The Euston Manifesto – in which a number of liberal/leftists try to return to their “authentic values” (some of which could justify more hawkish foreign policy views) – is one of the more interesting and laudatory documents to appear on the Internet in some time, not least because it shows people wrestling with their beliefs in a genuine manner. Still (or should I say “Therefore”?), it is hardly surprising that it received the reactions detailed by Norm Geras:
Much of the comment on the manifesto has been, to put it generously, pathetic; and, though this part of it doesn’t actually merit a response, it is worth registering just how much there has been like that. Schematically: (1) ‘Ha ha, they met in a pub.’ (2) ‘Tee hee, they named it after a station.’ (3) Some other generic flip but contentless remark. (4) ‘These people are deadbeats’; or [from some of the sadder members of the blogosphere] one or another version of ‘They are bad people.’
Norm does a superb job in his essay of defending the signers against more adult criticism than the above. Read it. (via PJM)
I signed the Manifesto last week for exactly the reason so many “progressives” are against it. They want to put progressive principles back in progressivism. The manifesto’s writers make it clear they are drawing battle lines on the left. The manifesto’s critics are simply lining up on the other side, determined to keep liberalism empty and impotent.
I am somewhat reminded of ìThe God That Failed,î a collection of essays published in 1950. A number of left-wingers like Andre Gide, Richard Wright, and Arthur Koestler, took to task the Communism of their naive younger years.
There is one major difficulty I have with The Euston Manifesto: these folks are pathetically ignorant about economic matters. Moreover, I believe them to be self-righteousness and intellectual arrogant. Norm Geras is a genuinely nice guy, but I doubt very much, if even for a moment in his life, he ever felt the incumbent obligation to read the writings of Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. I am dead serious. Geras, in the back of his mind, likely considers these two great thinkers as mere sluts of the capitalist establishment.
Sorry Roger but I have to disagree with you here.
“Norm does a superb job in his essay of defending the signers against more adult criticism than the above”
What Norm does is offer a rambling, pedantic, babble directed at defending the manifesto and some of the authors from childish criticism.
There was not an iota of adult discussion in his essay on either side. He spends a long paragraph answering that which he states is not worth answering. (“Such stuff, while it’s not worth answering, …”)
Then he deals with the “adults” with this:
“Stepping away from the playpen now, though not too far from it, …tirade against the manifesto with the statement: ‘the real problem with the document is that every word in it is a lie’. ”
This type of “critique” is not worthy of discussion, only derision. The fact that he bothered to ramble on and on about it speaks ill of him.
AlanC, the title of Norm’s post and its final sentence hint at his intentions. This was the first of a series of posts he intends to write to deal with criticisms—beginning with the most easily dismissed and building up to the most substantial.
There’s a lot of stuff out there already and we can only deal with it in stages. Many of the quickest to attack the Euston Manifesto have been, unsurprisingly, the least serious.
I guess I’m just manifesto’d out. That Port Huron clap trap sealed the deal for me
David Thompson: You may be right that “these folks” are pathetically ignorant about economic matters. I’m a supporter, but since I had nothing to do with the writing of it, I can’t claim to be one of “these folks.” And I don’t know anything about them as individuals. Nor do I know a whole lot about economics other then that it’s more art then science, better at explaining the past than predicting the future. I’m observant and have commmon sense. So far I’ve done ok on just that.
You may consider me pathetically ignorant on economic matters, but I find your objection curious given that the manifesto explicitly rejects backing any specific economic program. The writers agree on the goals and are open to debate on methods. That’s just being open minded.
The Euston Manifesto blog is not very active. The only post on it is the link is the Preamble, and the link to the Statement of Principles. Coming from the left, it is an improvement, but fundamentally it is flawed (imo).
Some of the tenets are wishy washy, feel good sentiments with weird associations (equality is broken down into groups for which equality is particularly significant, and then the trade unions are hailed!)
But then, these people spun out of the leftist muck, and I congratulate them for this effort.
What they should have done, in my opinion, was to model their Statement of Principles on our own U.S. Constitution.
This group is mired in abstractions. Since they seem to be on the side of freedom of choice, what they need to do is this:
Question: is the thing up for discussion good for the individual or is it good for the state?
Answer: if the former, then it is good; if the latter, then discuss further: for example, an army, is it good for the individual or is it good for the state? Keep going until you arrive at good or bad, and once the subject has been reduced into a concrete, then a reasonable decision can be made, based on the original priority: individual vs the state.
I’m bookmarking this site because I think they mean well, and I’m curious to see what develops. Until they actually start posting material, its difficult to see where they are really coming from.
A call out to the Left to grow up a bit, and jettison some harmful tendencies is what I see here, and as such, I suppose its a good enough thing.
But I can’t help noticing that free markets are not promoted, or even MENTIONED.
This, in my humble opion, is a fatal flaw. I won’t go into it here, but advocating all sorts of freedoms EXCEPT economic freedom is self-deating.
I think the fundamental divide in politics (among, ahem, civilized people in the, ahem, modern world) is the divide that separates those who embrace the free market, and those who fear it. The Eustonians seem to be in the latter group.
David Thomson — Your problem with the signees, therefore, is that even though they have come out against the worst excesses of leftist orthodoxy, they remain leftists and progressives, rather than ex-leftists.
Here’s the issue: leftists, and progressives, care about the issue of inequality. Von Mises and Hayek, and most of their libertarian or conservative followers, do not.
Rep. Barney Frank, from a recent issue of Business Week, explaining why inequality ought to matter:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_09/b3973124.htm
Roger:
I read the manifesto and although I don’t agree with everything in it one thing I found refreshing is it’s recognition of the scars left by the apologists of Soviet Union and their modern day children who use the argument “America is evil, therefore anyone who stands up against America must be defended no matter what they do.” This is a huge step. As a former lefty I can’t stand the historical amneisia that still allows groups like A.N.S.W.E.R.. a proud group of Stalinists, to spread their bilge because they may support a issue that the left is trying to get traction for. Of course most of them have socialist leanings so on economic matters so many of us might have problems with them in that area.And on many non economic matters as well. But what left leaning group has come out lately and said America is a great country without listing 10 pages of qualifiers that imply that the opening line is just a rhetorical trick to hide their hate of our country. This is also smart politics. The Conservative movement is showing signs of wear at the moment but if the left thinks that this weakness is a sign to unfurl the Red Flag and drag out the discredited Revolution of the 20th century then they will crash into reality just as their precursers did. I doubt I could ever vote for these people but it looks like I could have a civil conversation with them. This is probably why they will get little traction on the left and will be hounded out as heretics. The orthodoxy on the hard left makes the Vatican look like libertines. Purges will begin soon.
Markus:
Inequality. Ah, the leftist hammer. It’s not that Hayek wants inequality or doesn’t “care.”. It’s that he sees that top down, state driven efforts to impose eqaulity of results don’t work, and tend to stamp out individual liberty while never delivering on their promises in a sustainable manner.
Snippet — We live in a republican democracy, one that gives LOTS of power to the wishes of majorities and near-majorities. Given this power that they hold, excessive inequality is itself politically threatening to the “economic freedom” that you value so highly. Another way to say this: if you don’t want a majority of voters to raise upper-income and estate taxes,and if you want working class people to support free trade, you better find a way to spread prosperity around.
And if you want to live in a country that can produce jobs and economic, you’d better NOT try taking people’s earnings from them.
People ALWAYS respond to punishment by avoiding the thing that results in punishment. Why work more if someone else is just going to take the money? Why start a business if a bunch of guys at city hall are going to second guess you all the time? Why hire anyone if you know you cannot fire a bad apple?
Honestly, what is “threatening” about someone making more money than you? And who are you to judge me anyway? Mind your own damned business.
Collectivism gives me a headache. It is tyranny, pure and simple.
“Here’s the issue: leftists, and progressives, care about the issue of inequality.”
Yes. They care about it so much that they are willing to do all kinds of stupid things–including dragging everyone down to the same level, as that is the only kind of equality that is possible to the degree they want.
Normal people care about people, which means that they also care about results, motivations, human nature, etc.
Whether those of the manifesto are in the former or latter group, I wouldn’t know.
Would those who value equality over freedom rather live in the concentration camp, or run it?
From my experience as a former leftist, most who cling to neo-Marxist ideals subconsciously or consciously visualize themselves as jailers rather than the jailed.
A manifesto… how sweet.
They good ol’ progressives reference a couple docs that folks might not have perused in a while.
The UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which, in light of the nature of some of the members of the General Assembly seems a bit, ummm…, optimistic).
and the International Labour Organization Conventions which seem to cover just about everything except keeping labor unions out of the hands of organized crime syndicates.
One might want to save this reading for bedtime when it will do the most good.
What’s the difference between a scientist and a socialist??A scientist experiments on animals first.
