Not sure if it's just me but it seems that this article is more about politics, than economics. And contradicts itself a bit I would say. The economy is most definitely influenced by decisions that politicians make but the article seems to go back and forth praising the decisions the Obama administration has made to fight income inequality to criticizing them for not doing enough. But what the article claims is not entirely a big surprise. It would make sense that the rich would be the ones to lose the most money and suffer the most during a recession because they have the most money. The "safety net" programs are there to help those at the bottom stay afloat, which is why they did not lose much of the little that they have but I would say that it's not all just in terms of monetary losses. Many professionals lost their jobs during this time which meant that the lower class and upper middle class individuals were all competing for the same jobs and not surprisingly, those with a better education got the best jobs. Which is really a loss to both parties because those at the bottom now found themselves with no job, but they have government benefits to back them up. While the other group ended up with low paying jobs that they were overqualified for. This is a never ending discussion because there will always be good and bad economic times but if there's one thing I agree with in this article is that income inequality is at its highest and even though it has not continued to rise in the past few years, that doesn't mean that it will decrease either. -Karen Reyes
It was interesting to note that the wealthy took losses during the recession. This serves as contrary information to some other classes i have taken, however i like the difference in perspective.
While I agree that ideally poor people should be able to find good paying jobs, I don't think it's that simple. They can't just "find" good jobs. Part of the reason we have so much inequality is that it's incredibly difficult to find and maintain a good paying job.
Especially because we've grown to look for degrees when hiring, and lower class people don't have the income to pay for college to get the degrees that would help them get a job. So they're stuck in a position where they cant pay for school to get a job because they don't have a source of income, so a lot of times they're essentially stuck in their social class with little chance for mobility.
Yeah, I agree with Danny. The general issue is the ability to obtain a good paying job in the first place. I can only imagine it's that much harder to get a job when you have less money coming in, are from a poor family, or live in a poor area.
While it may be true that the rich have gotten poorer since the recession and that they lost the bulk of the money, they have also gotten the biggest chunk of the money gotten back since the recession. Additionally, I’d find it hard to believe that they are struggling right now. While this article seems to make a good point, I don’t think it says anything that surprising. IF you have most of the money, you’re going to feel more of the effects of booms and recessions than those who don’t have as much, its kind of simple logic. A good read, but nothing too extraordinary about it.
I would agree with the above post that while it was a new perspective, I would have liked the author to connect back why it matters. He mentions that this effect on the incomes of the rich shows "what Washington can do", but he doesn't explain what this power means for the situation. How could it be used? What can Washington do?
I think what the author is trying to say is that Washington through Policy, can close the inequality gap. He states that it is not noticed, but that the policies that have been put in place by the Obama administration have closed the inequality gap.
-Jeremy Levin
It was shocking to see that the inequality gap is actually closer now then it was at the time of the recession. Given all the talk about inequality in this country, I personally expected it to be greater then ever. With that being said, I think that there is great promise for our nation to close the large inequality gap that we see. With continued policy making, as shown in the article, the gap should slowly close.
The author of this article is intent on making clear that the poor and “middle” class Americans have all that they need. His comparisons of the drop in earnings from 2009-2013 for the top 1%, top 5% and the bottom 90% can be interpreted in many different ways. While the average income for the top 1% fell by 21%, they are still rich and remain richer than 99% of America. It may be true that income inequality America is not increasing, this interpretation is relative to what years of data you are looking at. The average income of the top 1% is not as high as it was in 2007 but it is higher than it was in 2011. Regardless, post-Recession the average income of the richest individuals in American has increased. As far as hoe government policies have helped the poor and “middle” class, plus or minus 2% is not significant in my book. If I received a 2% raise at my job, I would be making $10.46 and still will remain below the poverty line. The moral of the story, poor people are still really poor and rich people are still really rich. People can twist and interpret the data whichever way they like, but this will not change.
