Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Thursday, March 14, 2013 | 2 a.m.
Another view?
View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:
• Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.
• Columnists - local and syndicated writers.
• Letters to the editor - readers' views.
Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.
I wonder how many people think that our economy is doing better because of the stock market’s recent record-setting day. That’s wrong.
MSNBC had a sliding scale that showed who has gotten richer since 2007 — the already wealthy, banks, Wall Street, corporations and their CEOs. These people and their companies took up about 90 percent of the scale. The working person has not gotten any richer and low-income people were no longer even on the scale. They were pushed off it altogether.
This is one sad story for the American people.
The top fifth of the income distribution fairs better mainly because they spend vastly more time in the labor market earning a living. In fact, if you divide income by the number of weeks of work, the difference between the top and bottom fifth is only 2 to 1. Most families in the top fifth of the income distribution had two full-time workers, while most families in the bottom fifth had no full time worker with the top fifth averaging 2.2 workers per household compared to 0.7 in the bottom fifth.
Adults in the bottom fifth tend to be either very young or very old. The very young are starting out in life who have yet to learn the job skills that produce high incomes. The very old are the ones who are retired. The people in the top fifth tend to be people in their peak earning years of 35 to 54 years old with more than half of household heads in that age range compared to only one-third of households in the bottom fifth of the income distribution.
When reviewing income inequality, two major factors are the number of adults working in the household and the age of the adult workers. Real young workers and older retired people are expected to earn less than those in the prime of their earning potential years of 35 to 54 years old. These factors will affect the income spread between upper and lower income groups.
Someone yesterday suggested we outlaw two income families or tax the second family income earner at 75%. Perhaps later this year we'll see one of these tax policy changes in a tax reform plan that would restrict income earned by two income earning families.
Agree the stock market is up because the Fed has set government bond price at less then 1%. They are printing $85billion every month to buy Toxic mortgages.
The dollar is weak. The economy is not better because the stock market is up
Old people that retired and put their nest egg in CDs are getting no real income from their fixed income. People were told the old you get to shift your money into "safer" bonds.
The government policy of surpressing bonds is wrong
--
My experience is that if you are working and make $75 k a year and are putting money into your 401k every month - then you will be better off then people who do not work and live off of government benefits
Life on Mainstreet rises and falls with Wall Street. Markets go up and peoples' wealth goes up starting with retirement nest eggs like 401 K's and IRA's. But you have to pay to play. If your take home pay is cut by an increase in taxes, higher gas and food prices, and no jobs, then you don't have savings and income to gamble/invest with.
CarmineD
In 2010, 93% of the increase in wealth went to the top 1% of income earners. This illustrates the dual economies we've been experiencing for the past decade or more. One economy for the rich and a totally different economy for everyone else.
You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's just decoration. It's still a pig.
Wouldn't it be nice to sleep late, never ever HAFF to DO anything for anyone else, have all ya need and gobs more to blow - ok just say $250 a day - you know an extra, say hundred K a year?
AND just check w/ that accountant and check w/ the broker and then get the word from the travel agent and head off to another splendid vacation in another paradise. Bye maids and butlers. Be back in a month. Keep the castle spotless!
That's the 1% er's daily regimen.
And most of the world's labor force supports this scheme.
You and I lay down our days and nights at their feet. We are born to pucker; they are born to fart in our face. Oh the silver spoon syndrome!
The wisdom of our bastard plutocratic capitalism, the bastion of bullies.
This is certainly an issue that must be addressed relatively quickly. My wife and I were lamenting yesterday while watching the news that Google has lavished half a billion dollars in bonuses on its top four executives to reward them for last year's stellar performance.
America is gradually turning itself into a third world country, and your political system seems populated by the very super rich who are grasping all the wealth. Fat chance that they will take up the gauntlet and fight for the ordinary citizen.
The perverse capitalistic system now operating in the USA has announced that "maximizing shareholder value" is the number one goal of corporations. Add that to the unpatriotic trend to outsource jobs to cheaper countries and corporate America's thirst for keeping so many of its service workers poor by providing mostly part-time employment, and the result is explosive.
At some point the young and dispossessed in your country will rebel and seize power or at least cause massive civic unrest.
As far as I'm concerned, any country that refuses to share its wealth reasonably among all its citizens is truly an "evil empire".
Donald W. Desaulniers
The cause of most of the income inequality is the two income household. I have the perfect liberal plan to resolve income inequality:
1. Allow two-income earners in a household for a maximum of 10 years. After 10 years, one household income earner must retire to either stay-at-home or the idle income earner can start a business but it must be an employer business of no less than 3 employees earning $20 per hour and a 40 hour work week for each.
