By many metrics, the US economy is humming along. The jobs market is robust; consumers are spending again; and inflation has eased to a three-year low.
Considering the article I posted contradicts yours
The article you posted does not contradict mine. Yours says that inequality is higher in 2022 than in 2019. The one I posted said inequality began to decrease in late 2021. Both can be true. Inequality may finally be decreasing after decades of relentless increase, yet remain higher than it was in 2019.
statistics can say anything so they’re nearly meaningless
People can certainly misinterpret statistics. If you think that’s the case, then you should examine the methods and data and propose a better interpretation.
Dismissing data that do not match personal experience is how you end up with science deniers (e.g. “It’s 20 below in Chicago, so much for global warming!”, “Nobody I know has died of covid so I don’t need a vaccine!”)
we should just stop complaining
Nobody said you should stop complaining. But complaining without a solution in mind is pointless. And data suggest that Biden has made more progress towards a solution than previous presidents, or his opponent.
When your link says when the bottom 50% has increased faster than every other group except the top 1%, the fact still stands that income inequality is getting worse. And a misleading title on top of that. All of us in the middle are just stagnating and you’re seeing that as a win because the poorest and most vulnerable were given crumbs? Also the article mentions that the gains of the lower class might not last long because that gain is due to covid stimulus programs.
Corporate profits have risen 25%-30% and the value of the dollar has lost 18% of its value since 2020. Something is wrong.
every other group except the top 1%, the fact still stands that income inequality is getting worse
Not necessarily. Inequality is not just about the top 1%, it reflects the entire distribution of income. For example, suppose that the bottom 50% and the top 10% were stagnant, but the 51st to 90th percentiles all experienced rapid growth. The range of incomes would be the same, but inequality would nevertheless have increased.
Mathematically, inequality is expressed using the Gini coefficient. It is quite possible for inequality to decrease even if the top 1% grows faster than the bottom 50%.
the poorest and most vulnerable were given crumbs
Income growth of 6% is not crumbs.
the gains of the lower class might not last long
True, there are no guarantees because we don’t know what the future will bring. If Trump wins the election, I suspect the gains won’t last long at all.
Yes yes, many different methods to try to convince people that the Matthew effect isn’t real and the top 1% isn’t gaining wealth at an ungodly rate to the detriment of the planet and everyone living on it. Ignoring the richest people when comparing the gap between the richest to the poorest income growth is such a dishonest way of making statistics work.
Income growth of 6% when your income is near nothing is crumbs. Surviving on less than $38 a day and getting a bump of a couple dollars might be greatly needed to those people, but it’s really absolutely nothing compared to the rate of wealth accumulated by the rich in this country. How much material change to one’s life will a couple dollars make? The difference between starving on the street or starving on someone’s couch? All while the richest are suddenly making enough money to buy entire countries, let alone their impact on governing policies to keep those who are poor poor enough to always be gasping for air, too tired to fight back.
So long as capitalism is functioning as intended, every president will feel worse and worse unless you’re comfortable. Comfortable people are willing to believe any article they read on the internet to not feel guilty that the system they feel comfortable in exploits their fellow countrymen as well as those in the global south. I’m not playing political team sports and I have no incentive to try to convince people “my guy” really isn’t that bad. I have no reason to parrot other people who have a material incentive on writing articles that are trying to convince people who are hurting that they aren’t really hurting. If you want Biden to win, you’re better off trying to convince him to pull an FDR with a New Deal than trying to convince me to vote for someone who is perpetuating genocide.
[edit] forgive me for not giving any sort of credit to the Gini method, created by someone who defended fascism and the nazis. (I’ll ignore his eugenics stance since it seems everyone around then was big into eugenics). From Robert H Wade, professor of economy: “it has long been accepted that the Gini coefficient is the workhorse measure of inequality. But it is not generally recognized that the coefficient is normally defined in a way which biases the measure in a downward direction, making inequality seem less large than another version of the coefficient would suggest. By this alternative measure inequality is much higher than is generally thought. The standard measure is misleading us into thinking that economic growth is more “inclusive’ than it is.”
