Inequality

[InRareForm]

http://thebrowser.com/interviews/daron-acemoglu-on-inequality

[boutons_deux]

U.S. CEO Pay Jumps Minimum Of 27 Percent Last Year, Survey Finds

While the incomes of so many Americans remain the same size or get smaller, corporate chiefs can't say they're suffering in quite the same way.

American CEOs saw pay increases of between 27 and 40 percent last year, according to a GovernanceMetrics International survey cited by the Guardian. In addition, the median value of CEOs profits on stock options jumped to $1.3 million from $950,400.

This, even after Congress passed financial reform regulations that included provisions aimed at making CEO pay more transparent by allowing shareholders to weigh in.

The survey's findings may resonate with Occupy movement activists, who have been railing against income inequality since the protests first started. Indeed, CEO pay by itself exceeded the amount that his or her corporation paid in income taxes in at least 25 cases last year. And in the year before America's highest-highest-paid corporate chief netted more than $145 million, U.S. median income fell to below $27,000, meaning half of all earners made less than that.

But John Hammergren, CEO of healthcare provider McKesson, isn't the only boss taking home the big bucks. JPMorgan Chase Chief Jamie Dimon got a $19 million raise in 2010 and Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein netted an extra $3.6 million in bonuses last year.

The news is a good sign for people in the top one percent of earners, who saw their incomes drop by roughly a third in the official years of the recession, according to a recent report by The New York Times. Still, even after that fall, the net worth of one percenters remained 200 times higher than that of the median national income, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

Some CEOs even got huge pay packages for not doing their jobs. Eugene Isenberg took home $100 million for dropping his title as CEO of Nabors Industries in October. While Dougless Foshee, the CEO of natural gas pipeline operator El Paso, became eligible for an exit package worth $95 million after the company was acquired by rival Kinder Morgan.

Still, some don't seem to mind the huge CEO paydays. The vast majority of corporate shareholders say that CEOs are being compensated correctly, according to an October study from research firm Equilar.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/14/ceo-pay-sees-huge-boost-survey_n_1149535.html?view=print&comm_ref=false


Census: Half Of Americans Are Either Poor Or Low-Income

| A record number of Americans, nearly 50 percent, are either in poverty or considered low-income, according to Census data released this week. The data show a shrinking middle class beset by years of stagnant wages, high unemployment, rising health care and living costs, and a fraying government social safety net. “The reality is that prospects for the poor and the near poor are dismal,” Sheldon Danziger, a public policy professor at the University of Michigan, told the AP. “If Congress and the states make further cuts, we can expect the number of poor and low-income families to rise for the next several years.”

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/15/389928/census-half-americans-poor-low-income/

========

Just more Americans to be criminalized for being poor, lazy, stupid by the VRWC, Repugs.

Something only 10% of long-term unemployed draw unemployment insurance, which averages $1200/month, so the can those Welfare Queens can make their payments on the St Ronnie Cadillacs.

Almost 3 years now that there are at least 4 job seekers for every opening.

Great Fucking Country the conservatives, VRWC, and Repug tax cutting have produced, huh?

[DarrinS]

this shit again?

[boutons_deux]

this shit sticks to your face, deal with it

[clambake]

this shit sticks to your face, deal with it

you don't understand. darrin is an obedient piece of property.

[DarrinS]

The gap, the gap, the freaking gap!!!!

The standard of living of ALL classes has increased, but what bothers SOME is that the increase for some has been more than the increase for others.

Woud you rather the poor be poorer if it made the gap smaller?

[boutons_deux]

"The standard of living of ALL classes has increased"

You Lie

Household real income has stagnated since St Ronnie was elected, even with millions of wives starting jobs in the 1980s.

Single male real income is down since 1975.

[DarrinS]

Very old debate, btw

rv5t6rC6yvg

[boutons_deux]

The few, the proud, the very rich

http://blogs.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/writing2.png

http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2011/12/05/the-few-the-proud-the-very-rich/

[DarrinS]

And?

[boutons_deux]

household wealth wasn’t just “down” 4%, it was the “biggest loss of wealth” for Americans “in more than two years,” and those corporate cash stockpiles didn’t simply continue to grow, they reached “record levels” at $2.1 trillion. Since American wealth is deeply linked to homeownership, the fact that “most economists expect home prices to keep falling” wasn’t exactly good news, nor when it came to pensions and retirement was the July-to-September 12% drop in “the average balance in 401(k) plans managed by Fidelity Investments, the largest workplace savings plan provider.” In sum, the average American household managed to lose $21,000 dollars in those three months, a total loss in household wealth of $2.4 trillion.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175480/tomgram%3A_barbara_ehrenreich_and_john_ehrenreich% 2C_the_fall_of_the_%22liberal_elite%22/

[Yonivore]

Funny thing is, the gap is actually smaller than it was in the mid-90's but, I don't recall all this caterwauling then.

What's changed?

Top Earners Not So Lofty in the Days of Recession (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/business/economy/recession-crimped-incomes-of-the-richest-americans.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1323980405-7avwKl6GWqmUMiKiQhwCZQ)


The share of income received by the top 1 percent — that potent symbol of inequality — dropped to 17 percent in 2009 from 23 percent in 2007, according to federal tax data. Within the group, average income fell to $957,000 in 2009 from $1.4 million in 2007.
Average income of the 1% is under a million. Will Obama and his cootie cronies at Occupy start calling the 1% Thousandaires now?

[RandomGuy]

Funny thing is, the gap is actually smaller than it was in the mid-90's but, I don't recall all this caterwauling then.

There wasn't an internet, goober.

That and you were probably not paying much attention to politics, as most young kids don't.

[CosmicCowboy]

Funny thing is, the gap is actually smaller than it was in the mid-90's but, I don't recall all this caterwauling then.

What's changed?

Top Earners Not So Lofty in the Days of Recession (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/business/economy/recession-crimped-incomes-of-the-richest-americans.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1323980405-7avwKl6GWqmUMiKiQhwCZQ)


Average income of the 1% is under a million. Will Obama and his cootie cronies at Occupy start calling the 1% Thousandaires now?

Well technically, if you have an income of $400,000 a year and haven't acquired a net worth of at least million dollars you are doing things terribly wrong...

[TDMVPDPOY]

if u guys are pissed about ceos pay packet increasing, maybe u should buy shares and have ur vote count at the AGM over pay increases, then again u will usually get outvoted cause the idiots with voting proxys are all in the boys club looking after its members

[boutons_deux]

If Workers’ Share Of National Income Were At The Post-War Average, They Would Earn An Extra $740 Billion This Year

Since 2009, 88 percent of national income growth has gone to corporate profits, while just one percent has gone to wages, adding another chapter to the decline of the middle class, whose incomes have been shrinking and wages stagnating for decades. In fact, according to data analyzed by the Financial Times, workers’ share of national income has fallen to its lowest level on record, and if it were back at the post-war average, workers would earn an additional $740 billion this year:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/15/390434/workers-national-income/

[DarrinS]

It's really unfair that I didn't start Apple, or Microsoft, or Walmart.

FUCK!!!!

[Drachen]

if u guys are pissed about ceos pay packet increasing, maybe u should buy shares and have ur vote count at the AGM over pay increases, then again u will usually get outvoted cause the idiots with voting proxys are all in the boys club looking after its members

I would if my pay would increase!

LOL

[boutons_deux]

To those of you who defend the redistribution of wealth from 99% to 1%, who defend the concentration of wealth and political power, who say to inequality "so what?", some numbers below say there is a very big "what".


Inconvenient Income Inequality

By CHARLES M. BLOW

Published: December 17, 2011

Is income inequality becoming the new global warming? In other words, is this another case where the facts of an existential threat lose traction among a weary American public as deniers attempt to reduce them to partisan opinions?

It's beginning to seem so.

A Gallup poll released on Thursday found that, after rising rather steadily for the past two decades, the percentage of Americans who said that the country is divided into "haves" and "have-nots" took the largest drop since the question was asked.

This happened even as the percentage of Americans who grouped themselves under either label stayed relatively constant. Nearly 6 in 10 Americans still see themselves as the haves, while only about a third see themselves as the have-nots. The numbers have been in that range for a decade.

This is the new American delusion. The facts point to a very different reality.

An Associated Press report this week on census data found that "a record number of Americans - nearly 1 in 2 - have fallen into poverty or are scraping by on earnings that classify them as low income." The report said that the data "depict a middle class that's shrinking."

An October report from the Congressional Budget Office found that, from 1979 to 2007, the average real after-tax household income for the 1 percent of the population with the highest incomes rose 275 percent. For the rest of the top 20 percent of earners, it rose 65 percent. But it rose just 18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.

And a report released in May by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development found that "the gap between rich and poor in O.E.C.D. countries has reached its highest level for over 30 years."

In the United States, the average income of the richest 10 percent of the population had risen to around 14 times that of the poorest 10 percent.

Our growing income inequality is a fact. So is the possibility that it could prove economically disastrous.

An April report from the International Monetary Fund found that growing income inequality has a negative effect on economic expansion. The report said that long periods of high growth, which were called "growth spells," were "much more likely to end in countries with less equal income distributions. The effect is large." It continued: "Inequality seemed to make a big difference almost no matter what other variables were in the model or exactly how we defined a 'growth spell.' "

Our income inequality could jeopardize our recovery.

Yet another Gallup report issued Friday found that most Americans now say that the fact that some people in the U.S. are rich and others are poor does not represent a problem but is an acceptable part of our economic system.

If denial is a river, it runs through doomed societies.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article;jsessionid=001884726DC3B95CE3765DF3FF8104D 1.w5?a=881252&f=28&sub=Columnist

[Halberto]

Getting tired of reading this shit. Does anyone think the top 1% will ever voluntarily fix this problem? They run the government and essentially everything else we do. It will take a catastrophe for things to change, not hipsters camping out in parks.

[boutons_deux]

"voluntarily"

never.

Likewise with the militarized and continuously militarizing police. They have every intention of using and abusing that power, they have, and they will.

Once (financial, political, military) power is obtained, it's NEVER given up voluntarily and it's ALWAYS abused.

The American Dream, you have to be asleep to believe it.

[JayTheClown]

Getting tired of reading this shit. Does anyone think the top 1% will ever voluntarily fix this problem? They run the government and essentially everything else we do. It will take a catastrophe for things to change, not hipsters camping out in parks.

This
:toast

[boutons_deux]

Did U.S. Tax Policies Increase Economic Inequality?

"Almost without exception, every proposal put forth by GOP lawmakers and presidential candidates is intended to preserve or expand tax privileges for the wealthiest Americans," writes Rolling Stone political correspondent Tim Dickinson. "Most of their plans, which are presented as commonsense measures that will aid all Americans, would actually result in higher taxes for middle-class taxpayers and the poor."

On Wednesday's Fresh Air, Dickinson explains how the tax policies pursued by the Republican Party have changed in the past 14 years — and says those changes have led to greater economic inequality in our country.

He explains that the top 400 taxpayers in the United States have seen their incomes increase threefold since 1997. In that same period, their tax rate has fallen by 40 percent.

"Today, a billionaire in the top 400 pays an effective tax rate of about 17 percent," he says. "That's about 5 percentage points less than your average worker."

"since Republicans began their tax-cut binge in 1997, they have succeeded in making the rich much richer. While the average income for the bottom 90 percent of taxpayers has remained basically flat over the past 15 years, those in the top 0.01 percent have seen their incomes more than double, to $36 million a year."

the revenue going to the wealthiest Americans is increasing.

"This isn't just about the broadest sweep of American society — this 90 percent — if it's getting ahead, it's getting ahead just at the margins," he says. "The people at the very top of the income period are taking off like a rocket — $10,000 an hour raise for the people in the top .01 percent."

"Traditionally, Republicans cared deeply about fiscal balance," he says. "So you fought over balance — and taxes were an otherwise uninteresting mechanism to pay the bills. And tax policy wasn't meant to prod and stimulate the economy because prosperity came from the private sector. So the GOP focus on tax policy was not to give the economy a boost, but to find a nondestructive way to raise the revenue that [the government] decided it needed."

The biggest tax cut during that era, says Dickinson, was made by Democratic President John F. Kennedy. Republicans largely opposed it.

"[They] were concerned that this was going to create deficits that were unwieldy," Dickinson explains. "This was consistent with the ideas that Republicans held that their duty in the system was to keep the nation's books in balance."

"[In the '80s and early '90s,] people were paying the same amount of tax on income that they got from wages as they got from income that they got from investments," he says. "But starting in 1997, Republicans led by Newt Gingrich dropped that [capital gains rate] to 20 percent. And in 2003, led by Dick Cheney, the Republicans dropped the capital gains rate tax down to 15 percent. And this is why you have this grotesque situation where the richest taxpayers in America are paying a lower effective tax rate than the average wage earner."

http://www.npr.org/2011/11/16/142353732/how-u-s-tax-policies-increased-economic-inequality?sc=17&f=1006

[ChuckD]

this shit again?

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

If you're in the bottom 30%, there's nothing to prevent you from going out and getting a better paying job.

Just sayin'.

[Wild Cobra]

If you're in the bottom 30%, there's nothing to prevent you from going out and getting a better paying job.

