Showing posts with label american income inequality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label american income inequality. Show all posts
Friday, May 18, 2012
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Meet Nick Hanauer
Feb 12th, 2012
Meet Nick Hanauer. Self-made multi-millionaire, venture capitalist and member of the so-called 1%, he recently spoke with Yahoo! Finance commentator Henry Blodget and more than a few folks are sitting up to take notice:
Meet Nick Hanauer. Self-made multi-millionaire, venture capitalist and member of the so-called 1%, he recently spoke with Yahoo! Finance commentator Henry Blodget and more than a few folks are sitting up to take notice:
"We are systematically destroying our customer base in this country by undercutting the middle class... If it was true that the rich and business were job creators, we'd be drowning in jobs today."
Friday, February 10, 2012
Reagan Revolution Architects Vs Today's GOP
Feb 10th, 2012
It has been a remarkable experience over the last year or so watching the economic team Ronald Reagan assembled three decades ago mount increasingly passionate attacks against contemporary GOP orthodoxy (examples HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE).
The two most prominent figures waging this battle are David Stockman and Bruce Bartlett. Both men recently sat down with Bill Moyers to continue their push for a return to reason.
David Stockman on Taxes from BillMoyers.com on Vimeo.
Bruce Bartlett on Where the Right Went Wrong from BillMoyers.com on Vimeo.
It has been a remarkable experience over the last year or so watching the economic team Ronald Reagan assembled three decades ago mount increasingly passionate attacks against contemporary GOP orthodoxy (examples HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE).
The two most prominent figures waging this battle are David Stockman and Bruce Bartlett. Both men recently sat down with Bill Moyers to continue their push for a return to reason.
David Stockman on Taxes from BillMoyers.com on Vimeo.
Bruce Bartlett on Where the Right Went Wrong from BillMoyers.com on Vimeo.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Mitt Watch - Everything But The Monocle
Jan 30th, 2012
by F. Grey Parker
It's still, and for the umpteenth time, not the fact that Mitt Romney is among the richest people in the world that bothers large swaths of the American electorate.
What concerns them is how he got the money, why he fails to see that his tax rate is unfair and whether or not he actually possesses any empathy for the people who, to paraphrase Capra's George Bailey, "do most of the working and living and dying" in this country.
by F. Grey Parker
What concerns them is how he got the money, why he fails to see that his tax rate is unfair and whether or not he actually possesses any empathy for the people who, to paraphrase Capra's George Bailey, "do most of the working and living and dying" in this country.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Mitt Romney's Version Of Capitalism, cont...
Jan 13th, 2012
Last week, Jonathan Weisman reported:
"More than three-quarters of Americans say the country’s economic structure is out of balance and "favors a very small proportion of the rich over the rest of the country," taking up the calls of Occupy Wall Street protesters to reduce the power of major banks and end tax breaks for the affluent and for corporations, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows."
People are waking up to the fact that we have an unsustainable system and the fix is in. Not so, says Mitt Romney. He says the problem with all of us little people is "envy."
Last week, Jonathan Weisman reported:
"More than three-quarters of Americans say the country’s economic structure is out of balance and "favors a very small proportion of the rich over the rest of the country," taking up the calls of Occupy Wall Street protesters to reduce the power of major banks and end tax breaks for the affluent and for corporations, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows."
People are waking up to the fact that we have an unsustainable system and the fix is in. Not so, says Mitt Romney. He says the problem with all of us little people is "envy."
Monday, January 2, 2012
Quote Of The Day
Jan 2nd, 2012
"For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others forever."
-- Thomas Paine
 |
| Image via |
-- Thomas Paine
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
It's The Inequality, Stupid, cont...
