Income Inequality

Income inequality and global warming represent existential threats to our country, far surpassing the dangers from international terrorism ("The economic elephant in the room: widening inequality," April 24). And at this time our legislators in Washington obsess about immigrants overstaying their visas and border security, which is now more tightly controlled than at any time in the last 20 years. Give me a break! Jack Kinstlinger, Baltimore Text NEWS to 70701 to get Baltimore Sun local news text alerts

Income inequality and global warming represent existential threats to our country, far surpassing the dangers from international terrorism ("The economic elephant in the room: widening inequality," April 24). And at this time our legislators in Washington obsess about immigrants overstaying their visas and border security, which is now more tightly controlled than at any time in the last 20 years. Give me a break! Jack Kinstlinger, Baltimore Text NEWS to 70701 to get Baltimore Sun local news text alerts

The Sun states that the "primary reason the terms of the 1983 compromise [on Social Security] no longer work is demographic - the population is aging and people are living longer" ("Social Security can be fixed," April 26). Actually, even way back in 1983, people understood about demographics. The agreement reached then took full account of aging baby boomers. What it did not anticipate is that a higher and higher proportion of national income would flow to the highest income categories.

This week, hundreds of Chicago workers organized a major labor strike, demanding a wage floor of $15 an hour and the right to unionize. Their protests come on the heels of the largest strike in the fast food industry's history, which took place in December in New York City, and a nation-wide Walmart strike to protest what workers felt were unfair wages and treatment. Here in Baltimore, workers have also begun organizing around the idea of "fair development" - calling for higher wages and other benefits.

WASHINGTON -- The press has recently been peppered with reports bemoaning the allegedly widening income gap between rich and poor. But such reports, which are carefully designed to fuel the fires of class warfare, are invariably marred by distortions that greatly exaggerate the extent of income inequality. When these flaws are corrected, the gap turns out to be more of a gully than a canyon. The typical income-gap report begins by dividing society into fifths, or quintiles, and then calculating the share of total income received by each.

TWO CHEERS for the recent news from the Census Bureau about the decrease in poverty numbers.Rah: For the past three years, the number of Americans living in poverty declined, the agency noted. Those in poverty in 1997 totaled 35.6 million, down a little from the previous year, and a decrease of 3.7 million since 1993.Rah: The rate for African Americans dropped to the lowest level ever recorded, to 9.1 million, or 26.5 percent, from 28.4 percent in 1996 and 33.1 percent in 1993. Median household income was higher last year than at any time in the past 30 years, rising by 4.3 percent to $25,050.

The decline of America's middle class can be charted directly. In the three decades after World War II, the median wage (smack in the middle) grew rapidly, right along with productivity gains. Even as late as 1980, the richest 1 percent of Americans received only about 9 percent of the nation's total income. But starting in the 1980s — and increasingly since then — the economy has made the rich far richer without doing squat for the vast middle. The median hourly wage has barely grown, if you take inflation into account.

The U.S. middle class shrank markedly between 1969 and 1989, as the number of Americans who were rich and poor increased.In 1969, 71.2 percent of Americans were "middle class." Twenty years later, 63.2 percent were middle class, a new Census Bureau study found. The study defined middle class as anyone with income ranging from 50 percent to 199 percent of the national median, or midpoint, income level.High-income individuals -- those with incomes two or more times higher than the median -- increased from 10.9 percent of the population to 14.7 percent.

Returning from a two-week speaking tour to Finland, Norway and Sweden, I kept thinking about that scene early in Martin Scorsese's Oscar-winning film "The Departed" where Leonardo DiCaprio's character is grilled about his personal background by Martin Sheen and Mark Wahlberg, who want him to become an undercover agent for the Boston Police Department. "Families are always rising and falling in America," says Mr. DiCaprio's character, quoting 18th century writer Nathaniel Hawthorne.

