U.S. Poverty Rate, 1 in 6, at Highest Level in Years

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Say what you want.  IMO, it's not the disparity, it's the living conditions of the un-wealthy.  We provide assistance because their own gov'ts won't. 

Here is a different situation (today).  There may be a huge disparity between the top 5% and the bottom 30%, but the bottom 30 don't have it nearly as bad as the bottom 60% in other countries.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is collectively, it doesn't matter if the top 5% control 90% of the wealth in this country, it doesn't matter as long as 80% of  the bottom 30% still have cable television, a car and disposable income.

[ChriswUfGator]

Say what you want.  IMO, it's not the disparity, it's the living conditions of the un-wealthy.  We provide assistance because their own gov'ts won't. 

Here is a different situation (today).  There may be a huge disparity between the top 5% and the bottom 30%, but the bottom 30 don't have it nearly as bad as the bottom 60% in other countries.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is collectively, it doesn't matter if the top 5% control 90% of the wealth in this country, it doesn't matter as long as 80% of  the bottom 30% still have cable television, a car and disposable income.

It's not the point I'm making, it's that these guys were all over CNN talking about how the wealth gap and impoverished living conditions in Egypt caused the revolution. You know, I guess at some point NRW, the proletariat needs to be able to buy that T.V. or whatever have you, when they want it. Life's short, and if most of your population spends it toiling away to enrich a select few people without adequate renumeration, then you're going to have trouble maintaining an orderly society.

Whether you want to maintain an orderly society is really the question. This orgasmic vision the Republicans and Libertarians have of everyone living in a slum fending for themselves, generally except (naturally) for them, won't actually come to pass. It never does. The result is normally revolution. This doesn't work out, you know. Money instantly becomes meaningless when a majority of the country no longer supports the government, I'd like to avoid that in this country, if it were up to me.

[peestandingup]

This is one of the better definitions of 'the middle class' that I've seen....

Says Lawrence Lindsey, assistant professor of economics at Harvard: "A middle-class person is someone who expects to be self-reliant, unlike the upper class with its unearned wealth or the lower class with its dependency on society. Far from declining, the middle class is bigger than ever, and its ethic is alive and well."

and while the so-called 'middle class' may be diminishing it's not due to quality of life, imo.  IE - I know I ONLY make $30k per year, but I really want a 60" Aquos LCD and a Mercedes.  Fucking, live within your means or better yourself, quit complaining and bitching about 'having it rough' because you ONLY have a 36" Vizeo and a Honda.

That sounds all good, but life isn't just about that stuff now is it. I hope you or a member of your family never get really sick. Yes, even with "good" insurance it would still crush you like a twig.

Or go through a messy divorce..or get your car almost totaled by some person who doesn't have insurance...or about a dozen other things that would be catastrophic to your living within your means lifestyle.

I'm just saying. Its really easy to pass judgement until you've been put through one of life's little shit storms & the system's screwed you 12 ways from Sunday.

P.S. Not to say you haven't experienced stuff like this. Maybe you have. But its not as cut & dry as you're making it out to be.

[Tacachale]

Say what you want.  IMO, it's not the disparity, it's the living conditions of the un-wealthy.  We provide assistance because their own gov'ts won't. 

Here is a different situation (today).  There may be a huge disparity between the top 5% and the bottom 30%, but the bottom 30 don't have it nearly as bad as the bottom 60% in other countries.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is collectively, it doesn't matter if the top 5% control 90% of the wealth in this country, it doesn't matter as long as 80% of  the bottom 30% still have cable television, a car and disposable income.

It's not the point I'm making, it's that these guys were all over CNN talking about how the wealth gap and impoverished living conditions in Egypt caused the revolution. You know, I guess at some point NRW, the proletariat needs to be able to buy that T.V. or whatever have you, when they want it. Life's short, and if most of your population spends it toiling away to enrich a select few people without adequate renumeration, then you're going to have trouble maintaining an orderly society.

