#statistics class in usa

[misfitwashere]

August 24, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

AUG 25

The raucous roll call of states at the 2024 Democratic National Convention on Tuesday, as everybody danced to DJ Cassidy’s state-themed music, Lil Jon strode down the aisle to cheers for Georgia, and different delegations boasted about their states and good-naturedly teased other delegations, brought home the real-life meaning of E Pluribus Unum, “out of many, one.” From then until Thursday, as a sea of American flags waved and attendees joyfully chanted “USA, USA, USA,” the convention welcomed a new vision for the Democratic Party, deeply rooted in the best of traditional America. 

Under the direction of President Joe Biden, over the past three and a half years the Democrats have returned to the economic ideology of the New Deal coalition of the 1930s. This week’s convention showed that it has now gone further, recentering the vision of government that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s secretary of labor, Frances Perkins, called upon to make it serve the interests of communities.     

When the Biden-Harris administration took office in 2021, the United States was facing a deadly pandemic and the economic crash it had caused. The country also had to deal with the aftermath of the attempt of former president Donald Trump to overthrow the results of the 2020 presidential election and seize the presidency. It appeared that many people in the United States, as in many other countries around the world, had given up on democracy. 

Biden set out to prove that democracy could work for ordinary people by ditching the neoliberalism that had been in place for forty years. That system, begun in the 1980s, called for the government to allow unfettered markets to organize the economy. Neoliberalism’s proponents promised it would create widespread prosperity, but instead, it transferred more than $50 trillion from the bottom 90% of Americans to the top 1%. As the middle class hollowed out, those slipping behind lined up behind an authoritarian figure who promised to restore their former centrality by attacking those he told them were their enemies.

When he took office, Biden vowed to prove that democracy worked. With laws like the American Rescue Plan, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, the Democrats directed investment toward ordinary Americans. The dramatic success of their economic program proved that it worked. On Wednesday, former president Bill Clinton noted that since 1989, the U.S. has created 51 million new jobs. Fifty million of those jobs were created under Democratic presidents, while only 1 million were added under Republicans—a striking statistic that perhaps will put neoliberalism, or at least the tired trope that Democrats are worse for the economy than Republicans, to bed. 

Vice President Kamala Harris’s nomination convention suggested a more thorough reworking of the federal government, one that also recalls the 1930s but suggests a transformation that goes beyond markets and jobs. 

Before Labor Secretary Perkins’s 1935 Social Security Act, the government served largely to manage the economic relationships between labor, capital, and resources. But Perkins recognized that the purpose of government was not to protect property; it was to protect the community. She recognized that children, women, and elderly and disabled Americans were as valuable to the community as young male workers and the wealthy men who employed them.

With a law that established a federal system of old-age benefits; unemployment insurance; aid to homeless, dependent, and neglected children; funds to promote maternal and child welfare; and public health services, Perkins began the process of molding the government to reflect that truth. 

Perkins’s understanding of the United States as a community reflected both her time in a small town in Maine and in her experience as a social worker in inner-city Philadelphia and Chicago before the law provided any protections for the workers, including children, who made the new factories profitable. She understood that while lawmakers focused on male workers, the American economy was, and always has been, utterly dependent on the unrecognized contributions of women and marginalized people in the form of childcare, sharing food and housing, and the many forms of unpaid work that keep communities functioning. 

This reworking of the American government to reflect community rather than economic

relationships changed the entire fabric of the country, and opponents have worked to destroy it ever since FDR began to put it in place. 

Now, in their quest to win the 2024 election, Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota governor Tim Walz—the Democratic nominees for president and vice president—have reclaimed the idea of community, with its understanding that everyone matters and the government must serve everyone, as the center of American life. 

Their vision rejects the division of the country into “us” and “them” that has been a staple of Republican politics since President Richard M. Nixon. It also rejects the politics of identity that has become identified with the argument that the United States has been irredeemably warped by racism and sexism. Instead, at the DNC, Democrats acknowledged the many ways in which the country has come up short of its principles in the past, and demanded that Americans do something to put in place a government that will address those inequities and make the American dream accessible to all.

Walz personifies this community vision. On Wednesday he laid it out from the very beginning of his acceptance speech, noting that he grew up in Butte, Nebraska, a town of 400 people, with 24 kids in his high school class. “[G]rowing up in a small town like that,” he said, “you'll learn how to take care of each other that that family down the road, they may not think like you do, they may not pray like you do, they may not love like you do, but they're your neighbors and you look out for them and they look out for you. Everybody belongs and everybody has a responsibility to contribute.” The football players Walz coached to a state championship joined him on stage.

Harris also called out this idea of community when she declined to mention that, if elected, she will be the first female president, and instead remembered growing up in “a beautiful working-class neighborhood of firefighters, nurses, and construction workers, all who tended their lawns with pride.” Her mother, Harris said, “leaned on a trusted circle to help raise us. Mrs. Shelton, who ran the daycare below us and became a second mother. Uncle Sherman. Aunt Mary. Uncle Freddy. And Auntie Chris. None of them, family by blood. And all of them, Family. By love…. Family who…instilled in us the values they personified. Community. Faith. And the importance of treating others as you would want to be treated. With kindness. Respect. And compassion.”

The speakers at the DNC called out the women who make communities function. Speaker after speaker at the DNC thanked their mother. Former first lady Michelle Obama explicitly described her mother, Marian Robinson, as someone who lived out the idea of hope for a better future, working for children and the community. Mrs. Obama described her mother as “glad to do the thankless, unglamorous work that for generations has strengthened the fabric of this nation.” 

Mrs. Obama, Harris, and Walz have emphasized that while they come from different backgrounds, they come from what Mrs. Obama called “the same foundational values”: “the promise of this country,” “the obligation to lift others up,” a “responsibility to give more than we take.”  Harris agreed, saying her mother “taught us to never complain about injustice. But…do something about it. She also taught us—Never do anything half-assed. That’s a direct quote.”

The Democrats worked to make it clear that their vision is not just the Democratic Party’s vision but an American one. They welcomed the union workers and veterans who have in the past gravitated toward Republicans, showing a powerful video contrasting Trump’s photo-ops, in which actors play union workers, with the actual plants being built thanks to money from the Biden-Harris administration. The many Democratic lawmakers who have served in the military stood on stage to back Arizona representative Ruben Gallego, a former Marine, who told the crowd that the veteran unemployment rate under Biden and Harris is the lowest in history. 

The many Republicans who spoke at the convention reinforced that the Democratic vision speaks for the whole country. Former representative Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) identified this vision as “conservative.” “As a conservative and a veteran,” he said “I believe true strength lies in defending the vulnerable. It’s in protecting your family. It’s in standing up for our Constitution and our democracy. That…is the soul of being a conservative. It used to be the soul of being a Republican,” Kinzinger said. “But Donald Trump has suffocated the soul of the Republican Party.” 

“[A] harm against any one of us is a harm against all of us,” Harris said. And she reminded people of her career as a prosecutor, in which “[e]very day in the courtroom, I stood proudly before a judge and said five words: ‘Kamala Harris, for the People.’ My entire career, I have only had one client. The People.”

“And so, on behalf of The People. On behalf of every American. Regardless of party. Race. Gender. Or the language your grandmother speaks. On behalf of my mother and everyone who has ever set out on their own unlikely journey. On behalf of Americans like the people I grew up with. People who work hard. Chase their dreams. And look out for one another. On behalf of everyone whose story could only be written in the greatest nation on Earth. I accept your nomination for President of the United States of America.”