The author makes a good observation. Yes, the wealthy people had to pay more taxes than the ordinary people. They also do not receive the government assistance as the middle and poor people received. That is because they do need to pay more taxes, they make more money than the rest of the population. And they do not need government assistance as the poor population do to survive in economic crisis. As the article states, the govenment has the power to create policies to combat inequality in the USA. However, we already know that these policies are most of the time in favor to the rich. But the government is still doing something positive to the rest of the population. I think that as the author said, inequality is not something that can be drastically changed. Inequality will always exist. It will increase and decrease within the years, but will never cease to exist. They Obama administration has done some work on reducing it. It is not much, as the author said.
It is nice to see that the steps that the federal government took in response to the recession, including tax cuts and benefit increases, have mostly helped the non wealthy because oftentimes the wealthy are the ones who benefit from these government actions. The rich get richer, while the poor get poorer is a phrase that everyone is familiar with but this article shows that as a society we are taking the proper steps to finally put this saying to rest. The numbers shown in the article make it clear that inequality is not destined to rise and crises' like a recession can reduce inequality just as much as government policy. Many people do not realize how far America has come with this inequality issue, and this article does an excellent job of making us aware of how far we have come. Inequality has stopped rising over the last several years and that is great for our society moving forward.
I literally rolled my eyes when I read the title of this article. I expected the article to be about how the middle and lower classes along with liberals are all whiners making a fuss out of something that is simply a figment of their imaginations. But after reading it I thought that it was a very interesting viewpoint. And actually quite refreshing. If the information in the article is accurate, it's great to know that inequality is actually decreasing. I definitely think inequality is one of our biggest issues as a nation, and, as a race. We're all human beings, so I believe we should all have access to adequate food, water, housing, and health care.
This article minimizes the negative outlook on our nation's policies and government. Without knowing any facts and due to hearing speeches and skimming articles I was under the assumption that inequality has been an increasing issue as the years continue on. I was well aware that policies were placed in effect to help lower and lower-middle classes to receive higher incomes, but I also believed that the top 1% of America was inevitably getting richer. From a political standpoint, I think Obama has done a better job at trying to lower income inequality, but conservatives do not agree with the way in which he is doing so because those at the top 1% are being penalized money for those who are not deserving. I personally feel that inequality is an issue, but there will not ever be perfect equality.
This article only really states the obvious. It only makes sense that the 2007 financial crisis would have hit the wealthy the hardest - because the wealthy had the most to lose. Yet the wealthy also have the greatest capacity to take back what they lost. The only point of great importance that I feel this article makes is that the rich have not yet regained their losses from 2007 - but they're still very rich, so basically what they're saying is that things were bad, and now they're less bad, but... still bad. It's a new perspective, to be sure, but it's not one that makes a lot of sense.
The thing that bothers me about this article is the fact that the author is comparing numbers but isn't considering that a loss for the wealthy is not comparable to the loss for the poor. Losing 21% of billions of dollars will not make someone go into poverty the same way that 13% of $50,000 will make someone go into poverty. Also considering how there is evidence that 2009 bailout money, money funded directly from taxpayer dollars, went directly into the pockets of financial CEO's so I do not understand how the researcher came to the conclusion that inequality has not increased.
This article annoyed me, even if inequality has not risen, that gap still remains to be too wide for comfort. The author tries to downplay the loss that the middle to poor class had to deal with. While it only makes sense that the wealthy would lose more, their ability to come back form their loss is much higher than those less fortunate. I will agree that a lot of changes were made once Obama took charge, more bills were passed to help the middle to working class, employment was more available. The government could help decrease the inequality gap among classes, but it's highly unlikely that they will. We should not forget how hard the republican party tried to halt any decisions made to help the middle to lower class, especially if it meant a blow to them. Most the people who lost their jobs during that time, were not able to return back to those same jobs or make the same money they had spent most of their lives working towards. So a hit for the wealthy does not compare to what a financial hit to the middle to poor class feels like. I appreciate the efforts this author made, the title of his article, according to his results, show that in fact inequality has not risen, but it's alive and kicking just as strong as it was in 2007. -Yasmeen Brown
I was a little skeptical while reading this article. The author makes the argument that because the recession hit the upper class the hardest, inequality between the classes is not growing anymore. The article talks about the perspective of the wealthy after the recession but doesn't really touch on how the lower class was affected. I think that the recession was devastating for the wealthy, who in the end stayed wealthy. On the other hand, the lower class continued to struggle with the effects of the recession. So while the author may argue that inequality has not increased, he ignored the fact that the recession made the lives of the lower class much more difficult.
