What made the big disparity in wealth?

The middle class is 1/3 of what it was when?

Poorer from what point of time?

 

"...and the poor are poorer..."

Taxcutter says:
Then we are all in agreement. LBJ's "War on Poverty" was a failure and should be terminated.

 

The richest of the rich are rich now than any time in history. You can comprehend that much, right?

 

They conveniently ignore that when the rich get too strong, you get a violent society like in the Middle East. They cling to religion, because Christianity is morally superior to Islam. Therefore, our rich controlling 100% of the income will never cause our poor to be violent.

 

And the poorest of today are richer than any other poor in history. The fact remains that the poor's standard of living on the entire planet remained flat for thousands of years until about 1700-1800. An African/Chinese/Russian peasant farmer in 1800 CE had almost the exact standard of living as an African/Chinese/Russian peasant farmer living in 900 CE. It wasn't until the advent of capitalism and globalization that even the standard of living of the world's poor started rising. Even the poor in Africa have cell phones (which one cannot deny, improves the standard of living). They have TV's. They have access to at least some modern medicine like vaccinations. Again, these improvements were not occurring before capitalism.

 

Entirely irrelevant to my questions. I was specifically asking about the statistics that backed up the statements that the poor are getting poorer and that the middle class is a third of what it was.

 

Failed Trade Policies Have Erroded the Middle Class


Free trade” agreements may not be intended to cause class warfare, but they have had the effect of further enriching the wealthiest in our country while driving many previously middle class citizens into subsistence-level service jobs. These agreements weren’t put into place by an outcry from a public begging for more trade, and they certainly haven’t been maintained because of it.

These agreements, which include NAFTA, CAFTA, KORUS and the WTO, have been put into place because powerful moneyed interests have pushed for them. Most Americans now oppose NAFTA-like free trade agreements, yet three more were approved at the end of 2011 and have since been implemented.

When the wealthy are taxed at higher rates, critics say this hurts job creators. Free trade agreements have the opposite effect: they allow “job creators” to move those jobs overseas, leaving much larger numbers of Americans struggling to find a decent job.

Meanwhile, those “job creators” use their increased profits to perpetuate the system that allows them to do this. They do this through making campaign contributions, hiring lobbyists and promising politicians cushy private sector jobs after they leave office. This kind of influence has pushed our country toward bad policies again and again.

With many billionaires paying a smaller percentage in taxes than their middle class counterparts, failing to raise their taxes would be an offense against lower income individuals. The outcry shouldn’t be about hurting job creators; it should be about rewarding job destroyers with new “free trade” agreements. The trade agreements we already have in place have destroyed the middle class, devastated communities, and helped deflate a once-powerful manufacturing base.

Despite all of this, in a masochistic orgy of self abuse we enact more of them. Are we going to learn our lesson or continue down this path of madness?

http://economyincrisis.org/content/failed-trade-policies-have-erroded-middle-class

 

Only North American middle class to grow in last 30 years was ...
www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/23/...middle-class-to-grow-in... Cached
Only Mexico’s middle class has grown over the past 30 years in North America, while income disparity has increased in Canada and the United States ...

 

Its not just that.

Research corporate person-hood. This goes back to the early 1800's in this country. This enables corporations to directly lobby government ans was te very first layer that created disparity in this country.

 

So, 'everybody is better as a result of crapitalism'? "Everybody", huh? Sounds like socialism.

 

Grab a calculator and do the math sometime. I haven't the patience to hold your hand and lead you around. You can see what there is to see, if you look. Gimme a break, dude.

 

Definitely makes me think.

The thing is though despite any numbers out there or their accuracy everyone sees the same thing. Many of us have parents who made good livings as carpenters, factory workers and so on. They at least made enough to pay for a home and a family. Those jobs are not paying what they used to, and the job market is incredibly insecure. People in life sustaining jobs are constantly under the gun. I don't think most of our parents felt the need to keep an up to date resume on hand like we do now.

Hopping from job to job is not working out in most peoples favor either. Wages are stagnant.

Compared to ten years ago we are buying less luxury items, cutting expenses and using less credit today. Most of us still have less money.

Maybe everything is the same, but it sure doesn't feel that way.

