Whither income inequality?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I am absolutely livid.

With the possible exception of climate change, income inequality is likely the worst crisis facing America in modern times. But why won't The Media cover it anymore? How come it got no attention in the 2016 campaign? Do they only cover it when Occupy forces their hand?

I've been writing against income inequality my WHOLE adult life, and considering I'm about to turn 44, that goes back a DAMN LONG time! But from The Media? Crickets. The only time they ever covered it was around 2011-12.

[JA]

Perhaps they'd write about it if they felt that it directly affected them. Without question even they are affected by its side-effects, but nowhere near the degree, the working class has. Climate change, social justice, environmentalism, and so on, while unquestionably critical issues carry the advantage of being "cool." Discussing income inequality simply isn't going to win you kudos from your progressive peers or social "superiors." Not to mention I doubt the wealthy owners of increasingly monopolized media outlets are too keen on such talk.

[Jeffster]

It seemed as if the Occupy movement was sidelined while feminist issues and all the other SJW stuff began getting major attention right around then. I wouldn't even be surprised if that was done intentionally by the wealthy and their media companies to get the lower classes fighting among themselves, instead of focusing on the gap between the top 1% and everyone else.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

"The Media" as in, the tiny subset of journalists (mostly actors or propagandists in practice) who are given prominent nationwide platforms to use are all in the One Percent. (They're mostly at the bottom of the 1%, but they're still in it.) It doesn't matter whether they're liberal or conservative, they're all massively invested in the status quo and living inside the bubble.

[Person Man]

"The Media" as in, the tiny subset of journalists (mostly actors or propagandists in practice) who are given prominent nationwide platforms to use are all in the One Percent. (They're mostly at the bottom of the 1%, but they're still in it.) It doesn't matter whether they're liberal or conservative, they're all massively invested in the status quo and living inside the bubble.

I thought they made millions..but really just like 300k a year? I guess thats how ball players are.

[pbrower2a]

Extreme -- because only 2% of the people matter to a majority of our politicians, the ones who rigidly obey the dictates of the corporate lobbyists hired to keep the empty-suit pols and fanatic right-wingers in line. No human suffering will be in excess so long as it indulges the economic elites.

 

[The_Doctor]

Does your blog cover this and statistics? I've been tryign to find a good source.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

"The Media" as in, the tiny subset of journalists (mostly actors or propagandists in practice) who are given prominent nationwide platforms to use are all in the One Percent. (They're mostly at the bottom of the 1%, but they're still in it.) It doesn't matter whether they're liberal or conservative, they're all massively invested in the status quo and living inside the bubble.

I thought they made millions..but really just like 300k a year? I guess thats how ball players are.

Yeah, that's about right.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/report-non-profit-npr-to-make-a-modest-margin-this-year/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[136or142]

I don't agree that it wasn't covered in the 2016 election.  It's just that a lot of people who are resentful over the increase in income inequality voted for Donald Trump.


I know there has been the recent analysis of polling indicating that Trump voters didn't vote on the basis of the economic status, but I don't agree with that analysis.  I think disentangling resentment over a decline of economic status and resentment of 'the others' is very difficult to do.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The corporate media only covers what the corporate media wants to cover. You have to go elsewhere for much real discussion of the issues.

[136or142]

The corporate media only covers what the corporate media wants to cover. You have to go elsewhere for much real discussion of the issues.

Conversely, after the 2016 election, the media did cover income inequality in terms of 'the poor working class whites who have been overlooked/condescended to/exploited by coastal liberal 'elites.'

[Person Man]

I don't agree that it wasn't covered in the 2016 election.  It's just that a lot of people who are resentful over the increase in income inequality voted for Donald Trump.


I know there has been the recent analysis of polling indicating that Trump voters didn't vote on the basis of the economic status, but I don't agree with that analysis.  I think disentangling resentment over a decline of economic status and resentment of 'the others' is very difficult to do.

Trump ran to the right by runnimg to the left. Deregulation helped the minority working poor at the expense of the white working poor and  "lower middle class"(people who aren't or never really middle class, but had some money when they were union).

[136or142]

I don't agree that it wasn't covered in the 2016 election.  It's just that a lot of people who are resentful over the increase in income inequality voted for Donald Trump.


I know there has been the recent analysis of polling indicating that Trump voters didn't vote on the basis of the economic status, but I don't agree with that analysis.  I think disentangling resentment over a decline of economic status and resentment of 'the others' is very difficult to do.

Trump ran to the right by runnimg to the left. Deregulation helped the minority working poor at the expense of the white working poor and  "lower middle class"(people who aren't or never really middle class, but had some money when they were union).

I'm not sure what point you're making here.

