New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Insanely Great

TheBell

Council Member
Despite his deserved reputation for moderation, New York Times columnist David Brooks is still a conservative at heart. As a result, he has despaired lately of President Obama’s move toward populism as well as the lack of traditional values and work ethic in American society. However, his fairness also causes him to do some serious self-contemplation from time to time. The story of Madelyn “Maddie” Parlier, featured in an article written by Adam Davidson, co-host of NPR’s Planet Money, in the current issue of The Atlantic, moved Brooks to just such introspection.

Parlier is a twenty-two year old woman who labors as an unskilled worker in the “clean room” of Standard Motor Products’ fuel-injector assembly line in Greenville South Carolina. Parlier grew up in the area. Her father abandoned their family when she was young, ultimately dying drunk in a car wreck that he caused.

Parlier grew up poor but principled. She was a good student and a regular churchgoer who did not drink, do drugs, or have run-ins with the law. By her senior year in high school, she was already was taking a few classes at a nearby technical college, with plans to earn a four year college degree after graduation. Unfortunately, she also met a boy her senior year and got pregnant.

Parlier kept her baby and graduated from high school with honors but the father of her child soon left them. As a single mother, she could not afford daycare while she attended classes and her remaining family members were all too old, sick, busy, and/or poor to give her much help. She got a temp job at Standard Motor Products washing walls. Her work ethic so impressed plant supervisors that the company offered her a job.

Parlier makes about $13 per hour in a non-union shop. She works hard and does a good job. She would love to advance to a skilled position, which would enable her to earn enough money to own her own home, travel somewhere nice on vacation, and save for her child to go to college. Sadly, the gap between unskilled and skilled workers is so great that Parlier needs schooling or training to bridge it. Standard cannot cost-justify extensive training for someone who might not succeed and school is already inaccessible to Parlier for reasons already mentioned.

Parlier does not have a bad attitude and is not looking for a handout. She freely admits her own bad choices as a teen helped place her where she is today. She does not whine about bad breaks that were beyond her control, such as the loss of her father. In spite of this, she is unable to realize her American Dream and break out of the working poor into middle class affluence.

As Davidson concludes, “Maddie represents a large population – people who, for whatever reason, are not going to be able to leave the workforce long enough to get the skills they need.” Brooks concurs, “A good attitude and hustle have taken Parlier as far as they can.”

Even worse, Parlier’s situation demonstrates how disadvantaged households tend to pass on a negative legacy to future generations. Brooks writes, “Across America, millions of mothers can’t rise because they don’t have adequate support systems as they try to improve their skills. Tens of millions of children have poor life chances because they grow up in disorganized environments that make it hard to acquire the social, organizational and educational skills they will need to become productive workers.”

Brooks goes on to rue that neither Republicans nor Democrats have policies to help Parlier. He condemns liberal populism for “having shifted [Democratic] emphasis from lifting up the poor to pounding down the rich.” But he also finds fault with conservative populism as Pollyannaish. “Most of the Republican candidates talk as if all that is needed is more capitalism. But lighter regulation and lower taxes won’t, on their own, help the Maddie Parliers of the world get the skills they need to compete.”

In fact, some conservatives seem ready to argue that Parlier does not have a problem so much as she is part of the problem. Her wages are ten times those of unskilled workers in China. However, in the same issue of The Atlantic, financial editor Jordan Weissmann debunks low wages as the sole or even primary reason for China’s competitiveness. “China's labor advantage goes well beyond the low-skill workers . . . The country also excels at educating middle-skill ‘industrial engineers’.”

Chinese schools graduate roughly six hundred thousand engineers a year, versus only about seventy thousand in the United States. Yet as Weissmann points out, their education is often akin to a two year degree from a community college. This gives them exactly the skills necessary to work in high-tech production lines.

Brooks posits that “successful training programs like Job Corps” will be required in order for the U.S. to achieve something similar and regain our global competitiveness. Alas, many on the far right condemn such government intervention as socialism and unaffordable at a time of massive deficits. Moreover, Davidson shrewdly observes that such programs “suffer from all the ills in our education system; opportunities go disproportionately to those who already have initiative, intelligence, and – not least – family support.”

Tweaking educational/training policies as well as how to pay for them may be necessary but at least these are real solutions to a complicated problem. It may feel comforting to say that anyone can do anything in this land of plenty if they just try hard enough but bootstraps only pull up so far. I agree that America should not guarantee equal outcomes for all but we must face the fact our country is increasingly unable to provide equal opportunity either. What is more, the average to which most can aspire is slipping into the less-than-rosy standards of bygone days.

