15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#the-gap-between-the-top-1-and-everyone-else-hasnt-been-this-bad-since-the-roaring-twenties-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.

And I suppose it is all Bush's fault. Of course, no blame to be laid at the feet of liberal politicians who are as much in bed with the wealthy as anyone else.

Interesting set of charts with only 3 short paragraphs to accompany them....

And here's one mind-blowing fact about wealth and inequality in America:

If you moved any of America's 'poor' to a Third-World country, along with all of their possessions, they'd instantly become one of the rich.

Another example of the desire for equal outcome trumping equal opportunity. It just isn't fair!

So conservatives do not deny the very high income inequality in the US? So what is wrong with equal outcomes? You find the current economic situation acceptable?

One of the charts corrected average hourly earnings for each year to equivalent 2008 dollars, and the headline of the chart says:

Real average earnings have not increased in 50 years

Well if we're adjusting everything to the 2008 dollar, then why WOULD it change? Is there something that demands the fellow driving the bread truck should just make more money just because? What is it that makes you think he should make more money for doing the same job?

That's not to say his wages haven't gone up, they have. The chart is saying that his AVERAGE corrected wages should go up - but WHY? Why must it?

So what is wrong with equal outcomes?

What's wrong with it is basing it only on existence, not on things like achievement, hard work, ambition, years of preparation, amount of risk taken, and many other variables.

Let's suppose there was a horse race and I wanted you to "invest" with me, take some of my risk, as I invest in a ticket. It's a $2 bet, I'm going to put up $1.80 and you put up 20 cents. The horse we bet on wins, and the payout is $10. Are you proposing that we should split the winnings 50/50? You risked 20 cents and I risked 9 times that, yet we should each get $5 because equal means fair?

I think you risked 1/10 of the total bet so you get 1/10 of the winnings... here is your dollar. You ended up with 5 times what you started with, and I'm somehow unfair to you because I ended up with 5 times what I started with? And because of this unfairness, I should receive - what - less than 3 times what I started with and you should get 25 times what you started with? How is that a fair system?

Would you be willing to pay their share of the tax burden in order to be fair?

[quote="Black_Rose, post:5, topic:203315"]
So conservatives do not deny the very high income inequality in the US? So what is wrong with equal outcomes? You find the current economic situation acceptable?

[/quote]

It generally means there isn't equal opportunity.

I noticed they didn't throw in the fact that the top 1% of earners pay roughly 1/3 of the income tax. How's that for 'paying their fair share'?

[quote="DOShea, post:6, topic:203315"]
One of the charts corrected average hourly earnings for each year to equivalent 2008 dollars, and the headline of the chart says:

Real average earnings have not increased in 50 years

Well if we're adjusting everything to the 2008 dollar, then why WOULD it change? Is there something that demands the fellow driving the bread truck should just make more money just because? What is it that makes you think he should make more money for doing the same job?

That's not to say his wages haven't gone up, they have. The chart is saying that his AVERAGE corrected wages should go up - but WHY? Why must it?

[/quote]

But hasn't communism been defeated twenty years ago and a hegemonic neoliberal economic regime without any powerful socialist or communist superpower acting as a counterbalance is the current geopolitical status quo? Doesn't the explosion of technological progress and free trade supposedly translates into economic progress and subsequently higher material living standards and higher real wages?

What's wrong with it is basing it only on existence, not on things like achievement, hard work, ambition, years of preparation, amount of risk taken, and many other variables.

