Income inequality in the United States.

[Joecooool]

I'm sure most of you are aware that the poorest 50% of Americans earn less than 3% of all the income this country generates.

What I doubt is how many of you know how low that ranks us in the world.

We are on par with Uganda.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2172rank.html

This guy does a pretty good job explaining it.

World of Class Warfare - Warren Buffett vs. Wealthy Conservatives - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 08/18/11 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

[Scissors]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

I'm sure most of you are aware that the poorest 50% of Americans earn less than 3% of all the income this country generates.

How many people do the poorest 50% of Americans employ?

[Chris Fowler]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

We are on par with Uganda.

Uganda GDP per capita:

$1,300 (2010 est.)
country comparison to the world: 203
$1,200 (2009 est.)
$1,200 (2008 est.)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/ug.html

US GDP per capita:

$47,200 (2010 est.)
country comparison to the world: 11
$46,400 (2009 est.)
$48,100 (2008 est.)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/us.html

great comparison there.

Now...compare what our "poor" have to what their poor have...

[Scissors]

I'm sure Joe has found someone making $0/year and is now giving that individual 50% of his own take-home income. Right?

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by TxAg

Inequality eh?

Modern Poverty Includes AC, Flat Screen TVs, DVD players, Gaming Systems | Stand Up To Government Corruption and Hypocrisy | USBACKLASH.ORG «

Absolutely.

By the way, your study is flawed. Poor people don't own many of these appliances, they rent subsidized housing that has these things.

Colbert: Poor not living down to conservatives’ expectations*|*Raw Replay

[Sea Six]

Phil.

How do YOU propose the situation be remedied?

[RedLS1GTO]

Comedy Channel used as a source for a political topic... pretty sure that's a first. I think I'm going to have to wait for Carrot Top's opinion before I really make a desision.


...and on a side note, what exactly did he "explain"?


What do you think these numbers show? Do you know what they mean? You are pointing to numbers that have HAITI ranked number 7 in the World. Haiti has a 40%+ unemployment rate... 2/3 of the labor force do not have formal jobs. 80% are below the poverty line. They have a negative GDP and industrial growth rate. ...and I could go on and on.

How about we look at the numbers for the big winner. #1 in the World... Namibia.

From the CIA World Factbook - https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/wa.html

Unemployment - 51.2% (2008 est.)

Below Poverty line - 55.8%

note: the UNDP's 2005 Human Development Report indicated that 34.9% of the population live on $1 per day and 55.8% live on $2 per day (2005 est.)

So... just for clarification, are you saying we should aspire to be more like Namibia and Haiti?

I'll ask again. Do you have any idea what the numbers that you and the comedian are speaking to actually mean?

[Chris Fowler]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

What do you think these numbers show? Do you know what they mean? You are pointing to numbers that have HAITI ranked number 7 in the World. Haiti has a 40%+ unemployment rate... 2/3 of the labor force do not have formal jobs. 80% are below the poverty line. They have a negative GDP and industrial growth rate. ...and I could go on and on.

How about we look at the numbers for the big winner. #1 in the World... Namibia.

From the CIA World Factbook - https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/wa.html



So... just for clarification, are you saying we should aspire to be more like Namibia and Haiti?

I'll ask again. Do you have any idea what the numbers that you and the comedian are speaking to actually mean?

Haiti GDP per capita:

$1,200 (2010 est.)
country comparison to the world: 204
$1,200 (2009 est.)
$1,200 (2008 est.)

Namibia GDP per capita:

$6,900 (2010 est.)
country comparison to the world: 132
$6,600 (2009 est.)
$6,700 (2008 est.)

Universally poor is obviously better...

[VetteBoy1979]

I enjoy a good laugh

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by TxAg

Source?

Are you stating that 100% of poor people own their own homes?

Another comedy show as your source? Talk about stretching for something, anything to grasp at.

So in other words, you can't refute what he is saying.

[CuzzinJack]

Poverty is relative .. It's not about what you've got - it's about what you should have or could have..

According to my calculations -- based on the huge natural wealth of the US ; it's willing and able workforce and the economies of scale ---- at this point in history everybody should be driving Veyrons and have 50'' TVs in every room .etc...

Too many think they're rich because they've got the latest toy when things like that are , in reality , 'chicken feed' .

And before y'all jump on me and call me silly names ; i'm not saying some shouldn't have 2 Veyrons and 60'' TVs ..

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

...

Is it a safe assumption that since you have replied since my post that you are not going to comment on it? (or any of the others that address what your numbers actually represent)

If you missed it the first time, I'll repeat it for you.

What do you think these numbers show? Do you know what they mean? You are pointing to numbers that have HAITI ranked number 7 in the World. Haiti has a 40%+ unemployment rate... 2/3 of the labor force do not have formal jobs. 80% are below the poverty line. They have a negative GDP and industrial growth rate. ...and I could go on and on.

How about we look at the numbers for the big winner. #1 in the World... Namibia.

From the CIA World Factbook - https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/wa.html

So... just for clarification, are you saying we should aspire to be more like Namibia and Haiti?

I'll ask again. Do you have any idea what the numbers that you and the comedian are speaking to actually mean?

Originally Posted by Joecooool

...We are on par with Uganda...

Simple question... since you clearly see our ranking as a bad thing and Namibia is number 1, do you think we should try to be like them? Feel free to reference the link I provided above to learn more about the economy of Namibia.

[Will]

The left seems to always be lamenting income inequality, yet fails to understand the circumstances surrounding it and when it is important or not.


Income inequality is FINE if everybody is doing better. The United States SHOULD have high income inequality because we are the world's powerhouse. Income inequality is a natural byproduct of economic expansion. The more wealth you have, the more you will benefit from growth in pure dollar amounts.


Multiplication used to be taught in schools. An EQUAL 5% increase in wealth will create an UNEQUAL pure dollar amount increase in wealth for two people, one with $10,000,000 and one with 10,000.


YOU CANNOT EVER STOP INCOME INEQUALITY IN A FREE AND CAPITALIST SOCIETY. NOR WOULD YOU WANT TO. IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE TO DO WITHOUT SEVERELY DAMAGING THE ECONOMY AND HURTING EVERYONE.





Liberals usually point to graphs like the one above as evidence of a problem or unfairness of some sort. And in fact, you can find something similar on Wikipedia in the income inequality article:






REALITY CHECK: Here's the same data, but used to track % change at each percentile:





Funny how wikipedia and liberals always HIDE the whole truth and FAIL to disclose this fact.


No matter what the capital gains tax rate, no matter what the differences in marginal income tax rates, change in income for ALL levels MIRRORS each-other, and ebbs and flows with the economy.

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by Will

Liberals always whine about income inequality, yet fail to understand the circumstances surrounding it and when it is important or not.

It always gets very entertaining when liberals try to use math in their arguments.

[Will]

NOW, income inequality CAN and HAS gotten a bit too far out of hand. But again, the left FAILS to understand it.


Extra-normal Income inequality did NOT lead to the great crash of 1929, or the subsequent Great Depression. It was CAUSED by the same thing that helped CAUSE the great crash - a speculative bubble. It was curbed NOT by any government tax changes, but by the crash itself. Those who benefited most from the bubble lost the most when it burst. Obviously the poor suffered more PHYSICALLY with unemployment and the depression economy, but the wealth gap shrunk because the top lost more wealth.


Fast forward to today. Any extra-normal increase in the income inequality gap was brought about by the most recent speculative bubble. HOWEVER, unlike with the great crash of 1929, THIS TIME those who benefited most from the bubble actually suffered THE LEAST thanks to government intervention. Wall Street firms were bailed out, and the housing market CONTINUES to be artificially inflated.


So, in sum:


#1. Complaining about income inequality itself is IRRATIONAL. It is a natural byproduct of economic expansion and LITERALLY cannot be stopped, short of instituting some sort of communist economic system. Income inequality is also meaningless as a measure of how well off the lower classes are if their income is increasing as well. A man who makes $50,000 living next to a man making $1,000,000 is MUCH better off than a man making $20,000 living next to a man making $100,000.


#2. IF one is of the RATIONAL belief that we are currently seeing EXTRA-NORMAL income inequality (a sentiment I actually agree with), the cause is government intervention which prevented the natural hit to that gap that should have occurred with the bursting of the housing bubble and ensuing market decline. TAXES had NOTHING to do with it, NOR WILL RAISING THEM CHANGE ANYTHING WITH REGARD TO THE GAP. Again:

[RetiredSFC 97]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Absolutely.

