The document summarizes the major findings from a book and lecture about growing income inequality in the United States. It finds that absolute income inequality is increasing, the middle class is shrinking, and poverty has been increasing. Additionally, it finds that U.S. multinational corporations cause more inequality both domestically and globally, and that there are huge inequalities between different areas of the U.S.
The document discusses income inequality and GDP growth in several countries by examining their Gini coefficients. It finds that India and Mexico have relatively high Gini coefficients, indicating high income inequality, while Denmark and countries with low Gini coefficients tend to have greater GDP growth. The US has high wealth inequality though also has one of the largest economies. Singapore has the highest income inequality among developed OECD countries. Government transfers are effective at reducing inequality in most countries.
The document discusses income inequality and the Occupy Wall Street movement. It defines income inequality as the uneven distribution of income among a population. In the U.S., the gap between rich and poor has grown significantly over the past 30 years. Occupy Wall Street protested in 2011 against social and economic inequality and the control large financial institutions have. The movement drew attention to the fact that the top 20% of Americans control over half the country's wealth. Income inequality is a global issue and the gap between rich and poor continues to widen both in developed and developing nations.
This document analyzes income inequality in South Africa. It begins with an introduction discussing economic inequality and its negative social impacts. Section 2 then provides a global outlook on rising income inequality trends across regions. Key causes of inequality discussed in Section 3 include wealth concentration, labor market disparities, taxes, education, and globalization. Section 5 analyzes the specific drivers of inequality in South Africa, including its apartheid legacy and contemporary trends. The document concludes by discussing policies aimed at addressing income inequality.
劉遵義 Income inequality under economic globalisation(final) 20150414Andy Kuo
The document discusses income inequality under economic globalization. It examines how globalization and technological changes have contributed to rising income inequality within and between countries. While globalization has helped lift many people out of poverty, it has also been a factor in increasing national income disparities and declining wages in some developed countries. The Gini coefficient is presented as a common measure of income inequality, with higher values indicating greater inequality.
The document discusses income inequality, which is the gap between rich and poor in terms of wealth and income distribution. It provides data on income inequality ratios between the richest and poorest 10% of populations in various countries. Income inequality varies between societies, economic systems, and over time. There are various ways to measure economic inequality numerically, including Lorenz curves and Gini coefficients. The document then discusses some of the key causes of income inequality like changes in labor markets, globalization, technology, and tax policies. It also discusses some of the impacts and trade-offs of income inequality.
Economic inequality is an important social issue with implications for equity, crime rates, and life satisfaction. Data shows the gap between rich and poor has grown significantly rather than diminished over time. The three richest individuals now possess more wealth than the poorest 48 nations combined. High inequality is linked to worse social outcomes like higher rates of health and social problems. It can also undermine economic growth and political stability if inequality causes social unrest. Reducing inequality through policies that boost opportunities for all members of society may help create fairer and more cohesive communities.
This document is a presentation by four students - Nishat Jahan Supti, Sadman Joa Aninda, Atia Iffat Naziba, and Md Shazidul Islam - on economic inequality in developing countries. It defines economic inequality, identifies the main types as income, pay, and wealth inequality. It also explains how inequality is measured using tools like the Gini coefficient and ratio measures. The presentation then characterizes developing countries and discusses their high levels of inequality, poverty, population growth, and more. It concludes by proposing policies to reduce inequality through employment programs, education access, and other interventions.
It gives a complete idea of various ways to reduce the gap between the rich and poor people in India and finding the ways of such an inequality in income
The document discusses income inequality and GDP growth in several countries by examining their Gini coefficients. It finds that India and Mexico have relatively high Gini coefficients, indicating high income inequality, while Denmark and countries with low Gini coefficients tend to have greater GDP growth. The US has high wealth inequality though also has one of the largest economies. Singapore has the highest income inequality among developed OECD countries. Government transfers are effective at reducing inequality in most countries.
The document discusses income inequality and the Occupy Wall Street movement. It defines income inequality as the uneven distribution of income among a population. In the U.S., the gap between rich and poor has grown significantly over the past 30 years. Occupy Wall Street protested in 2011 against social and economic inequality and the control large financial institutions have. The movement drew attention to the fact that the top 20% of Americans control over half the country's wealth. Income inequality is a global issue and the gap between rich and poor continues to widen both in developed and developing nations.
This document analyzes income inequality in South Africa. It begins with an introduction discussing economic inequality and its negative social impacts. Section 2 then provides a global outlook on rising income inequality trends across regions. Key causes of inequality discussed in Section 3 include wealth concentration, labor market disparities, taxes, education, and globalization. Section 5 analyzes the specific drivers of inequality in South Africa, including its apartheid legacy and contemporary trends. The document concludes by discussing policies aimed at addressing income inequality.
劉遵義 Income inequality under economic globalisation(final) 20150414Andy Kuo
The document discusses income inequality under economic globalization. It examines how globalization and technological changes have contributed to rising income inequality within and between countries. While globalization has helped lift many people out of poverty, it has also been a factor in increasing national income disparities and declining wages in some developed countries. The Gini coefficient is presented as a common measure of income inequality, with higher values indicating greater inequality.
The document discusses income inequality, which is the gap between rich and poor in terms of wealth and income distribution. It provides data on income inequality ratios between the richest and poorest 10% of populations in various countries. Income inequality varies between societies, economic systems, and over time. There are various ways to measure economic inequality numerically, including Lorenz curves and Gini coefficients. The document then discusses some of the key causes of income inequality like changes in labor markets, globalization, technology, and tax policies. It also discusses some of the impacts and trade-offs of income inequality.
Economic inequality is an important social issue with implications for equity, crime rates, and life satisfaction. Data shows the gap between rich and poor has grown significantly rather than diminished over time. The three richest individuals now possess more wealth than the poorest 48 nations combined. High inequality is linked to worse social outcomes like higher rates of health and social problems. It can also undermine economic growth and political stability if inequality causes social unrest. Reducing inequality through policies that boost opportunities for all members of society may help create fairer and more cohesive communities.
This document is a presentation by four students - Nishat Jahan Supti, Sadman Joa Aninda, Atia Iffat Naziba, and Md Shazidul Islam - on economic inequality in developing countries. It defines economic inequality, identifies the main types as income, pay, and wealth inequality. It also explains how inequality is measured using tools like the Gini coefficient and ratio measures. The presentation then characterizes developing countries and discusses their high levels of inequality, poverty, population growth, and more. It concludes by proposing policies to reduce inequality through employment programs, education access, and other interventions.
It gives a complete idea of various ways to reduce the gap between the rich and poor people in India and finding the ways of such an inequality in income
Made by Wannaphong Durongkaveroj, Student at Chiang Mai University, Thailand.
This ppt benefit everyone who interests in the social problems about poverty and income inequality in Asia.
The document discusses poverty and inequality. It defines absolute and relative poverty and methods of measuring poverty. Economic growth is shown to reduce poverty by increasing employment, wages and government resources. Inequality is an economic problem that affects development and stability. Strategies to reduce poverty include economic liberalization, property rights, infrastructure investment, aid, and microfinance programs like Grameen Bank. Good governance and community participation are also important for poverty alleviation.
This document discusses various measures used to analyze income inequality and poverty. It defines income inequality as the unequal distribution of income across members of an economy. The Lorenz curve is introduced as a graphical representation of income distribution. Measures of poverty discussed include the headcount index, poverty gap, poverty gap index, and Foster-Greer-Thorbecke index. These measures provide ways to quantify levels of poverty and income inequality within and between populations.
A brief study on the measures of income distribution for both analytic and quantitative purposes in terms of size distribution and functional distribution.
The study includes discussion on following concepts-
Lorenz Curve
Gini Coefficient
Absolute Poverty
Foster Greer Thorbecke Measure
The document discusses inequality and poverty in India. It states that inequality in asset ownership and education is worse in India than China. Rapid growth in India and China has not significantly reduced poverty levels or increased equality. Approximately 38% of India's population, or 380 million people, are considered poor according to a new methodology and poverty definition used by the Indian government. Even after over 50 years of independence, India still has the largest number of people in poverty of any single country, with over 260 million people living below the poverty line. Poverty levels vary significantly across Indian states. The Indian state has failed in its responsibilities towards citizens with regards to poverty and more accountability is needed along with empowering local governments and organizations.
Economics: Poverty, Inequality & Development Lilliene Alleje
The document discusses various methods for measuring poverty and inequality, including Lorenz curves, Gini coefficients, and the Multidimensional Poverty Index. It also examines the relationship between economic growth, inequality, and poverty reduction. Key growth typologies include traditional sector enrichment, modern sector enrichment, and modern sector enlargement. While growth may initially worsen inequality according to Kuznet's hypothesis, policies like progressive taxation, asset redistribution, and direct transfers can help address poverty and inequality.