Dec 27th, 2011
Eric Byler offers a theory after reading Peter Whoriskey's article on the growing wealth gap between our country's elected and its governed:
"Establishing the causal connection between income inequality and political polarization will require further study, the article says. And, I want you to read the entire piece, which includes evocative profiles that humanize eye-popping statistics — i.e., the average wealth of Members of Congress has increased 250% since 1984 while that of the average American family has gone down slightly. But allow me to offer a brief hypothesis:
The disastrous fiscal policies of the past 30 years — which have lavished America’s ruling class with unprecedented riches while hammering our middle class to a degree not seen since the days leading up to the Great Depression — simply would not have been possible without massive doses of political entertainment that have distracted and divided us into either failing to notice or failing to respond.
I've chosen the term "1% Media" for this indescribably vast body of news/entertainment content because it tends to reflect the perspective and, arguably, the agenda of the fortunate few who possess the immense wealth required to produce and disseminate it. During the past three decades, as constant streams of increasingly incendiary soap opera disguised as political commentary, or, worse, "news," have flooded the minds of 1% Media consumers, we have seen our culture, and perhaps the American electorate, transform. Consumers of 1% Media have become reliable voters, and, the most vocal and most malleable advocates for the policies and candidates presented to them on TV and radio. And, we have seen seen Members of Congress openly pander to this audience, not only in their rhetoric but also in their policy positions. They do this, despite their abysmal poll numbers, either because they actually believe in the political soap operas in which they star, or because they fear the entrenched apparatus that writes the script."
I am inclined to agree.
Eric Byler offers a theory after reading Peter Whoriskey's article on the growing wealth gap between our country's elected and its governed:
"Establishing the causal connection between income inequality and political polarization will require further study, the article says. And, I want you to read the entire piece, which includes evocative profiles that humanize eye-popping statistics — i.e., the average wealth of Members of Congress has increased 250% since 1984 while that of the average American family has gone down slightly. But allow me to offer a brief hypothesis:
The disastrous fiscal policies of the past 30 years — which have lavished America’s ruling class with unprecedented riches while hammering our middle class to a degree not seen since the days leading up to the Great Depression — simply would not have been possible without massive doses of political entertainment that have distracted and divided us into either failing to notice or failing to respond.
I've chosen the term "1% Media" for this indescribably vast body of news/entertainment content because it tends to reflect the perspective and, arguably, the agenda of the fortunate few who possess the immense wealth required to produce and disseminate it. During the past three decades, as constant streams of increasingly incendiary soap opera disguised as political commentary, or, worse, "news," have flooded the minds of 1% Media consumers, we have seen our culture, and perhaps the American electorate, transform. Consumers of 1% Media have become reliable voters, and, the most vocal and most malleable advocates for the policies and candidates presented to them on TV and radio. And, we have seen seen Members of Congress openly pander to this audience, not only in their rhetoric but also in their policy positions. They do this, despite their abysmal poll numbers, either because they actually believe in the political soap operas in which they star, or because they fear the entrenched apparatus that writes the script."
I am inclined to agree.
It's The Inequality, Stupid
Dec 27th, 2011
Everyone is talking about Peter Whoriskey's WaPo piece examining the growing divide between the increasingly wealth of elected officials in D.C. and the relative declines experienced by most of this country's citizens:
"Between 1984 and 2009, the median net worth of a member of the House rose by more than 2 1 / 2 times, according to the analysis of financial disclosures, from $280,000 to $725,000 in inflation-adjusted 2009 dollars, excluding home equity.
Over the same period, the wealth of an American family has declined slightly, with the comparable median figure sliding from $20,600 to $20,500, according to the Panel Study of Income Dynamics from the University of Michigan."
Here's what it looks like in chart form. Click the image for a better view.
Everyone is talking about Peter Whoriskey's WaPo piece examining the growing divide between the increasingly wealth of elected officials in D.C. and the relative declines experienced by most of this country's citizens:
"Between 1984 and 2009, the median net worth of a member of the House rose by more than 2 1 / 2 times, according to the analysis of financial disclosures, from $280,000 to $725,000 in inflation-adjusted 2009 dollars, excluding home equity.
Over the same period, the wealth of an American family has declined slightly, with the comparable median figure sliding from $20,600 to $20,500, according to the Panel Study of Income Dynamics from the University of Michigan."
Here's what it looks like in chart form. Click the image for a better view.
 |
| Image via WaPo |
Friday, December 9, 2011
The War On The Poor, cont...
Dec 9th, 2011
Earlier this week, the NYTimes noted another way the government might just stick it to the most vulnerable next year:
"The draft version of the Section 8 Savings Act released earlier this year by the majority staff of the House Financial Services Committeeincludes several excellent proposals that would cut administrative costs for public housing authorities, allowing them to more efficiently manage the programs that subsidize rents for more than three million of the country’s poorest families. But one damaging provision that crept into the draft would undo all of that good.
The provision would allow housing programs to raise rents on nearly 700,000 of the households that receive federal rent assistance, most by a minimum of $300 a year, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan research organization in Washington. This would be a severe and unjustifiable burden for these extremely poor families, the majority of whom subsist on less than $3,000 per year. The report argues that higher rents would force some poor families to divert resources from basic needs like food, clothing and medicine. Others would be unable to cover the new costs forcing them to double up with relatives, move into shelters or into the streets."
Add this to the increasingly likely expiration of current payroll tax rates and a probable failure to extend UI benefits and what we have is the makings of something much worse than a mere double dip recession.
Earlier this week, the NYTimes noted another way the government might just stick it to the most vulnerable next year:
"The draft version of the Section 8 Savings Act released earlier this year by the majority staff of the House Financial Services Committeeincludes several excellent proposals that would cut administrative costs for public housing authorities, allowing them to more efficiently manage the programs that subsidize rents for more than three million of the country’s poorest families. But one damaging provision that crept into the draft would undo all of that good.
The provision would allow housing programs to raise rents on nearly 700,000 of the households that receive federal rent assistance, most by a minimum of $300 a year, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan research organization in Washington. This would be a severe and unjustifiable burden for these extremely poor families, the majority of whom subsist on less than $3,000 per year. The report argues that higher rents would force some poor families to divert resources from basic needs like food, clothing and medicine. Others would be unable to cover the new costs forcing them to double up with relatives, move into shelters or into the streets."
Add this to the increasingly likely expiration of current payroll tax rates and a probable failure to extend UI benefits and what we have is the makings of something much worse than a mere double dip recession.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Sunday, November 13, 2011
The Message Is Clear
Nov 13th, 2011
Charles Toy of The Christian Left has had it with self-declared "Christians" rationalizing their own self-interest:
"Frankly, I'm sick and tired of hearing this epic cop-out on the part of Christians: "I wonder if Jesus meant for the government to feed the poor, or for us to voluntarily give to make sure all the poor people have food." Many don't even wonder about the notion.
They insist they know. Provision and care for the least of these -- the sick, the poor, the homeless, the addicted, the mentally ill, the displaced, the marginalized -- is an individual mandate. Human institutions of government have no business worrying about such things.
What a load of Bull dung.
How many passages of God's word do they need?"
Charles Toy of The Christian Left has had it with self-declared "Christians" rationalizing their own self-interest:
 |
| Image via |
They insist they know. Provision and care for the least of these -- the sick, the poor, the homeless, the addicted, the mentally ill, the displaced, the marginalized -- is an individual mandate. Human institutions of government have no business worrying about such things.
What a load of Bull dung.
How many passages of God's word do they need?"
Hear hear. He goes on to cite just a handful of Biblical passages, merely scratching the surface, from the hundreds that so obviously put the lie to those who profess the view that God wants an aristocratic, wealthy minority class.
Friday, November 4, 2011
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
The Majority Left Behind
Nov 1st, 2011
New data from the EPI and the CBO continues to support the arguments of the Occupy Movement.
via AlterNet:
"A report released this week by the Congressional Budget Office found that between 1979 and 2007, income grew 275 percent for the richest one percent of Americans, but by just 18 percent for those at the bottom. The federal government can do something about this — from investing in our infrastructure to improving education. It can help bolster demand and the Half in Ten Campaign offers some good ideas to get us started."
