Quote:[The paper]...calculates that in 2007 the top .01 percent of American earners took home 6 percent of total U.S. wages, a figure that has nearly doubled since 2000.
As of 2007, the top decile of American earners...pulled in 49.7 percent of total wages, a level that's "higher than any other year since 1917 and even surpasses 1928, the peak of stock market bubble in the 'roaring" 1920s.'"
![[Image: r-GILDED-large.jpg]](http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/98738/thumbs/r-GILDED-large.jpg)
So...what do you think?
Personally, I think this is bad for the economy. Ours is a consumer based economy - and the more our wealth is spread among a greater number of consumers, the more our economy will thrive. One family with 500k will probably consume less than 5 families with 100k each...just as a hypothetical example.
There are of course other forces at play where wealth consolidation can *help* the economy...that 500k family could invest in a business that employs 10 families, however trickledown economics seems less successful as industry consolidation continues to push small businesses to the brink.
But what is the solution? Taxing business and the wealthy into FDR levels will only asphyxiate growth and capital investment. Education, opportunity, socio-economic affirmative action...these would help spur class movement, but would they bring the wealth gap down to more tolerable levels? One thing is very certain, as the gap grows...the poor will become more and more disenfranchised - which would lead to problems experienced in Europe and Asia in the 20th century.
Veblen says "helllllooooooooo."
Is that CATO cat arguing that the record-level (since before the Great Depresssion) income disparity figures are a good thing? It's always a good idea to offer a synopsis of your link for those constrained by time or otherwise.
Personally, I feel that the morality and the reality have coalesced into a single conclusion: a strong middle class is the way to go, and our policies, from job generation, to wage growth, to taxation, should be directed accordingly.
Of course, every interest has its advocacy groups, but I know where I line up.
I need to read that article more closely, but my first impression is that its a very crafty deflection. The paper also goes to great lenghts to explain how income is a bad proxy for measuring wealth, and that is true. But the paper notably dosent examine the fact there is a wealth gap opening up--the long term trends of the very top income earners making more and more money is having the effect of concentrating wealth (not just income) in the hands of fewer and fewer people. Nor does the paper examine the lower economic mobility that has also arisen in conjunction with the rise of the income gap (its becomming more and more rare for children to move up the income ladder from their parents).
The paper goes to great lengths to argue there are better metrics to measure the overall well-being of individuals, which is true since being rich and being happy are two very different things. But that dosent refute the fact the income gap (and, more importantly, the wealth gap) is a problem.
the growing disparity is one thing and a thing worth considering, but the how and why the disparity is growing is as important if not more so
address some of those how and why's and teh disparity would decrease. you can make a lot of money by trading Ameircans out of work and financial engineering
(08-14-2009 03:19 PM)sunnyheel Wrote: [ -> ]Is that CATO cat arguing that the record-level (since before the Great Depresssion) income disparity figures are a good thing?
No
Quote:It's always a good idea to offer a synopsis of your link for those constrained by time or otherwise.
Just because you habitually ignore links that are contrary to your preferred point of view does not mean that everybody does.
Quote:Personally, I feel that the morality and the reality have coalesced into a single conclusion: a strong middle class is the way to go, and our policies, from job generation, to wage growth, to taxation, should be directed accordingly.
...and god forbid some actual data exists to call your position in to question.
(08-14-2009 03:24 PM)blueterp Wrote: [ -> ]I need to read that article more closely, but my first impression is that its a very crafty deflection. The paper also goes to great lenghts to explain how income is a bad proxy for measuring wealth, and that is true. But the paper notably dosent examine the fact there is a wealth gap opening up--the long term trends of the very top income earners making more and more money is having the effect of concentrating wealth (not just income) in the hands of fewer and fewer people. Nor does the paper examine the lower economic mobility that has also arisen in conjunction with the rise of the income gap (its becomming more and more rare for children to move up the income ladder from their parents).
The paper goes to great lengths to argue there are better metrics to measure the overall well-being of individuals, which is true since being rich and being happy are two very different things. But that dosent refute the fact the income gap (and, more importantly, the wealth gap) is a problem.
It's all addressed in the paper. And, it is not a "fact" that the wealth gap is a problem. It is an opinion. The paper also points out that we should strive for equality of opportunity but points out that shrinking the income gap isn't nessesarily the best way to acheive that.
Professional athletes continue to get bigger salaries every year. You'd think eventually the fans would stop being able to fund the salaries with higher ticket prices. But prices continue to go up and people continue to go to the games.
(08-14-2009 04:29 PM)Byrdy Wrote: [ -> ]It's all addressed in the paper. And, it is not a "fact" that the wealth gap is a problem. It is an opinion. The paper also points out that we should strive for equality of opportunity but points out that shrinking the income gap isn't nessesarily the best way to acheive that.
Its a fact there is a wealth gap. Where in the paper do they discuss that? The fact a higher and higher percentage of GDP (not just income) is being controlled by fewer and fewer people?
My god, I can't believe I let Byrdy goad me into reading that drivel. I knew I would be reading an agenda-driven product, but that whole thing was just rank opinionating about the joys of income inequality and an argument for why the less-offs should be thankful - "the problem isn't inequality, it's that too many have no reason to be glad..." - yowza! Is this the new standard at CATO?
I can't ask for my time back for that's the last time I'm gonna fall for that sucker act.
(08-14-2009 05:15 PM)blueterp Wrote: [ -> ]Its a fact there is a wealth gap.
Yes that is a fact. It is a fact in every country in the world. That's not what you wrote. What you wrote was that it was "fact" that the gap was a problem. That is opinion.