This slide is for reference only. do not share it to anyone.
This slide is base on the book Microeconomics by McConnell and Brue, 12th and 14th edition.
This document discusses measuring poverty and inequality. It outlines four criteria for measuring inequality: anonymity, population, relative income, and Dalton principles. It also describes the Lorenz curve and five measures of inequality: range, Kuznets ratio, mean absolute deviation, coefficient of variation, and Gini coefficient. For poverty measurement, it defines the poverty line and discusses headcount ratio, poverty gap ratio, income gap ratio, and Foster-Greer-Thorbecke class measures.
Poverty and inequality in a changing contextLindsey Cottle
This document outlines poverty, inequality, and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). It defines poverty in monetary, capability, and participatory terms. It discusses measuring poverty through monetary indicators like consumption, capability indicators like health and education, and inequality indicators like income distribution. It notes most of the world's poor now live in middle-income countries rather than low-income countries. The document then outlines the MDGs on eradicating poverty, improving health, education, gender equality, and the environment. It discusses options for a post-2015 framework, including both macroeconomic approaches like foreign aid and microeconomic approaches like employment creation and public services. It proposes evaluating the MDGs from different perspectives and discourses.
This document summarizes an economic report analyzing the relationship between economic growth and inequality in 73 countries from 1993-2013. Two regression models were used to examine the impact of various economic variables on the rate of economic growth. The first model found a positive relationship between internal direct investment and growth. The second model found positive relationships between gross capital formation and growth. Both models found negative relationships between the GINI index, government debt, and GDP per capita with economic growth. The analysis aims to better understand how inequality impacts economic growth.
This document discusses income distribution in Malaysia, comparing differences across ethnic groups, geographic areas, sectors, and states. It provides data on household income levels for Bumiputera, Chinese, Indian, and other ethnicities from 1990 to 2014, showing generally increasing incomes but with unequal distribution. Income is also unequal between urban and rural areas and across states. Factors contributing to these inequalities include differences in education, asset ownership, access to capital, and employment patterns. Measures taken to address unequal distribution include employment restructuring, education upgrading, private sector participation, and Bumiputera skills development. The document also discusses income distribution from an Islamic perspective involving inheritance laws, zakat, prohibitions on interest and ho
Income inequality has increased in both rural and urban areas of India according to the Gini coefficient. The Gini coefficient for rural India increased by 13% and for urban India by 15%, indicating rising disparities in income, expenditure, and savings patterns between rich and poor. Higher-income states and larger cities have significantly higher average incomes compared to their population shares. Factors contributing to rising income inequality in India include unequal distribution of assets, differences in growth rates across states and sectors, and lack of adequate work opportunities for those without assets.
Inequality, Economic Growth and Developmenttutor2u
The document discusses inequality, economic growth, and development. It covers several topics: Kuznets and income inequality; real income growth in the USA and top income shares; a global perspective on inequality between 1988-2008 showing rising incomes for the middle class in China and India. It also discusses the root causes of inequality like less progressive tax systems and market failures in education and housing. Strategies to reduce inequality include investing in education, pursuing inclusive pro-poor growth policies, and microfinance. Overall, the document examines inequality from various economic perspectives and proposes approaches to promote shared prosperity across populations.
The document discusses various aspects of globalization including its definition, characteristics, importance, technology tools that promote it, types, reasons for it, advantages, disadvantages, benefits, costs, and global inequality. Globalization is defined as the flow of goods, services, capital, people, information and ideas across national borders. It opens doors to various fields of study and educational opportunities for students. While it advances technology and business, it can also increase risks, exploit poor countries, and intensify competition. Reducing inequalities and externalities can help maximize the long-term benefits of globalization.
The document provides an overview of global poverty and economic development. It discusses that nearly half the world lives in poverty, though some countries have transitioned from poor to rich. Africa continues to lag behind in development. Mobile technology is enabling growth in poor countries. There is debate around how to reduce extreme poverty.
Poverty can be defined and measured in both monetary and non-monetary terms. When using monetary measures, consumption is typically a better indicator of poverty than income. Poverty lines seek to identify those unable to meet basic needs and are usually based on the costs of a basic food basket. Key measures of poverty include the headcount rate, poverty gap, and poverty severity. Inequality refers to differences in economic outcomes across a population and can be measured using tools like the Lorenz curve and Gini coefficient. Common characteristics of poverty groups include rural, female, and displaced populations. While economic growth typically reduces poverty over time, inequality can hamper growth if initial levels are too high.
This document discusses wealth inequality. It defines wealth inequality as the unequal distribution of assets within a population. Wealth inequality is more pronounced than income inequality in many countries. The document examines differences between income and wealth, and predicts future shifts in global wealth distribution with China claiming a high position. It also lists statistics on concentration of wealth among the top 10% of citizens in several countries. Potential causes of and solutions to wealth inequality are reviewed, such as universal healthcare and inheritance taxes.
This document discusses reducing inequality. It defines social inequality and lists several types, including political, income/wealth, opportunity, treatment/responsibility, membership, gender, racial/ethnic, age, and health inequalities. Facts show inequality increased 11% in developing countries from 1990-2010 and most people live in unequal societies. Inequality can harm growth beyond a threshold. Reducing inequality involves programs supporting youth outcomes across academic, social, behavioral and economic domains through fighting poverty and elevating lower incomes rather than restricting top incomes. Common policies across countries include early childhood development, universal healthcare, education, conditional cash transfers, rural infrastructure and progressive taxation. Simulations show reducing inequality faster than current global growth rates may be needed to end
This document discusses different approaches to modeling the impacts of agricultural productivity growth and income distribution changes on poverty and inequality. It presents a hybrid approach that uses a global CGE model linked to detailed country models. The country models have representative households linked to fitted income distributions to estimate poverty impacts. This allows capturing both between-country and within-country sources of inequality. It also avoids having to directly age survey data over long-term time horizons.
This document analyzes the impact of trade liberalization on poverty in Pakistan. It discusses different types of poverty and provides statistics on poverty levels in Pakistan. The study aims to analyze the relationship between trade liberalization and poverty. It selects poverty as the dependent variable and trade liberalization, inflation, and GDP per capita as independent variables. The methodology includes stationarity testing, ARDL modeling, and Granger causality testing. The results find that trade liberalization and GDP per capita are negatively related to poverty, while inflation is positively related. The study concludes that increasing trade openness and GDP per capita while reducing inflation can help alleviate poverty in Pakistan.
Narrated public lecture of growing u.s. income inequalitydenny4573
The document summarizes findings from a book on growing U.S. income inequality. It discusses how absolute income inequality is increasing, the middle class is shrinking, and poverty has been increasing. The rich are getting substantially richer, while incomes for most Americans have stagnated or declined. CEO pay has grown massively compared to typical workers. Overall, income inequality in the U.S. has risen dramatically in recent decades.
Poverty in America
Poverty in America Essay
Poverty In America
poverty in america
Poverty In The United States Essay
Essay on Poverty in America
Poverty In America
Made by Wannaphong Durongkaveroj, Student at Chiang Mai University, Thailand.
This ppt benefit everyone who interests in the social problems about poverty and income inequality in Asia.
The document discusses poverty and inequality. It defines absolute and relative poverty and methods of measuring poverty. Economic growth is shown to reduce poverty by increasing employment, wages and government resources. Inequality is an economic problem that affects development and stability. Strategies to reduce poverty include economic liberalization, property rights, infrastructure investment, aid, and microfinance programs like Grameen Bank. Good governance and community participation are also important for poverty alleviation.
This document discusses various measures used to analyze income inequality and poverty. It defines income inequality as the unequal distribution of income across members of an economy. The Lorenz curve is introduced as a graphical representation of income distribution. Measures of poverty discussed include the headcount index, poverty gap, poverty gap index, and Foster-Greer-Thorbecke index. These measures provide ways to quantify levels of poverty and income inequality within and between populations.
A brief study on the measures of income distribution for both analytic and quantitative purposes in terms of size distribution and functional distribution.
The study includes discussion on following concepts-
Lorenz Curve
Gini Coefficient
Absolute Poverty
Foster Greer Thorbecke Measure
The document discusses inequality and poverty in India. It states that inequality in asset ownership and education is worse in India than China. Rapid growth in India and China has not significantly reduced poverty levels or increased equality. Approximately 38% of India's population, or 380 million people, are considered poor according to a new methodology and poverty definition used by the Indian government. Even after over 50 years of independence, India still has the largest number of people in poverty of any single country, with over 260 million people living below the poverty line. Poverty levels vary significantly across Indian states. The Indian state has failed in its responsibilities towards citizens with regards to poverty and more accountability is needed along with empowering local governments and organizations.