I would like to know who funded the research done by Stephen J. Rose? Also, I would like to know other studies results in regard to this matter? If this is the result of just this one researcher analysis in comparison to hundreds that show the opposite or vice versa would change the way this information would needed to be taken. These are questions that I would like to be answered before deciding if the results are significant, so I cannot say that I argue with this argument.
Ever since the financial crisis of 2007 the majority people believe that wealth inequality has been getting worst. According to the data in the analysis by Stephen J. Rose shows clearly that the income inequality has not been getting worst. They explain that the notion of “risen income inequality” comes from liberals who always believe it keeps getting worst. I do believe the economy has not gotten worst. I feel like the people who were most affected by the economic crisis of 2007 was the wealthy. In fact thanks to bills passed by Obama in 2009, the majority of people who relied on jobless benefits and food stamps did not loose help from the government. I do believe that in a democratic society there will always be income inequality, just because people work hard to get a higher education and those people will get paid more than someone who only has a high school diploma.
I do not know how much I agree with what the author of this article is presenting. It may be true that the inequality since the recession may not have risen a lot, but the income gap between the social classes is still very wide. I am not entirely sure who funded the research for this study but I find it really surprising that the author is stating that the wealthy were hurt the most by the recession due to the tax cuts. It may be true that the rich have to pay a higher average tax rate but that is because they have a higher salary than the middle and lower classes. This article downplays the negative role that the government policies play in the large income gap between between the social classes.
I thought this article differed from all of the other articles we've read this semester, and it was interesting to read about the economy from a rare perspective. It is definitely true that the recession that began in 2007 hurt the wealthy the most, however it is important to remember that these wealthy people who may lose their jobs because of the financial crisis also must fire working class citizens below them. Therefore, it depends how you look at it, more directly or indirectly.
One, this article proves that we have to do they work ourselves to uncover the truth. We get multiple version of the same story from different outlets. If we just take other people’s word for it, we will never know the truth.
Two, while the data may be present wrongly the real life effects are real and seeable. People lost their jobs, home, income, and security. People who were already in poverty had to deal with the sudden increase of new people in poverty-the limited resources for the previously existing poor got thinner.
While this data shows that inequality can sometimes fall because of catastrophic events, it doesn’t show conclusively that we can control it and lower it at will. The author is drawing too many conclusions from a short time period and there’s no way to verify the numerous causes, which he mainly attributes to” Washington”. I see this data as just another valley in the peaks and valleys of the upward trend in inequality since the 1700s. It makes me wonder if it is sustainable for inequality to continue growing forever, or if disasters like the Great Depression and the recent recession are actually necessary and beneficial in the long run.
I actually enjoyed this article because it takes the statistics that we've all seen before and tells us what they really mean. The author is clearly unbiased as he disputes the most common beliefs on both parties sides. Inequality may not be rising the way some think it is (although, he still says that it is a major problem), and on the other end of the spectrum, the government's policies have been relatively effective in beginning to fix this. I think the article does a good job of clarifying the facts that get misused in other media outlets -Greg Battista
I understand the wealthy might lose more money or suffer more then the poor during a recession but what we have to take to consideration is the recovery time for both class.A millionaire or an individual who has large sum of money has a faster recovery time then someone that is living paycheck to paycheck.
Although the rich are losing money, they still have more money than the poor. They still have enough money to live everyday. A lot of people barely have enough to feed their families more than one meal a day. Their loss of money really is not hurting them. I don't mean to be biased, but they will go on. The financial crisis put a financial hardship on everyone, but based from my own experiences in my household during this crisis, I know for a fact that the 99% were more affected because of how much less we make. Although the top 1% lost money, they are still in a position of power and inequality is still alive and well. Writing an article just to show that they lost more money than the 99% is a slap in the face in my opinion because inequality still exists and they are still in a position to control the way that this country is run; they also still have more money than the 99% combined, so David Leonhardt can save it.
