Public Forum

Right. The income disparity between the top 1% and everyone else is right back to where it was in the 1920's before the Great Depression. From the 1940's to the 1990's it had narrowed significantly, but today, we are back to the huge gaping inequality.

Here is a chart:

http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#the-gap-between-the-top-1-and-everyone-else-hasnt-been-this-bad-since-the-roaring-twenties-1

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] 1 points by greentara (78) 13 years ago

thanks. i posted those charts here too first, we should differentiate between wealth an income my view of the world is that we should worry about wealth, not income thus we should have a wealth tax (not an income tax) we have a lame proxy in the property tax (most people pay 1% of the house value in tax, regardless of the amount of equity in the house)

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] 1 points by Mcc (542) 13 years ago

Bullshit. Look around. Check the news. Pick up a magazine. Its obvious. Record high concentration of wealth in America. Top one percent owns well over 40 percent. Bottom 90 percent own well under 10 percent. That's obscene. Like I said. Bullshit. Record high concentration of wealth.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] 1 points by greentara (78) 13 years ago

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html check out figure 5 wealthy have always had the most been like that for almost a century and worse before hand the robber barrons had 2x the wealth of gates/buffett as % of GDP

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23828) 13 years ago

You are missing the 50 years in between the 1930's and 1990's when the income disparity was significantly smaller.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] 1 points by greentara (78) 13 years ago

income and wealth are different wealth held by top 1% peaked in the late 1970's at 80% now its down to about 65% (lower then the 70+% in the 1950's

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23828) 13 years ago

Sorry, these posts are confusing and I exited out by mistake and lost the other one. LOL! Anyway, I found you here. I found the chart. I see what you're saying about wealth although it definitely did narrow between the 1940's and 1980 or so. Interesting. I'm no expert but I think that the 10% increase in wealth among the top 1% is very significant. Thanks for the post.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] 1 points by Mcc (542) 13 years ago

MIAMI (CBSMiami.com) – Florida is touting the new jobs it created Friday after a positive unemployment report. But based on numbers from all W-2’s filed in the country, the wages simply aren’t keeping up.

According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 99 percent of Americans, saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively.

The sobering numbers were a far cry from what was going on for the richest one percent of Americans.

The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion.

In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009.

Overall, the economy has shed 5.2 million jobs since the start of the Great Recession in 2007. It’s the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930’s.

Another word about the first Great Depression. It really was a perfect storm. Caused almost entirely by greed. First, there was unprecedented economic growth. There was a massive building spree. There was a growing sense of optimism and materialism. There was a growing obsession for celebrities. The American people became spoiled, foolish, naive, brainwashed, and love-sick. They were bombarded with ads for one product or service after another. Encouraged to spend all of their money as if it were going out of style. Obscene profits were hoarded at the top. All of this represented a MASSIVE transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Executives, entrepreneurs, developers, celebrities, and share holders. By 1929, America's wealthiest 1 percent had accumulated around 40% of all United States wealth. The upper class held around 30%. The middle and lower classes were left to share the rest. When the majority finally ran low on money to spend, profits declined and the stock market crashed. Of course, the rich threw a fit and started cutting jobs. They would stop at nothing to maintain their disgusting profit margins and ill-gotten obscene levels of wealth as long as possible. The small business owners did what they felt necessary to survive. They cut more jobs. The losses were felt primarily by the little guy. This created a domino effect. The middle class shrunk drastically and the lower class expanded. With less wealth in reserve and active circulation, banks failed by the hundreds. More jobs were cut. Unemployment reached 25% in 1933. The worst year of the Great Depression. Those who were employed had to settle for much lower wages. Millions went cold and hungry. The recovery involved a massive infusion of new currency, a World War, and higher taxes on the rich. With so many men in the service, so many women on the production line, and those higher taxes to help pay for it, the lions share of United States wealth was gradually transfered back to the middle class. This redistribution of wealth continued until the mid seventies. This was the recovery. A massive redistribution of wealth.

Then it began to concentrate all over again. Here we are 35 years later. The richest one percent now own well over 40 percent of all US wealth. The lower 90 percent own less than 10 percent of all US wealth. This is true even after taxes, welfare, financial aid, and charity. It is the underlying cause. No redistribution. No recovery.

The government won't step in and do what's necessary. Not this time. It's up to us. Support small business more and big business less. Support the little guy more and the big guy less. It's tricky but not impossible.

No redistribution. No recovery.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] 1 points by stochastic (6) 13 years ago

We have already evolved the faculties we need, but we haven't yet learned to use them effectively. With the discovery of General Semantics in 1933 it has been understood that our wild languages tend to lead to a confused structure of semantic response and thus delusion. Unfortunately we have been unable to correct the problem as we are still confused by the very problem we might hope to overcome. Read Science and Sanity to further understand what i'm saying:

http://esgs.free.fr/uk/art/sands.htm

The scientific facts aren't always simple unfortunately.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] 1 points by greentara (78) 13 years ago

will do .... thanks

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] 1 points by stochastic (6) 13 years ago

That's because it was already a huge problem in 1920. The resources of the world have been squandered by the 1% and worse for thousands of years. We are fighting problem that is ancient and has plagued us for thousands of years. First it was the kings ordained by their 'god' and now it's bankers ordained by their false market gods and all the lies they sell us about competition and motivation.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] 1 points by greentara (78) 13 years ago

agree. maybe the human dna doesnt allow us to change. hence the need for a new species to evolve (somehow). i feel the key fulcrum relative to OWS is the debate between the way the world is and the way it could be

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink