View Full Version : Inequality Is Ruining Our Country
Ahh The Simple Name
8-3-13, 11:20pm
Highlights from my blog post. See full post here: http://www.ahhthesimplelife.com/inequality-is-ruining-our-country/
This was inspired by an NPR program: The Fast Food Economy (http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/07/31/fast-food-economy).
I was also inspired by fast food workers' protests.
Inequlaity Is Ruining Our Country, and I Want to Know Why
In the United States, 21.9 percent of all children are in poverty, a poverty rate second only to Mexico's (among rich nations). One in five children (16 million) struggles with hunger.
"The International Human Rights Clinic at New York University’s School of Law has just released a new study, “Nourishing Change: Fulfilling the Right to Food in the United States.” They report that 50 million individuals—that’s one in six Americans—live in a household that cannot afford adequate food. Of these, nearly 17 million are children. Despite this, Congress is moving to weaken food security program funding, like food stamps." [From Amy Goodman's Time for a Raise in the Minimum Wage (http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/time_for_a_raise_in_the_minimum_wage_20130605/).]
The average CEO's pay is now $7,000 an hour - that's 350 time the average worker's. According to data compiled by the AFL-CIO, the average CEO pay at 327 of the nation's biggest companies reached $12.3 million. It's the equivalent of $7,000 an hour - 350 times the typical worker's pay of $20 an hour. Some CEO pay is much higher. For details of the "top 10", see: CEO Pay: Who Makes the Most (http://moneymorning.com/2013/04/19/ceo-pay-now-7000-an-hour-350-times-the-average-workers/).
"Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
The gap between the top 1% and everyone else hasn't been this bad since the Roaring Twenties. We are recreating the gap that gave us the Great Depression!
In 1928, a year before the US economy nosedived into depression, the top 1 percent share was 23.9 percent.
In 2007, the top 1 percent share of national income peaked at 23.5 percent. - See more at: http://inequality.org/income-inequality/#sthash.py5lRXSk.dpuf
“No person, I think, ever saw a herd of buffalo, of which a few were fat and the great majority lean. No person ever saw a flock of birds, of which two or three were swimming in grease, and the others all skin and bone.” – Henry George (http://inequality.org/quotes/henry-george/), American political economist (1839-1897)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The federal minimum wage over the past 40 years has not kept up with inflation. If it had kept up with inflation, it would be $10.74 instead of $7.25. Why don't we have a universal living wage in this country? Would this perhaps mean one less vacation home or yacht for one of those CEOs? If you have been duped into thinking that there would be negative consequences of instituting a universal living wage, then please read: Clearing the Air: Myths and Concerns (http://www.universallivingwage.org/).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How You Can Help
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
Support the fast food workers’ strike. Participate in the demonstrations. Use social media to express your support. Join other Tweeters using the popular hashtags “#iamfastfood” and “Poverty wages. #imnotlovingit.”
On August 1, Daily Show comedian John Oliver lampooned Fox News' absurd arguments against raising the minimum wage. Oliver's coverage lays bare the ignorance, mean-spiritedness, and unabashed greed of those who argue against raising the minimum wage -- it's something that everyone who cares about workers and their families needs to see (it's also pretty hilarious). Watch the video, sign on in support, and then share the clip with everyone you know. Follow this link: The Daily Show (http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/1306/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=8332).
To reduce outlandish CEO pay packages, “the best strategy may be to keep publicizing their pay to shame them - and the corporate boards that approve their compensation packages”. [Heidi Moore, economics editor at The Guardian, in Yahoo Finance's The Daily Ticker.] You can find several articles that document CEO pay. Find one of these articles, get its URL link, and share it on social media such as Facebook and Twitter. Here is a link to one of these articles: CEO Pay: Who Makes the Most (http://moneymorning.com/2013/04/19/ceo-pay-now-7000-an-hour-350-times-the-average-workers/).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Are Your ThoughtsDo you agree that inequality is ruining our country? How do you feel about what you have just read? Are you worried, sad, angry? Do you think that we need to move our country in some new directions? How? Why?
I think that inequality ruins people. I work mostly with people who have significant challenges, only one of which is being disenfranchised by the judgement of other people. There are so many ways to support and manifest inequality, and even more ways that it affects those on the receiving end.
All of this can be as complicated as one likes, but it is how we live day-to-day, and the choices that we make. Statistics and studies are interesting and are most likely important, but the only ones that concern me are the ones that I make myself, how it affects the people with whom I work and how it supports my community. I hold a large view, but a narrow focus.
I have never before posted on this policy forum, and it is probably one of the worst decisions I have, or ever will make here, but this, and related issues, are important to me, and so I am here, manifesting my completely simple viewpoint.
Let's deport the unproductive losers who aren't pulling their weight and contributing much to the economy. That will narrow the gap and reduce inequality. Or we could just ask everyone making a lot to move off shore and just leave the low wage jobs in the US. That would help lower inequality too.
Do you agree that inequality is ruining our country? How do you feel about what you have just read? Are you worried, sad, angry? Do you think that we need to move our country in some new directions? How? Why?
I don't think it is necessarily the inequality that is ruining our country, but rather that which brings about, fosters, rationalizes and often defends the inequality that is ruining our country. Inequality doesn't just happen. It is the result of application of power undertaken based on attitudes and behaviors of many in society. So it is those attitudes and behaviors that are actually ruining our country - attitudes such as callous disregard for others; avarice; self-centeredness; etc. Many in society pride themselves on their brutalistic, egoistic, or inconsiderate perspectives, and therefore inequality gives them the context within which to play out their us versus them scenarios counter to the moral obligations of living in community with others, the ethic of reciprocity, and the lessons of the Good Samaritan. The ascendancy of these callous attitudes does make me sad, and the pride about the antipathy for consideration of others does sometimes make me angry. Where have we gone wrong teaching our children about being human/e?
Did anyone ever expected to support a family on a fast food worker salary? I expect it wont be to long we will be pushing the #1 or whatever your order # is on a touch screen, then swiping a card and picking your order up at a window. Or swiping whatever you pick up like at the grocery store. We could probably still hear a recording asking if we want to up size the order.
People need to be working on skills that produce something.
attitudes such as callous disregard for others; avarice; self-centeredness; etc.
...
The ascendancy of these callous attitudes does make me sad
Different ways to cut the data but not really seeing your "ascendency" here.
http://www.nptrust.org/images/uploads/npe_gusacover1.jpg
Japan already has automated restaurants. We visited one where you place your order and pay at the machine. Go to a table and the server brings out the food. Nothing monetary changes hands (no tipping in Japan). The order is electronically sent to the kitchen. Worked well. She helped us with the machine since there were zero English or international signage on it.
It looked just like any other café.
I kinda saw some of this informally on our last family vacation. There was a family we had grown up next door to. This was Michigan and the dad was in the car industry as some type of exec. In the early 70's they lived next door in an upper middle class neighborhood. Some homes were nicer than others, ours was large but simple. They did have a cottage on a lake for vacationing and we didn't, but not too many differences.
In the intervening years my parents are solid retired boomers, our former neighbors have homes in a ski resort town in Colorado, a New York City apartment and a house on Lake Michigan they own and those are not cottages, more in the millions. I hear he got fired but that just means their luxury apartment will be in Chicago now. My parents wanted me to go visit them for a drink but that was awkward, we haven't kept in touch at all but my mom thought I was very interested in the difficulty they were having with plumbing in their new penthouse. I have reconnected with some people I grew up with in Michigan and I see how the majority are struggling with the huge income gaps and overall economy in Michigan. And I could be way off in one anecdotal experience,
Did anyone ever expected to support a family on a fast food worker salary?That's missing the point. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "An edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring." The point being that those who need to support a family should not be reduced to being a fast food worker.
I expect it wont be to long we will be pushing the #1 or whatever your order # is on a touch screen, then swiping a card and picking your order up at a window.Without a doubt, the radical shifting of work in our society, marginalizing the humans in the interest of profit, is partially the cause. But the larger part of the cause is the callous disregard shown by those who benefited from such shifting in their failure to conscientiously apply the power they gained to ensure that their profit built as many new, living-wage jobs as they converted through automation or transferred elsewhere through off-shoring. You'll hear a lot of rationalizations and other exculpatory claims regarding the obligations of those who benefit greatly from society's offerings, but recognize them for what they are: Rationalizations. Excuses for egoistic avarice and practicing the callous disregard for others. If there weren't people rewarding such rationalization, it wouldn't be necessary for society to have to fill the gap such self-serving behaviors leave behind.
People need to be working on skills that produce something.Tell that to Glenda Bell (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/taxonomy/term/22644/121023/america-the-gutted-glenda-bell). I think the matter would be better served by people working hard to build those aforementioned living-wage jobs instead of working hard at rationalizing greed and blaming the victims.
Different ways to cut the data but not really seeing your "ascendency" here. When you see things in only two dimensions, it is easy to miss the reality of three dimensional life. But heck, you want to look only at two dimensions, then look at these, instead:
http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/blog_income_shares_1979_2007_1.jpg (http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/09/simple-look-income-inequality)
This income shift is real. We can debate its effects all day long, but it's real. The super rich have a much bigger piece of the pie than they used to, and that means a smaller piece of the pie for all the rest of us. You can decide for yourself if you think this is something we should just shrug our shoulders about and accept.
It is easy, and perhaps fun for those who don't have those worried, to belittle and marginalize those that do carry the heaviest burdens of economic injustice. Easy, but not admirable.
the heaviest burdens of economic injustice.
That begs the question of whether there is injustice to start. Unequal outcomes are not always unfair. You correctly note that the world is changing. Value creation, which is what drives income, is now more a matter of thought than sweat. People may be roughly equal in their ability to sweat, but there are great disparities in the size and value of their thoughts.
And why do you feel such animosity toward people who don't live in your country? Surely the rest of the world is worthy of supporting their families too? Why would you want to protect global inequality?
That begs the question of whether there is injustice to start.Something which many people have a vested interest in not admitting, perhaps even to themselves.
Unequal outcomes are not always unfair.Life isn't fair. That doesn't mean it is right to revel in that fact, as you seem to be implying.
Value creation, which is what drives income, is now more a matter of thought than sweat.The callous disregard for the human aspect of value creation may be an excellent way of explaining the source of the injustice.
And why do you feel such animosity toward people who don't live in your country?I never said I felt animosity toward such people, but nice attempt at hiding behind a Straw Man. It is instructive though, showing clearly that you don't intend to engage in a discussion with integrity, but rather are looking for whatever means you can come up with to distract attention away from moral perspectives that you don't like.
but rather are looking for whatever means you can come up with to distract attention away from moral perspectives that you don't like.
Not distracting from the moral perpective. Here's the moral perspective:
http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/wp-content/uploads/Milanovic-fig-1.png
Your story is deficient because it only looks at part of the picture. Overall the changes to the world economy have been great for the working poor.
Our tax code is setup to benefit the top 1%. Why should I as investor only pay a tax rate of 15% on qualified dividends. When I invest in large cap stocks I have no say in the management of the corporation. Many working stiffs pay far more in taxes than I do. My effective tax rate because of tax free bonds and other dodges is only about 8%.
