Here we have this horrible disaster that has exposed a real problem -- thousands of people without transportation or means to evacuate. Left to drown and starve when no one would help them. Surely this is so big that it can no longer be denied, right? The problem is exposed, there for all to see. But the WSJ makes sure to reinforce the prejudice instead of looking at the problem. As quoted in the comment:
. . . We have rediscovered the underclass. Newspapers and television understandably prefer to feature low-income people who are trying hard--the middle-aged man working two jobs, the mother worrying about how to get her children into school in a strange city. These people are rightly the objects of an outpouring of help from around the country, but their troubles are relatively easy to resolve. Tell the man where a job is, and he will take it. Tell the mother where a school is, and she will get her children into it. Other images show us the face of the hard problem: those of the looters and thugs, and those of inert women doing nothing to help themselves or their children. They are the underclass. . . . The government hasn't a clue. Versions of every program being proposed in the aftermath of Katrina have been tried before and evaluated. We already know that the programs are mismatched with the characteristics of the underclass. Job training? Unemployment in the underclass is not caused by lack of jobs or of job skills, but by the inability to get up every morning and go to work. A homesteading act? The lack of home ownership is not caused by the inability to save money from meager earnings, but because the concept of thrift is alien. You name it, we've tried it. It doesn't work with the underclass. . . . the statistical reality is that people who get into the American job market and stay there seldom remain poor unless they do something self-destructive. And behaving self-destructively is the hallmark of the underclass.
. . . The government hasn't a clue. Versions of every program being proposed in the aftermath of Katrina have been tried before and evaluated. We already know that the programs are mismatched with the characteristics of the underclass. Job training? Unemployment in the underclass is not caused by lack of jobs or of job skills, but by the inability to get up every morning and go to work. A homesteading act? The lack of home ownership is not caused by the inability to save money from meager earnings, but because the concept of thrift is alien. You name it, we've tried it. It doesn't work with the underclass.
. . . the statistical reality is that people who get into the American job market and stay there seldom remain poor unless they do something self-destructive. And behaving self-destructively is the hallmark of the underclass.
I have been looking unsuccessfully for something I read in that post on Scandinavia among Most Competitive Economies. They talked about successful welfare to work programs in the Scandanavian countries that had allowed them to distinguish themselves from France and Germany in this area. i thought there might be some good ideas for us as well. But i couldn't find what I was looking for.
But I'm not a proponent that the US has anywhere close to the perfect system. I think the US can learn a lot from the European systems, and vice versa. I just wish that we had better fact bases among the systems so they could be compared, and mined for ideas, in a more thoughtful manner that would yield results. There tends to be a lot of flame throwing when these areas are discussed, though not really on this site--which I find more thoughtful and open to discussion than others I have been on.
Maybe we'll develop some of this here, as some of the other posts have pointed us to shared databases, like the OCED, and an attempt at the New Left Economic Manifesto, that might lay our case out in a more fact based way.
And because they can't get out of it easily, they get overly depressed and burdened with psychological problems. If you are a white poor or a black poor, both are burdened over their capacities and both have different ways to cope with it or not at all. You sound as if you just haven't found the way address those addiction problems, without giving a thought why those problems are so widely spread in the first place. The poor are not only deeply depressed, they are also immobile and forced into hopelessnes.
Many things are historically different. Germany (I think this is specific to Germany only) had a class society before WWI and WWII, where the aristrocracy still had money aside from societal power and political influence.
After 1945 Germany found its "nobles" shopping and looking for a roof over their head and something to put on the table the same way as their poorer and less noble neighbors or their poorer comrades they met in the POW camps in Russia and elsewhere. Somethings stay the same for humans, having been Nazi or not. Being in the same boat in times of war, ie. being poor and defeated was the same independent of which class you used to belong to before Hitler times.
Their "wealth" was levelled (gone). Everybody had to start from zero. Classes were destroyed in Germany, not the mindset, but the property of the upper class was gone as well as the property of the lower class.
