Separate but unequal

[Xue Sheng]

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.

Sound Familiar

 

[Empty Hands]

It's not the gap per se that's the problem, it's the fact that the bottom 4 quintiles have seen no wage growth in real terms in more than 30 years. It's not such a big deal if the rising tide is in fact lifting all boats; it's more problematic if all the benefits are going to a small group.

In that same 30 years however, labor productivity has also exploded. So in a fundamental economic disconnect, workers are not seeing any wage benefits even though they have become more and more effective and efficient workers.

 

[CoryKS]

And this chart suggests most Americans have little idea of just how unequal income distribution is. And that they'd like things to be divvied up a lot more equitably

Or in other words, "most Americans don't have a ****ing clue how to make money, but want you to give them some anyway."

Also, I'd like to know the average age of each of those income groups. My guess is that the top 1% consists of old people who have accumulated their fortune over the span of their lives, and that the lower portion is on average much younger.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Or if you are in NYS.... those at the top and the bottom get taxed less than those in the middle for different reasons...but the middle is getting smaller and they are taxed heaviest in NYS.

But regardless... GO back to hay days of the families Vanderbilt, Carnegie and Rockefeller and you get a gap too... different times I know... but still a gap

 

[granfire]

Or in other words, "most Americans don't have a ****ing clue how to make money, but want you to give them some anyway."

I don't see it like that.

30 years ago a family could happily live off one income and have a really cozy lifestyle. These days it takes 2 paychecks to get to the same results.

(of course there is that little thing of living beyond one's means....but that is not the point right here)


And those folks who don't work and yet reap the benefits are not it either.

 

[ballen0351]

In that same 30 years however, labor productivity has also exploded. So in a fundamental economic disconnect, workers are not seeing any wage benefits even though they have become more and more effective and efficient workers.

And how much does that have to do with the Millions of Illegals that come here to take these lower level jobs at the same rate Americans work for 30 years ago? If the new labor pool was not here then companies would have no choice but to raise wages. Its supply and demand there is a huge supply of unskilled illegal workers and less and less work.

 

[granfire]

And how much does that have to do with the Millions of Illegals that come here to take these lower level jobs at the same rate Americans work for 30 years ago? If the new labor pool was not here then companies would have no choice but to raise wages. Its supply and demand there is a huge supply of unskilled illegal workers and less and less work.

Hmm, most of those jobs nobody wants.
They are job that don't even require you to be able to spell out your name, like strawberry picking, chicken house cleaning. nasty, dirty, back breaking labor.
Even the poor only take those jobs if they absolutely have to.

 

[CoryKS]

I don't see it like that.

30 years ago a family could happily live off one income and have a really cozy lifestyle. These days it takes 2 paychecks to get to the same results.

(of course there is that little thing of living beyond one's means....but that is not the point right here)


And those folks who don't work and yet reap the benefits are not it either.

That little thing of living beyond one's means is very much the point here. Few people save or invest money. That 1% at the top? Yeah, they planned for that. And you could absolutely live a cozy lifestyle on one income. You might not have things like cell phones and high-speed internet, but they didn't have those 30 years ago either.

 

[ballen0351]

Hmm, most of those jobs nobody wants.
They are job that don't even require you to be able to spell out your name, like strawberry picking, chicken house cleaning. nasty, dirty, back breaking labor.
Even the poor only take those jobs if they absolutely have to.

Yeah thats the rumor I keep hearing. Get rid of the illegals and the wages for these jobs will have to go up until it makes it a "job people want." Again supply and demand.

 

[ballen0351]

. You might not have things like cell phones and high-speed internet, but they didn't have those 30 years ago either.

You cant afford a cell phone the Govt will give you one for free.

 

[granfire]

Yeah thats the rumor I keep hearing. Get rid of the illegals and the wages for these jobs will have to go up until it makes it a "job people want." Again supply and demand.

That is not going to help the economy, because the price for a dozen eggs and the head of lettuce will sky rocket...not what you want either.

But those are jobs that do not warrant a high paycheck. Plain and simple.

And you probably won't see a high paycheck there, ever because food has to be affordable for the masses. It's always been this way, since the beginning of civilized life.

 

[granfire]

That little thing of living beyond one's means is very much the point here. Few people save or invest money. That 1% at the top? Yeah, they planned for that. And you could absolutely live a cozy lifestyle on one income. You might not have things like cell phones and high-speed internet, but they didn't have those 30 years ago either.

Well, yes and no. In the olden days you saved first before you bought, now you buy first and worry later how to pay for it (not even to mention the finance charges)
But in general to keep that standard of living with the house and the car and the dog and the white picket fence, just one check does not cover it most of the times.

Granted, internet - as a whole, and cell phones - as a whole are unnecessary things with the exceptions of a few nobody really needs.

 

[CoryKS]

Well, yes and no. In the olden days you saved first before you bought, now you buy first and worry later how to pay for it (not even to mention the finance charges)
But in general to keep that standard of living with the house and the car and the dog and the white picket fence, just one check does not cover it most of the times.

Granted, internet - as a whole, and cell phones - as a whole are unnecessary things with the exceptions of a few nobody really needs.

To the extent that this is true, don't blame the rich people - blame everyone who decided they needed two jobs/paychecks. Prices are set to the highest amount that someone is willing to pay. That's basic economics. When everybody has a double income they can afford to pay a higher price, which means that those who don't have a double income get left behind.

So who's to blame? Obviously, it's the women who just had to go out and get jobs instead of staying home and making sammiches. *ducks*

extra winks so you know I'm kidding.

