SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Extreme policies lead to extreme outcomes.
Income inequality reached its highest level in more than half a century last year, as a record-long economic expansion continued to disproportionately benefit some of the wealthiest Americans.
A key measure of wealth distribution jumped to 0.485 in 2018, the Census Bureau said Thursday, its highest reading since the so-called Gini index was started in 1967. The gauge, which uses a scale between 0 and 1, stood at 0.482 a year earlier.
Work alone won't solve poverty—unless wages and earnings pick up substantially. It still takes government aid for families with children and others who do not earn enough, despite working 40 plus hours a week.
The most troubling thing about the new report, says William M. Rodgers III, a professor of public policy and chief economist at the Heldrich Center at Rutgers University, is that it "clearly illustrates the inability of the current economic expansion, the longest on record, to lessen inequality."
According to some research, US income inequality might be higher than it was during the Roman Empire, and pre-tax income inequality is as high as it was in the Roaring Twenties.
Income inequality is blamed on cheap labor in China, unfair exchange rates, and jobs outsourcing. Corporations are often blamed for putting profits ahead of workers. But they must to remain competitive. U.S. companies must compete with lower-priced Chinese and Indian companies who pay their workers much less. As a result, many companies have outsourced their high-tech and manufacturing jobs overseas. The United States has lost 20 percent of its factory jobs since 2000. These were traditionally higher-paying union jobs.
Service jobs have increased, but these are much lower paid.
If current policies touted as "decreasing globalism" in the US economy are trying to reduce income inequality, they're failing.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday October 12 2019, @01:27AM (2 children)
You don't know what words mean, Hallow. In order to be provided, or not provided, they first have to be acknowledged to exist. I am asking what is it that grounds these things in reality so that they *can* be acknowledged to exist, and then provided (or not). Am I using words that are too big for you or something?
Because if so, good: let's add the epistemology of rights. How do we know a right when we see it?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 14 2019, @04:29PM (1 child)
Caught you not using that brain again! Since we know these rights are provided by empirical evidence, that logically implies they have been acknowledged to exist. QED.
By semantics. I already gave the definition of a right.
It's funny how you ask these questions when the answers have already been provided.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday October 16 2019, @02:21AM
You aren't providing answers, Hallow. And now I'm actually wondering if your issue isn't willfully dodging the question but actually lacking the cognitive tools and/or firepower to engage with it.
Once again: you have not specified what makes this concept of "a right" different from "something I can demand and take from you due to threat of force." You also have not explained how we know in the abstract what such a thing would be even if at present ungranted/unrealized.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...