# Income inequality in America: the viral video **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 4, 2013, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-in-america-the-viral-video/651965 "2013-03-04T03:02:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-in-america-the-viral-video/651965/61 "2013-03-05T07:23:59Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > … From 2007-to 2009, income inequality fell to ratios not seen in thirty years as a result of the financial crisis. Yet just because the incomes of the rich fell it did not help the non-rich at all… Except that some have suggested that one primary contributor to the crisis may in fact have been the wealth gap itself. To use an analogy – no, fuck analogies, they all end up oversimplifying a very complex system. In short, about half the money in the overall economy exists in a sort of abstract cloud of magnetic domains on bank hard-drives. The more spare capital the wealthy have to futz around with, the more they will lean toward devising devious schemes to futz around with their capital and draw more up into the cloud where, instead of fueling investment in the real economy, it passes from one croupier to another. The really wealthy have little interest in the holistic system, they just want the numbers to roll up, at whatever cost. And that is another part of the problem. If tremendous success allows the powerful to escape the realities of life, why should we cede such power to them? Once they are secure in the mansion, chauffeured and entouraged everywhere, out of touch with real society, their ability to make sensible decisions affecting the lives of others becomes greatly diminished. The wealth gap is about a whole lot more than what numbers and graphs can relate. ---
**Author:** ![Molesworth\_2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9dc877/32.png) [@Molesworth\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Molesworth_2)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-in-america-the-viral-video/651965/62 "2013-03-05T08:29:42Z")
When I play Civilization my first imperative is to make sure that I’m doing well. My second imperative is to screw over my competitors. Henri Tajfel explored this mindset when he researched the “Minimal Group Paradigm”. Gotta admit that I’m citing first year Psych and video games here, but it’s basically accurate. People are so small-minded that they’ll happily screw over other humans for the smallest comparative advantage. They don’t even care if doing so makes them better off. It’s all about being better off than the opponent. ie “No, I don’t want to have $1 while my competitor has $0.95. I’d rather have $0.90 while my competitor has $0.65” When you’re an asshole, that foie gras tastes oh so much better when you know that other people are eating ramen noodles and struggling to pay the rent. This is a sad reality of human existence. ---
**Author:** ![Moe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moe/32/2972_2.png) [@Moe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moe)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-in-america-the-viral-video/651965/63 "2013-03-05T13:42:14Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > I don’t have the papers in front of me, but I’ve read papers linking wealth inequality to political instabilility, reduced economic growth, higher rates of crime, etc. I don’t have time to read the whole thread right now, OR even re-watch the video I’m about to post, but I believe, IIRC [this Ted Talk by Richard Wilkinson](http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html) shows a lot of data which correlates economic inequality with lots of bad things. I can’t remember if he makes any causal claims, but I think he does. I’ll watch it again later. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-in-america-the-viral-video/651965/64 "2013-03-05T14:19:32Z")
> [@For You](#): > > Except that some have suggested that one primary contributor to the crisis may in fact have been the wealth gap itself. To use an analogy – no, fuck analogies, they all end up oversimplifying a very complex system. In short, about half the money in the overall economy exists in a sort of abstract cloud of magnetic domains on bank hard-drives. The more spare capital the wealthy have to futz around with, the more they will lean toward devising devious schemes to futz around with their capital and draw more up into the cloud where, instead of fueling investment in the real economy, it passes from one croupier to another. The really wealthy have little interest in the holistic system, they just want the numbers to roll up, at whatever cost. I don’t see how that can be. Again, you are confusing absolute levels with relative levels. If the non-wealthy had twice as much money in 2006, the wealth gap would be 50% less, but how would that effect what the really, really rich do with their investments? You aren’t making a case against a wealth gap-- you are making a case against wealth itself. > [@](#): > > And that is another part of the problem. If tremendous success allows the powerful to escape the realities of life, why should we cede such power to them? Once they are secure in the mansion, chauffeured and entouraged everywhere, out of touch with real society, their ability to make sensible decisions affecting the lives of others becomes greatly diminished. The wealth gap is about a whole lot more than what numbers and graphs can relate. The wealthy have always been able to “escape the realities of life”. Again, you seem more concerned with wealth than a wealth gap. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-in-america-the-viral-video/651965/65 "2013-03-05T14:43:48Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > This is a very good example of how simple policies can significantly improve economic mobility, but has nothing to do with income inequality. Like I said, there needs to be a discussion about improving economic mobility in the US, but blaming the 1% isn’t productive. > > Anecdote: Having grown up in Canada, but now living in the US, what I’ve personally noticed is that in Canada it’s easy moving from the bottom to the middle, but extremely difficult to move from the middle to the top, and a lot of that has to do with the nature of Canadian taxes. In many ways the system in Canada keeps the 1% far more isolated and protected, but compared to the US the 1% in Canada are poor. The US system seems to make it a hell of a lot harder to move from the bottom into the middle, but once a person gets up into the 3rd and 4th quintile mobility gets easier moving towards the 5th. Not sure this is true; in Canada, the “1%” threshold is so low and many people in upper middle class-type professions fall into it. In 2010, the top 1% in Canada earned $201,400 and more: > **[Richest one per cent of Canadians earn one-tenth of all income](https://www.thestar.com/business/richest-one-per-cent-of-canadians-earn-one-tenth-of-all-income/article_b6d87619-9a57-564d-8b99-846e8f46852b.html)** > > Statistics Canada numbers show that top one per cent of tax filers paid just more than 20 per cent of income taxes As a lawyer, I’m in that class myself. It isn’t all that hard to do (at least, at the lower end); if you are a doctor, lawyer, financial manager, etc. working in a major metropolitan area you most likely are in the 1% in Canada. In contrast, in the US it takes $343,000 in income to be a “one percenter”. [http://www.cnbc.com/id/48338035/Who\_Me\_A\_One\_Percenter](http://www.cnbc.com/id/48338035/Who_Me_A_One_Percenter) Never having lived in the US, I have no idea how easy this is to achieve. It is, however, considerably more than in Canada. ---
**Author:** ![newcomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e5b9ba/32.png) [@newcomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newcomer)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-in-america-the-viral-video/651965/66 "2013-03-05T14:56:16Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I don’t see how that can be. Again, you are confusing absolute levels with relative levels. If the non-wealthy had twice as much money in 2006, the wealth gap would be 50% less, but how would that effect what the really, really rich do with their investments? The capital in need of interest bearing investment requires – as a counter balance or simply to make it work – a degree of spending that can tie economic activity (based on principal) to match principal and produce investment return. It is certainly true that there is lot of devising and scheming to make existing investments more efficient in terms of short term earning potential. In that sense, there is an obvious difference between a corporation issuing bonds to fund expansion of production facility vs. putting together exiting mortgages into mortgage-backed security and expand only amount of money but not the economic activity itself. The latter does not expand economic activity (effectively it is a zero-sum game albeit it frees up cash) the same way the former does. So, yeah, there is something to be said of an imbalance in which modern financial engineering is capable of rearranging funding and spending dynamic and overbear economy with insurmountable dues thus leading to a crash. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-in-america-the-viral-video/651965/67 "2013-03-05T14:58:53Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Not sure this is true; in Canada, the “1%” threshold is so low and many people in upper middle class-type professions fall into it. > > In 2010, the top 1% in Canada earned $201,400 and more: > > [Richest one per cent of Canadians earn one-tenth of all income](http://www.thestar.com/business/2013/01/28/richest_one_per_cent_of_canadians_earn_onetenth_of_all_income.html) > > As a lawyer, I’m in that class myself. It isn’t all that hard to do (at least, at the lower end); if you are a doctor, lawyer, financial manager, etc. working in a major metropolitan area you most likely are in the 1% in Canada. > > In contrast, in the US it takes $343,000 in income to be a “one percenter”. > > [http://www.cnbc.com/id/48338035/Who\_Me\_A\_One\_Percenter](http://www.cnbc.com/id/48338035/Who_Me_A_One_Percenter) > > Never having lived in the US, I have no idea how easy this is to achieve. It is, however, considerably more than in Canada. In both cases, exactly 1% were able to achieve it, so wouldn’t it, by definition, be equally as easy (or equally as difficult) in both locations? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-in-america-the-viral-video/651965/68 "2013-03-05T15:06:09Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > In both cases, exactly 1% were able to achieve it, so wouldn’t it, by definition, be equally as easy (or equally as difficult) in both locations? Equally many would be in the category (otherwise you’d get the “Lake Wobegon” effect - from “Lake Wobegon: where all of the childen are above average!” 😃 ). The issue is one of social mobility - i.e., how easy it is to change categories. As in: do you have to be born to a family with wealth and connections to earn that kind of cash? Or can the average person not from a wealthy family, by choosing the right career path, join a profession (or become an entrepreneur) which earns that much? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-in-america-the-viral-video/651965/69 "2013-03-05T15:30:43Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Equally many would be in the category (otherwise you’d get the “Lake Wobegon” effect - from “Lake Wobegon: where all of the childen are above average!” 😃 ). The issue is one of social mobility - i.e., how easy it is to change categories. As in: do you have to be born to a family with wealth and connections to earn that kind of cash? Or can the average person not from a wealthy family, by choosing the right career path, join a profession (or become an entrepreneur) which earns that much? Well, it’s not like there’s a huge cliff at the 1% mark, so I’m sure people fall in and out of that category all the time. And of course we all know “average people” who have done well, so I’m not sure that means much. I certainly wouldn’t use ease of getting into the 1% bracket as a good measure of social mobility, though. If anyone has statistics comparing Canada and the US, it would be interesting to see them. BTW, the median income in the US is much greater than in Canada, too. From wikipedia it’s something like 31k in this US vs 25k in Canada. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-in-america-the-viral-video/651965/70 "2013-03-05T15:42:39Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Well, it’s not like there’s a huge cliff at the 1% mark, so I’m sure people fall in and out of that category all the time. And of course we all know “average people” who have done well, so I’m not sure that means much. I certainly wouldn’t use ease of getting into the 1% bracket as a good measure of social mobility, though. > > If anyone has statistics comparing Canada and the US, it would be interesting to see them. I’m not claiming any wider significance of the point - I was merely responding to the assertion that, in Canada, mobility into the “1%” was more difficult than in the US. As for social mobility generally (the ‘are you born or did you earn?’ question), there was a Congressional Research paper posted upthread with references to some studies, which tended to re-enforce the point. From that paper: > [@](#): > > Corak reviewed numerous studies that offered differing estimates of intergenerational earnings persistence for each of several advanced economies. Based on his assessment of the preferred IGE for the nations in the meta-analysis, Corak concluded that the United Kingdom, the United States, and France are the least mobile. In these countries, about 41% (France) to 50% (United > Kingdom) of the economic advantage high-earning young men have over lower earners may be due to their coming from more affluent families. In the cases of Canada, Finland, Norway, and Denmark, the effect of fathers’ on adult sons’ relative earnings was found to be lower (about 20% or less). With IGEs of about 30%, mobility in Germany and Sweden falls between these two groups > **[R42400.pdf](https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R42400.pdf)** ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-in-america-the-viral-video/651965/71 "2013-03-05T17:11:46Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Thank you. Why didn’t you post in support when I made similar points in similar threads and received only ignorant ridicule? 🆒 > > I don’t support radical wealth redistribution either, but there are tame regulations that can help: Minimum wage laws, progressive taxation, and limits on corporate deductions for high salaries. Yet all of these are opposed by America’s right-wing, and Buffett’s secretary still pays more gross tax than Buffett. Rewarding useful innovations is good, but America has fallen into a system where some of the biggest rewards go to financial criminals. > > BTW, the World Bank estimates Qatar’s Gini coefficient (measure of income inequality) to be better than that of the U.S.A. (though considered worse than that of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain or Kuwait, for which World Bank offers no estimates). > > One doesn’t know how to argue with right-wing pro-inequality posters who, as usual, have no quantitative perspective. The Youtube states that the income of the 1% has risen from 9% of America’s total to 24% in just 30 years. If that’s good, should we _hope_ the portion rises to 40%? to 60%? The 1% own 50% of stocks and bonds. Would our nation be happier and healthier if that were 75%? Listening to the right-wing squeakings, one might think so! 