At what point do you not look at the fact that the inequality is self inflicted? Like, not finishing high school. Graduate high school but can't read, write, or do simple arithmetic. Having kid(s) before you can support yourself. Spending more than what you earn.
At what point do you look at wealth not being because of harder work? Like having the connections to get the job. Like having a wealthy family. Like having a family with connections to get you in the right schools to make those connections. Like having a family with the right connections and location to get you in those schools to get that better education.
When a "good job" today requires a $100k college education in a hyper competitive environment to get you the same standard of living as a guy who use to press machine parts 50 years ago, and requires both you and your spouse to maintain that standard of living whereas before it only took one of you - there's a problem far beyond this. You think the inequality is about the poor not having much. I am talking about the middle class slipping into lower class day by day. People who use to work at an ice cream shop use to be able to support themselves - today they are in poverty. It's not sustainable.
not that I usually deal with stats that look like they've been sourced from somebody's ass, but inflation alone makes this a pointless argument.
You don't need a $100K degree to get out of poverty. All it takes is to finish HS. Don't get married until you are 21. Don't have kids until after you are married. Have a full time job.
Pointless? Are you saying that everyone is a millionaire like Zimbabwe? Is everyone here a millionaire? I'm certainly not.
So what? This isn't remotely relevant unless it's put in context, and the context is overwhelmingly clear that income inequality is at absolute historically ridiculous levels and that income mobility is decreasing. Neither of these two factors is debatable according to the evidence we have.
My response was to FB. If you are a 1st generation millionaire, it isn't because of connections, family wealth, right schools, etc...
What about regional wealth inequality, like east coast and west coast wealth versus mid-continent and third coast wealth? Who has more, who has less? I do not know if a domestic revolution is necessary to overthrow a hegemon, or whether it is the only way. In fact, revolutions seem to be the preferred method of establishing hegemons - Spain had the Reconquista, the English had the War of Roses, and the United States had the Civil War. Which all seem to have established strong nationalist policies.
I would point to our country in the 50s and 60s, when the income distribution was far more even, growth was much faster, and the economy was much stronger and less prone to collapse. Note that the last time we had an income distribution as skewed toward the wealthy as it is today, the result was the Great Depression.
The inequality is definitely self inflicted, it is the result of massive tax cuts for the wealthy coupled with tax increases on the middle class. One of the results of the historically low tax rates we see today is that businesses give their executives raises while their other employees' wages stagnate, as we have seen over the last couple of decades. All of the gains in the economy have gone to the upper end of the income distribution while the median wage has been stagnant or has fallen. This despite the fact that the regular employees are the ones who have had massive gains in productivity.
Having child out of wedlock was much less back then. If a girl does get pregnant, the boy marries the girl.
Are you seriously trying to claim that having children out of wedlock is the cause of the massive income inequality we see today? Sorry, it isn't. Preferential tax treatment is a far larger cause of this inequality than social factors.
Necessary? Who's saying it's desirable. And you are right, often when the poor overthrow a democracy they replace it with a autocratic or socialist regime which is no better than what preceded it. Regional inequalities generally can lead to civil war
That is a factual stat. Inflation does not make it a pointless argument - A millionaire is still in the top 10% of the country. The wealth inequality today has a lot to do with how people spend their money today versus 50 years ago. If you watch the video that t-mac4bigmac posted (post #42) you'll see that the poor's income has increased at a faster rate than than most people. However, as a society, while food, housing and clothing costs have gone down as a percentage of our income, we still seem to find ways to blow more money. If you compare what this generation spends their money on vs. what previous generations spent money on, you'll find a LOT of wasted dollars on frivolous things. The Rich spend money on things that go UP in value, the poor spend money on things that go DOWN in value. The average Millionaire buys a 2yr old Ford. Most non-millionaires buy or Lease New Cars. Many people that make decent money (but have a low net worth - thereby attributing to a low wealth status and higher wealth inequality) buy better cars than the average millionaire. The average millionaire does NOT have all the movie channels on cable, they usually have basic cable - why? They don't watch a lot of TV, they read an average of 1-2 non-fiction books a month while everybody else watches an average of 21 hours of TV a week and says they don't have time to read books. Things we pay for and shouldnt: Cable/Satellite TV (broadcast is free), New Cars or Car Leases (the average 3 year car lease costs $13,700, the average car payment is $500 a month..or $6,000 a year). Eating out - Americans of all income levels spend way more than previous generations on restaurants and fast food. Houses - The average house size is almost double what it used to be, and the average loan is now 30 years instead of the more financially smarter 15years. Clothes - We tend to buy WAY more clothes and also way more expensive clothes than previous generations. I remember "poor" people in middle school making fun of me for wearing pro wings while they wore Air Jordans - its completely irresponsible to buy a middle schooler shoes that costs over $50 even today. They grow out of them way too fast, and even if they didn't grow out of them, they wouldn't wear them in a year anyway because they'd be "out of style". Basically, wealth inequality has grown because most Americans blow money instead of saving. Most millionaires become worth that much from saving and investments and it takes time. People today are basically too impatient to build wealth - they want what they want, and they want it now.
It isn't the greatest cause..I'll give you that. But if someone does the things he mentioned, they have less than a 2% chance of living below the poverty level.
I'm not talking about poverty, I'm talking about the middle class. Middle class wages have been stagnant for the past decade and a half, despite the fact that their productivity has increased dramatically. All of the economic growth has gone to the top end of the income distribution, which is just simply not right. The rising tide is supposed to lift ALL boats, not just the yachts.
