The super-rich have a vested interest in limiting social mobility; they and their decendants will live vastly better lives (at the expense of all the non-rich) if social mobility is limited. Unfortunately, the more wealth they build up, the more ability they have to restrict social mobility (through, e.g., legislation that enables them to maintain their wealth through such means as lowered tax rates on the rich, while funding propaganda campaigns to convince the “useful idiots” that lower tax rates are a good thing for the general public)
In Lake Wobegon, everyone is in the top 1%! 
But seriously … see my post above yours.
If you care about mobility, then you might care that income mobility is now lower in the United States than in those nasty socialist European countries. Yes, inequality is at or near an all-time high*, and income mobility is at or near an all-time low. That should start warning bells going off even among the right wingers.
*Things may have been worse back in the old robber baron days. But we took action back then.
That’s an intereting cite.
From the conclusions:
I’m sure most people here are familiar with body mass index (BMI) which represents a ratio of your height to your weight. Where the assumption is that for two people with the same height, the one that weighs more has more fat. This inevitably leads to someone mentioning that their friend is 200lb of solid muscle, and the BMI score says he’s morbidly obese.
Well, the concept of wealth/income inequality is a lot like BMI, and the US is a lot like that 200lb meat head. It works better when comparing a country like Saudi Arabia with Canada. Places where a royal family controls the wealth, citizenship is a birthright passed from father to son, and guest workers are kept poor.
Of the dozen or so times this gets discussed people willfully ignore that distinction and choose to act as if the US is more like Saudi Arabia than Canada. For example:
The US has a huge middle class, and what that piece of propaganda in the OP does is distorts the graph so that it looks like a sideways L. The reason the US has economic inequality is not because a lack of middle class, or wide spread India-style poverty, it’s because the 1% are so disproportionately rich.
There are countries without a middle class, the US is not one of them. But that’s not to say we shouldn’t do more to improve the state of the middle class, that would be a perfectly appropriate policy discussion, but it has nothing to do with the wealth of the 1%.
The term lower is completely meaningless in this context. There is still plenty of economic mobility. It’s fine to ague that it could be higher, and that it should be higher. It would make for a very appropriate policy discussion, and I think the US would do well to look at what’s slowing it down. But economic mobility has nothing to do with the economic inequality, the 1% are not part of a royal family, or a separate caste. Mark Zuckerberg is a perfect example of how it’s entirely possible to go from the 99% to the 1%.
As the arbiter of these things, could you let me know if it’s OK to compare the US now with the US of 10 years ago? Or 20 years ago? Or 50 years ago?
No it isn’t
So the word “lower” is meaningless, but the word “plenty” is…what?
Except that they *are *interlinked. The 1% have a vested interest in maintaining their wealth, which they do by supporting policies that coincidentally limit social mobility. It’s a vicious circle; their increased wealth gives them more leverage to manipulate government policies which gives them more wealth.
One guy isn’t a statistic, it’s an anecdote. In fact it’s the sort of anecdote that the 1% can trot out to keep the 99% subservient.
No, it’s not, in fact it’s counter productive. An economic system has way too many variables to be able to say “hey look 50 years ago blah blah blah.” It would be like the New England Patriots trying to look at their best season and then hoping to replicate it. The world has changed, time to accept that.
Plenty, as in sufficient enough in numbers so as to not be a third world hell hole, or Banana Republic, or Middle Eastern monarchy. You use terms like “lower” to suggest that there isn’t upward mobility when in fact there is. Like I said, more mobility would be great, but it would be far better to understand the actual causes instead of just blaming the 1%. And that it’s lower compared to other European countries points more to their success since the end of WWII.
Could you please list some of these policies that the 1% are able to impose on the surfs without their say?
Except that’s all bullshit. There are people in the 1% who make their money off oil, and some that make it off natural gas, and some that make it off software. Are you saying that all policies benefit them all equally?
No, it’s an actual data point of a person becoming part of the 1%, that is, an example of upward mobility. An American today has a far better chance of moving up economically than a Palestinian who was born in Saudi Arabia has of becoming part of the Saudi Royal Family.
OK, so we can’t compare the United States over time, because 10 years ago was just so long ago, and we can’t compare the United States to other countries because they are just so very different. Hey, all economic statistics are useless! Great to know.
Uhhhh…in no way whatsoever have I ever used the word “lower” in that way, and I can’t believe anyone in good faith would claim anyone would ever use the word that way. Do you think I use the word less to mean none, the word red to mean blue, and the word plenty to mean cat?
Yeah you got me, I really think both the rich and the poor benefit from lowered marginal tax rates on the very rich. The rich benefit from having more money, and the poor will benefit from getting trickled on.
Wow, a whole single data point! You sir have conclusively destroyed my argument that income mobility in the US is lower than it used to be, where I secretly used the word “lower” to mean that no income mobility ever happens at all, in the secret language that apparently only you and I share.
Oh, well if we’re better off than the Palestinians then everything’s OK then.
Back in the 90’s there was a documentary called “spin” based on the raw feeds that cable used to have, used as they are harder to come by as it was embarrassing how uncontroversial mainstream media tries to be to the extreme that very bad news are just “obtuse” as a reported advised Dr. Bob Arnot not to get into such ugly bits.
The Dr. said on the raw feed (with the last bits not used of course in the final piece) that his South LA hospital treated more gunshot wounds than all of the American doctors in western Europe (during the Kosovo crisis) and that the military actually sends medics tho the hospital for training! He added that many areas there are “like third world countries without the hope”. That is, that they have no medical care.
