Every society in which a tiny elite has amassed a vastly disproportionate share of the wealth — from 16-century Spain to America in the 1920s — has lost its footing, leading to a either traumatic collapse or an attenuated decline.

PCHiway wrote:On the contrary. Taxes and confiscations are the only solutions to trimming down income and, especially, accrued wealth. The implemetation may not be simple...but there is but one treatment. Please correct me if I'm wrong....but I don't see any other way you're going to get a redistribution of wealth and income.

You are right and wrong here. The US is a gestalt where the sum of its parts is greater than its individual pieces. But there are individual pieces. There are many "Americas" that combine to make up the USA. By tinkering with one piece we can cause profound effects on other components. To claim that societal problems can only be addressed by a nationwide effort is incorrect.

Almost 'just sayin'' but not quite. My point is that the most egregioius examples of American poverty and the most stunning hoards of accumlated wealth have, by and large, co-existed in areas of Democratic control for decades. That Dems have not raided their higher-end constituents to benefit those less fortunate tells me they are, very specifically, not taking action on this issue. I'm "just sayin'" because I figure Democrats are, at their core, smart and understand that killing the golden goose is contraindicated...I don't really expect them to do anything but what they've done for years; warn darkly about class warfare while happily going along with whatever the wealthy want.

Not at all. Cities are where innovation happens. That means you'll have highly educated innovators (and yes ricky...Wall Street is indeed innovative) living close by low-heeled burger flippers. This is not to say that some millionaires don't live out on the prairies...just that the most telliing examples of the haves and have-nots will always be in the urban areas. What I've seen bruited about is that the USA is a steaming hotbed of Egypt-like downtrodden masses from coast to coast. This is not the case.

Let's talk about these problems. I can think of several. There's the threat to stability that we've seen in the MidEast. And there's the implication that it is morally wrong for someone to have much when others have little. Those are both certainly worth exploring though the latter is more an intellectual exercise than anything else. I have traveled the world and I can tell you that the combined financial might of all G-20 countries could not fix the health, infrastucture, corruption, and societal problems that plague the third world. I think this is a common misconception...that if you stripped the wealth from everyone and divided it equally amongst humanity that there would be enough to guarantee a common level of prosperity. There wouldn't be...not even close. Does that mean we shouldn't try to alleviate suffering and stamp out poverty? Absolutely not. But there are limits to any country's power. To pretend otherwise is foolish.

It's not what it should be all about...but that doesn't mean the rhetoric isn't going in that direction. If progressives are serious about this they are going to have to draw a line somewhere...and somebody's going to have to be on the other side of it.

PCHiway wrote: Check out this pdfif you have a mind for a good Left/Right balanced account of how wage inequality has happened, is happening, and strategies for correcting it.

The study confirms what you hinted at Ozy, innovation is a big driver of wage inequities. "Booms" are great for some...not so much for others. The authors warn that you don't want to throw the boom out with the bathwater...but also that you can't always rely on booms to keep lifting your economy.

GMTom wrote:My next door neighbor is a teenager working a t a fast food place, should they make a salary they can support themselves on?

When we audited his suggestion that the super-rich pay a lower rate than someone making just $29,000, we concluded he's right if you include all payroll taxes, but off by about $40,000 if you only consider income tax, as the IRS report does.