Comments by CaroleKM

The point that Lexington is missing is that Americans, low-income or otherwise, are very uncomfortable with the idea of Government doing "something" to "redistribute wealth" or "fix inequality."

This attitude creates a sense of dependence on others which Americans resist, even if they materially benefit in the short term. Americans are reluctant to give up self-reliance for so-called equality.

What government can do is generously fund schools and public works, which create that basis of self-reliance because people have jobs, and the ability to rely on themselves. They are less concerned about where that government check is coming from if they feel they are making a contribution.

Welfare = depressing/dependence.

Building a school = a job. They don't think they "need the government," conveniently forgetting who signed the check.

"Or they can involve more subtle distortions: look at the way that powerful teachers’ unions have stopped poorer Americans getting a good education"

WHAT THE F-ity-F?

Let's remember the overall positive economic function of unions that I haven't seen mentioned yet..

1) Increasing marginal consumption by increasing wages.

2) Increasing efficiency by negotiating a single contract for a large number of workers performing similar tasks, instead of negotiating for each worker as a one-off.

3) Protecting democracy by providing protection for workers against abusive management.

4) Protecting public safety by ensuring police officers, fire fighters, nurses, airline pilots and others are adequate in number, well-rested, and so on.

I'm sure there are more, but I just posted 3 in a row and you are all probably ready to read someone else...

Those "unfunded liabilities" are because states chose to promise workers pensions in lieu of raises, then NOT set that money aside.

Let's say that amount was 10% of their wages per year. What if you chose to put 10% of your salary in the bank for your retirement, and at the end of your career the bank said to you "Oh, sorry, we decided to spend that money on something else. Must stink to be you right now..."

Well, in the case of the banks, this last time they pulled that trick, they got a bailout and all their bonuses were preserved.

As a member of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) of which Randi Weingarten is president, I take issue with the frame that teachers are opposed to school reforms.

Of course teachers want good schools, successful students and capable and talented peers. What teachers don't want is their job and economic security to be vulnerable to "fad of the week" measurements.

The concern I have is that teachers unions leave themselves out of the discussion on school reform issues by taking a page from the Republican book and becoming the "Party of NO!"

For example, instead of asking "How do we deal with lousy teachers" they say "NEVER FIRE ANYONE!" And then suddenly the rug is pulled out from under them with charter schools, which, by the way, have the exact same problems as their public counterparts... and the teachers are joining the local union so they can get decent pay and benefits...

I think it's because the unions perceive allowing negotiation on any issues as losing because they will probably have to give something up. However, the bigger battle is that school reform conferences are happening all over the country and the teacher's unions are not invited, because the official line is always NO!

Anyone who tries to justify this treatment of human beings is using the same arguments to justify Jim Crow, the Holocaust...

I think these definitions of poverty are still too limiting.

The lack of opportunity to have a job and go to school and participate in the economy should be what creates the definition of the poverty line. The details of what people eat, drink, live in and yes, use for a toilet become less important.

What if we thought of food, health care and education, instead of being private goods, as being public investments in the future of a region or country?

A person eats so they can have energy to contribute to the well-being of the local economy. A person consumes health care because the cost of medicine or vaccinations is lower than lost wages, or of caring for their children in an orphanage. An education makes a person more productive to an economy than one who lacks it.

If an individual cannot access the resources available to him/her such that they can, in turn, create a surplus, then that is the definition of poverty.

Regarding utilities - let's look at these as opportunity costs. If a person has to give up a wage-earning job or can't go to school because they have to fetch water for survival, and they cannot afford a pipe to bring water closer, then, that is poverty.

The same analysis can be made for electricity, for housing that isn't sufficiently protective, or for poor sanitation that results in disease.

The downward spiral of poverty is when a person has opportunities and cannot take advantage of these because they can't afford the necessary food, medicine, education, or other utilities. These drag down the overall economy, both present and future.