14 ms·

U.S. Income Inequality Hits a New Threshold

126 points by cmurf 9y ago

jeffreyrogers 9y ago
The statistics for gender are misleading. If you're just comparing the average wage of men and women then of course women are going to earn less: they work less than men on average. If you control for age and whether women have children the gap shrinks a lot (in some areas it reverses). And an increasing share of wages going to the top income brackets isn't in itself cause for concern, only if the members of the top income brackets are largely static does it matter (since it means income is going to a small group of individuals, rather than a broader group of individuals who are swapped in and out of the top income groups). So these statistics are hardly "disturbing", though they do merit further research to see how much of a problem these things actually are.
- igravious 9y ago
  Will I believe you or will I believe the secretary-general for the OECD? “We have reached a tipping point. Inequality can no longer be treated as an afterthought. We need to focus the debate on how the benefits of growth are distributed. Our report ‘In it Together’ and our work on inclusive growth have clearly shown that there doesn’t have to be a trade-off between growth and equality. On the contrary, the opening up of opportunity can spur stronger economic performance and improve living standards across the board!” OECD Secretary-General http://www.oecd.org/social/inequality.htm http://www.oecd.org/social/inequality.htm Hmm, I wonder ;-) edit: We know that the USA ranks lower than almost every other OECD country in terms of social mobility, see pages 4 and 5 of this slide deck: https://www.oecd.org/eco/growth/NERO-22-June-2015-income-inequality-social-mobility-and-economic-growth.pdf https://www.oecd.org/eco/growth/NERO-22-June-2015-income-ine...
  - jeffreyrogers 9y ago
    Yeah, I'm not disputing that. I was saying the statistics (in the Bloomberg article) don't support that argument.
  - dibujante 9y ago
    The previous poster is arguing metrics and the secretary-general is arguing ethics. You can't compare those two. Both statements could be true or false; the truth value of the statements is independent.
  - refurb 9y ago
    There have been several papers that show the US is last in income mobility while having other papers show it's in the top 3. Suffice to say there is no consensus. Also, measuring mobility by income quintiles is challenging as quintiles aren't the same across countries. You could move from 1st to 4th income quintile in one country and have a higher wage than some moving from 1st to 5th in another country.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  >And an increasing share of wages going to the top income brackets isn't in itself cause for concern, only if the members of the top income brackets are largely static does it matter (since it means income is going to a small group of individuals, rather than a broader group of individuals who are swapped in and out of the top income groups). Actually I have to disagree, a bifurcation in income is reason to worry in itself. In a society where everything is commodified this wealth gap allows the rich to opt out of normal civil society. A society where a small few can buy their way out of a crap education system, out of a crap healthcare system, etc. isn't just no matter how well we swap people in and out of that group.
  - skybrian 9y ago
    A windfall (winning the lottery or some other one-off event) is generally considered a good thing, unless you don't know how to handle it and spend it all at once. Everyone getting a windfall, in different years: still not a bad thing, even if it makes inequality statistics look bad. In theory. But that's not the world we live in. Most people don't get windfalls and have little savings.
  - closeparen 9y ago
    The problem with the “inequality” framing is that your victory condition is dragging everyone down into the crap systems. Engineering greater total suffering so that you don’t have to be indignant at others suffering less, is not exactly noble. We could end education and healthcare inequality today by shutting down all the good universities and banning all good health insurance. But that’s backwards.
    - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
      >The problem with the “inequality” framing is that your victory condition is dragging everyone down into the crap systems. Yes but that's good. >Engineering greater total suffering so that you don’t have to be indignant at others suffering less, is not exactly noble. I actually think it would reduce total suffering, just that it's a short-term vs long-term thing. >We could end education and healthcare inequality today by shutting down all the good universities and banning all good health insurance. But that’s backwards. You're sort of close to what I want but not quite. We'd shut down all education systems which allow you to buy good results, same for healthcare, it's not about absolute quality it's about the relative quality in exchange for dollars. My point is that when you drag everyone into the same crap system, the most powerful in society who currently get to opt-out are stuck as well. They're forced to advocate for systems which are universally better rather than advocating for systems which are selectively better. By changing the incentives this way we stick everyone on the same side, inside of one side against another, it's better for everyone.
- knuththetruth 9y ago
  >And an increasing share of wages going to the top income brackets isn't in itself cause for concern, only if the members of the top income brackets are largely static does it matter (since it means income is going to a small group of individuals, rather than a broader group of individuals who are swapped in and out of the top income groups). So a society in which there's competition to be among a handful of feudal lords, but where everyone else suffers tenuous and desperation is unconcerning? How so? We've been through this in American history. It was called the Gilded Age and it was a nightmare for all but a handful of robber barons, resulted in widespread social and political instability, and violence.
  - rvo 9y ago
    I don't think you understand what feudalism was/is...
    - knuththetruth 9y ago
