The Real Causes of Income Inequality

[Valox]

3) The flourishing of economic freedom and technological advances in the Reagan era, which were the product of lower tax rates, a reduced regulatory burden, and an improved business climate. These changes have not only raised the measured income of the top 1%, they benefited the nation and the world.

I lol'd. Regulatory burdens went up during Reagan compared to Carter.

 

[eflatminor]

The very idea of income inequality as a worrisome issue is a red herring. There is no finite pile of cash from which all income is drawn. In other words, just because someone makes more, doesn't mean someone else had to make less; wealth can be created or destroyed. In a free society, very high income earners are a beneficial byproduct of a robust marketplace. Don't believe the rich are beneficial to the economy? Ask the guy that works at the factory building goods for the rich...or the janitor that cleans up there.

You want to bitch about low and middle incomes not keeping up with inflation, that's a reasonable but completely different issue. There, don't look to denigrate successful citizens, look to the central control that is the Federal reserve for creating the non-market driven inflation in the first place.

Income inequality has been used as an excuse for more central planning for years. Interestingly, the income gap in the robber baron days was LESS than it is today, DESPITE 100 years of increasing regulations, central planning, and growth of government. Hmm...

 

[blackhawk]

Your life is what you choose to make it financial and otherwise the only person who can stop you is you. So the real question is are you going to let other's dictate what you can make of your life?

 

[Valox]

The very idea of income inequality as a worrisome issue is a red herring. There is no finite pile of cash from which all income is drawn. In other words, just because someone makes more, doesn't mean someone else had to make less; wealth can be created or destroyed. In a free society, very high income earners are a beneficial byproduct of a robust marketplace. Don't believe the rich are beneficial to the economy? Ask the guy that works at the factory building goods for the rich...or the janitor that cleans up there.

You want to bitch about low and middle incomes not keeping up with inflation, that's a reasonable but completely different issue. There, don't look to denigrate successful citizens, look to the central control that is the Federal reserve for creating the non-market driven inflation in the first place.

Income inequality has been used as an excuse for more central planning for years. Interestingly, the income gap in the robber baron days was LESS than it is today, DESPITE 100 years of increasing regulations, central planning, and growth of government. Hmm...

You talk about denigrating successful citizens, but you failed to recognize that wages have no kept up with productivity. Most of the productivity over the last four decades have been captured by the uber rich.

Plus, you turn a blind eye than many of the rich derive their wealth from the government. Corporatism and a large federal government go hand and hand, yet you usher accolades to corporatism, while denouncing government. This is just nothing more than rightwing hypocrisy of "business good, government bad".

I am not a fan of the federal reserve, but they have kept prices low and steady since the late oil shocks of the 70's.

 

[kaz]

Really? Well, then, let's see you flap your arms (using your own resources) and fly like a birdie.

Or let's see you bench press (using your own resources) a ton of weight.

Or let's see you build a skyscraper, using your own resources, in your backyard.

Or let's see you, using your own resources, buy up all the stock of Microsoft Corporation.

You can proclaim fatuous platitudes, or you can deal with reality. I know which one I prefer. It seems you prefer the other.

What point do you think you just made exactly?

That we live in a real world of limits, in which the statement "Anyone can do anything in this country if they do it with their own resources" is obviously untrue.

What a retard...

 

[buckeye45_73]

Liberals are morons, they think that welath is not created so Adam or whomever was or were the first humans must have been hella rich and then it just breaks down over time. I mean that's how they must look at wealth. To them the economy is zero sum. One person gains a dollar another person loses one, but that's not how it works. when Microsoft or Facebook went public, people became instant millionaires, others didnt lose that money. Hmmmmm what happend? Well liberals read Wealth of Nations, Road to serfdom, and heck throw in Friedman.

To liberals there is Marx, Keynes and the question mark guy.

 

[Widdekind]

if most middle and lower class wage earners salaries have remained flat for say forty years, and the top few percent have increased greatly, it sure ain't taxes that are the cause. Consider executive pay and then consider wage earner pay, look at Walmart as an example... Lack of unions and outsourcing are sources, but so are old fashioned concepts like greed and self interest. What CEO should make millions while those who create the product, both at the engineer and production worker level get little or nothing and are threatened with the door for noticing the wide gap...

if we speak of "Greed"; then let us speak of "Envy"

if some CEO makes zillions of dollars, without "treading your toes"; then "what is it to you?". I.e. "why is it your business"; and "why do you get to call the Big Government Military-Police-Cops" on that CEO, to take his/her money (at the threat of Force, Jail) ?

Big-Government reflects "collective nosiness", i.e. "Bully Tactics"

"look out, for what is in your way; look not, to get into others' ways" ?

