "quaint," perhaps? If you weren't so Affluent yourself you might appreciate Wal-Mart better.

And you should have a look at what Poverty and Disparity is really like in America, and then you should take a look at what it is elsewhere in the world. American poverty comes with a color television. The real issue shouldn't be flattening the "wealth gap" half so much as it should be raising the bottom line. I mean: so someone is richer than you, so what? To say that merely being richer than your fellow man is inherenty wrong is to embrace the essence of cold-hearted materialism to its fullest.

As for the rest of the world? It's easy to say that we should give to the poor and starving, but there are two things. First, some places (Sudan) are politically far too much of a mess for us to make a difference. Secondly, just sending raw food isn't an effective long-term solution to poverty. Setting up a System is. Making these places ultimately self-supporting is. But that's not easy. You know one thing that helps get it done? Those evil multinational corporations and "outsourcing". If you really want to be fair to the poorer nations of the world, you'll have to deal with some of this. Yes, that means that some lower-class Americans will lose a job. Yes, it means globalization. I'll tell you what else you can do: end agricultural subsidies. They prop up American and European farmers at the expense of any would-be agriculture in poorer nations the word over.

So...
America. Not perfect. Generally getting better over time, with ups and downs here and there. But don't try to destroy all the "evil" corporations. It won't make things better.

  • 6 votes
Reply#1 - Tue Feb 28, 2006 11:05 AM EST
kevinb66

Our culture is freedom. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No guarantees in this life for any of us except that we are all free. That is "our way of life". This is what our enemies are trying to change.

  • 4 votes
Reply#2 - Tue Feb 28, 2006 11:07 AM EST
Stephen Russell

"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?" - Frederic Bastiat

So mankind isn't good enough on our own to do good without government making us but somehow government is good enough? Who are they but us? In fact they are politicians so they are arguably worse.

  • 2 votes
Reply#3 - Tue Feb 28, 2006 11:16 AM EST
Aine MacDermot

First off, this was not a rant, this was a serious wake-up call for Americans to examine REAL "moral values" and how those values could address the problems of global poverty as a way of reducing violence and terrorism around the world.

Secondly, I never even mentioned Islam. Were I to mention a specific religion or sect by name, I would call attention to the extremist elements or sects within each of the major religions today who use violence and terrorism as tools to push their beliefs on everybody else. And if anyone thinks that Islam is solely responsible for that, I suggest they take a wider viewpoint and read a little more news.

As far as "freedom" goes, there seems to be a dozen different definitions of that, and there is no government in the world that will allow people very much freedom at all. It's always constrained in a thousand different ways. Quite frankly, we had more freedom in the U.S. 30 years ago, even while Nixon's FBI was spying on us. People forget that it isn't a government that grants us freedom... the power of a government is derived from it's People and restricted by the same. People who refuse to restrict the power of government allow their freedom to be taken from them piece by piece.

  • 4 votes
Reply#4 - Tue Feb 28, 2006 11:44 AM EST
kevinb66

There may be a dozen ways to explain freedom but there is only one definition. The word freedom comes from the Old English root freodom. Freo meaning to love, set free. Dom meaning domain, state or condition. So it is the domain of being free. Attempting to change definitions does not help your argument.

You state that government is derived from the people, of which I certainly agree, and yet much of what you propose calls for more government control over our lives.

  • 2 votes
Reply#5 - Tue Feb 28, 2006 12:12 PM EST
Walt D

The way of life we're trying to protect is the same one that allows you to freely express your opinion in a post like this.

It does not take a genius or an elitist intellectual to figure out what causes terrorism,

Al Qaeda has openly stated that their goal is a global Muslim theocracy, not liberation from economic inequality. I do support you in decrying the social and economic problems America faces, especially in regards to the corporate culture and its results, but to oversimplify the situation helps no one. These problems (both domestic and global) existed long before your "Bu@!$%#es" came to power. I suppose it's comforting to single out one group and lay all the problems of the world at their doorstep. Usually this is a mistake of youth which cannot remember history it hasn't actually lived through. The rest of us remember terrorism from decades ago when Bush was still snorting coke with cheerleaders in his daddy's car. We also remember the pre-60s social and economic inequalities which dwarf those of today.

  • 2 votes
Reply#6 - Tue Feb 28, 2006 12:19 PM EST
Aine MacDermot

Can you tell me Who, exactly, is al-Qaeda, and how and under what conditions this name first came to be in use in the U.S.?

Bin Laden doesn't call his group that name. Check Wikipedia.

  • 1 vote
Reply#7 - Tue Feb 28, 2006 12:36 PM EST
Fennec

Secondly, I never even mentioned Islam.

Sorry. But Islam seems to be associated with Terrorism in the United States of ate, and just having looked at the "Nuke America" signs from another protest, and their general hatred of the West...

    Reply#8 - Tue Feb 28, 2006 1:12 PM EST
    Aine MacDermot

    Definitions of freedom on the Web (the short version of each):

    * the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints
    * exemption: immunity from an obligation or duty
    - wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

    1. We cannot act or speak in total freedom, even in the U.S. -- free speech zones? arrests for wearing a t-shirt? getting taken off an airplane for wearing a t-shirt?
    2. Selective Service registration? Vehicular license plates and registration? Taxes?

    * Freedom refers, in a very general sense, to the state of being free (i.e.: unrestricted, unconfined or unfettered).
    - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom

    1. Gated communities? Check lanes on roads? Passports? Visas? immigration laws? checkpoints on borders? the borders themselves? no-fly lists (with lots of errors and almost no way to get taken off of them)?

    * Freedom is the right, or the capacity, of self-determination as an expression of the individual will.
    - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_(political)

    1. the Electoral College vs. a direct democracy? individual sovereignty without the interference of external authorities, such as courts, intelligence agencies, or the police? the "glass ceiling"? pay disparities between males and females doing the same job (limits self-determination)? inequality of opportunities?

    * A political condition that permits freedom of choice and action for individuals and also for individuals and groups to participate in the decisions and operation of the society and the political system.
    - www.canvasopedia.org/content/canvasopedia/dictionary.htm

    1. voter rolls purged? why can't prisoners vote (keep in mind, they don't lose their citizenship upon conviction, and that they could safely vote absentee)? gay marriage? why do peaceful protestors get arrested, even though they haven't broken any laws?

    * Complex philosophical concept referring to an individual or group's ability, right, or possibility of self-determination or political independence. Often associated to the concept of human free will, our individual capacity to choose our own destiny rather then follow the dictates of others, nature, or even supernatural forces. The concept of Freedom has been defined in very different ways depending on the school of thought, philosophical branch, or discipline that attempts to define it. ...
    - www.elissetche.org/dico/F.htm

    1. This last one pretty much sums up what I've been saying. Freedom is defined in a lot of ways, depending on who is doing the defining and what ideology they have.

    I haven't attempted to change the definitions, merely point out that there is not just one definition. And that when we examine the societies we live in (not just in America, but whatever country you are living in or might visit), none of us are truly and completely free (by the short definitions above).

    And no, I am not particularly FOR more government intervention into our lives. If anything, I am for less intervention by both government and the neighbors who are encouraged to spy on and report each other to the authorities.

    Or did Orwell's 1984 not mean anything?

    There is however, something immoral about the wealthiest 2% owning 80% of the resources, and so many in the world deprived of the resources to pull themselves out of poverty or even having the basic necessities essential to all human beings. It says something about the social values of modern civilization.

    • 4 votes
    Reply#9 - Tue Feb 28, 2006 1:45 PM EST
    edgellj

    Well, even if the author got off topic to address some of the rants received, I think one thing is clear: the "enemies" we constantly hear about in the US are in fact attacking "our way of life." As much as I hate to admit that I occasionally shop the mega-conglomerates in order to sustain myself, I have to concede the fact that life would be much more difficult without them. We all, whether we like to admit it or not, support the decadence against which so many are revolting.

