Richer, poorer - For many in Mass., '90s boom was just a bust

Boston Globe ^ | May 5, 2002 | Marcella Bombardieri

[IronJack]

they just passed a huge tax increase

HAHAHA! Yeah, that'll help. Put an even bigger burden on the few folks who are still productive.

Socialists. They're as predictable as a sunrise.

[EdReform]

"There are millions of Third-worlders at all levels of skill itching to migrate into the US. They will do professional level work for a fraction of what you are paid."

H-1B Hall of Shame

[FreedomPoster]

I've read some of your material at zolatimes, as well as some of your posts here, and have to say that I am almost invariably impressed. However, this:

The people at the top 15% of incomes write the articles praising the economy while brokering its decline

is a headscratcher for me.

While the medidiots who write the articles praising the economy are almost certainly in the top 15% of incomes (which is in the $70k-$80k a year range, or thereabouts, depending upon whose numbers you believe), your statement would seem to imply that all/most of those at the top 15% are actively brokering the decline of the economy. Is this what you intended?

I'm curious as to what group you really think is actively working towards this decline, and how. It seems to me that a professional eduction (accounting, engineering, computer science, MBA, law, medicine) and a diligently worked-at career with at least a hint of entrepreneurship creates that level of earnings for millions. How does that translate into "brokering the decline of the economy"?

[Mortimer Snavely]

"If you voted for George Bush, you did (vote Democrat), under another label."

I occasionally post the following due to the adulation Bush receives around here:

'The following are excerpts from a March 23, 2002 Washington Times piece by Bill Sammon.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

"MONTERREY, Mexico: ----- ------- yesterday said Americans are duty-bound to 'share our wealth' with poor nations and promised a 50 percent increase in foreign aid, but 'We should give more of our aid in the form of grants, rather than loans that can never be repaid,' he said. 'We should invest in better health and build on our efforts to fight AIDS, which threatens to undermine whole societies.'

"In addition to the moral, economic and strategic imperatives of increasing foreign aid, ----- ------- said, it could also help in the war against terrorism.

"'We will challenge the poverty and hopelessness and lack of education and failed governments that too often allow conditions that terrorists can seize and try to turn to their advantage.'"

Here's a small political quiz. Who is quoted above?

a) George McGovern
b) Bill Clinton
c) Al Gore
d) Al Sharpton
e) Jesse Jackson
f ) Ted Kennedy
g) George W. Bush

Hint: He's very popular here at Free Republic.'

So far, there have been no responses.

[Mortimer Snavely]

"I'm curious as to what group you really think is actively working towards this decline, and how."

I can surmise that RLK is not pointing out any overt group or confederation of groups as participating in a conscious, nefarious conspiracy, rather, he's describing the tangible effects of the cultural paradigm shift from rational and autonomous individuality, which once characterized the American character, to a borderline psychotic and adolescent mentality which now describes the American psyche. He talks about "the Ring" consisting of the cultural iconographers in mainstream media, entertainment, journalism, academia, and politics, which maintains a self-referencing virtual reality world view, and ignores or delegates to insignificance any ideas not congruent with that world view.

Painting with rather a broad brush, anyone who agrees with Goldwater's The Conscience of a Conservative is, to this intellectual construct, necessarily a racist, fascist conspiracy to repress minorities and women, and is not worth consideration.

In this construct, major assumptions are posited, instead of investigated. First, it is assumed that American ideology as described in the Declaration of Independence is an intellectual tool to ensure the supremacy of double-jowled, polyester suited Bible thumpers and other unsavory types. Second, it is presumed that non-Western philosophies and collectivist theories promise to solve all problems related to human existence. Last, all non-progressive, (meaning ultimately Marxist based) research and analysis is rejected as invalid.

The plastic, unstable world view held by thes cultural iconographers fulfills that category of grandiose delusion known as totalitarian ideology. It is a closed system of ideas and the only acceptable intellectual exercise in it is the use of its own ideological system. Also, all natural thought, that is, basic common sense, is subordinated to it, and outsiders are treated in a way that conceals other emotions.

The series describes the roots of this world view, observes its historical impact, and demonstrates its theoretical ultimate results.

Again, it is necessary to emphasize that no grand conspiracy is posited, rather, the characteristics of an intellectual climate are analyzed, and the intellectual "weather patterns," if you will, are predicted and observed.

[paulsy]

"Public policy is needed to address the problem, St. George insists. ... 'My wife hated [all the layoffs]. She said, `You've got to do something different,''' Spencer said. ''But this is all I've ever known.''"

why does the government (ala the general public footing the bill, usually the more affluent) always have to try solve *the problems*? does government ever even really solve these *problems* successfully?

if one thing lead me to be conservative after being a rioting liberal for so long it was this: government solving people's personal problems, and people expecting it. people need to solve their own problems. "government programs" are just politicians creating voting constituencies; and for the conspiracy theorist, a way for commies to slow capitalist economies. i get really tired of people who say "it's all i've known" championed by some power-hungry politician all too willing to dive deep into my pocketbook to help out these unfortunate souls.

