Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Media Myth Debunked: Income Inequality Is Actually Plummeting
NewsBusters ^ | February 19, 2012 | Noel Sheppard

Posted on 02/22/2012 3:20:35 PM PST by CaptainKrunch

Since the first Occupy Wall Street protest, you haven't been able to swing a dead cat in this country without hitting an Obama-loving media member carping and whining about income inequality.

Yet according to this chart created by the nation's largest federation of trade unions the AFL-CIO, the difference between average CEO and average worker pay has been plummeting since the year 2000:

Read More: NewsBusters

 


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: classwarfare; incomedisparity; incomes; occupy; onepercent

1 posted on 02/22/2012 3:20:41 PM PST by CaptainKrunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch

look at the rise during bubba’s administration, no wonder the limousine liberals loved him.


2 posted on 02/22/2012 3:35:14 PM PST by dangerdoc (see post #6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch

BM


3 posted on 02/22/2012 3:35:45 PM PST by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch
The chart is interesting; but it is far from a comprehensive measure of income inequality. The “Gini-Coefficient” is a comprehensive measure of income inequality (not the same as “inequity”, of course). By that measure, the U.S. is about in the middle — roughly tied with Mexico and China. There has been slight improvement in recent years.
4 posted on 02/22/2012 3:43:20 PM PST by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch

A sinking tide lowers all boats ... thus, a debt recession trying to be solved by adding more debt is a sinking tide.


5 posted on 02/22/2012 3:48:42 PM PST by taxcutisapayraise (Making Statism Unpopular)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch

How can you discuss the ‘concentration of wealth’ when many who are in the 1% arrive and depart constantly?
I know a few folks who decided to go Galt. How does their absence in the 1% count?


6 posted on 02/22/2012 3:49:18 PM PST by griswold3 (Big Government does not tolerate rivals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch

When all but a few have nothing, we will have equality to a large extent. That’s Obama’s solution.


7 posted on 02/22/2012 3:59:19 PM PST by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch

16th Amendment was the damnation of this country. Anyone’s level of income or assets should not be any damn business of the Federal government. Real freedom would be kicking the damn government’s nose out of the whole sphere.


8 posted on 02/22/2012 4:00:24 PM PST by LALALAW (one of the asses whose sick of our "ruling" classes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

Gini was a Marxist.


9 posted on 02/22/2012 4:38:33 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch

Odd scale. The first two columns represent 20 years and the next four represent 9 years.

Many people looking at this would think the number shot up in a short time but has been going down for a long time.


10 posted on 02/22/2012 4:52:18 PM PST by Right Wing Assault (Dick Obama is more inexperienced now than he was before he was elected.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangerdoc

It’s no accident that the globalist CEO mob love the Chi-coms,too. That is, as long as the Chinese government are acting as total control fascists in love with perfumed princes. I think we will see what happens when the chi-coms turn back to the faith.


11 posted on 02/22/2012 8:12:23 PM PST by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dangus
"Gini was a Marxist."

That was my first thought too. 

Who proposed the idea that there is supposed to be income equality to begin with?  Karl Marx?   That must be why Obama and the American left regard the farcical idea of income equality with such urgent importance.  It's a propoganda talking point of the communist left.  It helps them gain support from the idiot population.  Class warfare 101.

Is someone going to tell me that someone that who is smarter, more talented, and more ambitious is supposed to have the same income as someone who is dumber, lacking in talent, and lacking in ambition?  A floor sweeper should have an income equal to that of a CEO?  There should be income "inequality" in a free society.  The point is, everyone in a free society has the freedom of opportunity.  Each individual is rewarded according to his own merits and talents.  In a Marxist "income-equality" utopia (read farce), there is no freedom of opportunity, the successful are punished for their success and the unsuccessful are rewarded for their failure.

The notion of income equality is pure communist rhetoric.

 

12 posted on 02/23/2012 6:43:18 AM PST by CaptainKrunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch

Not only that, but if a class of entrepreneurs create most of the wealth of a country, that country gets a very poor GINI ratings, even if everyone is well-fed, well-educated, and has social motility.

On the other hand, if an army of bureacurats control all of the wealth of a country, and the people are all starving, illiterate and repressed, GINI finds that country is doing wonderful.


13 posted on 02/23/2012 7:08:56 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dangus; CaptainKrunch
You seem to have overlooked my little parenthetical remark, about how income “inequality” does not mean there is income “inequity”. The later is a subjective, value-laden concept much beloved and abused by Marxists; the former is an objective measure.

The Gini Coefficient is derived from a mathematical calculation. It is universally accepted as the best measure of income equality. Even the CIA uses it, throughout its World Factbook. By itself, it is no more ‘political’ than then the Fahrenheit or Celsius temperature scales. Of course, a Marxist will use it for political purposes — just as warmists use selected Fahrenheit readings for their twisted ends — but, that can be said about any set of data.

14 posted on 02/23/2012 9:35:19 AM PST by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

Actually, while I appreciate what you’re saying, Corrado Gini was a nationalist-socialist, having authored, “The Scientific Basis for Fascism.” Gini’s statistic was purposely devised to create the illusion that private wealth created economic strife, while public funds (controlled, of coure, by an elite) created economic bliss. That the CIA uses the Gini coefficient, while true, is shameful, and is further evidence of the CIA’s viciously anti-American, anti-Capitalist, and anti-Christian orientation.


15 posted on 02/23/2012 7:18:18 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch; lilycicero; MaryLou1; glock rocks; JPG; VinceASA; Monkey Face; RIghtwardHo; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.


16 posted on 02/23/2012 7:20:55 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

"By that measure, the U.S. is about in the middle — roughly tied with Mexico and China. There has been slight improvement in recent years."

Well, that disregards the most important factor of all.  Standard of living.  Forget income inequality.  Of what value is that?  What is the difference between the standard of living between the average citizen of the United States and the average citizen of either Mexico or China?  There is no comparrison.

 

"You seem to have overlooked my little parenthetical remark, about how income “inequality” does not mean there is income “inequity”. The later is a subjective, value-laden concept much beloved and abused by Marxists; the former is an objective measure."

I get the difference.  But the statistical calculation of income variables within a society is in no way relavent as the measure of "standard of living" as I pointed out above.

 

17 posted on 02/23/2012 10:33:15 PM PST by CaptainKrunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch
” But the statistical calculation of income variables within a society is in no way relavent as the measure of “standard of living” as I pointed out above.”

That's a good point. The Gini coefficient only measures income equality. Level of income, would be quite another matter — as would “standard of living” (lots of factors to consider). That's why it's also useful to know (among other things) the GDP/person and the GPD/person adjusted for purchasing power parity.

18 posted on 02/24/2012 1:00:53 AM PST by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch

Class Warfare bump


19 posted on 02/24/2012 10:00:23 PM PST by Dajjal ("I'm not concerned about the very poor." -- severely conservative Mitt Rmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson