As long as the proportion of society that is rich in absolute terms keeps growing (which it is)....?

Question

does it matter that a handful of people are also becoming "super rich?"

As long as the pie is growing such that we all have more pie, does it matter that the percent of the pie to which title is held by the top 1%, 5%, whatever, is also growing?

And what's the alternative?

Throughout history we've never, sustainably (i.e., for any long time and not the temporary result of monetary or fiscal profligacy), had anything but the two alternatives - - - equally shared misery or unequally shared plenty.

Would you rather be better off than you are and have a decent chance of one day becoming affluent? Or would you rather lower your sights for yourself and your kids if that meant that the top 1% or 5% wouldn't make so much more than you?

Would you reject a $10K raise if that meant the CEO couldn't get a $100K raise?

Me, I'll take the $10K.

But pfo, again, (a) as long as the lower classes' income and wealth grows, how could they be "owned" - remember this is all in inflation-adjusted dollars - and (b) remember too that income relates primarily to age/experience - most low income people will 20 years down the road be at least middle income people. The other main factors are geography (which correlates to cost of living), education (which means you put off earning for 4-7 years, which given the time value of money means you don't catch up to your buddies who went to work in a factory until you're 38) and desired lifestyle (working QC on an assembly line for 7 hours isn't the same challenge as being an engineer or financial analyst - you never come out of an office at sun-rise).

ChiGuy - "while laying off tens of thousands of career workers claiming they can't afford to pay them." - Um, unemployment is 4.6%.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1229294/posts
http://www.nytimes.com/specials/downsize/21cox.html
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1988/05/art1full.pdf
http://www.frbsf.org/econrsrch/wklyltr/el97-07.html#winners
http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/1999p/ar95.html
http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/25/pf/record_millionaires/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/28/news/economy/millionaire_survey/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/28/news/economy/millionaires/?cnn=yes
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/bg1773.cfm

OK ChiGuy re the minimum wage what part of price floor don't you understand?

OK Kevorkian again, these ARE in real terms.

Dio - "The middle class is making less money than it did 10 years ago"

No, they're not. Apparently you can't read.

pip, apparently you can't read either - the middle class is declining in proportion to the whole but only because so many are moving UP.

OF THE HOUSEHOLDS LEAVING THE MIDDLE CLASS OVER THE LAST 25 YEARS, FAIRLY CONSISTENTLY THE RATIO HAS BEEN 92 UP TO 8 DOWN.

I'M SORRY BUT THE DATA CLEARLY SHOW THAT.

Beren YES IT IS A BIG DEAL - MORE RICH PEOPLE - WHERE DID THEY COME FROM?????? IF THERE ARE MORE RICH PEOPLE THAT MEANS SOMEONE WHO WASN'T RICH BECAME RICH!

And "right wing source" - CITING THE CENSUS BUREAU DATA.

Check the cites. I did - they match up.

Answer 1

I know, if we grow the pie enough, even the crumbs will get bigger, right?

Why absolute terms, though? In real (inflation adjusted) terms, is the picture less rosy.

Asside from quibbling about the nature of statistics, though, I can't much disagree with your point. It doesn't matter how rich the super-rich guys who own the business I work for are getting, as long as I'm getting paid what I want for the job (I'm currently being paid more than a I want, and much more than I'm worth, for my job, so I can't complain - too bad it'll only be here for another year or so). I also could care less rather rich Americans, rich Japanese, rich Arabs or rich Chinese ultimately are cashing the dividend checks.

Answer 2

I will do this once again.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news...
Right wing source, too biased.
http://www.nytimes.com/specials/downsize...+
Op-Ed piece, not really a source.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1988/05/art
Broken Link, Besides the data is 10 years old
http://www.frbsf.org/econrsrch/wklyltr/e...
10 year old data
http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/1999...
12 year old data
http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/25/pf/recor...
We are always hitting a record for the most number of millionaires since that number is not inflation adjusted. The last time we had a record number of millionaires was 1999. Big deal.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/28/news/eco...
See above
http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/28/news/eco...
See above
http://www.heritage.org/research/labor/b...
Right wing source.


Please support your assumptions with valid sources.



"And "right wing source" - CITING THE CENSUS BUREAU DATA.

Check the cites. I did - they match up."


Secondary sources are not an acceptable form of citation. The free republic link cites no sources. The Heritage.org has 9 different references. You are asking the reader to verify nine different references to see if they are used correctly? Which ones are pertinent? If you could directly link the census bureau data with each point you are trying to make, your argument would be much more convincing.


"Beren YES IT IS A BIG DEAL - MORE RICH PEOPLE - WHERE DID THEY COME FROM?????? IF THERE ARE MORE RICH PEOPLE THAT MEANS SOMEONE WHO WASN'T RICH BECAME RICH!"

One million dollars ain't what it used to be, your data does not consider that.

Answer 3

I would take the 10K too but it doesn't work like that. The middle class is making less money than it did 10 years ago. This is the first time that they are in a negative savings condition since the great depression. More people do not have health coverage than 10 years ago. Companies are taking away health care and pensions from the workers while the fat cats are getting more money.

Answer 4

What matters is that the middle class is dwindling. The middle class is the lifeblood of a democracy.. and democracies can not be effective, and many would say that they can not exist, without a healthy and abundant middle class... I'm not saying we should regulate it so that people can't get rich.. I'm saying we shouldn't make it harder for the middle class to exist than the other classes.

Edit: you like to insult me for not being able to read.. but you didn't grasp what I said. It doesn't matter if they are moving up or down.. the middle class is disappearing. Now read the first statement again.

Answer 5

It's fine so long as the gap doesn't grow to a point where the rich literally own the lower classes, like what we saw in the dark ages with feudalism. So long as you can change your class status by your actions (and you can) then the system is acceptable.

Answer 6

It matters if they are getting richer while laying off tens of thousands of career workers claiming they can't afford to pay them.

Isn't it interesting that as gas price skyrockets, hurting lower income earners the most, neo-cons are anti-min wage increase while the company leaders get million dollar increases/bonuses each year. If we can't afford to increase the worker's pay, how do you then afford the millions of dollars in CEO handouts?

Answer 7

heck, let's all give ourselves a raise. we can just keep borrowing and printing more and more money and if we run into trouble, the Fed will bail us out.