digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

The Gap Between Rich and Poor is Still Growing in the U.S.

spotlightonpoverty.org — A study by the Economic Mobility Project finds that 42 percent of children born to parents in the bottom fifth of income distribution remain in the bottom, and 39 percent born to parents in the top fifth remain at the top.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • lapaix, on 05/20/2008, -30/+59The powers-that-be had better pull their heads out and take note. This kind of disparity sows the seeds of revolution. Ignore at your own peril!
    • deanoplex, on 05/20/2008, -5/+62The rich make sure the poor have TVs' and food. Fat and amused equals no-revolution:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses
      • FREETHINKER2008, on 05/20/2008, -0/+11Sad but true.
      • futebol87, on 05/20/2008, -0/+17"Drink beer, drink beer, drink beer. Why? Well because it makes you slow and stupid and docile and that's the way we want you to be" - Bill Hicks
        "The American people don't want to be free, they want to be taken care of" - Neal Boortz

        People are going to have to want freedom more than "bread and circuses", how do we do that? I'll leave it open to suggestions...
        • deanoplex, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Free is a state of mind.
        • known, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you. --Oscar Wilde
      • buckrogers1965, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3Everyone's old TV stops working next year. And gas is so expensive that most poor people won't be able to fill their ancient clunker car up to goto work.

        So when does the revolution begin?
        • blipblipbeep, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3Well i have been a social experiment for the last 6 months by living as a minimalist, as in almost nothing. Rent, food that's it. I can do it no problem, and i haven't tried to start a revolution yet. Although i'm not very happy. What i'm trying to say is they got a long way to go to suck the life out of a free man. But i bet they'll try.

          I added the word "they" for the vultures. have fun ark, ark
        • Nidy1, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2I see, a minimalist...so would you care to tell me why you're connected to the internet then?
      • sodade, on 05/20/2008, -2/+2This is the bottom line people. I don't like personal welfare or paying for people who spit out more pups than they can care for. It pisses me off, but it really isn't that much compared to corporate welfare and our insane waste of money on "defense." At the end of the day, I want the poor to have something to lose. This is the only thing that will keep them from burning down my castle. The US will either become a more pragmatic nation or we will all be *****.
    • JohnUSeed, on 05/20/2008, -7/+2I posted a blog about the coming revolution here: http://digg.com/political_opinion/Seeds_of_Utopia_ ... . I do think it'll be bad...
    • sanman, on 05/20/2008, -20/+36the gap between those who take responsibility for making themselves successful, versus those who want society to pull them up, is also growing
      • thanakar, on 05/20/2008, -15/+21I couldn't agree more. Go down to the south, you'll find families who have been on welfare for generations because THEY CAN BE. They don't want to change, they just want to sit around each month doing nothing and collecting a check from Uncle Sam. While on the other hand we have those in this country who know how to work the system and get a nice fat paycheck but then get ranted at because they won't give part of that paycheck to those who don't want to work for it in the first place.
        • yodaj007, on 05/20/2008, -8/+17I'm from the south, and you have your head up your ass. Do you honestly think this is localized to the south? This is a national problem! Do you really think people like living on welfare? Many of those people are unable to dig themselves out! Why don't you look around for once?

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_trap
        • clclark33, on 05/20/2008, -8/+6yoda's right... I'm also from the south and it's not localized here. Though it's rampant here, the welfare state up north comes in a different form... labor unions. That way, the people can LOOK like they have jobs but really don't have to work all that hard.
        • heliox, on 05/20/2008, -5/+7Before Clclark rushes out to cash his welfare check, he's right. Unions are non-stigmatized welfare. Unions and Welfare should go !!
        • leandra, on 05/20/2008, -1/+8For every lazy bum you see happy to live on welfare, there's someone working 3 jobs busting their ass just to make ends meet. There are so many cases that really you can't define a stereotype and say that's that.

          There's people happy to live off welfare. There's people happy to live off the silver spoon of their rich parents. There's hardworking people who barely get by. There's hardworking people whose effort rewards them. We'll always have all 4 types. But the ratio of where the wealth is allocated is still drifting. Could this be due to ratios of the 4 types changing? Maybe, but doubtful.
        • jeffwmartin, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2You think it's only a problem in the South? I'm willing to bet there are more public housing units per capita in places like New Jersey and Washington, D.C. than there are in Nashville and Atlanta. I'm not saying there aren't any welfare families down here, but a lot of the rural poor are too proud to take a handout and they live in abject poverty. I went to school with some kids who lived in shacks. That's poor. A big portion of the "poor" the politicians like to weep about have A/C, cable TV and eat fast food daily.
        • known, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1As per research studies there is no such thing as "intrinsic" motivation.
          http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/inmotiv.htm
        • Navigator7, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1The article sounds like big government socialism to me.
          Redistribution of wealth.
          Hillary and Obama are leaders in this field.
          What is really needed is less government and less liberals.

          There are new success stories every day in America.
          And you know... you are also free to fail here.
          There would be a whole lot less failures if Big Brother wasn't there to help a fella out.



      • jlous, on 05/20/2008, -3/+3idiot.

        It doesn't matter if it's the "most deservring" person who gets the grand prize. As long as only he gets it and evreyone else loses, it is still not a fair distribution. Not when you can't opt out of participating in the pool.

        You seriously believe that everything that has gone right for you is because you're sucjh a terrific guy? Well, idiot _and_ *****, then,
      • archiesteel, on 05/20/2008, -3/+5"the gap between those who take responsibility for making themselves successful, versus those who want society to pull them up, is also growing"

        You have absolutely no proof for this. None. All you have is your ideology which blames the victim rather than admit there could be problems with the system.

        You fantasize we have a non-existent meritocracy, when the simple fact that we have inheritances completely invalidates this notion. The "level playing field" that Right Libertarians so dearly cling to doesn't exist; people on the bottom have it harder than people on the top, and many people working minimum wage work just as hard (if not harder) than people making 5x their salaries.
        • aeoo, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2"and many people working minimum wage work just as hard (if not harder) than people making 5x their salaries"

          Much, much harder. I've worked minimum wage and I now work for the proverbial "5x more", and I can tell you, there is no two ways about it. Minimum wage work is WAAAAAAY WAAAAY harder.
        • known, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1As per research studies there is no such thing as "intrinsic" motivation.
          http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/inmotiv.htm
        • Navigator7, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1Archiesteel wrote: "You fantasize we have a non-existent meritocracy,"

          Are you implying that we don't?

          Do you realize you are a socialist? You have put your own head in the yoke of bondage.

          You are the "liberal" that give this country a bad name.
    • frankengeek, on 05/20/2008, -10/+6Yeah, cut our damn taxes, eliminate 3/4 of the bureaucracy, and get out the the way of drilling for oil. If the American public wants green cars, power plants, etc they should be the driving force - not government!
      • nick111, on 05/20/2008, -5/+11Elsewhere in the world, the opposite of what your recommending works best.

        You've been duped into supporting a set of myopic formulas that play directly into the hands of a would-be baronial class.

        Your government has become corrupted by corporate money. The solution is NOT to scrap the government hand hand all power to the corporations.
        • 140Suffolk, on 05/20/2008, -2/+2Where? In France? They just voted in someone to change that. Of course, whether he'll be able to do it remains to be seen.
        • jhodapp, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1Prove it, cite sources. Also, define "works best." Just because you want the government out of the way doesn't mean we want corporatism. We want individual freedom, big difference from handing it over to corporations. Also, if getting the government out of the way is what works best, then you're basically holding the foundation that our founding fathers setup in contempt. Are you saying that their ideas were crap? The reason why poverty might be rising in the U.S. is because the government has gotten in the way. They have imposed HUGE costs on individuals economically and socially. We're talking trillions of dollars. I promise you, if we went back to how our nation was pre-FDR, we would see a new surge in prosperity for all like never before.
      • Navigator7, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1Hurray Frankengeek!!
        I agree 100%!!!!
        Frankly, I don't care how the rest of the world thinks ... If it weren't for Americans and American values the rest of the world would be thinking about surviving, not thriving.
        Nick111 is a socialist. The only reason socialism works is the existence of a country like America full of Americans.

        Liberalism reduces the human condition to the lowest common dominator. Ultimately, death and destruction.

        Frankegeek wrote: "If the American public wants green cars, power plants, etc they should be the driving force - not government!"

        PERFECT!


    • TheMidnight, on 05/20/2008, -12/+26Oh please. You honestly think the American public is going to revolt over this? There has always been rich and poor. Our poor are still richer than the poor around the world. And honestly, saying 58% of those born poor get out of it isn't all that bad. In fact, it's proof of American mobility and the dream of class-climbing. So you can armchair-command your Internet revolt, but I'm going to continue enjoying the country that gave me so much damn opportunity.
      • gryphon50, on 05/20/2008, -10/+10what a joke. Do you really think that because the poor of this country are not as bad off as someone living on dung heap in India, that they are going to be content with the situation? The situation is bad and getting worse. I doubt "the country" gave you so much opportunity, it probably had more to do with mommy and daddy.
      • EarlOfLade, on 05/20/2008, -7/+9With an attitude like yours, USA will continue it's path towards becoming a third world nation.
        Wanna see the numbers? www.nationmaster.com
        USA performance isn't exactly stellar on a world basis.
        • nycmac247, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3http://www.numbersusa.com
        • jhodapp, on 05/20/2008, -1/+5It has to do with the fact that our government is in the way. They impose HUGE costs on us in the tens of trillions of dollars. If they'd give us back our freedom and our money, you'd see a surge of prosperity like never before seen in this world. Kind of like what happened before FDR took office. But then regulation happened, and the rest is history. If it weren't for the technology boom, we'd be a LOT more poor today than we are.
      • retsig, on 05/20/2008, -3/+7"There has always been rich and poor"

        Ahh, but there used to be people in the middle too! Remember? Soon you'll either be rich or poor, as poor as those around the world.
      • MWeather, on 05/20/2008, -3/+2"And honestly, saying 58% of those born poor get out of it isn't all that bad. In fact, it's proof of American mobility and the dream of class-climbing."

        Only 42% of those who get out of it have kids who stay there, so overall, we're getting poorer.
    • phydeaux70, on 05/20/2008, -9/+2Maybe the rich also pass along some money management skills to their kids and handouts only teach people how to continue to need more without doing what they are supposed to do? Perhaps...just perhaps for once somebody should look in the mirror instead of blaming others for it.

      And this is non partisan too....both political parties are full of rich people. The only difference is that the Democrats want to provide for you, and Republicans would rather kick you out on your rear to teach you to stand up for yourself.
      • akatsuki, on 05/20/2008, -2/+4Given the poor state of education and social support in this country, it is not like people can break that cycle. Single working mothers certainly can't. And throwing money at schools isn't sufficient if the children don't have an environment where schoolwork is emphasized.

        As for your blatant partisan comments, Republicans prefer to enrich those that are already rich at the expense of the poor. They prefer to sabotage those institutions that could enable people to rise out of their struggling to get by and then point to underfunded and undercut institutions as examples of government failure, and whenever you bring up a country with successful government policies and a solid middle class, they scream "socialism" and talk about how that would never work here... All the while making sure people are steeped in pseudo-libertarian philosophies and under-educated to make them easy to control. Dems have their own weaknesses, but given the general track records of both administrations... well, it is not like you are going to change your mind anyway.
      • buckrogers1965, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Rich people have a network of rich friends and relatives that will help them out if they need help. And yes, they also see those around them doing good and that makes them try harder.

        Poor people only have a much smaller network of poor people as friends.

        It takes a really exception human being to break out of the cycle of poverty.

        You really think GW Bush would have been president if he was from a poor family? No matter how hard he tried?
    • directrix13, on 05/20/2008, -4/+3This disparity pales in comparison to this one:
      http://www.theonion.com/content/video/in_the_know_ ...
    • spillwater, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1gini coefficient!
    • enzomedici, on 05/20/2008, -0/+7There will always be rich and poor. Different people have different goals in life, different ambitions, different drive, different work ethic, so there will never be equality. Reports like this are dumb.

      The only thing the government should do is provide a decent educational system for poor kids so that if they work hard, they can make it too. In most of the US, this is already the case. You can argue if you want to about bad schools, but I can send an Asian kid to that same bad school and they come out valedictorian and go on to university. You can make it if you want to. There are family pressures and other social pressures of being poor, which is why many kids don't make it. But not everyone wants to grow up and be rich or be an engineer or doctor. Plenty of people are happy doing manual labor and wouldn't have it any other way.
      • ABadPerson, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1If the Rich give most of their money to the Poor in an effort to equalize, with in a few decades the money will only end up with the Rich again.

        It is harder to become rich than to keep others poor.
    • nimbleprune, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1well we better take the money from those rich middle class snobs and redistribute it to the poor lower class people just trying to make it by. Class warfare...thats old communist propaganda dressed up in a modern suit...
  • Rubab, on 05/20/2008, -34/+27That is a fact.. this gap is widening due to capitalism..
    • Cryptocracy, on 08/17/2008, -17/+22*****. the gap is widening because globalist bankster thugs have hijacked our country. Capitalism is not to blame AT ALL!
      • smotpoker, on 05/20/2008, -9/+11Capitalism works like casinos or pyramid schemes. It is based on competition and whoever has the most resources to risk has better odds of winning. Here and there a gambler wins but 99% of the time 99% of them only lose.

        The economy is a bit more balanced most of the time, but as more businesses go under and population grows, resources (and therefore advantages) are spread thinner and winning becomes less likely.

        "Globalist banker thugs" are not so much to blame as other factors (culture of conformity, unregulated industries/monopolistic practices, technology, etc) that prevent smaller companies from gaining a foothold and enable a single person to perform jobs that would normally take 2 or 3
        • edstate, on 05/20/2008, -9/+4Hogwash.
        • afruff23, on 05/20/2008, -6/+6Wait, you're blaming the LACK of regulation and SPREAD of technology as barriers to entry? Haven't you wondered why so few ISPs come into your neighborhood? No, it can't have anything to do with the massive subsidies and permits they have.

          As for technology, look at the computer market which is the epitome of technological advances (every few months, something is made obsolete) and their continually decreasing prices despite the fact commodities have risen and real inflation has gone up.
        • pointsguy, on 05/20/2008, -4/+1Don't use the word "whomever" if you don't know how to.
        • smotpoker, on 05/20/2008, -3/+2@afruff23 -

          "Haven't you wondered why so few ISPs come into your neighborhood? No, it can't have anything to do with the massive subsidies and permits they have."

          Actually, I've always attributed that to monopolistic practices. Since our cable and phone companies originally had the capital to lay the telecom infrastructure they were the first to exploit that infrastructure for internet purposes and got most of the clientele in the region. Because most of the business is already allocated to them, competing ISPs have to lease that same infrastructure and endure lower profit margins or invest vast sums of money building their own infrastructure which may not pay off without something substantially better to offer and an effective means to market it - especially considering brand loyalty, convenience of/cost to potential customers and the current cable companies control most of the advertising.

          Subsidies could be a factor but I doubt it is the determining one, though - but I am no economist and do not regularly research or hear of such things.

          "As for technology, look at the computer market which is the epitome of technological advances (every few months, something is made obsolete) and their continually decreasing prices despite the fact commodities have risen and real inflation has gone up."

          This is true. Price to quality ratio has always improved. A large chunk of that is due to competition but the aforementioned culture of conformity and brand loyalty still stifles the market to a large degree, causing smaller competitors to sell out or go bankrupt. As technology advances, it will be yet harder for new businesses to start up and compete because the bigger businesses will have grown too big and the mostly-dissolved competition will have greatly slowed price deflation.

          Furthermore, you are ignoring the cost of industry automation and software, which is mostly what I was referring to. The grocery store where I worked at 5 years ago now has self-checkout lanes. Where there was once at least 5 and 3 baggers working at any given time, there is now usually just one of each. While many people used to hire accountants to do their taxes or keep their books, many people use software and do it themselves, etc. I cannot cite specific examples of manufacturing automation costing jobs, but we have all heard of it


          Like I said earlier, I am no economist and don't run around studying this stuff. Most of what I said/say regarding the subject is based on personal observation/deduction. I am fully aware some of my conclusions could be but it is easy for me to see how reducing the number of low-skilled jobs with technology and refusing to buy "brand X" primarily because they cannot afford advertising and all of your friends aren't using it would increase the income gap.

          Disregarding the smaller businesses makes the bigger ones grow faster and in the end lack of adequate competition inflates prices and the little guy spends a higher % of their income than the bigger guy just to survive etc.

          They only solutions I see are boycotting the bigger businesses to the point of influencing them not to pursue unethical means to increase profit (which is hard to organize or continue for a long period of time), regulate the industry with tax dollars and favoring smaller businesses when possible (which often means increase in price and decrease in quality due to less customers, less employees and less wholesale purchase power) which is harder and less practical for the lower income families who seem to understand/care about the need less likely to occur with those more concerned with trying to impress their friends and co-workers with the latest and greatest.

          It all boils down to culture of conformity and perception of unethical competition (forcing small guys out of business on purpose to inflate prices/profits and replacing workers with automation to reduce costs) as a "necessary evil" preventing market self-regulation, in my eyes - but like I said, I am no economist and this is all just speculation based on my own observations/beliefs
        • Salesti, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2Resources are nice, yes -- but what about diligence, dedication, and plain old hard work? You can be filthy rich, and end up a useless goober in a nuthouse (like some of today's rich & famous boys and girls), and you also have the chance to apply yourself and come up from the small time by your own efforts. Until the government takes what you've got, and you just don't care anymore. THAT is what keeps entrepreneurship down.
        • afruff23, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3"Actually, I've always attributed that to monopolistic practices. Since our cable and phone companies originally had the capital to lay the telecom infrastructure they were the first to exploit that infrastructure for internet purposes and got most of the clientele in the region. Because most of the business is already allocated to them, competing ISPs have to lease that same infrastructure and endure lower profit margins or invest vast sums of money building their own infrastructure which may not pay off without something substantially better to offer and an effective means to market it - especially considering brand loyalty, convenience of/cost to potential customers and the current cable companies control most of the advertising.

