Income Inequality: So What?

[DGS49]

The campaign to demonize "income inequality," aside from just being a ploy to take the Public's mind off the astounding failures of the Obama Administration, is nothing more than a catch phrase that codifies and disguises ENVY, and makes it seem more intellectual than simply being jealous of people who have more money and stuff than you do.

It plays into the thinking of the ignorami (i.e., the main Democrat constituency), because they believe that the economy contains a fixed amount of wealth, and if some people have more of it then, of necessity other people have less. Hence, they whine about the CEO of some shirt company that makes a Brazillion times more than the seamstress who puts buttons on the sleeves of the shirts they manufacture. But the fact is that even if the CEO took a big pay cut, the company wouldn't pay that seamstress a dime more, because if she quit they could replace her in about five minutes with someone willing (even anxious) to work for the same rate or less.

But don't bother them with facts; they fuck up the narrative.

But while "income inequality, per se is not a problem, poverty is something to be fought with great vigor. The question is, do we fight poverty by redistributing money from productive taxpayers to the unproductive Poor? Or do we develop laws and policies that encourage entrepreneurship, production, generation of wealth, and secondarily, JOBS?

The War on Poverty seems to have been lost, if measured by the number and percentage of people living in poverty, as compared to, say, 1968. Indeed, the very programs that were intended to fight poverty have encouraged people at the bottom to disdain gainful employment and rely on government handouts for their Daily Bread. Often we read articles about people who, between welfare payments, subsidized housing, free medical care, free education, free childcare, and so forth, simply CANNOT AFFORD to get a job at the entry level, which is the only level they could even hope to attain - at least initially. 'Paying people not to work," is apropos.

I think I'll go kill myself.

 

[Euro]

Thomas Jefferson famously said "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
I have no doubt that he was wise enough to include his neighbor's earnings in that sentiment.


Let us assume, arguendo, that "income inequality" is a fact.

So what?

Is there evidence that the "income inequality" farrago is simply one more Liberal tale of victimology....aimed at proving that only vaunted 'Big Government" can save us??
Is it simply one more attempt by the Democrats to latch on to greed and envy of human nature, and turn it into votes and power?

Could be?






1. “The most common moral arguments for and against inequality rest on claims about its consequences... If these claims cannot be supported with evidence, skeptics will find the moral arguments unconvincing. If the claims about consequences are actually wrong, the moral arguments are also wrong.”

2. ...Christopher S. Jencks..... a renowned professor of social policy at Harvard, abandoned his 10-year-old project of writing a book about the consequences of inequality on the nation’s health and opportunity, on its politics and crime.
Why? ... [because] specific evidence about inequality’s effects has been hard to find.





3. .... Nobel laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz argues that “we are paying a high price for the inequality that is increasingly scarring our economy... rising inequality is putting a brake on growth and promoting economic instability."

a. .... President Obama’s chief economic adviser, Alan B. Krueger, ... showed that in countries with wider income gaps the children of poor parents were more likely to grow up to be poor adults.

b. ... British epidemiologists Kate E. Pickett and Richard G. Wilkinson .... say that severe inequality undermines social bonds and dashes the health of millions. It contributes to mental illness. It increases obesity and teenage pregnancy. It fosters crime. It lowers life expectancy. These ills don’t affect just the poor. They affect everybody.





4. But does the data really back this up? One problem with these analyses is that they are based on correlations between levels of inequality and variables like life expectancy or the odds of poor children climbing the income ladder. But such correlations can’t prove inequality causes other social ills. They can’t disentangle inequality from the myriad things pushing American society this way and that.

5. “People that worry about inequality for normative reasons have been very quick to jump on plausible hypothesis and a little bit of evidence to make sweeping conclusions about its consequences,..."

a. To avoid misleading correlations and better isolate inequality’s impact, Mr. Kenworthy studied its evolution over time, comparing how changes in income concentration across the world’s industrialized nations related to changes in a whole set of social and economic outcomes, from growth and employment to health and educational attainment.

b. “My tests suggest it seems to be a small player in the overall story.... no meaningful impact of inequality on growth one way or the other.... found no significant relationship between increasing inequality and life expectancy, infant mortality or college graduation rates,..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/26/business/economy/making-sense-of-income-inequality.html?_r=0





And interesting, informative analysis found....surprisingly, in the New York Time!


