There is incredible difference between the family earning $30,000 a year, relying on SNAP and housing assistance – and Elon Musk and friends.
We call it inequality. But that is quite meaningless. Nothing Musk or his strata has done has caused the status of the low income/poor family.
Actually there is a great difference between that family and people like me and we have done nothing to limit that family either.
Do you see anything in the following paragraph indicating that inequality causes poverty or being poor?
The dire situation is poverty, not inequality.
Do you see anything that indicates lowering the upper income levels will raise the lower?
Inequality is a major challenge that has been affecting societies for centuries. It has created an ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor, with the poor often suffering from lack of access to basic necessities like food, education, and healthcare. This inequality is further exacerbated by unfair wages and employment practices, as well as inadequate social safety nets that leave many people struggling to make ends meet. The situation has become even more dire in recent years due to the economic downturn caused by the pandemic. As such, it is essential that we address this issue in order to create a more equitable society where everyone can thrive.
Here is what I see as an accurate reflection on poverty, especially “The goal of reducing poverty requires understanding its causes and implementing strategies to address them.” It has nothing to do with inequality. If anything, many of today’s billionaires have improved access to education, jobs, even healthcare in some cases.
Poverty is a global issue that affects millions of people around the world. It can be caused by a variety of factors, including lack of access to education and employment opportunities, inadequate health care and nutrition, and unequal distribution of resources. Poverty has far-reaching consequences on individuals, families, communities, and nations as a whole. It leads to increased crime rates, poor health outcomes, decreased economic productivity, and social unrest. The goal of reducing poverty requires understanding its causes and implementing strategies to address them.
The theory goes that if we confiscate more wealth for government to redistribute and thus lower the inequality gap, we can lower poverty. If that were true, the trillions spent on social assistance programs over the years would have eliminated poverty or perhaps you believe more of the same will have better results.
I especially like the concern over access to education. Certainly that is critical, but more critical is how that access is used.
The high school I graduated from in 1961 now has a graduation rate of 78%, which is lower than the state average of 90%. Four percent of students meet proficiency standards for math and not much higher for reading and writing skills. This exists even though the city spends an amount per student equal to or higher than many of the best performing districts.
Why?
The average household income is $62,232 (versus $87,864 nationally) with a poverty rate of 22.19% (14.4 percent nationally). So, the opportunity is there, but factors caused by poverty, family life, who knows result the poor education performance.
The problem is complex but it is not caused by inequality. You may be of the view that merely taking money from others and giving it to these families will solve the problem. I doubt it and if it were to happen on a continuing basis, what problem has actually been solved while creating more dependency?
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
What inequality?
With respect to CEOs: Average CEO salary in America is $162,000
see: https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Chief_Executive_Officer_(CEO)/Salary
Who’s pay is more “unequal” – Elon Musk with a $0 salary, or Taylor Swift – who was paid $150MM?
With respect to the income inequality and the middle class:
See Phil Gramm and John Early, WSJ 8/29/22 – Article titled: Income Equality, Not Inequality, Is the Problem: Those in the middle work much harder, but don’t earn much more, than those at the bottom.
“… Contrary to conventional wisdom, the most dramatic and consequential change in the distribution of income in America in the past half-century isn’t rising income inequality but the extraordinary growth in income equality among the bottom 60% of household earners.
Real government transfer payments to the bottom 20% of household earners surged by 269% between 1967 and 2017, while middle-income households saw their real earnings after taxes rise by only 154% during the same period. That has largely equalized the income of the bottom 60% of Americans.
In 2017, among working-age households, the bottom 20% earned only $6,941 on average, and only 36% were employed. But after transfer payments and taxes, those households had an average income of $48,806. The average working-age household in the second quintile earned $31,811 and 85% of them were employed. But after transfers and taxes, they had income of $50,492, a mere 3.5% more than the bottom quintile. The middle quintile earned $66,453 and 92% were employed. But after taxes and transfers, they kept only $61,350—just 26% more than the bottom quintile.
Even these figures don’t tell the whole story. In the bottom quintile, there are on average only 1.92 people living in a household. The second and middle quintiles have 2.41 and 2.62 people respectively.
After adjusting income for the number of people living in the household, the bottom-quintile household received $33,653 per capita. The second and middle quintile households had on average $29,497 and $32,574 per capita, respectively.
By eroding self-reliance, worker pride and labor-force participation, government-generated income equality undermines the very foundations of American prosperity. A democratic society won’t knowingly tolerate it. …”
LikeLike
Take every penny that every billionaire in the world owns, evenly distribute it across the world – and within 5 years, the billionaires will have their money back. Why? Because they know how to create things of value that people will buy. Wealth redistribution is a myth for this (and other) reasons.
And given the track record of American politicians and the way they waste any money they get (or use it to lock themselves into positions of power), do we really want government redistributing the wealth? How can Europe have a similar tax burden, yet have a lot more to show for it across the board? Maybe it’s because their politicians don’t polarize their constituency to the point that they spend their time HELPING the people that put them into office – and everybody benefits? Remember when we voted for politicians who actually go things done while in office?
LikeLike
Europe does not have a similar tax burden. Generally much higher than the USA and various types from payroll, income and consumption (VAT), plus many countries have various surtaxes and fees.
LikeLike
“The theory goes that if we confiscate more wealth for government to redistribute and thus lower the inequality gap, we can lower poverty. If that were true, the trillions spent on social assistance programs over the years would have eliminated poverty or perhaps you believe more of the same will have better results.”
Actually, yes.
If you believe in the “free market”, supply and demand, etc., a move toward equality is the natural outcome.
” The cure for high prices (or wages) is high prices.”
“The cure for low prices is low prices.”
High profits in one industry naturally brings on competitors, that gradually bring prices down until profits are “normal”. Same with wages, unless there is some market distortion.
First thing we learned in Econ 101 is how “perfect competition” naturally results in the most efficient distribution of resources. Second thing we learned is, there is no such thing as perfect competition.
Even you, even me. A co-worker was taking his wife to visit relatives in Mexico. She told him not to say he was an electrician, but say he was an engineer. Electrician is a low status/low pay job in Mexico.* For better or worse, electricians (that is me) are paid more in the U.S. due to Unions artificially reducing the supply. As for me, “I worked hard, and I was lucky.”
I haven’t checked, but I suspect many middle and “upper class” jobs pay considerably less in most countries, on average. Like attorneys, doctors, middle or upper management, than in the U.S. Why? IDK. I don’t know if the lower level workers are paid more in other countries, or if redistribution is more taken for granted.
The cure for low wages is low wages. Adam Smith said that at minimum a worker must be paid enough to afford food, housing, and clothing etc., anything less is unsustainable. Whether that pay comes entirely from an employer, or is subsidized by the government (that’s us?) may be irrelevant. Practically speaking, is the government (us, again) subsidizing the employee (welfare?) or subsidizing the employer?
Market distortions are rampant, more so in the U.S. than many countries. Other People’s Money may largely be a result of that, and fair game for redistribution, or “confiscation”.
*Engineer is only slightly better.
LikeLike
It seems to me the goal should be to assist those in poverty to brake that status permanently “movin on up” as was said” Doing that may take some government (our) money, but toward a specific goal of education, training, etc. When poverty continues from one generation to the next something is wrong with our approach and measuring poverty or not by including government assistance in the calculation is misleading at best.
LikeLike
I will reiterate (over and over again)… “Through no fault of their own.”*
Recessions like 2001 or Great Recessions like 2008 constantly recur. We often know the reason, or think we do, and there are increases in unemployment pay, social services, welfare, subsidies, whatever is necessary. We do not, most of us, blame the unemployed or underemployed. We do what is necessary to get the economy back on track. It’s better for those unemployed, better for businesses, better for those who never lost their jobs, but perhaps adjusted spending and saving “just in case”.
Why is it so hard to admit that, in addition to these periodic business cycles, there are long term endemic economic cycles that leave the least advantaged underemployed? Or in fact, disproportionately …increase… income of upper quintiles of the population, whether they be wage earners or business owners?
Inequality, in other words.
What happened in 1980. Other than eliminating the 70 percent marginal tax? Just as an experiment, bring it back temporarily and see what happens.
*AKA, Don’t blame the guy on the bottom.
LikeLike
I am trying to figure out your point. Inequality is real? Yes, certainly. The tremendous wealth of the 1 or 2% caused poverty? Not, in fact many of their efforts resulting in people moving out of poverty. Is poverty the fault of the impoverished? Most cases no, but when it goes on for generations self actions must be a factor, at least in the USA. Poverty is perpetuate in many ways, it’s not only systematic. Single mother births, dysfunctional absent parent households, falling susceptible to crime and drug use and poor educational opportunities or not taking advantage of what opportunities exist are factors. This must be true because there are many examples of individuals who have broken the cycle. Do you define elimination of poverty as extensive social programs, cash payment perhaps? Yup, the US is among the lowest taxed countries although we certainly don’t spend like that.
LikeLike
“This must be true because there are many examples of individuals who have broken the cycle.”
That sounds like anecdotal evidence. I just don’t think there are enough higher paying positions for more than a small percentage of lower income to migrate to.
I can’t find the quote* I read earlier today, that income disparity in the U.S. is considered a factor of rugged individuality (blame the victim), whereas in Europe it is considered more a result of institutional factors, which makes them more open to redistribution.
I should go one step further and say that the much greater increase in income of the top twenty percent, or more, is very much “through no fault/credit of their own” also. It’s largely a result of outside factors, or intentional government policies.
*It was an opinion anyway, of course, but I think a common one, with which I obviously agree.
LikeLike
Not the quote I mentioned before, but similar…
“Income inequality is not an inevitable and unavoidable consequence of modern economics. While inequality soared in the United States, it rose much more gently, or even remained level, in many Western European nations.
The report’s authors emphasize that rising income inequality is not inevitable. It is attributable at least in part to deliberate policy decisions that have increased the incomes of the rich. Although inequality is rising in Western Europe and the United States, the pace is dramatically different.”
https://equitablegrowth.org/new-worldwide-report-on-inequality-shows-how-the-united-states-compares/
More and more, IMHO, the obvious cure is an increased (much) graduated income tax.
Tax the rich.
And the semi-rich.
LikeLike
Poverty seems difficult to clearly picture with numerous variables that transcend our American culture. Food, shelter, with “public education “ was something we can agree upon.
LikeLike
The idea that poverty causes crime has been floated for generations. It is an insult to all the honest and working poor. True there is crime in poor neighborhoods but certainly not 100% as it would be if poverty caused it.
The decrease in good incomes going to labor goes back to its beginnings in the ‘70s and the current crop of billionaires merely rode the wave of opportunity.
LikeLike
There are some YouTubers who are pointing out that crime is causing poverty. This seems counter intuitive. Poor people steal what they need or to get money to eat, right?
Well that is not true. Criminals steal to buy drugs. Criminals cannot eat a TV. What these YouTubers are pointing out is that many of the big cities that have had nothing but democratic mayors for decades and have DAs that do not prosecute have drug problems, gang problems, homelessness problems, and due to lack of prosecutions businesses are losing money and closing. As the businesses leave, residents lose jobs and the businesses remaining have to rise prices to cover loses. When grocery stores leave, these neighborhoods become food deserts. Food prices go up at the little corner store until it closes from being robbed too many times.
These YouTubers bring some valid point to this complex issue. Although it can’t be the sole cause, it could be why good areas are turning bad.
There are many complex causes to poverty from fatherless families to lack of moral guidance and personal responsibility today. Getting up everyday to go to work drug free is not necessary if the government is willing to give you money or you can steal. Throwing money at the poor since the 1930s has not changed very much.
Everybody gets to start off their young life with a free education and can always join the military to learn a skill and pay for college. This is an equal opportunity but it does not guarantee equal outcomes.
I believe in a free society not a socialist one. And even in socialist and communist societies there are the elite who get special privileges and nicer things. Is this equal outcome too? Why should you not have to work hard to get what you want and then being allowed to keep what you earned. Just because some kid dropped out of high school, I am supposed to give them my money?
LikeLike
You are 100% correct Sir!
LikeLike