Inequality in America

[PWitty]

Data showing the change in inequality from 2007-2012, and the state of inequality between the 20th percentile and the 95th percentile of households as it stands today. It's shocking how high the household income of the 95th percentile is in SF, even compared to cities like Boston, NYC, and Chicago.

Another surprising stat was that the 20th percentile of households in OKC make more than the 20th percentile of households in cities such as Boston, NYC, LA, and Chicago. All of which have MUCH higher costs of living than OKC.

Inequality in America

[PWitty]

Here's the PDF showing the full table with all 51 cities. Kind of interesting to compare the 20th/95th percentiles across different cities.

Full Data Set

[Zuplar]

I'm not sure how I feel about this data. Of course might also be due to where I'd fall in terms of percentiles.

[PennyQuilts]

Data showing the change in inequality from 2007-2012, and the state of inequality between the 20th percentile and the 95th percentile of households as it stands today. It's shocking how high the household income of the 95th percentile is in SF, even compared to cities like Boston, NYC, and Chicago.

Another surprising stat was that the 20th percentile of households in OKC make more than the 20th percentile of households in cities such as Boston, NYC, LA, and Chicago. All of which have MUCH higher costs of living than OKC.

Inequality in America

Oklahoma City has one of the lowest inequality ratings and that is one of the reasons I love living here.

[Zuplar]

This pretty much sums up my feelings.

[Servicetech571]

How many of those in the bottom 20% for OKC work for a living?

[Chadanth]

How many of those in the bottom 20% for OKC work for a living?

Probably most of them, since we have a comparatively low unemployment rate. I don't know of our LFPR matches other urban areas, though.

[Servicetech571]

Probably most of them, since we have a comparatively low unemployment rate. I don't know of our LFPR matches other urban areas, though.

Unemployment rate doesn't take into account those that are living off the government and aren't looking for work.

[PWitty]

I was more shocked to see how low some cities 95th percentile household income was relative to what I had expected it to be. I expected Cleveland and Detroit to be low, but they barely broke $100k! I was also surprised to see Philly, Milwaukee, and Columbus all around $150k. Especially for a city as large and economically viable as Philly, I expected it to be MUCH higher.

[MustangGT]

Many times the reality of a situation is vastly different than perceptions. Sadly most folks base their thoughts and action on perception and NOT reality.

[zookeeper]

Many times the reality of a situation is vastly different than perceptions. Sadly most folks base their thoughts and action on perception and NOT reality.

Wow.

You've been so rude to me in other threads, I just have to ask - did you have to get a Ph.D. in philosophy for that deep thought?
You personify, quite honestly, the parody of the simplistic Oklahoman.

[RadicalModerate]

Is all this "Inequality" stuff based on monetary currency 'r whut?
I guess I just don't get the Standard of Measurement.
Especially if it is metric. =)

one thing that i have learned,
in passing Truth is that:
The Heavier the Ring of Keys
On your KeyRing Is
The Poorer You Are
and where is the "inequality" in that?

a simple reconstruction of something akin
to what we all know is true.
eventually.
And I'm less than 20% irish.=)

[RadicalModerate]

Wow.

You've been so rude to me in other threads, I just have to ask - did you have to get a Ph.D. in philosophy for that deep thought?
You personify, quite honestly, the parody of the simplistic Oklahoman.

Was that rebuke just a bit harsh?
Or was that simply my misconception of what you intended to say.
Just wondering. No judgment implied.

[RadicalModerate]

Many times the reality of a situation is vastly different than perceptions. Sadly most folks base their thoughts and action on perception and NOT reality.

Main Thing to Remember ("takeaway"): Perception is NOT Reality. (it is only a personal take on reality)
(oh....wait....i think you already knew that.... sorry ..... not trolling.... )

[RadicalModerate]

Re: Inequality in America

With apologies to Boscorama,
for liking a previous post ^,

I wish to express my appreciation
as compared to spiteful wrath
at the risk of not recognizing
unintentional hand-wringing
for no reason whatsoever

Other than listening to
the intangible wisdom
On the Poetry Episode
Of Week (weak?) End Radio
on FREE npr/pbs. =)

(featuring Bob and Ray, btw.
the world's" champion BS spotters
even before The Internets.)

[RadicalModerate]

I'm not sure how I feel about this data. Of course might also be due to where I'd fall in terms of percentiles.

