Paul Ryan says 'if you were raised poor, you’re just as likely to stay poor' as 50 years ago

[Dovahkiin]

Paul Ryan is correct, according to a very recent well supported paper. The "war on poverty" has not been very successful, we need to look at new solutions. History has shown us that both sides are in the wrong, what we need is a real change. I find myself in favor of a universal basic income, something both sides should get behind, in my honest opinion. Something has to change. (It's a shame none of the candidates support a UBI.)
Paul Ryan says 'if you were raised poor, you’re just as likely to stay poor' as 50 years ago

Ryan wrote that "today, if you were raised poor, you’re just as likely to stay poor as you were 50 years ago." His support for this claim – a respected academic paper published in 2014 – found exactly what Ryan described. We rate the claim True.

 

[rdean]

What does he know about poor since he never was?

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

My Uncle was a Prison guard, and I grew up on a small lot of land that he rented from the state, so I grew up poor, and I am no longer poor...

It is the individual choice to stay in a lower income life or rise above it, and achieve to become more...

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

What does he know about poor since he never was?

Why must you strive to prove how ignorant you are in every single post? His personal story had nothing to do with what was being discussed.

 

[Dovahkiin]

My Uncle was a Prison guard, and I grew up on a small lot of land that he rented from the state, so I grew up poor, and I am no longer poor...

It is the individual choice to stay in a lower income life or rise above it, and achieve to become more...

That's a silly statement. Paul ryan, and myself, disagree with you. There's more at play then "individual choice."

 

[francoHFW]

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.
Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:
1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.
Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.
But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):
1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%
A 13% drop since 1980
2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.
Share of National Income going to Top 10%:
1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%
An increase of 16% since Reagan.
3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.
The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.
1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)
A 12.3% drop after Reagan.
4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.
Household Debt as percentage of GDP:
1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%
A 45% increase after 1980.
5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.
Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:
1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%
A 5.6 times increase.
6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.
The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:
1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%
A 10% Decrease.
Links:
1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zh1bveXc8rA/SuddUhLWUaI/AAAAAAAAA7M/iU2gefk317M/s1600-h/Clipboard01.jpg
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/
5/6 = http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4?slop=1#slideshow-start
Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

 

[francoHFW]

IE, keep cutting pay, raising taxes on the nonrich, and making college more expensive, and you get the GOP Banana Republic of tomorrow...

 

[francoHFW]

What does he know about poor since he never was?

Why must you strive to prove how ignorant you are in every single post? His personal story had nothing to do with what was being discussed.

He's an out of touch rich boy like all your heroes, dupe.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

What does he know about poor since he never was?

Why must you strive to prove how ignorant you are in every single post? His personal story had nothing to do with what was being discussed.

He's an out of touch rich boy like all your heroes, dupe.

I wasn't addressing you. Besides, once again you can't explain what that has to do with the price of tea in China!

 

[HappyJoy]

Paul Ryan is correct, according to a very recent well supported paper. The "war on poverty" has not been very successful, we need to look at new solutions. History has shown us that both sides are in the wrong, what we need is a real change. I find myself in favor of a universal basic income, something both sides should get behind, in my honest opinion. Something has to change. (It's a shame none of the candidates support a UBI.)
Paul Ryan says 'if you were raised poor, you’re just as likely to stay poor' as 50 years ago

Ryan wrote that "today, if you were raised poor, you’re just as likely to stay poor as you were 50 years ago." His support for this claim – a respected academic paper published in 2014 – found exactly what Ryan described. We rate the claim True.

I'd like to hear more (yes, I can google too) about this. Especially as lower paid (and some not so) jobs are automated.

 

[Missourian]

We already have an incredible program available to fight poverty. It's called WORK. It's been around for ages, so long in fact that I'm beginning to think, from what I'm seeing, it seems to have gone out of style.

Here's the seven step plan. Follow it, and leave poverty behind:

1) WORK hard and get a quality education at school.
2) WORK at being an upstanding citizen. Don't break the law and go to jail.
3) WORK at not having children before you can afford to raise them.
4) WORK at finding the best job possible.
5) WORK hard at the job you find.
6) WORK at expanding your marketable skills both on the job and after work is over.
7) WORK at finding a better job.

