Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday September 29 2019, @03:55AM   Printer-friendly
from the I-forgot-what-the-plan-was dept.

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.

What Is to Blame?

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 29 2019, @04:56PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 29 2019, @04:56PM (#900396)

    Comparing Roman Empire era inequality to present is a very ill conceived notion.

    Roman Empire era poverty = no clean water, no private toilet, limited clothing, may or may not having your own housing, no reliable access to food and what food you do have is much more likely to be tainted, life expectancy decades less than the wealthy, and so on.

    Modern era poverty = your own place, air conditioning, clean water, plumbing, decent clothing, clean and readily available food, hoards of electronic goodies (tv/internet/smart phone/etc), your own car, and much more.

    It doesn't matter if the wealth ratio is 1:1e9999. The quality of life is what matters. Imagine in some distant future that the 0.1% are wealthy enough to own their own solar systems, while the rest of society are merely millionaires (in terms of present day spending power). Don't you feel bad for them?

    The focus on inequality, in and of itself - let alone when drawing such absurd comparisons, is meaningless. I think we ought focus on specifics of what people want that can be realistically provided given finite resources without creating unfair systems. For instance should a single mother who has no education, no skills, and decides to have 5 children be able to live a comfortable life and be able to fully support those children? Answering no is cruel, yet answering yes is a complete spit in the face to every person in a similar situation who, instead of irresponsibly pumping out kids, is working 40 hours a week to try to make a life for themselves where they can afford to have children and comfortably support them.

  • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Monday September 30 2019, @12:19AM (1 child)

    by deimtee (3272) on Monday September 30 2019, @12:19AM (#900619) Journal

    Modern era poverty = your own place, air conditioning, clean water, plumbing, decent clothing, clean and readily available food, hoards of electronic goodies (tv/internet/smart phone/etc), your own car, and much more.

    Yeah, right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbTSDuQET94 [youtube.com]

    --
    If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 30 2019, @07:55PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 30 2019, @07:55PM (#900966)

      Skid row (and homelessness to a lesser degree) is something entirely different than the poverty group. AP did a photo essay [apimagesblog.com] on it a while back. You're looking at very close to 100% rates of substance abuse and mental health issues. There is free treatment available but the vast majority do not accept it, or are resistant to it - going to a clean program only to go straight back to drugs right after.

      This is quite a different problem than the poverty group because the causes and solutions, if any exist, are going to be radically different.

      I agree with you it's an absolutely abysmal life. I also have no sympathy for people who ruin their life with drugs. I do have sympathy for those who have non-drug inflected mental health problems though. But what can you do for people that cannot be treated? Our things like anti-psychotics don't really treat people - it turns them into mindless zombies. It's the big reason so many people end up getting off of them, even knowing full well what they'll return to. In times past we had long term mental asylums, but this is also hardly a great solution and in today's society people would not accept it anyhow.

      You're never going to have a guy who throws his life away to pump heroin or smoke meth end up doing well. Give them a million bucks and they'll still end up right back on the streets soon enough. So I don't think you've provided any point of substance.