I do not like the apathetic tone with which the author writes about income inequality not rising. It may not be continuously rising but its stabilized at a very frightening level. -Gregory Brown
Although the situation might not be getting worse, it does not negate the fact that the situation is already at a appalling level. Having the mentality that "atleast it's not getting worse" distracts from the conversation and discussions that focus on solving the issues that allowed the inequality levels to rise this high initially
This seemed to contradict itself- as most issues in politics do. As far as jobs go there is no but and dry solution because of the high level of inequality in the United States. Sadly, people don't always just simply get the jobs that they are qualified for, and jobs that pay well and require minimal prerequisites (such as college) are far and few between.
The author of this article tends to not think in the perspective of how the richer classes receive many more benefits and opportunities compared to the lower class. Yes, as the author mentioned, the richer classes did suffer from the recession; however, their income was able to increase after the recession, while lower classes still suffer from the same hardships they had faced during the recession. Although the rich may not be making as much money as they had in the past, they are still benefiting more from our economic system because they still receive more financial opportunities and relatively high incomes compared to lower classes.
After being convinced reading the last article the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, this article has swayed my opinion. Although since the recession the poor have gotten poorer, the rich haven't gotten their money back even though they haven't lost as much as the poor. Inequality is actually lower than many would think. The number itself is extremely high, but it is actually decreasing since the recession.
Not sure if it's just me but it seems that this article is more about politics, than economics. And contradicts itself a bit I would say. The economy is most definitely influenced by decisions that politicians make but the article seems to go back and forth praising the decisions the Obama administration has made to fight income inequality to criticizing them for not doing enough. But what the article claims is not entirely a big surprise. It would make sense that the rich would be the ones to lose the most money and suffer the most during a recession because they have the most money. The "safety net" programs are there to help those at the bottom stay afloat, which is why they did not lose much of the little that they have but I would say that it's not all just in terms of monetary losses. Many professionals lost their jobs during this time which meant that the lower class and upper middle class individuals were all competing for the same jobs and not surprisingly, those with a better education got the best jobs. Which is really a loss to both parties because those at the bottom now found themselves with no job, but they have government benefits to back them up. While the other group ended up with low paying jobs that they were overqualified for. This is a never ending discussion because there will always be good and bad economic times but if there's one thing I agree with in this article is that income inequality is at its highest and even though it has not continued to rise in the past few years, that doesn't mean that it will decrease either. -Karen Reyes
ReplyDeleteIt was interesting to note that the wealthy took losses during the recession. This serves as contrary information to some other classes i have taken, however i like the difference in perspective.
ReplyDeleteIt would actually be good if then poor/middle class were finding good paying jobs rather than social welfare benefits to maintain their income.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that ideally poor people should be able to find good paying jobs, I don't think it's that simple. They can't just "find" good jobs. Part of the reason we have so much inequality is that it's incredibly difficult to find and maintain a good paying job.
DeleteEspecially because we've grown to look for degrees when hiring, and lower class people don't have the income to pay for college to get the degrees that would help them get a job. So they're stuck in a position where they cant pay for school to get a job because they don't have a source of income, so a lot of times they're essentially stuck in their social class with little chance for mobility.
DeleteI agree with this conversation - it is hard to find the perfect solution. Each has its advantages and disadvantages.
DeleteYeah, I agree with Danny. The general issue is the ability to obtain a good paying job in the first place. I can only imagine it's that much harder to get a job when you have less money coming in, are from a poor family, or live in a poor area.
