Portraying rising income inequality as some socially destructive force misses the point by erecting the means as the end. No-one works for an income, they work to be able to purchase the goods and services they need/desire. If we look at the period in which income inequality is rising we see during this same period goods and services once the preserve of the rich becoming ever more accessable to those of lower incomes. In the 70's for example a microwave oven was a status symbol, does owning a microwave oven today convince anyone youre a baller? Think about that huge chunk of change you laid down for your first pc and how today you could purchase one with 10x the performance for a fraction of the price.
rising income inequality would only be a concern if it arose as the consequence of some incomes falling at a faster rates than others. That there are individuals who have the sheer impudence to become more succesful than others is not only not a concern, its none of your business haters.
Portraying rising income inequality as some socially destructive force misses the point by erecting the means as the end. No-one works for an income, they work to be able to purchase the goods and services they need/desire. If we look at the period in which income inequality is rising we see during this same period goods and services once the preserve of the rich becoming ever more accessable to those of lower incomes. In the 70's for example a microwave oven was a status symbol, does owning a microwave oven today convince anyone youre a baller? Think about that huge chunk of change you laid down for your first pc and how today you could purchase one with 10x the performance for a fraction of the price.
rising income inequality would only be a concern if it arose as the consequence of some incomes falling at a faster rates than others. That there are individuals who have the sheer impudence to become more succesful than others is not only not a concern, its none of your business haters.
Yawn. Tepid "bootstraps" argument.
Yeah, the rich are rich strictly because they work harder at it.
Class inequalities are the product of other social inequalities rather than a difference in work ethic. Also, some incomes HAVE fallen at a faster rate than others. Go back and read one of the dozens of reports that all say the same thing. Moreover, the availability of "status" goods argument only makes sense if status goods were static. But as certain goods become more available to the masses, it's bound to create a market for more expensive goods that become the new, higher standard. Example: owning a television is no big deal but owning a flat-panel LCD, HD widescreen is the new status item. Once that become affordable to the lower classes, there no doubt will be another item that becomes the new "unattainable" status purchase.
Same goes for the service industry - there will always be a market for status services for the rich since part of what distinguishes the rich is precisely their ability to afford things others can't. Check out last month's Atlantic Monthly article on services for the super-rich (i.e. billionaire boys club level of wealth).
Also to reiterate: my major concern is not over income disparity but rather WEALTH disparity since the latter has much greater longterm consequences and implications.
Moreover, wealth disparity is definitely an example of how people with means did nothing to earn said means except being born into the right family. That has nothing, whatsoever, to do with merit.
Yeah, the rich are rich strictly because they work harder at it.
Which is exactly why we must eliminate the estate tax!
...oh, wait...
Well, still...the estate tax is, by semantic maneuvering, communism! Is that what you want, comrade? Well? Is it?
What do you say to say families that have had things like cottages, etc in their families for over a 100 years and then have to sell it because the tax is so high that there isn't a chance in hell they could afford the tax?
The people that aren't rich by any means, but now are force to sell it off to someone who is....
Portraying rising income inequality as some socially destructive force misses the point by erecting the means as the end. No-one works for an income, they work to be able to purchase the goods and services they need/desire.
Poverty is a relative phenomenon. If you don't recognize that poverty constrains individuals' opportunities to actually "work themselves" out of poverty, then you need to read up on your read ups. People do work for an income. It is necessary to earn income to purchase the goods/services of which you speak. It's just that the dispersion of incomes across the population is not a normal distribution. (See: previously referenced Census paper about the Nat'l Income Gini Coefficient across sex/age/race lines.)
If we look at the period in which income inequality is rising we see during this same period goods and services once the preserve of the rich becoming ever more accessable to those of lower incomes. In the 70's for example a microwave oven was a status symbol, does owning a microwave oven today convince anyone youre a baller?
See ODub's post.
Think about that huge chunk of change you laid down for your first pc and how today you could purchase one with 10x the performance for a fraction of the price.
A computer is a good example... Believe it or not, there are some without PC access in this country. That is not by choice. Try to imagine your day to day existance w/o the benefits of a computer and the internet. There is a lot of doubt in my mind that you would not consider your economic opportunity extremely limited if you did not have internet access. Have you looked at the shit jobs advertised in a newspaper recently?
rising income inequality would only be a concern if it arose as the consequence of some incomes falling at a faster rates than others. That there are individuals who have the sheer impudence to become more succesful than others is not only not a concern, its none of your business haters.
Again, see the census report. Look at the REAL income growth in this country. There has not been an equitable amount of growth across all income brackets. The highest incomes have grown faster as a percentage of themselves than those at the lower end, which have remained stagnant. It's baffling to me that in this day and age, someone with so much access to information can still try to back up the myth that people are poor by choice. That is such a static arguement that can only be adopted by someone who has never been negatively effected by poverty.
A computer is a good example... Believe it or not, there are some without PC access in this country. [/b]
Other than someone who is disabled, unable to walk and without transportation who are these people??
Every Library and Kinkos(along with about 100,000 other venues) offers access to computers for a minimal fee to free.
Some folks may not be able to afford a monthly Yahoo account that allows them to waste countless hours on BBS like this one.....but access to a PC is not a problem for anyone who wants to make the effort.
A computer is a good example... Believe it or not, there are some without PC access in this country. [/b]
Other than someone who is disabled, unable to walk and without transportation who are these people??
