Economic inequality and the lack of a (real) progressive party in the United States

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Last Friday, Chris Rock was interviewed on Bill Maher's show Real Time, and the subject of health care reform came up.

When Maher asked if he saw health care reform the prism of race and as a civil rights issue, Rock said no. He sees health reform as a “people rights issue.” Rock also recounted his family’s experience with the health care system – first when he was poor compared to when he was rich. “I had my father get sick when I was 22. And I was poor, alright. And my father had an ulcer, and it exploded and you know all these toxins get in your blood. And basically, my father died, whatever, 50 days after his ulcer. So I had a father get sick while I was poor,” the comedian recalled.

“My mother got sick when I was rich. And my mother, you know… I don’t really want to get into it, but my mother was sicker than my father. And my mother’s alive. My mother’s fine, OK? I remember going to the hospital to see my mother and wondering, ‘Was I in the right place?’ Like, this was a hotel, like it had a concierge, man. “… if the average person really knew the discrepancy in the health care system, there would be riots in the streets, OK? They would burn this motherf**ker down!”

(source)

But health care isn't the only arena where inequality exists in the United States, and frankly what's puzzling is why the average person doesn't understand this or isn't angered about it. American workers are responsible for higher productivity over the last 30 years, and are some of the most productive in the world, but their salaries have been essentially stagnant. Why the indifference? Case in point, nearly two years since the near collapse of the United States economy in October 2008, there **still** hasn't been a single law written by Congress to prevent this from happening again, with some of the firms responsible STILL giving out bonuses. Of course, both political parties are responsible for what has happened: the large infusion of money and lobbyists into the legislative process has prevented any real concrete action to prevent it. Democrats became the 2nd Republican party in a rush to the right after Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, for a variety of issues (that's another post). Bill Maher has stated it essentially correct "Over the last thirty years, Democrats have moved to the right, and the right has moved into a mental hospital." There really isn't a progressive party even with the Democrats, and Mr. Maher chastises the President and the party pretty harshly for that:

Here's some specific information in the form of charts on some of the worst cases of economic inequality in the United States. Be warned, it's very bandwidth intensive.

The gap between the top 1% and everyone else hasn't been this bad since the "Roaring Twenties"

One half of Americans owns only 2.5 percent of the total wealth:

Half of America has 0.5% of the stocks and bonds:

Look at that gap grow!

The last two decades have been great, unless you're a typical American worker!

Real earnings have not increased (for the typical worker) for 50 years:

And with that, any real chance of upward economic mobility:

Republican tax cuts have significantly increased the wealth gap in the United States:

While the richest households' income taxes are getting lower and lower:

If you're not in the top 1 percent, you're getting a bum deal!

Source with citations on where the information was gathered is also listed. I want to thank wes_wilson for his post in another community about this information!

Comments

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

Show me this study. As a European living in the US currently I call bullshit. It may be so that people live in larger places on average, because there is simply more land in the US, but it says nothing about living quality or standards.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

MOAR ROOMY HOMES IN AMURICA!

[merig00.livejournal.com]

FAIL

should have posted a picture of a homeless person

[rev-proffessor.livejournal.com]

WOW!!! That would be a Palatial Estate in poor little Europe.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Yeah, open windows for all that fresh country air too!

[merig00.livejournal.com]

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/01/Understanding-Poverty-in-America

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/08/How-Poor-Are-Americas-Poor-Examining-the-Plague-of-Poverty-in-America

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

That's not a study, that's a highly subjective article written by Robert Rector and Kirk Johnson. You actually pissed me off by having me read all that crap and check their sources (something these gentlemen rarely expect anyone doing, since they preach to their own choir of idiots who don't even know what "research" means)

Where to begin, okay:

Rector is dissatisfied with how the Census bureau defines "poverty", so far so good, but he then "re-defines" it and calls it a "study" without giving any form of links and citations for the claims (there are other links and citations, but none to the ones where he babbles on about 6% are this and 47% are that, yadda yadda. According to any real study, you have notes directly linked or noted at the bottom of the page, to where the information comes from. (there is a link to sources at the bottom of the page, but only to books he's referring to or to charts he claims to base some statements on, more on that later)

In short, there are huge parts of this article which isn't based on any visible source at all, at large this covers the powerpoint sections of the article.

Further: I did some fact checking on what sources that were to be found from this article, with dismal results. When it comes to literature, most sources are right wing studies or books from the same kind of think tank origin as the authors are from. Most of the rest can not be proven as a source. All those charts from the Census bureau, you know what, I fucking went to the source and read them. They don't look the same as they do in your "report". For one, there is no "poor" quota, that has been created or manipulated by the authors. I actually went and read through The American Housing Survey, and their charts are not composed in the same way as the Heritage article at all. The charts were composed by the authors. The original survey don't even use the word "poor" as a category.

The one chart in regards to "Europe" is not either like the original, the chart is once again produced by the Heritage authors. Put aside entirely the enormous problem with how European countries are clumped together with non European countries and only a few European countries at that.

Also, there is no other study (with sources), in your article that speaks of European living standards at all.

Basically, what you're linking to is a long opinionated rant, or what could at best be described as an "article". And that would be generous.

Learn how research is done, and then do it. You're being had. And I'm pissed for wasting my time with a bunch of Right wing think Tank drivel.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Heh, I was right then. I KNEW it. ;)

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think I've only been pleasantly surprised at a think tank article once, and I've read hundreds by now, often calling themselves "studies" or "research" written by some phd or another.
They are often long and take a lot of work to fact check, and that's part of why few bother to do it. (99% of the think tank readers are already stale in their mindset and would never dream of fact checking, because they believe it before they start reading it)

And actually, it's a bad sign when an article doesn't have a direct link or reference to the charts or studies they claim as sources, but instead sport charts they have created out of other charts (why not just show the original charts?). In most to all cases, when you put in some work and look up books/quotations/surveys/original charts, the facts are manipulated to a point where lying would not be an exaggeration to use about the whole thing - this article for instance is a lie - if it claims to be research or "a study", if it claims to just be an opinionated article, it can pass as biased semi propaganda, which is fine, but NOT if it calls itself something else.

It usually takes someone who's done academic research to know how to fake it and make stuff look hard to look up and legitimate at the same time, like these kind of think tank writers, and it usually takes nothing less than another academic or someone used to read or produce research to reveal the fakes. Not that most libertarians/conservatives are interested in knowing the facts over their own fables.

[merig00.livejournal.com]

what sources that were to be found from this article, with dismal results

funny thing they list all their sources at the very end.

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

1. Learn to read properly before you respond, it keeps you from looking like a moron. I wrote: there are huge parts of this article which aren't based on any visible source at all, at large this covers the POWERPOINT sections of the article

I also wrote: there is a link to sources at the bottom of the page, but only to books he's referring to or to charts he claims to base some statements on, more on that later.

2. I fact checked the sources you so kindly told me exist at the very end (without reading my answer to you, that stated the same thing), and the dismal results I talk about are based on the fact that the charts are not from the Census Bureau or The American Housing Survey, or the UN Housing report, they are created by The Heritage Foundation, and not even the categories correlate with the original sources claimed.

Honestly, if you have nothing better to add and are too lazy/ignorant to fact check sources yourself, or even know how proper sourcing and a note apparatus is supposed to be handled, then don't bother answering at all.