[suivix]

Perhaps it is necessary for the 1% to have huge sums of money and income compared to the rest in a flourishing economy. For one, it means they can spearhead the direction of capital. If you look at the graphs, everyone is doing better. It also leaves out many products that you can get now for less money or with more features. Everyone uses the same iPhones, college students and the rich.

There is not an inherent problem in income inequality if everyone has an acceptable standard of living. The problem is when the poor go without health care, food, shelter, education, Internet, and heating. Unemployment can be a large part of this.

[rapind]

The problem is that the staples are rising in cost (healthcare, housing, food), while middle class salaries aren't keeping pace. It's called the middle class squeeze. It's real and has been happening in North America for a while now.

I don't use an iPhone myself by the way. The smartphone plans are ridiculously expensive here in Canada. Any middle class family bearing iPhones are making other non-trivial sacrifices to do so... like education or retirement savings.

[nandemo]

The graph in the article says otherwise: inflation-adjusted income for all groups has been rising.

[nandemo]

I'm a libertarian and also tend to think that economic inequality is not necessarily bad as long as no one is getting actively screwed, and everyone's economic situation is getting better. But there's data indicating that economic inequality is correlated with a lot of bad things:

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html