<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Have the Rich Become Richer and the Poor Poorer?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://paulmatzko.edublogs.org/2008/05/03/have-the-rich-become-richer-and-the-poor-poorer/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://paulmatzko.edublogs.org/2008/05/03/have-the-rich-become-richer-and-the-poor-poorer/</link>
	<description>For what is your life? It is even a vapour...</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 09:09:53 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: paulmatzko</title>
		<link>http://paulmatzko.edublogs.org/2008/05/03/have-the-rich-become-richer-and-the-poor-poorer/#comment-153</link>
		<dc:creator>paulmatzko</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 04:18:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://paulmatzko.edublogs.org/2008/05/03/have-the-rich-become-richer-and-the-poor-poorer/#comment-153</guid>
		<description>I decided to post a letter I received from a friend and my response.

&lt;blockquote&gt; Hi [Paul].

I read your last note.

It made me sad. So I thought I'd talk to you about it.

I don't want to judge your intent in writing it. I know you well enough to know that you really like to talk about things and think about them objectively. =)

What I'm trying to say is, in all your thinking and learning and debating that you do, don't lose sight of the real live people involved. It's fine to have well crafted thoughts, but I'd encourage you to put more heart into it.

[personal story illustrating the importance of compassion]

So on to your note specifically....

I wondered how many homeless and poor people you'd personally talked to prior to writing your essay.

My life right now could be described in a few words: I can't get a job because of my health. I need health insurance to be able to get back on my medicine, in order to get a job. But I can't get health insurance without a job.

Needless to say, I'm poor. And getting poorer. It's a horrible cycle I can't get out of. I wonder if there is an answer to the problem? I know there are a lot of people who have a bunch of different ideas of what should be done. I get so sick of watching the news and hearing the debates. Those people seem a little detached from the real life people involved.

So my point.. just don't forget we're human.

Love,

[a good friend] &lt;/blockquote&gt;


Dear [friend],

Thanks for communicating your concerns in such a kind fashion. I appreciate it it when you (and others) challenge my assumptions and presentation.

It was not my intent to sadden you or offend anybody, but rereading my post I can see how it could come across as callous.

[personal sympathy story]

On to my note specifically...

I am one of those "poor" people. I make (pre-tax) $2,000 above the federal poverty threshold. I work full-time and by not living extravagantly I'm making ends meet. I have not had health insurance this past year, but I don't have any major health problems (besides intestinal problems that indicate a fifty-fifty chance of having colon cancer someday). I don't have a car and when I can't borrow Mike's I use public transport to get around. I qualify for Medicare.

Admittedly I'm not homeless. I have come in contact and spent time with lots of homeless and poor people (I do live in Philadelphia after all).

The system currently in place, flawed as it is, should be able to help you. A single woman on disability should be able to apply for food stamps and medicaid in addition to a social security stipend. Government housing should also be an option. None of those are pleasant, but it is some form of a safety net.

The system has lots of problems. It encourages single motherhood, so if you had a kid out of wedlock you'd have even more help from the government. Most of the problems are because of bureaucratic incompetency. That's why I favor cutting welfare spending in the behalf of grants to private charities...they are proven to be more efficient and cover the gaps better.

Whenever talking about "big" problems/issues it is easy to lose sight of the effect on individuals. Thanks for reminding me of that. I do not wish to belittle the hardships faced by people today who fall between the cracks.

That said, I do believe everything I wrote is accurate and timely. You (and I to a degree) are poor, but we are wealthier than we probably would have been in the same shoes twenty years ago.

Telling someone that they are doing better (relatively) compared to people a generation ago is cold comfort, but true. Though income inequality is not the crisis it is often made out to be, poor people still struggle to make ends meet and as individuals trying to improve their circumstances they deserve my sympathy and support.

Thanks again. I appreciate your candor and friendship.