Economics: Poverty, Inequality & Development Lilliene Alleje
The document discusses various methods for measuring poverty and inequality, including Lorenz curves, Gini coefficients, and the Multidimensional Poverty Index. It also examines the relationship between economic growth, inequality, and poverty reduction. Key growth typologies include traditional sector enrichment, modern sector enrichment, and modern sector enlargement. While growth may initially worsen inequality according to Kuznet's hypothesis, policies like progressive taxation, asset redistribution, and direct transfers can help address poverty and inequality.
This slide is for reference only. do not share it to anyone.
This slide is base on the book Microeconomics by McConnell and Brue, 12th and 14th edition.
This document discusses measuring poverty and inequality. It outlines four criteria for measuring inequality: anonymity, population, relative income, and Dalton principles. It also describes the Lorenz curve and five measures of inequality: range, Kuznets ratio, mean absolute deviation, coefficient of variation, and Gini coefficient. For poverty measurement, it defines the poverty line and discusses headcount ratio, poverty gap ratio, income gap ratio, and Foster-Greer-Thorbecke class measures.
Poverty and inequality in a changing contextLindsey Cottle
This document outlines poverty, inequality, and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). It defines poverty in monetary, capability, and participatory terms. It discusses measuring poverty through monetary indicators like consumption, capability indicators like health and education, and inequality indicators like income distribution. It notes most of the world's poor now live in middle-income countries rather than low-income countries. The document then outlines the MDGs on eradicating poverty, improving health, education, gender equality, and the environment. It discusses options for a post-2015 framework, including both macroeconomic approaches like foreign aid and microeconomic approaches like employment creation and public services. It proposes evaluating the MDGs from different perspectives and discourses.
This document summarizes an economic report analyzing the relationship between economic growth and inequality in 73 countries from 1993-2013. Two regression models were used to examine the impact of various economic variables on the rate of economic growth. The first model found a positive relationship between internal direct investment and growth. The second model found positive relationships between gross capital formation and growth. Both models found negative relationships between the GINI index, government debt, and GDP per capita with economic growth. The analysis aims to better understand how inequality impacts economic growth.
This document discusses income distribution in Malaysia, comparing differences across ethnic groups, geographic areas, sectors, and states. It provides data on household income levels for Bumiputera, Chinese, Indian, and other ethnicities from 1990 to 2014, showing generally increasing incomes but with unequal distribution. Income is also unequal between urban and rural areas and across states. Factors contributing to these inequalities include differences in education, asset ownership, access to capital, and employment patterns. Measures taken to address unequal distribution include employment restructuring, education upgrading, private sector participation, and Bumiputera skills development. The document also discusses income distribution from an Islamic perspective involving inheritance laws, zakat, prohibitions on interest and ho
Income inequality has increased in both rural and urban areas of India according to the Gini coefficient. The Gini coefficient for rural India increased by 13% and for urban India by 15%, indicating rising disparities in income, expenditure, and savings patterns between rich and poor. Higher-income states and larger cities have significantly higher average incomes compared to their population shares. Factors contributing to rising income inequality in India include unequal distribution of assets, differences in growth rates across states and sectors, and lack of adequate work opportunities for those without assets.
Inequality, Economic Growth and Developmenttutor2u
The document discusses inequality, economic growth, and development. It covers several topics: Kuznets and income inequality; real income growth in the USA and top income shares; a global perspective on inequality between 1988-2008 showing rising incomes for the middle class in China and India. It also discusses the root causes of inequality like less progressive tax systems and market failures in education and housing. Strategies to reduce inequality include investing in education, pursuing inclusive pro-poor growth policies, and microfinance. Overall, the document examines inequality from various economic perspectives and proposes approaches to promote shared prosperity across populations.
The document discusses various aspects of globalization including its definition, characteristics, importance, technology tools that promote it, types, reasons for it, advantages, disadvantages, benefits, costs, and global inequality. Globalization is defined as the flow of goods, services, capital, people, information and ideas across national borders. It opens doors to various fields of study and educational opportunities for students. While it advances technology and business, it can also increase risks, exploit poor countries, and intensify competition. Reducing inequalities and externalities can help maximize the long-term benefits of globalization.
The document provides an overview of global poverty and economic development. It discusses that nearly half the world lives in poverty, though some countries have transitioned from poor to rich. Africa continues to lag behind in development. Mobile technology is enabling growth in poor countries. There is debate around how to reduce extreme poverty.
Poverty can be defined and measured in both monetary and non-monetary terms. When using monetary measures, consumption is typically a better indicator of poverty than income. Poverty lines seek to identify those unable to meet basic needs and are usually based on the costs of a basic food basket. Key measures of poverty include the headcount rate, poverty gap, and poverty severity. Inequality refers to differences in economic outcomes across a population and can be measured using tools like the Lorenz curve and Gini coefficient. Common characteristics of poverty groups include rural, female, and displaced populations. While economic growth typically reduces poverty over time, inequality can hamper growth if initial levels are too high.
This document discusses wealth inequality. It defines wealth inequality as the unequal distribution of assets within a population. Wealth inequality is more pronounced than income inequality in many countries. The document examines differences between income and wealth, and predicts future shifts in global wealth distribution with China claiming a high position. It also lists statistics on concentration of wealth among the top 10% of citizens in several countries. Potential causes of and solutions to wealth inequality are reviewed, such as universal healthcare and inheritance taxes.
This document discusses reducing inequality. It defines social inequality and lists several types, including political, income/wealth, opportunity, treatment/responsibility, membership, gender, racial/ethnic, age, and health inequalities. Facts show inequality increased 11% in developing countries from 1990-2010 and most people live in unequal societies. Inequality can harm growth beyond a threshold. Reducing inequality involves programs supporting youth outcomes across academic, social, behavioral and economic domains through fighting poverty and elevating lower incomes rather than restricting top incomes. Common policies across countries include early childhood development, universal healthcare, education, conditional cash transfers, rural infrastructure and progressive taxation. Simulations show reducing inequality faster than current global growth rates may be needed to end
This document discusses different approaches to modeling the impacts of agricultural productivity growth and income distribution changes on poverty and inequality. It presents a hybrid approach that uses a global CGE model linked to detailed country models. The country models have representative households linked to fitted income distributions to estimate poverty impacts. This allows capturing both between-country and within-country sources of inequality. It also avoids having to directly age survey data over long-term time horizons.
This document analyzes the impact of trade liberalization on poverty in Pakistan. It discusses different types of poverty and provides statistics on poverty levels in Pakistan. The study aims to analyze the relationship between trade liberalization and poverty. It selects poverty as the dependent variable and trade liberalization, inflation, and GDP per capita as independent variables. The methodology includes stationarity testing, ARDL modeling, and Granger causality testing. The results find that trade liberalization and GDP per capita are negatively related to poverty, while inflation is positively related. The study concludes that increasing trade openness and GDP per capita while reducing inflation can help alleviate poverty in Pakistan.
Narrated public lecture of growing u.s. income inequalitydenny4573
The document summarizes findings from a book on growing U.S. income inequality. It discusses how absolute income inequality is increasing, the middle class is shrinking, and poverty has been increasing. The rich are getting substantially richer, while incomes for most Americans have stagnated or declined. CEO pay has grown massively compared to typical workers. Overall, income inequality in the U.S. has risen dramatically in recent decades.
Poverty in America
Poverty in America Essay
Poverty In America
poverty in america
Poverty In The United States Essay
Essay on Poverty in America
Poverty In America
The document discusses definitions and measurements of poverty in the United States. It notes that the US currently defines poverty in absolute terms based on a threshold established in the 1960s. However, this threshold is now outdated as costs of basic necessities have changed. Most analysts agree the current poverty line is too low and fails to account for necessities. The document also provides current statistics on poverty rates in the US.
Since the 1960s, the United States Government has de.docxjennifer822
Since the 1960s, the United States Government has defined poverty in absolute terms. This makes poverty more easily measurable. The "absolute poverty line" is the threshold below which families or individuals are considered to be lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health.A large percentage of the governments poverty measurements depend on the price of food.
"Relative poverty" can be defined as having significantly less access to income and wealth than other members of society. Therefore, the relative poverty rate can directly be linked to income inequality.Means relative poverty can decline if rich people lose a lot of money.
The current poverty measure was established in the 1960s and is now widely acknowledged to be outdated. It was based on research indicating that families spent about one-third of their incomes on food — the official poverty level was set by multiplying food costs by three. Since then, the same figures have been updated annually for inflation but have otherwise remained unchanged.Yet food now comprises only one-seventh of an average family’s expenses, while the costs of housing, child care, health care, and transportation have grown disproportionately. Most analysts agree that today’s poverty thresholds are too low. And although there is no consensus about what constitutes a minimum but decent standard of living in the U.S., research consistently shows that, on average, families need an income of about twice the federal poverty level to meet their most basic needs.