The 100,000 biodegradable balloons that fell from the rafters when Vice President Harris accepted the Democratic nomination for president were blown up and tied by a team of 55 balloon artists from 18 states and Canada who volunteered to prepare the drop in honor of their colleague, Tommy DeLorenzo, who, along with his husband Scott, runs a balloon business. DeLorenzo is battling cancer. “We’re more colleagues than competitors,” Patty Sorell told Sydney Page of the Washington Post. “We all wanted to do something to help Tommy, to show him how much we love him.” 

“Words cannot express the gratitude I feel for this community,” DeLorenzo said.  

[genderkoolaid]

I saw a post that was showing some statistics about trans women getting paid the least out of like al trans people like a way to discredit transandrophobia and compared us to cis mras and all I could think about was that trans men are the most likely to be suicidal out of all trans people and like I just wanted to scream at OP this isn't a competition we all are oppressed

Idk what study/studies they were citing, but I will say that this study suggests that trans pay rates are a bit more complicated than that?

They look at binary trans men (FTM), binary trans women (MTF), and genderqueer/nonbinary people AFAB & AMAB in the USA. Here are some findings:

Within the ‘Trans’ grouping, these estimates indicate that the income of FTMs ranges between 5–19% less than similarly situated MTFs. Within the ‘GQNB’ grouping, the income of AFAB GQNBs ranges between 9–22% less than AMAB GQNBs. For the ‘AMAB’ grouping, AMAB GQNBs income ranges 12–15% less than their MTF counterparts, with the exception of one insignificant decomposition estimate.28 Finally, AFAB GQNBs income ranges 13–26% less than their FTM counterparts in the ‘AFAB’ grouping.

Compared with this group, MTFs who transitioned from male-to-female later in life – between 25–29 years, 30–34 years, or ≥35 years – have incomes which are 30%, 43% and 52% more, respectively. In contrast, FTMs transitioning to male later in life is correlated with progressively lower incomes, with those transitioning at ≥35 years having 25% lower incomes than those who transitioned up to 24 years old

The two groups [identifying as wo/men vs. identifying as trans wo/men] of MTFs do not significantly differ along standard demographic or employment characteristics, while FTMs who identify as men have higher rates of education and income compared with their trans male identifying counterparts. The main differences in these groups are along trans specific characteristics. Those simply identifying as women and men are significantly more likely to have socially transitioned to living as their gender identity on a day-to-day basis, and to “pass” as their gender identity rather than their assigned sex. Of those who have socially transitioned, the age at which they began doing so does not significantly differ among these sub-groups of MTFs and FTMs.

Compared with ACS [American Community Survey] cis-men, those assigned male at birth (MTFs and AMAB GQNBs) have similar rates of labour force participation, while those assigned female at birth (FTMs and AFAB GQNBs) are around 4 percentage points more likely to be out of the labour force. Despite similar or lower rates of labour force participation, all transgender groups have higher rates of unemployment (5–8 pp) and, conditional on being in employment, being transgender is correlated with higher rates of part-time work (2–19 pp). All transgender groups have higher rates of poverty (8–16 pp) also.

This is just one study but I really like how it looks further into the issue and is inclusive of GQ/NB people. The authors actually point out how identifying as GQ/NB can result in worse treatment because of having a gender further outside the norm. I also find it interesting how they look at trans people who identify specifically as trans vs. just as men or women, and the result that trans-identified FTMs tend to have higher education and income- which could point to them having better access to transitioning through wealth and being more aligned with cisheternormative standards, giving them more experiences in line with cis men of their race and class, while FTMs who do not pass as cis(het) men feel their transness is more crucial to their experiences.

But anyways. Even if trans women are paid the least, that doesn't erase the real damage of anti-transmasculinity- but, also, it may be much more complex than that. There's a lot more variables to consider than just "trans or not trans." And, ultimately, we're all paid less as a result of being trans.

[txttletale]

wanted 2 ask u cuz i think u know more than me:

most of the acab / police aboltion stuff i see is based on the US system, backed up with US stats and events, and suggesting changes to the US policing system.

but a lot of the proposed changes i see are similar (i think?) to what we currently have in the UK, and the power imbalance and training issues and violence are much worse in the US (but not absent here obvs). while the institution is still racist. but I'm wary of the usual 'it doesn't happen here' response that ppl usually employ to dismiss movements like BLM in the UK.

how much of acab rhetoric applies here, and how should we adapt the plans for reform for the UK policing system?

i mean the USA is definitely an outlier in terms of police and prison violence but this is broadly a quantitative rather than qualitative difference. i assure you that the police in the UK are just as horrifically racist and violent--they're just not as armed and don't have the same amount of political capital as the far more militarized USAmerican police.

the Metropolitan Police's own report (lol) found them to be 'institutionally racist'. police in the UK have fucking absurd powers, such as being permitted to commit any crime while undercover without judicial review, as long as it's in the interests of 'national security' or 'preventing disorder' or 'protecting the economic well-being of the United Kingdom' (!). they are relentlessly and disproportionately violent towards BAME people. they have a systemic culture of violence and brutality. Bristol police tased their own race relations advisor, twice. when a woman, sarah everard, was raped and murdered by a police officer, police suppressed and brutalized protesters at her vigil.

here are stop and search statistics for the UK police in 2021:

the UK policing system is just as racist and just as much of an oppressive apparatus as the USAmerican one. don't trust anyone from the UK who tries to tell you otherwise. all cops are bastards because the institution of policing under capitalism exists first and foremost to protect capitalist property relations.

obviously the demands of BLM protesters in the USA cannot be adapted 1-for-1 to the UK, and as a revolutionary communist i think there are very hard limits to what can be meaningfully accomplished under liberal democracy. but i think a good place to start if you want achievable short-term reform to happen is relentless protest and action against the recent bills that have expanded police powers more than ever, against the Blair-era counterterrorism legislation, for the abolition of the Met Police, and for justice for victims of police brutality.

Because the state arose from the need to hold class antagonisms in check, but because it arose, at the same time, in the midst of the conflict of these classes, it is, as a rule, the state of the most powerful, economically dominant class, which, through the medium of the state, becomes also the politically dominant class, and thus acquires new means of holding down and exploiting the oppressed class […] This public power exists in every state; it consists not merely of armed men but also of material adjuncts, prisons, and institutions of coercion of all kinds

— Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

August 24, 2024 (Saturday)

The raucous roll call of states at the 2024 Democratic National Convention on Tuesday, as everybody danced to DJ Cassidy’s state-themed music, Lil Jon strode down the aisle to cheers for Georgia, and different delegations boasted about their states and good-naturedly teased other delegations, brought home the real-life meaning of E Pluribus Unum, “out of many, one.” From then until Thursday, as a sea of American flags waved and attendees joyfully chanted “USA, USA, USA,” the convention welcomed a new vision for the Democratic Party, deeply rooted in the best of traditional America.

Under the direction of President Joe Biden, over the past three and a half years the Democrats have returned to the economic ideology of the New Deal coalition of the 1930s. This week’s convention showed that it has now gone further, recentering the vision of government that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s secretary of labor, Frances Perkins, called upon to make it serve the interests of communities.

When the Biden-Harris administration took office in 2021, the United States was facing a deadly pandemic and the economic crash it had caused. The country also had to deal with the aftermath of the attempt of former president Donald Trump to overthrow the results of the 2020 presidential election and seize the presidency. It appeared that many people in the United States, as in many other countries around the world, had given up on democracy.

