Bono: America is ‘an idea.’ That’s how we see you around the world, as one of the greatest ideas in human history

Bono Speech at Georgetown - Keeping Faith with the Idea of America

JACKSONVILLE - It is somewhat strange that we live in a society where anyone can speak in glowing terms about American exceptionalism - except Americans.

Screw that!! Happy Birthday and God Bless America.

from aei.org
http://www.aei.org/publication/bono-america-is-an-idea-thats-how-we-see-you-around-the-world-as-one-of-the-greatest-ideas-in-human-history-2/

America is an idea. Ireland is a great country, but it’s not an idea. Great Britain is a great country, but it’s not an idea. That’s how we see you around the world, as one of the greatest ideas in human history.

Some thoughts from Ronald Reagan's 1981 inaugural speech for Memorial Day 2018 - AEI

This is why we honor the men and women who paid the ultimate price for freedom, not just on Memorial Day, but every day. And it's also why we respect the flag and the national anthem. Thanks Ronnie. A great three minute explanation and a mini-history lesson.

from AEI.org
Some thoughts from Ronald Reagan's 1981 inaugural speech for Memorial Day 2018 - AEI:

Here’s a great quote from Reagan that opens the video above:

If we look to the answer as to why for so many years we achieved so much, prospered as no other people on Earth, it was because here in this land we unleashed the energy and individual genius of man to a greater extent than has ever been done before. Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and assured here than in any other place on Earth. The price for this freedom at times has been high, but we have never been unwilling to pay that price.

And later in the speech, some thoughts on terrorism….

Above all, we must realize that no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today’s world do not have. It is a weapon that we as Americans do have. Let that be understood by those who practice terrorism and prey upon their neighbors.

'via Blog this'

Why do American parents push their kids so hard when it comes to sports, but not so much when it comes to academics? - AEI

There are a ton of good questions embedded in this article and should give pause to anyone involved in youth sports generally and elite level sports specifically.

It seems like many parents/athletes do not want to even entertain the notion of a Plan B when it comes to sports/academics, which leads to the ridiculous notion that a college scholarship given to an elite athlete who otherwise would never have had the means or the opportunity to attend __________________ (fill in the blank) university, HAS ZERO VALUE! Which is an absurd notion.

It has zero value only if the opportunity to take advantage of the benefits offered are not capitalized on, and that is a choice. Let's just put all the eggs of our proverbial future in one basket, the one that has the least chance of turning out in our favor, and see how that works out. It's just insanity.

from AEI.org
Why do American parents push their kids so hard when it comes to sports, but not so much when it comes to academics? - AEI:

There’s a dichotomy/inconsistency among many of today’s American parents. Many parents aren’t afraid to push their children really hard when it comes to athletics, and emphasize the connection between hard work and athletic achievement. Strict standards, scores, times and rankings are accepted as necessary and accurate measures of athletic success. Any type of cheating in sports is unacceptable to parents and coaches and would be met with strict consequences. Hard work, effort, and athletic success are more important to most parents than athletic self-esteem.

On the other hand, many of today’s parents in the US don’t push their children very hard when it comes to academics, they don’t necessarily believe in the connection between effort and academic achievement, and don’t believe that academic success is within the reach of any student willing to work hard for it. Establishing and enforcing strict academic standards has given way to less challenging curricula that emphasize self-esteem and vague concepts like “social justice” over academic excellence. Parents now complain to teachers and administrators if their children are disciplined for cheating and expect inflated grades and report-card mercy. Many high schools no longer have a valedictorian or have multiple dozens of them, rendering the valedictorian distinction meaningless, all in the name of greater self-esteem. That diffusion and degradation of academic excellence would never be tolerated in sports, where there are still state champions, state rankings for sports teams, and state records for sports like track and swimming.

Here are excerpts from two articles that illustrate that parental dichotomy.

1. From the Wall Street Journal article (September 8, 2017), “Why American Students Need Chinese Schools” by Lenora Chu, an Asian-American mother whose two sons (ages 5 and 8) have been attending schools in Shanghai (bold added): 

Another bracing Chinese belief is that hard work trumps innate talent when it comes to academics. Equipped with flashcards and ready to practice, my son’s Chinese language teacher knows that he is capable of learning the 3,500 characters required for literacy. His primary school math teacher gives no child a free pass on triple-digit arithmetic and, in fact, stays after school to help laggards. China’s school system breeds a Chinese-style grit, which delivers the daily message that perseverance—not intelligence or ability—is key to success.

