Remind me in which election everyone voted for this

[anglolawyer]

Is Robert Reich a serious guy?

Robert Reich: The 1 percent is gutting America’s middle class

...

According to new research by Emmanuel Saez of the University of California at Berkeley and Gabriel Zucman of the London School of Economics, the richest one-hundredth of one percent of Americans now hold over 11 percent of the nation’s total wealth. That’s a higher share than the top .01 percent held in 1929, before the Great Crash.

...

Why should we care?

Because this explosion of wealth at the top has been accompanied by an erosion of the wealth of the middle class and the poor. In the mid-1980s, the bottom 90 percent of Americans together held 36 percent of the nation’s wealth. Now, they hold less than 23 percent.

Despite larger pensions and homes, the debts of the bottom 90 percent – mortgage, consumer credit, and student loan – have grown even faster.

Some might think the bottom 90 percent should pull in their belts and stop living beyond their means. After all, capitalism is a tough sport. If those at the top are winning big while the bottom 90 percent is losing, too bad. That’s the way the game is played.

But the top .01 percent have also been investing their money in politics. And these investments have been changing the game.

In the 2012 election cycle (the last for which we have good data) donations from the top .01 accounted for over 40 percent of all campaign contributions, according to a study by Professors Adam Bonica, Nolan McCarty, Keith Poole, and Howard Rosenthal.

We’re talking about 16,000 people, each worth at least $110 million.

One way to get your mind around this is to compare their wealth to that of the average family. In 1978, the typical wealth holder in the top .01 percent was 220 times richer than the average American. By 2012, he or she was 1,120 times richer.

American democracy is a sham. You have ended up with something nobody would have voted for. This proves it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Is Robert Reich a serious guy?

No. He's a partisan hack.

 

[xjx388]

Is Robert Reich a serious guy?



American democracy is a sham. You have ended up with something nobody would have voted for. This proves it.

So the rich people have invested their money in politics and changed the game for the middle class making them poorer. OK, specifically how? What were the things the rich people lobbied for that screwed over the middle class?

I should also point out that there are only 16,000 people (according to Reich, anyway) at the top. But multiple millions of people voted in 2012. Did the rich commit voter fraud? Is there some vast Rich Person conspiracy to fix elections? If not, the vastly larger 99.9% can vote out the politicians that were bought off at anytime. Why don't they? Maybe because this isn't as simplistic as Mr. Reich would have us believe.

 

[anglolawyer]

So the rich people have invested their money in politics and changed the game for the middle class making them poorer. OK, specifically how? What were the things the rich people lobbied for that screwed over the middle class?

I should also point out that there are only 16,000 people (according to Reich, anyway) at the top. But multiple millions of people voted in 2012. Did the rich commit voter fraud? Is there some vast Rich Person conspiracy to fix elections? If not, the vastly larger 99.9% can vote out the politicians that were bought off at anytime. Why don't they? Maybe because this isn't as simplistic as Mr. Reich would have us believe.

Hey, you tell me.

 

[Dissolution]

Who runs the lobbies? Who owns the media? Who backs the political campaigns?
You don't actually have to bribe anyone or do anything openly corrupt.

 

[IXP]

Taxes on the rich used to go over 90%, they now top out at 39.6%. But this had nothing to do with increasing income inequality, just ask any Republican.

I am not in the top 1%, but in 1948, the marginal tax rate for my income, adjusted for inflation would have been 89%. Today it is 33%. Thanks misters Reagan and Bush. I appreciate you sucking money out of people who are barely getting by and giving it to me. Keep it up.

IXP

 

[DavidJames]

Two replies by conservatives, neither addressing the facts of the article. Surprising? lol. But watching the dancing start.

 

[theprestige]

Hey, you tell me.

No and no.

HTH. HAND!

 

[Ziggurat]

Two replies by conservatives, neither addressing the facts of the article. Surprising? lol. But watching the dancing start.

What's there to address? The fact that there's a big wealth disparity? Yes, there is. But we don't vote for what the wealth disparity is. It's not on the ballot. How is the existence of a wealth disparity related to whether or not we have a democracy?

Oh, and to the extent that you think that this wealth disparity is a problem caused by bad government, well, President Goldman Sachs has made it worse. So start dancing that one away, David.

 

[anglolawyer]

What's there to address? The fact that there's a big wealth disparity? Yes, there is. But we don't vote for what the wealth disparity is. It's not on the ballot. How is the existence of a wealth disparity related to whether or not we have a democracy?

Oh, and to the extent that you think that this wealth disparity is a problem caused by bad government, well, President Goldman Sachs has made it worse. So start dancing that one away, David.

I'll answer that. What is a democracy if not rule by the people for the people? A measure of whether it works is whether it delivers what the people want. Unless they are nuts, the people do not want increasing relative impoverishment while a tiny number of stinking rich people own more and more of the system. Get out of that. Checkmate. You guys believe in a mirage.

 

[Ziggurat]

Taxes on the rich used to go over 90%, they now top out at 39.6%. But this had nothing to do with increasing income inequality, just ask any Republican.

You are aware that the marginal tax rate of 90% didn't end up applying in practice, right? As in, nobody's total tax rate even approached that number.

No, I don't suppose you are. You really don't know what you're talking about.

