DelphiFAQ Home Search:

The rich get richer, the poor get poorer

 

comments29 comments. Current rating: 4 stars (4 votes). Leave comments and/ or rate it.

Question:

Liberals and poor people sometimes say 'The rich get richer, the poor get poorer'. Is it true? It seems that a blue collar worker today is having a lot better life than at my father's time, 30 years ago?

Answer:

Over the past 30 years, the inflation-adjusted wage for the average American has not risen. But the rich are getting much richer. The top 1% of Americans has doubled their inflation-adjusted wealth. Throughout history, this type of scenario has ended badly. (Posted at http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=196870&pgid=wwhome1a in June 2007)

It is also not true that today people have a better life than people in a comparable position 30 years ago. It is true that we have more amenities thanks to technology than we had 30 years ago- just think of mobile phones. Mobile phones as of 2007 are loaded with features that would make gadgets from a 1975 James Bond movie look weak.
But: Many families only can pay their bills today with both adults working. Double income has become the norm. That was not the case in 1975. Especially women/ mothers suffer from this, as they often have 2 jobs - taking care of the house/ children and their 'regular' job.
The gap between rich and poor in the USA is certainly widening. This is not some socialist propaganda, but a fact. Taxation plays a big role in it. Why are capital gains taxed lower than earned income? As of 2007, a millionaire pays only 15% capital gains tax on earnings from the stock market (assuming he held the position at least one year) while someone working for his money pays up to 35%. So earning money on the stock market is supported by the government while earning money through work is punished. Well, both are punished with taxes, but one is punished more severely :-)


Comments:

You are on page 1 of 2, other pages: [1] 2
2008-10-19, 22:36:29
anonymous from United States  
i like the questioning of that question because depending on the context it can be a very true and painful answer, affirming that the rich can 'fleece' the poor maybe without criminal intent-- but definitely a border line moral and ethics issue on some occasions ---the 'crossing the line' appears and arises from 'certain' markets.

When is it just wrong simply wrong to make the 'big bucks' at the expense of a middle to low income citizen knowing well that the outcome could be very poor for them?

Even in a capatalistic system that works ok someone gets the idea to take the AMERICAN quality of life to an all time low at the expense of others. You can name a few at the top of your head I am sure if you have read this far. you have studied the companies that could have continued on doing great things resonably I am sure but chose to have 'world/market domination' at the expense of the 'little people' - 'low on the todem pole'. Perhaps a huge salary as you let go workers and shut your doors becomes 'the norm'. And to break it down to comparisons at this point is futile. Let's some it up to a bottle of milk needed vs a bottle of champage cracked on a new yacht.
You are on page 1 of 2, other pages: [1] 2

 

 

NEW: Optional: Register   Login
Email address (not necessary):

Rate as
Hide my email when showing my comment.
Please notify me once a day about new comments on this topic.
Please provide a valid email address if you select this option, or post under a registered account.
 

Show city and country
Show country only
Hide my location
You can mark text as 'quoted' by putting [quote] .. [/quote] around it.
Please type in the code:

Please do not post inappropriate pictures. Inappropriate pictures include pictures of minors and nudity.
The owner of this web site reserves the right to delete such material.

photo Add a picture: