3 ms·

When remembering past decades they identify themselves with the top 1% on the basis of having 70s 1%-markers today (eg., a degree, etc.). What has happened is t

When remembering past decades they identify themselves with the top 1% on the basis of having 70s 1%-markers today (eg., a degree, etc.). What has happened is that the markers of the 70s 1% are now of the c. 50% today. The author should be mapping the life of a 70th percentile person across all the decades... till the late 70s, that person was a poor industrial worker.

andrepd 5y ago
This is false. See https://www.epi.org/publication/ib330-productivity-vs-compensation/ https://www.epi.org/publication/ib330-productivity-vs-compen.... Income inequality has massively increased since the end of Bretton Woods and the start of the era of neoliberalism, deregulation, financialisation, and Reagan/Thatcher. Productivity increased while median (not top!) compensation remains stagnant.
- kortilla 5y ago
  Income inequality is irrelevant. The key metric is just how the income has changed for the bulk of the people. The existence of a 100 people with 100 billion each really does nothing for the real purchasing power of the middle and lower class. Income inequality is a red herring designed to act as a political wedge and distract you from a failing government.
  - pydry 5y ago
    >The existence of a 100 people with 100 billion each really does nothing for the real purchasing power of the middle and lower class. It has many deleterious effects but the most visceral one is that it prices them out of the housing market. Those 100 people's purchasing power distorts the hell out of any market they dive into and real estate is very much one of their favorites. Taxing them and all the people with wealth close to them to hell and back would make the real estate market sane again even if the tax money wasnt used to build new housing (which it should be). Wealth inequality is the real killer though, and the measure that is the most out of whack. I The rule is that if you ever want to downplay how bad things are, focus on income inequality to the exclusion of wealth inequality.
  - blagie 5y ago
    I've come to this conclusion as I've grown older: Income inequality is far more important than income. It doesn't much matter if everyone lives in a 2-bedroom house and rides a bicycle to work, or in a 5-bedroom McMansion and drives a Lexus. DDG for "hedonistic adaptation." Or travel to poorer countries. What does matter is /stress/. Right now, most Americans seem to be living in a state of high financial stress. Baseline costs, e.g. college debt, housing costs, medical costs, and similar take a majority of people's income. The remaining disposable income might buy more computers and TVs than in 1950, but that doesn't matter much. What does matter is that, for example, the short-term job loss, a litigation, a divorce, or a medical problem can lead to cascading financial ruin. It matters that the cost of raising kids puts having a family out-of-reach for many, or just very, very hard. The economy in, for example, the Soviet systems was far poorer, but on the whole, everyone was guaranteed housing, food, and basic medical. People were happy enough. I have mixed thoughts on universal basic income, but as I get older, I find concepts like that more and more appealing (personally, I'm more a fan of universal basic food, medicine, and housing, with all the complexities that entails). I also find Chinese-style socialization of land and of finance more appealing. Concepts like this date back to Rome. The poor in Rome were guaranteed grain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cura_Annonae https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cura_Annonae
- iopq 5y ago
  Income inequality has increased because the top earners earned more. The poor people didn't become poorer.
  - andrepd 5y ago
    Notice how you're justifying the system by arguing inside the system. "The system is not unequal because the system has allocated rewards this way". Classic circular reasoning: justifying a thing with the thing itself. Poor people and even the median did indeed become poorer, as wages either stagnated or even declined in real terms. Some consumer goods particularly electronics have decreased in price, but essentials have not: they increased a little (food) to a lot (housing, healthcare).
    - iopq 5y ago
      I'm not justifying anything, I'm simply stating that income inequality is the result of a lot of people becoming rich. Poor people did not become poorer and incomes did not stagnate if you include benefits. Currently healthcare is more expensive, and a larger percentage of total compensation is given in health benefits. Doesn't matter what your view on the health care issue is, if you're an employer, you spend more on your employees now than before
  - dd36 5y ago
    If you can afford a TV but not a house, education, healthcare, etc. are you not poorer than a period where the inverse was true? Which one makes for a successful society?
    - iopq 5y ago
      Because health care became more expensive. You couldn't have an MRI in 1970 because your hospital didn't have it. The technology of health care is now a lot more advanced and can add years to your health expectancy. Now, there are government programs that help you pay premiums or give you free care. I was on Medicaid several years ago, so the poorest people don't have the issue of not being able to pay. But that's a whole another topic. The point is you can't just compare what you can afford, because you're not comparing the same things. Houses are bigger these days as well.
- toshk 5y ago
  For US it's gone up, but massively is a bit of an overstatement. See the Gini Coeffecient which is often used for representing income equality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient UK seems worse, but other EU countries actually gone down, for instance France has had a big drop since the 50's.
- Aunche 5y ago
  I don't see how Bretton Woods has anything to do with this. Contrary to what goldbugs to believe, there was no real desire for anyone to return to a proper gold standard post-depression. Rather, Bretton Woods was a scheme to for the US to profit off the rebuild after WWII, which was why only governments could participate. Europe and Japan were desperate for dollars, so they were initially happy to exchange real gold for freshly printed dollars even though they recognized this was unfair. After they tried to exchange their dollars back into gold in large quantities, the US ended Bretton Woods.

