The Growing Social Inequalities Becomes Wide

 

 

 

Nicholas D. Kristof wrote in a column in The New York Times about something surprising happened in the United States: "Our Banana Republic." In making the announcement, he wrote, "I regularly travel to the famous banana republic with inequality. In some countries ruled by the wealthy, the group consisting of the richest one percent of the total population dominated by greedy 20 percent of national wealth. "Of course, that was when he wrote," You do not need to travel to distant countries and a danger to greed is observed inequalities. We can see it in our own country, and as a result of Tuesday's election (Election Midterm 2010), the situation may worsen. One characteristic of a banana republic, according to Kristof, is income inequality, increased from almost nine per cent in 1976.

 
One characteristic of a banana republic, as argued by Kristof, is income inequality. The richest one percent of Americans now control nearly 24 percent of revenues, an increase of almost nine per cent in 1976. He referred to a very good series on inequality, written by Timothy Noah of Slate wrote that the United States can now have debated the distribution of wealth balanced against the traditional banana republics, such as Nicaragua, Venezuela and Guyana. Ten series on inequality was won in 2011 Hillman Prize for Journalism Magazine. In the late 1970s, a half-century trend towards growing income equality, reversed itself. Ever since then, the US revenue grew to more unbalanced. Moderate income workers no longer enjoy the benefits of rising productivity, and upward mobility, the American economy savings ever grace, wobbly.
In the United States, as mooted, income inequality is exacerbated because the financial sector has political power. The rich were writing their own financial rules and become richer again. President Barack Obama with some of the speeches trying to reduce inequalities are becoming more common.

 
However, as argued by Jacob Weisberg, if Obama declares war on inequality, inequality appears to emerge as the winner. Obama to be blamed for failing to articulate this abstract threat to the way ordinary people can appreciate it. "As the deficit," writes Weisberg, "income inequality did not kill anyone - only potentially weaken the strength and spirit of the country. Moving toward the distribution of income, such as Brazil threatens individual happiness, social security, and the United States. However, so far, President Obama did not show how to get people to relate the issue. Although he never said no dividing line between Main Street and Wall Street, but the lines that existed and continues to widen every year. "Dave Gilson and Carolyn Perot in" It's the Inequality, Stupid "submit data and charts that part of the growth of the US economy during the 30 years ago was dominated by 0.01 percent over the top one-hundredth of one percent, which is now the master average of US $ 27 million per household. The average income for the bottom 90 percent is US $ 31.244.

 
Kevin Drum wrote several papers in Mother Jones about inequality. In "Income Inequalilty and the Crash of 2008" he questioned doubt that rising income inequality has nothing to do with the financial crisis tercerusnya recently. To that end, he cited the economic historian, David Moss that rising inequality is due to too much power to Wall Street, and with it, allowing them to promote a wave of deregulation and put the system in jeopardy. Write Drum, "We continue to live in a world of corporations and the rich have too much power, that is way too much money stupid trekking around the top of the pyramid of wealth, and the middle class continues to freeze. This situation is not healthy. "In" Income Inequality Continues Week "Drum stressed that in principle, the overall economy to grow quite large over the past 30 years, generating a lot of extras. However, middle-class large wage earnings received a small portion of the revenue growth. The middle class and the working class who are earning less because their earnings are not increasing at the same rate as overall economic growth.

 
In "Inequality and Economic COLLAPSES" Kevin Drum paper quoted the International Monetary Fund (IMF), "Inequality, Leverage and Crises" by Michael Kumhof and Romain Rancière stating that the United States experienced two major economic crisis, the Great Recession that began in 1929 and the Great Recession that began in 2007. Both crises were preceded by a significant increase in the inequality of income and wealth, and the same increase significantly in the ratio of debt to household income among low and middle income. When the ratio of debt to income begins to be perceived as unsustainable, it becomes a trigger of the crisis.

