Top 20% the new 1%?

[Abe]

Hey everyone, I read an article in The Atlantic (and have seen similar ones in other publications) discussing the wealth gap and more specifically the gap between the top quintile of earners (which of course may not be the same thing as top quintile of wealthy households) and everyone else. The main argument is that we're holing ourselves up in exclusive neighborhoods and colleges, and not letting anyone in.

How much do you agree or disagree with this viewpoint? Is this a new phenomenon or just a variation of historical trends? I'd especially like to hear from people not in the top earners category.

Forgot to include the link: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/the-hoarding-of-the-american-dream/530481/

I'll throw in my 2 cents: legacy admissions to colleges/universities are bullshit. I can see the economic incentives are clearly there for universities, but still bullshit.

[MaaS]

Does anyone have stats on the number of legacy admissions?
Just curious of the scope.

There is a substantial benefit for the poor in having a certain amount of rich kids in a school. Somebody has to pay that full sticker price to make the model work.

The k-12 model of being funded with local taxes is nonsense imo. Can definitely agree there.

[Venturing]

I find the idea of funding schools from local taxes bizarre. Here is NZ we do the opposite. Essentially the lower the socioeconomic level of the school the more government funding it receives. I read about some of the low sociology economic schools in the states and you have to think that those kids are doomed before they've been given a chance.

[Abe]

I believe the US is the only developed country that proportions funding on a local level for school districts. Most others do per capita, adjusted for cost of living, across the entire country. Our inane system has led to egregious disparities in school funding within individual counties (saw that in my home town growing up), and allows local biases to negatively effect schooling.

Didn't think about the having the rich legacy kids pay full tuition - I guess if it funds a couple of the other students then maybe not as bad.

[sokoloff]

I read about some of the low sociology economic schools in the states and you have to think that those kids are doomed before they've been given a chance.

I live in Cambridge, MA which has a broad spectrum of incomes (to put it mildly) and what is called "controlled choice lottery" for schooling (meaning there is a mix of cross-neighborhood [read: cross-socioeconomic] enrollment and a substantial local neighborhood component).

I volunteer very occasionally at the school and DW volunteers a LOT at the school. Even in a lottery system like Cambridge's, it's obvious that some kids are doomed before they've even arrived at K-5 and even in the best of cases, are doomed by their home life. With all adults in the household working multiple jobs to make ends meet, how much intensive 1:1 time is the kid getting? How many words have they heard spoken by adults before age 4? How much time do the adults have to spend making the child feel important, feel validated, and feel like their schooling is important. Way, way less on average than our kids or other kids in the school. (Here, I'm assuming adults with the very best of intentions and efforts towards their kids, constrained only by the reality of life. There are far worse situations, of course.)

Moving money around for school funding isn't the answer, IMO. UBI might be part of the answer, even at only $600/adult/month (which would still be an incredible challenge to fund), I think you get a better result than pooling all the property taxes statewide or, worse, federally funding public schools. (I can't even begin to fathom the boondoggle goat rope that would become.)

[DavidAnnArbor]

I'm glad the University of Michigan has said it would offer free tuition to households  earning less than $68,000 a year.

[big_slacker]

The author went to Harvard and is married to a politically connected multi-millionaire journalist. So if anyone knows a thing or two about 'being born on third and acting like they hit a triple' it's gotta be her right? :D

I'm in the top 20% but grew up WAY closer to the bottom than where I am now. I don't really like the idea of an ivy league, charmed life DINK telling me I should feel guilty about playing the game in terms of providing my kids with the best environment, education and 'launch' that I can manage. F$%^ her.

With that said as nicely as I can manage, we do agree that if something in this unfair system should be made more fair it is access to the same quality of education. Some neighborhoods are always going to be nicer than others, some people will have more or less money. But schools at least should be as close to uniform as can be managed. I think that if it happens it will probably happen due to a massive change in education rather than by writing blank checks funded by an increasingly larger 'guilty party'. 

[Chris22]

I'll throw in my 2 cents: legacy admissions to colleges/universities are bullshit. I can see the economic incentives are clearly there for universities, but still bullshit.

Depends on what you mean by "legacy admissions".  If it's solely that kids of wealthy donors are shown favoritism, that's one thing, but it can also mean that having a parent (who isn't a significant donor) who attended a school gets an advantage over one who didn't, but it's not a guarantee.  Notre Dame is one school known for legacy admissions but it's not because everyone's parents are giving 7-figure endowments.  I'd love for my daughter to attend my alma mater, and I might give $50-100/yr, I still think she should be given (slight) preference over someone with no connection to the school.

[Laura33]

I suspect this article/book is going to get a lot of blowback, because most people in that top 20th percentile don't exactly feel like they were born on third -- by and large, they worked hard and did well in school (probably at least in part on student loans), worked hard and did well in careers that most likely required more than 40 hrs/week on a regular basis, very likely had both parents working at the same time, spent a shit-ton of money for a house in a good school district (or paid less for a house and more for private school), paid "extra" taxes (a/k/a AMT), spent less than they made to save for the future, and now are faced with college sticker prices in the range of $100-250K per kid and are being told that they make too much to qualify for financial aid.  IOW, their experience is that they busted their asses, paid their fair share, and earned what they got; the barriers that kept others from having those same opportunities are more invisible.

I agree with the article's author that America's very long and bad history with race is a major contributing factor to where we are today, because it created much of the infrastructure that is our status quo.  E.g., we may not have "no Negroes or Jews" covenants any more, but when you had a new subdivision that was built that way and stayed that way for 75 years, should we be surprised that it's still largely white and Christian today?  Couple that with local taxes funding schools, and you have decades of built-up separate-but-not-equal that you can't just sweep away with good intentions.

Another issue that was only lightly touched on in the article is health, which I think is going to be one of the major future class distinguishers.  I have noticed that, over the last several years, when I am in a lower socioeconomic environment, the people are, on average, significantly heavier and with more mobility problems.  I am thinking in particular of a local fair we went to about 45 minutes away, where the number of mobility scooters just blew me away (I didn't know you could even use those on a grassy hill).  And these were people in the 40-50 age range, too, not just grandma.  Same thing at the store -- almost never see a scooter at Wegman's, see them all the time at Wal-Mart.  I don't know if it's cause or effect or just a vicious cycle, but it seems like when you grow up with poor food choices and inferior health care, you're more likely to have health problems earlier, and that is going to interfere with your ability to land/keep the kind of good-paying jobs that could help break the cycle.  I mean, I struggle with my weight, too, but I have good doctors (one of whom is trying to help me lose now), I can afford a Crossfit gym to kick my ass and stay mobile, I have a reasonably flexible job and short commute that gives me the time to hit the gym, and I have the education and resources to buy and cook healthier meals.

