US wealth gap among world's highest

US wealth gap among world's highest
Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:26:00 GMT
A UN report has warned that the high rate of inequality in American cities could cause widespread social unrest and increased mortality.

The annual State of the World's cities report from UN-Habitat, found that New York was the ninth most unequal city in world, the Guardian reported on Thursday.

Atlanta, New Orleans, Washington, and Miami were not far behind, with rankings similar to those of the Kenyan capital Nairobi, and Ivory Coast's Abidjan. Other US cities did not fare any better, as their inequality levels were higher than the internationally recognized acceptable 'alert' line.

"High levels of inequality can lead to negative social, economic and political consequences that have a destabilizing effect on societiesâ?¦ [They] create social and political fractures that can develop into social unrest and insecurity." said the report.

The report also showed that race is one of the most determining factors that impacts inequality in the United States and Canada.

"In western New York state nearly 40 % of the black, Hispanic and mixed-race households earned less than USD 15,000 compared with 15% of white households. The life expectancy of African-Americans in the US is about the same as that of people living in China and some states of India, despite the fact that the US is far richer than the other two countries," it said.

Disparities of wealth were measured according to an internationally recognized measure called the "Gini co-efficient."

The report indicated that the in richer countries a fewer percentage of people controlled the larger portion of wealth.

"It is clear that social tension comes from inequality. The trickle down theory [that wealth starts with the rich] has not delivered. Inequality is not good for anybody," head of UN-Habitat Anna Tibaijuka said in London on Wednesday.

The report also showed that equality levels were the highest in Beijing, just ahead of cities such the Indonesian capital Jakarta and Dire Dawa in Ethiopia.

Gee... could it be that Trickle Down economics that we've enshrined ever since the 1980's just doesn't work? Could it be that shifting the tax burden from the highest income levels and putting more of it on the lower and middle income tax payers just might have been a bad idea? Nah... couldn't be... must just be a coincidence. Look out - here come all the replies about how any effort to correct this is "socialist" and such. (And yet they seem surprised and just can't figure out why Obama is winning... funny that)

hahaha I expect American Dad type of responds to this kind of news. like the sarcasm used in the post above! :P

This is just another source showing what we have known for years --- the middle class in America is shrinking, the lower class is growing, and the difference in the proportion of wealth controlled by the upper class versus the lower class is increasing. If the trend continues, we will be like some of these third-world plutocracies in which the very few very wealthy control all the wealth and the governemnt as well, while the vast majority own nothing and work for a pitance. The key to American success has always been a strong middle class. As that goes away, so does the strength of this nation, and its stability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

This is just another source showing what we have known for years --- the middle class in America is shrinking, the lower class is growing, and the difference in the proportion of wealth controlled by the upper class versus the lower class is increasing. If the trend continues, we will be like some of these third-world plutocracies in which the very few very wealthy control all the wealth and the governemnt as well, while the vast majority own nothing and work for a pitance. The key to American success has always been a strong middle class. As that goes away, so does the strength of this nation, and its stability.

---

funny u say this. 70% of our GDP is traditionally driven by CONSUMER SPENDING and i betcha most of these consumers nor their spendings are not among the wealthiest few percent of the population, capitalism will die at the hands of those who so firmly stand for it, due to blindness and too much pride!:(

who is so firmly standing for capitalism?

it's not the bankers and traders anymore...they're the ones begging for socialism now...the auto manufacturers will probably line up for the too-big-to-fail bailout next...the war profiteers never really stood on their own two feet

ironically, fabulously rich hollywood liberals might be among last capitalists who aren't begging for a government handout before this economic crisis works it's way through the system

The big auto makers have been calling for the need for a health care system on par with the rest of the industrialized world for many years - retirement benefits and health care make up a significant portion of their expenses that overseas competitors don't have to deal with. That was one of the stated reasons that Toyota closed an Ohio plant and moved it to Canada - the cost of operations in a country without a national health care system were simply too high to allow them to effectively compete.

i remember the reaction to toyota's health care excuse: canada is illegally subsidizing industry with universal health care

Hah! That's cute - Providing basic human rights is illegally subsidizing. That's just beautiful, only in America folks - Only In America.:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IAmKowalski

Hah! That's cute - Providing basic human rights is illegally subsidizing. That's just beautiful, only in America folks - Only In America.:s4:

---

That's the thing dude, too many people differ on exactly what human rights are. I might be biased when I say this, but I feel that Republicans (the fake ones around now, anyway) do not feel that health-care is a right, and that people are on their own, even when it's the government who's screwing them. Same when it comes to money; if you're poor, you better figure a way out of it, because we wont help you. If you're rich, you probably deserve it, and shouldn't feel obligated (morally or otherwise) to give any of it to people who either NEED it or REALLY deserve it. Of course, I'm of a mind that if you're rich you should be giving a minimum of half your income away, but I guess that's socialist. Eh, I can live with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texas grass

"It is clear that social tension comes from inequality. The trickle down theory [that wealth starts with the rich] has not delivered. Inequality is not good for anybody," head of UN-Habitat Anna Tibaijuka said in London on Wednesday.