[Southack]

The main secret to getting rich on your own accord (i.e. not just being lucky) is in setting up your investments for recurring income.

There are two types of income: recurring income and one-time income.

Paychecks are one-time income. Why? Because you have to show up each time you want a paycheck. Contract workers who are paid hourly are the most extreme example, as they get paid only when they show up to work each hour. Not that there is anything wrong with paychecks and contracting, mind you, but it needs to be recognized as one-time income. Other forms of one-time income are sales. Sell a craft or a car, you get one sum, and to get more income you have to do the work all over again.

Renting homes is recurring income. Rent a home one time and income keeps coming in month after month after month. Stocks which pay dividends are another source of recurring income. Forget "growth" stocks (they are for serious investors and corporate Directors, the rest tend to get screwed), it is dividend stocks that bring in recurring income. Purchase stocks such as PBT (8% dividend) or AXM (15% annual dividend) or CLP (7% dividend) and you don't have to worry about the price of the stock itself going up or down, as you get your quarterly dividend checks no matter what. For a one-time purchase, you get recurring income. Leverage your brokerage account (brokers such as Datek charge about 3% interest for margin loans) to purchase even more dividend stocks and you can turn 15% annual interest on AXM into 27% interest even without compounding. Those are hefty checks coming in each quarter.

Other forms of recurring income are from creating a movie, recording a song, writing a book, leasing land, or placing your employees on-site with a client's company.

Are these things realistic? Can the average Joe do these things to get recurring income? Of course. Any American can buy a house and lease it out. Any American can open a $500 stock account with Datek or e-trade. With a few small contributions and the purchase of stable dividend-paying stocks, great wealth can easily be achieved.

The average American drives a $25,000 car. This car is bought on credit and paid off in 3 to 4 years. If a person decided to keep their existing car rather than buy a new one, and instead applied the monthly payments for what would have been the new car into a stock account for the purchase of dividend-paying stocks, by the time that "new" car would have been paid off you can have well over $100,000 in your account with tremendous annual income flowing in just from those stocks.

But a FAILURE to invest in recurring income will put many people on the edge. They will always have trouble paying their bills and will never understand why they aren't getting ahead.

Getting ahead isn't about working hard so much as it is about making your money work hard for you.

[RLK]

There are several elements involved here:

One element is perception and portrayal of the economy. I go back to the old joke Reagan stold and used during his campaign. A recession is when your neighbor is out of a job. A depression is when YOU are out of a job. (And a recovery will be when Jimmy Carter is out of a job.) The perception of the economy is in the hands of people who are distant from it, such as politicians and spindoctors, or in the hands of people unaffected by its deterioration. As a consequence, I do not find many economic realities represented in economic analysis because they are subjectively unimportant to people making the analysis. The figures on people who had been out of work for three months, or six months, or longer are never quoted in economic analysis of the last recession, which many people insist lasted but one year. Unemployment figures indicate it lasted more like seven or eight. I never hear it pointed out that the median adjusted income for white males dropped about $4,000 between 1973 and 1997. It is in the best interests of Democrats and leftists to argue an economic boom started immediately after Clinton assumed the presidency. The Republicans lamely argue that that boom was is the long term effect of the Reagan years. The reality for the average man is nowhere to be found in any of this. It's a virtual reality that leave average people out.

Secondly, there is money to be made in displacing American workers with socialist slave labor or similar labor, then pocketing the short term profits. The caveat here is short term. The long term effect is not considered or is dismissed through deceptive and/or sloppy analysis. As far as the people in this country who are affected, let them eat cake.

We are seeing the economic structure of the United State gutted and the quality of jobs deteriorating in the 50 or 60 percentiles and under.

The educated and wealthy classes in this country tend toward refined Marxism because that is what they were taught by elite educational systems. They are not members of a conspiracy. The conspiracy took place many years ago when the radical left moved into and took over the educational systems of this country, then put into place a system of self-replication.

George Bush is essentially a cluck who has accepted the basic principles of Marxism. Probably he, and others like him, think they are quite educated and smart, and are eager to put into practice that with which they have been programmed. But, as I have pointed out elsewhere, Bush assumes individual income to be public property to be redistributed in service to social benefit.

[pdlglm]

Respectfully Andy, I don't recall commenting on the macroeconomic phenomenon which resulted in the economic context in which these folks now find themselves.

I did, however, comment on their reaction to and attitude about their circumstances. Namely that they are not unfortunate to the point that they deserve pity when they enjoy a standard of living that is the envy of the better part of the population of the world. Whatever the cause of the economic climate, their reaction to and attitude about their circumstance is wrong.