6 ms·

That's not true. American economic disparity is at its worst point since the 1930s. It made a slight recovery in the 1980s, but has been slipping ever since. T

That's not true. American economic disparity is at its worst point since the 1930s. It made a slight recovery in the 1980s, but has been slipping ever since. The rich are getting richer, and the poor poorer. This is not unique to New York city.

nazgulnarsil 16y ago
no, the rich and poor are getting richer. it's just that the rich are getting rich faster.
cletus 16y ago
This depends on your timescale. The fact is, if you're going to be poor or work a menial job there is no better time in history to be that way than now. The standard of living amongst even the poorest in the developed world is better than that of the richest just a century or two ago. Life expectancy, literacy, access to technology and financial freedom are unparalleled. Does that mean the gap between rich and poor isn't widening? No it doesn't. But rather than focus on the disparity between the poor and the mega-rich, why not just examine the circumstances of the poor? Who really cares if there are more billionaires than ever (a function largely of inflation)? What's more, society is far less classist than it has ever been. Throughout history you've had the aristocratic classes. If you weren't born to them, too bad (with very few exceptions). Now? Some of America's richest people were born to nothing (Gates, Page, Brin, Buffett, etc). There are certainly advantages to being born to parents who are better off than poor: better access to education, the fact that the right choices made by parents tend to be repeated by their children and so on. So maybe we should have less hand-wringing about how badly the poor have it in the developed world and look at a real problem like how badly the poor have it in the developing world where diseases than are for us either extinct or simply nuisances routinely kill and many can't even get access to clean drinking water.
- quinndupont 16y ago
  There are statistical challenges for determining a good metric for poverty, but it doesn't take a lot of insight to recognize that poverty in United States is considerable: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/04/poverty_numbers.html http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/04/poverty_numbe... Levels of inequality are important for many reasons: notions of justice and respect, regressive taxation, access to quality education, etc. The Nation commissioned a symposium on the matter: http://www.thenation.com/article/36894/inequality-america http://www.thenation.com/article/36894/inequality-america Many developing nations have far worse poverty than United States, but the cause is often rather unsurprising: US and global destabilization of economies, forced "liberalization" and economic reform (that end up tipping the already vulnerable citizens into extreme poverty), etc. Class is, in fact, as entrenched as it ever has been. The list of rich people you mention (white men, all of them) were all born of considerable privilege (parents were millionaires or at least upper class). Even a quick look on Wikipedia will tell you this much. This is a common misconception about wealth in the US. The old Horatio Alger story that Americans' want to believe in. Here's a few examples of just how bad some Americans have it (no one with a conscience should need such a reminder, but evidently some do): http://www.pbs.org/klru/forgottenamericans/ http://www.pbs.org/klru/forgottenamericans/ http://southernspaces.org/2010/worst-times-children-extreme-poverty-south-and-nation http://southernspaces.org/2010/worst-times-children-extreme-... This list of examples could, of course, go on forever.
  - watchandwait 16y ago
    The number one health problem among America's poor is obesity and its related illnesses. The American poor mostly own cars, TVs, and air conditioners, and often live in residences bigger than middle class homes in Europe. Sorry, poverty in America is nothing like Third World poverty where survival is a daily struggle.
    - billjings 16y ago
      So if your fellow man isn't starving to death they're doing all right? This idea that survival and happiness is all about how you're doing by some absolute scale of quality of life is absolutely bonkers. The plight of third world people has about as much to do with the poverty of your countrymen as the plight of political prisoners in North Korea has to do with Bradley Manning. Which is to say, we have our standards of justice and wealth and they have theirs - that's why this is the United States and that's North Korea. It is completely legitimate for someone in the United States to be upset that Warren Buffett can make his billions while they can't make rent, even though they're willing and able to work. They are trying to maintain this idea that we live in one nation, after all.
      - anamax 16y ago
        > So if your fellow man isn't starving to death they're doing all right? Not at all. However, if they're doing pretty well.... > It is completely legitimate for someone in the United States to be upset that Warren Buffett can make his billions while they can't make rent It may be legitimate to be upset, but that doesn't imply that it is legitmate to claim that poverty in the US is at all comparable to poverty in, say, the Sudan. If you can't, or won't, distinguish being poor in the US from being poor elsewhere, you're either dishonest or ignorant. Which one is a reason to listen to you?
      - orangecat 16y ago
        It is completely legitimate for someone in the United States to be upset that Warren Buffett can make his billions while they can't make rent, even though they're willing and able to work. Yes, it is. What isn't reasonable is pretending that destroying Warren Buffett's wealth (reducing inequality!) would make anyone better off.
- Duff 16y ago