Roger:
When governments set up safety nets to help people who are down on their luck and help them get to a point where they can pull their own weight this can be a good thing. When you start making the main purpose of government a guarantor of equal results, not opportunity, then you usually don’t achieve that goal or you set up a rigid, non-productive economic model where economic power is swapped for political power and a new system of inequality is set up. Instead of rich and poor you get connected or not connected. The nanny state is a mistake. Tax’s are required to run a country. Some limited forms of social welfare are required. But if you set up a system where individual responsibility is transfered to state responsibility you often get negative results. Look at the uproar in France. The young and poor are given free health care. Their education is provided. They have very strong economic rights. Housing is provided for those who have those needs. Shouldn’t they be overjoyed? They have all the things that the left in this country tells us will bring equality and happiness. Yet there are still rich and poor, and the poor don’t seem to be happy even though all the basic requirements for living are provided by the state. Yet this doesn’t seem to be enough. And even those socialists or liberal politicians who run the state see that there are big bills coming due and that some tweaking of the system needs to be started right away. And because many of those who depend on the state to take care of them have been told that the state is totally responsible for money, health care, education, basically everything needed to live, they react like a four year old who is kicked out of the house instead of an responsible adult. We have major problems of our own and we act like children ourselves. I don’t argue for no taxes, no form of social welfare. But anyone who gives all economic liberty and responsibility over to the state will eventually be let down. Equal opportunity, not equal results. And the nature of man is that we will never have a workable system where everyone starts at the same point. Some start with more and fail. Some start with less and achieve great things.
Kevin,
The occasional use of ‘return’ to separate thoughts into paragraphs would be appreciated.
Thanks.
Markus,
The question of how much economic inequality is tolerable is open and complicated, but the fact is that nothing creates wealth – and spreads it around – like the free market does, and the Euston group’s utter lack of interest in that fact means that it will have to endure life without my support.
It never ceases to amaze me that people in this day and age continue to parrot the failed dictums of communism / socialism.
The only “equality” you can enforce via the state is the equal division of misery. Of course the leadership never seems to get their fair share.
This fools can’t see beyond their clumsy zero-sum game version of economics. The first word in their credo is TAKE as in Take from the rich. Of course they have to TAKE their cut before they get around to giving to the poor. Do they ever get around to giving back to the folk they’ve impoverished?
There’s always the implicit dictator in there deciding who has too much and who can give more and who deserves to get something. Progressives, as has been noted, always see themselves as the jailers.
I think the ‘manifesto’ may not be a terrible pile of steaming err, stuff… But, I do think that it seems a bit slanted and termed to attract the Middle as it exists, right now. In other words, based on my personal opinion, it appears to me that this manifesto (and possibly the group that it seems to represent) might be considered reactionary.
Statements:
1. Appears as a nice, generic “we believe in democracy” sort of statement. It makes sure to mention the seperation between church and state, in wnat I would consider a reaction to the current politics.
2. The second statement seems completely reactionary to me. It appears more as a “Please like us, we’re not like “THEM”.
3. Reactionary “We’re not like the left”
4. Reactionary “But, we’re not like the right!”
5. Reactionary “The WTO/World Bank are Teh Evil!!!”
6. See 2 and 3.
7. Not a bad statement, but still a reaction to the direct politics of the moment.
I can continue, but I think these are enough to exemplify my thoughts. In my opinion, for a political party to have any real value, it should probably not depend on reacting to the politics of the hour. Instead of “We’re not like the Left” “We like Isreal and Palistine” “I like cheese” sorts of responses, they may be better served (at least in reaching people like myself) if they provide a political philosophy, which could then be applied to current, past and future politics.
For example, instead of saying “We’re not anti-american” (which I think most Americans would probably say, including myself, a long haired “Damn the Man” kinda guy), they need to say “We support our nation, even when we disagree with the policies” or “We place Nationalism above partisanship”. These two statements have functionally different philosophies, one I agree with, the other I find dangerous. However, in this manifesto, I cannot tell which of these the fellows hold dear. Are they rabid Nationalists, (pro-America and damn anything else) or are they simply anti-partisan and once a decision has been made, they’re willing to try to make the best of it?
They seem to clearly present their views on Isreal and Palistine, but they don’t appear to provide their political philosophy for their position. Again, I see this as reactionary.
So, in the end, it seems to me that they don’t spew the bilge thats so often the politics of some leftists, but they’re not providing any information beyond “We’re not THEM”. That doesn’t seem like a terrible position, to me, but ultimately it doesn’t seem to provide any real value.
