http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204632204577128230588463516.html Based on this one can conclude that income inequality is an outdated measurement reduced in large part to talking point. America realizes the greatest equality of consumption in history. And really, isn't that the whole point?
From the article... Seeing that over 85% of the population is covered for all of this stuff I would say that it's pretty consistent.
The article fails to mention two things: financial security and education. At least for the US those things are still where it's at. Also, I hope that in one or two generations we'll look in horror at articles like this that don't take lack of access to wealth, or even things fulfilling basic needs, in the rest of the world.
Financial security is not a consumption item. Rather, it is a reservoir for future consumption and we are still doing better than ever. In fact, the senior population has more purchasing power than ever. Education has gone from elite collages to public universities to federally backed student loans to online education. And then this... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/e...ree-online-courses-offering-certificates.html And yet more than half a billion people have been lifted from abject poverty in the last FIVE years... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/25/AR2011012506906.html
I am not doubting that the standard of living for most human beings is improving, and that we are living in a time that has never been better in the terms of wealth. Before we tab us on our shoulders we should still keep in mind that there's still a steep way ahead where almost every human being lives in conditions we deem worthy. I agree with the general story of the article: It doesn't really matter whether you drive a Rolls Royce or a Toyote, and it doesn't really matter whether you fly business class or economy class, and that certain high-end luxury items are available for everybody. In a way wealth allows you to own more quantity instead of real quality, at least for a lot of things, everything else is just a kind of gadget so to say. Still the divide between rich and poor is growing, and there are people living in the richest societies of our time still being hungry for food, or without a shelter, too.
Ah, I see, it's consumption equality if you conveniently ignore the 15-20% that have no insurance and the countless other percent that are underinsured.
Matt, your real argument is that notwithstanding rising income inequality the overall quality of life for almost every group of Americans has gone up. I don't think anyone's arguing that point. However, humans are inherently animals concerned with relative differences, so it's a rather moot point.
Is that a natural or learned behavior? Like if one tribe killed a wilder beast and a second tribe killed a bigger wilder beast would the people of the first tribe bitch about the second or would all be happy to eat?
Natural, since status is so important to so many animals rather than just humans. For all that we say that our lives are better now than the lives of the kings were 250 years ago, it rings very hollow. There's more to life than pure material comforts, as important as they may be. Basically, if I gave you the living standard of an advanced society in 2500 AD but only on the condition that you'd be the poorest person in that advanced society, would you do it? I know I wouldn't.
I can guarantee at 64 I won't have six homes like Mitt Romney, nor will I have his perfectly-coiffed hair. Aha
I see. So the working poor as described here: http://http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/17/AR2009051702053.html?sid=ST2009051801162 can all enjoy watching the Super Bowl on their 55" plasmas, and can pile in their cars and head to the Catskills for the weekend, and can save all their resumes and cover letters on the 320GB MacBook Airs that they can all afford to buy tomorrow, right? Matt, it's a ridiculous point you're trying to make. If across the board quality of living has improved, it's improved way, way more and way, way faster for those at the top of the income distribution.
You'd be unusual then. Bear in mind, you wouldn't just get on at the bottom rung, in my scenario you'd stay there.
this is so ridiculous its ridiculi. capitalism is a WAY OF LIFE now. its not just about market goods anymore. everything is interconnected. you may not care that much if you are driving a honda accord instead of a bugatti, but PEOPLE do. people are zombies in this system. they have no rational thought, and operate strictly by the market. you may not care if your jeans are 60$ instead of 600$, but PEOPLE do. you WILL be judged and classified. who the heck NEEDS an iphone these days? but what happens if you dont waste 300 bucks on one and stick to the solid old flip phone that 100% meets your requirements? you will be the laughing stock. you may think 'the motherf.uck would i care if the bricks of my house are worth $200 000?' but PEOPLE will. you either have the choice to watch jersey shore and talk about it, or be isolated from everybody else. FREEDOM is only THEORETICAL in this system. you either bend over, conform to the market and everything it shoves down your throat, and provide market value to the best of your ability, then get paid in an often-times unfair manner OR drown. even if you DO succeed, a lot of the time this means you have to step on other people. your CHOICE. god bless FREEDOM. humans have a natural propensity for justice. justice=equality=morality. this is simply a logical fact. this is what every war is about in the world. if everything was equal, nobody would have any reason to fight. nobody deserves a penny more than anybody else. rich people work 60-80 hours a week because they WANT to. you CANT do something unless you are MOTIVATED. they are MOTIVATED thus they find the opportunity cost of working 60-80 hours a week to be LOW enough to be WORTH IT. so they are pleasing themselves. its against human nature to do something against your own interest. the only way to factually prove me wrong is if you go nude into a lions den, WITHOUT only doing it to prove me wrong. lets see if you do it. its pure logic. another thing you are forgetting (that is huge) is sex/relationships. this plays a huge part in conflicts. rich people have no problem, but ordinary people are always fighting each other over this. why? because government doesnt regulate and make it equal. it protects your birth advantage (how good looking you are born) by outlawing measures such as rape and prostitution, and this results in a lot of hatred and conflict. this is a problem in such a sexually open culture. in a conservative culture there is still the inequality but it doesnt pose a big problem because sex is a taboo and thus those who have the short end of the stick never see the inequality so it doesnt bother them. its not logical because racism is outlawed but lookism isnt. since looks vary, there will obviously be conflict that spills into all other sectors of life. the phrase 'he/she needs to get laid' at the office didnt come from nowhere.
I think his point was more that technological advancements are now available for a bigger mass of people, which on the one hand is right (think of how many houses had plumbing a 120 years ago, or how many people owned cars prior to WW1). But that misses the point that that process is logical, and the poor-rich divide is actually much more about time and psychology than actual wealth.
1 - The higher the income, the less likely the children will have any sort of debt, particularly in education. 2 - The higher the income, the less likely a person/family will live in an environment in which the crime rate is a significant obstacle to personal safety. 3 - The higher the income the less likely one will not have difficulty paying for medical treatments, specifically when one reaches the maximum amount to be paid out. 4 - I work 60+ hours a week and make less then $50k. 5 - Social responsibility. And don't give me the crap about how much is being donated. I'm taking about responsible for paying down the debt and not fighting against it, and other such matters.
Since Obama is presiding over this consumption equality, which is the greatest in history, I assume we can count on your full throated support of his reelection, too!
Trying to get in a position to be able to help more people (financially), supporting a political party that is somewhat ideological and internationalist (and with support I mean more than just voting for them), shopping somewhat conscious on the topic. As a student who lives of his parents money I can't do that much more until I am done with uni (which is soon, though); or so I tell myself. I hope I didn't come of as if I was holier than thou, I am merely trying to raise the debate and challenge the impression that I think Matt is trying to leave that all is dandy in this day and age.