Social Mobility and the Deficiencies of Measure
Moving from the bottom 20% to the bottom 40 or even the bottom 50% is mobility of very little significance. The bottom 50% possess 1.2% of wealth which tells us people in the bottom half of income earners are without an adequate amount of income to meet expenses and have money left over. The bottom 40% possess negative wealth, meaning their income is not sufficient to meet their expenses and have what most consider to be necessities they go without. 2 out of 3 people who begin in the bottom 20% of income earners are going to stay poor, as even achieving mobility to the upper echelon of the next bracket at 40% still leaves you without the ability to accumulate wealth. The bottom 50% possess only 1.2 % of wealth, while the next decile (60%) possesses only 2%.
2/3rds of the bottom 20% remain poor, and only about 12.5% (movement to the top 80 to 100 and ½ of 60 to 80, counting 70 and up as half) or 1 in 8 will reach the comfort class and potentially become capable of creating their own opportunity to a meaningful degree.
A Crisis of Demand: An Insider Account of the Opiod Crisis
This idea that doctors unknowingly prescribed medication because the manufacturer hid the dangers of the medication is an effort to bring something to blame other than the failings of American society. It is the economic, political, and social order that produces circumstances of dissatisfaction that lead to drug dependency. But the American myth must be preserved. The American myth consists of the intents of liberty, justice, and opportunity with which this country was founded on and operates under, inclusive of the idea that the US represents these values in foreign policy. The problems have to be compartmentalized. Drugs are the problem, suppliers of drugs are the problem, Purdue Pharma and the Sackler’s caused an opioid crisis, not the circumstances that created a demand for drugs, and not the doctors who knowingly prescribed the drugs for their own financial gain to a people who knew the effects of the drug. Critique of “the American way” is outside the spectrum of the acceptable “limits of controversy”.
The Poor White Sasquatch
The exclusion of poor white people from existence is held in place by the propensity of human beings to interact with people at their own socioeconomic level. The same as there are few white people in black and brown communities there is few poor white people living in middle and upper-class white communities, and few middle and upper-class white people living or interacting with poor white communities. Meaning the perception of many advantaged whites is that all white people are advantaged, and the perception of many minorities is that all white people are advantaged. The reality is that white people are the majority of disadvantaged people in this country. The poor white male has no advocacy groups, and like the sasquatch, there are no credible accounts of his existence in the media, from social justice advocacy groups, politicians, or from any medium of mass impression.
If I Was Black
Since I am not black, I know none of the events that took place were racially motivated, but as I drove, I became acutely aware of how a handful of events can serve as the basis for the formation of stereotypes and prejudice. My thoughts were related to all the negative experiences I’ve had in the region, those mentioned as well as others I did not mention, and my anger was directed at all the people of the region itself. I quickly recognized that these interactions were not representative of the values and attitudes of millions of people in the region, but many people are not as privy to the formation of their views as I am. Again, if I were black, every one of these incidents may have seemed racially motivated, and living in a climate in the United States where race, gender, and sexuality discrimination is over emphasized, these experiences, would have left impressions that led to the conclusion that white people are racist, and caused a black person to be racially prejudice against white people in response.
LGBT Tolerance and Promotion
Children considering gender identity is evidence of LGBT promotion. It is evidence because a child absent the suggestion, would never consider am I really a girl in the body of a boy, or am I a boy in the body of a girl. These are questions of external origins, through the promotion of the LGBT agenda, that promote under the disguise of tolerance and equal treatment. That is what I’m contending and what I have an issue with. Tolerance and equal treatment exist in abundance for LGBT people, but what they are promoting is their sexual preference.
The previous point leads into my next point but I have to address the anticipated leftist, PC, LGBT criticism of the word preference. They may contend I am making sexuality a choice and people are born predisposed to their attraction. Recently, a study was published where hundreds of thousands of people’s DNA profile was mapped out, and they responded to a survey that asked if they had a same sex experience. There was a lack of genetic consistency between those who identified as gay, as well as those who had a same sex experience. A comment summarizes the conclusion of the findings “the authors say that the genetic similarities still cannot show whether a given individual is gay. “It’s the end of the ’gay gene,’” says Eric Vilain, a geneticist at Children’s National Health System in Washington, D.C., who was not involved in the study.”(1) Preference is the correct term to describe LGBT sexuality, despite same sex attraction and arousal not being a choice, but it also isn’t genetic. Attraction and sexual arousal towards the same sex is developed.