djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 6, 2011 11:27:53 GMT -5
OECD report cites rising income inequality By Michael A. Fletcher, Published: December 5 Income inequality is increasing across much of the developed world, a trend that will continue unless governments move aggressively to arrest it, according to a report released Monday by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The widening gap between rich and poor is being driven in part by a growing disparity in wages, as skilled workers command a disproportionate share of the bounty made possible by technological progress, the report said. In the past 30 years, the recession has caused massive job losses, population growth has altered the size and makeup of our cities, and the income gap between rich and poor has widened. Here, we take a look at how people’s perceptions of change in their area match up with the way things really are. In addition, a surge in foreign direct investment and a looser regulatory regime that has reduced employee protections have led to a wage premium for high-skill financial jobs and fewer rewards for workers at the bottom, the report said. The result is the highest level of income inequality in more than three decades, according to the Paris-based OECD, whose members include 34 developed countries and whose mission is to promote policies for improving economic and social well-being. The report comes as rising dissatisfaction with economic inequality has spilled over into street protests in dozens of cities around the world. “The social contract is starting to unravel in many countries,” OECD Secretary General Angel Gurria said in a statement. “This study dispels the assumptions that the benefits of economic growth will automatically trickle down to the disadvantaged and that the greater inequality fosters greater social mobility. Without a comprehensive strategy for inclusive growth, inequality will continue to rise.” The average income of the richest tenth of the population in OECD countries is about nine times that of the poorest tenth, the report said. The United States, Turkey and Israel have among the largest ratios between the incomes of those at the top and the bottom, roughly 14 to 1. Germany, Denmark and Sweden have among the lowest — 6 to 1 — but the ratios are up from the 1980s. The gaps in Chile and Mexico have been declining but remain the highest among OECD members, at more than 25 to 1. Overall, inequality among working Americans has risen 25 percent since 1980, the report said. In 2008, the average annual income of the top 10 percent of Americans was $114,000, nearly 15 times higher than that of the bottom 10 percent. That finding is consistent with other studies documenting the widening economic gulf, which has become a growing political issue in the United States. The share of income going to the nation’s richest 1 percent more than doubled between 1980 and 2008, rising from 8 percent to 18 percent, the report said. The richest 1 percent of Americans make an average of $1.3 million in after-tax income, compared with $17,700 for the bottom 20 percent. Meanwhile, the top federal income tax rate has fallen from 70 percent in 1981 to 35 percent, the report said. The report covers a period between the 1980s and early 2000s and compares long-term economic data among the 22 OECD nations where information was available. The OECD used the Gini coefficient, a standard measure of income inequality, to gauge the income gap. The scale ranges from zero to one. At zero, an entire population would have equal incomes; at one, all income would go to one person. The coefficient stands at about 0.316, the report said, 10 percent higher than in the mid-1980s. To reverse the trend, the report said, countries should implement tax and social policies that extract more from top earners while offering more support to those at the bottom. But the opposite has been happening: As many countries wrestle with sluggish economies and burdensome debt, they generally have been pushing to cut government spending while reducing taxes in hopes of stoking economic growth. www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/oecd-report-cites-rising-income-inequality/2011/12/05/gIQAWrwZXO_story.html?hpid=z4 emphasis mine.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Dec 6, 2011 11:42:10 GMT -5
"Time-Lapse Analysis" Instead of Snapshot Shows That 57% of Top 1% in 1996 Weren't There in 2005 www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdfFrom the 2007 study "Income Mobility in the U.S. from 1996 to 2005" from the Department of the Treasury: "The mobility of the top 1 percent of the income distribution is also important. More than half (57.4 percent) of the top 1 percent of households in 1996 had dropped to a lower income group by 2005 [MP: dropped into the bottom 99%]. This statistic illustrates that the top income groups as measured by a single year of income (i.e., cross-sectional analysis) often include a large share of individuals or households whose income is only temporarily high. Put differently, more than half of the households in the top 1 percent in 2005 were not there nine years earlier. Thus, while the share of income of the top 1 percent is higher than in prior years, it is not a fixed group of households receiving this larger share of income." MP: The chart above also shows that almost half (45.6%) of the top 5% in 1996 had moved to a lower income group nine years later in 2005, and roughly 39% of the top 10% in 1996 dropped into a lower income group by 2005. Whether it's the top 1%, top 5% or top 10%, those income groups are not static, closed groups, but snapshots in just one year of the national income distribution, which is constantly changing over time. A large majority of today's 1% won't be there in the future, and weren't there in the past, they are just making a temporary stop in that group. As mentioned before, income mobility is far more important than income inequality. Empirical evidence provided in this Treasury Department report and supported by other studies shows that there is significant income mobility in the U.S. for all income groups. And yet all we hear about are the snapshot comparisons of income differentials for income groups in different years, which contain completely different people and households from snapshot to snapshot. When you do a "time-lapse" analysis of the same people or households over time, what you find is significant income mobility and that finding deserves more attention.
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Dec 6, 2011 11:42:35 GMT -5
while offering more support to those at the bottom.
What more can be offered to those at the bottom?
Food, Housing, Lights, Heat, Water, Phone service, Education, Healthcare, etc. Besides writing a weekly check for nothing. What more can be offered to help those on the bottom get to the off the bottom?
This type of Top vs Bottom fighting that has been going on for the last 3 years (yes we have had a national news story on income inequality since Obama was elected) with zero results, zero discussion on what more can be done (and not just spent), Just help these at the expense of these if you help these you are hurting these.
And once again the ones who pay for all these services are blindsided when the Wealthy get hit the middle class is the one who ends up shouldering the burden.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Dec 6, 2011 11:44:24 GMT -5
U.S. Income Inequality Has Been Flat Since 1994 blocked due to malware/-8HVLrogTURE/Tq3ZxNOHwYI/AAAAAAAAQAQ/8ZvvtQy2uDg/s1600/income2.jpg[/img] We keep hearing from the media and OWS protestors that rising income inequality (or exploding income inequality according to Jonathan Chait) and stagnating household incomes have gotten worse in recent years, caused allegedly by the "rich getting richer at the expense of the poor and lower-income income groups" because disproportionate and rising shares of national income have been going to the top 1% or top 20%, etc. In other words, we're hearing the standard, typical "class warfare" narratives. Another part of that narrative is that income inequality wasn't nearly as much of a problem in the decades of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s when there was an upwardly mobile middle-class, when real median household income was rising year after year, and when income was more equitably and fairly distributed among income groups, i.e. during the "Golden Age" of the middle class. But once we experienced the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s and the first "decade of greed," the American Dream of middle class equality started to fade. Once the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 took effect, the middle class was doomed, and "the rich" dominated the economy, upward mobility was over, the share of income going to the rich skyrocketed and income inequality "exploded." But there's a problem, because three different measures of income dispersion (the share of total U.S. income going to the top 20% of American households, and Gini coefficients for both U.S. households and families) from the Census Bureau (Tables E-1 and F-4) displayed in the two charts above show trends that are completely contrary to the common narrative. As can be seen in the top chart, all three measures of income dispersion have gradually increased over time, but most of the increases occurred in the earlier period between 1967 and 1994. Starting in the mid-1990s, the three measures of income inequality stalled out and barely changed in the sixteen years from 1994 to 2010 (see bottom chart of just the 1994-2010 period).
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Dec 6, 2011 11:46:19 GMT -5
The "Imaginary Hobgoblin" of Income Inequality blocked due to malware/-SSW2_r-rBqU/Tq6hkhIgh2I/AAAAAAAAQHg/jG4K6QTEh9s/s1600/gini1.jpg[/img] The charts above were prepared using Census Bureau data (Table E-2) on the Gini coefficients (a statistical measure of dispersion that quantifies income inequality on a range from 0% for complete equality to 100% for complete inequality where one person receives all of the income) for full-time, year-round workers. Like other measures of income inequality for families and households over time presented recently here, income inequality for full-time , year-round workers follows the same pattern: The Gini coefficient for full-time workers increased gradually through the 1960s, 1970, 1980s, and then stabilized in the mid-1990s (after rising from 34% in 1967 to 39.5% in 1994, see top chart) and hasn't changed at all in the sixteen-year period from 1994 (39.5%) to 2010 (39.7%). Bottom Line: Whether we look at Census Bureau data on Gini coefficients for U.S. households, families, or year-round workers, or look at the share of income going to the top fifth of Americans, there is absolutely no statistical support for the commonly held view that income inequality has been rising recently. So why are we even having this national debate about solutions to the "non-problem" of rising income inequality. Is this another "imaginary hobgoblin" (see below)? H.L. Mencken: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Dec 6, 2011 11:47:59 GMT -5
Census: Income Inequality Unchanged Since 2000 From the Joint Economic Committee of Congress: According to a key Census Bureau measure, income inequality has been unchanged since 2000. The Census Bureau recently confirmed that no statistically significant change in the inequality measure occurred between 2000 and 2007 (see chart above), the last year for which data are available. The measure referred to here is known as the Gini coefficient, a standard gauge of income inequality published by the Census Bureau and widely used by economists and other researchers (Gini coeffients data here for households and families). When examining income data for different groups over time it should be recalled that there is a good deal of income mobility between income groups, and membership of various income groups changes significantly over extended periods of time. For example, a household that was in the middle fifth in 1985 is probably no longer in that group now. As a result, changes in the middle fifth’s average income between 1985 and 2005 aren’t a good reflection of the changes in the economic well-being of a household that left that income group years ago. Nearly half of all households move to a different fifth in as little as three years. Also, inequality in consumption is much less than inequality in income. For example, the level of consumption in the bottom fifth is nearly twice that of income, indicating that income is not necessarily the best measure of economic well-being. Congress will have to carefully consider these data and other relevant statistics in order to make informed policy decisions.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 6, 2011 11:50:46 GMT -5
SF- rather than posting the same cherry picked bullshit as ever, why not just address the points in the OP? try starting with this one:
Overall, inequality among working Americans has risen 25 percent since 1980, the report said. In 2008, the average annual income of the top 10 percent of Americans was $114,000, nearly 15 times higher than that of the bottom 10 percent.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Dec 6, 2011 11:52:47 GMT -5
I did a paper while studying for my Masters that outlined the widening income disparity in this country. That was a rather large pile of years ago, and the disparity had been rising for a looooong time then. It had also been picking up speed. It sure doesn't surprise me it's a behemoth now!
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Dec 6, 2011 11:56:07 GMT -5
SF- rather than posting the same cherry picked bullshit as ever, why not just address the points in the OP? try starting with this one: Overall, inequality among working Americans has risen 25 percent since 1980, the report said. In 2008, the average annual income of the top 10 percent of Americans was $114,000, nearly 15 times higher than that of the bottom 10 percent.
YOur BS initial post ignores the data that indicate wage earners are mobile between income ranges. We did a long thread on this weeks ago. Workers in the bottom quintile move up to higher quintiles as they progress in the work force. Furthermore, those at the top today, where not there 10 years ago.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 6, 2011 11:56:28 GMT -5
I did a paper while studying for my Masters that outlined the widening income disparity in this country. That was a rather large pile of years ago, and the disparity had been rising for a looooong time then. It had also been picking up speed. It sure doesn't surprise me it's a behemoth now! i think why is the more interesting question than if. most people think global warming is happening, as well. the real debate is as to the cause. ditto here. the fact that the OECD suggested why was the reason i posted this article.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Dec 6, 2011 11:57:40 GMT -5
I did a paper while studying for my Masters that outlined the widening income disparity in this country. That was a rather large pile of years ago, and the disparity had been rising for a looooong time then. It had also been picking up speed. It sure doesn't surprise me it's a behemoth now! The quality of education has significantly declined over the last 20-25 years. There is not a spec of statistical evidence that suggests a widening income gap.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 6, 2011 11:57:45 GMT -5
SF- rather than posting the same cherry picked bullshit as ever, why not just address the points in the OP? try starting with this one: Overall, inequality among working Americans has risen 25 percent since 1980, the report said. In 2008, the average annual income of the top 10 percent of Americans was $114,000, nearly 15 times higher than that of the bottom 10 percent.
YOur BS initial post ignores the data that indicate wage earners are mobile between income ranges. of course it does. that is not how income disparity is measured. is that what this argument is about for you, SF? income mobility? that is an entirely different subject.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 6, 2011 11:59:21 GMT -5
I did a paper while studying for my Masters that outlined the widening income disparity in this country. That was a rather large pile of years ago, and the disparity had been rising for a looooong time then. It had also been picking up speed. It sure doesn't surprise me it's a behemoth now! The quality of education has significantly declined over the last 20-25 years. There is not a spec of statistical evidence that suggests a widening income gap. there is more than a speck. there is a mountain. income mobility has nothing to do with disparity.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Dec 6, 2011 12:01:53 GMT -5
is that what this argument is about for you, SF? income mobility? that is an entirely different subject.
Your post suggests workers have no wage/income growth. Someone earning min wage at age 18 stays at that wage their entire life.
The thread we did a while back asking who is earning the identical income today, that they earned 20 years ago, resulted in not a single forum member saying they are earning the same income from years ago.
