6 Ways Income Inequality Makes Your Life Worse

ClosedCaption

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2010
53,233
6,719
1,830
1. Income inequality forces Americans into debt.

As the wealthy become wealthier, they create an “economic arms race in which the middle class has been spending beyond their means in order to keep up,” a 2013 study from the University of Chicago’s Marianne Bertrand and Adair Morse concludes.
“What you think you need depends on the context you find yourself in,” says Cornell economist Robert H. Frank, who has written about the “expenditure cascades.” “And standards tend to be local. When most of the income gains are going to the very top, the people around them feel relatively poorer and spend more because of that.” Lower- and middle-income Americans, in other words, are not forced to buy expensive cares or houses, but they feel pressured to do so, leading to an increase in the personal bankruptcy rate and a plummeting savings rate.

The wealthy bid up the the prices of real estate, create a boom in more expensive restaurants, bars, and grocery stores, and effectively price out their lower-income neighbors or force them to spend more to continue living in the community.

?Trickle-down consumption?: How rising inequality can leave everyone worse off

2. Income inequality makes America sick.

Researchers at Harvard University’s School of Public Health found that women living in areas with large gaps between the “haves” and “have-nots” are at greater risk of being depressed and are nearly twice as likely to suffer from depression compared to the women living in areas that have a more equal income distribution.
Meanwhile, though American life expectancy has increased dramatically over past decades, research shows that those gains are going mostly to people at the upper end of the income ladder. Life expectancy of male workers retiring at 65 has grown by six years in the top half of the income distribution but only 1.3 years in the bottom half over the last 30 years, for instance. “Life expectancy has increased mainly among the privileged class,” Economic Policy Institute economist Monique Morrissey told the Washington Post. “For many people, raising the retirement age would amount to a significant benefit cut.”
The lack of health care providers in poorer communities and lack of education about health care conditions means that lower-income Americans are much more likely to develop and live with chronic medical conditions like diabetes or high blood pressure. A study by the National Urban League Policy estimates that U.S. health care disparities have contributed to $59.9 billion in excess spending, a price tag that will fall significantly as lower-income Americans start accessing health care services through the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion.

How The United States' Growing Income Inequality Is Hurting Women's Mental Health | ThinkProgress

3. Income inequality makes America less safe.

Statistical patterns show that crime rates increase with rising economic inequality. For instance, a 1999 Harvard analysis of the homicide rates in each state and the District of Columbia found that as the gap between the rich and the poor rose, the rate of homicide rose along with it. Income inequality alone accounted for “74 percent of the variance in murder rates and half of the aggravated assaults,” the research concluded. A 2002 World Bank study confirmed these results, concluding that homicide and an unequal distribution of resources are inextricably tied throughout the world.
The National Bureau of Economic Research has developed an even more precise number, reporting that “a twenty percent drop in wages leads to a 12 to 18 percent increase in youth crime.” Other analysis has found that a 1 percentage point increase in the Gini index (a measure of wealth inequality) produces, on average, a 3.6 percent increase in the homicide rate.

ftp://psyftp.mcmaster.ca/dalywilson/sshrc2004/wilkinsonCrime.pdf

4. Income inequality makes America less democratic.

A large body of research suggests that high inequality leads to lower levels of representative democracy and a higher probability of revolution, as poorer citizens become convinced that the government is only serving and representing the interests of the rich. And today’s political candidates and parties are relying more on deep pocketed campaign donors than at any other time since the early 1970s, when Congress first enacted campaign finance laws.
The Huffington Post’s Paul Blumenthal recently pointed out that “the top 0.01 percent of campaign donors — one percent of the one percent — contributed more than 40 percent of all the money spent in the 2012 elections.” Compare that to 1980, when the top 0.01 percent of campaign donors accounted for just under 15 percent of all the political contributions. Today’s rich also donate millions to Political Action Committees (PACs) and so-called 501(c)4 organizations in an effort to influence the politics and public policy. The Washington Post reported this month that the 17 groups that are funded by conservative donors Charles and David Koch “raised at least $407 million during the 2012 campaign” — more than Democrats and Republicans spent in the entire 2000 election.
Harvard economics professor Edward L. Glaeser argues that as the rich become richer and secure more political influence, they support policies that make them wealthier at the expense of everyone else. “If the rich can influence political outcomes through lobbying activities or membership in special interest groups, then more inequality could lead to less redistribution rather than more,” he explained in a 2006 paper.

http://www.economics.cornell.edu/et17/Erik Thorbecke files/Socioeconomic impact.pdf
How The 0.01 Percent Underwrites, And Undermines, Politics

5. Income inequality undermines the American dream.


New research finds that while economic mobility in the United States has stayed flat for two decades, the distance between the richest Americans and the poorest has grown dramatically. So if social mobility is a ladder, this means “the rungs of the ladder have grown further apart (inequality has increased), but children’s chances of climbing from lower to higher rungs have not changed,” the researchers note.
This intergenerational mobility is significantly lower in the United States than in most other developed countries. The chances of a child moving out of poverty are about half as high in the U.S. as in Denmark, for instance, leading Richard Wilkinson, Professor Emeritus of Social Epidemiology at England’s University of Nottingham, to conclude, “If Americans want to live the American dream, they should go to Denmark.”
Other research has found that economic mobility depends heavily on geography, and in particular, that areas with strong middle classes have higher rates. Places with lower and less progressive state income taxes, on the other hand, have lower rates of mobility.

