I would like to talk for a minute about something I have heard much about during the Democratic debates. I have dubbed this "The Inequality Myth". According to Hillary and Barack, we have in this country two Americans - one for the rich and one for the poor. Let me high light a few facts that you aren't likely to hear via your typical mainstream media outlets.
For one thing, the notion that the poor are getting poorer is completely false.
Demographic changes in the size and composition of U.S. households have distorted the statistics in important ways. The Census Bureau says that the share of the economic pie consumed by those defined by the government as poor has been shrinking; what Democrats fail to tell you is that this pie has grown tremendously. The real GDP is currently three times greater than it was in the 1970s at $14 trillion. So the amount received by the bottom 20% increased from $181 billion to $476 billion. Adjusted for population growth, this means that the average income for people in the bottom 20% has risen by 36%. And this isn't just for the poor, economic growth has raised income across all populations.
According to the annual survey of household, the "typical" household keeps changing. This is also something that Democrats will never tell you. In essence, by comparing today's statistics to decades passed, it is like comparing apples to oranges. Here's an example. Since 1970, the rate in households categorized as divorced, never-married or single-person has increased dramatically. Back in the 1970s, 71% of American households were two-parent families. That statistic has shrunk to 51%. As a result, the average household size has shrunk from 3.14 persons to 2.57 persons.
Ok so what does that mean? It means that when you adjust for these changes in household size and composition ... the income share of the poor increased by 8% and reduced the standard of inequality by 4%. In other words, all of these "inequality trends" would be obsolete.
So when you look at the "poor," even after just two years, you are no longer looking at the same people. Democrats never take mobility into account, and they fail recall the fact that nearly half of all our growth comes from immigration; Legal and illegal resident enter at the lowest rungs of society. In the big picture, immigrants move up the economic rungs, but they are replaced by new immigrants ... and the cycle continues. But it is very rare to see household stay "poor" for more than a few years.
Living standards have risen across all income spectrums. Since 2000, GDP has risen 18% and population growth by 6%, which means that per capita incomes are rising. Personal consumption has risen by $2.5 trillion since 2000. More Americans today own homes and new cars, and items such as laptops, iPhones and flat screen TVs have become necessities rather than luxuries. The average person defined as "living in poverty" in America has a higher standard of living than the average European.
So, my question to you is - have you heard this anywhere else?
I didn't think so.
For one thing, the notion that the poor are getting poorer is completely false.
Demographic changes in the size and composition of U.S. households have distorted the statistics in important ways. The Census Bureau says that the share of the economic pie consumed by those defined by the government as poor has been shrinking; what Democrats fail to tell you is that this pie has grown tremendously. The real GDP is currently three times greater than it was in the 1970s at $14 trillion. So the amount received by the bottom 20% increased from $181 billion to $476 billion. Adjusted for population growth, this means that the average income for people in the bottom 20% has risen by 36%. And this isn't just for the poor, economic growth has raised income across all populations.
According to the annual survey of household, the "typical" household keeps changing. This is also something that Democrats will never tell you. In essence, by comparing today's statistics to decades passed, it is like comparing apples to oranges. Here's an example. Since 1970, the rate in households categorized as divorced, never-married or single-person has increased dramatically. Back in the 1970s, 71% of American households were two-parent families. That statistic has shrunk to 51%. As a result, the average household size has shrunk from 3.14 persons to 2.57 persons.
Ok so what does that mean? It means that when you adjust for these changes in household size and composition ... the income share of the poor increased by 8% and reduced the standard of inequality by 4%. In other words, all of these "inequality trends" would be obsolete.
So when you look at the "poor," even after just two years, you are no longer looking at the same people. Democrats never take mobility into account, and they fail recall the fact that nearly half of all our growth comes from immigration; Legal and illegal resident enter at the lowest rungs of society. In the big picture, immigrants move up the economic rungs, but they are replaced by new immigrants ... and the cycle continues. But it is very rare to see household stay "poor" for more than a few years.
Living standards have risen across all income spectrums. Since 2000, GDP has risen 18% and population growth by 6%, which means that per capita incomes are rising. Personal consumption has risen by $2.5 trillion since 2000. More Americans today own homes and new cars, and items such as laptops, iPhones and flat screen TVs have become necessities rather than luxuries. The average person defined as "living in poverty" in America has a higher standard of living than the average European.
So, my question to you is - have you heard this anywhere else?
I didn't think so.
anjuli:
i don't know if i agree with what you've written, but i appreciate it. i do think that wealth is deeply skewed in our culture and every where for that matter. i also think that the reality is that most people will always want "more.' there are major inequalities in our country though... i did art workshops in prisons for many years and i saw the results of poverty, the 'poor' school education, etc. as for you paying for my membership... i don't like people doing things for me... i do appreciate the thought though. if i leave i will be sure to let people know how to stay in touch 
.
.