Biden set out to prove that democracy could work for ordinary people by ditching the neoliberalism that had been in place for forty years. That system, begun in the 1980s, called for the government to allow unfettered markets to organize the economy. Neoliberalism’s proponents promised it would create widespread prosperity, but instead, it transferred more than $50 trillion from the bottom 90% of Americans to the top 1%. As the middle class hollowed out, those slipping behind lined up behind an authoritarian figure who promised to restore their former centrality by attacking those he told them were their enemies.

When he took office, Biden vowed to prove that democracy worked. With laws like the American Rescue Plan, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, the Democrats directed investment toward ordinary Americans. The dramatic success of their economic program proved that it worked. On Wednesday, former president Bill Clinton noted that since 1989, the U.S. has created 51 million new jobs. Fifty million of those jobs were created under Democratic presidents, while only 1 million were added under Republicans—a striking statistic that perhaps will put neoliberalism, or at least the tired trope that Democrats are worse for the economy than Republicans, to bed.

Vice President Kamala Harris’s nomination convention suggested a more thorough reworking of the federal government, one that also recalls the 1930s but suggests a transformation that goes beyond markets and jobs.

Before Labor Secretary Perkins’s 1935 Social Security Act, the government served largely to manage the economic relationships between labor, capital, and resources. But Perkins recognized that the purpose of government was not to protect property; it was to protect the community. She recognized that children, women, and elderly and disabled Americans were as valuable to the community as young male workers and the wealthy men who employed them.

With a law that established a federal system of old-age benefits; unemployment insurance; aid to homeless, dependent, and neglected children; funds to promote maternal and child welfare; and public health services, Perkins began the process of molding the government to reflect that truth.

Perkins’s understanding of the United States as a community reflected both her time in a small town in Maine and in her experience as a social worker in inner-city Philadelphia and Chicago before the law provided any protections for the workers, including children, who made the new factories profitable. She understood that while lawmakers focused on male workers, the American economy was, and always has been, utterly dependent on the unrecognized contributions of women and marginalized people in the form of childcare, sharing food and housing, and the many forms of unpaid work that keep communities functioning.

This reworking of the American government to reflect community rather than economic relationships changed the entire fabric of the country, and opponents have worked to destroy it ever since FDR began to put it in place.

Now, in their quest to win the 2024 election, Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota governor Tim Walz—the Democratic nominees for president and vice president—have reclaimed the idea of community, with its understanding that everyone matters and the government must serve everyone, as the center of American life.

Their vision rejects the division of the country into “us” and “them” that has been a staple of Republican politics since President Richard M. Nixon. It also rejects the politics of identity that has become identified with the argument that the United States has been irredeemably warped by racism and sexism. Instead, at the DNC, Democrats acknowledged the many ways in which the country has come up short of its principles in the past, and demanded that Americans do something to put in place a government that will address those inequities and make the American dream accessible to all.

Walz personifies this community vision. On Wednesday he laid it out from the very beginning of his acceptance speech, noting that he grew up in Butte, Nebraska, a town of 400 people, with 24 kids in his high school class. “[G]rowing up in a small town like that,” he said, “you'll learn how to take care of each other that that family down the road, they may not think like you do, they may not pray like you do, they may not love like you do, but they're your neighbors and you look out for them and they look out for you. Everybody belongs and everybody has a responsibility to contribute.” The football players Walz coached to a state championship joined him on stage.

Harris also called out this idea of community when she declined to mention that, if elected, she will be the first female president, and instead remembered growing up in “a beautiful working-class neighborhood of firefighters, nurses, and construction workers, all who tended their lawns with pride.” Her mother, Harris said, “leaned on a trusted circle to help raise us. Mrs. Shelton, who ran the daycare below us and became a second mother. Uncle Sherman. Aunt Mary. Uncle Freddy. And Auntie Chris. None of them, family by blood. And all of them, Family. By love…. Family who…instilled in us the values they personified. Community. Faith. And the importance of treating others as you would want to be treated. With kindness. Respect. And compassion.”

The speakers at the DNC called out the women who make communities function. Speaker after speaker at the DNC thanked their mother. Former first lady Michelle Obama explicitly described her mother, Marian Robinson, as someone who lived out the idea of hope for a better future, working for children and the community. Mrs. Obama described her mother as “glad to do the thankless, unglamorous work that for generations has strengthened the fabric of this nation.”

Mrs. Obama, Harris, and Walz have emphasized that while they come from different backgrounds, they come from what Mrs. Obama called “the same foundational values”: “the promise of this country,” “the obligation to lift others up,” a “responsibility to give more than we take.” Harris agreed, saying her mother “taught us to never complain about injustice. But…do something about it. She also taught us—Never do anything half-assed. That’s a direct quote.”

The Democrats worked to make it clear that their vision is not just the Democratic Party’s vision but an American one. They welcomed the union workers and veterans who have in the past gravitated toward Republicans, showing a powerful video contrasting Trump’s photo-ops, in which actors play union workers, with the actual plants being built thanks to money from the Biden-Harris administration. The many Democratic lawmakers who have served in the military stood on stage to back Arizona representative Ruben Gallego, a former Marine, who told the crowd that the veteran unemployment rate under Biden and Harris is the lowest in history.

The many Republicans who spoke at the convention reinforced that the Democratic vision speaks for the whole country. Former representative Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) identified this vision as “conservative.” “As a conservative and a veteran,” he said “I believe true strength lies in defending the vulnerable. It’s in protecting your family. It’s in standing up for our Constitution and our democracy. That…is the soul of being a conservative. It used to be the soul of being a Republican,” Kinzinger said. “But Donald Trump has suffocated the soul of the Republican Party.”

“[A] harm against any one of us is a harm against all of us,” Harris said. And she reminded people of her career as a prosecutor, in which “[e]very day in the courtroom, I stood proudly before a judge and said five words: ‘Kamala Harris, for the People.’ My entire career, I have only had one client. The People.”

“And so, on behalf of The People. On behalf of every American. Regardless of party. Race. Gender. Or the language your grandmother speaks. On behalf of my mother and everyone who has ever set out on their own unlikely journey. On behalf of Americans like the people I grew up with. People who work hard. Chase their dreams. And look out for one another. On behalf of everyone whose story could only be written in the greatest nation on Earth. I accept your nomination for President of the United States of America.”

The 100,000 biodegradable balloons that fell from the rafters when Vice President Harris accepted the Democratic nomination for president were blown up and tied by a team of 55 balloon artists from 18 states and Canada who volunteered to prepare the drop in honor of their colleague, Tommy DeLorenzo, who along with his husband Scott, runs a balloon business. DeLorenzo is battling cancer. “We’re more colleagues than competitors,” Patty Sorell told Sydney Page of the Washington Post. “We all wanted to do something to help Tommy, to show him how much we love him.”

“Words cannot express the gratitude I feel for this community,” DeLorenzo said.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[torchstelechos]

Hey guys, if your from the USA and also 18+ please fill out this form. Its for my Stats class and I only have 13 respondents and need (at least) 30 to do my project.

[dailyanarchistposts]

B.7.1 But do classes actually exist?

So do classes actually exist, or are anarchists making them up? The fact that we even need to consider this question points to the pervasive propaganda efforts by the ruling class to suppress class consciousness, which will be discussed further on. First, however, let’s examine some statistics, taking the USA as an example. We have done so because the state has the reputation of being a land of opportunity and capitalism. Moreover, class is seldom talked about there (although its business class is very class conscious). Moreover, when countries have followed the US model of freer capitalism (for example, the UK), a similar explosion of inequality develops along side increased poverty rates and concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands.