[anonymouscow]

There is more to K-12 than just funding.

Our inner city district spends more per student than just about every other district in the county, and is at the absolute bottom in regards to performance.

I'm not saying those in the top 20% do not have all sorts of benefits to help them and their wealth, but statistically, the wealthier you are the more you pay in taxes. Except for some rare cases such as having most of your income come from dividends etc.

"In 2014, people with adjusted gross income, or AGI, above $250,000 paid just over half (51.6%) of all individual income taxes, though they accounted for only 2.7% of all returns filed, according to our analysis of preliminary IRS data.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/13/high-income-americans-pay-most-income-taxes-but-enough-to-be-fair/

I think it is a very complex issue, one that simple wealth redistribution is not going to fix.

[Gondolin]

DINK telling me I should feel guilty about playing the game in terms of providing my kids with the best environment, education and 'launch' that I can manage. F$%^ her.

You're probably right about the author BUT, isn't using ad-hominem attacks to justify an attitude of "i'll do anything to get my kids ahead because everyone else is doing it" half the problem?

Anyway, local k-12 funding poisons the well right from the get go. As a member of the top 20% I can confirm that even relatively minor levels of wealth are self perpetuating if properly managed.

[sokoloff]

DINK telling me I should feel guilty about playing the game in terms of providing my kids with the best environment, education and 'launch' that I can manage. F$%^ her.

You're probably right about the author BUT, isn't using ad-hominem attacks to justify an attitude of "i'll do anything to get my kids ahead because everyone else is doing it" half the problem?

I don't see justification of attitude based on an ad-hominem attack, but rather disregarding of a demand for an attitude change based on an irrelevant or discarded argument.

My wife and I are taking great pains, time, energy, and expense to help develop our children to most fully experience the wonder of life over their lifespan. That's why we're doing it, not because we reject the argument of someone else, or because we wish for our children to have Scrooge McDuck sized pools of gold coins to play in. By taking the actions that we are, we will almost inevitably equip our children to make their own way very productively in a financial and economic sense. That's a secondary outcome and not a primary goal for us.

What another parent on my street, in my city, state, country, or world does to invest in their children at home is their business, not mine. I own my inputs and outcomes and they own theirs.

The suggestion that I should soft-pedal the investment we make in our children in order to make things "more equal" is as insane sounding to me as the suggestion that we should take all the "too smart" people and repeatedly whack them on the head with mallets until everyone is equally smart [dumb].

[MrGreen]

Not considering any aspects of class-ism other than investing, it doesn't matter how many of those other things change if people in lower income classes aren't taught that investing is the best way to grow their money. We could fix every one of those things and if the lower classes don't invest the upper classes will still continue to pull away.

[NESailor]

Does anyone have stats on the number of legacy admissions?
Just curious of the scope.

There is a substantial benefit for the poor in having a certain amount of rich kids in a school. Somebody has to pay that full sticker price to make the model work.

The k-12 model of being funded with local taxes is nonsense imo. Can definitely agree there.

I don't have the stats but I audited an Ivy League school and was assigned to the development office so I reviewed a few casefiles.  I've participated in what many people may consider disgusting work - cleaning out farm stalls, butchering animals, I've even eaten animal brains.   I can tell you that my stomach never turned as much as reading specific legacy admissions cases.  It's not that these kids were born on third base thinking they hit a triple.  It's that they were gifted the entire ballpark and thought they were businessmen/women.

[Tyson]

The real issue that I see is generational poverty.  If you are born into that, you have the deck stacked against you.  And since generational poverty tends to cluster into communities.  Some individuals "make it out" to become successful, others don't.  This is remarkable because generally speaking the people in those communities don't have life skills to pass on to their children. 

Contrast that with the working/middle class, which has a higher percentage of people with useful life skills that they do pass on to their kids, so there's more upward mobility.  With this group, hard work and smart decisions make up for the lack of other advantages like pre-exiting wealth and high level business/social contacts.

The upper class, they really are born on 3rd base, they have parents that invest heavily in their education, they have a wealth of life skills to teach them at home, a safety net of wealth, and a massive number of high level business/social contacts. 

Of course the lower classes are going to be much less successful than the people born in to the upper classes.  This is how our society is structured.  And re: race, it just gets worse.  A poor hispanic or black person is far less likely to be able to develop high level business/social contacts than white people, because humans are pretty tribal when it comes to stuff like that.

[Gondolin]

The suggestion that I should soft-pedal the investment we make in our children in order to make things "more equal" is as insane sounding to me as the suggestion that we should take all the "too smart" people and repeatedly whack them on the head with mallets until everyone is equally smart [dumb].

When was this suggestion made? What are you taking about?

My only points were:
A) The background of the author does not affect the validity of his or her claims about nation wide trends.
B) There's a large segment of the US population - especially concentrated in the top 20% - who talk a good game about equality of opportunity but, as soon as their kids turn 4, engage in a brutal race to the bottom of tutors, private preschools, expensive extracurriculars, SAT prep, piano lessons, helicopter parenting, and service trips to Guatemala - all in the service of buying enough experiences to make their kids attractive to admissions officers at top colleges.

[fattest_foot]

The author's suggestion to tax the top 20% more is kind of humorous to me, only because that's really the only option anyway.

The bottom 50% don't pay any taxes at all, and approximately the bottom 33% actually get credits.

So of the remaining 50% that DO pay taxes, of course the top half of that would be the ones you could tax more. That's your only option!

The government's time might be better spent trying to figure out ways to expand the tax base, versus just taxing the ones already taxed more. Maybe figure out why 1/3 of the entire population has a negative tax rate.

[sokoloff]

I'm talking about the exact sorts of things you list in section B of your post.

If I believe those things are beneficial to my children (using whatever personal fitness function I choose), I read the suggestion that I should avoid doing them in the interest of equality as a suggestion that I soft-pedal the investment in my children.

Am I misunderstanding somehow?

[big_slacker]

DINK telling me I should feel guilty about playing the game in terms of providing my kids with the best environment, education and 'launch' that I can manage. F$%^ her.

