The United States of Income Inequality « Columbus Underground Messageboard

Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion » Politics

The United States of Income Inequality

[1169 posts] [68 contributors]

Topic Rating:

(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:

Started 1 year ago by jeff_r
Latest reply from TomOver

Tags:

economy

« Previous 1…565758 59 Next »

Twixlen
Westgate, Columbus
Login to Send PM

First, it needs to be said that I have a real crush on TNC... but here's his brain working on the recent gem written by Gene Marks for Forbes - "If I Were a Poor Black Kid."

Ta-Nehisi Coates' take is here.

This part particularly rings for me, from some of the comments I've seen come and go on this thread -

When I read this piece I was immediately called back, as I so often am, to my days at Howard and the courses I took looking at slavery. Whenever we discussed the back-breaking conditions, the labor, the sale of family members etc., there was always someone who asserted, roughly, "I couldn't been no slave. They'd a had to kill me!" I occasionally see a similar response here where someone will assert, with less ego, "Why didn't the slaves rebel?" More commonly you get people presiding from on high insisting that if they had lived in the antebellum South, they would have freed all of their slaves.

What all these responses have in common is a kind benevolent, and admittedly unintentional, self-aggrandizement. These are not bad people (much as I am sure Mr. Marks isn't a bad person), but they are people speaking from a gut feeling, a kind of revulsion at a situation which offends our modern morals. In the case of the observer of slavery, it is the chaining and marketing of human flesh. In the case of Mr. Marks, it's the astonishingly high levels of black poverty.

Posted 5 months ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

Along those same lines:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/if-i-were-a-poor-black-kid/249996/

Posted 5 months ago #
Andrew Hall
Dennison Place (The Circles)
Login to Send PM

Absolutely fascinating interview with an MIT economist about inequality:

http://thebrowser.com/interviews/daron-acemoglu-on-inequality

The nut - which he goes on to explain very nicely :

Inequality is one of the things that has changed quite a lot in the United States and other economies over the last three decades or so. A lot of things don’t change radically, but inequality has. Understanding why that has happened and what it implies for our society is important. So it’s a good thing that it’s in the news, it’s an important topic and there is no reason for it to be taboo. Having said that, there is no broad consensus among social scientists about how to talk about inequality, and the average economist probably thinks about it very differently than the average layman. I’m not saying one is right and one is wrong, but the conversation needs to be expanded to bring these different viewpoints to the table.

A.

Posted 5 months ago #
jeff_r

Login to Send PM

This article from the Washington Post describes the growing inequality between lawmakers and constituents.

Growing wealth widens distance between lawmakers and constituents.

Between 1984 and 2009, the median net worth of a member of the House more than doubled, 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.

The comparisons exclude home equity because it is not included in congressional reporting, and 1984 was chosen because it is the earliest year for which consistent wealth statistics are available.

The growing disparity between the representatives and the represented means that there is a greater distance between the economic experience of Americans and those of lawmakers.

Posted 5 months ago #
TomOver
herenowbeyond.org
Login to Send PM

gramarye said:
Let me also explain something else that is really simple.

Your comment somehow attracted pilsner into this thread.

It's all downhill from here.

Ad hominem, Mr. Attorney

Posted 4 months ago #
TomOver
herenowbeyond.org
Login to Send PM

HeySquare said:
Stop. Right. There. You can't turn back the clock. Low-skill manufacturing jobs aren't coming back. Whats gone is gone*. The American labor market needs to educate itself, as we are undergoing a transition from low-skill manufacturing economy to a market demanding high-skill workers.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=902399
"Together, these developments suggest that the very
nature of manufacturing work is changing. The sector has
historically been regarded as one offering employment
opportunities for lower-skilled workers. Recent trends,
however, provide strong evidence that manufacturing jobs
in virtually all industries and regions of the country will
increasingly demand higher skills."

*Given stable fuel prices. A spike in fuel prices could conceivably change the economic benefits of locating overseas.

Well, then, let's pressure our policy makers to raise taxes on the very wealthy and enforce taxes on corporations, so as to have money for investing into education, instead of using the corporate media to sell the public on austerity for the middle and working classes and the poor.

Posted 4 months ago #
GW_Justice
Grandview Hts.
Login to Send PM

All Of Area Man's Hard Work Finally Pays Off For Employer

Following seven straight years of long hours at the office and sacrificed weekends and holidays, all of account manager Sam Hemstead's hard work and single-minded devotion to Pinnacle Automotive Insurance has finally paid off for CEO Charles Pardahee, Pardahee said Friday.