There are two ways of looking into class, by income and by wealth. Of the two, the distribution of wealth is the most important to understanding the class structure as this represents your assets, what you own rather than what you earn in a year. Given that wealth is the source of income, this represents the impact and power of private property and the class system it represents. After all, while all employed workers have an income (i.e. a wage), their actual wealth usually amounts to their personal items and their house (if they are lucky). As such, their wealth generates little or no income, unlike the owners of resources like companies, land and patents. Unsurprisingly, wealth insulates its holders from personal economic crises, like unemployment and sickness, as well as gives its holders social and political power. It, and its perks, can also be passed down the generations. Equally unsurprisingly, the distribution of wealth is much more unequal than the distribution of income.

At the start of the 1990s, the share of total US income was as follows: one third went to the top 10% of the population, the next 30% gets another third and the bottom 60% gets the last third. Dividing the wealth into thirds, we find that the top 1% owns a third, the next 9% owns a third, and bottom 90% owns the rest. [David Schweickart, After Capitalism, p. 92] Over the 1990s, the inequalities in US society have continued to increase. In 1980, the richest fifth of Americans had incomes about ten times those of the poorest fifth. A decade later, they has twelve times. By 2001, they had incomes over fourteen times greater. [Doug Henwood, After the New Economy, p. 79] Looking at the figures for private family wealth, we find that in 1976 the wealthiest one percent of Americans owned 19% of it, the next 9% owned 30% and the bottom 90% of the population owned 51%. By 1995 the top 1% owned 40%, more than owned by the bottom 92% of the US population combined — the next 9% had 31% while the bottom 90% had only 29% of total (see Edward N. Wolff, Top Heavy: A Study of Increasing Inequality in America for details).

So in terms of wealth ownership, we see a system in which a very small minority own the means of life. In 1992 the richest 1% of households — about 2 million adults — owned 39% of the stock owned by individuals. The top 10%, owned over 81%. In other words, the bottom 90% of the population had a smaller share (23%) of investable capital of all kinds than the richest 1/2% (29%). Stock ownership was even more densely concentrated, with the richest 5% holding 95% of all shares. [Doug Henwood, Wall Street: Class racket] Three years later, “the richest 1% of households … owned 42% of the stock owned by individuals, and 56% of the bonds … the top 10% together owned nearly 90% of both.” Given that around 50% of all corporate stock is owned by households, this means that 1% of the population “owns a quarter of the productive capital and future profits of corporate America; the top 10% nearly half.” [Doug Henwood, Wall Street, pp. 66–7] Unsurprisingly, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that more than half of corporate profits ultimately accrue to the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers, while only about 8 percent go to the bottom 60 percent.

Henwood summarises the situation by noting that “the richest tenth of the population has a bit over three-quarters of all the wealth in this society, and the bottom half has almost none — but it has lots of debt.” Most middle-income people have most of their (limited) wealth in their homes and if we look at non-residential wealth we find a “very, very concentrated” situation. The “bottom half of the population claimed about 20% of all income in 2001 — but only 2% of non-residential wealth. The richest 5% of the population claimed about 23% of income, a bit more than the entire bottom half. But it owned almost two-thirds — 65% — of the wealth.” [After the New Economy, p. 122]

In terms of income, the period since 1970 has also been marked by increasing inequalities and concentration:

“According to estimates by the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez — confirmed by data from the Congressional Budget Office — between 1973 and 2000 the average real income of the bottom 90 percent of American taxpayers actually fell by 7 percent. Meanwhile, the income of the top 1 percent rose by 148 percent, the income of the top 0.1 percent rose by 343 percent and the income of the top 0.01 percent rose 599 percent.” [Paul Krugman, “The Death of Horatio Alger”, The Nation, January 5, 2004]

Doug Henwood provides some more details on income [Op. Cit., p. 90]:

Changes in income, 1977–1999 real income growth 1977–99

Share of total income

1977

1999

Change

poorest 20%

-9%

5.7%

4.2%

-1.5%

second 20%

+1

11.5

9.7

-1.8

middle 20%

+8

16.4

14.7

-1.7

fourth 20%

+14

22.8

21.3

-1.5

top 20%

+43

44.2

50.4

+6.2

top 1%

+115

7.3

12.9

+5.6

By far the biggest gainers from the wealth concentration since the 1980s have been the super-rich. The closer you get to the top, the bigger the gains. In other words, it is not simply that the top 20 percent of families have had bigger percentage gains than the rest. Rather, the top 5 percent have done better than the next 15, the top 1 percent better than the next 4 per cent, and so on.

As such, if someone argues that while the share of national income going to the top 10 percent of earners has increased that it does not matter because anyone with an income over $81,000 is in that top 10 percent they are missing the point. The lower end of the top ten per cent were not the big winners over the last 30 years. Most of the gains in the share in that top ten percent went to the top 1 percent (who earn at least $230,000). Of these gains, 60 percent went to the top 0.1 percent (who earn more than $790,000). And of these gains, almost half went to the top 0.01 percent (a mere 13,000 people who had an income of at least $3.6 million and an average income of $17 million). [Paul Krugman, “For Richer”, New York Times, 20/10/02]

All this proves that classes do in fact exist, with wealth and power concentrating at the top of society, in the hands of the few.

To put this inequality of income into some perspective, the average full-time Wal-Mart employee was paid only about $17,000 a year in 2004. Benefits are few, with less than half the company’s workers covered by its health care plan. In the same year Wal-Mart’s chief executive, Scott Lee Jr., was paid $17.5 million. In other words, every two weeks he was paid about as much as his average employee would earn after a lifetime working for him.

Since the 1970s, most Americans have had only modest salary increases (if that). The average annual salary in America, expressed in 1998 dollars (i.e., adjusted for inflation) went from $32,522 in 1970 to $35,864 in 1999. That is a mere 10 percent increase over nearly 30 years. Over the same period, however, according to Fortune magazine, the average real annual compensation of the top 100 C.E.O.‘s went from $1.3 million — 39 times the pay of an average worker — to $37.5 million, more than 1,000 times the pay of ordinary workers.

Yet even here, we are likely to miss the real picture. The average salary is misleading as this does not reflect the distribution of wealth. For example, in the UK in the early 1990s, two-thirds of workers earned the average wage or below and only a third above. To talk about the “average” income, therefore, is to disguise remarkable variation. In the US, adjusting for inflation, average family income — total income divided by the number of families — grew 28% between 1979 and 1997. The median family income — the income of a family in the middle (i.e. the income where half of families earn more and half less) grew by only 10%. The median is a better indicator of how typical American families are doing as the distribution of income is so top heavy in the USA (i.e. the average income is considerably higher than the median). It should also be noted that the incomes of the bottom fifth of families actually fell slightly. In other words, the benefits of economic growth over nearly two decades have not trickled down to ordinary families. Median family income has risen only about 0.5% per year. Even worse, “just about all of that increase was due to wives working longer hours, with little or no gain in real wages.” [Paul Krugman, “For Richer”, Op. Cit.]

So if America does have higher average or per capita income than other advanced countries, it is simply because the rich are richer. This means that a high average income level can be misleading if a large amount of national income is concentrated in relatively few hands. This means that large numbers of Americans are worse off economically than their counterparts in other advanced countries. Thus Europeans have, in general, shorter working weeks and longer holidays than Americans. They may have a lower average income than the United States but they do not have the same inequalities. This means that the median European family has a standard of living roughly comparable with that of the median U.S. family — wages may even be higher.