Just sayin'.
It may be hard out there, but even in better times, people like to blame the rich instead of looking inward.

[Vici]

If you're in the bottom 30%, there's nothing to prevent you from going out and getting a better paying job.

Just sayin'.

How many "better paying jobs" are out there?

In my company we had over 1.25 million applicants, we hired 800.

[ChuckD]

How many "better paying jobs" are out there?

In my company we had over 1.25 million applicants, we hired 800.

Why do you hate rich people and capitalism!!!

[ChuckD]

If you're in the bottom 30%, there's nothing to prevent you from going out and getting a better paying job.

Just sayin'.

In a pollyanna rose colored glasses world where trickle down economics worked instead of rich people shoving tax breaks into their own pockets and hiring no one, this might work.

[scott]

There exists a clear, distinguished relationship between income inequality and a society's overall quality of life (as measured by any of the objective measurement standards. The relationship follows one of my favorite graphs that applies to what seems like a countless number of situations:

http://econmonkey.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/notenoughtoomuch.jpg

Having too much EQUALITY will stunt economic growth, as it removes the incentive to achieve beyond the rest of the herd, since your compensation won't reflect your relative achievements.

On the flip side, having too much INEQUALITY will stunt economic growth. The best illustration is to imagine an economy where 1 person controls 99% of the wealth and the remaining 1% is controlled by the other 300 million people in the economy. That situation creates a Hegelian "master-slave" relationship that results in economic breakdown fairly quickly.

The question is - where does the US fall on the scale? It would appear some people think we have "too much" equality where as others think we have "not enough". But mostly, I think we have groups (both Republicans and Democrats) who don't actually care about maximizing a societies overall quality of life, but instead some measure of "fairness".

Unfortunately, "fairness" doesn't improve quality of life, or drive an economy.

There are countless numbers of policy actions that you can take to achieve different economic results - it just depends on what your goal is. My argument is that the goal should be to increase the overall societal well-being (when the pie is larger, everyone gets a bigger slice).

I also have my own opinion of where we are on the above graph, but I'll keep it to myself for now.

[boutons_deux]

"there's nothing to prevent you from going out and getting a better paying job."

for the last 3+ years, for every job opening, there has been at least 4 job seekers.

Inflation-Adjusted Income For Median Male Worker Drops To 1968 Levels

While back then, the median income of male workers was $32,844, it has since risen declined to $32,137 as of 2010.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/13/inflation-adjusted-income_n_960588.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

======

And since females make about 30% less than males, adding in females, the average US worker median income is $26K.

[ChuckD]

There exists a clear, distinguished relationship between income inequality and a society's overall quality of life (as measured by any of the objective measurement standards. The relationship follows one of my favorite graphs that applies to what seems like a countless number of situations:

Having too much EQUALITY will stunt economic growth, as it removes the incentive to achieve beyond the rest of the herd, since your compensation won't reflect your relative achievements.

On the flip side, having too much INEQUALITY will stunt economic growth. The best illustration is to imagine an economy where 1 person controls 99% of the wealth and the remaining 1% is controlled by the other 300 million people in the economy. That situation creates a Hegelian "master-slave" relationship that results in economic breakdown fairly quickly.

The question is - where does the US fall on the scale? It would appear some people think we have "too much" equality where as others think we have "not enough". But mostly, I think we have groups (both Republicans and Democrats) who don't actually care about maximizing a societies overall quality of life, but instead some measure of "fairness".

Unfortunately, "fairness" doesn't improve quality of life, or drive an economy.

There are countless numbers of policy actions that you can take to achieve different economic results - it just depends on what your goal is. My argument is that the goal should be to increase the overall societal well-being (when the pie is larger, everyone gets a bigger slice).

I also have my own opinion of where we are on the above graph, but I'll keep it to myself for now.


Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

[boutons_deux]

Study: The "optimal tax rate on the highest earners is in the vicinity of 70%"

That's surprisingly close to the Nixon-era Top Marginal Tax Rate of 75% (down from that job-killing Eisenhower-era rate of 91-92%). That measure of max tax takes into account the "they'll go Galt" factor, by the way; an offset for that effect is built into the calculation.

(It's not clear whether the 75% number is the total tax, or just the top rate on the highest dollars earned. It's almost certainly the latter, since that's the way we do taxes in the U.S. but still, I wanted to add that caution.)

The second point that's interesting about this paper — aside from the headline number — is the meaning of the phrase "optimal tax rate." What does "optimal" mean? Krugman again:

In the first part of the paper, D&S analyze the optimal tax rate on top earners. And they argue that this should be the rate that maximizes the revenue collected from these top earners — full stop.

Why isn't the rate then 100%? The answer is what I noted above, that too high a tax will either cause earnings to drop or drive part of the economy of the very wealthy to go underground (into a kind of black-velvet, jewel-encrusted market). Around 70% represents the calculated balance point where Max Tax is created.


http://www.americablog.com/2011/11/study-optimal-tax-rate-on-highest.html

==========

"down from that job-killing Eisenhower-era rate of 91-92%"

What bullshit. America boomed, and broadly across all levels of income, 1946-1960, in spite of those "job killing" high marginal rates, which complements that low corporate rates don't create jobs.

[scott]

(It's not clear whether the 75% number is the total tax, or just the top rate on the highest dollars earned. It's almost certainly the latter, since that's the way we do taxes in the U.S. but still, I wanted to add that caution.)

From the smell test perspective, it is almost assuredly implying that is the rate for the highest marginal bracket, not total effective tax rate.


The second point that's interesting about this paper — aside from the headline number — is the meaning of the phrase "optimal tax rate." What does "optimal" mean? Krugman again:

In the first part of the paper, D&S analyze the optimal tax rate on top earners. And they argue that this should be the rate that maximizes the revenue collected from these top earners — full stop.

I take issue with this definition of "optimal" for ACTUAL policy. We need to stop looking at "optimal" in terms of maximizing revenue (or "fairness" or anything like that) because revenue is a tool we use to achieve other objectives/goals. We need to start framing the term "optimal" in terms of what REAL objectives/goals we are trying to accomplish.

Note: I'm aware that the purpose of this study was merely to find the peak of the Laffer curve, not necessarily find the "optimal" in a wider sense. But there is the real danger that people like to cherry-pick studies like this and advocate we use that actual tax rate, which I don't think is what the study is actually suggesting.

[scott]

Working my way through the Paper boutons linked, and www.americablog.com (the link boutons provided) seems to have glossed over the paper itself, which makes the same arguments I just laid out:


Models in optimal tax theory typically posit that the tax system should maximize a social welfare function subject to a government budget constraint, taking into account that individuals respond to taxes and transfers. Social welfare is larger when resources are more equally distributed, but redistributive taxes and transfers can negatively affect incentives to work, save, and earn income in the fifi rst place. This creates the classical trade-off between equity and effifi ciency which is at the core of the optimal income tax problem.

[boutons_deux]

GOP’s Capital Gains Tax Cut Is The Biggest Driver Of Income Inequality

The lowering of the capital gains tax, pushed through as part of the Bush tax cut package of 2003, was the biggest driver of income inequality from 1996 to 2006, according to a recent report from the Congressional Research Service. While the Bush tax cuts as a whole contributed to rising inequality, it was the change in policy toward capital gains — which were once taxed at normal income rates but are now taxed at 15 percent for the rich — that played the largest role in exploding the income gap. While after-tax income increased by an average of 25 percent for Americans as a whole, lower earners saw a much smaller increase and the top 0.1 percent’s income, driven by lower capital gains tax rates, nearly doubled, as shown in this chart from Jared Bernstein:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/CRSfig1.png

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/01/03/396949/cap-gains-income-inequality-study/

[boutons_deux]

The study above needs to go back to 1980, before wealthy St Ronnie cut capital gains from 25% to 15%.

[Wild Cobra]

The study above needs to go back to 1980, before wealthy St Ronnie cut capital gains from 25% to 15%.
You mean the democrat controlled congress, right? Reagan could only sign or veto the bill. Congress is more accountable.

Don't you get tired of always blaming the wrong people?

[boutons_deux]

If St Ronnie didn't like it, then he didn't have to sign it.

side note: Repugs are lying that St Ronnie NEVER raised taxes. They're retroactively signing St Ronnie to bully Norquist's pledge.

[Wild Cobra]

If St Ronnie didn't like it, then he didn't have to sign it.

side note: Repugs are lying that St Ronnie NEVER raised taxes. They're retroactively signing St Ronnie to bully Norquist's pledge.
I didn't say he didn't like it. It just would have never happened if the democrat majority didn't like it!

[boutons_deux]

Harder for Americans to Rise From Lower Rungs

"It's becoming conventional wisdom that the U.S. does not have as much mobility as most other advanced countries," said Isabel V. Sawhill, an economist at the Brookings Institution. "I don't think you'll find too many people who will argue with that."

