EMAIL
PRINT
29 COMMENTSShare and save this post:
AlterNet Social Networks:
Also in Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace
Under Pressure, AIG Discloses Recipients of Bailout Billions
AlterNet Staff
Americans Are Raring for a Fight Against Corporate Power
Jim Hightower
AIG Bonuses Scandal: CEOs Take Our Billions and Are Accountable to No One
Robert B. Reich
How Robert Rubin's Bright-Eyed Proteges Came to Dominate Wall Street
Aaron Bartley, Kevin Connor
Why Dishing Out Cash to the Pentagon Is No Solution for the Unemployment Crisis
Frida Berrigan
The president's proposed budget will do much to bring progressivity back to the tax code. Upper-income households -- which have gained the most over the past three decades -- will contribute around 80 percent of federal revenues, and more modest incomes will finally catch some real tax relief. Meanwhile, the vast majority of Americans have applauded the administration's move to impose limits on executive compensation by attaching strings to bailout money. The reason is one of basic fairness, of course. But it turns out that limiting the windfalls of the few may actually be good for us all. That's because there appears to be a relationship in the United States between inequality -- which is largely driven by an explosive rise in incomes at the top -- and overall levels of human development.
The HDI has long been used by experts and officials concerned with advancement in poor countries. In 1990 Mahbub ul Haq -- a former World Bank official who had also served as Pakistani finance minister -- created the indicator to capture the actual experiences of people in a given country or region in a way that GDP and other indicators of economically measurable output could not.
With some slight adjustments, the index was retrofitted to work for rich countries. The score consists of three dimensions: health, as measured by life expectancy at birth; access to knowledge, captured by educational enrollment and attainment; and income, as reflected by median earnings for the working-age population. And now the results are finally in.
The first bit of bad news is that America was slipping well before our most recent downturn. Whereas during the 1980s we were consistently No. 2 in the world (Switzerland occupied the top slot in 1980, while Canada did from 1985 to 1990), by the mid-1990s we had slipped to six. And by 2006 (the most recent year available), we had even fallen out of the Top 10 (to slot 15). Income clearly doesn't capture every dimension, since the United States still holds the No. 2 position in terms of income per capita. Rather, other aspects of American society make it less "developed" than it should be, given the resources available here.
This decline proceeded apace through the Reagan and first Bush administrations, during the go-go Clinton '90s, and through the regime of George W. Bush. We have slipped in periods of budget deficits and during the largest surplus in US history. So something deeper about the structure of American society is probably responsible.
Of course, there are some pretty good suspects. There is, for example, the issue of nearly 50 million people who don't have health insurance. There is the fact that college completion rates have been flat since the '70s despite an increasingly technological economy. And there is the wage stagnation for the bottom half, a problem that has dogged us since the oil shock of 1973. But there is one larger force underlying these trends that has been gaining steam over the past three decades, and that's income inequality.
See more stories tagged with: health, security, education, economy, us, purchasing power
No comments:
Post a Comment