      No, I think I do. And so do a number of Silicon Valley "luminaries": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment
      - rvo 9y ago
        I have no idea why you linked that. The two comments you have posted make absolutely no sense. Non sequitors. Why did you use feudalism first, and then some weird alt right stuff second? What's going through your mind?
        jadedhacker 9y ago
        The idea is that feudal ideologies are making a comeback with the rise of an aristocratic class. These ideologies are finding support amongst the (conservative/reactionary) lower classes as they try to process why their lives are getting shittier without being provided a clear logical explanation. Thus they reach backwards for older more authoritarian models to try to restore their power. What is missing is the narrative of class struggle. From the linked wikipedia article: "It broadly rejects egalitarianism and the view that history shows inevitable progression towards greater liberty and enlightenment (thus, it is in part a reaction against "Whig historiography").[1][2] The movement favors a return to older societal constructs and forms of government, including support for monarchism or other forms of strong, centralised leadership such as a "neocameralist CEO"[3] of a joint-stock republic,[4] coupled with a right-libertarian, conservative or other approach to economics."
- netfire 9y ago
  The same could be said for the racial-based statistics, since race might be tied to cultural opinions which could impact how many hours a week or years in a lifetime someone works.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    Why should we care the reason people make their choices? What if I like surfing, so I decide to work part time which allows me to surf more? Does my skin color or gender matter? If I want to participate in this "surf culture," why would you feel the need to either force me to work more or demand that others subsidize my surfing habit?
    - netfire 9y ago
      I’m just saying there is a factor that could impact the statistics and that how much a person works should be taken into account for all the findings. Not just the gender-based one, so that we have accurate data from which to make decisions from. I didn’t say anything about forcing anyone to work or subsidizing habits. I think these charts are trying to claim that discrimination is happening and if how much someone is working isn’t taken into account, they don’t support that claim very well. To be clear I’m not stating that discrimination is or isn’t happening. I’d just like better data.
  - jeffreyrogers 9y ago
    Well, the difference between race and gender is that most women have children, which take up a lot of time and require taking at least some time away from work. If the difference is due to cultural issues then maybe it makes sense to worry about the differences and try to address them, but if the difference just comes down to women have children so they work less that's a less compelling reason to try to equalize men's and women's wages (and as I noted, in some areas young women out earn men already, partly because they tend to be more educated).
    - watwut 9y ago
      Men have children too. There are not many kids that have no biological father. I mean these comments talk about it as if kids and work around them had zero to do with men and we're some kind of female hobby. Among some men it is so as they don't care, but many men do actually care and do spend time with them.
- sbov 9y ago
  > If you control for age and whether women have children the gap shrinks a lot (in some areas it reverses). I generally agree with this line of thought, but you're also missing the higher level question: why, in our society, do we have to control for women who have children, but we don't have to control for men who have children?
  - jeffreyrogers 9y ago
    Because women get pregnant and are the primary caregivers in most families? Edit: Basically you have to control for what's causing women to work less when the have children. And the obvious answer is because if you're a woman it's hard to work when you have a child at home. If you're a man that's not really true since typically your wife/girlfriend takes care of the child. You can argue that maybe men should take more responsibility for raising their kids, but that's more of a social/political issue than an economic one.
    - jadedhacker 9y ago
      Political and social issues and economic issues are one. They are only disconnected in the strange milleu of libertarianism that America finds itself in.
    - watwut 9y ago
      How is that not economic issue? That is just ridiculous claim. It may be issue that is not caused by her employer sexism, but impact on her retirement or perspective in case of divorce or simply buying power or what not is absolutely economic.
      - malvosenior 9y ago
        People have a choice in whether or not they procreate. If you can't afford to do it or are unwilling to sacrifice the extra income to focus more on your family, then you shouldn't have children. Just as if I chose to go live in the wilderness, it would only make sense that my income would drop. No one would be at fault and I wouldn't expect the government to make up the difference for my "lost" income.
- 12312390123 9y ago
  It's very fascinating to me how the vast majority of time someone is saying "the statistics for gender are misleading" it appears to be a man saying it. > If you control for age and whether women have children the gap shrinks a lot (in some areas it reverses). Citation needed. > And an increasing share of wages going to the top income brackets isn't in itself cause for concern Citation needed.
  - joyeuse6701 9y ago
    What are you implying? Is there some point you want to make about being a man and its relation to gender studies, or was that a sexist statement trying to call out sexism? It strikes me as somewhat hypocritical. Let's try not to be facetious while simultaneously undermining our own argument with poorly veiled prejudice.
  - vedloseper 9y ago