 

[Dovahkiin]

Paul Ryan is correct, according to a very recent well supported paper. The "war on poverty" has not been very successful, we need to look at new solutions. History has shown us that both sides are in the wrong, what we need is a real change. I find myself in favor of a universal basic income, something both sides should get behind, in my honest opinion. Something has to change. (It's a shame none of the candidates support a UBI.)
Paul Ryan says 'if you were raised poor, you’re just as likely to stay poor' as 50 years ago

Ryan wrote that "today, if you were raised poor, you’re just as likely to stay poor as you were 50 years ago." His support for this claim – a respected academic paper published in 2014 – found exactly what Ryan described. We rate the claim True.

I'd like to hear more (yes, I can google too) about this. Especially as lower paid (and some not so) jobs are automated.

More about a basic income? Ask away.

 

[Dovahkiin]

What does he know about poor since he never was?

? You're assuming one cannot discuss poverty if they've never experienced it, which is ridiculous.

 

[Dovahkiin]

IE, keep cutting pay, raising taxes on the nonrich, and making college more expensive, and you get the GOP Banana Republic of tomorrow...

The GOP isn't intentionally cutting pay.
The GOP never raises taxes, or that's what they say.
The price of college is a complicated one.

 

[HappyJoy]

Paul Ryan is correct, according to a very recent well supported paper. The "war on poverty" has not been very successful, we need to look at new solutions. History has shown us that both sides are in the wrong, what we need is a real change. I find myself in favor of a universal basic income, something both sides should get behind, in my honest opinion. Something has to change. (It's a shame none of the candidates support a UBI.)
Paul Ryan says 'if you were raised poor, you’re just as likely to stay poor' as 50 years ago

Ryan wrote that "today, if you were raised poor, you’re just as likely to stay poor as you were 50 years ago." His support for this claim – a respected academic paper published in 2014 – found exactly what Ryan described. We rate the claim True.

I'd like to hear more (yes, I can google too) about this. Especially as lower paid (and some not so) jobs are automated.

More about a basic income? Ask away.

How is it funded? Taxes I presume, who pays it?
How does this affect our current tax structure?
What is the UBI tied to, how much?
Are there limitations on what you can do with this money (i.e. cannot buy luxury items)
Do we still have a minimum wage?
Can you have a low paying job and still receive a UBI?
Could this reduce our workforce size?
How about volunteer work to earn UBI if able?

I know, simple questions, I've had a couple beers.

 

[Dovahkiin]

Paul Ryan is correct, according to a very recent well supported paper. The "war on poverty" has not been very successful, we need to look at new solutions. History has shown us that both sides are in the wrong, what we need is a real change. I find myself in favor of a universal basic income, something both sides should get behind, in my honest opinion. Something has to change. (It's a shame none of the candidates support a UBI.)
Paul Ryan says 'if you were raised poor, you’re just as likely to stay poor' as 50 years ago

Ryan wrote that "today, if you were raised poor, you’re just as likely to stay poor as you were 50 years ago." His support for this claim – a respected academic paper published in 2014 – found exactly what Ryan described. We rate the claim True.

I'd like to hear more (yes, I can google too) about this. Especially as lower paid (and some not so) jobs are automated.

More about a basic income? Ask away.

How is it funded? Taxes I presume, who pays it?
How does this affect our current tax structure?
What is the UBI tied to, how much?
Are there limitations on what you can do with this money (i.e. cannot buy luxury items)
Do we still have a minimum wage?
Can you have a low paying job and still receive a UBI?
Could this reduce our workforce size?
How about volunteer work to earn UBI if able?

I know, simple questions, I've had a couple beers.

