Income Inequality Is Worse Now Than It Was During Slavery

According to a study by two University of California and Harvard professors, American income inequality is worse than any time since 1774, even if you factor in slavery.

The conclusion comes to us from an newly updated study by professors Peter Lindert of the University of California - Davis and Jeffrey Williamson of Harvard.

Scraping together data from an array of historical resources, the duo have written a fascinating exploration of early American incomes, arguing that, on the eve of the Revolutionary War, wealth was distributed more evenly across the 13 colonies than anywhere else in the world that we have record of.

Business Insider

Unfortunately, income equality started eroded over time and by the time US civil war, top 1% of US households claimed 10% of the US's earnings. By 2010 this had risen to 19%.

By the time the Civil War came, the top 1 percent of U.S. households laid claim to 10 percent of the nation's income, versus about 7 percent during the founders' era.

Today, the same group accounts for about 19 percent.





Business Insider

I does appear that in the USA, the working class is getting squeezed and the middle class is disappearing. That isn't good for the future of America.

Keep defending Captialism and see where it leads humanity, especially when its driving force is the thing that has instigated every major and minor conflict in human history. Greed is a cobra that cannot be charmed. Stop trying.

Automation is the future.




marshallbrain.com... (one must read the ENTIRE story to get the point)

The future is coming. Embrace it, and embrace freedom. We are not required to be slaves. We have the opportunity to be free. Choose freedom, if for nothing but the prosperity of your grandchildren.

I imagine it was much easier to save money when you had a slave in the home. No wonder the middle class had more money.

Really, this premise is actually an argument for something?

Originally posted by boncho
I imagine it was much easier to save money when you had a slave in the home. No wonder the middle class had more money.

Really, this premise is actually an argument for something?

The middle class didn`t own slaves. The average cost for a slave was $300,000 - $500,000, that was just the purchase price.add to that the cost of feeding,clothing, housing, medical care etc and the total cost of owning even just 1 slave was way above what any middle class person could afford.

Originally posted by Tardacus

Originally posted by boncho
I imagine it was much easier to save money when you had a slave in the home. No wonder the middle class had more money.

Really, this premise is actually an argument for something?

The middle class didn`t own slaves. The average cost for a slave was $300,000 - $500,000, that was just the purchase price.add to that the cost of feeding,clothing, housing, medical care etc and the total cost of owning even just 1 slave was way above what any middle class person could afford.

Where do you get the 300-500k number?

-$1 in 1775 = $29 today

247wallst.com...

Average market price per slave in 1860 (current dollars from the era): $1,658.00

Depending on what you calculate the value of earnings against I have seen numbers like the above all the way up to what you are listing.

This paper cites middle-class of the era to people who made $1000 or more

Given that indentured servants cost as little as $5 and slaves are quoted anywhere from $50 to $2000 depending on the quality (Age/Health) of the slave, it seems entirely plausible that the "middle class" owned slaves or had servants for labor.

For indentured servants it seems it was about 2 years wage of an unskilled worker to bring over an indentured servant. Hardly unrealistic for someone in "middle class"

Costs and wages
Wages were low in Britain in the 18th century because of a surplus of labor. The average was about 50 shillings (£2.5) a year for a plowman, and 40 shillings (£2) a year for an ordinary unskilled worker. Ship captains negotiated prices for transporting and feeding a passenger on the seven or eight week journey across the ocean, averaging about £5 to £7, the equivalent of four or five years of work back in England.[10][11]

en.wikipedia.org...

Also taking into consideration that at this time people in America paid no taxes except a small percent at point of sale, and the whole reason they went there was to protect their money from the Brits and other powers.

Meaning the wealth was brought over purposely to hide it.

Not saying there isn't a point here to reflect on regarding current conditions, only that it is a stupid comparison for an argument because the world climate is so much different.

But by all means eliminate taxes that aren't VAT, I actually agree with that one...

reply to post by boncho


People who owned slaves were the capitalist class. The working class of the time were often worse off than slaves because there was no work. There really wasn't a very big 'middle class' in it's true meaning, that being owners of property, and small businesses that do not employ labour, management and professionals.

The old saying, 'the rich get richer and the poor get poorer', is no joke. It proves that capitalism does not work for anyone but the capitalist class.

The rich poor divide is getting ever wider, if capitalism worked it should be getting narrower.

Rich-Poor Gap Widens to Most Since 1967 as Income Falls

reply to post by ANOK



Quality of life and standard of living are probably more important factors than just who's sitting on money. You seem quite preoccupied with that though, and communism....

Originally posted by boncho
Quality of life and standard of living are probably more important factors than just who's sitting on money.

Not sure what are referring to?

You seem quite preoccupied with that though, and communism....

I'm a socialist, I believe in worker ownership, what should I focus on? I share my point of view based on my beliefs just like you do.

What's with the preoccupation with always defending capitalism?

reply to post by boncho


I got the $300,000 - $500,000 figures from a book about the civil war that i read a long time ago. In light of the numbers you posted, the $300,00 - $500,000 figures might be the total cost of owning a slave over the lifetime of the slave.
as i said it was a long time ago that i read it and i don`t remember the details of those figures.
When I read those numbers i remember thinking, wow there must have been a lot of rich people around during the civil war since there were so many slaves in america at the time.

reply to post by ANOK


I live in a socialist country and I'm quite happy with it. I also have relatives in another socialist country and they are quite happy with their lives too.

