10 ms·
" In 1900, the wealthiest 10 percent pocketed 41 percent of the nation’s income—a number that would only be surpassed in 2010, when the top 10 percent took home
by cryoshon 11y ago
" In 1900, the wealthiest 10 percent pocketed 41 percent of the nation’s income—a number that would only be surpassed in 2010, when the top 10 percent took home 48 percent of the national income. "
Ah, so we are now officially more unequal than during the gilded age. A travesty of the highest order. Remember when people were protesting this in the streets and were hung out to dry by the media and their fellow citizens? Remember when those protesters were smashed by the cops for having the gall to ask for a better deal? That happened in the US, not China or Russia.
"The authors are only the slightest bit sympathetic to Obama. They concede that he operated under conditions not of his own making. But he “was not a transformational president.” He caved to Wall Street in bailing out the banks without demanding any meaningful reform; the Affordable Care Act may have insured millions, but countless others have been forced to pay more because its biggest beneficiaries were insurance and drug companies. And his foreign policy effectively continued to do by stealth what George W. Bush barely kept secret at all: drone strikes, secret wiretaps. Other fundamental problems that began at the start of the 20th century have re-emerged under Obama: racial segregation abetted by a criminal justice system that is the New Jim Crow; anti-immigration nativism, which has hardly been helped by an immigration policy whose only achievement is a record number of deportations. Meanwhile, as of 2012, a woman still made 81 cents for every dollar a man earned."
My sentiments as well.
- stevetrewick 11y ago>Ah, so we are now officially more unequal than during the gilded age Unequal with whom ? You are considerably less unequal with millions of people who a decade or two ago were desperately scratching their survival out of subsistence farming. Some people would call that a win. YMMV.
- cryoshon 11y agoA relative win against people who aren't even in the proper frame of reference. It's the same as saying "you have a refrigerator, people in Africa don't even have that!" which isn't even a true statement to make these days. Extreme poverty is on the endangered list. The frame of reference is in-country and between the country's peers. The worrying part of this frame is that relatively poor places like Latin America are catching up or have caught up already. We are losing ground.
- tzs 11y agoWhat percent of the nation's income do you think the wealthiest 10% should pocket in a fair society?
- alien42 11y ago10% on a more serious note; whatever it takes to ensure that we don't end up becoming bankrupt over healthcare---despite paying for insurance, whatever it takes to ensure that even the poorest and destitute of us all shouldn't worry about their next meal, whatever it takes so that anyone with ill mental health can pursue a life of happiness, ... there's no point in picking specific #s and making a whole argument out of them even more so with vague notions such as "fair society" which will elicit 101 opinions from 100 people.