A retreat into the past is exactly what some think is the solution. This makes Brooks sigh in another recent column, “I sometimes wonder if the Republican Party has become the receding roar of white America as it pines for a way of life that will never return.” I find his self-honesty interesting because I once issued a similar diagnosis about the Tea Party, although, in my case, I saw age rather than race as the key demographic (i.e. substitute “an older America” for “white America”).

Fear that America’s best days may be (nearly) past was a potent and prominent theme by Republican Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana when he delivered the Republican response to the President’s State of the Union address last week. “When President Obama claims that the state of our union is anything but grave, he must know in his heart that this is not true . . . In our economic stagnation and indebtedness, we are only a short distance behind Greece, Spain, and other European countries now facing economic catastrophe.” Daniels warns America is ready to “drift, quarreling and paralyzed, over a Niagara of debt.”

Daniels also evoked the late Steve Jobs of Apple as a capitalist hero, proclaiming he had “created more [jobs] than all those stimulus dollars the President borrowed and blew.” I posted last time how Jobs once blew off an Obama query on how to bring back Apple factory jobs from oversea. Yet Jobs also made it clear at that time he did not share Daniels’s doom and gloom outlook. “I'm not worried about the country's long-term future. This country is insanely great. What I'm worried about is that we don't talk enough about solutions.”

Part of the reason we do not talk enough about solutions is that we too often ignore problems standing right in front of us, like Maddie Parlier, preferring to look at them though the rose colored glasses of our personal wishes and political ideologies. To continue doing so by the justification that America is “still the greatest country on Earth” ignores that we are increasingly becoming a kind of insanely great and not in the good way meant by Jobs.
 

mark14

Council Member
"Brooks goes on to rue that neither Republicans nor Democrats have policies to help Parlier. He condemns liberal populism for “having shifted [Democratic] emphasis from lifting up the poor to pounding down the rich.” "

No, they want the rich to share.
 

TheBell

Council Member
Pay A Larger Share, At Any Rate

Hi, mark14. Well, the rich do pay a share in taxes. Look at the most cited case of Soros and his secretary. His 15% or so on his millions brings in more in absolute dollars than her 35% or so on her income, wherever exactly it may fall. What Democrats want is for the rich to pay a larger share. I think Brooks is criticizing Dems for advancing one possible solution to a complex problem as if it were the only solution. I'm not defending this stance, mind you -- I'm just trying to guess what he may be thinking. I do appreciate you sentiments. Thanks for your reply!
 

TheBell

Council Member
Many Thanks!

Hi, kgswiger. Many thanks for your kind words! I always appreciate it when somebody takes the time to say they liked what I posted.
 

Corruptbuddha

Governor
Here
the father of her child soon left them
is the problem.

Not job training, not taxing the rich, not education policy.

It's the generational failure of the lower class fathers 'taking a powder' and not living up to their responsibilities. The generational stupidity of lower class girls forgetting that fact and, ever increasingly, getting pregnant and stuck in the same life their mother was stuck in.

The government can't do a damn thing about these problems. These are cultural in nature. We've proven over the years that all the training, education and 'After School Specials' in the world won't change the fact that these lower class girls are getting impregnated by scumbags who will, in the end, abandon them.

These people need to realize, once and for all, that the bad choices you make have consequences. Chief among them is a life co-signed to real or semi-poverty.

Great post as usual, Bell.
 

TheBell

Council Member
Support Systems

Hi, Corruptbuddha. You draw much the same conclusion as Brooks and Davidson, which is the lack of good support structure (i.e. most commonly a stable family) is often the single greatest factor in who succeeds/improves versus who fails/remains stuck in the same cycle. In this case, Parlier recognizes the consequences of her actions and owns up to them, However, I agree one reason that seems so admirable is because it is so atypical.

It is also true that failure has always been more common than (breathtaking) success, even in America. Most new business do not make it. That said, the "American Dream" has always been rooted in the premise that if you try again you still could make it. That seems a far cry from saying that if you make a bad choice you ARE stuck for life. Support for capitalism and democracy from the middle class and working poor has always come from the chance (not the guarantee) of upward mobility. What will happen when the chance is so slim it appears non-existent?

The question seems to be how do we get disadvantaged folks -- even those disadvantaged (partially) by their own choices -- better support systems to help them succeed? I agree with you the answer cannot be government alone but what other factor(s) are required and what part, if any, can government play?

Thanks for replying and your own excellent thoughts on the topic.
 

mark14

Council Member
I think Brooks is criticizing Dems for advancing one possible solution to a complex problem as if it were the only solution. Thanks for your reply!
I think there is little doubt about it and it is entirely ridiculous. First it is hardly the only Democratic solution but even standing alone - Yes, even if their rates are lower rates, the rich may pay a larger total amount of taxes but their share of the total wealth still growing exponentially faster than anyone else's. If before taxes the CEO makes 400 times as much as his average worker who is struggling to get by and the CEO's rate is lower, after taxes he is making more than 400 time as much and if the rate is the same he is still earning 400 times as much and if he pays marginally more (like 2% more) he is still making 392 times the average workers salary after taxes and that isn't paying a fair share (in my humble opinion).
 

fairsheet

Senator
I like Brooks. I like him a lot. BUT, he continues to maintain a rather apocolyptic view around debt, deficits, and spending, that I simply don't share. That leaves him in a contradictory position that manifests itself in all his "work", and that he never resolves.

This problem of his, was readily apparent in a piece he posted about a week ago, around how Obama was "going small", when he should be "going big". And..most of those "big" things he was talking about, were what any self-respecting Fox/GOP would call socialist, big guvmint, spend AND tax solutions. On the flipside - per his apocolypytic view - he suggested that the Fox/GOP was shouting all the right things about cut/slash/austerity.

So....how did Brooks attempt to resolve this problem of his - that we need bigger guvmint and we need smaller guvmint? He inserted one line in his entire ramble, acknowledging that the Fox/GOP would be no help, and that Obama MUST form a "left-to-center" coalition that would "go big" (and magically resolve Brooks's conundrum).
 

mark14

Council Member
Here is the problem.

Not job training, not taxing the rich, not education policy.

It's the generational failure of the lower class fathers 'taking a powder' and not living up to their responsibilities. The generational stupidity of lower class girls forgetting that fact and, ever increasingly, getting pregnant and stuck in the same life their mother was stuck in.

The government can't do a damn thing about these problems. These are cultural in nature. We've proven over the years that all the training, education and 'After School Specials' in the world won't change the fact that these lower class girls are getting impregnated by scumbags who will, in the end, abandon them.

These people need to realize, once and for all, that the bad choices you make have consequences. Chief among them is a life co-signed to real or semi-poverty.

Great post as usual, Bell.
Yeah don't need job training, taxes or educational policy. The poor are just scumbags. Not like wife abandoning politicians like Gingrich and Joe Walsh. See they have money. Well Gingrich, not Walsh so much or at least he claims poverty http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/7656284-418/judge-scolds-rep-joe-walsh-orders-him-to-prove-he-doesnt-owe-back-child-support.html But back to those lower class girls. Any assistance expended on them or their children is just wasted. They made their choice. Let them wallow and do it again next generation. Children of single mothers never recover from situations like that except maybe Clinton and Gingrich. It's not like they couldn't see being abandoned coming. Newt and Joes' wives did...

Terrible post as usual.
 

Boca

Governor
$upport $ystems by the trillions were part of the Great Society were they not? If not they should have been.
 

gabriel

Governor
and since there is nothing the government can do about this problem then there is only ONE final solution to your problems! when do you get started ?? lol
 

888888

Council Member
If this site paid for content you would be a pauper.
If this site paid for intelligence you would have a big debt to pay Mark.


I read all the story and thought I would just sit back and see the responses. I was not surprised by any of them comming from those on the right.

They really do believe in the survivile of the fittest and anyone who doesn't make it for any reason should rally end up somehow dissappearing from the face of the earth.

You know they did it all on their own with no help. They were poor and had to eat mac and cheese everyday. They put cardboard in their shoes(I really did that). All I could hope for in life is that they all come back next time and have the life they think that people are just scumbags for having. They really have no compassion or thought for anyone other than who they are.
Very sad, If I had people like that in my party I WOULD HAVE LEFT THEM LONG AGO.

Good job Bell and Gabby. At least you can think, and not just hate.
 

888888

Council Member
some people have no pride.
Mark, you have little class for the way you post the outright garbage under your name. Very sad, you and CB are two of the meanest people I have ever met on one of these boards, outside of a few skinheads.
 
Top