Racket wrote:
agip wrote:
Unless the wealth doesn't make it to enough people, I suppose.
In my opinion, this is why growth hasn't been sustained. The 1% are gobbling up all the available wealth and hoarding it instead of investing in workers and investing in the business. That's why productivity has slumped so much. Why work harder when you're just going to get the same 2% inflation fighter raise at the end of the year. Pensions and good company health plans are a thing of the past. That money needs to actually trickle down to the middle and working classes so that we can all spend it on stupid sh!t we don't need like good Americans always have. That's how you get the 5% growth.
If a majority of your working population's wealth only increases by 2% every year, then why expect 5% growth?
Also NYT is fake news and failing, SAD!
I think you are conflating wealth increase and inequality. or something like that.
living standards are rising across all classes. Not every individual of course, and whole cities can suffer sui generis events, but the pie is getting larger. Wealth has spread across all groups.
BUT
it does appear that the college educated have received more growth than other groups.
So the question is if we are ok because all groups are getting richer. or if the differential in rate of growth is a problem.
or put another way...do people get out the pitchforks if they are getting richer? I doubt it.
I generally agree that the country will do better if more income gets to the middle and lower classes though. We need unions to come back and start pushing. With 4% unemployment now is the time.