A report funded by a variety of "family values" groups made splashy headlines recently: "Single Parenthood Costs Taxpayers $112 Billion." The report lists two big reasons for these costs. One is increased welfare expenditures on poor families ($70 billion). The other is increased government spending to deal with the social problems caused by poor kids when they grow up ($42 billion). The report is only partially correct; it vastly overstates the cost to society of single parenthood and fails to point out that social inequality is at the root of those costs.

I'm not a shill for the Obama administration, but I must disagree with reporter David Lauter's analysis of the president's State of the Union Address ("In singular speech, a split approach to power," Feb.13). Mr. Lauter writes that early in his first term, President Barack Obama "appeared to believe that he could sway the country, including members of the opposition, by delivering a carefully crafted speech. " My public policy and advocacy work promoting economic security for low-income communities, families and individuals leads me to a different conclusion.

The Sun states that the "primary reason the terms of the 1983 compromise [on Social Security] no longer work is demographic - the population is aging and people are living longer" ("Social Security can be fixed," April 26). Actually, even way back in 1983, people understood about demographics. The agreement reached then took full account of aging baby boomers. What it did not anticipate is that a higher and higher proportion of national income would flow to the highest income categories.

Returning from a two-week speaking tour to Finland, Norway and Sweden, I kept thinking about that scene early in Martin Scorsese's Oscar-winning film "The Departed" where Leonardo DiCaprio's character is grilled about his personal background by Martin Sheen and Mark Wahlberg, who want him to become an undercover agent for the Boston Police Department. "Families are always rising and falling in America," says Mr. DiCaprio's character, quoting 18th century writer Nathaniel Hawthorne.

All good: About 200,000 more jobs added in December, the lowest monthly unemployment rate (8.5 percent) in nearly three years, a front-page declaration that the economy has "gained steam" and the assertion by some employers that "the worst is over. " The most noteworthy job gains were in transportation and warehousing, retail, manufacturing, health care and mining, according to the Department of Labor. All good: Except you have to wonder how much these new jobs pay and what kind of benefits they provide.

Chanting "We are the 99 percent," more than 200 protesters affiliated with Occupy Baltimore, unions and an activist group called Good Jobs Better Bmore marched across the Howard Street bridge during rush hour Thursday evening. The protesters, who threw a large banner over the side of the bridge urging society to "Bridge the gap" between rich and poor, said they were there to oppose economic inequality in the United States and call for more infrastructure projects, such as repairing bridges.

There was much economic news last week, almost all of it bad, making it a rough September to be president of the United States - or on the unemployment line. At this rate, Barack Obama may get an opportunity to see both sides of that particular circumstance in about 16 months. Most troubling of all were the latest statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau showing that the number of people living in poverty in this country grew to 46.2 million in 2010, the most in the 52 years such numbers have been tracked.

I'm not a shill for the Obama administration, but I must disagree with reporter David Lauter's analysis of the president's State of the Union Address ("In singular speech, a split approach to power," Feb.13). Mr. Lauter writes that early in his first term, President Barack Obama "appeared to believe that he could sway the country, including members of the opposition, by delivering a carefully crafted speech. " My public policy and advocacy work promoting economic security for low-income communities, families and individuals leads me to a different conclusion.

Steve Williams' letter slamming Thomas F. Schaller ("Raising taxes not the answer to the deficit," April 7) is so full of distortions that it demands a rebuttal. First, he claims that wealthy folks are paying too much taxes and cites the fact that the top 1 percent of wage earners share of taxes rose compared to the rest of the earners and are now paying 38 percent of income taxes. The explanation is simple and does not support his position: Wealthy earners pay a higher share of taxes because their income in the past decade has increased dramatically while earnings of the rest of the country have languished.

The decline of America's middle class can be charted directly. In the three decades after World War II, the median wage (smack in the middle) grew rapidly, right along with productivity gains. Even as late as 1980, the richest 1 percent of Americans received only about 9 percent of the nation's total income. But starting in the 1980s — and increasingly since then — the economy has made the rich far richer without doing squat for the vast middle. The median hourly wage has barely grown, if you take inflation into account.