    If you only ever hear men mention this, maybe you surround yourself with not very intelligent and/or not very honest women. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-g... > One of the best studies on the wage gap was released in 2009 by the U.S. Department of Labor. It examined more than 50 peer-reviewed papers and concluded that the 23-cent wage gap “may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers.” In the past, women’s groups have ignored or explained away such findings.
- dominotw 9y ago
  > And an increasing share of wages going to the top income brackets isn't in itself cause for concern, only if the members of the top income brackets are largely static does it matter Cant they control democracy via increase access to speech though wealth.
- gameswithgo 9y ago
  >And an increasing share of wages going to the top income brackets isn't in itself cause for concern Yes it is, history teaches us that it leads to dissastisfaction and in some cases violent revolution.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
athenot 9y ago
The original link is more instructive: http://www.epi.org/publication/the-state-of-american-wages-2017-wages-have-finally-recovered-from-the-blow-of-the-great-recession-but-are-still-growing-too-slowly-and-unequally/ http://www.epi.org/publication/the-state-of-american-wages-2... The Bloomberg article didn't even mention whether the changes were adjusted for inflation (they are).
- sokoloff 9y ago
  The Bloomberg article specifies them as "real wages", which are, by definition, adjusted for inflation.
lkrubner 9y ago
This is in keeping with a long term trend in which the standard of living for the median American has been allowed to stagnate for a long time. The male median wage has been stagnant or declining since 1973. This was previously discussed on Hacker News: http://www.smashcompany.com/philosophy/do-men-become-warlike-if-they-do-not-have-women http://www.smashcompany.com/philosophy/do-men-become-warlike... Also, consider that, when it comes to death-by-childbirth, the USA is among the very worst developed countries: https://maternityneighborhood.com/the-case-for-care-model-innovation-in-maternity-care/ https://maternityneighborhood.com/the-case-for-care-model-in...
- 39d3493I93 9y ago
  The fact of the matter that we can't even discuss, let alone even mention the realities of these matters on account of the PC authoritarian goons going after you and silencing you and banning your accounts, is quite telling. It's quite unfortunate that regardless of when, all of this current liberal, PC, postmodern insanity will result in horrific results, because nothing can deviate so much without causing repercussions, regardless of what they may be. Just take your last point; we simply can't even discuss, let alone bring up the fact that the "death-by-childbirth" rates that you lament as being so high, are localize to specific ethnic and racial groups; but because the PC nazis will go after you if you if you don't, we are forced to imagine and repeat that the USA suffers from these third world problems not because there are exponentially more third world people in the USA than in ANY developed country.... while we are compelled to chant "diversity is our strength" at the end of the barrel of a gun. There is actually a huge degree of likelihood that you would not have seen this comment at all any more than you see any of the other comments and users that are digitally silenced and executed and whisked away to digital mass graves on sites like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc. So maybe this comment is just for some future researcher or digital archeologist that is able to reconstruct this message from digital pieces in their effort to understand how the current form of authoritarians were able to hoodwink and bamboozle the feeble minded fools into self-destruction and self-harm and pushed humanity to the brink.
- rory096 9y ago
  Median wage is a bad metric in a world where health insurance costs (and thus non-wage benefits) are rapidly rising. Median household wage is doubly bad in a world of changing household composition. https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/where-has-all-the-income-gone https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/where...
qwerty2020 9y ago
Posted something along these lines a few months ago [1], but with a few more stats. https://erikrood.com/Posts/consumer_expenditures.html https://erikrood.com/Posts/consumer_expenditures.html
BadCookie 9y ago
These stats are pretty ridiculous. Not all advanced degrees are more valuable than a bachelor's. In my own company, we definitely have men with a BS in computer science earning lots more than women with master's degrees in English and education, but you can hardly blame the wage difference on their genders.
dzonga 9y ago
Those that are okay, with this are 'temporarily embarrassed millionaires' who don't have millions yet. Fact, remains only people that love capitalism are capitalists themselves. for the rest of us we're doomed, if we don't embrace BI, Unions and a massive welfare state. Also full 100% inheritance tax.
- thrden 9y ago
  I disagree, I happen to love capitalism though I'm just a student. Its brought about incredible changes, and raised the standard of living for billions across the world. I've lived in post-soviet countries, and I've lived in the west and I'd much rather live within a capitalist system. Socialism and its derivatives do little to replace inequality as they merely replace trackable, earn-able financial capital with an amorphous social capital. One gets jobs based on who they know, who their parents are or perhaps what tribe they come from. No one can reasonably aspire to the the child of the nomenclatura. One can reasonably push toward the middle class, or upper middle class. Further within a racially stratified country, it seems likely that ethnic class-difference would be reinforced rather than alleviated.
  - marnett 9y ago
    Have you lived in any of the progressive social-democratic nations? Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, Canada, Norway? I think their societal structures are much better suited for the technologically advanced world we live in today.
    - malvosenior 9y ago
      If that's the case, then why are none of those countries leading in actually creating technology? For the most part they are benefiting from technology that gets created in the US or Asia. Also, those are all very homogenous cultures. I don't think you can map what works there onto a very large, very diverse place like the US.