Studies show that this attitude gets kids farther in the classroom. Ethnic Asian youth are higher academic achievers in part because they believe in the connection between effort and achievement … and they believe that success is within reach of anyone willing to work for it. This attitude gives policy makers in China great latitude when it comes to setting out and enforcing higher standards.

In the U.S., parents have often revolted as policy makers try to push through similar measures. In part, we are afraid that Johnny will feel bad about himself if he can’t make the grade. What if, instead, Johnny’s parents—and his teacher, too—believed that the boy could learn challenging math with enough dedicated effort?

Americans aren’t afraid to push their children when it comes to athletics (see below). Here we believe that hard work and practice pay off, so we accept scores and rankings. Eyes glued to scoreboards at a meet, we embrace numbers as a way to measure progress. A ninth-place finish in the 100-meter dash suggests to us that a plodding Johnny needs to train harder. It doesn’t mean that he’s inferior, nor do we worry much about his self-esteem.

Educational progress in the U.S. is hobbled by parental entitlement and by attitudes that detract from learning: We demand privileges for our children that have little to do with education and ask for report-card mercy when they can’t make the grade. As a society, we’re expecting more from our teachers while shouldering less responsibility at home.

2. From the Star Tribune article (first in a three-part series) “Year-round sports push kids to limit: Families are pouring in more time and money — and more athletes are burning out“:

The sport Kali O’Keeffe loved at age 12 had turned into a chore, devouring her free time, leaving her out of touch with friends. She was the starting second baseman for the [Minneapolis suburb] Chanhassen High School’s softball team by eighth grade and a major college recruit by 15. But O’Keeffe reached a breaking point before her junior year, on the way back from Tennessee, where her club team had played in a national tournament.

Three hectic years traveling to tournaments across the country and spending countless nights inside a batting cage had taken a toll. She sat down next to her father on a curb outside their roadside hotel. Crying, she told him the pressure of playing year-round softball was just too much. “When I told my parents, I felt so bad,” she said. “They had spent so much money on softball, and I just didn’t want to do it anymore.”

O’Keeffe is among a generation of Minnesota athletes who have pushed themselves to extremes, developing highly polished skills through year-round dedication to their sport, while their families make major investments of money and time. Her father, Bryan, said the family spent a minimum of $7,500 per year on softball, adding, “That could be on the conservative side.”

After seeking input from coaches, the Star Tribune spent the summer examining some of the most profound changes affecting high school sports in the metro area. What we found reflects the growing influence of year-round youth sports, where seasons and training never seem to let up. Youth sports are an estimated $15 billion industry, and the increasing specialization of these budding athletes is irrevocably changing Minnesota’s high school landscape in softball, baseball, soccer, hockey, basketball, volleyball and lacrosse — basically, every team sport except football.

The offseason is disappearing, fueled by an explosion of pay-to-play club sports that have scores of young athletes training year-round. While a select few, such as O’Keeffe, become good enough to attract college scholarships, others devote countless extra hours in the quest to make varsity teams.

In the never-ending blur of year-round practices and games, the importance of the high school season itself is shrinking, to the chagrin of many coaches. Teen athletes and their families spend thousands to play for club teams, attend skill-instruction camps and hire personal trainers and college recruiting advisers. A local baseball recruiting service offers a $2,400 guarantee that the teen will play college baseball — or their money back. “You see families that can’t afford to buy groceries, but they’ll somehow find a way to get a thousand-dollar pair of skates and get to New York,” Hill-Murray boys’ hockey coach Bill Lechner said. “It scares me; our priorities are out of whack.”

The Minnesota State High School League didn’t allow coaches to work with players during the summer until 1998. The league had faced pressure from parents who felt their sons and daughters couldn’t maximize their potential under the old system. “Our kids were running off and spending thousands of dollars for training in the offseason,” Bloomington Jefferson boys’ hockey coach Jeff Lindquist said. “We just felt it was a time to let them train in our community.”

