The Income-Inequality Myth

[Mister D]

SNIP

Studies also show that what inequality does exist is not the result of the Bush tax (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#) cuts or a failure to spend more on social-welfare programs, but on the transformation of the American economy from a focus on manufacturing to information and technology. This change puts a greater premium on education. As a result, the incomes of high-school dropouts or those with just high-school degrees have stagnated while incomes for many college graduates and those with graduate-level educations have increased significantly. The unfortunate fact is that despite massive increases in education spending, large segments of our society remain unprepared for a 21st-century economy. That is a tragedy, but it has nothing to do with tax cuts for the rich.
In the end, however, one has to ask a more basic question. Why do we care about inequality at all?
Poverty, of course, is a bad thing. But is inequality? After all, if we doubled everyone’s income tomorrow, we would eliminate an enormous amount of economic hardship. Yet, inequality would actually increase. As Margaret Thatcher said about those who obsess over inequality, “So long as the [income] gap is smaller, they would rather have the poor poorer.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287643/income-inequality-myth-michael-tanner

[Conley]

We definitely need to improve our education system, and money isn't the problem.

I would begin by ending tenure - that would free up considerable money which could then be put to better use.

[wingrider]

look at it this way.

If you own a vehicle of any kind as log as it runs you are in the top 5 percent of the world population.

in other words 95 percent of the population of the world cannot afford to purchase a vehicle.

[Peter1469]

Income inequality in the US is also distorted. With changes in the tax code a lot of wealth that used to not be considered income is today; so it is hard to say that inequality is increasing.

[MMC]

Tenure isnt the problem.....The Fed is.....also There is no reason for Adminstrators to have two or 3 Superintendants, Secretaries that have secretaries, Priniciples and Assistant principles to be making over 180k a year in grade schools. Knock out all the waste and the bureaucracy. Quit tieing Education to politics. Quit raising the prices for education. It's real simple if they have no one to teach then they will be forced to work physical labor jobs just to earn a living.

[Conley]

Your wife is a teacher right MMC? So what is the argument for tenure?

[MMC]

Tenure allows teachers to advocate on behalf of students and disagree openly with school and district administrators. It also protect teachers from being fired from false accusations. Which then schools would be able to remove a teacher without having them investigated. It also allows underperforming teachers to improve their skills. Also it protects them from being fired from personal or political reasons.

Most tenure teachers have to always take classes and pay for them out their own money. As well as handle other duties within the school. Lunchroom, buses, afterschool programs. Usually the teachers fresh out of college and entering the work field, when that 8hrs is up. They are out the door and on their way home.

Calls for special protections for teachers coincided with the women’s suffrage movement and labor struggles during the late 19th century. The National Education Association issued a report in 1885 advocating for public school teachers to receive tenure to protect against political favoritism and discrimination based on gender and race.<<<<<my wife has this on a placard.

[Mister D]

Income inequality in the US is also distorted. With changes in the tax code a lot of wealth that used to not be considered income is today; so it is hard to say that inequality is increasing.

Interesting point.

[MMC]

From a philosophical stand point there will always be inequality. There will always be those that have more than others. Despite whatever reasons.

[Mister D]

From a philosophical stand point there will always be inequality. There will always be those that have more than others. Despite whatever reasons.

That's certainly true.

[waltky]

Income inequality hits children...
:shocked:
Inequality 'highest for 20 years' - Save The Children
31 October 2012 - Save The Children says inequality harms children's life chances


Global inequalities in wealth are at their highest level for 20 years and are growing, according to a new report by Save The Children. While the charity acknowledges progress has been made in goals such as reducing child mortality, the report says this has been uneven across income groups. Continuing inequality could hinder further progress in improving living standards, the charity says.

The report comes ahead of a meeting of a high-level UN panel on poverty. "In recent decades the world has made dramatic progress in cutting child deaths and improving opportunities for children; we are now reaching a tipping point where preventable child deaths could be eradicated in our lifetime," Save the Children's chief executive, Justin Forsyth, said. "Unless inequality is addressed... any future development framework will simply not succeed in maintaining or accelerating progress. What's more, it will hold individual countries - and the world - back from experiencing real growth and prosperity," Mr Forsyth added.

Save The Children's researchers found that in most of the 32 developing countries they looked at, the rich had increased their share of national income since the 1990s. In a fifth of the countries, the incomes of the poorest had fallen over the same period. The gap has become particularly pronounced among children and affects their well-being as well as causing disparities in several key indicators, the charity says. For example, it notes that in Tanzania, child mortality in the richest fifth of the population fell from 135 to 90 per 1,000 births over the research period, while the poorest fifth saw hardly any progress with a modest fall of 140 to 137 per 1,000 births.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-20156365

[Mainecoons]

SNIP

Studies also show that what inequality does exist is not the result of the Bush tax (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#) cuts or a failure to spend more on social-welfare programs, but on the transformation of the American economy from a focus on manufacturing to information and technology. This change puts a greater premium on education. As a result, the incomes of high-school dropouts or those with just high-school degrees have stagnated while incomes for many college graduates and those with graduate-level educations have increased significantly. The unfortunate fact is that despite massive increases in education spending, large segments of our society remain unprepared for a 21st-century economy. That is a tragedy, but it has nothing to do with tax cuts for the rich.
In the end, however, one has to ask a more basic question. Why do we care about inequality at all?
Poverty, of course, is a bad thing. But is inequality? After all, if we doubled everyone’s income tomorrow, we would eliminate an enormous amount of economic hardship. Yet, inequality would actually increase. As Margaret Thatcher said about those who obsess over inequality, “So long as the [income] gap is smaller, they would rather have the poor poorer.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287643/income-inequality-myth-michael-tanner

First off, Walt, the OP is about the U.S, not some world study from the U.N.

Secondly, one needs to ask oneself just how two things that liberalism favors and drives, excessive immigration of unskilled and educated people, and out of wed-lock birth, cause exactly what they bemoan. Study after study has shown that we've been importing unskilled and desperate labor and the competition for too few jobs in that category has markedly depressed the wages and well being of the unskilled and semi-skilled working class. Nice work, Democrats.

Secondly, the leftist "free love" crowd and their welfare programs and indoctrination via "entertainment" have driven the unwed motherhood level in the U.S. far higher than it used to be. Again, study after study shows that the unfortunate victims of this, the children, are much more likely to live in poverty and have a whole host of other social problems.

And then there's the darling of the left, the "Great Society" which among its other "benefits" affected the black population of this country such that unwed birth in that cohort is in excess of 70 percent.

Nice work liberals!