Delete-David Teitelbaum
While it may be true that the rich have gotten poorer since the recession and that they lost the bulk of the money, they have also gotten the biggest chunk of the money gotten back since the recession. Additionally, I’d find it hard to believe that they are struggling right now. While this article seems to make a good point, I don’t think it says anything that surprising. IF you have most of the money, you’re going to feel more of the effects of booms and recessions than those who don’t have as much, its kind of simple logic. A good read, but nothing too extraordinary about it.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with the above post that while it was a new perspective, I would have liked the author to connect back why it matters. He mentions that this effect on the incomes of the rich shows "what Washington can do", but he doesn't explain what this power means for the situation. How could it be used? What can Washington do?
ReplyDeleteI think what the author is trying to say is that Washington through Policy, can close the inequality gap. He states that it is not noticed, but that the policies that have been put in place by the Obama administration have closed the inequality gap.
ReplyDelete-Jeremy Levin
It was shocking to see that the inequality gap is actually closer now then it was at the time of the recession. Given all the talk about inequality in this country, I personally expected it to be greater then ever. With that being said, I think that there is great promise for our nation to close the large inequality gap that we see. With continued policy making, as shown in the article, the gap should slowly close.
The author of this article is intent on making clear that the poor and “middle” class Americans have all that they need. His comparisons of the drop in earnings from 2009-2013 for the top 1%, top 5% and the bottom 90% can be interpreted in many different ways. While the average income for the top 1% fell by 21%, they are still rich and remain richer than 99% of America. It may be true that income inequality America is not increasing, this interpretation is relative to what years of data you are looking at. The average income of the top 1% is not as high as it was in 2007 but it is higher than it was in 2011. Regardless, post-Recession the average income of the richest individuals in American has increased. As far as hoe government policies have helped the poor and “middle” class, plus or minus 2% is not significant in my book. If I received a 2% raise at my job, I would be making $10.46 and still will remain below the poverty line. The moral of the story, poor people are still really poor and rich people are still really rich. People can twist and interpret the data whichever way they like, but this will not change.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe author makes a good observation. Yes, the wealthy people had to pay more taxes than the ordinary people. They also do not receive the government assistance as the middle and poor people received. That is because they do need to pay more taxes, they make more money than the rest of the population. And they do not need government assistance as the poor population do to survive in economic crisis. As the article states, the govenment has the power to create policies to combat inequality in the USA. However, we already know that these policies are most of the time in favor to the rich. But the government is still doing something positive to the rest of the population. I think that as the author said, inequality is not something that can be drastically changed. Inequality will always exist. It will increase and decrease within the years, but will never cease to exist. They Obama administration has done some work on reducing it. It is not much, as the author said.
ReplyDeleteIt is nice to see that the steps that the federal government took in response to the recession, including tax cuts and benefit increases, have mostly helped the non wealthy because oftentimes the wealthy are the ones who benefit from these government actions. The rich get richer, while the poor get poorer is a phrase that everyone is familiar with but this article shows that as a society we are taking the proper steps to finally put this saying to rest. The numbers shown in the article make it clear that inequality is not destined to rise and crises' like a recession can reduce inequality just as much as government policy. Many people do not realize how far America has come with this inequality issue, and this article does an excellent job of making us aware of how far we have come. Inequality has stopped rising over the last several years and that is great for our society moving forward.
ReplyDeleteI literally rolled my eyes when I read the title of this article.
ReplyDeleteI expected the article to be about how the middle and lower classes along with liberals are all whiners making a fuss out of something that is simply a figment of their imaginations.
But after reading it I thought that it was a very interesting viewpoint. And actually quite refreshing. If the information in the article is accurate, it's great to know that inequality is actually decreasing. I definitely think inequality is one of our biggest issues as a nation, and, as a race. We're all human beings, so I believe we should all have access to adequate food, water, housing, and health care.
This article minimizes the negative outlook on our nation's policies and government. Without knowing any facts and due to hearing speeches and skimming articles I was under the assumption that inequality has been an increasing issue as the years continue on. I was well aware that policies were placed in effect to help lower and lower-middle classes to receive higher incomes, but I also believed that the top 1% of America was inevitably getting richer. From a political standpoint, I think Obama has done a better job at trying to lower income inequality, but conservatives do not agree with the way in which he is doing so because those at the top 1% are being penalized money for those who are not deserving. I personally feel that inequality is an issue, but there will not ever be perfect equality.