One reason for the mobility gap may be the depth of American poverty, which leaves poor children starting especially far behind. Another may be the unusually large premiums that American employers pay for college degrees.

Since children generally follow their parents' educational trajectory, that premium increases the importance of family background and stymies people with less schooling.At least five large studies in recent years have found the United States to be less mobile than comparable nations.

A project led by Markus Jantti, an economist at a Swedish university, found that 42 percent of American men raised in the bottom fifth of incomes stay there as adults. That shows a level of persistent disadvantage much higher than in Denmark (25 percent) and Britain (30 percent) - a country famous for its class constraints.

Meanwhile, just 8 percent of American men at the bottom rose to the top fifth. That compares with 12 percent of the British and 14 percent of the Danes.Despite frequent references to the United States as a classless society, about 62 percent of Americans (male and female) raised in the top fifth of incomes stay in the top two-fifths, according to research by the Economic Mobility Project of the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Similarly, 65 percent born in the bottom fifth stay in the bottom two-fifths.By emphasizing the influence of family background, the studies not only challenge American identity but speak to the debate about inequality.

While liberals often complain that the United States has unusually large income gaps, many conservatives have argued that the system is fair because mobility is especially high, too: everyone can climb the ladder.

Now the evidence suggests that America is not only less equal, but also less mobile.

John Bridgeland, a former aide to President George W. Bush who helped start Opportunity Nation, an effort to seek policy solutions, said he was "shocked" by the international comparisons. "Republicans will not feel compelled to talk about income inequality," Mr. Bridgeland said. "But they will feel a need to talk about a lack of mobility - a lack of access to the American Dream."

While Europe differs from the United States in culture and demographics, a more telling comparison may be with Canada, a neighbor with significant ethnic diversity. Miles Corak, an economist at the University of Ottawa, found that just 16 percent of Canadian men raised in the bottom tenth of incomes stayed there as adults, compared with 22 percent of Americans.

Similarly, 26 percent of American men raised at the top tenth stayed there, but just 18 percent of Canadians."Family background plays more of a role in the U.S. than in most comparable countries," Professor Corak said in an interview.Skeptics caution that the studies measure "relative mobility" - how likely children are to move from their parents' place in the income distribution.

That is different from asking whether they have more money. Most Americans have higher incomes than their parents because the country has grown richer. Some conservatives say this measure, called absolute mobility, is a better gauge of opportunity.

A Pew study found that 81 percent of Americans have higher incomes than their parents (after accounting for family size). There is no comparable data on other countries. Since they require two generations of data, the studies also omit immigrants, whose upward movement has long been considered an American strength.

"If America is so poor in economic mobility, maybe someone should tell all these people who still want to come to the U.S.," said Stuart M. Butler, an analyst at the Heritage Foundation.The income compression in rival countries may also make them seem more mobile.

Reihan Salam, a writer for The Daily and National Review Online, has calculated that a Danish family can move from the 10th percentile to the 90th percentile with $45,000 of additional earnings, while an American family would need an additional $93,000.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=889660&f=19

=====

Just another conservative myth(lie): anybody can be a millionaire in The Greatest Country In The Universe, USA #1!

[boutons_deux]

And on of the ways America denies the poor the opportunity of moving up (a huge fuck-the-poor Repug/UCA plank):

Obama Fails On Minimum Wage Pledge

In 2008, then-President-elect Barack Obama made an ambitious pledge as part of his agenda to fight poverty, one he claimed would help "make work pay for all Americans" in an era of widening economic inequality: By the end of 2011, he would raise the federal minimum wage to $9.50 an hour and index it to inflation, "to make sure that full-time workers can earn a living wage," as his transition team's website put it.

In effect, Obama was pushing for a 31 percent pay raise for millions of the country's lowest earners. But when they collect their first paychecks for 2012, those workers will see no such raise. The federal minimum wage remains $7.25 an hour, the same rate it's been since 2009, when the last of a series of wage bumps signed into law by George W. Bush was implemented. The cost of living continues to climb although the wage floor remains the same.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/05/obama-minimum-wage_n_1184752.html?ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=010512&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief

===

Of course, the "business-friendly/fuck-America" Repugs would block any such legislation.

[boutons_deux]

Growing Majority Says There Is Strong Conflict Between the Rich and the Poor


http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2012/01/2012-rich-vs-poor-01.png
While blacks are still more likely than whites see serious class conflicts, the share of whites who hold this view has increased by 22 percentage points, to 65%, since 2009. At the same time, the proportion of blacks (74%) and Hispanics (61%) sharing this judgment has grown by single digits (8 and 6 points, respectively).

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2012/01/12/growing-majority-says-there-is-strong-conflict-between-the-rich-and-the-poor/

[vy65]

who cares?

[boutons_deux]

who cares? (poor) people who can't find a job?

Millions of Americans to Be Driven Into Poverty

Millions of Americans will be forced into poverty in the coming years even as the US hauls itself out of the longest and deepest recession since the second world war.

A study from Indiana University, released on Wednesday, says the number of Americans living below the poverty line surged by 27% since the beginning of what it calls the "Great Recession" in 2006, driving 10 million more people into poverty.

The report warns that the numbers will continue to rise, because although the recession is technically over, its continued impact on cuts to welfare budgets and the quality of new, often poorly paid, jobs can be expected to force many more people in to poverty. It is also difficult for those already under water to get back up again.

"Poverty in America is remarkably widespread," concludes the study, At Risk: America's Poor During and After the Great Recession. "The number of people living in poverty is increasing and is expected to increase further, despite the recovery."

The white paper, drafted by the university's school of public and environmental affairs, which is among the best ranked schools of its kind in the US, says that six years ago, 36.5 million Americans fell below the poverty line. By 2010, the number of people living in poverty rose to 46.2 million and continued to grow over the past year.

"The Great Recession has left behind the largest number of long-term unemployed people since records were first kept in 1948. More than 4 million Americans report that they have been unemployed for more than 12 months," said the report.

John Graham, dean of the school and one of the authors of the report, said that the numbers of "new poor" will continue to rise.

"One of the big surprises is that poverty in the United States is likely to continue to increase even as the economic recovery unfolds," said Graham. "The unique feature of the great recession is not just the high rate of unemployment, but the long duration of unemployment that millions of Americans have experienced. [For] a lot of these long-term unemployed, the job that they had won't exist when they go back in to the labour market."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jan/11/poverty-america-likely-worse-report

[vy65]

who cares?

[Wild Cobra]

Boutons...

Don't you get it? We do it too ourselves, and the rich get unequally more wealthy because they are smarter than the average consumer and voter. You can only blame others who want cheap goods. As Darrin said, "The standard of living of ALL classes has increased" and he is correct. The problem is the goods are cheaper allowing lower wages to buy more. That is why the decreasing real wealth as decreased relatively painlessly.

[boutons_deux]

"The standard of living of ALL classes has increased"

really, any data?

what about 2M foreclosed homes in 2011, the 1M more due 2012, and the $Ts of lost net worth, lost jobs, lost pensions, and wealth lost by the 99% due to the Banksters Continuing Great Depression?

Cost-push food and gas prices, not factored in inflation, are "painlessly" more affordable?

[101A]

A simple question: How does raising taxes on rich people increase the income of those in lower classes?

Perusing the thread, that seems to be what you are arguing, Boutons. Also, if we're talking "income" - raising the income tax on the rich does not reduce income, it simply means more goes to the government. If one guy makes $500,000, and 70% of that is taken by the government, his income is still $500,000 - correspondingly, if another person makes $50,000, and he is not taxed at all, his income is still 1/10 of his rich countryman.

I would argue, that a guy who is making $500,000, who is then taxed at a much higher rate, is going to work harder, and make more income, to make up the difference, in order to maintain his standard of living. Thus, increasing the income disparity gap; if there is a corresponding slacking of the poor person, who has had his taxes decreased, because it is now easier to maintain his modest standard of living, then what you are arguing for could vary well increase the gap (and allow you to get even more shrill).

The bottom tax rate DROPPED from 15% to 10% under the Bush tax cuts; poor people saw actual dollars increase in their pockets, while making equal income - no change in income disparity, by your metrics, but a potentially significant uptick in actual cash available (relatively).

[clambake]

its about paying the lions share of the massive debt created by senseless wars.

and bailing out the rich. you do realize it was the rich we bailed, right?

[101A]

its about paying the lions share of the massive debt created by senseless wars.

and bailing out the rich. you do realize it was the rich we bailed, right?

Nobody was, or is, more against the bailouts than I have been.

Also, I made no comment regarding what the tax rates ought to be; I simply pointed out what I feel to be a disconnect in Bouton's argument.

[George Gervin's Afro]

You mean the democrat controlled congress, right? Reagan could only sign or veto the bill. Congress is more accountable.

Don't you get tired of always blaming the wrong people?