New data from the EPI and the CBO continues to support the arguments of the Occupy Movement.
via AlterNet:
"A report released this week by the Congressional Budget Office found that between 1979 and 2007, income grew 275 percent for the richest one percent of Americans, but by just 18 percent for those at the bottom. The federal government can do something about this — from investing in our infrastructure to improving education. It can help bolster demand and the Half in Ten Campaign offers some good ideas to get us started."
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Monday, October 17, 2011
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Relative American Inequality
Sept 20th, 2011
Max Fisher has written a spirited defense of the so-called "Buffett Rule" in the plan President Obama outlined yesterday.
"Obama's "Buffett rule" is a response to a number of U.S. economic issues (as well as some relevant political openings) related to the recession. One of the most severe is income inequality -- the gaps between wealthy, super-wealthy, and everyone else -- a serious, long-worsening problem that makes the recession more painful and recovery more difficult. To get a sense of just how bad our income inequality has become, it's worth taking a look at how we stack up to the rest of the world.
Viewed comparatively, U.S. income inequality is even worse than you might expect. Perfect comparisons across the world's hundred-plus economies would be impossible -- standards of living, the price of staples, social services, and other variables all mean that relative poverty feels very different from one country to another. But, in absolute terms, the gulf between rich and poor is still telling. Income inequality can be measured and compared using something called the Gini coefficient, a century-old formula that measures national economies on a scale from 0.00 to 0.50, with 0.50 being the most unequal. The Gini coefficient is reliable enough that the CIA world factbook uses it."
For those of you who have not heard of the Gini coefficient before, here is an explanation of how it works based on its metric, the Lorenz curve:
"The Lorenz curve maps the cumulative income share on the vertical axis against the distribution of the population on the horizontal axis. In this example, 40 percent of the population obtains around 20 percent of total income. If each individual had the same income, or total equality, the income distribution curve would be the straight line in the graph – the line of total equality. The Gini coefficient is calculated as the area A divided by the sum of areas A and B. If income is distributed completely equally, then the Lorenz curve and the line of total equality are merged and the Gini coefficient is zero. If one individual receives all the income, the Lorenz curve would pass through the points (0,0), (100,0) and (100,100), and the surfaces A and B would be similar, leading to a value of one for the Gini-coefficient."
As he explains, the map below illustrates the range of income inequality with "the most unequal countries in red and the most equal in green."
Max Fisher has written a spirited defense of the so-called "Buffett Rule" in the plan President Obama outlined yesterday.
"Obama's "Buffett rule" is a response to a number of U.S. economic issues (as well as some relevant political openings) related to the recession. One of the most severe is income inequality -- the gaps between wealthy, super-wealthy, and everyone else -- a serious, long-worsening problem that makes the recession more painful and recovery more difficult. To get a sense of just how bad our income inequality has become, it's worth taking a look at how we stack up to the rest of the world.
Viewed comparatively, U.S. income inequality is even worse than you might expect. Perfect comparisons across the world's hundred-plus economies would be impossible -- standards of living, the price of staples, social services, and other variables all mean that relative poverty feels very different from one country to another. But, in absolute terms, the gulf between rich and poor is still telling. Income inequality can be measured and compared using something called the Gini coefficient, a century-old formula that measures national economies on a scale from 0.00 to 0.50, with 0.50 being the most unequal. The Gini coefficient is reliable enough that the CIA world factbook uses it."
For those of you who have not heard of the Gini coefficient before, here is an explanation of how it works based on its metric, the Lorenz curve:
Fine, you might say. What does all that mean? Fisher shows us with this stark presentation:
As he explains, the map below illustrates the range of income inequality with "the most unequal countries in red and the most equal in green."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