---

Anna Tibaijuka can take a slow boat back to Tanzania, where she came from - and take the entire NYC United Nations world headquarters with her. They're nothing more than a bunch of stooges. Who needs to hear this shit? If Tibaijuka cared about horrible human suffering, she'd concentrate on Africa and other places that we try to help with foreign aid and many other methods.

"if you're rich you should be giving a minimum of half your income away"

- what do you consider rich, and to whom should rich people be giving half their money? half seems like an awful lot of money to be giving away...mansions and mercedes don't grow on trees ya know!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IAmKowalski

The big auto makers have been calling for the need for a health care system on par with the rest of the industrialized world for many years - retirement benefits and health care make up a significant portion of their expenses that overseas competitors don't have to deal with. That was one of the stated reasons that Toyota closed an Ohio plant and moved it to Canada - the cost of operations in a country without a national health care system were simply too high to allow them to effectively compete.

---

its defined as "overhead" the main obstacle that has crippled our "industry" in the past few decades and has reduced it to ailing aerospace and auto industries only as our last remaining national industries... we got no other major industry capable of competing @ a global level anymore (yeah, military and some advanced technologies, but those are kind of exclusive to our own use, plus we're not the only ones with these 2 out there, competition is tough)

the competition for the defence industry isn't that tough...as you noted, they have exclusive access to a captive domestic market worth a few hundred billion dollars per year with annual increases that exceed the rate of inflation by multiple factors...on top of that, a significant chunk of US foreign aid is linked to military/security so they get that cut too...that's some serious wealth distribution!


The Trillion-Dollar Defense Budget Is Already Here: Newsroom: The Independent Institute

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maladroit

"if you're rich you should be giving a minimum of half your income away"

- what do you consider rich, and to whom should rich people be giving half their money? half seems like an awful lot of money to be giving away...mansions and mercedes don't grow on trees ya know!

---

I think Obama has it pretty right, 250K a year is pretty damn rich. I'd probably make those folks give 1/3 away. From 500K and up should be half, minimum. People simply do not need that much money.

it's true: people do not *need* that much money, but taking half of the income of rich people seems extreme...1/3 seems about right to me, but the middle class has to pull it's share of the taxpayers burden too...the politicians are always promising to cut taxes and hand out pork, but they never practice fiscal restraint from their side...thanks to that logic from both parties, the national debt is soaring at an unprecendented rate now with even worse debt problems coming down the pipeline, so everyone is going to have to make sacrifices (not just rich people)...the main problem i have with obama is that he is going to increase the national debt by at least $3 trillion...that's still better than mccain who will increase the national debt by $5 trillion...it has been established that both candidates are going to screw america - now we're just haggling over the price

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texas grass

US wealth gap among world's highest
Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:26:00 GMT
A UN report has warned that the high rate of inequality in American cities could cause widespread social unrest and increased mortality.

The annual State of the World's cities report from UN-Habitat, found that New York was the ninth most unequal city in world, the Guardian reported on Thursday.

Atlanta, New Orleans, Washington, and Miami were not far behind, with rankings similar to those of the Kenyan capital Nairobi, and Ivory Coast's Abidjan. Other US cities did not fare any better, as their inequality levels were higher than the internationally recognized acceptable 'alert' line.

---

You know what is interesting? How many people illegally immigrate to Nairobi or Abidjan to "better their lives"? I mean, there has got to be something here that is working correctly
:jointsmile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoldenBoy812

You know what is interesting? How many people illegally immigrate to Nairobi or Abidjan to "better their lives"? I mean, there has got to be something here that is working correctly
:jointsmile:

---

i know u r an intelligent person from your past posts. but u must notice that what u r saying is relevant.

lets look @ it this way, how many people from modern countries come to US illegally? and how many flee the low life of bad areas in mexico to come for the low life of the US, u see its much better for them and in their eyes

I'm from Iran, do u think Iran has a good economy in the world? or u think any part of that dictatorship works "good"?

but people from afghanistan and iraq (before and after both wars) do go there illegally because of relatively better conditions. so its relative, u dont find too many canadians illegally come to the US, because the situation does not force them to do so and even if they want to immigrate due to these very same situations legal paths are much wider for them than mexicans.

we have masked things with borrowing and keeping the spending spree alive, when borrowing stops or slows like right now, things start to look ugly and if this becomes a permanent situation i betcha we will have to switch or reform our ways.