    It is not the idea of race, Christianity, or simply being born in the USA which is disgusting to these groups. It is, as Fennec (I'll disagree with you in just a moment on another topic) points out, poverty in the US comes with a color television, with a roof over one's head, with food stamps, with, with, with. Poverty in the "third world" comes without water, without shelter, without electricity, without food, and without basic human necessity of any kind. It is not directly the predominantly Christian, white middle class family which terrorists detest, it is the fact that many other countries around the world have a high regard for charity which the stereotypical American family does not. A wake up call does need to be sounded, but not by quoting heroes of the past or screaming leftist mantras. It needs to be sounded at Temple, at Synogogue, at Church, at school, at community halls, on national and local television until all Americans are giving willingly. It is not that 'terrorists' don't appreciate the funding doled out by the US government to their states, it is that this money is being given out of "obligation" rather than charity.

    ...If "the Community" truly didn't want to work for them, or shop there, then they wouldn't, and they would go out of business. But people do want to shop at Wal-Mart, because it's cheaper, because stuff there is much cheaper... If you weren't so Affluent yourself you might appreciate Wal-Mart...

    Perhaps you know the original author a bit better than I do, but I do, personally, take offense. I am not, by local standards, affluent. However, recognizing my personal financial limitations, I do my part to not subsidize companies like Wal*Mart, when I can. I opt to buy fruit and vegetables from local producers, foods from local startup companies, and supplies from local grocery chains. This puts an enormous strain on my budget, leaving little money for luxury items. I suppose if I shopped exclusively at the mega-chains, I would be able to save up money for a new television or stereo or what-have-you. But I have made a choice in my life to make sure that what little wealth I have is spread to those who need it as much as I do, or worse. I'm doing my part to make sure the low end of the American economy is functioning. I feel better for having invested in friends and locals than paying the bloated salaries of CEOs at a faceless monolith. I know my karma is clean. I hate to admit it, but I've been doing it for years; I'm doing exactly what our "enemies" want. I'm helping my fellow man.

    Now, as for the community not wanting to work at Wal*Mart - it's not fair to say that the employees should all up and quit. What community has several thousand jobs to fill? If Wal*Mart went out of business where would all of those who, unlike me, depend on it for cheap goods go?

    • 3 votes
    Reply#10 - Tue Feb 28, 2006 1:51 PM EST
    Aine MacDermot

    "Thirty years ago the average annual compensation of the top 100 chief executives in the country was 30 times the pay of the average worker. Today it is 1000 times the pay of the average worker." -- See more at: Saving Our Democracy by Bill Moyers.

    • 1 vote
    Reply#11 - Wed Mar 1, 2006 11:34 AM EST
    Stephen Russell

    What is the pay of the average worker compared to thirty years ago? You want to compare rich and poor and ignore how far the poor in this country have come.

    • 1 vote
    Reply#12 - Wed Mar 1, 2006 3:02 PM EST
    Aine MacDermot

    Statistics may suggest wages have considerably risen over a given period. However, if prices have also risen substantially, the purchasing power of each dollar earned may have declined.

    Federal Minimum Wage = $1.45/hr. in February 1970

    If in 1970, I bought goods or services for $1.45, then in 2006 the same goods or services would cost $7.57 (assuming the calculator below is correct).

    Calculator located here (you can compare prices on any item from long ago to now in terms of real spending power):
    http://woodrow.mpls.frb.fed.us/research/data/us/calc/

    The Federal Minimum Wage is currently $5.15, not $7.57 (some States have increased the minimum wage in their States, but many States continue to use the federal guideline). So, minimum wage earners have lost ground to inflation and average wages over the past 36 years, and these workers pay the same for goods or services as any other workers regardless of their earnings (which I will get to in a moment).

    During most of the 1960s and 1970s, working at the minimum wage kept a family of three out of poverty. Today such a family is ~24% below the poverty level. THE MINIMUM WAGE BUYS YOU LESS TODAY THAN AT ANY TIME IN THE PAST 40 YEARS.

