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.
The persistent rise in the share of income that the top 1% in many countries hold may be hurting the reported life ratings of the other 99%, with concerning implications for public health and national productivity, new research shows. A 1% increase in the share of taxable income held by the top 1% hurts life satisfaction as much as a 1.4% increase in the country-level unemployment rate.
(snip)
The authors started their research by asking if income inequality at the very top really matters to the average person's life evaluation -- and the results show conclusively that it does. Other studies have demonstrated the strong links between unhappiness and low productivity, the increase in sick leave and stress. Policymakers may need to pay more attention to the wider consequences of the rising share of income the top 1% enjoy.
That's interesting. So Obama's fairness argument works. But I suspect to get it to work you have to couple the fairness argument with a determination to keep the economy depressed, beat up on the rich for being the source of everyone else's problem, keep massive amounts of people unemployed and on the government dole, all the time lying about how well the country is doing and creating a cognitive dissonance in the public and leaving everyone ticked off.
The persistent rise in the share of income that the top 1% in many countries hold may be hurting the reported life ratings of the other 99%, with concerning implications for public health and national productivity, new research shows. A 1% increase in the share of taxable income held by the top 1% hurts life satisfaction as much as a 1.4% increase in the country-level unemployment rate.
(snip)
The authors started their research by asking if income inequality at the very top really matters to the average person's life evaluation -- and the results show conclusively that it does. Other studies have demonstrated the strong links between unhappiness and low productivity, the increase in sick leave and stress. Policymakers may need to pay more attention to the wider consequences of the rising share of income the top 1% enjoy.
Personally, I don't consider the 1% or their wealth particularly relevant to me, so I'm pretty much indifferent to their existence.
It's when prosperity trickles down to my neighbors that I'm impacted, as the necessarily skyrocketing rents degrade my meager standard of living - as I experienced in the '80s.
Those who did the research should donate HALF of what they made doing the research.
I'd bet they were paid to do it.
All three are academics, and as such are probably paid to teach and/or do research.
In their environment, getting published is one of their career objectives, so they always have at least an indirect and long-term incentive to do research, even when not paid to do a specific project.
I don't care about income inequality except when it's created by taking from the poor and middle class like it did for the last 8 years.
Yeah, I'd agree with that.
And it's tough to define exactly what separates someone like (for instance) Warren Buffett, who earned his money through stock picking, compared to someone who earned his/her money by exploiting the system in sociopathic and irresponsible sorts of ways.
In the US, that can only really happen when the government is the conduit.
Pretty much.
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.