Growing Wealth Inequality in the U.$.

[CHE with an AK]

http://motherjones.com/sites/all/assets/logo_small.gif
It's the Inequality, Stupid


Eleven charts that explain everything that's wrong with America.
By Dave Gilson and Carolyn Perot | March/April 2011 Issue
http://motherjones.com/print/99036




How Rich Are the Superrich?


A huge share of the nation's economic growth over the past 30 years has gone to the top one-hundredth of one percent, who now make an average of $27 million per household. The average income for the bottom 90 percent of us? $31,244.


http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-page25_1.png




http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-page25_therichest280.png
Note: The 2007 data (the most current) doesn't reflect the impact of the housing market crash. In 2007, the bottom 60% of Americans had 65% of their net worth tied up in their homes. The top 1%, in contrast, had just 10%. The housing crisis has no doubt further swelled the share of total net worth held by the superrich.





Winners Take All


The superrich have grabbed the bulk of the past three decades' gains.


http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-p25_averagehouseholdincom.png





Out of Balance


A Harvard business prof and a behavioral economist recently asked more than 5,000 Americans how they thought wealth is distributed in the United States. Most thought that it’s more balanced than it actually is. Asked to choose their ideal distribution of wealth, 92% picked one that was even more equitable.


http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-page25_actualdistribwithlegend.png




Capitol Gain


Why Washington is closer to Wall Street than Main Street.


http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality_mediannetworth_1.png
Net worth = Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) $451.1 million, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) $435.4 million, Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) $366.2 million, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) $294.9 million, Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.)$285.1 million, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) $283.1 million, Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.)$231.2 million, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) $201.5 million, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) $136.2 million, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)$108.1 million, combined net worth:$2.8 billion


http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-10richest_2.png http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality_taxcuts_2.png
Congressional data from 2009. Family net worth data from 2007. Sources: Center for Responsive Politics; US Census; Edward Wolff, Bard College.





Who's Winning?


For a healthy few, it's getting better all the time.


http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-who'swinning_3.png


http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-taxrate_3.png




YOUR LOSS,THEIR GAIN


How much income have you given up for the top 1 percent?


https://motherjones.com/files/images/lossgain_0.jpg




Sources

Income distribution: Emmanuel Saez (http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/~saez/TabFig2008.xls) [1] (Excel)
Net worth: Edward Wolff (http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_589.pdf) [2] (PDF)
Household income/income share: Congressional Budget Office (http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/all_tables.pdf) [3]
Real vs. desired distribution of wealth: Michael I. Norton and Dan Ariely (http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20ariely%20in%20press.pdf) [4] (PDF)
Net worth of Americans vs. Congress: Federal Reserve (http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/2007/scf2007home.html) [5] (average); Center for Responsive Politics (http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php?type=W&year=2009&filter=C) [6] (Congress)
Your chances of being a millionaire: Calculation based on data from Wolff (http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_589.pdf) [2] (PDF); US Census (household (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=&geo_id=01000US&_geoContext=01000US&_street=&_county=&_cityTown=&_state=&_zip=80247&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=DEC_2000_SAFF&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null&reg=&_keyword=&_industry=) [7] and population (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-ds_name=PEP_2009_EST&-mt_name=PEP_2009_EST_G2009_T001) [8] data)
Member of Congress' chances: Center for Responsive Politics (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/11/congressional-members-personal-weal.html) [9]
Wealthiest members of Congress: Center for Responsive Politics (http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/index.php) [10]
Tax cut votes: New York Times (Senate (http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/senate/2/276?ref=politics) [11]; House (http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/house/2/647) [12])
Wall street profits, 2007-2009: New York State Comptroller (http://osc.state.ny.us/osdc/rpt10-2011.pdf) [13] (PDF)
Unemployment rate, 2007-2009: Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm) [14]
Home equity, 2007-2009: Federal Reserve, Flow of Funds data, 1995-2004 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/RELEASES/z1/Current/annuals/a1995-2004.pdf) [15] and 2005-2009 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/RELEASES/z1/Current/annuals/a2005-2009.pdf) [16] (PDFs)
CEO vs. worker pay: Economic Policy Institute (http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/charts/view/17) [17]
Historic tax rates: Calculations based on data from The Tax Foundation (http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html) [18]
Federal tax revenue: Joint Committee on Taxation (http://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=3719) [19] (PDF)

Read also: Kevin Drum on the decline of Big Labor, the rise of Big Business, and why the Obama era fizzled so soon. (http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-labor-union-decline) [20]
More Mother Jones charty goodness: How the rich get richer (http://motherjones.com/politics/2006/05/look-numbers-how-rich-get-richer) [21]; how the poor get poorer (http://motherjones.com/politics/2006/07/poor-losers) [22]; who owns Congress? (http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/09/congress-corporate-sponsors) [23]