ReplyDeleteJames Bull
This article only really states the obvious. It only makes sense that the 2007 financial crisis would have hit the wealthy the hardest - because the wealthy had the most to lose. Yet the wealthy also have the greatest capacity to take back what they lost. The only point of great importance that I feel this article makes is that the rich have not yet regained their losses from 2007 - but they're still very rich, so basically what they're saying is that things were bad, and now they're less bad, but... still bad. It's a new perspective, to be sure, but it's not one that makes a lot of sense.
ReplyDelete- Brian Kang
The thing that bothers me about this article is the fact that the author is comparing numbers but isn't considering that a loss for the wealthy is not comparable to the loss for the poor. Losing 21% of billions of dollars will not make someone go into poverty the same way that 13% of $50,000 will make someone go into poverty. Also considering how there is evidence that 2009 bailout money, money funded directly from taxpayer dollars, went directly into the pockets of financial CEO's so I do not understand how the researcher came to the conclusion that inequality has not increased.
ReplyDeleteThis article annoyed me, even if inequality has not risen, that gap still remains to be too wide for comfort. The author tries to downplay the loss that the middle to poor class had to deal with. While it only makes sense that the wealthy would lose more, their ability to come back form their loss is much higher than those less fortunate. I will agree that a lot of changes were made once Obama took charge, more bills were passed to help the middle to working class, employment was more available. The government could help decrease the inequality gap among classes, but it's highly unlikely that they will. We should not forget how hard the republican party tried to halt any decisions made to help the middle to lower class, especially if it meant a blow to them. Most the people who lost their jobs during that time, were not able to return back to those same jobs or make the same money they had spent most of their lives working towards. So a hit for the wealthy does not compare to what a financial hit to the middle to poor class feels like. I appreciate the efforts this author made, the title of his article, according to his results, show that in fact inequality has not risen, but it's alive and kicking just as strong as it was in 2007.
ReplyDelete-Yasmeen Brown
I was a little skeptical while reading this article. The author makes the argument that because the recession hit the upper class the hardest, inequality between the classes is not growing anymore. The article talks about the perspective of the wealthy after the recession but doesn't really touch on how the lower class was affected. I think that the recession was devastating for the wealthy, who in the end stayed wealthy. On the other hand, the lower class continued to struggle with the effects of the recession. So while the author may argue that inequality has not increased, he ignored the fact that the recession made the lives of the lower class much more difficult.
ReplyDeleteI would like to know who funded the research done by Stephen J. Rose? Also, I would like to know other studies results in regard to this matter? If this is the result of just this one researcher analysis in comparison to hundreds that show the opposite or vice versa would change the way this information would needed to be taken. These are questions that I would like to be answered before deciding if the results are significant, so I cannot say that I argue with this argument.
ReplyDeleteEver since the financial crisis of 2007 the majority people believe that wealth inequality has been getting worst. According to the data in the analysis by Stephen J. Rose shows clearly that the income inequality has not been getting worst. They explain that the notion of “risen income inequality” comes from liberals who always believe it keeps getting worst. I do believe the economy has not gotten worst. I feel like the people who were most affected by the economic crisis of 2007 was the wealthy. In fact thanks to bills passed by Obama in 2009, the majority of people who relied on jobless benefits and food stamps did not loose help from the government. I do believe that in a democratic society there will always be income inequality, just because people work hard to get a higher education and those people will get paid more than someone who only has a high school diploma.
ReplyDeleteI do not know how much I agree with what the author of this article is presenting. It may be true that the inequality since the recession may not have risen a lot, but the income gap between the social classes is still very wide. I am not entirely sure who funded the research for this study but I find it really surprising that the author is stating that the wealthy were hurt the most by the recession due to the tax cuts. It may be true that the rich have to pay a higher average tax rate but that is because they have a higher salary than the middle and lower classes. This article downplays the negative role that the government policies play in the large income gap between between the social classes.
