"Yes, Virginia, Income Inequality is Still Rising"

At Cato Unbound, there is a debate over whether income inequality has been increasing in recent years. The question is whether Alan Reynolds is correct when he claims that widening inequality is a myth, or whether he is quickly becoming the James Inhofe of the inequality debate.

The first essay is by Alan Reynolds. It's called Income Distribution Heresies. It is followed by an effective response from Gary Burtless, Ben Bernanke is Right.

Next up is, well, me:

"Yes, Virginia, Income Inequality is Still Rising", by Mark Thoma, Reaction Essay, Cato Unbound: In his response to Alan Reynolds, Mark Thoma invites us to "step back" and survey the wider picture of data and expert opinion on income inequality. The verdict? Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, and the consensus generally, has got this one right. "The preponderance of evidence and of professional opinion," writes Thoma, "clearly indicates that inequality has been rising since [at least] 1988." Like Burtless, Thoma finds little in Reynolds’ analysis to agree with, describing his main points as "either too inconsequential to change the inequality picture," suffering from "an incomplete presentation of the evidence, or rebutted by other work." Thoma then goes a step further, pointing to new evidence suggesting that income inequality might be even greater than currently estimated.

Read: "Yes, Virginia, Income Inequality is Still Rising"

There will be subsequent rounds as well as additional contributors. I'll keep you "posted."

Comments

[evagrius]

If there is no rising income inequality then can someone please explain why in October 2001 there were 18,176,710 people participating in the Federal Food Stamps program while in October 2006 there were 26,294,464 people participating, a 44.66% increase?

Income eligibility, 130% of the poverty level, has not increased 44%, ( about $22,176 in 2001 and $25,169 in 2006).

If income inequality is not rising, why the increase?

It's all very well to focus on the top 10% or 1% of income earners but why not ask the question; why the increase in those eligible and participating in Food Stamps, those at the bottom, say, 20% of income earners?

[anon]

In the context of the US of A I agree. Inequality is increasing. In the global context while the Ultra Rich are running away with the cheese [bad] the poor are moving up quite micely (nicely) [good].

Please watch this presentation: Hans Rosling’s 2006 TED Lecture

H.R. shows the data in an animated graphical form.

[calmo]

If you can get past the Valentine's Day pitch, this piece had some good numbers in it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/business/yourmoney/11every.html?ref=business
And although eva is right not to ignore the increasing numbers at the bottom, those numbers at the top are the ones to digest.

[evagrius]

Interesting to note that Mr. Rosling's presentation shows that of the OECD countries, the U.S. has the highest income and the highest rate of infant mortality.

[ken melvin]

This needs be talked about.

[Lafayette]

NE: "The question is whether Alan Reynolds is correct when he claims that widening inequality is a myth, or whether he is quickly becoming the James Inhofe of the inequality debate."

Been there. Done that. Boring as hell.

Time to move on and let Reynolds marinate in his own juices ... instead of going ballistic everytime he shows up on prime time or the front page of some newspaper.

[cm]

Lafayette: The problem is always that lack of dispute means tacit acceptance by default, or will be retroactively interpreted as such. Perhaps not so much acceptance of the face-value claims as acceptance of how the domain of discourse is loaded up with undisputed "common wisdom".

[Lafayette]

cm: "The problem is always that lack of dispute means tacit acceptance by default, or will be retroactively interpreted as such. "

There has been neither "lack of dispute" or "tacit acceptance" in THIS forum of Reynolds' work. That's all I meant.

We've exchanged on the matter five ways to Sunday. And, any further disagreement is NOT going to shut Reynolds up (which I suspect is the unuttered ambition of many).

It's a free country. He has the right to be wrong AND to pitch it to whomever will listen to him.

[Lafayette]

From: Economic Inequality in the United States, by Janet Yellen (president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco) at http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2006/el2006-33-34.html

“... policies that reduce the frequency and size of the fluctuations in business cycles can spare people the painful disruptions that occur during recessions, or, in the worst cases, tragic events like the Great Depression of the 1930s. .... (and) policies that succeed in enhancing the long-run growth of productivity should help lift the average standard of living over time.”