I am not in the 1 % but get many of the benefits they get. Tax the investing class at the same rate as the working class.
Our tax code is setup to benefit the top 1%. Why should I as investor only pay a tax rate of 15% on qualified dividends.
Because to be a "qualified dividend" that income was for the most part already subject to tax at 35%, so the total rate is more like 45%, not 15%.
My effective tax rate because of tax free bonds and other dodges is only about 8%.
And you get less of an interest payment on the tax free bonds, in effect transferring income to the government. Can't speak to your other dodges.
Your story is deficient because it only looks at part of the picture. Overall the changes to the world economy have been great for the working poor.
So what you're saying is that global economic equality is being increased at the expense of America's poor.
Wow I found the OP thought provoking and interesting... an important subject to tackle. What an ugly thread it is so far.
Two parts of the problem...well maybe three
Greed, apathy, elitism
I have an idea: lets perform IQ testing and then simply exterminate those that cannot keep up with the changes in workforce demands.
We can also further exploit those in other countries that are far more poor than we are to produce lower priced goods and maintain our lifestyles.... wait.. we're already doing that. Never mind.
We can also further exploit those in other countries that are far more poor than we.
Can you explain what "exploit" means in this context?
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/steve_clemons/shares%20of%20global%20middle%20class%20consumptio n.jpg
Got to say that I find these threads thought-provoking so thanks for all the viewpoints expressed.
Yossarian if a US corporation pays 35% in federal taxes they need a new CFO. Besides I look at the dividend a corp pays as income. I don't even look at how much it paid in taxes. I look at how much money I get in my pockets. Your argument is often put forth from the right. Those on the right need to look at what corporations actually pay in taxes.
>:("In an example of corporate welfare at its finest, AT&T effectively paid no federal taxes in 2011. In fact, thanks to lucrative incesntives and corporate subsidies, the telecommunications company walked away with a giant taxpayer-subsidized $420 million refund.">:(
http://stopthecap.com/2012/08/16/at-achieved-a-420-million-taxpayer-subsidized-refund/
Those on the right need to look at what corporations actually pay in taxes.
Oh, I'm pretty much in the middle, but I am familiar with what corporations pay.:cool:
It's not helpful to look at any single year or even handful of years. Tax and financial accounting differ and produce significant timing differences.
Ok, I've looked at At&T's 10-k's to see what income tax they've paid, going back to 2005. In no year did they even pay 10%, let alone the 35% that always gets touted as the corporate income tax rate. The biggest actual tax rate they paid was in 2008, when they paid just over $7B taxes on just over $124B operating revenue, for a whopping 5.6% tax rate. I would be surprised to find very many large corporations with significantly higher actual tax rates, but feel free to share some examples.
Ok, I've looked at At&T's 10-k's to see what income tax they've paid, going back to 2005. In no year did they even pay 10%, let alone the 35% that always gets touted as the corporate income tax rate. The biggest actual tax rate they paid was in 2008, when they paid just over $7B taxes on just over $124B operating revenue, for a whopping 5.6% tax rate. I would be surprised to find very many large corporations with significantly higher actual tax rates, but feel free to share some examples.
I'm not basing this on one company or any given year.
But as a quick note, we don't tax businesses on revenue. Taxable income is a net income concept. That means you get to deduct expenses.
See page 30 of the AT&T annual report: http://www.att.com/Investor/ATT_Annual/2012/downloads/ar2012_annual_report.pdf
Yes, they had $124 Billion of Operating Revenue in 2008, but they also had $125 Billion of Operating Expenses so they had a net loss for the year.
It looks like for 2011 and 2012 they had tax expense of around 30 - 42 % of net income.
But this is not about any one company in any given year or two.
ETA- But if it was :~), some amusing stats for those bad guys over in Big Oil
Effective tax rates for
ExxonMobil- 39%
Chevron- 43%
Conoco - 51.5%
But as a quick note, we don't tax businesses on revenue. Taxable income is a net income concept. That means you get to deduct expenses.
What an amazing loophole that is!
...
I really don't have strong opinions on the original posts and much of the discussion, but for the record, some of the expenses that big business and big oil write off may include huge budgets for political contributions and lobbying, and big oil has additional benefits of special tax breaks that are no doubt a part of their lobbying and political efforts. Also, from this article,
"The biggest three publicly owned U.S. oil companies—ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips—also paid relatively low federal effective tax rates in 2011. Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/26/us-usa-tax-bigoil-idUSBRE82P0DX20120326) reported that their tax payments were “a far cry from the 35 percent top corporate tax rate.” It estimated that ExxonMobil’s effective federal tax rate in 2011 was 13 percent, Chevron’s was 19 percent, and ConocoPhillips’s was 18 percent."
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2013/05/02/62098/big-oil-profits-and-tax-breaks-remain-high-despite-sequestration-cuts/
Maybe 2011 was just a bad year for big oil? The Rueter's link has some discussion about how the effective tax rate is calculated and why there is some divergence in the numbers that are cited.
What an amazing loophole that is!
...
So true. CEOs making a million plus their salary is an expanse. Even those who get fired that get million dollar severance pay, the pay is a tax deduction. >:(
Maybe 2011 was just a bad year for big oil?
It's hard to judge this stuff looking at one year. You'd have to look at longer period for all this to shake out in the wash. Most of the oil "tax breaks" are timing benefits, meaning they pay less in year 1 but have to pay more in later years.
Bottom line though is that the average American most likely hears "35% tax rate" and equates that with their own situation and thinks "wow! That's a lot of freakin' taxes!" But the reality is that comparing corporate income taxes to individual income tax is really an apples and oranges comparison. To say that corporations pay 35% is completely meaningless when compared to personal income taxes. Unless the person one is talking to understands how corporate income tax is fundamentally different from individual income tax and can respond based on that understanding.