Links:
[1] http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/~saez/TabFig2008.xls
[2] http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_589.pdf
[3] http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/all_tables.pdf
[4] http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20ariely%20in%20press.pdf
[5] http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/2007/scf2007home.html
[6] http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php?type=W&year=2009&filter=C
[7] http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=&geo_id=01000US&_geoContext=01 000US&_street=&_county=&_cityTown=&_state=&_zip=80 247&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=&_useEV=&pctxt=f ph&pgsl=010&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=DEC_200 0_SAFF&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null&reg=&_keyword=&_i ndustry=
[8] http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-ds_name=PEP_2009_EST&-mt_name=PEP_2009_EST_G2009_T001
[9] http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/11/congressional-members-personal-weal.html
[10] http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/index.php
[11] http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/senate/2/276?ref=politics
[12] http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/house/2/647
[13] http://osc.state.ny.us/osdc/rpt10-2011.pdf
[14] http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm
[15] http://www.federalreserve.gov/RELEASES/z1/Current/annuals/a1995-2004.pdf
[16] http://www.federalreserve.gov/RELEASES/z1/Current/annuals/a2005-2009.pdf
[17] http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/charts/view/17
[18] http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
[19] http://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=3719
[20] http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-labor-union-decline
[21] http://motherjones.com/politics/2006/05/look-numbers-how-rich-get-richer
[22] http://motherjones.com/politics/2006/07/poor-losers
[23] http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/09/congress-corporate-sponsors

[RadioRaheem84]

sticky worthy. wealth of information

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Fairly sure this exact thread has been posted before. Good stuff, though. It's important we don't take for granted the many ill effects of Capitalism in the USA.

[CHE with an AK]

http://img.slate.com/media/9/ssSmallLaunchModule.jpg (http://javascript<b></b>:void(window.open('http://www.slate.com/id/2266174/','_blank','width=945, height=740, left=, top=, resizable=yes,status=yes,fullscreen=no,location=no ,menubars=no,scrollbars=yes,titlebar=no,toolbar=no ,'));)
http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266026/





http://img.slate.com/media/35/01.gif (http://www.slate.com/id/2266174/entry/2266185/fs/0//)
Source: Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez.
Chart by Catherine Mulbrandon of VisualizingEconomics.com (http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/)

During the 20th century, the United States experienced two major trends in income distribution. The first, termed the "Great Compression" by economists Claudia Goldin of Harvard and Robert Margo of Boston University, was egalitarian.* (http://www.slate.com/id/2266174/#Correction) From 1940 to 1973, incomes became more equal. The share taken by the very richest Americans (i.e., the top 1 percent and the top 0.1 percent) shrank. The second trend, termed the "Great Divergence" by economist Paul Krugman of Princeton (and the New York Times op-ed page), was inegalitarian. From 1979 to the present, incomes have become less equal. The share taken by the very richest Americans increased.





http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/2265681/2266156/02.gif (http://www.slate.com/id/2266174/slideshow/2266174/entry/2266209/fs/0//)
Sources: Congressional Budget Office, Census Bureau.
Chart by Catherine Mulbrandon of VisualizingEconomics.com (http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/)


The Great Divergence isn't really one trend, but two (hence the dotted line in the previous slide separating the "early" divergence from the "recent" one). Here we look at the first trend—or at least the first one economists took note of. This trend divides the population into five groups ("quintiles") according to household income data. The top line charts income share for the bottom 20 percent (i.e., the poorest fifth) relative to the top 20 percent (the richest fifth). In 1979 the top quintile's income share was eight times that of the bottom quintile. By 2007 the top quintile's income share was 14 times that of the bottom quintile. The bottom line shows that the top 20 percent's share also increased relative to the middle 20 percent, rising from three times that of the middle quintile






http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/2265681/2266156/03.gif (http://www.slate.com/id/2266174/slideshow/2266174/entry/2266212/fs/0//)
Source: Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez.
Chart by Catherine Mulbrandon of VisualizingEconomics.com (http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/).


The second trend contributing to the Great Divergence concerns not the middle class but the rich. It went unnoticed for a long time because of limitations to the quintile data shown in the previous slide. That data is based on household income surveys conducted monthly by the Census Bureau, which aren't particularly useful for making fine distinctions at the top of the income scale. Seeking more precise information about the rich, economists Thomas Piketty of the Ecole d'Economie de Paris and Emmanuel Saez of Berkeley turned to income data from the Internal Revenue Service.

What Piketty and Saez found was that much of the Great Divergence was driven by a stunning rise in income for the top 1 percent (who today earn about $368,000 or more). This group's share of national income more than doubled, from 8 percent in 1973 (the end of the Great Compression) to 18 percent in 2008. Meanwhile, the bottom 99 percent's share of income, which stood at 92 percent in 1973, dwindled to 82 percent in 2008.

The top 1 percent's share of income accelerated at a particularly fast rate starting in the mid-1990s, even as the education-based income gap leveled off. During the Great Divergence, Part 2, having a college or graduate degree was no protection against falling behind relative to the top 1 percent.






http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/2265681/2266156/04.gif (http://www.slate.com/id/2266174/slideshow/2266174/entry/2266213/fs/0//)
Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez.
Chart by Catherine Mulbrandon of VisualizingEconomics.com (http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/)

To review: Income gains made during the Great Divergence by the top 20 percent relative to the middle and bottom 20 percent pale in comparison to income gains made during that period by the top 1 percent relative to the bottom 99 percent—especially after 1994. Since 1979, the top 1 percent's income share has more than doubled.

