Originally Posted By skinnerbox <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/01/1325155/-Rising-income-inequality-costs-middle-class-families-18-000-a-year">http://www.dailykos.com/story/...0-a-year</a> <> You can thank rising inequality for your stagnant income. According to a new report from the Economic Policy Institute, "if inequality had not risen between 1979 and 2007, middle-class incomes would have been nearly $18,000 higher in 2007." That's because the very top earners sucked up way more than their share of the income growth that happened in those years. Average household incomes grew by 53.4 percent from 1979 to 2007. But that didn't break down equally: The bottom fifth of households saw their income go up by 29.2 percent, well below the 53.4 percent average. Income for the middle fifth of households grew by a measly 19.7 percent. But how did people a little higher up, but not at the very top, do? A little better, but still below average: households between the 81st and 90th percentiles—so in the bottom half of the top fifth of the income ladder—had just 39.1 percent income growth. Again, well below that average of 53.4. So how far up do you have to go before you hit the average? The 91st to the 95th percentile almost got there, with 53 percent average growth. But they fell just short. Households between the 96th and 99th percentile seriously exceeded 53.4 percent, though. They had average income growth of 78.1 percent. That's nothing compared to the top 1 percent, though: Their income grew by 244.7 percent, close to five times the average. For the vast majority of Americans, income growth hasn't kept up with the average. It hasn't kept up with productivity. Instead, we get the insane wealth that now exists at the top, then a chasm, with what used to be America's middle class clinging to its walls by their fingernails. It didn't happen by accident, and it's not going to change because we ask politely. <> There was a bipartisan bill in the House earlier this summer which passed, addressing the need to bring good paying jobs home from overseas. It gave tax breaks to companies who brought those jobs home and even more tax incentives for hiring the long-term unemployed. What happened to the bill? It died in the Senate at the hands of Mitch McConnell, who kept it from reaching the floor for a vote. The Koch Brothers didn't like the idea of moving the economy forward with good paying jobs to help narrow the income inequality gap, so their puppet boy Mitch killed it. (In case you doubt Mitch's loyalty to the Kochs, check out the leaked recordings of the Koch Brothers' summit at a Dana Point resort earlier this summer: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/27/1325059/-Seven-Disturbing-Quotes-From-the-Koch-Summit-Recordings">http://www.dailykos.com/story/...cordings</a>) Why anyone in the bottom 90th percentile would continue to vote for Republicans who all worship the ground the Koch Brothers walk upon, is beyond me. Middle class and working class GOP voters: News Flash! You're not rich. You're never going to be rich. So why do you keep insisting on helping to make those who are rich even richer while screwing yourself out of a decent living and retirement?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***You're never going to be rich*** I'm convinced that most don't believe this, though. It's the only remotely logical answer, aside from the really hardcore "christian values" types who really don't care one way or the other about income equality because they're focused on other things. But most of those low income voters, blatantly voting against their own best interests? I'm certain they're doing so to "make sure it's all good" when they, eventually, end up stinking rich. Then they go out and pay voluntary taxes in the form of lottery tickets. Cause that'll work.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 You know that great line from the Don Henley song, "poisoned by these fairytales? " Too many Americans have been poisoned by the Horatio Alger rags to riches fairytale, which could also be called these days the lotto fairytale. It happens just often enough for too many people to believe that it could happen to them. Meanwhile, the numbers don't lie. The United States, the very inventor of the whole concept of upward mobility, now trails much of the developed world in upward mobility. It has been decreasing steadily for the last 35 years, but people refuse to recognize it.
Originally Posted By ecdc Mark Leggett, a great comedian on Twitter, recently posted: "I believe that people make their own luck in life. Anyone can achieve anything if they truly want it enough…" - Someone with rich parents.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf I have studied this topic a fair amount and, from what I have learned, the explosion of income inequality began with Reagan's slashing of the top income tax brackets. However, it appears that Reagan's actions also led to an explosion of innovation due to the high rewards entrepreneurs could then reap from taking risks. It seems then that we should seek a happy medium: a place where entrepreneurs stil have incentive to innovate but not act such a high expense to everyone else. Simply taxing the rich into submission isn't the answer.....