Personally I'd have no problem eliminating the corporate income tax IF we then changed the tax code to consider all personal income equally. At the same time we could change the law to stop equating corporations as people, since as a post I saw on facebook so eloquently put it "I'll believe that corporations are people as soon as texas starts commiting a few to the death penalty."
gimmethesimplelife
8-5-13, 12:24am
I really believe that the way America is set up economically right now just does not work for too many of it's citizens. OTOH, I see hope in DOMA getting the ax and in that same sex marriages are legal now in 25% of American states, and that John Kerry recently stated that those with foreign same sex partners will now have the partner's applications processed no differently than if it were a male/female situation. So I do see some hope.
I just wish this hope translated into bills getting paid. So far it has not.
I worry as I really do believe if things continue sliding downhill while the very top class continues to obliviously prosper, some kind of revolution will take place. I never believed this until recently but the income inequality is getting too extreme and I can't come up with one reason that human nature won't repeat itself and why America should be immune from such. If one looks at history, whenever large groups of people are disenfranchised and downtrodden to the benefit of a very few at the top, eventually everything crumbles. I'm glad my mother, a lovely person, is 71 - I'm hoping she is spared dealing with this. Should I reach the normal male life span shown by actuarial tables, I rather doubt I will be spared.....Just my two cents.
gimmethesimplelife
8-5-13, 4:25am
I've been sitting here thinking of inequality for awhile and what comes to mind is when I visited Hungary in 1987 when it was still a Communist country. Now I will admit I only saw part of the whole picture as I did not live among the everyday people as I did in Austria that summer. On the one hand, it was amazing as what I was lead to believe in school was not true. I saw no beggars, I saw no obvious hunger, people seem decently but a bit dowdily dressed, and the streets were full of cars - just only three makes and in only a few colors. But still lots of cars. This to me on the surface at least is much more equality than I see in today's America.
On the other hand, it could be argued that those who take risks and succeed deserve to prosper and I'm not 100% against this way of thinking. My problem is how much more is it appropriate for those to make that succeed vs. the everyday people they have to hire in big enterprises to keep the everyday business going? The wage gaps in what an American CEO makes vs. an office worker working for him/her is to me an insult to human dignity and almost a disincentive to work that hard, really. I mean, when you look at the Grand Canyon size gaps in the take home pay - it's not hard to think why even bother trying to achieve anything? I fear there are those who fall into this line of thinking and I can't say as I blame them.
I've always been able to banish the image of better social equality in Hungary in 1987 by thinking - well, at least I have more freedom than these people do. And it's true, I was granted a visa to get into the country quite easily based on the fact that one of my mother's relatives married an Austrian insurance executive and that was enough pull to get the Visa apparently - but those I saw in Budapest could not leave the country anywhere near as easily as I could. Not to the West anyway. But now with the spying scandals, I question how free are we really? I have a sense I've lost some of the I'm freer than they are comforting thought. And I certainly have felt the wide gaping hole in social inequality a good chunk of my life, some it due to my background, some of it due to upward mobility becoming more and more inaccessible to the average person.
I don't know that I want Hungary circa 1987 but what the US has morphed into isn't working that well for many of it's citizens either. I don't have the answers but wonder in the future how this all will unfold and where the answers - if any- are going to come from. If things keep getting progressively worse and there is a larger and larger class of people with very little to lose, I worry for the future. I really do. Rob
Oh, I'm pretty much in the middleReally? That's funny, because on one side I've got neoconservatives attacking my responsibly compassionate perspectives, and on the other side Occupy protesters attacking my measured approaches reforming the system and returning balance to where it was a generation ago instead of what they want, overturning the system and reversing the imbalance entirely. I'd be curious to know who's sitting there to the right of your perspectives.
flowerseverywhere
8-5-13, 8:08am
every day we support all the inequality. When we go to the grocery store and buy cheap food, as opposed to locally organically grown food and humanely raised animals we contribute to this. We endorse the use of factory farming with lots of chemicals, antibiotics, and low wages. When you go to a big box store and buy a pile of cheap clothing from who knows where (try to find clothes made in the US) or cheap plastic toys you are supporting the cause and effect. I still remember the days when you could find towels made in the US, clothes made in the US and your main diet was locally grown food, or food shipped for a few hundred miles, not many thousand. When I read these types of threads I always think we have met the enemy and he is us. we have filled our lives and houses with piles of cheap junk that we proudly display, packing our garages, attics etc. and to top it all go to another big box store and buy plastic containers to store it all in, and sometimes storage lockers. No value is having a few nice things, just lots of junk. Kinda Crazy.
every day we support all the inequality.It bears pointing out that that doesn't take anything away from efforts that would tend to help reverse the trend and make things better for those most adversely impacted
So true. CEOs making a million plus their salary is an expanse. Even those who get fired that get million dollar severance pay, the pay is a tax deduction. >:(
And so are the $20/hour machine operator's wages, sick pay and vacation pay and the company daycare center and the employer contribution toward healthcare/insurance, continuing education and wellness and the employee break room with free coffee and the employee's hardhats and...
When I read these types of threads I always think we have met the enemy and he is us. we have filled our lives and houses with piles of cheap junk that we proudly display, packing our garages, attics etc. and to top it all go to another big box store and buy plastic containers to store it all in, and sometimes storage lockers. No value is having a few nice things, just lots of junk. Kinda Crazy.
Not sure if there is a direct link to inequality or not, but +1 for the statement anyway.