It seems to me like the Gini index is just as bad as the GDP for being an oversimplification of something complex (be that income inequality or economic health). Hey, but it’s a single number and that number is easy to understand at the detriment of its accuracy.
If you think the IRA comes even close to touching the 75% taxed income of the highest earners of the New Deal, you’ve been brainwashed. Also, as far as I understand IRA was mainly the push for subsidizing more green energy production, not actually fighting inflation. And that also falls flat because biden has been approving more oil drilling than trump as well as the US now being the worlds largest exporter of liquified natural gas (diet fossil fuels), surpassing Australia and Qatar.
“Well what’s your plan??” as if exploiting everyone we can is the only possible option. Do you also ask starving people how they would combat world hunger? Do you ask homeless people how they would combat the housing crisis? Go gather some empathy and realize that your comfort comes at the cost of others. How much are you willing to fight for a system that says it’s okay if “the undesirable” dies, so long as the voting population are comfortable?
The IRA, like the New Deal, is a massive spending program aimed at economic recovery. It doesn’t really matter to me whether it’s funded by increased personal income tax (New Deal) or increased corporate income tax (IRA). It will also double the rate at which the US reduces its CO2 emissions and is highly praised by climate scientists.
US oil production has increased, but that is of less concern because CO2 emissions targets will not be achieved by artificially limiting oil supply. They will be achieved by reducing oil demand, which means replacing cars with EVs and power plants with renewables and nuclear. The goal is not to make oil scarce, the goal is to make oil worthless.
And yes, if someone thinks we need to do more about the hungry or homeless then I ask what their plan is. There are many good plans out there. If someone thinks those plans will fail but cannot offer a better one of their own, then that amounts to defeatism which I think is part of the problem.
Incentivizing companies to convert to green energy rather than punishing companies who poison our planet shouldn’t be praised. Yet again, tax payers are “bailing out” companies that introduce life threatening issues to our world caused by metastasized capitalism.
And I fully understand than any bumps in our energy production along a transition cause hundreds of thousands of people to die. It’s a big deal and requires a steady hand. That isn’t lost on me. But people are currently dying and enslaved to keep this system propped up, and that can’t be ignored. Treating our abusers with kid gloves when it comes to punishment isn’t something I’m going to celebrate. We somehow got VW to fund Electrify America due to their emissions scandal, but the issue is that polluting the world within the legal parameters is fine. It means we need to keep tightening parameters until every single mega corporation is paying for a functional and emergent technology for society to help reverse the harm they’ve caused.
If we’re going to keep going with this failed and exploitative system, we’ve got to create better standards of living for everyone. That means everyone has the ability to live a dignified life in a house they could afford with no food or job or healthcare insecurity. We’ve got to remove the legal act of prison to table labor. We’ve got to stop trading with countries and companies that use slave labor or labor under a living wage. We’ve got to ban for-profit prisons and for-profit public services. We’ve got to hold companies accountable in a real way. We’ve got to stop instigating insurrection across the world so we can sell weapons of war. We’ve got to stop funding genocides. We’ve got to bar lobbying from being legal. These are non-negotiable. If our politicians continue to side with our abusers and continue to be okay with murder, so long as it takes 20 years for the murder to reach its end, we do what America was founded on- revolution.
If there were a magic wand that could reward the pure and punish the guilty, I would wave it. But there isn’t.
As a direct result of previous elections, it is currently impossible to accomplish most of your goals. At a federal level, prison reform is not on the table. Nor are wide-ranging trade bans. Nor is a lobbying ban. Even small attempts to punish bad behavior, like tightening EPA standards, are generally reversed in the courts. All of this because according to roughly 50% of American voters, it’s actually the status quo that is “non-negotiable”.
The system does provide one useful lever, however, which is to incentivize steps towards a solution. So that’s the lever that should be pulled. It’s not about “being okay” with the status quo, it’s about making a positive change using the most effective means at our disposal. You can celebrate incremental progress or not, but it’s the only way forward.