Paul</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I decided to post a letter I received from a friend and my response.</p>
<blockquote><p> Hi [Paul].</p>
<p>I read your last note.</p>
<p>It made me sad. So I thought I&#8217;d talk to you about it.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t want to judge your intent in writing it. I know you well enough to know that you really like to talk about things and think about them objectively. =)</p>
<p>What I&#8217;m trying to say is, in all your thinking and learning and debating that you do, don&#8217;t lose sight of the real live people involved. It&#8217;s fine to have well crafted thoughts, but I&#8217;d encourage you to put more heart into it.</p>
<p>[personal story illustrating the importance of compassion]</p>
<p>So on to your note specifically&#8230;.</p>
<p>I wondered how many homeless and poor people you&#8217;d personally talked to prior to writing your essay.</p>
<p>My life right now could be described in a few words: I can&#8217;t get a job because of my health. I need health insurance to be able to get back on my medicine, in order to get a job. But I can&#8217;t get health insurance without a job.</p>
<p>Needless to say, I&#8217;m poor. And getting poorer. It&#8217;s a horrible cycle I can&#8217;t get out of. I wonder if there is an answer to the problem? I know there are a lot of people who have a bunch of different ideas of what should be done. I get so sick of watching the news and hearing the debates. Those people seem a little detached from the real life people involved.</p>
<p>So my point.. just don&#8217;t forget we&#8217;re human.</p>
<p>Love,</p>
<p>[a good friend] </p></blockquote>
<p>Dear [friend],</p>
<p>Thanks for communicating your concerns in such a kind fashion. I appreciate it it when you (and others) challenge my assumptions and presentation.</p>
<p>It was not my intent to sadden you or offend anybody, but rereading my post I can see how it could come across as callous.</p>
<p>[personal sympathy story]</p>
<p>On to my note specifically&#8230;</p>
<p>I am one of those &#8220;poor&#8221; people. I make (pre-tax) $2,000 above the federal poverty threshold. I work full-time and by not living extravagantly I&#8217;m making ends meet. I have not had health insurance this past year, but I don&#8217;t have any major health problems (besides intestinal problems that indicate a fifty-fifty chance of having colon cancer someday). I don&#8217;t have a car and when I can&#8217;t borrow Mike&#8217;s I use public transport to get around. I qualify for Medicare.</p>
<p>Admittedly I&#8217;m not homeless. I have come in contact and spent time with lots of homeless and poor people (I do live in Philadelphia after all).</p>
<p>The system currently in place, flawed as it is, should be able to help you. A single woman on disability should be able to apply for food stamps and medicaid in addition to a social security stipend. Government housing should also be an option. None of those are pleasant, but it is some form of a safety net.</p>
<p>The system has lots of problems. It encourages single motherhood, so if you had a kid out of wedlock you&#8217;d have even more help from the government. Most of the problems are because of bureaucratic incompetency. That&#8217;s why I favor cutting welfare spending in the behalf of grants to private charities&#8230;they are proven to be more efficient and cover the gaps better.</p>
<p>Whenever talking about &#8220;big&#8221; problems/issues it is easy to lose sight of the effect on individuals. Thanks for reminding me of that. I do not wish to belittle the hardships faced by people today who fall between the cracks.</p>
<p>That said, I do believe everything I wrote is accurate and timely. You (and I to a degree) are poor, but we are wealthier than we probably would have been in the same shoes twenty years ago.</p>
<p>Telling someone that they are doing better (relatively) compared to people a generation ago is cold comfort, but true. Though income inequality is not the crisis it is often made out to be, poor people still struggle to make ends meet and as individuals trying to improve their circumstances they deserve my sympathy and support.</p>
<p>Thanks again. I appreciate your candor and friendship.</p>
<p>Paul</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff H.</title>
		<link>http://paulmatzko.edublogs.org/2008/05/03/have-the-rich-become-richer-and-the-poor-poorer/#comment-152</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff H.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2008 07:37:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://paulmatzko.edublogs.org/2008/05/03/have-the-rich-become-richer-and-the-poor-poorer/#comment-152</guid>
		<description>To put it a better way: poor people spend a higher proportion of their budget on lower-inflation goods. Thus, their purchasing power declines at a lower rate than for rich people, who tend to spend their money on things that have high levels of inflation. 