  You sound like a typical middle class person who doesn't get out much in an urban area or have had to struggle. Bill Gates isn't a rags to riches tale -- he had every advantage. The poorest people around us probably aren't dying of hunger anymore. But there is more to life than a full belly. The welfare state destroyed the notion of an intact family completely -- to the point that a household with a father present is an unusual event. People need dignity and a purpose. If you moved into the "big city" from the farm with a 6th grade education 100 years ago, you could get a job in a factory or get into a union and support a family. Life was hard, but you had a purpose. Picture yourself as a 12 year old in the hood: - You can barely read. Your teacher doesn't know your name - You have a single parent who may or may not be present. She's 27 - You probably don't have a computer - There's a 1 in 5 chance that your father is in prison. - Of the adults that you are acquainted with 80% are not employed. - You live in decrepit housing in an area with high crime. You're literally surrounded by violent criminals, molesters and misery. How would you do?
  - cletus 16y ago
    > The poorest people around us probably aren't dying of hunger anymore. Which makes them better off than previous generations, right? > The poorest people around us probably aren't dying of hunger anymore. But there is more to life than a full belly. Sure but what's that got to do with poverty? If you're not poor you don't necessarily have purpose either. The world is full of idle, clueless rich people who live off inherited wealth and contribute nothing. Just look at Paris Hilton. Oh and my point wasn't that Bill Gates wasn't rags to riches: but he has accumulated wealth in his lifetime many orders of magnitude to what he had when he started. That's the point. What we take for granted today didn't exist centuries ago in an era of the birthright aristocracy and serfdom little different to slavery. > If you moved into the "big city" from the farm with a 6th grade education 100 years ago 100 years ago, relatively speaking, that would've been a lot better education than a 6th grade education is in today's terms. > How would you do? It's hard to say because that's a life story I simply don't have. Statistically speaking however, pretty poorly would be the answer. Like I said: the circumstances you're born to (parent's education and so on) correlate positively to the choices the children make. But in all honesty your post reads like a "bleeding heart" infomercial (and a request for donations). The sad truth is that many are poor because they make poor choices. It's just unfortunate that their offspring tend to be detrimentally affected by that. Let's also consider that the definition of poverty is extremely political. What is poverty? In the developing world, being largely disease free (to the extent the developed world is) and having shelter, food and a clean drinking water would mean a lot. Here? There is a subjective definition covering far more than that. Consider: 91% of Americans use cell phones [1] but 12.7% of Americans are below the poverty line [2]. So at least one quarter of all those deemed poor use cell phones, which can still be considered a discretionary expenditure. Add in other discretionary behaviour like alcohol, tobacco and even drugs and what you see is a pattern of people making poor choices. Not in all cases but certainly a lot. Look there are genuine social problems in America. Health care is almost inextricably tied to employment. Insurers can dump you over trivial terms like being two cents short on your payment [3]. The war on poverty has had many detrimental effects such as Section 8 Housing [4] creating ghettoes. Quality of education seems to largely be a factor of how wealthy your district is. The powerful educational unions stifle any attempt at teacher and school accountability. The list goes on. But if you think the poor of 100+ years ago didn't have problems--problems of life and death, forced servitude, disease, etc--and that those problems aren't relatively speaking worse than those of the so-called poor in the developed world, you're kidding yourself. [1]: http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2010/03/wireless-survey-91-of-americans-have-cell-phones.ars http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2010/03/wireless-survey-... [2]: http://www.soundvision.com/Info/poor/statistics.asp http://www.soundvision.com/Info/poor/statistics.asp [3]: http://abcnews.go.com/US/cancer-patient-vietnam-vet-ron-flanagan-loses-insurance/story?id=12768088 http://abcnews.go.com/US/cancer-patient-vietnam-vet-ron-flan... [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_8_(housing) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_8_(housing)
- smutticus 16y ago
  The real problem with disparity in income is the disparity in political power that comes with it. As the gap between the rich and poor widens so does the gap between those who matter and those who don't.
  - scrod 16y ago
    So many people seem to conveniently ignore this fact, and yet the consequences are so evident today that you would have to be blind to deny it.
- jleader 16y ago
  Wait, are you listing Bill Gates as someone who was "born to nothing"? Seriously?
- Zpirate 16y ago
  Actually, the best time to be a poor, menial worker was the late 1960s. Real minimum wage peaked and there was less competition for the bottom dollar. http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/minwage.html http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/minwage.html
- brown9-2 16y ago
  Some of America's richest people were born to nothing (Gates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates#Early_life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates#Early_life - His father was a prominent lawyer - His mother served on the board of directors of a bank and the United Way - he attended an exclusive prep school

nazgulnarsil 16y ago

no, the rich and poor are getting richer. it's just that the rich are getting rich faster.

