U.S. Income Inequality Hits a New Threshold

Your first paragraph applies equally to men - but men are statistically less willing to sacrifice extra income to focus more on familly. Maybe men should not have children (?!).

Nevertheless, ignoring judgemental moral in previous paragraph, it does not make theoretical "men with children earn less" something that needs to be discussed as not economics.

The link references data from 2014.

> The rewards for creating something new need to be worth the risk of complete failure and loss of income for those years.

New things are not inherently valuable by virtue of being new. I don't feel that we ought to reward people who for merely creating things that are new. And why should anyone be rewarded beyond having a comfortable, easy life? $465,000 is an insane salary, magnitudes larger than is required for a comfortable life.

> Not if you give up on living in the most expensive parts of the US.

You're thinking in a narrow context. For someone like me who moved from the midwest to the west coast, yah, I could just go back "home". The larger issue however is that, to borrow a tired phrase, it takes a village to raise a child. The jobs that make a city work are largely not high-income earning jobs. That is: paramedics, firefighters, teachers, bus drivers, road repairmen, linemen, auto mechanics, delivery drivers, locksmiths, and on and on. Much fewer of these people are transplants than the high-earners and don't have support networks in those cheaper parts of the country. Creating cities where only the wealthy can afford to live necessarily, forcefully pushes other people out.

> Even then, a housing shortage is hardly attributable to income inequality.

While I agree that it's vital to build enough housing for the demand, there is one reason alone that a house can cost $600,000. That is because someone has ~$120,000 in liquid, spendable cash. If everyone had only $1000 of cash, how much could a house possibly cost.

> A broken healthcare system can't be fixed by fewer rich people.

I agree, the healthcare system is broken and the problem isn't for lack of money. But when you see politicians attempting to gut medicare for tax breaks for the rich it doesn't little to instill confidence that that money could be better spent.

> Capping incomes of successful professions will not add more fulfilling professions nor will it increase their savings.

I agree.

> But by making it include skilled professionals that had to put in huge risks to get where they are

"Huge Risks"? If you have stories about skilled professionals who risked their security and failed I'd love to hear them.

> I don't know what "impossibly larger" is supposed to mean in this context. Someone who makes $250k will not see someone who makes $500k as making an "impossibly larger" amount of money than them.

Sure, but someone who makes $45,000 is likely to see $100,000 as impossibly larger. Referencing the professions I listed above, can those skilled professional expect to make $250,000 a year in their profession?

> If this whole movement had been more carefully crafted to exclude people that had to go to medical school and go $350k into debt

While I only know a handful of people who have gone to medical school or law school, the path to repaying those loans seems to be pretty straightforward and perhaps a little nerve-racking at times, but I don't know anyone who's gone destitute as a result of those loans. Also, I'm critical of a system that puts the burden of risk on the individual for training individuals to do those important, necessary jobs.

Their risk-taking isn't what we ought to be rewarding, it's the value that those professions bring to the general population.

These problems are all intersectional. Is it the fault of rich people that there are poor people? Often not, in some cases yes. There have long been abuses of the lower economic classes by the higher economic classes. I think one the largest problems is how quickly wealthy people lose solidarity with lower earners and believe that it's their "hard work" that got them their wealth. People stuck in lower incomes know how ignorant that belief is. It's also exceedingly difficult for a person living paycheck to paycheck, raising a family or caring for dependent parent or whatever, to solidarity with someone who was in a position to go to med school or study law. Anger is often misplaced and I agree that the delineation between the %1 and the %99 percent is often fuzzed, but that doesn't make the anger an less real, any less meaningful.

I suppose you will be heading up the committee to decide the value of what people do for the community.?

If only there were some automatic way where the markets could decide what is valuable and what is not.

Then reference correct newer data.

>New things are not inherently valuable by virtue of being new.

If people don't think they are getting value out of a business's product, people will not pay for it and the owner won't be rewarded. Markets 101.

