July 3, 2006

  • props where props are due> this post is mostly composed of the editorial of Mortimer B. Zuckerman, Editor-in-Chief of US News & World Report, June 12, 2006 issue


    The hard reality is that it is no longer possible for more than a very small minority to start out poor, work hard, and become well off... The generation that emerged from World War II enjoyed income growth fairly evenly spread throughout our entire population.  The past 25 years tell an utterly different story.  Median family incomes have risen by less than 1 percent a year - for a total of 18 percent overall - but median incomes for the top 1 percent have gone up more than 10 times faster - by an astounding 200 percent!  From 1980 to 2004, our GDP (gross domestic product) rose by almost two thirds, but when you factor in inflation, the wages of the typical earner actually fell... Among the top 20 percent of American earners, real incomes increased by 59 percent. 


    And there is no sign that the trend is moderating.  This year the top 10 percent of wage earners are projected to receive 45 percent of all household cash income, up from 40.6 percent in 2000.  And what about the average family in the 80 percent of the workforce who make up our rank and file?  Incomes are actually slightly lower, after adjusting for inflation, than they were four years ago… those Americans have effectively taken a pay cut since 2002 even though the economy has been growing by over 3% per year.  Except for a few years in the late 1990s, the hourly pay of most workers has done no better than inflation for the past 30 years. 


    The gap between the ostentatious new rich and the rest of America is growing fast.  Twenty-five years ago, the top fifth of all American households’ post-tax incomes were 6.7 times those of the bottom fifth.  Today, that ratio has jumped to 9.8 times – nearly a 50% increase.  The result? 37 million Americans living below the poverty line in 2004, but an additional 54 million were the ‘near poor’…


    If we look at net worth, as distinct from income, the growing inequality is equally manifest.  Some 85% of the nations’ wealth now resides in the hands of the richest 15% of American families.  The bottom 50% of families, on the other hand, claim only 2.5% of household net worth… The average net worth of the richest 10% of American families rose to $861,000 last year, a 6.5% increase over 2001.  What happened to the typical family in the bottom 25%? Net worth actually fell by 1.5%.


    Our tax system has become much less progressive, enabling families in the top decile to benefit, and especially the top families within the top… Taxes for the well-to-do are lower today than they have been in 60 years.  It is role reversal for Robin Hood: We are robbing the poor to enrich the rich. 


    "If there is among you anyone in need, a member of your community in any of your towns within the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hard-hearted or tight-fisted toward your need neighbor. You should rather open your hand, willingly lending enough to meet the need, whatever it might be....Give liberally, and be ungrudging when you do so, for on this accoutn the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake.  Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, 'Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.'"   Deuteronomy 15:7-8, 10-11


     

Comments (9)

  • Oh, good. Economics I know about! My internet is giving me inexplicable problems. But I've managed to pull up the following data thanks to Wikipedia.

    US income gini coefficients over time:

    # 1970: 0.394
    # 1980: 0.403
    # 1990: 0.428
    # 2000: 0.462

    The gini coefficient is a number derived from the Lorenz curve, which measures income distribution equality. A 0 represents perfect equality i.e. all people have exactly the same income. A 1 represents perfect ineqaulity i.e. all income belongs to a single person. Obviously both cases are theoretical. But this implies a lower number is better.

    The United States ranks at a miserable 92second position. Obviously the number on it's own isn't all that counts. Mozambique may rank considerably higher at 68th place, but that doesn't mean Mozambique is a good place to be, since there is hardly any income to distribute. The Scandinavian countries rank at the top of the list- as they do indeed rank at the top of EVERY list.

    As my figures above show, proving your post, the United States income equality has worsened significantly over 30 years. Obviously the goal of economics is never perfect equality, since a person deserves to be rewarded for his hard work and initiative. However, the figures indicate a worsening trend. That should be rather worrying for the the American poor. Philosophically speaking, a country with major income problems can't be truly democratic. Democracy implies more than an equal vote. It implies an equal say in government affairs (as opposed to being overhwelmed by interest groups and corporates) as well as an equitable share in the resources and benifits of the government. A tax sytem that benifits the rich is undemocratic as well as economically inneficcient.

    This actually comes disturbingly close to Karl Marx's predictions that Capitalism will eventually destroy itself due to overconcentration of riches and a lack of a market for produced goods- since the poor have no money to purchase what the rich produce.

  • Not a bad bit of work for only 15 minutes typing and research :wink:

  • Yup. Them dem yanks, I do declare... if the british were still in power, things 'un be rights over there. I do declare...

  • Happy 4th of July!  America's Birthday!  At least there WERE 25% neauveu riche!  Viva free enterprise!  And though the 'world' trounces and criticizes the USA for what she DOESN"T give....how about Bill Gates?  And getting his bridge buddy, Warren Buffet to chip in as well?  They alone count for several various countries in charitable giving.  Without Carneigie, there would be no public libraries.  And I know some from hell-holes who lifted themselves to college professorship largely ONLY because there were public libraries.

    See Jane Goodall, "a reason to hope."  Amazing.  The creativity and adaptivity of humanity is astonishing....like those from NJ.  My ancestors came to Philadelphia Sept. 18, 1775   and then My ancestor went to Elmer NJ.  Still family homes there.  They are buried near there.

    Yes, we must give.  But note the practice of gleaning, by which Ruth met Boaz and the lineage of Jesus was continued to be prepared..... Doesn't the New Testament also say, "He who will not work shall not eat"?  So, our stewardship (if we HAVE wealth) must be in helping others to learn to help themselves.  If someone prospers, there must be some reason. SO let us reason together....how blessed it is to be together as brothers (and sisters) in the Lord!  Let us create our house as HIS/HER house - and rejoice in the day the Lord has made!

    all the best...enjoy!