Now let's look at the top 0.1 percent. If the top 1 percent are the Rich, the top 0.1 percent (who today earn about $1 million or more) are the Stinking Rich. Since 1979, their income share hasn't doubled; it's quadrupled. In 1973 the top 0.1 percent's share of the national income stood at 2 percent. By 2008 it was 8 percent. The bottom 99.9 percent's share fell from 98 percent to 92 percent.






http://img.slate.com/media/96/05update.gif (http://www.slate.com/id/2266174/slideshow/2266174/entry/2266214/fs/0//)
Sources: Anthony B. Atkinson, Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez.
Chart by Catherine Mulbrandon of VisualizingEconomics.com (http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/).

Is the Great Divergence an inevitable result of global trends in capitalism? If it were, we'd expect to see the same trend in other countries. But while incomes have over time tended to become less equal in industrialized countries, that hasn't happened everywhere. (In France, incomes have been becoming more equal.) And nowhere has the income-inequality trend been more dramatic than in the United States.

This chart shows select nations where the income share of the top 1 percent was highest in 2005. These are all countries with income-inequality problems. But none of them can beat the United States, where in 2005 the top 1 percent gobbled up 17 percent of national income. The best Argentina can do is tie us.






http://img.slate.com/media/63/06.jpg (http://www.slate.com/id/2266174/slideshow/2266174/entry/2266215/fs/0//)
Source: Census Bureau.
Chart by Catherine Mulbrandon of VisualizingEconomics.com (http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/).

Does the Great Divergence reflect racial inequality between whites and blacks? That's a good guess, considering the median annual income for black families in the United States is 38 percent lower than the median income for white families. Even so, it's wrong.
Yes, there's a sizable (and worrisome) gap between incomes for blacks and whites. But as this chart demonstrates, the relationship between median black income and median white income has scarcely changed since 1973. In 1973, blacks made 58 cents for every dollar whites made. In 2008 they made 62 cents. For black-white inequality to influence the Great Divergence, the gap would have to have widened significantly, and it hasn't—at least as measured by family income, the principal metric for the Great Divergence. The median Hispanic income relative to white income is also virtually unchanged, though there's been a bit more movement up and down. The only major change relating to ethnic groups has been for Asians, who started out more prosperous than whites ($1.14 for every white dollar) and became more so ($1.18 for every white dollar*), with some ups and downs in between, during a shorter time period.

We don't mean to suggest it's peachy that the black-white income gap (and the Hispanic-and-white gap) hasn't changed in 30 years. These are serious social problems. They just aren't problems that have anything to do with the Great Divergence.







http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/2265681/2266156/07.gif (http://www.slate.com/id/2266174/slideshow/2266174/entry/2266216/fs/0//)
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Chart by Catherine Mulbrandon of VisualizingEconomics.com (http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/).

The Great Divergence, we can say with even greater confidence, has nothing to do with gender-based inequality. That's because since 1979 median wages for women have going up relative to median wages for men. The 62-cent dollar—that is, for every dollar made by a man, a woman made 62 cents—was, by 2009, a 79-cent dollar. Considering women now outnumber men at colleges and universities, it seems likely the male-female wage gap will continue to shrink in the future.







http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/2265681/2266156/08.gif (http://www.slate.com/id/2266174/slideshow/2266174/entry/2266217/fs/0//)
Source:Congressional Budget Office.
Chart by Catherine Mulbrandon of VisualizingEconomics.com (http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/)

Did tax cuts for the rich create the Great Divergence?

Income tax rates have changed dramatically during the past 30 years. During the Reagan administration (1981-89), the top marginal rate dropped from 70 percent to 58 percent, and eventually to 28 percent. Under subsequent presidents it has hovered between 30 percent and 40 percent. But effective tax rates—what people actually pay—didn't change nearly as much. For incomes in the top 1 percent, the effective tax rate went from 37 percent in 1979 to 29.5 percent today, with a big drop and subsequent rise during the 1980s. For incomes in the bottom 20 percent, the percentage change in the effective tax rate was much more dramatic—it was halved, from 8 percent in 1979 to 4 percent in 2007. But to contribute to the Great Divergence, the bottom quintile's effective tax rate would have to have increased.

Tax cuts for the rich certainly contributed to the Great Divergence. But it would be hard to argue, based on this data, they were a major factor.







http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/2265681/2266156/09.gif (http://www.slate.com/id/2266174/slideshow/2266174/entry/2266218/fs/0//)
Source:Claudia Goldin.
Chart by Catherine Mulbrandon of VisualizingEconomics.com (http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/).

Did the education system contribute to the Great Divergence? Yes, in a big way.

In a modern economy, widely shared prosperity depends on rising education levels. Innovation typically creates a need for a workforce with higher skills. From World War II through the 1960s, the U.S. economy mostly boomed and incomes grew more equal; not coincidentally, the high-school graduation rate climbed from 51 percent to more than 70 percent. Starting in the 1970s, the high-school graduation rate declined and then leveled off at 70 percent. The economy boomed again in the late 1980s and late 1990s, and many prospered, but this time the prosperity wasn't shared equally because the supply of high-school graduates didn't rise with growing technology-driven demand. The flat line in this chart creates inequality.







http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/2265681/2266156/10.gif
Source:Larry M. Bartels.
Chart by Catherine Mulbrandon of VisualizingEconomics.com (http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/)

Did the United States grow more unequal while Republicans were in power?

