#income distribution

[economicsresearch]

page 547 -

Professor Mankiw are you reading these? I don't want to be doing this anymore. My talents are better served elsewhere; the opportunity cost of having me do this scandalous drudge work. Well, it's embarrassing for the department and the institution.

I spent six hours creating something that seems to be a logo for a bakery based on the Lorenz Curve. I am not interested in how income is distributed and I just want to eat bread, not bake it. I am VERY interested, however, in seeing my income represented as a data point as far towards the top and right of a Lorenz curve as is possible. And that isn't going to happen without my new book being published, and my new book isn't going to be published unless I can actually get it done and these inane blog posts are STOPPING ME FROM ACCOMPLISHING THAT.

Professor Mankiw please respond so we can discuss this.

[gravitascivics]

CRITIQUE OF CRITICAL THEORY, I

Up to this point, this blog has shared a series of postings that inform readers of a construct – critical theory – from the perspective of someone who supports it.  That is, this blogger has been attempting to place himself in that frame of mind as best he can – that’s right, he’s not a critical pedagogue.  But with this posting, this blogger reclaims this platform and shares his ideas and evaluative notions concerning that construct.   What follows is a critique.  

Often the term critique is cast as a negative evaluation – sharing what’s wrong with something.  But more accurately, and as used here, a critique can offer a viewpoint that is quite positive in its ideas or claims.  With that proviso, this posting will review what this blogger likes about critical pedagogy before reviewing his opinions about how the construct falls short from what is needed.

         He is gratified that critical pedagogy – along with critical theory – places an emphasis on the disadvantaged.  In addition, he finds it useful that this construct dethrones the centrality of individualism and that it questions the natural right’s assumption concerning the rationality of people.  Below, in this posting, is a summary explanation of each of these judgements.

         But first, there is some context to review.  Here are some statistics which give credence to what the former senator, John Edwards, argued in his abbreviated run for president some years ago.  That is, he claimed that there are two Americas:  in one, there are the rich and in the other, there are the rest.

         Upon reflection, this is another way to inform people about a Marxian observation.  Marx stated that there are the “haves and have nots.”  America has, in its popular view, claimed that there is a third group, the “have-a-littles,” or what is usually called the middle class. But this third group is being diminished; some claim it is becoming extinct.  The belief here is that the nation is not there yet, but there are numbers that strongly suggest that the nation is headed to such a dichotomy as Edwards and Marx claim.

         According to CNBC, “The top 1% owned a record 32.3% of the nation's wealth as of the end of 2021 …  The share of wealth held by the bottom 90% of Americans, likewise, has declined slightly since before the pandemic, from 30.5% to 30.2%.”[1]    In 2014 the following distribution was reported: top 1% = 35%, next 4% = 27%, next 5% = 11%, next 10% = 12% OR stated differently:  Upper Middle 20% of the population = 11% of the wealth, Middle 20% = 4%, and Bottom 40% = less than 1%.[2]  So, from the middle class level to less than 1% level (80% of the population),  Americans share less than 16% of the national wealth.

Compare that to 1976 when the top 1% had 23.9% percent of the national wealth[3] and one senses a trend toward the elimination of the middle class as the very rich are absorbing more and more of the national wealth.  This blogger particularly thinks the following statistic from the ought years gives a telling picture of the imbalance: The top .01 percent of income earning households, which numbered about 11,000 households, earned more money than the lowest 25,000,000 households.

And with those numbers one can easily ask: is the nation starting to look like a developing country in terms of income and wealth distribution?  The effects of the country’s economic woes – be they intense during downturns, or less during times of prosperous growth – prove to be overwhelming to the disadvantaged members of American society.

Of course, financial imbalances within the citizenry – experience demonstrates – have negative consequences.  Crime occurs more often in low-income areas.[4]  Common sense, given the price of medical care, tells one that the incidence of disease or spread of it is more apt to occur in low-income areas.  And again, there is research to back up this claim.[5]  Low income and low levels of wealth can be associated with many social ills. Therefore, one can easily reach the conclusion that ill distribution of both affects the health of societies including that of the US.

Ironically, not only do Marxist and/or critical theory writers make these claims, but elite theorists agree, the difference being that these last commentators find little wrong with that reality.  Be that as it may, critical pedagogues make it their point to highlight these conditions.  And they should be highlighted, and federation theorists and their supporters (like this blogger) would agree in that their trump value is societal health or welfare.  

Critical theory also draws one to the collective nature of social reality.  The reconstructionist advocates believe meaningful civics as being a study in how alliances need to be formed in order to accomplish the transformation which they seek.  By doing so, critical pedagogues draw upon the curriculum and, therefore, the student away from the tacit message that all social accomplishments revolve around the individual.  This positive quality is not positive because it bolsters collectivist views, but because it points out an important reality.

That is, the construct questions the bias that holds that social policy should be aimed at heightening the role of individuals and the sanctity of individual rights.  Again, as this blog pointed out when reviewing the natural rights construct, that sanctity of the individual is that construct’s ultimate value and is judged here as a basis for many of the nation’s ills – most particularly, in how it feeds the nation’s current polarized politics.  

How?  By encouraging people to demand societal benefits from the perspective of individual aspirations, shunning the claims of groupings or other arrangements. From more self-centered needs, communal perspectives are lost and with that loss is that aspect of humanity that recognizes the need for such commonality.  The lacking humanity would be insensitive to suffering and injustice. When trampled, these concerns are dismissed or degraded at the cost of making all of Americans less human.

The last bit of positive critical thought this blogger finds appealing is how its advocates have introduced a practical way for people who are concerned over justice, or the lack of it, to study related issues without employing scientific approaches.  The prevailing mode of study calls for behavioral protocols.  Instead, critical theorists – including critical pedagogues – seek richer modes of study that do not limit themselves to reductionist analysis of correlated occurrences of abstracted factors or variables.  

Yes, there is a place for such studies, but they should not be the sole method of doing research.  Since critical researchers’ initial attempts at having American schools consider not just behavior, but focus their study on consciousness and subconsciousness, this more encompassing approach to the study of human affairs is no longer limited to only leftist academics. This shift is becoming more popular among educational and other researchers.   This might not include studies by formal business organizations, but more so among other bureaucratic entities such as school districts.

To give readers a more concrete sense as to what business thinking has been, here is what the conservative pundit, David Brooks, writes regarding the current state of what that sort of thinking has been:

 [W]hen [Lionel Trilling] noted that so long as politics or commerce “moves toward organization, it tends to select the emotions and qualities that are most susceptible to organization. … As a result, “it drifts toward a denial of the emotions and the imagination. And in the very interest of affirming its confidence in the power of the mind, it inclines to constrict and make mechanical its conception of the mind.”

Rationalism looks at the conscious mind, and assumes that that is all there is. It cannot acknowledge the importance of unconscious processes, because once it dips its foot in that dark and bottomless current, all hope of regularity and predictability is gone. Rationalists gain prestige and authority because they have supposedly mastered the science of human behavior. Once the science goes, all their prestige goes with it.[6]

 In short, where broader views of social study exist there now exists a real challenge to positivist studies that rely exclusively on measuring behavior as the sole methodology to the scientific study of human affairs. A lot of credit should be extended to critical theorists and, in education, to critical pedagogues for this shift.  But in corporate centers, behavioral methods still rule the roost.

And that is what this blogger believes are positive elements of the critical theory construct.  The next posting will begin to describe and explain what this blogger finds wrong with that construct.

[1] Robert Frank, “Soaring Markets Helped the Richest 1% Gain $6.5 Trillion in Wealth Last Year, According to the Fed,” CNBC (April 1, 2022), accessed May 10, 2023, https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/01/richest-one-percent-gained-trillions-in-wealth-2021.html#:~:text=The%20top%201%25%20owned%20a,from%2030.5%25%20to%2030.2%25.

[2] Wealth Inequality in the United States,” Wikipedia (n.d.), access May 10, 2023, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States#:~:text=The%20accumulation%20of%20wealth%20enables,bottom%2050%25%20held%202.6%25.

[3] Josie Green, “How Wealthy Was the 1% Each Year Since 1976,” 24/7 Wall Street (February 10, 2022), accessed May 10, 2023, https://247wallst.com/special-report/2022/02/10/how-wealthy-was-the-1-each-year-since-1976/2/.

[4] For example, Lilik Sugiharti, Rudi Purwono, Miguel Angel Sequivias, and Hilda Rohmawati, “The Nexus between Crime Rates, Poverty, and Income Inequality:  A Case Study of Indonesia,” Economies/MDPI (2022), accessed May 10, 2023, file:///C:/Users/gravi/Downloads/economies-11-00062-v2.pdf.  This article’s authors offer this study as exemplary of the general claim being made here.

[5] For example, Gabriela R. Oates, Bradford E. Jackson, Edward E. Patridge, Karen P. Singh, Mona N. Fouad, and Sejong Bae, “Sociodemographic Patterns of Chronic Disease,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine (January 2017), accessed May 10, 2023, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5171223/.

[6] David Brooks, The Social Animal:  The Hidden Sources of Love, Character, and Achievement (New York, NY: Random House, 2011), 227 (emphasis added).

[filosofablogger]

Bravo Bernie!!!

One of the people in Congress whose views most nearly align with my own is Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.  Like myself, Bernie is an Independent who believes that income should be more equitably distributed, that nobody should be homeless or go to bed hungry, especially in this, the land of plenty.  Yesterday, Senator Sanders wrote an OpEd for The Guardian that is spot on, that after reading…

[alwaysbewoke]

[ivygorgon]

No free rides for old money! - Pass The Billionaires Income Tax Act! (S. 3367)

I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed S. 3367 bill, which aims to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. This legislation represents a crucial step towards achieving economic justice by seeking to eliminate tax loopholes that have allowed billionaires to defer taxes indefinitely. By doing so, we would be ensuring a fairer distribution of wealth and rectifying a system that has long favored the ultra-wealthy. Additionally, the bill modifies over 30 tax provisions, requiring billionaires to contribute annually. It's time to ensure that those with the most significant influence and wealth contribute proportionately to our society's well-being. Therefore, I urge you to support and pass the Billionaires Income Tax Act.

Billionaires have amassed vast wealth, often at the expense of their employees who struggle to make ends meet on minimum wages. It is only just and equitable that they pay their employees a living wage AND contribute proportionally to the betterment of our society.

Furthermore, if billionaires wield significant influence over our government and policy-making, they should demonstrate their commitment by financially supporting the very system that has allowed them to prosper. No longer should they enjoy free rides on the backs of hardworking taxpayers. It is past time to ensure that billionaires are contributing their fair share to the well-being of our country.

Passing the Billionaires Income Tax Act is not only a matter of fiscal responsibility but also a moral imperative. It is time to ensure that our tax system is fair and equitable for all, not just the wealthy few.

Thank you for considering my views on this important issue. I urge you to stand on the side of fairness and justice by supporting S.3367.

No free rides for old money!

📱 Text SIGN POZZVN to 50409

🤯 Liked it? Text FOLLOW IVYPETITIONS to 50409

[h0wlcastle]

im going to scream i have too many clothes yet none of them FIT ANYMORE fuckkk my life lol

[aziraphalesbookkeeper]

rip to my whumptober schedule

[llycaons]

I'm so tired of the 'well *condescending explaination* Susan, meme phrase. like I think it was a really useful format for certain topics related to like, wealthy white women's sense of privilege or being out of touch with other ppls experiences esp poc or poor ppl and thats a great usage of it, but more and more I see it applied to completely unrelated topics and it's just starting to sound unironically misogynistic

[alliluyevas]

this…does not seem like the best way of describing this situation

[bitchfitch]

tbh I'm considering opening up a Patreon Mostly bc the number one way to wrangle my ADHD brain into doing something is to have an actual deadline to do it by but also bc i feel like it would be a great way for me to be able to offer cheaper (sketch) comms/monthly request type things and post full speed paints.