2. As a penalty, if a family of two income earners go past the 10 year limit then that family must forfeit all luxury items purchased during that 10+ years which would include boats, planes, extra cars, boats, beachfront properties and the cash value of any trips taken overseas. These items would then be auctioned and the proceeds would be redistributed to lower income earners.
A final penalty would be to require them to wear in public a sign on their back and front stating "I'm a greedy wage earner". This will discourage others from trying to earn more than their limit.
This liberal plan would free up more jobs and increase job mobility for lower & middle income earners.
A note to LVS readers. Don't be fooled by liberals attacking the "rich". There is an investor class but those are folks who know how to save, invest and get ahead. The target liberals are after is the two-income households. They call these people "CEO's" but notice they don't single out highly paid doctors, lawyers, entertainers such as singers, TV actors, movie actors, TV personalities and show hosts and sports figures are noticeably missing. Why is that? Many top 1% wage earners are in all of these professions. Quite a mystery why liberals don't mention those in these highly paid professions as well.
Complain,complain,complain. Modern mainstream journalism is finally reaching it's lowest ebb ever. It has created an entire new culture and Presidency of pure negativity by flaming snappy cynical discontent and blame. Well guess what, if your not financially comfortable it's your fault, and if your not happy that's your choice because this country is abound in opportunity. Get off the media misery merry-go-round, rid yourself of the nebbish garbage and change it.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/10/pf/emerg...
let's cut through the baloney here. American-style capitalism along with a ridiculous tax structure have created some of the worst wealth inequality in the world. I think were between Turkey and Chile.
Nearly 2/3 of the people in this country can not come up with a grand. Half the country is getting some type of social welfare assistance and incomes for millions of working people and retirees are dismal. Half the elderly are dying penniless and most under age 40 have nothing.
There are a few million millionaire families in the United States. Probably 20% to 30% of those families got their money the old-fashioned way, generational wealth transfers and marriage.
Wages need to skyrocket and medical costs need to come way down for this trend to even begin to reverse itself.
That being said a dramatically higher stock market along with stabilization in real estate have helped people that own homes and have retirement accounts. If you don't have those things you're just another welfare case and there's very little help for you at this point.
Mr. Freeman, you've put your conceptual cart before your theoretical horse. The two-income family isn't the cause of income inequality, it's a coping mechanism that families have adopted to deal with decades of stagnant wages.
In the 60s and 70s, a family could afford to have mom stay home and raise the kids. If dad had a good union job, or better yet, a college degree, he could earn enough by himself to maintain a decent standard of living for the family.
Those days are long gone. In part because of globalism -- and in part because our economic system has been designed over the last three decades to move money into the hands of fewer and fewer people.
And before I forget -- conservatives can't have it both ways. If it's not fair to consider the very young or very old when calculating income inequality, then it's not fair to include those same folks when calculating the number of people who do not pay federal income taxes (Mitt's "47%").
Emthree said:
"In the 60s and 70s, a family could afford to have mom stay home and raise the kids. If dad had a good union job, or better yet, a college degree, he could earn enough by himself to maintain a decent standard of living for the family.
Those days are long gone. In part because of globalism -- and in part because our economic system has been designed over the last three decades to move money into the hands of fewer and fewer people."
Very well said & 100% true. Yes, starting with the Reagan years we have seen a slow (some times not so slow..) trend to move money into the hands of fewer & fewer people.........the old "rich getting richer" concept...
Of course, once we lose our middle class, we will lose our democracy, our form of government!
Have you noticed how most conservatives avoid using the word "democracy?"
They refuse to admit that we now have a "constitutional democratic republic." They still live & die with the term "republic."
Of course, a country can have a republican form of government and not be democratic in nature! In other words, a situation exist where only an elite/rich ruling class calls all of the shots....
Does that sound like the current Republican Party and what they want to put in place?
Need I say more??
Like all market climbs, what goes up comes down. After another high today, and the longest streak since 1996, it's safe to say there are some signs to watch. At 15,000, time to sell. Interest rates go up, it's time to sell. Both happen, run don't walk for the exits. But let's face it, if you got in at the lows in 2009 when the market was at 6000 and it's at 14,000 now, you made money. Congratulations. Time to take profits and sit on the sidelines.
It's the Bernanke bubble effect. Printing $3 Billion dollars a day. The added liquidity makes interest rates low, making stocks the only place to put your money. Dodd-Frank uncertainty, banks rather than lending to consumers and businesses, stockpile cash in bonds and take the easy and safe money.
CarmineD
@ John Walsh: More logical fallacies and English language nonsense.
Define rich. Define often. Define soon. Define ordinary. Unique. Special.
Uh huh...