It sounds crude, but Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels has gone a long way toward proving it. Bartels looked up income growth rates for families at various income percentiles for the years 1948 to 2005, then cross-checked these with whether the president was a Republican or a Democrat. He found two distinct and opposite trends. Under Democrats, the biggest income gains were for people in the bottom 20th income percentile (2.6 percent). The income gains grew progressively smaller further up the income scale (2.5 percent for the 40th and 60th percentiles, 2.4 percent for the 80th percentile, and so on). But under Republicans, the biggest income gains were for people in the 95th percentile (1.9 percent). The income gains grew progressively smaller further down the income scale (1.4 percent for the 80th percentile, 1.1 for the 60th percentile, etc.).

Two other observations are worth making:

1) In all income categories except the 95th percentile, income growth rates under Democratic presidents exceeded income growth rates under Republican ones. That suggests greater income equality can coexist with (or even help create) greater prosperity.

2) The 95th percentile fared about the same under Democrats and Republicans. (This chart shows it doing slightly better under Democrats, but the margin of error erases the Democrats' advantage.) Bartels' party-based interpretation of income inequality can't address the Great Divergence, Part 2—the stratospheric rise in incomes at the very top—because for this group, it doesn't matter much whether a Democrat or a Republican inhabits the White House. Political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, of Yale and Berkeley, respectively, argue that the apparently nonpartisan solicitude Democrats and Republicans express toward the rich is the result of a massive increase in Washington's corporate lobbying sector since the 1970s—and that the growing power of big business in Washington has been a major contributor to the Great Divergence.

[The_Outernationalist]

Let's hope this spurs greater action on behalf of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie...


...But knowing the United States, it won't.

[CHE with an AK]

Here is a snapshot of income distribution during the past 100 years:


http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/2265681/2266033/100902_GD_Part1_PikettySaez-fig1.gif




Why don't Americans pay more attention to growing income disparity? One reason may be our enduring belief in social mobility. Economic inequality is less troubling if you live in a country where any child, no matter how humble his or her origins, can grow up to be president. In a survey (http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2008/02_economic_mobility_sawhill/02_economic_mobility_sawhill.ashx) of 27 nations conducted from 1998 to 2001, the country where the highest proportion agreed with the statement "people are rewarded for intelligence and skill" was, of course, the United States. (69 percent). But when it comes to real as opposed to imagined social mobility, surveys (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf) find less in the United States than in much of (what we consider) the class-bound Old World. France, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Spain—not to mention some newer nations like Canada and Australia—are all places where your chances of rising from the bottom are better than they are in the land of Horatio Alger's Ragged Dick.

http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266026/

[CHE with an AK]

15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Gus Lubin (http://www.revleft.com/author/gus-lubin) | Apr. 9, 2010
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4?op=1



The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Cliché, sure, but it's also more true than at any time since the Gilded Age.


The poor are getting poorer, wages are falling behind inflation, and social mobility is at an all-time low.


If you're in that top 1%, life is grand.




The gap between the top 1% and everyone else hasn't been this bad since the Roaring Twenties


http://static7.businessinsider.com/image/4bbf3f0b7f8b9ac202070000-547/the-gap-between-the-top-1-and-everyone-else-hasnt-been-this-bad-since-the-roaring-twenties.jpg



This chart shows average income of the top 1% as a multiple of average income of the bottom 90% (via The Nation).






Half of America has 2.5% of the wealth


http://static8.businessinsider.com/image/4bbcb3f17f8b9a562fb70000-547/half-of-america-has-25-of-the-wealth.jpg
Source: Institute for Policy Studies (http://extremeinequality.org/)







Half of America has only 0.5% of America's stocks and bonds


http://static8.businessinsider.com/image/4bbcb4527f8b9a4e2f9e0100-547/half-of-america-has-only-05-of-americas-stocks-and-bonds.jpg


Source: Institute for Policy Studies (http://extremeinequality.org/)







Look at the wealth gap grow!

http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4bbcb17c7f8b9a6218b70000-547/look-at-the-wealth-gap-grow.jpg
Source: Professor G. William Domhoff (http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html)







The last two decades were great...if you were a CEO or owner. Not if you were anyone else.


http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4bbcaeb47f8b9a812b5a0100-547/the-last-two-decades-were-greatif-you-were-a-ceo-or-owner-not-if-you-were-anyone-else.jpg







Real average earnings have not increased in 50 years


http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4bbcb53d7f8b9a2e1beb0c00-547/real-average-earnings-have-not-increased-in-50-years.jpg






And savings rates are sinking


http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4bbcb4d27f8b9ab517470900-547/and-savings-rates-are-sinking.jpg





Despite the myth of social mobility, poor Americans have a SLIM CHANCE of rising to the upper middle class


http://static8.businessinsider.com/image/4bbcbdbb7f8b9acb194a0300-547/despite-the-myth-of-social-mobility-poor-americans-have-a-slim-chance-of-rising-to-the-upper-middle-class.jpg
Source: NBER (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:hLQccPUpxxUJ:elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/kopczuk-saez-songSSA07short.pdf+inequality+american+dream&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgcZu5DTakWjtUfRD9uHwtfiCYKn-gxPkgAyDLX1TY1moE6kZwPaJZNt0Pf-SsRP3uwx9keJ6yh9P0F57A4kl0VXI-jtt_3sONluLBHhQmKucl88SxWqvWLPtCy64NfrDsKRzWG&sig=AHIEtbQp0IonNfjbKStXejGlx-w525934Q)