For families seeking extra help attracting college recruiters, there’s help available — at a price. The Baseball Advising Team is one example, assuring clients they’ll play college baseball for $2,400. It works with the Hit Dawg Academy in Chaska, creating a training regimen to follow while the company networks with college coaches on players’ behalf.

“I believe that anybody who wants to play college baseball can,” said Matt Paulsen, the company’s founder. “It doesn’t mean you’re going to be playing for Florida State.”

While some athletes and their families can approach these pursuits with open checkbooks, others can’t. In 2016, children from families making $25,000 or less were only half as likely to take part in a team sport as families making at least $100,000, according to the Sports & Fitness Industry.

MP: Venn diagram version above.

Q: What gives? Why the dichotomy/inconsistency? Comments welcome. 

'via Blog this'

There is no ‘epidemic of mass school shootings’ - children are more at risk when they ride in a car, swim in a pool, or put food in their mouths - AEI

There is no ‘epidemic of mass school shootings’ - children are more at risk when they ride in a car, swim in a pool, or put food in their mouths - AEI:

That’s the conclusion of Eric Levitz writing in New York Magazine:

American children do not “risk their lives” when they show up to school each morning — or at least, not nearly as much as they do whenever they ride in a car, swim in a pool, or put food in their mouths (an American’s lifetime odds of dying in a mass shooting committed in any location is 1 in 11,125; of dying in a car accident is 1 and 491; of drowning is 1 in 1,133; and of choking on food is 1 in 3,461, see chart above). Criminal victimization in American schools has collapsed in tandem with the overall crime rate, leaving U.S. classrooms safer today than at any time in recent memory.

'via Blog this'

Quotation of the day on how the success of others is now a grievance, rather than an example..... - AEI

from AEI.org
Quotation of the day on how the success of others is now a grievance, rather than an example..... - AEI:

"…. is from Thomas Sowell, writing in his 2002 book The Quest for Cosmic Justice:

There has now been created a world in which the success of others is a grievance, rather than an example. Irrational as such ideological indulgences may be, they are virtually inevitable when equality becomes the social touchstone, for equality can be achieved only by either divorcing performance from reward or by producing equal performances. Since the latter is all but impossible, if only because everyone is not equally interested in the same kinds of performances, the passion for equality leads toward a divorce of performance and reward – which is to say a divorce of incentive and behavior, and even a divorce of cause and effect in our minds."

'via Blog this'

Chart of the Day from Carpe Diem

9. Chart of the Day IV (above). For those who are upset by a CEO-to-worker pay ratio of 300:1, they must be really upset by the MLB star player-to-worker pay ratio of 500:1. from Carpe Diem / AEI:

CARPE DIEM: Chart of the Day

I have often wondered about the point made below. You could make the same question regarding the whole "standardized tests are racially biased" argument, especially the math portion. 2+2=4 fairly universally and without bias. Except under Common Core.

5. Chart of the Day II (above). Minority Asians make 15% more than whites. Is that because of "Asian privilege" or discrimination against whites? Or does it demonstrate that "minority" does not equal "disadvantaged," and the American dream is attainable with hard work? If nothing else, the success of one minority group – Asians – really messes up the standard narrative of white privilege, minorities need affirmative action and special preferences, etc. And it should be noted that the Asians have succeeded in America without any race/grievance hustlers like The Rev. Al Sharpton.

~;::::::;( )">  ¯\_( )_/¯

US Poverty Rate is Still 14.5%; But Yes, The War On Poverty Worked - Forbes.com

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-27/when-work-punished-tragedy-americas-welfare-state

So we won the War on Poverty by killing the incentive to work? Have I got this about right. I didn't think so. It sounds like this guy went a down a long road of confusion to basically say, we need a new measuring stick. That will just change the reporting of the issue in the future, not any of the underlying conditions.

But this is the kind of crap that passes for expert commentary these days.

from Forbes.com:
US Poverty Rate is Still 14.5%; But Yes, The War On Poverty Worked:

I know, I know, it seems very odd: the rate’s the same, we’ve spent tens of trillions of dollars on this (using the current value of money) and yet I say that it has worked. What’s going on here? 