 
The crisis, discussed Drum, portrayed by household debt defaults large scale and with a sharp contraction in output as in the US financial crisis in 2007. "Because of the crisis was costly, redistribution policies that prevent excessive indebtedness among households and reduce ex-ante risk-crisis much desired from the standpoint of macroeconomic stability compared with ex-post basis, as a rescue plan and debt restructuring. "He strengthened his argument by saying," we are the first framework provides a consistent mechanism internally attributed the rise the observed empirical patterns in household income inequality between high-income households with low and middle income, with revenue rising debt ratio in this second group, and the risk of financial crisis. "
Relatively recent, "The Effect of Politics on Income Inequality" Kevin Drum argues that income inequality and wage stagnation rooted both in economics and politics. For discussion only, let it be said that the inequality caused by economic factors half and half by political factors. He also tried to explain the role of trade unions that parts of the economy, decent guesses that trade unions may be responsible for 15-20 percent of income inequality, and because of economic factors than half of the total, are responsible for about seven to 10 percent or more. "However," he cautioned, "economic factors also have an impact on the economic part, and here I put the impact is likely to be 40-50 per cent. In other words, in terms of amount, 20-25 percent. "

The current global crisis of capitalism began with the severe contraction in the housing market in the United States in mid 2007. Although even five years and said the recovery is taking place in many countries, the impact of the crisis was still felt, at least in terms of unemployment levels are still high in country, about nine per cent and also in other countries. The US economy, as in many other countries, said serious trapped in the ice. "In terms of reality," observes Richard Wolff, "The United States is so similar to many countries rich elite and komospolitan inhabit major cities by the large rural population who are struggling to meet their needs." Wolff who watched kepapakedanaan middle class America due to the collapse of the writing, "middle class" United States of exultant so celebrated after the Second World War, even merosoto slowly, now rapidly disappearing, as the economic crisis and the response of "austerity" government, which both favor 10 percent above those of the population at the expense of the others.

 
Large corporations and wealthy citizens, according to Richard Wolff observation again, since long ago learned that if you want to maintain the distribution of wealth and income are not the same so you need to share political power equally not the same. Profit corporation uses to pay huge salaries and bonuses to their executives, pay huge dividends to the shareholders of their majority, and "contribute" to politics. "Capitalist economy that is increasingly unequal pay undemocratic politics is increasingly needed."

Certainly, writing interesting and inviting debate about income inequality in America comes from "One the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%" by Joseph Stiglitz wrote in Vanity Fair in May. The highest class of one percent American now controls a quarter of national income each year, the Economics Nobel Prize Recipients discuss this. "In terms of wealth rather than income, the top one percent controls 40 percent of the wealth. Group them in life improved so much. Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent. "Add Stiglitz," although one percent saw their incomes rise above 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle class actually seen their incomes far. All growth in recent decades and more, all enjoyed by the upper classes. In terms of income equality, America lags when compared to any other country in Europe long stagnating President George W. Bush used to persenda. "

 
Stiglitz pointed out that in terms of income inequality, the United par with Russia and Iran. While the old center of imbalances in Latin America, such as Brazil, working since the past few years, quite successfully, to defend the poor and reduce income disparities, the Americans are letting inequality continues to widen. He tried to correct the argument that rather than how the pie is divided, but the size of the pie. He reminded that most of its citizens worse economy over the years, namely the US economy as, indeed impossible to perform well during the long journey. First, growing inequality is part of casualness something else, namely depreciation opportunities. Whenever we reduce equality of opportunity, this means that we do not use some of our most valuable asset, namely our people in the most productive way possible. Second, many distortions that lead to inequality, such as those associated with monopoly power and preferential tax treatment for special kepetingan, undermine economic efficiency. Developing new inequality to create new distortions, undermining efficiency. Third, perhaps most important, decisive Stiglitz, a modern economy requires "collective action," namely the need for government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology. United States and the world enjoyed enormous benefit from government-funded research that led to the Internet, to promote the public health, and so on. However, the US has been suffering a lack of investment in infrastructure (see the condition of our highways and bridges, airport runways and us), in basic research, in education at all levels.