😃 > > Right-wingers will say that inequality is not their goal, but is the symptom of the freedoms they espouse, and rewards us all, as “wealth creators” are rewarded. Sorry, this fits neither the facts, nor the views of right-wingers as revealed in their policies. When the Iron Curtain collapsed, huge wealth redistribution occurred as connected ex-Communists appropriated public assets **and this occurred with the blessing of the Chicagoites advising those countries!** The inequality itself was perceived as desirable, even though the only skill the new rich were rewarded for was their thieving. > > In another SDMB thread (I’ll Google up a link if necessary), rich (or would-be rich) right-wingers were asked whether they thought they deserved their wealth as a “reward”; they answered, in effect, “No, No, NO! I want to keep my wealth just because it’s mine, MINE, MINE!” Minimum wage laws exacerbate inequality by increasing unemployment among the least productive. Someone making 7 dollars an hour has a better chance of saving wealth than someone who is unemployed. America has the most progressive income tax in the world and some of the highest income inequality so a progressive income tax is not going to cure income inequality. Changing the deductability of executive salaries is one of the main drivers behind inequality. Congress changed the laws so the multimillion dollar salaries could not be deducted and companies responded by paying executives with stock options. Since these options are cheaper and less risky to companies they ended up being worth more than the high salaries and in certain circumstances much more. As long as no one is made worse off by income inequality than theoritically it should be of no consequence how much it grows. Look at it from the opposite perspective. If taking one dollar from the poor could take 100 dollars from the rich, what is the optimal amount you should take from the poor? Obviously, the answer is zero. Likewise as long as rich people making money does not hurt the non-rich no one should care how much they make. Income inequality affects how easy it is to move between income groups. If the median income in one country is $50K and the threshold to get into the richest 10% is $150. In the second country the median income is $25K and the threshold for the richest 10% is $50K. If a median wage earner in each society finds a way to increase their income by $25K, they would have moved up to the richest 10% in the second society, in the first society that person would still need to double income to get to the richest 10%. However, the person in the first society would still be 50% better off than the newly rich guy in the other society. Thus societies with flat and low incomes can do better on measures of social mobility than rich, diverse countries just because of statistical anomalies. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-in-america-the-viral-video/651965/72 "2013-03-05T19:05:41Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Minimum wage laws exacerbate inequality by increasing unemployment among the least productive. Someone making 7 dollars an hour has a better chance of saving wealth than someone who is unemployed. I admire the amount of willful ignorance it takes to claim that minimum wages increase unemployment in the face of dozens of threads we’ve had here showing that they don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-in-america-the-viral-video/651965/73 "2013-03-05T19:16:18Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > I assume you use it in that weaselll way people use it to misrepresent statistics, to make people think that it isn’t there. At least you admit that there is in fact economic mobility, baby steps. > > … > > Yup, I called you out on the typical bullshit that is so common on this board. Using terms like “lower” to suggest something other than reality, which is that there is still economic mobility. I honestly don’t know whether or not you’re fucking with me. I’m pretty sure I used plain English words in the way those words are generally used by normal people. I’m pretty sure today isn’t opposite day. Maybe you and I are having a private joke where we make fun of some other guy who likes to strawman people? Seriously, I literally don’t know how to respond to you; humor (yeah, hahah, no real person would ever say something like that), anger (how dare you misrepresent my words), compassion (he’s doing the best he can, the poor man). I think I’ll go with compassion: Bless your heart, you really are trying your best at this debating thing. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-in-america-the-viral-video/651965/74 "2013-03-05T19:19:32Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > I admire the amount of willful ignorance it takes to claim that minimum wages increase unemployment in the face of dozens of threads we’ve had here showing that they don’t. To be fair, he said “MW laws”, not “small changes to the MW”. If we dropped the MW to $2/hour or eliminated it completely, don’t you think unemployment would go down? n.b.: I’m not advocating doing this, it’s just that there is significant difference between tweaking the MW and eliminating it. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-in-america-the-viral-video/651965/75 "2013-03-05T19:24:10Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > To be fair, he said “MW laws”, not “small changes to the MW”. > > If we dropped the MW to $2/hour or eliminated it completely, don’t you think unemployment would go down? > > n.b.: I’m not advocating doing this, it’s just that there is significant difference between tweaking the MW and eliminating it. [Here’s a graph of historical unemployment rates in the United States](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Unemployment_1890-2009.gif). From looking at that graph can you determine the date the US instituted minimum wage laws? (Spoiler: 1938) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-in-america-the-viral-video/651965/76 "2013-03-05T19:41:43Z")
On [Gini coefficient,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient) the U.S. ranks with Mexico & China! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-in-america-the-viral-video/651965/77 "2013-03-05T19:46:01Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > To be fair, he said “MW laws”, not “small changes to the MW”. > > If we dropped the MW to $2/hour or eliminated it completely, don’t you think unemployment would go down? I’ts not obvious to me. The idea, I’m assuming, is that since they’ll be able to afford more workers, they’ll hire more workers. But that assumes they want more workers. I don’t know that they do. ---
**Author:** ![Critical1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@Critical1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Critical1)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-in-america-the-viral-video/651965/78 "2013-03-05T19:50:39Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > “The 1% have a vested interest in maintaining their wealth, which they do by supporting policies that coincidentally limit social mobility.” > > What policy? Changing the marginal tax rates, is that the only one? [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/6niWzomA_So/maxresdefault.jpg "Park Avenue: Money, Power and the American Dream⎜WHY POVERTY?⎜(Documentary)") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6niWzomA_So) its an hour long, but does a lot to answer the questions about the how and why the richest go about staying that way through the manipulation of law, government, and the political system in general. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-in-america-the-viral-video/651965/79 "2013-03-05T20:02:49Z")
Another datum to add to the mix: [a New York Times article](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/business/economy/corporate-profits-soar-as-worker-income-limps.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130304) that corporate profits are soaring while US worker wages and income continue to do nothing. Here’s the lead: > [@New York Times](#): > > With the Dow Jones industrial average flirting with a record high, the split between American workers and the companies that employ them is widening and could worsen in the next few months as federal budget cuts take hold. Things are doing nothing but getting worse, in short. The thing I found really interesting and alarming about the video is that it confirms the general impression I have had for some time now about the economy: if you’ll look at the chart showing the actual state of the economy, you’ll see that the middle class is rapidly becoming indistinguishable from the poor. And the poor are NOT getting richer. Which means the middle class and the poor are being squeezed into being pretty much the same thing, an economically powerless peasant class with no ability to influence their lives or to grow financially. Welcome to the peasantry, Dopers! Let me know when you are ready to grab a bow and go after the Sheriff and his men. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-in-america-the-viral-video/651965/80 "2013-03-05T20:29:41Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > I admire the amount of willful ignorance it takes to claim that minimum wages increase unemployment in the face of dozens of threads we’ve had here showing that they don’t. I do not admire the amount of hubris it takes to claim to have disproven the laws of supply and demand based on the mixed results of the minimum wage literature. Since minimum wage jobs only make up 2% of the labor force, it would take a huge effect to show up at all in the overall unemployment rate. Also since one of the strongest effects of the minimum wage laws are to keep teenagers out of the labor market many of those affected are not even counted as unemployed. Despite these difficulties the majority of evidence is that minimum wage laws do affect employment adversely, particularly for people of lower skill levels. [PDF](http://www.nber.org/papers/w12663.pdf) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-in-america-the-viral-video/651965.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-in-america-the-viral-video/651965.md?page=5)