Income inequality at an all time high

[lilpup]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_259516.html

entire study available at link

[Glowblue]

This is due mostly to the decline of organized labor. Whenever some right-wing asshole tries to say that unions are obsolete, show them this chart.

[Gannon]

Whenever anyone wants to say that unchecked capitalism fueled by multi-national corporations is good, make them EAT this graph!

[Jimaz]

I found this part of the report interesting:

What will happen to income concentration next?
The economic landscape has obviously changed dramatically since 2007 which marks the peak of Bush expansion. We know from National Account statistics that real incomes per family will fall in 2008 and 2009. Evidence from past recessions suggests that, in general, the top percentile income share falls during recessions, as business profits, realized capital gains, and stock option exercises fall faster than average income. Therefore, the most likely outcome is that income concentrations will fall in 2008 and 2009.

Based on the US historical record, falls in income concentration due to recessions are temporary unless dramatic policy changes, such as financial regulation or significantly more progressive taxation, are implemented and prevent income concentration from bouncing back. Such policy changes took place after the Great Depression during the New Deal and permanently reduced income concentration till the 1970s. [[Figures 2, 3). In contrast, recent downturns, such as the 2001 recession, lead to only very temporary drops in income concentration [[Figures 2, 3).

[Sstashmoo]

Whenever there are no jobs to go to, I'll say I told ya so.

[Jimaz]

What I find troubling about a growing income disparity is that it shows a transfer of production incentive from those most motivated by that incentive to those least motivated by that incentive. In that sense it's counterproductive and anti-industrious. It leads to a world of two classes, one of tragic despair and the other of comfortable complacency, neither motivated to improve our world. Cui bono?

Each dollar is but a millionth of a millionaire's concern. To a worker, it can make the difference between whether or not he can even get back to work -- for someone else.

[ejames01]

Maybe they know something that we don't.

[Jimaz]

Maybe they know something that we don't.

Or maybe that's just what they want us to believe.

[EMG]

So?

It's not the fault of the haves if the have-nots don't take full advantage of their opportunities and work for what they want.

Remember, this is yes-we-can America.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "It's not the fault of the haves if the have-nots don't take full advantage of their opportunities and work for what they want."

No more true words have a I read today.

Nowhere else on the planet is so much opportunity afforded an individual as here is the US. Those that do not take advantage of it, have only themselves to blame.

[Gannon]

Yes, of course, it is all the fault of those poor people.



What an absolutely idiotic statement...if you fully believe that, you may be irredeemable. Might as well just sell that soul to the devil and have some more fun this lifetime...maybe make a million or two and buy yourself some misery.

[ghettopalmetto]

Quote: "It's not the fault of the haves if the have-nots don't take full advantage of their opportunities and work for what they want."

No more true words have a I read today.

Nowhere else on the planet is so much opportunity afforded an individual as here is the US. Those that do not take advantage of it, have only themselves to blame.

So why aren't you a billionaire? Are you a lazy bastard or something?

[edgewood]

Quote: Nowhere else on the planet is so much opportunity afforded an individual as here is the US. Those that do not take advantage of it, have only themselves to blame.

Yes, and a child going hungry builds "character".

[oladub]

I admire altruism but as I understand altruism, it is the voluntary giving of one's own time and poccessions from one's own understanding. From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:
1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species

Just going into medicine would meet the second definition.
__________________________________________________ ___________

Coveting and theft are usually less altruistic. The following is copied but resonates with some thinking found in above posts.

1. How much of your income do I have a right to? Today, many talk openly about redistributing wealth. If you do not have a right to your first nickel, what legal or moral principle will protect your last?

2. Who is the greedier, the fellow who wants to keep what he has earned, or he who would take it away from him?

3. If it is wrong for me to take what is yours, is it wrong if I hire someone else to do it for me? What if that someone else is a politician or bureaucrat? Does having a majority back the theft change the moral character of that action?

4. How much is enough for our government to take from its citizens? Either in absolute dollars or percentages, please give me a number. Keep in mind that governments at all levels now take, in taxes, or imposes in costs, an amount equal to about 62% of our economy.[[Source: Americans for Tax Reform.)

[elganned]

I admire altruism but as I understand altruism, it is the voluntary giving of one's own time and poccessions from one's own understanding. From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:
1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species

Just going into medicine would meet the second definition.

Possibly true for nursing, where the pay is not that good, but not true for doctors. Doctoring does not harm the doctor, and it is beneficial to the doctor by providing a large income.

Otherwise, auto mechanics are as altruistic as are doctors since they enter into behavior that is not beneficial to themselves in order to benefit others of their species.

More on the other questions later.

[Lorax]

What's forgotten here, is that altruism is voluntary, no one is "forcing" it on anyone, least of all the government. Either you are predisposed to being a good person, or not. Simple as that.

In the case of Batts, I am now going to have a litmus test for my doctors. I am really freaked out that someone in the medical profession is so completely crass and self-absorbed. Honesty aside, I don't want, nor will I go to a GP that expouses the mantra of "greed is good" and "I'm only here for myself and to juice your insurance". Not a good thing.

[oladub]

Possibly true for nursing, where the pay is not that good, but not true for doctors. Doctoring does not harm the doctor, and it is beneficial to the doctor by providing a large income.

Otherwise, auto mechanics are as altruistic as are doctors since they enter into behavior that is not beneficial to themselves in order to benefit others of their species.

More on the other questions later.

You don't know much about doctors. From what I have seen, doctoring does do harm to doctors. My daughter is a doctor as is her boyfriend. Let's go through it. GPA's have to be very good to be even considered for med school. That means not having such a good time in college. Dating and a lot of sociallizing are not a priority. Marriage is something that is very difficult to consider. If accepted, med school costs an extra $100k and at least three fewer years in the labor force. There are no summers off to make spending money. Three more years of intense study go by. Graduation, hurray! Next up, two years of residency working 85-95 hours a week for $35,000/year. Figuring overtime, that works out to minimum wages. The biggest cause of med student death is falling asleep at the wheel. Opportunities for dating, socializing, or sleep is still a bit limited . Finally, at about age 28, med students can enter the job market and start paying back some bills. The pay is good but their youth is largely gone. Finally, as real doctors, only about 60 hours of weekly work is required. Of course, this involves being paged to deliver babies in the middle of the night or while on a date. Doctors also pick up every sort of cold their patients bring in. My daughter is recovering from pulmonary embolism related to her doctor lifestyle. Warfarin, rat poison, allows her to work. Women doctors are less likely to marry and have kids for reasons already mentioned. Male doctors constitute the occupation, of the average, to lose their virility at the earliest age.

Can my daughter's boyfriend ever make it home for dinner on time? Seldom. As an internist, he is likely to get wrapped up in explaining things to a patient's relatives, doing leftover paperwork, or going through things with the next shift. After dinner, whenever, he goes into the bedroom and catches up wioth paperwork on the computer. Sometimes it doesn't matter because one of their pagers might have gone off. End of date before one or both fall asleep in a sitting position watching tv.

Both of these two I mentioned would welcome single payer health care particularly if they could live normal 40 hour a week jobs. They aren't after big bucks. Altuistic behavior for you might include embracing the resultant long waits for care under Obamacare.

Lorax, I agree with your definition and your right to choose a doctor using your own criteria. I also suggest not going to doctors who are not overworked in a show of solidarity.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "What an absolutely idiotic statement...if you fully believe that,"

I absolutely believe it. Why do you think so many risk their life trying to get in to this country illegally? This is the land of opportunity. They know with a goal and hard work, virtually anything is possible here.

[lilpup]

Except of late they've been leaving instead of arriving.

[ccbatson]

Once liberal suckers buy into class envy like this, they will do anything in pursuit of "fixing" the inequality...even if it means doing themselves great harm by allowing liberals to dismantle the very economy which makes it possible to prosper. It is a complete farce, they become so short sighted that they somehow believe that socialism is the answer even though countless times in history it is clear that socialism leads to misery for the citizens under it's oppression.

Wealth is the fuel of an economy...period. Prosperity requires individual achievement which only occurs to a sufficient degree when there is an incentive to achieve. That incentive is the ability to retain the fruits of one's own labor and efforts. Furthermore, wealth held by individuals ALWAYS feeds back into the economy [[via reinvestment, consumption, both). Who, and how many people prosper in the process of building a large mansion for a wealthy customer?

On the other hand, what happens to resources [[wealth) in the hands of a socialist tyranny? It steadily dissolves away to nothing...costs go up, and quality goes down towards an inevitable disaster of unresolvable insolvency [[witness Medicare, Social Security, State economies, deficits/debt, and on, and on).

Wake up libs and recognize your real oppressors and real enemies....it is not the successful and wealthy individuals and corporations [[comprised of individuals), it is the radical socialist lying to you and inciting you to hate your own lifeblood...freedom and individual property rights.

[Lorax]

No, it's the conservative suckers who foment class warfare by raping the national treasury, allowing the head of United Health Scare to take home 4 million bucks per week, and work day and night cranking up the lie machine with regard to Obama's health reform.