The first of these criteria seems to have been accomplished. Business cycles are not only longer but much shallower – as the present one in the US.

The second of the above is an ill defined maxim that everyone acknowledges. But, it begs the question of How? Continually improved technology is only part of the answer.

Productivity is not just a technological input to business processes. Know-how is equally as important. In those areas where the US is least productive it is dependent upon know-how that is easily copied by other countries. China’s tsunami of unqualified-labor content products swamping American shores is proof enough.

What to do? The only way to compete with the Far East in products that employ unqualified labor is to introduce aggressively robotic technology that displaces labor, but keeps production in-house (this creates far few jobs, yes - but it creates jobs nonetheless). This means products must be “design-in” easy to build by mechanized means. Not all products are amenable to such a process.

Secondly, those people in the unqualified labor pool need to be escalated to higher levels of know-how. If this takes force-feeding, then so be it. Schooling should not make a students think they can “be all they wannabe”, but “learn what you have to learn”, meaning a skill or a profession or a competence”. And, no buts about it.

Then make sure that the educational and training system is in place for the students to obtain their skills. Also, if need be, in skills needed most, why not a student stipend (based upon a means test) to attract students to that particular qualification. (After all, they were silly enough to join the Army by the siren song of a government-paid education. Why not extend this idea to a program of half-time work and half-time education in other government administrations. FEMA is one that comes to mind …)

Education is a long-term solution, because it requires a fairly thorough overhaul of an educational system that seems to leave too many adolescents either with a high school diploma but no qualifications or a university diploma but not with the right qualifications. Does the US really need yet another MBA?

Education and retraining is also perpetual. There is no quick-fix to maintain a nation's complex variety of necessary skills, because the necessity always changes depending, mostly, on economic development.

So, if it needs nurses, why not make that an attractive educational route for a student to pursue?

Democrats think that lowering the cost of education by government funded low-interest loans will do the trick. This is necessary but not sufficient. With means tests, the loan can be variable, meaning 0% interest for some and perhaps partial loans at the going rate for others.

Yes, this creates an administrative hassle. So what?

[Real Person from the Real World]

Education and retraining. Everyone still clings to the old cliche that the old manufacturing labors are where the inequity is. Sorry, but BS. I work in IT, and I can say a few things about the world of information technology, and plenty of people have been losing ground there. Part of the problem is that we have few entry level positions. Companies want someone without a learning curve who "hits the ground running." Usually, that means a foreigner vetted thru companies in his country (where they have low cost HC available to all) who DO take entry level people. Some of those countries are now low on midlevel to upper level talent, which means they will be importing back those that came to the US and build their careers here, and maybe a few Americans, but the scarcity will drive up salaries and costs even more and to serve the need again, we will start importing techies from another country now on the upward curve of training its people in IT. Fewer and fewer of our own people get these very high paying jobs. We just keep importing foreigners and plugging them into these jobs that are some of the highest paying jobs we have. Meanwhile, the middle class is losing on health care and about the only other jobs all treat labor as a comodity.... flipping hamburgers, bartending, selling, sales, and more sales.....

[save_the_rustbelt]

George Bush went to Wall Street a few weeks ago and said inequality is rising.

The Decider-in-chief has spoken. The dittoheads are wrong.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Mich. food aid soars

Record 1 in 9 seek food stamps, other assistance

Charlie Cain / Detroit News Lansing Bureau

LANSING -- A record 1.19 million Michiganians -- nearly one of every nine residents -- are getting government help in putting food on their tables, as a result of the state's anemic economy and the massive downsizing of the domestic auto industry.

[callahan]

For me here in Michigan, my income is suffering from inequality, my ability to eek out an existence is much less than it was 6 years ago even though my income has risen considerably since then.

[Carter]

Reynolds aside, data collection & rigorous analysis of the state of US income inequality have been done. What we lack is an equally rigorous examination of the consequences of inequality, ie: societal effects on 1) economic mobility 2) living conditions 3) occurrence of crime 4) mental problems to list a few.

[Lafayette]

RPRW: "Companies want someone without a learning curve who "hits the ground running." Usually, that means a foreigner vetted thru companies in his country (where they have low cost HC available to all) who DO take entry level people."

