American Inequality: It's Far Worse Than You Think!

+1. Seems to me wealth accumulation has accelerated at the time the economy went global with other countries wanting to appear to participate in free market growth. Problem is the world is not a free market environment and laws do not protect average, foreign-country citizens that want to participate in commerce without having to pay off those in positions to govern. Ultimately leaders here who establish businesses abroad benefit from that reduced labor expense. Originally Posted by Luv2Munch

Yes, I do agree with Luv2Munch and CuteOldGuy's views. We definitely don't have a free labor market environment due to capitalist chronies at the top. This needs to change. It's harder and harder for small businesses to prosper also. Look at this information I found:

Beginning in the 1980s, relative poverty rates in the United States have consistently exceeded those of other high-income countries (Smeeding, 2006) (see Figure 6-1). This difference has increased over time. By the late 2000s, the relative poverty rate in the United States exceeded that of all 16 peer countries. It also exceeded rates in 31 OECD countries, including Australia, Chile, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Poland, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, and Turkey (OECD, 2011e).

Measured in terms of relative poverty, the United States also has the highest rate of child poverty of the 17 peer countries (Gornick and Jäntti, 2010; OECD, 2012e). As of 2008, more than one in five (21.6 percent) U.S. children lived in poverty, the fifth highest rate among 34 OECD countries (OECD, 2012e). Similarly, a UNICEF study found the United States to have the highest child poverty rate of the 24 rich countries it examined (UNICEF, 2007). As with poverty overall, the trend first became noticeable in the 1980s, a time of economic transformation in the United States, and the effect on child poverty rates was dramatic: within the short span of the mid-1980s, child poverty increased by almost one-third in the United States (Jäntti and Danziger, 1994). Since then, the country has consistently had the highest relative child poverty rates among all rich nations (OECD, 2012e; Whiteford and Adema, 2007) (see Figure 6-2).


According to the OECD, income inequality in the United States in the late 2000s was higher than the average of all OECD countries. One common measure of income inequality is the Gini coefficient, which ranges from 0 to 1 with larger values indicating greater inequality: the OECD average was 0.31, and it was 0.38 in the United States. The U.S. Gini coefficient exceeded that of all 16 peer countries, as well as all other OECD countries except Chile, Mexico, and Turkey (OECD, 2011e).13

Excerpt from "Shorter Lives, Poorer Health"
http://www.nap.edu13497/chapter/1

When you encourage people to vote for free stuff from the Government,

... there will be income inequality. Now you want to give them "free money"?

When you encourage people to vote for free stuff from the Government,

... there will be income inequality. Now you want to give them "free money"? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Your reply has no bearing on the above information.

You are lumping in two very different issues. Income difference top to bottom is one, child poverty is a different issue.

As a country--largely because political "winning" is the aim of both parties, not actually helping people--we have done some very unuseful things to try and help people be upwardly mobile.

The CONs essentially say "since there are some slackers among the poor--and there certainly are--then we will do nothing to help any of them". The LIBs throw money at the problem with no clue about what actually works.

In Iraq there was a lot of good analytic work done to identify "what makes the population upset enough to riot or become terrorists?" The US military went into it with an open mind because they were very concerned about getting our people out alive. They identified about 5 areas that caused the most unrest in the population, and many of them were relatively low cost to fix. But first the Bush-2 administration ignored it because it didn't fit the "image" they wanted of what we were doing in Iraq. And the problems continued. Then the Obama administration ignored the information because it didn't fit THEIR image either. So we continue to have much more unrest--and much more willingness of young Iraqi men to give an ear to terrorist groups.

In the poverty area we have much the same thing. The changes/fixes/support that actually MATTER don't fit either party's façade of an image. If you want to get the bottom out of poverty, fix these three areas:

--Education. But this takes years (we don't have the patience so we keep changing the "plan" with every new administration), and costs money, and runs into both the Thumpers and the Politically Correct crowd so we get no real progress.

--Health. Obamacare isn't the answer, but neither was what we had before. Both parties seem in a state of complete denial or willingness to actually FIX the problem, they both just want t o use it as a political football.

--Remove the disincentives to work. Actually they are often more than disincentives, they are roadblocks. Child care & transportation are the two biggest ones. Today child care costs more than a low-end person makes at the job--in essence they are paying for the "honor" of working. In many areas the lack of public transit (or lack of public transit that runs at reasonable hours) keeps people from holding a job. "Get a car" does no good to the person how does not have enough to buy one--or who would see their whole paycheck go to insurance, gas, and parking. Don't have an abrupt cliff where earning $100 more removes $1000 of support--and provide support in ways that actually make a difference.

If you get the large number of poor who do want to work into a position where they CAN work, and get the kids out of poverty, then I really don't care about how much more the top people make.

Lazy motherfuckers need to work harder and save money. Originally Posted by DSK

what are you talkin' about holmes?
it is MY RIGHT AS MERICAN TO HAVE 4+ kids and WALMART DOES NOT PAY a living wage (pays $13.38/hour.) for my lifestyle!

I dont need no edumacation, I needs mo money!
gimmie!

I do tip more than 10% already. I just wish they would report it on their taxes. Originally Posted by LexusLover

depends on the servicve, but yeah, usually more than 10%
but why the fuck am i paying you a perctange of my bill? what is this? taxes?
milk doesnt cost me % total; income.
taxes are stealing my money,
tipping X dollars makes more sense than tiipping % of money I spent

Your reply has no bearing on the above information. Originally Posted by SassySue

"information" ... oh, you mean your cut and paste!

Redistribution of wealth is the "information" you drivel ....

.... or more accurately the justification for it.

Poor people want to be rich like those folks ... in the green grass over there!

And someone desires to "organize" the "poor people" (usually a rich person who wants to stay rich), so the someone has a "study" done to inform the "poos people" they are "poor" (even setting the financial threshhold to establish "poorness") and to assure loyalty the "someone" points the finger at the "other rich people" hoarding the money and not sharing with the "poor people" ... who are being victimized by the rich people and "corporations"!

You are lumping in two very different issues. Income difference top to bottom is one, child poverty is a different issue.

As a country--largely because political "winning" is the aim of both parties, not actually helping people--we have done some very unuseful things to try and help people be upwardly mobile.

The CONs essentially say "since there are some slackers among the poor--and there certainly are--then we will do nothing to help any of them". The LIBs throw money at the problem with no clue about what actually works.

In Iraq there was a lot of good analytic work done to identify "what makes the population upset enough to riot or become terrorists?" The US military went into it with an open mind because they were very concerned about getting our people out alive. They identified about 5 areas that caused the most unrest in the population, and many of them were relatively low cost to fix. But first the Bush-2 administration ignored it because it didn't fit the "image" they wanted of what we were doing in Iraq. And the problems continued. Then the Obama administration ignored the information because it didn't fit THEIR image either. So we continue to have much more unrest--and much more willingness of young Iraqi men to give an ear to terrorist groups.

In the poverty area we have much the same thing. The changes/fixes/support that actually MATTER don't fit either party's façade of an image. If you want to get the bottom out of poverty, fix these three areas:

--Education. But this takes years (we don't have the patience so we keep changing the "plan" with every new administration), and costs money, and runs into both the Thumpers and the Politically Correct crowd so we get no real progress.

--Health. Obamacare isn't the answer, but neither was what we had before. Both parties seem in a state of complete denial or willingness to actually FIX the problem, they both just want t o use it as a political football.

--Remove the disincentives to work. Actually they are often more than disincentives, they are roadblocks. Child care & transportation are the two biggest ones. Today child care costs more than a low-end person makes at the job--in essence they are paying for the "honor" of working. In many areas the lack of public transit (or lack of public transit that runs at reasonable hours) keeps people from holding a job. "Get a car" does no good to the person how does not have enough to buy one--or who would see their whole paycheck go to insurance, gas, and parking. Don't have an abrupt cliff where earning $100 more removes $1000 of support--and provide support in ways that actually make a difference.

