Good article and interesting comments. As someone who studies this stuff for a living, the more you peel apart this particular onion the more confusing it becomes. On average, incomes in the US have gone up. But averages hide the disparities of income generation.

2005 tax data shows that the share of total national income for the top 1 percent of the population has increased to 21.8 percent, "more than double their share of income in 1980." Income disparity is hitting levels not seen since the Great Depression.

The top 10 percent of the population "collected 48.5 percent of all reported income in 2005."

At the same time, "average incomes for those in the bottom 90 percent dipped slightly compared with the year before, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent."

Remember, these are not inflation-adjusted figures, so a 0.6 percent dip in income coupled with a 3.4 percent increase in consumer prices from 2004 to 2005 is essentially a 4 percent decrease in earnings for the bottom 90 percent.

Why is income shifting upwards? Is it tax policy? Is it globalization? Is it other factors? Yes, Yes, and Yes.

Do the people in the top 1% or top 10% "deserve" their incomes because they "work harder?" One true story: When the John Hancock Insurance Company, based in Boston, MA was bought out by Manulife, based in Toronto, ON, the CEO of Manulife made some disparaging remarks about the $10 million per year salary of Hancock CEO David D'Allesandro, as it was 10 times his pay level. It seems that the CEO of Manulife could see no reason for any CEO earning so much money, as he could get by easily on only $1 million per year. the US's penchant for paying CEOs and other corporate executives immense sums of money is not shared by the rest of the civilized world. If non-US CEOs don't deserve these levels of salary, why do ours?

So, is income flowing upward in the US because some people "work harder," or because those at the top are consistently rigging the game by buying politicians, changing tax policy to favor them and disfavor the rest, using captive corporate boards to vote preposterous salary increases not based on performance, and doing whatever else they need to to roll back all of the piddling advances toward equality that were achieved from FDR until Reagan?

I think the latter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html

That is HYSTERICAL.

"I'm an Adam Smith free-trader, I shouldn't be taxed!!!!!"

Oops, sorry. Adam Smith wasn't even that fucking obstinate.

The post he was replying to was just as, if not more disrespectful, and to a lot more people.

the idea of attacking the small portion of welfare that goes to low income families is ridiculous, regardless of whether they are abusing the system or not. how about starting with the vastly larger portion of 'welfare' that goes to the rich in the form of tax cuts and subsidies? dismantling small advances towards equality, however imperfect they may be, before dismantling gross handouts that only serve to widen the income gap is backwards.

Lots of great Adam Smith quotes at the bottom of this page:

Economics Quotes

Adam Smith is as brilliant an economist as his 'supporters' think he is, it's a shame that most haven't actually read him.

Exactly what I've been thinking.

The average single person in his/her 20s should have no problem living on 30k a year. I managed to live on 12k a year in one of the most expensive cities in the country. I was eating healthy and still managed to have enough cash to go to shows and go out drinking regularly.

I make between 35/40k a year now and I don't think I could feed, clothe, house and care for another human being on my current salary.

I always find it funny when SG members complain about how broke they are and how they can barely afford groceries. Granted, SG isn't a big hit in the wallet, why are you paying for this, and likely other non necessities, if you can't afford to feed and clothe yourself?

This thread is better at attracting assholes than a vegetarianism thread!

Hey lady, if a white dude with no kids and no chronic health problems can provide anecdotal evidence that he's Horatio Algered his way to financial success, what do we need welfare for, huh?

Exactly. And we certainly don't need to re-examine our fiscal policies. Bootstraps, people!

Best comment in the entire thread.

+ 1,000,000

The part that most amuses me is that the people who are vitriolic about their hatred of the 'welfare state' always take a second to establish their street cred by talking about how tough they had it once and then go on to brag about their awesome house or cool toys. I guess the school of hard knocks doesn't offer courses in compassion or human decency.

I make about 35000 a year and I'm barely scraping by in the bay area. we've crammed 3 of us in a 2 bedroom apt just so we can afford to eat and pay our car payments in addition to rent.

p.s. food is more expensive at 7-11! buy that shit in bulk.


eta...which is a point that I see now has already been mentioned, but I guess it deserves to be repeated.