          Subsidies could be a factor but I doubt it is the determining one, though - but I am no economist and do not regularly research or hear of such things."

          A system with even a bit of irrationality (e.g. regulation and subsidies) cannot work itself out correctly. But even network industries have loads of irrationality:
          -digging permits
          -must provide local channels
          -FCC cabling license (certain bandwidths)
          -FCC license for internet-by-air (e.g. wifi and satellite)
          -Billions in government subsidies to provide higher speeds (which we never got BTW)

          These are all huge barriers to entry. To act as if the natural barrier to entry is high is ridiculous when you consider how many ISPs spring up in densely populated areas.

          "This is true. Price to quality ratio has always improved. A large chunk of that is due to competition but the aforementioned culture of conformity and brand loyalty still stifles the market to a large degree, causing smaller competitors to sell out or go bankrupt. As technology advances, it will be yet harder for new businesses to start up and compete because the bigger businesses will have grown too big and the mostly-dissolved competition will have greatly slowed price deflation."

          You can make as many conjectures about the state of competition in the tech industry all you want, but while you do that, the industry has been working the same way for decades and competitors enter the market everyday resulting in price deflation.

          "Furthermore, you are ignoring the cost of industry automation and software, which is mostly what I was referring to. The grocery store where I worked at 5 years ago now has self-checkout lanes. Where there was once at least 5 and 3 baggers working at any given time, there is now usually just one of each. While many people used to hire accountants to do their taxes or keep their books, many people use software and do it themselves, etc. I cannot cite specific examples of manufacturing automation costing jobs, but we have all heard of it"

          Ugh, the candlemakers' fallacy again.
          http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/BastiatBib. ...

          Don't you see that the fact that a job is lost due to innovation (technology) causes another job to be created out of the money that was saved? Your logic would lead us to create a law for people to HAVE to eat out. Yes, this would create jobs in a particular industry, but they would destroy jobs in another industry (ones that would be created from the money that would be saved by eating in).

          "Like I said earlier, I am no economist and don't run around studying this stuff."

          And with that note, I will stop responding to your post with a final quote from Rothbard:

          "It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."
        • smotpoker, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1"A system with even a bit of irrationality (e.g. regulation and subsidies) cannot work itself out correctly. But even network industries have loads of irrationality:
          -digging permits
          -must provide local channels
          -FCC cabling license (certain bandwidths)
          -FCC license for internet-by-air (e.g. wifi and satellite)
          -Billions in government subsidies to provide higher speeds (which we never got BTW)"

          Of those, all but the subsidies and local channels seem necessary, to some degree at least, to prevent interference with other services/utilities and even physical harm/damage. I am not clear on the point of the local channels except perhaps to ensure critical regional info is provided in a timely fashion.

          "You can make as many conjectures about the state of competition in the tech industry all you want, but while you do that, the industry has been working the same way for decades and competitors enter the market everyday resulting in price deflation."

          Nearly all will be out of business within a few years and most/any price deflation they might illicit is temporary and local to them. It takes MAJOR resources and assets to compete on a large scale and most small companies or startups just can't get under normal circumstances - they require products that are compelling and original. They might be able to turn enough profit to stay in business and pay staff but expansion and major investment is not likely

          "Don't you see that the fact that a job is lost due to innovation (technology) causes another job to be created out of the money that was saved? Your logic would lead us to create a law for people to HAVE to eat out. Yes, this would create jobs in a particular industry, but they would destroy jobs in another industry (ones that would be created from the money that would be saved by eating in)."

          Nope, I don't see that so much... What new jobs have the automotive plants created with the money they saved by automating the assembly lines? I don't see any new Foodlion-brand carwashes to make up for the cashiers they replaced...

          Most of that money saved goes to investors who are already pretty well off and they spend it on what? Tropical vactions, Gucci shoes, a new Porche, summer homes, accounts for college on behalf of their kids & grandkids.... Once the money gets funneled to the top, most of it floats around up their indefinitely, in large part due to the culture-of-conformity. The only real jobs these forms of technology create are skilled jobs (engineering, r&d, etc). The money doesn't go to the same number of people elsewhere but to a much smaller number who often don't need it.

          I don't understand what you're saying about a law requiring people to eat out. I'm only suggesting large businesses who are already making a decent profit shouldn't fire people to make it higher and that technology facilitates their ability to do that in many cases. My suggestion affects all industries and occupational 'classes'.





      • stonebear, on 05/20/2008, -7/+8While Capitalism is not blameless in the destruction of our civilization, it is neither good nor bad in itself. Used correctly, it is a tool of enormous productive capacity; it can, and ought to be, utilized in a managed way for the common good. The ultimate responsibility for the current woes of mankind does indeed lie with banking, particularly fractional reserve banking; an institution which, being corrupt in its very essence, abuses capitalism at the expense of humanity.

        Extraordinary Times: Intentional Collapse And Takedown Of The USA
        http://www.australia.to/story/0,25197,23040467-060 ...

        • afruff23, on 05/20/2008, -3/+4But you are mistaking the definition of capitalism. Capitalism is the voluntary exchange between parties, often for a profit (an amount greater than the labor costs). Ensuring your monopoly by threatening all competitors (e.g. banking) is not capitalism since that is not a voluntary relationship.
        • synapz, on 05/20/2008, -4/+4Wrong. Your "management" of the market is precisely why we don't have a free market today, and why things are getting worse for the little guy. You pricks have been ***** with the market for over a hundred years now. LEAVE IT THE ***** ALONE.
        • edstate, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2The other day I read a comparison of "management" in the financial system to "hate crimes" in the legal system. ...yes, a bit of a stretch, weirdly... but the point was that if you just enforce the law, fairly and diligently, that there's really no need for all this "specialty" morass-itude.

          Interesting at least.
        • MWeather, on 05/20/2008, -3/+4"Ensuring your monopoly by threatening all competitors (e.g. banking) is not capitalism since that is not a voluntary relationship."

          Capitalism doesn't need to be voluntary, and monopoly is the end result of capitalism. That's why we have laws regulating it.
        • afruff23, on 05/20/2008, -3/+4@MWeather

          Monopoly is not the end result of capitalism. There is no such thing as an end result, because if a monopoly were to occur, it would be because people desired its products more. Once the price-gouging occurs, competitors would spring up and there would be no "monopoly". In any case, I don't know why I am debating you when you can't even understand the definition of capitalism.
        • MWeather, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3"There is no such thing as an end result, because if a monopoly were to occur, it would be because people desired its products more."

          So people valued Standard oil's oil more than they valued other companies' oil? US Steel's steel was the most sought after? And I suppose Microsoft Windows is popular because peope,ask for it by name?

          "Once the price-gouging occurs, competitors would spring up and there would be no "monopoly"."

          You can be a monopoly and still have competition, and you don't need to price gouge to be a monopoly.

          In any case, I don't know why I am debating you when you can't even look up the definition of capitalism to see that you are wrong.
      • cdigioia, on 05/20/2008, -4/+5"globalist bankster thugs have hijacked our country" - What does that even mean?
        • synapz, on 05/20/2008, -2/+3Two words - Federal Reserve. Educate yourself and stop asking stupid questions.
        • cdigioia, on 05/20/2008, -5/+2Actually I have double majors in Finance & Economics...you're read a lot of Digg articles linked to no-name sites I take it?
          pssst - Almost every nation on earth has a federal reserve...and almost every Economics professor in the world supports the idea of having a federal reserve - are they all part of the conspiracy too?
        • synapz, on 05/20/2008, -3/+2What, some undergrad is threatening me with his credentials in Finance? Go back to your job as a bank clerk. I'm a grad student at a prestigious university studying economic game theory, you filmy piece of *****. Get your head out of your ass and read what a Nobel Prize winning economist will tell you about your precious federal reserve: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek

          And since you're such a brilliant economist, why don't you tell me this: how does the moral inconsistency of an institution whose primary role is protecting the fractional reserve banking system play out in the marketplace with regard to the moral hazards implicit in such a system?

    • dshPls, on 05/20/2008, -16/+4Haha, I always love to see the ronbots and communists battle it out for who hates America more.
    • TEHxINTERWEBS, on 05/20/2008, -7/+2Nationalism will bring us victory!
    • frankengeek, on 05/20/2008, -4/+6Let me know when communism, socialism, or dictatorships generate wealth. My guess I will see it snowing in the Sahara desert first.
      • citizen782, on 05/20/2008, -2/+3communism, socialism, or dictatorship:

        Are we limited to these choices?
        • aeoo, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3"Are we limited to these choices?"

          Exactly. It really pisses me off that if you criticize capitalism it is instantly assumed that you are a socialist and/or communist, etc. And then all those other social systems are deemed evil without question. Basically your choice from these fools' perspective is to either agree that capitalism is the best or to shut the ***** up. And with that kind of attitude, how can any kind of intelligent discussion be even possible?
    • citizen782, on 05/20/2008, -3/+6The man speaks the truth regardless of how Marxist it sounds. You can't concentrate on a return to the investor at any cost without the ultimate price being the source of revenue. Monopolistic practices and the banking industries current lack of oversight isn't helping much either. Just look at bank fees. This is an engineered revenue stream designed to increase profits by taking from those who obviously can least afford it. Cue the "manage your personal finances" morality police. I do, but I still feel for those who are victims of banks. It would help if they had a little left over to manage without the banks taking it from them.
      • synapz, on 05/20/2008, -6/+3"You can't concentrate on a return to the investor at any cost without the ultimate price being the source of revenue."

        Two Nobel Prize winners in economics disagree with you...

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek
        • citizen782, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Are we currently following their economic strategies? I'm asking, I don't know.
        • synapz, on 05/20/2008, -2/+5Unfortunately not, IMHO. Our market is rife with legislation that creates huge barriers to market entry for the little guys. This allows existing corporations to monopolize the market in ways that they could not otherwise, ways that have negative impacts on the consumer. In a truly free market, even a monopoly must strive to serve the consumer, because competitors have such a low barrier of entry into the market. What we have now are monopolies protected by government from new business through regulation and licensing policy. I get so frustrated thinking about what we could have, but don't have because of 'good intentioned' legislation.
        • archiesteel, on 05/20/2008, -2/+4Milton Friedman also believed in "the invisible hand of the market", even though there has *never* been any proof that markets are self-correcting.

          Friedman made some very significant contributions to Economics, but some of what he wrote was very ideological (and unsupported by facts).
      • jeffwmartin, on 05/20/2008, -0/+5I had always viewed overdraft fees as justified because of the extra processing the banks had to do, etc. I finally realized that it was a major source of income for them and they purposely created situations to generate revenue when they hit me with almost $200 in fees when a check I had deposited into my account was put "on hold" by them, and they proceeded to bounce 4 or 5 transactions on the same day, even though my balance without the deposit would have paid all but one of them. They deducted the largest payment first, which caused the others, that would have been covered, to be "overdrawn". I called them and the customer service rep stated that they paid the largest transaction first because larger transactions are usually mortgages, car payments, etc. and that way, they make sure those payments are made. I told him that didn't make any sense, because they paid all of the transactions anyway, all that policy did was make sure the maximum amount of items became overdrawn. He used the typical fallback position of repeating the policy. I eventually got all of the charges cleared because they didn't tell me the deposit would be held for 5 days, but it's still a ***** policy to have.
    • JimmyIkon, on 05/20/2008, -4/+7Just because one guy is making money, doesn't mean the other guy is getting poorer. Brining down the rich because they have more money won't make the quality of life better for the poor.
      • aeoo, on 05/20/2008, -3/+4"Brining down the rich because they have more money won't make the quality of life better for the poor. "

        If the rich were content to simply enjoy life and to enjoy their savings, you'd be right. But no. The rich want to control the government and the media. The insinuate themselves into every decision making process and are not simply content to live quietly off the spoils. Because the rich so violently and aggressively insert themselves into the social sphere, they get the negative image that you see today.
      • Salesti, on 05/20/2008, -2/+4The problem there is that it's the folks WITH money who fund things like orphanages, food banks, rescue and relief efforts, and they're also the ones who create jobs. It's not all about pocketing more nickels -- capitalism is FUN. It's fun to see your efforts expand and grow, and it's fun to help other people at the same time.
        There will always be greedy, corrupt people, capitalist and otherwise. It makes no sense to destroy capitalism, because the vast majority of people in this world will gravitate toward higher-paying jobs, and we need capitalists to supply them. We're all motivated by the potential for profit, but that doesn't make us all greedy.

        If the rich just sat around and enjoyed their savings, the world would be far, far worse off.
        Any idea how many billions of dollars rich folks have shared over the past century? *Countless* billions. I wouldn't want the wealthy to sit back and "enjoy" their money (even though that would also support others by boosting the economy every time they went shopping), because many of the WEALTHY are giving every day. There is greed in this world, but there's compassion as well.
        • citizen782, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2Please tell this story to my grandmother with the 1.5M in the bank while she swears she can't come off a dime because she never knows "what's going to come" up during the next 18 months she's alive. I doubt you have any idea how much money is hoarded and not re-introduced into the economy.
        • Salesti, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3citizen, I did not mean that there are no hoarders -- there most certainly are many thousands of them! But we don't need to punish the rest of society by yoking the wealthy producers.
          Many rich folks got that way because they fearlessly invested their own time and resources, NOT worrying about the future. I feel bad for your grandma -- she's proof that a fortune can't make a person happy or secure!
  • jjgames, on 05/20/2008, -12/+57I think those % show quite a bit of mobility. 58% of kids born into the bottom 5th have moved out and 61% in the top have moved down. I think there is a growing income gap but these percentages sound like quite a bit of movement to me.
    • Treoinmypocket, on 05/20/2008, -6/+21you are right and the people commenting who take the headline as gospel even tho the sub-head directly contradicts it, simply aren't doing something I like to call....thinking.
    • staplez, on 05/20/2008, -8/+16Yeah I know, we'll probably both be modded down, but I'd like someone to find a country with better mobility than that. People have a better than 50% odds to move up in life. That's fantastic. And those who hate the rich? Their kids have a better than 60% odds to fail. I'm not really seeing a problem here.
      • FairDinkumMate, on 05/20/2008, -11/+7You absolute MORON! You've just read figures that show more than 40% of people born into poverty in the richest country on earth will remain poor for their entire lives & all you can say is find a country that's better?(Try Australia by the way - better mobility, much less poverty, universal health care & all with a significantly smaller economy!)
        And are you stupid or just enjoy lying? Please point out where the figures show that the rich(top 20%) have a better than 60% chance to fail? It says they have that chance of dropping out of the top 20%, but I'll bet they have an almost negligible chance of dropping into the poverty(bottom 20%) bracket - which is what you imply with fail.
        • zeromous, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3What you say isn't invalidated by anything other than your own arrogance.

          You form your opinion in the vacuum of facts, with "I'll bet" and contrasting "stupidity" with "honesty".

          The simple facts in this article do nothing to expose a wealth gap that is well understood and hasn't changed much in 30-40 years. The poor get poorer, but an awful lot of poor get richer too. The rich and in between get poorer too, and the extremely rich seem to get richer, although I'm willing to bet their value has also dropped over the years.

          How would you improve these numbers...I mean, give it some actual thought, fairdinkum. It'd be interesting to hear what you come up with Mate, to solve a problem that doesn't really exist?

          /been poor
          /been in-between
          /been poor again
          /been in-between.
        • synapz, on 05/20/2008, -1/+4And here you've made my point for me... "Try Australia by the way - better mobility, much less poverty, universal health care & all with a significantly smaller economy!"

          Yep, smaller economy. Guess what, wise guy? That means the poor are ***** POORER. There's a reason the poor in America are the richest poor people in the world - Our economy kicks ass because it's based on free market capitalism.

          Well, it should be kicking ass, because it WAS based on free market capitalism, until you socialist savages started legislating ***** laws.

          You idiots separate social and economic freedoms into two separate groups. Guess what? They're NOT ***** SEPARATE. They're both the same ***** thing: freedom.
        • zeromous, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3Synapz, nice to see someone still gets it.

        • Risingashes, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1synapz, not that I disagree with the point in general- but Australia's poor aren't poorer than America's poor. We have so much stuff over here in terms of economy wide social benefits such as work skills retraining and global health care.

          You should really feel sorry for your poor- they aren't exactly the worst off in the world but they are nowhere near the best.

          That being said the mobility in this article sounds fine- what should be done is to say where exactly the people that are moving are actually moving to. I'd say that the majority of the rich kids are simply moving down to the 70% while the ones escaping poverty are lingering around 30-40%.
        • FairDinkumMate, on 05/20/2008, -3/+2I like the way you guys present FACTS with your ideological rants.
          Try these on for size. First of all there are two measures of poverty used in the world:
          1-ABSOLUTE poverty: families or individuals are considered to be lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health.
          2-RELATIVE poverty: having significantly less access to income and wealth than other members of society

          US
          Absolute poverty 12.3%
          Relative poverty 16.0%

          Australia
          Absolute poverty 1.2%
          Relative poverty 13.0%

          Germany
          Absolute poverty 1.9%
          Relative poverty 13.5%

          OECD Average
          Absolute poverty N/A
          Relative poverty 11.0%

          Unfortunately I haven't been able to find $ figures showing actual average incomes for those in poverty in any countries but as Australia(along with many European countries) has a social welfare system(hence the really low absolute poverty rate) paying at least US$200 per week to the unemployed, disabled, single parents etc + some other benefits like rent assistance, I think that your claim that American poor are the richest in the world may be dubious.

          I'm also not too sure what you understand of the Australian(or European) economies but they are based on free market capitalism - they simply have a stronger(& therfore more expensive) social contract. Australia for example is one of the most egalitarian societies in the world. On the other hand, as these social benefits are effectively obligatory through the tax system, there is unlike the US virtually no culture of philanthropy except for the VERY rich.
        • zeromous, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Cite your facts dinkum, and lose the attitude. Again you accuse others of doing the same thing you've just done (again):

          US
          Absolute poverty 12.3%

          Where does that 12 % come from? 12% of 300 million people is an awful lot, I think you may want to check your numbers.

          I have to question the following too:
          (The US has) "virtually no culture of philanthropy except for the VERY rich."

          It's too bad I've dugg you down for abuse, but with a poor attitude to go with that research, no one is even going to entertain your opinion.
        • tkstock, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1Actually, the number of people in poverty since 1959 has remained somewhat level and dropped slightly, and the poverty rate has dropped as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Poverty_59_to_0 ...

          I would also like to see where you got your numbers.
      • nick111, on 05/20/2008, -5/+4Social mobility is far better in Europe than in the US. The average (poor) Swede is twice as likely to become rich as the average (poor) American - and that's ignoring the fact that 1/100 Americans is now in prison. The prisons becoming privatized made this more or less inevitable.

        America was founded partly to get away from the class-systems that strangled Europe for so long... the same class systems have now been recreated in the US to such an extent that a lot of Americans would be better off if they just turned round and went back to Europe.

        Only they won't, because they're Republicans and have been persuaded that a load of fake issues to do with religion and guns are more important than their children's education.
        • synapz, on 05/20/2008, -3/+7Freedom of religion?
          The right to defend my person and property?

          Those don't sound like fake issues to me.

          If you want to improve economic mobility, stop allowing the wealthy to dictate legislation that you like to call "regulation." It's the biggest scam in American history and you fools are STILL falling for it. Regulation hurts the little guy, not the big guy. That's why the big guy pays so much ***** money to have it put in place.

          Get rid of regulation -> return competition to the markets -> enjoy a more prosperous economy.

        • executorzz, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3Tell that to all the poor muslim immigrants in france that are burning cars.

          Or to the ostracized eastern european immigrants in italy.

          Ask them where they think they would have a better opportunity.
        • archiesteel, on 05/20/2008, -2/+3synapz: unfortunately, what you propose would have the opposite effect than you predict.

          "Regulation hurts the little guy, not the big guy."

          Not true - regulations are necessary to prevent abuse, cartels, monopolies, etc. Unregulated markets (in addition to being unstable) tend to concentrate wealth in fewer hands, destroying the "level playing field" on which Capitalism is founded.

          "That's why the big guy pays so much ***** money to have it put in place."

          Nonsense. Big industry players are always pushing for *less* regulation, not more.

          I suggest you learn more about real-world Economics, because all I see in your posts is the misguided ideology that a free market would solve everything, while in reality it would make things even worse.
        • Envark, on 05/20/2008, -0/+0"The prisons becoming privatized made this more or less inevitable."

          Nope.
      • ZenMojo, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3Yeah...that's retarded. So more than half of people born into poverty have the ability to, in their lifetime, move into the lower-middle-class. Flip a coin and you may be able to afford bread in your lifetime!

        I think the problem here is a lack of perspective because not that many people in Digg know what poverty actually is, and not that many care since so many of them will never experience it thanks to the lack of downward social mobility they experience for sitting on their asses doing nothing.

        I don't know why you thought you would get dugg down for saying, "Meh, I'll be rich, they'll be poor, but most of them will be less poor in their lifetimes so that's the American dream."

        The American dream is creating a middle class life, and movement from the lower class to the middle class is the problem, not from poverty to lower-middle-class.

        By the way, Paris had riots over police brutality, not wealth. We in the United States have riots over ***** Celtics games.
        • zeromous, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3Zen, I friended you long ago because you are a bastion of common sense on the diggerweebs. I'm almost never disappointed.

          As someone who has known poverty and the services that go hand in hand with surviving (no TV, rent subsidies, welfare,) and someone who has lost everything in pre-Sept 11th job-loss and since had to rebuilt it all from less than zero (owing the government my Employment Insurance premiums and the taxes on all EI income), I'm disappointed that you feel the "Flip a coin and you may be able to afford bread in your lifetime!" is a very real outcome for people in North America enough to spread it amongst the intellectually uninitiated (diggurz?)

          I had nothing but a high school diploma, my wits, a dated computer and a broken ps2 when I had to get rid of everything else to cover my mounting bills. Yes, I was caught off guard with too much debt, not enough street smarts. I now however, 8 years later, lead a richer life than I did before, both monetarily and spiritually.

          I live and post today, to say the dream is alive and it can be done. It's still possible to go from poor to middle-class, even in an absolute poverty situation (along for the ride once, did it myself a 2nd time!). Kids and families to support can make this way more difficult than what I experienced personally, but it is still quite possible!

          I find most people who fail to vault 'classes' do so as a reflection of their effort level, and in some cases, lack of abilities. No economic theory in the world can help those people, in my humble, experienced opinion. For those willing to put in the effort, there are many services and routes one can take to improve one's lot in life.

          Now, whats the big deal? You don't seem to disagree with the idea that those facing absolute poverty can move up- its just not as far and fast as you would like (poverty->lower-middle class). Why is this a huge problem, or even indicitive of an economic problem?

          Not saying there isn't one, but what everyone seems to be talking about here is just one gap, like it characterizes the whole wealth gap in North America.
    • perendengue, on 05/20/2008, -2/+14ya, you would think that having better then half of the kids born into poverty escaping it would be something to herald and celebrate.
      • aeoo, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1What's the point of celebrating 3 people who got out of poverty if 4 people have entered into poverty at the same time? Mobility is great from a narrow individual perspective, but it is neither here nor there from a larger sociological perspective.
    • Nougat, on 05/20/2008, -2/+7When there's no where to go but up, or down, where do you think they'd go? I'd be interested to see the mobility of the second and fourth fifths, those being the ranges which have the possibility of mobility up or down. I would be that we'd see many more people from the second from the top fifth moving up, and second from the bottom moving down.
      • scamper22, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2They could go nowhere and be stuck in their same income level? Indeed this totally breaks the old saying 'the rich get richer, while the poor get poorer'. The majority of the rich get relatively poorer, and the majority of the poor get relatively richer.

        I too would like to see the other stats rangers to get a better picture of the middle class.

        However, considering these are all relative stats (there will always be people in the lower 1/5 and people in the upper 1/5), there will always be some who remain within their 'class'
        • multimed, on 05/20/2008, -2/+1Which leads to the huge issue I have with the rich vs. poor gap in the first place. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a widening gap. The more important issues are of fairness and justice. Do those less fortunate have opportunities to better themselves? Yes - probably better than just about any other country. Of course we should continue to provide as many opportunities as possible for the less fortunate who are motivated to work hard & improve their lives.

          But back to the gap - the more important issue is if the bottom is moving up. Who cares if the rich get richer so long as the poor are better off. Are they? Is the bottom 5th better able to lead a happy, healthy life than they were in the past? Probably though I just don't read much about that since the obsession is over the rich/poor gap.
    • kebwi, on 05/20/2008, -3/+5Consider that if the spread between the top and the bottom is steadily increasing, then even with people in the bottom moving up and people at the top moving down, the "gap" between the top and bottom can still be increasing, much to the detriment of the 99% of the population that owns 1% of the wealth (or whatever it is precisely).

      If the bottom fifth has 1/20th the money of the top fifth, and some of the bottom fifth move up, and some of the top fifth move down, and in that same time period, the spread between the top and bottom goes to 1/40th, then the spread between even the ones who moved out of their fifth still hasn't improved (diminished).

      Used to be, CEOs were worth maybe ten times as much as their employees. Imagine that, Employees earning $40,000 and CEOs earning $40,000,000 (or more), instead of a reasonable $400,000.

      THAT'S the problem, the superconcentration of most of the wealth in a tiny fraction of the population. There's nothing left for everyone else, so many of those people end up in poverty. It is true that money is not entirely a zero-sum game, but isn't entirely free of that logic either. It takes time to smooth out financial differences, and if that time exceeds the time it takes to push even more wealth into a tinier fraction of the population, then there is never a chance for a large fraction of the poverty population to improve, not all at once. A few nice stories about people who escaped poverty is meaningless, it is impossible for everyone to do that at once, there just isn't enough money...except there is enough money, all in the top minute fraction of a percent of the population.
      • scamper22, on 05/20/2008, -3/+1Sure, lets buy your premise that CEOs make 40 000 000. Those that make that kind of money work for large corporations with tens of thousands of workers. For simple math sake, lets say there at 40 000 workers.

        If the CEO made nothing, it would result in 1000 more per worker. Hardly enough for anyone to jump income levels or make a real change in their standard of living. So looking at awe at CEO salaries might be nice to drive you mad, taking the CEO pay down to 400k doesn't really do much to change poverty.

        Lastly...define poverty for us. This article only talks about relative incomes. There will always be a lower 1/5 and an upper 1/5. Just like there will always be those earning minimum wage. That doesn't mean you're living in poverty. This is not about "A few nice stories about people who escaped poverty is meaningless". By their own facts, 58% of kids in poverty escape it. That's the majority. That's an impressive accomplishment.