If you get the large number of poor who do want to work into a position where they CAN work, and get the kids out of poverty, then I really don't care about how much more the top people make. Originally Posted by Old-T

I would add a few things.

It is damn difficult to get a job when you look homeless and are in fact homeless.. That is a great place for the government to temporarily intervene.

It makes no sense to allow further immigration of the poor, uneducated (in their own country) or unskilled, including their families.

We have integrated the country and done our part for the world both for the poor and multiculturalism.

If we would quit fighting wars all over the world, and only allowed rich people of whatever race or religion into the country, who would have to agree to a loyalty oath and allow surveillance for a limited period of time, the savings and extra taxes from the new rich people could pay for more education, healthcare, and poverty eradication.

We should follow the Switzerland example of legally living here for ten years prior to applying for citizenship. (I'm willing to make an exception for those already here with no felony convictions or health problems, as long as they get in line and pay up, including back taxes)

I would add a few things.


It makes no sense to allow further immigration of the poor, uneducated (in their own country) or unskilled, including their families. Originally Posted by DSK

you know how many non-us citizens get SS benifets?
or how many people with crimainal(rape"?) records become citizens?

why do we feel WE NEED TO allow others to come here, we can't even hand the population we have

I would add a few things.

It is damn difficult to get a job when you look homeless and are in fact homeless.. That is a great place for the government to temporarily intervene.

It makes no sense to allow further immigration of the poor, uneducated (in their own country) or unskilled, including their families.

We have integrated the country and done our part for the world both for the poor and multiculturalism.

If we would quit fighting wars all over the world, and only allowed rich people of whatever race or religion into the country, who would have to agree to a loyalty oath and allow surveillance for a limited period of time, the savings and extra taxes from the new rich people could pay for more education, healthcare, and poverty eradication.

We should follow the Switzerland example of legally living here for ten years prior to applying for citizenship. (I'm willing to make an exception for those already here with no felony convictions or health problems, as long as they get in line and pay up, including back taxes) Originally Posted by DSK

Those sound like reasonable discussion points to me.

you know how many non-us citizens get SS benifets?
or how many people with crimainal(rape"?) records become citizens?

why do we feel WE NEED TO allow others to come here, we can't even hand the population we have Originally Posted by johnnyretard

I believe it is because the liberals have inculcated the idea into people's head that too many white people are bad for the country, so we must bring in non-white people no matter how poor, unskilled, or uneducated.

But I agree with the premise that we should at least stop doing it to absorb the people here and take care of all the unfortunates already mired in extreme poverty in this supposedly free country.

you know how many non-us citizens get SS benifets?
or how many people with crimainal(rape"?) records become citizens?

why do we feel WE NEED TO allow others to come here, we can't even hand the population we have Originally Posted by johnnyretard

I believe it is because the liberals have inculcated the idea into people's heads that too many white people are bad for the country, so we must bring in non-white people no matter how poor, unskilled, or uneducated.

But I agree with the premise that we should at least stop doing it to absorb the people here and take care of all the unfortunates already mired in extreme poverty in this supposedly free country.

SueSeeker you have other problems...

There is no guarantee of equality of outcome for humans.
It is unfortunate that our government decides to control people rather than to allow natural selection to weed out the inferior. Instead, we attempt to lower everybody to the least common denominator.

Abolish seat belt laws and thin the herd.
Abolish helmet laws and thin the herd.

There is no guarantee of equality of outcome for humans.
It is unfortunate that our government decides to control people rather than to allow natural selection to weed out the inferior. Instead, we attempt to lower everybody to the least common denominator.

Abolish seat belt laws and thin the herd.
Abolish helmet laws and thin the herd. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Abolish gloryholes and goodbye EKIM and assup !