One finds oneself thinking....how is it that the official organ of Progressive thought is puncturing a prevalent Leftist talking point....

...well, there is more in the article.



Stay tuned....I'll provide it......'I'll report, you decide.'

The problem with large income inequality is that you dont get any demand in the market and dont create jobs.

You cant build an economy on rich people buying yachts and saving money.

For the economy to work the money must be spent in an useful way to create demand. E.g the middle class buying food,apartments,cars,TVs etc.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Thomas Jefferson famously said "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
I have no doubt that he was wise enough to include his neighbor's earnings in that sentiment.


Let us assume, arguendo, that "income inequality" is a fact.

So what?

Is there evidence that the "income inequality" farrago is simply one more Liberal tale of victimology....aimed at proving that only vaunted 'Big Government" can save us??
Is it simply one more attempt by the Democrats to latch on to greed and envy of human nature, and turn it into votes and power?

Could be?






1. “The most common moral arguments for and against inequality rest on claims about its consequences... If these claims cannot be supported with evidence, skeptics will find the moral arguments unconvincing. If the claims about consequences are actually wrong, the moral arguments are also wrong.”

2. ...Christopher S. Jencks..... a renowned professor of social policy at Harvard, abandoned his 10-year-old project of writing a book about the consequences of inequality on the nation’s health and opportunity, on its politics and crime.
Why? ... [because] specific evidence about inequality’s effects has been hard to find.





3. .... Nobel laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz argues that “we are paying a high price for the inequality that is increasingly scarring our economy... rising inequality is putting a brake on growth and promoting economic instability."

a. .... President Obama’s chief economic adviser, Alan B. Krueger, ... showed that in countries with wider income gaps the children of poor parents were more likely to grow up to be poor adults.

b. ... British epidemiologists Kate E. Pickett and Richard G. Wilkinson .... say that severe inequality undermines social bonds and dashes the health of millions. It contributes to mental illness. It increases obesity and teenage pregnancy. It fosters crime. It lowers life expectancy. These ills don’t affect just the poor. They affect everybody.





4. But does the data really back this up? One problem with these analyses is that they are based on correlations between levels of inequality and variables like life expectancy or the odds of poor children climbing the income ladder. But such correlations can’t prove inequality causes other social ills. They can’t disentangle inequality from the myriad things pushing American society this way and that.

5. “People that worry about inequality for normative reasons have been very quick to jump on plausible hypothesis and a little bit of evidence to make sweeping conclusions about its consequences,..."

a. To avoid misleading correlations and better isolate inequality’s impact, Mr. Kenworthy studied its evolution over time, comparing how changes in income concentration across the world’s industrialized nations related to changes in a whole set of social and economic outcomes, from growth and employment to health and educational attainment.

b. “My tests suggest it seems to be a small player in the overall story.... no meaningful impact of inequality on growth one way or the other.... found no significant relationship between increasing inequality and life expectancy, infant mortality or college graduation rates,..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/26/business/economy/making-sense-of-income-inequality.html?_r=0





And interesting, informative analysis found....surprisingly, in the New York Time!


One finds oneself thinking....how is it that the official organ of Progressive thought is puncturing a prevalent Leftist talking point....

...well, there is more in the article.



Stay tuned....I'll provide it......'I'll report, you decide.'

The problem with large income inequality is that you dont get any demand in the market and dont create jobs.

You cant build an economy on rich people buying yachts and saving money.

For the economy to work the money must be spent in an useful way to create demand. E.g the middle class buying food,apartments,cars,TVs etc.

Unfortunately you don't understand the idea of 'income inequality.'