Whether you want to maintain an orderly society is really the question. This orgasmic vision the Republicans and Libertarians have of everyone living in a slum fending for themselves, generally except (naturally) for them, won't actually come to pass. It never does. The result is normally revolution. This doesn't work out, you know. Money instantly becomes meaningless when a majority of the country no longer supports the government, I'd like to avoid that in this country, if it were up to me.

This is a greatly oversimplified explanation of the Egyptian revolution. Economic issues such as rampant unemployment and inflation affected more than just the poor and were only one of the various factors at stake. The autocratic rule of Hosni Mubarak, the lack of free speech and democratic process, and governmental corruption and brutality was equally important. Egypt's situation isn't really a good comparison to the US.

[ChriswUfGator]

Say what you want.  IMO, it's not the disparity, it's the living conditions of the un-wealthy.  We provide assistance because their own gov'ts won't. 

Here is a different situation (today).  There may be a huge disparity between the top 5% and the bottom 30%, but the bottom 30 don't have it nearly as bad as the bottom 60% in other countries.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is collectively, it doesn't matter if the top 5% control 90% of the wealth in this country, it doesn't matter as long as 80% of  the bottom 30% still have cable television, a car and disposable income.

It's not the point I'm making, it's that these guys were all over CNN talking about how the wealth gap and impoverished living conditions in Egypt caused the revolution. You know, I guess at some point NRW, the proletariat needs to be able to buy that T.V. or whatever have you, when they want it. Life's short, and if most of your population spends it toiling away to enrich a select few people without adequate renumeration, then you're going to have trouble maintaining an orderly society.

Whether you want to maintain an orderly society is really the question. This orgasmic vision the Republicans and Libertarians have of everyone living in a slum fending for themselves, generally except (naturally) for them, won't actually come to pass. It never does. The result is normally revolution. This doesn't work out, you know. Money instantly becomes meaningless when a majority of the country no longer supports the government, I'd like to avoid that in this country, if it were up to me.

This is a greatly oversimplified explanation of the Egyptian revolution. Economic issues such as rampant unemployment and inflation affected more than just the poor and were only one of the various factors at stake. The autocratic rule of Hosni Mubarak, the lack of free speech and democratic process, and governmental corruption and brutality was equally important. Egypt's situation isn't really a good comparison to the US.

It's not oversimplified, each of those factors is at play in the US, and that's exactly why I made the comparison.

We haven't reached the level Egypt had arrived at (yet), but that's unarguably the direction in which we're headed.

[Tacachale]

Say what you want.  IMO, it's not the disparity, it's the living conditions of the un-wealthy.  We provide assistance because their own gov'ts won't. 

Here is a different situation (today).  There may be a huge disparity between the top 5% and the bottom 30%, but the bottom 30 don't have it nearly as bad as the bottom 60% in other countries.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is collectively, it doesn't matter if the top 5% control 90% of the wealth in this country, it doesn't matter as long as 80% of  the bottom 30% still have cable television, a car and disposable income.

It's not the point I'm making, it's that these guys were all over CNN talking about how the wealth gap and impoverished living conditions in Egypt caused the revolution. You know, I guess at some point NRW, the proletariat needs to be able to buy that T.V. or whatever have you, when they want it. Life's short, and if most of your population spends it toiling away to enrich a select few people without adequate renumeration, then you're going to have trouble maintaining an orderly society.

Whether you want to maintain an orderly society is really the question. This orgasmic vision the Republicans and Libertarians have of everyone living in a slum fending for themselves, generally except (naturally) for them, won't actually come to pass. It never does. The result is normally revolution. This doesn't work out, you know. Money instantly becomes meaningless when a majority of the country no longer supports the government, I'd like to avoid that in this country, if it were up to me.

This is a greatly oversimplified explanation of the Egyptian revolution. Economic issues such as rampant unemployment and inflation affected more than just the poor and were only one of the various factors at stake. The autocratic rule of Hosni Mubarak, the lack of free speech and democratic process, and governmental corruption and brutality was equally important. Egypt's situation isn't really a good comparison to the US.

It's not oversimplified, each of those factors is at play in the US, and that's exactly why I made the comparison.

We haven't reached the level Egypt had arrived at (yet), but that's unarguably the direction in which we're headed.

