Separate but unequal: Charts show growing rich-poor gap

[uscitizen]

Wed Feb 23, 5:13 pm ET
Separate but unequal: Charts show growing rich-poor gap

The Great Recession and the slump that followed have triggered a jobs crisis that's been making headlines since before President Obama was in office, and that will likely be with us for years. But the American economy is also plagued by a less-noted, but just as serious, problem: Simply put, over the last 30 years, the gap between rich and poor has widened into a chasm.

Gradual developments like this don't typically lend themselves to news coverage. But Mother Jones magazine has crunched the data on inequality, and put together a group of stunning new charts. Taken together, they offer a dramatic visual illustration of who's doing well and who's doing badly in modern America.

Here are three samples:

• This chart shows that the poorest 90 percent of Americans make an average of $31,244 a year, while the top 1 percent make over $1.1 million:

Separate but unequal: Charts show growing rich-poor gap - Yahoo! News

 

[william the wie]

While I sympathize with your viewpoint income inequality is much smaller problem than income uncertainty. Since the 70s the standard deviation of annual income has been growing and been heading ever higher up the income ladder. There have been two sources for this result:

The great inflation taught everyone alive at the time that financial leverage was better than sex.

Also since the 70s the product life-cycle has been getting ever shorter. The half-life of an education has therefore been shrinking. This has not been adapted to. The lives of companies has also shrunk. The Fortune 500 is seeing ever more churn and I believe it is the Forbes 500 that includes the richest people and that has seen a lot of churn too.

The fact is that increasingly the economy is becoming more erratic as a result of both causes.

 

[rdean]

The question is "Why do Republicans support this inequality"?

The top ten donors to political parties - 7 big corporations - 3 unions. The reason the Republicans have been given the orders by their corporate masters to go after unions is to make it impossible to fight back. Corporations want to move all taxes to the middle class. They don't want to be bothered by clean air and clean water regulations. They don't want an educated public.

The problem Republicans either can't see, or don't care about, is the country actually revolves around the middle class. Destroy the middle class and you destroy the country. The only thing standing in the way are the Democrats and the Unions.

 

[Leweman]

Do you have a link for the donors? Ive heard the same thing. I was just curious who the donors are specifically.

 

[Leweman]

The link I have from open secrets has the 13 of the top 20 donors donating heavily democratic, 6 donating to both parties nearly equally and 1 donating heavily republican. Thats odd.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?type=L

 

[California Girl]

So? Where in the Constitution does it specify the right to be equally wealthy as others? Oh, that's right. It doesn't.

 

[Anachronism]

So? Where in the Constitution does it specify the right to be equally wealthy as others? Oh, that's right. It doesn't.

Exactly. I'd also love to see a similar chart on how much "risk" is taken by workers in America over the last 30 years. I'd be willing to bet that we find those at the lower end of the spectrum have little risk (ie... get welfare or easy, low-paying jobs with little chance of being fired for incompetence) compared to those at the upper end who have lots of risk (venture capitalists, industrialists, etc...)

What's the old saying....

"No Risk, No Reward."

 

[editec]

There's no mystery about the causes of this phenomena.

The gap between the TRULY rich and everybody else continues to widen because our government under both the Dems and the Reps have put policies regulations in place that give advantages to capital, usually at the expense of the rest of the population.


Now I realize that some of you believe this development isn't a threatening to our democratic republic.

History suggests that you are wrong about that.

But since so few of you apparently read any history, I can see how easily you can be lead to believe this is a benign development.

Personally I think this trend is a social cancer that will destroy the American way of life.

After all, I've been watching life in America get harder and harder for most of us since about 1970, when this development first reared its ugly head.

 

[rightwinger]

So? Where in the Constitution does it specify the right to be equally wealthy as others? Oh, that's right. It doesn't.

It doesn't

But it does cause one to question why we need to pass legislation that continues to favor the wealthy?

 

[rightwinger]

So? Where in the Constitution does it specify the right to be equally wealthy as others? Oh, that's right. It doesn't.

Exactly. I'd also love to see a similar chart on how much "risk" is taken by workers in America over the last 30 years. I'd be willing to bet that we find those at the lower end of the spectrum have little risk (ie... get welfare or easy, low-paying jobs with little chance of being fired for incompetence) compared to those at the upper end who have lots of risk (venture capitalists, industrialists, etc...)

What's the old saying....

"No Risk, No Reward."

You don't think workers take risk?

When the wealthy take a risk and fail, who is the first in line to pay the price?

The workers

 

[Anachronism]

You don't think workers take risk?

When the wealthy take a risk and fail, who is the first in line to pay the price?

The workers

I'm not talking about the workers at those start up companies and things like that. I'm not talking about REAL workers who have REAL jobs.

I'm talking about the workers at the McDonald's, Target, Wal-Mart, Joe's Gas and Go, etc.... The ones whose name is on the front of their shirt. You know, the ones whose jobs my dog could probably be trained to do better than most of them do it. Also the people whose sole income is from ME (and you) via our taxes. THOSE people have zero risk. It's almost impossible for them to lose their jobs (if they have one), and they get paid almost nothing because of that. There is no expectation of them to do anything, and their pay reflects that.

 

[uscitizen]

30 Years... Hmm about the same time as the trickle down myth started...
I guess the Republicans had to start some myth to "justify" their preferential treatment of the upper class though.

 

[California Girl]

So? Where in the Constitution does it specify the right to be equally wealthy as others? Oh, that's right. It doesn't.

