Seeking Alpha

I don't need to explain anything. And it has illuminated the widening divide between most of America and the super-rich. economy . . . " . . . they said, America was composed of two distinct groups: the rich and the rest. . . All the action in the American economy was at the top: the richest 1 percent of households earned as much each year as the bottom 60 percent put together; they possessed as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent; and with each passing year, a greater share of the nation's treasure was flowing through their hands and into their pockets. . . a term for this state of affairs: plutonomy."In a plutonomy. . . "economic growth is powered by and largely consumed by the wealthy few." ". . . The consumer recovery, such as it is, appears to be driven by the affluent, not by the masses. Three years after the crash of 2008, the rich and well educated are putting the recession behind them. The rest of America is stuck in neutral or reverse."Income inequality usually shrinks during a recession, but in the Great Recession, it didn't. From 2007 to 2009, the most-recent years for which data are available, it widened . . . ". . . high earners have come back strong. In 2009, the country's top 25 hedge-fund managers earned $25 billion among them-more than they had made in 2007, before the crash . . ."It's hard to miss just how unevenly the Great Recession has affected different classes of people in different places. From 2009 to 2010, wages were essentially flat nationwide-but they grew by 11.9 percent in Manhattan and 8.7 percent in Silicon Valley. In Miami and Detroit, by contrast, for every job posting, six people were unemployed." . . . The ease with which the rich and well educated have shrugged off the recession shouldn't be surprising; strong winds have been at their backs for many years. The recession, meanwhile, has restrained wage growth and enabled faster restructuring and offshoring, leaving many corporations with lower production costs and higher profits-and their executives with higher pay." . . . [in] several recent financial crises . . . the rich have usually strengthened their economic position. . . . the middle class suffered depressed income for a long time after the crisis, while the top 1 percent were able to protect themselves-using their cash reserves to buy up assets very cheaply once the market crashed, and emerging from crisis with a significantly higher share of assets and income than they'd had before. "I think we've seen the same thing, to some extent, in the United States" since the 2008 crash, he told me. "Mr. Buffett has been investing.""The rich seem to be on the road to recovery," buy wow weapons . . . while those in the middle [class], especially those who've lost their jobs, "might be permanently hit." Coming out of the deep recession of the early 1980s . . . "you saw an increase in inequality … as the rich bounced back, and unionized labor never again found jobs that paid as well as the ones they'd had. And what will be left is a hard and a pure market," with the many paid less than before, and the few paid even better-a plutonomy strengthened in the crucible of the post-crash years."The Culling of the Middle Class" . . . the most important economic trend in the United States over the past couple of generations has been the ever more distinct sorting of Americans into winners and losers, and the slow hollowing-out of the middle class. " . . . The Great Recession has quantitatively but not qualitatively changed the trend toward employment polarization" in the United States, wrote the MIT economist David Autor in a 2010 white paper. Job losses have been "far more severe in middle-skilled white- and blue-collar jobs than in either high-skill, white-collar jobs or in low-skill service occupations."" . . . society. "Can the Middle Class Be Saved?". . . Since 1993, more than half of the nation's income growth has been captured by the top 1 percent of earners, and the gains have grown larger over time: . . . Nearly 2 million people started college in 2002-1,630 of them at Harvard-but among them only Mark Zuckerberg is worth more than $10 billion today; the rise of the super-elite is not a product of educational differences. In part, it is a natural outcome of widening markets and technological revolution, which are creating much bigger winners much faster than ever before-a result that's not even close to being fully played out, and one reinforced strongly by the political influence that great wealth brings . . . ". . . America's classes are separating and changing. A tiny elite continues to float up and away from everyone else. . . ". . . The true center of American society has always been its nonprofessionals-high-. graduates who didn't go on to get a bachelor's degree make up 58 percent of the adult population. And as manufacturing jobs and semiskilled office positions disappear, much of this vast, nonprofessional middle class is drifting downward . . .". . . A cultural chasm-which did not exist 40 years ago and which was still relatively small 20 years ago-has developed between the traditional middle class and the top 30 percent of society . . .". . . the growing cultural gulf between highly educated Americans and the rest of society. . . . American communities have become ever more finely sorted by affluence. . . ". . . while most Americans believe that opportunity is widespread in the United States, and that success is primarily a