Thirty-seven million Americans live below the official poverty line.One in eight Americans now lives in poverty.A family of four is considered poor if the family’s income is below $21,027.One third of all Americans will experience poverty within a 13-year period. In that period, one in 10 Americans are poor for most of the time, and one in 20 are poor for 10 or more years.
“One in eight Americans -- approximately 37 million people -- now live below the federal poverty line of $19,971 for a family of four. (A woefully inadequate measure that is 42 years old and fails to account for basic necessities.) That's 4.9 million more people than in 2000 and the poverty rate for children is the highest of all age groups. Nearly 60 million people live just above the poverty line. Using the British standard of measurement, approximately 30 percent of Americans --and 40 percent of American children -- are living in poverty.”
Eighteen percent of children are in poverty. 10.9 percent of working-age adults (between the ages of 16 and 64) are in poverty.9.7 percent of the elderly are in poverty. 13.8 percent of females and 11.1 percent of males were poor
The white non-Hispanic poverty rate is 8.2%. The poverty rate for African Americans is 24.5%. The poverty rate for Hispanics is 21.5%. The poverty rate for Asian Americans is 10.2%.
Federal m.
The document discusses factors related to human population growth including fertility rates, mortality rates, life expectancy, and perspectives on population issues. It provides statistics on current and projected global population growth rates and examines demographic transitions occurring in developed and developing regions of the world. Family planning programs aim to allow individuals to determine family size but face complications from politics, religion, and social factors.
The document discusses the issue of homelessness in the United States. It notes that the number of homeless people continues to rise each year for various reasons, including poverty and economic recession. The poverty level remains high as the economy struggles, foreclosures increase, and finding jobs becomes more difficult. Several nonprofit organizations work to address homelessness through research, prevention programs, and fundraising to help the homeless population.
A detailed review of the causes and effects of income inequality. Details on how extreme it is. Citation of many authors suggesting how it came about and what to do about it.
The document discusses human population growth and factors that influence it. It begins by outlining perspectives on population growth from ecologists, economists, and social justice advocates. It then discusses historical population growth and exponential growth trends. Key factors determining population growth include fertility rates, mortality rates, life expectancy, immigration, and cultural influences on ideal family size. Many countries have undergone a demographic transition from high birth and death rates to low rates as development increased.
Sabi was founded in 2009 in
response to the discovery of a white
space in the market - namely, a
dearth of companies catering to the
Baby Boomer population, as it ages.
All products on the market required
for “aging” - such as walking canes,
pill carriers and bathroom fixtures -
were designed exclusively to be
functional, with virtually no consideration
for streamlined usage or aesthetics.
We decided it was time to change
that and offer Boomers stylish and
expertly designed alternatives -
products they would love to use. So,
that’s what we did.
In order to determine the most
needed products among this large
and growing aging population, we did
our research. We read everything we
could get our hands on - statistical
reports, academic papers, newspaper
articles - you name it. The more we
read, the more we realized that while
there was a lot of very deep and
targeted research out there about
the cohort, there was nothing that
presented a full and well-rounded
picture of the generation.
That was our objective in piecing
together and writing the first annual
BOOMer Report: to share our
learnings and paint a picture, not of
one single aspect of the generation,
but instead a snapshot in time of the
generation as a whole.
Our ultimate objective is to inspire
the emergence of other initiatives
like ours - both public and private -
that will consider the needs of the
population as it ages and design
products and services, accordingly.
Having undertaken this process, and
developed three product lines geared
to Boomers as they age, a singular
universal truth has emerged for our
small start-up: when you create
products to be better designed and
more beautiful than alternatives on
the market, no matter which market
you’re targeting, you’ll end up creating
products that everyone loves to use.
Sabi was founded in 2009 in response to the discovery of a white space in the market - namely, a dearth of companies catering to the Baby Boomer population, as it ages.
All products on the market required for “aging” - such as walking canes, pill carriers and bathroom fixtures -
were designed exclusively to be
functional, with virtually no consideration for streamlined usage or aesthetics. We decided it was time to change
that and offer Boomers stylish and expertly designed alternatives - products they would love to use. So,
that’s what we did.
In order to determine the most needed products among this large and growing aging population, we did our research. We read everything we could get our hands on - statistical
reports, academic papers, newspaper articles - you name it. The more we read, the more we realized that while there was a lot of very deep and targeted research out there about
the cohort, there was nothing that presented a full and well-rounded picture of the generation.
That was our objective in piecing together and writing the first annual BOOMer Report: to share our learnings and paint a picture, not of one single aspect of the generation,
but instead a snapshot in time of the generation as a whole.
Our ultimate objective is to inspire the emergence of other initiatives like ours - both public and private - that will consider the needs of the population as it ages and design products and services, accordingly.
Having undertaken this process, and developed three product lines geared to Boomers as they age, a singular universal truth has emerged for our small start-up: when you create products to be better designed and more beautiful than alternatives on
the market, no matter which market you’re targeting, you’ll end up creating products that everyone loves to use.
Who are Baby Boomers today? This is the question that this annual report tries to answer. By summarizing and highlighting the most compellingconclusions of academic research, polls,and media on the subject of Boomer
trends, Sabi’s annual BOOMer Report attempts to define key characteristics of the Boomer generation, as it
stands, today. Taken together, we hope these trends will paint as clear a picture as possible of the Baby Boomer generation in America in 2015.
This document provides an overview of American men in the early 2010s by examining realities, icons, and memes. It discusses the changing demographics of the US, with declining white population percentages and growing ethnic diversity. Economically, it notes the illusion of widespread prosperity fueled by debt, and outlines the current realities of uneven wealth distribution and declining prospects for many working-class men. It then examines prominent male icons from Hollywood and how they have reflected changing ideals of American manhood over time. Finally, it introduces the concept of "thought viruses" or memes that animate American cultural and political debates.
This document provides an overview of American men in the early 2010s by examining realities, icons, and memes. It discusses the changing demographics of the US, with declining white population percentages and growing ethnic diversity. Economically, it notes the illusion of widespread prosperity fueled by debt, and outlines the current realities of uneven wealth distribution and declining prospects for many working-class men. It then examines prominent male icons from Hollywood and how they have reflected changing ideals of American manhood over time. Finally, it introduces the concept of "thought viruses" or memes that animate American cultural and political debates.
This document summarizes realities about men in the United States based on statistics and data. It notes that the US population continues to grow through births and immigration, making it more ethnically diverse. While men on average still earn more than women, the gap is closing as more women get college degrees and high-paying jobs. However, rising costs and debt have created an illusion of prosperity for many. Most Americans now make under $50,000 annually and cannot maintain spending levels without borrowing. Overall wealth remains concentrated among the top earners.
Rapid population growth has negative economic, health, and social consequences according to the document. It impedes economic development, reduces health and welfare especially for women and children, and increases demands on education and jobs systems. When these demands are not met, it can increase volatility and risk of violence among young populations. The first impact of reducing fertility is increasing health and welfare of women and children. Rapid growth also increases the proportion of young people in societies.
Hoag (2016) CSUEB Lecture: US Class StructurePeter Hoag
This document provides an overview of class divisions in the United States. It discusses how the gap between rich and poor has widened since the 1980s. The top 1% of Americans now own around 40% of the country's wealth, while the bottom 50% own just 1% of wealth. It also shows how CEO salaries have risen dramatically compared to typical workers. While the U.S. economy has grown overall, median income and the middle class have shrunk. The goal of the presentation is to present facts about growing inequality in a neutral, non-political manner.
Poverty became more visible in the U.S. during the 1960s Civil Rights era but attention has fluctuated since. While official poverty rates count 15% of Americans as poor, the actual number with incomes insufficient for basic needs is much higher. Poverty has remained consistently high over 40 years despite some declines, and the poor face greater social exclusion and barriers to socioeconomic mobility than past generations. A structural perspective that considers economic, political, and social forces outside an individual's control best explains the causes and persistence of poverty in America.
Infant Mortality Rate in the US Compared to SwedenKarissa Braden
This document compares the infant mortality rates of the United States and Sweden. It finds that the US has a much higher infant mortality rate despite being wealthier and spending more on healthcare. The US rate is 2.5 times higher than Sweden's. The document attributes the US's high rate to factors of high inequality, including income inequality, a large uninsured population, and racial inequality. These inequalities lead to limited access to resources and healthcare, especially among minority and low-income groups.
