Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Income inequality is not a bad thing. If my pay check is going up by 10, I don't care if someone else's is going up by 50. The only thing bad about the graph at the right is the bottom 20% going down, and that has only occurred since 1998. All groups have been pretty stagnant since then, but through most of the 80's and 90s all saw significant income growth.
i would argue that extreme disparities in income between the ultra rich and the middle class are certainly not a good thing, especially when only a portion of the income of the wealthy is being reinvested reinfected into the economy. It's basically just siphoning out a percentage of the nation's available capital over time and putting it in the hands of maybe 100 people. Who can save it or move it off shore and it's pretty much lost until they decide to bring it back.
Combine that with the inflation we saw over the last 20-30 years and the average American is really hurting.
i would argue that extreme disparities in income between the ultra rich and the middle class are certainly not a good thing, especially when only a portion of the income of the wealthy is being reinvested reinfected into the economy. It's basically just siphoning out a percentage of the nation's available capital over time and putting it in the hands of maybe 100 people. Who can save it or move it off shore and it's pretty much lost until they decide to bring it back.
Combine that with the inflation we saw over the last 20-30 years and the average American is really hurting.
If you normalize wages with inflation via the consumer price index, you'll see that consumers had the largest and most effective income in 1972. Recently the government has also taken to normalizing against another inflation metric the personal consumption expenditure (PCE). The PCE says that wages (normalized for inflation) dipped in the 90's but have actually rebounded. However, if you read about the PCE it is a more 'noisy' metric. It measures the efficiency of the consumers' dollar, but it also lobs in corporations and government agencies that make purchases as "consumers". So, if you're talking about the overall industrial strength of the US, yes the US is up... but if you're talking about JUST the average consumer's (read - middle class) ability to buy goods and services compared to that of previous generations, we're down and have been for some time.Simply not true. The average American is better off now than at pretty much any time in history, with a few percent more unemployed/underemployed. Wealth is not zero-sum. One person or group increasing wealth does not mean less wealth for someone else. It's not just a fixed pie that must be divided up. The 90's were great economically. Income inequality increased a lot, but everyone did better overall. No one should care that some did better than others. It only matters to the envious and jealous. One could even argue that income inequality is actually a net positive in the context of capitalism.
From a moral perspective, people with outrageous salaries should give most of it away. They should. But no one should make them and no one should be upset that they make more money.
If you normalize wages with inflation via the consumer price index, you'll see that consumers had the largest and most effective income in 1972. Recently the government has also taken to normalizing against another inflation metric the personal consumption expenditure (PCE). The PCE says that wages (normalized for inflation) dipped in the 90's but have actually rebounded. However, if you read about the PCE it is a more 'noisy' metric. It measures the efficiency of the consumers' dollar, but it also lobs in corporations and government agencies that make purchases as "consumers". So, if you're talking about the overall industrial strength of the US, yes the US is up... but if you're talking about JUST the average consumer's (read - middle class) ability to buy goods and services compared to that of previous generations, we're down and have been for some time.
Income inequality is a net positive if you buy into the sanctity of capitalism, like there's nothing wrong with it. I don't. I know that greed is a stronger power than generosity in this world. I'm not arguing for socialism or communism and a redistribution of wealth, just a re-balancing of the pool table so to speak, so that everyone's efforts don't tend to roll one way.... right into the pockets of a small number of people who probably didn't do too much to earn it anyway.
Sending manufacturing jobs overseas, even continuing to subsidize the transfer, helps stock holders but not those who lost their jobs.
I'm not arguing for socialism or communism and a redistribution of wealth, just a re-balancing of the pool table so to speak, so that everyone's efforts don't tend to roll one way.... right into the pockets of a small number of people who probably didn't do too much to earn it anyway.
Wages used to rise along with productivity. But while productivity has risen substantially, real wages have not.
No blacks or Irish need apply!We had an inflow of immigrants that equaled approximately 13% of the US population from 1900-1930. Over the last 20 years we have had an immigrant inflow of approximately 12%. When you consider the economy of scale, and the population problem throughout the world, we can't handle 12% any longer without the economy continuing to suffer like it is now, and the wealthy getting wealthier while the middle class and poor get poorer. A wall is not the solution, but the immigrant inflow needs to come back down to at least 8% for the next several years to make any headway on improving the middle class significantly. There are obviously other important factors to improving the middle class, as far as losing jobs to automation and losing jobs overseas and in latin america, but immigration is a big part of that equation. As N Cane implied, you cannot have a significant increase in wages without capping the increase in immigration. The fact that wealthier class are having less children, and the poorer classes are continuing at more similar rates to the past does not help either. As has been stated by others on this board, this is the explanation for Bernie and Trump.