It doesn't

But it does cause one to question why we need to pass legislation that continues to favor the wealthy?

I don't necessarily agree that we should have legislation that 'favors the wealthy' but... I certainly do not see other people's money as some justification to force them to carry my share of the country's burden.

If you create an unfavorable environment for wealth, that wealth leaves. Ask any country who has tried it. It has never worked to over burden them.... they are the ones with the ability to take their 'wealth' away. I would rather treat them fairly - just like everyone else.

 

[rightwinger]

So? Where in the Constitution does it specify the right to be equally wealthy as others? Oh, that's right. It doesn't.

It doesn't

But it does cause one to question why we need to pass legislation that continues to favor the wealthy?

I don't necessarily agree that we should have legislation that 'favors the wealthy' but... I certainly do not see other people's money as some justification to force them to carry my share of the country's burden.

If you create an unfavorable environment for wealth, that wealth leaves. Ask any country who has tried it. It has never worked to over burden them.... they are the ones with the ability to take their 'wealth' away. I would rather treat them fairly - just like everyone else.

Given the rising levels of wealth concentrated in the top 4% of Americans since the Reagan tax cuts, it does not appear that they are overburdened.

Trickle down did not work. The idea that dumping money on the rich which would trickle down to the working class shows that the rich just kept the extra money

The idea that if we are not "nice" to rich people they will leave is lame. There is too much money to be made

 

[California Girl]

It doesn't

But it does cause one to question why we need to pass legislation that continues to favor the wealthy?

I don't necessarily agree that we should have legislation that 'favors the wealthy' but... I certainly do not see other people's money as some justification to force them to carry my share of the country's burden.

If you create an unfavorable environment for wealth, that wealth leaves. Ask any country who has tried it. It has never worked to over burden them.... they are the ones with the ability to take their 'wealth' away. I would rather treat them fairly - just like everyone else.

Given the rising levels of wealth concentrated in the top 4% of Americans since the Reagan tax cuts, it does not appear that they are overburdened.

Trickle down did not work. The idea that dumping money on the rich which would trickle down to the working class shows that the rich just kept the extra money

The idea that if we are not "nice" to rich people they will leave is lame. There is too much money to be made

I suggest you go research what has happened to other countries who tried to over-burden the wealthy. Each and every time, the country has lost. The rich take their money and go elsewhere. If you think America is the only place those people can 'make money', you could not be more wrong.

It's naive to think you can keep grabbing other people's money and expect them to sit back and do nothing. It doesn't work that way. It never has. It never will. Learn from history.

 

[dilloduck]

If people weren't so envious of what others have and purchase only what they really need it wouldn't be such a issue.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You don't think workers take risk?

When the wealthy take a risk and fail, who is the first in line to pay the price?

The workers

I'm not talking about the workers at those start up companies and things like that. I'm not talking about REAL workers who have REAL jobs.

I'm talking about the workers at the McDonald's, Target, Wal-Mart, Joe's Gas and Go, etc.... The ones whose name is on the front of their shirt. You know, the ones whose jobs my dog could probably be trained to do better than most of them do it. Also the people whose sole income is from ME (and you) via our taxes. THOSE people have zero risk. It's almost impossible for them to lose their jobs (if they have one), and they get paid almost nothing because of that. There is no expectation of them to do anything, and their pay reflects that.

Really? Because I worked in a job for over 20 years where my name was stenciled to the front of my shirt, and I never made more than 38,000/yr.

My job was being active duty in the U.S. Navy.

You think your dog is better trained than me?

 

[Oddball]

I suggest you go research what has happened to other countries who tried to over-burden the wealthy. Each and every time, the country has lost. The rich take their money and go elsewhere. If you think America is the only place those people can 'make money', you could not be more wrong.

It's naive to think you can keep grabbing other people's money and expect them to sit back and do nothing. It doesn't work that way. It never has. It never will. Learn from history.

But there's more...

Look at the "wealth distribution" of some of the most heavy-handedly ruled, regulated and taxed societies in history....A relative few very wealthy, many poor and very little in between.

The let's take a look at the multiple trillions of dollars expropriated and redistributed from New Deal and Great Society welfare handout programs....And this is what we end up with?...Is this supposed to be some kind of evidence of success of the socialistic welfare state?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Trickle down economics doesn't work, and never will. Why? The people at the top don't spend much.

For every dollar that one of the 2 percent gets, it only generates 1.03 for the economy.

For every dollar that the rest of us get, it generates 1.63 for the economy.

Why? Simple.......poor and middle class people spend their money when they get it for stuff like food, clothing, housing and stuff like that.

The rich? They spend it on investments.

Another place where you can see trickle down fail in real life is to look at the water wars going on between ranchers and farmers. Those at the top of the stream use up whatever they need, leaving the rest to go downstream.

Only trouble is..............those at the bottom of the stream rarely get any water. Look to California for examples.

 

[Anachronism]

Really? Because I worked in a job for over 20 years where my name was stenciled to the front of my shirt, and I never made more than 38,000/yr.

My job was being active duty in the U.S. Navy.

You think your dog is better trained than me?

Not in the least. Please show me where I mentioned the US Military at all. I have great respect for the US Military in all five of its branches. Those are not the jobs I was talking about in any way. Somehow I think you already realize that.

The jobs I'm talking about are the zero-thought, zero-skill, oftentimes zero-work positions that make up the bottom rungs or our economy. The jobs which are largely filled with people who can't do anything more than that; most often because of mistakes they made themselves.