matter of individual intelligence and skill, the reality is . . . class was stickier among those born to parents who were either rich or poor . . . rags-to-riches stories [are] extremely rare."A thinner middle class, in itself, means fewer stepping stones available to people born into low-income families. If the economic and cultural trends under way continue unabated, class mobility will likely decrease in the future, and class divides may eventually grow beyond our ability to bridge them.". . . Momentum alone suggests years of trouble for the middle class."Changing the Path of the American Economy". . . economy. employed 19 percent of all private-sector workers in 2007, earned 25 percent of gross private-sector profits, and paid out 25 percent of all private-sector wages. They also accounted for nearly three-quarters of the nation's private-sector R spending. Since 1990, they've been responsible for 31 percent of the growth in real GDP."Yet for all their outsize presence, multinationals have been puny as engines of job creation. labor productivity-but just 11 percent of private-sector job gains. economy has become from the larger global economy-and these figures neatly illustrate two larger points . . . something has nonetheless gone wrong with the way America's economy has evolved in response to increasingly dense global connections.". . . even in boom times, many more people than we would care to acknowledge won't have the education, skills, or abilities to prosper in a pure and globalized market, shaped by enormous labor reserves in China, India, and other developing countries. Over the next decade or more, even if national economic growth is strong, what we do to help and support moderately educated Americans may well determine whether the United States remains a middle-class country.". . . in the next decade or more, a larger proportion of Americans may need to take work in occupations that have historically required little skill and paid low wages . . . from 1999 to 2007, low-skill jobs grew substantially as a share of all jobs in the United States. And while the lion's share of jobs lost during the recession were middle-skill jobs, job growth since then has been tilted steeply toward the bottom of the economy; according to a survey by the National Employment Law Project, three-quarters of American job growth in 2010 came within industries paying, on average, less than $15 an hour. . .". . . extreme income inequality causes a cultural separation that is unhealthy on its face and corrosive over time. And the most-powerful economic forces of our times will likely continue to concentrate wealth at the top of society and to put more pressure on the middle. It is hard to imagine an adequate answer to the problems we face that doesn't involve greater redistribution of wealth.". . . the United States has expected less and less of its elite, even as society has oriented itself in a way that is most likely to maximize their income. The top income-tax rate was 91 percent in 1960, 70 percent in 1980, 50 percent in 1986, and 39.6 percent in 2000, and is now 35 percent. Income from investments is taxed at a rate of 15 percent. The estate tax has been gutted."High earners should pay considerably more in taxes than they do now. Top tax rates of even 50 percent for incomes in the seven-figure range would still be considerably lower than their level throughout the boom years of the post-war era, and should not be out of the question-nor should an estate-tax rate of similar size, for large estates." . . . The rich have not become that way while living in a vacuum. Technological advance, freer trade, and wider markets-along with the policies that promote them-always benefit some people and harm others. Economic theory is quite clear that the winners gain more than the losers lose, and therefore the people who suffer as a result of these forces can be fully compensated for their losses-society as a whole still gains. government policy for 30 years. Yet in practice, the losers are seldom compensated . . . ". . . some of the policies that have most benefited the rich have little to do with greater competition or economic efficiency. Fortunes on Wall Street have grown so large in part because of implicit government protection against catastrophic losses, combined with the steady elimination of government measures to limit excessive risk-taking, from the 1980s right on through the crash of 2008."As America's winners have been separated more starkly from its losers, the idea of compensating the latter out of the pockets of the former has met stiff resistance: . . . many elites have pushed policies that benefit them, by touting theoretical gains to society-then ruled out measures that would distribute those gains widely."Even as we continue to strive to perfect the meritocracy . . . built-in advantages and disadvantages may be growing. And the concentration of wealth in relatively few hands opens the possibility that much of the next generation's elite might achieve their status through inheritance, not hard or innovative work.". . . The strongest forces of our time are naturally divisive; absent a wide-ranging effort to constrain them, economic and cultural polarization will almost surely continue."But few Americans, no matter their class, will be eager for that outcome. It is really just a matter of sense of equity and justice. I think it's reached a pathetic low, and I'm not going to waste my time on such people.

All of your "questions" are not questions at all, but statements meant to express an opinion (not fact). But just one example:"Should the government subsidize oil companies that earn billions in profits while clean energy alternatives languish."The oil companies make billions - yes, so does Apple and hundreds of other megacorps - and many have special tax breaks, most of them far more than the oil companies do. I have never figured out this fascination of the Left with "big evil oil companies". And also to sell Atlantic magazines. I seen very similair stories from Atlantic back in the mid 1980's about the demise of manufacturing and the middle class so this is a common theme. This funded a lot of retirement accounts and would have worked wonders for the SSA fund if they would have been partially invested in it. When looking at income inequality not every household should be in the analysis. Unemployed, students and retired should be taken out as they skew the numbers and are not productive. Making the assumption that the same group of people are in the same income groups each year is also a common mistake. People in peak earning years will not remain there as they leave the workforce. And assuming that high incomes equates to wealth is another mistake. Finally $100K in NYC is not much while $100K in Tulsa is great so standard of living is the real measure or at least adjust for cost of living. Companies have no role in hamstringing their own results in order to benefit people who did not invest their hard-earned capital in said companies.

Hi Web,Looks like you can think clearly and do buy wow weapons math. He was the son of a share cropper who worked on a farm - owned by an absentee landlord. And I do understand fair share.

Very well said PlaydohGlobe, and congrats for making it to the 1%. You have a heart as well as a mind, and America needs more people like you at this dark hour. Serious questions about the fairness of capitalism are being raised. These are driven by sharp increases in unemployment beyond the business cycle - one in six of American men between 25 and 54 is likely to be out of work even after the economy recovers - combined with dramatic rises in the share of income going to the top 1% (and even the top 0.01%) of the population and declining social mobility. Their favorite target of course is the "big oil companies", but for some reason they always fail to mention the 100's of thousands of jobs in those corporations. "The idea that American has fewer 'good paying jobs' now is likewise a myth." Somewhere you are sheltered under a rock or living in a cave disconnected from the 46 mm Americans on food stamps. Your statement is so far from reality. Do five minutes of research about wages over last 10 years. Good grief!"The way to increase wages is to increase economic growth." It should work that way, but it doesn't. The corp KEEPS more profits in reserves (as they are doing NOW and have for last three years) and the CEO's continue to pay themselves tens of millions as they tell the "workers" about how difficult the economic environment is and how they should just feel "lucky" to have a job regardless of what it pays. This is classic broken 1980's style thinking. Jump on board, the new millennium is waiting.

Big oil is only part of the problem. The unregulated investment banks are at the core. Why would GS and MS be the biggest buyers of oil futures when they use no wow gold oil? Each time you go to the pump, you can assume that a big % of the retail prcie is going toward the salaries of the investment bankers that have bid up the futures prices. Think I'm wrong, research who bought the most oil in USA last year. Go further and compare 2007 peak brent price with USA national average gas prices, then compare those same prices to where we are today. Right, it doesn't add up. Who is making more off the big spread- refiners no, transports no, retail no, big oil and investment banks.

What's truly sad to me are not all the ignorant comments from SA commenters. I expect that. Money is just a medium of exchange. Passing money around does not make a society richer. If that was true (and I hate to bring this example up) then Zimbabwe would be the richest country on Earth. Producing more is what makes a country richer.

Or we could get real, and attack the real problem in this country (that no one really wants to talk about), the tax code. While those workers at Micky D's probably don't pay Federal and State taxes, we consumers do. And the thought that wow gold I have to pay more in percentage than Mitt sucks. A better tax code (flatter and fairer) would do a world of good in bringing this country back. Many of you remember the Dream. Well, that dream has turned into a nightmare for my kids and grandkids. We are printing fiat money they will never be able to pay back. Face it, the 1%, and even the .01% own us. And the only way out I see is with a better tax code. The outcome?You can keep repeating all this growth/work harder/do more stuff all you like. and then wonder why you can't find anything worth a long term investment in this market. In part, that's why we stumbled into this subprime debilitated economy - greedy corporate culture and governments have drained away opportunity.

I think that they should allow people from third world countries as guest workers to work at WMT, MCD and SBUX at $1.50 per hour. There are at least 200 mliion people in India alone that will be willing to take up that job, and to do it without any complaints. The jobs aren´t coming back, companies no longer need that many workers, simple as that, let´s enjoy trading while capitalism (or whatever you want to call it) still exists, because I personally don´t think people around the world can go another 15-20 years with rising unemployment, increasing wealth gap from interest payers to interest recipients. Or we can put everyone to work on digging a ditch, then pay the person behind them to cover it up, rinse and repeat.

The agricultural sector has been bleeding jobs for the past 100+ years. It didn't cause massive unemployment. People took factor jobs or service jobs in the cities. We've had rapid technological innovation for 300+ years. Once again, the world didn't come to an end. People developed new skills and took different jobs. The only thing that creates long-term unemployment is market interventions that prevent labor and capital from coming together at optimal terms, based on the idea that a few bureaucrats know how to solve issues better than the market participants themselves.

It is actually worse than it might appear. It was not that long ago that a kid could get his first taste of business selling warm lemonade. Now they would get arrested for not having a $5,000 health permit and food inspection. A taxi license in NYC costs over $100,000. And it goes on and on. I need a long school and a license to be a barber. By intentionally intervening in wow items the economy to favor manufacturing jobs, they've created a mass of low-skill, low-pay jobs and they've prevented their service sector from developing more fully. All the while, they've created a massive real estate bubble that makes America's look tiny in comparison. I'm always amused by people who criticize the American economy for providing 'low-wage jobs', but then praise China. That's like saying that the Soviet Union does an excellent job at creating civil liberties while Denmark does not. When you sit down and analyze the claim, it becomes laughable on its face. This bizarre fetish people have for China and its disastrous economic model is truly puzzling. Having and driving a car2. Having a heated and cooled apartment/house3. As much food as they can eat4. Healthcare insurance or free care at a emergency roomIn the rest of the world, when you have a low or zero skilled job, you live in a slum, starve, sweat, shiver and die of common diseases caused by malnutrition. The average low skilled American gets so much for having NO skills and still is not satisfied. Do high school dropouts making coffee and burgers expect want $15/hour? Are they really that productive? Would they then expect raises on this amount each year? Jesus, no wonder, I don't hire anyone except as a contractor.

Seems to me EVERY American has a long-term interest in maintaining our good lifestyle. The current path is the wrong path. Unsustainable debt, 600 billion trade gap, endless entitlements. We better reach a happy medium very soon or we'll be having a bad day of reckoning. The corp need to pay more to those lower level employees that deserve it. The hand-outs to those not deserving them need to stop. Raise taxes on everyone. Cut services and entitlements. Agree to pay more for American made goods. Create an energy plan. The solutions are a plenty, but most are too self-interested to place priority of the entire country over themselves.

I have family members that run franchise restaurants. And they have to get rid of a lot of them as they don't want to work and want to tell everyone else wh
More articles come from the:http://www.buywowgold.nl/guide