Thread: 1 in 2 Americans Now Poor or Low Income

There's more of a gap, this is true, but the ranks of the rich keep on growing. That's a good thing. It's why we talk about McMansions now, because more families than ever are becoming wealthy.

If there is a huge wealth gap opening, it's not going to be a traditional third world situation where the 1% is rich and the masses are poor. More like the majority is rich and there's a permanent underclass.

As has been pointed out many times here before, being poor in the US (or any other developed country) is a much better life than most on this planet enjoy.

Is this an actual humanitarian crisis or is it a case of the expectations being raised too high and the US economy not being able to support those expectations?

Originally Posted by Sluggo

I am unsure what else to provide you other than what I have where several sources claim the income between the classes has become more uneven. Wealth accumulation at the top has occured. If the OP has any merit at all and take what I have added, it concludes that there are now more at "poor or low income" which suggests that middle class is where they came from. We can go back and forth all day on what the standard is for low income, middle income, upper income but at the end of the day there is enough evidence to show what we are saying in that income divison and wealth accumulation at the top has caused more harm than good. And we see that in plenty of aspects of our economy as well as the fiscal condition of our government. I am not suggesting anything drastic like confiscation or crazy high taxes. But there was a time in which we were an economic power based on what our middle class could produce, that time has been lost to political influences over time. What I am saying is that we need to review government actions effecting the market place and do something to promote the middle class as something other than debt based consumers.

One, why is that govts responsibility. Two, where is it in their power? Do you beleive in a system that treats everyone equally regardless of how much property they own, or one that punishes people for having more, and rewards people for having less?

Originally Posted by USCitizen

It is common for want ads to specify not to apply if unemployed.
Why?

Is that common?

I've never seen one.

Is that common where you live? Could you give a few examples of specific employers who's want ads say that unemployed people need not apply?

Originally Posted by jviehe

One, why is that govts responsibility. Two, where is it in their power?

You are pretending that we have (or are capable of having) an economic system in which government has no responsibility. If anything it is the nature of regulation and government interference which has caused present economic conditions in this nation suggesting two things. One, within their power or not, it has been accomplished governing us to this point. Two, government guided us into this weak economic system based on a diminishing middle class taking on an increasing level of consumer debt just to show growth. The conclusion is they should reverse course by altering the approach to influence in the economy. It would mean a real review of all those things I spoke of but what it would not mean is an outright abandonment of government influence into the economy overnight. That would be system catastrophic where on a macro economic scale too many factors would be left to question.

I do not particularly mind some level of regulation into the economy, it just has to be something that benefits more than only one group (the highest earners.) Present regulations seem to benefit the wealthy most given the direction of the US economy over the past say 30-40 years when you look at the continued progression of income division, and the "off shoring" of middle class production, manufacturing, and services. That did not happen because of some utopian free market idea or even because of over regulation. It happened because of terrible regulation and government influence over time creating a weak economic model where once we were an industrial power house of innovation, production, manufacturing, and technology. We discarded that model somewhere along the lines for an economy based on someone else's debt looking to our middle class as only customers but not employees. It will take government change thus change of influence to reverse course. Republicans and Democrats both seem unwilling to do that.

Originally Posted by jviehe

Do you beleive in a system that treats everyone equally regardless of how much property they own, or one that punishes people for having more, and rewards people for having less?

Are you asking about taxes, or regulation, or policy influences, or something else? Or, are you talking about economy system types? Either way a strong argument can be made that the scales are already tipped towards the wealthy over everyone else in regulation, taxes, policy decisions, international trade, monetary policy, etc. You name it, there is one class at the top of the pack getting benefit. And it is not the middle or lower class. An even stronger argument can be made that the system of economy we have (a sort of hybrid "mixed economy," or a mix of market and planned economic systems) today benefits the wealthy over everyone else as well. That is true even with all of the terrible influences into the economy by our government today.

Originally Posted by Sluggo

You are pretending that we have (or are capable of having) an economic system in which government has no responsibility. If anything it is the nature of regulation and government interference which has caused present economic conditions in this nation suggesting two things. One, within their power or not, it has been accomplished governing us to this point. Two, government guided us into this weak economic system based on a diminishing middle class taking on an increasing level of consumer debt just to show growth. The conclusion is they should reverse course by altering the approach to influence in the economy. It would mean a real review of all those things I spoke of but what it would not mean is an outright abandonment of government influence into the economy overnight. That would be system catastrophic where on a macro economic scale too many factors would be left to question.

I do not particularly mind some level of regulation into the economy, it just has to be something that benefits more than only one group (the highest earners.) Present regulations seem to benefit the wealthy most given the direction of the US economy over the past say 30-40 years when you look at the continued progression of income division, and the "off shoring" of middle class production, manufacturing, and services. That did not happen because of some utopian free market idea or even because of over regulation. It happened because of terrible regulation and government influence over time creating a weak economic model where once we were an industrial power house of innovation, production, manufacturing, and technology. We discarded that model somewhere along the lines for an economy based on someone else's debt looking to our middle class as only customers but not employees. It will take government change thus change of influence to reverse course. Republicans and Democrats both seem unwilling to do that.



Are you asking about taxes, or regulation, or policy influences, or something else? Or, are you talking about economy system types? Either way a strong argument can be made that the scales are already tipped towards the wealthy over everyone else in regulation, taxes, policy decisions, international trade, monetary policy, etc. You name it, there is one class at the top of the pack getting benefit. And it is not the middle or lower class. An even stronger argument can be made that the system of economy we have (a sort of hybrid "mixed economy," or a mix of market and planned economic systems) today benefits the wealthy over everyone else as well. That is true even with all of the terrible influences into the economy by our government today.

