Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And to take it a step further, lower income people tend to not get married in the first place, and tend to have kids out of wedlock, which kills the chances for many of them to ever reach the middle class.
agreed. While it's not the case every time, I am an engineer and most of my engineer friends have wives/husbands/SOs who are engineers, doctors, lawyers, research scientists etc. Interests just are more likely to be the same, ambitions can be more likely to match, and more importantly social circles tend to be the same.
Another trend is people staying single. Americans are remaining single for ever longer. Many do not want children and thus have much less of a reason to get married.
What about households of one person?
Also, quality of life isn't solely by income. It depends on each person's situation. A single person making $60,000 may have more disposable income than a family of two children making $120,000. There are also debt, health problems, etc.
I get weary of the discussions of wealth distribution - Wealth is not distributed; it is earned and the reality is that there has always been an 80/20 income ratio (20% of the people at the top earning 80% more income than the people who work for them). But, is that really "income inequality" ... or is it instead simply the reality of the marketplace?
The often promoted notion that some people unfairly make more money doing the same job than others is simply not how the world works. Granted, there has been a long-term issue of men making more money than women, but, that is rapidly disappearing from corporate America. Politicians who pander to the masses with a victimization scenario ("the man is holding you down") are both dishonest and disingenuous.
Likewise, charts intended to infer that the difference in wages/wealth ('income equality'), is some type of hidden plot to keep poor people poor, simply promote 'class warfare'. Is it really unfair that I don't, for example, make the millions paid to professional athletes or celebrities? --Should I 'hate' those people because they are wealthy and I'm not? --- Of course not, but, that's the same picture painted by so many of the 'wealth redistribution pundits' ... on a different scale.
It's a matter of philosophy. Your philosophy is using the market as a natural mechanism. Many think that creates economic disparity.
In many other countries, those rich and powerful use force to suppress the population. In that case, they didn't just earn the wealth. It becomes legitimate for the ordinary to struggle for their wealth.
Your viewpoints pertain to a pure market economy where the affluent got there by mostly luck and effort. It's the business logic. Supply and demand. Americans are not used to that. Many don't even understand it. Many highly educated Americans don't think things that way. They have been prosperous, so they took things for granted. They have been told that they will get this and that if they go to college and major in something they love (at the time they enroll in college that is). And now those dreams are not there anymore. So the natural reaction is "give me some of what you have."
The fact that businesses have been very selfish and globalization and automation help them to a great extent adds to economic disparity.
The phrase "income inequality" is an interesting. Let's say that A and B starts at the same place and finishes in vastly different places under the same conditions. In such a case, there is "income inequality" from the liberal point of view as they are not making the same income. But is this situation inherently bad? Wouldn't it be unfair if A can make more than B but they are required to make the same? That would be "equal" on the surface, but disproportionate if you consider effort. That is a form of inequality that liberals don't like to mention.
you have described not income inequality you have described envy and malice.
you have described poverty as a proud identity and membership in a club, not a temporary state one passes thru.
you have done a splendid job of illustrating the mental state of a flash mob and a mugger. an angry man expressing his moral outrage of where i am at @ 65 and where he is at @ 17. i came to this country with 2 suitcases and 150 dollars.
more poor coming here than most ghetto people
most envy what i have, none what i had to do to get it.
I get weary of the discussions of wealth distribution - Wealth is not distributed; it is earned and the reality is that there has always been an 80/20 income ratio (20% of the people at the top earning 80% more income than the people who work for them). But, is that really "income inequality" ... or is it instead simply the reality of the marketplace?
As I stated in a previous post in this thread, that is not the issue at all. The issue is whether we can have a functioning economy without a middle class and even an under class that has no spending ability?
You do realize of course that if we took away food stamps for example that the first people to complain would be the large grocers? Why? Because if we removed purchasing power from the poor (albeit funded by tax payers) most of it ultimately ends up back in the hands of the wealthy.
If the middle class and poor have no purchasing power then billions of dollars are lost from lack of buy groceries, clothing and so on. Jobs will be lost and it will continue to spiral downward. Who will go to the movies, buy cars or computers? So you see that ultimately the rich will suffer as well in the end.
Either we can have pure capitalism and allow the middle class to sink and the poor to have no purchasing power at all (like many third world nations) or we can have some wealth redistribution and have more spending power throughout the economy and not simply at the top
For a politically charged thread, this one has remained fairly cool, calm and collected, with lots of really good unemotional posts.