    • childermass, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3Well, a truer sense of how easy to move between income levels would be a comparison between previous decades and now. Additionally, studies show that the US is behind numerous other countries when it comes to class fluidity. From a Clive Crook column a few months ago:

      "The stickiness is at the top and the bottom. According to one much-cited study, for instance, more than 40 percent of American boys born into the poorest fifth of the population stay there; the figure for Britain is 30 percent, for Denmark just 25 percent. In America, more than in other advanced economies, poor children stay poor. Other data show that in America, more than in, say, Britain, rich children stay rich as well."

      http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200706/land-of-oppo ...
    • krinthekuz, on 09/16/2008, -0/+2marked as inaccurate for the gross misuse and exaggeration of statistics. the main premise of this article is summed up when they say, "the notion that individuals have the opportunity to rise beyond their parent’s economic status – is not standing up to scrutiny. A study by the Economic Mobility Project finds that 42 percent of children born to parents in the bottom fifth of income distribution remain in the bottom, and 39 percent born to parents in the top fifth remain at the top."

      um... if 42% of kids in bottom 5th remain there, then there are 58% that do move up. mathematically, there's NO WAY for 100% of them to move out of the bottom bracket, because unless we instate communism where everyone gets paid the same, SOMEONE will always be in the bottom 5th based on the definition of "bottom 5th". then, only 39% of the kids born in the top 5th stay there, or better put, 61% of kids born into the top 5th are lazy douches who fall from being on top. in other words, kids are falling out faster than they're rising, but more are rising than not rising. these stats show that the income disparity is CLOSING, not getting wider. it also shows that it's much easier to be a lazy douche and blow your birthright than it is to put in hard work and build up your lifestyle.

      this is not the first time this site has had a frontpage article that had a grossly inaccurate use of statistics. money in the US isn't completely zero sum, but it's damn near close.
    • TommyBoy919, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Yeah, this pretty much sounds like the cream rising to the top and the rest falling where they may. I don't think that kind of thing is going to change in a free market economy.
    • TantrooM, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Ok, so why the heck hasn't this been tagged as "Possibly inaccurate" yet.?

      If there is 61% of the richest kids falling toward the middle, and 58% of the poorest kids are climbing toward the middle, doesn't that prove that the gap is not grown, but the exact opposite?

      The only way it is possible to have these stastics prove the gap is growing, is IF and ONLY IF the positions of these teirs are growing and shrinking respectively.

      Meaning, if having 50 Billion + was top tear in 1990s, and the kids 'falling' still make 50 Billion, then they are no poorer then their parents, just the top tear is now 100 Billion+, so they fall to 2nd. Likewise if having $200 made you poor back then, and $20 makes you poor now, then you can have $200 and go from poor to lower middle.
  • Y0tsuya, on 05/20/2008, -29/+25Quick, let's take money from the rich and give it to the poor. Oh wait, we're already doing that. Why isn't it working!!!!!
    • PeppermintPig, on 05/20/2008, -6/+6I don't know, but there ought to be a law!




      /I blame society!
    • slcseifist, on 05/20/2008, -9/+6people couldn't possibly be earning the money they are making.... oh no
    • Kizilbash, on 05/20/2008, -7/+12You're not and it is. If you want to see it working, check the Scandinavian countries.
      • ender7074, on 05/20/2008, -10/+7Yah its working just great there.... If you consider an entire country going broke that is. Get your head out of your ass. Robbing Peter to give something to Paul does NOT generate wealth, prosperity, or anything other than resentment. Just wait until someone comes to take away your stuff. You wont like it so much then.
        • Nougat, on 05/20/2008, -5/+1Nobody's coming to take anyone's stuff. People shouldn't get so much damned stuff to begin with.
        • synapz, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2@Nougat:

          You sound exactly like a *****-headed character from Atlas Shrugged.
        • davidmesaaz, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1If its working why are skilled workers leaving the scandanvian countries?
    • citizen782, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2What? I'm not poor I can't recall the last time anyone wealthy gave me a damn thing. Except maybe a job with for a meager wage.
      • slcseifist, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1The hospital you go to, school your kids go to, welfare check you get, medicare you get... all from Rich people. 10% of the population pay 90% of the taxes.... guess which 10%???? The richest 10%. So when you kids get sick and they are saved at a public hospital because you cant afford to pay for a real hospital, thank a rich person.
  • dupswapdrop, on 05/20/2008, -12/+16When you have people who feel that the deck is stacked against them and they will never get out of poverty no matter what they do, you will have civil unrest that divides the nation. This is what happened in the 1960's with the civil rights movement and the antiwar movement. This will bring about more acts of terrorism than can ever come from out side of our country.
    • Treoinmypocket, on 05/20/2008, -8/+4and yet...cause the numbers are staring you in the face in this article so I can see how you missed it....

      ...58 percent of children born to parents in the bottom fifth of income distribution rise out of the bottom
      • FairDinkumMate, on 05/20/2008, -3/+8And you think that 42% of kids born into poverty staying there their entire lives is something to be proud of?
        Gee you Americans really ignore the elephant in the room when you talk about your VALUES!
        • synapz, on 05/20/2008, -2/+4So... whats a good number for you?

          "And you think that 42% of kids born into poverty staying there their entire lives is something to be proud of?"
          "And you think that 32% of kids born into poverty staying there their entire lives is something to be proud of?"
          "And you think that 22% of kids born into poverty staying there their entire lives is something to be proud of?"
          "And you think that 12% of kids born into poverty staying there their entire lives is something to be proud of?"
          "And you think that 2% of kids born into poverty staying there their entire lives is something to be proud of?"

          Idiot.
        • bjzq8, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3What would you suggest doing about that 42%? Cash handouts? Subsidized housing? Food distribution? All of those things keep people in servitude to the government, not out working and thinking for themselves.
        • Treoinmypocket, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1That is an entirely different question isn't it.

          Read the headline again.

          Then read the supporting quote right below it.

          Then read my comment.

          Is the headline accurate? NO. The opposite is in fact true.

          What to do about those that ARE, in fact, poor is something else alltogether.
        • FairDinkumMate, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1@treoinmypocket - It's not wrong. It just doesn't provide the figures to support the statement. The gap between rich & poor is measured using the average wealth of the two - generally the top & bottom 20%. It's is mathematically impossible to not have a top 20%, so your argument is ridiculous. You're confusing the fact that 61% of people born to the top 20% don't go on to make up a part of the top 20% when they are adults with the top 20% of the country losing wealth. What the studies measure is the value of the top 20%. The fact that they are different actual people each time a study is done is irrelevant.

          @ synapz - If 0% isn't your target you're giving up too easily

          @ bjzq8 - Actually, if you are asking a serious question, then my response would be to increase the minimum wage. This helps to lift people out of poverty more than any other method & in fact also increases wealth in the middle class as well due to the flow on effects of the spending. Obviously the losers in this move are shareholders & business owners but tends to disproportionately affect corporates & large companies with bureaucracies rather than small business owners so it is also quite an effective tool in reducing a growing wealth discrepancy
        • Treoinmypocket, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1@FairDinkumMate -

          You are so busy looking for termites you can't even see the trees....

          I have no argument at all. I am simply pointing out that the title of this submission is in DIRECT CONFLICT with the supporting sub-headline.

          You cannot claim a widening gap and try to support it with minority statistics.

          This is mathematically impossible and an example of prejudicial characterization.

          This submission is patently, unequivocally fallacious.
    • TedLW30101, on 05/20/2008, -1/+0So, I guess you're saying 'the terrorists win'.
    • joe122370, on 05/20/2008, -3/+1perhaps they should get a job and quit wallowing in self pity, like the rich folks do
    • minox, on 05/20/2008, -2/+2I think your argument doesn't hold water. From what I've read, blacks actually had a higher rate of upward mobility before the civil rights movement. In fact, that statistic is the basis for the debate about the effects of the civil rights movement now. Blacks also had a higher rate of marriage compared to whites before the civil rights movement. One of the most common factors contributing to low income in black families is the surge in single parent households in the post-civil rights movement period.
  • Panzwhore, on 05/20/2008, -12/+9a large gap between rich and poor is something you see in budding capitalist societies; a capitalist society that has reached its prominent peak sees a distribution of a majority middle class and two small outliers known as lower and upper class; with new and old capitalist societies you see that the middle class is the smallest percentile. Take Russia and China for example budding new capitalist societies with massive gaps between rich and poor. This most certainly points to a regression in the American economy that might shift us towards another depression. (but we already know we are in recession, so why need point it out?)
    • Y0tsuya, on 05/20/2008, -2/+10Not true. There are plenty of developing countries with narrow income gaps that widen as they further develop. Just because you THINK things should be a certain way does not make it so.
    • ElAssoWipo, on 05/20/2008, -3/+18Ever studied USSR economics?

      Communism is the system with the biggest gap. Not even 1% of the people had 90% of the wealth.

      There's not one single thing that causes this gap. It existed before politics. It's a fact of life.

      Competence, education, life choices, availability and quality of social services, corporatism, etc. cause the gap.

      Capitalism is just a system in which you work for what you get. The entire economy goes up and down, not just the rich.

      The great depression destroyed America's bourgeois class. The only ones to stay the same in that time were farmers.

      There will always be people who do better than others. This article is basically just complaining about being a failure.

      The only thing you can do is ensure equal opportunity through social services like a free education, free healthcare and investing in talent. The rest is up to individuals.

      In many thousands of years of history, not one society has achieved equality for all (materialism wise). That's like trying to achieve equal human bodies, it just won't happen. Plus it would require fascism to implement.
      • nick111, on 05/20/2008, -3/+2USSR economics aren't as relevent as Northern European and Scandinavian economics.

        How about studying something that works?