This ain't necessarily the best solution.

Foreigners have the same learning curve before getting up to speed. The things they have to learn are different from that of a local, that's all.

In IT is better to dislocate the job to India, since they speak English and there is no real language hindrance to working with them.

Besides, bringing in a foreigner does not lower local costs, so why should anyone who is cost-consciousness want to do it?

[evagrius]

Carter;

Read "The Impact of Inequality" by Richard G. Wilkinson.

There's a graph in the middle of the book that's quite telling showing the relationship between social cohesion and economic inequality. New Orleans had extremely high economic inequality and very low social cohesion. The book was published a year or two before Katrina. Anyone looking at the chart before the event would not have been surprised at what happened.

[David Kohlhoff]

The question isn't if there is growing income inequality, but why?

[callahan]

To David Kohlhoff, reason for inequality lies in part with technology, globalization, illegal immigration, stagnant wages, rising prices, and the fact that most of us have little or no wage bargaining power.

Bush's policies only exacerbate the problem.

[David Kohlhoff]

The view that Higher education will somehow ameliorate the growing income inequality is unfounded. An increase in students into the system will only further cheapen the premium to education.

The problem isn't that there aren't enough bozos with college degrees. The problem is that most students who won't attend college leave High School with no useful job skills.

Students should be funneled into college-track or vocational track programs.

[maria]

Reynolds and Bush have a lot in common. They have both lost big, but they still push on and on and on into their defeat as if persisting in their error will bring victory. It won't and both are deaf, dumb, and obstinate beyond reason.

[Lafayette]

DK: "The question isn't if there is growing income inequality, but why?"

"Why" is the easy part.

Most of the wealth generated in the US is "old wealth" meaning it has been handed down for at least three generations.

New wealth is growing, but it still remains in the minority.

How do you mitigate the fact that a tiny minority keep reaping economic benefits? The solution is old, very old. It is called higher marginal taxation.

Pssst ... pass the word.

[maria]

Do you have any supporting data to prove that "most" wealth is "old wealth"? You make the assertion as if it were obvious. Is it?

[Lafayette]

maria: "Do you have any supporting data to prove that "most" wealth is "old wealth"? You make the assertion as if it were obvious. Is it?"

Do you have any supporting data to prove it is not?

[Lafayette]

After some thought, Maria, I find your question more interesting than I had a first imagined.

If you will look at the Piketty-Saez studies of income distribution in the US over nearly a century, you will find that the percentage of income that goes to the top echelon of Americans remains bounded. I mean this: The Piketty data (1913 to 2000) of top 1% American incomes shows a mean of about 14 or 15% of aggregate income – in the range of 14 to 20% in the early period up to 1936, and from 1943 to 1988 it went as low as 8%, only to rebound to 12/14% in recent years.

This means that for over a century, the parameter (total income) doesn’t seem to vary wildly. Why not? Because, I suggest, it is being rolled over from generation to generation. Why? Because once one a family has got a lot of money, it learns to keep it, invest it to assure returns and inherit it. The Gates or Buffet fortunes have generated a long, long line of inheritors … I submit.

This is no different, in fact, from European notions regarding the matter. Most European money is “old money” there is plenty of the “new rich” about. Old Money keeps to itself, but New Money exhibits the fact - a casual visit of St. Tropez in August will confirm that notion.

So, to answer your question: No, I know of no published study in the matter. I interpret the Piketty data one way, you may wish to interpret it another … and I would be pleased to read any such interpretation.

All of which begs this question: “What is a fair and equitable distribution of income in a modern economy”? Any takers?

The question merits some debate, because the “free-for-all” that presently exists will not change the Piketty data significantly and,otherwise, we will be discussing income inequality for many decades to come.

[maria]

I think any believable study of how much present wealth has been held for three generations would require much more research than your post's hypothesis. The Forbes 400 has a very large turnover in fact. Kennedys, Rockefellers and Melons, etc.,---their fortunes tend to decline and fade through having lots of children, some of whom are wastrels or dim bulbs. Other fortunes are given away for charitable prestige, etc. Brooke Astor gives away 200 million and ends up eating oatmeal all day at the end of her days. The Fords, the Dodges, the Duponts, etc. are not what they used to be. Remember the Hunts? I don't think there is even one of them now in the 400. One would need to do, I think, a prosopographical study to get the facts about the matter. Wealth per se endures, but the holders of it change very much.