The detail is simply in the way that the US measures poverty. We’ve a number for the income of a  family of a certain size. If they get less than that then we define them as poor. All of which seems simple enough. That number goes up as inflation goes up but that’s it, we don’t, unlike other countries, change it for wages going up, for the country in general getting richer. So, at first look, that poverty rate should be coming right down. We spend near $1 trillion a year on sending things and money to the poor and that really should push some large number of those poor families over our line. But it seems that it doesn’t: so, why? 

Because, would you believe it, we don’t actually count most of the money that we give to the poor as being incomes to the poor. Weird but entirely true. We have roughly, in order of size, four large programs to alleviate poverty. Medicaid, the EITC, SNAP (food stamps) and Section 8 housing vouchers. There’s a vast raft of smaller programs following on as well. And almost all of them give things (health care, food stamps, rental apartments) to people instead of cash. The EITC is paid through the tax system. And the way we measure poverty is simply that goods and benefits in kind, plus aid through the tax system, are not counted as income when we measure the poverty line. 

We could give everyone twice what they get now, five times what they get now, and the number living in poverty woudn’t change by one single person or family.

That might not be the most sensible way to be measuring it but it is the way that it is done. The US alleviates vast amounts of poverty. When we measure all those goods and things the child poverty rate is 1 or 2%. Which is pretty good for government work and very different indeed from the 19% or so that the current method of measurement gives us.

There is one more important point here too. Back when Johnson was gearing this thing up aid to poor people was in direct cash transfers. Those are measured as income to poor families before we measure the poverty line. So back then the poverty line was a measure of people who were poor after the government had helped them. Today we measure before almost all of the help that people get (there’s still a couple of small programs that dole out cash). So today’s measurement is more like the number of people who would be in poverty if government weren’t going to help them.

 'via Blog this'

For a better perspective of the situation as it is, from someone who apparently works within said system.

Read: Welfare's Failure and the Solution:
http://www.aei.org/files/2012/07/11/-alexander-presentation_10063532278.pdf
by Gary D. Alexander, Secretary of Public Welfare, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

It's a real eye-opener.

And nothing about the introduction of perverse incentives or the impediments to building  a growing economy that would take people off welfare ie: Too Many People on the Cart, Not Enough People Pulling the Cart.

Great googly moogly.

With OSHA and other various federal agencies that have sprung up over the last generation to protect workers, how is #6 even possible. Except state have (perverse) incentives ($$$) to funnel people toward disability (which the Fed pays for) rather than Welfare (which the State pays for).

Don't even get me started on the effects of ObamaCare:

Consider, for instance, how the subsidies for Obamacare are affecting economic growth:

The CBO, the government's nonpartisan number-cruncher, included the figures in its projection of economic growth over the next decade. The CBO estimates that Obamacare will lower full-time employment by 2.3m in 2021, compared with what might have been without reform. That 2.3m drop is nearly three times larger than the CBO's earlier projection.

The CBO does not give credence to Republicans' common claim that Obamacare is already reducing employment. Rather, the CBO expects Obamacare to have its biggest impact from 2017. Furthermore, the main reason for the decline is not that employers will slash jobs, but that Americans will choose to work less. Nevertheless, the CBO provides the best  case yet that Obamacare will depress work, rather than boost it.

Many factors account for the drop. Top among them is the affect of subsidies for health insurance. To help Americans buy coverage on new health "exchanges", Obamacare offers tax credits to those earning between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty line (about $11,500 to $46,000 for a single adult). Those tax credits are offered on a sliding scale, by income, so workers effectively pay a higher tax rate as their wages rise. This may dissuade workers from trying to earn more. It also allows a higher standard of living (that is, with health coverage) at a lower income, which may further discourage work.

[. . .]

The CBO analyses other provisions, too. For example the higher payroll tax for couples earning $250,000 or more may lower their desire to earn higher wages. Obamacare's requirement that insurers cover the sick, without raising their rates, may prompt some to retire earlier than they would have otherwise.

The unintended affect of Obamacare is that it provides incentives to work less — or to not work at all. And with fewer people in the workforce, the government will be bringing in zero revenue from the income those people would have otherwise generated.

