Good to see the old money elitists of the National Review keeping loyal to their class. With all the newer conservative/libertarian institutions leading the charge for the one percent you don't hear much from the old guard.
I think the questions that need to be answered are not if everyone rose together, but that if certain entrepreneurs and such that end up taking the lion's share of the proceeds from their endeavors didn't accumulate their wealth would anybody's income be rising? So its granted that during an expansionary economy the financial risk takers are the one's that benefit the most, but do they also contribute to overall wealth increases? I stated in an earlier post about globalization of business allowing business owners in the US and entrepreneurs to make money from people all over the world giving them the ability to exponentially grow their incomes but the average employee doing the same task for 20 years doesn't get a piece of that. So lets say you have a person that founded a company in the US that makes a product like shoes that are sold in the US only. Each worker makes a certain amount per hour based on the value they provide whereas the owner makes income from the business. If the owner then expands his business across multiple continents and then makes income from 10 companies like the one in the US he has magnified his income, yet the US worker still makes money as per his value per his task. I think globalization in this manner has spiked certain incomes due to economies of scale and expansion. The question is whether this wealth skyrocket for the entrepreneur is beneficial to all of society. He creates more wealth and keeps it from international operations, but the spread in median income will widen. This globalization has created amazing wealth for many, and many people unfortunately as they don't own or have equity did not participate directly. I think the US is better off for these entrepreneurs that are increasing US companies reach abroad and creating more wealth in the US, even though the tangent effect could be a widening of the spread between the .1% and the median population of this country.
So if one wants to have a discussion this is not the place. But its perfect to hurl poo at others! Nice.
I'm so tired of the "class" term. There is no "lower class" or "upper class" or even "middle class" in this country. We are founded on the principle of being "classless" as far as income and status. Obviously, some of us are tasteless, but that is not an issue of "class" as an economic status. This is not a criticism of you personally, knote32. The "class" term is pervasive in this forum, and I'm sure I've been guilty of using these classifications as well. Can we all please refer to economic levels as lower, middle or upper income rather than lower, middle or upper class? Despite Obama's effort to make us entirely an entitlement society, we can all dream of ... and realistically work toward ... becoming (or remaining) upper income. The operative term, however, is "work."
There are lies, damn lies ... and statistics. You can make up statistics to prove anything. You just need to use selective data to get the "right" result.
there are multiple empirical studies that have come to the result that the American dream should be relabeled the Scandinavian Dream. Here is a summary of several papers. http://darp.lse.ac.uk/PapersDB/Solon_(JEcPersp02).pdf You can "select the data" that makes you feel right, except in this case, there's really little to pick at. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/24/a-mobility-prophet/?_r=0
If this is what you actually intend to argue (that inequality is getting worse but we shouldn't worry about it since everyone globally is better off) - why did you post the original opinion piece that more or less uses what can charitably descirbed as lies in order to pretend that inequality doesn't exist?
did you forget an endorsement from M.I.T, and the Harvard co-author? if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. duly noted. I'd like to see your take on Harvard Economics and M.I.T Sloan if you want to play that game?
I simply posted an article and am not familiar with the data enough to make a statement as to whether inequality doesn't exist. What I am questioning is how certain American global entrepreneurs may have created a spike in wealth for themselves by benefitting from the global economy which caused a spread in income inequality. If that is the case, then people in other parts of the world are better off and its a question of whether workers in the US are better for that or worse off for these entrepreneurs and their exploits leading to incredible incomes.
Are those the agencies that reported it, or the ones that actually did the studies themselves and compiled the numbers? Not that it makes a difference because you've shown no reason why the numbers are flawed. Also criticizing the NY Times doesn't help your case, since they have proven to be one of the most reliable and esteemed journalistic sources there is. If you can show a reason why the studies are flawed, I'd be interested in seeing that information. If you can't show reasons why the studies are flawed, then your protests mean nothing, and only add to a troubling track record. The record where people ignore actual numbers and facts and go with what feels right to them instead. Those kinds of feelings are what lead folks to believe Romney would win the last presidential election. They are the same to deny man made global warming. One day, hopefully people will realize science, and actual numbers are more accurate than gut feelings and mythology.
Your inability to address the substance is noted. Come now, show some intellectual honesty for a change.
No, there certainly is a "lower class", "middle class" and "upper class". If you do not think so, I suggest you go to the South Side of Chicago and see how long those folks have been in poverty and the quality of education they receive. Go to rural Alabama or the mountains of Kentucky and see how long those families have lived in poverty. Historically our country has allowed for upward mobility far more than other nations, but "class" still does exist and it appears to be becoming even more pervasive. I suppose that happens when you have a handful of people owning a majority of the country.
Taking the bait... Admitting ignorance is one thing. Repeatedly posting op/ed pieces not worth the electrons it's displayed with kinda makes debating with you a matter of "differences in opinion". But it's not really opinion, as the data, which you've already conceded on not knowing, can change many people's minds. And just a favor, the terms you're using to apply higher level principles are either high off the mark or misleading. So if you're genuinely game for discussion (at least from me) then quit using garbage sources, expand your sources, and try to have that debate with what you already believe than trying to validate it with others. That is, if you're not a troll people already marked off, and are really genuine.
Yet in practice we created three permanent, hereditary underclasses in our settlement, founding and expansion.
