• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US inequality near highest levels in 100 years: Fed chief

grip

Light △ Bender
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
33,071
Reaction score
14,045
Location
FL - Daytona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
US inequality near highest levels in 100 years: Fed chief

Washington (AFP) - Federal Reserve chief Janet Yellen warned Friday that the gap between the rich and poor in the United States is widening and is near the highest levels seen in 100 years.

"But widening inequality resumed in the recovery, as the stock market rebounded," Yellen said, noting that "wage growth and the healing of the labor market have been slow, and the increase in home prices has not fully restored the housing wealth lost by the large majority of households for which it is their primary asset."

Yellen said "some degree of inequality" is natural and indeed "arguably contributes to economic growth, because it creates incentives to work hard, get an education, save, invest, and undertake risk."

However, that same inequality can limit access to economic resources for those lower on the ladder, "thereby perpetuating a trend of increasing inequality."

Globally, the gap between the haves and have-nots has reached levels not seen since the 1820s, the OECD said earlier this month, in a report that looked at trends in health, education, inequality, the environment and personal security.

Yellen said that the trend in recent years in the United States has seen "stagnant or falling living standards for many families."



My problem with this article and Yellen's response is that the FED doesn't know what to do to help the less fortunate, except pump QE and low interests to support banks and markets. What a load.
 
Lol !

The FEDs pumping is one of the primary reasons there's so much " inequality " as of late.


That and Obama's economic incompetence.
 
My problem with this article and Yellen's response is that the FED doesn't know what to do to help the less fortunate, except pump QE and low interests to support banks and markets. What a load.

It have been very good years for the poor of the world there are far fewer relatively and even in absolut term . Almost 2 billions have ascended to the middle class from starving destitution. So why the excitement.?
 
>" Washington (AFP) - Federal Reserve chief Janet Yellen warned Friday that the gap between the rich and poor in the United States is widening and is near the highest levels seen in 100 years."<

Thanks Obama.
 
Lol !

The FEDs pumping is one of the primary reasons there's so much " inequality " as of late.


That and Obama's economic incompetence.
Income inequality has been rising for 35 years. Only someone not influenced by facts would even suggest that this had anything to do with Obama.

The reality is, the period of time when income inequality was at the lowest was the period when there were strong unions, a high minimum wage and high taxes on wealth.

income inequality has been rising as taxes on wealth have been reduced, minimum wages haven't kept up with inflation and unions have weakened. Of course, faced with that fact, your ideology must deflect from the real problem.
 
My problem with this article and Yellen's response is that the FED doesn't know what to do to help the less fortunate, except pump QE and low interests to support banks and markets. What a load.
What can the Federal Banking system do to help "the less fortunate"? Cutting rates and pumping reserves is about it on the monetary side. The other half is to increases fiscal stimulus....but that is the job of Congress....and you ought to know that story.
 
Income inequality has been rising for 35 years. Only someone not influenced by facts would even suggest that this had anything to do with Obama.

The reality is, the period of time when income inequality was at the lowest was the period when there were strong unions, a high minimum wage and high taxes on wealth.

income inequality has been rising as taxes on wealth have been reduced, minimum wages haven't kept up with inflation and unions have weakened. Of course, faced with that fact, your ideology must deflect from the real problem.


Lol !

Sure. Obama and the Progressives only give a rats ass about " income inequality " when its election time.

But vote for them and things will get worse for Middle Income America and the poorest Americans who are malleable enough to believe their platitudes and bumper sticker slogans.
 
It have been very good years for the poor of the world there are far fewer relatively and even in absolut term . Almost 2 billions have ascended to the middle class from starving destitution. So why the excitement.?

What can the Federal Banking system do to help "the less fortunate"? Cutting rates and pumping reserves is about it on the monetary side. The other half is to increases fiscal stimulus....but that is the job of Congress....and you ought to know that story.


At the cost of the working class, not the wealthy. They used to pay enough interest on savings, so those who had a little left at retirement could augment their social security without dipping too far into their principle. Now because the debt is so high they don't dare raise interest rates. Lower wages, less hours and benefits, less jobs so they have no choice but to increase social programs. It's all screwed up.
 
At the cost of the working class, not the wealthy. They used to pay enough interest on savings, so those who had a little left at retirement could augment their social security without dipping too far into their principle. Now because the debt is so high they don't dare raise interest rates. Lower wages, less hours and benefits, less jobs so they have no choice but to increase social programs. It's all screwed up.
Seriously....you are going to claim that the interest rate to savers is more important than getting a lot of that money into real investments to stimulate job growth....that interest rates are more important to "the less fortunate" than jobs are?

Sorry, that is screwed up thinking.
 
Seriously....you are going to claim that the interest rate to savers is more important than getting a lot of that money into real investments to stimulate job growth....that interest rates are more important to "the less fortunate" than jobs are?

Sorry, that is screwed up thinking.

You get more money into the hands of savers and they'll stimulate growth thru more retail purchases, instead of cutting back to barebones.

It's the stalled growth from feeding the top, which doesn't trickle it back down anymore that's killing the economy.
 
Lol !

Sure. Obama and the Progressives only give a rats ass about " income inequality " when its election time.

But vote for them and things will get worse for Middle Income America and the poorest Americans who are malleable enough to believe their platitudes and bumper sticker slogans.
What moronic nonsense, the GOP policies and ideas have been front and center in the destruction of the middle class, as MT points out, since 1980. Your argument know no bounds when it comes to its own ignorance of GOP actions to hollow out the middle class....even to the present.
 
At the cost of the working class, not the wealthy. They used to pay enough interest on savings, so those who had a little left at retirement could augment their social security without dipping too far into their principle. Now because the debt is so high they don't dare raise interest rates. Lower wages, less hours and benefits, less jobs so they have no choice but to increase social programs. It's all screwed up.

Actually, the average interest rate throughout history seems to have been about 2 percent. And there are more jobs around. They are just not in the US. In the United States you cannot produce a lot of the junk American consumers buy at the prices that they are willing to pay. And increasing social programs will just make it worse and increase the speed of the cycle downwards.
 
You get more money into the hands of savers and they'll stimulate growth thru more retail purchases, instead of cutting back to barebones.
What part of the "less fortunate" have enough savings to realize significant extra spending from savings dividends?

Good grief.

It's the stalled growth from feeding the top, which doesn't trickle it back down anymore that's killing the economy.
There is your admission that this is not about the "less fortunate" with savings accounts.....and guess what, trickle down... never did.

Do you seriously need me to post wage gains per quintile since 1980....again?
 
Income inequality is nothing but a socialist/progressive/commie/pinko talking point. It has nothing to do with the poor being worse off and everything to do with the fact that those who are the movers and shakers can move and shake faster and more profitably than ever before thanks to ever-improving technological advances, greater global wealth, easier international trade, better automation and constantly improving business practices among other things. There are great opportunities today than ever but low education and low skill and low risk jobs aren't going to pay much different than they ever did and people who go after that kind of work can't expect that the increases in their pay are going to run parallel to the pay of entertainers, sports stars, business tycoons, CEO's, etc. If you want to play for the big money, then you have to put on your big boy pants and play big boy games. No one I ever knew was able to whine their way to wealth while working some dead end 9-5 job.
 
Actually, the average interest rate throughout history seems to have been about 2 percent. And there are more jobs around. They are just not in the US. In the United States you cannot produce a lot of the junk American consumers buy at the prices that they are willing to pay. And increasing social programs will just make it worse and increase the speed of the cycle downwards.

cd-rates-history.png


Historically interest rates have dropped.


And I agree, we have a messed up business model that favors capitalistic reward to corporations that do business abroad too much. We should've been a little more nationalistic, like China.



What part of the "less fortunate" have enough savings to realize significant extra spending from savings dividends?

Good grief.

