Comments about ‘Religion enhances mobility toward American dream, LDS Church says’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Aug. 20 2013 12:15 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Semper Fi
Bakersfield, CA

What an entertaining post board. I actually turned off the TV and had to run get my Depends!

All the best to dimelo and others struggling. It is disheartening, especially after all the education cost and effort. Two of my five kids had to struggle with unemployment for a year or so, after upward mobility induced them to get their MBA. Now they have student loans to pay off, and they would have been better off remaining in their good jobs, sans the masters... But they went after their dream all the same.

Now tell me why my Norwegian cousins live in one of the highest good economic countries, pay 50% in taxes, and have a state-religion/ but are not a very little religious folk?

The math don't add up...


Once again, this is shallow analysis.

If we're to believe that organized religion is the key competent, why are so many european countries doing so well at class mobility, despite being comparatively irreligious? Furthermore, why are some of the least mobile states in the US in the deep south, which is exceptionally religious?

Mormonism unquestionably plays a large role in SLC's success. I think a major part of that is the geographic focus of our congregations. Rich and poor members are not segregated nearly to the extent that you'll find in other denominations. Your ward will not be exclusively rich or poor people, etc. SLC's demographics and history also make this easier, compared to a place like Atlanta, or Chicago.

Shrugging this off as "well, if only more people went to church!" completely lets the massive political and societal circumstances for these inequalities off the hook. It's irresponsible, and it isn't factually correct.

Christopher B
Ogden, UT

What is wrong with Romney outsourcing jobs to China?

If he OWNS a company, it's his.

He can do whatever he wants with it.

Again, Romney doesn't owe me a job, you a job, or barack a job.

It's MITT'S company, he can decide what to do with it.

Any of you crying to could allow me to come live in your house with you, but you don't?


Are you all evil people who won't let me live in your house?

Same idea. It's YOUR house, you can do whatever you want with it.

You don't owe me a home.

And Mitt doesn't owe you a job.

It's HIS company.

Don't like it?

Start your own company.

Besides, aren't liberals the ones OK will illegal immigrants coming into the country and taking jobs here. That's worse than Mitt sending jobs oversees. Because illegal immigration, for the liberals who forget, is illegal. Either way its giving jobs to non-Americans, but Mitt does it the legal way. Why is it ok for Mexicans to take our jobs but not Indians liberals?

Great job Mitt!

Riverton, UT

In my case (a programmer), when the market became swamped with programmers, I made myself maketable by going back to school and changing professions. Now I am in an HR office and I still use my programming skills, with a HR twist.

Make yourself more marketable sounded good to me, so I did it, and found a better job.


Forest Grove, OR

I can see Chris B is still going to cling to his "all is well in Zion" and the real problem is with the laborer who is compensated next to nothing despite all evidence to the contrary (all is not well in Zion and the laborer is being oppressed), and just going to church solves all these problems -- we will all be upwardly mobile then, just like Mitt. The greater point is masses of us on the bottom will never see any social mobility because of people like Mitt who pull up the ladder once they are on top. The US has the highest wealth inequality of all OECD nations, the richest nations.

Hispanic immigrants coming in illegally and taking jobs away from citizens, when jobs are scarce, yes is the same as Indians taking jobs away so CEOs can take more money for themselves, only the jobs Indians take away are the remaining few that pay a living wage. But the greater fight is with the 1% taking it all and leaving crumbs for the rest of us to fight over -- that is the real problem, and it especially includes Mitt Romney and his ilk (D&C 49:20).

USS Enterprise, UT

To "Nosea" and what is your solution? Mitt Romeny and other CEOs are doing their job by providing their company's product at the lowest cost possible.

You realize that it isn't the going to church aspect that creates the upward mobility. It is fully participating in a large group with many connections that creates the upward mobility. It just happens to work well within the LDS community because Wards and Stakes comprise poor people and wealthy people, and they are all well connected together.

If you don't like it when US companies outsource to foreign countries where labor is cheaper, what do you propose to do so that US wages are cost competitive with other countries? Are you going to make labor cost more by adding more regulations, taxes, and mandated benefits?

As for illegal jobs, what is plan there? Are you going to round up the illegals, give them amnesty so their labor cost increases, or what?

You are against a lot, but offer no solutions.

Salt Lake City, UT


My nephew who has an engineering degree was out of work for almost two years. His wife had emotional health problems and left him and took their daughter. He was barely making it. I saw him at our family reunion last month and was prepared to give him my sympathy and offer whatever help and advice I could.

To my surprise he finally had landed an engineering job he wanted and was dating a terrific women who had been through a lot herself. He never turned his back on his faith though I know he must have thought about it. It was actually his religous foundation that help him right his course.

He also did what Chris B. suggested. He made himself more marketable by moving to a different state and researching the company and job he wanted. I am also an engineer and know that it can be up and down. From my personal experience my faith has never hurt me in the long term but I have had to learn patience.

Hang in there and I really do wish you the best!

Forest Grove, OR


Is this the same RedShirt that was telling everyone that Germany has worse social mobility than the US because Germany is a socialist country?

Put a limit on how much salary can be taken per individual (a maximum income rate), to check the unbounded greed very much destroying our nation right now, and we will all fair better. Or go back to Eisenhower tax rates for the wealthy at 80% for higher income brackets and we will return to the much more equal society we had back in the 50s and 60s. Or quit importing 10s of millions more of immigrants (to drive down wages so CEOs can get $10s of million in bonuses), when there are already 10s of millions out of work. Use tariffs to level the playing field between workers in different countries, instead of ramming through unfair "free-trade" agreements that always disadvantage workers to enrich 1%.