I will admit that I am no expert, but I will do my best to address these.
How is it funded? Well, a UBI is made to replace all of our current "entitlement" programs, so the funding comes from that, and different plans do different things. Some plans want to give a basic income to individuals below that raises them right above the poverty line, and then cut it off once they get above the line, with safeguards in place to prevent abuse. Others want people to have a UBI regardless of income, which is what I personally support, as I feel the latter could be abused/used as as a way to further divide our nation.
The tax structure, I'm sure, would be changed. This can't be answered adequately as no serious UBI plans have taken off in america.
Limitations? No, no limitations, people are free to do what they want with the money, personal freedom and all.
A minimum wage? No need for it with a UBI.
For the low paying job part, in virtually every plan, yes.
Here's a good reading:
The Conservative Case for a Guaranteed Basic Income

The idea isn’t new. As Frum notes, Friederich Hayek endorsed it. In 1962, the libertarian economist Milton Friedman advocated a minimum guaranteed income via a “negative income tax.” In 1967, Martin Luther King Jr. said, “The solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income.” Richard Nixon unsuccessfully tried to pass a version of Friedman’s plan a few years later, and his Democratic opponent in the 1972 presidential election, George McGovern, also suggested a guaranteed annual income.

Friedman proposed it for gods sake.
It could definitely reduce our workforce size, but keep in mind, the UBI is a bare minimum, people will need to work to get luxuries.
The volunteer work I'm not sure I understand.
Adding to this:
The Basic Affordability of Basic Income

 

[HappyJoy]

Paul Ryan is correct, according to a very recent well supported paper. The "war on poverty" has not been very successful, we need to look at new solutions. History has shown us that both sides are in the wrong, what we need is a real change. I find myself in favor of a universal basic income, something both sides should get behind, in my honest opinion. Something has to change. (It's a shame none of the candidates support a UBI.)
Paul Ryan says 'if you were raised poor, you’re just as likely to stay poor' as 50 years ago

Ryan wrote that "today, if you were raised poor, you’re just as likely to stay poor as you were 50 years ago." His support for this claim – a respected academic paper published in 2014 – found exactly what Ryan described. We rate the claim True.

I'd like to hear more (yes, I can google too) about this. Especially as lower paid (and some not so) jobs are automated.

More about a basic income? Ask away.

How is it funded? Taxes I presume, who pays it?
How does this affect our current tax structure?
What is the UBI tied to, how much?
Are there limitations on what you can do with this money (i.e. cannot buy luxury items)
Do we still have a minimum wage?
Can you have a low paying job and still receive a UBI?
Could this reduce our workforce size?
How about volunteer work to earn UBI if able?

I know, simple questions, I've had a couple beers.

I will admit that I am no expert, but I will do my best to address these.
How is it funded? Well, a UBI is made to replace all of our current "entitlement" programs, so the funding comes from that, and different plans do different things. Some plans want to give a basic income to individuals below that raises them right above the poverty line, and then cut it off once they get above the line, with safeguards in place to prevent abuse. Others want people to have a UBI regardless of income, which is what I personally support, as I feel the latter could be abused/used as as a way to further divide our nation.
The tax structure, I'm sure, would be changed. This can't be answered adequately as no serious UBI plans have taken off in america.
Limitations? No, no limitations, people are free to do what they want with the money, personal freedom and all.
A minimum wage? No need for it with a UBI.
For the low paying job part, in virtually every plan, yes.
Here's a good reading:
The Conservative Case for a Guaranteed Basic Income

The idea isn’t new. As Frum notes, Friederich Hayek endorsed it. In 1962, the libertarian economist Milton Friedman advocated a minimum guaranteed income via a “negative income tax.” In 1967, Martin Luther King Jr. said, “The solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income.” Richard Nixon unsuccessfully tried to pass a version of Friedman’s plan a few years later, and his Democratic opponent in the 1972 presidential election, George McGovern, also suggested a guaranteed annual income.

Friedman proposed it for gods sake.
It could definitely reduce our workforce size, but keep in mind, the UBI is a bare minimum, people will need to work to get luxuries.
The volunteer work I'm not sure I understand.

Ok, I need to come back to this...like I said, I've been celebrating and not in the right frame of mind.

I would be concerned that this would replace entitlement programs as they are not all created equal. Disabilities, insurance,children, etc.

I'm also thinking a millionaire has no reason to receive this particular entitlement, seems like putting money in the wrong place however and I'm assuming you're a libertarian, the only fair thing to do in that philosophy would be to distribute evenly? I'm not necessarily for that.