"There were definitely some nights I'd lie awake in bed and wonder, 'Is Sam absolutely killing himself day in and day out for nothing?'" Pardahee told reporters while driving to his weekend home in a recently purchased 2012 BMW luxury sedan. "But Sam just put his head down and never looked back, and this year his blood, sweat, and tears have proven profitable to the tune of a 15 percent larger bonus for myself."

Posted 4 months ago #
jeff_r

Login to Send PM

Mitt Romney is apparently sticking the conservative script when it comes to income inequality. In an interview with Matt Lauer on The Today Show he chalks the whole thing up to envy and class warfare.

Lauer: Let me ask you about the choice of words last night when you said with we already have a leader who divides us with the bitter politics of envy. I'm curious about the word envy. Did you suggest that anyone who questions the policies and practices of Wall Street and financial institutions , anyone who has questions about the distribution of wealth and power in this country is envious? Is it about jealousy or fairness?

Romeny: You know, i think it's about envy. i think it's about class warfare.

Presumably then, we should pay no attention to the shrinking middle class, stunted social mobility, and flat wages. That's apparently just a lot of leftist window dressing. Got it.

To Lauer's credit, he seemed taken aback by Romney's assertions, so he gave the candidate a chance to clarify:

Lauer: Aren't there questions about the distribution of wealth without it being seen as envy?

Romney: I think it's fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms and tax policy and the like.

"Quiet rooms" he says! Hysterical! Clearly things would be much better if we could just run this democracy of ours somewhere quiet, away from all these noisy people and their petty demands. What a hoot!

Seriously though, if you think that increasingly concentrated wealth and power are what's best for our democracy, then Romney's your guy.

Posted 4 months ago #
pedex

Login to Send PM

jeff_r said:
Mitt Romney is apparently sticking the conservative script when it comes to income inequality. In an interview with Matt Lauer on The Today Show he chalks the whole thing up to envy and class warfare.

Lauer: Let me ask you about the choice of words last night when you said with we already have a leader who divides us with the bitter politics of envy. I'm curious about the word envy. Did you suggest that anyone who questions the policies and practices of Wall Street and financial institutions , anyone who has questions about the distribution of wealth and power in this country is envious? Is it about jealousy or fairness?

Romeny: You know, i think it's about envy. i think it's about class warfare.

Presumably then, we should pay no attention to the shrinking middle class, stunted social mobility, and flat wages. That's apparently just a lot of leftist window dressing. Got it.

Lauer seemed a bit taken aback by this suggestion and asked Romney to clarify.

Lauer: Aren't there questions about the distribution of wealth without it being seen as envy?

Romney: I think it's fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms and tax policy and the like.

"Quiet rooms" he says! Hysterical! Clearly things would be much better if we could just run this democracy of ours somewhere quiet, away from all these noisy people and their petty demands. What a hoot!

Seriously though, if you think that increasingly concentrated wealth and power are what's best for our democracy, then Romney's your guy.

Ya know Geithner and crew while working for Obama have steadfastly protected the banks from regulation and the law. I think it is safe to assume Romney would do the same. Well, the banking situation right now is at the top of the food chain when it comes to wealth disparity as far as causes and benefactors go. Right now given the current crop of viable candidates you literally have no choice just like you have no choice about war. There are no candidates running for office which are serious about reigning in the banks or the military. In fact the same predatory actions being taken in other nations are now being used here and it is destroying the middle class and creating a large underclass. These people that we elect want nothing to do with actual democracy and their actions show it.

Posted 4 months ago #
jeff_r

Login to Send PM

pedex said:
Ya know Geithner and crew while working for Obama have steadfastly protected the banks from regulation and the law. I think it is safe to assume Romney would do the same. Well, the banking situation right now is at the top of the food chain when it comes to wealth disparity as far as causes and benefactors go. Right now given the current crop of viable candidates you literally have no choice just like you have no choice about war. There are no candidates running for office which are serious about reigning in the banks or the military. In fact the same predatory actions being taken in other nations are now being used here and it is destroying the middle class and creating a large underclass. These people that we elect want nothing to do with actual democracy and their actions show it.

I understand what you're saying. The kinds of wholesale changes I expect you're looking for probably aren't going to be endorsed or supported by any of the major candidates.

That said, I still resist this idea that "they're all the same". I'm not convinced that Dodd-Frank, the CFPB, the Iraq and Afghanistan troop withdrawals, the Volcker Rule or Richard Cordray's recess appointment would have happened on Mitt Romney's watch. You can argue these initiatives didn't go far enough, but they likely went farther than they would have under any of the Republican candidates.

Posted 4 months ago #
pedex

Login to Send PM

jeff_r said:
I understand what you're saying. The kinds of wholesale changes I expect you're looking for probably aren't going to be endorsed or supported by any of the major candidates.