I know "credit" is a very vital thing to businesses and individuals and without it no modern economy can sustain, but we need to make sense of things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flyingimam

i know u r an intelligent person from your past posts. but u must notice that what u r saying is irrelevant.

lets look @ it this way, how many people from modern countries come to US illegally? and how many flee the low life of bad areas in mexico to come for the low life of the US, u see its much better for them and in their eyes

I'm from Iran, do u think Iran has a good economy in the world? or u think any part of that dictatorship works "good"?

but people from afghanistan and iraq (before and after both wars) do go there illegally because of relatively better conditions. so its relative, u dont find too many canadians illegally come to the US, because the situation does not force them to do so and even if they want to immigrate due to these very same situations legal paths are much wider for them than mexicans.

we have masked things with borrowing and keeping the spending spree alive, when borrowing stops or slows like right now, things start to look ugly and if this becomes a permanent situation i betcha we will have to switch or reform our ways.

I know "credit" is a very vital thing to businesses and individuals and without it no modern economy can sustain, but we need to make sense of things.

---

The reason i posted what i did was to show that wealth gaps in capitalist countries will always exist, and just because they do exist, it is silly to attempt to reform this situation because of "widespread social unrest". If we look at mere immigration numbers, the US would have to rank near or at the top in regards to total immigration (i believe over 12% of the US population are immigrants).

There might be small countries with numbers like that, but not many from the global north...

I do agree that peoples own interests determine global movement. I knew some Canadian people from Montreal who moved to Florida because of the weather and that alone.

Regardless, social unrest can be blamed on the failed drug policy more so than it can be blamed on wealth gaps. The author of that piece (Anna Tibaijuka) fails because she is viewing wealth as a zero sum game.

wealth gaps will always exist, and nobody is suggesting that they should not exist

the problem is that the wealth gap is too large and still growing...if you think that doesn't cause social unrest, take a look at what the top 1% spends on protecting their 50% share of the entire country's wealth...the poor majority might start supporting revolutionary populists who will turn america into a dictatorship...people like hitler rode into power on a wave of poverty-induced rage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maladroit

the poor majority might start supporting revolutionary populists who will turn america into a dictatorship...

---

Probably not:rastasmoke:

you mean, probably not AGAIN

Communist Party USA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maladroit

wealth gaps will always exist, and nobody is suggesting that they should not exist

the problem is that the wealth gap is too large and still growing...if you think that doesn't cause social unrest, take a look at what the top 1% spends on protecting their 50% share of the entire country's wealth...the poor majority might start supporting revolutionary populists who will turn america into a dictatorship...people like hitler rode into power on a wave of poverty-induced rage

---

I don't think a wealth gap should exist if wealth determines your ability to live.

It's easy of us with money to say "Oh, those poor people without health insurance and don't have a home should just get a fucking job and stop bitching", but it's not as easy as it sounds, even in such a great nation as ours. If you were an employer, would you hire a homeless man knowing he doesn't have anywhere he could bathe himself and clean up? How are customers going to react to that? Even if he was applying for a job where he's hidden from view, most employers would much rather higher someone nice and clean who isn't so desperate for work.

I just fail to see how we can say capitalism is the best, but then turn around and say we need social programs to protect the interests of the common good, and then turn around AGAIN and say that we can't do too much or else people will get lazy and stop working.

How about giving people what they need and fucking educating them on the importance of contributing to society, instead of pointing a fucking gun to their heads???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JakeMartinez

I don't think a wealth gap should exist if wealth determines your ability to live.

---

The soviets tried to intervene on this behalf. It failed...

Quote:

---

It's easy of us with money to say "Oh, those poor people without health insurance and don't have a home should just get a fucking job and stop bitching", but it's not as easy as it sounds, even in such a great nation as ours. If you were an employer, would you hire a homeless man knowing he doesn't have anywhere he could bathe himself and clean up? How are customers going to react to that? Even if he was applying for a job where he's hidden from view, most employers would much rather higher someone nice and clean who isn't so desperate for work.

---

The homeless are not necessarily considered unemployed.

Quote:

---

I just fail to see how we can say capitalism is the best, but then turn around and say we need social programs to protect the interests of the common good, and then turn around AGAIN and say that we can't do too much or else people will get lazy and stop working.

---

Its called hypocrisy...

Quote:

---

How about giving people what they need and fucking educating them on the importance of contributing to society, instead of pointing a fucking gun to their heads???

---

Whoa now, why where are guns being pointed at peoples heads? Are you saying that people will succeed if you provide all of their needs? I believe that to be naive, as failure will always exist in regards to humanity. In reality, only the strong survive, only the strong succeed...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheNugget

That's the thing dude, too many people differ on exactly what human rights are. I might be biased when I say this, but I feel that Republicans (the fake ones around now, anyway) do not feel that health-care is a right, and that people are on their own, even when it's the government who's screwing them. Same when it comes to money; if you're poor, you better figure a way out of it, because we wont help you. If you're rich, you probably deserve it, and shouldn't feel obligated (morally or otherwise) to give any of it to people who either NEED it or REALLY deserve it. Of course, I'm of a mind that if you're rich you should be giving a minimum of half your income away, but I guess that's socialist. Eh, I can live with that.

---

The problem with your statement is you say the rich should be giving 1/2 of thier income away, but you support the gov't "taking" and not voluntary giving. That sounds exactly like Biden. Supports increased taxes, but his charity amounts to less than 1% of his income. He is only charitable with somebody else's money.


The UN says at the end of the study that the countries with the least disparity are: China, Indonesia, and Etiopia. Now those are places we should aspire to.:cool:
That is the problem, when you try to make everybody the same it brings everybody down instead of raising the people at the bottom.
I would imagine that our bottom is still better than these 3 countries middle, since we have the richest poor people in the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheNugget

I think Obama has it pretty right, 250K a year is pretty damn rich. I'd probably make those folks give 1/3 away. From 500K and up should be half, minimum. People simply do not need that much money.

---

I suppose its a good thing freedom is not based on need.

if income tax is anti-freedom, then all rich americans are not free anyway, and only the poor americans know true freedom because they don't pay tax...in reality, rich people enjoy the most freedom, and poor people enjoy the least

it's a sad thing that freedom from want is not based on need (as in wanting health care and affordable housing and a basic standard of living)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maladroit

if income tax is anti-freedom, then all rich americans are not free anyway, and only the poor americans know true freedom because they don't pay tax...in reality, rich people enjoy the most freedom, and poor people enjoy the least

it's a sad thing that freedom from want is not based on need (as in wanting health care and affordable housing and a basic standard of living)

---

The rich do not have any more freedoms than the poor. Just because they do not take advantage of them is not the fault of the rich(whatever rich is).

I did not say income tax is anti-freedom, but income based on what some bureaucrat decides you need is anti-freedom.

I worked a full time job plus another 8hrs/day on my business for 20 years, plus did not have children. These actions and choices are what allowed me to build my business. And now that it worked for me some lazy gov't fuck wants to take it from me to give to some single mom with 5 kids.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McDanger

I worked a full time job plus another 8hrs/day on my business for 20 years, plus did not have children. These actions and choices are what allowed me to build my business. And now that it worked for me some lazy gov't fuck wants to take it from me to give to some single mom with 5 kids.

---

EXACTLY! And now that your at that point YOU deserve to reap the rewards of your long hours and hard work. Likewise, if YOU feel like donating to a certain organization it should be left up to YOU as to where YOUR money will go, not the government!

By the way, MUCH respect to ya!!:thumbsup:

Have a good one!:s4:

what lazy fuck is now proposing to take your money and give it to a single mom with five kids?

george bush is doing that now, as well as the presidents that preceeded him...mccain proposes to take your money and give it to the banks who are foreclosing on people that can't afford their mortgages so they can stay in their homes...that is the way the system has been for a long time and it's not going to change no matter who wins the election

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoldenBoy812

The soviets tried to intervene on this behalf. It failed...



The homeless are not necessarily considered unemployed.



Its called hypocrisy...



Whoa now, why where are guns being pointed at peoples heads? Are you saying that people will succeed if you provide all of their needs? I believe that to be naive, as failure will always exist in regards to humanity. In reality, only the strong survive, only the strong succeed...

---

All of us have a gun pointed to our heads. If we don't work, we lose everything we have and end up living on the streets without anything to sustain us.

And yes, I believe people will succeed if all their needs are met because I haven't met one happy, healthy human being who just lays around all day doing nothing. My grandpa's a good example. He's a retired man who eats well and lives in the same house he has for 40 years, yet he spends 10 hours a day working on his yard and cleaning his house because he likes to do it. The man could easily sit on his ass all day and watch his westerns, but he doesn't.

Granted, some people would be lazy, but that's why it's important to educate people on the idea of helping everyone out. You know, promoting peace and unity instead of scarcity and competition. Just like the way we've been taught that self-interest will take care of everyone (it won't).

Oh, and just because the Soviets failed doesn't mean it can't be done.