    The Federal Minimum Wage has not increased since 1997. By itself, of course, increasing the minimum wage would not fully correct the inequities in the current economy. It would, however, help address them by lifting the buying power of the lowest paid workers and closing some of the distance between the earnings of minimum-wage workers and that of the average worker. The minimum wage is part of our social compact, and fairness requires that the minimum wage be adjusted periodically to maintain equity for minimum wage earners. Moreover, more than 60 percent of all minimum wage earners are working full time, and more than 60 percent are over 25, thus blowing holes in the "teenage or college student part-time workers" theory. High-income families have received large federal tax cuts while minimum wage earners, who usually do not owe income tax, have seen a steady stream of payroll tax hikes, further burdening them unfairly with regard to real dollars to spend on the basic necessities (food, clothing, shelter, and utilities).

    Pay Equity Between the Sexes : Average Worker's Pay

    1970
    Women's Earnings = $20,567
    Men's Earnings = $34,642
    Dollar Difference = $14,075
    Percent Difference = 59.4%

    2004 (latest figure available)
    Women's Earnings = $31,223
    Men's Earnings = $40,798
    Dollar Difference = $9,575
    Percent Difference = 76.5%

    You can see by the above that if we selectively only quoted some of the statistics, for example the Dollar Difference, that it would seem as though women were making really significant gains in closing the gap over the pay equity issue, but looking at the Percent Difference indicates that the opposite is actually true.

      Falling BehindIncomes for younger workers haven't kept pace with those of older workers.Age of income-earnerChange in real median income of men, 1970-1997Change in real median income of families, 1995-2004Under 35-19%4.4%35-44-10.65.545-545.623.2
    55-644.730.8SOURCE: US CENSUS BUREAU; FEDERAL RESERVEThe median income for men under age 44 was significantly lower in 1997 than in 1970, after adjusting for inflation, according to a long-term analysis by the Census Bureau in the late 1990s. For those over 45, incomes barely held their own during that period.

    The entry of women into the workforce in those decades has helped push median family incomes up over time. But even when men and women are included together, younger workers (age 25-34) are earning well below what they did in 1970. And at all ages, evidence suggests that families are putting in more hours of work to make their household incomes rise. The average American is working one month (160 hours) more each year than a generation ago. But even with extra time at work, median family income has barely budged since 1995 for householders below 45, up about 5% after inflation through 2004.

    How does that 5% look now when you're having to work 160 more hours per year to even see that little bit of increase? With more hours at work, of course you are going to see a rise in income in the statistics... the question is, do you want to spend more and more of your life at work trying to make ends meet while corporate CEOs grant themselves huge multimillion dollar bonuses?

    If you like that situation, good on you, maybe they can put a cot in your cubicle... maybe even install a little microwave to go with it. Heh.

    • 3 votes
    Reply#13 - Wed Mar 1, 2006 5:06 PM EST
    Aine MacDermot

    Sorry, the table I posted didn't render (although it did render in the preview view) and now I can't correct it. :/

      Reply#14 - Wed Mar 1, 2006 5:08 PM EST
      Alex Haakonsen

      Our culture is freedom. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No guarantees in this life for any of us except that we are all free. That is "our way of life". This is what our enemies are trying to change.

      Could you elaborate on exactly how the enemies are trying to take away our way of life? By way of life i assume you dont really mean our freedom to be happy as its a little unlikely that anyone outside the Western block dislikes our happy smiley faces and wants everyone to be a little bluer this year. But what of our fiscal freedom to take trips overseas? Note that when the US military takes a "vacation" they pack heat. Perhaps taking away their fiscal freedom to travel might not be a bad thing.

      I was under the impression that a culture was a system of shared beliefs, values, customs, behaviours, and artifacts that the members of society use to cope with their world and with one another, and that are transmitted from generation to generation through learning. I read nothing here of a potential for an anti-way-of-life organisation.