There is your admission that this is not about the "less fortunate" with savings accounts.....and guess what, trickle down... never did.

Do you seriously need me to post wage gains per quintile since 1980....again?

Wage gains in comparison to costs are not comparable percentage wise.

Average Wage in 1980 around $19800.
Average monthly rent: $300
Average cost of new home: $68700
Gas: $1.19
Car: $7900
Loaf of bread: 50cents
Pound of ground beef: $1

Wages 2009: $40523
Average Monthly rent $800
Cost of a home: $238880
Car: $28400
Gas: $251
Loaf of bread: $2.79
Pound of ground beef: $3.99

So, while the average wage has basically doubled in 30ish years.
The cost of rent has gone up about 2.6 X
Buying a house cost you 3.5 X more
Gas isn't that bad, though it dropped after 1980.
Loaf of bread is up about 5.5 X
Ground beef up about 4 X

And thus we have the increasing division of the haves and the have nots.

You're argument is all wind and no substance.
 
cd-rates-history.png


Historically interest rates have dropped.


And I agree, we have a messed up business model that favors capitalistic reward to corporations that do business abroad too much. We should've been a little more nationalistic, like China.





Wage gains in comparison to costs are not comparable percentage wise.

Average Wage in 1980 around $19800.
Average monthly rent: $300
Average cost of new home: $68700
Gas: $1.19
Car: $7900
Loaf of bread: 50cents
Pound of ground beef: $1

Wages 2009: $40523
Average Monthly rent $800
Cost of a home: $238880
Car: $28400
Gas: $251
Loaf of bread: $2.79
Pound of ground beef: $3.99

So, while the average wage has basically doubled in 30ish years.
The cost of rent has gone up about 2.6 X
Buying a house cost you 3.5 X more
Gas isn't that bad, though it dropped after 1980.
Loaf of bread is up about 5.5 X
Ground beef up about 4 X

And thus we have the increasing division of the haves and the have nots.

You're argument is all wind and no substance.

Sure. I know all that and have done work on it. The period you are looking at is dominated by the inflation rate. Therefore the high interest rates, which periodically occur. when inflation is allowed to climb. When I said historical, however, I meant rather longer time series.
 
Sure. I know all that and have done work on it. The period you are looking at is dominated by the inflation rate. Therefore the high interest rates, which periodically occur. when inflation is allowed to climb. When I said historical, however, I meant rather longer time series.


Who cares about ancient history in the business model, it was a different world and it's not applicable to today's environment. A little higher inflation for the good of producing more evened out wealth is worth the cost. I lived and worked thru the 70's-2000's and things have been sliding downhill since the late 90's for the middle class. Healthcare, insurance, cost of living, interest on savings, wages, benefits etc.
 
I wasn't comparing "wages to costs"...and you decide to regardless....whereas previously your argument was that "trickle down used to work, and if we gave savers better interest rates, it would work again...I tell yah!"

So...I'll post this again for you to see and...ignore:

So what, we can both show charts. And mine are more convincing.


chart.webp

chart2.webp

graph.webp
 
So what, we can both show charts. And mine are more convincing.
Convincing...would be supporting your claim trickle down worked...and that savings interest rates are the answer.
 
Convincing...would be supporting your claim trickle down worked...and that savings interest rates are the answer.

Look at the charts again, it's going down because the middle class once got more of the pie. If you fail any harder, I won't be able to help you. :mrgreen:
 
Income inequality is nothing but a socialist/progressive/commie/pinko talking point.
Or, it's a natural consequence of a capitalist system, which is fine most of the time as long as it's within reasonable bounds.

When it gets out of control, like it has lately, it causes a wide variety of issues -- not the least of which is how it damages the economy and society as a whole.


It has nothing to do with the poor being worse off and everything to do with the fact that those who are the movers and shakers can move and shake faster and more profitably than ever before thanks to ever-improving technological advances, greater global wealth, easier international trade, better automation and constantly improving business practices among other things.
Actually, it's a result of the problems facing the poor, as well as the advantages of the wealthy.

