Posted on 09/09/2001 9:44:23 PM PDT by KeithFL
In the rat race to make more money, the rich pulled further ahead of the poor and middle classes in the Bay State through the 1990s, a study of income inequality released yesterday shows.
The income gap between rich and poor increased across the country even as the nation's economy blasted upward on the strength of technology and worker productivity, The Massachusetts Institute for a New Commonwealth reported.
The findings didn't surprise some workers interviewed yesterday on the streets of downtown.
``It's the way the hierarchy is built,'' said Boston resident Ross Michaels, a cook. ``The rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. Everyone's aware of it - it's the status quo.''
MassINC said the number of Bay State households making less than $25,000 a year climbed to nearly 31 percent in 1999 from about 26 percent in 1989.
The study ranked Massachusetts ninth in the country in terms of income inequality, with the wealthiest 10 percent of Bay State households earning an average 11.5 times as much as those in the bottom 10 percent.
That means the income gap has grown since 1979, when the wealthiest earned about nine times as much as the poorest, according to study author Andrew Sum, of Northeastern University's Center for Labor Market Studies.
``We still call ourselves the commonwealth of Massachusetts, but the wealth is not as commonly distributed as it used to be,'' Sum said. ``The economy of the 1990s increased the disparities.''
The boom years of the '90s increased the annual income, adjusted for inflation, for the top 10 percent of workers in the state between 3.4 percent and 4.5 percent between 1989 and 1999, Sum said. All other workers in the state saw their inflation-adjusted income decrease, except for the bottom 10 percent, which saw a 1.4 percent increase, or about $143.
Sum said that differed from the 1980s, when the average income of all workers in the state rose.
New York led the nation in income inequality, the study found, with its top households earning 13.72 percent more on average than the bottom 10 percent. Rhode Island, New Jersey and Connecticut joined Massachusetts in the top 10.
The study should serve as a ``wake-up call'' to Massachusetts political and social leaders, said Robert B. Reich, a former U.S. labor secretary who teaches at Brandeis University in Waltham.
``Nobody wants their children to grow up in a two-tiered society, and that is exactly what we are creating,'' Reich said.
A number of people said the key to closing the income gap is to train and educate lower-paid workers.
``We know if we increase the skill level, the gap will narrow,'' said Jim Brett, president of the New England Council. ``In biotech, software, telecommunications - in all those areas there is a high vacancy of positions right now, and we don't have the skilled workers to fill them.''
Some who work with lower-paid workers worry that the current economic downturn will widen the gulf between rich and poor.
``As new people get laid off, they will find jobs and bump out the people further down,'' said John Drew, executive vice president of Action for Boston Community Development. Drew said his agency has seen an increase in the number of people seeking food, shelter and other assistance in the past year.
Others see the income gap reflected in a widening disparity in health care services.
``Lower-income people are paying more out of pocket than upper-income people'' to get services, said Rob Restuccia, head of Health Care for All.
Education, job skills and family makeup are the leading drivers behind the income gap, said Dana Ansel, MassINC research director.
``People tend to marry and partner with people who have similar education attainment,'' she said. And that means that many of the best educated workers - who tend to get the highest-paying jobs - form high-income households.
Added to that, she said, is that people in better-paying jobs work more hours on average than those in less well-paid jobs.
In August 30th, 2001 article from Business Today reads, "In the rat race to make more money, the rich pulled further ahead of the poor and middle classes in the Bay State through the 1990's, a study of income inequality released yesterday shows." What's news about that? Doesn't that stand to reason mathematically? "The income gap between rich and poor increased across the country even as the nation's economy blasted upward on the strength of technology and worker productivity, The Massachusetts Institute for a New Commonwealth reported."
Mass. Inc., said the number of Bay State households making less than 25 grand a year climbed to nearly 31% in 1999 from about 26% in 1989. The study ranked Massachusetts ninth in the country in terms of income inequality, with the wealthiest 10% of households earning an average 11 1/2 times as much as those in the bottom 10%.
Now, these are Democrats running Massachusetts, where we're supposed to be equal, have big hearts and compassion. They're supposed to give the money away that they're taking from the poor in the first place. This is the state of the Kennedy clan. Yet the income gap between rich and poor grows in the state that is arguably the liberal Mecca of this country.
The study ranked Massachusetts ninth in the country in terms of income inequality. How can this be? "That means the income gap has grown since 1979 when the wealthiest earned about nine times as much as the poorest," according to study author Andrew Sum of Northeastern University's Center for Labor Market Studies. Keep your eye on this Andrew Sum guy. This guy's got guts. This guy is honest. "We still call ourselves the commonwealth of the Massachusetts, but the wealth is not as commonly distributed as it used to be."
So, we now know that the economy of Bill Clinton increased the disparities between the rich and poor in Massachusetts - and across the nation. The boom years of the 90's increased the annual income adjusted for inflation for the top 10% of workers in Massachusetts. All other workers in the state saw their inflation-adjusted incomes decrease, except for the bottom 10% which saw a 1.4% increase.
Andrew Sum also said that all of this differs from the 1980's, when the average income of all workers in Massachusetts actually, rose. So what do we learn from this? We learn that Rush is right - and we learn that Reagan was right. Supply-side economics - derisively called "the trickle-down theory" - works. Everybody does better when tax rates are lowered. All income groups went up. We've demonstrated this over and over. I've written about it in both books. I've spoken exhaustively about it behind this, the golden EIB microphone.
Again: everybody did better in the 1980's. It's so frustrating to have to go back and re-teach this stuff. But you have to do it because the liberals are lying about it every day. They're rewriting history every day. Therefore, let it be shouted from the mountaintops that - with Bill Clinton's tax increase on the rich in the 1990's - the income gap between rich and poor grew, whereas in the 1980's, with tax cuts across-the-board for everybody, the average income of all workers in the state of Massachusetts (and I dare say the entire country) went up.
Whether it's a two-tiered society is of no importance. Why do liberals continually make the claim that prosperity is a zero-sum game? Didn't they listen in Economics 101? Or is it somehow to their advantage that they insist on appearing to be utterly stupid?
No, these institutions which are above the people's government are created by the top tier of society. That is without a doubt a FACT and it does matter.
Or do UN inspired environmental laws have nothing to do with the situation in Klamath?
. so I guess the Reagan years weren't so bad afterall.
Seriously, this report speaks the truth...wage-earners have not even kept up with inflation in the last 8 to10 years..it has been a giant well-conceived myth that the "ecomony" was so great for everybody...
those that weren't doing so "great" just kept quiet, thinking that they and they alone, were not keeping up while the rest of the workers were doing great.
well, the rest of the workers were not doing great.
So those Dimmocrap states don't seem to be doing so well...
If one person who makes a $million and a person who makes $25,000 and they both increase their income by 10% - the income disparity growths - fair? Yes!
the disparity would grow only in absolute terms, in relative terms it would remain constant
at least the writer didn't try to use that cheap mathematical trick, as most garbage studies of income disparity do
however, this article does completely ignore the extensive upward and downward mobility of income levels experienced by most people, well documented by i.r.s. and other studies
but then, most liberals can't imagine how someone's income could change if wasn't caused by government
i think it's because the whole concept of the pie getting bigger without them being in total control of how it's sliced up bothers them terribly
the mere fact that it might not be "fair" drives them to distraction and leads them to pursue anything and everything that'll prevent the pie from growing at all, leaving them to fiddle with the marginal size of the slices in perpetuity
The spirit of my response was:
(1) to suggest that the proper and more meaningful approach to this disparity is to work to improve your station in life, not complain because other people are in a better financial position or working better jobs; and
(2) the concept that regardless of how much people advance themselves, there's always more money to be made by whomever has the creativeness and grit to go to work and do it.
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.