As to where does the paper adress it? The whole paper is about it
(08-14-2009 05:44 PM)sunnyheel Wrote: [ -> ]My god, I can't believe I let Byrdy goad me into reading that drivel. I knew I would be reading an agenda-driven product, but that whole thing was just rank opinionating about the joys of income inequality and an argument for why the less-offs should be thankful - "the problem isn't inequality, it's that too many have no reason to be glad..." - yowza! Is this the new standard at CATO?
I can't ask for my time back for that's the last time I'm gonna fall for that sucker act.
Well I suppose that's a start.
(08-14-2009 08:00 PM)Byrdy Wrote: [ -> ]As to where does the paper adress it? The whole paper is about it
The paper dosent talk about the decreasing social mobility that has conicided with the recent rise in the wealth (and income) gap. Nor does the paper address the fact the wealth (and income) gap is increasing.
Instead, the whole paper spends it time telling you to dont worry and be happy--by using alternative ways to show that people are better off today such as the fact that they can buy 'exotic' things like vanilla and spices. And its true, technology has allowed even today's poorest citizens comforts and goods that even the most rich and powerful of a bygone era could not afford. But that says nothing about whether the rising wealth gap is a problem (or what the effects of that gap are).
Instead
The article also doesn't talk about the effect on social mobility of the government dependency the left has engendered in wide swaths of american society over the past 60 years, particularly among those demographics unfortunate enough to be given "persecuted minority" status; but then again, it's an article on income inequality, and not, surprisingly enough, an article on social mobility.
The thing that bugs me is the distancing of people politically and economically. A super-rich class has different needs from the rest of the people, and will press its agenda to the detriment of everyone else.
Perhaps that's a core problem with our health care system, which is designed and operated by the private sector, i.e., under the direction of the wealthy. We have thus an expensive mass that supports at the apex of the pyramid the absolutely best health care you can get anywhere if you are rich.
(08-14-2009 11:30 PM)jws Wrote: [ -> ]The article also doesn't talk about the effect on social mobility of the government dependency the left has engendered in wide swaths of american society over the past 60 years, particularly among those demographics unfortunate enough to be given "persecuted minority" status; but then again, it's an article on income inequality, and not, surprisingly enough, an article on social mobility.
reckon any of that government dependency has been caused by the right's policy of sending jobs for those now dependents to China by the millions?
the best catalyst for socialism in the US is free trading US jobs to China
Everyone should be equal in income regardless of ability that is except for the ruling elite.
(08-14-2009 08:00 PM)Byrdy Wrote: [ -> ] (08-14-2009 05:44 PM)sunnyheel Wrote: [ -> ]My god, I can't believe I let Byrdy goad me into reading that drivel. I knew I would be reading an agenda-driven product, but that whole thing was just rank opinionating about the joys of income inequality and an argument for why the less-offs should be thankful - "the problem isn't inequality, it's that too many have no reason to be glad..." - yowza! Is this the new standard at CATO?
I can't ask for my time back for that's the last time I'm gonna fall for that sucker act.
Well I suppose that's a start.
Well, I suppose you could call it that: the start of my policy to ignore your links and laugh at your insults. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
The Sheriff of Nottingham is shooting blanks.
I don't have a problem with a widening income disparity as long as the US as a whole has full employment at decent jobs, an improving standard of living and increasing wealth. however that doesn't appear to be the result of the deregulated, free market, rightist approach Cato has advocated. it appears the results of that are a devastated economy for a majority of us including high unemployment and decreased net worth stretching from the very bottom of the economic ladder well into the middle class. the results of their policies speak for themselves and it doesn't appear to be a typical economic cyclic result either, but a Great Recession due to fundamental, structural problems. based on sunny's review I won't wast my time on the Cato shill piece but it appears to not have succeeded in defending the results of the policies they've advocated.
Some of you are attributing motivations to the author that he specifically addresses in the article. Makes me wonder how carefully those individuals really read the piece.
(08-15-2009 09:45 AM)Supersport Wrote: [ -> ]I don't have a problem with a widening income disparity as long as the US as a whole has full employment at decent jobs, an improving standard of living and increasing wealth. however that doesn't appear to be the result of the deregulated, free market, rightist approach Cato has advocated. it appears the results of that are a devastated economy for a majority of us including high unemployment and decreased net worth stretching from the very bottom of the economic ladder well into the middle class. the results of their policies speak for themselves and it doesn't appear to be a typical economic cyclic result either, but a Great Recession due to fundamental, structural problems. based on sunny's review I won't wast my time on the Cato shill piece but it appears to not have succeeded in defending the results of the policies they've advocated.
I'd say that the increased disparity has more to do with the influence of powerful interests controlled by the wealthy, with the false promise of "trickling down" all the wealth magically conjured from thin air by "money friendly" policy and tax laws.
Now we've seen what it does: the working stiffs have given up their stake and the rich ran away with the cow after burning down the barn.
(08-15-2009 10:07 AM)Byrdy Wrote: [ -> ]Some of you are attributing motivations to the author that he specifically addresses in the article. Makes me wonder how carefully those individuals really read the piece.
So you're saying that my summary of this "thesis" - "the problem isn't inequality, it's that too many have no reason to be glad..." - is inaccurate? I don't think you've even read the piece. If you had, you probably wouldn't have posted it (but I guess when one is looking for a defense of growing income equality, CATO is the place to go). I asked you in my very first post for your summary, to which you responded by launching a personal attack rather than an appropriate response.
So tell us, Barney Fife of Nottingham, what's your summary of the article? What critical point are we missing?