By the way, your study is flawed. Poor people don't own many of these appliances, they rent subsidized housing that has these things.

Colbert: Poor not living down to conservatives’ expectations*|*Raw Replay

Abstract: For decades, the U.S. Census Bureau has reported that over 30 million Americans were living in “poverty,” but the bureau’s definition of poverty differs widely from that held by most Americans. In fact, other government surveys show that most of the persons whom the government defines as “in poverty” are not poor in any ordinary sense of the term. The overwhelming majority of the poor have air conditioning, cable TV, and a host of other modern amenities. They are well housed, have an adequate and reasonably steady supply of food, and have met their other basic needs, including medical care. Some poor Americans do experience significant hardships, including temporary food shortages or inadequate housing, but these individuals are a minority within the overall poverty population. Poverty remains an issue of serious social concern, but accurate information about that problem is essential in crafting wise public policy. Exaggeration and misinformation about poverty obscure the nature, extent, and causes of real material deprivation, thereby hampering the development of well-targeted, effective programs to reduce the problem.

Each year for the past two decades, the U.S. Census Bureau has reported that over 30 million Americans were living in “poverty.” In recent years, the Census has reported that one in seven Americans are poor. But what does it mean to be “poor” in America? How poor are America’s poor?

For most Americans, the word “poverty” suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. For example, the Poverty Pulse poll taken by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development asked the general public: “How would you describe being poor in the U.S.?” The overwhelming majority of responses focused on homelessness, hunger or not being able to eat properly, and not being able to meet basic needs.[1] That perception is bolstered by news stories about poverty that routinely feature homelessness and hunger.

Yet if poverty means lacking nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, relatively few of the more than 30 million people identified as being “in poverty” by the Census Bureau could be characterized as poor.[2] While material hardship definitely exists in the United States, it is restricted in scope and severity. The average poor person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines.

As scholar James Q. Wilson has stated, “The poorest Americans today live a better life than all but the richest persons a hundred years ago.”[3] In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation.[4] In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.

The home of the typical poor family was not overcrowded and was in good repair. In fact, the typical poor American had more living space than the average European. The typical poor American family was also able to obtain medical care when needed. By its own report, the typical family was not hungry and had sufficient funds during the past year to meet all essential needs.

Poor families certainly struggle to make ends meet, but in most cases, they are struggling to pay for air conditioning and the cable TV bill as well as to put food on the table. Their living standards are far different from the images of dire deprivation promoted by activists and the mainstream media.

Regrettably, annual Census reports not only exaggerate current poverty, but also suggest that the number of poor persons[5] and their living conditions have remained virtually unchanged for four decades or more. In reality, the living conditions of poor Americans have shown significant improvement over time.

Consumer items that were luxuries or significant purchases for the middle class a few decades ago have become commonplace in poor households. In part, this is caused by a normal downward trend in price following the introduction of a new product. Initially, new products tend to be expensive and available only to the affluent. Over time, prices fall sharply, and the product saturates the entire population, including poor households.

As a rule of thumb, poor households tend to obtain modern conveniences about a dozen years after the middle class. Today, most poor families have conveniences that were unaffordable to the middle class not too long ago.

Poverty: A Range of Living Conditions

However, there is a range of living conditions within the poverty population. The average poor family does not represent every poor family. Although most poor families are well housed, a small minority are homeless.

Fortunately, the number of homeless Americans has not increased during the current recession.[6] Although most poor families are well fed and have a fairly stable food supply, a sizeable minority experiences temporary restraints in food supply at various times during the year. The number of families experiencing such temporary food shortages has increased somewhat during the current economic downturn.

Of course, to the families experiencing these problems, their comparative infrequency is irrelevant. To a family that has lost its home and is living in a homeless shelter, the fact that only 0.5 percent of families shared this experience in 2009 is no comfort. The distress and fear for the future that the family experiences are real and devastating. Public policy must deal with that distress. However, accurate information about the extent and severity of social problems is imperative for the development of effective public policy.

In discussions about poverty, however, misunderstanding and exaggeration are commonplace. Over the long term, exaggeration has the potential to promote a substantial misallocation of limited resources for a government that is facing massive future deficits. In addition, exaggeration and misinformation obscure the nature, extent, and causes of real material deprivation, thereby hampering the development of well-targeted, effective programs to reduce the problem. Poverty is an issue of serious social concern, and accurate information about that problem is always essential in crafting public policy.

Living Conditions of the Poor

Each year, the U.S. Census Bureau releases its annual report on income and poverty.[7] This report, though widely publicized by the press, provides only a bare count of the number of Americans who are allegedly poor. It provides no data on or description of their actual living conditions.

This does not mean that such information is not available. The federal government conducts several other surveys that provide detailed information on the living conditions of the poor. These surveys provide a very different sense of American poverty.[8] They reveal that the actual standard of living among America’s poor is far higher than the public imagines and that, in fact, most of the persons whom the government defines as “in poverty” are not poor in any ordinary sense of the term. Regrettably, these detailed surveys are almost never reported in the mainstream press.

One of the most interesting surveys that measures actual living conditions is the Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS),[9] which the Department of Energy has conducted regularly since 1980.[10] The RECS survey measures energy consumption and ownership of various conveniences by U.S. households. It also provides information on households at different income levels, including poor households.

The first half of this paper uses RECS data to analyze and describe one aspect of the living standards of the poor: ownership and availability of household amenities.[11] The second half provides a broader description of the living standards of America’s poor.

Availability of Amenities in Poor Households

This section uses RECS data from 2005, the most recent year for which data are available, to analyze the amenities typically found in poor households.[12] The 2005 RECS data represent the living conditions of the poor before the current recession. Conditions are likely quite similar today.

Because the current recession has increased the number of poor persons in the U.S. since 2005, it might seem likely that poor households would have fewer amenities and conveniences today than in 2005. However, the increase in poverty during the recession is, to a considerable degree, the result of working-class families losing employment. One would not expect these families to dispose of their normal household conveniences in those circumstances. Thus, paradoxically, the increase in the number of working- and middle-class families who have become temporarily poor is likely to increase slightly the share of poor households that own various items. When the present recession ends, the living conditions of the poor are likely to continue to improve as they have in the past.


go here for the charts

What is Poverty in the United States: Air Conditioning, Cable TV and an Xbox

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

Is it a safe assumption that since you have replied since my post that you are not going to comment on it? (or any of the others that address what your numbers actually represent)

If you missed it the first time, I'll repeat it for you.





Simple question... since you clearly see our ranking as a bad thing and Namibia is number 1, do you think we should try to be like them? Feel free to reference the link I provided above to learn more about the economy of Namibia.

I ignored your question because you are reading the chart wrong.

The HIGHER the number the WORSE the situation.

[Chris Fowler]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

I ignored your question because you are reading the chart wrong.

The HIGHER the number the WORSE the situation.

So...the other direction...Serbia (133)?

GDP per capita:

$10,900 (2010 est.)
country comparison to the world: 101
$10,700 (2009 est.)
$11,000 (2008 est.)

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

I ignored your question because you are reading the chart wrong.

The HIGHER the number the WORSE the situation.

Ahhhh... got it. Let's take a look at somebody much better than us.

They are ranked 75 spots better actually.

The country... ETHIOPIA of course.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/et.html

- Per Capita GDP - $1,000
country comparison to the world: 211

- Unemployment N/A... that's right... N/A. (Perhaps that's because they have what is estimated to be the highest in the World)

- Below poverty line = 38.7%

- etc, etc, etc.

Soooo... we should be more like Ethiopia? Bosnia? Serbia?

I don't know, Shooting for 4th best (like Serbia) is lofty goal.

I think we should start with baby steps and try to move up a little at a time. Let's go for a nice round number. How about 50? Good target I think. Definitely a large improvement over where we are now. What would we need to do to get that improvement? Let's take a look. Who is there now? It's none other than Burundi.

-GDP Per capita: $300
country comparison to the world: 227 (That's dead last BTW)

-Population below poverty line: 68%

Burundi ranks 167 out of 177 on the 2005 UNICEF Human Development Index, which measures a nation's infrastructure and relative standard of living.

Yes. Clearly we should aspire to be more like Burundi.

[6spdC6]

Originally Posted by TxAg

I'm thinking this thread isn't working out like the OP intended.

Do they ever?

This OP normally gets beat on more than a car rented by a college Frat!