Education was expected to be free in the 1947/48, because nobody had anything anyhow and it HAD to be free. It was also the first time, when women started to go to the universities in larger numbers, because they pretty much had learned during the war to fend for themselves and now often needed it even more, because men were MIA or POWs.
So when I grew up in the fifties and early sixties, there was no doubt that I would get a university education the same way as my brother. My mother never got considered for such an education by her father, because there was no money and she was considered to marry early and be a housewife. In my elementary school class in the fifites MANY girls didn't choose to reach for the highschool track that would have lead them on to a university track, because their working class or lower middle class parents had still a mindset of the 1920 to 1930. This changed dramatically by the sixties.
Most of the students in Germany in the fifties were extremely poor, but they could become whatever they wanted for free as long as they could handle the academic part. It would have been out of the question for Germans to accept a US-style educational system, which systematically denies the poor equal access to higher education or fiddles around with a little grant here, a little grant there for a couple of "alibi" minorities. In fact the tuition costs we still had in the fifties in Germany were completely eliminated by the end of the sixties, whereas in the US the poor and minorities had still to fight to get access to education for completely different reasons, aside from the fact that they also haven't the equal opportunities for economic reasons.
In the US affirmative action was absolutely necessary to at least try to level the playing field for the minorities and poor, civil rights came about only in the sixties. That was pretty late compared to European civil right standards.
So, if you ask me, the US has huge catch-up to play when it comes to educate their masses with excellence and true fairness and equal access for all. That's why the US classes stubbornly exist and will remain to exist, and why it's dividing the population in a painful unfair way.
What makes the whole thing even more remarkable, is that massive propaganda has convinced the majority of Americans that someone who doesn't make it in this country, is at fault all by himself. The denial of facts and the ruthless brainwashing propaganda of the haves vis a vis the have-nots is so socio-psychological sickening that vast parts of the population have serious psychological problems on top of just economically being poor.
There are plenty of examples in American politics and business where people moved up from the lower class. Obvious recent examples include Harriet Miers (nominee to Supreme Court), Bill Clinton, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, etc. Conversely, John Kerry had a big problem trying to overcome his "spoiled rich brat" reputation. (Bush did a much better job of it!)
It would be interesting to find out whether there are senior politicians in Europe with comparably plebian backgrounds. Blair is a bad example, as are Chirac and Villepin. Gerhard Shroeder is perhaps an example of a middle class politician without an elite education? Perhaps also Sarkozy? I don't know enough to tell.
Out of your examples, the only one who I would say possibly came from this sort of background is Bill Clinton and I would also say that his intelligence and charm put him firmly in the category of "exceptional."
The other three came from solid backgrounds, not poor. Cheney and Miers both had fathers with good employment and stay-at-home mothers. Rice was the only child of two teachers, one who became a minister and who had ties to the Powells. You're correct that these are not silver-spoon backgrounds, but certainly not impoverished and not from the underclass that's been discussed here. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
I would say every German was poor and borderline to a "blue collar worker" for some time after the war, at least til 1953. They all had experienced periods of hunger. At one point in time they even had all the same amount of money (Waehrungsreform 1948), they all lacked an "education", they sacrificed that for our dear leader as well in WWII.
What kind of "elite education' do you expect the German "kid soldiers" in WWII to have gotten other than may be a blown off limb and a "struggling widowed mother thereafter"?
We don't have "elite education". We don't have private universities. All public universities are basically of same quality. In the fifites and sixties you still had some departments at some universities who stood out because of some "famous" scientists or philosophers, but that's it. Nobody in Germany would ever use the term "elite education" for a small group of its pool of people that had a university education. Education in Germany is not the entrance driveway to the "upper class". I bet you, almost noone is aware of the "class" background of our politicians, because there isn't much class. (oh, that is fun to say)
I don't know anything about France and England, just that I know their upper class was not destroyed by WWII. Germany's upper class (old money aristocrats) was. So, there might be a difference between Germany and other European countries, but honestly, I doubt it would be much. Since five decaded higher education is free in Europe. The poor people could get education and have taken advantage of it. Nobody seriously looks at your class background.
