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.

[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.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Except of late they've been leaving instead of arriving."

Which contradicts the "See? things are better already" crowd.

[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.

[ccbatson]

4 million a week you say? For a CEO of a successful private health care company? Why do you think they are successful? Do you think it is because they throw away 4 million a week for CEO pay carelessly? Think again.

Meanwhile, Medicare is 62 trillion in the red over the next 16 years.

[Lorax]

4 million a week you say? For a CEO of a successful private health care company? Why do you think they are successful? Do you think it is because they throw away 4 million a week for CEO pay carelessly? Think again.

Meanwhile, Medicare is 62 trillion in the red over the next 16 years.

They are "successful" in your definition by DENYING health care to dying people, the true fascist brown shirts goosestepping on the necks of Americans.

Private insurance rations health care, drops people for getting sick, or for pre existing conditions. They are the problem, not the solution as the Reich would have you believe.

Single payer first, public option as last resort. Anything less is a waste of time.

[ccbatson]

Any examples of any person dying because of UHC denials? No? Why don't you get back to us when you find one...we will not hold our breath waiting however.

Not paying, when alternatives exist [[ie paying out of pocket) is not rationing. Single payer, where it is made illegal to purchase care [[in a circuitous way as is the case with the house Obamacare bill) is rationing. A very important fact that everyone needs to learn.

[Jimaz]

America's Over Success Obsession

[lilpup]

Along a similar line:

The real US healthcare issue: compassion deficiency

During the height of the banking and Wall Street meltdowns, Americans seemed to love clucking about corporate greed. As far as most of us were concerned, the moral debacle was purely the fault of Wall Street, not Main Street. Yet you don't need a graduate degree to see that the character crisis is not restricted to those summering on Nantucket.
The healthcare debate has revealed that Americans suffer from a compassion deficiency. Many of us would prefer that our fellow citizens go without medical care rather than make even the slightest of sacrifices.
...
The fact that a significant number of Americans do not feel any urgency to revamp a system that leaves millions of our sick without care is symptomatic of the fact that we must be suffering from a hardening of more than our arteries.
There was a time when highbrows were repulsed by the fact that Americans were not appalled by the levels of violence in films. For a country that loves to moralize, we ought to acknowledge that what does or does not repulse reveals a lot about who we are.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0813/p09s01-coop.html

[Patrick]

From 1943 until 1978 it hovered between 1 and 2 percent. What changed this?

[Patrick]

We're all in this together = liberal outlook.

We're all on our own = conservative outlook

Take your pick.

[lilpup]

From 1943 until 1978 it hovered between 1 and 2 percent. What changed this?

1980
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
[[Reaganomics)

[Jimaz]

"Voodoo economics" -- George H. W. Bush