So a president is at the mercy of the congress?


okkkk

[101A]

So a president is at the mercy of the congress?


okkkk


I think Obama would say he has been (if he hasn't already said it)

[Wild Cobra]

A simple question: How does raising taxes on rich people increase the income of those in lower classes?

It's called redistribution of wealth. At the end of the tunnel, all these people want is for the government to give the poorer people more of other people's money.

[boutons_deux]

America, a Land Made for the 1 Percent
January 13, 2012

Over the past three decades, right-wing policies have diverted the wealth of America into fewer and fewer hands, and a right-wing Supreme Court has let money dominate U.S. politics like never before, challenging Woody Guthrie’s idea that “this land was made for you and me,” Bill Moyers and Michael Winship note.

This land is mostly owned not by you and me but by the winner-take-all super-rich who have bought up open spaces, built mega-mansions, turned vast acres into private vistas, and distanced themselves as far as they can from the common lot of working people – the people Woody wrote and sang about.

Today, whatever was real about that spirit has been bludgeoned by severe economic hardship for everyday Americans and by the cynical expedience of politicians who wear the red-white-and-blue in their lapels and sing “America the Beautiful” while serving the interests of crony capitalists stuffing SuperPACs with millions of dollars harvested from the gross inequality destroying us from within.

http://consortiumnews.com/2012/01/13/america-a-land-made-for-the-1-percent/

[Wild Cobra]

To the <15% that claim to be the 99%...

Thou shall not covet...

[boutons_deux]

The Perils of 2012

The year 2011 will be remembered as the time when many ever-optimistic Americans began to give up hope. President John F. Kennedy once said that a rising tide lifts all boats. But now, in the receding tide, Americans are beginning to see not only that those with taller masts had been lifted far higher, but also that many of the smaller boats had been dashed to pieces in their wake.

middle-aged people who thought that they would be unemployed for a few months have now realized that they were, in fact, forcibly retired. Young people who graduated from college with tens of thousands of dollars of education debt cannot find any jobs at all. People who moved in with friends and relatives have become homeless. Houses bought during the property boom are still on the market or have been sold at a loss. More than seven million American families have lost their homes.

The dark underbelly of the previous decade’s financial boom has been fully exposed in Europe as well. Dithering over Greece and key national governments’ devotion to austerity began to exact a heavy toll last year. Contagion spread to Italy. Spain’s unemployment, which had been near 20% since the beginning of the recession, crept even higher. The unthinkable – the end of the euro – began to seem like a real possibility.

This year is set to be even worse. It is possible, of course, that the United States will solve its political problems and finally adopt the stimulus measures that it needs to bring down unemployment to 6% or 7% (the pre-crisis level of 4% or 5% is too much to hope for). But this is as unlikely as it is that Europe will figure out that austerity alone will not solve its problems. On the contrary, austerity will only exacerbate the economic slowdown. Without growth, the debt crisis – and the euro crisis – will only worsen. And the long crisis that began with the collapse of the housing bubble in 2007 and the subsequent recession will continue.

Moreover, the major emerging-market countries, which steered successfully through the storms of 2008 and 2009, may not cope as well with the problems looming on the horizon. Brazil’s growth has already stalled, fueling anxiety among its neighbors in Latin America.

Meanwhile, long-term problems – including climate change and other environmental threats, and increasing inequality in most countries around the world – have not gone away. Some have grown more severe. For example, high unemployment has depressed wages and increased poverty.

Even without widening the fiscal deficit, such “balanced budget” increases in taxes and spending would lower unemployment and increase output. The worry, however, is that politics and ideology on both sides of the Atlantic, but especially in the US, will not allow any of this to occur. Fixation on the deficit will induce cutbacks in social spending, worsening inequality. Likewise, the enduring attraction of supply-side economics, despite all of the evidence against it (especially in a period in which there is high unemployment), will prevent raising taxes at the top.

Even before the crisis, there was a rebalancing of economic power – in fact, a correction of a 200-year historical anomaly, in which Asia’s share of global GDP fell from nearly 50% to, at one point, below 10%. The pragmatic commitment to growth that one sees in Asia and other emerging markets today stands in contrast to the West’s misguided policies, which, driven by a combination of ideology and vested interests, almost seem to reflect a commitment not to grow.

As a result, global economic rebalancing is likely to accelerate, almost inevitably giving rise to political tensions. With all of the problems confronting the global economy, we will be lucky if these strains do not begin to manifest themselves within the next twelve months.

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/stiglitz147/English