That said, I still resist this idea that "they're all the same". I'm not convinced that Dodd-Frank, the CFPB, the Iraq and Afghanistan troop withdrawals, the Volcker Rule or Richard Cordray's recess appointment would have happened on Mitt Romney's watch. You can argue these initiatives didn't go far enough, but they likely went farther than they would have under any of the Republican candidates.

The problem is why Obama sells you one thing Geithner quietly makes sure it has no impact. Obama has been doing this sort of bait and switch in many areas as well.

derivatives are not regulated, this is round two of the very same democrats keeping them from being regulated

same deal with glass steagall which keeps investment and deposit banks separate

we have enough laws on the books and have had them on he books for more than a decade to shut down the top 5 banks no problem and jail 1000's, the laws simply are not enforced

Posted 4 months ago #
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM

pedex said:
The problem is why Obama sells you one thing Geithner quietly makes sure it has no impact. Obama has been doing this sort of bait and switch in many areas as well.

derivatives are not regulated, this is round two of the very same democrats keeping them from being regulated

same deal with glass steagall which keeps investment and deposit banks separate

we have enough laws on the books and have had them on he books for more than a decade to shut down the top 5 banks no problem and jail 1000's, the laws simply are not enforced

Glass-Steagall should never have been necessary, but then again, if we're going to have bailouts when banks fail, maybe we do need to bring back something like it. Had the bailouts never happened, Glass-Steagall would not have been necessary because the mass extinction of overleveraged dinosaurs would have served as an object lesson far stronger than any regulation.

If you're dealing with children, you can tell them not to play with fire. That's regulation. When you're dealing with adults, sometimes you gotta let someone get burned. That's how you teach people who are already set in their ways.

Posted 4 months ago #
pedex

Login to Send PM

gramarye said:
Glass-Steagall should never have been necessary, but then again, if we're going to have bailouts when banks fail, maybe we do need to bring back something like it. Had the bailouts never happened, Glass-Steagall would not have been necessary because the mass extinction of overleveraged dinosaurs would have served as an object lesson far stronger than any regulation.

If you're dealing with children, you can tell them not to play with fire. That's regulation. When you're dealing with adults, sometimes you gotta let someone get burned. That's how you teach people who are already set in their ways.

indeed

many of the over leveraged dinosaurs are gonna die anyway, now it is just gonna cost substantially more and hurt millions of people

Posted 4 months ago #
myliftkk
Columbus, OH
Login to Send PM

Interesting oped by C. Blow on income inequality that we should leave in the quiet rooms.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/14/opinion/blow-bitter-politics-of-envy.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Posted 4 months ago #
myliftkk
Columbus, OH
Login to Send PM

Interesting oped by C. Blow on income inequality that we should leave in the quiet rooms.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/14/opinion/blow-bitter-politics-of-envy.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

gramarye said:
Glass-Steagall should never have been necessary, but then again, if we're going to have bailouts when banks fail, maybe we do need to bring back something like it. Had the bailouts never happened, Glass-Steagall would not have been necessary because the mass extinction of overleveraged dinosaurs would have served as an object lesson far stronger than any regulation.

If you're dealing with children, you can tell them not to play with fire. That's regulation. When you're dealing with adults, sometimes you gotta let someone get burned. That's how you teach people who are already set in their ways.

In a perfect world sure. But, the history of humankind is more than evidence that "object lessons" aren't in fact learned. If humanity actually permanently learned object lessons from failure, history wouldn't be littered with the carcasses of over-reaching empires.

The problem of "too big to fail" isn't one of not letting the dinosaur die, because a dinosaur is entirely the wrong metaphor. In software, there is the concept of coupled systems, specifically defined by the terms highly-coupled and loosely-coupled systems. When things work well, both systems approximately create the same results, but when something fails in a highly coupled system, the entire system comes down with it. If a system is designed whereby the goal is to maintain loose couplings and therefore preserve adaptability, the imperative is that no one part obtain , or retain, the power to bring down the whole system, thereby enforcing the ability of a number of similar parts to perform a similar function if one should fail. However, it takes strict discipline to implement a loosely coupled system and preserve that quality in future years, even though the object lesson has been taught over and over and over to software developers. There's no real difference here in what happens at a national level regarding regulation of economic couplings and what large software system architects have to deal with to protect corporate infrastructure from eager developers who are more than willing to build a system too big to write off.

