It's not just shrking GDP, falling house sales, or corporate failures. It's stagnant wages despite productivity gains. Americans have become more productive and hard working since 1980, yet virtually all income gains have gone to the very top of the income latter. Adjusted for inflation, The median hourly wage has increased by only $1.30 since 1973, while the share of household income held by the top 1% has doubled since 1979.
If growth is important to you, vote Democrat. Over the past 60 years, Democrats have consistently presided over greater GDP per capita growth, personal income growth and lower unemployment. Why? Because spending on social services and infrastructure, and transfers to the poor, which liberals see as requirements for liberty, spur growth by increasing aggregate demand.
Owing to the limitations of the market place and liberty requiring the universal and equal provision of services and goods, such as education and health care, we need a welfare state.
Why do so many countries remain poor? Why is it so hard to get them out of poverty? The economic explanantion is suprisingly simple.
Neoconservatism is often used akin to a slur, but is actually a rational and logical ideology - though I strongly disagree wiht it. In a couple of minutes I explain what exactely neoconservatism is.
Conservatives have undermined economic security in the name of fostering prudence - yet, in doing so they have created insecurity that's far worse than the negative effects of more insurance.
What we call conservatism is actually two ideologies married to one another: classic liberalism & traditional conservatism. Even though these two have disparate philosophical roots, they have combined to form modern American conservatism.
Education is often cited as the cause of rising inequality. But it can't be behind the top 1% pulling ahead of the bottom 99%, doubling their share of income since 1979. For one, 27% of Americans have college degrees, 10% have graduate degrees, and 2% have doctorates. Yet, it isn't the PhDs and MDs who are pulling ahead the most, it's the CEOs and heirs. The rich are two small a group, and the're pulling ahead of the most educated professionals, leaving most college grads in the dust.
No they are not the same, and the difference between them is not just a matter of degree. In fact, socialists and liberals have completely different philosophical roots. A must see for anyone who beleives there is something to the "Democrats are socialists" rhetoric on Fox News.
According to mainstream economic theory, redistribution is efficient and just. Since the use one gets out of each additional dollar increases as one gets poorer, as does the likelyhood of spending each additional dollar (and thus spurring growth), taxing the rich is the way to go. It redistributes to those who gets the most bang out of each buck, are most likely to use each additional dollar to spur growth and govt. services essential for the promotion and maintanance of liberty.
We often pride ourselves in having seen better growth than France and Japan. Yet, that growth hasn't benefit the average American. So far as (s)he is concerned, we've already had two lost decades.
Not yet, but if we follow the suggestion of some to increase savings, there will be. Growth is driven by consumption & less consumption means a deeper & more severe recession.
Three decades of stagnant wages; rising health and education cost have squeezed the American worker. Government in turn has done little thanks to conservative ideology.
America has one of the highest poverty rates in the developed world, 1 of only 3 rich nations where more than 10% live in poverty even after transfers. This video gives the most disturbing but important facts about poverty in America.
Over the past three decades insecurity has been on the rise and inequality has skyrocketed to record levels. While the average family works harder and longer with more earners, tens of millions are uninsured and at risk of economic calamity, the rich have made of with an ever increasing share of income. Brought to you courtesy of Bush, Reagan and the supply-side gospel.
Upper middle class, like middle class, is a term that is often used ambigously. Yet, there is a scientific definition - being an expert. In my experience it also means not being able to identify as ordinary and having to work very hard to keep one's status.
There actually is a scientific definition - people who some extent or another are paid for the ideas, which give them considerable leverage in the labor market.
I use the latest Census Stats to answer this question, which is actually more complex than one might think.