 

[Sunshine]

OK, so I gather that I am supposed to feel lousy about myself because I went to school and make more money that a lot of people. Where's the line to buy the hair shirts? NOT!~

 

[eflatminor]

Most of the productivity over the last four decades have been captured by the uber rich.

Just as there is no finite pile of cash from which to draw, there is no finite level of productivity from which to benefit. Again, because someone got "uber rich" does not mean anyone else necessarily got less.

Plus, you turn a blind eye than many of the rich derive their wealth from the government.

That is crony capitalism, which is a reasonable but completely different issue. For the record, all Libertarians stand against any form of cronyism.

I am not a fan of the federal reserve, but they have kept prices low and steady since the late oil shocks of the 70's

First, that is entirely untrue with regard to fuel and food prices. Secondly, you fail to understand that had inflation been left to markets, we may have seen more economic segments experience deflation, which can be a very good thing. The natural state of an economy is not necessarily "low and steady" inflation. The Fed causes inflation, they don't keep it in check. Good for Fed banks and the Congress that uses them as an ATM machine, bad for the most vulnerable of Americans.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Someone with twice Bill Gates' ability, but lacking Gates' rich lawyer daddy, could never have founded Microsoft.

That is an opinion, not a fact.

 

[The T]

Except for the mentally or physically impaired we all have an equal chance at wealth. With a few minor exceptions of course.

Someone with twice Bill Gates' ability, but lacking Gates' rich lawyer daddy, could never have founded Microsoft.

Spoken out of JEALOUSY and Wealth envy? SAY it isn't so Gracie?

 

[Widdekind]

The real cause of income inequality is that people who lay on their ass taking dope and playing video games want to have an equal income to those who get out and hustle.

Right, obviously. Income inequality has increased so much since the 1960s because more video games have been put on the market. Why didn't I think of that?

the '60s ushered in a new era, of sex-and-drugs-and-rock-n-roll. And, drugs are the ultimate "bread & circus", directly reducing the willingness-and-ability of Labor to generate wealth (the "heart" of any economy). Video-games are "gravy & icing".

 

[Ernie S.]

What a biased bunch of BS that article is - if most middle and lower class wage earners salaries have remained flat for say forty years, and the top few percent have increased greatly, it sure ain't taxes that are the cause. Consider executive pay and then consider wage earner pay, look at Walmart as an example. The reasons for wage inequality require no wild ass assumptions, they stare you in the face. Lack of unions and outsourcing are sources, but so are old fashioned concepts like greed and self interest. What CEO should make millions while those who create the product, both at the engineer and production worker level get little or nothing and are threatened with the door for noticing the wide gap. Someone oddly immoral is wrong when nonsense like the OP is accepted and published as if some kernel of truth were contained in it.

"Average household income before taxes grew in real terms by nearly one-third between 1979 and 1997, but that growth was shared unevenly across the income distribution. The average income for households in the top fifth of the distribution rose by more than half. In contrast, average income for the middle quintile climbed 10 percent and that for the lowest fifth dropped slightly. Furthermore, income growth at the very top of the distribution was greater yet: average income in 1997 dollars for the top 1 percent of households more than doubled, rising from $420,000 in 1979 to more than $1 million in 1997." [Congressional Budget Office, Chapter One] Income Inequality: A Problem?

15 Shocking Facts Show That the Middle Class is Being Wiped Out | Economy | AlterNet



"As Jason DeParle reported recently in The Times, new research indicates that if you start off near the bottom of the income ladder in the United States, you’re far more likely to remain there than if you’re in the same situation in Canada or Europe. And if you start off poor in Denmark or Britain, for example, you’re much more likely to reach the top fifth in income than if you try to make the same climb in the United States. It seems that the Danish Dream and the British Dream are currently more alive — at least for the most disadvantaged — than the American Dream." In the Fight Against Poverty, Time for a Revolution - NYTimes.com



The irony of the Cold War's capitalism vs. communism paradigm is that capitalism in the US and other western countries required generous helpings of socialism to make it work. Conservative politicians like Eisenhower and Nixon seemed to understand this and generally supported the social programs listed above." Which Side Are You On? New Language for a New Political Reality | Common Dreams


How the rich benefit from what should be owned by all: The Conservative Nanny State and Introducing the Great Divergence - Slate Magazine

How did you get rich daddy? The rich get rich because of their merit. and UBI and the Flat Tax

My income more than tripled in that time frame. I worked my butt off and gained skills and created profitable products. Most anyone is capable of doing that, or sitting on their ass and collecting checks from those that do. Who do YOU want to be?