Labor in the Eye of the Hurricane (UUP 19 Oct 2011)esquincle
The document discusses austerity measures in Greece that have led to widespread protests and strikes. It argues that continued austerity will plunge Greece deeper into recession and unemployment. It then discusses the broader worldwide trend of austerity policies, and anti-union efforts in many US states aimed at limiting collective bargaining and teachers' unions. The rest of the document focuses on growing income inequality in the US, New York, and New York City over recent decades.
Similar to Narrated public lecture of growing u.s. income inequality (20)
ISO/IEC 27001, ISO/IEC 42001, and GDPR: Best Practices for Implementation and...PECB
Denis is a dynamic and results-driven Chief Information Officer (CIO) with a distinguished career spanning information systems analysis and technical project management. With a proven track record of spearheading the design and delivery of cutting-edge Information Management solutions, he has consistently elevated business operations, streamlined reporting functions, and maximized process efficiency.
Certified as an ISO/IEC 27001: Information Security Management Systems (ISMS) Lead Implementer, Data Protection Officer, and Cyber Risks Analyst, Denis brings a heightened focus on data security, privacy, and cyber resilience to every endeavor.
His expertise extends across a diverse spectrum of reporting, database, and web development applications, underpinned by an exceptional grasp of data storage and virtualization technologies. His proficiency in application testing, database administration, and data cleansing ensures seamless execution of complex projects.
What sets Denis apart is his comprehensive understanding of Business and Systems Analysis technologies, honed through involvement in all phases of the Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC). From meticulous requirements gathering to precise analysis, innovative design, rigorous development, thorough testing, and successful implementation, he has consistently delivered exceptional results.
Throughout his career, he has taken on multifaceted roles, from leading technical project management teams to owning solutions that drive operational excellence. His conscientious and proactive approach is unwavering, whether he is working independently or collaboratively within a team. His ability to connect with colleagues on a personal level underscores his commitment to fostering a harmonious and productive workplace environment.
Date: May 29, 2024
Tags: Information Security, ISO/IEC 27001, ISO/IEC 42001, Artificial Intelligence, GDPR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Find out more about ISO training and certification services
Training: ISO/IEC 27001 Information Security Management System - EN | PECB
ISO/IEC 42001 Artificial Intelligence Management System - EN | PECB
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) - Training Courses - EN | PECB
Webinars: https://pecb.com/webinars
Article: https://pecb.com/article
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information about PECB:
Website: https://pecb.com/
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/pecb/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PECBInternational/
Slideshare: http://www.slideshare.net/PECBCERTIFICATION
Level 3 NCEA - NZ: A Nation In the Making 1872 - 1900 SML.pptHenry Hollis
The History of NZ 1870-1900.
Making of a Nation.
From the NZ Wars to Liberals,
Richard Seddon, George Grey,
Social Laboratory, New Zealand,
Confiscations, Kotahitanga, Kingitanga, Parliament, Suffrage, Repudiation, Economic Change, Agriculture, Gold Mining, Timber, Flax, Sheep, Dairying,
This presentation was provided by Racquel Jemison, Ph.D., Christina MacLaughlin, Ph.D., and Paulomi Majumder. Ph.D., all of the American Chemical Society, for the second session of NISO's 2024 Training Series "DEIA in the Scholarly Landscape." Session Two: 'Expanding Pathways to Publishing Careers,' was held June 13, 2024.
Leveraging Generative AI to Drive Nonprofit InnovationTechSoup
In this webinar, participants learned how to utilize Generative AI to streamline operations and elevate member engagement. Amazon Web Service experts provided a customer specific use cases and dived into low/no-code tools that are quick and easy to deploy through Amazon Web Service (AWS.)
How Barcodes Can Be Leveraged Within Odoo 17Celine George
In this presentation, we will explore how barcodes can be leveraged within Odoo 17 to streamline our manufacturing processes. We will cover the configuration steps, how to utilize barcodes in different manufacturing scenarios, and the overall benefits of implementing this technology.
Narrated public lecture of growing u.s. income inequality
1. Growing U.S. Income Inequality A Lecture Presented for the Osher Program San Diego State University April 18, 2011 Denny Braun, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Sociology Minnesota State University 1
47. These households were stalked by hunger and at times did not have enough money to buy enough food at various times during the year.Source: USDA, Economic Research Report No. (ERR-108), Nov. 2010
48.
49. These households were stalked by hunger and at times did not have enough money to buy enough food at various times during the year.
50. Nearly 7 million households (with one million children) had such severe financial problems that they were forced to miss meals on a regular basis.Source: USDA, Economic Research Report No. (ERR-108), Nov. 2010
51.
52.
53. The number of households experiencing hunger has tripled in the 3 years between 2006 and 2009.Source: USDA, Economic Research Report No. (ERR-108), Nov. 2010
55. How is the American Middle Class Doing? In one word—”Badly”!
56. How is the American Middle Class Doing? In one word—”Badly”! Since peaking in 1999 (at $38,720), median earnings for male workers is 6% lower eleven years later ($36,331 in 2009).
57. How is the American Middle Class Doing? In one word—”Badly”! Since peaking in 1999 (at $38,720), median earnings for male workers is 6% lower eleven years later ($36,331 in 2009) Female workers have done slightly better, going from $23,738 to $26,030 in the same period—a 9.7% increase.
58. How is the American Middle Class Doing? In one word—”Badly”! Since peaking in 1999 (at $38,720), median earnings for male workers is 6% lower eleven years later ($36,331 in 2009) Female workers have done slightly better, going from $23,738 to $26,030 in the same period—a 9.7% increase Thus, in a two-earner, husband/wife family, earnings have been stagnant for 10 years.
59. How is the American Middle Class Doing? In one word—”Badly”! Even more threatening is anemic job growth. Only 7 million new jobs were created in 2002-2007 (before the crash)—compared to 20 million created in the same 5-year period in the 1990s.
60. How is the American Middle Class Doing? In one word—”Badly”! Even more threatening is anemic job growth. Only 7 million new jobs were created in 2002-2007 (before the crash)—compared to 20 million created in the same 5-year period in the 1990s. The Bottom Line: Fewer Americans are employed today than a decade ago, despite our population growing by 25 million.
63. How have the very rich been doing? In 2007, just before the Great Recession hit us, the top 25 CEOs of investment houses “earned” $22 billion (about the GDP of Costa Rica). The top 5 managers each got over $1 billion. (Page and Jacobs)
64. How have the very rich been doing? In 2007, just before the Great Recession hit us, the top 25 CEOs of investment houses “earned” $22 billion (about the GDP of Costa Rica). The top 5 managers each got over $1 billion! (Page and Jacobs) In 2007, America’s top 1% of earners received 23% of the nation’s total income (almost triple the 8% share they got in 1980). (Robert Reich)
65. How have the very rich been doing? In the 1960s, CEOs of major American companies earned 25 times the wages of their typical workers; by 1980 40 times; by 1990 100 times; by 2007 350 times. (Robert Reich). As of 2009, Michael Hiltzik (LA TIMES) reported a Harvard study putting this ratio at 411 to 1.
66. How have the very rich been doing? In the 1960s, CEOs of major American companies earned 25 times the wages of their typical workers; by 1980 40 times; by 1990 100 times; by 2007 350 times. (Robert Reich). As of 2009, Michael Hiltzik (LA TIMES) reported a Harvard study putting this ratio at 411 to 1. The combined wealth in 2005 of Sam Walton’s family at $90 billion (Walmart ), Bill Gates (Microsoft) at $46 billion, and Warren Buffet at $44 billion is much more than the $95 billion combined wealth of the bottom 40% in the U.S. In short, 3 families own as much as 120 million Americans. (Robert Reich)
67. Average Pay of Top 500 Corporate CEOs, 1989 - 2009 Source: Forbes.com. Pay is in constant 2008 dollars 52
68.
69.
70. In reality, the CEOs of the largest Standard and Poors 500 corporations make $14 million per year. (See Jacobs and Page, CLASS WAR).
71.
72.
73. This top 0.1% increased their share of all income from 2.7% in 1974 to 12.3% in 2007.
81. It is true that our Real GDP doubled between 1983-2007 while our population increased only by one-third, i.e., per capita real GDP actually did grow over this past quarter century.
82.
83. It is true that our Real GDP doubled between 1983-2007 while our population increased only by one-third, i.e., per capita real GDP actually did grow over this past quarter century.
84. On average, then, Americans should be better off—but this is definitely not the case.
85.
86. It is true that our Real GDP doubled between 1983-2007 while our population increased only by one-third, i.e., per capita real GDP actually did grow over this past quarter century.
87. On average, then, Americans should be better off—but this is definitely not the case.
88. To get a better idea of who benefits vs. those who do not, income recipients are often divided into fifths (Quintiles, or 20% segments).
