Lazs, undoubtedly a system like the Russian or Chinese system is despicable. However, our system isn't any better. Over 'there' kids would be selected for different jobs based on some personality tests, and they'd be forced to do that job whether they like it or not. That is bad. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of that.
However, in our system people are looked at as nothing more than a way to generate income. A substantial portion of the population is basically imprisoned in run down ghettos where crime and poverty run rampant. Nobody gives a toejam about these people (and no, I'm not any better, I'm not running a 'save the black youth' movement, just holding them up as an example of why our system sucks). The next Einstein could be living in the East Side of Baltimore right now, and he will not get the chance to make any impact on this world at all. Unless he becomes a murderer or drug dealer (in which case he may have some slight impact on his victims families), or is murdered himself.
I mean, even something as basic as HEALTH CARE is 'for-profit' (euphimism for if I don't make any money off you, diddly off and die). Education? Also 'for profit'. Now, I don't think my retarded next door neighbor deserves a free college education, mostly because he wouldn't ever make use of it, and probably couldn't understand the courses anyway. But I do think that anyone that makes it through high school with a decent GPA (or perhaps even with a crappy GPA but high test scores, who knows) could make use of a college education- and perhaps benefit SOCIETY as a whole from it.
And Blitz... the South America of today is the "1st World" of tommorrow... economically speaking anyway. The disparity in income between your 'average' American and 'wealthy' Americans has been growing for the past 30 years. Something like 40% of Americans actually live below the 'poverty line', according to some statistics I saw a couple years ago. I'll try to look them up again and post them.
EDIT: Damn... either those statistics were way the hell off a couple years ago, or I misremembered something. This is from the "I.R.P."
"""The poverty rate represents an average over the entire population, and does not really tell us who, in particular, is well off, who is worse off. For that, it is necessary to examine poverty levels for particular groups. Most notably, blacks and Hispanics have poverty rates that greatly exceed the average. The poverty rate for all blacks and Hispanics remained near 30 percent during the 1980s and mid-1990s. Thereafter it began to fall. In 2000, the rate for blacks dropped to 22.1 percent and for Hispanics to 21.2 percent—the lowest rate for both groups since the United States began measuring poverty. In 2001, the rates were 22.7 for blacks and 21.4 for Hispanics. Among children under age 18, 16.3 percent, or 11.7 million children, lived in poverty. (See Table 1 and Table 2 and also the FAQ, How Many Children Are Poor?) The poverty rate for the aged, which in 1959 exceeded the overall poverty rate, fell below it beginning in 1982. In 2000 it was 10.2 percent. The poverty rate for whites who were not Hispanic was below the overall poverty rate from 1959 through 2001. In 2001 it was 7.8 percent.
Of all family groups, poverty is highest among those headed by single women ( Table 2), especially if they are black or Hispanic. In 2001, 26.4 percent of all female-headed families were poor, compared to 4.9 percent of families in which males were present. Among black and Hispanic families headed by women, poverty rates exceeded 35 percent.
Poverty levels also differ depending on where people live (See Table 1). The metropolitan poverty rate differs greatly between suburbs and the inner city. In 1979, the average central city poverty rate was 15.7 percent; at its highest point, in 1993, it was 21.5; by 2001 it was 16.5 percent, but was still over twice the rate for the suburbs (8.2 percent). Poverty in rural areas is not negligible either; in 2001, 14.2 percent of people living outside metropolitan areas (that is, in the countryside and small country towns), were poor.
The poverty rate also varies by region and within regions. In 2001 it was greatest in the South, at 13.5 percent, and lowest in the Midwest, at 9.4 percent. Over the years 1998–2000, the poverty rate was lowest in the state of Maryland (7.3 percent)—yet in the adjacent District of Columbia, it stood at 17.3 percent.
""
EDIT Part Duece: OK, some stuff on income disparity in the U.S.
This is from
http://www.justpeace.org/structures/squeeze.htm From 1977 - 1989, the wealthiest 660,000 families gained 75% of "average pretax income" increases, while most middle income families saw only a 4% increase -- and those in the bottom 40% of income cohorts had real declines.
The average annual earnings of the top group increased from $315,000 to $560,000 in twelve years. In 1990, the median income was $29,934; in 1973, it was $30,943 (constant dollars). Women in the workforce have helped to forestall lifestyle crashes due to this stagnant growth (Newman Declining 40, 42).
During 1983 to 1992, the top 1% of households net worth increased from 34% to 42% of all household wealth; the bottom 80% dropped from 18% to 15% (the top 20% in 1989 controlled 85% of all household wealth). The only other comparable era of wealth concentration was 1922 to 1929 (12-13).
The ratio of the compensation of CEOs to the average worker in 1974 was 35 to 1; now it is 150 to 1. Using Council of Economic Advisors data, the article found that the real income of men with high school educations dropped 21% between 1979 and 1990 [MY NOTE: Capitalism in action, baby...]
The cost of medical care and household costs of medical care rose 50%, 1970 - 1990, in constant dollars [MY NOTE: More Capitalism in action]
