There's been a growing number of voices[0][1][2] speaking to not only inequality but also the meritocratic system that seems to have positive feedback loops that worsens inequality by precluding opportunities for those who don't fit the mold of the college education track. I think it's only a matter of time (within the next decade?) where this comes to a head and results in some shock to the system that forces a corr…
what are the chances this "shock" is peaceful? Anyone have ideas? Unfortunately, it may be not very high (though I am optimistically hoping we can figure something out!) A very cool atlantic article I read following a similar line of thought, highly recommended read:
It's not difficult to call that poverty at all. It's uncomfortable or upsetting, but not difficult.
I guess it shows how far we’ve come, as that income would have been considered rich in 1900!
$20,000 in 1900 is worth $619,971.43 today, so not sure what your argument is. It's not the raw number value that matters but what people can buy with it.
Some things are already starting to give way pretty loudly, and others are yet to come. You simply cannot maintain a democratic society (for whatever nominal value of democracy you want) with these levels on inequality and non-shared misery. I’m not sure what the next decade holds for the US, but it’s either gonna be some major-scale reinvestment and redistribution or it’s gonna get pretty damn unstable.
The US has the most progressive tax system in the world - far more than Europe. The middle and lower classes pay basically 0 tax, or even get refunds (negative taxes), while the rich pay basically all taxes https://www.economist.com/united-states/2017/11/23/american-... The middle and lower classes in Europe pay very high tax rates, but get a lot in return. The left in America is promising European-style safety nets…
Please pardon the HN behavior. Downvotes doesn't mean you're wrong, just as you said, it doesn't resonate with what people experience, hear and read. I am sure most people here would agree with the facts. We read you in a slightly gray font, it's fine.
The majority of hopeless people are a long way from retirement. Homeless, long term disability, or people living off of their parents etc. America is rich enough that bring poor represents a huge range of lifestyles from young raft guides living in leaky cabins to just about everything else.
> The majority of hopeless people are a long way from retirement Source?
>> The majority of hopeless people are a long way from retirement
>Source?
assuming "long way from retirement" is 10+ years.
Discouraged over job prospects
age 24-55: 311k
age 55+: 170k
Discouraged workers are persons marginally attached to the labor force who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks for reasons such as thinks no work available, could not find work, lacks schooling or training, employer thinks too young or old, and other types of discrimination.
The US has the most progressive tax system in the world - far more than Europe. The middle and lower classes pay basically 0 tax, or even get refunds (negative taxes), while the rich pay basically all taxes https://www.economist.com/united-states/2017/11/23/american-... The middle and lower classes in Europe pay very high tax rates, but get a lot in return. The left in America is promising European-style safety nets…
Is it not the case that taxpayers in the U.S. can write-off interest on their mortgages? That's insanely regressive. My understanding is that it's all the deductions that make the US system on the whole quite regressive. In any case US taxpayers don't appear to be getting good value for their money. They do have a pretty insane military though... The Economist article is paywalled so I can't read beyond the intro. Bu…
> Is it not the case that taxpayers in the U.S. can write-off interest on their mortgages? That's insanely regressive.
With the 2018 tax changes, a lot of the itemized deductions are capped and the standard deductions raised. I think I've read now that 90% of the filings are for standard deductions.
Some things are already starting to give way pretty loudly, and others are yet to come. You simply cannot maintain a democratic society (for whatever nominal value of democracy you want) with these levels on inequality and non-shared misery. I’m not sure what the next decade holds for the US, but it’s either gonna be some major-scale reinvestment and redistribution or it’s gonna get pretty damn unstable.
Prior to Covid the unemployment rate was the lowest it’s been in 40+ years and wage growth was 6%+ in 2019. The issues this article highlights are not systemic, they are because of the pandemic.
Not discounting the pandemic. But how good it was before could be debated further around how much those income gains were slurped up by rising education/healthcare/housing costs.
Furthermore income isn’t everything. If wealth inequality wasn’t so great than even those unemployed would be able to weather C19 must more comfortably.
What is that almost a 100 million people? Seems like a lot. I wonder how many have families and kids. Such a bummer. At least Granny is safe!
You know, it’s not a dichotomy. It’s possible to implement temporary restrictions while providing support to help people remain employed. Your attitude kind of glosses over the fact that the current unfolding catastrophe in the US is a result of a series of deliberate policy decisions and does not have to be like it is.
What would be measures to help bartenders remain employed while closing down bars? I’m struggling to imagine what you have in mind here.
His figure incorporates both jobless workers — people who were actively searching for work in the past month — as well as adults who are earning below $20,000 a year, or below the poverty line.
It's a more meta observation that "poverty" has many subjective definitions. Certainly many (not all) people we would consider living in poverty today would be considered well off even 100 years ago. For example, owning a functioning automobile was a huge luxury only for the rich 100 years ago. For another example, the terms of the debate have shifted. It used to be about the objective state of the poor people. Today…
Owning a car wasn't a requirement to get anywhere 100 years ago though, or to hold a job, whereas it is for many areas/people now.
Or another example: I really don't like smartphones, for all sorts of reasons not worth getting in to here. But having one is sort-of a requirement these days since all kinds of services are only available as a phone app, and many company's primary method of contact is WhatsApp, and a lot of social life happens on there as well. Of course you can go without one, but it's debilitating.
There are a few more things like this. Income has risen, but so have mandatory costs for a normal life.
The US has the most progressive tax system in the world - far more than Europe. The middle and lower classes pay basically 0 tax, or even get refunds (negative taxes), while the rich pay basically all taxes https://www.economist.com/united-states/2017/11/23/american-... The middle and lower classes in Europe pay very high tax rates, but get a lot in return. The left in America is promising European-style safety nets…
That's interesting about the progressive taxation. My quick look at income tax rates in the US is that there is a lot of progressiveness in the income ranges of the top 5% rather than through the income levels that the bell curve of Americans live in. I am not an expert or spent anytime I must say so I'm not arguing just my first look. What income range do you define as middle class? And What's lower class in the US…
One difference from here than other developed countries is that America has a lot of rich people. Not just super rich that you hear about on the news, but tons of millionaires. The software salaries at FAANG are true, but basically every industry has a cream at the top that makes absurd money compared to what they would make in other countries. Doctors, dentists, lawyers, military contractors, salesmen, stock traders, fast food franchisees - every state in the US has a sizable pool of millionaires. And while the tax rates that someone making $800k salary vs. $80k salary aren’t hugely different, 37% of $800k is a hell of a lot more total than 30% of $80k. And that’s where the bulk of the taxes are made - not from the poor, or the middle class, or even the super rich that often game everything, but the upper middle class / “normal” rich.