andrepd 5y ago

This is false. See https://www.epi.org/publication/ib330-productivity-vs-compensation/ https://www.epi.org/publication/ib330-productivity-vs-compen.... Income inequality has massively increased since the end of Bretton Woods and the start of the era of neoliberalism, deregulation, financialisation, and Reagan/Thatcher. Productivity increased while median (not top!) compensation remains stagnant.

kortilla 5y ago
Income inequality is irrelevant. The key metric is just how the income has changed for the bulk of the people. The existence of a 100 people with 100 billion each really does nothing for the real purchasing power of the middle and lower class. Income inequality is a red herring designed to act as a political wedge and distract you from a failing government.
- pydry 5y ago
  >The existence of a 100 people with 100 billion each really does nothing for the real purchasing power of the middle and lower class. It has many deleterious effects but the most visceral one is that it prices them out of the housing market. Those 100 people's purchasing power distorts the hell out of any market they dive into and real estate is very much one of their favorites. Taxing them and all the people with wealth close to them to hell and back would make the real estate market sane again even if the tax money wasnt used to build new housing (which it should be). Wealth inequality is the real killer though, and the measure that is the most out of whack. I The rule is that if you ever want to downplay how bad things are, focus on income inequality to the exclusion of wealth inequality.
- blagie 5y ago
  I've come to this conclusion as I've grown older: Income inequality is far more important than income. It doesn't much matter if everyone lives in a 2-bedroom house and rides a bicycle to work, or in a 5-bedroom McMansion and drives a Lexus. DDG for "hedonistic adaptation." Or travel to poorer countries. What does matter is /stress/. Right now, most Americans seem to be living in a state of high financial stress. Baseline costs, e.g. college debt, housing costs, medical costs, and similar take a majority of people's income. The remaining disposable income might buy more computers and TVs than in 1950, but that doesn't matter much. What does matter is that, for example, the short-term job loss, a litigation, a divorce, or a medical problem can lead to cascading financial ruin. It matters that the cost of raising kids puts having a family out-of-reach for many, or just very, very hard. The economy in, for example, the Soviet systems was far poorer, but on the whole, everyone was guaranteed housing, food, and basic medical. People were happy enough. I have mixed thoughts on universal basic income, but as I get older, I find concepts like that more and more appealing (personally, I'm more a fan of universal basic food, medicine, and housing, with all the complexities that entails). I also find Chinese-style socialization of land and of finance more appealing. Concepts like this date back to Rome. The poor in Rome were guaranteed grain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cura_Annonae https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cura_Annonae
iopq 5y ago
Income inequality has increased because the top earners earned more. The poor people didn't become poorer.
- andrepd 5y ago
  Notice how you're justifying the system by arguing inside the system. "The system is not unequal because the system has allocated rewards this way". Classic circular reasoning: justifying a thing with the thing itself. Poor people and even the median did indeed become poorer, as wages either stagnated or even declined in real terms. Some consumer goods particularly electronics have decreased in price, but essentials have not: they increased a little (food) to a lot (housing, healthcare).
  - iopq 5y ago
    I'm not justifying anything, I'm simply stating that income inequality is the result of a lot of people becoming rich. Poor people did not become poorer and incomes did not stagnate if you include benefits. Currently healthcare is more expensive, and a larger percentage of total compensation is given in health benefits. Doesn't matter what your view on the health care issue is, if you're an employer, you spend more on your employees now than before
- dd36 5y ago
  If you can afford a TV but not a house, education, healthcare, etc. are you not poorer than a period where the inverse was true? Which one makes for a successful society?
  - iopq 5y ago
    Because health care became more expensive. You couldn't have an MRI in 1970 because your hospital didn't have it. The technology of health care is now a lot more advanced and can add years to your health expectancy. Now, there are government programs that help you pay premiums or give you free care. I was on Medicaid several years ago, so the poorest people don't have the issue of not being able to pay. But that's a whole another topic. The point is you can't just compare what you can afford, because you're not comparing the same things. Houses are bigger these days as well.
toshk 5y ago
For US it's gone up, but massively is a bit of an overstatement. See the Gini Coeffecient which is often used for representing income equality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient UK seems worse, but other EU countries actually gone down, for instance France has had a big drop since the 50's.
Aunche 5y ago
I don't see how Bretton Woods has anything to do with this. Contrary to what goldbugs to believe, there was no real desire for anyone to return to a proper gold standard post-depression. Rather, Bretton Woods was a scheme to for the US to profit off the rebuild after WWII, which was why only governments could participate. Europe and Japan were desperate for dollars, so they were initially happy to exchange real gold for freshly printed dollars even though they recognized this was unfair. After they tried to exchange their dollars back into gold in large quantities, the US ended Bretton Woods.