 

[Empty Hands]

We're talking about wages here, yearly income total. Not savings or net worth. My boss never asked me if I had cable internet or a cell phone when we were discussing my compensation.

A few million illegal aliens depressing wages in agriculture, meat packing and home care doesn't explain it either - wage growth has been stagnant for 80% of the country. 80% of the country won't find working picking lettuce or in child care. Far more systemic factors are at work. I guess scapegoating the poor and powerless is more fun though.

ETA: Even in the top quintile, wage growth has been real but minor. It's only the top 1% that has seen exponential growth.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It's baloney, in my opinion...

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_percent_of_taxes_does_the_top.html

The top 1 percent of all households got 18 percent of all personal income and paid nearly 28 percent of all federal taxes in 2005, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The top 1 percent now pay a significantly larger share of taxes than before President Bush's tax cuts, and also have a larger share of income.
...
The share now borne by the top 1 percent is the highest it has been since 1979, the earliest year for which CBO has figures. And surprisingly, it is larger than in 2000, the last year of President Bill Clinton's administration, before President Bush signed a series of tax cuts that benefited upper-income taxpayers by cutting the top rate on federal income taxes, cutting the rate on capital gains taxes and reducing the estate tax. One reason is that the top 1 percent now receive a greater share of income than at any time covered by CBO's statistics, though those households receive only slightly more than the 17.8 percent share they got in 2000.

I don't see the problem.

 

[ballen0351]

That is not going to help the economy, because the price for a dozen eggs and the head of lettuce will sky rocket...not what you want either.

But those are jobs that do not warrant a high paycheck. Plain and simple.

And you probably won't see a high paycheck there, ever because food has to be affordable for the masses. It's always been this way, since the beginning of civilized life.

No they don't deserve a high paycheck but they deserve to be paid fair market value and with a flood of illegals that will work at well below fair market value. Its the exact opposite of unions that inflate wages well beyond fair market value for the job.
Not to mention all the untaxed income that leaves this country for Latin american countries.
I would gladly pay more in food bills if it means people would go to work get off Govt assistance and lower my Tax bill.

 

[Empty Hands]

I don't see the problem.

I don't think anyone quoted relative tax burden as the problem; correct me if I am wrong. The problem is no wage growth for more than 30 years in the bottom four quintiles despite rising productivity as well as rising costs of living (housing, health, energy and education; food and consumer goods have dropped in real terms).

 

[ballen0351]

We're talking about wages here, yearly income total. Not savings or net worth. My boss never asked me if I had cable internet or a cell phone when we were discussing my compensation.

A few million illegal aliens depressing wages in agriculture, meat packing and home care doesn't explain it either - wage growth has been stagnant for 80% of the country. 80% of the country won't find working picking lettuce or in child care. Far more systemic factors are at work. I guess scapegoating the poor and powerless is more fun though.

ETA: Even in the top quintile, wage growth has been real but minor. It's only the top 1% that has seen exponential growth.

Were not talking about a few million were talking a min of 10% of this country and Id bet its higher then that after 8 years of open borders Bush and 2 more with Obama.
As for wages Im not sure how you figure 80% of the country has stagnant wages. Even minimum wage has gotten increase every few year.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I don't think anyone quoted relative tax burden as the problem; correct me if I am wrong. The problem is no wage growth for more than 30 years in the bottom four quintiles despite rising productivity as well as rising costs of living (housing, health, energy and education; food and consumer goods have dropped in real terms).

Sorry, I cut to the chase. The usual outcry following a report of the growing gap between rich and poor is to modify the tax laws to soak the rich, so that they 'pay their fair share'.

If not through taxes that punish the wealthy, (and I'd say reward the poor, but they already pay no income taxes if they're that poor), then I'm not sure how one would go about addressing the presumed inequality.

We could talk about raising the minimum wage again, but of course few are actually paid the minimum wage, so that would not affect many unless it was raised by some massive amount. And that, of course, would spark real inflation, which we've so far managed to avoid (by the fed pumping massive made-up dollars into the economy) in favor of stagflation as we teeter precariously through the 'recovery' from the recession.

So...unless we're talking punitive taxes again, I don't know what the 'solution' to this so-called problem would be. Therefore, I just jumped to the end. Sorry.

 

[granfire]

No they don't deserve a high paycheck but they deserve to be paid fair market value and with a flood of illegals that will work at well below fair market value. Its the exact opposite of unions that inflate wages well beyond fair market value for the job.
Not to mention all the untaxed income that leaves this country for Latin american countries.
I would gladly pay more in food bills if it means people would go to work get off Govt assistance and lower my Tax bill.

That is a discussion we can have til the cows come home, leave and come back. Several times.

Your higher food bills would get old in a hurry.

let me put it this way: I worked in a job like this. because the price for the end product has to be low the wages are low.
Could to raise the price on the product? Sure, but then you won't sell as much.

However. What walked through the door for the price they paid, I kid you not, it was the bottom of the barrel. naturally part of management problems, too, but it was some interesting folk, to say the least.

In stark contrast to that after a disaster, the boss brought in a buss load from his other place. I can't comment on their legal status, but workers from south of the border. A difference of night and day. Not only did they work for the price he paid, they worked at least twice as hard.

So while this is anecdotal evidence, the equation does not work in real life like it does on paper.

Also: up until big money blew the bottom out of our economy around here unemployment was around 4%, which experts consider to be full employment.

Also, we are talking about a gap between the wealthy and the poor.
Even in areas were those menial tasks are rewarded with 10 bucks an hour, the cost of living usually eats that up like it was the 5.50 job around here.