Besides the cheaper comms and some polls I don't suspect a lot would change about this blog, progress updates would be posted to both sites and while Patreon would get to see the final piece in its full uncompressed glory, the paintings would still be posted here at the same time they are there.

and maybe down the road a print club would be possible. with tiers based on the size of print received.

Which, tbh, the tier idea is only appealing to me bc my friend got nice glossy business cards a few days ago and the idea of offering Really mini prints on a business cards as a monthly Patreon reward is just, Exceptionally funny to me. I Will package it as though it's a real print, cardboard protection slip and everything.

[economicsresearch]

page 547 - football spiral

[multicarinata]

Do you think joachim meyer had merch?

[terrorbirb]

Not to uhm start fights at work, but is it just me or is the pareto principle bullshit?

[mckinlily]

Plot armor but it’s Bruce Wayne’s wealth.

Bruce is one of the richest men in the world. Bruce does not want to be one of the richest men in world.

He starts by implementing high starting salaries and full health care coverages for all levels at Wayne Enterprises. This in vastly improves retention and worker productivity, and WE profits soar. He increases PTO, grants generous parental and family leave, funds diversity initiatives, boosts salaries again. WE is ranked “#1 worker-friendly corporation”, and productively and profits soar again.

Ok, so clearly investing his workers isn’t the profit-destroying doomed strategy his peers claim it is. Bruce is going to keep doing it obviously (his next initiative is to ensure all part-time and contractors get the same benefits and pay as full time employees), but he is going to have to find a different way to dump his money.

But you know what else is supposed to be prohibitively expensive? Green and ethical initiatives. Yes, Bruce can do that. He creates and fund a 10 year plan to covert all Wayne facilities to renewable energy. He overhauls all factories to employ the best environmentally friendly practices and technologies. He cuts contracts with all suppliers that engage in unethical employment practices and pays for other to upgrade their equipment and facilities to meet WE’s new environmental and safety requirements. He spares no expense.

Yeah, Wayne Enterprises is so successful that they spin off an entire new business arm focused on helping other companies convert to environmentally friendly and safe practices like they did in an efficient, cost effective, successful way.

Admittedly, investing in his own company was probably never going to be the best way to get rid of his wealth. He slashes his own salary to a pittance (god knows he has more money than he could possibly know what to do with already) and keeps investing the profits back into the workers, and WE keeps responding with nearly terrifying success.

So WE is a no-go, and Bruce now has numerous angry billionaires on his back because they’ve been claiming all these measures he’s implementing are too expensive to justify for decades and they’re finding it a little hard to keep the wool over everyone’s eyes when Idiot Softheart Bruice Wayne has money spilling out his ears. BUT Bruce can invest in Gotham. That’ll go well, right?

Gotham’s infrastructure is the OSHA anti-Christ and even what little is up to code is constantly getting destroyed by Rogue attacks. Surely THAT will be a money sink.

Except the only non-corrupt employer in Gotham city is….Wayne Enterprises. Or contractors or companies or businesses that somehow, in some way or other, feed back to WE. Paying wholesale for improvement to Gotham’s infrastructure somehow increases WE’s profits.

Bruce funds a full system overhaul of Gotham hospital (it’s not his fault the best administrative system software is WE—he looked), he sets up foundations and trusts for shelters, free clinics, schools, meal plans, day care, literally anything he can think of.

Gotham continues to be a shithole. Bruce Wayne continues to be richer than god against his Batman-ingrained will.

Oh, and Bruice Wayne is no longer viewed as solely a spoiled idiot nepo baby. The public responds by investing in WE and anything else he owns, and stop doing this, please.

Bruce sets up a foundation to pay the college tuition of every Gotham citizen who applies. It’s so successful that within 10 years, donations from previous recipients more than cover incoming need, and Bruce can’t even donate to his own charity.

But by this time, Bruce has children. If he can’t get rid of his wealth, he can at least distribute it, right?

Except Dick Grayson absolutely refuses to receive any of his money, won’t touch his trust fund, and in fact has never been so successful and creative with his hacking skills as he is in dumping the money BACK on Bruce. Jason died and won’t legally resurrect to take his trust fund. Tim has his own inherited wealth, refuses to inherit more, and in fact happily joins forces with Dick to hack accounts and return whatever money he tries to give them. Cass has no concept of monetary wealth and gives him panicked, overwhelmed eyes whenever he so much as implies offering more than $100 at once. Damian is showing worrying signs of following in his precious Richard’s footsteps, and Babs barely allows him to fund tech for the Clocktower. At least Steph lets him pay for her tuition and uses his credit card to buy unholy amounts of Batburger. But that is hardly a drop in the ocean of Bruce’s wealth. And she won’t even accept a trust fund of only one million.

Jason wins for best-worst child though because he currently runs a very lucrative crime empire. And although he pours the vast, vast majority of his profits back into Crime Alley, whenever he gets a little too rich for his tastes, he dumps the money on Bruce. At this point, Bruce almost wishes he was being used for money laundering because then he’s at least not have the money.

So children—generous, kindhearted, stubborn till the day they die the little shits, children—are also out.

Bruce was funding the Justice League. But then finances were leaked, and the public had an outcry over one man holding so much sway over the world’s superheroes (nevermind Bruce is one of those superheroes—but the public can’t know that). So Bruce had to do some fancy PR trickery, concede to a policy of not receiving a majority of funds from one individual, and significantly decrease his contributions because no one could match his donations.

At his wits end, Bruce hires a team of accounts to search through every crinkle and crevice of tax law to find what loopholes or shortcuts can be avoided in order to pay his damn taxes to the MAX.

The results are horrifying. According to the strictest definition of the law, the government owes him money.

Bruce burns the report, buries any evidence as deeply as he can, and organizes a foundation to lobby for FAR higher taxation of the upper class.

All this, and Wayne Enterprises is happily chugging along, churning profit, expanding into new markets, growing in the stock market, and trying to force the credit and proportionate compensation on their increasingly horrified CEO.

Bruce Wayne is one of the richest men in the world. Bruce Wayne will never not be one of the richest men in the world.

But by GOD is he trying.

[fashionfotorecccluse]

Income distribution; inequity

[bitnest]

In the current rapidly evolving digital currency market, decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms are redefining the shape of financial services with their unique advantages. Bit Loop, as a leading decentralized lending platform, not only provides a safe and transparent lending environment, but also opens up new passive income channels for users through its innovative sharing reward system.

Personal links and permanent ties: Create a stable revenue stream One of the core parts of Bit Loop is its recommendation system, which allows any user to generate a unique sharing link when they join the platform. This link is not only a “key” for users to join the Bit Loop, but also a tool for them to establish an offline network. It is worth noting that offline partners who join through this link are permanently tied to the recommender, ensuring that the sharer can continue to receive rewards from the offline partner’s activities.

Unalterable referral relationships: Ensure fairness and transparency A significant advantage of blockchain technology is the immutability of its data. In Bit Loop, this means that once a referral link and live partnership is established, the relationship is fixed and cannot be changed. This design not only protects the interests of recommenders, but also brings a stable user base and activity to the platform, while ensuring the fairness and transparency of transactions.

Automatically distribute rewards: Simplify the revenue process Another highlight of the Bit Loop platform is the ability for smart contracts to automatically distribute rewards. When the partner completes the circulation cycle, such as investment returns or loan payments, the smart contract automatically calculates and sends the corresponding percentage of rewards directly to the recommender’s wallet. This automatic reward distribution mechanism not only simplifies the process of receiving benefits, but also greatly improves the efficiency of capital circulation.

Privacy protection and security: A security barrier for funds All transactions and money flows are carried out on the blockchain, guaranteeing transparency and traceability of every operation. In addition, the use of smart contracts significantly reduces the risk of fraud and misoperation, providing a solid security barrier for user funds. Users can confidently invest and promote boldly, and enjoy the various conveniences brought by decentralized finance.

conclusion As decentralized finance continues to evolve, Bit Loop offers a new economic model through its unique recommendation system that enables users to enjoy highly secure and transparent financial services while also earning passive income by building and maintaining a personal network. Whether for investors seeking stable passive income or innovators looking to explore new financial possibilities through blockchain technology, Bit Loop provides a platform not to be missed.