It would be interesting to follow a few 'struggling' Americans for 10 years and calculate where they would be if they stopped buying unneeded cart fulls of Walmart plastic and fast food and instead invested the same amount in Google stock. My guess is there would be less of a gap. In my mind a lack of education and opportunity is the cause of inequality. We can't expect people to invest in their futures in any kind of meaningful way if they come out of public schools barely able to read. We can't blame people for lining up for $.99 cheeseburgers when they don't have access to anything better for less than $8.99, if at all.
CEO pay is a strawman. It's meaningless in the big picture. I have Google in my retirement portfolio and have been quite pleased with the performance. If Eric Schmidt, Google's CEO, became extremely wealthy by producing those results for several million of us shareholders, fine. That is not the reason there are people struggling with poverty and hunger in the US. His money didn't come out of their pockets or for that matter out of mine. And considering he is responsible for the future of $300 billion or so worth of investment in his company I'd say he probably has 350 times the responsibility of the average employee so to be completely "fair" he should make a lot of money.
High profile targets like CEO's are used by the low imagination crowd to beat the "unfair" drum. What's unfair is having a peacetime military budget that could feed and clothe a nation and probably send most of them to college. What's unfair is that subsidy for food production goes to nutritionally deficient uber-agriculture rather than nutritionally dense local agriculture. The list goes on and on, but rarely if ever does it really have anything to do with what someone at the top makes. It almost always has something to do with the opportunity, or lack thereof, afforded those near the bottom.
.... Most of the oil "tax breaks" are timing benefits, meaning they pay less in year 1 but have to pay more in later years.
I'm going to have say bogus until proven other wise. The big tax breaks for big oil are depletion allowances and allow them to treat oil as if they were depreciating equipment so they can write off a percentage of each barrel produced. In other words, a gift from the government.
It makes absolutely no logical sense in the modern economy and is just a remnant of days long ago that has been perpetuated with oil lobbies in congress, which has allowed further tax write offs.
The big gift from the government to oil companies are drilling leases sold for pennies on the dollar. Without those there wouldn't be much income to tax regardless of which bracket they fall into.
I'm going to have say bogus until proven other wise. The big tax breaks for big oil are depletion allowances and allow them to treat oil as if they were depreciating equipment so they can write off a percentage of each barrel produced. In other words, a gift from the government.
Well, you need some kind of cost recovery system like depreciation for natural resources and depletion is it. If you want to limit the deduction to cost depletion instead of percentage depletion it's fine with me. But you'll have to stop tilting at big oil on this one, they haven't been able to use percentage depletion since 1975.
flowerseverywhere
8-5-13, 1:35pm
Not sure if there is a direct link to inequality or not, but +1 for the statement anyway.
what I was implying was that say as a loose example you find out you will be a grandpa and decide your gift will be a new crib for the baby. Your choices are to find someone who makes cribs and pay a nice sum of money knowing that this craftsman will create a family heirloom and make money to support his family. Your other choice is to go to a big box store for a piece that was made in some foreign country and shipped here, knowing that the big box ceo is taking a huge cut and you are supporting a system that does not pay living wages. You can also buy a shopping cart full of stuff for the same price as just one crib. Same with a local hardware store, more expensive but our local hardware store has employees that have worked there for 20+ years and wait on you. So we all make choices every day not to stand up and say I support the local economy and will only patronize businesses that I am sure are at least trying to do the right thing. I don't know how we can solve the problem of those that come out of school barely being able to read and write with no other skills. But I do know that the walmart and McDonald type jobs where workers cannot afford health insurance are not the solution. By the way, I have been reading many of those places now hire mainly part timers so they don't have to pay any benefits.
Well, you need some kind of cost recovery system like depreciation for natural resources and depletion is it. If you want to limit the deduction to cost depletion instead of percentage depletion it's fine with me. But you'll have to stop tilting at big oil on this one, they haven't been able to use percentage depletion since 1975.
The percentage depletion allowance was indeed eliminated for most of the big oil companies, but is still allowed for independent producers and royalty owners. It has been on the chopping block and apparently accounts for about a billion in tax credits. http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/26/news/economy/oil_tax_breaks_obama/index.htm
I recant only partially:)
I think Jared Diamond said it best in his book, "Collapse - How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed."
He talks about how the wealthy have a mis-guided belief that they can remain unaffected by the problems of society around them - instead, they "found that they had merely bought themselves the privilege of being the last to starve." He goes on to describe that he lived for 5 years in Europe shortly after WWII, and then married into a Polish family with a Japanese branch, so he saw first-hand what can happen when parents take good care of their individual children but not of their children's future world.
He said all of these parents - Polish, German, Japanese, Russian, British, Yugoslav - had bought life insurance, made wills, obsessed about their children's schooling, but their society ended up having children being orphaned, separated from one/both parents, bombed out of their houses, deprived of schooling, deprived of family estates, or raised by parents burdened with memories of war and concentration camps.
"The worst case scenarios that today's children face if we too blunder about their world are different, but equally unpleasant."
When you see things in only two dimensions, it is easy to miss the reality of three dimensional life.
I've lost track, which dimension does this cover?
The Congressional Budget Office's 2011 report on income inequality trends offers a more precise accounting, dispelling the notion that the past three decades have been characterized by the rich getting richer at the expense of the poor while the middle class stays about the same. The CBO adjusts market income by subtracting taxes and adding the cash value of social benefits. When households are then divided into five equal income groups, the data reveal that average disposable household income has increased across all groups since 1979. The average household income grew by 40% for the middle quintile and increased by 49% for the bottom quintile.
.....
And how has the middle class fared amid the changing mobility? One might judge not well when compared with the top 1%. But consider everyone else on the planet: The American middle class boasts the fourth-highest disposable household income in the world. The U.S. finishes behind only Luxembourg (a country of 500,000 people), oil-rich Norway, and Switzerland, which stayed out of both World Wars and imposes the strictest immigration laws on the continent.