Would those be Metric or SAE percentile?
(trust me: there's a whole lotta folk don't unnerstand even fractions without decimals)

[OKCTalker]

Unemployment rate doesn't take into account those that are living off the government and aren't looking for work.

And it also doesn't take into effect those who AREN'T living on assistance yet are no longer looking for work.

[onthestrip]

To some, just talking about it is class warfare (which is ridiculous) but an objective group thats outside of politics has weighed in on the income inequality in our country. Standard and Poor says that our extreme inequality is slowing growth and is more prone for boom/bust cycles.

Economic disparities appear to be reaching extremes that “need to be watched because they’re damaging to growth,” said Beth Ann Bovino, chief U.S. economist at S&P.
The rising concentration of income among the top 1 percent of earners has contributed to S&P’s cutting its growth estimates for the economy. In part because of the disparity, it estimates that the economy will grow at a 2.5 percent annual pace in the next decade.

What makes it worse is their suggestion, which seeing how Oklahoma puts some of the least amount of money to education in the country.

The S&P report advises against using the tax code to try to narrow the gap. Instead, it suggests that greater access to education would help ease wealth disparities.
Part of the problem is that educational achievement has stalled in recent decades. More schooling usually translates into higher wages.

Expanding medicaid and increasing the min wage also seem like reasonable things to combat inequality.

Wealth gap seen as slowing U.S. recovery | News OK

[Teo9969]

The best way to do it is incentivize both education and active wealth distribution. Passive wealth distribution being when nothing you do leads to your wealth being distributed and Active wealth distribution being when you give your wealth to others. Passive happens via taxes which are imposed on you by the government. Active happens when you give your wealth to others.

We have very little incentive offered to those who hold a great lot of wealth to give it to more people.

I would really like to see a politician offer up the idea that those who own companies would get substantial write-offs (if not out-right tax credits) if they paid their employees with equity in the company. This would be especially effective with small-cap and smaller companies. As employees gain equity in the company they can choose to either stay where they have a higher vested interest in doing what is necessary to see the company grow, or they can choose to (eventually) leave the company and have access to capital to do whatever they see best with that capital.

If Harold Hamm "only" owned 50% of CLR instead of 70%, there would currently be $5.4 Billion dispersed amongst his employees (and those to whom any employees had sold). That $5.4 Billion would be far more liquid and useful to anyone who owns it other than Harold Hamm who would still be worth an obscene $13.6 Billion…I sincerely doubt that anyone could even consume $1B to $2B in their lifetime, let alone $13.6B…to say nothing of the fact that I don't care how integral he was to the building of the company, were he to not have his employees, he'd never have approached even $100M let alone close to $20B.

You see, it makes sense that those that work actually get a fair share…but until one of the two parties admits that wages will never solve the inequality gap and only serve to widen it, nothing is going to move forward in fixing the problem.

[MadMonk]

I'm surprised at the negative change in salary for the 95th percentile. With it listing a population of 599k or so, it doesn't look like it takes into account the immediate surrounding, and fairly affluent, suburbs.

[TheTravellers]

This is not USA-specific, but thought it would be an appropriate place to put it. More bad news about inequality...

The 1% May Be Richer Than You Think, Research Shows - Bloomberg

[TheTravellers]

Another non-USA-specific poll/story...

CEOs Get Paid Too Much, According to Pretty Much Everyone in the World - Gretchen Gavett - Harvard Business Review

[PennyQuilts]

The legal business model of publicly held corporations is what is driving this. As long as the bottom line for investors is the driving force, the salary of the CEO is just a number on the spreadsheet and far from the most important - it right up there with the cost of cleaning supplies. People who are offended need to stop supporting publicly held corporations and good luck with that.

[Teo9969]

The overall problem is the overarching lack of ownership in companies. People have stupidly traded equity for salary. And if you're thinking that they never owned equity, realize that 50 years ago, the small business was still a significant part of the economic fabric. The small business was hurt a ton by sprawl, and since then big business started taking over just about every market. More small businesses = more business ownership in general = less CEO pay.

But if the people who have worked for these companies for so long owned stock instead that grew as the company grew, they'd be worth quite a bit more.

Furthermore, if you cut CEO pay, where do you think that money is going to go? Even if it went to the employees, it wouldn't help many of them out very much at all, but more likely it would be one more thing, as PQ mentioned, slashed for the improvement of the bottom line for investors.

[TheTravellers]

It seems to all come down to completely unfettered greed, capitalism, must make money/profit at all costs, screw everybody else. Look at IBM for a fantastic (and sad) example of this.