ETA:

Fascinating graphic (if you line politics up with the graphic):

Posted 4 months ago #
pedex

Login to Send PM

myliftkk said:
Interesting oped by C. Blow on income inequality that we should leave in the quiet rooms.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/14/opinion/blow-bitter-politics-of-envy.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

In a perfect world sure. But, the history of humankind is more than evidence that "object lessons" aren't in fact learned. If humanity actually permanently learned object lessons from failure, history wouldn't be littered with the carcasses of over-reaching empires.

The problem of "too big to fail" isn't one of not letting the dinosaur die, because a dinosaur is entirely the wrong metaphor. In software, there is the concept of coupled systems, specifically defined by the terms highly-coupled and loosely-coupled systems. When things work well, both systems approximately create the same results, but when something fails in a highly coupled system, the entire system comes down with it. If a system is designed whereby the goal is to maintain loose couplings and therefore preserve adaptability, the imperative is that no one part obtain , or retain, the power to bring down the whole system, thereby enforcing the ability of a number of similar parts to perform a similar function if one should fail. However, it takes strict discipline to implement a loosely coupled system and preserve that quality in future years, even though the object lesson has been taught over and over and over to software developers. There's no real difference here in what happens at a national level regarding regulation of economic couplings and what large software system architects have to deal with to protect corporate infrastructure from eager developers who are more than willing to build a system too big to write off.

if the business model of banking as we know it cannot survive then it isn't a viable model and the dinosaur metaphor is indeed accurate

Furthermore the conditions necessary for our banking model to work long term are going away. The fact that it is an unstable model to begin with which mathematically requires periodic purges of debt or it fails doesn't take into account the other limits which will force an end to it anyway.

Yes the system is rigged, has been or a long time and yes it creates wealth disparity by design, it isn't envy to point this out as the article you posted relates but simply recognizing these facts should change the entire line of discussion but it never does.

Posted 4 months ago #
JonMyers
HCMC ✈
Login to Send PM

Interesting.

An Investment Manager's View on the Top 1%

there are big differences within that top 1%, with the wealth distribution highly skewed towards the top 0.1%.

An Investment Manager's View on the Top 1%

Posted 4 months ago #
GW_Justice
Grandview Hts.
Login to Send PM

Will Rogers in 1931

Posted 4 months ago #
myliftkk
Columbus, OH
Login to Send PM

In "Stories from the Front Lines", Bloomberg documents the wide swath the recession is cutting through that sensitive of all species to environmental change, the Wall Street Banker.

Cue the funeral dirge...

Andrew Schiff was sitting in a traffic jam in California this month after giving a speech at an investment conference about gold. He turned off the satellite radio, got out of the car and screamed a profanity.

“I’m not Zen at all, and when I’m freaking out about the situation, where I’m stuck like a rat in a trap on a highway with no way to get out, it’s very hard,” Schiff, director of marketing for broker-dealer Euro Pacific Capital Inc., said in an interview.

Andrew Schiff, director of communications and marketing at Euro Pacific Capital Inc. Source: Euro Pacific Capital Inc. via Bloomberg
Schiff, 46, is facing another kind of jam this year: Paid a lower bonus, he said the $350,000 he earns, enough to put him in the country’s top 1 percent by income, doesn’t cover his family’s private-school tuition, a Kent, Connecticut, summer rental and the upgrade they would like from their 1,200-square- foot Brooklyn duplex.

...

“People who don’t have money don’t understand the stress,” said Alan Dlugash, a partner at accounting firm Marks Paneth & Shron LLP in New York who specializes in financial planning for the wealthy. “Could you imagine what it’s like to say I got three kids in private school, I have to think about pulling them out? How do you do that?”

...

“I wouldn’t want to whine,” Schiff said. “All I want is the stuff that I always thought, growing up, that successful parents had.”

...

His tastes for travel got “a little bit more lavish,” he said. Kullberg, a triathlete, went to a bachelor party in Las Vegas in January after renting a four-bedroom ski cabin at Bear Mountain in California as a Christmas gift to his parents. He went to Ibiza for another bachelor party in August, spending $3,000 on a three-day trip, including a 15-minute ride from the airport that cost $100. In May he spent 10 days in India.

Earlier this month, a friend invited him on a trip to Mardi Gras in New Orleans. The friend was going to be a judge in a wet T-shirt contest, Kullberg said. He turned down the offer.

It wouldn’t have been “the most financially prudent thing to do,” he said. “I’m not totally sure about what I’m going to get paid this year, how I’m going to be doing.”

My Bonus Just Doesn't Cover What It Used To

The comments are even more hilarious.

Posted 2 months ago #
Twixlen
Westgate, Columbus
Login to Send PM

I like the Onion comments - because that's what I kept thinking - that it reads like an Onion piece.

Posted 2 months ago #