I guess my point is no matter the system there are still injustices, (seen even in both I mentioned), the real issue isn't the system but how it's run, and how it's kept from being perverted. Nearly all could be successful under the right conditions.

The Venus Project, BUT run by citizens not PTB. Abundance and equality for all with no evil agendas and loss of freedom.

reply to post by boncho

I imagine it was much easier to save money when you had a slave in the home.

What?
I don't work, boncho, because right after I left my last 12.00/hr job the economy crashed. I left to take care of my elderly father. My husband now supports me. I dare say he'd find it a lot EASIER to save money if he had not married and taken on another mouth to feed. I work full time in the home doing maintenance, paying the bills, inventory control, purchasing, yard work, cooking, cleaning, running errands, keeping things organized.

I get no "paycheck" except "in kind" - a roof, and food. I don't get "pin money" or an "allowance".... we are struggling to stay out of debt and pay down the mortgage. I feel very much like an indentured servant, although my "keeper" treats me well, and the system works out okay.

I have given up finding a job after 3 years of searching everything from seasonal min wage to global corp entry level to specialized jobs that would apply my Master's degree. NOTHING. No thing. No interviews, even.

Things are not okay in this country. My household is fortunate our mortgage is manageable (under $800/month), and the vehicles remaining (one just died on the 4th of July - and '89 Honda Prelude)...are paid for. I'm a thrifty person, satisfied with what I have, but we don't splurge. Movie out? Maybe 2/year. Ditto meal out. Vacation away from home? HA hahaha.....yeah. No. The last actual vacation I took was in 2005. Every other venture out of town was for family events or work-related, and he's nowhere near a six-figure gross income.

Have you ever imagined how it is for 2-min-wage-earner households with children? Less than $15/hour total?

It's Impossible! That's how it is!

reply to post by wildtimes


Do you find that you are even living a life? Or are you simply waking up to do things to sustain yourself?

reply to post by wildtimes


At least your kids didn't die of Polio.

And you haven't gone mad working in a hat factory during the industrial revolution...

You have to take the good with the bad.

reply to post by TheOneElectric


Choose freedom? You are implying we actually have a choice?

reply to post by TheOneElectric

Do you find that you are even living a life? Or are you simply waking up to do things to sustain yourself?

Not at all! I feel lucky, and I have a great life, NOT behooved to work for "the man".
I relish every morning.... a new day to learn some more here on Earth.

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by ANOK

 

I live in a socialist country and I'm quite happy with it. I also have relatives in another socialist country and they are quite happy with their lives too.

No you don't. Do workers own the means of production in your country? No they don't, so it is not socialist.

Liberal yes, socialist no. Socialism is an economic system, your economic system is mostly privately owned just like 99% of the worlds nations. I know of no country that has worker ownership in any large scale.

I guess my point is no matter the system there are still injustices, (seen even in both I mentioned), the real issue isn't the system but how it's run, and how it's kept from being perverted. Nearly all could be successful under the right conditions.

You have no point because you are confused. How do you plan to to control how capitalism is ran? More government over site? Where is the plan to control capitalism? There isn't one, because government and capitalists are all in it together. That is what people keep failing to realise. Capitalists have the control due to their economic power. We will never be able to control capitalism, never have, never will. The sooner people wake up to that reality the better our future will be. The only way to solve that problem is worker ownership, otherwise we can expect a future with more wars, more poverty, and more wealth in the hands of less people.

No system can be perfect, but it can be more fair than a system that allows a minority to exploit the majority until the majority has nothing left.

Not a shocker....it's not capitalism that's the true problem...it's cronyism...rascal-ism and backroom dealings.

If TPTB do not wish to share in the spoils with those whose necks and backs they stand on....they should take a footnote from history of other counties that faced serious disparity of wealth and what came of it....let's see...

The French Revolution
The Bolshevik revolution
The Cuban Revolution
The Revolution of the People's Republic of China

These were all driven by disparity of wealth and living conditions....only one might be considered as having ended "well"....and some French might not agree with that.

It's inevitable...it will happen....it's just a question of when....not if. That is unless someone decides to throw out a bone and kick the can down the road for another generation or two...otherwise....the numbers ALWAYS win....the bodies can stack up, but eventually, the powers and their thugs eventually run out of bullets and the mob wins....look above...4 for 4...the masses always wins....which side are you going to be on?

It doesn't have to go this way...but without some fair compromise...that is exactly where it will end up....sorry to be the prophet of doom....but it's not prophecy...it's the way shiz works....

Originally posted by Jeremiah65
Not a shocker....it's not capitalism that's the true problem...it's cronyism...rascal-ism and backroom dealings.

But ultimately it is capitalism that allows those back-room dealings.

Capitalism is crony, always has been, always will be. There are no rules, only those imposed on it by governments.

Private owners of the means of production will do anything they can to maintain their control of the markets, [proven by their use of the military], and to continue making profit, [proven by outsourcing].