  • EXCELLENT POINT AND WHAT ADDS FUEL TO THE FIRE (AT LEAST IN MY AREA) THE PRICE OF REAL ESTATE HAS SKY ROCKTED SO HIGH THAT IT IS NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE FOR THOSE OF US WHO ARE YOUNG AND STARTING OFF TO MOVE OUT AND REMAIN IN OUR AREA.  I MAKE DECENT MONEY, BUT I CANT AFFORD $750 A MONTH FOR A PLACE PLUS UTILITIES.  ESSPECIALLY WHEN IT IS LIKE A BROOM CLOSET WITH A BATHROOM.  THE COST OF LIVING IS TO HIGH AROUND WHERE I LIVE, NOT JUST GAS, BUT FOOD AND UTILITY COMPANIES ETC.  IT SUCKS. 

  • RYC: OH THATS BEAT.  I SHOULD THROW A XANGA PARTY AND COLLECT ALL MY XANGA FRIENDS FOR ONE BIG WEEKEND PARTY!  YOU TOO, DONT BE SHY NOW.

  • My God has been good to me, and I thank him everyday for it. He blesses me just for waking me up in the morning.

    RYC: Thanks a lot. That poem was the only poem I have ever cried to. It means a lot to me. :cry:

  • hey auntiee! i like the picture you have. how was your 4th of July? mine was ok. im in maryland right now but im coming home tomorrow....talk to you later! love ya and  PAPER BOY RULES!!!!

  •  WELL HERE IS THE THING WHEN I DISCUSSED CHRISTIANITY NO TWO PEOPLE RESPONDED WITH THE SAME IDEA OF WHAT IT WAS TO BE CHRISTIAN.  SO IF THERE SO MANY DIFFERENT TAKES ON IT WHO IS TO SAY IS TRULY RIGHT OR WRONG.  CALLING SOME GROUP A CULT SIMPLY BECAUSE THEIR IDEA OF CHRISTIANITY IS A BIT DIFFERENT DOESNT MAKE MUCH SENSE TO ME.  CATHOLICS BELIEVE THEY ARE THE ONLY TRUE CHRISTIANS, BECAUSE THEY WERE FOUNDED BY THE DIRECT WORDS OF CHRIST, BUT DOES THAT MAKE ALL PROTESTANTS CULTS?

    A CHARISMATIC LEADER DOESNT NECCESSARILY MEAN IT WAS A CULT EITHER.  SOME RELIGIONS JUST SEE A TIME WHERE THEY FLOURISH DUE TO PROPER LEADERSHIP.  GOOD LEADERS ARE JUST THAT. 

    YES HISTORY IS NOT TAUGHT BY THE LOOSING PARTY.  BUT NOW I FIND IT FUNNY HOW EDUCATION HAS CHANGED.  NOW POLITICAL CORRECTNESS AND ETHNIC SENSITVITY ARE HUGE FACTORS IN HOW HISTORY IS TAUGHT.  AS I SAID BEFORE, I AM A WHITE, STRAIGHT, CHRISTIAN (DECENT) , MIDDLE CLASS, MALE.  HISTORY DEPICTS ME AS THE DAMN DEVIL.

    WELL FREE MASONS HAVE A LOT OF RITUALS AND PRACTICES AND BY DEF.  FIT THE CATEGORY OF A CULT.  THEY HAVE A SCRIPUTRE OF BELIFES, A HIERARCHY AND A SYSTEM OF GOVERNING, THEY HAVE BUILDINGS THEY CONGRAGATE AT.  I DONT SEE HOW THEY DONT FIT THE IDEA OF A CULT. 

    WASNT THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND FOUNDED BY A KING WHO WANTED TO MAKE DIVORCE LEGAL?  I MEAN RIGHT THERE YOU HAVE A DEVITATION FROM THE CHURCH OF THE TIME PERIOD DOES THAT MAKE THEM WRONG?  I THINK CHRISTIANITY USES FEAR IN A BIG WAY.  IT SORT OF SENDS A MESSAGE LIKE IF YOU DONT BELIEVE THIS YOU WILL SUFFER ETERNAL TORTURE.  DONT WORRY JUST FOLLOW US AND YOU WONT BE SUBJECT TO THAT.    

    I DONT THINK CHRISTIANITY STARTED AS A CULT BECAUSE JESUS WAS THE LEADER.  JESUS DIDNT START CHRISTIANITY.  HIS FOLLOWERS DID, JUST BECAUSE THEY SAID PRAISE HIM, INSTEAD OF PRAISE ME IS NO BIG DIFFERENCE TO ME.  THE POINT IS THEY BUILT THEIR OWN FAITH OFF WHAT THE NORMAL WAS.  WITH DIFFERENT PRACTICES AND RITUALS THAT MADE THEM A CULT.  IF JEHOVAH'S ARE CONSIDERED A CULT BY CHRISTIANS, THEN CHRISTIANS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED A CULT BY JEWS.

    WHAT I GATHER FROM THE LAST PART IS THAT IF YOU MAKE A BRANCH OF CHRISTIANITY WITH SUTTLE CHANGES, BUT STILLL KEEP THE FUNDEMENTALS THE SAME IT IS NOT A CULT, ITS A DENOMINATION.  DOES THAT MEAN ANY OTHER FAITH OTHER THEN CHRISTIANITY IS A CULT?  IM NOT ATTACKING YOUR IDEA I JUST WANTED SOME CLARIFICATION IF YOU COULD.  THANKS

Comments are closed.

Post a Comment