I agree-in part, the question people should be asking isn’t “How do we prevent this income inequality” but rather “how do we get the poor to get richer at a better rate than an increase of a mere 59 dollars?”.
I would say that the purpose of a country is to improve the lives of its inhabitants. If that means defending it from Mongols or building aqueducts, that’s what the government should do.
What it shouldn’t do, is manipulate the rules so that 90% of the society gets none of the increasing prosperity of the society.
That seems simple enough.
The quoted figures appear to refer only to cash compensation. If the employer portion of health insurance benefits were included, the inequality would likely be reduced to some extent (although certainly not eliminated).
Or 3) How well they used their prior wealth to rig the system. I guess it could be argued that this is corollary of 2, but I just thought I’d spell it out.
Probably balanced out (at least) with the loss of pension benefits.
Well yes, simply increasing income would solve the problem. But here’s the thing: you said “the poor” and a large part of my point is that the middle class is gradually being shifted down into a lumpenproletariat with the poor. In any capitalist system, there will be rich, there will be poor, but the size and affluence level of the middle class looks kind of like an independent variable that is mostly determined by the mores of the society with regard to how workers should be treated, and the existence and extent of the social safety net.
Libertarians and conservatives who argue against social safety nets and who say the marketplace should be the sole determining factor in workers’ wages are heading us toward a Third World sort of society with a small, wealthy oligarchy (actually, we’ve already got that) and a middle class notable by it’s absence. Our middle class retains some vestiges of its wealth, they are not yet poor people who get enough to eat and can afford a bit more bling than the really poor people – but that’s where the U.S. is headed.
And 3) how much they inherited and 4) how skillfully they manipulate others into thinking that they deserve a bigger piece of the pie.
Please. American exceptionalism cuts no ice here. Why should the US not be compared other countries?
Yeah, but health care isn’t like other forms of “compensation” and probably shouldn’t be a part of wages, salaries and benefits of jobs. It’s something that very few of us need much of when we are young, and that all of us need a lot of when we are old. What’s more, when you need it, you NEED it, it’s not like a TV or a car that you can keep for another year or three if you have to, if you have cancer, it’s get health care or die. Finally, the value of health care is linked to the cost of heatlh care, which is much higher than it should be because our good conservative legislators keep legislating benefits to wealthy, powerful heath insurance companies (see: oligarchy).
In short, health care is whole other debate.
Let’s cut to the chase: are you simply trying to get people to show that economic inequality causes social problems because of a principled “If you claim it, you must provide cites?” position, or do you actually not believe that economic inequality is a cause of social problems?
Do all our facts, numbers and charts disturb you? Good. Perhaps you have overlooked something, like the way the middle class only maintained its affluence during this period of stagnation by having two-income households, as women entered the workforce in large numbers and stayed there? Hmmmmmmmm?
Not horseshit. While I’m all for allowing gays to marry and otherwise have full civil rights, I see the media furor over it as a side issue: after all, it probably only affects two or three percent of the population, max. It’s a shiny ball of sex stuff that distracts from the economic issues that are of primary importance in determining the quality of life for 90 percent of Americans.
If you are looking at the top 1%, 32% of those in the top 1% are not in it the next year. Two thirds of the top 1% will not be in the top 1% in the next five years. So if you are comparing the income of the top 1% in one year with 99% and then do a comparison five years later then number of new people in the 1% are twice as many as the number of the people who stay. Cite
Statistics for the top 10% is harder to come by but if you go by quintile. 34% of the top quintile move out of top 20% of income earners in 6 years. (pdf)
Probably because you are talking about American politics, American policy and American people, why would you use any other country?
I suppose you could use other countries to compare to if you wanted to implement policy in some other country.
Our? Facts? Numbers? Charts? Did you have some, or are you still referring to the article linked in the OP? Feel free to present your facts, charts and numbers since that’s what I was asking for. As I said, even a cursory Google search seemed to indicate that the gist of your OP was, at best, an attempt to spin the numbers to slant the debate.
You are saying that the gay marriage issue is a bread and circus manufactured debate to try and detract from REAL issues, and you got a pass on that. It’s hard for me to believe that 'dopers are really willing to do that…to me it’s the equivalent of saying ‘well, sure those blacks have a point, but it’s not a REAL issue, just something the media is drumming up’. Ironically, I’m actually old enough to remember people actually making similar arguments about civil rights.
There is so much here that is wrong. Savings and investing help the economy by allowing new companies to be created and existing companies to expand. Saving does not take money out of circulation unless the money is being buried in the backyard, most of saving is in bonds or savings accounts which makes the money available to the economy. Inflation is caused by the amount of money in an economy which is controlled by the Fed.
Living paycheck to paycheck is not the engine of a sustainable economy. The engine of an economy is productivity which is caused by investment.
Inflation has been under 2% for a long time now, and there is no prospect of inflation in the near future.
People of working age in the top two quintiles of household income work on average of 33.9 hours per week. People in the middle quintile work an average of 29.9 hours per week. People in the second quintile work and average of 27.7 hours per week and those in the bottom quintile work an average of 21 hours per week. So I don’t know that the rich work harder but they do work longer.
I think we’re disagreeing over “is vs. ought.” Whatever it ideally ought to be, health insurance is a substantial part of employee compensation and one that has risen sharply during the period in question.
So it means nothing to say that America has the most expensive health care system in the world but its health care system ranks only 37th in the world in terms of delivering, you know … health care? There is no instructive information there for the thoughtful, objective thinker, because, what? America, Fuck Yeah?
It seems to me that the core of the question is about the standard of living, rather than raw numbers. It makes sense to adjust the salary figures for purchasing power. I think any consideration of health benefits should also compensate for the rising cost of those benefits. If the cost (to my employer) of my health coverage doubles over some time interval, but I’m still covered at the same standard of care for all the same ailments, there’s really no change from my point of view.
A proper comparison of health benefits over this time span would not ask “does it cost more than it used to”, rather it would be “does the average person have access to more or less care”.
So you’re saying that CEOs today are more intelligent and take more risks than CEOs 20 or 30 years ago?
that seems a bit unlikely…
This makes no sense. How much would it cost to get a 1966 level of care? That is impossible to answer because any doctor who gave you a 1966 level of care would be kicked out of the profession. We are buying a much higher level of care than people bought in 1966. The only way to possibly compare the two levels is price. We are paying more and getting more. Thus to leave out a part of the compensation package is to present a false picture of what is happening. At my last job I did not receive a health insurance through the job because of the size of the company. This allowed them to pay me about 5 grand more than the would have if they provided coverage. Since the companies that do pay for employee coverage take that out of monetary compensation it only makes sense to include benefits such as health insurance in measure of compensation.
Comparing levels of care would be difficult, but I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss it entirely. Do we treat sprains and broken bones that much differently than we used to? I believe that giving birth is the most common reason for admittance to a hospital, and that the average length of stay for those visits has gone down in recent years.[sup]*[/sup] Does that mean it’s better care, or worse; more expensive, or less?
- I’ve been looking for cites for both those claims, but can’t find anything definite yet. It does seem somewhat tangential to a thread about income disparity.