cletus 16y ago

This depends on your timescale. The fact is, if you're going to be poor or work a menial job there is no better time in history to be that way than now. The standard of living amongst even the poorest in the developed world is better than that of the richest just a century or two ago. Life expectancy, literacy, access to technology and financial freedom are unparalleled. Does that mean the gap between rich and poor isn't widening? No it doesn't. But rather than focus on the disparity between the poor and the mega-rich, why not just examine the circumstances of the poor? Who really cares if there are more billionaires than ever (a function largely of inflation)? What's more, society is far less classist than it has ever been. Throughout history you've had the aristocratic classes. If you weren't born to them, too bad (with very few exceptions). Now? Some of America's richest people were born to nothing (Gates, Page, Brin, Buffett, etc). There are certainly advantages to being born to parents who are better off than poor: better access to education, the fact that the right choices made by parents tend to be repeated by their children and so on. So maybe we should have less hand-wringing about how badly the poor have it in the developed world and look at a real problem like how badly the poor have it in the developing world where diseases than are for us either extinct or simply nuisances routinely kill and many can't even get access to clean drinking water.

quinndupont 16y ago
There are statistical challenges for determining a good metric for poverty, but it doesn't take a lot of insight to recognize that poverty in United States is considerable: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/04/poverty_numbers.html http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/04/poverty_numbe... Levels of inequality are important for many reasons: notions of justice and respect, regressive taxation, access to quality education, etc. The Nation commissioned a symposium on the matter: http://www.thenation.com/article/36894/inequality-america http://www.thenation.com/article/36894/inequality-america Many developing nations have far worse poverty than United States, but the cause is often rather unsurprising: US and global destabilization of economies, forced "liberalization" and economic reform (that end up tipping the already vulnerable citizens into extreme poverty), etc. Class is, in fact, as entrenched as it ever has been. The list of rich people you mention (white men, all of them) were all born of considerable privilege (parents were millionaires or at least upper class). Even a quick look on Wikipedia will tell you this much. This is a common misconception about wealth in the US. The old Horatio Alger story that Americans' want to believe in. Here's a few examples of just how bad some Americans have it (no one with a conscience should need such a reminder, but evidently some do): http://www.pbs.org/klru/forgottenamericans/ http://www.pbs.org/klru/forgottenamericans/ http://southernspaces.org/2010/worst-times-children-extreme-poverty-south-and-nation http://southernspaces.org/2010/worst-times-children-extreme-... This list of examples could, of course, go on forever.
- watchandwait 16y ago
  The number one health problem among America's poor is obesity and its related illnesses. The American poor mostly own cars, TVs, and air conditioners, and often live in residences bigger than middle class homes in Europe. Sorry, poverty in America is nothing like Third World poverty where survival is a daily struggle.
  - billjings 16y ago
    So if your fellow man isn't starving to death they're doing all right? This idea that survival and happiness is all about how you're doing by some absolute scale of quality of life is absolutely bonkers. The plight of third world people has about as much to do with the poverty of your countrymen as the plight of political prisoners in North Korea has to do with Bradley Manning. Which is to say, we have our standards of justice and wealth and they have theirs - that's why this is the United States and that's North Korea. It is completely legitimate for someone in the United States to be upset that Warren Buffett can make his billions while they can't make rent, even though they're willing and able to work. They are trying to maintain this idea that we live in one nation, after all.
    - anamax 16y ago
      > So if your fellow man isn't starving to death they're doing all right? Not at all. However, if they're doing pretty well.... > It is completely legitimate for someone in the United States to be upset that Warren Buffett can make his billions while they can't make rent It may be legitimate to be upset, but that doesn't imply that it is legitmate to claim that poverty in the US is at all comparable to poverty in, say, the Sudan. If you can't, or won't, distinguish being poor in the US from being poor elsewhere, you're either dishonest or ignorant. Which one is a reason to listen to you?
    - orangecat 16y ago
      It is completely legitimate for someone in the United States to be upset that Warren Buffett can make his billions while they can't make rent, even though they're willing and able to work. Yes, it is. What isn't reasonable is pretending that destroying Warren Buffett's wealth (reducing inequality!) would make anyone better off.
Duff 16y ago