I am willing to bet that you are a conservative pro-life Catholic. You probably believe that the "right to life" (which usually manifests itself as the right for a fetus' life to be protected from an abortion physician or its pregnant mother's whim) should be apportioned on one's humanity which is a relatively egalitarian belief. Should one accept that parent's have the right to base their decision to carry the child to term based on other variables besides the fetus' existence such as the burden of parental responsibility that they have to undertake or the child's projected adult intelligence (which correlates to his/her economic success in adulthood)? For instance, down syndrome has a profoundly detrimental effect on one's cognitive abilities and this is the mean reason why they are seen by many people as undesirable children to raise. In such a case, the decision to abort a fetus with down syndrome is not based on existence or the fetus' humanity since the parent's implicitly decided that this is not a satisfactory reason for maintaining the fetus' life, but on other things such as its projected aptitude and its future quality of life. If some Catholics accept your reasoning for economic inequality, why not accept the wishes of 90% of parent's whose infants were diagnosed with down syndrome to have an abortion because they do not respect the sanctity of the fetus' existence?

Let's suppose there was a horse race and I wanted you to "invest" with me, take some of my risk, as I invest in a ticket. It's a $2 bet, I'm going to put up $1.80 and you put up 20 cents. The horse we bet on wins, and the payout is $10. Are you proposing that we should split the winnings 50/50? You risked 20 cents and I risked 9 times that, yet we should each get $5 because equal means fair?

I think you risked 1/10 of the total bet so you get 1/10 of the winnings... here is your dollar. You ended up with 5 times what you started with, and I'm somehow unfair to you because I ended up with 5 times what I started with? And because of this unfairness, I should receive - what - less than 3 times what I started with and you should get 25 times what you started with? How is that a fair system?

Would you be willing to pay their share of the tax burden in order to be fair?

I strongly believe that the state (and its citizens) should taken on the obligation and responsibility of supporting the material welfare of its citizens. If that means a system of highly progressive taxes and reduced economic liberties, then I will be happy to pay if I can make a financial contribution that enables the state to undertake this burden effectively. To me, this is the most important political issue.

slide show is illegible but would like to know if they compared levels of consumer debt between 1928 & 2008, %of homeownership and other indicators.

one thing was true the and remains true today is that much of the middle class is one paycheck, one devastating medical crisis or one divorce away from poverty.

Wow! Talk about an overload of envy! One should not look at such things except under the direction of a spiritual advisor, who would probably tell you not to. Might as well have linked to a porn site.

[quote="white_sheep, post:11, topic:203315"]
Wow! Talk about an overload of envy! One should not look at such things except under the direction of a spiritual advisor, who would probably tell you not to. Might as well have linked to a porn site.

[/quote]

How is it envy to discuss economic reality? Why do you want to suppress rational discussion?

[quote="Black_Rose, post:12, topic:203315"]
How is it envy to discuss economic reality? Why do you want to suppress rational discussion?

[/quote]

Why do you want to sit around and look at how much wealth others have?

[quote="Black_Rose, post:9, topic:203315"]

If that means a system of highly progressive taxes and reduced economic liberties, then I will be happy .

[/quote]

Second plank, from the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto:

2: A heavy progressive or graduated income tax

Yo, keep it up. Because when the Manifesto finally wins out, all religion based on worship of the God of Abraham will become illegal, or state controlled. Then you will be worshiping Kim Jong as your God.

[quote="Black_Rose, post:9, topic:203315"]

If some Catholics accept your reasoning for economic inequality, why not accept the wishes of 90% of parent's whose infants were diagnosed with down syndrome to have an abortion because they do not respect the sanctity of the fetus' existence?

[/quote]

Perhaps you have missed the concept of "Money" and the concept of "Life". They are not the same thing.

I can't stuff a little child in my wallet.

But I can stuff the dollar bills in there, that is provided the communists let me keep my hard earned wages. Which apparently is viewed as evil nowadays.

Oh, my brother Job has already been through all this. Satan the chief communist took away all his hard earned income and wages, and property, and even his children.

But hurray for God, he restored his "Fortunes" and made him richer then he was before - I repeat "RICHER".

[quote="Chipper, post:15, topic:203315"]

I can't stuff a little child in my wallet.

[/quote]

Based on the amount of stuff in my wife's wallet I'd wager that she could fit a child in there.