The OECD's position is based on that, and their goal is to export wealth from the US to the rest of the world.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 6, 2011 12:05:04 GMT -5
is that what this argument is about for you, SF? income mobility? that is an entirely different subject. Your post suggests workers have no wage/income growth. it suggests nothing of the kind, because it doesn't follow workers through time. income disparity compares workers of all age groups by income AT A CERTAIN POINT IN TIME. it does not follow those workers through their life, NOR IS IT INTENDED TO DO SO. it shows the economic gap between the highest paid and lowest paid AT ANY GIVEN TIME. income mobility follows groups THROUGH TIME. it is absolutely, totally, 100% completely different than income disparity. there is actually a discussion of this at wiki. it is kind of amateurish, but should serve as a good starting place for anyone interested in the difference: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_mobility
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 6, 2011 12:09:52 GMT -5
The OECD's position is based on that, and their goal is to export wealth from the US to the rest of the world. that is totally false. the OECD is simply reporting data in a time tested way. it has been done since a time when the US did NOT have large income disparities, and it will continue to do so no matter what any conspiracist might say. there ARE policy implications of this, however. it is noted by sociologists for hundreds of years that wide gaps between rich and poor tend to lead to the breakdown of the social contract, of law and order, and threaten the wealth OF THE RICH. this is why ideas like progressive taxation and welfare exist- is to construct barriers which prevent the breakdown of social and economic order. it really is strange to me that so few people seem aware of this stuff. is it a failing of the public school system to teach it?
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Dec 6, 2011 12:26:25 GMT -5
Look, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that less skilled workers always get hit harder when there is a recession. There are two reasons for this. Many lower income workers livelihoods depend on richer folks discretionary spending, which dries up when the economy tanks. And a company is a heck of a lot more likely to lay off easily replaced employees and keep the harder to replace ones when business gets slow.
One other big problem the US has that other countries don't is that we had a welfare system that has caused a large portion of the population to grow up in a culture where education and self sufficiency are not valued and it is considered perfectly normal for a woman under 20 to have a child she can't afford to support. No amount of money will turn someone who engages in that kind of boneheaded thinking into a productive member of society. Free college won't benefit someone who doesn't value education. Job training won't help someone who sees no correlation between hard work and success. And even if that person does value hard work and education, it is a lot harder to get an education and launch a career when you have the responsibility of raising a child.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 6, 2011 12:33:55 GMT -5
Look, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that less skilled workers always get hit harder when there is a recession. There are two reasons for this. Many lower income workers livelihoods depend on richer folks discretionary spending, which dries up when the economy tanks. And a company is a heck of a lot more likely to lay off easily replaced employees and keep the harder to replace ones when business gets slow. One other big problem the US has that other countries don't is that we had a welfare system that has caused a large portion of the population to grow up in a culture where education and self sufficiency are not valued and it is considered perfectly normal for a woman under 20 to have a child she can't afford to support. No amount of money will turn someone who engages in that kind of boneheaded thinking into a productive member of society. Free college won't benefit someone who doesn't value education. Job training won't help someone who sees no correlation between hard work and success. And even if that person does value hard work and education, it is a lot harder to get an education and launch a career when you have the responsibility of raising a child. there are actually a LOT of reasons why this (increasing income disparity) is happening. but one of them is that we are simply not turning out the kind of graduates that form a solid and growing middle class. the other is competition, and the loss of "home rule" in capital investment. i mean, there are probably 100 reasons that this is happening. it is NOT ANY ONE THING. and because of that, it will be very difficult to stop.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Dec 6, 2011 12:34:37 GMT -5
is that what this argument is about for you, SF? income mobility? that is an entirely different subject. Your post suggests workers have no wage/income growth. it suggests nothing of the kind, because it doesn't follow workers through time. income disparity compares workers of all age groups by income AT A CERTAIN POINT IN TIME. it does not follow those workers through their life, NOR IS IT INTENDED TO DO SO. it shows the economic gap between the highest paid and lowest paid AT ANY GIVEN TIME. income mobility follows groups THROUGH TIME. it is absolutely, totally, 100% completely different than income disparity. there is actually a discussion of this at wiki. it is kind of amateurish, but should serve as a good starting place for anyone interested in the difference: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_mobilityAnd what sort of helpful information does a snapshot of people's earnings at a static point in time give us? Considering we know nothing of any events surrounding why the people in the different groups have higher or lower wages than each other. All this article tells us is that some people make more money than others...well, duh I guess here we go again with the same old "everyone should be paid the same no matter their work ethic, education, or skill level" bullshit...
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 6, 2011 12:43:08 GMT -5
it suggests nothing of the kind, because it doesn't follow workers through time. income disparity compares workers of all age groups by income AT A CERTAIN POINT IN TIME. it does not follow those workers through their life, NOR IS IT INTENDED TO DO SO. it shows the economic gap between the highest paid and lowest paid AT ANY GIVEN TIME. income mobility follows groups THROUGH TIME. it is absolutely, totally, 100% completely different than income disparity. there is actually a discussion of this at wiki. it is kind of amateurish, but should serve as a good starting place for anyone interested in the difference: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_mobilityAnd what sort of helpful information does a snapshot of people's earnings at a static point in time give us? i actually specifically stated that in one of my posts here, jk.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 6, 2011 12:47:14 GMT -5
I guess here we go again with the same old "everyone should be paid the same no matter their work ethic, education, or skill level" bullshit... nope. i think that people should be paid according to their skill level. i will try one more time, but i have to go to work after this. wide income disparity tends to break down the social fabric. therefore, for those of us that are interested in nations (i am not particularly one of them, for the record), there are implications in widening disparity for our society. the problem can actually be solved on many levels, and there is no single solution to the problem. it has to do with many factors, some of which can be easily impacted and some of which can not. if you don't care whether our society dissolves into chaos, or becomes something like Mexico or Brazil, then by all means, just poopoo the stats and check your liferaft for leaks. for myself, i am going to be putting my feet up in some mediterranean paradise before any of this shit hits the fan. i care about it for my son, tho. i want to leave him with a better nation than the one i inherited from my dad. i know....socialist, right?
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Dec 6, 2011 12:47:35 GMT -5
Does income inequality matter, or put a another way does producing wealth create poverty.
There is not a static pie where the "rich" have to take away income from the "poor" in order to increase there income, more total income can be created and all groups can rise, so the question remains does it even matter if the gap increases?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 6, 2011 12:50:10 GMT -5
Does income inequality matter, or put a another way does producing wealth create poverty. those are not the same question at all. i have already answered the first one. the answer to the second one is NO.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 6, 2011 12:55:14 GMT -5
you can illustrate the problem clearly by taking the GINI index to a logical extreme.
if GINI were 0, everyone would earn exactly the same thing. if GINE were 1, one person would earn everything, and everyone else would earn nothing.
i don't know of ANYONE that sees EITHER of those as a healthy alternative.
the question then becomes, which would be better? and the answer to that very much depends on whether you believe in individuals or nations, and to what degree.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Dec 6, 2011 14:05:56 GMT -5
I think two big reasons behind decling wages for low skilled workers are:
1. Global Competition 2. Technology.
In the "good old days" after world war II, the U.S was really the only industrialized nation not affected by the ravages of war. This gave us a huge economic advantage and helped us hire and keep capital here instead of abroad. Nowdays many other countries have workers who will do menial work for a tiny fraction of what an American will work for. It's not hard to see why companies outsource when they can.
2. Technology allows fewer people to do more work. When we were an agrarian society, big strong men were valued more because they could load more hay, mine more coal, pick more crops ect. Nowdays we have technology to do those things, and the jobs are highly skilled operators and technicians, management, and the engineers and scientists who design them. Fewer people can do more work, so the value of unskilled labor is depressed. This is why education is so important.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Dec 6, 2011 14:07:38 GMT -5
"There is not a static pie where the "rich" have to take away income from the "poor" in order to increase there income, more total income can be created and all groups can rise, so the question remains does it even matter if the gap increases?"
That's the other logical fallacy the liberals don't understand. The economy isn't a zero sum game where if some people have more money that means they took it from other people. The money supply isn't finite.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Dec 6, 2011 14:07:48 GMT -5
This is why education is so important.
And laughable, the US has the worse public elementary/secondary education system in the world. Think that is part of the problem?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:09:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2011 14:08:42 GMT -5
To reverse the trend, the report said, countries should implement tax and social policies that extract more from top earners while offering more support to those at the bottom.
Even in socialism the "leaders" have much more than the average person. True socialism can not be achieved (where everybody is equal). So by trading one system for another you are just changing who is wealthy. Oddly enough, those pushing the change tend to be the ones that become the leaders & also the wealthy. Strange how that works out.
I would be much more impressed by articles like this if they would just be honest & straight forward. Get a gun, find a rich person & take everything he has. Honesty, something missing from this agenda.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Dec 6, 2011 14:34:15 GMT -5
"There are certainly serious problems with our education system. It is hardly the worst in the world though."
I agree. Saying we have the worst education system in the world is untrue and overstating the problem. However, I will agree education needs some serious reforms and improvements. Actually most of our public schools are pretty decent, it's the poorest school districts that drag down the average. Plus the U.S is at a disadvantage when being compared to other countries as we try to education every child where most other countries don't.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Dec 6, 2011 14:39:49 GMT -5
The US public education system is at the bottom of the heap of the 30 major industrialized nations.
We should be #1.
|
|