Increasing Inequality - A Major Underlying Cause Of Societal Ills

I'd really like to see this chart with the top 0.1% broken out.  Most people would be gobsmacked by the reality of it.

The Myth of the Deserving Rich

"What's a sociologizer to do? Well, what you see, over and over, is that they find ways to avoid talking about the one percent. They talk about the top quintile, or at most the top 5 percent; this lets them discuss rising incomes at the top as if we were talking about two married lawyers or doctors, not the CEOs and private equity managers who are actually driving the numbers. And this in turn lets them keep the focus on comfortable topics like family structure, and away from uncomfortable topics like runaway finance and the corruption of our politics by great wealth. This is, by the way, why the Occupy slogan about the one percent is so brilliant. I would actually argue that the number should be even smaller. But one percent is an easy to remember number, and small enough to make it clear that we're not talking about the upper middle class. And that's good. The myth of the deserving rich is, in its own way, as destructive as the myth of the undeserving poor."

The army of paid shills and corporate media do a remarkable job of obfuscating the issue for the vast majority.  But things are getting so bad that the truth of the situation is seeping through, and the people are not happy about it.  We need a sea change in tax policy and our public spending levels and priorities.

Bridgegate: Just Scratching The Surface

I'm beginning to think that some people will go to prison over this swirling tempest of corruption and abuse. The GWB traffic debacle isn't the scandal; it's merely the window into a wide swathe of corruption.

Did I mention that Chris Christie will never be President?

Shared from the Digg iPhone app:

On MSNBC's "Up with Steve Kornacki" this morning, Hoboken, N.J. mayor Dawn Zimmer offered an extraordinary account of her dealings with the administration of Governor Chris Christie concerning federal Hurricane Sandy relief aid. She described an effort by top state officials – the lieutenant governor and a cabinet member – to coerce Hoboken's city government into fast-tracking approval of a proposed redevelopment project by withholding Sandy aid from the government and residents of her city. That project, she says she was told, was "very important to the governor." And if she worked to get it approved, "the money would start flowing to you."

Weekend Subway Service Advisories

Locally looks like service is good on the F/G. For the bigger
picture, with work affecting 11 lines see below.

http://secondavenuesagas.com/2014/01/17/big-changes-for-the-7-on-tap-weekend-work-affecting-11-lines/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SecondAveSagas+%28Second+Ave.+Sagas+%7C+Blogging+the+NYC+Subways%29


Typos courtesy of my iPhone

Boo Hoo Hoo: Council Fight Losers Lament Lack Of Influence

Shocking that the new Mayor and new Council Speaker did not run the decision past their carping dissenters first.  Because let's be honest - the real complaint is that they weren't given an opportunity to water down or otherwise derail part of the Mayor (and Speaker's) clearly stated agenda.

This legislation has been part of the agenda from the get-go.  Aside perhaps from the timing, or the announcement, it is a surprise to no one.  News flash: You lost the election and the speaker fight.  The constant anonymous whining only serves to make you look sad and desperate.

Members Criticize Paid Sick Day Deal for Lack of Transparency

The pair is set to announce a deal this afternoon to dramatically expand mandatory paid sick leave--one of Mr. de Blasio's key campaign promises. But many council members--including even members of Ms. Mark-Viverito's Progressive Caucus--were not consulted on the deal or even made aware of its existence until late last night, when they began receiving calls inviting them to a 1 p.m. press conference in Bushwick to announce it. "Very few council members were consulted or even in the loop on this deal," said one source familiar with the deal, who said the "top-down approach" had rubbed many the wrong way.

http://politicker.com/2014/01/members-criticize-paid-sick-day-deal-for-lack-of-transparency/

Like I said months ago, it's going to be a long 4-8 years of this whinging.  But that's a small price to pay for actual progress.

Dean Baker: David Brooks' Primitive Defense of the Rich

After the Krugman article, which was gentle and focused on only the 5% dodge Brooks employed, enjoy as Dean Baker takes the glib shill David Brooks to the woodshed.

David Brooks' Primitive Defense of the Rich | Beat the Press

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/david-brooks-primitive-defense-of-the-rich

Why does the "liberal" New York Times give this disingenuous rodeo clown a column again?

What Will Your Children Do For A Living?

Of course the solutions, such as they are, that the Economist offers up are woefully inadequate. But at least they are covering the issue. And the issue is, we're quickly automating the bulk of humanity out of a job. And that is going to require major, major shifts in the structure of society.

The Economist takes on the problem of mechanization and enormous inequality, by @DavidOAtkins

The prosperity unleashed by the digital revolution has gone overwhelmingly to the owners of capital and the highest-skilled workers. Over the past three decades, labour's share of output has shrunk globally from 64% to 59%. Meanwhile, the share of income going to the top 1% in America has risen from around 9% in the 1970s to 22% today. Unemployment is at alarming levels in much of the rich world, and not just for cyclical reasons. In 2000, 65% of working-age Americans were in work; since then the proportion has fallen, during good years as well as bad, to the current level of 59%. Worse, it seems likely that this wave of technological disruption to the job market has only just started. From driverless cars to clever household gadgets (see article), innovations that already exist could destroy swathes of jobs that have hitherto been untouched. The public sector is one obvious target: it has proved singularly resistant to tech-driven reinvention. But the step change in what computers can do will have a powerful effect on middle-class jobs in the private sector too. Until now the jobs most vulnerable to machines were those that involved routine, repetitive tasks. But thanks to the exponential rise in processing power and the ubiquity of digitised information ("big data"), computers are increasingly able to perform complicated tasks more cheaply and effectively than people. Clever industrial robots can quickly "learn" a set of human actions. Services may be even more vulnerable. Computers can already detect intruders in a closed-circuit camera picture more reliably than a human can. By comparing reams of financial or biometric data, they can often diagnose fraud or illness more accurately than any number of accountants or doctors. One recent study by academics at Oxford University suggests that 47% of today's jobs could be automated in the next two decades.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-economist-takes-on-problem-of.html

Typos courtesy of my iPhone

Krugman: Watch Top 1%, Not Top 5%

Frankly, I believe it is even more telling to look at the 0.1% and even the 0.01% in these comparisons.

Pundits like Brooks and his ilk who use 20%, 10% or 5% to dilute the reality are shills, intentionally attempting to deceive their audience.  And that is in large part why I viscerally despise David Brooks, and greatly appreciate the work of Krugman.  Whether or not you agree with Krugman's poliutics, he is honest.

Why We Talk About the One Percent

Many people in Washington, even those willing to concede that inequality has been rising rapidly, are uncomfortable talking about the famous 1 percent — perhaps because it sounds too populist, too much like an invitation to crowds with pitchforks. For a long time respectable discussion focused on the top 20 percent; today I see my colleague David Brooks talking about the top 5 percent.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/17/why-we-talk-about-the-one-percent/

- - -
Shared from the Digg iPhone app
Want more stories like this? Check out Digg Reader →

Typos courtesy of my iPhone