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: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday September 29 2019, @07:12PM (9 children)
We have a petition process for putting anybody we want on the ballot. Just needs lots of voters to participate. Unfortunately they would rather sit and let mass media spoon feed them. Easier to complain apparently.
To tell the truth, congress should be like jury duty, in and out, nobody gets hurt. It can't be worse than what we are doing now.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 29 2019, @11:24PM (3 children)
You sure? Wanna bet?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday September 30 2019, @12:05AM (2 children)
Sure! Bet ya a dollar! Let's do it!
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 30 2019, @08:22AM (1 child)
Naw, not gonna get outta bed for one dolla.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday September 30 2019, @03:48PM
Why? You would only lose a dollar...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday September 30 2019, @06:59PM (4 children)
Congress _should_ be like jury duty, except - you'd need a couple of years experience to actually do a decent job, maybe 6-12 months OJT, followed by 1-2 years of active service to make the OJT worthwhile. Kinda hard on the day-job that lost you, but it would be a rare hit, maybe 1/100,000 lifetime chance.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday September 30 2019, @07:22PM (3 children)
I would recommend basic combat training at Parris Island. The ones that don't wash out can handle the job. And we won't have to look at such greasy slobs on the TV.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday September 30 2019, @07:44PM (2 children)
Even more than that: there should be a cross-section of ages represented in Congress. If we're going to have a draft, make sure that the demographics of Congress more-or-less align with the demographics of the country, from age 18 through 80.
Requirements for basic education, lack of senility, at least average command of the English language, and we're done, pick the Congress by draft, maybe throw in the option for 2 re-elections - if the constituents like what the draftee is doing, they can stay for up to 6 years, otherwise a new one is picked at random. Same for the 6 year senate terms, previous congress critters can run for the senate, but they always run against a draft option on the ballot - should the voters know who the draftee will be? I don't think so.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday September 30 2019, @08:18PM (1 child)
previous congress critters can run for the senate
Absolutely not... any desire for the job, and they are immediately disqualified. They have to understand, they do the gig, and then it's back to the farm. All guts, no glory. Enjoying the benefits of a well run society will be their reward.
if the constituents like what the draftee is doing, they can stay for up to 6 years
It would have to be a real consensus, not a mere majority, 85% in favor at least. I prefer the fast turnaround. It'll cut down on the slackers.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday September 30 2019, @10:24PM
I think there's some benefit in the carrot of re-election, steering a representative to do what the people want not just what the rep thinks is best, and that should be balanced with some lame duckishness.
Also, I'd expect a lot of draftee congress critters to step down and not seek re-election, just because they're done with living in Washington D.C.
🌻🌻 [google.com]