Oh, Tupa. We went through that one. Tupa means *growing* inequality. And the study showed that while wage and income inequality is surely growing, the actual gap between the top and bottom may not be getting bigger because it's offset by inflation pressures - i.e. the poor have started doing more of their shopping at places like Wal-Mart and Target, which saves them money on basic goods. Meanwhile, the wealthier don't shop at the big bargain retailers - they shop at Bloomingdale's and Nieman Marcus and Whole Foods - so their bundle of basic goods is getting more expensive, not cheaper, and this cancels out the growing level of inequality in other areas.

Yeah, I didn't know anybody who seriously didn't think the space between the rich and the poor in America is widening. I thought he was kidding.

Well,

when you work hard and invest all your life, and you have big savings drawing greater and greater returns.

When you want to slum for a living, snort illegal whatever, or maybe be a writer, and you don't have any money,

you don't have savings and you don't gain.

Those are extremes, of course, but the idea that it is a crime to be successful reeks of insane Marxist jealously, which breeds class cultural struggles.

The poor want help from the gov, the poor marxists help from the richer via the government, and the richer want to keep what they have and not give it away.

There is no law against investing and being rewarded for investment via financial gains.

There should be NO ESTATE TAXES.

It takes money to make money.

No money? No investment gains.

Education is the best way to solve that gap.

Unless you are dealing with scum, druggies, welfare addicts and struggling Hollywood writers.

quote:

Originally posted by shepwrite:
Yeah, I didn't know anybody who seriously didn't think the space between the rich and the poor in America is widening. I thought he was kidding.

I was, but your reference to inflation reminded me of that study. If I was going to make a serious point, it would be that "trickle down" is a pro-growth strategy, and that inequality has not grown since its first implementation in the 80's. So the economy has grown, and everyone has benefitted. That would be a point for trickle down.

Another interesting point that can be inferred by combining the conclusion of that study and others is that the real changes in inequality have come within the top 10%. The differences between the top and bottom 10% havent changed, but the top 1% is going crazy. This seems to mean that the difference between the top 1% and the next 9% is growing - not something I expect anyone to ask the government to correct, but an interesting note (especially when being told which groups to look at to measure inequality).

Thanks for catching me, Heck, I definitely was referring to the GROWTH, not the inequality. You wont find me singing the praises of an economy that doesnt have any.

Toop and Heck, I remember reading a really in-depth article about the fall-out of Reagan's "quick fix" economic policies. Like Jack Handy, I don't remember where it was but it feels like maybe Time Magazine, probably on a plane. It was probably the first time I thought about national economic policies and I recall getting my first real headache then. The ones I've often referred to here.

Crux I remember, and the crux was that we had a severely bloated national debt and that the "boom" was almost exclusively for the top half of the country while the bottom half suffered. Not everybody got to be a "yuppie."

Your takes?

The bottom half got rich during the Clinton years. I never picked up on that.

Your ego is severely bloated.

quote:

Your ego is severely bloated.

But only because I'm ****ing awesome.

nah, just full of hot air under pressure.

with no relief valve in sight.

I'm gonna stick with ****ing awesome. It's too late to change my oversized vanity plate.