Anyway, I keep typing and then deleting, realizing I really should read more on the subject.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.
Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:
1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.
Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.
But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):
1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%
A 13% drop since 1980
2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.
Share of National Income going to Top 10%:
1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%
An increase of 16% since Reagan.
3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.
The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.
1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)
A 12.3% drop after Reagan.
4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.
Household Debt as percentage of GDP:
1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%
A 45% increase after 1980.
5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.
Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:
1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%
A 5.6 times increase.
6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.
The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:
1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%
A 10% Decrease.
Links:
1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zh1bveXc8rA/SuddUhLWUaI/AAAAAAAAA7M/iU2gefk317M/s1600-h/Clipboard01.jpg
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/
5/6 = http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4?slop=1#slideshow-start
Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

Productivity doesn't come for free.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

IE, keep cutting pay, raising taxes on the nonrich, and making college more expensive, and you get the GOP Banana Republic of tomorrow...

and making college more expensive,

Throw more government money at it, that always makes things cheaper. Durr.

 

[Dovahkiin]

Paul Ryan is correct, according to a very recent well supported paper. The "war on poverty" has not been very successful, we need to look at new solutions. History has shown us that both sides are in the wrong, what we need is a real change. I find myself in favor of a universal basic income, something both sides should get behind, in my honest opinion. Something has to change. (It's a shame none of the candidates support a UBI.)
Paul Ryan says 'if you were raised poor, you’re just as likely to stay poor' as 50 years ago

I'd like to hear more (yes, I can google too) about this. Especially as lower paid (and some not so) jobs are automated.

More about a basic income? Ask away.

How is it funded? Taxes I presume, who pays it?
How does this affect our current tax structure?
What is the UBI tied to, how much?
Are there limitations on what you can do with this money (i.e. cannot buy luxury items)
Do we still have a minimum wage?
Can you have a low paying job and still receive a UBI?
Could this reduce our workforce size?
How about volunteer work to earn UBI if able?

I know, simple questions, I've had a couple beers.

I will admit that I am no expert, but I will do my best to address these.
How is it funded? Well, a UBI is made to replace all of our current "entitlement" programs, so the funding comes from that, and different plans do different things. Some plans want to give a basic income to individuals below that raises them right above the poverty line, and then cut it off once they get above the line, with safeguards in place to prevent abuse. Others want people to have a UBI regardless of income, which is what I personally support, as I feel the latter could be abused/used as as a way to further divide our nation.
The tax structure, I'm sure, would be changed. This can't be answered adequately as no serious UBI plans have taken off in america.
Limitations? No, no limitations, people are free to do what they want with the money, personal freedom and all.
A minimum wage? No need for it with a UBI.
For the low paying job part, in virtually every plan, yes.
Here's a good reading:
The Conservative Case for a Guaranteed Basic Income

The idea isn’t new. As Frum notes, Friederich Hayek endorsed it. In 1962, the libertarian economist Milton Friedman advocated a minimum guaranteed income via a “negative income tax.” In 1967, Martin Luther King Jr. said, “The solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income.” Richard Nixon unsuccessfully tried to pass a version of Friedman’s plan a few years later, and his Democratic opponent in the 1972 presidential election, George McGovern, also suggested a guaranteed annual income.

Friedman proposed it for gods sake.
It could definitely reduce our workforce size, but keep in mind, the UBI is a bare minimum, people will need to work to get luxuries.
The volunteer work I'm not sure I understand.

Ok, I need to come back to this...like I said, I've been celebrating and not in the right frame of mind.

I would be concerned that this would replace entitlement programs as they are not all created equal. Disabilities, insurance,children, etc.

I'm also thinking a millionaire has no reason to receive this particular entitlement, seems like putting money in the wrong place however and I'm assuming you're a libertarian, the only fair thing to do in that philosophy would be to distribute evenly? I'm not necessarily for that.

Anyway, I keep typing and then deleting, realizing I really should read more on the subject.

I'm not a libertarian. I do believe in regulations and a strong federal government. But I tend to lean to the "right" on some economic issues.