You sound like a typical middle class person who doesn't get out much in an urban area or have had to struggle. Bill Gates isn't a rags to riches tale -- he had every advantage. The poorest people around us probably aren't dying of hunger anymore. But there is more to life than a full belly. The welfare state destroyed the notion of an intact family completely -- to the point that a household with a father present is an unusual event. People need dignity and a purpose. If you moved into the "big city" from the farm with a 6th grade education 100 years ago, you could get a job in a factory or get into a union and support a family. Life was hard, but you had a purpose. Picture yourself as a 12 year old in the hood: - You can barely read. Your teacher doesn't know your name - You have a single parent who may or may not be present. She's 27 - You probably don't have a computer - There's a 1 in 5 chance that your father is in prison. - Of the adults that you are acquainted with 80% are not employed. - You live in decrepit housing in an area with high crime. You're literally surrounded by violent criminals, molesters and misery. How would you do?
- cletus 16y ago
  > The poorest people around us probably aren't dying of hunger anymore. Which makes them better off than previous generations, right? > The poorest people around us probably aren't dying of hunger anymore. But there is more to life than a full belly. Sure but what's that got to do with poverty? If you're not poor you don't necessarily have purpose either. The world is full of idle, clueless rich people who live off inherited wealth and contribute nothing. Just look at Paris Hilton. Oh and my point wasn't that Bill Gates wasn't rags to riches: but he has accumulated wealth in his lifetime many orders of magnitude to what he had when he started. That's the point. What we take for granted today didn't exist centuries ago in an era of the birthright aristocracy and serfdom little different to slavery. > If you moved into the "big city" from the farm with a 6th grade education 100 years ago 100 years ago, relatively speaking, that would've been a lot better education than a 6th grade education is in today's terms. > How would you do? It's hard to say because that's a life story I simply don't have. Statistically speaking however, pretty poorly would be the answer. Like I said: the circumstances you're born to (parent's education and so on) correlate positively to the choices the children make. But in all honesty your post reads like a "bleeding heart" infomercial (and a request for donations). The sad truth is that many are poor because they make poor choices. It's just unfortunate that their offspring tend to be detrimentally affected by that. Let's also consider that the definition of poverty is extremely political. What is poverty? In the developing world, being largely disease free (to the extent the developed world is) and having shelter, food and a clean drinking water would mean a lot. Here? There is a subjective definition covering far more than that. Consider: 91% of Americans use cell phones [1] but 12.7% of Americans are below the poverty line [2]. So at least one quarter of all those deemed poor use cell phones, which can still be considered a discretionary expenditure. Add in other discretionary behaviour like alcohol, tobacco and even drugs and what you see is a pattern of people making poor choices. Not in all cases but certainly a lot. Look there are genuine social problems in America. Health care is almost inextricably tied to employment. Insurers can dump you over trivial terms like being two cents short on your payment [3]. The war on poverty has had many detrimental effects such as Section 8 Housing [4] creating ghettoes. Quality of education seems to largely be a factor of how wealthy your district is. The powerful educational unions stifle any attempt at teacher and school accountability. The list goes on. But if you think the poor of 100+ years ago didn't have problems--problems of life and death, forced servitude, disease, etc--and that those problems aren't relatively speaking worse than those of the so-called poor in the developed world, you're kidding yourself. [1]: http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2010/03/wireless-survey-91-of-americans-have-cell-phones.ars http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2010/03/wireless-survey-... [2]: http://www.soundvision.com/Info/poor/statistics.asp http://www.soundvision.com/Info/poor/statistics.asp [3]: http://abcnews.go.com/US/cancer-patient-vietnam-vet-ron-flanagan-loses-insurance/story?id=12768088 http://abcnews.go.com/US/cancer-patient-vietnam-vet-ron-flan... [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_8_(housing) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_8_(housing)
smutticus 16y ago
The real problem with disparity in income is the disparity in political power that comes with it. As the gap between the rich and poor widens so does the gap between those who matter and those who don't.
- scrod 16y ago
  So many people seem to conveniently ignore this fact, and yet the consequences are so evident today that you would have to be blind to deny it.
jleader 16y ago
Wait, are you listing Bill Gates as someone who was "born to nothing"? Seriously?
Zpirate 16y ago
Actually, the best time to be a poor, menial worker was the late 1960s. Real minimum wage peaked and there was less competition for the bottom dollar. http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/minwage.html http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/minwage.html
brown9-2 16y ago
Some of America's richest people were born to nothing (Gates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates#Early_life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates#Early_life - His father was a prominent lawyer - His mother served on the board of directors of a bank and the United Way - he attended an exclusive prep school