AEIdeas

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (8 comments)

  1. chris whited

    The study found that areas “in which low income individuals were residentially segregated from middle income individuals were also particularly likely to have low rates of upward mobility.”

    did anyone think that maybe that’s the reason for the “segregation”? About as shit stupid as a “study” in a a tulsa, ok paper that stated poverty revolves around section 8 housing. BULLSHIT………..they’re already poor so obviously the poor tend to live with the poor. There is no “action” in it.

    there is a difference between poor and middle class. This article is useless and apparently chooses to not see the BLATANTLY OBVIOUS.

    gee did anyone see the segregation of the the enlightened vs the ignorant? hhmmm go figure.

    They actually needed a study for this nonsense? I hope no government grant was given for this.

    What this literally says, is THE BLATANTLY OBVIOUS. people with lesser abilities than middle class folks do not BECOME MIDDLE CLASS FOLKS. the article is a seriously poor piece of “deduction”, because it deducts nothing that the common person can’t figure out on his or her own.

    1. Wow. I was going to make a similar comment, but you’ve covered all the bases. Charles Murray makes a pretty strong case that the NEW American lower class (since the 1960s) CHOOSES to remain poor by: dropping out high school, fathering children out of wedlock, refusing jobs when they are available, and increasing their welfare-based income by committing crimes. If you infect a middle class neighborhood with lower class residents, the middle class will simply move away. We spent most of the 1960s and ’70s proving that.

      1. chris whited

        there is a reason why welfare can’t be the magical “living wage”. if it were what would be the reason to find a job faster if at all?

        the truth is found in two differently trains of economic thought

        1. bertrand russel lines of thinking says folks will just up and do what is “required” (boy there’s a slip up) to do. me here…why would one rather to do what is “required” vs what they want to do?

        2. Ludwig Von Mises ………….”the search for the lack of uneasiness”… I’m pretty sure no explanation is necessary for this one, unless you believe there is no reality while at the same time preaching about poverty lines.

      2. This article seems senseless only because you’re informed and have a logical mind to comprehend the obvious. This article does not do anything else but bolster misinformed readers focused on racial discrimination and retribution for being born a certain color the ignorant ideas that they’ve a “right” to more public welfare. Again, this article does not address the actual lack of social mobility and how it matches up to previous decades of the “American Dream,” but rather in my opinion how divided this country has become due to the breaking back of the middle class. It’s the proper role of government is to protect equal rights, not provide equal things.

        1. chris whited

          As BASTIAT POINTED OUT………..the principle of “LEGAL PLUNDER” IS LOST…….

          the idea of THIS CRAP SHOULDN’T BE HAPPENING TO BEGIN WITH……..escapes the “enlightened” mind. Oh no……..now two wrongs make a right.

          now everyone is in on the action………..or as Ayn Rand pointed out, in the end, everyone is exchanging christmas presents that no one wants.

        2. chris whited

          Thomas Sowell responding to the “built in expectations” argument of a welfare administrator. I can have all sorts of “expectations” if someone else is subsidizing them, But all I know is what I can do.

  2. chris whited

    and when it comes to the bertrand russel idea of basic needs will be supplied UPFRONT thus folks sitting around……….somehow……will just up and do what is “required”.

    this deals with fairy tale worlds of all the labor requirement will somehow be met through voluntary action. That magical (and no explanation or system has every been describe by any anarchist ever) all the basic need labor neccesities will be met VOLUNTARILY……..

    now we’re at the point of SLAVERY…….i get to sit around “making up my mind” while you support my “needs”. people do see the CATASTROPHE in all of this I hope. Because it if were voluntary in the PURIST SENSE (AND ANARCHISM DEMAND PURITY OF REASON) then there wouldn’t be any folks just sitting around waiting for something that ironically is “required to do”…..

  3. chris whited

    by products might produce segregation, but are not necessarily concious actions to produce segregation.

    about as stupid as harkin from iowa talking about segregation in health care. the principle in that line of thinking is that all free market actions are actions of segregation. That you are being segregated because you can’t buy a 70′ HD television.

    I do not see much Hayek in all of this. I do not see much ludwig von mises in all of this.

    What school does this ascribe to? Just curious.

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:

Scholar

Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Open
Refine Content