Republican tax cuts have significantly increased the wealth gap


http://static8.businessinsider.com/image/4bbca8ea7f8b9a7b16790400-547/republican-tax-cuts-have-significantly-increased-the-wealth-gap.jpg


Source: NYT







Meanwhile, income tax is getting lower and lower for the rich


http://static8.businessinsider.com/image/4bbcac9f7f8b9ad2290f0000-547/meanwhile-income-tax-is-getting-lower-and-lower-for-the-rich.jpg







America spreads its wealth FAR LESS than other developed countries
http://static8.businessinsider.com/image/4bbcaace7f8b9ad31a6f0300-547/america-spreads-its-wealth-far-less-than-other-developed-countries.jpg






America's income spread is nearly twice the OECD average


http://static7.businessinsider.com/image/4bbcaa2f7f8b9a0726e30400-547/americas-income-spread-is-nearly-twice-the-oecd-average.jpg


Source: Economist







The income gap is NOT growing in other countries, like France


http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4bbcb8787f8b9ab21b580c00-547/the-income-gap-is-not-growing-in-other-countries-like-france.jpg






Inequality is worst around Wall Street and Oil Land


http://static7.businessinsider.com/image/4bbca8257f8b9a0c26440200-547/inequality-is-worst-around-wall-street-and-oil-land.jpg


Source: The Map Scroll (http://mapscroll.blogspot.com/2009/04/is-us-becoming-third-world-country.html)







If you aren't in the top 1%, then you're getting a bum deal


http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4bbcabdd7f8b9a0b26b30600-400-300/if-you-arent-in-the-top-1-then-youre-getting-a-bum-deal.jpg

Normalized to 1979, the top 1% have seen their share of America's income more than double. The bottom 90% have seen their portion shrink.


Source: Afferent Input (http://afferentinput.blogspot.com/2007/12/if-america-had-100-and-100-people.html)

[CHE with an AK]

93 years later, and not much has changed ...



"America has become one of the foremost countries in regard to the depth of the abyss which lies between the handful of arrogant multimillionaires who wallow in filth and luxury, and the millions of working people who constantly live on the verge of pauperism. The American people, who set the world an example in waging a revolutionary war against feudal slavery, now find themselves in the latest, capitalist stage of wage-slavery to a handful of multimillionaires, and find themselves playing the role of hired thugs who, for the benefit of wealthy scoundrels ..."


— Vladimir Lenin,
Letter to American Workers, August 20, 1918


http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/aug/20.htm

[CHE with an AK]

"The war against working people should be understood to be a real war. Specifically in the U.S., which happens to have a highly class-conscious business class. And they have long seen themselves as fighting a bitter class war, except they don't want anybody else to know about it."
— Noam Chomsky



"From 1980 to 2006 the richest 1% of America tripled (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/04-7) their after-tax percentage of our nation's total income, while the bottom 90% have seen their share drop over 20%."
— Paul Buchheit, DePaul University



"Between 2002 and 2006, an astounding three-quarters of all the economy's growth was captured by the top 1% (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/17)."
— Robert Freeman



The economic top one percent of the population now owns over 70% of all financial assets (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/17), an all time record.


In the first full year of the recent crisis workers lost an average of 25 percent off their 401k (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gxz-S2c5uZHq2M70LJ6mfnyYBnyAD9BNGK700). During the same time period, the wealth of the 400 richest Americans increased by $30 billion, bringing their total combined wealth to $1.57 trillion (http://ampedstatus.com/during-economic-crisis-wealth-of-400-richest-americans-increased-by-30-billion), which is more than the combined net worth of 50% of the US population. Just to make this point clear, 400 people have more wealth than 155 million people combined (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/17).


Meanwhile, 2009 was a record-breaking year for Wall Street bonuses, as firms issued $150 billion (http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/02/05/150-billion-reasons-why-wall-street-loves-political-gridlock/) to their executives.


Source: http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/145705

[CHE with an AK]

http://celticrebel.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/brf5pyramid.jpg


"The American oligarchy spares no pains in promoting the belief that it does not exist, but the success of its disappearing act depends on equally strenuous efforts on the part of an American public anxious to believe in egalitarian fictions and unwilling to see what is hidden in plain sight."
— Michael Lind,
To Have and to Have Not (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/006.html)




Right now in the U.$. ...



Poverty


over 50 million (http://rawstory.com/2009/2009/10/americans-poverty-study-finds/) citizens already living in poverty.


there are now over 3 million homeless (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/12/un-investigator-us-neglect-homeless) Americans

over 50 million U.S. citizens without health care.

Over 60 percent of Americans now live paycheck to paycheck (http://www.careerbuilder.com/share/aboutus/pressreleasesdetail.aspx?id=pr525&sd=9%2f16%2f2009&ed=12%2f31%2f2009&siteid=cbpr&sc_cmp1=cb_pr525_&cbRecursionCnt=2&cbsid=c0d674c1d02e4f5ba2ff96fb164e0465-318455384-wo-6).