 

[The T]

What a biased bunch of BS that article is - if most middle and lower class wage earners salaries have remained flat for say forty years, and the top few percent have increased greatly, it sure ain't taxes that are the cause. Consider executive pay and then consider wage earner pay, look at Walmart as an example. The reasons for wage inequality require no wild ass assumptions, they stare you in the face. Lack of unions and outsourcing are sources, but so are old fashioned concepts like greed and self interest. What CEO should make millions while those who create the product, both at the engineer and production worker level get little or nothing and are threatened with the door for noticing the wide gap. Someone oddly immoral is wrong when nonsense like the OP is accepted and published as if some kernel of truth were contained in it.

"Average household income before taxes grew in real terms by nearly one-third between 1979 and 1997, but that growth was shared unevenly across the income distribution. The average income for households in the top fifth of the distribution rose by more than half. In contrast, average income for the middle quintile climbed 10 percent and that for the lowest fifth dropped slightly. Furthermore, income growth at the very top of the distribution was greater yet: average income in 1997 dollars for the top 1 percent of households more than doubled, rising from $420,000 in 1979 to more than $1 million in 1997." [Congressional Budget Office, Chapter One] Income Inequality: A Problem?

15 Shocking Facts Show That the Middle Class is Being Wiped Out | Economy | AlterNet



"As Jason DeParle reported recently in The Times, new research indicates that if you start off near the bottom of the income ladder in the United States, you’re far more likely to remain there than if you’re in the same situation in Canada or Europe. And if you start off poor in Denmark or Britain, for example, you’re much more likely to reach the top fifth in income than if you try to make the same climb in the United States. It seems that the Danish Dream and the British Dream are currently more alive — at least for the most disadvantaged — than the American Dream." In the Fight Against Poverty, Time for a Revolution - NYTimes.com



The irony of the Cold War's capitalism vs. communism paradigm is that capitalism in the US and other western countries required generous helpings of socialism to make it work. Conservative politicians like Eisenhower and Nixon seemed to understand this and generally supported the social programs listed above." Which Side Are You On? New Language for a New Political Reality | Common Dreams


How the rich benefit from what should be owned by all: The Conservative Nanny State and Introducing the Great Divergence - Slate Magazine

How did you get rich daddy? The rich get rich because of their merit. and UBI and the Flat Tax

My income more than tripled in that time frame. I worked my butt off and gained skills and created profitable products. Most anyone is capable of doing that, or sitting on their ass and collecting checks from those that do. Who do YOU want to be?

WHOM do they want to be? Whiners and complainers on the backs of those of US that pay thier tab.

That's who.

 

[Valox]

Most of the productivity over the last four decades have been captured by the uber rich.

Just as there is no finite pile of cash from which to draw, there is no finite level of productivity from which to benefit. Again, because someone got "uber rich" does not mean anyone else necessarily got less.

I disagree with your claim of infinite cash, but this is not my contention.

Plus, you turn a blind eye than many of the rich derive their wealth from the government.

That is crony capitalism, which is a reasonable but completely different issue. For the record, all Libertarians stand against any form of cronyism.

Which you failed address. Instead, you believed that the rich just got rich off their own accord and are noble for it.

I am not a fan of the federal reserve, but they have kept prices low and steady since the late oil shocks of the 70's

First, that is entirely untrue with regard to fuel and food prices. Secondly, you fail to understand that had inflation been left to markets, we may have seen more economic segments experience deflation, which can be a very good thing. The natural state of an economy is not necessarily "low and steady" inflation. The Fed causes inflation, they don't keep it in check. Good for Fed banks and the Congress that uses them as an ATM machine, bad for the most vulnerable of Americans.

The Fed has done a tremendous job at keeping prices stable, outside of exogenous events. In fact, I wanted more deflation during the recession. I am one of the few people who is not scared of mild deflation, but that does not stop me from recognizing the job the Fed has done.

 

[Widdekind]

wages have no kept up with productivity.

Union labor is +20% more productive per hour ("higher productivity"); is +30% more expensive per hour ("even-higher wages"); is -10% less productive per dollar. Union wages have out-paced their productivity.

if what you say is true; then non-Union labor is the "victim" of under-compensation

 

[Ernie S.]

The very idea of income inequality as a worrisome issue is a red herring. There is no finite pile of cash from which all income is drawn. In other words, just because someone makes more, doesn't mean someone else had to make less; wealth can be created or destroyed. In a free society, very high income earners are a beneficial byproduct of a robust marketplace. Don't believe the rich are beneficial to the economy? Ask the guy that works at the factory building goods for the rich...or the janitor that cleans up there.

You want to bitch about low and middle incomes not keeping up with inflation, that's a reasonable but completely different issue. There, don't look to denigrate successful citizens, look to the central control that is the Federal reserve for creating the non-market driven inflation in the first place.