[maria]

I think any believable study of how much present wealth has been held for three generations would require much more research than your post's hypothesis. The Forbes 400 has a very large turnover in fact. Kennedys, Rockefellers and Melons, etc.,---their fortunes tend to decline and fade through having lots of children, some of whom are wastrels or dim bulbs. Other fortunes are given away for charitable prestige, etc. Brooke Astor gives away 200 million and ends up eating oatmeal all day at the end of her days. The Fords, the Dodges, the Duponts, etc. are not what they used to be. Remember the Hunts? I don't think there is even one of them now in the 400. One would need to do, I think, a prosopographical study to get the facts about the matter. Wealth endures, but the holders of it change a great deal.

[evagrius]

maria;

A study should be definitely be done. How else to explain the Bush family?

[Lafayette]

maria: "The Forbes 400 has a very large turnover in fact ... The Fords, the Dodges, the Duponts, etc. are not what they used to be. Remember the Hunts?"

Agreed - but just as your suppositions are anecdotal, so are mine. European fortunes have existed for centuries, the Rothschilds, the Krupps, the Wallenstiens.

I do not imagine that the US would be identical, but I suspect it is the same. People who obtain fortunes tend to keep them, I feel.

As you say, a study would help to clarify the matter. But, finally, are we not discussing income inequality and not necessarily its nomenclature?

European political sentiment in the matter is to tax heavily such fortunes. (Which, yes, makes a great deal of it flee.) In the US, the present clique of plutocrats were hoping to do themselves one last favour by doing away with inheritance taxes altogether. They would have done so had Katrina not happened.

Why had Gates and Buffet come out against the demolishment of inheritance taxes? My thinking on the matter is this: They understood well two things: (1) a certain amount of fortune is fine to guaranty a lifetime of ease for one's family, but (2) too much of a fortune only means unearned income for children who may or may not be unhinged by too much leisure.

The virtues that motivate a person to become rich are lost in subsequent generations. Perhaps what is retained is a sense that having obtained so much, then it is morally correct to give some of it back.

This factor is particularly important in the US. For every dollar given to charity in Europe, America gives 12. But, in terms of state foreign aid, the US's is less than 1% of its GDP whereas the EU is somewhere over 2% of GDP. Why is this so?

Again, it is a matter of cultural values. The US idolizes capital accumulation. Practically no where on earth, in a democracy, does one see so much media focus on fortunes or, at least, those who are succeeding well. Capital accumulation is an ingrained, personal cultural value.

I assure you that this is not the case in Europe and I doubt it is the case in the Far East. And, for as long as cultural values remain unchanged, there is little that can be done to change them by law. Most governments are simply the reflection of the people who elect it.

If the American dream is to become rich, then income inequality is a natural consequence.

[Real Person from the Real World]

Lafayette: Income inequity is NOT the result of the American Dream, and the American Dream is actually not to become super rich. Most Americans just want a decent standard of living. For some CEOs however, greed gets the best of them, and they go for as much as they can get away with. As for foreign employees not lowering costs, right, they don't in the end, but companies still have the idea that somehow, hiring someone cheap upfront, while the guy is on visa, will save them money, and they struggle to contain costs on their outsourcing over and over and over, and eventually lose out to people like my employer, because the foreigners we import end up with the most experience and knowledge. Once you are hooked, you're hooked. You brought cheap labor in, but after a while, they may not be so cheap, so you import more of them. Meanwhile, your own people never get the entry level jobs and native born people lose out continually to foreign countries that keep churning out cheaper labor. Even Wall street is feeling the pinch of cheap foreign competition:

Look who wants protection from foreign rivals now
(NYT)
New York has long been the world's financial center. Now bankers in other countries are mastering financial skills - much as others in past decades figured out how to produce textiles, cars and appliances - and are competing at prices that undercut New York. According to a study by the London Stock Exchange, for instance, New York firms' underwriting fees for initial public offerings of stock are about twice those charged throughout Europe.
Before Wall Street gets any relief from Washington, it should consider lowering its fees and expectations of exorbitant profits and bonuses. According to the New York comptroller's office, the average Wall Street bonus was a record-smashing $137,580 last year, hardly a sign of an industry in distress.

