Income and wealth inequality in the USA

by pari_passu Fri May 25, 2012 3:24 am

Thought some of you might enjoy this website.

Endless income inequality articles with just one click: http://www.wanttoknow.info/incomeinequalitynewsarticles

Check it out.

by **moonbeam** Sat May 26, 2012 2:02 am

Welcome, Pari.

I haven't read the article yet, but I am certain that the fact I was (likely) the lowest paid person on my former team is one of the main reasons I was not laid off several years ago. The other 3 people on my team were, with no notice. Yes, I was also the most versatile member of the team, but all the others had more experience. "They" (management) claim that money had nothing to do with it, but when I found out I was literally making HALF what one of my former teammates was, how am I to believe that?!

Now that I've glanced through, I see that the articles are more regarding class inequality, versus gender.

by ROB Sat May 26, 2012 4:09 am

IRS: 400 richest averaged $345M in '07 income, 16% tax rate
2010-02-18, USA Today
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/02/irs-400-riche...

http://www.wanttoknow.info/incomeinequalitynewsarticles

Pari,

Welcome to Cutting Edge.

Warren Buffett let the cat out of the bag. Now it’s time for the folks whose tax rates are double that of the fat cats to vote in harmony with our bank accounts. Four hundred thirty-five United States Representatives will be elected in November 2012; perhaps those are more important elections than the one which is already the focus of nationwide attention.

by pari_passu Mon Jun 04, 2012 1:01 pm

Thanks for the welcome, moonbeam and RockOnBrother. Also, thanks for checking out the articles. I'm reading Thomas Frank's "The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule" at the moment, and it's pretty damn depressing. Basic, but depressing, nonetheless.

by pari_passu Mon Jun 04, 2012 1:05 pm

moonbeam wrote:Welcome, Pari.

I haven't read the article yet, but I am certain that the fact I was (likely) the lowest paid person on my former team is one of the main reasons I was not laid off several years ago. The other 3 people on my team were, with no notice. Yes, I was also the most versatile member of the team, but all the others had more experience. "They" (management) claim that money had nothing to do with it, but when I found out I was literally making HALF what one of my former teammates was, how am I to believe that?!

Now that I've glanced through, I see that the articles are more regarding class inequality, versus gender.

by ROB Mon Jun 04, 2012 6:49 pm

Recommended reading:

Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare
Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward

Excerpt from summary:

Marshaling a vast array of research, Frances Fox Piven and Richard A Cloward persuasively demonstrate how public relief has been used to avert civil chaos during economic downturns and to exert pressure on the work force during periods of stability.

http://www.amazon.com/Regulating-Poor-Functions-Public-Welfare/dp/0679745165

by Shirina Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:12 pm

There are far too many Americans who are a) greedy and b) paranoid over fraudsters to have a truly effective welfare system in this country. All you ever hear about is the lazy poor, and because of them, no one should be helped. I personally believe that many conservatives have quasi-convinced themselves that anyone who isn't financially successful is somehow a liar, cheater, scammer, or just plain lazy. It's how they can do an end run around their own consciences and advocate for policies that are just plain immoral. Cutting funding for the elderly and disabled to beef up defense spending is a case in point.

Of course, there may not be so many welfare recipients if the income disparity wasn't so amazingly ... well ... disparate. I get tired of seeing people making $400k per year getting 13% raises while people making $35k per year getting 1% or 2% ... if they're lucky. Everyone BUT the top 1% and their lackeys understand this is a growing problem, and if they want to keep peace in this nation, they'll think twice about wealth hoarding. After all, there are 99% of us and only 1% of them.

Occupy Wall Street was a warning shot across the bow, but as I feared, no one in charge saw this movement for what it was. I believe it was a dress rehearsal for storming the Bastille; the next "movement" may be more in line with an uprising than merely sitting in tents. The problem isn't that some people are poor. We've always had poor people, and other nations have them too and they aren't revolting. The problem is that there are so many poor people in a nation with so much wealth. No one is going to stare wistfully through the front window of a supermarket filled with food while slowly starving to death ... they're going to start stealing it. And if it gets bad enough - which isn't in our immediate future - entire mobs will begin looting these places. It's easier to accept poverty when everyone else is poor, too. But living in a country like America, there is no excuse for having 48% of the people living in poverty or earning a low wage.

Oh, granted, poverty in America is still luxury compared to the Third World, but if we wait until things get THAT bad, it'll already be too late.

by ROB Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:48 am

Shirina wrote:
There are far too many Americans who are a) greedy and b) paranoid over fraudsters to have a truly effective welfare system in this country.

Piven and Cloward might persuade you to the contrary; according to these researchers, the “welfare system’ is working precisely as it has been designed from its inception to work.

What it was never designed to do was empower the powerless by enabling the unable. Every now and then, a “welfare worker” who did not buy into the system has come along and tricked the “welfare system” into providing permanent solutions to persons entrapped within its deceptively warm yet chillingly debilitating embrace. I was one such agent of change whose “reward” for manipulating the system in such a way as to cause empowerment rather than disempowerment, and enablement rather than disablement, was disdain from the system’s power elite.

by Shirina Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:19 am

Piven and Cloward might persuade you to the contrary; according to these researchers, the “welfare system’ is working precisely as it has been designed from its inception to work.

It may be working as it was designed, but that doesn't mean the design is sound.

One of the biggest flaws of our welfare system is the lack of an "intermediate" status. In other words, you're either on welfare and staying on welfare, or you're not on it and you're on your own.

For example, one cannot accumulate money while on welfare ... especially food stamps. Whatever money you receive has to be reported so they can deduct it from your monthly allotment. This means it becomes impossible to, say, save money for school or buy a car. Instead, you have to pull little tricks like either a) not reporting it at all as long as it is "under the table" money or b) letting someone you trust take "possession" of the money so you can say it isn't yours.

Another issue is the inability to hang on to medicaid for the first 6 months to a year after being hired for a new job. The reason why this is so important is because most employers do not begin health coverage until 6 months to a year has elapsed. This, I know for a fact, has trapped many a person in the welfare system. People who suffer from chronic conditions, especially those who need pricey medications to stay employable, can't afford that kind of gap in their coverage. I lost a good friend to suicide because of this very issue. She suffered from bi-polar disorder but was fine as long as she was medicated. She took a job, lost her medicaid, and committed suicide during that gap because, not only did her condition come back with a vengeance, the sudden stoppage of the meds in her system caused a horrible withdrawal episode. If she hadn't been forced to wait out that coverage gap between the ending of medicaid and the beginning of her employer benefits, she'd still be alive today.

People, especially conservatives, don't really understand why people end up trapped on welfare and how it can lead to generational dependence. It's not due to laziness - at least not with many poor folks I've known during my relatively short time on earth. I went on welfare for about a year after I left the Navy because all I could get for work was low-paying, part time menial jobs like bagging groceries. But I was just biding my time until the next semester of college started .... at which point I went off welfare and went to school. But I had the intellectual and financial resources to do that. A lot of people don't, and they have no choice but continue collecting those government checks.

It used to be that a person of limited intelligence and limited resources could walk down to the local factory and find a decent-paying job - it wasn't glorious, it was often dirty and sometimes dangerous, but they brought home enough "bacon" to own a home and raise a family. But ... with the demise of our manufacturing sector, all that's left for these people are low-paying service jobs that simply do not pay enough to be financially independent. So what happens? They go on welfare.

The system needs to change to meet those needs since it's not enough anymore to simply get "a job." That's something the neocons in this country just don't understand. Evil or Very Mad

by ROB Tue Jun 05, 2012 2:04 pm

[Wikipedia’s Terms of Use, effective 25 May 2012, states “You are free to: Share and Reuse our articles and other media under free and open licenses… Under the following conditions: Civility — You support a civil environment and do not harass other users. Lawful Behavior — You do not violate copyright or other laws. No Harm — You do not harm our technology infrastructure.” Wikipedia’s Creative Commons Deed states “You are free: to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work… Under the following conditions: Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).” Full texts of Terms of Use and Creative Commons Deed available below.]

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Frances Fox Piven
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Frances Fox Piven (born October 10, 1932)^[1] is an American professor of political science and sociology at The Graduate Center, City University of New York, where she has taught since 1982.^[2]

Some of Piven's major works include^[17] Regulating the Poor written with Richard Cloward, first published in 1972 and updated in 1993, which is a scrutiny of government welfare policy and how it is used to exert power over lower class individuals…^[18]

References

1. "A Celebration of Women Writers: Canada". Digital.library.upenn.edu. http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/_generate/CANADA.html. Retrieved 2011-12-01.
2. Frances Fox Piven Papers – Biographical Note, Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, Five Colleges Archives & Manuscript Collections
17. Left Forum. "Board and Staff". Left Forum. http://leftforum.org/node/21. Retrieved 2011-12-01
^ "Regulating the Poor:". Kensprogress.com. http://kensprogress.com/regulatingthepoordebate.htm. Retrieved 2011-12-01

Retrieved 5 June 2012 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Fox_Piven

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Terms of Use (Wikipedia), effective May 25, 2012

This is a human-readable summary of the Terms of Use.

Disclaimer: This summary is not a part of the Terms of Use and is not a legal document. It is simply a handy reference for understanding the full terms. Think of it as the user-friendly interface to the legal language of our Terms of Use.

Part of our mission is to:

Empower and Engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content and either publish it under a free license or dedicate it to the public domain.
Disseminate this content effectively and globally, free of charge.

You are free to:

Read and Print our articles and other media free of charge.
Share and Reuse our articles and other media under free and open licenses.
Contribute To and Edit our various sites or Projects.

Under the following conditions:

Responsibility — You take responsibility for your edits (since we only host your content).
Civility — You support a civil environment and do not harass other users.
Lawful Behavior — You do not violate copyright or other laws.
No Harm — You do not harm our technology infrastructure.
Terms of Use and Policies — You adhere to the below Terms of Use and to the applicable community policies when you visit our sites or participate in our communities.

With the understanding that:

You License Freely Your Contributions — you generally must license your contributions and edits to our sites or Projects under a free and open license (unless your contribution is in the public domain).
No Professional Advice — the content of articles and other projects is for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional advice.

Terms of Use, full legal text: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use_(2012)/en#Our_Terms_of_Use

Creative Commons Deed (Wikipedia)

You are free:

to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and
to Remix—to adapt the work

Under the following conditions:

Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.)
Share Alike—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.

Creative Commons Deed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Notice this from the Wiki article: “… which is a scrutiny of government welfare policy and how it is used to exert power over lower class individuals…”

As previously stated, Piven and Cloward posit that the “welfare system’ is working precisely as designed. The flaws you’ve mentioned, from my experiential knowledge of the system, are intentional. If effective “intermediate” steps, transitional steps, transformational steps, were an integral part of the system, culturally/chronically poor folks might be empowered through enablement rather than controlled through regulation.

I agree with Francis Fox Piven and the late Richard Andrew Cloward on this. If you want to know why, let me know.

by Magpie's View Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:43 pm

You guys might like this:-

Source: YouTube

by **Ivan** Sat Jun 29, 2013 8:50 am

Source: YouTube

by oftenwrong Sun Aug 04, 2013 6:36 pm

Most people in the UK acknowledge that we are strongly influenced by what happens in America. Although in some cases we might be thought to have got there first.....

The Republican Party have made their current rallying cry a reduction in public spending. But they have insisted that The Pentagon be free of any cuts while the elderly, the poor and the struggling middle-class take the brunt of proposed austerity.

Andrew Sullivan, The Sunday Times, 4 August 2013

by oftenwrong Thu Jan 23, 2014 11:11 am

The widening gap between rich and poor is a very obvious phenomenom on both sides of the Atlantic, aggravated by moves from communism to capitalism elsewhere.

The obvious remedy is through taxation, but unsurprisingly the movers and shakers of any Society make sure they have the ear of government.
There hasn't been a balance in Britain's housing market since about 1970, when the collective mind switched from renting to ownership. Boom-and-bust speculation means that the price of a starter home is now at least 6½ years of the average wage. Recent government fiddling with the mortgage market has resulted in a sudden shortage of houses being offered for sale, due to two factors. The obvious one is that of vendors waiting to see whether prices are set to rise significantly in the short term. The other reason is also obvious once it has been mentioned: the Rich, who are getting richer, do not need to sell the property they own. There is no downside to having a selection of homes available, which also represent sound investment.

Amidst much politicians' talk of building more homes to meet popular demand, the reality is that Developers are in no hurry to deplete their land-bank which gathers value with each passing day.

What's the solution to housing everybody adequately if neither government Diktat nor the private sector seem able to comply?

by roifield Tue Apr 22, 2014 11:04 am

Why Wealth Inequality Does Not Matter Any More - But Should

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/roifield-brown/why-wealth-inequality-doesnt-matter_b_5167937.html

by oftenwrong Tue Apr 22, 2014 5:43 pm

Quote (from internet link):

" The German Health Insurance of Workers Law of 1883, which provided protection against the temporary loss of income as a result of illness, was enacted to promote political integration and political stability as well as a sense of fairness. "

Task: Spot the word which makes all the difference when compared with Coalition-governed Britain.

by oftenwrong Sun Sep 07, 2014 5:34 pm

Here also, of course, welfare benefits subsidise not only Employers but also Landlords, and the Tory-led coalition are hell-bent upon adding Health companies too.

by oftenwrong Wed Sep 10, 2014 10:23 am

I have been reminded by a friend that this argument has been current for at least 260 years. Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote "A Discourse on the Origin of Inequality" in 1754. One of the things he blamed was Agriculture, with its powerful landowners and weaker peasants.

by bobby Wed Sep 10, 2014 7:30 pm

Ancient Rome had the same problems, it became so contentious that two Brothers both Tribunes of the Plebs where assassinated at the behest of the rich and powerful. The Brothers where Tiberius Gracchi and his young Brother Gaius, known to history as the Brothers Gracchi.

by oftenwrong Wed Sep 10, 2014 10:49 pm

Indeed, bobby. The world had Socialism (and fascists) before it had Christianity.

by stuart torr Sat Oct 18, 2014 6:58 pm

Also when any Tory government is in power, the first peoples monies that get reduced are those that are on benefits for whatever reason.
It does not matter what is wrong with you, you get called for check ups by their medical staff who are of course biased before you start so what is the point of going in a way when you know what they are going to say, if you had no arms and legs they would pass you fit for work.

by oftenwrong Sun Oct 19, 2014 1:32 pm

More food for thought:

http://thepolitic.org/mind-the-gap-the-danger-of-income-inequality/

by stuart torr Sun Oct 19, 2014 1:43 pm

That almost makes you want to puke OW, as I expect that would be the same kind of figures for the UK would it not?

by patakace Tue Jan 13, 2015 4:20 pm

bobby wrote:Ancient Rome had the same problems, it became so contentious that two Brothers both Tribunes of the Plebs where assassinated at the behest of the rich and powerful. The Brothers where Tiberius Gracchi and his young Brother Gaius, known to history as the Brothers Gracchi.

Ah . The Good times .
We must be overdue for a repeat .
Hope it does not clash with BB , X- Factor or TOWIE

by stuart torr Tue Jan 13, 2015 5:23 pm

Well if you get the repeats too often Ms patacake you really should go to the chemist and get something for them.

by patakace Fri Jan 23, 2015 7:15 am

stuart torr wrote:Well if you get the repeats too often Ms patacake you really should go to the chemist and get something for them.

You just don't get humour .
As for irony and sarcasm --- foreign languages ..

by Greatest I am Thu May 14, 2015 2:04 am

Have our oligarch owners and governments lost control of the world?

Drones and the internet give us all the ability to make war on our oligarch owners and governments. Basically, any of us can buy a drone and drop an explosive with it. That is a lot of individual power.

I fear that if our oligarch owners do not start to move some wealth to the left side of this graph,

http://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2

that the poor and middle class, --- being quite fed up with the poor demographic shape and poor wealth redistribution, might go vigilante all over those of wealth and power.

Do not forget my oligarchic friends, John Lennon was killed by one who just wanted to make a name for himself.

Regards
DL

by **Ivan** Wed May 27, 2015 4:03 pm

https://www.youtube.com/embed/q2gO4DKVpa8

by oftenwrong Wed May 27, 2015 5:53 pm

The rest of the world's exporters have always regarded the USA as a "Protectionist" administration, but it's interesting to observe that some extremist elements evidently wish to extend protection to include other elements of the community which are actually internal.

There hasn't been a word for that since their Civil War.

by Greatest I am Wed May 27, 2015 7:15 pm

Ivan wrote:

A good find Ivan.

What this gent named pitchforks is what I named as drones dropping explosives.

Many will die if our oligarch owners do not act.

Regards
DL

by Sponsored content

Income and wealth inequality in the USA

Income and wealth inequality in the USA

Re: Income and wealth inequality in the USA

Re: Income and wealth inequality in the USA

Re: Income and wealth inequality in the USA

LOL Well, if you've ever read my Tweets, it would only be natural to assume I was complaining about gender inequality. ;)

Re: Income and wealth inequality in the USA

Re: Income and wealth inequality in the USA

Re: Income and wealth inequality in the USA

Re: Income and wealth inequality in the USA

Re: Income and wealth inequality in the USA

Re: Income and wealth inequality in the USA

Re: Income and wealth inequality in the USA

Re: Income and wealth inequality in the USA

Re: Income and wealth inequality in the USA

Re: Income and wealth inequality in the USA

Re: Income and wealth inequality in the USA

Re: Income and wealth inequality in the USA

Re: Income and wealth inequality in the USA

Re: Income and wealth inequality in the USA

Re: Income and wealth inequality in the USA

Re: Income and wealth inequality in the USA

Re: Income and wealth inequality in the USA

Re: Income and wealth inequality in the USA

Re: Income and wealth inequality in the USA

Re: Income and wealth inequality in the USA

Re: Income and wealth inequality in the USA

Have our oligarch owners and governments lost control of the world?

Re: Income and wealth inequality in the USA

Re: Income and wealth inequality in the USA

Re: Income and wealth inequality in the USA

Re: Income and wealth inequality in the USA