You're probably right about the author BUT, isn't using ad-hominem attacks to justify an attitude of "i'll do anything to get my kids ahead because everyone else is doing it" half the problem?

That isn't what I said or implied, so let's take it using separate points.

1-I wholeheartedly reject her scapegoating and guilt tripping. It's ham fisted and insulting.
2-Working within the existing system to give your child great opportunity is playing the cards you are dealt AKA dealing in reality rather than theory. It needs no justification if you aren't doing anything morally or ethically wrong.
3-Supporting a fix for inequality in education or opportunity is not the same thing as #2. I wholeheartedly support the idea, and I'll wholeheartedly support a REAL plan with deliverables and timelines to get there. I didn't see such a plan presented in the article so there isn't much to talk about there.

[Spiffy]

Does anyone have stats on the number of legacy admissions?
Just curious of the scope.

There is a substantial benefit for the poor in having a certain amount of rich kids in a school. Somebody has to pay that full sticker price to make the model work.

The k-12 model of being funded with local taxes is nonsense imo. Can definitely agree there.

I don't have the stats but I audited an Ivy League school and was assigned to the development office so I reviewed a few casefiles.  I've participated in what many people may consider disgusting work - cleaning out farm stalls, butchering animals, I've even eaten animal brains.   I can tell you that my stomach never turned as much as reading specific legacy admissions cases.  It's not that these kids were born on third base thinking they hit a triple.  It's that they were gifted the entire ballpark and thought they were businessmen/women.

I used to work at an Ivy League school. One of my work study students transferred in after two years at a fancy women's college because she didn't get into the Ivy League school even though her father was a current dean and there was a building on campus named after her grandfather! So not all legacies get in. She was a delight and had a very good sense of humor about the whole thing.

[mm1970]

I read this before and I think some of it is bullshit. 

I mean, maybe it's my bubble, but *I* don't see a lot of the actions that are being attributed to the 20% in my circle. 
- Paying for tuition (college I assume)?  Yes, if you've got the money
- Helping with internships?  No
- Settling them into the "right" neighborhoods and schools?  Sometimes.  I see some of this.  Some parents are savvy and really want their kids in a safe environment.  They want their kids to have certain opportunities, and school district matters for that.  They are willing to pay more for it.
- 529 college savings plans.  I'm not sure why this is a bad thing?

Maybe it's because I went from "bottom 1/3" to "top 20%" so I'm just not in those "circles" of people who have always been in the 20%?  But really, I think a lot of parents just want their kid to succeed.  They look at the world, figure out what will help their kids succeed, and go for it.

[mm1970]

I find the idea of funding schools from local taxes bizarre. Here is NZ we do the opposite. Essentially the lower the socioeconomic level of the school the more government funding it receives. I read about some of the low sociology economic schools in the states and you have to think that those kids are doomed before they've been given a chance.

School funding from local taxes is a massive problem for the United States, but good luck actually getting people to try and fix it. There is noise about fixing it right now... by introducing school vouchers so you can send you children to a for-profit school because the local public school is underfunded.

Part of the problem with a lot of these socioeconomic problems is that people want quick fixes that they can see the impact of in their lifetime and ideally for themselves as well. Even if the United States were to pass legislation today that ensured that each school got regional COLA adjusted funding per child at a high enough level ensure success (whatever that figure is, we have no idea), it would still take years before the impacts were seen in terms of hiring and school infrastructure. Most likely you are talking about the next generation of children being the ones to see the impacts.

And people want to simplify it.  I read all the local articles about school, and there are 1-2 guys who comment on every one.  About how awful the teachers unions are, and how bad schools should fire all the teachers and start over.

It's extremely clear than this man has never been in an elementary school classroom AND he doesn't like to read facts that disagree with his hypothesis.  The single biggest factor in how "good" a school is the wealth/ income/ socio-economic standing of the families in the school.  In our area, "% English learners" is a close second.  It doesn't matter WHERE the kids go to school or WHO teaches them.  You could swap the kids from the worst school with the best school - bus 100% to the other school location and get all new teachers.  Will the kids from the "bad" school all of a sudden get a better education and score better?  No.  They won't.  Because our teachers are awesome.

Edited to add, it's not just about property taxes either.

Where I live, the general Santa Barbara Area, there are 6 elementary school districts
- Montecito Union (where Oprah lives) - spends approx $22k per student per year
- Cold spring - $19k
- Santa Barbara - spends about $7.8k per student per year
- Hope - $8k
- Goleta - spends about $10k

Yes, Montecito spends almost 3x what SB spends.

It doesn't end there though - Goleta district has 9 schools, and SB has 10-13 schools.  There are a WIDE variety in how "good" a school is, even though they get the same amount of money per student (and poorer schools will get some additional funding if they have a large # of English learners).

The difference between school #1 and school in last place is the difference between a 2BR house sale price of $700,000 or so (the difference).  The school in last place?  Kids living in apartments.  Multiple families to a house.  English learners.  The 30% of the families that do not meet this demographic transfer or go to private school (you see, we have open transfers, if there is space). 

What is not obvious is PTA fundraising.  The "top" school raises $600,000 in a year.  For extras like field trips, science, computers, etc.  Our school, in the "middle" raises about $60k.  The bottom school?  Maybe $600 to $6000, mostly from selling popcorn and having one rummage sale a year.  That's where the "funding" model is not fair.  Want to send your 6th grade to a week long sleep-away science camp?  That's $400 per student.  The rich schools just send them.  The poor schools don't.  The middling schools like ours?  Let's see, that's $400 per kid x 60 kids = $24,000.  We cannot afford that.  The families cannot afford that.  We aren't allowed to *only* send kids who can afford to pay for it.

I have to say that the Goleta schools are a lot more even.  They do not allow transfers unless you are a teacher at the school and you want to transfer your kid into the school where you teach.  There are a few *really great* schools, and most of the others are average to above average.

[Gondolin]

Geez. I'm not sure where to start. Big_slacker and sokoloff, I'm NOT attacking either of you but, apparently I hit a nerve since I got long replies from both despite, in slacker's words, "[not] doing anything morally or ethically wrong".

All I did was remark - rather neutrally, I might add - that "this is how it is" with the attendant implication that unchecked self interest precludes equality of opportunity. Full disclosure: I don't think equality of opportunity is a realistic goal. However, it IS hypocritical to claim to want it while as big-slacker said, "dealing in reality" and doing the very things that prevent it.

