If you can provide a link to the sources you have seen it might help. I won't be surprised to find that a reasonable understanding of that caption turns out to be true, but I will still criticize it for being sloppy. I mean to say: is income disparity inherently bad?Your question to disprove their statement also doesn't take into account inflation.
About the caption beginning "almost all of the income ..." I only said it is not clear. I can't say if it is true or false, because I don't know what the author means by "almost all" or how "the richest Americans" are defined. It looked to me like the numbers behind the chart were adjusted for inflation, but I am not sure which graph you mean.Income disparity is the biggest (?) problem in the economy today because it tends to render moot any and all fixes to the economy that the Fed/whoever can come up with.
You are saying that income disparity is serious because it stops us from fixing other problems. What are the problems you would like to see fixed? If we could fix those problems and income disparity continued to exist, would it still be a problem?
I was just talking about the graph you posted in your comment. It essentially makes the point I was talking about, unless I'm missing something. It's true that "almost all" income growth (adjusted for inflation) has gone to the top X percent in the last 30-40 years. Sure there're semantics involved but the gist is that income disparity is very real -- true. Among other things! I mean ... I wouldn't want to be one of the other 90 percent, would you? Etc. Those others are ... long questions. Problems with the economy ... I mean, pick your poison. No jobs, no investment, the stock market is back to booming and yet look around -- is it working? Fed's impotent. But yeah, I think it's true that even if we could right the economy, as we have in the past, if it follows the current pattern it may only help the top ten percent. Probably already happening -- I hear JP Morgan's doing pretty well these days ... Joe Dirt is unemployed. People smarter than me have argued that income disparity isn't inherently bad as long as the low end is still a livable wage. The America of the 1950s, basically. No one complained about it back then, because everyone had a white picket fence. I'm not sure. While income disparity isn't inherently bad, envy certainly is, and one follows the other.You are saying that income disparity is serious because it stops us from fixing other problems.
Why stop at the 1950s, why not pine for the 1500s? Income disparity was even less an issue then, and most everyone had the same dirt floor. Envy is a real issue, and it looks like an interesting book -- thanks for mentioning it -- but I can't bring myself to feel sorry for someone when their problem is simply that someone else has more material means. Isn't having hot running water and three meals a day more important than to be earning at a certain percentile relative to your neighbors? There are simple theoretical ways to reduce income disparity. One is to cut everyone's salary in half. Another is to make Bill Gates disappear. Would either of these make the world a better place?I wouldn't want to be one of the other 90 percent, would you?
Are you serious? Households making $120,000 per year are in the lower 90%. There is a line of people at the border waiting to come and join the lower 90% of the United States.
Okay, wait. Wait wait. You seem to be arguing that we should fix income disparity by bringing some incomes down, while it seems to me more utilitarian to bring some incomes up for the same result. One is reducto ad absurdum, the other is what we've been trying and failing to do in the third world for years. So, 1950s > 1500s. You know what I mean. Income disparity is a problem in the sense that poverty is a problem. Inherently income disparity isn't bad if there is no poverty, but one tends to follow the other. Yes, but -- says Schoeck -- welcome to human nature and the root cause of all problems in the history of the world. Envy destroyed Rousseau's noble savage, etc. There's an old joke that I'm paraphrasing wrongly -- having "enough" is just having more than your brother in law. EDIT: I think we've rediscovered the thoughtful web.Are you serious? Households making $120,000 per year are in the lower 90%. There is a line of people at the border waiting to come and join the lower 90% of the United States.
Envy is a real issue, and it looks like an interesting book -- thanks for mentioning it -- but I can't bring myself to feel sorry for someone when their problem is simply that someone else has more material means. Isn't having hot running water and three meals a day more important than to be earning at a certain percentile relative to your neighbors?
But if it is such a big problem, any measure that makes it less severe ought to be welcomed. Thus, reducing the income gap by halving everyone's income would be seen as a step in the right direction, even if better solutions (like increasing the low salaries) exist. The fact that slashing salaries is obviously bad suggests to me that income disparity is not so very evil. As far as envy goes, as long as people are eating mud I could not care less about someone who feels sad simply because they are not the wealthiest people around. As for the thoughtful web, three cheers.You seem to be arguing that we should fix income disparity
Far from it, I am not convinced that it is a problem that needs to be fixed.You know what I mean. Income disparity is a problem in the sense that poverty is a problem.
Poverty is a problem, I get that. What is the connection to income disparity? Is it your belief that The rich get richer and the poor get poorer?