 
Although economists are not sure how to fully explain the growing inequality in America, among ordinary dynamics of supply and demand certainly played a role and social change, the decline of trade unions ever one-third of American workers and now only represent about 12 percent of workers, Stiglitz stressed that the main reason is worsening inequalities faction wants one percent on the way, for example involving tax policy. "Low tax rates on capital gains, which is how the rich receive a large portion of their income, giving Americans a rich almost to the free ride. Monopoly and monopoly almost always a source of economic power, of John D. Rockefeller at the beginning of the last century to Bill Gates at the end of the century. "

 
Stiglitz finish writing with something valuable to be appreciated by the leaders, politicians, policy makers, and they are never satisfied with wealth owned, as is happening in our country right now: "One percent of a home is the best, education the best, most good doctors, and lifestyle the best, but there is one thing that money can not buy is considered, namely the idea that fate is bound up with how they see themselves 99 percent of the others live. Throughout history, this is something that one percent above last learned. Too late.

 
Sad, just sad, Michael Tomasky respond in writing Stiglitz blog after reading it. The article raised many important content, while heating the idea that income inequality has several baseline factors, only one of which sustained: a political process that holds the key, all at the top of the queen. However, he suggested Stiglitz might add content very important that the majority of the most famous intellectuals in America, who appeared on television and interpret all this to the Americans, who compose their audience with an assurance that all this really makes sense, is in the top one percent of households intending on about US $ 380,000 per year.

 
Suzanne Moore, who wrote about social mobility in Britain frozen Joseph Stiglitz also cites that "the top one percent of Americans now control almost a quarter of national income each year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top one percent controls 40 percent of the wealth. "In Britain, there is no such a change shakiness structure of social mobility that occurred during the last 20 years or more, Suzanne discussed. "Whether some people feel themselves more easily move on knowing the 1980s because they buy property, society as a whole becomes more static. In short, we are becoming like America, when a poor person the opportunity to do more and more narrow, although the American dream.

 
Inequalities or large income disparity at all slow ensure social mobility. The rich do not see the sacrifice that we endure, Suzanne firmly. "There are also those who are concerned about the return on the investment made in the country do for its citizens. Countries provide my education and housing for a period of five years allowed me then to work and pay taxes for my next life. "
Certainly, not all agreed with Joseph Stiglitz who make those one per cent above the target of criticism, as evidenced by The Economist, "Inequality and Politics: Stiglitz and the Progressive Ouroboros." The median income declined only if one does not include the value of health benefits (value of health benefits). The claim that "all growth in recent decades and more, all enjoyed by the elite" clearly incorrect. According to the paper yet, little evidence that the increased level of inequality "undermine economic efficiency."

 
So far the focus has been on income inequality in the United States called by Kristof, "banana republic," as if describing a phenomenon that only occurs in the country. And, of course, that assumption is not entirely accurate because many developed countries are also facing income inequality, even Sweden is no exception. As revealed in the latest report of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) last month, ra seca widely cited, among others by The Huffington Post, that since the mid-1980s, income inequality increased 77 percent, or 17 out of 22 countries studied. Across OECD countries, the report finds, the average income of the 10 richest of the population is now nine times the 10th poorest.

 
Globalization, technological innovation, and a regulatory environment that is more slack, have all contributed to the widening gap between the rich and the poor. The report gives special attention, however, to changing family formation, drew attention to research showing that increased income inequality in the United States as a result of the increasing number of single heads of households. Although at global level, household income increased overall by 1.7 per cent per annum, the OECD found that not all income levels enjoy similar benefits. Countries which at one time a very high level of inequality, such as Mexico and Chile, in recent years, the gap between rich and poor is getting narrower. In contrast, surprisingly egalitarian country in terms of history, such as Denmark, Germany, and Sweden, the separation between the rich and the poor is the most extensive in the past decade.