When the world changes completely (like post-911) what will their policies be? What motivates their views, what shapes their politics?
Just my thoughts,
Ratatosk
Snippet — “the fact is that nothing creates wealth – and spreads it around – like the free market does”
The fact is that a lot of not-so-wealthy democratic countries, in South America and elsewhere, have been having elections in recent years, and more often than not candidates that stress your message without also supporting measures to address inequality have been getting their butts kicked. I don’t see large numbers of enfranchised Europeans eager to shed their “collectivist” shackles either. Nor do I see a majority of Americans eager to get further reduce the much more modest set of social welfare benefits they are offered.
Sorry, as long as a democratic political system exists alongside economic insecurity, you’ll have politicians winning elections by promising to cushion voters from said insecurities. And people like me voting for them. At the same time, intelligent progressives, especially ones in power, are not interested in killing the geese that lay golden eggs.
As Rep. Frank says:
“…time to make a deal. I am prepared to help persuade my fellow liberals that many of the public policies they have been resistant to, or skeptical of, are in the national interest, if those in the business community work with us to ensure that the bulk of Americans get a larger share of our increased wealth. Our nation has both the resources and the intellect to implement public policies that diminish inequality so that it does not become socially corrosive, without reaching the point where that diminution threatens the needs of the capitalist system. Is Big Business ready to come to the table?”
The ONLY point I am interested in making at this time, is that the Euston Manifest does not even MENTION free markets.
Talking about what we should do with the wealth created by free markets is all well and good, but without free markets, we wouldn’t ever get to the point where we’re trying to figure out the best way to spread the wealth around.
First things first.
Central America may be rejecting politicians who understand this fact at the moment, but then again, Central America’s greatest export these days seems to be people.
The adults who already have their hands out, looking for governmental sustenance, are lost souls, damned by ill fortune, laziness, victimization-hood, lousy parents, teachers, twisted thinking, deficient mental processes, screwed up schools, who knows?. If they aren’t given bread, then they’ll become criminals, and so they are a problem and must be dealt with.
A mind that is concerned more with what he does not have, in relation to what others have, is a mind doomed to despair and envy. The schools have the real ability to eradicate this. Why the left is against the Voucher program is beyond me, especially when the parents whose kids are enjoying its fruits are all for it.
There is something very sinister about the left. I only see the results, and so am not sure what really motivates them. They do love the collective ideas, and are very forgiving of totalitarian regimes.
Godzilla — We find your kind to be a little sinister as well…
Though I do appreciate your online handle, and I’m thinking of changing mine to Ultraman.
Markus,
We righties are dexterous. Godzilla is correct–the left is sinister.
There is nothing socialistic about equal rights. In fact if I remember it correctly our founding fathers made a passing reference to the equality of all men. Were they leftists?
As for social programs, this is not France. There are exceptions to the rule of course, but most of the people who get that kind of help here are either sick old people or helpless children. I don’t think most Americans want to abandon either. I don’t suggest either party making that part of the platform.
And markus has a point about one thing. The communists are making gains in Latin America, perhaps even in Mexico. It does not seem that the people who vote there have much faith in capitalism, not at least as they have experienced it. Corruption together a feudal cast system has created a permanent underclass and they don’t have the kind of faith in free market systems we do.
In fact I know former factory workers right here in the US who are having their doubts…and they vote too. It is worth remembering that FDR cut the number of people in the American communist party in half just by setting up soup lines. Desperate people do not see alternatives when all they are looking for is help.
Markus:
“You’ll have politicians winning elections by promising to cushion voters voters from said insecurities”
You still have that situation in socialist governments that have adopted something similar to what you want.
Watch Prime Minister question time on C-Span and almost everyweek you will see politicians promising more goodies for the people or the opposition attacking the other side for not delivering enough. Health care is almost always the prime issue in every campaign and the gripes from the people have not stopped.
Look at the political upheaval in France, a country that has adopted a very generous social benifit program, and yet even though the economic realities seem to require a small scaling down of those policies the secure people you mention went ballistic.
Our system has flaws and has many problems. Capitalism has drawbacks and needs to be monitered to avoid monopolies. When there was legislative barriers that kept African Americans from participating in the system government was right to step in.
But when a politician promises me he or she is going to end inequalities I get nervous. Not because I am rich. I am not. That is a promise that they can’t deliver on and anyone who banks on the state to take care of them is going to be dissapointed.