US media constantly "make a point" that everybody can be whatever he sets his mind to in the USof A. So, for a political candidate, it is really "of some use" to come from "modest beginnings", for media purpose. But all of that has really nothing to do with today's "peristant underclass of poor" in the United States, speak "ghetto kids, often lost to gangs and drugs and crime, and single moms in public project housing, rural folks, who can't get out of their mobile homes anymore, because even working two jobs sometimes doesn't make it happen and it sure doesn't pay the kid's kindergarden and college education.
Rice' parents were not poor, they might have been of modest means, but clearly not poor. She was very much loved and guarded by her parents. And I resent the fact that candidates have to sell their lifestories to the media consultants, so that they can weave a myth about the candidate for public consumption.
Clinton's life-story was way too much oversold on the convention. These were (and are) pretty fancy and shameless marketing tricks to enhance the candidate's sympathetic personality for the voters to buy into.
Making it as a politician out of the poor underclass doesn't guarantee that the political ideas supported by such a candidate are socially more compassionate, more fair and democratic, liberal, progressive or altogether morally decent, at least not in Germany.
I can name you one good example amongst German politicians who came out of the poor underclass, Hitler. So ... I guess let's not look at the class of a candidate, but rather look for a candidate's potentional to be "a class act". And it shouldn't be his money that makes him capable of pulling "a class act" show, fabricated, produced and broadcasted over the media landscape by his campaign consultants.
If their money and their ethnicity and religion wouldn't play a role (as they according to the constitution really should not) why would class and money play a role at all? But they do - in the US. They are talking all day long about it.
The French educational system is actually pretty good at unearthing local talent, even if it comes from the lowest classes, and push them into the Grandes Ecoles. And once they get in that, they are part of the elite, whatever their background was.
Of course, the children of the elite (and the children of teachers) who know the system and can help their children navigate it better have a better chance of getting in, but the really, really bright kids will always be brough to the top like they deserve. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
This is why their system is really good to provide an elite education to everyone, who has an extraordinairy mind independent and unburdened by their parents capability of paying for this education. German universities don't produce an elite, neither intellectually, nor financially. I think France does.
The difference to the US is that their system of elite universities, which more or less guarantee you an entry to highly paid and powerful positions and careers is burdened by the cost factor. Though they always pick a couple of "low income and minority students" through complicated somewhat systematic, but still not uniform or standaradized methods, which is compared to French mechanisms rather unfair.
To prepare for elite universities in the US, you have to get into "elite" highschools, which you find mostly in "elite neighborhoods" of very well to do upper middle class families, all clustered geographically and clearly separated from lower middle class, working blue collar or poor neighborhoods. Even if you might find similar separations in Europe (mostly the division is between immigrant working class and the locals), it's not that much of a division as it is in the US.
We spoke here about the underclass, the real poor, which means today the class of broken, out and down people, who have given up and given in to all sorts of self-destructing lifestyles on top of being simply of very low income.
This class is the one you have difficulties to change in the US today. Whereas the older generation and the generation of the civil rights movement had a lot of hope, later options and strength to work themselves out of poverty, today there is few hope, fewer options and little strength left in many of them. I just see more people who silently and decidedly have given up on themselves and kids who disintegrate emotionally.
I think it's a development not older than ten to twenty years or so. People used to believe in upward mobility and fair opportunities for all. I don't think they still do today, even if they don't admit it.
Nevertheless the US produces a lot of politicians, who come from families of modest income and humble beginnings. It would be nice to know, if among the Republicans and Democrats especially among subgroups of conservatives and right wing libertarians or Christian fundamentalists and core moderate Democrats and leftist, progressive and decidedly very liberal Democrats there is a signigican relationship between their ideological view points and the income level of their parents and grand parents.
This paragraph should read: "The difference to the US is that their system of elite universities, which more or less guarantees you an entry to highly paid and powerful positions and careers is burdened by the cost factor. Though they always pick a couple of "low income and minority students" through complicated somewhat systematic, but still not uniform or standardised methods, they are compared to French and German selection mechanisms rather unfair."
Sorry.
Over here there are certainly a few elite universities, the Ivy League schools. If you can manage to get accepted to one of them, the tuition is not really an issue because they are all very well endowed and provide generous scholarships. And after you get out you're in good shape. Harvard, in particular, feeds into government.
At the next level down, the "really good" schools are where you have to pay big bucks to attend. Then at the state level the schools are pretty inexpensive and pretty much anybody can find a way to pay for them. They aren't strictly "free," but there are a lot of ways to find the required money.
An associated issue is the social aspect of valuing education. Universities generally have few black students, way out of proportion to the population distribution. But they have a lot of Asians, also out of proportion, but in the other direction. This seems to be related to how much value is placed on education by various social groups, since there are affirmative action programs for blacks and reverse discrimination problems for Asians.
Another point is that you can go to a state university here and still end up as vice president, Cheney being the current example. But that seems possible in Germany also, and possibly in France. (Not sure about Britain.)
There is also the issue of how you define "class." Does class = money? There are poverty stricken titled aristocrats in Britain. And the Kennedy family in America was pretty low class until a whole lot of money sort of magically appeared in their bank accounts during prohibition. Clinton certainly wasn't poor in the most extreme sense, but now he rubs elbows with the rich and famous. At least in America there is no formal class structure with titles and heredity, although certainly you get a big boost if you have rich parents.
I have personal contact with three types of "upper class" people. One group is the old-time upper class, who had great grandparents in government, with lots of inherited money, and an established place in the system. Another group is the now-poor old-time upper class, who struggle to maintain their position because they can't afford symphony tickets, ski trips to the Alps, and fancy houses. A third group is the new rich, who are also struggling to make the point that they belong to the upper class, by using their money to join the right clubs, go to the right schools, wear the right clothes, etc. Members of all three groups might go to the same church or belong to the same club, but you know who are the old timers and who are the social climbers. But the point is that you CAN move up if you can get enough money.
Bottom line is that if you are smart and work hard you can get to the top pretty much anywhere, although it may be harder or easier in different countries. I don't think that in practice this is a large differentiator between systems.
What I've been trying to establish in my comments is that we have a certain population under that level and it's almost impossible to get out of. Call it the underclass, call it the poor, call it whatever the fuck you want, but the fact of the matter is we have a huge portion of the population living under horrendous conditions -- in the ghettoes, the projects, the barrios, the trailer parks, the meth belt, Bible belt, boonies, on the streets, under bridges, in the fields, and innumerable other places we hide them out of and in plain sight in this enormous, gorgeous wealthy country of ours.
And we ignore them and deride them and mock and dehumanize them. We deny them welfare, medical treatment, education, housing, keep them out of the system and we are absolutely brutal in our blindness and when they become brutal themselves we lock them the fuck up and throw away the key.
I bring this up repeatedly and am met with argument after argument that it is not so and if it is so it is not that bad and if it is that bad it is certainly their own fault, whoever "they" are. 45 million with no medical insurance. Millions of families, children living in poverty. Millions homeless with tent cities cropping up here and there. How many millions will it take for us to admit we have a problem?
This isn't about the upper strata trying to pretend they're high-class. This isn't about the comfortable middle. This isn't about the solid but shrinking working class who vote their fear -- if it's so great here, what the fuck are they so afraid of? Do you think they're just stupid? If we want to solve this political madness, we need to acknowledge what it's rooted in -- poverty. Lots of it. Deny it all you want, but nothing will get done. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
Thank you asdf for your reasoned comments pointing out the use of scholarships (and I would add loans) for students able to qualify at all levels. Mimi either doesn't have access to accurate data about the American university system, or has an agenda to present false data and unfairly criticize the system. It concerns me because I wonder if those on the site with primarily European backgounds might think there was even some accuracy in these comments.
