Inequality in America is getting worse according to top economists

[Tennis]

http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/22/news...le_videocrpool

Inequality in America is getting worse.

The gap between the "haves" and "have nots" is widening, according to the latest data out this week.

The rich are money-making machines. Today, the top mega wealthy -- the top 1% -- earn an average of $1.3 million a year. It's more than three times as much as the 1980s, when the rich "only" made $428,000, on average, according to economists Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman.

Meanwhile, the bottom 50% of the American population earned an average of $16,000 in pre-tax income in 1980. That hasn't changed in over three decades.

As if that's not depressing enough, living the American Dream is also getting harder to do.

Millennials, born in the 1980s, only have a 50% likelihood -- a coin toss chance -- of earning more money than their parents did, according to new research released this month from the Equality of Opportunity Project.

It wasn't always this way. In the 1940s, almost everyone in America grew up to be better off financially than their parents. While money isn't the only definition of success, more wealth typically leads to bigger houses, grander vacations, fancier cars and more opportunities to advance.

"Children's prospects of achieving the 'American Dream' of earning more than their parents have fallen from 90% to 50% over the past half century," the researchers wrote in their report.

Wealthy taking a bigger piece of 'pie'

The wealthy didn't always take such a big share of the proverbial "pie." In the 1970s, a decade generally seen as fairly prosperous, the top 1% of Americans earned just over 10% of all U.S. income (i.e. the "pie").

Over time, the rich became more lucky -- or more greedy. Today the top 1% take home more than 20% of all U.S. income.

As the wealthy earned more, someone else in America had to get less. The bottom 50% went from capturing over 20% of national income for much of the 1970s to earning barely 12% today.

The turning point started around 1980, as seen in the graph below. By the mid-1990s, the fortunes of the top 1% were clearly on the rise and those of the bottom half were declining rapidly.

This is crazy. The bottom 50% is making 25K a year?
Half the country surviving on that? How do they even make ends meet !?!?
We need action. I can't believe people voted in the new guy who is gonna cut taxes on the rich.

[Derpleton]

Oh no! What should we do????

[Knolan]

http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/22/news...le_videocrpool





This is crazy. The bottom 50% is making 25K a year?
Half the country surviving on that? How do they even make ends meet !?!?
We need action. I can't believe people voted in the new guy who is gonna cut taxes on the rich.

Yeah, Hillary would totally have taxed the guys who funded her campaign!!!

[Santti]

It's gonna trickle down so hard under Trump, you don't know what to do with all that money!

[Kaleredar]

Oh no! What should we do????

Well you know what the answer isn't?

Promising people the jobs they lost overseas or to automation are going to come back when they aren't.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, Hillary would totally have taxed the guys who funded her campaign!!!

Except Trump is the president, and he's the one that has to deal with this problem.

But I mean come on, the silver-spoon-in-mouth born new york billionaire was definitely the right choice to solve income inequality, right?

How's that swamp draining been going?

[Revi]

I don't think comparing everyone to the 1% makes a whole lot of sense. The 1% are outliers and in a totally different system from most people. Of course it matters, but it seems to me it would be more useful to compare the lower class to lower/upper middle class.

[Tennis]

It's gonna trickle down so hard under Trump, you don't know what to do with all that money!

Yeah trickle down to the shareholders of Lockheed Martin and Raytheon. Trump was supposed to drain the swamp and be an isolationist I thought.

[Knolan]

Well you know what the answer isn't?

Promising people the jobs they lost overseas or to automation are going to come back when they aren't.

- - - Updated - - -



Except Trump is the president, and he's the one that has to deal with this problem.

But I mean come on, the silver-spoon-in-mouth born new york billionaire was definitely the right choice to solve income inequality, right?

How's that swamp draining been going?

I am not saying he will, I am saying that there was 0 chance Hillary would.

[Belize]

If this election has taught me anything, it's fuck the bottom half.

I mean, fucking the top half generally isn't recommended. I can't imagine sticking anything in your urethra feels that goo-

Oh. We're not talk about... uh... nevermind.

[NED funded]

Well you know what the answer isn't?

Promising people the jobs they lost overseas or to automation are going to come back when they aren't.

- - - Updated - - -



Except Trump is the president, and he's the one that has to deal with this problem.

But I mean come on, the silver-spoon-in-mouth born new york billionaire was definitely the right choice to solve income inequality, right?

How's that swamp draining been going?

Why are you dismissing the effects of trade? Trade with China has obliterated a lot of towns.

[Tennis]

I don't think comparing everyone to the 1% makes a whole lot of sense. The 1% are outliers and in a totally different system from most people. Of course it matters, but it seems to me it would be more useful to compare the lower class to lower/upper middle class.

Umm if the 1% share is growing exponentially while the bottom 50% is falling. Of course there is a link. Basic economics..

[Kaleredar]

I am not saying he will, I am saying that there was 0 chance Hillary would.

what, you think Trump is going to turn against the wall street executives he girded his cabinet with?

You really have no grounds to claim some sort of higher ground with Trump on this.

[Deleted]

Anyone really wonders that a corporate government made out of billionaires and bank managers has no interest in lowering the gap between rich and poor?

If anyone voted trump for that.. sorry.. but better dont go to vote again. Or if you do, switch on your brain.

[Belize]

Why are you dismissing the effects of trade? Trade with China has obliterated a lot of towns.

Trade with other countries is also basically the only thing keeping some major industries alive.

See --> corn exports for an example. Trade isn't all bad like you'd want people to think.

[Kaleredar]

Why are you dismissing the effects of trade? Trade with China has obliterated a lot of towns.

Do you have sources on this and sources for how Trump is going to address it? Because all I've seen so far is him fail to get any companies to actually act on this.

Seeing as he and his family don't even stick to the "American labor" schtick, I don't really see how he intends for all of America to follow it.


Again, selling people a narrative that wont work. People need new jobs. The old jobs aren't coming back, and chasing them is a pipe dream.

[Yvaelle]

Income inequality is small and irrelevant potatoes.

The real issue is the rise of wealth inequality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth...-us-wealth.png

Circa 2013, and it's way worse today:

[Jaylock]

When you cut taxes on the "rich" (this includes big corporations) it allows them the capital to hire more employees and raise wages for their employees. This is also called reinvesting in the business to make the business grow. It helps everyone, including the stakeholders of the business.

Also lowering taxes on small businesses and reducing red tape allows them to do the same, just on a smaller scale.

Simple economic sense. Hence, the "bottom 50%" see their wages increase and increased jobs.

[Knolan]

what, you think Trump is going to turn against the wall street executives he girded his cabinet with?

You really have no grounds to claim some sort of higher ground with Trump on this.

Second try: I am not saying he will do it, I am saying that Hillary surely would not do it.

[Damajin]

http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/22/news...le_videocrpool





This is crazy. The bottom 50% is making 25K a year?
Half the country surviving on that? How do they even make ends meet !?!?
We need action. I can't believe people voted in the new guy who is gonna cut taxes on the rich.

Says the guy asking if a 900 dollar coat and giant flat screen tvs are good purchases.

[Masark]

When you cut taxes on the "rich" (this includes big corporations) it allows them the capital to hire more employees and raise wages for their employees. This is also called reinvesting in the business to make the business grow. It helps everyone, including the stakeholders of the business.

Also lowering taxes on small businesses and reducing red tape allows them to do the same, just on a smaller scale.

Simple economic sense. Hence, the "bottom 50%" see their wages increase and increased jobs.

Except you've been doing that for close to 40 years.

None of that has happened.