>And why should anyone be rewarded beyond having a comfortable, easy life?

Tall poppy syndrome. Why shouldn't we strive for people to have paths to easy lives? Attacking the 1% just strikes down people who have done well without improving everyone else.

>$465,000 is an insane salary, magnitudes larger than is required for a comfortable life.

You assume it's sustainable for life. These people are not clock punchers working for some government with no budget limits. If you run a business it could lose money for a year and your salary could easily be How about the fact that a medical student has to throw away ~12 years of earning potential and accrue debt with interest?

These are all massive risks that these professionals take and that's the reason they are compensated the way they are. If it was so easy there would be a big supply of them and they wouldn't be so well compensated by buyers. Markets 101.

>Creating cities where only the wealthy can afford to live necessarily, forcefully pushes other people out.

But you are part of the problem by choosing to live there and competing for the shortage of housing (either via rent or purchase). The Midwest isn't having those problems and it isn't due to a lack of rich people. There just isn't such a strong NIMBY culture there that prevents housing being built and there isn't a giant influx of millennials moving into them as if they are the last place on earth.

>While I agree that it's vital to build enough housing for the demand, there is one reason alone that a house can cost $600,000. That is because someone has ~$120,000 in liquid, spendable cash. If everyone had only $1000 of cash, how much could a house possibly cost.

This is absolutely false. People can get loans with much less than 20% down and they can go in with family members/friends on a mortgage. If everyone only had $1000 cash and there was a housing shortage, the house would go to whoever was the most desperate by taking out the largest loan (with a group if necessary). Housing costs would continue to squeeze the life out of the community because there just aren't enough houses and people are competing for them (see the pigeonhole principle).

>If you have stories about skilled professionals who risked their security and failed I'd love to hear them.

Have some imagination. Every single medical student for one. They can finish medical school/residency with life crushing student debt, screw up, and nearly immediately have their license revoked. Or they can just fail school right at the end. Not only did they throw away their 20s, they now have significant student loan debt that is extremely difficult to discharge in bankruptcy.

If you don't think small business owners put in any risk, I suggest you try to get a small business loan from a bank without putting a bunch of your own savings in as collateral. 99%+ of small businesses don't get showered with VC money, they have to go the loan route because they aren't "changing the world".

>Sure, but someone who makes $45,000 is likely to see $100,000 as impossibly larger.

Nope, this comes up in professions like truck driving, mechanics, etc all the time. The difference between those two is usually just deciding offer your services as a contractor with the risks involved rather than working for a big company directly. A plumber running his/her own business making $100k isn't news, neither is a plumber working for roto rooter making $45k.

>Referencing the professions I listed above, can those skilled professional expect to make $250,000 a year in their profession?

Yes, by starting their own businesses in their professions. Of course not all of them will be that successful and that's the risk I refer to. However, a small plumbing business (~10 full-time journeyman plumbers on staff) can easily bring in way more than that to leave enough for the owner to get $250k.

>Their risk-taking isn't what we ought to be rewarding, it's the value that those professions bring to the general population.

We aren't rewarding pure risk-taking. People that take risks without providing some kind of value won't have customers and won't be rewarded. People get rewarded for identifying something they can provide at a cost lower than the market will pay for it.

>People stuck in lower incomes know how ignorant that belief is.

That's also just propaganda. There is luck involved, sure; but there is a significant amount of aptitude and perseverance required to climb the income ladders and maintain a steady income. If you convince yourself early on that it's only luck, then you just destroyed your future.

> but that doesn't make the anger an less real, any less meaningful.

When you ask protesters if they are upset with college professors (a married couple of Stanford professors will clear $600k), brain surgeons, the dude that owns 3 local in-n-outs, etc. they will almost always say no. But they are clearly right in the 1%. That's why myself and others can't get behind outrage towards the 1%. It's misguided and destructive class warfare against the wrong class. Focusing on the other issues causing outrage is a much better use of time.