Hunger

over 50 million people who need to use food stamps to eat (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/16/AR2009111601598.html?wpisrc=newsletter), and a stunning 50 percent of U.S. children (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5huS1aDImykHCJxUuyNW-fbMSAbMA) will use food stamps to eat at some point in their childhoods. Approximately 20,000 people are added to this total every day. In 2009, one out of five U.S. households didn't have enough money to buy food. In households with children, this number rose to 24 percent (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60P65N20100126), as the hunger rate among U.S. citizens has now reached an all-time high (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/16/AR2009111601598.html?wpisrc=newsletter).




To stop the class revolution, the oligarchs are filling up the prisons ...

One place more and more Americans are finding a home is in prison. With a prison population of 2.3 million people (http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=16455), we now have more people incarcerated than any other nation in the world -- the per capita statistics are 700 per 100,000 citizens (http://www.prisonpolicy.org/). In comparison, China has 110 per 100,000, France has 80 per 100,000, Saudi Arabia has 45 per 100,000. The prison industry is thriving and expecting major growth over the next few years. A recent report from the Hartford Advocate titled "Incarceration Nation (http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=16455)" revealed that "a new prison opens every week somewhere in America."




But not to worry, because the capitalist oppressors are doing just fine ...

Of the 220 companies in the S&P 500 who have reported fourth-quarter results thus far, 78 percent of them had "better-than-expected profits" with earnings 17 percent above expectations, "the highest for any quarter (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-petruno30-2010jan30,0,5398030.column) since Thomson Reuters began tracking data."



Source: http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/145667




... How much can a population take before they rise up ? :che:

[CHE with an AK]

The U.S. public is already much more egalitarian than they realize (potential for class consciousness). The problem is they don’t realize the vast gap between what they believe the wealth inequality is and what it actually is!




Do Americans know their country's wealth distribution?

A remarkable study (Norton & Ariely, 2010) reveals that Americans have no idea that the wealth distribution (defined for them in terms of "net worth") is as concentrated as it is. When shown three pie charts representing possible wealth distributions, 90% or more of the 5,522 respondents -- whatever their gender, age, income level, or party affiliation -- thought that the American wealth distribution most resembled one in which the top 20% has about 60% of the wealth. In fact, of course, the top 20% control about 85% of the wealth (refer back to Table 1 and Figure 1 in this document for a more detailed breakdown of the numbers).

Even more striking, they did not come close on the amount of wealth held by the bottom 40% of the population. It's a number I haven't even mentioned so far, and it's shocking: the lowest two quintiles hold just 0.3% of the wealth in the United States. Most people in the survey guessed the figure to be between 8% and 10%, and two dozen academic economists got it wrong too, by guessing about 2% -- seven times too high. Those surveyed did have it about right for what the 20% in the middle have; it's at the top and the bottom that they don't have any idea of what's going on.

Americans from all walks of life were also united in their vision of what the "ideal" wealth distribution would be, which may come as an even bigger surprise than their shared misinformation on the actual wealth distribution. They said that the ideal wealth distribution would be one in which the top 20% owned between 30 and 40 percent of the privately held wealth, which is a far cry from the 85 percent that the top 20% actually own. They also said that the bottom 40% -- that's 120 million Americans -- should have between 25% and 30%, not the mere 8% to 10% they thought this group had, and far above the 0.3% they actually had. In fact, there's no country in the world that has a wealth distribution close to what Americans think is ideal when it comes to fairness. So maybe Americans are much more egalitarian than most of them realize about each other, at least in principle and before the rat race begins.
Figure 4, reproduced with permission from Norton & Ariely's article in Perspectives on Psychological Science, shows the actual wealth distribution, along with the survey respondents' estimated and ideal distributions, in graphic form.


http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j318/Tredcrow/2011/Figure_4.gif

Source: Norton & Ariely, 2010.

David Cay Johnston, a retired tax reporter for the New York Times, published an excellent summary of Norton & Ariely's findings (Johnston, 2010b; you can download the article (http://taxprof.typepad.com/files/129tn0251.pdf) from Johnston's Web site).

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

[CHE with an AK]

http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/227527_610692575584_56302626_33680402_1328389_n.jp g
Pictured: Rio, Brazil


The wealth inequality in the U.S. is much closer to Brazil/ Latin America than Western Europe ...



Income inequality in other countries

The degree of income inequality in the United States can be compared to that in other countries on the basis of the Gini coefficient, a mathematical ratio that allows economists to put all countries on a scale with values that range (hypothetically) from zero (everyone in the country has the same income) to 100 (one person in the country has all the income). On this widely used measure, the United States ends up 95th out of the 134 countries that have been studied -- that is, only 39 of the 134 countries have worse income inequality. The U.S. has a Gini index of 45.0; Sweden is the lowest with 23.0, and South Africa is near the top with 65.0.

The table that follows displays the scores for 22 major countries, along with their ranking in the longer list of 134 countries that were studied (most of the other countries are very small and/or very poor). In examining this table, remember that it does not measure the same thing as Table 4 earlier in this document, which was about the wealth distribution. Here we are looking at the income distribution, so the two tables won't match up as far as rankings. That's because a country can have a highly concentrated wealth distribution and still have a more equal distribution of income -- both Switzerland and Sweden follow this pattern. So one thing that's distinctive about the U.S. compared to other industrialized democracies is that both its wealth and income distributions are highly concentrated.



Table 7: Income equality in selected countries
Overall Rank / Country / Gini Coefficient


1. Sweden 23.0
2. Norway 25.0
8. Austria 26.0
10. Germany 27.0
17. Denmark 29.0
25. Australia 30.5
34. Italy 32.0
35. Canada 32.1
37. France 32.7
42. Switzerland 33.7
43. United Kingdom 34.0
45. Egypt 34.4
56. India 36.8
61. Japan 38.1
68. Israel 39.2
81. China 41.5
82. Russia 42.3
90. Iran 44.5
93. United States 45.0
107. Mexico 48.2
125. Brazil 56.7
133. South Africa 65.0


Note: These figures reflect family/household income, not individual income.
Source: Central Intelligence Agency (2010).




http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

[Mr. Cervantes]

Living in the United States as the working poor reduced to menial labor I can definately tell you that it's happening unprecedented.

[CHE with an AK]

Let's hope this spurs greater action on behalf of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie...

...But knowing the United States, it won't.
You may be right unfortunately - although I believe the capitalist class may be overplaying their hand somewhat in a Romanov-esque sort of way.

Another additional hurdle is that many of the working poor (especially rural-based) in the U.S. are the most reactionary and the biggest defenders of the capitalist system that oppresses them because: (1) they think it represents "freedom", (2) they believe that they might strike it rich one day and thus don't want to ruin their chance at a mansion, (3) they have been made to think that capitalism and Christianity go hand in hand as a religious package, and because of "prosperity doctrine" they believe that "god" rewards the righteous with wealth, (4) believe the right-wing propaganda against Marxism - even though they have never read Marx.




Living in the United States as the working poor reduced to menial labor I can definately tell you that it's happening unprecedented.
Do you think a class revolt is on the horizon? The underclass in the U.S. certainly has the arms to do so - however they don't have most of the infrastructure or organization to sustain a drawn out struggle as the vast majority of the media is in cahoots or owned by the rulers of capital. Moreover, they would be battling the most advanced weaponry and intelligence collecting services the world has ever seen.

[robbo203]

I think it is naive to suggest that mere repetition of the facts of inequality will somehow rouse American (or other) workers to do something about it or that their apparent complacency stems from the fact that they are not fully aware of the extent of economic inequality. On the contrary there is some evidence to suggest that paradoxically a relative worsening of their economic plight makes workers more conservative minded and more tolerant of wealth disparaties. Its what I call the "knowing-which-side-your-bread-is-buttered-on" syndrome. The poorer you become the more your feelings of insecurity and dependence grow. That is possibly why rubbing the facts of gross inequality in the face of workers may not actually help matters. It may actually be counter-productive. That is worth thinking about.

I question also some of the conclusions reached in this thread such as that increasing economic inequalities are the result of tax cuts to the super-rich etc. This is a superficial and frankly inept economic analysis which takes symptoms for causes.

One thing is for sure - you cannnot operate capitalism along egalitarian lines. It is essentially a liberal reformist position that maintains that inquality has got worse becuase we have foolishly given in to the demands of the greedy capitalists for tax breaks and that things could be so much better if only the government were to seriously adopt some "leftist" redistributionist policy. The underlying assumption here is that the government is some kind of neutral body that merely arbitrates between competing interests in capitalism. It is not. As Engels said the modern state is essentially a tool of the capitalist class and ultimately can only serve that class

Instead of looking to the government to solve our plight I suggest workers should look to ourselves instead . Forget about tinkering around with the tax system and the rest of refromist bullshit. That only sucks you into supporting the system by the back door.

Ultimately as old Charlie Marx said, it boils down to the relative strengths of the combatants in the class struggle. High taxes or low taxes essentially makes no difference. What matters is the workers share of the social product they alone produce.

While we cannot hope to escape our status as exploited wage slaves under capitalism, we can most effectively combat the consequences of this exploitation - to the extent that this ispossible -by recognising that our interests as workers can never be aligned with those of capital and by refusing to be drawn into reformist panaceas that see the solution in terms of "taxing the rich" and what not. That is just conceding territory to the class enemy in the first place - permitting them to exploit us and then taxing them afterwards from the proceeds of their ill gottten gains. And of course if you do that then it follows that to increase the amount of tax revenue at your disposal you have a direct vested interest in seeing to it that those ill gotten gains - surplus value - are themselves maximised and thus in increasing the rate of exploitation itself

[CHE with an AK]

I think it is naive to suggest that ... their apparent complacency stems from the fact that they are not fully aware of the extent of economic inequality.

Although you may be right, the study in post #11 seems to show that the American public vastly underestimates the disparity in wealth inequality.




That is possibly why rubbing the facts of gross inequality in the face of workers may not actually help matters. It may actually be counter-productive.
Wouldn't this view directly benefit the top 1 % who owns 40 % of America’s wealth? In my own experience I have found that when workers are shown the above charts and statistics etc - that some do become galvanized (even if they support capitalism in theory). Additionally, I have found that American workers do understand the inequality in places like Mexico - and when shown that the U.S. is heading there, some of them do wake up and take interest in socialism.