 
However, the OECD report to state that this is not just an issue of the poor against the rich. As discussed earlier, the report also noted that the middle class mostly lagged behind: "10 percent of mid-level workers leave behind more quickly when compared with the lowest employee who was exiled from mid workers. With the exception of France, Japan, and Spain, wages grow rich more than the salary of the poor since the mid-1980s. This, according to the OECD has nothing to do with the deterioration of the average number of hours of work by low-wage workers, even when compared with those who also declined by high-wage labor.

 
Interestingly, The Economist who previously criticized Joseph Stiglitz, as mentioned above, also cited and debated the OECD report, "Income Inequality: Rich and poor, Growing Apart." American society is more unequal when compared with people in the most other countries in the OECD, and the growth in inequality is relatively large. However, with few exceptions, the rich do more during the past 30 years, even in places that are too egalitarian, such as Scandinavia. However, this magazine has its own stand by concluding: It shows that while national factors can affect the degree of inequality and growth can reduce (or not) the negative impact of that growth, seems widespread, urgent global power inequalities widened across the country.

 
OECD report was interpreted by Kentaro Toyama as "the world is the failure of capitalism." Noddy relative inequality has not changed much over the past two decades, with the US leading the trend. However, inequality is increasing in most developed countries, literally, reverse Kuznets curve - an idea that most cared well for market fundamentalists. Although the report did not state in this way, write Toyama, "an interpretation of the data is that inequality is natural, grew out of capitalism unfettered." He added, "Marxists are not surprised, but the report should interfere with the tribal center believes that both, free markets and social equality. If free market capitalism works very well for every income level, why are there too many people look past their income with capitalism to function more efficiently when compared with before? "Somewhat to his surprise that one potential problem is that the underlying moral principle of capitalism: meritocracy. Our belief in meritocracy held so strong and difficult question. After all, rewarding people based on merit is better than corruption or nepotism.

 
"However, a better system of corruption and nepotism that system might not necessarily better. What we think of 'merit' is the result of Education, and better education requires a larger income. Therefore, meritocracy, a kind of social divider. "
With regard to the OECD report, Catherine Rampella try argued that capital income changes substantially affect rich people, contributing to increased inequalities, although the impact is relatively modest when compared with changes in labor income. Low-wage workers saw their income frozen or even falling, while the very high wage workers rose higher. Many factors contribute to increasing labor income inequality.

 
Zachary Roth tried to attract the attention of the OECD reports that 17 out of 22 developed countries for which the data were obtained, except Turkey, Greece, France, Hungary, and Belgium, the Gini coefficient increased in the mid-1980s. OECD uses what's called the Gini coefficient to measure income inequality. If everyone in a country has absolutely the same income, the Gini coefficient would be zero. If one has all the income, the coefficient becomes one.

 
Certainly also the phenomenon of income inequality rather than developed countries alone. In April, the World Bank and IMF reported by The New York Times, discusses the disparity in the Middle East. With the main focus on growth in Tunisia, the World Bank and other international bodies fail to see inequality. Now, in the midst of a revival of the revolution that is still shaking the region, the World Bank said that Tunisia can play a role as a model for a revised approach. The World Bank announced that the bank will provide US $ 500 million for the new government the North African country in exchange for a package of reforms. Robert Zoellick, World Bank president was quoted as saying that he hoped to expand the new focus on "inclusive growth" to other countries in the Middle East, including Egypt's last round of reforms also failed to improve the lives of the poor.

 
Back to our country, the government has been implementing the Tenth Malaysia Plan and introduced the New Economic Model, one question here: Are all policies and plans are able to ensure that the income distribution gap between rich and poor becomes narrow. See certain people who want to claim everything is to their people, without regard to the poor who are not yet able to play on the playing field, such as Aboriginal and indigenous people in Sabah and Sarawak, then do not be surprised that a later time, Malaysia also fall into a banana republic.
For those who fight for meritocracy, without evaluating the merits, or sometimes hide the truth, Kentaro Toyama quoted above give the right answer is obvious: the widening gap in income inequality