The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

When I was growing up, I knew a lot of kids whose fathers didn’t earn a living working in the bowels of a factory like my dad.

Their dads were businessmen, doctors and bankers, but our families lived blocks away, not suburbs apart. So all of us kids attended the same schools. We cheered together at football games, discoed at the same dances and had the same teacher for algebra. Our parents didn’t mingle much, but most of them voted for school levies and showed up for the junior class plays.

This is not to suggest I never felt the sting of inferiority. A working-class kid is always aware of other kids’ economic advantages, but most of the time they were irrelevant. We were in the thick of it — together. Plodding side by side through life at a young age teaches us that people have more in common than they sometimes want to believe.

Such diversity also exposes less privileged kids to other families’ big ideas. My parents insisted I would be the first to go to college, but they got a big assist from the peer pressure pulsing through my high-school years. I was friends with several kids who knew from birth that they would follow their parents’ paths to college. Ambition is contagious.

A study came out this month that shows just how much our country’s rising income inequality over the past four decades has whittled away at this way of life. Increasingly, neighborhoods are mostly low-income or mostly affluent. Middle-class neighborhoods like the one where I grew up are in dramatic decline.

The study, part of US 2010, was conducted by Stanford University and funded by Russell Sage and Brown University.

A few of the study’s findings:
–In 1970, 65 percent of families lived in “middle-income” neighborhoods.
–By 2007, only 44 percent of families lived in such neighborhoods.
–Only 15 percent of families in 1970 lived in one of the two extreme types of neighborhoods, but by 2007, that number had more than doubled, to 31 percent.
–The affluent are more segregated from other Americans than the poor are. That is, high-income families are much less likely to live in neighborhoods with middle- and low-income families than low-income families are to live in neighborhoods with middle- and high-income families. This has been true for the past 40 years.

This raises a crucial question: What does this income segregation mean for the social mobility of children?

We’ve been seeing troubling signs for years. Consider college internships, for example, which are crucial not just for future career opportunities but also for the jolt of confidence they can give to young people who arrive intimidated and leave emboldened.

When I interned for a daily newspaper in 1979, I made Guild wages. For the first time, I could focus entirely on the work, not the bills. Most of my college friends, no matter what profession they had picked, also got paid during their internships. A lot of us were working-class kids rubbing elbows with heroes for the first time in our lives. For me, that internship launched a career that remains my passion more than 30 years later.

Today plum internships from Capitol Hill to Wall Street are filled with kids who can afford to work for nothing because that’s the going rate these days. Their sense of entitlement is often breathtaking.

Meanwhile, less fortunate classmates — the majority of college kids — are holding down hourly-wage jobs to stay in school. Many also are amassing student loan debt that will hobble them for years, if not decades.

Care to guess who gets to be the next generation of leaders?

What the Stanford study shows is that a deeper disparity is sinking its claws into more children in America — and at a much younger age.

These are children doomed to failing schools and rotting neighborhoods. Children who are surrounded by the sad evidence of defeated lives. Children for whom college always will be someone else’s dream.

If pointing this out is waging class warfare, I have to ask: Who do you think is winning?

Connie Schultz is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist and an essayist for Parade magazine. She is the author of two books, including “…and His Lovely Wife,” which chronicled the successful race of her husband, Sherrod Brown, for the U.S. Senate. To find out more about Connie Schultz (con.schultz@yahoo.com) and read her past columns, please visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

Advertising

Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Supreme Court of the United States

YouTube Screenshot

A new analysis is explaining the disturbing circumstances surrounding the overturning of Roe v. Wade and how the U.S. Supreme Court has morphed into an entity actively working toward authoritarianism.

In a new op-ed published by The Guardian, Jill Filipovic —author of the book, The H-Spot: The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness—offered an assessment of the message being sent with the Supreme Court's rollback of the 1973 landmark ruling.

Keep reading... Show less

Billionaires

YouTube Screenshot

After a year of reporting on the tax machinations of the ultrawealthy, ProPublica spotlights the top tax-avoidance techniques that provide massive benefits to billionaires.

Last June, drawing on the largest trove of confidential American tax data that’s ever been obtained, ProPublica launched a series of stories documenting the key ways the ultrawealthy avoid taxes, strategies that are largely unavailable to most taxpayers. To mark the first anniversary of the launch, we decided to assemble a quick summary of the techniques — all of which can generate tax savings on a massive scale — revealed in the series.

1. The Ultra Wealth Effect

Our first story unraveled how billionaires like Elon Musk, Warren Buffett and Jeff Bezos were able to amass some of the largest fortunes in history while paying remarkably little tax relative to their immense wealth. They did it in part by avoiding selling off their vast holdings of stock. The U.S. system taxes income. Selling stock generates income, so they avoid income as the system defines it. Meanwhile, billionaires can tap into their wealth by borrowing against it. And borrowing isn’t taxable. (Buffett said he followed the law and preferred that his wealth go to charity; the others didn’t comment beyond a “?” from Musk.)

Keep reading... Show less
{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}