As Doug Henwood notes, ”[i]nternational measures put the United States in a disgraceful light… The soundbite version of the LIS [Luxembourg Income Study] data is this: for a country th[at] rich, [it] ha[s] a lot of poor people.” Henwood looked at both relative and absolute measures of income and poverty using the cross-border comparisons of income distribution provided by the LIS and discovered that ”[f]or a country that thinks itself universally middle class [i.e. middle income], the United States has the second-smallest middle class of the nineteen countries for which good LIS data exists.” Only Russia, a country in near-total collapse was worse (40.9% of the population were middle income compared to 46.2% in the USA. Households were classed as poor if their incomes were under 50 percent of the national medium; near-poor, between 50 and 62.5 percent; middle, between 62.5 and 150 percent; and well-to-do, over 150 percent. The USA rates for poor (19.1%), near-poor (8.1%) and middle (46.2%) were worse than European countries like Germany (11.1%, 6.5% and 64%), France (13%, 7.2% and 60.4%) and Belgium (5.5%, 8.0% and 72.4%) as well as Canada (11.6%, 8.2% and 60%) and Australia (14.8%, 10% and 52.5%).

The reasons for this? Henwood states that the “reasons are clear — weak unions and a weak welfare state. The social-democratic states — the ones that interfere most with market incomes — have the largest [middles classes]. The US poverty rate is nearly twice the average of the other eighteen.” Needless to say, “middle class” as defined by income is a very blunt term (as Henwood states). It says nothing about property ownership or social power, for example, but income is often taken in the capitalist press as the defining aspect of “class” and so is useful to analyse in order to refute the claims that the free-market promotes general well-being (i.e. a larger “middle class”). That the most free-market nation has the worse poverty rates and the smallest “middle class” indicates well the anarchist claim that capitalism, left to its own devices, will benefit the strong (the ruling class) over the weak (the working class) via “free exchanges” on the “free” market (as we argue in section C.7, only during periods of full employment — and/or wide scale working class solidarity and militancy — does the balance of forces change in favour of working class people. Little wonder, then, that periods of full employment also see falling inequality — see James K. Galbraith’s Created Unequal for more details on the correlation of unemployment and inequality).

Of course, it could be objected that this relative measure of poverty and income ignores the fact that US incomes are among the highest in the world, meaning that the US poor may be pretty well off by foreign standards. Henwood refutes this claim, noting that “even on absolute measures, the US performance is embarrassing. LIS researcher Lane Kenworthy estimated poverty rates for fifteen countries using the US poverty line as the benchmark… Though the United States has the highest average income, it’s far from having the lowest poverty rate.” Only Italy, Britain and Australia had higher levels of absolute poverty (and Australia exceeded the US value by 0.2%, 11.9% compared to 11.7%). Thus, in both absolute and relative terms, the USA compares badly with European countries. [Doug Henwood, “Booming, Borrowing, and Consuming: The US Economy in 1999”, pp.120–33, Monthly Review, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 129–31]

In summary, therefore, taking the USA as being the most capitalist nation in the developed world, we discover a class system in which a very small minority own the bulk of the means of life and get most of the income. Compared to other Western countries, the class inequalities are greater and the society is more polarised. Moreover, over the last 20–30 years those inequalities have increased spectacularly. The ruling elite have become richer and wealth has flooded upwards rather than trickled down.

The cause of the increase in wealth and income polarisation is not hard to find. It is due to the increased economic and political power of the capitalist class and the weakened position of working class people. As anarchists have long argued, any “free contract” between the powerful and the powerless will benefit the former far more than the latter. This means that if the working class’s economic and social power is weakened then we will be in a bad position to retain a given share of the wealth we produce but is owned by our bosses and accumulates in the hands of the few.

Unsurprisingly, therefore, there has been an increase in the share of total income going to capital (i.e., interest, dividends, and rent) and a decrease in the amount going to labour (wages, salaries, and benefits). Moreover, an increasing part of the share to labour is accruing to high-level management (in electronics, for example, top executives used to paid themselves 42 times the average worker in 1991, a mere 5 years later it was 220 times as much).

Since the start of the 1980s, unemployment and globalisation has weakened the economic and social power of the working class. Due to the decline in the unions and general labour militancy, wages at the bottom have stagnated (real pay for most US workers is lower in 2005 than it was in 1973!). This, combined with “trickle-down” economic policies of tax cuts for the wealthy, tax raises for the working classes, the maintaining of a “natural” law of unemployment (which weakens unions and workers power) and cutbacks in social programs, has seriously eroded living standards for all but the upper strata — a process that is clearly leading toward social breakdown, with effects that will be discussed later (see section D.9).

Little wonder Proudhon argued that the law of supply and demand was a “deceitful law … suitable only for assuring the victory of the strong over the weak, of those who own property over those who own nothing.” [quoted by Alan Ritter, The Political Thought of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 121]

[blessphemy]

reading this book called "the comfort crisis" about Challenging Oneself in the age of modern amenities and expectation of constant ease, and, while there are some interesting discussion of psychological science re: building of resilience etc., the author acting out-of-touch with modern survival strifes kinda detracts from the core arguments

stuff like "in an age where we're always climate controlled at 70 degrees F and our worst fear is giving a bad powerpoint presentation that your boss looks at you disapprovingly—" are we really glossing over the stress of doing Bad at work when people are surviving paycheck to paycheck and living out of cars/homeless "—in a time of plenty where we do not encounter true persistent hunger—" are you sure about that. like are you Sure. "—back in the olden days people didn't tend to suffer from persistent xyz health conditions despite the extreme environment—" was it cuz they died? idk, you didn't clarify the statistics and sample selection on that point.

am i nitpicking? this book is probably aimed at a specific audience of middle class usa. nonetheless.

also i'm squinting suspiciously at the invocation of japanese vocabulary re-applied to mean something else in like a 'call to eastern wisdom' kind of way (photo of me wondering if this is racist)

anyway all that said, i'm thinking about Levari's study and the findings of the tendency to fixate on imperfection, dissatisfaction, and threats, as informed by prior experience even when circumstances improve:

As we experience fewer problems, we don’t become more satisfied. We just lower our threshold for what we consider a problem.

which i will agree with on an anecdotal level as something that happens at least some of the time (watching my dad search and destroy every trivial annoyance. lol.) (and there's that whole thing about 'lifestyle creep.')

anyway this is why i give myself fun problems like 'hiking in the rain' so that i can properly enjoy 'hiking not in the rain.' (and also learn to enjoy 'hiking in the rain.')

there is something worthwhile in the message here about appreciating what you do have. like do y'all have drinkable running water? that's pretty fucking cool. that's a remarkable thing. lots of people don't have that. and also putting yourself through challenges on purpose so that you can reframe your own sense of what is difficult and your own confidence.

anyway we'll see if i finish it or not

[deerydear]

A few months ago... I was watching this video:

My thoughts kind of keep coming back to it.

Something that stands out to me is the sort of focus on 'internal perception': "Do you feel like you were bullied?" "Did you feel ostracized?" "Did you feel singled out?" Sort of a focus on negative emotions.

I think there's a process of rationalization which can effect memory. If I focused my attention in a particular way, I might be able to remember some occasions "in which other people were trying (or intending) to be rude assholes according to their own metric", but I was not affected by it. I have my own metric. I have my own senses. I'm a full person.

In my childhood I was more likely to become a bully than to 'be bullied'.

So I don't remember the sorts of behaviours that she describes.

My family were also atheist immigrants, so I already felt like most people were of an alien species (lol, christians). (I like to try to be impartial and inoffensive on my blog... but I thought it was funny. Sorry.) Culture has such a strong impact. If two people disagree on the fundamental organization and primacy of reality... then...?

So I really just avoided most people. I actually had assumed that devout christianity was more common than it really was in the area I grew up. I remember feeling afraid to be 'found out' to be atheist. There is a minority of crazy, nutso hardcore 'christians' who might wanna persecute someone for being areligious, or of a different religion. I really just did not want to draw untoward attention to my family. I got used to lying in certain situations (like impressing my friends' parents).

The 'stimming' thing is interesting. because I do often do stuff like that. hahaha, Sometimes the people around me will start copying my behaviour!

(the following comic is read right-to-left)

I feel kinship with birds and dogs. I often imagine the emotions of the individuals I grew up with, when I'm expressing myself. I think I had more dog friends than human friends... (statistically). but I did have many other human friends. I didn't lack it. Again... Atheist in a religious society. Why bother with people who will get angry over strange stuff?

I guess the tone I want to convey in my response is: "I don't feel judged, I'm judging you. (or not... Everything is situational.)"

She discusses 'being bothered by sounds, smells, senses', but... in my evaluation of myself, I have no baseline for an outside perspective, and I honestly do not want to take other people's opinions seriously. Different people can have wildly different opinions of what is normal, even just depending on how their family raised them. Different cultures have differing standards of polite behaviour. Something that would be considered incredibly rude in Japan, might be nothing to balk at in the USA. (Something still might be rude, but normal.)

I also just have a strong oppositional knee-jerk reaction to anyone attempting to give me any kind of label. (maybe not any kind...)

"Oh, you're not one of THOSE people, right?"

See also: discussion the "autistic kill-switch".

"Feelings like this make feel like I’m not actually autistic sometimes, and I was just a poorly-socialized, privileged brat when I was younger."

I feel the idea of an autism diagnosis is very... controversial. I remember reading a blog post written by a mother whose son could be considered autistic, but her psychiatrist said that he would be unable to give him a formal diagnosis because: "the diagnostic criteria are based on behaviours that someone begins to show when they have become traumatized by being socially ostracized". I'm paraphrasing. He went on to say: "if your son were showing these specific signs of being traumatized, I would be able to give him a formal diagnosis [which may be used to seek formal accomodations, such as in classes, etc.], but since he is happy and healthy, and you are raising him well, he does not meet the official metric for an autism diagnosis."

I remember a discussion which mentioned a family of people who could have been diagnosed 'autistic', but none of them had been. They all saw eachother as normal, (or perhaps that they had their own quirks as a family). No one was ostracized from the family for being 'weird' due to "[what some people refer to as ]'autistic behaviours'."

Aghhhhhhh...

Then I also have more questions.

Excerpt from an old blog post:

She was assuming I was autistic because I was "acting shy." She had no idea of my psychological makeup, my life in the past… anything. Just, "you're shy". Maybe it isn't "autism". Maybe it's the same thing that happens to dogs if they aren't properly socialized with other dogs and people, in their childhoods. They become 'gitchy'. They aren't sure how to react, because they lack experience in certain situations. Some dogs become aggressive. They may see their owner as 'the only safe person', and everyone else as a possible threat. I grew up being raised with puppies. I remember my mom telling me about this --- why it was so important to take the dogs out for walks, to meet new people and animals. Maybe it is possible to change. Maybe it's "getting used to a set of circumstances", which can be adjusted. Can old dogs learn new tricks? Is that up to you? I just... really don't like this idea of "innateness".

I had been doing a little bit of research into this question, a few months ago...

I feel like I don't have an objective perspective on myself. but who does. Anyone? Anyone at all?

Should I get my blood tested for melancholy, next?

I still think this is a very interesting article in reference to cultural ideas of psychological affliction. I feel like the principle might have bearing on the discussion of an autism diagnosis...

plus, the sort of 'effect of the researcher' upon the subject studied.

Does a researcher hold bias? Which way does it tend to go? Can a researcher influence the people? Such as through asking leading questions... or segregating an autistic child into a different type of school experience from the majority of other children. That experience itself can also influence a child in ways that I don't think should be ignored. I wouldn't say "cultural bias causes all behaviour that might be labelled autistic", probably not... but in some discussions of ASD behaviour, I notice that some diagnosed people's self-image and understanding of "their behaviour vs. other people's" has been deeply influenced by what other people have told them, especially doctors and other authority figures. I think that 'making a strong statement whenever one doesn't know something for certain' may cause problems down the line. I think that's the type of mistake that some doctors have made, in the past. "YOU'RE different, YOU'RE wrong, and no one is like you. You're different from all the other children." I imagine what that does to a vulnerable child's self-perception. I hear it in some people's narration.

I don't like to share many details about my family, but I never thought I was weird. I thought the outside world was weird... or I embraced being seen as weird, because I thought it was funny, pseudo-'humble', subversive... etc.

I still don't think I consider myself autistic, but I feel like my knee-jerk reaction is lessening. It's becoming more of a neutral subject.

"Would the man who works as the detective L personally consider himself to be autistic?"

Oooh, an incindiary question...

I think yelyahnaloj had said something on the subject like: "I want to understand the underlying mechanisms and themes of this, not to separate reality into discrete boxes". I would concur. I want to understand human psychology, how people think, and why we do certain things, and how we benefit and harm ourselves and eachother.

Paraphrase again. I remember the sentiment but not the exact words! xD

[freeleyenrashespeakstruth]

Nothing Racist Said... part 8

Finally for this post... the chart below clearly shows a significant decrease of white people of 9.5 million from 1980 to 2019. Can you see the genocide? Can you see how a physically disabled man would be denied the absolutely necessary basic civil/human rights he has paid for all of his working life? Do you see a reason or a purpose or an agenda? Or are you blinded by the color of the skin? Or blinded by the happy thoughts of millions of dollars of reparations you hear about but will never, ever actually see? Black violence vs blacks were seldom ever reported years back. Crimes against whites are only reported if the victim was rich mostly. Homeless shelters share a distinct identical comparison to these statistics I have presented you, 90% black and white American Born Citizens No Other Nation To Call Our Own. Drug abuse and overdose statistics have the same exact comparison to homelessness in the USA, 90% black and white American Born Citizens No Other Nation To Call Our Own.

The time is NOW to SPEAK your story. You are not crazy, it DID happen, it IS STILL happening, and it will never stop until we SPEAK and STAND UP to these crimes our nation's elected public servants have committed and still commit against our once great nation.