I am not in the top 1%, but in 1948, the marginal tax rate for my income, adjusted for inflation would have been 89%. Today it is 33%. Thanks misters Reagan and Bush.

You conveniently forgot Kennedy.

Oh, and since Obama raised the top rate, has inequality gotten better or worse?

Hint: it didn't get better.

I appreciate you sucking money out of people who are barely getting by and giving it to me. Keep it up.

You are free to pay as much to the federal government as you would like.

 

[sunmaster14]

Standard of living is the measure which matters, not net worth. And by that measure, even the poorest 10% in the US are doing rather well, even by European standards:

We’re often told that to be poor in the US is much worse than being poor in the social democracies of Europe. And the bottom 10% in the US are indeed worse off than the bottom 10% in Sweden. But they’re better off than the bottom 10% in Germany or France: places where we are told that there is indeed that social democracy.

And given the wider distribution of incomes in the US, the natural cycling through deciles that occurs over one's life (most people do not remain in a single decile their whole life) means that the average standard of living experienced by real people in the US (as opposed to a statistical bracket determined in any given year) is higher still.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'll answer that. What is a democracy if not rule by the people for the people?

If your complaint is that we do not have an absolute democracy, well, good. Absolute democracies are horrible things.

A measure of whether it works is whether it delivers what the people want. Unless they are nuts, the people do not want increasing relative impoverishment while a tiny number of stinking rich people own more and more of the system. Get out of that. Checkmate. You guys believe in a mirage.

Funny that you should speak about mirages, while not noticing that you have fallen for Reich's deception yourself. Nowhere in his screed does he give a single fact to indicate anyone has gotten more impoverished. He doesn't talk at all about absolute wealth, only relative wealth. Strange thing about relative wealth: it can become more unequal even while everyone gets richer, and it can also become more equal while everyone gets poorer.

You're not playing intellectual chess, anglolawyer. You're playing tiddlywinks, and Reich is playing 3 card monte.

 

[sunmaster14]

I'll answer that. What is a democracy if not rule by the people for the people? A measure of whether it works is whether it delivers what the people want. Unless they are nuts, the people do not want increasing relative impoverishment while a tiny number of stinking rich people own more and more of the system. Get out of that. Checkmate. You guys believe in a mirage.

More like stalemate, since people will disagree on which is more important, their absolute standard of living or their standard of living relative to their neighbors. For my part, I'm not real big into envy.

 

[anglolawyer]

If your complaint is that we do not have an absolute democracy, well, good. Absolute democracies are horrible things.



Funny that you should speak about mirages, while not noticing that you have fallen for Reich's deception yourself. Nowhere in his screed does he give a single fact to indicate anyone has gotten more impoverished. He doesn't talk at all about absolute wealth, only relative wealth. Strange thing about relative wealth: it can become more unequal even while everyone gets richer, and it can also become more equal while everyone gets poorer.

You're not playing intellectual chess, anglolawyer. You're playing tiddlywinks, and Reich is playing 3 card monte.

No, not absolute democracy, just democracy. Shouldn't things pan out approximately in line with what most people probably want? Let's say we polled the American people in 1970 and asked them: in 44 years from now, is it OK with you if you and your family are slightly better off while a tiny, tiny minority are massively better off and spending their vast wealth buying politicians? What do you think the result would have been?

More like stalemate, since people will disagree on which is more important, their absolute standard of living or their standard of living relative to their neighbors. For my part, I'm not real big into envy.

Fair enough. Do you think yours is a majority view?

 

[Dissolution]

Standard of living is the measure which matters, not net worth. And by that measure, even the poorest 10% in the US are doing rather well, even by European standards:



And given the wider distribution of incomes in the US, the natural cycling through deciles that occurs over one's life (most people do not remain in a single decile their whole life) means that the average standard of living experienced by real people in the US (as opposed to a statistical bracket determined in any given year) is higher still.

According to that, the bottom 10% of Americans are level with the top 10% of Italians and above the top 10% of Russians or Portuguese.
Laughable.

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

Fair enough. Do you think yours is a majority view?

In the US, yes. In Europe, probably not.

 

[Corsair 115]

From 1947 to about 1979 incomes across the quintiles and top 5% in the U.S. all grew at almost identical rates. That is, in 1979 the income for each quintile and the top 5% were all earning about twice as much as they were in 1947. But after 1979 that nearly uniform income growth disappears and the income growth diverges markedly.

So, what was going on from 1947 to about 1979? What caused some thirty years' worth of nearly identical income growth to suddenly and markedly diverge over the next thirty years?

 

[sunmaster14]

From 1947 to about 1979 incomes across the quintiles and top 5% in the U.S. all grew at almost identical rates. That is, in 1979 the income for each quintile and the top 5% were all earning about twice as much as they were in 1947. But after 1979 that nearly uniform income growth disappears and the income growth diverges markedly.

So, what was going on from 1947 to about 1979? What caused some thirty years' worth of nearly identical income growth to suddenly and markedly diverge over the next thirty years?

One word: globalization

 

[sunmaster14]

According to that, the bottom 10% of Americans are level with the top 10% of Italians and above the top 10% of Russians or Portuguese.
Laughable.

You say "laughable." I say, "thank God I don't live in Italy, Russia, or Portugal."