Study Finds Rich-Poor Income Gap Growing. What a surprise.

[Fargin_Bastige]

Study Finds Rich-Poor Income Gap Growing

By MARK JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer Fri Jan 27, 2:29 AM ET

ALBANY, N.Y. - The disparity between rich and poor is growing in America as the federal minimum wage has remained flat for years, union membership has declined and industries have faced global competition, according to a study released Thursday.


The report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute, both liberal-leaning think tanks, found the incomes of the poorest 20 percent of families nationally grew by an average of $2,660, or 19 percent, over the past 20 years. Meanwhile, the incomes of the richest fifth of families grew by $45,100, or nearly 59 percent, the study by the Washington-based groups said.

Families in the middle fifth saw their incomes rise 28 percent, or $10,218.

The figures, based on U.S. Census data, compare the average growth from 1980-82 to 2001-03, after adjusting for inflation.

The poorest one-fifth of families, the report said, had an average income of $16,780 from 2000-03, while the top fifth of families had an average income of $122,150 — more than seven times as much. Middle-income families' average income was $46,875.

Trudi Renwick, an economist with the union-backed Fiscal Policy Institute in New York, said globalization, the decline of manufacturing jobs, the expansion of low-wage service jobs, immigration and the weakening of unions have hurt those on the lower end of the economic scale.

In 38 states, the incomes of high-income families grew by a higher percentage than those of the lowest-income families; Alaska was the only state in which the reverse was true. The 11 states where the high and low incomes increased at about the same rate were mostly in the West and Midwest.

The greatest disparity between rich and poor was in New York, where the top 20 percent of wage earners had average incomes 8.1 times larger than the poorest 20 percent in the early 2000s. Texas had only a slightly smaller gap; Wyoming had the smallest disparity at a 5.2 to 1 ratio.

Matthew Maguire, a spokesman for the Business Council of New York state, said the money earned by the state's wealthiest residents is "something that everybody who cares about New York should be pleased about."

"New York's wealthy pay huge sums in taxes and those wealthy people and their taxes make it possible for New York to provide the nation's most generous social service programs to less fortunate New Yorkers," he said. "It also reflects the fact the state is a magnet for immigrants who come from the four corners of the globe to a state they see as symbol of economic activity."

Renwick said the government "needs to continue its commitment to correcting the natural outcomes of the marketplace" by raising the minimum wage with inflation and by tax policies like the earned income tax credit.

Renwick also suggested that governments, when giving tax breaks to companies, insist those companies provide jobs that pay higher wages.

[BigBadBoom]

"New York's wealthy pay huge sums in taxes and those wealthy people and their taxes make it possible for New York to provide the nation's most generous social service programs to less fortunate New Yorkers," he said. "It also reflects the fact the state is a magnet for immigrants who come from the four corners of the globe to a state they see as symbol of economic activity."

....and in the ghettos and slums there was much dancing and celebrating. Praises to the rich were repeated throughout the streets, "oh thank you, thank you for the generous social programs."

[license2ill]

It's part of the process. It's absolutely built-in. there is no way around being a successful capitalist and creating a master-slave relationship with the rest of the world. Go play a game of poker or Monopoly. Without liberty enforced by government, it's a known end game outcome.

[Fargin_Bastige]

We are cannibalizing our own consumer base. That doesn't sound very successful to me.

[license2ill]

Originally Posted by Fargin_Bastige

We are cannibalizing our own consumer base. That doesn't sound very successful to me.

Only the power matters in the end. The feudal system worked just fine for the fewer and fewer and more powerful at the top. You don't need a consumer base when you have slaves, you simply rid yourself of those that get in the way, and force those that need food and shelter to work for it. Capitalism is always only one step away from that at the bottom and for some it's stil lnot much of an improvement, As this thread points out, it becomes more and more, unless government intervens for the sake of liberty and human rights.

[Fargin_Bastige]

Originally Posted by license2ill

Only the power matters in the end. The feudal system worked just fine for the fewer and fewer and more powerful at the top. You don't need a consumer base when you have slaves, you simply rid yourself of those that get in the way, and force those that need food and shelter to work for it. Capitalism is always only one step away from that at the bottom and for some it's stil lnot much of an improvement, As this thread points out, it becomes more and more, unless government intervens for the sake of liberty and human rights.

Then, there is no way capitalism can survive.

The rich are against socializing healthcare. Against a welfare state and generally against anything being given to people. If a fuedal state were to exist, there would have to be some form of healthcare and/or welfare given.

Money in the hands of a few would not sustain an economy with no consumers in a capitalist market.

[license2ill]

Originally Posted by Fargin_Bastige

Then, there is no way capitalism can survive.

The rich are against socializing healthcare. Against a welfare state and generally against anything being given to people. If a fuedal state were to exist, there would have to be some form of healthcare and/or welfare given.

Money in the hands of a few would not sustain an economy with no consumers in a capitalist market.

Why would you need health care? Slaves are abundant and will continue to reproduce. When the welath of the land runs dry, you conquer new lands for more. It's in the interest of the rich to give them enough to survive and continue providing for their wealth, but that doesn't take much welfare. It's shown itself to work just fine throughout milenia. Capitalism is only a recent development, and is built on the principles of feudalism. The only difference is how much control is within the government of the masses. Control of liberty can be given away if these issues aren't confronted by a governement with a rational moral base.