DO NOT let them take your guns away BECAUSE the intent is to disarm us so we cannot STAND UP to them. Who are they? Listen and see for yourselves. The Democrats are bold and speak proudly of the destruction of the nation, the republicans sit quietly and collect the same checks. I say BOTH are guilty. Trump never even says anything about any of this although he says he is the president for the people. But which people? The rich people, and the rich people only. The middle class is those over $200,000 per year. How can that be the middle class? Simple. If 100 million people average $40,000 per year, thats $4 billion. But if 1% hold 99% of the money, or $3.96 billion, that leaves only $0.4 billion among the 99 million left, or $4,000 each per year. Astounding figures that bring clarity to why so much poverty. The middle class seems to disappear once you remove the 1% as you can see. Obama, in his first year as president lowered the poverty rate (the maximum amount you can earn before you are qualified for aide) from $12,000 per person to $8,000 per person. With that he did not eliminate poverty, only the amount of people who were now eligible for aide. Many people died, many more will.

reported by Brookings.edu

[s00nyoungie]

pissed!!!!!

this girl (i never liked her) who's top in our class just failed her community pharmacy rotation because she thought she was too good for retail pharmacy and would just not show up and be so fking rude n snobby to the technicians and patients, but then she appealed the failure to student affairs and they just ... gave her a passing grade!!!!!!! because she's top of the class and they can't afford to have a failing student impact the school's graduation statistics!

so now the regional manager of that pharmacy chain refuses to have connections with our school, so no future students can rotate at this chain and none of us graduating this year will be able to get a job at this chain in this district... and its one of the best compensating chain pharmacies in the usa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ITS ONE OF MY BACKUP PLANS IF HOSPITAL PHARMACY DOESNT WORK OUT!!! AND SHE STILL GETS TO SPEAK AT GRADUATION im gonna throw a fucking tomato at her

[stochastiz]

15 Questions + 15 Friends

Thanks for the tag @ashleyasha ♡

Are you named after anyone?

my first name is from a character in Scrooge, my middle name is from a great grandmother. i'm really not a fan of either of the names though ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

When was the last time you cried?

at work on thursday, after my last goodbye to a kiddo who's moving away. they had been in my class for the majority of the time they've been alive, and i'm really going to miss them :(

Do you have kids?

none of my own, and i plan to keep it that way. but i've been working in childcare for a while now, currently as lead teacher for an infants classroom, so i have lots of littles in my life

What sports do you play/have you played?

i was a dancer from toddlerhood through high school, but i finally did enough damage to my body that i couldn't continue. i helped teach lessons for a while in middle and high school, and was on a competitive team in high school

Do you use sarcasm?

this seems like a trick question... my truthful answer is absolutely yes, my sarcastic answer is what's sarcasm?

What is the first thing you notice about people?

i think it's the way they talk. i have to decode how they say things so i can figure out how they expect me to respond. can you tell i'm autistic?

What's your eye color?

blue, darker around the inside and lighter towards the middle

Scary movies or happy endings?

unsettling movies with open-to-interpretation endings (the best one i recently watched was I Think We're Alone Now)

Any talents?

i'm good with young kids, and i like to think i'm pretty creative

Where were you born?

Maine, USA

What are your hobbies?

i love reading, gaming (especially ttrpgs), taking pictures of cool things in the woods, and general crafty stuff

Do you have any pets?

nope, i didn't grow up with any so it's not super appealing to me honestly

How tall are you?

around 5ft 6in

Favorite subject in school?

i was always best at english, and music was a huge part of my life from elementary band through college (i started with flute, then picked up bari-sax so i could be in jazz. ended up playing lots of different instruments in lots of different groups). i took my first statistics class in high school and started out my college career pursuing data science (basically stats + computer science) because i really enjoyed technical writing (turning data into information people can read and understand)

Dream job?

this is a really really tough question for me. in a dream world i think i'd want to be a children's librarian and run activities/programs for young kids. something where i can still be a positive presence for young kids but outside of the dumpster fire we call childcare in the us right now

Tagging?

@cygnusthesalamander, @itisizzy, @shinraalpha, @foxglovedreaming, @dinodivider, @startedwellthatsentence, @isthishowyouuseablog, @ellora-borealis, @watcherswill, @wizardtisms, @professorrajansavarimuthu, any other mutuals i've forgotten, and anyone else who sees this and wants to share!!

[honeycombstudy]

♡ intro post!!  ♡

it’s been a while + i’ve gained a decent amount of followers in the last couple weeks, so i wanted to re-do my intro post!

about me:

noelle (she/her), 22, usa

aspiring physician assistant

hobbies: reading (in my memoir era), knitting, guitar, writing, hiking, boxing, and dressing like a grandma

interests: nephrology, palliative care, oncology, genetics + art, cars, open world games (acnh, minecraft, dragon age, etc!)

this blog is a digital scrapbook for things (poetry, art, pictures) I find lovely or inspiring, but I try to make my own studyblr posts at least once a week!!

academics:

4th year cell biology major, minor in editing & publishing

applying to pa school in 2024 (woohoo!!)

current classes: statistics, general physics (part 2), physiology (with lab), and pre-medical latin

self-studying korean after living in seoul 2019-2020

links:

please add me on goodreads im such a bookworm

sideblog for random stuff

pleased to meet you all!:-)

[eileenleahy]

hmm. once again tumblr users proving they do not understand that misogyny exists and that it is perhaps useful to gauge how a Certain Empowered Gendered Class treats Certain Others. misogyny doesnt disappear when the law erases gender. statistics on men's violence against women (once again reminding tumblr users that nearly THREE WOMEN PER DAY are killed in the usa by intimate partners) disappear without gender recognition. without the ability to create statistical categories, we cannot perform statistical analysis. and actually it may be useful for the law to take gender into account when these gendered power dynamics are at play. yall can understand why "i dont see color" is intrinsically problematic but cant apply the same logic to misogyny

[medinfo-101]

Top Measuring Instruments Supplier in India

A Legacy of Excellence

Kristeel’s journey began in 1973 with a simple yet powerful goal — to provide top-notch Precision Measuring instruments, engineering gauges, and tools. But their story doesn’t stop there. Over the years, they’ve expanded their horizons into manufacturing photochemical machined parts, press parts, wave solder pallets, SMT stencils, and textile machinery. Today, Kristeel calls Mumbai home and operates advanced manufacturing facilities in Mumbai, Bangalore, and Silvassa.

Crafting Precision:

What sets Kristeel apart is their unwavering dedication to precision. They’ve achieved this through investments in cutting-edge technology. At their manufacturing setups, you’ll find top-of-the-line plant and equipment imported from the USA, Italy, and Germany. This investment not only ensures accuracy but also results in cost savings.

Quality as a Way of Life:

Kristeel’s commitment to international quality standards is what keeps them at the top of their game. They aim for ‘zero’ defects and follow Total Quality Management (TQM) methods, leaving no room for error. To maintain quality at every stage, they employ a stringent Statistical Process Control System (SPCS).

International Recognition:

Kristeel’s dedication to quality has earned them recognition from the European Economic Community (EEC). Their precision measuring rules meet Class-I and II standards. Additionally, they proudly hold ISO 9001 certification from the TUV group in Süd Deutschland, Germany, and are actively implementing 6 Sigma Management practices.

Research & Development:

Kristeel’s journey is marked by their relentless pursuit of excellence through robust research and development. They continually enhance quality control, inspection processes, and machinery to remain the preferred choice in India and globally.

Supporting ‘Make in India’:

In line with the ‘Make in India’ initiative, Kristeel is setting up research and development units for textile machining and Vernier caliper tools within India, promoting domestic manufacturing.

Technology and Innovations:

Kristeel believes in staying at the forefront by investing in the latest technology and machinery upgrades. They’ve partnered with international leaders in their respective fields from Japan, the USA, Singapore, Italy, and more.

Global Reach, Local Connection:

Kristeel’s growth is a result of its sustainable development and inclusive growth approach. Their extensive network spans over 3600 customer touchpoints, including authorized dealerships, instrument and tool outlets, and dealer-appointed outlets across the country.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Kristeel’s journey as a Leading measuring instrument and precision tool manufacturer is characterized by their unwavering commitment to quality, dedication to innovation, and adoption of technological advancements. With a legacy of almost five decades, Kristeel continues to shape the industry, support domestic manufacturing, and contribute to India’s ‘Make in India’ initiative. Their impressive track record, international certifications, and extensive distribution network make Kristeel a trusted source for precision engineering. Whether you’re a professional in the industry or an enthusiast, Kristeel has something to offer for everyone who values precision and quality.

