Posted on 01/17/2017 8:24:44 AM PST by RitchieAprile
The United States is one of the richest countries in the world. It is also one of the most unequal. As a report released today shows, the U.S. ranks 23 out of 30 developed nations in a measure known as the “inclusive development index,” which factors in data on income, health, poverty, and sustainability.
The index comes from the World Economic Forum, whose annual summit is taking place in Davos this week. It is a rather comprehensive measure of inequality, and the fact that the U.S. ranks so poorly is a sign of the country’s dramatic wealth concentration. Of all the factors in the index, the U.S. performed worst in what the WEF calls the inclusion category, which measures the distribution of income and wealth, and the level of poverty. Additionally, the country received particularly low marks in the areas of social protection—defined as efficiency of public goods and services and robustness of social safety nets—and employment and labor compensation. The U.S. joins Brazil, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, and South Africa as countries with inclusive-development rankings that fall below their GDP per capita rankings, a sign that their economic growth is not being shared, the report says. The U.S. had the largest gap between the two measures.
That economic inequality characterizes the American economy as no surprise. Study after study shows that America has more wealth concentration than most other developed nations. But WEF’s findings about how poorly the U.S. performs when it comes to wages and social safety nets is particularly notable since legislation intended to address those disparities are set to undergo significant changes in the early years of the Trump administration.
In the U.S., wage growth has been non-existent for much of the post-recession era. That only changed this past year, when wages grew by around 2 percent. While that small bump is progress in the right direction, it is not enough to bring Americans financial security. The political parties are divided on why this is the case and what should be done about it.. Republicans tend to look at paltry wage gains and blame regulations that they say hinder business growth. That growth, they contend, would trickle down to workers’ paychecks. Additionally, as of late Republicans are also arguing that globalization has diminished the number of well-paying middle-class jobs. The solutions many conservatives support include tightening trade and loosening regulations and taxes on American businesses. Democrats however, point to structural issues such as shareholder pressure on companies to produce stellar quarterly earnings, which often means boosting profits by cutting labor costs, or the decline in union power, which hinders the ability of workers to negotiate for higher salaries and better benefits. The answer, they generally argue, is to increase legislative protections for workers, including raising the minimum wage or strengthening safety-net programs that provide for the very poor.
The GOP will soon get its chance to test their ideas. As my colleagues Adam Chandler and Alexia Campbell have both written, perhaps the clearest indication of what the Trump administration has in mind for wage protections is the choice of Andrew Puzder for secretary of the Department of Labor. Puzder, the CEO of a fast-food company, has been outspoken about his disdain for federally mandated minimum-wage increases and new overtime rules that would result in either raises or additional pay for millions of workers. Conservatives have said that these rules place an undue burden on business owners, which could result in hiring fewer works, or giving them fewer hours—which would ultimately hurt the labor force. Advocates of these federal initiatives say that, without them, workers—especially low-income workers—will remain underpaid, overworked, and without enough consistent income to access basic necessities.
The WEF report argues that the U.S.’s striking inequality likely influences a variety of other disparities, including political and social polarization. The report suggests that while dangerous, the current problem can be improved through policies that, among other things, promote parity in wages regardless of gender, race or ethnicity; educational opportunities; and access to jobs.
Better inequality than socialism.
Good, because the only way you can force equality is to take away freedom.
Everyone is equally poor in many countries.
Sounds like a good idea. Where is my book of regulations?.... (/liberal)
A bunch of Communist clap trap. I have been many places in the world in my 70 years and have yet to find any place out side of the USA where one can pull themselves out of abject poverty and into relative affluence.
The country’s “dramatic wealth concentration” is in Washington DC and environs.
“The United States is one of the richest countries in the world. It is also one of the most unequal.”
Our poor, thanks to welfare, also rank about 80th percentile in world incomes.
Complaining “the top of his boat is much higher than mine!” is mere covetousness when the tide has lifted yours over the sandbars which most other boats were wrecked on.
The gap may be wider, true. But let’s look at those at the bottom on our scale compared to those at the bottom in other countries. I would dare say our bottom is much better off than theirs’.
High levels of equality = Everyone in your country is equally destitute.
The Atlantic and Davosians talk about inequality like it’s a bad thing.
“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.” - George Orwell
You can either have Freedom, or Equality. Take your pick.
If you look at the history of great wealth, most massive fortunes crumble not long after the patriarch expires. A great many were lifted economically by the rise of that fortune, and a great many benefit from its subsequent fragmentation.
The problem with such articles is the clash of axioms:
- the wealthy, on the whole, do so by leveraging mutual benefits
- the wealthy, on the whole, do so by practically stealing from others.
Those crying “inequality!” believe those who increased are so because others decreased. While perhaps the case in some cultures (volumes could be written detailing the anecdotes), largely not so here.
If you choose Equality, you'll have neither.
What used to be important was the MOVEMENT among social classes. We could go up or down. That was what made us unique.
Indeed.
The tag should be “socialism: everyone equally poor”.
If we’re ranked low in inequality, then they should be happy. So, either they’re just unhappy people or the author’s not too bright. I suppose both are possible simultaneously.
Yet the dream all over the world of being here
Now just why is that?
Must be that “inequality” thing
The headline is misleading. Literally it says the US is 23rd most unequal, which would mean it is relatively equal. But they meant to say the US is 23rd most equal, therefore relatively unequal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.