- akkat 9y ago
  I don't think I will ever be as rich as Bill Gates but I would still rather live in a capitalist country as a middle class person than in a communist country as a rich person.
d357r0y3r 9y ago
What would you rather have? 1) Perfect income equality (1:1 poorest:richest), but everyone is starving and most don't live out of childhood 2) Perfect income inequality (1:~infinity poorest:richest)), but the poorest in the world have a much higher standard of living and that standard is going up 3-5% a year. The point I'm driving at here is that income equality, by itself, isn't automatically desirable if the cost is a worse standard of living for the poor. It makes perfect sense that income inequality would increase due to globalization. The economic ramifications of "correct" business decisions are amplified by orders of magnitude when compared to mercantilist economies a few hundred years ago.
- plandis 9y ago
  Is standard of living increasing? At least in terms of wage growth adjusted for inflation that’s not true.
  - sokoloff 9y ago
    Do you believe that the 25th percentile of income today has a higher standard of living than the 50th percentile person in "the golden age" of 1950? I do. Today's 25th percentile person is likely to have air conditioning, refrigeration, internet, a cell phone, a microwave oven, an HDTV, and a reliable car that needs very little routine maintenance and has air bags and antilock brakes. Today's 50th percentile is beating 1950s 75th percentile adding easy, affordable, safe, and reliable air transportation and living in a far larger house than their 1950s half-again higher counterpart. Today's 75th percentile is beating the 95th percentile in 1950. All of them have better health care options, and a longer life expectancy. Real wage growth may not have arrived for those who trade their hours for wages, but the standard of living available from those wages has risen dramatically.
- Analemma_ 9y ago
  Fallacy of the excluded middle much? We can (and should!) aim for a situation between the two you have described. And in any case, your proposed model isn't working: everyone else has had stagnant real wages since the 1970s. And income inequality actually is a problem even in and of itself, even without reference to absolute living standards. There's an increasing body of research that higher inequality in a society lowers happiness and increases resentment, ultimately undermining social cohesion and trust in government.
opportune 9y ago
Wage inequality is just a labor aristocracy, divide the masses tactic. We should also be looking at non-wage income i.e. dividends, interest, and capital gains. The untold story: non-wage income in the US is increasing as a share of total income, and the richest of the rich pay the lowest in taxes
- milkshakes 9y ago
  dividends and interest are in fact taxed as ordinary income in the united states
  - opportune 9y ago
    Yes, but capital gains are not
- Flavius 9y ago
  What do you mean by "the lowest"? Percentage wise? Because I'm sure they pay millions or even billions in some cases. I agree that the rich might not pay the same percentage that you pay, but that's not even the real problem. The real problem is that we don't have equal opportunities. That gives the rich people a huge advantage when it comes to earning more money. We don't need to tax the rich more, that doesn't really help you when you're poor. We need to wisely use the money that we already have to create more opportunities for everyone.
  - opportune 9y ago
    As a percentage of their own income, of course. How does taxing the rich more not help you when you're poor? Those taxes could go towards funding for training and education, medical expenses, infrastructure, all of which would work towards creating more equal opportunities
    - Flavius 9y ago
      It doesn't help you because the money don't go directly to you. They go to companies own by other rich people, companies that have contracts with the government. So you keep taxing the rich and they keep getting their money back.
LarryDarrell 9y ago
What gets me is the job holders in the upper 20% who actively support a system that benefits the non-working (or don't need to work) top 1%. I make a pretty high wage compared to a cashier at a store, but my interests align with them a lot more than a Walton. Yet my peers are convinced that because they have the trappings of the petite bourgeoisie and a well funded 401k that they have more in common with a Koch. I'm not familiar with a society that experienced such high inequality and did not have very disruptive upheaval afterwards. One would think the wealthy would advocate for universal health care, education and safety nets as a small price to pay for their own self preservation. On the other hand, they haven't had much to fear from the lower classes for a long time now.
- joejerryronnie 9y ago
  Why do you think so many 1%ers are advocating for Universal Basic Income? It's not due to some altruistic notion that everyone should be able to follow their dream. It's out of fear of a populist revolt. Their backup plan is New Zealand based prepper compounds.
  - PopsiclePete 9y ago
    Populist revolt? In America? 50% of the population would gleefully shoot the other 50% dead as soon as their Masters tell them it's just "treasonous liberal Marxists". The 1% are super-duper safe. They've got nothing to fear from the "temporarily embarrassed millionaires".
  - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
    A UBI is literally the purest form of redistribution of wealth. It takes money disproportionately from the rich and then gives it equally to everyone. There are only three classes of people who oppose it: 1) people who oppose all redistributive programs, 2) people who favor the centrally planned farce of the existing welfare system because it allows them to covertly insert corrupt industry-specific subsidies into the system, and 3) people who don't actually understand how it works. If the 1% favor it they must like income redistribution, dislike opportunities for political corruption, or not understand what they're asking for.
mieses 9y ago
utterly shocking that this story did not get instantly flagged.

126 points by cmurf 9y ago

The statistics for gender are misleading. If you're just comparing the average wage of men and women then of course women are going to earn less: they work less than men on average. If you control for age and whether women have children the gap shrinks a lot (in some areas it reverses). And an increasing share of wages going to the top income brackets isn't in itself cause for concern, only if the members of the top income brackets are largely static does it matter (since it means income is going to a small group of individuals, rather than a broader group of individuals who are swapped in and out of the top income groups). So these statistics are hardly "disturbing", though they do merit further research to see how much of a problem these things actually are.

igravious 9y ago
Will I believe you or will I believe the secretary-general for the OECD? “We have reached a tipping point. Inequality can no longer be treated as an afterthought. We need to focus the debate on how the benefits of growth are distributed. Our report ‘In it Together’ and our work on inclusive growth have clearly shown that there doesn’t have to be a trade-off between growth and equality. On the contrary, the opening up of opportunity can spur stronger economic performance and improve living standards across the board!” OECD Secretary-General http://www.oecd.org/social/inequality.htm http://www.oecd.org/social/inequality.htm Hmm, I wonder ;-) edit: We know that the USA ranks lower than almost every other OECD country in terms of social mobility, see pages 4 and 5 of this slide deck: https://www.oecd.org/eco/growth/NERO-22-June-2015-income-inequality-social-mobility-and-economic-growth.pdf https://www.oecd.org/eco/growth/NERO-22-June-2015-income-ine...
- jeffreyrogers 9y ago
  Yeah, I'm not disputing that. I was saying the statistics (in the Bloomberg article) don't support that argument.
- dibujante 9y ago
  The previous poster is arguing metrics and the secretary-general is arguing ethics. You can't compare those two. Both statements could be true or false; the truth value of the statements is independent.
- refurb 9y ago
  There have been several papers that show the US is last in income mobility while having other papers show it's in the top 3. Suffice to say there is no consensus. Also, measuring mobility by income quintiles is challenging as quintiles aren't the same across countries. You could move from 1st to 4th income quintile in one country and have a higher wage than some moving from 1st to 5th in another country.
frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
>And an increasing share of wages going to the top income brackets isn't in itself cause for concern, only if the members of the top income brackets are largely static does it matter (since it means income is going to a small group of individuals, rather than a broader group of individuals who are swapped in and out of the top income groups). Actually I have to disagree, a bifurcation in income is reason to worry in itself. In a society where everything is commodified this wealth gap allows the rich to opt out of normal civil society. A society where a small few can buy their way out of a crap education system, out of a crap healthcare system, etc. isn't just no matter how well we swap people in and out of that group.
- skybrian 9y ago
  A windfall (winning the lottery or some other one-off event) is generally considered a good thing, unless you don't know how to handle it and spend it all at once. Everyone getting a windfall, in different years: still not a bad thing, even if it makes inequality statistics look bad. In theory. But that's not the world we live in. Most people don't get windfalls and have little savings.
- closeparen 9y ago
  The problem with the “inequality” framing is that your victory condition is dragging everyone down into the crap systems. Engineering greater total suffering so that you don’t have to be indignant at others suffering less, is not exactly noble. We could end education and healthcare inequality today by shutting down all the good universities and banning all good health insurance. But that’s backwards.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    >The problem with the “inequality” framing is that your victory condition is dragging everyone down into the crap systems. Yes but that's good. >Engineering greater total suffering so that you don’t have to be indignant at others suffering less, is not exactly noble. I actually think it would reduce total suffering, just that it's a short-term vs long-term thing. >We could end education and healthcare inequality today by shutting down all the good universities and banning all good health insurance. But that’s backwards. You're sort of close to what I want but not quite. We'd shut down all education systems which allow you to buy good results, same for healthcare, it's not about absolute quality it's about the relative quality in exchange for dollars. My point is that when you drag everyone into the same crap system, the most powerful in society who currently get to opt-out are stuck as well. They're forced to advocate for systems which are universally better rather than advocating for systems which are selectively better. By changing the incentives this way we stick everyone on the same side, inside of one side against another, it's better for everyone.
knuththetruth 9y ago
>And an increasing share of wages going to the top income brackets isn't in itself cause for concern, only if the members of the top income brackets are largely static does it matter (since it means income is going to a small group of individuals, rather than a broader group of individuals who are swapped in and out of the top income groups). So a society in which there's competition to be among a handful of feudal lords, but where everyone else suffers tenuous and desperation is unconcerning? How so? We've been through this in American history. It was called the Gilded Age and it was a nightmare for all but a handful of robber barons, resulted in widespread social and political instability, and violence.
- rvo 9y ago
  I don't think you understand what feudalism was/is...
  - knuththetruth 9y ago
    No, I think I do. And so do a number of Silicon Valley "luminaries": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment
    - rvo 9y ago
      I have no idea why you linked that. The two comments you have posted make absolutely no sense. Non sequitors. Why did you use feudalism first, and then some weird alt right stuff second? What's going through your mind?
      - jadedhacker 9y ago
