-Caveat Lector-
Is this on a web site??????
It is good and information that opens up your eyes!
Pied Piper
M.A. Johnson wrote:
> -Caveat Lector-
>
> ~~for educational purposes only~~
>
> The Rich Get Richer, and the Poor Get...
> by Mark Skousen
>
> "The modern market economy accords wealth and distribution
> income in a highly unequal, socially adverse and also
> functionally damaging fashion." --John Kenneth Galbraith
>
> The allegation is appearing everywhere: Real average
> wages are stagnating and the distribution of wealth and
> income in the United States is becoming more unequal. In
> his latest book, Galbraith cites recent Federal Reserve
> statistics: "By 1992, the top 5 percent were getting an
> estimated 18 percent, a share that in more recent years
> has become substantially larger, as that of those in the
> poorest brackets has been diminishing. This, the good
> society cannot accept.'' According to the Bureau of Labor
> Statistics, average real wages have been declining since
> the mid-1970s. If benefits are included, total real
> compensation has been rising, but only modestly. Finally,
> Business Week (February 25, 1996) declared, "Is America
> Becoming More of a Class Society?'' The magazine cites
> several academic studies indicating less upward mobility
> for less-educated Americans. The Wall Street Journal
> (December 23, 1996) adds, "Inequality may grow for
> lifetime earnings."
>
> Critics of market capitalism are often misled by
> conventional measures of economic well-being, in
> particular the Lorenz curve, which measures income
> distribution.
>
> The Lorenz curve measures the percentage of a nation's
> total income as earned by various income classes.
> Typically, it is divided into five income groups. In
> the United States, the highest fifth (the highest income
> earners) usually receive 40 percent of the nation's
> income, while the lowest fifth (the lowest income earners)
> receive around 5 percent, Using the Lorenz curve, U.S.
> income appears to be seriously maldistributed, "now the
> extreme case among the major industrial countries,"
> says Galbraith.
>
> However, the Lorenz curve establishes an unfair and
> misleading guide for measuring social welfare.
> Suppose, for example, that an "ideal" line of "perfect"
> equality is achieved on the Lorenz curve, i.e., the
> highest fifth (top 20 percent of income earners) only
> receive 20 percent of the nation's income, while the
> bottom fifth (lower 20 percent) increase their share
> to 20 percent. What does this ideal mean?
> Everyone -- the teacher, the lawyer, the plumber, the
> actor -- earns the same amount of income. (1)
>
> Since few economists think equal wages for everyone
> is an ideal situation, why do they think moving toward
> "perfect equality" on the Lorenz curve is appropriate?
> Moreover, the Lorenz curve is unable to show an increase
> in a country's standard of living over time. It merely
> measures distribution of income.
>
> To measure changes in social welfare, economists often
> rely on a second measure-average real income. This,
> too, has its shortcomings. A single statistic may mask
> improvements in an individual's standard of living over
> time.
>
> For example, average real income shows hardly any change
> since the mid-1970s. Yet other measures of well-being,
> such as consumer expenditures and the quantity, quality,
> and variety of goods and services, show remarkable
> advancement over the past 20 years. Consumer spending
> rose a dramatic 40 percent per person in real terms
> during this period. As Professor Richard Vedder says,
> "How many Americans in 1975 had VCRs, microwaves, CD
> players, and home computers?" (2)
>
> The Work of Stanley Lebergott
>
> Stanley Lebergott, professor of economics at Wesleyan
> University, has probably done more work in this area
> than anyone else. Instead of relying on general
> measures such as average real income, he uses a more
> commonsense approach -- looking at individual consumer
> markets in food, clothing, housing, fuel, housework,
> transportation, health, recreation, and religion. His
> work is fascinating.
>
> For example, he developed the following table to measure
> improvements in living standards from 1900 to 1970:
>
> Living Standards, 1900-1970
>
> Among All Among Poor
> Percentage Families Families
> with ... in 1900 in 1970
>
> Flush toilets 15 99
> Running water 24 92
> Central heating 01 58
> One (or fewer)
> occupants
> per room 48 96
> Electricity 03 99
> Refrigeration 18 99
> Automobiles 01 41
>
> Source: Stanley Lebergott, The American Economy
> (Princeton University Press, 1976), p. 8.
>
> In Pursuing Happiness, Lebergott demonstrates repeatedly
> how American consumers have sought to make an uncertain
> and often cruel world into a pleasanter and more convenient
> place. Medicines and medical facilities, artificial lighting,
> refrigeration, transportation, communication, entertainment,
> finished clothing -- all have advanced living conditions.
>
> Regarding women's work, Lebergott notes that weekly hours
> for household and family chores fell from 70 in 1900 to
> 30 by 1981. The 1900 housewife had to load her stove with
> tons of wood or coal each year and fill her lamps with coal
> oil or kerosene. "Central heating also reduced the housewife's
> tasks. She no longer had to wash the carbonized kerosene,
> oil, coal, or wood from clothes, curtains, and walls, nor
> sweep floors and vacuum rugs as persistently. Automated and
> mechanical equipment reduced her labor further .... By 1950,
> over 95 percent of U.S. families had the facilities [of]
> central heating, hot water, gas, electric light, baths, and
> vacuum cleaners." (3)
>
> Regarding water, Lebergott comments, "The average urban
> resident consumed about 20 gallons of water per day in
> 1900. Rural families had virtually no piped water; 55
> percent did not even have privies .... By 1990, American
> families devoted two days' worth of their annual income
> to get about 100 sanitary gallons every day, piped into
> the home." (4)
>
> Benefits to the Poor, Too
>
> This kind of historical perspective is refreshing and
> eye-opening. The increase in the standard of living as
> measured by the quantity, quality, and variety of goods
> and services has increased dramatically and profoundly
> in the twentieth century, for people of all incomes.
> In many ways, the poor have advanced the most and are
> now capable of living in decent housing, owning an
> automobile, and enjoying many of the pleasures previously
> afforded by the wealthy. Cheap airline services allow
> them to travel extensively. Television gives them the
> chance to see sports events and musical shows previously
> limited to the rich and the middle class. Compared to
> yesteryear, every house today is a castle, every man
> is a king.
>
> 1. John Kenneth Galbraith, The Good Society:
> The Humane Agenda (Boston: Houghton Mifflin
> Co., 1996), p. 50.
> 2. For a critique of the Lorenz curve, see my
> work Economics on Trial (Irwin, 1991), pp. 187-197.
> 3. Stanley Lebergott, Pursuing Happiness: American
> Consumers in the Twentieth Century (Princeton,
> N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1993), p. 58.
> 4. Ibid., pp. 117-118. See also Lebergott's latest
> work, Consumer Expenditures (Princeton, N.J.:
> Princeton University Press, 1996).
--
Any person can stand adversity,
The true test is to give a person power.
If you treat a relationship as if you are the only one in it, eventually you will
be.
Atrocities happen when the people about you - start considering you surplus.
"I tolerate with the utmost latitude the right of
others to differ from me in opinion"
---- Thomas Jefferson
My Grandfather told me there are two kinds of people: those who do the work and
those
who take the credit. He told me to be in the first group - there is less
competition there. -
Indira Gandhi
http://freeweb.digiweb.com/science_fiction/ThePiedPiper/~index.htm
ICQ 14484977
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