It doesn't mean that there are only rich people.....

....and, the term 'rich' is relative, isn't it.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Income Inequality: So What?

Too much of it and capitalism ceases to work efficiently.

Link?

 

[boedicca]

Income Inequality? So What?

So why do we continue government policies that encourage the distribution and maintenance of income among the wealthy when they obviously don't need it

Did you just make that up?

Why continue failed policies?

All of Obama's, for a start.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

You are trying so hard to be accepted by the white christian ruling class

Why do lunks like you rely on such silly concepts as "class?"

 

[PoliticalChic]

This whole populist argument started in the presidential election season on the late 1890's...After the great Panic of the 1870's, caused by unregulated markets and the manipulation of the Stock Market.The first nationwide depression..Clearly the biggest achievements happened after WWII, but corporate barons figured out a way to get back that wealth they so desired to accumulate with deregulation in the early 1980's..by literally buying off our govt...and we see the results today of those actions of the past..
Much like those poor Americans did after the great panic of 1873.
If you think the wealthy give a damn about America or it's citizens, then enjoy your humble soup..

Aha!

So...you were a charter member of Coxey's Army!




What does this have to do with the fact that 'income inequality' is meaningless?


...or, with the price of apples?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You are trying so hard to be accepted by the white christian ruling class

Why do lunks like you rely on such silly concepts as "class?"

He is very sensitive about 'skin'....

....this is the time he's usually out shedding his.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. "Still, the most solid case to be made for adopting policies to resist the continued widening of the income gap may not depend on unassailable evidence of harm. It may rely, instead, on simple caution."
NYTimes, Op. Cit.



Wait......did the Liberal organ-of-record just admit that there is no objective reason to be concerned with income inequality???



One of Joan Rivers' great jokes is when her husband said "A little housework won't kill you!" she said "....why take a chance?"


And now the NYTimes offers the same punch line when queried as to exactly what terrible outcomes will accrue from income inequality:
"..why take a chance?"





After all, everybody knows that Big Government is always the perfect solution to regulate all of the private economy!
Just as everyone knows "You didn't build that!"

Just as everyone knows that that is exactly the kind of totalitarian government the Founders had in mind.....

 

[sjay]

[QUOT







Try again?[/QUOTE]The 'so what' is the unavoidable consequences of eroding the middle class in favor of the very few. That's how revolutions start.[/QUOTE]

That's one of the funniest statements I've seen in a long time.Not the part of m.c. erosion but revolutions starting.
The master class have overfed the masses so well, there are too many fat people among the middle and poor classes to start much of anything,revolution indeed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

9.Hey.....how about tossing in the idea that evil rich guys run the show.....
...and 'income inequality' allows those badies to take over even more?

Yeah....that's the ticket!




"One of the plausible consequences of rising inequality is that it allows the 1 percent to take control of the political system, purchasing the power needed to maintain the status quo. If that is the case — and there is plenty of suggestive evidence of this — the widening of the income gap would prove irreversible."
NYTimes, Op. Cit.


Woop- there it is!


At least as big a lie as 'the dangers of income inequality'! That's what I've come to expect from the NYTimes!

Who are the biggest bribers of the political system? Unions and Liberal institution!
The Left's bête noire, the Koch brothers are 59th on the list of political contributors.

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. Afraid that the reader will understand the truth, that there is less to fear in relying on the free market rather than the totalitarian government, the NYTimes finds a way to instill a bit of fear:

"... Jencks describes the state of the debate between friends and foes of inequality in these terms: “Can I prove that anything is terrible because of rising inequality? Not by the kind of standards I would require. But can they prove I shouldn’t worry? They can’t do that either.”

That, alone, is enough to spur action. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/26/business/economy/making-sense-of-income-inequality.html?_r=0





Early on, a wise wag wrote this:

"Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society."


Government attempts to alter the free market, especially with respect to 'income inequality,' certainly fall into this thread as an example-

"... and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away..."

 

[oldfart]

I think I'll go kill myself.

Get a grip man! Don't get mad (or depressed), ORGANIZE!

The campaign to demonize "income inequality," aside from just being a ploy to take the Public's mind off the astounding failures of the Obama Administration, is nothing more than a catch phrase that codifies and disguises ENVY, and makes it seem more intellectual than simply being jealous of people who have more money and stuff than you do.

I would not dismiss the study of income inequality, its causes and future trends, in such works as Piketty's "Capital" as envy. Perhaps you could hold the thought until you can get a copy (mine like everybody else's is on back order) and have an opportunity to read it. Then we could have a meaningful discussion. In the interim I note there is a good body of economic literature to the effect that high levels of income inequality have a negative impact on economic growth and contribute to economic, political, and social instability.

But while "income inequality, per se is not a problem, poverty is something to be fought with great vigor. The question is, do we fight poverty by redistributing money from productive taxpayers to the unproductive Poor? Or do we develop laws and policies that encourage entrepreneurship, production, generation of wealth, and secondarily, JOBS?

Do you really think the distribution of income is independent of the level of poverty? I'm all for pro-growth policies. But when high inequality is the cause of low growth, I am at a loss to understand your post. If maldistribution increases poverty, will not decreasing maldistribution lower it?

 

[Rshermr]

I think I'll go kill myself.

Get a grip man! Don't get mad (or depressed), ORGANIZE!

The campaign to demonize "income inequality," aside from just being a ploy to take the Public's mind off the astounding failures of the Obama Administration, is nothing more than a catch phrase that codifies and disguises ENVY, and makes it seem more intellectual than simply being jealous of people who have more money and stuff than you do.

I would not dismiss the study of income inequality, its causes and future trends, in such works as Piketty's "Capital" as envy. Perhaps you could hold the thought until you can get a copy (mine like everybody else's is on back order) and have an opportunity to read it. Then we could have a meaningful discussion. In the interim I note there is a good body of economic literature to the effect that high levels of income inequality have a negative impact on economic growth and contribute to economic, political, and social instability.

But while "income inequality, per se is not a problem, poverty is something to be fought with great vigor. The question is, do we fight poverty by redistributing money from productive taxpayers to the unproductive Poor? Or do we develop laws and policies that encourage entrepreneurship, production, generation of wealth, and secondarily, JOBS?

Do you really think the distribution of income is independent of the level of poverty? I'm all for pro-growth policies. But when high inequality is the cause of low growth, I am at a loss to understand your post. If maldistribution increases poverty, will not decreasing maldistribution lower it?

There is, indeed, a large body of work out their by distinguished authors on the problems that result to an economy from bad distribution of income. It is simply that conservatives do not want to believe it. Or, for that matter, consider it. It is highly unlikely, in my humble but correct opinion, that we will ever see our economy fully recover without changes to this problem.

 

[Moonglow]

A fading middle-class perk: lower mortgage rates

WASHINGTON (AP) -- For three decades, the U.S. middle class enjoyed a rare financial advantage over the wealthy: lower mortgage rates.

Now, even that perk is fading away.

Most ordinary homebuyers are paying the same or higher rates than the fortunate few who can afford much more.

Rates for a conventional 30-year fixed mortgage are averaging 4.48 percent, according to Bankrate. For "jumbo" mortgages — those above $417,000 in much of the country — the average is 4.47 percent.

This trend reflects the widening wealth gap between the richest Americans and everyone else. Bankers now view jumbo borrowers as safer and shrewder bets even though conventional borrowers put less capital at risk.

https://homes.yahoo.com/news/a-fading-middle-class-perk--lower-mortgage-rates-233422890.html

 

[Againsheila]

Thomas Jefferson famously said "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
I have no doubt that he was wise enough to include his neighbor's earnings in that sentiment.


Let us assume, arguendo, that "income inequality" is a fact.

So what?

Is there evidence that the "income inequality" farrago is simply one more Liberal tale of victimology....aimed at proving that only vaunted 'Big Government" can save us??
Is it simply one more attempt by the Democrats to latch on to greed and envy of human nature, and turn it into votes and power?

Could be?






1. “The most common moral arguments for and against inequality rest on claims about its consequences... If these claims cannot be supported with evidence, skeptics will find the moral arguments unconvincing. If the claims about consequences are actually wrong, the moral arguments are also wrong.”

2. ...Christopher S. Jencks..... a renowned professor of social policy at Harvard, abandoned his 10-year-old project of writing a book about the consequences of inequality on the nation’s health and opportunity, on its politics and crime.
Why? ... [because] specific evidence about inequality’s effects has been hard to find.





3. .... Nobel laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz argues that “we are paying a high price for the inequality that is increasingly scarring our economy... rising inequality is putting a brake on growth and promoting economic instability."

a. .... President Obama’s chief economic adviser, Alan B. Krueger, ... showed that in countries with wider income gaps the children of poor parents were more likely to grow up to be poor adults.

b. ... British epidemiologists Kate E. Pickett and Richard G. Wilkinson .... say that severe inequality undermines social bonds and dashes the health of millions. It contributes to mental illness. It increases obesity and teenage pregnancy. It fosters crime. It lowers life expectancy. These ills don’t affect just the poor. They affect everybody.





4. But does the data really back this up? One problem with these analyses is that they are based on correlations between levels of inequality and variables like life expectancy or the odds of poor children climbing the income ladder. But such correlations can’t prove inequality causes other social ills. They can’t disentangle inequality from the myriad things pushing American society this way and that.

5. “People that worry about inequality for normative reasons have been very quick to jump on plausible hypothesis and a little bit of evidence to make sweeping conclusions about its consequences,..."

a. To avoid misleading correlations and better isolate inequality’s impact, Mr. Kenworthy studied its evolution over time, comparing how changes in income concentration across the world’s industrialized nations related to changes in a whole set of social and economic outcomes, from growth and employment to health and educational attainment.

b. “My tests suggest it seems to be a small player in the overall story.... no meaningful impact of inequality on growth one way or the other.... found no significant relationship between increasing inequality and life expectancy, infant mortality or college graduation rates,..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/26/business/economy/making-sense-of-income-inequality.html?_r=0





And interesting, informative analysis found....surprisingly, in the New York Time!


One finds oneself thinking....how is it that the official organ of Progressive thought is puncturing a prevalent Leftist talking point....

...well, there is more in the article.



Stay tuned....I'll provide it......'I'll report, you decide.'

Thomas Piketty: Extreme Income Inequality Is 'Completely Useless'

NEW YORK (AP) — If you'd like to live in Downton Abbey, the good news is that our economy has entered a second Gilded Age of opulence and elegance.

The bad news is that you'll likely end up among the vast majority stuck sweating in the kitchen.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Thomas Jefferson famously said "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
I have no doubt that he was wise enough to include his neighbor's earnings in that sentiment.


Let us assume, arguendo, that "income inequality" is a fact.

So what?

Is there evidence that the "income inequality" farrago is simply one more Liberal tale of victimology....aimed at proving that only vaunted 'Big Government" can save us??
Is it simply one more attempt by the Democrats to latch on to greed and envy of human nature, and turn it into votes and power?

Could be?






1. “The most common moral arguments for and against inequality rest on claims about its consequences... If these claims cannot be supported with evidence, skeptics will find the moral arguments unconvincing. If the claims about consequences are actually wrong, the moral arguments are also wrong.”

2. ...Christopher S. Jencks..... a renowned professor of social policy at Harvard, abandoned his 10-year-old project of writing a book about the consequences of inequality on the nation’s health and opportunity, on its politics and crime.
Why? ... [because] specific evidence about inequality’s effects has been hard to find.





