Mission Statement


Editorial Policy


Submissions


Letters to the Editor


Discussion Forum


Return to Home Page


Are The Poor Getting Poorer While The Rich Get Richer?
By Nathan Barton © 2010

May 31, 2010

16 Signs That The Rich Are Getting Richer And The Poor Are Getting Poorer
The American Dream

(Commentary by Nathan)

Even if you do not dispute the facts (or should I say, "facts") in the article, at a minimum the basic premise is disproved. This would be more accurate, if not so neat a sound bite: "In America, the rich get super rich; the poor are rich and getting richer, but more slowly and can't keep up."
Never before in American history has so much wealth been concentrated in the hands of so few.
A probably bogus claim: let's see some evidence of this. I suspect that pre-Civil War, and certainly pre-Revolutionary War, the concentration was FAR greater, when you count the King and then the FedGov. This sort of bogus statement is like the claim of "world's worst oil spill disaster" over the current Gulf of Mexico BP spill (It doesn't even make the top ten in the past 40 years alone!) or the claim by some union shill that a state legislature's proposal (in NJ, I think) to freeze teachers' wages for a year is called the worst attack ever made on the public education system!
Once upon a time, children throughout the United States were taught that America was the land of opportunity where anyone can make it if they work really hard.
So? What has this to do with the price of eggs in Brooklyn? Was it true then? Is it LESS true today? Last time I visited a few schools, the teachers all seemed to be teaching this - did I miss something?
But today the system is designed so that wealth flows into the pockets of the rich as the rest of us struggle feverishly to stay above water.
What is this but emotional hype? Who is "the rest of us?" The NJ teachers who AVERAGE $80,000 per year with 15 years experience? The heavy equipment operator (dozer jockey) who makes $60,000 per year in California or $50,000 a year in New York with an average of 4 weeks a year vacation and all the other perks? The attorneys that bill out at $250 an hour and take $100 an hour home? Who is the "rich"?
The once great middle class that did so much to define America as a nation is slowly being squeezed out of existence.
Again, hype and more hype. Let us see some numbers!
For tens of millions of ordinary Americans, the American Dream is rapidly becoming the American Nightmare. The labour of blue collar workers was once the engine that built the United States into an economic powerhouse, but today many of those workers have been replaced by robots and computers, or their jobs have been shipped overseas by greedy corporate executives.
At the same time that millions of new jobs that didn't exist in that so-called Golden Age of the 1950s have been created, that are just as "middle class" as a blue collar job: information technology, management, technicians of all sorts. Jobs are ALWAYS disappearing, and have for centuries. Did you know that there are probably only one or two jobs left for stablehands in ALL of New York City? That almost NOBODY is employed in a whale oil refinery today? That virtually NO one has a job in a typewriter factory here in the US? And why just blame "greedy corporate executives" and not "greedy members of Congress" and "greedy union bosses" and "greedy consumers that demand lower and lower real prices for clothing and shoes?"
Those who are in a position to exploit advances in technology and third world labour pools are becoming exceedingly wealthy, while the rest of us are left wondering why it seems as though we are working harder and harder for less and less.
If we really look at things right, we see that it is almost ALL Americans "who are in a position to exploit advances... and third world labour pools..." and compared to history and the rest of the world even POOR Americans are "becoming exceedingly wealthy." A lot of Americans are working less and less and getting more and more for it! Consider dozens of people lined up in a office to extend welfare benefits in Greeley, Colorado or Sioux Falls, South Dakota, or Albuquerque, New Mexico. You will see that virtually all of them have good clothing - no rags unless they are of that style! Most of them have cell phones! Most of them DROVE to the office in their OWN motor vehicle (which admittedly is probably not an Espanade or DeVille and might still have "19" in the model year). Many of them are severely OVERWEIGHT. Virtually all of them have an apartment or even house to sleep in, and that place has MULTIPLE televisions, DVD players, dozens of DVDs and popular picture magazines (and almost no books), and enjoy running water, flush toilets, private baths, electrical light, and central air.
The sad truth is that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. A very small percentage of Americans are sitting on massive piles of cash while an increasing number of Americans are having to rely on government handouts just to survive. So is this a good thing for America?
I really do sympathize with all those folks who rely on government handouts to survive, like the lawyers getting only $150 per hour for their government contracting work, or only $150,000 a year as a government employee; or the contractors who do only government work and are limited to 5% profits on cost-plus contracts; or those NJ teachers who ONLY make about $40 per hour and have all their expenses paid and get retirement on top of that. Just as it IS a sad fact and makes me angry that so many are sitting on massive piles of cash - like the 535 wealthmongering prostitutes that also sit UNDER a big shiny dome in the District of Criminals, and the several hundred who have retired from that "job" and now jet around the world, like Tom Daschle, Al Gore and Newt Gingrich...
Of course not.

It is never a good thing for the vast majority of the wealth to be concentrated in the hands of a very small sliver of the population.

Agreed. 535 people is a pretty small slice. So is 2 million Fedgov bureaucrats (Bureau of Labor Statistics), for that matter. So so is just 16 million millionaires out of a population of 300 million (Wikipedia article), or only 6% of the population of the states of Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey and Connecticut (also Wikipedia). Compare that to the rest of the world: the US and Canada only have 9 times as many millionaires per capita as Latin America, and only 60 times as many as Africa. And the number is dropping, too; we are down to the lowest percentage of millionaires in the United States for years and years - since 2003 in fact!
But this is what happens when we allow economic power to be monopolized by a small handful of insanely powerful global banks, corporations and governments.
Amen! Although it would be more accurate to say it in this order: "governments, corporations, and banks." Or even better, "governments and the corporations (including banks) which are controlled or favored by government, or control government."
As long as we allow giant economic powerhouses to dominate the landscape they are going to continue to soak up the vast majority of the wealth while the rest of us will have to be content with the crumbs which fall to the floor.
"As long as we allow GOVERNMENTS to dominate..."
Anyone who believes that the U.S. economy today resembles anything like the free enterprise capitalist system upon which this country was founded is severely deluded.
Amen.
The truth is that we have allowed giant corporate and governmental entities to accumulate economic power for so long that now they are pretty much out of our control.

Those at the top will continue to enjoy our wealth as it flows up to them, and those of us at the bottom will continue to have to scramble just to survive.