It is essentially a liberal reformist position that maintains that inquality has got worse becuase we have foolishly given in to the demands of the greedy capitalists for tax breaks and that things could be so much better if only the government were to seriously adopt some "leftist" redistributionist policy.
I agree with this. I only included the tax information because it was part of the overall cited presentation – and figured that most here would be able to see past it.

However, couldn't it also be said that "redistribution" might just be a starting point for full collectivization? Once workers see the benefits of nominal socialism they may be more likely to be open to the long and drastic path to communism?

[Mr. Cervantes]

You may be right unfortunately - although I believe the capitalist class may be overplaying their hand somewhat in a Romanov-esque sort of way.

Another additional hurdle is that many of the working poor (especially rural-based) in the U.S. are the most reactionary and the biggest defenders of the capitalist system that oppresses them because: (1) they think it represents "freedom", (2) they believe that they might strike it rich one day and thus don't want to ruin their chance at a mansion, (3) they have been made to think that capitalism and Christianity go hand in hand as a religious package, and because of "prosperity doctrine" they believe that "god" rewards the righteous with wealth, (4) believe the right-wing propaganda against Marxism - even though they have never read Marx.




Do you think a class revolt is on the horizon? The underclass in the U.S. certainly has the arms to do so - however they don't have most of the infrastructure or organization to sustain a drawn out struggle as the vast majority of the media is in cahoots or owned by the rulers of capital. Moreover, they would be battling the most advanced weaponry and intelligence collecting services the world has ever seen.




Do you think a class revolt is on the horizon? The underclass in the U.S. certainly has the arms to do so - however they don't have most of the infrastructure or organization to sustain a drawn out struggle as the vast majority of the media is in cahoots or owned by the rulers of capital. Moreover, they would be battling the most advanced weaponry and intelligence collecting services the world has ever seen.


Many of the poor and homeless in my area have turned to crime or looting to support themselves but unfortunately remain directionless to remain effective in fighting against the real enemies.

There is a lack of collective social cohesion and class consciousness.

Everybody in the United States is too individualized to know any better.

Some of the working class is involved in union protests or disputes but as many here might know in the state of Wisconsin within the United States they are practically seizing all power away from unions making them pretty uneffective.

[RadioRaheem84]

A lot of workers I've noticed pay no mind to the great wealth inequalities for some strange reason. They just think that as long as they can afford enough to pay rent and buy food, that the wealth inequality is fine as long as one day they can be rich too.

Many workers I know defend the inequality by saying that there is such a gap because there are so many rich people in the US, thus making America a land of liberty, and seeing nations with more wealth equality as being states where everyone is poor or just stuck.

[CHE with an AK]

There is a lack of collective social cohesion and class consciousness.
What are some ways that you believe this can be fixed?




They just think that as long as they can afford enough to pay rent and buy food, that the wealth inequality is fine ...
True. But there is unprecedented homelessness (3 million) and thousands of formerly middle class Americans are losing their homes and half their pensions every day in the U.S. Hell, 50 million Americans need food stamps just to eat (and history shows that civilization is always only 7 meals from full anarchy).

I think the country is reaching a breaking point - where it will either slip into class revolt or full fascist clamp down.

[RadioRaheem84]

The country is literally third world at the bottom level. I really do not know how anyone could argue against it. I know the term third world is a Cold War relic but in terms of wealth and income inequality, we're reaching underdeveloped status, at the bottom level of the American class system.

People are just not seeing it in full spectrum because of the major corporate propaganda system that constantly churns out the American Dream is still alive BS and tell people that they just need to work harder. Even working class Americans tell themselves this.

The situation is BEYOND hard for most people, yet we still take it.

The propaganda system in this country should be evident to people when hundreds of thousands of people are protesting in Spain over unemployment and loss of social benefits. Greece is experiencing major rioting.

Yet, in the States, we're too afraid to do anything, believe that protesting is beneath us or just believe that it's not that bad out there.

I want to apologize as much as I can for the American working and poor class because I understand that the propaganda system and life is just too harsh and strong to do anything at this point, but at the same time, it would be fair to say that a small part of the American public has just given in.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

How many working class people do you actually know? I don't know very many people who are content with their situation or think that they just need to 'work harder.' Working people realize they are fucked. It's hard not to when you're a paycheck away from homelessness. I think the majority of working people are just trying to survive. And if they don't join the latest reformist parade, it's because they don't see any hope in it.

Workers will fight back because they have to. Because the only alternative is destitution. Not because they were convinced by the latest issue of Socialist Rag Monthly. That's what happened in Madison recently. And if that fight didn't succeed, it's got more to do with a lack of experience and foresight; a perceived lack of options; and the treachery of the supposed "friends of labor" than some contentedness with the system.

[RadioRaheem84]

Good points but how do people even begin to fight this?

[CHE with an AK]

how do people even begin to fight this?
The oligarchs won't even begin to be concerned until they fear that someone might scale the walls around their McMansion.

However, since no devil ever cut off its own claws ... all American workers should get armed and organized in the meantime. :che:

[RadioRaheem84]

I think that the US was mostly scared of workers because there was a giant superpower arming rebellions and subversive units in other nations.

Now the US/Imperial West doesn;t give a damn about any movements or is all that concerned.