Equality of Opportunity

6. Income inequality is undermining long-term economic growth.

Societies with greater income inequality experience slower and less stable economic growth, a recent global comparison from the International Monetary Fund concluded, and see far shorter economic expansions.
They “are more vulnerable to both financial crises and political instability” and, if hit by external shocks, “often stumble into gridlock rather than agree to tough policies needed to keep growth alive,” the report found. As a result, American income trends suggest that current economic expansions “could last just one-third as long as in the late 1960s.”

How Inequality Hurts the Economy - Businessweek
 
1. Income inequality forces Americans into debt.

As the wealthy become wealthier, they create an “economic arms race in which the middle class has been spending beyond their means in order to keep up,” a 2013 study from the University of Chicago’s Marianne Bertrand and Adair Morse concludes.
“What you think you need depends on the context you find yourself in,” says Cornell economist Robert H. Frank, who has written about the “expenditure cascades.” “And standards tend to be local. When most of the income gains are going to the very top, the people around them feel relatively poorer and spend more because of that.” Lower- and middle-income Americans, in other words, are not forced to buy expensive cares or houses, but they feel pressured to do so, leading to an increase in the personal bankruptcy rate and a plummeting savings rate.

The wealthy bid up the the prices of real estate, create a boom in more expensive restaurants, bars, and grocery stores, and effectively price out their lower-income neighbors or force them to spend more to continue living in the community.

?Trickle-down consumption?: How rising inequality can leave everyone worse off

2. Income inequality makes America sick.

Researchers at Harvard University’s School of Public Health found that women living in areas with large gaps between the “haves” and “have-nots” are at greater risk of being depressed and are nearly twice as likely to suffer from depression compared to the women living in areas that have a more equal income distribution.
Meanwhile, though American life expectancy has increased dramatically over past decades, research shows that those gains are going mostly to people at the upper end of the income ladder. Life expectancy of male workers retiring at 65 has grown by six years in the top half of the income distribution but only 1.3 years in the bottom half over the last 30 years, for instance. “Life expectancy has increased mainly among the privileged class,” Economic Policy Institute economist Monique Morrissey told the Washington Post. “For many people, raising the retirement age would amount to a significant benefit cut.”
The lack of health care providers in poorer communities and lack of education about health care conditions means that lower-income Americans are much more likely to develop and live with chronic medical conditions like diabetes or high blood pressure. A study by the National Urban League Policy estimates that U.S. health care disparities have contributed to $59.9 billion in excess spending, a price tag that will fall significantly as lower-income Americans start accessing health care services through the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion.

How The United States' Growing Income Inequality Is Hurting Women's Mental Health | ThinkProgress

3. Income inequality makes America less safe.

Statistical patterns show that crime rates increase with rising economic inequality. For instance, a 1999 Harvard analysis of the homicide rates in each state and the District of Columbia found that as the gap between the rich and the poor rose, the rate of homicide rose along with it. Income inequality alone accounted for “74 percent of the variance in murder rates and half of the aggravated assaults,” the research concluded. A 2002 World Bank study confirmed these results, concluding that homicide and an unequal distribution of resources are inextricably tied throughout the world.
The National Bureau of Economic Research has developed an even more precise number, reporting that “a twenty percent drop in wages leads to a 12 to 18 percent increase in youth crime.” Other analysis has found that a 1 percentage point increase in the Gini index (a measure of wealth inequality) produces, on average, a 3.6 percent increase in the homicide rate.

ftp://psyftp.mcmaster.ca/dalywilson/sshrc2004/wilkinsonCrime.pdf

4. Income inequality makes America less democratic.

A large body of research suggests that high inequality leads to lower levels of representative democracy and a higher probability of revolution, as poorer citizens become convinced that the government is only serving and representing the interests of the rich. And today’s political candidates and parties are relying more on deep pocketed campaign donors than at any other time since the early 1970s, when Congress first enacted campaign finance laws.
The Huffington Post’s Paul Blumenthal recently pointed out that “the top 0.01 percent of campaign donors — one percent of the one percent — contributed more than 40 percent of all the money spent in the 2012 elections.” Compare that to 1980, when the top 0.01 percent of campaign donors accounted for just under 15 percent of all the political contributions. Today’s rich also donate millions to Political Action Committees (PACs) and so-called 501(c)4 organizations in an effort to influence the politics and public policy. The Washington Post reported this month that the 17 groups that are funded by conservative donors Charles and David Koch “raised at least $407 million during the 2012 campaign” — more than Democrats and Republicans spent in the entire 2000 election.
Harvard economics professor Edward L. Glaeser argues that as the rich become richer and secure more political influence, they support policies that make them wealthier at the expense of everyone else. “If the rich can influence political outcomes through lobbying activities or membership in special interest groups, then more inequality could lead to less redistribution rather than more,” he explained in a 2006 paper.

http://www.economics.cornell.edu/et17/Erik Thorbecke files/Socioeconomic impact.pdf
How The 0.01 Percent Underwrites, And Undermines, Politics

5. Income inequality undermines the American dream.


New research finds that while economic mobility in the United States has stayed flat for two decades, the distance between the richest Americans and the poorest has grown dramatically. So if social mobility is a ladder, this means “the rungs of the ladder have grown further apart (inequality has increased), but children’s chances of climbing from lower to higher rungs have not changed,” the researchers note.
This intergenerational mobility is significantly lower in the United States than in most other developed countries. The chances of a child moving out of poverty are about half as high in the U.S. as in Denmark, for instance, leading Richard Wilkinson, Professor Emeritus of Social Epidemiology at England’s University of Nottingham, to conclude, “If Americans want to live the American dream, they should go to Denmark.”
Other research has found that economic mobility depends heavily on geography, and in particular, that areas with strong middle classes have higher rates. Places with lower and less progressive state income taxes, on the other hand, have lower rates of mobility.

Equality of Opportunity

6. Income inequality is undermining long-term economic growth.

Societies with greater income inequality experience slower and less stable economic growth, a recent global comparison from the International Monetary Fund concluded, and see far shorter economic expansions.
They “are more vulnerable to both financial crises and political instability” and, if hit by external shocks, “often stumble into gridlock rather than agree to tough policies needed to keep growth alive,” the report found. As a result, American income trends suggest that current economic expansions “could last just one-third as long as in the late 1960s.”

How Inequality Hurts the Economy - Businessweek

All sorts of correlation not equaling causation happening here.
 
You're seriously going to try to argue that because Americans have more money, there is more of a chance of them being sick?

You realize that if we are all equally poor, we will have more health issues than if some are poor and some are rich? You also realize that poor and rich are not static positions right? A rich man can become poor and a poor man can become rich.

You do realize that no matter who you choose in the entire world, if you compare them one will be poorer and the other will be richer, right? No one has the exact same amount of wealth. No one needs the exact same amount of wealth. The idea that all of us need to be the same is absolutely absurd, and your desire to use the coercive force of government to make us all the same is deadly and oppressive.
 
Utter and total bullshit from the get go.
What does it mean that middle class people borrow heavily to become like rich people? Whose fault is that? Yes, some people do that. Some people are idiots. It isnt the gov'ts job to protect idiots from their own poor habits.
But you could equally argue that poor people spend to be like middle class people. That actually makes more sense. But it is positing a cause and effect where there is none.
 
Economic arms race? :lol: Seriously? Trying to keep up with the Joneses? :lmao:
 
You're seriously going to try to argue that because Americans have more money, there is more of a chance of them being sick?.

Stress has no effect on our bodies is your opinion?





What stress? Most people get their stress from having to deal with the government in all of its various bureaucratic machinations. Far more stress from that. You want to reduce peoples stress? Reduce government in size and scope.

It will work wonders.
 
Really, this goes along the lines of "Global warming could kill billions of people by 2014."

"Income inequality makes America sick"? HA! No, Obamacare makes America sick. Obamacare puts people into debt with it's high premiums. By stripping people of their insurance, it makes America less democratic. If you want to get technical, Obamacare makes life worse for America in many ways.

CC, stop drinking the toilet water.
 
Last edited:
You're seriously going to try to argue that because Americans have more money, there is more of a chance of them being sick?.

Stress has no effect on our bodies is your opinion?

You seriously think the Rich don't get stressed?

You seriously think making the rich poor isn't going to stress more people out?
 
Really, this goes along the lines of "Global warming could kill billions of people by 2014."

"Income inequality makes America sick"? HA! No, Obamacare makes America sick. Obamacare puts people into debt with it's high premiums. By stripping people of their insurance, it makes America less democratic. If you want to get technical, Obamacare makes life worse for America in many ways.

CC, stop drinking the toilet water.

I disagree with one point. I dont think Obamacare is making people sick. It's just making it more difficult to get over being sick.
 
I saw this baloney in my local birdcage liner yesterday. What a load of horse manure!

It is a pathetic attempt by some pundit to put an air of legitimacy to the total-nonsense buzzwords of the Democrats in the coming election cycle.

Rebutting these preposterous "arguments" is like shooting fish in a barrel (which I've never actually tried, but I understand it is easy).

1. No one is "forced" to go into debt because his neighbor is more prosperous. If one is not a total pussy, one will work a little harder to emulate his neighbor's success. And that's a good thing.

2. How do you define an area with large gaps between rich and poor? Manhattan? Miami? If seeing people who are better off than you makes you depressed, you are a loser to start with, and it's nobody's fault but your own.

3. This "research" is literally incredible. That is to say, it is not believable. More people kill each other when other people prosper? The word, "bullshit" is not adequate to describe how ridiculous these studies (or the flawed reporting of them) are.

4. Higher probability of revolution? I'm speechless. But if more prosperity makes poor people less likely to vote, then I'm all for "income inequality." Bring it on.

5. I have to wonder why it is a bad thing that it is just as possible today for someone to climb from the "lowest rung" to a higher rung on the economic ladder ("...chances...have not changed...). But this also illustrates another giant piece of "Progressive" ignorance on income mobility. They always want to talk about the economic quintiles over time, while ignoring the fact that PEOPLE move up and down among the quintiles all the time.

6. Well, I have to grant them this one. Since Barry has been President there has basically been no economic growth, and there has been a significant increase in "income inequality."

So maybe if we don't fuck up again, and we elect a Republican next time we will see some economic expansion and less "income inequality"!
 
We were plumbing a house in the "rich" part of town and my helper commented that the people who lived in this neighborhood must make lots of money. The Architect overheard him and replied, "No son, they don't make lots of money, they owe lots of money".
 
Last edited:
Income equality cannot be achieved until everybody has absolutely nothing.

Just another slice of reality the left prefers to not understand. But that's because "everybody" would include them.

black-or-white​
You presented two alternative states as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.
Also known as the false dilemma, this insidious tactic has the appearance of forming a logical argument, but under closer scrutiny it becomes evident that there are more possibilities than the either/or choice that is presented. Binary, black-or-white thinking doesn't allow for the many different variables, conditions, and contexts in which there would exist more than just the two possibilities put forth. It frames the argument misleadingly and obscures rational, honest debate.
 
You're seriously going to try to argue that because Americans have more money, there is more of a chance of them being sick?.

Stress has no effect on our bodies is your opinion?

You seriously think the Rich don't get stressed?

You seriously think making the rich poor isn't going to stress more people out?

Ok so stress does have an effect on the body then? Or no? Or will you choose both?
 
Income equality cannot be achieved until everybody has absolutely nothing.

Just another slice of reality the left prefers to not understand. But that's because "everybody" would include them.

black-or-white​
You presented two alternative states as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.
Also known as the false dilemma, this insidious tactic has the appearance of forming a logical argument, but under closer scrutiny it becomes evident that there are more possibilities than the either/or choice that is presented. Binary, black-or-white thinking doesn't allow for the many different variables, conditions, and contexts in which there would exist more than just the two possibilities put forth. It frames the argument misleadingly and obscures rational, honest debate.

Please tell me how you have everyone equal if some people work and some dont?
 
Income equality cannot be achieved until everybody has absolutely nothing.

Just another slice of reality the left prefers to not understand. But that's because "everybody" would include them.

North Korea has Income Equality. So does Cuba. And Viet Nam.

In fact, I met a young lady at (of all places) the doggy park the other day who had just arrived from Cuba.

She couldn't speak a word of English.... One reason, it's illegal to learn a foreign language without permission (can't have someone with an unfair advantage, can we?).

So she had to address me through her cousin... An American who paid a lot of money to get her out of that pushole, that Workers Paradise, that Hell on Earth, that Income Equality Utopia...

Anyway, she was shocked at what she found here. She said she'd heard all about America and how wonderful it is but that she had no idea how much better than Cuba it was.

I, of course, informed her that dimocraps are truly the scum of the earth and that they would love nothing better than to see us become just like Cuba.

The word 'loco' was muttered by her.

Anybody know what that means?
 
Really, this goes along the lines of "Global warming could kill billions of people by 2014."

"Income inequality makes America sick"? HA! No, Obamacare makes America sick. Obamacare puts people into debt with it's high premiums. By stripping people of their insurance, it makes America less democratic. If you want to get technical, Obamacare makes life worse for America in many ways.

CC, stop drinking the toilet water.

I disagree with one point. I don't think Obamacare is making people sick. It's just making it more difficult to get over being sick.

Fair enough. Although, I think people who weren't sick before could get sick and have no means of viably paying for treatment without bankrupting themselves. I can see that happening.
 

Forum List

Back
Top