The article you posted does not contradict mine. Yours says that inequality is higher in 2022 than in 2019. The one I posted said inequality began to decrease in late 2021. Both can be true. Inequality may finally be decreasing after decades of relentless increase, yet remain higher than it was in 2019.
People can certainly misinterpret statistics. If you think that’s the case, then you should examine the methods and data and propose a better interpretation.
Dismissing data that do not match personal experience is how you end up with science deniers (e.g. “It’s 20 below in Chicago, so much for global warming!”, “Nobody I know has died of covid so I don’t need a vaccine!”)
Nobody said you should stop complaining. But complaining without a solution in mind is pointless. And data suggest that Biden has made more progress towards a solution than previous presidents, or his opponent.
When your link says when the bottom 50% has increased faster than every other group except the top 1%, the fact still stands that income inequality is getting worse. And a misleading title on top of that. All of us in the middle are just stagnating and you’re seeing that as a win because the poorest and most vulnerable were given crumbs? Also the article mentions that the gains of the lower class might not last long because that gain is due to covid stimulus programs.
Corporate profits have risen 25%-30% and the value of the dollar has lost 18% of its value since 2020. Something is wrong.
Not necessarily. Inequality is not just about the top 1%, it reflects the entire distribution of income. For example, suppose that the bottom 50% and the top 10% were stagnant, but the 51st to 90th percentiles all experienced rapid growth. The range of incomes would be the same, but inequality would nevertheless have increased.
Mathematically, inequality is expressed using the Gini coefficient. It is quite possible for inequality to decrease even if the top 1% grows faster than the bottom 50%.
Income growth of 6% is not crumbs.
True, there are no guarantees because we don’t know what the future will bring. If Trump wins the election, I suspect the gains won’t last long at all.
Yes yes, many different methods to try to convince people that the Matthew effect isn’t real and the top 1% isn’t gaining wealth at an ungodly rate to the detriment of the planet and everyone living on it. Ignoring the richest people when comparing the gap between the richest to the poorest income growth is such a dishonest way of making statistics work.
Income growth of 6% when your income is near nothing is crumbs. Surviving on less than $38 a day and getting a bump of a couple dollars might be greatly needed to those people, but it’s really absolutely nothing compared to the rate of wealth accumulated by the rich in this country. How much material change to one’s life will a couple dollars make? The difference between starving on the street or starving on someone’s couch? All while the richest are suddenly making enough money to buy entire countries, let alone their impact on governing policies to keep those who are poor poor enough to always be gasping for air, too tired to fight back.
So long as capitalism is functioning as intended, every president will feel worse and worse unless you’re comfortable. Comfortable people are willing to believe any article they read on the internet to not feel guilty that the system they feel comfortable in exploits their fellow countrymen as well as those in the global south. I’m not playing political team sports and I have no incentive to try to convince people “my guy” really isn’t that bad. I have no reason to parrot other people who have a material incentive on writing articles that are trying to convince people who are hurting that they aren’t really hurting. If you want Biden to win, you’re better off trying to convince him to pull an FDR with a New Deal than trying to convince me to vote for someone who is perpetuating genocide.
[edit] forgive me for not giving any sort of credit to the Gini method, created by someone who defended fascism and the nazis. (I’ll ignore his eugenics stance since it seems everyone around then was big into eugenics). From Robert H Wade, professor of economy: “it has long been accepted that the Gini coefficient is the workhorse measure of inequality. But it is not generally recognized that the coefficient is normally defined in a way which biases the measure in a downward direction, making inequality seem less large than another version of the coefficient would suggest. By this alternative measure inequality is much higher than is generally thought. The standard measure is misleading us into thinking that economic growth is more “inclusive’ than it is.”
It seems to me like the Gini index is just as bad as the GDP for being an oversimplification of something complex (be that income inequality or economic health). Hey, but it’s a single number and that number is easy to understand at the detriment of its accuracy.