93. Real income rose another $12,000 in the 27 years between 1981 and 2008. BUT—the richest 10% got almost all of this increase of income (96%), while the bottom 90% received only 4% of the growth. In short, the very great majority of Americans have simply been totally shut out of any increase in living standards.73
98. Family Income Gini Score by Country: 2009 Source: CIA- The World Factbook 2009 78
99. Most Equal Country Most Unequal Country Gini Gini Source: CIA, The World Factbook 2009 79
100. Why worry about relative income inequality?Research shows that high relative income inequality is associated with: 80
101. Why worry about relative income inequality?Research shows that high relative income inequality is associated with: High homicide Rates (nations and U.S. states)
102. Why worry about relative income inequality?Research shows that high relative income inequality is associated with: High homicide Rates (nations and U.S. states) High rates of imprisonment (nations and U.S. States)
103. Why worry about relative income inequality?Research shows that high relative income inequality is associated with: High homicide Rates (nations and U.S. states) High rates of imprisonment (nations and U.S. States) High Teen Birthrates (nations and states)
104. Why worry about relative income inequality?Research shows that high relative income inequality is associated with: High homicide Rates (nations and U.S. states) High rates of imprisonment (nations and U.S. States) High Teen Birthrates (nations and states) High rates of illegal drug use (nations)
105. Why worry about relative income inequality?Research shows that high relative income inequality is associated with: High homicide Rates (nations and U.S. states) High rates of imprisonment (nations and U.S. States) High Teen Birthrates (nations and states) High rates of illegal drug use (nations) High infant mortality rates (nations)
106. Why worry about relative income inequality?Research shows that high relative income inequality is associated with: High homicide Rates (nations and U.S. states) High rates of imprisonment (nations and U.S. States) High Teen Birthrates (nations and states) High rates of illegal drug use (nations) High infant mortality rates (nations) Lower life expectancy (nations)
107. Why worry about relative income inequality?Research shows that high relative income inequality is associated with: High homicide Rates (nations and U.S. states) High rates of imprisonment (nations and U.S. States) High Teen Birthrates (nations and states) High rates of illegal drug use (nations) High infant mortality rates (nations) Lower life expectancy (nations) High rates of Mental Illness (nations)
108. Why worry about relative income inequality?Research shows that high relative income inequality is associated with: High homicide Rates (nations and U.S. states) High rates of imprisonment (nations and U.S. States) High Teen Birthrates (nations and states) High rates of illegal drug use (nations) High infant mortality rates (nations) Lower life expectancy (nations) High rates of Mental Illness (nations) Low rates of contraceptive usage (nations)
109. Why worry about relative income inequality?Research shows that high relative income inequality is associated with: High homicide Rates (nations and U.S. states) High rates of imprisonment (nations and U.S. States) High Teen Birthrates (nations and states) High rates of illegal drug use (nations) High infant mortality rates (nations) Lower life expectancy (nations) High rates of Mental Illness (nations) Low rates of contraceptive usage (nations) Lower access to safe water (nations)
110. For detailed charts and graphs exploring these findings, see: Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, THE SPIRIT LEVEL: WHY GREATER EQUALITY MAKES SOCIETIES STRONGER, 2009. See especially their free, downloadable Power Point presentation at www.equalitytrust.org.uk
122. Since 1995, the richest 400 households have had their taxes cut 45%, or $46 million per household per year.
123. Even for those earning $1 million per year, their tax cut equals $128,000 annually.
124. For those with middle class incomes, our yearly tax cut savings comes to $300.
125. If these “temporary” tax cuts are discontinued, $1 trillion will be gained over the next decade, making it easier to finally balance our national budget.101
126.
127.
128. Cut defense spending/stop fighting needless wars (Stiglitz estimates the Iraq War has cost $3 trillion)
129.
130. Cut defense spending/stop fighting needless wars (Stiglitz estimates the Iraq War has cost $3 trillion)
131. Invest in R & D (cutting-edge Green Technology)
132.
133. Cut defense spending/stop fighting needless wars (Stiglitz estimates the Iraq War has cost $3 trillion)
134. Invest in R & D (cutting-edge Green Technology)
150. Consume less, and when you do—buy carefully, e.g., coops. (Sounds Un-American—right?) Read Annie Leonard, THE STORY OF STUFF.
151.
152. Consume less, and when you do—buy carefully, e.g., coops. (Sounds Un-American—right?) Read Annie Leonard, THE STORY OF STUFF.
153. Read widely (NEVER STOP LEARNING), use unbiased news sources/avoid hate-mongering broadcast media pundits, e.g., beware of the FOX in the hen-house.
154.
155.
156. Avoid simplistic, extremist politicians hawking know-nothing solutions (cutting taxes will not solve all of our problems, but only reward the rich).
157.
158. Avoid simplistic, extremist politicians hawking know-nothing solutions (cutting taxes will not solve all of our problems, but only reward the rich).
159. Network, Network, Network—especially through the internet. Power accrues to individuals when they act as groups!
160.
Editor's Notes
This Power Point presentation is a lecture delivered at San Diego State University on April 18th, 2011 to participants in the Osher Program. I am its author, Denny Braun, Professor Emeritus of Sociology, Minnesota State University (Mankato). I began my professional career as a demographer/statistician at the U.S. Census Bureau in Washington, DC. After joining the faculty at MSU in 1968 I remained teaching and doing research at this university until my retirement 33 years later.
Right from the start of my career, I had an interest concerning Income Inequality. Inequality had become virulent by the early 1980s, when I began research for a book on this problem. My 1st Ed. Of THE RICH GET RICHER came out in 1991, and the 2nd Ed. was published in 1997.
Absolute income inequality (in actual dollars) is increasing (the rich are “getting richer”!).
The middle class is shrinking.
Poverty has been increasing
U.S. Multinational Corporations have caused much of this growing income inequality--both in the United States and in the World. Unfortunately, I cannot address this topic today because of time restraints, but it is thoroughly discussed in my book.
Huge disparities exist between U.S. locales on income inequality
The growth of relative income inequality is not only continuous but has become explosive
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita is the value of all final goods and services produced within a nation in a given year divided by its mid-year population, converted at market exchange rates to U.S. dollars. PPP means “Purchasing Power Parity” which adjusts for differences of inflation, cost-of-living, taxes, etc. These and other concepts are more fully explained in the accompanying Word document entitled “Suggested Further Sources on Growing Income Inequality”. To begin with, The U.S. is NOT the richest country in the world, ranking 9th behind such European countries as Luxembourg (#1), Norway (#2), Switzerland,Denmark, etc. Two anomalies, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, are oil rich sheikdoms illustrating the great wealth characteristic of oil exporting nations. The PPP column in the far right of this table illustrates that the U.S., with its comparatively “light” tax burden among nations, improves its world position to 6th richest. But even here, note that we are still 69% below second place Luxembourg
When median household income is compared among U.S. states, one can easily see the richest states (dark green) are on the Eastern seaboard and in New England, together with Alaska and Hawaii. A second tier of well-off states (medium green) form the Upper Midwest and a few western states extending to the Pacific coast. Poor states (light yellow) are mostly in the South. Median household income for the entire U.S. was $50,303 in 2008.
Specifically, here are the top and bottom 6 states by median household income. While Maryland is a “Southern” state, it contains wealthy suburbs next to Washington, DC.
By looking at household income in our 3140 U.S. counties, these regional patterns still prevail. Note that even wealthy states have some counties that are not affluent. One can also see richer, metropolitan counties that have household income well above average: Dallas, Houston, Denver, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles/Orange County, and San Diego.
When median household income is adjusted for inflation, it is called “REAL MEDIAN INCOME”. This allows us to compare trends over a period of 42 years translated to today’s dollars (2009 in our table). It is easy to see a flattening of income from the year 2000 to the present for all racial groups. This occurred well before the Great Recession which began in January of 2008. In constant 2009 dollars, median House Hold income peaked in 1999 at $52,301 for all households and has DECLINED ever since—reaching a low of $49,777 in 2009 (-5% over all)!
This bar chart indicates that the loss of income was not shared equally. Looking at the red bars on the left, which describe the past decade, one can see African American households lost 11% of their income, compared to minus 8% of Latinos and -5% for whites. The major point here, however, is that all groups have been losing income within the past decade. Looking at the pink bars on the right, which describe the 1991-2000 decade, it is obvious that all racial groups made huge gains in real income prior to the start of this century.
Who are the poor? What are their characteristics?Where do they live? Have their numbers increased over time? How about the rate of poverty? Is that unchanged?
We can see that poverty contains a strong racial component: Blacks and Hispanics are two and one-half times as likely to be poor than whites (comprising one fourth of their entire populations). ). It is important to remember, however, that Non-Hispanic Whites are the largest component of poor people at 43% in 2010.