The definition of "scramble" is just a bit confusing to me here. Do we mean scramble like the kids in Honduras who must walk five or six miles to get a gallon of (almost) clean water to drink? Or like the people who had to scramble out of the shantytowns in Zimbabwe when Mugabe's bulldozers showed up? Or the women from Guatemala who figure a rape or two is a reasonable cost to pay to get smuggled through Mexico to work in a sleazy hotel as a maid in San Diego or El Paso?
The following are 16 signs that the rich are rapidly getting richer and the poor are rapidly getting poorer....
On each of these 16 "signs" we have to ask (1) what caused this situation to develop, and (2) what can be done to really FIX the cause and not just mask the symptoms? Of course, that assumes that these really are signs of what they claim, and in the US and Europe and the old Commonwealth (Canada, NZ, Australia, at least), the poor just aren't getting richer as fast as the rich are getting richer.
#1) In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30:1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300-500:1.
This first statement would be important only if we ignore the inconvenient fact that the average worker's paycheck has increased in value (not just in inflated dollars) significantly since 1950.
#2) A USA Today analysis of government data has found that paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history during the first quarter of 2010. During the same time period, government benefits (Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, food stamps, etc.) rose to a record high.
Duh. Gee, it is a depression, and a depression orchestrated by stupid government policymakers and bureaucrats who don't care about, or don't understand, economics. And that is ASSUMING that we really do have this kind of data available for comparison since 1776 ("U.S. History") - which of course, we don't: Americans in 1776 and 1793 and 1800 and 1850 and even 1880 and 1910 didn't believe the government had any right to know what their income was, let alone whether it was from "private or public" sources. And I question the analysis anyway - in WW2 when the US only had about 160 million people and 12 million were in uniform and another 12-20 million were in factories producing tanks, planes, food, and ammo for the government, I'll BET that the share was lower than today. And of course, this sort of simple-minded analysis does not consider money laundering - where government money is paid to a "private business" and then paid to an employee or contractor.
#3) According to the United Nations, the United States now has the highest level of income inequality of all of the highly industrialized nations.
So?
#4) 4 of the biggest banks in the United States (Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup) had a "perfect quarter" with zero days of trading losses during the first quarter of 2010.
So? Why? Is it because they are good, they are lucky, or they are corrupt? How does that make the rich richer and the poor poorer? Are their trading profits coming from the Sheriff of Nottingham robbing the poor to give to them?
#5) According to economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, 2/3 of income increases in the United States between 2002 and 2007 went to the wealthiest 1% of all Americans.
Insufficient data - how much went to the lower classes? Did some of the lower classes have DECREASES in income to fund these increases? Probably not. This is like the Dems claiming that tax cuts favor the wealthy, even though that is because it is the wealthy who pay the most taxes.
#6) 39.68 million Americans are now on food stamps, which represents a new all-time record. But things look like they are going to get even worse. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is forecasting that enrollment in the food stamp program will exceed 43 million Americans in 2011.
"Worse" is in the eye of the beholder. To USDA bureaucrats and managers, this is job security and job growth! Which is why they now teach college students how to apply for food stamps, and why they make sure that it is not only easier and easier to apply for them, but that it is considered less and less a stigma to accept them - and indeed, that there are ways to FORCE people to accept food stamps. And again, it is a DEPRESSION! The last time we had a depression with this amount of unemployment, we only had about 150 million Americans - now we have TWICE as many, which means that even if we only had an unemployment rate equal to 55 or 60% of the 1929-1939 period, we'd have "a new all-time record." (But of course, food stamps weren't invented until 1939, lasted for three years, and were reinvented in 1974.)
#7) For the first time in U.S. history, banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth in the United States than all individual Americans put together.
Again, why? I don't suppose this has ANYTHING to do with the collapse of housing prices a few years ago, thanks to government and banking industry corruption, which among other things allowed anybody who appeared to be breathing to buy a house with zero down. And what about corporate Americans - how much do they own?
#8) Over just one 3 day period, approximately 10,000 people showed up to apply for just 90 jobs making washing machines in Kentucky for $27,000 a year.
So? If I lived in Ohio or Indiana or Illinois and could get a job in Kentucky, I'D probably be willing to work for $27K a year to get out. This sort of story-based evidence proves nothing nationally, and not much locally. It certainly doesn't necessarily support their thesis, but it sounds really bad. I've also, in various three day periods, seen jobs paying 2 or 3 times more go without ANYONE applying for them, despite Monster.com and all kinds of newspaper and radio advertising, and so doesn't that prove that nobody really needs work?
#9) Executives at many of the big banks that received massive amounts of government bailout money during the financial crisis are being lavished with record bonuses as millions of other Americans continue to suffer.
And what does this have to do with anything he's trying to prove? Of course, they can pay those bonuses - they no longer suffer any serious consequences for losing money hand over fist or for not meeting customer needs: they are wards of the government.
#10) Younger generations of Americans are particularly struggling. For example, according to a National Foundation for Credit Counseling survey, only 58% of those in "Generation Y" pay their monthly bills on time.
Knowing a fair number of Gen-Y'ers, this is certainly NOT proof that they are "struggling" because it could just as easily be proof that they have no serious appreciation or concern for paying for things on time or for debt in general or for paying attention to their mail - but they seem to have enough money to go to that concert down in Phoenix or that post-college Spring Break traditional trip to Mazatlan or Miami Beach or to buy that new album or XBox game...
#11) Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16% to 7.8 million in 2009.
Really? Data I looked up to comment on this article said that we had 16 million millionaires, and that number was the lowest since 2003 - and what does this prove? You have to define "rich" first. Is that people who get paid (EARN or whatever) more than some amount - $100,000 or $250,000 or $1,000,000 a year? Or is it people that have assets of more than $200,000 or $500,000 or $1,000,000? If the cutoff is $1 million, this "statistic" says that the poor ARE becoming richer. Of course, that is subject to a lot of things, like inflation... And the idea of millionaire is kind of odd anyway. I can be a two-by-twice rawhide rancher and own a thousand acres of pretty poor grazing land that some bank or government bureaucrat appraises at $1,000 an acre, and WHOA suddenly I'm a millionaire in my down-at-heel boots and worn-out hat, not even counting that 1990 F150 pickup with 250,000 miles on it!
#12) Over 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009, which represented a 32% increase over 2008. Not only that, more Americans filed for bankruptcy in March 2010 than during any month since U.S. bankruptcy law was tightened in October 2005.
And that doesn't mean a thing - really. Very few people who file bankruptcy are truly "poor" as normally defined: they don't starve or become homeless or go without jobs. Again, we are in a depression, and people make bad choices and have bad luck.
#13) An analysis of income tax data by the Congressional Budget Office a couple years ago found that the top 1% wealthiest households in the United States now own nearly twice as much of the corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago.
Yes, the rich get richer. But information from a lot of different sources show that more Americans than ever own stock in large corporations either directly or through mutual funds and pension funds and other means. Again we can't really say this proves that the poor get poorer - indeed, we don't have the data to compare much past 40 or 50 years ago.
#14) A staggering 43% of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement.
Which means that 57% DO have more than $10,000 saved - but this is not an indication of wealth or poverty, but of skills and attention to the future. If this country has shown anything, it is that stupidity doesn't mean you are poor.
#15) Once great blue collar manufacturing cities such as Detroit have turned into rusted-out war zones while corporate executives rake in record bonuses by moving factories to third world nations.
Again, WHY? Detroit didn't turn into a rusty wasteland because of the factories moving out - indeed, one reason to move the factories out is because Detroit WAS an urban wasteland that no human should be forced to live in. But the point is that it is not necessarily a symptom of rich>richer/poor>poorer that has turned Detroit into an abandoned wasteland. And this is not new. I worked briefly in the mid-1970s in Central Falls, RI, where a fifth of the city was abandoned textile factories, because in the 1960s, all the factories had moved to North Carolina. Why? Too much government, too many unions, too many regulations, no room to expand, outdated factories and equipment that those three things made it impossible to fix, and a ghastly place to live when there were better places. Some people got poor or poorer - others (a lot more others) got "richer" as a result.
#16) The bottom 40% of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1% of the nation's wealth. So what does that say about America when nearly half the people are dividing up just 1% of the pie?
Again, without any information to compare this to, it is meaningless except in an emotional way. How much did they own in 2000? in 1900? in 1800? in 1960? And WHY? Did the rich STEAL IT from them? And how does this make them "poor" if we can't even define poor?