[Lafayette]

RPRW: "Income inequity is NOT the result of the American Dream, and the American Dream is actually not to become super rich. "

I beg to differ.

I use the words "cultural values" and "American dream" interchangeably. When a society is fixated on capital accumulation it does so out of some need. Capital accumulation is a phenomenon larger and more perverse than simply having a life that is good enough for you and your children.

It stems from a profound willingness to be accepted into a higher social circle, the primary denomination of which is money. One can go to church, attend Boy Scout / Girl Scout meetings with their children, and do a host of other "normal" activities - but when you look at their car and their house the message conveyed is clear.

This translates down to lower classes by a desire not to take the long route but the short one, meaning a winning lottery ticket. Or, by sublimation in which our heroes become sports people or actors or TV talking-heads. They are the idols of "success" to which people aspire, regardless of the fact that they may never have either the talent or the opportunity to become rich or famous.

More so, the rich and famous feed on this adulation and even leverage more revenue from it. So, it is a symbiotic relationship that develops.

If one has never lived in a society other than the one in which one is born and raised, then it is difficult to understand that other sets of cultural values may prevail elsewhere. And, as a result of these other cultural values, other ways that economies function and politics decide policies and therefore national ambitions.

[evagrius]

Lafayette;

You should read the Phelp's article. I'd be interested in your observations.

[Tom]

"DK: "The question isn't if there is growing income inequality, but why?"

"Why" is the easy part.

Most of the wealth generated in the US is "old wealth" meaning it has been handed down for at least three generations."

Wrong.
80% of US millionaires are self made. Most of the old wealth has been squandered by the third generation. Those who created the wealth pass it on to those who can maintain it who pass it on to those who spend virtually every penny of it.

The real question is if inequality is bad. Some of it is good - pays for new technology. The early adopters provide us with cheap technology like dvds, cell phones, ect. It is also fair. Thos who work harder and take the risks get paid for it.

Too much inequality causes envy and social unrest. What is the right mix?

[Archer Martin]

There's a good post on Naked Capitalism about the Thoma-Reynolds debate (see http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/02/more-debate-on-whether-income-disparity.html). And Reynolds had the nerve to post a comment that Thoma isn't an expert and Reynolds has a reply coming in a few days. Stay tuned!

[Ninjaplease]

Income inequality is rising and you're puzzled?

Your recipe for those who get crushed by globalization in its current implementation is to go get some student loans and "get an education."

Ever occur to you that this isn't a realistic possibility for most people?

Most people then get screwed by globalization in its current implementation and end up working at Wal*Mart, or "Managing" a table of 4 at the Olive Garden for sub-minimum wage.

Some people need an "Education" as to what is feasible and what is a crackpipe dream.

Your prescription sucks.

[evagrius]

Ninjaplease

"Some people need an "Education" as to what is feasible and what is a crackpipe dream."

Nah, they need to work their butts off at a job 8-10 hours a day,six days a week, coming home mentally, physically exhausted.

I've always admired those who do go to night school after a tough job all day.
My stepfather did. Managed to get an A.A. degree in electronics. Moved up the company, ( he'd been spray painting farm machinery). After a few years, the company moved out of the city to a "less" expensive town, ( for them). My father didn't go. Got laid off.
Never got a big pension. Had to work at crappy jobs and ended up with a stroke.
That's the kind of education those "people" need.

[Peter Schaeffer]

I find it somewhat funny that after 6 years of Open Borders and a soaring trade deficit, anyone would even be debating rising inequality. Bush has unabashedly promoted the interests of the top 1%, 0.1%, 0.01%, etc. via his trade and immigration policies. Unfortunately, for him and us, he lacks the brains to make sure that at least some of the gains from economic growth accrue to the population as a whole. His endlessly falling ratings are a direct consequence. Of course, we have a few posters who can be trusted to cheer for Bush on immigration and trade.