[quote="Chipper, post:14, topic:203315"]
Second plank, from the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto:

2: A heavy progressive or graduated income tax

Yo, keep it up. Because when the Manifesto finally wins out, all religion based on worship of the God of Abraham will become illegal, or state controlled. Then you will be worshiping Kim Jong as your God.

[/quote]

So it is bad because communists like Karl Marx advocated it? Never mind the US was prosperous in the 1950s and had a highly progressive income tax (showed in the graphs) and that Western European countries have a similar tax regime and have high material living standards.

[quote="Chipper, post:15, topic:203315"]
Perhaps you have missed the concept of "Money" and the concept of "Life". They are not the same thing.

I can't stuff a little child in my wallet.

But I can stuff the dollar bills in there, that is provided the communists let me keep my hard earned wages. Which apparently is viewed as evil nowadays.

Oh, my brother Job has already been through all this. Satan the chief communist took away all his hard earned income and wages, and property, and even his children.

But hurray for God, he restored his "Fortunes" and made him richer then he was before - I repeat "RICHER".

[/quote]

Satan is a communist? I do not believe it!! :confused:

The main point is that if one accepts human differences as a reason to justify the current regime of income inequality, then one could use the same argument (invoking human differences in traits with an inegalitarian distribution in the population) to argue that different fetus do not share the same right to life because they possess different traits of significant importance. Therefore it would be acceptable to discriminate fetuses on the basis of these important characteristics. In the case of down syndrome, they have an extra 21st chromosome, which detrimentally affects their phenotypic intelligence (a socially valued trait) during their development and adulthood. (There are other consequentialist reasons to justify income inequality in general, although some of these arguments also reject the current income distribution as suboptimal).

So why should the "right to life" only take into account human existence, not other important traits of the fetus (or traits that lack)?

Regarding Karl Marx, I want to use the argumentum ad Hitlerum just like you used argumentum ad Marxum :) :

Here is Hitler speaking to a group of industrialists in Düsseldorf in 1932:

[quote]
You maintain, gentlemen, that the German economy must be constructed on the basis of private property. Now such a conception of private property can only be maintained in practice if it in some way appears to have a logical foundation. This conception must derive its ethical justification from the insight that this is what nature dictates.

If the first half of Hitler's economic views celebrates the romantic genius of the individual industrialist, the second spells out the inegalitarian implications of the first. Once we recognize "the outstanding achievements of individuals," Hitler says in Düsseldorf, we must conclude that "people are not of equal value or of equal importance." Private property "can be morally and ethically justified only if [we] admit that men's achievements are different." An understanding of nature fosters a respect for the heroic individual, which fosters an appreciation of inequality in its most vicious guise. "The creative and decomposing forces in a people always fight against one another."
[/quote]

alternet.org/media/147133/like_glenn_beck,ayn_rand_peddled_garbage_as_truth--_why_did_america_buy_it/?page=entire

I guess Adolf Hitler advocated the institution private property (and income inequality), so private property must be evil.

Similarly, since Chipper argue that since Marx advocated high taxes, high taxes must be evil

[quote="Black_Rose, post:17, topic:203315"]
So it is bad because communists like Karl Marx advocated it?

[/quote]

Well, in a way yes, but more so because you are advocating it.

[quote="Black_Rose, post:17, topic:203315"]

Never mind the US was prosperous in the 1950s and had a highly progressive income tax (showed in the graphs)

[/quote]

Oh I mind, yes I do.

This graph just shows that we are being taken over by the commies, and have been for a hundred years. It is just proof that this Step By Step process is an ongoing process.

[quote="Black_Rose, post:17, topic:203315"]

and that Western European countries have a similar tax regime and have high material living standards.

[/quote]

Compared to what? I have lived in Europe and I have recently visited Europe. NO THANKS - their high material standards suck.

[quote="Black_Rose, post:5, topic:203315"]
So conservatives do not deny the very high income inequality in the US? So what is wrong with equal outcomes? You find the current economic situation acceptable?

[/quote]

well, if the outcomes are guaranteed to be equal, nobody has to try, produce or anything

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.