Absolute levels of spending are irrelevant here.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To put it a better way: poor people spend a higher proportion of their budget on lower-inflation goods. Thus, their purchasing power declines at a lower rate than for rich people, who tend to spend their money on things that have high levels of inflation. </p>
<p>Absolute levels of spending are irrelevant here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: paulmatzko</title>
		<link>http://paulmatzko.edublogs.org/2008/05/03/have-the-rich-become-richer-and-the-poor-poorer/#comment-151</link>
		<dc:creator>paulmatzko</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 May 2008 20:19:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://paulmatzko.edublogs.org/2008/05/03/have-the-rich-become-richer-and-the-poor-poorer/#comment-151</guid>
		<description>When you say "poor people buy more of these new goods" do you mean that total consumer spending by poor people on goods is greater than that of the wealthy? So even though the wealthy few make the most money, they don't spend as large of a share of that income as the poor?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When you say &#8220;poor people buy more of these new goods&#8221; do you mean that total consumer spending by poor people on goods is greater than that of the wealthy? So even though the wealthy few make the most money, they don&#8217;t spend as large of a share of that income as the poor?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff H.</title>
		<link>http://paulmatzko.edublogs.org/2008/05/03/have-the-rich-become-richer-and-the-poor-poorer/#comment-150</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff H.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 May 2008 19:41:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://paulmatzko.edublogs.org/2008/05/03/have-the-rich-become-richer-and-the-poor-poorer/#comment-150</guid>
		<description>Part of the reason why you mentioned yourself, namely that the CPI does a poor job of accounting for new, better quality products. A simple example: suppose an iPod released last year costed $100, while the iPod released this year costs $150 but has a larger screen and can play videos--the price has inflated by 50 percent, but would we really consider this a true measure of inflation since the quality has improved so much? 

This problem with the CPI has been called the "new goods" or "quality bias," and has been estimated to overstate inflation by .8 percent annually. Poor people buy more of these new goods, thus the overstatement of inflation and inequality.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Part of the reason why you mentioned yourself, namely that the CPI does a poor job of accounting for new, better quality products. A simple example: suppose an iPod released last year costed $100, while the iPod released this year costs $150 but has a larger screen and can play videos&#8211;the price has inflated by 50 percent, but would we really consider this a true measure of inflation since the quality has improved so much? </p>
<p>This problem with the CPI has been called the &#8220;new goods&#8221; or &#8220;quality bias,&#8221; and has been estimated to overstate inflation by .8 percent annually. Poor people buy more of these new goods, thus the overstatement of inflation and inequality.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: paulmatzko</title>
		<link>http://paulmatzko.edublogs.org/2008/05/03/have-the-rich-become-richer-and-the-poor-poorer/#comment-149</link>
		<dc:creator>paulmatzko</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 May 2008 17:09:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://paulmatzko.edublogs.org/2008/05/03/have-the-rich-become-richer-and-the-poor-poorer/#comment-149</guid>
		<description>I've enjoyed an aspect of blogging that I did not originally anticipate: I learn as much from the comments at times as from the research for the actual post. To be honest I had only a fuzzy idea of what constituted a zero-sum game until now. 

Why do lower-income goods (from China apparently) inflate at a lower rate? I understood the gist of what the article said was happening, but not why.

Mobility is anathema to many of the Leftist academics I've come in contact with at Temple. A book, "The Lower Sort" by a well known social historian, David Brion Davis, dismisses the idea that colonial Philadelphians enjoyed significant economic mobility. He makes the mistake of using percentiles and groups rather than individuals and families as well. Within his data though there appeared to be proof of a gradual rise in income through mobility. I don't remember the exact numbers, but within a given decade 6% moved up while 4% moved down. I pointed out that over time a 2% increase in same population income adds up, but I was pooh-poohed. Go figure.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve enjoyed an aspect of blogging that I did not originally anticipate: I learn as much from the comments at times as from the research for the actual post. To be honest I had only a fuzzy idea of what constituted a zero-sum game until now. </p>
<p>Why do lower-income goods (from China apparently) inflate at a lower rate? I understood the gist of what the article said was happening, but not why.</p>
<p>Mobility is anathema to many of the Leftist academics I&#8217;ve come in contact with at Temple. A book, &#8220;The Lower Sort&#8221; by a well known social historian, David Brion Davis, dismisses the idea that colonial Philadelphians enjoyed significant economic mobility. He makes the mistake of using percentiles and groups rather than individuals and families as well. Within his data though there appeared to be proof of a gradual rise in income through mobility. I don&#8217;t remember the exact numbers, but within a given decade 6% moved up while 4% moved down. I pointed out that over time a 2% increase in same population income adds up, but I was pooh-poohed. Go figure.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff H.</title>
		<link>http://paulmatzko.edublogs.org/2008/05/03/have-the-rich-become-richer-and-the-poor-poorer/#comment-148</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff H.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 May 2008 12:24:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://paulmatzko.edublogs.org/2008/05/03/have-the-rich-become-richer-and-the-poor-poorer/#comment-148</guid>
		<description>Perhaps one of the largest economic fallacies today is that trade is a zero-sum game, which you do well to dispute. It is a very basic but important fact to consider that buyers do not buy, nor sellers sell, a good or service unless they expect to benefit from the transaction. 

