Poverty, Stress, And Loss Of Control

Any foray into the far-right blogosphere necessitates contact with Ayn Rand inspired rhetoric that assures readers that all can easily pull themselves up by their bootstraps with a little willpower and elbow grease.(Those posts frequently mix more metaphors than the previous sentence does.) The New York Times reports on a study that shows that poverty takes away many tools that the well off take for granted, especially a sense of control:

That sense of control tends to decline as one descends the socioeconomic ladder, with potentially grave consequences. Those on the bottom are more than three times as likely to die prematurely as those at the top. They’re also more likely to suffer from depression, heart disease and diabetes. Perhaps most devastating, the stress of poverty early in life can have consequences that last into adulthood.

Even those who later ascend economically may show persistent effects of early-life hardship. Scientists find them more prone to illness than those who were never poor. Becoming more affluent may lower the risk of disease by lessening the sense of helplessness and allowing greater access to healthful resources like exercise, more nutritious foods and greater social support; people are not absolutely condemned by their upbringing. But the effects of early-life stress also seem to linger, unfavorably molding our nervous systems and possibly even accelerating the rate at which we age.

The early effects last throughout an individual's life:

Scientists can, in fact, see the imprint of early-life stress decades later: there are more markers of inflammation in those who have experienced such hardship. Chronic inflammation increases the risk of degenerative diseases like heart disease and diabetes. Indeed, telomeres — the tips of our chromosomes — appear to be shorter among those who have experienced early-life adversity, which might be an indicator of accelerated aging. And scientists have found links, independent of current income, between early-life poverty and a higher risk of heart disease, high blood pressure and arthritis in adulthood.

If there is an ongoing class war, it looks as if the rich will win by attrition.

The Middle Class Loses Unless It Makes $200,000 Per Year

I know that the poor people have refrigerators and cell phones. Therefore, according to some, they should just chill and call someone who cares.

This chart from Andrew Sullivan's blog shows that it's not just the poor who are falling behind; it's everyone not in the upper 20 percent.

Sullivan also quotes Jared Bernstein who points out that the chart shows that for many growth has been a spectator sport.

Bernstein invokes one of my favorite debate phrases when he calls the chart "stark reminder that when it comes to the living standards of middle- and low-income families, overall economic growth is necessary but not sufficient."

I'll add another favorite phrase that has become repeated so often that it is being reduced to a cliche: "insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results." The policies that led to these results have been in place for decades, but no one seems willing to change them. At best, politicians from both sides of the aisle come up with new names for legislation that will continue this trend.

I'm sure Mitt Romney will want to bet me $10,000 dollars that I'm wrong. He'll also tell me that middle income is $250,000 when that figure really puts one in the top 5%, the cohort that actually has experience growth

A Chart About The Poor And Spending

The poor spend nearly 80% of their income on essentials, food at home, housing, utilities, clothes, transportation, and health care. Based on these averages, a person making $200,000 puts away $31,800 a year for retirement. Nearly one-third of American households earn less than that.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Credit: Lam Thuy Vo / NPR

 

Quotations Of The Day: War On Teachers Edition

All three qotations come from this Answer Sheet post.

First, those who find solace in the fact that others share their plight can be comforted by this little nugget.

Attacks on teachers have occurred in the midst of a broad-based attack on the bargaining rights and benefits of all public workers — but even by that standard, teachers have been singled out.

I don't take much comfort in the fact that teacher hate is widespread.  In fact, I find the fact that there is a wide spread group of teacher haters like those populating the ranks of We The People Yankton quite disconcerting.

Second, a quick reminder that working people injure only themselves if they fight among themselves.

There is another more insidious consequence of the attack on teaching. Every time you undermine the job security, working conditions, and wages of one group of workers, it makes it easier for employers to undermine them for all workers. This is why, during the Depression, many unemployed people organized in support of workers on strike, even though anybody with a job in that era was relatively privileged. They believed in the concept of solidarity — the idea that working people could only progress if they did so together, and if one group of workers improved their conditions, it would ultimately improve conditions for all.

 Unsurprisingly, the source of all the hate is a green-eyed monster, no not jealousy, that other one: money.

There are huge profits to be made in the testing industry, in educational technologies that replace teachers, and in constructing and managing charter schools, so it is not hard to see why some people in the corporate world would benefit from attacking public education and teachers unions.

Quotation Of The Decade: Democracy And Oligarchy Edition

From Jeffery Winters' conclusion to his article "Oligarchy and Democracy",

Universal suffrage and liberal freedoms empower all citizens in a radically equal manner. But the one-person/one-vote principle does little to prevent oligarchs from exercising the power of money in a manner that is profoundly unequal. Formal juridical equality is essential to human freedom. But full political equality, even in the most liberal democracy, is impossible as long as concentrated wealth places grossly unequal political influence in the hands of a few citizens. Democracy fused with oligarchy is certainly better than no democracy at all. But there should be no illusions that it is anything other than a partial step toward full political equality and representation.