Frankly, you both rather shrilly fell back into the 2 main lines of defensive carping I often see when these kinds of articles get shared. Big_slacker went to the classic "I'd love change as long as someone else does all the legwork and presents me with a plan that doesn't cost me a dime or jeopardize my kid's shot at Yale." while Sokoloff went with the "THIS IS AMERICA, we're all libertarian rational actors and self interest is the cornerstone of the republic" argument (aka the John Galt defense).

And folks, it's ok. All of us make hypocritical compromises to survive in this world. You may not like that someone tried to make you feel guilty but, that doesn't mean they're wrong.


Big_slacker: you didn't see any policy suggestions in the article?

Reeves offers a host of policy changes that might make a considerable difference: better access to contraception, increasing building in cities and suburbs, barring legacy admissions to colleges, curbing tax expenditures that benefit families with big homes and capital gains.

P'S. I won't be replying on this thread again so no need to write long diatribes about how I'm a prick. I've heard it all before.

[big_slacker]

Geez. I'm not sure where to start. Big_slacker and sokoloff, I'm NOT attacking either of you but, apparently I hit a nerve since I got long replies from both despite, in slacker's words, "[not] doing anything morally or ethically wrong".

All I did was remark - rather neutrally, I might add - that "this is how it is" with the attendant implication that unchecked self interest precludes equality of opportunity. Full disclosure: I don't think equality of opportunity is a realistic goal. However, it IS hypocritical to claim to want it while as big-slacker said, "dealing in reality" and doing the very things that prevent it.

Frankly, you both rather shrilly fell back into the 2 main lines of defensive carping I often see when these kinds of articles get shared. Big_slacker went to the classic "I'd love change as long as someone else does all the legwork and presents me with a plan that doesn't cost me a dime or jeopardize my kid's shot at Yale." while Sokoloff went with the "THIS IS AMERICA, we're all libertarian rational actors and self interest is the cornerstone of the republic" argument (aka the John Galt defense).

And folks, it's ok. All of us make hypocritical compromises to survive in this world. You may not like that someone tried to make you feel guilty but, that doesn't mean they're wrong.


Big_slacker: you didn't see any policy suggestions in the article?

Reeves offers a host of policy changes that might make a considerable difference: better access to contraception, increasing building in cities and suburbs, barring legacy admissions to colleges, curbing tax expenditures that benefit families with big homes and capital gains.

P'S. I won't be replying on this thread again so no need to write long diatribes about how I'm a prick. I've heard it all before.

Hurl insults then run off huh? Childish. I know you'll read this though, so here is my reply.

It isn't hypocritical to agree with an ideal but live in the world you live in with respect to some of them. You say as much yourself in your post. Each human has a VERY limited pool of time and energy to devote to causes, and there are a *LOT* of causes. What have you done to singlehandedly solve homelessness, drug addiction, child abuse, spousal abuse, animal abuse, war or political corruption? I bet you do vote on local and national plans, representatives and so on who promise to address some of these issues though right? You big hypocrite you.

I do want to address your personal personal comments about me though. Per the paragraph above, fixing access to education is not my direct cause so while I won't be 'doing the legwork' myself (just like 99% of the population won't be) yes I'll vote for a plan that includes increased taxes for 'us' high earners. FWIW I'm not attempting to get my kids into an ivy league college. I expect that if college is the path my kids take will enter an early high school college credit program like WA's Running Start program then continue into a local uni like UW, etc. We will not 100% fund their education, they will have skin in the game. I'm also happy if they want to join the military, go into skilled trades, start their own business or take over mine if it still exists at that time.

Yes I read the suggested policy changes. They are neither specific, part of a plan that has an overall strategy or had any data attached showing why they might work. Like I said in the post before, there isn't really anything to talk about if there aren't specifics.

PS-"so no need to write long diatribes about how I'm a prick. I've heard it all before."

If you're getting that kind of response often you might want to reflect for a moment and consider why it keeps happening.

[scantee]

With what we're learning about the lifelong impact of early brain development and the role that toxic stress plays, a combination of universal and  targeted interventions, specifically ones that focus on infants and toddlers, would likely have a much greater payoff than increasing school funding. Universal child benefit (similar to Canada), universal health care for anyone under 18, targeted housing supports for low and middle income families with young children, home visiting and respite services for parents of children who are at-risk, are a few examples.

Most of what we consider good parenting is a threshold rather than cumulative effect, meaning that reaching a very basic level of safety, food, health, and caring, gets you about 90% of the way there.  And yet, media coverage of what constitutes good parenting focuses almost solely on that remaining 10%. Anxious upper middle class parents will spend almost any amount of money, they'll perserverate about every single choice, as a way to stave off the fear that their children won't have it as good as them. So their choices are what are sold to us as most important: breastfeeding/bottle feeding, working mom/SAHM, public school/private/homeschool, suburbs/city/rural, lots of activities/few activities, free range/helicoptering. Certainly, these decisions have some impact on how children turn out, but really, not all that much. Children aren't at risk because of these choices, they're at risk if their parents can't make the basic threshold of health and safety. Helping parents meet that threshold, and doing so as early as possible in children's lives, would probably improve child outcomes more than any other set of interventions.

[jlcnuke]

All the while, they support policies and practices that protect their economic position and prevent poorer kids from climbing the income ladder: legacy admissions, the preferential tax treatment of investment income, 529 college savings plans, exclusionary zoning, occupational licensing, and restrictions on the immigration of white-collar professionals. 

Having "preferential tax treatment of investment income" does not prevent poor people from getting better paying jobs.
Having a 529 plan does not prevent poor people from getting better paying jobs.
Restrictions on the immigration of white-collar professionals restrictions on the immigration of white-collar professionals (it encourages expanding employment of people already here into white collar jobs).
Occupational licensing could be seen as "preventing poor people from getting better paying jobs", but I'm pretty sure we all still want out doctors to have passed medical school, right?
Legacy admissions are a small fraction of admissions to colleges and, I'd argue, are likely over-shadowed by "equal opportunity" quotas that ensure plenty of people who are "less qualified" than their "higher income peers" get into schools.

I'd say the author has correctly identified some advantages that are available to some people to "get ahead" of others, but that's a far cry from 'supporting practices and policies' 'to prevent poorer kids from climbing the income ladder'. Might as well say anything a person (regardless of income/wealth/etc) does to help themselves or their family out is done to "prevent others from having such opportunities". You shouldn't have accepted that job because it means someone else shouldn't get it, someone poorer could have needed the money more than you do....

[eddie]

My wife and I are in the top 5-10% of earners in the U.S.  We're in our mid-30s and have had a pretty big jump in income over the past 5-7 years.  I can see both sides of the arguments being mentioned here.  It is true that the U.S does not have a very high degree of economic upward mobility compared to others first world countries.  We're not the best, but not the worst.  I recently heard an entire podcast about just that statistic and I wish I could find a like to document it.  This link is close. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_mobility

We have a 10 month old daughter so we are just getting started with the education conversations.  I don't fault parents for doing what they can to give their kids a leg up in life.  We're talking about whether or not we stay in the city where the quality of schools vary wildly depending on how wealthy the families in the community are or move to one specific suburb with the best schools in the area.

Families of similar incomes tend to congregate together and the school's state scores correlate very closely to the incomes of the families in the district.  In our state the schools receive $ per student to pay for salaries and general expenses and the local bond issues (property taxes) pay for the facilities.  The wealthier suburban schools have much nicer facilities than the city or rural schools.  But more than the quality of education is involved.  Home life has a huge impact on economic mobility too.  That has been mentioned in this thread, and I agree that it is a huge determinant in economic upward mobility.  It's a tough problem to fix by legislation.  I'd be fine with equitably distributing property taxes across the state for facilities, but I don't see that changing any time soon.  My state needs to increase taxes in general.  The schools are very underfunded.  Teacher pay sucks.  That's another tangent though.

I do think education is probably the biggest thing that can help make the U.S. more economically mobile.  And not just regular book knowledge.  Food and exercise decisions, personal finance, family planning (contraception, waiting until later to have kids), etc. all play a major impact.  There are a lot of things in that arena that need to be taught in schools and aren't, but kids in wealthier families are taught these things at much higher rates and see them modeled by their parents and peers at home.

I don't think the solution is taxing the crap out of the top 20%.  The bottom half barely pays anything into the system if at all anyways.  But I also understand that every $ taken from someone in the bottom 1/3 is a highly needed $.  I am definitely in favor of tax reform.  Removing the deductions that favor high income earners.   Mortgage interest deduction, tax free capital gain on primary residence, and many others.  But that's also another tangent.

[Abe]

I've seen a lot of references to the bottom 50% of earners not paying income tax. Are they exempt from social security, medicare, state income, state sales and local property taxes? Or do they normally get deductions on these?

It seems most people agree that raising taxes specifically for schools may help, but will take a long time to work and is also predicated on a stable home life. The latter problem is caused in part by work-life-balance (or lack thereof) for lower income families. Maybe schools need to spend more time teaching useful skills like finances, cooking cheap food, etc and less on ___ (pick your least favorite subject) ?

[StarBright]

With what we're learning about the lifelong impact of early brain development and the role that toxic stress plays, a combination of universal and  targeted interventions, specifically ones that focus on infants and toddlers, would likely have a much greater payoff than increasing school funding. Universal child benefit (similar to Canada), universal health care for anyone under 18, targeted housing supports for low and middle income families with young children, home visiting and respite services for parents of children who are at-risk, are a few examples.

Most of what we consider good parenting is a threshold rather than cumulative effect, meaning that reaching a very basic level of safety, food, health, and caring, gets you about 90% of the way there.  And yet, media coverage of what constitutes good parenting focuses almost solely on that remaining 10%. Anxious upper middle class parents will spend almost any amount of money, they'll perserverate about every single choice, as a way to stave off the fear that their children won't have it as good as them. So their choices are what are sold to us as most important: breastfeeding/bottle feeding, working mom/SAHM, public school/private/homeschool, suburbs/city/rural, lots of activities/few activities, free range/helicoptering. Certainly, these decisions have some impact on how children turn out, but really, not all that much. Children aren't at risk because of these choices, they're at risk if their parents can't make the basic threshold of health and safety. Helping parents meet that threshold, and doing so as early as possible in children's lives, would probably improve child outcomes more than any other set of interventions.

+1 MILLION to all of this. I've begun focusing my volunteering efforts specifically towards mothers and children in our community - specifically focusing on food insecurity and support groups (driving car-less families to pediatrician appts etc). The above is SO important and I dream of a day when federal policy catches up.

Additionally - I read the article and it really struck a chord with me. We are towards the bottom of the 20% threshold and feel squeezed. But if I'm honest with myself, the squeeze is all of our own making because we are saving so much for retirement/kids college/life, etc. That is an incredibly privileged place to be in (and it's not that we don't work our asses off- we do- but we were born white and middle class with college educated parents - we have checked and accepted our privilege).

My take is that I'll continue doing everything I can to save for mine and my children's future while making conscious decisions to make sure I'm not harming future generations with my vote (NIMBY-ism and similar).

[anonymouscow]

I've seen a lot of references to the bottom 50% of earners not paying income tax. Are they exempt from social security, medicare, state income, state sales and local property taxes? Or do they normally get deductions on these?

As far as I know if you work you are still going to be paying SS and medicare.

Property taxes I'm pretty sure you have to pay also, unless you are renting through section 8, then the government is paying for your rent with it the property taxes.

With things like EIC you get back more than you paid into Federal income taxes, so I do not know in the end what the overall tax percentage is that people pay.

[DavidAnnArbor]

With what we're learning about the lifelong impact of early brain development and the role that toxic stress plays, a combination of universal and  targeted interventions, specifically ones that focus on infants and toddlers, would likely have a much greater payoff than increasing school funding.
Most of what we consider good parenting is a threshold rather than cumulative effect, meaning that reaching a very basic level of safety, food, health, and caring, gets you about 90% of the way there.  And yet, media coverage of what constitutes good parenting focuses almost solely on that remaining 10%.
Children aren't at risk because of these choices, they're at risk if their parents can't make the basic threshold of health and safety.

Yes really agree, and that's why the lead poisoning of water in Flint Michigan is so egregious. These children are already at risk because of socio economic conditions, and then the short sighted emergency manager and public health officials created a toxic drinking water situation that precisely damages the early brain development.

[Chris22]

I've seen a lot of references to the bottom 50% of earners not paying income tax. Are they exempt from social security, medicare, state income, state sales and local property taxes? Or do they normally get deductions on these?

So the key is, income tax is basically the main funding source for the US Federal government (along with corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, etc).  So if someone isn't paying income taxes, they're not generally helping fund the US Federal government.  To me this is problematic because they still have a say in what tax rates should be through voting, so it's possible for people to vote to increase rates on other people without affecting themselves.  I have an issue with that, others don't.

Taking the other taxes line by line:

Social Security: no, everyone with earned income pays social security tax of 6.2% up to $117k (I think)(except a few exceptions such as people who pay into a public pension instead).  However, social security is theoretically a separate program, not part of the general government receipts, and it's a benefit they are buying into.  So you aren't paying for the federal government to run (except to the extent that they raid the SS fund).

Medicare: Same as SS, except no income cap (1.45% on all earned income)

State income tax: it's likely that if you are exempt from paying federal income tax, you are also exempt from state income tax, but that may not be true in all cases.  Either way, this isn't a funding source for the federal government.

State sales tax: not a funding source for the federal government

Local property taxes: Likely pay these either directly (on property they own) or indirectly (through their landlord via rent).  But again, this is a source of funding for the state and/or local governments, not the feds.

[MayDay]

This is something I feel so town about. I'm a total hypocrite and I know it.

We are to 20% earners and have always lived in the best school zones. We can afford it and of course we want our kids to have a good education.

But I KNOW it's all socioeconomics that go into those rankings, and a lot of racism that goes into people's perceptions of how good a school is.

My kids are well set up to succeed, and heck yes I'll help them get internships, etc.  I frequently say that we could throw my daughter into the worst school and she'd come out with an acceptance to Harvard. But the main reason we grudgingly live in White McGood Schools is because my son has special needs. And I have the option to provide my kid with all these things so he succeeds despite his disability, so that his family doesn't sink into generational poverty.

Speaking of! It's too late by K. Fix K-12 all you want (and we should), but you missed the boat. I volunteer a lot in K classes in our district and it is mind boggling how easy you can pick out the "apartment kids".  When you've spent 5 years (or even just the first 2) in generational poverty with no stability and lots of trauma your brain is already affected.

Anyway. I don't know the solution. I only see it getting worse. As mentioned this problem will take generation (s) to solve.

[Chris22]

But I KNOW it's all socioeconomics that go into those rankings, and a lot of racism that goes into people's perceptions of how good a school is.

Is it really racism?  Around here, yes, a huge function of school rankings is how 'diverse' the school is.  But the 'diversity' is with ESL kids.  And I don't have a problem with anyone who is ESL.  Zero problem.  Full stop. 

HOWEVER.  If some very large portion of the school is ESL, that means that a significant amount of time will be devoted to teaching them English.  And that's a huge drain on resources, resources that could otherwise be directed towards teaching my kid, who isn't ESL, things she needs to learn. 

I don't think it's racist to point that out.  ESL can basically choke a school.  Doesn't mean we hate ESL kids, but sticking our heads in the sand as to the effects that has on the effectiveness of the school is silly.

[MayDay]

Chris22 there has never been a big ESL population where I've lived, but I could see that. In these areas it is just skin color.

The two esl families in our current school are white (German) and middle eastern. 2 families in the whole school!

In my kids cases, both are bright, so they are getting placed in classes with other bright kids, and it really doesn't matter what the overall school makeup is anyway. But a rich school provides my son way more therapy. For my neurotypical daughter, you give her times tables and she teaches herself while the teacher is teaching the other kids addition.

It's complicated even when you are "woke" (good we white liberals are obnoxious). Your parental/biological instinct to provide your offspring all the advantages is strong.

[Chris22]

Chris22 there has never been a big ESL population where I've lived, but I could see that. In these areas it is just skin color.

The two esl families in our current school are white (German) and middle eastern. 2 families in the whole school!

In our area, it tends to be middle-class Polish or working poor Mexican.  And generally the "problem" areas it's all Mexican. 

[Bucksandreds]

All the while, they support policies and practices that protect their economic position and prevent poorer kids from climbing the income ladder: legacy admissions, the preferential tax treatment of investment income, 529 college savings plans, exclusionary zoning, occupational licensing, and restrictions on the immigration of white-collar professionals. 

Having "preferential tax treatment of investment income" does not prevent poor people from getting better paying jobs.
Having a 529 plan does not prevent poor people from getting better paying jobs.
Restrictions on the immigration of white-collar professionals restrictions on the immigration of white-collar professionals (it encourages expanding employment of people already here into white collar jobs).
Occupational licensing could be seen as "preventing poor people from getting better paying jobs", but I'm pretty sure we all still want out doctors to have passed medical school, right?
Legacy admissions are a small fraction of admissions to colleges and, I'd argue, are likely over-shadowed by "equal opportunity" quotas that ensure plenty of people who are "less qualified" than their "higher income peers" get into schools.

I'd say the author has correctly identified some advantages that are available to some people to "get ahead" of others, but that's a far cry from 'supporting practices and policies' 'to prevent poorer kids from climbing the income ladder'. Might as well say anything a person (regardless of income/wealth/etc) does to help themselves or their family out is done to "prevent others from having such opportunities". You shouldn't have accepted that job because it means someone else shouldn't get it, someone poorer could have needed the money more than you do....

I get what you're saying but I don't completely agree. The author (I believe) is saying that income inequality contributes to everyone in the lower 80% having less opportunity and is lobbying for more income/wealth distribution. Based off of real world examples (even in the U.S. from the poor average living conditions of the robber baron era to market collapse of the 20's when there was higher inequality all the way to the booming 50's and 60's when there was markedly less inequality) I support wealth and income redistribution, to a point. There is even plenty of current world examples (read a list with the 10 most even income distribution compared to the 10 countries with the widest income distributions, guess where everyone reading the lists would rather live.) I am in the top 20% and would be happy for my taxes to go up if that money is being used to improve the lives of the WORKING lower and middle lower income families. I base my opinion off of studies and science and not feeling of what is fair. My basis for opinion is anathema to conservativism, in my experience.

[A Definite Beta Guy]

My opinion? Politics that obsess about wealth and income inequalities are toxic to a well-functioning Republic.

This is obviously true:

Why relevant? In part because the 20 percent are so much bigger than the one percent. If you are going to raise a considerable amount of new income-tax revenue to finance social programs, as many Democrats want to do, dinging the top one percent won’t cut it: They are a lot richer, but a lot fewer in number. And if you are going to provide more opportunities in good neighborhoods, public schools, colleges, internship programs, and labor markets to lower-income families, it is the 20 percent that are going to have to give something up.

Which is fine. But to justify raising taxes, we apparently need to tar the top 20% as morally derelict:

The one percent have well and truly trounced the 99 percent, but the 20 percent have done their part to immiserate the 80 percent, as well—an arguably more relevant but less recognized class distinction.

I'm highlighting the relevant parts, because these passages were next to each other in the article, but reversed. And no, none of these are at all relevant. If there is a need to fund the government, the people most well-off need to fund it. There is no moral case that needs to be made that the top .1%, top 1%, top 5%, top 20%, top 50%, whatever are somehow morally dubious, and therefore we are allowed to take their money.

We need to decide whether the government should spend some money, and then tax the people most able to bear the burden. Whether the people are morally upstanding citizens or demons walking the Earth makes no difference.

These policies all get bundled up into class politics, racial politics, etc, which turns everything into a scorched Earth of "how dare you call me evil?" and "check your privilege!" I don't even see how we could justify having payroll taxes with this political rhetoric: original sin? Eve at the apple, so we are all guilty, and therefore have to pay payroll taxes?

[mm1970]

My wife and I are in the top 5-10% of earners in the U.S.  We're in our mid-30s and have had a pretty big jump in income over the past 5-7 years.  I can see both sides of the arguments being mentioned here.  It is true that the U.S does not have a very high degree of economic upward mobility compared to others first world countries.  We're not the best, but not the worst.  I recently heard an entire podcast about just that statistic and I wish I could find a like to document it.  This link is close. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_mobility

We have a 10 month old daughter so we are just getting started with the education conversations.  I don't fault parents for doing what they can to give their kids a leg up in life.  We're talking about whether or not we stay in the city where the quality of schools vary wildly depending on how wealthy the families in the community are or move to one specific suburb with the best schools in the area.

Families of similar incomes tend to congregate together and the school's state scores correlate very closely to the incomes of the families in the district.  In our state the schools receive $ per student to pay for salaries and general expenses and the local bond issues (property taxes) pay for the facilities.  The wealthier suburban schools have much nicer facilities than the city or rural schools.  But more than the quality of education is involved.  Home life has a huge impact on economic mobility too.  That has been mentioned in this thread, and I agree that it is a huge determinant in economic upward mobility.  It's a tough problem to fix by legislation.  I'd be fine with equitably distributing property taxes across the state for facilities, but I don't see that changing any time soon.  My state needs to increase taxes in general.  The schools are very underfunded.  Teacher pay sucks.  That's another tangent though.

I do think education is probably the biggest thing that can help make the U.S. more economically mobile.  And not just regular book knowledge.  Food and exercise decisions, personal finance, family planning (contraception, waiting until later to have kids), etc. all play a major impact.  There are a lot of things in that arena that need to be taught in schools and aren't, but kids in wealthier families are taught these things at much higher rates and see them modeled by their parents and peers at home.

I don't think the solution is taxing the crap out of the top 20%.  The bottom half barely pays anything into the system if at all anyways.  But I also understand that every $ taken from someone in the bottom 1/3 is a highly needed $.  I am definitely in favor of tax reform.  Removing the deductions that favor high income earners.   Mortgage interest deduction, tax free capital gain on primary residence, and many others.  But that's also another tangent.

The AMT does a pretty good job of that already, at certain incomes in the top 20%.

[mm1970]

Having "preferential tax treatment of investment income" does not prevent poor people from getting better paying jobs.
Having a 529 plan does not prevent poor people from getting better paying jobs.

The lack of better paying jobs is what prevents poor people from getting better paying jobs.  Also, the lack of jobs that provide health insurance as a benefit.

With what we're learning about the lifelong impact of early brain development and the role that toxic stress plays, a combination of universal and  targeted interventions, specifically ones that focus on infants and toddlers, would likely have a much greater payoff than increasing school funding. Universal child benefit (similar to Canada), universal health care for anyone under 18, targeted housing supports for low and middle income families with young children, home visiting and respite services for parents of children who are at-risk, are a few examples.

This was a very good point.

[sokoloff]

Having "preferential tax treatment of investment income" does not prevent poor people from getting better paying jobs.
Having a 529 plan does not prevent poor people from getting better paying jobs.

The lack of better paying jobs is what prevents poor people from getting better paying jobs.  Also, the lack of jobs that provide health insurance as a benefit.

Airline pilot, many trades, nursing/home semi-skilled health care have a shortages, solid pay, and many offer health coverage. Software development has a massive amount of unmet demand at the semi-skilled ($50K ish) level. Most also require training and the first generally requires a college degree (for the "good" carriers). The military has very good benefits and reasonable pay.

There are better paying jobs out there; not everyone is qualified or able to contribute at the level demanded commensurate with the higher pay.

[Paul der Krake]

20%ers: in the last year, count the number of people with whom you have you had meaningful, non-transactional conversations, who:

- didn't go to college, or
- have had children out of wedlock, or
- are the beneficiaries of a direct transfer government assistance program, or
- can name 3 or more NASCAR drivers

Most of you can probably count these interactions on one hand.

[sokoloff]

20%ers: in the last year, count the number of people with whom you have you had meaningful, non-transactional conversations, who:

- didn't go to college, or
- have had children out of wedlock, or
- are the beneficiaries of a direct transfer government assistance program, or
- can name 3 or more NASCAR drivers

Most of you can probably count these interactions on one hand.

Is that brush heavy? It looks pretty broad, which is why I ask.

My (now) wife and intentionally had children prior to marrying. Children were critically important; marriage was only important when she wanted to downshift to SAHM and part-time consulting in her field.

Several colleagues didn't go to college (e-commerce/software). I previously worked on a NASCAR computer game.

I speak with my wife daily and one of those colleagues nearly every workday.

If you spoke with me or my wife (~2-3%-ers), you'd probably not place us as one of the unwashed masses, though I check two of the boxes on your redneck checklist.

[talltexan]

The author's suggestion to tax the top 20% more is kind of humorous to me, only because that's really the only option anyway.

The bottom 50% don't pay any taxes at all, and approximately the bottom 33% actually get credits.

So of the remaining 50% that DO pay taxes, of course the top half of that would be the ones you could tax more. That's your only option!

The government's time might be better spent trying to figure out ways to expand the tax base, versus just taxing the ones already taxed more. Maybe figure out why 1/3 of the entire population has a negative tax rate.

This statement is true only if you restrict it to INCOME Tax. If  you include payroll tax, sales tax, etc., the amount of skenwness in the tax burden goes down considerably.

[Chris22]

The author's suggestion to tax the top 20% more is kind of humorous to me, only because that's really the only option anyway.

The bottom 50% don't pay any taxes at all, and approximately the bottom 33% actually get credits.

So of the remaining 50% that DO pay taxes, of course the top half of that would be the ones you could tax more. That's your only option!

The government's time might be better spent trying to figure out ways to expand the tax base, versus just taxing the ones already taxed more. Maybe figure out why 1/3 of the entire population has a negative tax rate.

This statement is true only if you restrict it to INCOME Tax. If  you include payroll tax, sales tax, etc., the amount of skenwness in the tax burden goes down considerably.

See above.  Payroll tax, sales tax, etc, do not fund the federal government, and in the case of sales tax, isn't a federal tax at all and so the feds have no business raising it.

[Paul der Krake]

20%ers: in the last year, count the number of people with whom you have you had meaningful, non-transactional conversations, who:

- didn't go to college, or
- have had children out of wedlock, or
- are the beneficiaries of a direct transfer government assistance program, or
- can name 3 or more NASCAR drivers

Most of you can probably count these interactions on one hand.

Is that brush heavy? It looks pretty broad, which is why I ask.

My (now) wife and intentionally had children prior to marrying. Children were critically important; marriage was only important when she wanted to downshift to SAHM and part-time consulting in her field.

Several colleagues didn't go to college (e-commerce/software). I previously worked on a NASCAR computer game.

I speak with my wife daily and one of those colleagues nearly every workday.

If you spoke with me or my wife (~2-3%-ers), you'd probably not place us as one of the unwashed masses, though I check two of the boxes on your redneck checklist.

It's not a redneck list. All 4 items on that list are extremely common behavior in America. 2 out of 3 adults don't have college degrees. 40% of children are born out of wedlock. 1 in 7 Americans is on SNAP alone. NASCAR is widely popular sport.

I know people who fit these criteria too, but my point is that they amount to a tiny fraction of my social circle. And parsing your response, it sounds like yours too. You may speak with your wife daily, but she still counts as one person.

My point is that it's no wonder there are tensions when the two groups rarely intersect.

[A Definite Beta Guy]

20%ers: in the last year, count the number of people with whom you have you had meaningful, non-transactional conversations, who:

- didn't go to college, or
- have had children out of wedlock, or
- are the beneficiaries of a direct transfer government assistance program, or
- can name 3 or more NASCAR drivers

Most of you can probably count these interactions on one hand.

America has some class differences, which are harder than they used to be. But that doesn't mean the top 20% is morally culpable for problems afflicting the bottom 50%. I certainly didn't tell my cousin to knock up some underage girl from a trailer park and feed his kid Mountain Dew. That's his own bright idea.

Also, NASCAR drivers, are we talking current....because that's a lot harder!

[mm1970]

Having "preferential tax treatment of investment income" does not prevent poor people from getting better paying jobs.
Having a 529 plan does not prevent poor people from getting better paying jobs.

The lack of better paying jobs is what prevents poor people from getting better paying jobs.  Also, the lack of jobs that provide health insurance as a benefit.

Airline pilot, many trades, nursing/home semi-skilled health care have a shortages, solid pay, and many offer health coverage. Software development has a massive amount of unmet demand at the semi-skilled ($50K ish) level. Most also require training and the first generally requires a college degree (for the "good" carriers). The military has very good benefits and reasonable pay.

There are better paying jobs out there; not everyone is qualified or able to contribute at the level demanded commensurate with the higher pay.

And without statistics to back it up, I'm going to argue that there aren't enough jobs that pay well.  At least, not enough to fulfill the needs of everyone.

Someone is *always* going to be the loser in our current scenario.

Also, the qualifications/ skills required for higher paying jobs. That is a good point.  What does it mean for the people who will never be able to perform at that level?

It's complicated.

[mm1970]

20%ers: in the last year, count the number of people with whom you have you had meaningful, non-transactional conversations, who:

- didn't go to college, or
- have had children out of wedlock, or
- are the beneficiaries of a direct transfer government assistance program, or
- can name 3 or more NASCAR drivers

Most of you can probably count these interactions on one hand.

ha ha ha ha ha, this was funny.

My entire family (not me, but brothers, sisters, etc) and my regular babysitter - major NASCAR fans.
I live in California, so...lots of children out of wedlock here.  You know, plus some relatives.
>60% of the families at my kid's school are on free lunch.
Most of my family did not go to college, as well as a number of my neighbors and coworkers.

[Jrr85]

All the while, they support policies and practices that protect their economic position and prevent poorer kids from climbing the income ladder: legacy admissions, the preferential tax treatment of investment income, 529 college savings plans, exclusionary zoning, occupational licensing, and restrictions on the immigration of white-collar professionals. 

Having "preferential tax treatment of investment income" does not prevent poor people from getting better paying jobs.
Having a 529 plan does not prevent poor people from getting better paying jobs.
Restrictions on the immigration of white-collar professionals restrictions on the immigration of white-collar professionals (it encourages expanding employment of people already here into white collar jobs).
Occupational licensing could be seen as "preventing poor people from getting better paying jobs", but I'm pretty sure we all still want out doctors to have passed medical school, right?
Legacy admissions are a small fraction of admissions to colleges and, I'd argue, are likely over-shadowed by "equal opportunity" quotas that ensure plenty of people who are "less qualified" than their "higher income peers" get into schools.

I'd say the author has correctly identified some advantages that are available to some people to "get ahead" of others, but that's a far cry from 'supporting practices and policies' 'to prevent poorer kids from climbing the income ladder'. Might as well say anything a person (regardless of income/wealth/etc) does to help themselves or their family out is done to "prevent others from having such opportunities". You shouldn't have accepted that job because it means someone else shouldn't get it, someone poorer could have needed the money more than you do....

The harm from immigration restrictions and occupational licensing isn't primarily from preventing lower income earners from getting a job (or even at all with respect to immigration), the harm is that low skilled people have to compete with low wage immigrant labor (whether legal or illegal), while white collar workers outside of IT are largely not just avoiding the competition from immigrants, but actually benefiting from artificial barriers to competition.  So low skilled people simultaneously experience downward pressure on their wages while simultaneously paying escalated prices for the up to 1/3 of services (depending on the state) in the U.S. that are protected by occupational licensing.