The average U.S. family has 38% more disposable income than a family in Italy, 25% more than a family in France and 20% more than a household in Germany, when adjusted for purchasing power, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Inequality in the U.S. is not a struggle between the "haves" and the "have-nots," but a social friction between those who have a lot and others who have more.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304893404579532302731093252?mg=ren o64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB1000 1424052702304893404579532302731093252.html
One might judge not well when compared with the top 1%. Thanks for embedding a confirmation of what people have been saying to you, deep within what you quoted.
Regardless, it's quite an accomplishment to have found an editorial from which you could trim enough out of to totally insulate those, who wish to deny the existence of increasing economic injustice, from acknowledging that which was actually included in one of the paragraphs from the editorial, a paragraph which you conveniently omitted:
The CBO data also show, however, that the top quintile did much better than everyone else. From 1979 to 2010, the average after-tax income of the top 1% increased by 201%, to $1,013,100 from $337,700. The top 1% also took home almost 13% of all after-tax income in 2010. (Many of these families, though, are not ultrarich, as the starting pretax income for the 1% in 2011 was $388,905.)The first hint of this deflection in the excerpts of the editorial was how practically all of what you quoted talked about income growth and mobility, of the middle class, without addressing the actual point made, the distance between rich and poor - so a double deflection... deflecting away from addressing poverty, and obscuring as much as practicable the absolute difference between top and bottom. It is very common for those who try to deny the trend toward increasing economic injustice to try to get the middle class, especially the upper middle class, to think only about themselves, to become utterly self-centered, because a more socially-conscious perspective would tend to undercut the deflection away from the worst part of the problem.
The second hint of this was that what you quoted factored in the value of public assistance, to inflate the economic status of the poor. That adjustment, of course, is rather the point. Remember, the point of raising concerns about economic injustice is to point out the increasingly one-sided power-structure, fostered by wealth-driven power. In the context of rabid calls to attack public assistance, as part of an overall antipathy for poverty amelioration for the poor and lower-middle class, comparisons that need to factor in the value of public assistance actually make the opposite point: In other words, if those defending the current state of economic stratification need to defend against charges of economic injustice by saying, "Hey look - these people don't have it so bad, because society provides them lots of financial assistance," then that ratifies, and makes into an imperative, society providing lots of financial assistance to the poor and lower-middle class.
And even if they'd admit that (which they won't), it still is a patently offensive attitude: "Let us hold the strings on these puppets who's desperation we wish to exploit; let us keep tugging away at the foundation of the social safety net (even though we've used it, above, to rationalize how things are) as a means of incrementally making things worse for those most vulnerable in society while making things better for ourselves and those supporters in the middle and upper-middle class that we can convert to abject self-interest."
The objective isn't to increase the disposable income of folks who already have disposable income, which is what you're measuring when you measure a broad average of disposable income. All that metric does is obscure the harm inflicted on those who have little or no disposable income. Rather, the point is to increase the number of people who have significant disposable income. Economic injustice doesn't go away just because an upper-middle class person can afford a new car instead of buying used. It goes away when everyone can afford to pay their own way for the basics they need, and when everyone secure their own futures, preferably without relying on public assistance.
There have been substantially more thorough and balanced perspectives expressed than that Neil Gilbert. Paul Krugman's confirmation of Piketty's premises is probably the best (although, in reality, Piketty's work stands on its own, if people are willing to allow themselves to acknowledge its conclusions instead of insulating themselves from having to face realities that undercut the legitimacy of their own desires).
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/may/08/thomas-piketty-new-gilded-age/
Even though Piketty's work is relatively recent, much of what he put forward has been known for years. I can point to comments of my own that go back a number of years, similar to how Krugman summarized one of Piketty's conclusions:
... a dramatic shift in the process of US economic growth, one that started around 1980. Before then, families at all levels saw their incomes grow more or less in tandem with the growth of the economy as a whole. After 1980, however, the lion’s share of gains went to the top end of the income distribution, with families in the bottom half lagging far behind.
And the parallel between today's reality in the United States and the economic stratification in Europe just before is chilling.
I'm not going to rehash the entirety of the basis of Piketty's work and Krugman's summary of it. It's all there, in the provided link, including the equivocations.
deep within what you quoted.
LOL, not sure how you embed something deep within a handful of sentences but whatever.
As much as I'd like to join you in bashing U Cal Berkeley professors it's all really beside the point, the numbers are from the CBO. Just another data point for the "oh the middle class is so much worse off now than 30 years ago" crowd. Hmm, let's see... up 50%? Well OK then.
I think the worst part about your missive is that while it is well meaning it deflects the discussion from the real issue so much that it ends up being in the end harmful to the very people you (and the rest of us) want to help. The problems we have are not so much political as they are economic. I work a lot with international business. There are a lot of bright hard working people in the world. It is becoming increasingly hard to justify why un- or marginally skilled people in the US should continue to make more than harder working and often better skilled people elsewhere. It's resulting in convergence, with wages elsewhere going up (so much so that China is becoming too expensive) and downward pressure here in the US.
If you really want to help people you should focus on how we create a globally competitive economy and figure out a way to improve productivity for the at risk segment of the labor pool. That's the pressing isssue of the day. I'm not convinced the usual pablum of job training programs and the like is going to cut it. Anyone have any ideas?
If you really want to help people you should focus on how we create a globally competitive economy and figure out a way to improve productivity for the at risk segment of the labor pool. That's the pressing isssue of the day. I'm not convinced the usual pablum of job training programs and the like is going to cut it. Anyone have any ideas?