The question was which do you beleive is better for pursuit of happiness. It doesnt matter how things are now, or how involved the govt is. The path you suggested above was more govt. Mine is less. Treat everyone equally, dont favor or punish anyone for being different.

Originally Posted by jviehe

The question was which do you beleive is better for pursuit of happiness. It doesnt matter how things are now, or how involved the govt is. The path you suggested above was more govt. Mine is less. Treat everyone equally, dont favor or punish anyone for being different.

Not really but I am sure it will be looked at that way. I am not asking for more government, I am asking for a change, a review, of what that influence is. It is not that I do not wish for "treat everyone equally, dont favor or punish anyone for being different." It is that it is unrealistic in economic terms, too many factors change over time. You have to have some sort of monetary policy, some influences to deal with the normal business cycle, cyclic conditions of the market inputs and outputs, evaluation standards of goods and services, etc. You might as well push for pure totally "hands off" market capitalism, and it will fail.

Originally Posted by Sluggo

Not really but I am sure it will be looked at that way. I am not asking for more government, I am asking for a change, a review, of what that influence is. It is not that I do not wish for "treat everyone equally, dont favor or punish anyone for being different." It is that it is unrealistic in economic terms, too many factors change over time. You have to have some sort of monetary policy, some influences to deal with the normal business cycle, cyclic conditions of the market inputs and outputs, evaluation standards of goods and services, etc. You might as well push for pure totally "hands off" market capitalism, and it will fail.

This is what you said:

What I am saying is that we need to review government actions effecting the market place and do something to promote the middle class as something other than debt based consumers.

To me that sounds like either stop govt actions that are preventing the middle class from improving their standard of living (good), or have the govt take action to favor the middle class (bad).

Here's my basic point: Warren Buffet being rich does not make me poor. Him getting richer is not making me poorer. This measuring happiness relative to others is dumb.

Originally Posted by jviehe

This is what you said:

To me that sounds like either stop govt actions that are preventing the middle class from improving their standard of living (good), or have the govt take action to favor the middle class (bad).

I know what I said, twist it anyway you need to but my intentions was not governmental influence additions. Just changes and it should be in line with review of the actions that are preventing the middle class from improving conditions and being a benefit to a healthy economy. But, that does not mean blind removal. Our economy, or monetary policy, will still need monitoring and influence to handle the cycle of business. To suggest otherwise ignores way to much.

Originally Posted by jviehe

Here's my basic point: Warren Buffet being rich does not make me poor. Him getting richer is not making me poorer. This measuring happiness relative to others is dumb.

It is not about measuring happiness relative to others, it is a measure of what each of us contributes to a healthy economy. The economic model we have now is not healthy, capable of long term sustainable growth, or a condition in which each class contributes well to it. You are trying to twist my comments into some liberal take from rich to give to the poor sort of thing and it simply is not the case. My issue is with a diminishing production middle class now being a target market for increased consumer debt, how many times do we have to watch an economy destory itself which is primarily based on someone's debt? Your talking about taxes and social policy with the typical political positions I'd expect, I'm talking about functional economics and an issue with a contributing middle class.

Originally Posted by Sluggo

It is not about measuring happiness relative to others, it is a measure of what each of us contributes to a healthy economy. The economic model we have now is not healthy, capable of long term sustainable growth, or a condition in which each class contributes well to it. You are trying to twist my comments into some liberal take from rich to give to the poor sort of thing and it simply is not the case. My issue is with a diminishing production middle class now being a target market for increased consumer debt, how many times do we have to watch an economy destory itself which is primarily based on someone's debt? Your talking about taxes and social policy with the typical political positions I'd expect, I'm talking about functional economics and an issue with a contributing middle class.

Its one and the same. You are talking economics as a means to social change (promoting the middle class). I talk about economics as a means to ensuring freedom. The priority is freedom, and economics is what people do with freedom. If people want to rack up debt, they are free to.

My point however, was the topic. People are poor. So what? If they are poor because the govt steers them that way, then remove govt. If they are poor because they freely made choices (or had bad luck), then so be it.

Originally Posted by ArmyCowboy

Jefferson put "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" as a direct counterarguement to the idea of the Divine Right of Kings.

Very good, though I would still say that since the English crown had lost it’s head once before by the judgment of the governed the Divine Right of Kings was not so divine. Still, as I said you had a point.

Also...brevity.

Sorry if my unwillingness to talk in sound bites is troublesome for you.

You obviously put a lot of thought into posts nobody reads.

The majority of folks don't log into these forums to read novellas.

Which is a convenient way to ignore the point of my reply, simply don’t read it: So, again: But this is all beside the point. America is not a society ordered on class, like England is still. Those who throw the terms rich and poor around do so out of ignorance or for ideological reasons. Much has been posted about the so-called income gap, that its widening or that its proof of America’s inherent inequality. Rich and poor are used as if they are static ridged class distinctions here in America. They aren’t. The statistics that are used about the poor or even the top 1% do not represent actual living and breathing individual people -- they are statistical categories. What is hidden within those statistics is the fact that those counted among the poor, will be counted among the middle class or even the upper 20% ten years later. Every single study that follows real flesh and blood people over time shows that nearly all will rise in the level of income they receive and the wealth they have accumulated ten years later. There is only 3% of the “poor” who remain poor ten years later. If you count only the poor who remain poor for ten or twenty years and you count only the rich who remain rich for ten or twenty years, you are only counting barely 7% of the total population. The rest of us move up and down the income scale never remaining within a specific quintile for more than ten or so years.

But this doesn’t fit the Progressive ideology so it is ignored. Neither does it lend itself to easy sound bites that are used for their emotional impact.

tashi deleks,

M

P.S. If you think that was long, you’ve seen nothing.