 

well it should at least be clear that the rich aren't controlling more and more perpetually, it's something that comes and goes in swings, but despite any policies it doesn't stay. The top 1%'s share comes and goes, but it's also worth noting that we're not talking about some kind of aristocracy that maintains their position. We have some of the best class mobility in the world, and those who are in the top 1% usually didn't inherit it. It's kind of old hat, but 81% of those in the Forbes 400 inherited 50million or less (you need over 1000million to be on the Forbes 400), and 2/5 on the Forbes 400 inherited nothing or practically nothing.

Industries change and it's often hard on the people in them when they change, but it's all for good. It's what is called creative destruction. Our losses in areas, like say carpenting, almost always open up new doors (with training) for better fields. I think we should have something akin to college loans for retraining, where people can get government loans that are subsidized during training and for six months after training, after which they pay a reasonable interest rate (like 6.8%).

 

I'm just curious where these new better paying jobs are. Seems like most new tech jobs, other than hard science ones, are being filled by low wage workers from developing countries or China.

The hard science ones are being filled by a few people here, but places like Japan and Germany seem to be educating their people a lot better in this stuff.

I don't think its a conspiracy of wealthy aristocrats, but I do tend to think the haves are pretty unaware of the real conditions in the US right now. Economic trends do go through ups and downs but I don't currently see any need that is going to make the have nots much richer. Of course there will be people who succeed despite everything, but if they are very very rare it doesn't add up to great news for most people.

I like the optimism though and I hear it enough from a lot of really smart people. I just wish I saw more of it.

 

Yes everyone is better off as a result of capitalism. I've been to some of the poorest neighborhoods in the world, and they have cell phones and tvs. They aren't spinning their own clothing (although some places they still are), they are wearing clothing that got to their country through capitalism. They have meds that wouldn't be there without capitalism. I don't see how people can look at history and not see a slow rising of the standard of living of even the peasants starting around 1800 and the industrial revolution and capitalism. Before that, it's not like the standard of living was up and down for farmers/peasants of the world. It was just flat, for thousands of years. What concept do you attribute to this rise?

 

By YOUR standards, that you apply to THEM, they're better off, is more accurate, according to YOU.


The filthy rich are much better off now more than any other time in history but, they still whine about taxes. I think THEY are spoiled and have enough. THEIR standard of living is better than ever.


If I toss you a penny, then you're 'better off' then you were before I tossed you that penny so, how far do you want to take this? Crapitalism is imploding society from the inside, and it's headed up by the corporate elite, the super wealthy, and the greedsters who NEVER seem to have 'enough'. If a penny falls out of the rich man's pocket while he's carting away the contents of the bank that everybody else needs, then we should kiss the ground he walks on, and count our blessings??? I THINK NOT.

 

Agreed with everything in this post.

Ironically, Marine.. I've debated with you on one issue: National debt. What makes you think this is any different? The uber rich are paying your politicians to push for austerity level spending cuts, despite our painfully slow economic recovery. We did the opposite during WWII, and that led to our once prosperous middle class. The rich don't want that to happen again.

 

Ya gotta love when people who don't know jack about history make comments like, "... x than any other time in history."

- - - Updated - - -

You know the Great Depression didn't start until 1932, right? And that was only after huge tax hikes, and the recovery was the slowest in our history.

 

Relevance?

 

Nor did it recover because of the war.

 

The worst and deepest recession in our history followed major tax hikes, and was prolonged by lavish spending.

 

It absolutely recovered because of the war. The war was great for the economy.

- - - Updated - - -

And was recovered through massive deficit spending during and after WWII.

 

The growth was short-lived, and after the war we had massive gdp loss. It's artificial growth that is not sustainable, and the effects of which are basically lost. But the debt remained.

 

All the growth is artificial. That's what you aren't understanding. "Artificial" economic growth is a flawed term to begin with. It is like "artificial" interest rates.

 

no they did not, the marginal rates were around 90% but the effective rate (what they actually payed) was significantly lower.. if they payed 90% then they would be making less money than the average income


[video=youtube;FC5Gkox-1QY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FC5Gkox-1QY[/video]


besides that, taxing the higher incomes more raises revenue, but doesn't directly do anything to create a stronger middle class