How about changing the paradigm to a locally/regionally/nationally cooperative economy and figure out a way to improve quality of life and meaningful work, as opposed to "improved productivity" (read: exploitation).
The problem with the money being in the hands of the 1% is that power is automatically conferred to the 1%, where everything can be bought and sold, undermining the government's ability to represent the 99%.
Yossarian
5-18-14, 11:49am
How about changing the paradigm to a locally/regionally/nationally cooperative economy
I'm not sure what that means. All business is cooperative. What are you proposing that is different than the status quo?
figure out a way to improve quality of life and meaningful work
Then all these income numbers and 1% targeting are irrelevant. There are plenty of low income people that have a higher quality of life and more meaningful work than high income people. I wouldn't know where to begin measuring that, but I do know I don't want the govenment trying to mandate or regulate it. Let people make their own choices.
as opposed to "improved productivity" (read: exploitation)
Either you don't understand economics or you have your thinking crossed.
The problem with the money being in the hands of the 1% is that power is automatically conferred to the 1%, where everything can be bought and sold, undermining the government's ability to represent the 99%.
I guess that could be true in theory. I haven't seen much evidence of it. Money is power but only to a point. We have a liberal president and up to a few years ago had liberal house and senate. If Obama and Pelosi aren't liberal enough for you I think your problem is more with the electorate, not the economic system.
I'm not sure what that means. All business is cooperative. What are you proposing that is different than the status quo?
I appreciate your responding to my post and not writing me off as a loon. It's true that I don't know a whole lot about economics, but I think I know enough about the basics to know that more thinking out of the box to make the existing status quo work better for everyone might do us all a lot of good.
I'm going to use David Korten's words to answer most of your questions. In short, I think that our current system, which everyone takes for granted, served us for a time, but given the specific problems we face it's time to move on. The real issue is, we're so ingrained in the status quo that changing how we think is understandably difficult to imagine.
Here's what Korten says:
http://livingeconomiesforum.org/sites/files/pdfs/Korten%20U%20of%20Oregon%20public%20lecture%20dist ribution%20version.pdf
The theme of this University of Oregon inquiry, “From Wall Street to Main Street:Capitalism and the Common Good,” makes an essential distinction between Wall Street and Main Street. These terms refer to two economies with dramatically differentstructures and dedicated to the service of very different values and interests. The fate of America turns on the outcome of a contest between proponents of these two very different economic systems. The greed-driven, money-serving, corporate-ruled Wall Street Economy measures its success exclusively by the financial profits it generates for the already rich. It neither acknowledges nor accepts responsibility for the economic, social, environmental, and political devastation it leaves in its wake. The democratic, community-rooted, market-based, life-serving Main Street economies that ordinary people are rebuilding across the nation and around the world measure success by their contribution to securing adequate and meaningful livelihoods for everyone in a balanced relationship to nature.
The differences between these two economies trace directly to their contrasting ownership models. The Wall Street economy features the absentee ownership of global publicly-traded, limited-liability corporations for which short-term financial profit is the sole measure of performance. It is a system designed to distribute wealth upward and risks downward and to facilitate reckless speculation and rampant fraud. Economic and political failure starts with Wall Street.
The Main Street economy features the responsible living ownership of locally rooted businesses by people who care about the health and vitality of their community and its natural environment. Real prosperity starts with Main Street.
Then all these income numbers and 1% targeting are irrelevant. There are plenty of low income people that have a higher quality of life and more meaningful work than high income people. I wouldn't know where to begin measuring that, but I do know I don't want the govenment trying to mandate or regulate it. Let people make their own choices.
Bhutan has been using a gross national happiness index that includes a number of measure such as physical and mental wellness, environmental wellness, education, etc. They sponsored a resolution that was approved by the United Nations defining it as,
"happiness is fundamental human goal and universal aspiration; that GDP by its nature does not reflect the goal; that unsustainable patterns of production and consumption impede sustainable development; and that a more inclusive, equitable and balanced approach is needed to promote sustainability, eradicate poverty, and enhance well being and profound happiness."
Though I doubt that it is measurable in mathematical precision, I suspect it is measurable to some degree. I don't see it as having much chance of becoming a critical measure in the consumer based western cultures, but it is an interesting concept and probably doable.
ApatheticNoMore
5-18-14, 2:50pm
Then all these income numbers and 1% targeting are irrelevant. There are plenty of low income people that have a higher quality of life and more meaningful work than high income people. I wouldn't know where to begin measuring that, but I do know I don't want the govenment trying to mandate or regulate it. Let people make their own choices.
I doubt many governments anywhere would restrict voluntary poverty. Poverty is often not voluntary and not a choice obviously. A high quality of life on a low income (and much more importantly on very LOW WEALTH because that's way more important than income) is probably much more doable in a non-urban environment (so that's probably the way to go) but there's a lot that runs against it in much of American society regardless.
If poverty was just poverty and having less - if poverty wasn't environmental discrimination (which neighborhoods are more polluted, rich or poor? Actually which areas of the country (read about Appalachia and the coal and the sickness and that's actually not urban). Which neighborhoods have more trees cleaning the air and doing all their other beneficial things, rich or poor? What are the rates of asthma etc. that are likely tied to the pollution concentrations in rich or poor urban neighborhoods?). If poverty was just poverty and wasn't legal discrimination. Who is less likely to serve time if they are accused of something, someone who can afford to hire a lawyer or someone who relies on the public defender? Not to mention if poor neighborhoods are treated differently by law enforcement. If poverty was just poverty and wasn't worse working conditions. Who is more likely to be treated badly by their boss, a minimum wage worker or a salaried professional? Sure it can happen in either but I don't think it's equally likely. Who is more likely to have more say over their work?
If poverty was just poverty and having less - if poverty wasn't environmental discrimination (which neighborhoods are more polluted, rich or poor? Actually which areas of the country (read about Appalachia and the coal and the sickness and that's actually not urban). Which neighborhoods have more trees cleaning the air and doing all their other beneficial things, rich or poor? What are the rates of asthma etc. that are likely tied to the pollution concentrations in rich or poor urban neighborhoods?). If poverty was just poverty and wasn't legal discrimination. Who is less likely to serve time if they are accused of something, someone who can afford to hire a lawyer or someone who relies on the public defender? Not to mention if poor neighborhoods are treated differently by law enforcement. If poverty was just poverty and wasn't worse working conditions. Who is more likely to be treated badly by their boss, a minimum wage worker or a salaried professional? Sure it can happen in either but I don't think it's equally likely. Who is more likely to have more say over their work?
Yes.
Difference between "Wall Street" and "Main Street":
https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1.0-9/10352778_765584786815715_3210773723597325936_n.jpg
As much as I'd like to join you in bashing U Cal Berkeley professors it's all really beside the point, the numbers are from the CBO.Incorrect. It was a specific tilt on the numbers, contained within a partisan editorial you liked.
How about changing the paradigm to a locally/regionally/nationally cooperative economy and figure out a way to improve quality of life and meaningful work, as opposed to "improved productivity" (read: exploitation). The problem with the money being in the hands of the 1% is that power is automatically conferred to the 1%, where everything can be bought and sold, undermining the government's ability to represent the 99%.Precisely the point. America has a "we" problem: Excessive fixation on the "me" by some.
I appreciate your responding to my post and not writing me off as a loon. It's true that I don't know a whole lot about economics, but I think I know enough about the basics to know that more thinking out of the box to make the existing status quo work better for everyone might do us all a lot of good.
I'd guess there are plenty of people who are willing to make changes if they make sense. So let's take this:
The Wall Street economy features the absentee ownership of global publicly-traded, limited-liability corporations for which short-term financial profit is the sole measure of performance.
I think bae and kib have both made similar criticisms in the past so you may not be alone on this one. What I'd like to see is an analysis of the costs of moving to an alternative system. In particular how much value is lost if you move away from economies of scale. Or how do you preserve economies of scale in your alternative system? There's a reason why most of us don't buy cars from a local car maker or rely on your neighbor's cousin for all your air travel needs.
catherine
5-18-14, 10:26pm
I'd guess there are plenty of people who are willing to make changes if they make sense. So let's take this:
The Wall Street economy features the absentee ownership of global publicly-traded, limited-liability corporations for which short-term financial profit is the sole measure of performance.
I think bae and kib have both made similar criticisms in the past so you may not be alone on this one. What I'd like to see is an analysis of the costs of moving to an alternative system. In particular how much value is lost if you move away from economies of scale. Or how do you preserve economies of scale in your alternative system? There's a reason why most of us don't buy cars from a local car maker or rely on your neighbor's cousin for all your air travel needs.
I don't know, but I prefer to start with exploring our values as a society and then working out the details on how to get there. If we value only the price of something then we are going to choose Walmart regardless of the social impact, or the impact to the local economy.
But I'll refer again to David Korten who suggests we replace indicators like GDP with other measures of economic performance: "We get what we measure, so let’s measure what we want."
His suggestions are actually at the end of the article I linked to above and are food for thought. Here is an article (http://www.yesmagazine.org/blogs/david-korten/7-steps-for-action-toward-a-new-economy) he wrote for Yes! magazine that outlines his 7 steps to get to an alternative economy.
I didn't see much in the way of real suggestions in that article. It also seems to me to be something of a side show. If you want change, look to yourself, not the global system.
I didn't see much in the way of real suggestions in that article. It also seems to me to be something of a side show. If you want change, look to yourself, not the global system.
Yes, you are right.. change starts with the individual.. as for me, I started a local food delivery service to encourage people to eat locally. My plan is to develop this as a worker co-op business, and expand offerings to include tool sharing memberships and other sharing services. The Sharing Economy is growing considerably these days, so it's a workable business model.
I also am using this business as a platform for experimenting with the gift economy. We'll see how it goes! I have a lot of colleagues who are also experimenting in the gift economy, with mixed results of course... it will take time to work out the kinks.
ApatheticNoMore
5-19-14, 2:37pm
I didn't see much in the way of real suggestions in that article. It also seems to me to be something of a side show. If you want change, look to yourself, not the global system.
It depends, I try to shop ethically as much as I can if that's what is meant. I think actually most people who care about the issues DO to the extent they can afford (but the affording part is tricky for many). So I think pretty much everyone who cares about such things is already there to *some* extent, but still whatever, noone's a saint and neither am I.
I wouldn't know how to start some local worker co-op if my life depended on it (nor would almost any of the people I know who care about such things - although I am aware of the existence of a few very rare such things). And I do know local small scale manufacturing that I could volunteer for (oh yes volunteer, does anyone seriously think I'd get paid any time soon). Nor would I frankly have the energy at the end of the day to start a whole new business, but I would have the money to help fund it. But I do see the routes to getting more involved in local politics (city level) if that's what is meant.
If you want change that's primarily about your life that's one thing, it's almost incredibly boundlessly difficult. But I don't think it's the main subject being talked about here. The subject I guess at this point is what to do about "holy heck the world is screwed up and going to heck in a handbasket, my goodness!" :)
A lot of people get pretty involved with the gift economy, the problem becomes that so many people are also being driven crazy just trying to survive economically and it's very hard to bridge that gap.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.