    • minox, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1Panz, I guess you don't know the technical definition of a recession, because we aren't in one. A recession is two consecutive periods of loss in GDP. As of today we don't even have one as the economy grew modestly last quarter.
    • gforce2016, on 05/20/2008, -1/+0First of all we are not really in a recession. Stop watching tabloid news and watch and read real news. Second if someone is poor because they are lazy that is their choice.
  • homesickalien, on 05/20/2008, -9/+44How else are you going to get people to join the army?
    • ender7074, on 05/20/2008, -17/+2Patriotism, love of country, a desire to make a difference in the world... You know, everything you libs hate. It never ceaces to amaze me how you asswipes continually attack the very people that provide your ability to be an *****. Pathetic.
      • AbsurdParadox, on 05/20/2008, -1/+10Yes! Thank you for killing thousands of people in a third world country who in no way threaten my life or security!
      • FairDinkumMate, on 05/20/2008, -1/+5OK, let's go with your argument ender.
        If the reasons you listed above ARE the reasons that people join the army, then the representation of parental income brackets would be pretty even across the board in army enlistments right?
        Is it? Of course NOT!
        I love when you right wingers sprout patriotic crap just to cover up the facts like FAR MORE kids from poor families enlist than from rich families
      • synapz, on 05/20/2008, -2/+6Hmm. I served 6 years in the US Army, including a tour of duty in Iraq. I was there, along with everyone else I met, for a job. Never met anyone that could tell me with a straight face that they were doing it for "love of country."

        You'd have to visit the brainwashed Marine saps for that *****.

        I don't feel attacked, ender. Homesick is just calling it what it is.

        He's also probably under the mistaken impression that it's a result of "lack of regulation" or "greedy businessmen". It's not. It's a RESULT of government regulation. Corporations exist today because Americans allowed the GOVERNMENT to institute them. Then they handed the reigns of legislation to them and allowed them to create laws that provide a huge barrier to entry in the market. We have no free market today because of statists, not lovers of liberty.
    • fuckingusername, on 05/20/2008, -0/+5you make them strong will make them army strong
    • talonstriker, on 05/20/2008, -0/+7You get them into expensive colleges and promise to pay their tuition.
      • KingGorilla, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3which way is cheaper?
        • talonstriker, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1I suppose it depends on how much you think your life is worth.
  • slcseifist, on 05/20/2008, -13/+23Every time a get a raise the government takes a larger piece of my paycheck. What's the point in working hard to make more money if more and more of it gets taken away to "help" those that aren't.
    • ender7074, on 05/20/2008, -8/+14You seem to forget. Its not your money. I mean, you worked for it, you earned it, but it doesnt belong to you. It belongs to some scumbag welfare piece of crap thats going to go out and buy things like video games and movies with that money. Aint welfare great. Oh and dont forget about every pork barrel project that needs to be funded. Your government at work for you.
    • nick111, on 05/20/2008, -10/+3Because as societies we have a duty to provide a baseline beneath which none of our citizens fall. We have a duty to invest in our people, regardless of their circumstance. We have a duty to protect and empower - everyone, not just those that are able to consume.

      Countries that do this succeed, those that don't fail. You're failing.
      • MaynardJK, on 05/20/2008, -2/+12Then give your own ***** money to them. I need mine for my own family.
      • TedLW30101, on 05/20/2008, -1/+12So, how do you account for the fact that DESPITE all the government programs, handouts and lack of taxation on the 'poor' that they are still unable to 'succeed' (by your standards)?

        Could it be that when you create a Nanny State that provides for everything there is no incentive to try?

        What's left are the INDIVIDUALS who desire to succeed actually taking advantage of opportunities and doing it. You can't get an entire segment of population to be productive by giving them more of everything they haven't worked for.

        The answer is that the game is rigged in favor of the 'poor'. As long as you have at least a few successful 'rich' you can use that as an excuse for 'why can't everyone be millionaires'? If you want socialism I'm sure there are plenty of countries that are ready to accept you with open arms. However, don't be alarmed when they ask you to be the new dusk-to-dawn garbage collector and earn as much as someone that sits in an air conditioned office all day. After all, everyone wants the easier job but not everyone gets it. Talk about a revolution waiting to happen....
      • klco, on 05/20/2008, -2/+11Seriously its shortsighted assholes like you that have us in this situation...
        • logandurand, on 05/20/2008, -2/+2I agree, though the name-calling isn't needed here.
      • doughpro, on 05/20/2008, -1/+8Not "duty", it is a personal obligation. You want to give, then give, but don't tell people that it is their duty. Some can give more than others, but to punish people for their success and prosperity is a socialist view, not a capitalist one.
        The war on poverty has been going on for years, and apparently hasn't solved a thing. Have you ever researched the thousands and thousands of foundations built by the wealthy with the intention of providing for those less fortunate? Billions of dollars available. One reason why I don't think we need to give up such a huge portion of what we work for to help those who have come accustomed to a handout.
        The job of government is not to dictate personal obligation. Our government has seriously gone awry, and I am afraid that the younger generations have no idea just how far out of line it really has gone.
        • jhodapp, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3Couldn't agree with you more! Well said!
    • jasdf, on 05/20/2008, -8/+2Vote McCain...seriously.
    • citizen782, on 05/20/2008, -3/+6Why do you all make the "welfare" case when it comes to your taxes. Only a very, very small percentage of CITIZENS in this country use social services. To make you feel better you need to understand that a much larger percentage of your taxes are going to support an illegal war, the war on drugs, and literally hundreds of other things on the list above social services. The greatest users of these social services are not even in this country legally - they are not citizens.

      You probably think a family of 4 making $40K a year is classified as "rich" huh? No. What these studies show is that family making $80K a year can afford about what a family making $50K a year could five years ago while the investment made millionaires bank accounts are growing exponentially on an annual basis. Takes money to make money has a whole new meaning now.
      • jhodapp, on 05/20/2008, -1/+6Well considering the farm bill they just passed last week in the U.S. at about $300 billion, I'd say a good percentage of my tax money is being spent on government hand outs and subsidies. Most of that "farm" bill is going to welfare, look it up.

        Then locally, 51% of my property taxes are going to the local urban public schools that I will never utilize because the school system sucks. And they want more of my money! The problem isn't lack of funding, it's lack of competition (and thus raising the standards). These schools are stagnated.

        And don't forget about the $150 billion economic stimulus package just sent out. We borrow money at a high interest rate so we can stimulate our economy? I think that's like paying your mortgage by using a loan on your house that you don't own. It only pushes the problem off for a bit of time. Everyone who received a stimulus check is using social services. That's gotta be at least 50% of the U.S. population.
        • korvan504521, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2couldn't agree more about the public school system. it's a disaster, and all the government can think to do is throw more money at it. fancy new buildings and computers don't educate, hard work and books do. If men were able to get to the moon with slide rules and a chalk board, I really don't think we need to bother with computers and calculators for failing schools. The equipment isn't the problem, the administration and the system is.
          We need to study the science of education, and improve the methods we use. Making students "feel good" certainly hasn't worked. Lets go back to rewarding success and punishing failure.
    • famebait, on 05/20/2008, -5/+4Good question. Try living on welfare and report back what you find out.
      • bungoman, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3You're not supposed to *live* off welfare.
      • slcseifist, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3I don't need to live on welfare. I have a job. A job a work hard to keep. A job that is based on a skill Ive been working hard to develop since I was 11 years old. I work 60 hours a work, always do everything I can to stay ahead of the game and be the best at what I do. I never let up because I know if I do my son won't be taken care of. I will never have to live on welfare because of that fact.
  • Pyroteknik, on 05/20/2008, -9/+20http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/s ...

    Or, maybe it isn't.
    • cdigioia, on 05/20/2008, -1/+7I prefer my information from no-name sources that feed me sound bites I've heard before & are comfortable with, thank you very much.
    • bobbarkerbilly, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3I really enjoy Mr. Levitt's works, but I see one major left out problem in this piece. Cheap, low quality food and goods should really be a negative factor. Buy bad food, pay more for your health. Buy bad goods, pay more for replacements.
    • ZenMojo, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1That wasn't a flawed argument at all. (I hate social studies in a vacuum.) The cheapest items that Americans buy aren't necessarily getting cheaper. Gas, food, bread, milk, eggs, all of these are growing MORE expensive, not less expensive. Wal-Mart sells gas, food, bread, milk, and eggs at the same prices as every other store, often at far higher prices.

      As someone who has shopped at Wal-Mart for much of his life, I will say that Wal-Mart is seriously overrated. What Wal-Mart sells at cheaper prices are CLOTHES and it makes its gains at the margins, not with bargain-basement prices. And before Wal-Mart, we had K-Mart and Target and they had prices just as competitive as Wal-Mart.

      The fact is, Wal-Mart hasn't really lowered prices for Americans that much. We are really talking about two dollars off of a $17 pair of pants. Meanwhile, JC Penney's and Sears are the stores providing 50% off sales. The myth of the Wal-Mart low-price juggernaut is a boueurgois invention because those people never shop there.

      And if the low-cost retail store has made things easier for us, then you really have to go back to the 70's and 80's.