Every Library and Kinkos(along with about 100,000 other venues) offers access to computers for a minimal fee to free.
Some folks may not be able to afford a monthly Yahoo account that allows them to waste countless hours on BBS like this one.....but access to a PC is not a problem for anyone who wants to make the effort.
The "Digital divide" has narrowed (I think - I need to check current EFF studies) but it doesn't mean access is UNIVERSAL. People in many inner city neighbors have "access" to supermarkets but only by getting on a bus and riding for dozens of blocks out of the inner city.
A computer is a good example... Believe it or not, there are some without PC access in this country. [/b]
Other than someone who is disabled, unable to walk and without transportation who are these people??
Every Library and Kinkos(along with about 100,000 other venues) offers access to computers for a minimal fee to free.
Some folks may not be able to afford a monthly Yahoo account that allows them to waste countless hours on BBS like this one.....but access to a PC is not a problem for anyone who wants to make the effort.
Rock, I have students every single year that do not have a computer at home. Internet access at school is even very limited. Teachers are lucky if they have one operable computer in their room. If it breaks, there is no real tech support in the entire school district to come fix it. A couple years ago there was a group that was installing refurbished old computers for free to teachers. I once had 7 computers. I am now down to one that's at least ten years old and runs off of Windows 98! For two years I had no internet access in my room because the server on my end of the school didn't work and there was no one to repair it. The only consistent internet access was in the library, and the librarian was a tight ass and didn't really like kids so very few people went in there to use the computers unless they had to, and that was usually to type papers, not to surf the web for fun.
People that don't have a computer these days is definitely a minority it seems, but there are still plenty of people who are left out.
Comments
rising income inequality would only be a concern if it arose as the consequence of some incomes falling at a faster rates than others. That there are individuals who have the sheer impudence to become more succesful than others is not only not a concern, its none of your business haters.
Yawn. Tepid "bootstraps" argument.
Yeah, the rich are rich strictly because they work harder at it.
Class inequalities are the product of other social inequalities rather than a difference in work ethic. Also, some incomes HAVE fallen at a faster rate than others. Go back and read one of the dozens of reports that all say the same thing. Moreover, the availability of "status" goods argument only makes sense if status goods were static. But as certain goods become more available to the masses, it's bound to create a market for more expensive goods that become the new, higher standard. Example: owning a television is no big deal but owning a flat-panel LCD, HD widescreen is the new status item. Once that become affordable to the lower classes, there no doubt will be another item that becomes the new "unattainable" status purchase.
Same goes for the service industry - there will always be a market for status services for the rich since part of what distinguishes the rich is precisely their ability to afford things others can't. Check out last month's Atlantic Monthly article on services for the super-rich (i.e. billionaire boys club level of wealth).
Moreover, wealth disparity is definitely an example of how people with means did nothing to earn said means except being born into the right family. That has nothing, whatsoever, to do with merit.
Which is exactly why we must eliminate the estate tax!
...oh, wait...
Well, still...the estate tax is, by semantic maneuvering, communism! Is that what you want, comrade? Well? Is it?
What do you say to say families that have had things like cottages, etc in their families for over a 100 years and then have to sell it because the tax is so high that there isn't a chance in hell they could afford the tax?
The people that aren't rich by any means, but now are force to sell it off to someone who is....
See ODub's post.
A computer is a good example... Believe it or not, there are some without PC access in this country. That is not by choice. Try to imagine your day to day existance w/o the benefits of a computer and the internet. There is a lot of doubt in my mind that you would not consider your economic opportunity extremely limited if you did not have internet access. Have you looked at the shit jobs advertised in a newspaper recently?
Again, see the census report. Look at the REAL income growth in this country. There has not been an equitable amount of growth across all income brackets. The highest incomes have grown faster as a percentage of themselves than those at the lower end, which have remained stagnant. It's baffling to me that in this day and age, someone with so much access to information can still try to back up the myth that people are poor by choice. That is such a static arguement that can only be adopted by someone who has never been negatively effected by poverty.
Other than someone who is disabled, unable to walk and without transportation who are these people??
Every Library and Kinkos(along with about 100,000 other venues) offers access to computers for a minimal fee to free.
Some folks may not be able to afford a monthly Yahoo account that allows them to waste countless hours on BBS like this one.....but access to a PC is not a problem for anyone who wants to make the effort.
The "Digital divide" has narrowed (I think - I need to check current EFF studies) but it doesn't mean access is UNIVERSAL. People in many inner city neighbors have "access" to supermarkets but only by getting on a bus and riding for dozens of blocks out of the inner city.
My point: that's not really "access."
Rock, I have students every single year that do not have a computer at home. Internet access at school is even very limited. Teachers are lucky if they have one operable computer in their room. If it breaks, there is no real tech support in the entire school district to come fix it. A couple years ago there was a group that was installing refurbished old computers for free to teachers. I once had 7 computers. I am now down to one that's at least ten years old and runs off of Windows 98! For two years I had no internet access in my room because the server on my end of the school didn't work and there was no one to repair it. The only consistent internet access was in the library, and the librarian was a tight ass and didn't really like kids so very few people went in there to use the computers unless they had to, and that was usually to type papers, not to surf the web for fun.
People that don't have a computer these days is definitely a minority it seems, but there are still plenty of people who are left out.