And of course Health care is one of those, even the partial humane solution that is the ACA has still the grubby hands of very rich corporations getting benefits out of the deal.
I prefer the one that comes from England’s JK Rowling, of Harry Potter fame, thanks to a good social safety net, she came out of relative poverty thanks to access to that safety net and to subsidized heath care that kept her going during her hardest periods of her life and then go to be a billionaire writer, point here is that I do wonder how many people like her are now dead or infirm simply because they were Americans.
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!”
What does the comparison show? Mobility was better before the housing bubble burst? That it was better before the dot com bubble burst? That it was better when the US was more of an economic super power?
True or false, there is economic mobility in the US?
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.
That’s not what you said, your quote was:
“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?
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. You are now welcomed to try and find an actual connection between income inequality and economic mobility, specifically in the US. How is it that the 1% are preventing people in the 2nd quintile from moving into the 3rd. And then please tell us how that person subsequently stops someone in the 1% from getting richer.
Now you have some perspective on what income inequality and lack of mobility mean, as compared to what it’s like in the US.
BTW, it is wrong numerically to single out “the 1%” and center the discussion around the specific 99-1 division. That’s just a convenient way to synopsize the statistics.
Americans who barely make it into “the 1%” will complain rightfully that the statistics are misleading – their assets are dwarfed by the super-rich, and that they may not even afford flying first-class, let alone by private jet.
Conversely, the top 5% should understand that their lives are much sweeter than those at the bottom and even middle-class entitlements come at the expense of the underclass.
Focusing on specifically “The 1%” is a useful way to simplify statistics, but does cause confusion.
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.
Sorry, but many from that 1% are very busy getting politicians elected that love to continue making those policies possible.
And having grown while a civil war was going on in a third world country, I have to tell you what an increase in inequality causes, I do not expect to see a revolution here in the USA, but the risk is for having solutions made with very little input from the 1% (or the highest income brackets) as it is likely that then many that prevent even those progressive policies from becoming a reality, will finally be seen by most of the people as part of the problem.
This is the kind of confused meme that stifles debate.
The myth that rational thinkers “blame” or “hate” the 1% is nonsense. To the contrary, many of us would like to join the 1%!
If we complain that corn syrup doesn’t taste us good as maple syrup, are we “blaming” maple syrup? :dubious: If we think movies would be better with more actresses like Kidman, are we “blaming” Kidman?
Claiming, à la Limbaugh or Beck, that those who seek to improve social and economic conditions in America are “blaming” the rich is a fallacy which doesn’t advance debate, and only serves to beg the question: Is claimer a deluder or a deludee?
Ahem, Impossible, not possible, sorry about that.
I’ve heard these conclusions before, which is troubling. I’m open to ideas on changing this, although I’m leery of solutions that start off with making the rich “pay their fair share”.
Rant all you want about the likes of the Kochs but frankly I’m more worried about the Teacher’s unions and the plaintiff’s bar then any plutocrat.
Income inequality will always exist it’s just in all of our interests to raise as many as we can above the poverty line.
Isn’t the underlying issue that the rich are getting a bigger slice of the pie today because they have more capital, which allows them to leverage technological and efficiency gains more effectively? It seems to me that we have hit an inflection point where technology is destroying jobs faster than we can create them, and/or retrain displaced workers. Coupled with a regulatory structure that doesn’t always incentivize businesses to create jobs (particularly for those who were displaced), and you get the situation we have now. Although there are certainly individual rich people who try to game the system or avoid competition, the larger driving forces of this trend are fairly organic. It’s mostly situations where some widget maker can automate 50% of his jobs using money borrowed at low interest rates, produce twice as many widgets, and not have to pay the remaining employees more. Now he has a whole lot more cash, and half as many workers.
More importantly, it’s likely going to get worse because the skill threshold for a stable middle class career is much higher, requires much more expensive training, and lends itself to those with much better initial circumstances. Unfortunately, I am not sure there is that much you can do beyond changing the culture of how and why we compensate people for work, providing a much more robust social safety net, or enacting sweeping policy changes that are politically untenable.
Most of these arguments about taxes really don’t affect the really wealthy people too much because they are increasingly becoming global citizens with no real bonds to their fellow countrymen. Rich Brazilians have more in common with rich Americans and rich Russians than they do poor people. The rest of the one percent (eg. doctors, lawyers, small business people) are less mobile, but creating too high a tax burden might seriously distort the labor market, and/or create too many disincentives to work.
This is like being in the middle of the Black Plague and saying “sickness will always exist”. The question isn’t whether income inequality will always exist, Lochdale, the question is whether the extent in which 1% of the U.S controls an unprecedented 40% of the wealth is in the best interest of the country.
While I don’t necessarily think tax rates should go up, there should be a deliberate effort to close all loopholes and greatly increase the budget to the IRS so that they can enforce the tax law. In addition, late fees and interest on taxes owed to the government are in desperate need for review. For example, the IRS arbitrarily sets a max of 25% on the interest on any tax bill. So, in other words, if you owe $1000, you can be as late as you wan’t to because the most you’ll ever have to pay extra is $250 in interest. If you file your taxes late, the most you’ll pay in penalty is $135. The IRS is too soft and their late fees and interest rate charges on not on par with the private sector (e.g. Bank of America, Chase, etc). Like the private sector, the IRS should increase the fees to reflect the realities of the economy. I suspect one of the reasons the U.S is so broke is because the IRS isn’t given the money and tools it needs [del] to effectively go after the bad guys[/del].
- Honesty