The good news is that since the mid-1960s, when Social Security payments were indexed to inflation, the elderly are less likely to be poor. The bad news is that one of every five American children lives under poverty.
Many of those poor children live in female headed families, where nearly one-third of families of this type are under poverty. Intact, married couple families are quite low on poverty (about 1 in 16).
This chart recounts the number and percent of those living under poverty over the past 40 years. On the right side of the graph, one can see a rise in the rate of poverty since the year 2000 AND a very steep increase in the number of poor persons since that date as well.
To begin with, how “poor” is poor? It depends on your family size and your age. In 2009, if you were a single mom with 2 kids under 18, you were “poor” if your annual income was $17,285 or less. For a single person over 65 years old, the cut off was $ 10,289.
Within the past decade, the poverty rate has increased 27% for all persons, and 30% for all families.
Thus, the poor grew by 12 million in the past decade, totally obliterating the 4 million reduction in poor persons that occurred in the 1990s.
The number of Americans who are poor today, over 43 million, is at an all time high and surpasses the population of most nations. One of every 7 persons in our country is poor!
Many, many Americans have such low incomes that they are on the brink of poverty at all times. In the four year period (2004-2007), just before the onset of The Great Recession, nearly one in three Americans fell into poverty for 2 or more months. The 2008-2011 figures will surely be even grimmer!
Lastly, one of 11 elderly (65 and over) and 1 of every 5 children are living under poverty today.
These two innocent, vulnerable groups comprise 44% of poor people, approaching the 20 million mark.
Unfortunately, the United States does not do a very good job protecting our poor through social services and other governmental programs.
The U.S. has an initial poverty rate lower than many of our industrial peers (26.3%, compared to Sweden’s 26.7%, Germany’s 33.6%, U.K.’s 26.3%, Japan’s 26.9%).
After taxes and transfers, however, our poverty rate only declines to 17.1%. Of the 20 advanced countries, we are last in reduction.
For example, Sweden goes down to 5.3%, Germany to 11%, U.K. to 8.3%, and Japan to 14.9%.
Comparing poverty rates among U.S. states, it is easy to see that the South leads the nation in the percentage of poor persons (dark blue states). Poverty is least likely to exist along the northeastern coast (including New England) and in Alaska and Hawaii (white states).
Among the 6 best and 6 worst states on poverty rates, Wyoming is the only state that stands out for its lack of poverty—and I am not sure why.
Looking at poverty among all 3,140 counties, the poorest in 2010 are in dark purple. Counties with the lowest poverty are white. Both poor whites and blacks drive up poverty in the South, especially in rural counties. Lastly, even “rich” states have pockets of poverty!
About 15% of U.S. Households experienced “food insecurity” in 2009—which translates to over 17 million American families
These households were stalked by hunger and at times did not have enough money to buy enough food at various times during the year. . In California, 1 in 5 persons during 2010 did not have enough money at times to buy food that they needed! (http://www.frac.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/FoodHardship_State2010.pdf)
Nearly 7 million households (with one million children) had such severe financial problems that they were forced to miss meals on a regular basis.
Today, the number of households with hunger is at an all-time high since data began to be gathered in 1995.
The number of households experiencing hunger has tripled in the 3 years between 2006 and 2009.
So, what is the message we may hear from Wall Street Tycoons and the very rich? Now that the stock market is making a rebound, and economists have declared the Great Recession officially over, working Americans should “Get over it!”
What about the “average” American? How is the proverbial American middle class doing? In a word—“badly”!
As a reminder, in all income comparisons from year-to-year and decade-to-decade, the effect of inflation has been factored out (called “constant dollars” or “real dollars”). Since peaking in 1999 (at $38,720), median earnings for male workers had sank 6% lower eleven years later ($36,331 in 2009).
Female workers have done slightly better, going from $23,738 to $26,030 in the same period—a 9.7% increase
Thus, in a two-earner, husband/wife family, this means that earnings have been stagnant for 10 years.
Even more threatening is anemic job growth. Only 7 million new jobs were created in 2002-2007 (before the crash)—compared to 20 million created in the same 5-year period in the 1990s.
The Bottom Line: Fewer Americans are employed today than a decade ago, despite our population growing by 25 million.
With an unemployment rate that recently peaked at 10%, the collapse of the housing market, upside down mortgages where millions now owe more than their homes are worth, and a foreclosure epidemic—we have witnessed a new wave of homelessness hitting the middle class.
Now that we’ve briefly looked at the poor and middle class in America, we can ask how the very rich have been doing?
In 2007, just before the Great Recession hit us, the top 25 CEOs of investment houses “earned” $22 billion (about the GDP of Costa Rica). The top 5 managers each got over $1 billion in that year! (Page and Jacobs)
In 2007, America’s top 1% of earners received 23% of the nation’s total income (almost triple the 8% share they got in 1980). (Robert Reich).
In the 1960s, CEOs of major American companies earned 25 times the wages of their typical workers; by 1980 40 times; by 1990 100 times; by 2007 350 times. (Robert Reich). As of 2009, Michael Hiltzik (LA TIMES) reported a Harvard study putting this ratio at 411 to 1.
Now that we’ve briefly looked at the poor and middle class in America, we can ask how the very rich have been doing?
This bar chart documents the pay (in constant 2009 dollars) of the CEOs in charge of our largest 500 corporations. Ignore the colors (separate salary sources) and focus on the height of the bars. Even with a recession dip, they are making 5 times their 1990 salaries.
Most Americans are woefully Ignorant about how exorbitant CEO corporate pay actually is. When asked how much they believe typical corporate CEOs “earn” in a year, Americans estimate their pay at $500,000 (20 times that of unskilled workers or sales clerks
In reality, the CEOs of the largest Standard and Poors 500 corporations make $14 million per year. (See Jacobs and Page, CLASS WAR).
This is 700 times more than the average factory worker and 540 times the salary of the average sales clerk! . This nearly tripled CEO pay (in “real” or “constant” dollars) compared to 1989!
Hacker and Pierson (in their book WINNER TAKE ALL POLITICS) assert that these CEOs form the bulk of the top 0.1% of income recipients in the United States.
This top 0.1% (1 in every 1,000) increased their share of all income in the U.S. from 2.7% in 1974 to 12.3% in 2007. This percentage is the highest ever since the creation of the income tax in 1913.
When the capital gains of this richest 1-in-1000 is counted, this equals $1 trillion per year.
Looking at the data over the past 60 years, it is obvious that the stupendous growth of income for the top 1% took off in 1980 (red line), after the election of RonaldReagan and the introduction of “trickle down” economics, tax cuts for the very rich, and de-regulation of businesses, banks, and Wall Street firms. Again, while increases for persons in the 95th to 99th percentile were gradual (gray line), they were not that substantial in comparison to the top 1%.
This cartoon portrays the relentless march of CEO pay into the stratosphere. Nearly all studies indicate that CEO pay in the U.S. is quite unrelated to how well their companies perform—there is a severe disconnect—CEOs are paid exorbitant salaries even when their companies do poorly. See especially graefcrystal.com. The cartoon also illustrates how ineffective efforts have been by various groups to reign in these excessive salaries.
Most of these corporations that lavish pay on their CEOs are household names. Take note of Mark Hurd, at California firm Hewlett Packard. He resigned in August over a personal relationship with a marketing contractor, but was awarded $53 million in severance pay by the HP Board of Directors just to get him out the door. Shareholders are now suing in the San Jose Federal Court in an attempt to get the money back.
While CEO pay remained in the tens of millions, many Americans have experienced a nosedive in their retirement portfolios, mortgages that have turned upside down so that they owe much more than their home is worth , outright foreclosures or short sales, and an unemployment rate near 10%--the highest rate in nearly a third of a century.
For the remainder of my talk we will shift gears. Rather than speaking of absolute dollar differences, we will now look at how income is “shared” in the United States. We will examine “relative” income inequality, in the sense that we can say the poor have only a third of the income of the middle class—and so on. Why this is very important will be discussed as we go along.
It was John Kennedy who termed the phrase—”A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats”—meaning the poor also benefit from economic growth.
It is true that our Real GDP doubled between 1983-2007 while our population increased only by one-third, i.e., per capita real GDP actually did grow over this past quarter century.
On average, then, Americans should be better off—but this is definitely not the case.
To get a better idea of who benefits vs. those who do not, researchers often divide income recipients into fifths (called Quintiles, or 20% segments).
If income were even, each pie slice would be the same size. There would be 5 equal slices.
This is far from the case! For the last year of available data, in 2009, we can see that the top 5th gets half the pie! In fact, the richest 5% of American households received nearly one-fourth of ALL U.S. income. The bottom 3 slices—60% of all Americans—can be described as “not getting their fair share”. The poorest 5th only received less than 4% of all income!