“There is nothing socialistic about equal rights.”
Exactly. Socialism is all about putting a different elite into power.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are great and wonderful. However, when one starts talking about the “right to employment” or “right to healthcare,” one is well into socialist cant.
When one wishes to imply that anyone not buying the cant doesn’t care, then one parts company with my goodwill. I suggest such a person read any number of P.J. O’Rourke books for a funny but much needed remedial education on economics and human nature. In short, it is because I *do* care about other people that I feel the need to reject the socialist claptrap.
But then I share with Mr. O’Rourke a complete lack of patience with the particular kind of intellectual dishonesty that continues to pretend that, for example, 1947 Indian economic and social policies were better than the current ones.
Either you believe that the law should treat every person identically or you believe that the outcomes should be identical for all people (or you’re hopelessly muddled, as some are).
Those who try for identical outcomes ALWAYS end up treating people unequally.
Why should one person get treated differently due to circumstances beyond his or her control? Such thinking treats people not as individuals but as group members.
How is it right or just to treat a human being as a mere group member rather than as a unique individual having his or her own merits? How can anyone justify that with a straight face?!
As you can guess, I have a very low tolerance level for collectivism, but then I am an American. Reading the news in Europe, I think that the US probably values the individual more than any other society on the planet.
Stephen Pollard has The Maida Vale Manifesto
Theoretical arguments about what is or is not a proper left-wing position are now meaningless. The mainstream Left has demonstrated clearly which side of the battle to preserve Western civilisation and freedom it is on. The Left, in any recognisable form, is now the enemy.
Today he added,
And as for the idea that I define myself as being on the Left: dear me, no. I certainly used to, because I had a strange idea that the Left believed in tackling oppression. But I have bored on and on and on about how I woke up after 9/11, and Iraq, and realised otherwise.
If believing in defending Western civilisation, overcoming oppression, promoting properity and giving the poor the power to excercise the same choice as the wealthy over health and education means being on the Right, that’s where I sit. Proudly. As I have already said far too often.
I’m with him on that.
Markus,
The problem with South America is that it DOESN’T practice either capitalism or the free market. Neither is possible without the rule of law where all people are treated equally before the law and that everyone has a right to the rewards of their own toil and to hold on to their private property. What you have in SA, as has been said, is a hold over of a feudal caste system, built on a foundation of corruption.
This is a very typical result of socialist experiments where the connected are the elite oppressing the non-connected. (see France)
The thing that really makes America unique is the velocity of situational change. There are always the rich, BUT, they are not the SAME rich. There is a constant turmoil with people and families moving up and down the ladder. That’s why the middle class is so anti-soak the rich schemes. They understand full well that they or their children could very well be up there soon and they don’t want to queer the deal. Look at the list of 10 richest Americans for each decade going back a hundred years to see what I’m talking about.
Here’s the issue: leftists, and progressives, care about the issue of inequality. Von Mises and Hayek, and most of their libertarian or conservative followers, do not.
Just to join the pile-on here, Markus, that’s neither true, nor fair. Hayek in particular was quite definitely that he felt everyone had the right to be equally free from coercion. The notion that is often called “equality” is, from that point of view, the assertion of a right by one group (the “disadvantaged”) to assert their power by coercing another group (the “advantaged”) to give something against their will. By doing so, they assert that some people’s “equal rights” are more valuable than others — which is to say, they’re pushing inequality.
Hayek et al would argue instead that by providing equal and uniform legal rights, and liberty, the outcome will be that while therer might be inequality of outcome, the results aren’t zero-sum: the least get richer too.
Compare how a poor person lived in 1970 against how a poor person lives today, and it’s real difficult to say this idea is unsupported.
Maybe I’m just a ignorant cowboy, but I thought the Euston Manifesto was an attempt to bring the “Left” back into a rational debate. It did not appear to me to be a statement or principals of the right, it seemed as a statement of principals of the left that can be defended in a rationale debate.
The right and left will be arguing about the benefits and levels of equality and economic security 1,000 years from now.
We know that 0% effort towards equality and economic security results in poverty for all except the chosen few. We know that 100% equality and security results in poeverty for all except the chosen few.
Unchecked Capitalism gave birht to Socialism and Communism, just as unchecked Socialism and Communism, gave birth to black markets(Capitalism).
It seems to me that the Euston Manifesto is the left’s last chance to redeem itself in the eyes of most middle of the road people.