ReplyDeleteI thought this article differed from all of the other articles we've read this semester, and it was interesting to read about the economy from a rare perspective. It is definitely true that the recession that began in 2007 hurt the wealthy the most, however it is important to remember that these wealthy people who may lose their jobs because of the financial crisis also must fire working class citizens below them. Therefore, it depends how you look at it, more directly or indirectly.
ReplyDeleteOne, this article proves that we have to do they work ourselves to uncover the truth. We get multiple version of the same story from different outlets. If we just take other people’s word for it, we will never know the truth.
ReplyDeleteTwo, while the data may be present wrongly the real life effects are real and seeable. People lost their jobs, home, income, and security. People who were already in poverty had to deal with the sudden increase of new people in poverty-the limited resources for the previously existing poor got thinner.
While this data shows that inequality can sometimes fall because of catastrophic events, it doesn’t show conclusively that we can control it and lower it at will. The author is drawing too many conclusions from a short time period and there’s no way to verify the numerous causes, which he mainly attributes to” Washington”. I see this data as just another valley in the peaks and valleys of the upward trend in inequality since the 1700s. It makes me wonder if it is sustainable for inequality to continue growing forever, or if disasters like the Great Depression and the recent recession are actually necessary and beneficial in the long run.
ReplyDeleteI actually enjoyed this article because it takes the statistics that we've all seen before and tells us what they really mean. The author is clearly unbiased as he disputes the most common beliefs on both parties sides. Inequality may not be rising the way some think it is (although, he still says that it is a major problem), and on the other end of the spectrum, the government's policies have been relatively effective in beginning to fix this. I think the article does a good job of clarifying the facts that get misused in other media outlets
ReplyDelete-Greg Battista
I understand the wealthy might lose more money or suffer more then the poor during a recession but what we have to take to consideration is the recovery time for both class.A millionaire or an individual who has large sum of money has a faster recovery time then someone that is living paycheck to paycheck.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the rich are losing money, they still have more money than the poor. They still have enough money to live everyday. A lot of people barely have enough to feed their families more than one meal a day. Their loss of money really is not hurting them. I don't mean to be biased, but they will go on. The financial crisis put a financial hardship on everyone, but based from my own experiences in my household during this crisis, I know for a fact that the 99% were more affected because of how much less we make. Although the top 1% lost money, they are still in a position of power and inequality is still alive and well. Writing an article just to show that they lost more money than the 99% is a slap in the face in my opinion because inequality still exists and they are still in a position to control the way that this country is run; they also still have more money than the 99% combined, so David Leonhardt can save it.
ReplyDeleteI do not like the apathetic tone with which the author writes about income inequality not rising. It may not be continuously rising but its stabilized at a very frightening level.
ReplyDelete-Gregory Brown
Although the situation might not be getting worse, it does not negate the fact that the situation is already at a appalling level. Having the mentality that "atleast it's not getting worse" distracts from the conversation and discussions that focus on solving the issues that allowed the inequality levels to rise this high initially
ReplyDeleteThis seemed to contradict itself- as most issues in politics do. As far as jobs go there is no but and dry solution because of the high level of inequality in the United States. Sadly, people don't always just simply get the jobs that they are qualified for, and jobs that pay well and require minimal prerequisites (such as college) are far and few between.
ReplyDeleteThe author of this article tends to not think in the perspective of how the richer classes receive many more benefits and opportunities compared to the lower class. Yes, as the author mentioned, the richer classes did suffer from the recession; however, their income was able to increase after the recession, while lower classes still suffer from the same hardships they had faced during the recession. Although the rich may not be making as much money as they had in the past, they are still benefiting more from our economic system because they still receive more financial opportunities and relatively high incomes compared to lower classes.
ReplyDeleteAfter being convinced reading the last article the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, this article has swayed my opinion. Although since the recession the poor have gotten poorer, the rich haven't gotten their money back even though they haven't lost as much as the poor. Inequality is actually lower than many would think. The number itself is extremely high, but it is actually decreasing since the recession.
ReplyDelete