[cruisectrlll]

FAQ:

NEW TO THIS BLOG? INTERESTED IN THE WORLD OF CRUISE CTRL?

Here's your introduction :

> WHAT IS CRUISE CTRL?

CRUISE CTRL is an original cyberpunk narrative. It's an ongoing work that so far includes writing, art, and in-progress comics. The first stage of comics is currently in production (as in I'm drawing them. when I have time) so if you want to skip sifting through all my other work you can wait until whenever for them to start coming out (details and location will be released on my art blog a couple months in advance @dr11ft )

IF YOU WANT MORE BACKGROUND INFO...

> WHAT IS IT ABOUT?

CRUISE CTRL takes place on an alternate futuristic earth in the wake of a semi-apocalypse. After an asteroid collides with western europe in 1979, the trajectory of the future is changed forever. 70 years, another asteroid impact, and a world war later, a multinational corporation known as REGENCORP has established themselves as the self-appointed guardians of humanity, incentivizing civilians to gather into large protected population centers known as REGENESIS CITIES in multiple locations across the globe. Among the surviving human civilians, genetic mutations developed from non earth element particulate and environmental pollution- since categorized as K-CLASS traits- have emerged as another social axis, granting humans unusual looks and abilities at the expense of varying levels of oppression from REGENCORP and national governments. CRUISE CTRL follows no single protagonist, instead tracking an unlikely group of characters who live in REGENESIS-3, a protected city and metropolitan area in the territory of southern New Mexico, USA. They are connected by their conjoined strings of action ( unless you believe in fate. do you? ), drawn together by circumstance and choice. They're rejects of every system, statistically not headed for greatness, happiness, or anything else in particular. They're not burdened with a literary destiny. Hoverbike racer, drug dealer, doctor, detective. Cameraman, construction worker, bounty hunter, digital vigilante. They exist to exist. Maybe you see someone you know in them. ( Maybe you see yourself ? )

> WHAT IS THE GOAL OF CRUISE CTRL?

I make things to remind myself that there is no magic class of qualified story makers. CRUISE CTRL gives me something to focus on outside my regular life, and if other people like it I consider that a win. (if it had a global cultural impact I'd be getting more specific about my message but it doesn't )

> HOW DOES CRUISE CTRL DIFFER FROM OTHER CYBERPUNK MEDIA?

CRUISE CTRL exists out of my dissatisfaction with much of modern cyberpunk as a pop culture genre. Cyberpunk is a media genre inextricable from politics and attempting to "say something without saying anything" (ie revolution and rebellion while still upholding status quo ideals throughout) is what creates flimsy stories and watered down imitations. If you look at 'classics' like AKIRA, GHOST IN THE SHELL, BLADE RUNNER, ANGEL COP, etc they all include distinct social or political commentary in some way. CRUISE CTRL's lack of a clear-cut narrative outside of the characters lives is the biggest difference between it and budgeted popular cyberpunk. While that pushes it away from making explicit statements, the strong messaging I'm trying to emulate is based more in well grounded themes than overt suggestions. The parallels between my characters' and real people's inherently political and reactionary lives are purposefully bold. My goal with CRUISE CTRL is to represent as many people as possible, and their inevitably crossing paths. Destruction of the idea of social bubbles, maybe. As someone who is a minority in multiple ways I feel cyberpunk deserves an attempt at a modern contribution that illustrates its core ideas instead of western individualism painted over with aesthetics of neon techno-orientalism. What would it be like if the cyberfuture was here ? How do you know if you're a main character? At what point do the actions you take become part of a larger story? Those are the kinds of questions I want CRUISE CTRL to answer.

> WHERE DO I START WITH CRUISE CTRL?

(Updated as of : 06.19.24)

My current goal is to have a organized published archive of information and content. I'm hoping to eventually make it off of tumblr so I can add more interactive character displays to explore, and where any visual media such as comics and animations could be posted. This goal is a long time in the making considering how much I hate coding (and my lack of skill in said area) and unfinished or unconfirmed information that needs to be organized into an easily understandable format and finalized. I'll most likely keep posting a combination of art and writing and eventually start out posting teaser comics on my art blog, moving on to full issues and series and then possibly building a website until I can at least post comics on it.

IN ITS CURRENT STATE, FOR THOSE INTERESTED :

I recommend:

> Exploring the tag cruise ctrl on my art blog, where this all started. You can also navigate through individual character tags inside the main tag.

WHAT YOU'LL FIND : original art, illustration, character design, and character concepts for CRUISE CTRL dating back years.

Note : this includes outdated information, designs, and ideas, as it showcases the creative process from the beginning. Take most recent designs as final.

> Scrolling this blog!

WHAT YOU'LL FIND : This is the main place I post about CRUISE CTRL that's usually not art. Most of the time I'm just messing around saying whatever but I post a lot about my characters' personalities etc so reading here will give you a good picture of that as well as how things are going productionwise. I'm also moving towards posting more put-together information spreads on what the CRUISE CTRL world looks like so keep an eye out for that. 👀

> Exploring the tag my ocs on my main blog

WHAT YOU'LL FIND : Jokes, some txt posts about my character's personalities, posts about writing/drawing/everything that goes into building something like CRUISE CTRL.

> Reading Lights Over the City.

WHAT YOU'LL FIND : This is the current location of my writing for CRUISE CTRL. This writing covers some events and situations that are integral to the main storyline and will be covered in the comics, so read only if you don't mind "spoiling" important events. The chapters can technically be read out of order since they are snapshots of different scenes in character's lives. This is the most comprehensive media for CRUISE CTRL so far.

Note : I haven't been writing for fun very long, so the quality and quantity of it is questionable. Most of the chapters are out of order comic scripts that I just impatiently adapted into text because I knew drawing them would take much longer.

...........

> WILL YOU POST REGULARLY ON THIS BLOG ABOUT CRUISE CTRL?

I tend to textpost semi-regularly about whatever I feel as long as its related. If this blog gets a solid amount of/any traffic, I'll feel more comfortable posting more long-form content about my characters when I feel people have an interest in them. Until then I'd rather focus my efforts on more core aspects of CRUISE CTRL. (I hope this is understandable, I have limited time and energy as I do work and I'm considering higher education/certifications so this project could decrease in activity or be put on hold depending on my availability).

> DO YOU ANSWER ASKS?

I'm happy to answer asks concerning my characters or storyline. Certain details or events I may not be able to reveal just because I want future media to have an effective impact (you don't want to know everything that happens already, do you? ). I also might be unsure, or unable to give an answer, so keep that in mind. Concerning NSFW asks : If asked in good faith I'll answer them tagged as # nsfw. Wondering why your ask wasn't answered ? I only answer things I'm comfortable with answering. If it doesn't make it out the inbox after a long period of time assume I chose not to answer it.

After reviewing this post I think I definitely take myself way too seriously, but that's part of the process I guess.

FEEL INFORMED?

...

KNOWLEDGE IS POWER.

POWER ELECTRIC, BLUE BLOOD IN YOUR VEINS.

...

KEEP IN TOUCH, WILL YOU?

...

SIGNING OFF _

( d_r_i_f_t )

[carryingthebanner]

hey besties! i need to conduct some research for my statistics class so if you live in the usa and could help out by taking this survey i would appreciate it a lot <3 tyyy