The tributes to Tim Russert are moving, and I'm sure many of us who follow news and politics will feel his loss, too young, for quite some time. But as I listen, I am led to wonder whether he ever questioned why it should be that a man needed to work two full-time jobs to support his family.
Why are wages so low that it took two full-time jobs to meet the modest needs of his family? Is there something wrong with a system that operates that way, and at the same time makes some people awesomely wealthy? In 1989, the top 1% of the wealth spectrum held 30.1% of our net worth; By 2004, this had risen to 33.4%. [source: http://www.wealthandwant.com/issues/wealth/50-40-5-4-1.htm, Table 2, Row 1, from the Survey of Consumer Finances.]
In the introduction to "Big Russ and Me," Tim Russert quotes his father's 1997 perspective on the men like himself who returned home after WWII:
"They wanted community," he said. "They wanted a home. They wanted a good reputation with their kids. What's the old saying? 'Your nose to the grindstone and hope for the best.'"
Later, in a chapter entitled "Work," Russert wrote,
"Like so many members of the strong, silent generation of men who grew up during the Great Depression and went off to war, he had learned long ago that life was hard and nothing was handed to you. In fact, Dad considered it a sign of success, and even a blessing, that he was able to hold down two jobs. He could remember a time when a man considered himself fortunate to have even one."
What is there in our system that requires some people to work for pay 80+ hours a week to meet their families' needs, and enriches others hugely. (The top 1% of us have assets that are, on average, 245 times that of the average person in the entire bottom half of the wealth spectrum -- not 245%, but 24500%. [Source: http://www.wealthandwant.com/issues/wealth/50-40-5-4-1.htm, table 7, row 1, for 2004])
These are questions that our news people don't seem to be asking, perhaps because they aren't news, perhaps because the answers would rock the boat.
But the problem is solvable if only we ask the right questions, and are prepared to follow the answers to their logical conclusions. To quote my favorite philosopher:
He who sees the truth, let him proclaim it, without asking who is for it or who is against it. This is not radicalism in the bad sense which so many attach to the word. This is conservatism in the true sense.
Our noses shouldn't have to be to the grindstone.
Hi,
Well, it’s shocking and needed an immediate attention to sort out at the earliest.
George,
Laptop Fanatic
Posted by: George12 | April 13, 2009 at 06:08 AM