“Here’s the issue: leftists, and progressives, care about the issue of inequality. Von Mises and Hayek, and most of their libertarian or conservative followers, do not.î
You clearly understand our differences. I plead guilty to essentially being indifferent towards inequality. A society should never directly seek to bring about equality. Justice for all must be the primary goal. A vibrantly growing economy will inevitably make some richer. The central question is whether those at the bottom are also getting richer. We already know the answer: hell yes! Our poor are the envy of the world. There are very few overweight people in the slums of Calcutta. Obesity in this country, on the other hand, is a major problem for those earning a lower income.
Old Dad:
“Markus,
We righties are dexterous. Godzilla is correct–the left is sinister.”
You gave me a Latin I flashback;-)
The Euston Manifeston is a positive sign that an honorable opposition exists, so Righties, don’t dismiss it.
As to economic equality and Libertarian ideals, I think most Libertarians feel that if the system isn’t rigged, wealth distribution tends to a nice bell-shaped curve. Those of us in the Real Reality Based community like bell curves.
David,
The central question is whether those at the bottom are also getting richer. We already know the answer: hell yes! Our poor are the envy of the world. There are very few overweight people in the slums of Calcutta. Obesity in this country, on the other hand, is a major problem for those earning a lower income.
I don’t think that’s really a useful way of measuring things. I have many low/middle income friends who are not ‘getting richer’ (On the other hand, I’m personally making far more money than I ever have before in my life). I have close friends who are working long hours and multiple jobs and are still not paying the bills. And the friends of mine who have children aren’t in much of a better position.
Minimum wage in Ohio is $5.15 an hour. Five of my friends who had jobs in the tech sector (tech support for AOL, MCI, Verizon) saw their $9.50 – $14.00 ($20,900 to $30,800) jobs move overseas. Three of them now have jobs that range from 5.85 to 7.00. That’s an average of 12,870 to 15,400 before taxes. For comparison, my father at a comparable age (~30 years), living in a lower income area of the state, worked as a laborer and averaged about $30,000. One of them is making more money, one is still not regularly employed.
Does that sound like the lower income group is getting ‘richer’?
I have another group of friends that work construction. They’re making lots of money… in spurts. $20 an hour isn’t bad at all… but when that’s for 80 hours in one week, and 0 hours for the rest of the month… it just doesn’t work.
I have no starry eyed thought that socialism has the answers. I have no belief in monetary equality enforced by government mandate. However, I also think that, at least in my area, based on my interactions with people I know (and others I’ve talked to)… the poor don’t seem to be getting richer. In fact, my exposure sees something slightly different happening.
I see a small group of low income folks moving rapidly up the scale (like myself) I make well over double what my Dad currently makes. However, I see a much larger group of 30somethings that are at an equal or lower income than my Dad, as a common laborer, was 23 years ago.
I don’t think the government will supply an answer, but I don’t think ignoring it will either.
dclydew, I think in this:
You’re making multiple logical errors, and as a result you’re coming to an incorrect conclusion. Sure, there are people who are having trouble making it… but you’re not comparing it correctly, because you’re comparing them with other people today, not people in the past. When I was a kid 50 years ago, poor people sometimes still didn’t have indoor plumbing. In the 60′s and 70′s, my family was writing 24 and 36 month loans to people so they could buy a 21 inch color TV — $1000 for a TV, $2000 for a new Mustang. Now you can buy a 20 inch color TV (with lots of things that were either expensive additional features, like remote controls, or simply unavailable, like stereo sound) for $159.95.
My first calculator (not counting those slide rules) was $150 and had, wait for it, a square root key.
As someone pointed out above, not only do we have almost no hunger in the US any longer, the problem is too much food.
The point is not that there are no people at the bottom of the income distribution — “there will be poor always” — but that being poor ain’t what it used to be.
Equality of opportunity does not guarantee equality of result.
you’re not comparing it correctly, because you’re comparing them with other people today, not people in the past.
That’s an average of 12,870 to 15,400 before taxes. For comparison, my father at a comparable age (~30 years), living in a lower income area of the state, worked as a laborer and averaged about $30,000.
I am not stating that we have reverted to post Depression Era economics. However, msot of my friends who are about 30 years old, make less money now than they did 5 years ago. They also make less money now than my dad did at their age, 20+ years ago, in a more depressed area of the state.
So in short, I can say that recently, in Columbus Ohio at least, a number of people who were making 20-30k per year are now making 12k – 15k. I’m not stating that this is 100% true across all states, nor even across all of Ohio. However, it does seem to be happening here, at least.