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I think a major source of the disparity in income comes from those with higher earned income having the ability and willingness to invest their money. The DJIA gain from 1979 - present is 1,951%. If you excluded income from dividends and capital gains from the data I think the difference in income growth for different household percentile groups would not be so strikingly unequal. Although earned income growth would still be higher among the wealthy, it would yield a considerably different picture than looking at all income.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Capital gains and inheritance should be taxed at the same rates as earned income.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>those with higher earned income having the ability and willingness to invest<< "I have to do that thing that rich people do where they turn money into *more* money." —Liz Lemon
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf <<Capital gains and inheritance should be taxed at the same rates as earned income>> I appreciate the sentiment behind this, really I do, but some of the consequences of doing this would be terrible. We, as a country, are at the forefront of innovation because we reward people for putting their capital at risk. Eliminating this incentive could have dire consequences for future growth in our country. Plus capital gains are not taxed as income in other countries, so there would be further incentive for the rich to house their assets outside the U.S. A better approach might be to further differentiate capital gains beyond short-term and long-term. For example, we should figure out a way to reward those who risk capital for the benefit of the country, economy, society, etc., versus those who merely risk some expendable capital in order to richer.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Minimum wage has clearly not kept pace with inflation since Reagan took office. Raising it to $10.10 as Obama has proposed wouldn't bring it up to the same 'real dollar' purchasing power it had in 1980, but at least it's a start in narrowing that wide divide in income inequality. So what do the leaders of Koch Industries, the Charles Koch Institute, and the Charles Koch Foundation think about the minimum wage? Check it out: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2014/09/03/3478289/koch-brothers-minimum-wage-fascism/">http://thinkprogress.org/polit...fascism/</a> <> In a newly released audio recording, obtained by The Undercurrent, a man identified as a top Koch strategist warned that an increased minimum wage could turn the United States to a fascist state. At a Koch Brothers-hosted secret strategy conference of right-wing millionaire and billionaire political activists in June, Koch Industries executive vice president Richard Fink apparently made the slippery-slope argument. After explaining that when he sees people on the streets, he tells them to “get off your ass and work hard like we did,” the man identified as Fink said that the culture of victimization is the ‘main recruitng ground for totalitarianism, for fascism, for conformism.” Raising the minimum wage, he claimed, would cost 500,000 people their jobs — a claim that has been disputed by some economists: FINK: We’re taking these 500,000 people that would’ve had a job and putting them unemployed, making dependence part of government programs, and destroying their opportunity for earned success. And so we see this as a very big part of recruitment in Germany in the twenties. When the Germans were crushed by World War I, the allies put a very strong settlement on that. They lost their meaning in life. And if you look at the rise and fall of the Third Reich … what happens is a fascist comes in and offers them an opportunity. He added that similar patterns were seen in “Lenin and Stalin Russia” and Mao in China.” Watch the video: [<a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnHDliL9FcM">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...DliL9FcM</a>] At the same conference, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) promised those present that if his party regains a majority in the Senate this November, the body will no longer waste time on “gosh darn” minimum wage increases. Koch Industries did not immediately respond to a ThinkProgress inquiry about the audio. <> So... "get off your ass and work hard like we did" is the solution? Only if you're lily white like they all are: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/02/jose-joe-job-discrimination_n_5753880.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...880.html</a> <> His name is José Zamora, and he had a routine. During his months-long job search, he says he logged onto his computer every morning and combed the internet for listings, applying to everything he felt qualified for. In the Buzzfeed video above, he estimates that he sent out between 50 to 100 resumes a day -- which is, in a word, impressive. But Zamora said he wasn't getting any responses, so on a hunch, he decided to drop the "s" in his name. José Zamora became Joe Zamora, and a week later, he says his inbox was full. As he explains in the video, "Joe" hadn't changed anything on his resume but that one letter. But what Zamora had done, effectively, was whitewash it. Although digital job applications would seem to be the ultimate exercise in colorblind hiring, numerous studies and applicants have found the opposite. Employers consciously or subconsciously discriminate against names that sound black or Latino, as reported by the New York Times. One much-cited study found that applicants with white-sounding names received 50 percent more callbacks than applicants with black-sounding names, a significant disparity. "I had to drop a letter to get a title," Zamora said, later adding, "Sometimes I don't even think people know or are conscious or aware that they're judging -- even if it's by name -- but I think we all do it all the time." <> I'm guessing that the 'magic' of turning his first name from "Jose" into "Joe" quickly wears off when he walks through the door for the job interview. It would be interesting to see if any company offered him employment after discovering his Latino heritage. As for the BS still being pushed by the top 1% for massive job loss by raising minimum wage... please. If a corporation can get by with fewer workers, no matter what their salaries, they will get by with fewer