Skip to main content

In my last diary I talked about the plight of individuals who lose their incomes or are poverty-stricken. I want to turn now to rich people—their numbers are much fewer, but they control most of the money in the U.S.

The national condition of many people with little money and a few people with a lot of money is called, as you know, income inequality. You’ve seen the data many times on this site: income inequality has been growing sharply in recent years.

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. .
  Source: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/...
 Author: G. William Domhoff

Severe income inequality, it turns out, not only makes life difficult for those on the low end of the income spectrum, but also creates bad conditions for a nation as a whole.

Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett report:

In societies where income differences between rich and poor are smaller, the statistics show that community life is stronger and levels of trust are higher. There is also less violence, including lower homicide rates; physical and mental health tends to be better and life expectancy is higher. In fact, most of the problems related to relative deprivation are reduced: prison populations are smaller, teenage birth rates are lower, educational scores tend to be higher, there is less obesity and more social mobility. What is surprising is how big these differences are. Mental illness is three times more common in more unequal countries than in the most equal, obesity rates are twice as high, rates of imprisonment eight times higher, and teenage births increase tenfold.

Source: The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better (Bloomsbury).

Boston College’s Center on Wealth and Philanthropy has completed a study of the happiness of very wealthy people, and part of it has been reported by
The Atlantic:

The study is titled “The Joys and Dilemmas of Wealth,” but given that the joys tend to be self-evident, it focuses primarily on the dilemmas. The respondents turn out to be a generally dissatisfied lot, whose money has contributed to deep anxieties involving love, work, and family. Indeed, they are frequently dissatisfied even with their sizable fortunes. Most of them still do not consider themselves financially secure; for that, they say, they would require on average one-quarter more wealth than they currently possess. (Remember: this is a population with assets in the tens of millions of dollars and above.) One respondent, the heir to an enormous fortune, says that what matters most to him is his Christianity, and that his greatest aspiration is “to love the Lord, my family, and my friends.” He also reports that he wouldn’t feel financially secure until he had $1 billion in the bank.

So we find that substantial income inequality creates the ghastly state of poverty along with many social ills that make life disagreeable for those at all income levels. In addition, the high income levels of the very rich do not generally make them feel secure. (One wonders whether one-quarter more wealth would actually create feelings of security, or whether this belief is an illusion that accompanies and rationalizes an obsessive drive for more and more monetary wealth.)



Trickle-down economics will not solve these problems. The wealthy will never be satisfied with more wealth, and if anything trickles down it will not be enough to raise the poor to a more level playing field. Barbara Ehrenreich explains well the approach we need:

…any serious government attempt to get the economy going again—and I leave aside the unserious attempts like bank bailouts and other corporate welfare projects—has to start at the bottom. Obama is promising to generate three million new jobs in ‘shovel ready’ projects, and let’s hope they’re not all jobs for young men with strong backs. Until those jobs kick in, and in case they leave out the elderly, the single moms and the downsized desk-workers, we’re going to need an economic policy centered on the poor: more money for food stamps, for Medicaid, unemployment insurance, and, yes, cash assistance along the lines of what welfare once was, so that when people come tumbling down they don’t end up six feet under. For those who think ‘welfare’ sounds too radical, we could just call it a ‘right to life’ program, only one in which the objects of concern have already been born.



This diary does not touch directly on the concepts of Modern Monetary Theory, though if government economists adopted those concepts, the resolution of problems discussed here would be simpler.

The link to my earlier diary referred to above is
here.

To learn more about the concepts of Modern Monetary Theory, please follow or join us at Money and Public Purpose, a dKos group promoting MMT.

Thank you for reading and reccing.
psyched

Originally posted to Money and Public Purpose on Wed May 11, 2011 at 11:39 PM PDT.

Also republished by ClassWarfare Newsletter: WallStreet VS Working Class Global Occupy movement and Income Inequality Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  When income disparity becomes great enough (5+ / 0-)

    the society that created it tends to fall and it may well then descend into cyclical chaos.

    "Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing." Arundhati Roy

    by LaFeminista on Wed May 11, 2011 at 11:54:26 PM PDT

  •  You bet your ass it does. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MadRuth, webgenie, psyched

    Someday those corporate fat cats who trashed this great country are going to ask themselves where did that great American middle class go, you know the ones who used to buy all the stuff we sold, where did they go?

    Maybe they will ask why don't we have a domestic manufacturing base anymore?

    Ah, probably not.

    God is the problem, not the solution.

    by Sam Wise Gingy on Thu May 12, 2011 at 02:39:31 AM PDT

    •  No they won't (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tardis10, psyched

      they'll still be blaming greedy geezers and welfare queens.
      I have said often in recent years that at least the elites that caused the Great Depression had the grace to jump out of their high rise buildings.  This crowd's reaction to the damage they have wrought is to double down on the narcissistic amoral crazy.

      I could buy a parrot and train it to say, `tax cuts,' but at the end of the day, it's still a parrot, not a conservative.

      by MadRuth on Thu May 12, 2011 at 04:54:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They jumped out the windows (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        psyched, MadRuth

        because the thing they feared most of all was having to live down here "in the mud" like the rest of us. Rather than have to face "our reality".....they would rather be dead! THAT is how they really feel about us. The reason none have jumped in this economic downturn.....is that none of those at the very top EVER faced THAT reality....we are paying for it not them. They have cushioned themselves against such a disaster!

  •  thanks (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MadRuth, tardis10, webgenie, psyched

    especially for the barbara ehrenreich: welfare is a right-to-life program

    now that's co-option!

    i'll be repeating that one ad infinitum

  •  It should be abundantly clear by now that the (0+ / 0-)

    massive tax cuts that started with Reagan and then were continued under Bush did not have the intended result of creating Jobs for Americans but intended or not did coincide with the rise in income inequality in the country.

    So obviously one first step in returning this inequality to more normal levels should be to begin raising taxes on the rich until we find the level that is optimum for the economic performance of the country as a whole.

    Also since the American Middle Class has gone over 30 years now with no net increase in inflation adjusted income and no net increase in its Standard of Living, we should begin reversing this trend by immediately declaring that the length of the so-called  Standard Work Week is now 4 days instead of 5 ( with no reduction in pay ) .

    That will immediately add some 25 million currently unemployed persons on food stamps  and other government subsidies, to the working ( and tax paying ) population and should have an immediate impact on the deficit followed very quickly by  downward pressure on the overall debt.

    See -  two simple solutions to two massive problem ( the high debt burden and gross income inequality ) and neither one touches the Social Safety Net.

  •  Important point (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    psyched

    I think this is an important point that liberals don't hit on often enough.  Conservatives portray the crock known as "supply-side" economics (i.e. trickle down) as a way to grow the economy.  We need to portray "demand" economics as the true way to grow the economy.  Unfortunately, conservatives have portrayed progressive policies as "spreading the wealth" instead of what it is, growing the economy by letting people buy the stuff they just got done making.

    When the low and middle class have more money, everyone benefits from the increased demand.  As we've seen from expansions after expansion, money grows up, it doesn't trickle down.

    Our Dime Understanding the U.S. Budget

    by maddogg on Thu May 12, 2011 at 07:44:16 AM PDT

  •  Some practical considerations (0+ / 0-)

    If I'd worked hard all my life to build a successful business, I'd be pretty pissed off to find out that I had to live inside a walled fortress to enjoy my wealth.   Avoiding that fate is worth some progressive taxation just on its own merits.

    Of course, in societies with high concentrations of wealth, there are few business opportunities.  For one thing, in such societies, the aristocracy runs the government, and the first thing they do when they get total control is to run small and midsized businesses into the ground.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site