It is oversimplified, because the Egyptian revolution wasn't caused by economic disparity. That was one factor among many, including many factors that aren't in place in the US. In fact, Egypt probably has less economic desparity than the US.

[ChriswUfGator]

Say what you want.  IMO, it's not the disparity, it's the living conditions of the un-wealthy.  We provide assistance because their own gov'ts won't. 

Here is a different situation (today).  There may be a huge disparity between the top 5% and the bottom 30%, but the bottom 30 don't have it nearly as bad as the bottom 60% in other countries.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is collectively, it doesn't matter if the top 5% control 90% of the wealth in this country, it doesn't matter as long as 80% of  the bottom 30% still have cable television, a car and disposable income.

It's not the point I'm making, it's that these guys were all over CNN talking about how the wealth gap and impoverished living conditions in Egypt caused the revolution. You know, I guess at some point NRW, the proletariat needs to be able to buy that T.V. or whatever have you, when they want it. Life's short, and if most of your population spends it toiling away to enrich a select few people without adequate renumeration, then you're going to have trouble maintaining an orderly society.

Whether you want to maintain an orderly society is really the question. This orgasmic vision the Republicans and Libertarians have of everyone living in a slum fending for themselves, generally except (naturally) for them, won't actually come to pass. It never does. The result is normally revolution. This doesn't work out, you know. Money instantly becomes meaningless when a majority of the country no longer supports the government, I'd like to avoid that in this country, if it were up to me.

This is a greatly oversimplified explanation of the Egyptian revolution. Economic issues such as rampant unemployment and inflation affected more than just the poor and were only one of the various factors at stake. The autocratic rule of Hosni Mubarak, the lack of free speech and democratic process, and governmental corruption and brutality was equally important. Egypt's situation isn't really a good comparison to the US.

It's not oversimplified, each of those factors is at play in the US, and that's exactly why I made the comparison.

We haven't reached the level Egypt had arrived at (yet), but that's unarguably the direction in which we're headed.

It is oversimplified, because the Egyptian revolution wasn't caused by economic disparity. That was one factor among many, including many factors that aren't in place in the US. In fact, Egypt probably has less economic desparity than the US.

I'd like to see some figures supporting your theory that pre-revolutionary Egypt had a lesser wealth disparity than the U.S.

FWIW, my earlier comment is correct, your political views notwithstanding.

[Tacachale]

Say what you want.  IMO, it's not the disparity, it's the living conditions of the un-wealthy.  We provide assistance because their own gov'ts won't. 

Here is a different situation (today).  There may be a huge disparity between the top 5% and the bottom 30%, but the bottom 30 don't have it nearly as bad as the bottom 60% in other countries.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is collectively, it doesn't matter if the top 5% control 90% of the wealth in this country, it doesn't matter as long as 80% of  the bottom 30% still have cable television, a car and disposable income.

It's not the point I'm making, it's that these guys were all over CNN talking about how the wealth gap and impoverished living conditions in Egypt caused the revolution. You know, I guess at some point NRW, the proletariat needs to be able to buy that T.V. or whatever have you, when they want it. Life's short, and if most of your population spends it toiling away to enrich a select few people without adequate renumeration, then you're going to have trouble maintaining an orderly society.

Whether you want to maintain an orderly society is really the question. This orgasmic vision the Republicans and Libertarians have of everyone living in a slum fending for themselves, generally except (naturally) for them, won't actually come to pass. It never does. The result is normally revolution. This doesn't work out, you know. Money instantly becomes meaningless when a majority of the country no longer supports the government, I'd like to avoid that in this country, if it were up to me.

This is a greatly oversimplified explanation of the Egyptian revolution. Economic issues such as rampant unemployment and inflation affected more than just the poor and were only one of the various factors at stake. The autocratic rule of Hosni Mubarak, the lack of free speech and democratic process, and governmental corruption and brutality was equally important. Egypt's situation isn't really a good comparison to the US.

It's not oversimplified, each of those factors is at play in the US, and that's exactly why I made the comparison.

