Redistribution of Wealth in America
It makes me sad to hear John McCain take up the old flag of redbaiting in the final hours of the election. I read today that McCain is planning to roll out new attacks based on a seven-year-old interview where Obama said that the civil rights movement was not as successful as it could be because it did not bring about "redistributive changes."
Well, I happen to agree with that assessment (and if you want to know why, just ask me for a history lesson). But, what many people aren't going to see this election cycle, is the real redistribution of wealth that has been going on over the last 20 years:
The gap between the wealthy and the poor is growing wider and wider and in the US it is one of the widest gaps among developed western nations. Why does that matter? It means that we also have one of the highest rates of (income) poverty, our society is one of the least upwardly mobile, and it shows that, even if the economy was good like it was for most of the 1990s, it would benefit a small subset of Americans far more than others.
So when Obama talks about spreading the wealth, he's not talking about taking money from one group and giving it to another; he's talking about making the economy work for everybody in a more equal way.
My econ profs warned us of this income gap years ago, but the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development just published a reoprt that shows the problem is getting worse. Here are the links to the OECD report briefing and summary.
Read more about:
Current Events , History , Politics4 Comments
Leave a comment
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Redistribution of Wealth in America.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.milestravis.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/394
That is a very disturbing graphic. We are #3 behind the Mexico and Turkey? How sad.
I never have understood why this is so "bad." In a country with the captains of industry, the rich end is going to be very rich. How does someone getting very rich make someone else automatically "poor," except relatively?
Also, it's worth noting that the U.S. has a lot of diversity built into it which will cause income discrepancies.
First, we're a big country with distinct regions that each have their own cost of living. Teachers in Connecticut make twice what they make in South Carolina, but I doubt they live much higher on the hog.
Second, we're a diverse socio-economic country as a result of historical trends that still affect people today. Racism, the lingering effects of slavery, etc - that's not something people in Sweden have to worry about since they all pretty much have the same ancestory.
Third, state governments differ largely and result in very different socio-economic regions; many other countries lack a federalist system like ours. So I hesitate to blame the discrepancy on a government system that always "puts down the little man" for the rich man's benefit. I further fear an attempt to "correct" this "problem" by top-down regulation and redistribution.
Finally, some real debate!
However, i don't really know how to descibe why I think the gap is "bad" without using pictures, so I'll respond in a new post.
FYI:
I studied the incomes of teachers and the cost-of-living in certain areas while in college. While the cost of living in Connecticut is indeed higher than the cost of living in NC, the difference doesn't nearly make up for the discrepancy in teacher salaries. Controlling for cost of living, teachers in CT still make far more than teachers in NC. (Not to mention the fact that the job looks quite different in CT where teachers have a daily lunch break, etc.) And again controlling for cost of living, teachers in areas like Wilmington, Raleigh, Durham, etc., make far more than teachers in poor, rural areas of NC due to the salary supplements paid for by local property taxes.