Prior to 1980, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio was below 50:1. Since then, it shot up to as much as 300:1, before falling to 200:1 after the recession. Technology has not made CEOs 4 to 5 times more effective than rank-and-file employees -- in fact, it's the opposite. Worker productivity has gone through the roof, while wages have stagnated. CEOs simultaneously say they need to cut wages in order to cut costs, while increasing their own pay -- often regardless of the actual performance of the company.

In addition, most of the top earners are not actually doing things to improve the economy. Most of them are mere speculators, such as hedge funds or investment bankers. At best, they make a slight improvement to the liquidity of the market. But most of the time, they are happy to fleece trusting investors and/or destabilize economies to get their way.

Or, they "invest" in distorting public policy in their favor, either to nab government-funded windfalls for their corporations, or to lower taxes for the top earners. Which in turn gives them yet more money to use to buy influence, and deepen their ability to influence the system.

Meanwhile: Productivity advances, automation and offshoring result in companies requiring fewer employees than in the past. Rather than invest our resources in making our citizens more productive, the executives and speculators are taking a greater share and hoarding it.


There are great opportunities today than ever but low education and low skill and low risk jobs aren't going to pay much different than they ever did and people who go after that kind of work can't expect that the increases in their pay are going to run parallel to the pay of entertainers, sports stars, business tycoons, CEO's, etc.
No one is suggesting that a typical employee should be paid millions. But thanks for the straw man argument....

It is certainly not the case that there are more opportunities now than in the past, especially for anyone hoping for a middle-class income. 20-30 years ago, you could earn a decent wage with a union job in a factory environment; today, most of those jobs are gone. What is left are service sector jobs, which are fine -- if there are enough people to afford those services. But if people aren't getting paid enough to afford those services, then where exactly are the opportunities?

We are still in a relatively brief period where technological innovations create opportunities where none existed previously, and in some cases these can be volatile. E.g. social networking didn't exist as we currently understand it in 2000, and in the early days an established player (MySpace) was bought by a major media conglomerate, and got disrupted by a bunch of young turks. In turn, Facebook today is a powerhouse, but could be a ghost town in 5 years.

However, suggesting that "anyone" can be a high-tech mogul is not reality. The vast majority of the Top Guns attended elite colleges and universities, and the tech world is notoriously discriminatory against women. A 35 year old high school graduate is unlikely to found a Facebook-killer.

Oh, and let's not forget that the cost of higher education has been outpacing inflation for decades. Getting the education you need to land a good job can put you in debt for decades.

So... Where exactly are all these great opportunities? In what fields? How much do you need to borrow to be in a position to take advantage of them?
 
Income inequality has been rising for 35 years. Only someone not influenced by facts would even suggest that this had anything to do with Obama.

The reality is, the period of time when income inequality was at the lowest was the period when there were strong unions, a high minimum wage and high taxes on wealth.

income inequality has been rising as taxes on wealth have been reduced, minimum wages haven't kept up with inflation and unions have weakened. Of course, faced with that fact, your ideology must deflect from the real problem.

as usual, its the fault of the rich and the fault of a government that won't take more and more money from the rich and give it to the yapping failures who "need it"

in reality what has accentuated income disparity is a lack of technical skills among those who are failing to keep up. GLobal labor markets have diminished substantially, the ability of people who are hard workers but have no technical skills-to achieve middle class wages.

I realize its much easier to adopt a parasitic attitude that those who do succeed need to be subjected to confiscatory tax rates but that will not do anything, in the long run, with the failure of many to be able to compete
 
What is "going down"?


The middle class.

If the system (govt-corporations) are set up to support the top earners and the poor, then there's no growing the middle. Thus, you end up with a lop sided economy, like we now have.

The increasing debt and excessive bank credit are the main reasons the gov't won't raise interest rates on savings. There's no encouragement for people to do anything but invest in an already overvalued Market. It's a growing mess I tell you that will eventually fall.
 
Back
Top Bottom