Sunday, December 26, 2010

another report says the poor getting poorer

The gap between rich and poor in the United States is growing ever wider, according to a think-tank study released on Friday. The gap is at its largest since the survey began in 1962, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) said in its report.

The richest 1 per cent of American households have 225 times as much money as the average household, it said. The last survey, conducted in 2007, had revealed that the richest 1 per cent had 181 times as much money as the average household , whereas in the 1960s the figure was 125.

In 2009, the richest 1 per cent had an average of 14 million dollars - 27 per cent less than in 2007. But the average household was hit harder, with average assets of around 62,200 dollars - a decrease of 41 per cent. The average American has also suffered far more from the effects of falling property prices than the elite,


James Hawk III said...

Comparing the extremes will always net large numbers. This presentation is flawed for several reasons. (1) How much of the population is in the "average household" category? It ought to be a proper bell curve. (2) If the average household is doing well--and this is not mentioned--then it doesn't really matter what the rich have, does it? (3) The title of this little posting talks about the poor, but the summary doesn't mention the poor at all.

Oh, yeah, one more thing, Mr. or Ms. A. Johnstone: you directly copied this from m&c, which in most jurisdictions is called "plagiarism." Then again, I suppose I shouldn't expect a socialist to respect intellectual property rights, should I?

ajohnstone said...

This is just the latest research that reveals growing inequality in both income and also when assets are included. A search of this blog will reveal numerous reports and statistics that all come to the same conclusion, that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. I'm not going to enter a squabble on how to define poor. When compared with the capitalist class, we are all poor.

You assert "If the average household is doing well--and this is not mentioned--then it doesn't really matter what the rich have, does it?"

Such naive over-simplification was long ago exposed.

"A house may be large or small; as long as the neighboring houses are likewise small, it satisfies all social requirement for a residence. But let there arise next to the little house a palace, and the little house shrinks to a hut. The little house now makes it clear that its inmate has no social position at all to maintain, or but a very insignificant one; and however high it may shoot up in the course of civilization, if the neighboring palace rises in equal or even in greater measure, the occupant of the relatively little house will always find himself more uncomfortable, more dissatisfied, more cramped within his four walls." - Karl Marx.

Of course, the average household is not doing well as you seem to believe - 55 percent of US labour force has “suffered a spell of unemployment, a cut in pay, a reduction in hours or have become involuntary part-time workers” since December 2007- but remain in your state of denial.

This post has credited the source with a link so plagiarism in the sense of passing off the research or even the media report of it as our own, no, it isn't. But you are fully correct, intellectual property rights is not defended by socialists. See why at this article