[evagrius]

Huh, inequality has been rising for THIRTY years, not six.
It began a little before Uncle Ronnie but really took off when he became president. It hasn't declined since except for a small dip with Clinton.

[Peter Schaeffer]

Evagrius,

Of course, inequality has been rising for decades. However, the title of this thread is

“Yes, Virginia, Income Inequality is Still Rising”

Hence the focus on the last few years. I would be the first to argue that immigration and trade have increasing inequality since the 1970s.

[evagrius]

Oh, smooth comeback. But don't blame immigration for income inequality.
It started when immigration was relatively minor.

As for immigration, why not really look at the problem at its source;the horrible foreign and economic policy of the U.S. in Latin and Central America?

[Peter Schaeffer]

Evagrius,

Take a look over at Polarized America. The correlations between political polarization, inequality, and immigration are amazingly high.

[Peter Schaeffer]

Lawrence Summers, to his credit has poured at least a little cold water on the notion of education as a panacea for the ills of globalization. A useful quote

“Education is central to any economic strategy, but there is a limit to what it can do for workers in their 40s and beyond. Nor can education be a complete answer at a time when skilled computer programmers in India are paid less than $2,000 a month.”

Of course, his still promoting a “free” trade, globalization agenda… To the Democrats to less. At least he the honesty to admit that everything isn’t working out as planned and that “education” won’t make it right.

[Mark Thoma]

See here too.

[anne]

Possibly there are more important lunacies to battle, but battling the idea that we have had 6 years of ---- borders is important. America's borders are closed. Get it? The borders are closed, not --- . Now, since we are not referring to the oceans or the northern border, reference is to the south where every possible effort is taken to insure the border is closed. To write of ---- borders, as though America's borders were not closed is simply rubbish and rubbish meant to inflame ethnic prejudice.

[evagrius]

Peter Schaeffer;

I don't see your point. I do see you being taken for a ride, snookered, focused on the wrong problem, having the wool pulled over your eyes and a variety of poor similes and metaphors describing you being bamboozled, tricked, played upon, suckered etc;

I don't see you pointing the finger at those who benefit the most from what you are jumping up and down about.

[Peter Schaeffer]

Evagrius,

From my post in response to "Janet Yellen: The Asian Financial Crisis Ten Years Later"

"If is perhaps worth noting that the U.S. has adopted essentially all of the policies that brought down Argentina. We have a huge CA deficit (7% of GDP), an overvalued currency, and a currency peg (versus the RMB and others). This combination of economic folly is advocated by the same interests (Wall Street, “supply siders”, etc) that promoted the ruin of Argentina (which they profited from of course). As always, maximization of the Goldman Sachs bonus pool is the true North Star of economic policy. In the context of this blog, “Anne” has been a persistent proponents of these ideas as well."

From my post in response to "Progressive Indexing"

"As I pointed out previously, wages for production workers have actually declined over the period in question. This reflects major increases in income inequality over the last few decades. A good paper on the subject is Where did the Productivity Growth Go?."

Need more?

[Peter Schaeffer]

Anne,
Isreal has a Closed Border with the Palestinian Territories.
They have a rather high fence and monitor it very carefully. Apparently, even suicide bombers can't get over, under, or around it. Details can be found at Israel’s Security Fence.
The U.S. has an Open Border with Mexico.
We have rusty strands of barbed wire in a few places and nothing in others. Check out the pictures over at build a fence! adopt a border!. Perhaps a million illegals cross it every year. Perhaps millions (3 million according to Bush snuggles illegal aliens). No one knows.
Millions versus zero. Open versus Closed. No too hard.

[anne]

No question; there are even now tens of millions, hundreds of millions, billions of Canadians on the way to San Francisco. What we must do is leave Iraq immediately and set 150,000 troops along the closed Canadian border to make it cloaed-er. I love it, for we could solve 2 problems then. Leave Iraq immediately, and send the troops to Canada. Heck, we could occupy Toronto for all I care for those fearsome Canadians.

[evagrius]

Yes. I can see it now. A huge, long fence between the U.S. and Mexico.
Who's going to build it?

We know the answer already.

