European Dawn: After the Social Model

Originally posted by Marinkatomb
Still dreaming ... 😞

If you are a chick you are more than welcome here 🙂

Originally posted by scottishinnz
It must pain you that the US growth was under Clinton.

Not so: the Congressional Budget Office says the poor have been getting less poor. On average, CBO found that low-wage households with children had incomes after inflation that were more than one-third higher in 2005 than in 1991.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117988547410811664.html

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
Illegal aliens with less than a sixth-grade education and no job skills would skew anyone's figures on poverty and social mobility. I was talking about legal residents.

Since the study is actually based on Americans born in the country between the 1950s and 1970s, I'm a little nonplussed by that response.

But if Forbes, a list that examines a tiny fraction of America's elite, is your basis for assuming non-static social mobility, what is your basis for assuming that same mobility applies to classes outside your oligarchy?

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
Not so: the Congressional Budget Office says the poor have been getting less poor. On average, CBO found that low-wage households with children had incomes after inflation that were more than one-third higher in 2005 than in 1991.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117988547410811664.html

A nonsubscriber cannot see that entire article; moreover, most studies that cover roughly the same period seem to indicate a widening gap between rich and poor. However it's often possible, by carefully choosing your time frame and defining what it means to be "poor" (in this case the "poorest fifth", or the bottom quintile, which is unusual), to come to an opposite conclusion from most other studies carried out by independent researches not on the government payroll.

But again, I cannot see the entire article.