"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." — John Kenneth Galbraith
A few days ago, the US Census Bureau reported that nearly 12.7% of all Americans currently live below the poverty line. That figure was higher for the fifth consecutive year in a row. Meanwhile, according to Forbes magazine in 2004, "the combined net worth of the nation's wealthiest [400 people] climbed to $1 trillion, up $45 billion in 12 months." Of the richest 400 Americans, there were 313 billionaires, a record number!
"How many yachts can you waterski behind? How much is enough?" — Bud Fox (played by Charlie Sheen)in Oliver Stone's classic movie Wall Street.Using the last major US Census Bureau statistics from 1998, the richest 1% of households own 38 percent of all wealth. The richest 5% own more than half of all the wealth. To put it another way, the top 5% maintain more wealth than the remaining 95% percent of the population, collectively.
To put the 'Great American Divide' in context, assume there are 100 people who have $100 to split up amongst them. Although nobody expects the money to be shared evenly at $1.00 per person, everybody expects that some basic fairness may be applied in the process.
But suppose the $100 gets divided as follows:
1 person gets $38.10
4 people get $5.32 each
5 people get $2.30 each
10 people get $1.25 each
20 people get $.60 each
20 people get $.23 each
40 people get 1/2 cent each
That is how the money is divided in America. As the one person who now makes $38.10 begins to take even a greater share as time goes by, the divide gets wider. Eventually, you have a situation where the people become quite upset with the situation, perhaps feeling that the system is skewed a bit unfairly.
According to the economic measure called the Gini coefficient (which measures the concentration of wealth as an index that goes from zero to one, one being the most unequal), wealth inequality in the United States, as of 1998, has a Gini coefficient of .82. According to some economists, .82 is "pretty close to the maximum level of inequality you can have".
Article comments
1 - Lee Richards
Thanks-this is right on the button and eye-opening. Our ancestors would be ashamed of us for our cowardice and indifference at letting these robber barons steal us and our country blind, and sell our government to the highest bidders. At one time, political and financial thieves would have tried to hide what they were doing. Now they treat us as too stupid to even bother with. They dish out scripts, slogans and spin to divert attention, but are so contemptuous of the people that they don't really try to conceal their agenda any more. And if we continue to accept this brain-washing by both parties who have sold all of us out to special interests, we'll continue to get the kind of government we deserve. And it won't be of, by and for the people.
2 - Dave Nalle
Nice data selection work. Here are some points from the report you got your info from which you did not report.
The entire increase in poverty was .2%, all of which was among 'white' Americans. All other ethnic groups were better off.
This fractional increase in poverty - less than 1% over 5 years, is part of a long term trend of a 43% decrease in the poverty level.
There is almost always a slight increase in poverty after a recession, a trend which reverses itself on the downside of the post-recession growth period.
Despite the tiny rise in the poverty level the number of people with health insurance increased dramatically - with 2 million people getting health insurance who didn't have it before.
In several middle income groups, including those just above poverty we saw a significant shift up in income. In the highest income group we saw a shift down in income.
This slight rise in the poverty level is considerably smaller than the rise in poverty during the early years of the Clinton administration when poverty hit a high of 15.1%.
So, if you just take one figure it's all doom and gloom, but if you actually look at the full picture it's a lot better than you make out. But that doesn't serve your agenda.
Dave
3 - Lee Richards
#2:
While you're taking a look at that big old rosy picture, explain how $100 a barrel oil, gas at $5-$6 a gallon, a likely huge increase in heating and energy costs and retail prices, and $1 billion a week in war costs out of the national treasury is going to benefit the poor and middle class while making the super-rich suffer mightily as their investments rise.
4 - Dave Nalle
It's not. It's going to hit them hard. But that doesn't play into the current economic picture. Give it 6 months and we'll see. High oil prices are actually going to hit the working middle class the hardest, because they're the commuting suburbanites. The poor, the working poor and the lower middle class are much more likely to rely on public transportation.
But, in the larger picture, the high oil prices are coming at just the right time to really spur production of hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles, which will pay off enormously for everyone in the long run, so I say welcome them.
Dave
5 - Lee Richards
Dave,
I wish I shared your optimism that this oil industry-manipulated administration would ever get behind fuel-efficient or alternative fuel vehicles. I think it's much more likely they will continue to do everything in their power to block anything that would lessen these immense windfall profits.