Income inequality impairs the American Dream of upward mobility

Ok, I know I know, it's NPR. Please please give this a listen. It's a debate series I just discovered and trust me it's in your best interests.

NPR

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2014 Income inequality has been on the rise for decades. In the last 30 years, the wages of the top 1% have grown by 154%, while the bottom 90% has seen growth of only 17%. As the rungs of the economic ladder move further and further apart, conventional wisdom says that it will become much more difficult to climb them. Opportunities for upward mobility—the American dream—will disappear as the deck becomes stacked against the middle class and the poor. But others see inequality as a positive, a sign of a dynamic and robust economy that, in the end, helps everyone. And contrary to public opinion, mobility has remained stable over the past few decades. If the American dream is dying, is it the result of income inequality? Or is disparity in income a red herring where more complex issues are at play?

I am personally interested in this topic as my trades depend on available money from the average citizen.

My question to the wealthy is, if the workers are poor because they aren't "risk takers" then why are the workers also held accountable for the fallout caused by the wealthy?

Why do we eat your lead, asbestos, cadmium.. Why do we pay for your mistakes, live in your trash and die for your cause?

Where's the risk?

Why isn't everyone flying high yet?

The whole system is designed to keep the wealthy wealthy. Sure, one or two mice can slip through the cracks with enough luck, or enough malice BUT..

With no disposable income and no equity in land most Americans cannot afford to "invest".
We have a system where the equity of the slaves NEVER goes up, and the wealth of the masters multiplies by government mandated gains and interest on bonds and other nice things that a "non owner" can't participate in.

originally posted by: BlubberyConspiracy
My question to the wealthy is, if the workers are poor because they aren't "risk takers" then why are the workers also held accountable for the fallout caused by the wealthy?

Why do we eat your lead, asbestos, cadmium.. Why do we pay for your mistakes, live in your trash and die for your cause?

Where's the risk?

Why isn't everyone flying high yet?

The whole system is designed to keep the wealthy wealthy. Sure, one or two mice can slip through the cracks with enough luck, or enough malice BUT..

With no disposable income and no equity in land most Americans cannot afford to "invest".
We have a a system where the equity of the slaves NEVER goes up, and the wealth of the masters multiplies by government mandated interest on bonds and other nice things that a "non owner" can't participate in.

I'm just as interested as you are in your perspective.

a reply to: onequestion

Worst is if we try to survive on our own. Go off the grid for instance, grow our own food, collect our own water we see hefty fines and fees for "violating the right to pay".

We are basically in a system were we have the "right" to "pay" or the right to be incarcerated and removed from the gene pool. Is it supposed to be a privilege to lick the boot of a tyrant?

We "have to be held accountable" for the continuity of a system that we are threatened by and marked for trying to change it.


Just what the hell is going on? This couldn't be the wet dream of anyone but a sadist.

a reply to: BlubberyConspiracy

What's happening is we're continuing a cycle.

Tytler Cycle

a reply to: onequestion

Imo, private ownership aspect to capitalism is the issue.

The core issue is that dollars and shares are essentially titles of ownership.

Repeat those last three words "titles of ownership"

Eventually it will eventually sound very Orwellian.


Because it is.

Fortunately, I don't believe in a cycle I believe in willpower with which any predisposed cycle can be broken.

a reply to: BlubberyConspiracy

What exactly are you implying?

a reply to: onequestion

Until and after the necessities to live can be technologically made in abundance
Owners must be held accountable as well to which with they can provide

A good debate.

The "against" side (the side that says that income inequality does not impair mobility) were declared the winners since they changed people's minds. Before the debate 60% were for and 14% were against. After the debate 53% were for and 37% were against.

I agree that the "against" side presented much better arguments. The "for" side seemed to actual avoid the question, concentrating not on income inequality but on low income. In her summary, Elise did not even mention income inequality, she pointed to a study finding that the brain development of poor children lagged that of others. "Is poverty bad?" was not the question.


For those who prefer reading to listening, here's the transcript of the debate.
intelligencesquaredus.org...

a reply to: Phage

Nice take on it and thanks for the link.

The rich are getting richer. But the poor are also getting richer. The rich are getting richer more quickly, the poor are getting richer more slowly. But that's the natural way of things, always has been and always will be. No whining about "income inequality" has ever changed that.

a reply to: EnduranceArtist

Hmm. I'd like to see the info that brought you to that conclusion.

a reply to: Phage

A common conservative argument is that the wealthy worked hard to get what they have so they should keep it.

The issue is that wealth then becomes relative in terms with titles of ownership of wealth vs those who don't have it. At which point it barely has anything to do with hard work at all but more with how you can preserve it and keep it from other beings through dominance.

In my opinion, wealth isn't inherently flawed, flawed is the nature by which we must consume and occupy a finite space in order to thrive as beings. To share wealth with other beings it must take a mutual understanding and willingness by the constituents of that wealth.

This would remove the class based dominance structure.


The grounds by which such an agreement can form and continue to exist even with the birth of new lives becomes the final question.

Should such a situation have been approached in another world of conscious beings like us, it would have come down to one of two solutions.

1) Educate and mutually understand that coexistence is necessary for the greatest level of happiness for the greatest amount of people. Things like population quotas and an amazing space exploration program would be absolutely necessary for the preservation of humanity and continuity of a pleasant society.

Things like genetic defects or concepts of "the unfit" could be adjusted down the line when technology becomes appropriate. The issue with such a solution is that some will say I don't want your society. What do you then do with them? You can only hope that they will understand the historical background of human societies and conclude too, that a solution was needed.

All you'd need is a continued population of will powered people to design and improve concepts and barriers to better cope with the physical aspect of our being.

The second solution is more of an exit plan than solution

2) Provide a computer simulation for beings to live in, in perceived abundance and happiness.

a reply to: BlubberyConspiracy
Interesting. But it doesn't seem much to do with the debate which is the topic of this thread.

The topic was not about solutions to income inequality (or wealth). It was whether income inequality inhibits economic mobility.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BlubberyConspiracy
Interesting. But it doesn't seem much to do with the debate which is the topic of this thread.

Ahh.. Damn. I was hoping for a more elaborate response.

a reply to: onequestion

I elaborated.

originally posted by: Phage
It was whether income inequality inhibits economic mobility.

To add a ribbon on top of my postings I will end in saying that In our current construct, income inequality does inhibit economic mobility if my stance wasn't clear.

The wealthy can fall but you couldn't just choose to be an owner. That's theft

a reply to: Phage

Ahh, your link is one of those that just takes to the site instead of the page desired.

Income inequality impairs the American Dream of upward mobility

Let's see if that one works or if it's one of those pernicious type of links.

**Nevermind, slow waking morning and coffee isn't kicked in yet.

Income and wealth are two separate issues.

First lets address income inequality.

Inflation, in my opinion, is the culprit here. The notion that markets can be created through inflationary means, such as printing and pumping money into the healthcare industry, or farming, or student loans without actually having that demand causes wages to stay stagnant in these areas while increasing the price per unit of product/service rendered. It's not that wages are decreasing, its that they aren't keeping up with the rate of inflation, they can't. Inflation is actually happening too fast right now for small business to keep up with. If they tried they wouldn't be able to purchase the product they needed to remain in business and provide wages demanded by the increased cost of living fueled by the inflationary environment we live in today.

9 bucks an hour used to be able to pay some bills. But that isn't the case anymore. Hell you can't even buy a decent amount of groceries anymore. The buying power of the average consumer has been destroyed. Income inequality is not a real thing. Inflation IS a real thing and it is often mistaken for income inequality because the rich aren't affected as much by inflationary pressures as are your average hourly worker.

WEALTH is a different story altogether. While inflationary environments can destroy savings, they can't destroy assets. Cash is not an asset. Land, on the other hand, is. So is real estate, solid investment or direct involvement in commodities, so forth and so on.

Wealth is also not finite. If that were true we would have ceased to create wealth thousands of years ago. In fact, wealth can be created out of nothing. In order for the average Joe to beat the monster of inflation masquerading as "income inequality" he must be able to understand wealth, how it is produced, what it requires, and be able to clearly define what is and is NOT an asset. Furthermore the average Joe must be adaptive, creative, and be willing to sacrifice time and effort to make it happen.

May have to educate himself...I'm not talking about going to a university, I'm talking about doing some research online and elsewhere to learn about the things he is interested in. He must seek out the tools physical and mental, to create the product of service he is attempting to market. Lastly, he must market his idea or service in a manner that is most profitable for him. Ideas have power. We always talk about the power of ideas, but almost always in an archaic way where the substance of an idea is never made manifest. Manifest your ideas. Ideas are the "nothing" by which "something" is made, i.e. wealth.

Do NOT confuse wealth with income.

Imo successful economic mobility demands that the more people that use the economy the more successful the economy will be. In more plain terms, the more people you have spending money the more vibrant the economy is therefore when the majority of the countries wealth is concentrated in a few individuals that seriously want to hoard and keep that wealth, like you have in the US at this moment in time, then the economy will go into a decline. If these rich individuals do not allow the majority of people have a significant amount of disposable money(by that I don't mean debts) then eventually the economy will collapse. This collapse can and has been artificially propped up by governments spending in public ventures but this is an illusion. The ONLY way to have economic mobility is to have a vibrant economy through a vibrant populations spending disposable income.