Much has been being made of the wealth disparity in America. There are 14 percent of the population living in poverty and 38 percent of the wealth is controlled by 1 percent of the population. While the poverty numbers are a bit disturbing I believe the wealth numbers are thrown out to drive a wedge between people especially rich and poor.
There is nothing nefarious about the increase in the concentration of wealth. in fact I would say that this is entirely natural and should have been expected. I say this because we are entering in to the time that we have been hearing for years would wreak havoc with social security. Yes the dreaded coming retirement of the Baby Boomers. Something we've all been overlooking is the natural progression that happens with time. In our twenties we all are poor just starting out we have many expenditures because we basically have nothing and need many basic necessities. It's also a time when student loans and new families bog down are budgets. However as time goes on into are thirties and forties we start to pay off loans and accumulate possessions. By the time we're in our fifties we don't have mass quantities of things to buy and money starts to be less of a worry. This massive section of the population the Baby Boomers is now exiting the work force after many years of prime earning of course this huge section of the population has pushed the ranks of the wealthy to new heights.
Instead of being distraught over this concentration of wealth we should be glad for those who have achieved the American dream of success. Seeing this as a sign that people still can reach these heights through hard work and perseverance.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The other thing to consider is the fact that the definitions of the terms wealthy and poverty have dramatically changed over the decades. John D. Rockefeller may have been the richest man ever, yet some now considered to live below the poverty level have conveniences and amenities ol' JD never thought of having. Fifty or a hundred years ago (before the war on poverty) true poverty meant no food on the table, no roof over your families head, no running water if you had a home, no shoes for your children. Look how folks in Appalachia lived. Now, that was abject poverty. Today, we have redefined poor so more folks qualify for government assistance.
ReplyDeleteOops. I submitted that comment without finishing.
ReplyDeleteYou are quite right that those statistics are misused to divide people. Is there a problem with some people being more financially successful than others? If someone really thinks so then the ethical solution is to work harder and earn more. The unethical solution (called Communism) is for the government to artificially level the results of the playing field. That has been tried and found to be complete failure as it destroys motivation to succeed. If you'll get the same results or payout as the other guy whether I try really hard or hardly at all eventually no one gives more than the minimum.