workers. Period. Doesn't matter if those workers are undocumented and getting $1/hr. If they can do without them, they will do without them. Raising minimum wage will not affect that. Billionaires like the Kochs don't want minimum wage raised because it will cut into their profits. Labor is already at the bare bones minimum in this country and has been for years. There is no further place to cut for industries that cannot outsource overseas. Raising minimum wage will also save the taxpayers major bucks by reducing the need for Medicaid and food stamps. And the billionaire oligarchs simply HATE that idea! They want the taxpayers to subsidize their massive profits by furnishing food and medical care to their indentured slaves working for non-living wages. This is all about THEM. They don't give a rat's arse about US. It's long overdue to raise minimum wage and vote out any politician taking funds from the billionaires like the Kochs to shut down government or stop voting for "gosh darn" bills that would improve the lives of the working and middle class, and save our environment from permanent destruction.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I'm always amazed more Democrats don't simply state - again and again and again - that the minimum wage has not even kept up with inflation. Raising the minimum wage is popular with voters, even a small majority of Republicans. It's a winning issue. And when you point out that it hasn't kept pace with inflation, that pretty much takes the wind out of the sails of any idea that there are two equal sides to this debate. The "but it would cause job losses!" argument is phony - it's NEVER happened, whenever the minimum wage has been raised - but at least it sounds like it might be reasonable to low-information voters. But when you point out that it hasn't kept up with inflation - and that therefore, a minimum wage worker is effectively working for even less than they did when it was barely enough to get by on in the first place - nearly everyone can see that that's just not right. Moreover, I think the Democratic leadership should push for a bill that not only raises the m.w. but indexes it to inflation. So we're not constantly falling behind, and having this same damn argument every few years. Of course, Boehner would never let it come to the floor and the GOP could filibuster in the Senate, but Reid would be smart, I think, to raise such a bill before the election. It's widely popular (something like 70% support) and introducing the new wrinkle of indexing to inflation would mean it would garner more attention. Puts the Republicans on the defensive and on the wrong side of a popular issue.
Originally Posted By hopemax Except when I have made that case, people just say the math is wrong. Or no one would have let that happen in the first place. Then they go right back to thinking that minimum wage employees in 2014 are in the exact same place as when they were a minimum wage employee in 1968. And it's only their lack or work ethic that is holding them back.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It's easy to show them the math is right. If they still reject it, then they're not interested in the truth, but only in holding on to their ideology. Call it the birther effect, and there's not much you can do with folks like that. Luckily, upwards of 70% of people think MW should be raised, including over 50% of republicans.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Luckily, upwards of 70% of people think MW should be raised, including over 50% of republicans.<< And yet, it likely won't happen. Massive majorities of Americans want some form of gun control legislation passed, but that can't happen either. As much as people who style themselves as pure, and above the fray of politics, want to say it's "both sides," it's really not. The Republican party has put itself in a position where its survival in the primaries depends on appeasing the fringiest, nuttiest people.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Exactly. Which is why I think the Democrats should make it an issue. Point out explicitly that Republicans are blocking something that you (and most people) want. If they're going to block it, try to make them pay for it.
Originally Posted By Tikiduck Talk about math. When I graduated from high school in mid seventies I took a summer job with a construction company that paid modestly more than the current minimum wage, around 8 dollars an hour. That was about 1000 dollars a month take home, when you could rent an apartment for 200 dollars, and gas was around 35 cents a gallon. Groceries for a single person ran about 200 dollars a month. Throw in 150 dollar car payment and there was still a 400 dollar surplus. On that income. you could even support another person in the household, comfortably. Low wage workers are now forced to live on roughly the same dollar amounts being earned by entry level workers nearly forty years ago, impossible. These Republican ghouls know exactly what is going on, it's really quite obvious. Still they constantly fight to tilt the balance in favor of those who already possess far too much. It's the insanity that comes with rampant greed.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Moreover, I think the Democratic leadership should push for a bill that not only raises the m.w. but indexes it to inflation. So we're not constantly falling behind, and having this same damn argument every few years. >>> The minimum wage is a fairly important piece of national policy, and what you say above makes a lot of sense. This begs the question: Why wasn't the above done during the two years that President Clinton had a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, or during the two years when President Obama had the same? One theory is that even more than solving the problem, the Democrats want to have this as a wedge issue going forward. As others pointed out in this thread, it's an extremely popular issue with voters, with even a majority of Republican voters wanting it raised. So it would be quite handy to have as a semi-permanent issue to point out to voters during election cycles, now wouldn't it? I'm not sure how much I buy into that quite cynical argument, but the question remains unanswered: why didn't the Dems fix this when they could have?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Because Republican politicians are not the only politicians rich contributors and ties to Wall Street.