We are at a point in income disparity the likes of which we haven't seen since the age of the robber barons. And until taxes are raised on the upper 5% of wage earners, and legacy taxes of 90% restored as they were in the 50's, then our domestic fiscal policy will stay out of whack.

[Gistok]

Once liberal suckers buy into class envy like this, they will do anything in pursuit of "fixing" the inequality...even if it means doing themselves great harm by allowing liberals to dismantle the very economy which makes it possible to prosper. It is a complete farce, they become so short sighted that they somehow believe that socialism is the answer even though countless times in history it is clear that socialism leads to misery for the citizens under it's oppression.

Wealth is the fuel of an economy...period. Prosperity requires individual achievement which only occurs to a sufficient degree when there is an incentive to achieve. That incentive is the ability to retain the fruits of one's own labor and efforts. Furthermore, wealth held by individuals ALWAYS feeds back into the economy [[via reinvestment, consumption, both). Who, and how many people prosper in the process of building a large mansion for a wealthy customer?

On the other hand, what happens to resources [[wealth) in the hands of a socialist tyranny? It steadily dissolves away to nothing...costs go up, and quality goes down towards an inevitable disaster of unresolvable insolvency [[witness Medicare, Social Security, State economies, deficits/debt, and on, and on).

Wake up libs and recognize your real oppressors and real enemies....it is not the successful and wealthy individuals and corporations [[comprised of individuals), it is the radical socialist lying to you and inciting you to hate your own lifeblood...freedom and individual property rights.

Only thing wrong with your "let them eat cake" and "trickle down economics" fallacies is that the "socialist" economies of France and Germany are now coming out of the global recession... while free market America seems to still be wallowing in it....

Have you ever even been to Europe cc?? Life is miserable in western/northern Europe, isn't it?

The roadways and infrastructure are in great shape. They must be spending less on building mansions and more on infrastructure... an even better way to benefit ALL of the people, not just the rich.

In western/northern Europe the trains run on time... and the people work fewer hours, live longer healthier lives, are less stressed, and get more benefits than Americans.... It's a true Socialist Hell Hole, isn't it cc??

[Lorax]

Bravo, Gistok- things I've been saying for years. It's obvious CC has never been to Europe, for if he went with his eyes open, and his mind [[choke), then he would be forced to realize how much better organized and altruistic the socialized democracies of western Europe really are.

[elganned]

Well then, the socialists should then tax the shit out of the rich bitches and leave them with just enough to live on. Screw those bastards who are smart and work hard to earn a lot of money.
I am so jealous and envious of those arrogant snobs, they should them give the money to the democrats so they can then distribute it to all the poor fat people with diseases.

Your obviously exaggerated statements rest on several assumptions, none of which has been established as true:

1) That socialists are inclined to tax rich people down to subsistence levels.
2) That all who have money have worked hard to earn it.
3) That all who have money have it only because they worked hard to earn it.
4) That proposed taxation is based upon envy.
5) That the democrats want to take all the money from the rich.
6) That the democrats would then give all the money to fat people with diseases.
7) That all poor folks are fat and have diseases.

Really, you should take some formal logic classes before you stick your foot in your mouth like that. You might end up with some poor fat persons disease like hoof-and-mouth, and then where would you be?

[oladub]

elganned, You are right about my statement with reference to the second definition of altruism in post 109. From a societal perspective being a doctor would meet definition #2. I suspect though that some doctors are in it for the money even if they meet the criteria of definition #2. I agree that training more medical students would be desirable along supply demand lines to reduce costs.

Just to further promote the idea of $80,000 salaries for 40 hours of work as an option: If doctors now work 60 hours a week, with time and a half for anything over 40 hours, a 60 hour work week would be $140,000/year, so you are sort of agreeing that $140,000/year for a 60 hour workweek would be ok by union rules which is approaching the $200,000 figure you earlier mentioned. According to this link, for cross reference, the average family physician in Canada earned $211,000[[C) in 2005-2006. http://mdsalaries.blogspot.com/2007/...physician.html

Lorax, Should professional athletes be paid more than factory workers? Should professors with doctorates be paid more than college janitors? Why? What do you think doctors should be allowed to make per year if they cut back to 40 hours a week? Why?

We could do like some in Sweden are said to do. When a certain income is attained after three or forut months of work, its time to head for some southern tropical paradise. After all, doesn't it make more sense to spend the balance of the year enjoying the company of dusky maidens than dealing with alarm clocks, slush, and bureaucrats who loot 90% of one's paycheck once earnings exceed a certain amount?

Noone answered the questions at the botom of my post #109 either. Sigh...