patrickmcginnis59 (6/18/2012)

---

GSquared (6/18/2012)

---

patrickmcginnis59 (6/18/2012)

---

Matt Miller (#4) (6/18/2012)

---

patrickmcginnis59 (6/18/2012)

---

The question isn't whether disparity exists, it's whether the ability to move along the income spectrum exists.

Everybody on the lower income spectrum would like to move along the income spectrum toward the high end. The increasing disparity in wealth pushes them toward the lower end. Increasing disparity means that there is a change that trends against improving ones standard of living if we're on the low end of the wealth disparity.

The only long-term solution is to try to make opportunities available to as many folks as possible.

Less wealth on the low end means we have to work harder for basic necessities, and less wealth to invest in upward mobility and improving our economic status. Disparity in wealth affects mobility among the income spectrum by its very definition. Moving up in personal income requires an investment of resources, and less of these resources decrease upward mobility by definition. One of the few ways mobility can increase independently of income disparity is by a net across the board increase in resources for everybody. Are there other ways?

There is nothing that creates an "across the board increase in resources", so that's a bit of a non-starter. Resources are limited - that's a fact of life. What do you propose that would magically improve everyone's station in life?

Steam power increased wealth across the board, as did the internal combustion engine, mass production in factories, big agriculture, etc.

As to how to decrease disparity: introduce disruptive innovations. Find things that by their very nature jump outside of the routines, and allow new pathways to wealth.

As I've said, if you are devoting all of your resources to maintain your present state, you won't by definition have any resources to spare to introduce disruptive innovations.

Yes. And, based on lifestyle and living standards, America's poor are part of Earth's wealthiest 1%.

Plugging in the 2012 single person [1] poverty limit into the global rich list calculator [2] puts this person's wealth rank at 13.06 percent of the worlds population. Plugging in the marginal income for each additional family member (resulting in a significantly lower dollar figure) gives 14.61 percent mark.

Now you could bring up the caveat that you didn't mean the absolute mark of poverty, but rather a subjective measure of which you are the authority on. I get to throw in a measure of health and dental care as being part of the minimum, just because we are now in the subjective arena of social commentary. It rapidly gets back into a back and forth of who has what values.

We have already taken care of the actual basic needs of 99% of our domestic population.

I hope you don't mind if I disagree.

[1] http://www.globalrichlist.com

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

...2009 statistics from the U.S. Department of Agriculture show[ing] that 96 percent of poor parents stated that their children were never hungry at any time during the year because they could not afford food, 83 percent of poor families reported having enough food to eat, and over the course of a year, only 4 percent of poor persons become temporarily homeless, with 42 percent of poor households actually owning their own homes. Want an international comparison? The average poor American has more living space than the average Swede or German. You can read even more of those facts in their report, “Understanding Poverty in the United States.”