[Terry_B]

Not picking on this article in particular but whenever I read these types of stories I get the feeling that people don't make a clear separation of these two very different issues:

1. The bottom is worse off relative to the top in terms of wealth than they were before.

2. The bottom is worse off in terms of wealth (quality of life) than they were before.

People seem to imply 2 when they talk about 1. but they are very different things.

[drivebyacct2]

"A typical American male who works full time is earning almost exactly the same as his counterpart was when Nixon was president"

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2011/09/po...

(More to the discussion in the article, ) As long as we continue to structure tax cuts as we do, and as long as an attempt to get the wealthiest top percentages to pay at least as much as the middle class in taxes (on a percentage basis, mind you) is called "class warfare" by the GOP, it's not likely to change (the response to the "Buffet clause" in the last two days or so). It's not hard to understand how our politician's priorities influence the outcome embodied by the title of this post...

[orangecat]

A typical American male who works full time is earning almost exactly the same as his counterpart was when Nixon was president

Which just means that income is an inadequate measurement. How many Americans would prefer to live in 1975 than today?

[keithnoizu]

   It is my understanding, citation needed perhaps, that over all cost of living was lower in 75. So perhaps there were no iphones, ssd hard drives, big screen plasma televisions, xboxs, etc. but on a single income (not one of our 100k plus incomes but a regular joe income) you could likely afford a home, a nice car, etc.

[gamble]

Probably a few people out there who wouldn't mind having affordable health care.

[lucasjung]

Affordable health care that doesn't include all of the advances in treatment (procedures, pharmaceuticals, technologies, etc.) that have come about in the past 36 years?

To give an example that affects most people in small ways: in 1975 I would be wearing heavy, uncomfortable glasses all day, and would fully expect to wear dentures after a certain age. Instead, my vision has been corrected to be perfect and I will almost certainly chew my last meal with my own teeth. My Dad had cataract surgery a couple of years ago: the new lenses are so great that he no longer even needs reading glasses. They had cataract surgery in 1975, but not with the kind of results my Dad experienced.

To give an example that affects a smaller number of people in a bigger way: since 1975, survival rates for many types of cancer have increased dramatically. Similar effects for heart disease.

I'm not trying to say that all of the increases in cost of health care are due to increased availability of treatment options, but it's almost certainly a big driver. Would you accept a health care plan that charges 1970s rates (in real dollars) but restricts you to 1970s medicine? If you are young and healthy, it might actually be a good deal, except for the dental plan.

[sabat]

That's not an excuse for radically inflated prices.

[drivebyacct2]

I guess I figured in the context of money and wealth that income was a pretty decent measurement. Unless you're talking investments. (But then again, the top 1-5% having huge amounts of their wealth tied in investments is how many manage to pay less taxes than the middle/low class, so I doubt it)

[roel_v]

"A typical American male who works full time is earning almost exactly the same as his counterpart was when Nixon was president"

But that's clearly, obviously and without question BULLSHIT (when you look at what you can actually do with that money, rather than just look at inflation-adjusted dollar numbers). A typical American male in that income bracket today has a house that is larger and much more comfortable than back then, has access to a much broader range of food, can communicate with anybody anywhere in the world instantly, carries in his pocket a device to communicate with people he knows in a much more efficient and convenient form than whatever was available 30 years ago, has a higher life expectancy and better access to information (not to mention that the information that is available is vastly more), etc etc.

What would you prefer, being Louis XIV who lived in a castle with no bathrooms (everybody shat where ever they happened to be standing and there were servants to sweep it up) or in the typical house of somebody in the West in the 20th-40th income percentile today (with running, hot water and functioning plumbing, electricity etc?) Or even being an early 20th century rich businessman/socialite in NYC, where the health circumstances even for the very rich were vastly inferior to what is now available to everybody except those at the very bottom of the socio-economic ladder?

[drivebyacct2]

What is the point of this near-rant? Sure, quality of life, cost of technology and standards of living are different, but that doesn't change the economics of the situation.

Sorry it's such "obvious bullshit" to you.

[bluedanieru]

They aren't as different as you think. Even if wages remain the same at the bottom while wealth at the top increases tenfold, the poor are worse off. They are worse off because they will see their political power decrease, especially in a country like America where that is so tied to money, and they are worse off because income disparities decrease quality of life across the board (i.e. for rich and poor alike).

There isn't the clear separation that you are putting forward here.

[Terry_B]

I don't disagree with you but I've seen a number of articles that simply present the fact that the top have increased their % and left it at that as proof of something bad happening.

If what you say is true then that is the argument that needs to be made before reaching that conclusion, that's all.

[bluedanieru]

The argument certainly needs to me made, especially coming from the WSJ where a lot of folks that read it may not have heard it.

However I don't think it is so outrageous to point out that the wealthy have increased their wealth considerably while income among the poor has remained stagnant, and then leave it at that. Egalitarian ideals are still alive and well, and you don't have to be particularly leftist to think that huge gaps in wealth allocation are symptoms of a dysfunctional market economy.

This could simply be responsible reporting, with some food for thought but mainly leaving it to the reader to draw his own conclusions.

[sabat]

But it's both, isn't it? Fewer Americans have health coverage, fewer Americans have jobs, fewer Americans can stay in homes. What you hear people saying is that #1 implies #2.

[yummyfajitas]

Apart from short term fluctuations during the recession, more Americans own homes and health insurance coverage is roughly the same as it ever was.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/USHOWN

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Uninsured_and_Uninsur...

[sabat]

What you call "fluctuations" most of us call a downward trend. And the fact that you think that it's "same as it ever was" is somehow a positive thing is somewhat disturbing.

[yummyfajitas]

I made no claim that anything is positive or negative, I merely pointed out that you are factually wrong on two of your points.

[robryan]

At a most basic level over the period relative wages for the poor haven't moved a lot but the absolute basics such as food and clothing prices have come down a heap.

[bluedanieru]

What proportion of a person's wage does he spend on e.g. entertainment vs. food and clothing now compared to 40 years ago?

[hammock]

Food 2009: 13% of total expenditure, compared to 15% in 1984

http://www.bls.gov/cex/csxstnd.htm#1984

[Terry_B]

Sure, it might if you show the data that proves it.

But showing the data that the top has increased their % share of the wealth does not prove that.

[jethroalias97]

It hurts people's innate sense of fairness though. When you see the people who manufactured the crises repleting their losses with money from middle and working class american's it is upsetting and does indicate the system has problems.