      Besides, Wal-Mart had not even penetrated the poorest markets until the turn of the century. As a friend from West Virginia recalled, 2002 was a banner year for W Va because most people in her state had never even SEEN a Wal-Mart.

      So the Wal-Mart argument is a false exception and kind of an ignorant thing to base your thesis on.
      • cdigioia, on 05/20/2008, -0/+0Where do you live? I've always found Wal*Mart to be substantially less expensive for foods (including bread, eggs, & milk). At least on the west coast. I don't know about gasoline...

        They're clothes are very inexpensive too, not sure if they're worth it, but very inexpensive...

        I didn't know that about West Virginia - however, it's a bit off to claim it hadn't had a very large impact, nor to downplay it's penetration just because of WV. It's generally accepted that the existence of WalMart (by most economists - unless you're with Hillary & don't cast your lot with them?) that WalMart has reduced inflation through it's existance/practices.

        I'm not arguing whether WalMart is overall good or bad, but it certainly has lowered prices, that's not too debatable @ this point.
  • dildoolielly, on 05/20/2008, -17/+22The current Gov't agenda serves only big business and the rich at the expense of the common citizen and the environment in which we live.

    Meanwhile, as the dollar tanks, the bigwigs are starting to buy up land and infrastructure at rock bottom prices, and people are having to sell them to them or face foreclosure. The rich are getting richer and the middle class are joining the bottom of the heap to become serfs and peons. The only other class left will be the newly created criminals and the over-serfs that are the police to enforce the master's rule.

    And they'll probably call it something catchy... like a New World Order...or ROme
    • ender7074, on 05/20/2008, -7/+2What a strange world you live in. Nothing like the real one. Must be nice there.
  • 808ethan, on 05/20/2008, -15/+6There is the element that the bottom fifth parents just taught their kids jesus and nothing else. Its pretty hard to get a lucrative job when every sentence contains 'praise jesus' and no thought. Sad thing is in america intelligence requires $$$
    • thanakar, on 05/20/2008, -1/+7Religion and wealth are not mutually exclusive, no matter what you think.
    • ender7074, on 05/20/2008, -6/+4Yet another narrow minded opinion from the "open minded" left. Religion doesnt have ***** to do with wealth. Get over yourself.
      • sqwirl, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1Nor does it have anything to do with 'left'.
    • frankengeek, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3Nothing wrong with praising Jesus. I fail to see why that would keep kids from getting a good job. Getting a good job takes work. Trouble with kids today is they think we deserve things and use money to buy their way out.
    • Anonchrist, on 05/20/2008, -1/+4I will agree that his presentation was poor, but he has a point. I grew up in a poor neighborhood and everyone was told that their only salvation came through giving their money away and devoting their lives to the church. I do not think anyone in that neighborhood had a "good book" that taught economics. Instead I heard that "it is easier for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to inherited the kingdom of heaven." The point being, impoverished Christians think that praying is more important than learning skills that will build a better future and in some instances that God will deliver them from their trouble. How many of you really think that these people do not confuse that desire to achieve more in life with greed... Religion can be a dangerous thing when it is forced upon a child without a proper education.

      The person that left the comment was not referring to all Christians; he was referring to Christians that teach their kids "jesus and nothing else."



      • 808ethan, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Exactly what I meant. There are plenty of ass kicking billionaire christians. Usually the people who say 'praise jesus' in random sentences do that because they don't know other things. Making people ignorant but religious is a tool of power hording older than paper.
  • bakkouz, on 05/20/2008, -8/+9This is the case all over the world, not only in America. Blessings of the new world order which does exactly that, dissolve the middle class and make the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
  • Treoinmypocket, on 05/20/2008, -6/+39Sooooooo....the Economic Mobility Project finds that 58 percent of children born to parents in the bottom fifth of income distribution rise out of the bottom, and 61 percent born to parents in the top fifth fall out of the top.

    SO how is this "gap" widening again? Because widening ...i'm going out on a limb here and actually go by something called a "definition" ....would mean that, in the context of this group, the poorest and richest were growing.....APART....as in further away from each other....right?

    Yet this study just found that more of the poor are getting richer and more of the rich are getting poorer....

    Maybe we don't use the same dictionary.
    • d0d0burd, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3Lies, damn lies and statistics.
      • Treoinmypocket, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Thank you Prime Minister Disraeli...
    • konamicode, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3This is a case of poor submitting. The article itself doesn't make a claim that the gap is widening, just that a gap exists and people are concerned ("The gap between rich and poor has grown worrisome to many of us, including those charged with national economic policy").

      I would love to see some information about the distribution of wealth over time. Does anyone know where to find that?
    • gryphon50, on 05/20/2008, -5/+2more wealth is concentrated in the upper tiers. For instance, right now a third of all wealth in the U.S. is in hands of the top 1%. I don't think that is too hard to understand.
      • AlexanderCurtis, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2Wait..so more wealth is in the hands of the people who are the WEALTHIEST? You just blew my mind. Write a book about this.
    • Scrollfx, on 05/20/2008, -2/+2The income gap = income of the rich - income of the poor. This gap is getting bigger because the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

      If the children get out of being poor, then they are no longer defined as poor and you would take them out of the poor income calculation. So what the article saying makes sense.
      • ZenMojo, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Rudimentary math.

        58% of impoverished people move into the lower-income bracket. 42% of impoverished people will be impoverished forever.

        Some portion of the lower-income bracket falls INTO poverty and a larger proportion of the middle-class falls into the lower-income brackets.

        Meanwhile, the rich and extremely rich consolidate wealth.

        No more middle class.
    • TantrooM, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Ah someone else caught that too, I'll say like I said above.

      The only way it is possible to have these statistics and prove the gap is growing, is IF and ONLY IF the positions of these tiers are growing apart further respectively. The rich considered to have more, and the poor considered to be poorer.

      Meaning, if having 50 Billion + was top tear in 1990s, and the kids 'falling' still make 50 Billion, then they are no poorer then their parents, just the top tear is now 100 Billion+, so they fall to 2nd. Likewise if having $200 made you poor back then, and $20 makes you poor now, then you can have $200 and go from poor to lower middle.
  • pentupentropy, on 05/20/2008, -8/+2This is not surprising. If you want a good book, though some figures are outdated, look up "The Super Rich: The Emerging World of Global Capitalization"
    • Treoinmypocket, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3Perhaps instead of reading the headline you could look at the supporting figures...if you did you might realize that despite the headline, this article actually says this:

      58 percent of children born to parents in the bottom fifth of income distribution rise out of the bottom
  • fuhcough, on 05/20/2008, -8/+3This just in... the sky is blue.
  • LukasSmith, on 05/20/2008, -21/+16Wah Wah hippies. Lets try a new outlook. One that isn't soo emo-ish. Like 58 percent of kids grow up to get out of the bottom 1/5 of this nations earners. Or 59 percent of rich kids get poorer after their parents die off. But no you say doom and gloom. Must write dark poetry and contemplate suicide because the world is a dark and horrible place. Seriously hippies if you think you have it bad go to India. Learn how being poor isn't just for a few years. Its for life. And your chances of ever getting more money are 0.
    • LukasSmith, on 05/20/2008, -7/+3P.S When people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett finally die off and leave all their money to Africa or whatever we will no longer be the country with the top richest persons in the world. And I think very unlikely with the improving economies around the globe that we will produce any more Bill Gates or Buffetts. So rest at ease hippies. The day of the mega rich American will end. And the new dawn will bring foreign billionaires that will make American billionaires look like peasants. Oh yeah and Africa will be saved. Yeah a great hippie dream come true.
  • kittynipples, on 05/20/2008, -6/+8I prefer to read things by people who actually know what they are talking about, rather than listening to mindless zombies on the Internets.

    http://tinyurl.com/4etf5l
  • maldovix, on 05/20/2008, -6/+12The gap is widening, but sometimes that isn't a bad thing. The bottom isn't falling out in the US, the ceiling is only getting higher.
    • punkcat, on 05/20/2008, -2/+3hush, now get me my slippers.
    • nick111, on 05/20/2008, -2/+2Did you see what happened after Katrina?

      That was the bottom falling out.
      • D0m0kun, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3And then they all got nifty, untraceable compensation checks and moved to my neighborhood increasing crime and bringing down property values left and right.

        The bottom needs education, not hand outs.
  • unpolloloco, on 05/20/2008, -7/+9That's what happens when the government keeps bailing out/protecting companies - the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
    • nick111, on 05/20/2008, -1/+4Well no, that's what happens when the government privatises vital infrastructure. When it fails, we the people have to underwrite it. We don't have a choice.

      If we shoulder the costs, then we should own the infrastructure.

      It isn't government that's the problem, it's privatisation.
      • unpolloloco, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1In the act of privatizing infrastructure, the government typically makes monopoly situations because it sells the entire thing to one buyer, rather than auctioning off segments. Furthermore, in those situations, the government still retains significant control over the sectors, preventing other companies from coming in. The US power grid is a perfect example of this.
  • festman, on 05/20/2008, -5/+17What the article fails to mention is that the definition of poverty is changing. Living conditions of the poor are improving, while I doubt that there are huge improvements in living conditions for the rich as compared to say, 50 years ago.

    I still don't understand why the gap even if it's widening is a problem. We should consider each p