Stanford University's Center for the Study of Poverty and Inequality is publishing a new magazine devoted to socio-economic issues. Pathways Magazine: A Magazine on Poverty, Inequality, and Social Policy was just published and there you will find articles by John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hilary Clinton on how they would alleviate poverty. Rebecca Blank writes an article comparing and critiquing the candidates’ platforms.
Particularly telling is this quote from Rebecca Blank's article:
How do the candidates stack up on their antipoverty proposals? If you’re a Republican, there’s really only one candidate who expresses consistent concern with these issues. That’s John McCain. For the other Republicans, poor Americans appear to be out of sight, out of mind, and off the agenda.
The magazine is available for free can be downloaded in PDF Format for no charge.
The Racialicious blog breaks down the candidate comparisons point by point.
Posts
5 comments:
I just filled out the e-subscription to receive the hardcopy. Thanks so much for this information.
Gee. I just found a new magazine about science, technology and the way the future will be.
I wonder if both of us invest our time in the respective literature - which of us will be ahead 10 to 20 years from now?
Maybe its just the screwed up way that I think.
CF, there is nothing screwed up about wanting to read about science and technology as well as there is nothing screwed up about wanting to read about poverty and inequality. Neither is mutually exclusive of each other.
What is screwed up are your snide, condescending comments like the one above.
Oh yeah, what is the name of the fabulous new periodical on science and technology that will vault you heads and shoulders above the unwashed masses?
[quote]what is the name of the fabulous new periodical on science and technology that will vault you heads and shoulders above the unwashed masses?[/quote]
It is not "just one book or magazine" that will "vault me". It is a LIFESTYLE of learning new things and insuring that I have the tools to compete.
I did indeed download and print the PDF. I read the intro. I read the first article. I read Charles Murhay's article.
It is interesting how the first guy was focused on detailing the "winners and the losers" in the INCOME DISTRIBUTION race while Murhay was interested in the CULTURAL RELATIONSHIPS that undercut a single mother's chances of making it out of poverty.
I really wonder if some of you have any respect for the notion of PRIVATE PROPERTY and for VALUATION in the context of capitalism. The first author talked about "capital distribution" as if it was OWNED by the society and thus the government had the RIGHT to step in and CONFISCATE one's private property that is in the form of INCOME, as much as was needed to make society more "fair".
I must ask you, Liberal Arts Dude and others who are your ideological soul mate - is there such a thing as a CONTRACT between employer and worker where BOTH agree on a particular wage rate in exchange for a given amount of labor? Clearly the CONSUMER OF LABOR has a particular value of the labor that this person contributes to the company's process. Clearly the laborer has a certain amount of skills that he can offer based on his knowledge and capabilities. This exchange is where the question of compensation for work should end.
Then you all tend to throw in the question of how much the company ultimately makes off of the labor for this individual. Excuse me - who OWNS the finished goods? Who assumed the risk of setting up the entire enterprise? If the owner instead put ROBOTS in the place of the workers - would the ROBOTS and or the manufacturer of the robot be owed more money because the owner went on to sell the goods for a lot more money? (Oh my goodness - he is mean and greedy they will say).
I have no problem with collective bargaining and unions that would tend to shift a larger slice of the pie from the owner to the employee in take home pay. It is the balance between the two forces that is important.
The first author (and probably the majority of the writers) think as do "Democratic Socialist" think. Any money escaping from labor's hand via the contract process.....the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT will recapture via the taxation of this income upon the corporation, the management salary and the investors.
They were jumping for joy that under Clinton workers received a 2.7% increase in salary while under evil Bush the rate was only 1.0%. In their blindness they concluded that the need was for stronger unions, more regulation, more fair trade laws and of course HIGHER TAXES in order to send more money to the poor. NOWHERE did they mention that part of the collapse of what is now called the Rust Belt is due to many of these same winds that blow against corporate interests. These firms are MOVING DOWN SOUTH or even out of the country BECAUSE of policy makers who are in line with the author and thus seek to CONFISCATE their earnings.
I seriously doubt that we could get them to do a study on how THEIR POLICIES have motivated firms to exist these specific cities. THEY are the "good guys" after all.
The problem I have with your response, CF, is that you make the assumption that habits of self-improvement are the sole territotory of people from your ideological leanings. Not only is it ridiculous and pompous, it is nothing more than an attempt at stereotyping. As in Leftist/Liberal = lazy and dependent on the government dole; conservative/Right Wing = pull yourself up by your bootstraps, self-made man.
The rest of your rantings and ravings I have no idea why they have anything to do with the original post at all about the magazine!
An interest in social justice and activism is not at all contradictory with an interest in technology and science. In fact, I know of many organizations and people whose work intersect these two worlds. I know of no social justice organization today that doesn't have a strong social media component in their operations. In fact, there are conferences held every year where people exchange ideas and techniques that combine astutue use of technology with social justice work. Don't believe me? Google these names -- MobileActive, NTEN, Personal Democracy Forum, New organizing Institute -- organizations at the forefront of technology and applying them to social justice work.
Post a Comment