        The idea is that feudal ideologies are making a comeback with the rise of an aristocratic class. These ideologies are finding support amongst the (conservative/reactionary) lower classes as they try to process why their lives are getting shittier without being provided a clear logical explanation. Thus they reach backwards for older more authoritarian models to try to restore their power. What is missing is the narrative of class struggle. From the linked wikipedia article: "It broadly rejects egalitarianism and the view that history shows inevitable progression towards greater liberty and enlightenment (thus, it is in part a reaction against "Whig historiography").[1][2] The movement favors a return to older societal constructs and forms of government, including support for monarchism or other forms of strong, centralised leadership such as a "neocameralist CEO"[3] of a joint-stock republic,[4] coupled with a right-libertarian, conservative or other approach to economics."
netfire 9y ago
The same could be said for the racial-based statistics, since race might be tied to cultural opinions which could impact how many hours a week or years in a lifetime someone works.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  Why should we care the reason people make their choices? What if I like surfing, so I decide to work part time which allows me to surf more? Does my skin color or gender matter? If I want to participate in this "surf culture," why would you feel the need to either force me to work more or demand that others subsidize my surfing habit?
  - netfire 9y ago
    I’m just saying there is a factor that could impact the statistics and that how much a person works should be taken into account for all the findings. Not just the gender-based one, so that we have accurate data from which to make decisions from. I didn’t say anything about forcing anyone to work or subsidizing habits. I think these charts are trying to claim that discrimination is happening and if how much someone is working isn’t taken into account, they don’t support that claim very well. To be clear I’m not stating that discrimination is or isn’t happening. I’d just like better data.
- jeffreyrogers 9y ago
  Well, the difference between race and gender is that most women have children, which take up a lot of time and require taking at least some time away from work. If the difference is due to cultural issues then maybe it makes sense to worry about the differences and try to address them, but if the difference just comes down to women have children so they work less that's a less compelling reason to try to equalize men's and women's wages (and as I noted, in some areas young women out earn men already, partly because they tend to be more educated).
  - watwut 9y ago
    Men have children too. There are not many kids that have no biological father. I mean these comments talk about it as if kids and work around them had zero to do with men and we're some kind of female hobby. Among some men it is so as they don't care, but many men do actually care and do spend time with them.
sbov 9y ago
> If you control for age and whether women have children the gap shrinks a lot (in some areas it reverses). I generally agree with this line of thought, but you're also missing the higher level question: why, in our society, do we have to control for women who have children, but we don't have to control for men who have children?
- jeffreyrogers 9y ago
  Because women get pregnant and are the primary caregivers in most families? Edit: Basically you have to control for what's causing women to work less when the have children. And the obvious answer is because if you're a woman it's hard to work when you have a child at home. If you're a man that's not really true since typically your wife/girlfriend takes care of the child. You can argue that maybe men should take more responsibility for raising their kids, but that's more of a social/political issue than an economic one.
  - jadedhacker 9y ago
    Political and social issues and economic issues are one. They are only disconnected in the strange milleu of libertarianism that America finds itself in.
  - watwut 9y ago
    How is that not economic issue? That is just ridiculous claim. It may be issue that is not caused by her employer sexism, but impact on her retirement or perspective in case of divorce or simply buying power or what not is absolutely economic.
    - malvosenior 9y ago
      People have a choice in whether or not they procreate. If you can't afford to do it or are unwilling to sacrifice the extra income to focus more on your family, then you shouldn't have children. Just as if I chose to go live in the wilderness, it would only make sense that my income would drop. No one would be at fault and I wouldn't expect the government to make up the difference for my "lost" income.
12312390123 9y ago
It's very fascinating to me how the vast majority of time someone is saying "the statistics for gender are misleading" it appears to be a man saying it. > If you control for age and whether women have children the gap shrinks a lot (in some areas it reverses). Citation needed. > And an increasing share of wages going to the top income brackets isn't in itself cause for concern Citation needed.
- joyeuse6701 9y ago
  What are you implying? Is there some point you want to make about being a man and its relation to gender studies, or was that a sexist statement trying to call out sexism? It strikes me as somewhat hypocritical. Let's try not to be facetious while simultaneously undermining our own argument with poorly veiled prejudice.
- vedloseper 9y ago
  If you only ever hear men mention this, maybe you surround yourself with not very intelligent and/or not very honest women. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-g... > One of the best studies on the wage gap was released in 2009 by the U.S. Department of Labor. It examined more than 50 peer-reviewed papers and concluded that the 23-cent wage gap “may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers.” In the past, women’s groups have ignored or explained away such findings.
dominotw 9y ago
> And an increasing share of wages going to the top income brackets isn't in itself cause for concern, only if the members of the top income brackets are largely static does it matter Cant they control democracy via increase access to speech though wealth.
gameswithgo 9y ago
>And an increasing share of wages going to the top income brackets isn't in itself cause for concern Yes it is, history teaches us that it leads to dissastisfaction and in some cases violent revolution.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