[Person Man]

I don't agree that it wasn't covered in the 2016 election.  It's just that a lot of people who are resentful over the increase in income inequality voted for Donald Trump.


I know there has been the recent analysis of polling indicating that Trump voters didn't vote on the basis of the economic status, but I don't agree with that analysis.  I think disentangling resentment over a decline of economic status and resentment of 'the others' is very difficult to do.

I'm not sure what point you're making here.

Trump ran to the right by runnimg to the left. Deregulation helped the minority working poor at the expense of the white working poor and  "lower middle class"(people who aren't or never really middle class, but had some money when they were union).

Income Inequality or left-wing concerns can be made a right-wing issue.

[136or142]

I don't agree that it wasn't covered in the 2016 election.  It's just that a lot of people who are resentful over the increase in income inequality voted for Donald Trump.


I know there has been the recent analysis of polling indicating that Trump voters didn't vote on the basis of the economic status, but I don't agree with that analysis.  I think disentangling resentment over a decline of economic status and resentment of 'the others' is very difficult to do.

I'm not sure what point you're making here.

Trump ran to the right by runnimg to the left. Deregulation helped the minority working poor at the expense of the white working poor and  "lower middle class"(people who aren't or never really middle class, but had some money when they were union).

Income Inequality or left-wing concerns can be made a right-wing issue.

Ah, yes I completely agree.  Although in Trump's case, he took nearly every side of every issue, so it's difficult to know.  If Trump had a philosophy, he seems to most closely resemble (or resembled during the campaign) European far right parties and we see with UKIP and others the appeal they have in declining working class areas.

As I'm sure you know, these far right parties are anti free trade and support social programs (for 'old stock' citizens.)  In France, Marine Le Pen ran to the left of Macron on these issues (if being anti free trade is left wing.)

[Person Man]

I don't agree that it wasn't covered in the 2016 election.  It's just that a lot of people who are resentful over the increase in income inequality voted for Donald Trump.


I know there has been the recent analysis of polling indicating that Trump voters didn't vote on the basis of the economic status, but I don't agree with that analysis.  I think disentangling resentment over a decline of economic status and resentment of 'the others' is very difficult to do.

I'm not sure what point you're making here.

Trump ran to the right by runnimg to the left. Deregulation helped the minority working poor at the expense of the white working poor and  "lower middle class"(people who aren't or never really middle class, but had some money when they were union).

Income Inequality or left-wing concerns can be made a right-wing issue.

Ah, yes I completely agree.  Although in Trump's case, he took nearly every side of every issue, so it's difficult to know.  If Trump had a philosophy, he seems to most closely resemble (or resembled during the campaign) European far right parties and we see with UKIP and others the appeal they have in declining working class areas.

As I'm sure you know, these far right parties are anti free trade and support social programs (for 'old stock' citizens.)  In France, Marine Le Pen ran to the left of Macron on these issues (if being anti free trade is left wing.)

Yeah. It is. Its state control of business. That's left-wing. And it could be right-wing because its private(ethnic interests) control of the state.

The way Democrats counter this is to try to find their reverse Trump (get the Government off of our backs for the sake of social justice)...and is probably how Obama and Democrats won Libertarian/socially moderate red areas in 06 and 08. In fact, the recession probably hurt Democrats long term because it forced tgem back into establishment left-wing politics.

The alternative is the FDR model where a large recession totally strained the ability for bland nationalism to deal with problems (the Harding-Coolidge-Hoover machine was a lot like the Trump machine of using trade restrictions, nativism, and spending on security programs (Drug Wars)) to prop things up without treading on the 2% and also pitting the 48-70 percentile (the 53%) against the 47%) and the Democrats simply respond by dropping any non-economic message and going after a hard-left economic message.

[vanguard96]

I think economic freedom is an important part of the equation to overcome income inequality and we can make it an issue that on case-by-case basis that left of center types can agree with. This view is gaining ground in the developing world.

Examples

- zoning laws put in place thanks to restaurants & merchants collusion with local government that protect them from competition like food trucks.
- licensing laws that require cosmetology school for African hair braiding, eye brow dyeing done by largely immigrant & non-white minorities
- reform on transport licensing such as taxi medallions - with a reformed system for taxi licensing you can both limit the Uber type big business side and the absurd cost of taxi medallions in big cities that limit options for both those wanting to start their own businesses as well as give more choices to people in underserved neighborhoods
- licensing laws on the informal economy and entrepreneurship in general - a hard look at what laws are valid to prevent fraud and abuse as well as promote safety vs those that only serve to protect those already in the preferred position and limit options for both small business and the general public. An example of this is requiring a tour guide to be licensed by the city. Does it really help anyone except for the established tour agencies and the city government to make someone doing a new style of guided tours in Savannah, GA really help
- laws against cash holding - this is related to the war on drugs as the authoritarians equate holding a lot of cash with drug trafficking. And will seize cash without any crime. This penalizes people living on the margins and discourages them from starting businesses with all the barriers to entry
- taxation laws favoring larger corporations - owning a business is very difficult from a tax perspective and the process is time consuming. When the effort is on revenue collection in the mindset of maximizing the public welfare revenue as they think in India or at the IRS then wouldn't a simpler system encourage less rather than more rule breaking?
- preventing charity from destroying opportunities for a better way through local entrepreneurship - in an article from the African Students for Liberty page I saw them mention that charities like Oxfam were flooding the market with their charitable donations - without the best knowledge of what the local people needed. Getting back to the US if people could have the chance to develop their own solutions based on local, direct knowledge rather than national or state-level decisions based on aggregate and influenced by special interests there would be a better outcome to allow more people to improve their situation.
- zoning laws & rent controls with unforeseen circumstances - a great deal of empirical evidence shows that zoning laws favoring single-family homes reduces the supply of rental units - forcing the prices up and increasing the competition for the limited supply of housing. With more of their spending on housing people are less likely to have money for emergency situations meaning they are more likely to live paycheck to paycheck and borrow to make ends meet. Rent controls also lead to fewer properties being built and less expenditures on the properties because they are forced to have a certain percentage of properties be allocated 'affordable housing'. A great deal of centrist local groups have studied the negative impact of rent controls. In this case so many of the laws are influenced by the oversized influence of developers and chambers of conference on local government.

In isolation a few of these should find palatable for many, many people and address the root cause of the issue rather than looking at things in aggregate in snapshots in time of different people and saying it is terrible even though real incomes are in many cases rising.

[136or142]

I think economic freedom is an important part of the equation to overcome income inequality and we can make it an issue that on case-by-case basis that left of center types can agree with. This view is gaining ground in the developing world.

Examples

- zoning laws put in place thanks to restaurants & merchants collusion with local government that protect them from competition like food trucks.
- licensing laws that require cosmetology school for African hair braiding, eye brow dyeing done by largely immigrant & non-white minorities
- reform on transport licensing such as taxi medallions - with a reformed system for taxi licensing you can both limit the Uber type big business side and the absurd cost of taxi medallions in big cities that limit options for both those wanting to start their own businesses as well as give more choices to people in underserved neighborhoods
- licensing laws on the informal economy and entrepreneurship in general - a hard look at what laws are valid to prevent fraud and abuse as well as promote safety vs those that only serve to protect those already in the preferred position and limit options for both small business and the general public. An example of this is requiring a tour guide to be licensed by the city. Does it really help anyone except for the established tour agencies and the city government to make someone doing a new style of guided tours in Savannah, GA really help
- laws against cash holding - this is related to the war on drugs as the authoritarians equate holding a lot of cash with drug trafficking. And will seize cash without any crime. This penalizes people living on the margins and discourages them from starting businesses with all the barriers to entry
- taxation laws favoring larger corporations - owning a business is very difficult from a tax perspective and the process is time consuming. When the effort is on revenue collection in the mindset of maximizing the public welfare revenue as they think in India or at the IRS then wouldn't a simpler system encourage less rather than more rule breaking?
- preventing charity from destroying opportunities for a better way through local entrepreneurship - in an article from the African Students for Liberty page I saw them mention that charities like Oxfam were flooding the market with their charitable donations - without the best knowledge of what the local people needed. Getting back to the US if people could have the chance to develop their own solutions based on local, direct knowledge rather than national or state-level decisions based on aggregate and influenced by special interests there would be a better outcome to allow more people to improve their situation.
- zoning laws & rent controls with unforeseen circumstances - a great deal of empirical evidence shows that zoning laws favoring single-family homes reduces the supply of rental units - forcing the prices up and increasing the competition for the limited supply of housing. With more of their spending on housing people are less likely to have money for emergency situations meaning they are more likely to live paycheck to paycheck and borrow to make ends meet. Rent controls also lead to fewer properties being built and less expenditures on the properties because they are forced to have a certain percentage of properties be allocated 'affordable housing'. A great deal of centrist local groups have studied the negative impact of rent controls. In this case so many of the laws are influenced by the oversized influence of developers and chambers of conference on local government.

In isolation a few of these should find palatable for many, many people and address the root cause of the issue rather than looking at things in aggregate in snapshots in time of different people and saying it is terrible even though real incomes are in many cases rising.

Why do I have a feeling that you cut and pasted this from one of the websites that use the ridiculous and loaded term 'economic freedom'?