I would add two points:

1. New empirical work by two economists shows that the basket of goods lower-income people buy has a lower inflation rate than others. If one takes into account this lower inflation, about two-thirds of the rise in inequality is wiped out from 94-05. If this work holds up, it can't be emphasized enough. &lt;a href="http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/odd-numbers/2008/04/22/dont-blame-china-for-rise-in-inequality" rel="nofollow"&gt;Article here.&lt;/a&gt;

2. But a more fundamental point is that most income statics track percentiles and groups, not individuals or families. Talking about what has happened over time to the "middle class" or the "top 10 percent" doesn't say much, because people are moving in and out of these statistical designations all the time. Tom Sowell has made this point many times, and &lt;a href="http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/04/income_distribu_4.html#comments" rel="nofollow"&gt;here's a post&lt;/a&gt; that makes the point as well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Perhaps one of the largest economic fallacies today is that trade is a zero-sum game, which you do well to dispute. It is a very basic but important fact to consider that buyers do not buy, nor sellers sell, a good or service unless they expect to benefit from the transaction. </p>
<p>I would add two points:</p>
<p>1. New empirical work by two economists shows that the basket of goods lower-income people buy has a lower inflation rate than others. If one takes into account this lower inflation, about two-thirds of the rise in inequality is wiped out from 94-05. If this work holds up, it can&#8217;t be emphasized enough. <a href="http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/odd-numbers/2008/04/22/dont-blame-china-for-rise-in-inequality" rel="nofollow" onClick="javascript:urchinTracker ('/outbound/comment/www.portfolio.com');">Article here.</a></p>
<p>2. But a more fundamental point is that most income statics track percentiles and groups, not individuals or families. Talking about what has happened over time to the &#8220;middle class&#8221; or the &#8220;top 10 percent&#8221; doesn&#8217;t say much, because people are moving in and out of these statistical designations all the time. Tom Sowell has made this point many times, and <a href="http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/04/income_distribu_4.html#comments" rel="nofollow" onClick="javascript:urchinTracker ('/outbound/comment/econlog.econlib.org');">here&#8217;s a post</a> that makes the point as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: davidcrabb</title>
		<link>http://paulmatzko.edublogs.org/2008/05/03/have-the-rich-become-richer-and-the-poor-poorer/#comment-147</link>
		<dc:creator>davidcrabb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 May 2008 02:06:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://paulmatzko.edublogs.org/2008/05/03/have-the-rich-become-richer-and-the-poor-poorer/#comment-147</guid>
		<description>If I can mount a defense...

The only reason my income increased so minimally is because I had yet to tap into the Hyles-Anderson market. After signing a contract with Hyles-Anderson, my income increased 400%. 

I'd also like to point out that as the truth continues to be taught across our fair land and more and more Christians see the light, not only will my income steadily increase but yours will dramatically decrease. Our incomes our inversely related to each other.

After all, wouldn't you rather read Romans 6:1--"God forbid!" as opposed to "LOL! Are you joking me?!?"</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If I can mount a defense&#8230;</p>
<p>The only reason my income increased so minimally is because I had yet to tap into the Hyles-Anderson market. After signing a contract with Hyles-Anderson, my income increased 400%. </p>
<p>I&#8217;d also like to point out that as the truth continues to be taught across our fair land and more and more Christians see the light, not only will my income steadily increase but yours will dramatically decrease. Our incomes our inversely related to each other.</p>
<p>After all, wouldn&#8217;t you rather read Romans 6:1&#8211;&#8221;God forbid!&#8221; as opposed to &#8220;LOL! Are you joking me?!?&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dr. M</title>
		<link>http://paulmatzko.edublogs.org/2008/05/03/have-the-rich-become-richer-and-the-poor-poorer/#comment-146</link>
		<dc:creator>Dr. M</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 May 2008 09:13:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://paulmatzko.edublogs.org/2008/05/03/have-the-rich-become-richer-and-the-poor-poorer/#comment-146</guid>
		<description>Lomborg develops the same argument in the Skeptical Environmentalist (without the reference to David Crabb or the KJV).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lomborg develops the same argument in the Skeptical Environmentalist (without the reference to David Crabb or the KJV).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
