NationStates Jolt Archive

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/03/20/8371806/index.htm

It appears the income disparity between the poor and the "rich" in the US is becoming equal. Based on the reasons for this, is it a good think or will it mean a lower standard of living for all?

The difference in wealth is becoming equal? With what?

Anyways, I don't see this as anything indicative of anything. Until there is further research done, it seems too counterintuitive to just be accepted like this. A few outliers, a dodgy sample, bad economic performance for some large companies and you get a skewed picture.

I'm not quittin' uni yet.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/03/20/8371806/index.htm

It appears the income disparity between the poor and the "rich" in the US is becoming equal. Based on the reasons for this, is it a good think or will it mean a lower standard of living for all?
Yes I someone over the internet with no economics background will now answer this question which economists could only specualte on...



Serious answer: I don't know!

Well I don't plan on becoming a college educated desk-worker and as long as people get payed a fair amount for their services, I don't care what the rich/poor divide is.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/03/20/8371806/index.htm

It appears the income disparity between the poor and the "rich" in the US is becoming equal. Based on the reasons for this, is it a good think or will it mean a lower standard of living for all?

Progressive Politics in action. Making sure everyone is at the same low "standard". :rolleyes:

Progressive Politics in action. Making sure everyone is at the same low "standard". :rolleyes:
What has politics got to do with it!
Did you try reading?

Who cares about equality if everyone is piss poor? This isn't a sign of the poor getting richer, it's a sign of the rich getting poorer. As U.S. companies send their operations overseas, they eventually contribute to the downfall of the American dollar and, as a result, a lower standard of living for the American people who rely on foreign products.

hahaha, income equality is no where near equal. The article is just saying that after 30 years of the gap increasing there is finally a turn around and the gap is closing slightly. In the USA the richest 10% make 15.9 times as much as the poorest 10%, and the richest 20% make 8.4 times as much as the poorest 20%. Hardly 'equal'.

Who cares about equality if everyone is piss poor? This isn't a sign of the poor getting richer, it's a sign of the rich getting poorer.
If it is a sign at all. It doesn't talk about Middle Classes, but it does talk about the very wealthy. And those can lose their money in all sorts of ways that don't really indicate a grander economic picture.

As U.S. companies send their operations overseas, they eventually contribute to the downfall of the American dollar and, as a result, a lower standard of living for the American people who rely on foreign products.
But a low dollar also means that your exports get stronger. But that would of course require that there is an economy there that can take advantage of it. Companies fleeing the place because they're sick of having to explain procedures with picture books because their workers can't read isn't helping.

And the biggest threat to the American dollar is that people (and the government too) keep borrowing, but don't save. The only thing the dollar still has on its rival currencies is its good name, and if things go on like this, that will eventually take a blow or two.

And the biggest threat to the American dollar is that people (and the government too) keep borrowing, but don't save. The only thing the dollar still has on its rival currencies is its good name, and if things go on like this, that will eventually take a blow or two.

The average American is spending more than they're earning. Not a good sign either.

Progressive Politics in action. Making sure everyone is at the same low "standard". :rolleyes:
Ahem...you're aware that Republicans control the White House, the House'o'Reps, the Senate and probably the Supreme Court (depending on the issue, I suppose), right?

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/03/20/8371806/index.htm

It appears the income disparity between the poor and the "rich" in the US is becoming equal. Based on the reasons for this, is it a good think or will it mean a lower standard of living for all?
Yes.

1. Globalization is inevitable.

2. Many tech jobs can be outsourced.

3. Median income in most countries to which tech jobs are outsourced are lower than they are in America.

4. The more jobs are outsourced, the lower the pay will become for those remaining in CONUS.

The logic is inesapable.

We have essentially two choices: either stop outsourcing ( in which case the global economy will continue without us and eventually bury us ), or continue to involve American interests in the global economy including outsourcing ( in which case we will most likely be more closely linked to international wage scales, resulting in a flattening of the wage structure in America. )

Take yer pick. :)

Companies fleeing the place because they're sick of having to explain procedures with picture books because their workers can't read isn't helping.

You would not be a prejudice bigot would you?

You would not be a prejudice bigot would you?
Well, you get the message.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/25/opinion/25krugman.html?ex=1279944000&en=40e11f0fc3b8baa7&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

But my point was more about the sorry state of the education system (something Germany isn't exactly shining in either), using a little bit of hyperbole.

Ahem...you're aware that Republicans control the White House, the House'o'Reps, the Senate and probably the Supreme Court (depending on the issue, I suppose), right?
Yep. Don't like them either.

The average American is spending more than they're earning. Not a good sign either.

The savings rate calculation (like the GDP) has some gigantic flaws in it that make the savings rate appear artificially lower than it really is. As a result of the retiring boomers, the savings rate will go further and further negative since money withdrawn from retirement accounts isn't counted as income (even though it is) but the spending is counted normally meaning all spending by retirees is always negative.

The trade deficit is meaningless other than as an indicator of economic strength because exports are growing faster than imports...not to mention net foreign purchases are more than enough to finance the deficit. Overall, the trade deficit is a benefit to our economy.

We have essentially two choices: either stop outsourcing ( in which case the global economy will continue without us and eventually bury us ), or continue to involve American interests in the global economy including outsourcing ( in which case we will most likely be more closely linked to international wage scales, resulting in a flattening of the wage structure in America. :)

Pretty much; however, if outsourcing continues at its current rate, the wage structure in poorer nations will catch up to a point where it will become less attractive to outsource and the process will slow. Also, the countries attracting the most outsourcing are developing their own companies that are competing for labor and are driving up costs further.

Even so, hiring in the US remains pretty healthy.

Well, you get the message.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/25/opinion/25krugman.html?ex=1279944000&en=40e11f0fc3b8baa7&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

But my point was more about the sorry state of the education system (something Germany isn't exactly shining in either), using a little bit of hyperbole.

I agree with the point and accept the apology.

I don't have any answers to the article--more observations. I wouldn't get too excited about the gap closing, for starters. We're talking about a tiny change after thirty years in the opposite direction, so it could be that we've just hit a bottom as far as low income people are concerned. Plus, I wonder how that number would change if the top 20% was changed to the top 2%, since that's who has benefited most from Bush's tax policy. It's the people in that top 2-20% who have taken it the hardest from what I understand, the people making between $120K and $200K a year who have been smacked the hardest tax-wise in relation to their income level. I'd be willing to bet that if you look at the top echelon, the gap is still expanding, and rapidly, over the last five years.