I used to think a person was rich who was a millionaire. Now, I think a person is rich if they can afford expensive bad habits. Like smoking cigarettes. I tell my kids, "Hey kids. That guy must be rich because he can pay $12/day to pollute his lungs/my air. He must have a lot of expendable income to do that!"
Try being poor in India. The poor in India would cut off their legs to be poor in the United States.
@John Walsh: And while you are at it, create a job. Not just any job. Create a job that pays a living wage with full health care/retirement benefits from day 1 of employment to a person with ZERO desirable job skills.
Tell us how long your new business lasts.
Emthree,
We agree to disagree. The number of women employed in 1970 was 29 million(40% of the women population) compared to 67 million(56% of women population) in 2008. The advent of the second wage earner in the household is a prime reason one household is making more than a household with one wage earner.
Below is link to a previous letter where you and I had differing views on the subject. My 8:02 comment included a question for you Emthree. I asked:
See the yearly income figures below. Should person B & C get an increase in wages to equal person A's income at $83,000?
Person A = $83,000
Person B = $57,000
Person C = $42,000
These three people represented by A,B & C were median household income in three different cities & states. The problem with looking at income only is that it doesn't take into account the cost-of-living differences in cities and states. If person C above was bumped from a $42,000 salary to $83,000 then that person would have much higher purchasing power than person A. Why? Because companies factor cost-of-living in determining salary. There are quite a few factors causing different pay rates in different areas of the country. A more granular look at income determination reveals these important factors that many liberals are trying to ignore.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/mar...
John......
We need to face the facts here if we want to fix
the wage inequality.
THE NUMBER ONE CAUSE......
GREEDY, ANTI-UNION REPUBLICANS!
YES, greedy republicans broke most of our labor
unions, stole our jobs, stole our wages, stole
our health care and stole our retirements.
That's what happened here.
And for an average worker, a 401k IS NOT A
RETIREMENT.
A 401k will never be enough to retire on.
And if you are a minimum wage worker, YOU WILL
NEVER RETIRE!
AMERICAN WORKERS NEED LABOR UNIONS AGAIN!
LIVE BETTER/WORK UNION!
Everything is better if your rich. They don't watch PMSNBC either.
@teamster:
A. You don't own a job. "Your job" belongs to the person/company that created it. If you think otherwise, you should march into your bosses office and quit "your job" and tell him that you are going to take "your job" with you out the door. See how that works out for you. Let us know.
B. There is no such thing as an American job that has been shipped overseas. A job that is created in Vietnam, or China, or Thailand was created there because THAT JOB could not be created in the United States due to political expediency. Perhaps the AFL-CIO, or Teamsters should create some jobs here in the United States? (That would be interesting to see the Union be both Evil Boss and Aggrieved Employee when collective bargaining season hits!)
C. Your precious "pension" doesn't belong to you. If you think it does, ask the pensioners of Eastern Airlines, or Delta what happened to their pensions when those companies filed for bankruptcy. (Hint: they got pennies on the dollar) PENSIONS ARE COMPANY ASSETS. Pensions belong to those who own company debt. And Social Security doesn't belong to you either. (see Fleming v Nestor, USSC, 1960... don't worry... Social Security isn't enough to retire on either!) A 401k or 403b belong to you. They cannot be discharged due to company bankruptcy.
Your unionista rhetoric doesn't change the facts.
The economy is NOT better even for the rich. The rich get next to nothing for a ROI since interest rates are forced to zero. So our economy is forced to zero. Would have been all right for a VERY SHORT TIME but we've skewed the mechanics and IGNORED THE ECONOMY. Someone has to pay for each and every artificial measure or TOOL that the Feds use. FORCE INTEREST RATES UP TO NORMAL so our economy can be resuscitated. Further, how will the ENORMOUS DEBT be carried at ANY interest rate? We have a SPENDING CRISIS right now. As for the rich, they have enough to get by no matter how stupid politicians act--until the dollar completely implodes. So the rich "have to" have money in foreign currencies, markets. The rich will get by.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/fede...
Ms. Anderson watches way too much Fox news. We have a spending crisis? The federal government currently spends about 20% of GDP. It was about 20% of GDP 70 years ago. It hasn't moved an inch. when you factor in the dramatic increase in population the federal government currently employs half the people that it did when Eisenhower was in office.
People want things but don't want to pay for them through higher taxes. That's the only reason we have deficits.
"People want things but don't want to pay for them through higher taxes. That's the only reason we have deficits."
Very true but I certainly didn't want money to be sent to Morrocco to teach them how to make pottery.
@TruthDetector: Good luck trying to explain to teamster how it works. He doesn't have a clue what it would be like to create jobs.