It would be interesting to see if there is an studies, or data, that would allow us to evaluate the upward mobility in the two different systems. I must admit that my intuitive feel is different than yours, in that you think there may be equivalency. Based on living in Europe for three years and spending significant portions of time there for 15 years, is that the French and British system still have significant barriers to upward mobility in the government, in business, and socially. But though I had a lot of experiences, examples, and conversation about this, it's obviously still limited to my own contacts. In other words, I wouldn't put this forward as a fact.
For example, France has a large immigrant population with Muslim religious background and primarily from Africa. Are they moving up in the system? The UK has large black, Pakastani, and Indian minority groups. Are they moving up in the system?
Perhaps someone knows of comparative data in this area.
Here's a link from the LSE to get you started. Google is your friend: I searched on "comparing social mobility between europe and the US" and that popped up.
I suspect that maybe in Europe getting into the top 20% is harder, but in the US getting out of the bottom 20% is harder. Which way around is would be more desirable?
this is looking a lot bigger than I can take on right now, unfortunately. It's very interesting, but would require significant study to get it right.
thank you for the welcome Izzie. Frankly it's always a pleasure to discuss and debate with you.
Without taking the time to analyze this one in detail, there are a litany of examples from the above thread, regarding Mimi's lack of accuracy. Such as, Mimi says: "On an average the tuition costs per month is well over $ 2,000.00 plus for the cheapest public university." A number of examples were given in the commentary of schools with lower tuition; 20+ California State Universities have a tuition per their website of $2000 per year, San Jose University per one poster is at $2500 per year, U of Wisconsin per Izzy is $5600 per year. Needless to say, these are not the cheapest public universities, and her fact is of by a factor of, should we say, 8?
I suspect the same situation is true of most if not all US states.
It is actually rather shameful that the UC will conditionally admit undergraduates that don't meet its minimum English proficiency standards (concerning reading comprehension and essay writing), charge then UC tuition for a whole year while putting them on remedial courses, and throw them out at the end of the year if they fail to pass the infamous "subject A" exam. To cut costs, they have even started to outsource the subject A remedial courses to the University Extension centres and local community colleges, whicle still charging the students UC tuition fees. [The situation I am describing was current as of one year ago, during my last quarter at UC Riverside, the least prestigious of all UC campuses before Merced opened --- it might have changed, maybe for the worst] guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
All in all, with those added in -- non-resident status tuition plus books, her $2000/mo could be accurate for those conditions. Wildly inaccurate for residents, of course, but not inaccurate for what she was discussing.
That said, I'm still working on that diary -- almost done! And it's a thing of beauty if I say so -- all stories and emotion, sweeping generalizations and personal anecdote. There's nary a statistic in sight -- you guys are gonna have a field day in the comments, I swear! Dueling statistics at dawn, sir! I will see you in the comments. :-) Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
If you want to talk about upward mobility and compare those from the US vs. Europe, I think that's impossible.
First, define upward mobility, second, compare just two countries with each other, third, look at all factors that determine of why someone moves upward at all.
Education has not the same weight as a root cause for a person's upward mobility in different countries. Considering just higher education alone, tuition costs are not the only determining factor for access to it. Different countries have different ways of restricting or granting access to higher education. You would have to consider these differences as well to make comparisons meaningful at all.
France and Germany have both large immigrant populations. You have to differentiate here to make any comparisons at all. Are you talking of immigrants, who come as adults to France and/or Germany with or without same mother language, with or without school exit diplomas that allow them to be admitted to universities. There are really several factors which you need to look at, if you want to judge something vague as "upward mobility" through the education you gain in the country you want to move upward in.
I wouldn't know how to comment any further here as long as so many different issues are lumped together.
I am not quite sure I would like to go into discussing those issue that I wouldn't judge in the same way you do and I therefore just leave it at saying that I don't agree with your fourth paragraph.
In your fifth paragraph you try to compare something that doesn't quite fit, as Germany doesn't have private universities at all. It's not only possible in Germany for a German politician to come from a public university, it's impossible to come from anything else, as it doesn't exist.
In your six paragraph you try to get into a definition of what a class is in various countries. This needs a diary in itself, as it is different from the US to England to France and Germany.
And I think in your last paragraph you say something generally true. Luckily people adapt to their environments and it looks like they make it (to the top?) more or less everywhere. But then, if it were true, you wouldn't have huge population migrations. So somehow that might be just a bit smooth soothing talk over issues that might just be painful to face. But I am all for not hurting anyone. So, I agree. :-)
If you come from a poor background in the US you can do quite well in the Educational system given enough time. You would start by going to a community college for the first 2 years of your university education, possibly obtaining an Associate's degree. At more prestigious 4-year, Research or private universities you will pay exorbitant tuition and be in larger classes with instructors who are primarily researchers or not exclusively teachers. At a community college, professional advancement is based entirely on teaching accomplishment, tuition is low and class sizes are small. The only problem is prestige. Community colleges are "where brown kids go to school", and as such they play a key role. It's a shame that they are so underappreciated.
However, if you do well at a community college you should be able to transfer to a 4-year state school and get some financial aid. Since American college students get mostly a general education in their first 2 years, it doesn't really matter that you got that at a community college. Then you can choose any major and graduate from the 4-year school in 2 or 2 1/2 years. Moreover, since these universities don't have graduate programs but the professors are evaluated on research as well as teaching, there are more opportunities for undergraduate research at a 4-year college than at a research university. Some of the best math educators in the US teach at 4-year colleges.
With a good degree from a 4-year state school and some undergraduate research you can get into a public research school for a master's degree with a scholarship or a teaching/research assistantship. Professors at these research intitutions are focused mostly on research and can be of world-class caliber even if the school is not very prestigious.
Now, with a master's degree from a public research university you can get anywhere: law school, medical school, or a Ph.D. program at UCLA or Berkeley, or the Ivy League.
It is a long and winding road, but it can be traversed. The problem is that, for many from depressed backgrounds, high school education is dismal and their community is so dysfunctional that going to a community college is out of the question. Smart kids from depressed backgrounds will tend to find a way in, though. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
I can't help this one last comment -- you've given a great overview of the higher education situation. My perception of the situation matches with everything you've written here with the exception of one small quibble about the smart kids from depressed backgrounds finding a way in -- that can be true and for the most part is true from merely depressed (marginal?) backgrounds.
Lower than that, though -- the kids from the hard backgrounds generally don't make it, even through high-school. Very rarely, exceptional kids make it. And I refer to exceptional in either intelligence, talent, or drive and fortitude. One of these usually is not enough and I think the fortitude is a required element. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
I am somewhat not agreeing with your very last sentence though.
If smart kids from depressed backgrounds tend to find a way in, then I assume that statistically spoken, the smart kids from depressed backgrounds are either not proportionally correctly represented in numbers, or there are statistically speaking fewer smart kids in the population group coming from depressed background.
If the first were true, then it would means that there is no equal access or opportunity for them to get in, if the second were true, it would mean "depressed backgrounds" would have a genetic impact on your "smartness" genes. Well, I can't live with either of these conclusions.
Unequal access or opportunity comes in many forms. Children of affluent parents will go to college even if they are not as bright as many from working poor backgrounds who do not. There is also "white privilege" even if overt racial discrimination is not there, and so on. You shouldn't think of equal opportunity as either existing or not, because then you have to conclude either that it does not exist, or you find yourself blaming victims of social inequalities for their "free" bad life choices. Neither conclusion is acceptable, nor does it follow from the analysis. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
