Isn't the whole argument that the gap between rich and poor is widening just a meaningless liberal dogma?

Question

We constantly hear that "the gap between rich and poor is widening", but does that really mean ANYONE is worse off?

For example, Say there are two people. One makes $100,000 a year. The other makes $10,000 per year. The difference in their incomes is $90,000.

Over the next year they both experience a 10% increase in income. Now the first person is making $110,000 a year and the second is making $11,000 a year. Both are better off. Both have more money to spend.

However, the difference in their incomes has increased from $90,000 to $99,000. Even though no one is worse off than before and indeed both are better off, the gap between rich and poor has just widened by $9,000!

Doesn't this example show the income gap to be a meaningless argument? In fact, if incomes continue to rise, doesn't that mean that the income gap HAS to increase?

Yes I realize that $100,000 isn't mega wealthy. Honestly I was an econ major so I'm more comfortable using letters in formulae than numbers anyway. The actual figures are unimportant. What IS important is the fact that as incomes rise, the gap in actual dollar value widens.

Would someone please dispute my premiss with just a tad of economic FACT rather than left-wing retoric about the evil's of people making money, expanding their businesses, and creating jobs.

Why is making money a bad thing? If no one is making money there's no reason to hire workers! THAT makes it difficult to make a living and get by.

Answer 1

You are logically, statistically, and (more importanly) morally correct.
You remind me of the complaint ten years ago in my own fair country that 'it is disgraceful that almost half the population is on below average income'.

Answer 2

No. The relevant statistic is the not Income based on salaries but wealth and the fact is that there is more wealth in the hands of fewer people since the time of the Robber Barons. I think you have no idea of how rich the rich are in this country -- $100,000 a year is chump change. The guys that run hedge funds make can make 100 million a year and more. Some corporate CEO's make around 25 million a year -- Top executives income has been increasing geometrically for the last 30 years while average person gets 3% increases, which is basically a break even situation. . The gap between rich and poor widening is a fact.

Answer 3

It illustrates however that all the gains are at the top; forty years ago a single wage earner could support a family and own a home, that cannot happen now because of the economic growth, most of it has gone to the benefit of those at the top. Simple enough?

Answer 4

Because that (your example) is not what is happening.

Real wages for most Americans (i.e. corrected for inflation) have been flat--or decllined--throuout the Bush years. Meanwhile a) productivity is higher. Which means while people are producing more, employers are not sharing the profits from the gains. BUT--the compensation packages of exectutives have skyrocketed.

And all the word games in the world won't change what that is: selfish and unfair greed.

Answer 5

your argument is a meaningless and preposterour straw man.

odds are the wealthier of the two got a double digit raise, the poorer probably got a raise that barely keeps pace with inflation.

but i think that cons should run on the idea that the stagnant wages of the middle class is just liberal dogma.

i'm sure that will work out very well for them...

Answer 6

No, because it is a meaningless scenario unrelated to facts or reality.

You'd be better served battling dogma with dogma, and at least you would appear more sincere.

"No matter what the obscenely wealthy do, there will always be the poor. Therefore it is our God given right to become as obscenely wealthy as possible."

Answer 7

no I'm afraid your argument does not prove that, and the fact that the lower class has a much lower standard of living and much higher debt than it did 40 years ago while the super rich are far richer and hold more sweeping power, shows the exact opposite.