This outcome was not exactly unexpected — it was what Republicans had predicted all along — but it seems to come as a surprise to President Obama. Perhaps he should invite Laffer to bring his napkin to the White House to show him exactly where he went wrong.

Great system we have going here at any rate. End the War on Poverty. PLEASE!!! Before it kills us all, especially those left pulling the cart.

from Carpe Diem:
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/07/6-charts-that-show-the-welfare-state-run-amok/

1. Fewer workers and their tax payments have to support more and more Medicaid recipients.


2. The number of takers is now approaching the number of makers.



6. Disability enrollees have exploded and are rising faster than job creation.


Even the Brits, socialists that they are, have begun to at least ask the relevant question. How much giving is too much?

They like us, haven't got the heart -- or maybe it's the head -- to figure out the right answers. So here they are. 

Speaking Words of Wisdom

 The best sentence I read today....

				The best sentence I read today.... .... is from WSJ editorial board member Jason Riley (author of the new book "Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make it Harder for Blacks to Succeed") in ...
				View on www.aei-ideas.org	Preview by Yahoo

The best sentence I read today….

Mark J. Perry |  June 19, 2014, 12:35 am

…. is from WSJ editorial board member Jason Riley (author of the new book "Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make it Harder for Blacks to Succeed") in response to the question"Isn't the rise of black political leadership, not the least of which is the election of the first black president for two terms, a sign of progress?"

The reality is that a black man in the home is much more important to black progress than a black man in the White House.

Income Inequality...Cured. Get (and stay) educated, Get (and stay) employed, Get (and stay) married

Three important "Get and Stays" and a lot of this country's problems would disappear. 

PROBLEM SOLVED. YOUR WELCOME!!! 

It even makes Bloomberg embrace conservative values. It must be that obvious. 

Marriage and Income Inequality

			Marriage and Income Inequality Whom you marry can affect income inequality in the U.S.
			View on www.businessweek.com	Preview by Yahoo

The U.S. compares very poorly to most other Western industrialized nations:

Washington may pay lip service to reducing inequality. But – as we will show below – bad government policy is largely responsible.

The Hard Facts of Inequality

A who's-who's of prominent economists in government and academia have all said that runaway inequality can cause financial crises.

Extreme inequality helped cause the Great Depression, the current financial crisis … and the fall of the Roman Empire.

But inequality in America today is actually twice as bad as in ancient Rome , worse than it was in inTsarist Russia, Gilded Age America, modern Egypt, Tunisia or Yemen, many banana republics in Latin America, and worse than experienced by slaves in 1774 colonial America.

from Carpe Diem:

Explaining income inequality by household demographics

			Explaining income inequality by household demographics This week, President Obama called America's "dangerous and growing" income inequality the "defining challenge of our time," and he plans to put the issue ...
			View on www.aei-ideas.org	Preview by Yahoo