That really is the key. Americans, by historical standards and by standards of six out of eight billion people, are RICH - virtually ALL of us. There are really poor people, as Jesus warned us there would ALWAYS be, but even the dirt poor - the bottom 1% - in America (what few there are) are wealthy compared to, say, the bottom 10% in Mexico or Sierra Leone or India or even Spain. And that 1% has nothing to do with the rich getting richer and the poorer getting poorer - almost inevitably they are the multi-generational poor. You want to see poor? Go to some village like Black Rock, south of Chinle, in the Navajo Reservation of NE Arizona, and look at hogans built of driftwood and fieldstone, with a slit trench for a toilet and a ten-gallon bucket for a water supply, where the sandy ravine that doubles as a road takes ten miles of wandering to get to a graveled road and where the nearest electricity is twenty miles away. But even that poor Dinetah family will have a couple of trucks outside, and a fairly good supply of food (commodity food, admittedly) and medicine from the nearest Indian Health Service medical center, and probably has a cell phone (if there is a tower near by - also a "commod phone." Yes, that is government-funded benefits, but it is not, by the standards of much of the world, "poor." Not wealthy, but not poor. And they certainly are not getting poorer, if not through any effort of their own.


Nathan Barton is writing this from a wonderful place in the West, which might be in the Black Hills of South Dakota or Wyoming, or might be in one of the Four Corners States. Exactly where it is, the breezes blow with the scent of liberty, and the sound of the pines or the pinions is the sound of freedom. For thousands of years, people have fought and died for the liberty that Americans in the great spaces of the West enjoy, and he writes these commentaries in the hopes that continued generations will be able to do so, until the end of Time. Visit the blog: The Gospel Sower

Archives

"Islamist Terrorism" and the US Role: a response to Ivan Eland

Science and Economics Vs Green (And Other) Nonsense

Bogus Cell Phone Fire Warning Email

Armed and Ready To Defend - The Greater Love

The Inherent Contradiction of Government

A Nigerian Scam

The New Bogeyman: Worldwide Hunger and Biofuels

A Baker's Dozen - Meditations On The Scripture and Our Right To Defend Ourselves

The Russo-Georgian War of 2008 to date: a libertarian view

The Current "Economic Crisis"

Baker's Dozen Reasons To Defeat The Bailout

Now the war begins

Veterans Day, 2008

"The First Hundred Days" - New Tyranny in a Once-Free Union

Running Out of Water?

Barack 'Gun Rights' Obama

Neither Predator Nor Prey

The Scriptures and Self-Defense

TEA Party Thoughts

Traitor, NOT Terrorist

A Libertarian’s Response to a Socialist’s Apologetic

Does the new health care law include the "mark of the beast?"

Complete Archives for Nathan Barton