We haven't reached the level Egypt had arrived at (yet), but that's unarguably the direction in which we're headed.

It is oversimplified, because the Egyptian revolution wasn't caused by economic disparity. That was one factor among many, including many factors that aren't in place in the US. In fact, Egypt probably has less economic desparity than the US.

I'd like to see some figures supporting your theory that pre-revolutionary Egypt had a lesser wealth disparity than the U.S.

FWIW, my earlier comment is correct, your political views notwithstanding.

On the Gini Index, which rates disparity in family income from 0-100, Egypt rated 34.4 in 2001, compared to the U.S., which rated 40.8 in 1997 and rose to 45 in 2007. I got these numbers from the CIA World Factbook.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.html

And you can check virtually any news sources for analyses of the factors behind the revolution.

I do agree with you on one thing - it's clear we're heading towards more economic disparity in the U.S., and have been for decades.

[ChriswUfGator]

Say what you want.  IMO, it's not the disparity, it's the living conditions of the un-wealthy.  We provide assistance because their own gov'ts won't. 

Here is a different situation (today).  There may be a huge disparity between the top 5% and the bottom 30%, but the bottom 30 don't have it nearly as bad as the bottom 60% in other countries.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is collectively, it doesn't matter if the top 5% control 90% of the wealth in this country, it doesn't matter as long as 80% of  the bottom 30% still have cable television, a car and disposable income.

It's not the point I'm making, it's that these guys were all over CNN talking about how the wealth gap and impoverished living conditions in Egypt caused the revolution. You know, I guess at some point NRW, the proletariat needs to be able to buy that T.V. or whatever have you, when they want it. Life's short, and if most of your population spends it toiling away to enrich a select few people without adequate renumeration, then you're going to have trouble maintaining an orderly society.

Whether you want to maintain an orderly society is really the question. This orgasmic vision the Republicans and Libertarians have of everyone living in a slum fending for themselves, generally except (naturally) for them, won't actually come to pass. It never does. The result is normally revolution. This doesn't work out, you know. Money instantly becomes meaningless when a majority of the country no longer supports the government, I'd like to avoid that in this country, if it were up to me.

This is a greatly oversimplified explanation of the Egyptian revolution. Economic issues such as rampant unemployment and inflation affected more than just the poor and were only one of the various factors at stake. The autocratic rule of Hosni Mubarak, the lack of free speech and democratic process, and governmental corruption and brutality was equally important. Egypt's situation isn't really a good comparison to the US.

It's not oversimplified, each of those factors is at play in the US, and that's exactly why I made the comparison.

We haven't reached the level Egypt had arrived at (yet), but that's unarguably the direction in which we're headed.

It is oversimplified, because the Egyptian revolution wasn't caused by economic disparity. That was one factor among many, including many factors that aren't in place in the US. In fact, Egypt probably has less economic desparity than the US.

I'd like to see some figures supporting your theory that pre-revolutionary Egypt had a lesser wealth disparity than the U.S.

FWIW, my earlier comment is correct, your political views notwithstanding.

On the Gini Index, which rates disparity in family income from 0-100, Egypt rated 34.4 in 2001, compared to the U.S., which rated 40.8 in 1997 and rose to 45 in 2007. I got these numbers from the CIA World Factbook.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.html

And you can check virtually any news sources for analyses of the factors behind the revolution.

I do agree with you on one thing - it's clear we're heading towards more economic disparity in the U.S., and have been for decades.

Your link contains data for Egypt that is 11 years old, and even the U.S. data is still 5 years old. I don't suppose you're going to argue that nothing has happened economically in that time frame that would change the look of that data?

We have had this little global depression thing going on, you know. A lot changes in the middle east in 11 years.

Specifically, you don't believe the spike in oil prices since 2001 would have created a large wealth disparity?

[Tacachale]

Say what you want.  IMO, it's not the disparity, it's the living conditions of the un-wealthy.  We provide assistance because their own gov'ts won't. 

Here is a different situation (today).  There may be a huge disparity between the top 5% and the bottom 30%, but the bottom 30 don't have it nearly as bad as the bottom 60% in other countries.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is collectively, it doesn't matter if the top 5% control 90% of the wealth in this country, it doesn't matter as long as 80% of  the bottom 30% still have cable television, a car and disposable income.

It's not the point I'm making, it's that these guys were all over CNN talking about how the wealth gap and impoverished living conditions in Egypt caused the revolution. You know, I guess at some point NRW, the proletariat needs to be able to buy that T.V. or whatever have you, when they want it. Life's short, and if most of your population spends it toiling away to enrich a select few people without adequate renumeration, then you're going to have trouble maintaining an orderly society.

Whether you want to maintain an orderly society is really the question. This orgasmic vision the Republicans and Libertarians have of everyone living in a slum fending for themselves, generally except (naturally) for them, won't actually come to pass. It never does. The result is normally revolution. This doesn't work out, you know. Money instantly becomes meaningless when a majority of the country no longer supports the government, I'd like to avoid that in this country, if it were up to me.

This is a greatly oversimplified explanation of the Egyptian revolution. Economic issues such as rampant unemployment and inflation affected more than just the poor and were only one of the various factors at stake. The autocratic rule of Hosni Mubarak, the lack of free speech and democratic process, and governmental corruption and brutality was equally important. Egypt's situation isn't really a good comparison to the US.

It's not oversimplified, each of those factors is at play in the US, and that's exactly why I made the comparison.

We haven't reached the level Egypt had arrived at (yet), but that's unarguably the direction in which we're headed.

It is oversimplified, because the Egyptian revolution wasn't caused by economic disparity. That was one factor among many, including many factors that aren't in place in the US. In fact, Egypt probably has less economic desparity than the US.

I'd like to see some figures supporting your theory that pre-revolutionary Egypt had a lesser wealth disparity than the U.S.

FWIW, my earlier comment is correct, your political views notwithstanding.

On the Gini Index, which rates disparity in family income from 0-100, Egypt rated 34.4 in 2001, compared to the U.S., which rated 40.8 in 1997 and rose to 45 in 2007. I got these numbers from the CIA World Factbook.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.html

And you can check virtually any news sources for analyses of the factors behind the revolution.

I do agree with you on one thing - it's clear we're heading towards more economic disparity in the U.S., and have been for decades.

Your link contains data for Egypt that is 11 years old, and even the U.S. data is still 5 years old. I don't suppose you're going to argue that nothing has happened economically in that time frame that would change the look of that data?

We have had this little global depression thing going on, you know. A lot changes in the middle east in 11 years.

Specifically, you don't believe the spike in oil prices since 2001 would have created a large wealth disparity?

Hence why I said "probably", though these do appear to be the best available figures. Egypt's income disparity has probably grown significantly over the last ten years, but I doubt it was at a pace that would not only overtake the US (where it has also grown significantly) but put them at a point that it caused a revolution in and of itself. Like I said, there was a lot more at play in Egypt than just this.

[ChriswUfGator]

Say what you want.  IMO, it's not the disparity, it's the living conditions of the un-wealthy.  We provide assistance because their own gov'ts won't. 

Here is a different situation (today).  There may be a huge disparity between the top 5% and the bottom 30%, but the bottom 30 don't have it nearly as bad as the bottom 60% in other countries.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is collectively, it doesn't matter if the top 5% control 90% of the wealth in this country, it doesn't matter as long as 80% of  the bottom 30% still have cable television, a car and disposable income.

It's not the point I'm making, it's that these guys were all over CNN talking about how the wealth gap and impoverished living conditions in Egypt caused the revolution. You know, I guess at some point NRW, the proletariat needs to be able to buy that T.V. or whatever have you, when they want it. Life's short, and if most of your population spends it toiling away to enrich a select few people without adequate renumeration, then you're going to have trouble maintaining an orderly society.

Whether you want to maintain an orderly society is really the question. This orgasmic vision the Republicans and Libertarians have of everyone living in a slum fending for themselves, generally except (naturally) for them, won't actually come to pass. It never does. The result is normally revolution. This doesn't work out, you know. Money instantly becomes meaningless when a majority of the country no longer supports the government, I'd like to avoid that in this country, if it were up to me.

This is a greatly oversimplified explanation of the Egyptian revolution. Economic issues such as rampant unemployment and inflation affected more than just the poor and were only one of the various factors at stake. The autocratic rule of Hosni Mubarak, the lack of free speech and democratic process, and governmental corruption and brutality was equally important. Egypt's situation isn't really a good comparison to the US.

It's not oversimplified, each of those factors is at play in the US, and that's exactly why I made the comparison.

We haven't reached the level Egypt had arrived at (yet), but that's unarguably the direction in which we're headed.

It is oversimplified, because the Egyptian revolution wasn't caused by economic disparity. That was one factor among many, including many factors that aren't in place in the US. In fact, Egypt probably has less economic desparity than the US.

I'd like to see some figures supporting your theory that pre-revolutionary Egypt had a lesser wealth disparity than the U.S.

FWIW, my earlier comment is correct, your political views notwithstanding.

On the Gini Index, which rates disparity in family income from 0-100, Egypt rated 34.4 in 2001, compared to the U.S., which rated 40.8 in 1997 and rose to 45 in 2007. I got these numbers from the CIA World Factbook.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.html

And you can check virtually any news sources for analyses of the factors behind the revolution.

I do agree with you on one thing - it's clear we're heading towards more economic disparity in the U.S., and have been for decades.

Your link contains data for Egypt that is 11 years old, and even the U.S. data is still 5 years old. I don't suppose you're going to argue that nothing has happened economically in that time frame that would change the look of that data?

We have had this little global depression thing going on, you know. A lot changes in the middle east in 11 years.

Specifically, you don't believe the spike in oil prices since 2001 would have created a large wealth disparity?

Hence why I said "probably", though these do appear to be the best available figures. Egypt's income disparity has probably grown significantly over the last ten years, but I doubt it was at a pace that would not only overtake the US (where it has also grown significantly) but put them at a point that it caused a revolution in and of itself. Like I said, there was a lot more at play in Egypt than just this.

It did, and that was the reason for the revolution.

Again, these guys were all over CNN naming that as the reason they were fighting. It doesn't get more horse's mouth.

[Tacachale]

I tend to doubt you have any statistics to support that assumption. And there were other guys also all over the news saying they were protesting because of police brutality, lack of freedom of speech, unemployment, rampant government corruption, etc. It's not as black and white as you're making it.

[ChriswUfGator]

I tend to doubt you have any statistics to support that assumption. And there were other guys also all over the news saying they were protesting because of police brutality, lack of freedom of speech, unemployment, rampant government corruption, etc. It's not as black and white as you're making it.

Who's talking statistics?

I'm sure you saw all the same news interviews as I did, with the rebels running around with guns describing why they were fighting, and wealth disparities and poverty topped the list every time. Are you saying the rebels lied about why they revolted against their own government? I mean, let's remember everything we learned in college here. We're talking primary sources vs. secondary sources. You have a host of direct primary sources, and you're saying it's invalid because there is not (yet) any secondary source? That's kind of ridiculous, really. Someone tells you why they did what they did, and you're going to wait for some other random person to put it in graph format before you'll accept it? This is silly.

[Tacachale]

I tend to doubt you have any statistics to support that assumption. And there were other guys also all over the news saying they were protesting because of police brutality, lack of freedom of speech, unemployment, rampant government corruption, etc. It's not as black and white as you're making it.

Who's talking statistics?

I'm sure you saw all the same news interviews as I did, with the rebels running around with guns describing why they were fighting, and wealth disparities and poverty topped the list every time. Are you saying the rebels lied about why they revolted against their own government? I mean, let's remember everything we learned in college here. We're talking primary sources vs. secondary sources. You have a host of direct primary sources, and you're saying it's invalid because there is not (yet) any secondary source? That's kind of ridiculous, really. Someone tells you why they did what they did, and you're going to wait for some other random person to put it in graph format before you'll accept it?

Whatever you say, Chris.

[BridgeTroll]

I love it when people use terms like "revolution"... and "proletariat"...