Explaining income inequality by household demographics Posted: 06 Dec 2013 09:03 AM PST This week, President Obama called America's "dangerous and growing" income inequality the "defining challenge of our time,"and he plans to put the issue of income inequality at the center of his agenda during the remainder of his second term. The president is not alone in his concern about income inequality – there's been a lot of discussion in recent years on the issue, especially concerns about "increasing income inequality." That concern is demonstrated by more than 1 million search results for the term "increasing income inequality" on Google. However, there's apparently not as much attention or concern about "explaining income inequality" (there are only178,000 Google search results for that term), and that's the topic that this post will attempt to address. Most of the discussion on income inequality focuses on the relative differences over time between low-income and high-income American households, but it's also instructive to analyze the demographic differences among income groups at a given point in time to answer the question: How are high-income households different from low-income households? The chart above (click to enlarge) shows some key demographic characteristics of U.S. households by income quintiles for 2012, using updated data from the Census Bureau (here, here and here, and see my previous versions of this analysis for years 2009 and 2010 and 2011). Below is a summary of some of the key demographic differences between American households in different income quintiles in 2012: 1. Mean number of earners per household. On average, there are significantly more income earners per household in the top income quintile households (2.04) than earners per household in the lowest-income households (0.45). It can also be seen that the average number of earners increases for each higher income quintile, demonstrating that one of the main factors in explaining differences in income among U.S. households is the number of earners per household. Also, the unadjusted ratio of average income for the highest to lowest quintile of 15.8 times ($181,905 to $11.490), falls to a ratio of only 3.5 times when comparing "income per earner" of the two quintiles: $89,169 for the top fifth to $25,533 for the bottom fifth. 2. Share of households with no earners. Sixty-one percent of U.S. households in the bottom fifth of Americans by income had no earners for the entire year in 2012. In contrast, only 3% of the households in the top fifth had no earners in 2012, providing more evidence of the strong relationship between household income and income earners per household. 3. Marital status of householders. Married-couple households represent a much greater share of the top income quintile (77.5%) than for the bottom income quintile (17%), and single-parent or single households represented a much greater share of the bottom 20% of households (83.0%) than for the top 20% (22.5%). Like for the average number of earners per household, the share of married-couple households also increases for each higher income quintile. 4. Age of householders. Almost 8 out of every 10 households (79.5%) in the top income quintile included individuals in their prime earning years between the ages of 35-64, compared to fewer than half (47.3%) of household members in the bottom fifth who were in that prime earning age group last year. The share of householders in the prime earning age group of 35-64 year olds increases with each higher income quintile. Compared to members of the top income quintile of households by income, household members in the bottom income quintile were 1.6 times more likely (23.5% vs. 14.8%) to be in the youngest age group (under 35 years), and more than 5 times more likely (29.2% vs. 5.7%) to be in the oldest age group (65 years and over). 6. Work status of householders. More than four times as many top quintile households included at least one adult who was working full-time in 2012 (78.2%) compared to the bottom income quintile (only 18.2%), and more than five times as many households in the bottom quintile included adults who did not work at all (67.3%) compared to top quintile households whose family members did not work (12.5%). The share of householders working full-time increases at each higher income quintile. 7. Education of householders. Family members of households in the top fifth by income were six times more likely to have a college degree (77.2%) than members of households in the bottom income quintile (only 12.9%). In contrast, householders in the lowest income quintile were 26 times more likely than those in the top income quintile to have less than a high school degree in 2012 (26.7 % vs. 1.0%). As expected, the Census data show that there is a significantly positive relationship between education and income. Bottom Line: Household demographics, including the average number of earners per household and the marital status, age, and education of householders are all very highly correlated with household income. Specifically, high-income households have a greater average number of income-earners than households in lower-income quintiles, and individuals in high income households are far more likely than individuals in low-income households to be well-educated, married, working full-time, and in their prime earning years. In contrast, individuals in lower-income households are far more likely than their counterparts in higher-income households to be less-educated, working part-time, either very young (under 35 years) or very old (over 65 years), and living in single-parent households. The good news is that the key demographic factors that explain differences in household income are not fixed over our lifetimes and are largely under our control (e.g. staying in school, getting and staying married,etc.), which means that individuals and households are not destined to remain in a single income quintile forever. Fortunately, studies that track people over time indicate that individuals and households move up and down the income quintiles over their lifetimes, as the key demographic variables highlighted above change, see CD posts here, here andhere. And Thomas Sowell pointed out earlier this year in his column "Income Mobility" that: Most working Americans who were initially in the bottom 20% of income-earners, rise out of that bottom 20%. More of them end up in the top 20% than remain in the bottom 20%. People who were initially in the bottom 20% in income have had the highest rate of increase in their incomes, while those who were initially in the top 20% have had the lowest. This is the direct opposite of the pattern found when following income brackets over time, rather than following individual people. It's highly likely that most of today's high-income, college-educated, married individuals who are now in their peak earning years were in a lower-income quintile in their prior, single younger years, before they acquired education and job experience. It's also likely that individuals in today's top income quintiles will move back down to a lower income quintile in the future during their retirement years, which is just part of the natural lifetime cycle of moving up and down the income quintiles for most Americans. So when we hear the President and the media talk about an "income inequality crisis" in America, we should keep in mind that basic household demographics go a long way towards explaining the differences in household income in the United States. And because the key income-determining demographic variables change over a person's lifetime, income mobility and the American dream are still "alive and well" in the US.

