Wealth distribution in the US

[fhdz]

Which actual problems does this wealth distribution cause today?

Is this a serious question?

Yes. Not everyone is an expert on the US.

I understand. Most people from the US are not experts on the US. But if the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, which is absolutely and undeniably happening - all data corroborates it - then that means two things: 1) "trickle-down" supply-side economics are not working the way their proponents claim, because real wages for "normal" workers are either stagnant or declining vis-a-vis inflation and 2) this is causing the disappearance of the middle class, which means that the value being generated by higher levels of productivity isn't making it back to the people who are actually doing the producing.

Sounds like wealth distribution is a symptom, not a cause.

It's a symptom of inequality which seems to have been caused by a slow purchase of the lawmaking process by corporate interests for about 30 years now, yes.

Just trying to make sure people don't fix a symptom.

Well, that's why I was suggesting earlier (and I see, reading back through, that I missed a post where JR was arguing essentially the same thing) that the solution isn't necessarily more progressive taxation on the rich but rather fixing the laws and culture that have allowed the system to be run this way. Yi pointed out that fixing the structural issues wouldn't address the *current* inequality; it would only help to mitigate future inequality. I think the people advocating taxation as a solution are trying to address the current inequality without seeing how it fails to prevent the same-old-same-old in the future.

[fhdz]

It's a symptom of inequality which seems to have been caused by a slow purchase of the lawmaking process by corporate interests for about 30 years now, yes.

How dare you critisize free speech

Yeah, I love how people at the top of the corporate ladder have been twisting and perverting one of our most cherished national principles for their own ends like that.

[garbon]

Which actual problems does this wealth distribution cause today?

Is this a serious question?

Yes. Not everyone is an expert on the US.

I understand. Most people from the US are not experts on the US. But if the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, which is absolutely and undeniably happening - all data corroborates it - then that means two things: 1) "trickle-down" supply-side economics are not working the way their proponents claim, because real wages for "normal" workers are either stagnant or declining vis-a-vis inflation and 2) this is causing the disappearance of the middle class, which means that the value being generated by higher levels of productivity isn't making it back to the people who are actually doing the producing.

None of those are "real" problems in the sense that they aren't actually the problems that stem from inequality (I might be making less of a real salary then someone did in a similar role years ago, but my quality of life is still pretty high so I'd be hard pressed to note that as a problem). I think my link did better at actual problems that individuals/society faces.

I've made it about halfway through the article to which you linked, but it seems to be offering the more-detailed version of exactly what I said.

Actually, and I scrolled down closer to the bottom (as again most of that article said what you said which isn't really the problems per se) which speaks to declines in self-worth and increases in mortality. That's where the problems lie for society moreso than fewer people are now able to own their homes.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The poor aren't getting poorer, that's why there isn't actually a problem here. People can't point to countries like Venezuela or pre-Revolution Cuba, because wealth inequality is materially different in its societal impact on OECD/Developed countries versus developing countries. There has been some argument that real wages have "stagnated" in the U.S., but they've really more or less kept up with inflation since 1980. We went over this in another thread, and I pointed out that something no one on the left wants to admit is those wages even while they have not moved much relative to inflation actually buy more and better stuff now than anyone could buy in 1980.

Everything from super power computers, cheap cars better than the nicest Ferrari from Magnum P.I., and medical procedures and treatments people in 1980 would have killed for; this idea that the poor are getting poorer is largely unproven, and just accepted as an article of faith. [Wages haven't even truly been stagnant, average real wages are up 10% from the 70s and median wages are up 4%.]

[Berkut]

So your argument is that as long as the non-rich do not get less non-rich in non-relative terms, it is ok if the structure of our society concentrates all increases in wealth and income into the top 1 or 2% of society, ad infinitum?

So 100 years from now, the top 1% can own 90% of the nations wealth, and as long as people still aren't worse off in a non-relative sense than they are right now, that would be perfectly fine, or rather, why there "isn't an actual problem".

And can we reverse that?