      Only problems inflicted upon oneself, not the apparent happiness of others, can act as a catalyst for joining the terrorist country club. Real people with real problems driven to very extreme measures. Religious doctrine is harmful yes, and its role in pushing along the would be terrorist to perform such horrid acts is undeniable, but i find it hard to fathom that the root cause for the average suicide bomber started with them watching a Chevy Chase movie and thinking "these guys are gonna pay for that...".

      • 1 vote
      Reply#15 - Thu Mar 2, 2006 1:58 PM EST
      Fennec

      Could you elaborate on exactly how the enemies are trying to take away our way of life?

      Around here we enjoy something called Freedom of the Press. That means that we think we should be allowed to print cartoons involving Mohammed. There are Muslims out there who are trying to take away that way of life, and get cartoonists who do that sort of stuff put on trial for blasphemy (usually while shouting stuff like "Nuke Nuke Denmark").

      • 2 votes
      Reply#16 - Thu Mar 2, 2006 2:03 PM EST
      Alex Haakonsen

      Around here we enjoy something called Freedom of the Press. That means that we think we should be allowed to print cartoons involving Mohammed. There are Muslims out there who are trying to take away that way of life, and get cartoonists who do that sort of stuff put on trial for blasphemy (usually while shouting stuff like "Nuke Nuke Denmark").

      OK so on that last point about freedom of the press - I guess im trying to look at it from the perspective of a people so connected with their society / faith / culture / WAY OF LIFE that when they see a cartoon offending those principles (I just checked out those cartoons on your other post by the way, horrible stuff! Not even slightly funny.) they are inclined to take more offense than we would as a relatively apathetic bunch over here in the West.

      Moving forward, if the west wants to understand why the Muslims were so offended then perhaps we should send an independent governmental envoy straight to the people we starve and shoot every day in the name of the defence of the totally-misinterpreted-politically-overspun-socially-brainwashed phrase FREEDOM, put a gun to their head and ask them for their opinion.

      • 4 votes
      Reply#17 - Thu Mar 2, 2006 2:23 PM EST
      Djehuty

      edgellj: You say "the enemies ... are in fact attacking our way of life." Not as much as our leaders are at the moment. Apparently some misguided notion that we would be safer in a police state justifies withdrawing any freedom (of expression, of privacy, just to start). Also

      It is not that 'terrorists' don't appreciate the funding doled out by the US government to their states, it is that this money is being given out of "obligation" rather than charity.

      Personally I think it's more that the money is being given to provide a good environment for US companies in their states, rather than doing anything for people in difficulty. (I'm aware that's a big statement to make without facts to back it up, but the evidence isn't going to fit in a comment column.)

      More generally (and less contentiously), all these microwaves and colour televisions have come at a price which isn't measured in money. How many people today in the US can walk out their back door and have clean air, a natural environment, water they can drink? It's even worse in much of the third world.

      • 1 vote
      Reply#18 - Sun Apr 2, 2006 5:05 AM EDT
      Stephen Russell

      How did this article end up back on the front page a month after it was posted?

        Reply#19 - Sun Apr 2, 2006 10:01 AM EDT
        Aine MacDermot

        Huh? I don't see it on the front page (or am I only seeing a cached copy?) In any case, I have no idea. I did recently add a tag to it, if that's relevant.

        Mystified.

          Reply#20 - Sun Apr 2, 2006 12:09 PM EDT
          Stephen Russell

          It was on the front page in the featured writers section along with an article by Killfile that was posted some time ago. That was on Saturday. I don't know if was up today or not.

            Reply#21 - Sun Apr 2, 2006 1:54 PM EDT
            Leave a Comment:
            You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
            You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
            (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
            Newsvine Privacy Statement
            As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
            FUN STUFF:
            • Leaderboard |
            • E-Mail Alerts |
            • Top of the Vine |
            • Newsvine Live |
            • Newsvine Archives |
            • The Greenhouse |
            COMPANY STUFF:
            • Code of Honor |
            • Company Info |
            • Contact Us |
            • Jobs |
            • User Agreement |
            • Privacy Policy |
            • About our ads
            LEGAL STUFF:
            • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
            • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
            • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com