 ---

from Carpe Diem:

'Rich America' is not the 'idle rich,' but rather a working America, an educated America and a married America 'Rich America' is not the 'idle rich,' but rather a work... In a December 2013 CD post, I featured the chart above (click to enlarge) that displays Census Bureau data of various household demographic factors by i... View on feedproxy.google.com Preview by Yahoo Posted: 04 Feb 2014 01:22 PM PST In a December 2013 CD post, I featured the chart above (click to enlarge) that displays Census Bureau data of various household demographic factors by income quintile in 2012 (education, marital status, average number of earners, percent working full-time, age, etc.) that help us understand the factors that explain differences in household income. In a recent National Review article ("The Working Rich"), Kevin Williamson refers to some similar, slightly older data (from 2011 I think) to make several important points: a) the wealthiest and highest-earning Americans are not "idle rich" but rather work very hard for their money, and b) the poor can learn some lessons from them to become more wealthy themselves. Here's an excerpt: Rich America is working America: Wealthy households contain on average more than four times as many full-time workers as do poor households, and, surprisingly, inherited wealth constitutes a smaller share of their assets than it does for middle-class and poor households. They live modestly relative to their means and for the most part do not work on Wall Street or as corporate executives. The caricature of the rich American as a child of privilege who inherited a fortune and spends his days shuttling between mansions in a private jet is largely a product of the imagination of such would-be class warriors as Elizabeth Warren and Robert Reich, neither of whom lives in Section 8 housing, or even downwind of it. There is a reason that money earned from work accounts for a relatively large share of the holdings of rich Americans: They work more — a lot more. While Census Bureau data document a very large gap in the prevalence of college degrees among the top 20 percent  of  households vs. the bottom 20 percent, there is an even larger and more significant gap — 60 percentage points — between full-time employment for householders in the top income group (78.2% in 2012, see chart above) vs. the bottom income group (18.2%). There is, to be sure, such a thing as the working poor, but the most salient characteristic of poor households is the lack of full-time workers in them. For the bottom income group, there is an average of 0.42 earners per household (0.45 in 2012), with 68.2 percent (67.3 percent in 2012) of householders not working at all, as opposed to 1.97 earners (2.04 in 2012) per household and only 13.3 percent (12.5 percent in 2012) not working for the highest income group. The answer to poverty turns out to be "get a job," after all — though that should be an aspiration toward which we assist the poor rather than a contemptuous dismissal of their needs. Family matters. Not surprisingly, 78.4 percent (77.5 percent in 2012) of those highest-income families were married couples, as opposed to 17 percent (18.2 percent) for the lowest-income group. What this all means in brief is that the highest-income families are composed almost exclusively of two-earner households, the overwhelming majority of them married couples. Those who are inclined to see public policy mainly through green eyeshades may sniff at the social conservatives and their quaint worries about marriage, but there is a very strong connection between how we conduct our family lives and our economic outcomes — the very word "economy" derives from the Greek term for household administration, οἰκονομία. All the best people may roll their eyes at "tiger mom" Amy Chua's admiration for Asian-American, Nigerian-American, and Mormon domestic culture, but it is difficult to dismiss the results. MP: As I concluded in my December post, household demographics like the average number of earners per household and the marital status, age, and education of householders are all very highly correlated with household income. Specifically, high-income households have a greater average number of income-earners than households in lower-income quintiles, and individuals in high income households are far more likely than individuals in low-income households to be well-educated, married, working full-time, and in their prime earning years. In contrast, individuals in lower-income households are far more likely than their counterparts in higher-income households to be less-educated, working part-time, either very young (under 35 years) or very old (over 65 years), and living in single-parent households. The good news is that the key demographic factors that explain differences in household income are not fixed over our lifetimes and are largely under our control (e.g. staying in school, getting and staying married,etc.), which means that individuals and households are not destined to remain in a single income quintile forever. Fortunately, studies that track people over time indicate that individuals and households move up and down the income quintiles over their lifetimes, as the key demographic variables highlighted above change. And as Kevin points out, if the poor pay attention, they can learn from the rich and become better off themselves by investing in education, getting and staying married, and working full-time.

Is Inequality a Problem that needs Fixing?

Put me down for a "NO" on this one.