[Fargin_Bastige]

Originally Posted by license2ill

Why would you need health care? Slaves are abundant and will continue to reproduce. When the welath of the land runs dry, you conquer new lands for more. It's in the interest of the rich to give them enough to survive and continue providing for their wealth, but that doesn't take much welfare. It's shown itself to work just fine throughout milenia. Capitalism is only a recent development, and is built on the principles of feudalism. The only difference is how much control is within the government of the masses. Control of liberty can be given away if these issues aren't confronted by a governement with a rational moral base.

As sick as this country is, we have one of the highest rates of illness, we would need some sort of healthcare. We would need housing. We would need training.

Companies that thrive on lower class income, WalMart, McDonald's, wouldn't survive a fuedal system.

There needs to be a consumer base for survival of the upper class too. Money is worthless if you can't invest it or spend it.

[license2ill]

Originally Posted by Fargin_Bastige

As sick as this country is, we have one of the highest rates of illness, we would need some sort of healthcare. We would need housing. We would need training.

Companies that thrive on lower class income, WalMart, McDonald's, wouldn't survive a fuedal system.

There needs to be a consumer base for survival of the upper class too. Money is worthless if you can't invest it or spend it.

Invest it? You don't need to invest if you control of all of it. Take a look at any good monarchy, oh say Iraq, and tell me Saddam needed to invest or have consumers. He had a whole country of starving fighters. He invaded Kuwait when money got tight and he needed more palaces and protection. It's no different. Eventually those companies don't exist as seperate entities, they all fall to each other and the power of each is consolidated into singlular hands. The only other thing you need to keep from occuring is Marx's revolution, and that is done through the communication of culture, something Marx failed to see, and the ultimate flaw of socialist thought. Real socialism doesn't exist. It's still a feudal dictatorship under a different name.

You are right at the point though, those companies need healthy people, but not if they can win without it, which they can if they exploit it while they have it.

[Fargin_Bastige]

Originally Posted by license2ill

Invest it? You don't need to invest if you control of all of it. Take a look at any good monarchy, oh say Iraq, and tell me Saddam needed to invest or have consumers. He had a whole country of starving fighters. He invaded Kuwait when money got tight and he needed more palaces and protection. It's no different. Eventually those companies don't exist as seperate entities, they all fall to each other and the power of each is consolidated into singlular hands. The only other thing you need to keep from occuring is Marx's revolution, and that is done through the communication of culture, something Marx failed to see, and the ultimate flaw of socialist thought. Real socialism doesn't exist. It's still a feudal dictatorship under a different name.

You are right at the point though, those companies need healthy people, but not if they can win without it, which they can if they exploit it while they have it.

Saddam had income from outside sources, oil for food. You also have to remember our population density is much higher than Iraq's is, as well as the amount of infrastructure we need to support. We need a steady state of taxed income to survive. As well as if the US economy were to collapse, which it would have to in order to become a fuedal state, the world's economy would most likely collapse.

As far as socialism goes, if capitalism doesn't recover from this, you may get first hand experience in it.

[license2ill]

Originally Posted by Fargin_Bastige

Saddam had income from outside sources, oil for food. You also have to remember our population density is much higher than Iraq's is, as well as the amount of infrastructure we need to support. We need a steady state of taxed income to survive. As well as if the US economy were to collapse, which it would have to in order to become a fuedal state, the world's economy would most likely collapse.

As far as socialism goes, if capitalism doesn't recover from this, you may get first hand experience in it.

Saddam didnt have oil for food before he invaded his neighbors. He lost money fighitng for control of more wealth with his neighbors in the first palce.

The point is that exploitaiotn is boundless, unless reeined-in with humane concerns and governmental controls. Infrastructure and economies can be built with the hands of slaves. Remember what the civlil war was fought over? The entire economy of the South was based in slavery, not healthy workers. There were plenty more to be had from other shores, other colonial shores as well. All feudal systems developed into capitalist systems due to the amount of government control of human rights issues, period. And the system rides the line as muc has it needs to, but it;s plenty willing to take more power and control and consolidate it into the hands of few.

[Napalm]

"You know there are people in this world who don't have to put up with
all this shit? Like that guy that invented the pet rock. You see,
that's what you have to do. You have to use your mind and come up with
some really great idea like that and you never have to work again!" - Tom Smykowski

I don't feel like debating early on a saturday, so I'm letting Tom do my talking...

[BusaDave]

Originally Posted by Napalm

I don't feel like debating early on a saturday, so I'm letting Tom do my talking...

Interesting that the example you pick has absolutely no social or humanitarian value, perhaps though one of the best examples of pure capitalism...

Capitalism certainly is not without problems, many that have already been mentioned. On a good day those who want to argue will at least agree on the premise, though I doubt that will happen.

The problem with this increasing divergence and accumulation of wealth by fewer people is the potential for a collapse in the belief of the stories like these that fuels capitalism. Without the belief that superior ideas or efforts offer hope of becoming one of the rich, the system collapses through lack of cooperation, thus the comparison to feudalism.

[Truck]

I just don't understand how a single family income can be $16,780. I really don't. I work part-time (25-30 hours a week during school) changing tires for fucking Costco, and I made just over $17,000 last year by myself. That part-