athenot 9y ago

The original link is more instructive: http://www.epi.org/publication/the-state-of-american-wages-2017-wages-have-finally-recovered-from-the-blow-of-the-great-recession-but-are-still-growing-too-slowly-and-unequally/ http://www.epi.org/publication/the-state-of-american-wages-2... The Bloomberg article didn't even mention whether the changes were adjusted for inflation (they are).

sokoloff 9y ago
The Bloomberg article specifies them as "real wages", which are, by definition, adjusted for inflation.

lkrubner 9y ago

This is in keeping with a long term trend in which the standard of living for the median American has been allowed to stagnate for a long time. The male median wage has been stagnant or declining since 1973. This was previously discussed on Hacker News: http://www.smashcompany.com/philosophy/do-men-become-warlike-if-they-do-not-have-women http://www.smashcompany.com/philosophy/do-men-become-warlike... Also, consider that, when it comes to death-by-childbirth, the USA is among the very worst developed countries: https://maternityneighborhood.com/the-case-for-care-model-innovation-in-maternity-care/ https://maternityneighborhood.com/the-case-for-care-model-in...

39d3493I93 9y ago
The fact of the matter that we can't even discuss, let alone even mention the realities of these matters on account of the PC authoritarian goons going after you and silencing you and banning your accounts, is quite telling. It's quite unfortunate that regardless of when, all of this current liberal, PC, postmodern insanity will result in horrific results, because nothing can deviate so much without causing repercussions, regardless of what they may be. Just take your last point; we simply can't even discuss, let alone bring up the fact that the "death-by-childbirth" rates that you lament as being so high, are localize to specific ethnic and racial groups; but because the PC nazis will go after you if you if you don't, we are forced to imagine and repeat that the USA suffers from these third world problems not because there are exponentially more third world people in the USA than in ANY developed country.... while we are compelled to chant "diversity is our strength" at the end of the barrel of a gun. There is actually a huge degree of likelihood that you would not have seen this comment at all any more than you see any of the other comments and users that are digitally silenced and executed and whisked away to digital mass graves on sites like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc. So maybe this comment is just for some future researcher or digital archeologist that is able to reconstruct this message from digital pieces in their effort to understand how the current form of authoritarians were able to hoodwink and bamboozle the feeble minded fools into self-destruction and self-harm and pushed humanity to the brink.
rory096 9y ago
Median wage is a bad metric in a world where health insurance costs (and thus non-wage benefits) are rapidly rising. Median household wage is doubly bad in a world of changing household composition. https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/where-has-all-the-income-gone https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/where...

qwerty2020 9y ago

Posted something along these lines a few months ago [1], but with a few more stats. https://erikrood.com/Posts/consumer_expenditures.html https://erikrood.com/Posts/consumer_expenditures.html

BadCookie 9y ago

These stats are pretty ridiculous. Not all advanced degrees are more valuable than a bachelor's. In my own company, we definitely have men with a BS in computer science earning lots more than women with master's degrees in English and education, but you can hardly blame the wage difference on their genders.

dzonga 9y ago

Those that are okay, with this are 'temporarily embarrassed millionaires' who don't have millions yet. Fact, remains only people that love capitalism are capitalists themselves. for the rest of us we're doomed, if we don't embrace BI, Unions and a massive welfare state. Also full 100% inheritance tax.

thrden 9y ago
I disagree, I happen to love capitalism though I'm just a student. Its brought about incredible changes, and raised the standard of living for billions across the world. I've lived in post-soviet countries, and I've lived in the west and I'd much rather live within a capitalist system. Socialism and its derivatives do little to replace inequality as they merely replace trackable, earn-able financial capital with an amorphous social capital. One gets jobs based on who they know, who their parents are or perhaps what tribe they come from. No one can reasonably aspire to the the child of the nomenclatura. One can reasonably push toward the middle class, or upper middle class. Further within a racially stratified country, it seems likely that ethnic class-difference would be reinforced rather than alleviated.
- marnett 9y ago
  Have you lived in any of the progressive social-democratic nations? Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, Canada, Norway? I think their societal structures are much better suited for the technologically advanced world we live in today.
  - malvosenior 9y ago
    If that's the case, then why are none of those countries leading in actually creating technology? For the most part they are benefiting from technology that gets created in the US or Asia. Also, those are all very homogenous cultures. I don't think you can map what works there onto a very large, very diverse place like the US.
akkat 9y ago
I don't think I will ever be as rich as Bill Gates but I would still rather live in a capitalist country as a middle class person than in a communist country as a rich person.

d357r0y3r 9y ago

What would you rather have? 1) Perfect income equality (1:1 poorest:richest), but everyone is starving and most don't live out of childhood 2) Perfect income inequality (1:~infinity poorest:richest)), but the poorest in the world have a much higher standard of living and that standard is going up 3-5% a year. The point I'm driving at here is that income equality, by itself, isn't automatically desirable if the cost is a worse standard of living for the poor. It makes perfect sense that income inequality would increase due to globalization. The economic ramifications of "correct" business decisions are amplified by orders of magnitude when compared to mercantilist economies a few hundred years ago.

plandis 9y ago
Is standard of living increasing? At least in terms of wage growth adjusted for inflation that’s not true.
- sokoloff 9y ago
  Do you believe that the 25th percentile of income today has a higher standard of living than the 50th percentile person in "the golden age" of 1950? I do. Today's 25th percentile person is likely to have air conditioning, refrigeration, internet, a cell phone, a microwave oven, an HDTV, and a reliable car that needs very little routine maintenance and has air bags and antilock brakes. Today's 50th percentile is beating 1950s 75th percentile adding easy, affordable, safe, and reliable air transportation and living in a far larger house than their 1950s half-again higher counterpart. Today's 75th percentile is beating the 95th percentile in 1950. All of them have better health care options, and a longer life expectancy. Real wage growth may not have arrived for those who trade their hours for wages, but the standard of living available from those wages has risen dramatically.
Analemma_ 9y ago
Fallacy of the excluded middle much? We can (and should!) aim for a situation between the two you have described. And in any case, your proposed model isn't working: everyone else has had stagnant real wages since the 1970s. And income inequality actually is a problem even in and of itself, even without reference to absolute living standards. There's an increasing body of research that higher inequality in a society lowers happiness and increases resentment, ultimately undermining social cohesion and trust in government.

opportune 9y ago

Wage inequality is just a labor aristocracy, divide the masses tactic. We should also be looking at non-wage income i.e. dividends, interest, and capital gains. The untold story: non-wage income in the US is increasing as a share of total income, and the richest of the rich pay the lowest in taxes

milkshakes 9y ago
dividends and interest are in fact taxed as ordinary income in the united states
- opportune 9y ago
  Yes, but capital gains are not
Flavius 9y ago
What do you mean by "the lowest"? Percentage wise? Because I'm sure they pay millions or even billions in some cases. I agree that the rich might not pay the same percentage that you pay, but that's not even the real problem. The real problem is that we don't have equal opportunities. That gives the rich people a huge advantage when it comes to earning more money. We don't need to tax the rich more, that doesn't really help you when you're poor. We need to wisely use the money that we already have to create more opportunities for everyone.
- opportune 9y ago
  As a percentage of their own income, of course. How does taxing the rich more not help you when you're poor? Those taxes could go towards funding for training and education, medical expenses, infrastructure, all of which would work towards creating more equal opportunities
  - Flavius 9y ago
    It doesn't help you because the money don't go directly to you. They go to companies own by other rich people, companies that have contracts with the government. So you keep taxing the rich and they keep getting their money back.

LarryDarrell 9y ago

What gets me is the job holders in the upper 20% who actively support a system that benefits the non-working (or don't need to work) top 1%. I make a pretty high wage compared to a cashier at a store, but my interests align with them a lot more than a Walton. Yet my peers are convinced that because they have the trappings of the petite bourgeoisie and a well funded 401k that they have more in common with a Koch. I'm not familiar with a society that experienced such high inequality and did not have very disruptive upheaval afterwards. One would think the wealthy would advocate for universal health care, education and safety nets as a small price to pay for their own self preservation. On the other hand, they haven't had much to fear from the lower classes for a long time now.

joejerryronnie 9y ago
Why do you think so many 1%ers are advocating for Universal Basic Income? It's not due to some altruistic notion that everyone should be able to follow their dream. It's out of fear of a populist revolt. Their backup plan is New Zealand based prepper compounds.
- PopsiclePete 9y ago
  Populist revolt? In America? 50% of the population would gleefully shoot the other 50% dead as soon as their Masters tell them it's just "treasonous liberal Marxists". The 1% are super-duper safe. They've got nothing to fear from the "temporarily embarrassed millionaires".
- AnthonyMouse 9y ago
  A UBI is literally the purest form of redistribution of wealth. It takes money disproportionately from the rich and then gives it equally to everyone. There are only three classes of people who oppose it: 1) people who oppose all redistributive programs, 2) people who favor the centrally planned farce of the existing welfare system because it allows them to covertly insert corrupt industry-specific subsidies into the system, and 3) people who don't actually understand how it works. If the 1% favor it they must like income redistribution, dislike opportunities for political corruption, or not understand what they're asking for.

mieses 9y ago

utterly shocking that this story did not get instantly flagged.