washingtonmonthly.com — "If middle-class income had merely kept pace with economic growth, your $32,000 job would instead be paying you $52,000. But it's not. And the reason is that virtually all of the economic growth of the past three decades has been funneled into the pockets of the well-off, the rich, and the super-rich."
Sep 5, 2006 View in Crawl 4
appleann1Sep 5, 2006
You people can't even stand it when the economy is roaring.
tubatechnoSep 5, 2006
My pay isn't going up. Its not my fault. They just need to pay me more, I shouldn't have to do anything.People go on a tangent about how much CEOs make compared to the "average" worker. It doesn't matter that they've lead the company to grow 5x in the past 10 years, its not fair for them to have a higher income!
gr8oneSep 6, 2006
@bemenakerAll I'm trying to say is that it's a waste of time trying to place the financial problems of the masses on the rich because I personally don't think the rich care. Therefore they're not going to do anything about it and they happen to be the only ones with enough clout to change the system.So for me personally, I'm going to do crazy things like live on WAY less than I make, save and invest like crazy, drive a beater instead of a beamer, work an extra job, not borrow money... Is it fair that it will take all that while other people have so much given to them? Maybe not, but instead of complaining about it, I'm going to do something about it that's actually going to help instead of just making me feel better.
kylesellersSep 6, 2006
Obviously, we should raise the minimum wage. Afterall, greasy haired teenage punks who drool on themselves should be making at least enough to stay above the poverty line (working part time). Oh yeah, and throw in some healthcare coverage for them too.This message brought to you be Ted Keneddy.
Closed AccountSep 6, 2006
Let's give 3 cheers for Ayn Rand!
myhappyclamSep 6, 2006
Of course it is possibly inaccurate. Anything anyone says is possibly inaccurate, especially when it comes to politics. Why don't you check the facts yourself and go to <a class="user" href="http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/250.html">http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/250.html</a> and see who pays the majority of the federal income tax and while you are at it look at the other articles about income tax (especially the one about those who don't pay any tax and how they are growing causing the rest of us to pay even more tax).
crispytownSep 6, 2006
I didn't know all rich people are Rep. There are many many Dem whom are rich as well. What load of Sh*t this article is.
tarvokSep 7, 2006
The thing is, it isn't "Democrats" or "Republicans" who are causing this phenomenon. Certainly, Republicans make matters worse by actively redistributing tax dollars to the rich (through corporate subsidies, increased "defense" spending, and interest payments on the public debt that "Regan proved don't matter" (Dick Cheney)). Democrats manage to hold it back... by holding back economic growth by ill-advised central management schemes. Neither is any kind of solution.The problem is a simple matter of supply and demand. The amount of wealth produced goes up over time (technological advancement and capital investment), and the number of workers goes up (population growth). Consider this and "increase in supply." Then there is that last aspect of classical economics that does not increase over time: land. As the quantity of labor and capital increase via economic growth, their value go down relative to the value of land.Workers used to get paid more--relative to everybody else. They then then used to put their money in a savings account, and earn far more in interest than we do today. As time goes by, the earnings of the average worker might increase slightly, but its nothing compared to the earnings the the wealthiest. Why?Never mind those of extraordinary new fortune, like Bill Gates. Look around your own town, and find those who are at the top of the socio-economic ladder. I think you will find that they are those who own the most land value, whether they own the actual land in the town, or own it by proxy by owning stocks in companies that own their own land. This is NOT a coincidence.It is the same class oppressing us today as back in the very old days: the landowners. They've managed to hide this fact by hiding their ability to charge the rest of us rent for the right to exist in the word "capital." But land is not capital, and rent is not interest (however they show it in the balance sheet). The true capitalist is the very engine of the economy. The so-called "capitalist" who gets most of his living via passive rent-collection is the parasite, and it is to him that we should direct our ire.
unpopulardudeSep 8, 2006
I'm probably what most people would consider well-off. I wasn't always that way. My first job was minimum wage burger flipper. My parents were/are middle class. As somebody who has been through most of the income range, you know what bothers me? People getting paid poorly to help shorten other people's lives and make them fat by working at fast food restaurants. No McDonald's here. And I tip the people who make the fresh food at deli I go to a lot. They have a jar next to the register, and I don't get why the other highly compensated people usually give them no tip. Is giving them the 60 cents in change such a problem?