Trump focuses on Mexicans but net immigration from Mexico is a negative number. Good for air time but misunderstands the problem. This is not an immigration issue; it is scapegoating to point at immigration when exporting manufacturing jobs remains in place and is subsidized by our tax system.
No blacks or Irish need apply!
No blacks or Irish need apply!
I was making a point.Did you just throw a racist comment acrost my bow?
The bigger question is whether it is sustainable for one country to have 4.5% of the world's population yet use 20% of it's energy resources, especially when so many other countries aspire to the same levels of consumption. The same is true of other natural resources. European and Russian consumption is similar to US consumption while the middle classes in India and China are growing, which leaves little for the rest of the world to divide up. Given that scarcity should we be surprised that rest of the world (parts of Asia and much of Africa and Central/South America) tends to armed competition (robbery, corruption, criminal activity) for what's left?
We can build bigger walls, but if the trend continues that doesn't seem a long term solution.
This is simply a statement that we can't handle a level of immigrant inflow that hasn't been this high since before the depression. And that it has never been this high in overall #s. You seem to have this pollyanna idea that the US can always handle anything no matter how high. That attitude is what breaks empires. The economy of scale says you are wrong.
Our middle and underclasses have not been this poor since the depression. Hopefully we don't have a war coming our way. And I'm not even sure a war would solve this problem. The problem is the worst it has been for 85 years in a totally different era. With terrorism run amok, the great recession having just happened, recent bailouts, large refugee immigrant problems, weather difficulties imminent on the horizon(costs), rabbit population problems, big economy problems throughout the world like the unrecovered chinese economy, threats of at least another cold war, a really volatile middle east, the energy war with oil prices during this period being the lowest they have been since the 70's,(that's actual price unadjusted for inflation.) what makes you think the empire is not on a pace to a gradual breakdown of monumental proportions and that this breakdown doesn't at least need to at least be slowed down?
Curbing immigration by 1/4-1/3 of the current level has been maintained consistently over the past 85 years and it needs to be done now. I am not isolationist, I do not want to slam our doors shut, I just know we need to put half a finger in the dike to slow it down to more normal levels. This is not the only thing we need to do but is equally important to at least 3 or 4 other things that need quick attention.
I just cannot understand how someone could be so dense as to not see the warning signs. This has nothing to do with race, and that is a red herring. I don't care whether it's blacks, hispanics, asians, europeans, jews, muslims or any other nationalites &/or religions, immigration needs to be slowed down. I get tired of the liberals on this board throwing the more conservative members in with the Trogla-trumpites because it's easy when it doesn't begin to address the problems. Whether subconcious or not, it is an evasion tactic. I am slightly liberal or slightly conservative, depending on the issue, stop painting me with such Rush Limbaugh brush.
You may be able to build a dam, but if you don't turn off the flow of water upstream, you will just keep opening the floodgates and letting more water through eventually.
Wages raise with skills, reliability, and value to the company.
What this sounds like is double socialism. First, the people who have more in this country shoud be heavily taxed for the benefit of those who have less. Secondly, everyone in this country should have less and consume less for the benefit of poorer countries.
I'm kind of proposing an in-between solution. I think we need a UN police force in Central America similar to those that were in Africa over the last two or so decades.Foreign aid is cheap compared to warfare and counterterrorism. Unfortunately it has vilified by many as a welfare program or waste of money. What did the Iraq war cost...so far?
I'm kind of proposing an in-between solution. I think we need a UN police force in Central America similar to those that were in Africa over the last two or so decades.
The correlation between productivity and workers has been dramatically effected by technology as the latter has become the driving force behind productivity in the workplace. Thus I believe linking the two with wage increases is a red herring. Employees wages increase as they add value to the company. That value can be added in numerous ways such as implementing technology, sales, management, etc..
Our problem is the jobs we've been adding for the past decade plus are service and other low paying jobs which are replacing living wage jobs. This explains why jobs are being added but programs like food stamps are at an all time high while median income continues to decline. This is the only "recovery" in our history where there is a disconnect between job creation and poverty and income. In fact, recovery is probably a word which shouldn't be used since wages and poverty are worse now than they were when this started.