The greater point is we are doing nothing to solve the problem, only doing everything to make it worse (catering to the 1% to the detriment of the 99% in every law passed by Congress for instance) -- and it is getting worse for all but 1%.

USS Enterprise, UT

To "Nosea" the problem is far worse than you can imagine. You and your ilk complain about the wages that people earn now, yet refuse to accept the fact that it is because of government and the corruption that is present there that things are getting worse. Then, the fact that your ilk wants to expand government and make it even more powerful will not help the problem, but will continue to make things worse.

Since all the studies out there have shown that in the past we had greater social equality, why is it that rather than look at what was working in the past you are looking at failed systems?

During the 50s and 60s you claim that things were better. Lets look at what we had then coming from the government. We had actual budget surplusses, fewer regulations, a simple tax code, less government welfare, smaller state and federal governments, and so forth. Why not advocate for what we had when things were better rather than advocating for more government and more regulation which ultimately destroys social mobility?

Salt Lake City, UT

"The new liberalism effectively kills the American dream"

Except liberals think that one of the biggest problems facing this nation is a lack of mobility, while the entire premise of the American dream is based on mobility, the idea that anyone can make it.


We have less government regulation now and way more corporate control, government for the 1%; just look at the legislation that gets passed. It is far less meaningful regulation on the 1% and corporations than in the 50s and 60s (just look at the size of lobbying groups now, K-street or shadow government did not exist in the 50s and 60s not even close to like now), and things are way worse for mobility now than in the 50s and 60s. The check on the greedy then to keep them from lobbying was high tax rates for high incomes; CEOs kept their salaries low because of this, 40x the rest, whereas now with less regulation they are at 500x everyone else in salary, and thus the much bigger wealth gap now than then. Yes the government is corrupt now, but only because of the bribes and lobbying of the 1% that did not exist to the same extent in the 50s and 60s. That is the reason for the bigger wealth gap, government for the 1% now versus government for the 99% then.

USS Enterprise, UT

To "dimelo" in what fantasy land do you think we have less government control and regulation?

If we have less regulation now, explain why these news outlets have written articles on the increased costs of regulations:

"Yearly regulatory costs rose $70B during Obama's first term, study says" Fox News

"New Regulations Batter The Middle Class. Obama Changes The Subject" Forbes

"Regulations Under Obama Cost Households $14,768 Yearly" Newsmax

If there are fewer regulations, why did the cost of regulations jump so much?

Here is the other problem that you have not addressed. If the regulations are to keep the greedy in check, why is it that the greedy have not been slowed?

Breitbart reported "Capitol Cronyism: Obama-Backer Warren Buffett Helped Shape Bailout Rules, Then Made Massive Profits from Them". By granting the power to the Federal government to bail out private businesses, we have invited more corruption. Warren Buffett's greed allowed him to make tons of money through corruption in the government. If the government had said "no" to the bailouts, then Buffett could not have profited. He used regulation to profit. Why keep giving more power to those who sell it to the highest bidder?

Springville, UT

Downtown424 posted:

=Furthermore, why are some of the least mobile states in the US in the deep
=south, which is exceptionally religious?

A lot of people think the Bible Belt (that I think you're referring to) is indeed "exceptionally religious"; is it? Back in 1987 sociologist Rodney Stark taught at the University of Washington that it's an illusion; people in the Bible Belt aren't any more religious than people in the Northeast or the Midwest.

Springville, UT

A lot of people complain here about the 1% of the population that are taking 95% (or so) of the income. Let's say a CEO of a large successful company is making $500,000 a year. I currently have a pretty good job, but for the record I did my time as a Wal-Mart associate for six months, at which point I was making about $18,000 a year. Now if we were going to make things more fair, as some people have argued for, and perhaps make things more like they are in Germany, as some other people have argued for, then we need to put in government regulations that will get the salary of the CEO more like the salary of the Wal-Mart associate. My concern is, once we put those regulations into place, what happens if the CEO's salary goes down, but my salary goes down too? What if the CEO's salary goes down to $100,000, but my salary goes down to $15,000? The goal would have been accomplished; things are more fair than they were before; but I'm making less money than I was before the regulations came into effect.

layton, UT

RE: Dimelo, this "gospel of prosperity" (Calvanism) work?

Calvin's influence on America's founding is unmistakable. The nation's patriotism, work ethic, sense of equality, public morality, and even elements of democracy all sprang in part from the Calvinist taproot of Puritan New England. When Calvinist preacher Jonathan Edwards told worshipers in 1741 that they were loathsome spiders held over the pit of hell by the gracious hand of an offended God, he wasn't speaking a heretical creed but the basic vocabulary of American faith.

By most logic, the stern system of Calvinism shouldn't be popular today. Much of modern Christianity preaches a comforting Home Depot theology: You can do it. We can help.

Springville, UT

I posted:

=The goal would have been accomplished; things are more fair than they were
=before; but I'm making less money than I was before the regulations came into

My point is that the free market is as successful a system as it is because it is precisely that, free. People realize that the only thing between themselves and fabulous wealth is the limits of their imagination, so they put there all into the free market system and keep at it, hoping their efforts will lead them to success. If you try tinkering with the system to make things more fair, you run the risk of changing the system so much that the incentive to work hard might go away, and then suddenly everybody is going to be worse off.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments