4 ms·

Over the past 20 years, the amount of wealth has increased substansally, and almost none of the gain has gone to those at the bottom of society. Inequality is g

Over the past 20 years, the amount of wealth has increased substansally, and almost none of the gain has gone to those at the bottom of society. Inequality is growing every year.

refurb 7y ago
That’s clearly not true, at least in the US. Total compensation has outpaced inflation significantly.
- chc 7y ago
  This seems like a non sequitur. Total compensation vs. inflation is not a measure of inequality.
  - xyzzyz 7y ago
    Yes, but the grandparent claimed that > and almost none of the gain has gone to those at the bottom of society which is not true, since real compensation at the bottom of society has also gone up.
    - chc 7y ago
      By all the numbers I've seen, that's not really the case. For one example, according to the Congressional Research Service[1], inflation-adjusted wages for the bottom 10% of earners have been stagnant since the start of the 1980s, and inflation-adjusted wages for the bottom 50% have been nearly stagnant, with small gains that consist almost entirely of women's income getting closer to parity with men's. [1]: https://crsreports.congress.gov/search/#/?termsToSearch=r45090&orderBy=Relevance https://crsreports.congress.gov/search/#/?termsToSearch=r450...
- CJefferson 7y ago
  Wages after inflation haven't budged in 44 years: https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbersin/2018/10/31/why-arent-wages-keeping-up-its-not-the-economy-its-management/#56ce84e4397e https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbersin/2018/10/31/why-arent... I know the UK situation much better than the US situation.
underpand 7y ago
Don't the bottom of society all have access to the advancements in technology now e.g. 4g, high speed internet, smart phones, mobile apps, video games Access to technology is a form of wealth.
- joe_the_user 7y ago
  Your discussion along with the your GP treat "wealth" as an undifferentiated substance, where a greater total amount inherently involves a better life. The problem with this is that human beings are limited biological creatures with a variety of wants and needs each of which is not interchangeable with the other. Having a powerful smart phone with access to the Internet no doubt give a person greater variety of stimulous, the potential for entertainment, connection with those in near and distant land and whatever else. It satisfies what we might call the desire for entertainment, creativity or whatever. But it can't be directly substituted for food, clothing, shelter or a temperature controlled environment. So the situation of a homeless person with a smart phone freezing at night is better than a middle class person in the 1950s - even if we count the homeless person as having $1 million dollars in wealth measured by 1950s standard - since hey, that smart phone is lots of "wealth".
lol2143651 7y ago
This is the the wrong way to look at the data. You should follow individuals over 20 years, not class segments. Individuals who start at the bottom may move up over time even as new individuals join at the bottom.
eli_gottlieb 7y ago
The top 1% has taken most of the growth. The top 10% have received some table-scraps. The bottom 90% have lost income.

Over the past 20 years, the amount of wealth has increased substansally, and almost none of the gain has gone to those at the bottom of society. Inequality is growing every year.

refurb 7y ago

That’s clearly not true, at least in the US. Total compensation has outpaced inflation significantly.

chc 7y ago
This seems like a non sequitur. Total compensation vs. inflation is not a measure of inequality.
- xyzzyz 7y ago
  Yes, but the grandparent claimed that > and almost none of the gain has gone to those at the bottom of society which is not true, since real compensation at the bottom of society has also gone up.
  - chc 7y ago
    By all the numbers I've seen, that's not really the case. For one example, according to the Congressional Research Service[1], inflation-adjusted wages for the bottom 10% of earners have been stagnant since the start of the 1980s, and inflation-adjusted wages for the bottom 50% have been nearly stagnant, with small gains that consist almost entirely of women's income getting closer to parity with men's. [1]: https://crsreports.congress.gov/search/#/?termsToSearch=r45090&orderBy=Relevance https://crsreports.congress.gov/search/#/?termsToSearch=r450...
CJefferson 7y ago
Wages after inflation haven't budged in 44 years: https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbersin/2018/10/31/why-arent-wages-keeping-up-its-not-the-economy-its-management/#56ce84e4397e https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbersin/2018/10/31/why-arent... I know the UK situation much better than the US situation.

underpand 7y ago

Don't the bottom of society all have access to the advancements in technology now e.g. 4g, high speed internet, smart phones, mobile apps, video games Access to technology is a form of wealth.

joe_the_user 7y ago
Your discussion along with the your GP treat "wealth" as an undifferentiated substance, where a greater total amount inherently involves a better life. The problem with this is that human beings are limited biological creatures with a variety of wants and needs each of which is not interchangeable with the other. Having a powerful smart phone with access to the Internet no doubt give a person greater variety of stimulous, the potential for entertainment, connection with those in near and distant land and whatever else. It satisfies what we might call the desire for entertainment, creativity or whatever. But it can't be directly substituted for food, clothing, shelter or a temperature controlled environment. So the situation of a homeless person with a smart phone freezing at night is better than a middle class person in the 1950s - even if we count the homeless person as having $1 million dollars in wealth measured by 1950s standard - since hey, that smart phone is lots of "wealth".

lol2143651 7y ago

This is the the wrong way to look at the data. You should follow individuals over 20 years, not class segments. Individuals who start at the bottom may move up over time even as new individuals join at the bottom.

eli_gottlieb 7y ago

The top 1% has taken most of the growth. The top 10% have received some table-scraps. The bottom 90% have lost income.