Republicans have been trying for a while to come up with a great counter balance for the argument that income inequality is not a 'real thing'. Rush Limbaugh has argued that people don't care about it. Others have said it's not a major issue. Pat Buchanon, though, cut to the quick with his assessment.
Ninety-three percent of the poor have a microwave; 96 percent a color TV, and 97 percent a gas or electric stove. Not exactly les miserables.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/...
A lesson to your poor people, if you aren't cold and starving, then your income inequality isn't a real thing. Just thought we'd let you know.
It's interesting that the right has chosen this image that income inequality is OK now because you have a hot plate and you aren't starving. But this morning, listening to local Republicans bring up 'They act like it's Les Mis" as a joking attack on the situation made me realize how uninformed so many truly are.
http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/...
At the time of Les Mis (1832) the top 1% in France accounted for 29.2% of the gross income of the country.
The rich were hit hard by the Great Recession, but they’ve almost fully recovered. From 2009 to 2012, income for the top 1 percent of earners grew by 31.4 percent, while the bottom 99 (or everyone else) saw income rise by only 0.4 percent. Hence, the top 1 percent captured 95 percent of the income gains in the first three years of the recovery. “In sum, top 1 percent incomes are close to full recovery while bottom 99 percent incomes have hardly started to recover,” the authors wrote.
http://www.ibtimes.com/...
It's interesting because today, in the US, the top 1% account for a nearly identical number, around 42% of total wealth and 28% of total income.
In the U.S., the gap between rich and poor is wider than it has been since the 1920s. The top 1% own 42% of the nation's wealth and on average made $717,000 per year from 2008-2012 compared to $53,046 for everyone else. While the financial crisis of 2008 may have hurt all of us somewhat, the 1% reaped 95% of all income gains since that time.
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/...
That's OK. The Republicans have a message. The Mantra of Republicans seems to be: But the Poor Never had it so good!
Buchanon continues this mantra:
Where in history have the poor been treated better?
Certainly not in the USA in the 1950s or during the Depression. Why, then, all this sudden talk about reducing the gap between rich and poor?
A good society will take care of its poor. But envy that others have more, and coveting the goods of the more successful, used to constitute two of the seven capital sins in the Baltimore Catechism.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/...
The poor have never had it so good! Is an argument that goes back a long ways, though often in comedy:
In other words: Just because you have a place to sleep and you can microwave food, everything should be just fine. Lay off my money! Imagine this argument going back farther. In the 1950s you could say: So what! You aren't enduring a dustbowl! Or, the ever enduring: It's better than slavery!
But while the top 1% now nearly matches the percentage of the early 1830s France, the bottom is much worse.
http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/...
Table 1: Income, net worth, and financial worth in the U.S. by percentile, in 2010 dollars
Wealth or income class Mean household income Mean household net worth Mean household financial (non-home) wealth
Top 1 percent $1,318,200 $16,439,400 $15,171,600
Top 20 percent $226,200 $2,061,600 $1,719,800
60th-80th percentile $72,000 $216,900 $100,700
40th-60th percentile $41,700 $61,000 $12,200
Bottom 40 percent $17,300 -$10,600 -$14,800
The Bottom 40% of highest inequality in the US represents outright poverty, below the poverty standard. In France in 1832, that would only be true of 6.7% who lived in the lowest adjusted rung (true poverty)
Think about that, 40% of US population teeters on income insecurity, poverty.. compared to a nation that we lionize for protests to demand a better life - which reflected about 7% in comparative poverty.
The lie that gets told so many times goes like this: but you have nicer, newer things! So it doesn't matter! Those people didn't have walmart, they didn't have a microwave or heat! You do! Feel lucky!
While those things are true, if we conclude that is all that is needed, then it is the right who are promoting a sense of required and happy servitude; that if you have just enough, then that's all you poor people deserve.
"But you have a Microwave!"
as compared to
"Let them eat cake!"
It's working out for companies, though, who are pocketing the money and not showing the rewards to their workers.
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/...
It's worth noting that despite stagnant wages, workers are in fact producing more today. A lot of that, however, is the result of new technologies and automation, which increase efficiency but can also push some workers out of jobs, and must eventually plateau. In addition, the profits generated by this economic activity are not trickling down to average Americans. Corporate profits, in fact, grew five times faster than wages last year, and this disparity between high profits and sluggish pay is forecast to continue in 2014.
Corporate profits grew 5 times faster than wages.
The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
But it's OK for Republicans.
In the late 1940s, our family had no freezer, no dishwasher, no clothes washer or dryer, no microwave, no air conditioning. We watched the Notre Dame-Army game on a black-and-white 8-inch DuMont.
Among American families in poverty today, 1 in 4 have a freezer. Nearly half have automatic dishwashers.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/...
You shouldn't care that we are breaking new records of income disparity in a way that in the past would have caused a near revolt. But you won't, because as Buchanon points out, you have a chest freezer and a football game.