[Lafayette]

L. Summers: "“Education is central to any economic strategy, but there is a limit to what it can do for workers in their 40s and beyond. Nor can education be a complete answer at a time when skilled computer programmers in India are paid less than $2,000 a month.”"

Perhaps it was for this kind of nonsense that Summers was asked to leave Harvard.

There is NO limit as to what education can do and certainly NOT an age limit. The only limit is within the individual.

It is a given that today’s diplomaed students will have to look forward to at least two if not three different professions throughout their working life. How are these changes to be made, particularly when over 40 and well into nurturing a family and paying a mortgage?

Education and retraining must obviously be the answer. Attitude is perhaps another. One can very likely be enthused with whatever career one was educated to undertake. But, if there is, for any reason, no longer a call for professionals in that domain, then one is obliged to face the obvious fact that another career path must be undertaken - for which only re-training or re-education (I tend to combine both) will allow this to happen.

In fact, life's experience itself makes us all better adapted for some types of work/profession than when we were younger. Behaviour and attitude are important elements to any job, not just savoir-faire or talent. A C+++ programmer, just out of school, may be a crack at programming, but completely incapable of functioning in a teamwork environment. S/he may not be capable of the give & take that teamwork requires. This comes with age for some people.

Education must be available to all and at all ages for a nation to assure that it's pool of talents is replete with individuals fully capable of meeting the needs of businesses, themselves at the beck and call of continually changing market requirements.

[anne]

Lafayette:

"There is NO limit as to what education can do and certainly NOT an age limit. The only limit is within the individual."

Precisely; and, trust me, there is a deserving president to come now.

[Ninjaplease]

"There is NO limit as to what education can do and certainly NOT an age limit. The only limit is within the individual."

"There is NO limit as to what offshoring jobs to low cost countries can do and certainly NOT an (W)age limit. The only limit is within the individual American's ability to admit economic destruction and submit that Wal*Mart application as soon as possible."

[Ninjaplease]

If the Democrats run on a platform that supports our current trade / tariff policies, I will most certainly vote Republican and may even volunteer my support to rally's fund raisers, and vice versa.

[Real Person from the Real World]

1) Mexicans are not to blame for economic problems in the US. They are refugees from economic problems in Mexico.They share the same Judeo-Christian roots most Americans have, and have been our mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, and cousins for well over 100 years, since we stole Texas, New Mexico, Arixona, and part of California from Spain. In the SW US, we have Mexican place names, and people with Mexican ancestors. You cannot equate Mexican economic refugees with the programmers and techies US Companies import from hostile 3rd world countries, to come here to take tech jobs that pay some of the highest salaries we have.

2) Education Inc. is just another business, and has its trends and money games, that do nothing for those worse hit by lack of employer based health insurance and decent paying jobs. If you study IT, where are all the entry level jobs for IT graduates? First, we imported techies from India, now Companies are eying China and Korea. If you work at Walmart stocking all those cheap foreign goods, how does an MBA help? If your local school district is loaded with teachers aides with minimal teaching certs, and the voters don't want to pay to hire some re-educated techie that went for a Teaching Masters to get a decent wage teaching, what good does a degree in educaton do? And, while you are working selling, telemarketing, or waiting tables, how does a minimum wage, with no-health benefits pay off those over priced student loans for over priced text books and for classes at the local Education, Inc. at $400/hr?

[dale]

"there is no evidence that the recent growth in income inequality is due to increased rewards to education. To the contrary, for the first few years of this business cycle, the college premium-the wage advantage to college educated workers-actually fell slightly, implying other factors are responsible for inequality’s recent resurgence." http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/ib232

[Peter Schaeffer]

Real Person,

“Mexicans are not to blame for economic problems in the US”

Please tell me when the laws of supply and demand were repealed. Better yet, check out the video over at Immigration by the Numbers. Before 1965 immigration averaged 178,000 per year and wages and working conditions steadily improved. Housing was affordable. Gridlock was a rarity. Our schools worked.

Now we have immigration running over a million a year, and the American Dream is dying if not dead. Wages have declined for 34 years, housing is grimly unaffordable, gridlock is pervasive, and public education is an oxymoron in much of the U.S.

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

John Adams