Since 1947, at the end of WW II, every segment of American society benefitted from economic growth until 1973. (top 3rd of graph). The bottom third of this histogram shows that such sharing of income among all segments of our society ended by the year 2000. The middle segment of bar charts shows a sharp developing of income inequality starting in 1973 up to the year 2000. While all segments are still gaining income, note that the top 5th has increased its income at six times the rate as the poorest 5th. Since the richest 20% of families have much more income than the poorest 20%, this means the absolute dollar increase would be very high for the wealthiest families. Lastly, the bottom level of bar charts traces what has happened since the start of this century. The great majority of American families (the bottom 60%) are now losing money, while there is only slight growth in the richest two quintiles. To reiterate: about two-thirds of American families have seen their incomes slide down over the past decade. Moreover, since the impact of the Great Recession is not accounted for in this data, this loss will be even more severe in the future when data become available. (Source: Economic Policy Institute using Census data)
This bar chart captures what has happened in the past few years. The Great Recession has made everyone less well-off, but there has been much less income decline at the top than at the bottom. And, as a reminder, the top 1% has likely become ever richer despite the Great Recession.
Between 1945 and 1980, incomes increased on average by $19,000. While the richest 10% of our population captured over 1/3 of this growth in real dollars, the bottom 90% still received the other 2/3rds of the income increase.
It is not mere coincidence that starting in 1981--with the birth of Reaganomics--trickle-down economic theories, de-regulation of Wall Street and the banking industry, huge tax cuts for the very rich, etc.–began and still continues to this day.
How much are these differences between groups in real dollars? In 2009, the mean income of top 5% of households was over $295,000. For the bottom 5th, mean income stood at $11,552. This graph shows that this disparity has been growing relentlessly over the past 40 years.
The degree of relative income inequality can be graphed in what is called a “Lorenz Curve”. The green line in this graph indicates perfect equality, where everyone receives exactly the same income. The red line indicates reality, because no society is perfectly equal. We can see that 40% of all the income (the Y or vertical axis) goes to the bottom 60% of all households (the X or horizontal axis). Exploring further, we can see that 60% of all income goes to the bottom 80% of households. The Gini ratio is the area between the red and green lines divided by the area in the the triangle—between the green and blue lines. If all households had exactly the same income, Gini would equal zero (0). If one household had all the income, and the rest of the households had no income, Gini would equal 1.0. Obviously, for all societies reality lies in between.
Some less technical reports now multiply the Gini score by 100%, implying that the U.S. household income Gini score of .468 in 2009 is what we might call 47% unequal. However you interpret it, the march toward inequality has been relentless! The household Gini score in 1968 was .386, compared to .468 in 2009—a 21% increase in relative inequality occurring over 41 years!
A quick glance of this U.S. map shows the most highly unequal states (in red) are in the South and in the Northeast (NY, Conn., Mass.). Calif. Is the lone western state among the most unequal. Green states are especially equal, comprising the Midwest and New England.
How to do we compare to the rest of the world in terms of our relative income inequality measure, the Gini Ratio? This map courtesy of the CIA World Fact book begins to indicate how UNEQUAL the U.S. is when compared to other nations. While green and blue countries are more equal, purple and red nations are quite unequal.
The U.S. has a family income Gini score (not house hold Gini) of .450, which makes us the 42ndmost UNEQUAL of 134 countries ranked by the CIA. This means our percentile rank of 31% on the World Equality Index puts us in the bottom third of all nations when it comes to economic equality among all families throughout the world! One can easily see that the most equal countries are European. Sweden, at the top of the list with a Gini of .23, has a score that would literally have to double to become as unequal as the United States in its pattern of family income dispersion.
It can be asked Why we should worry about relative income inequality anyway? In terms of wealth, our country is still quite rich. Even if our bottom two quintiles (40%) of households are much less well off than the top quintile, are not they still better off in real dollars than in less developed countries? There is room for grave concern, because research shows that high relative income inequality is associated with a number of negative trends.
High homicide Rates (among nations and among U.S. states)
High rates of imprisonment (among nations and among U.S. States)
High Teen Birthrates (among nations and among states)
High rates of illegal drug use (nations)
High infant mortality rates (nations
Lower life expectancy (nations)
High rates of Mental Illness (nations
Low rates of contraceptive usage (nations)
Lower access to safe water (nations)
For detailed charts and graphs exploring these findings, see: Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, THE SPIRIT LEVEL: WHY GREATER EQUALITY MAKES SOCIETIES STRONGER, 2009. See especially their free, downloadable Power Point presentation at www.equalitytrust.org.uk
For comparison between nations, Wilkinson & Pickett use the ratio of income received by the top 20% of households divided by the bottom 20%. In comparing U.S. States, they use household Gini ratios. Both are comparable inequality measures. You can easily see in this scatter plot that U.S. states with high income inequality also have much higher high school dropout rates. You will note that California, our home state, is high on both measures. The area I am from, comprising the upper-Midwest states of Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin (together with Alaska, Utah, and New Hampshire), are very low on both measurements.
Nations with greater income inequality tend to have high school students with much lower math and reading test scores. Note that the U.S. is at the far right in the graph, reflecting high inequality and low educational scores.
Murder rates are higher in more unequal U.S. States.
Basic trust in our fellow human beings has been diminishing over time in the U.S. as relative income inequality has risen. Distrust of others was at an all-time high in 2006, the last year that data was available for this measure. This is quite serious, since it equates with a breakdown of community—the sense that we all have a shared destiny and that we’re all “in this together”.
High relative income inequality among U.S. states is associated with low levels of voter turnout. The latest data (2009) from the Center for Responsive Politics reports that nearly half (261 of the 535 members) of Congress are millionaires, while their yearly median income is $911,000. For Senators, median income is even higher at $2.38 million per year. My question would be: how can these elected officials really relate to the average American household, which now has less than $50,000 in yearly household income? It may be that many poor and average income Americans have become so dispirited with uncaring, nonresponsive politicians that they no longer bother to vote.
This cartoon illustrates the reality that political power is increasingly being wrested away from us by corporations, banks, and the very rich. For a cogent, detailed, well-researched book on the damaging effect of corporations financing politicians and political campaigns, see: Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson, WINNER-TAKE-ALL POLITICS: HOW WASHINGTON MADE THE RICH RICHER—AND TURNED ITS BACK ON THE MIDDLE CLASS. 2010(on handout).
Our propensity to become fat, and therefore less healthy, is also related to high relative income inequality. States with high levels of obesity also tend to have high relative income inequality.
Lastly, unemployment tends to rise in U.S. states that are also high on relative income inequality.
It must be noted that American are aware of these incredible levels of income inequality in our country. A majority of all Americans (black bars) want to see income inequality reduced. This is true even among those who are Republican (gray bars) and those with high incomes (white bars).
Crankshaft has a compassionate view of income inequality despite his being a curmudgeon! Here he is out having lunch with his buddies, explaining that it will not matter if the economy improves unless everyone becomes better off.
Finally, be sure to read Robert Reich, a former Secretary of Labor and renowned economist, who has DETAILED suggestions in his must-read book, AFTERSHOCK. His data show no trickle-down or economic boost given to Americans by these cuts. Rather, investment by the very rich typically goes to building new factories in China—further depriving our country of needed jobs.
Cut defense spending/stop fighting needless wars (Stiglitz estimates the Iraq War has cost $3 trillion)
Invest in R & D (cutting-edge Green Technology)
Re-industrialize our country, especially hi-tech areas!
Continue to fully fund our public university system—the envy of the world and the font of our national productivity.
Reduce our national debt.
Reinstate more progressive tax rates to protect the middle class (see Robert Reich, AFTERSHOCK, NY: Knopf, 2010).
What is to be Done?Personal Actions You Can Take
“Thing Globally—Act Locally”. Join local action groups that address social ills (hunger, homelessness, political advocacy, etc.)
Consume less, and when you do—buy carefully, e.g., coops. (Sounds Un-American—right?) Read Annie Leonard, THE STORY OF STUFF.
Read widely (NEVER STOP LEARNING), use unbiased news sources/avoid hate-mongering broadcast media pundits, e.g., beware of the FOX in the hen-house.
Use “social cause” VISA cards like WORKING ASSETS.
Invest your retirement, IRAs, 401K money in Social Responsible Investment (SRI) funding companies that “Do No Evil”, e.g., Calvert Fund.
Avoid simplistic, extremist politicians hawking no-nothing solutions (cutting taxes will not solve all of our problems, but only reward the rich).
Network, Network, Network—especially through the internet. Power accrues to individuals when they act as groups!
Fatal acceptance leads to defeat. Never lose hope! To preserve equality and democracy, we must not fail to act.