3. .... Nobel laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz argues that “we are paying a high price for the inequality that is increasingly scarring our economy... rising inequality is putting a brake on growth and promoting economic instability."

a. .... President Obama’s chief economic adviser, Alan B. Krueger, ... showed that in countries with wider income gaps the children of poor parents were more likely to grow up to be poor adults.

b. ... British epidemiologists Kate E. Pickett and Richard G. Wilkinson .... say that severe inequality undermines social bonds and dashes the health of millions. It contributes to mental illness. It increases obesity and teenage pregnancy. It fosters crime. It lowers life expectancy. These ills don’t affect just the poor. They affect everybody.





4. But does the data really back this up? One problem with these analyses is that they are based on correlations between levels of inequality and variables like life expectancy or the odds of poor children climbing the income ladder. But such correlations can’t prove inequality causes other social ills. They can’t disentangle inequality from the myriad things pushing American society this way and that.

5. “People that worry about inequality for normative reasons have been very quick to jump on plausible hypothesis and a little bit of evidence to make sweeping conclusions about its consequences,..."

a. To avoid misleading correlations and better isolate inequality’s impact, Mr. Kenworthy studied its evolution over time, comparing how changes in income concentration across the world’s industrialized nations related to changes in a whole set of social and economic outcomes, from growth and employment to health and educational attainment.

b. “My tests suggest it seems to be a small player in the overall story.... no meaningful impact of inequality on growth one way or the other.... found no significant relationship between increasing inequality and life expectancy, infant mortality or college graduation rates,..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/26/business/economy/making-sense-of-income-inequality.html?_r=0





And interesting, informative analysis found....surprisingly, in the New York Time!


One finds oneself thinking....how is it that the official organ of Progressive thought is puncturing a prevalent Leftist talking point....

...well, there is more in the article.



Stay tuned....I'll provide it......'I'll report, you decide.'

Thomas Piketty: Extreme Income Inequality Is 'Completely Useless'

NEW YORK (AP) — If you'd like to live in Downton Abbey, the good news is that our economy has entered a second Gilded Age of opulence and elegance.

The bad news is that you'll likely end up among the vast majority stuck sweating in the kitchen.

In your honor, I will destroy Thomas Piketty in an OP tomorrow.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A fading middle-class perk: lower mortgage rates

WASHINGTON (AP) -- For three decades, the U.S. middle class enjoyed a rare financial advantage over the wealthy: lower mortgage rates.

Now, even that perk is fading away.

Most ordinary homebuyers are paying the same or higher rates than the fortunate few who can afford much more.

Rates for a conventional 30-year fixed mortgage are averaging 4.48 percent, according to Bankrate. For "jumbo" mortgages — those above $417,000 in much of the country — the average is 4.47 percent.

This trend reflects the widening wealth gap between the richest Americans and everyone else. Bankers now view jumbo borrowers as safer and shrewder bets even though conventional borrowers put less capital at risk.

https://homes.yahoo.com/news/a-fading-middle-class-perk--lower-mortgage-rates-233422890.html

Mortgages????


What, praytell, is a 'mortgage'?


I don't believe we have one here in the family castle.....just moats and drawbridges....

 

[PoliticalChic]

In an entire constellation of stupid, ill-informed and outright dishonest statements.....

...this one may be the topper:


"Obama: Income Inequality Is 'Defining Challenge Of Our Time'"
Obama: Income Inequality Is 'Defining Challenge Of Our Time'




The difficulty is in deciding in which category the statement belong.....
"stupid, ill-informed and outright dishonest statements."

 

[rightwinger]

In an entire constellation of stupid, ill-informed and outright dishonest statements.....

...this one may be the topper:


"Obama: Income Inequality Is 'Defining Challenge Of Our Time'"
Obama: Income Inequality Is 'Defining Challenge Of Our Time'




The difficulty is in deciding in which category the statement belong.....
"stupid, ill-informed and outright dishonest statements."

Obama said increasing income inequality is more pronounced in the United States than other countries. He said Americans should be offended that a child born into poverty has such a hard time escaping it. "It should compel us to action. We're a better country than this," the president said.