January 25, 2007

Summing Up Differing Approaches to Poverty

Marc Comtois

Nathan Smith at TCS daily offers this contrast between how President Bush and Sen. Jim Webb view the poverty question:

President Bush has proposed an array of policies that confront different aspects of real deprivation as experienced by the poor here and abroad: bad education, lack of legal status and fear of deportation, lack of health care and disease. Of course, also critical to poverty alleviation is the ongoing success of the US economy, which, as the president mentioned, has created 7.2 million jobs since the beginning of the current expansion. Jobs are both the best way out of poverty and, as presidential aspirant John Edwards has said, a source of "dignity and self-respect." By calling for a balanced budget in five years, without raising taxes, President Bush made a bid to preserve a business climate in which prosperity will continue.

While the president is interested in dealing with specific aspects of poverty and deprivation, he is not interested in the position of poor people relative to others. Senator Webb is. "When I graduated from college," remarks Senator Webb, "the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it¹s nearly 400 times." Or again, "Wages and salaries for our workers are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth." In each case, the statistic he cites is a ratio: the average worker's wages compared to those of the CEO; wages and salaries compared to national wealth. That the average worker is much wealthier in absolute terms than he was thirty years ago does not seem to interest Webb much: what matters is that his relative wealth has decreased.

In short, it's the rhetoric of class warfare and "envy" (Webb) versus the rhetoric of "altruism" (Bush). Read the whole thing for a further explanation.

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

What's the ratio between a U.S. Senator's pay (including the value of pensions and other benefits) and that of the average worker, now as compared to thirty years ago?

Ditto the average government employee vs. the average private sector worker?

Posted by: Ragin' Rhode Islander at January 25, 2007 3:31 PM

Ask and you shall receive (no benefits, just salary info and I used 2005 for soource consistency reasons)

"The People"
1977 - $16,009 median FAMILY income, which is approx. $38,000 in 2005 $s
2005 - $46,326

This equals around a $30,300 increas in total $ or about $8,300 in 2005 $s
1977 - $57,500 (in 1977 dollars - around $136,500 in 2005 $s)
2005 - $162,100 ($165,200 now)

This equals an increase of $104,600 overall, or $25,600 in 2005 $s

I'll leave it to you to figure out the ratios....the real dollar increases seem to make the point well enough.

Posted by: Marc Comtois at January 25, 2007 7:04 PM

Whatever has happened to their salaries the last 30 years, I'll take the bennies of a gov't employee or a member of Congress over the private sector any day.

Posted by: SusanD at January 25, 2007 9:07 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Important note: The text "http:" cannot appear anywhere in your comment.