Income inequality has been used as an excuse for more central planning for years. Interestingly, the income gap in the robber baron days was LESS than it is today, DESPITE 100 years of increasing regulations, central planning, and growth of government. Hmm...

You talk about denigrating successful citizens, but you failed to recognize that wages have no kept up with productivity. Most of the productivity over the last four decades have been captured by the uber rich.

Plus, you turn a blind eye than many of the rich derive their wealth from the government. Corporatism and a large federal government go hand and hand, yet you usher accolades to corporatism, while denouncing government. This is just nothing more than rightwing hypocrisy of "business good, government bad".

I am not a fan of the federal reserve, but they have kept prices low and steady since the late oil shocks of the 70's.

Increases in per-employee productivity has little to do with the workers themselves. It has much more to do with technology allowing companies to invest in machinery that allows 1 worker to do what it took 20 to do 40 years ago with no difference in physical effort and a minimum of extra training.
Just who is responsible for increased productivity? Is the guy that drives a dump truck worth 50 times what he was worth when he pushed a wheelbarrow?
Seems to me, the guy who should be rewarded is the guy who bought the truck.

 

[Valox]

The very idea of income inequality as a worrisome issue is a red herring. There is no finite pile of cash from which all income is drawn. In other words, just because someone makes more, doesn't mean someone else had to make less; wealth can be created or destroyed. In a free society, very high income earners are a beneficial byproduct of a robust marketplace. Don't believe the rich are beneficial to the economy? Ask the guy that works at the factory building goods for the rich...or the janitor that cleans up there.

You want to bitch about low and middle incomes not keeping up with inflation, that's a reasonable but completely different issue. There, don't look to denigrate successful citizens, look to the central control that is the Federal reserve for creating the non-market driven inflation in the first place.

Income inequality has been used as an excuse for more central planning for years. Interestingly, the income gap in the robber baron days was LESS than it is today, DESPITE 100 years of increasing regulations, central planning, and growth of government. Hmm...

You talk about denigrating successful citizens, but you failed to recognize that wages have no kept up with productivity. Most of the productivity over the last four decades have been captured by the uber rich.

Plus, you turn a blind eye than many of the rich derive their wealth from the government. Corporatism and a large federal government go hand and hand, yet you usher accolades to corporatism, while denouncing government. This is just nothing more than rightwing hypocrisy of "business good, government bad".

I am not a fan of the federal reserve, but they have kept prices low and steady since the late oil shocks of the 70's.

Increases in per-employee productivity has little to do with the workers themselves. It has much more to do with technology allowing companies to invest in machinery that allows 1 worker to do what it took 20 to do 40 years ago with no difference in physical effort and a minimum of extra training.
Just who is responsible for increased productivity? Is the guy that drives a dump truck worth 50 times what he was worth when he pushed a wheelbarrow?
Seems to me, the guy who should be rewarded is the guy who bought the truck.

You dug your hole. Why should I even respond to you?

You are a fucking dumb piece of shit who believes that a guy pushing a wheel barrow should earn the same as a guy driving a dump truck.

Go fuck yourself, you dumb piece of shit.

 

[Widdekind]

Income inequality in this country doesn't just exist. It's grown vastly greater over the past 30 years or so. Differences in peoples abilities, on the other hand, have not increased over the same period.

"advanced" medicine, e.g. neurosurgeons, can perform treatments impossible 30 years ago. How much is life-saving surgery worth ? please ponder this picture, including implications:

Are you the arbitrator, of other people's economic activity -- if corporate share-holders are willing to pay some CEO zillions of dollars (even if only b/c they like his vest); then why do you get to "call in Big Government Fire Power", into their private transactions ("Broken Arrow, Broken Arrow" -- Once Were Soldiers) ? Ultimately (Government is Force), why should Military-and-Police move, on your orders ? De facto, you are nominating yourself, as Generalissimo -- over "other peoples' money & lives" -- on "Moral grounds".

human life (and Threats to the same); and human prosperity (and Threats to the same); are brazenly bantered about care-less-ly; are not seen as "sacred":

It is criminal [immoral] for a man to promote a war [threats, violence] that can be avoided -- Jose Marti​

"live, and let live" ?

In the United States, only a loser fails, blames it on someone else and asks for the government to fix it.

the U.S. yields large sums, to 'losers', who beg "bail-out", "bail-out". Would you refuse to take "bail-out money", i.e. socially shun 'losers', no matter how much money they offered ? Those who refused to refuse to yield "bail-out" money, when it was in their own pockets; seldom seek to retrieve the money, when thence in others' fists.

 

[Defiant1]

The cause of income inequality can be summed up in one word:







SUCCESS