O goverrno que proletariza a população mundial o sionismo no seu melhor
Think tanks put out reports
claiming that inequality isn’t really rising, or that it doesn’t matter.
Pundits try to put a more benign face on the phenomenon, claiming that it’s not
really the wealthy few versus the rest, it’s the educated versus the less
educated.
So what you need to know is
that all of these claims are basically attempts to obscure the stark reality:
We have a society in which money is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a
few people, and in which that concentration of income and wealth threatens to
make us a democracy in name only.
The budget office laid out
some of that stark reality in a recent report, which documented a sharp decline
in the share of total income going to lower- and middle-income Americans. We
still like to think of ourselves as a middle-class country. But with the bottom
80 percent of households now receiving less than half of total income, that’s a
vision increasingly at odds with reality.
In response, the usual
suspects have rolled out some familiar arguments: the data are flawed (they
aren’t); the rich are an ever-changing group (not so); and so on. The most
popular argument right now seems, however, to be the claim that we may not be a
middle-class society, but we’re still an upper-middle-class society, in which a
broad class of highly educated workers, who have the skills to compete in the
modern world, is doing very well.
It’s a nice story, and a lot
less disturbing than the picture of a nation in which a much smaller group of
rich people is becoming increasingly dominant. But it’s not true.
Workers with college degrees
have indeed, on average, done better than workers without, and the gap has
generally widened over time. But highly educated Americans have by no means
been immune to income stagnation and growing economic insecurity. Wage gains
for most college-educated workers have been unimpressive (and nonexistent since
2000), while even the well-educated can no longer count on getting jobs with
good benefits. In particular, these days workers with a college degree but no
further degrees are less likely to get workplace health coverage than workers
with only a high school degree were in 1979.
So who is getting the big
gains? A very small, wealthy minority.
The budget office report tells
us that essentially all of the upward redistribution of income away from the
bottom 80 percent has gone to the highest-income 1 percent of Americans. That
is, the protesters who portray themselves as representing the interests of the
99 percent have it basically right, and the pundits solemnly assuring them that
it’s really about education, not the gains of a small elite, have it completely
wrong.
If anything, the protesters
are setting the cutoff too low. The recent budget office report doesn’t look
inside the top 1 percent, but an earlier report, which only went up to 2005,
found that almost two-thirds of the rising share of the top percentile in
income actually went to the top 0.1 percent — the richest thousandth of
Americans, who saw their real incomes rise more than 400 percent over the
period from 1979 to 2005.
Who’s in that top 0.1 percent?
Are they heroic entrepreneurs creating jobs? No, for the most part, they’re
corporate executives. Recent research shows that around 60 percent of the top
0.1 percent either are executives in nonfinancial companies or make their money
in finance, i.e., Wall Street broadly defined. Add in lawyers and people in
real estate, and we’re talking about more than 70 percent of the lucky
one-thousandth.
But why does this growing
concentration of income and wealth in a few hands matter? Part of the answer is
that rising inequality has meant a nation in which most families don’t share
fully in economic growth. Another part of the answer is that once you realize
just how much richer the rich have become, the argument that higher taxes on
high incomes should be part of any long-run budget deal becomes a lot more
compelling.
The larger answer, however, is
that extreme concentration of income is incompatible with real democracy. Can
anyone seriously deny that our political system is being warped by the
influence of big money, and that the warping is getting worse as the wealth of
a few grows ever larger?
Some pundits are still trying
to dismiss concerns about rising inequality as somehow foolish. But the truth
is that the whole nature of our society is at stake.
1 Comments:
Passos Coelho será na História de Portugal o primeiro primeiro-ministro com uma estratégia de empobrecimento do país.disse o lider parlamentar do PS.
Socrates e Teixeira dos Santos foram os campeões da dívida pública em Portugal, foram os unicos que desde 1986 conseguiram aumentar a dívida publica para mais do dobro.
com laranjas e com rosas so teremos espinhos.
Enviar um comentário
<< Home