I don’t need to convince him, he already passed the IRA.
Anyway, I’m still not sure what your plan is to solve the problems you describe, but I don’t think it’s going to work
If you think the IRA comes even close to touching the 75% taxed income of the highest earners of the New Deal, you’ve been brainwashed. Also, as far as I understand IRA was mainly the push for subsidizing more green energy production, not actually fighting inflation. And that also falls flat because biden has been approving more oil drilling than trump as well as the US now being the worlds largest exporter of liquified natural gas (diet fossil fuels), surpassing Australia and Qatar.
“Well what’s your plan??” as if exploiting everyone we can is the only possible option. Do you also ask starving people how they would combat world hunger? Do you ask homeless people how they would combat the housing crisis? Go gather some empathy and realize that your comfort comes at the cost of others. How much are you willing to fight for a system that says it’s okay if “the undesirable” dies, so long as the voting population are comfortable?
The IRA, like the New Deal, is a massive spending program aimed at economic recovery. It doesn’t really matter to me whether it’s funded by increased personal income tax (New Deal) or increased corporate income tax (IRA). It will also double the rate at which the US reduces its CO2 emissions and is highly praised by climate scientists.
US oil production has increased, but that is of less concern because CO2 emissions targets will not be achieved by artificially limiting oil supply. They will be achieved by reducing oil demand, which means replacing cars with EVs and power plants with renewables and nuclear. The goal is not to make oil scarce, the goal is to make oil worthless.
And yes, if someone thinks we need to do more about the hungry or homeless then I ask what their plan is. There are many good plans out there. If someone thinks those plans will fail but cannot offer a better one of their own, then that amounts to defeatism which I think is part of the problem.
Incentivizing companies to convert to green energy rather than punishing companies who poison our planet shouldn’t be praised. Yet again, tax payers are “bailing out” companies that introduce life threatening issues to our world caused by metastasized capitalism.
And I fully understand than any bumps in our energy production along a transition cause hundreds of thousands of people to die. It’s a big deal and requires a steady hand. That isn’t lost on me. But people are currently dying and enslaved to keep this system propped up, and that can’t be ignored. Treating our abusers with kid gloves when it comes to punishment isn’t something I’m going to celebrate. We somehow got VW to fund Electrify America due to their emissions scandal, but the issue is that polluting the world within the legal parameters is fine. It means we need to keep tightening parameters until every single mega corporation is paying for a functional and emergent technology for society to help reverse the harm they’ve caused.
If we’re going to keep going with this failed and exploitative system, we’ve got to create better standards of living for everyone. That means everyone has the ability to live a dignified life in a house they could afford with no food or job or healthcare insecurity. We’ve got to remove the legal act of prison to table labor. We’ve got to stop trading with countries and companies that use slave labor or labor under a living wage. We’ve got to ban for-profit prisons and for-profit public services. We’ve got to hold companies accountable in a real way. We’ve got to stop instigating insurrection across the world so we can sell weapons of war. We’ve got to stop funding genocides. We’ve got to bar lobbying from being legal. These are non-negotiable. If our politicians continue to side with our abusers and continue to be okay with murder, so long as it takes 20 years for the murder to reach its end, we do what America was founded on- revolution.
If there were a magic wand that could reward the pure and punish the guilty, I would wave it. But there isn’t.
As a direct result of previous elections, it is currently impossible to accomplish most of your goals. At a federal level, prison reform is not on the table. Nor are wide-ranging trade bans. Nor is a lobbying ban. Even small attempts to punish bad behavior, like tightening EPA standards, are generally reversed in the courts. All of this because according to roughly 50% of American voters, it’s actually the status quo that is “non-negotiable”.
The system does provide one useful lever, however, which is to incentivize steps towards a solution. So that’s the lever that should be pulled. It’s not about “being okay” with the status quo, it’s about making a positive change using the most effective means at our disposal. You can celebrate incremental progress or not, but it’s the only way forward.