Cost of living in Denver, particularly with regards to rents, is growing much faster than the income levels of the less fortunate citizens. People are being priced out of apartments where they've lived for quite some time and forced to uproot simply due to supply and demand and are increasing forced to relocate to areas less served by public transportation. I'm sure you can say the same thing for most cities in the US.
There are no easy answers. Technology has replaced some jobs that won't ever come back, and I fear that our population levels are growing to a point where not only aren't we going to have enough good jobs to go around, but many of the jobs that do emerge are going to be temporary in nature. There are some places in the world where unemployment among the younger generations is upwards of 50%. That in of itself is a recipe for disaster. I'm not sure what equilibrium is going to look like for this.
As I stated in a previous post in this thread, that is not the issue at all. The issue is whether we can have a functioning economy without a middle class and even an under class that has no spending ability?
You do realize of course that if we took away food stamps for example that the first people to complain would be the large grocers? Why? Because if we removed purchasing power from the poor (albeit funded by tax payers) most of it ultimately ends up back in the hands of the wealthy.
If the middle class and poor have no purchasing power then billions of dollars are lost from lack of buy groceries, clothing and so on. Jobs will be lost and it will continue to spiral downward. Who will go to the movies, buy cars or computers? So you see that ultimately the rich will suffer as well in the end.
Either we can have pure capitalism and allow the middle class to sink and the poor to have no purchasing power at all (like many third world nations) or we can have some wealth redistribution and have more spending power throughout the economy and not simply at the top
Walmart is already feeling the pinch from food stamp cuts.
As I stated in a previous post in this thread, that is not the issue at all. The issue is whether we can have a functioning economy without a middle class and even an under class that has no spending ability?
You do realize of course that if we took away food stamps for example that the first people to complain would be the large grocers? Why? Because if we removed purchasing power from the poor (albeit funded by tax payers) most of it ultimately ends up back in the hands of the wealthy.
If the middle class and poor have no purchasing power then billions of dollars are lost from lack of buy groceries, clothing and so on. Jobs will be lost and it will continue to spiral downward. Who will go to the movies, buy cars or computers? So you see that ultimately the rich will suffer as well in the end.
Either we can have pure capitalism and allow the middle class to sink and the poor to have no purchasing power at all (like many third world nations) or we can have some wealth redistribution and have more spending power throughout the economy and not simply at the top
I take strong umbrage with your use of the word distribution. Which implies a purposeful effort to take from one and give to another regardless of the reasons why the inequality exist. How about another approach. With so much of the current growth in inequality coming from the stock market and only one in five being active in the market how about some financial wisdom distribution not from one to another but just giving it to those without. How about beating folks over the head with " A penny saved is a penny earned" and the power of compounding! Before you say folks don't have the money to save consider the concept of alternative cost/opportunity cost and that every carton of cigarettes or alcohol purchase etc could be money invested. Daily there are people rising from poverty and are they held up in high esteem as role models or are entertainers, athletes etc held up as role models. How about the power of STEM education as a education/career path? How about beating young people over the head with the concept of opportunity cost and the stupid decisions they could make at a young age could cost them the opportunity for a more productive life and secure retirement. How about just a major effort at common sense distribution of what are the required inputs in life and not jargon about redistributing the outcomes! Before you jump back at me consider the outcomes of the intense negative peer pressure among the young in some communities and is that the fault of .........?
The middle class and the poor have considerable purchasing power to be deployed for a better life.. Isn't the issue more what they are spending it on and the chosen outcomes of that spending?
Well educated and motivated individuals migrate to urban areas for income and job opportunities, while the unmotivated poor in poor neighborhoods in those cities remain and have a higher per capita number of children. The motivated poor take advantage of any opportunity move up the ladder and to the suburbs to help their kids go to better schools and escape peer pressure. You can review the impact of gentrification and see how it plays out.
This used to be the prevailing conventional wisdom, and, for the most part, it was true. In case you are unaware, there is a "new normal" that exists out there. Your perspective is that the jobs are readily available there up the rung of the ladder, you just have to "go for them." These days, there are many more factors that play into this.
Walmart is already feeling the pinch from food stamp cuts.
This is shameful. A huge company like Walmart, whose heirs are among the richest in the world, should not be relying on Government subsidies such as food stamps for it's business success. This is basically a transfer of public funds (i.e. the taxes we the working people pay) to Walmart.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