Could we say, I don't know, 150 years ago, that if everyone today was only as well off as they were 150 years ago, but the wealthiest 1% owned 99% of the wealth, that would be ok as well, since the only way there is a problem is if the non-uber rich have an actual decline in practical standard of living over some nominal period of time?

What is special about whatever point in time you decide that the baseline for "this is how good the non-super rich should ever have it" to be set at? Why should we conclude that whatever the non-uber rich had in absolute terms of standard of living had prior to this latest radical increase in relative wealth concentration was a point at which they should just be happy if it doesn't actually go down?


Of course there is a real problem. The real problem is that throughout all human history, mankind has continued to become more and more efficient and capable of producing wealth. For some reason, in the US over the last several decades, while we have seen that trend continue (or even accelerate) the resulting created wealth has almost entirely gone to only a tiny elite class, while 99% of society has not enjoyed a reasonable share (or any share depending on what number you look) of that increase.

[Zanza]

Just curious what is a good number for this?  10%?  15%?

In a perfect meritocratic society where everybody has the same starting chance in life, you would expect 20% of the lowest quintile to reach the top quintile.

[merithyn]

Another fun map.

How many hours would someone need to work at minimum wage to afford a two-bedroom apartment in their state?

[garbon]

Just curious what is a good number for this?  10%?  15%?

In a perfect meritocratic society where everybody has the same starting chance in life, you would expect 20% of the lowest quintile to reach the top quintile.

Aka a society that'll never happen (/sounds like a nightmare) as people higher up the ladder aren't going to want such instability for their children.

[Habbaku]

Another fun map.

How many hours would someone need to work at minimum wage to afford a two-bedroom apartment in their state?

How does that define "afford"?  Surely other living expenses are added into that.

[The Larch]

Came across this the other day. Seems somewhat relevant to the discussion:

So apparently the easy way to guarantee upward mobility is to live on top of shale oil deposits.

Can't that be read also as some of the bluer regions having less difference between bottom and top quintiles? Getting to the top quintile in some of the bigger metro areas (NY, LA) must be pretty fucking difficult, no matter how many opportunities you have, while the same in Bumfuck, ND, should be much easier.

Maybe it'd be much more instructive to have the same map but with the middle quintile as target, rather than the top one.

[Zanza]

Working 138 hours a week to live in New Jersey? That's the American Dream.

[garbon]

Working 138 hours a week to live in New Jersey? That's the American Dream.

I don't know why a person on a minimum wage would have a 2 bedroom.

[garbon]

Can't that be read also as some of the bluer regions having less difference between bottom and top quintiles? Getting to the top quintile in some of the bigger metro areas (NY, LA) must be pretty fucking difficult, no matter how many opportunities you have, while the same in Bumfuck, ND, should be much easier.

Maybe it'd be much more instructive to have the same map but with the middle quintile as target, rather than the top one.

Except I think it is quntiles on a national level. Hence the text in grey about how top 5th is determined.

[Zanza]

Aka a society that'll never happen (/sounds like a nightmare) as people higher up the ladder aren't going to want such instability for their children.

It will obviously never happen as it is impossible to achieve same starting chance in life.

But I am not sure what sounds like a nightmare about a perfect meritocratic society. Everybody making their own destiny based on their ability sounds like a good thing to me.

[Berkut]

Came across this the other day. Seems somewhat relevant to the discussion:

So apparently the easy way to guarantee upward mobility is to live on top of shale oil deposits.

Can't that be read also as some of the bluer regions having less difference between bottom and top quintiles? Getting to the top quintile in some of the bigger metro areas (NY, LA) must be pretty fucking difficult, no matter how many opportunities you have, while the same in Bumfuck, ND, should be much easier.

Maybe it'd be much more instructive to have the same map but with the middle quintile as target, rather than the top one.

Read the map. The quintile definitions are not changed by locale.

Which can be looked at as a bit silly in and of itself. Even the rich in 3rd world hellholes like Georgia only make like, $14/hour. I think.