What Wasn’t Said in “Wealth Inequality In America”

What Wasn’t Said in “Wealth Inequality In America”


here is the actual distribution of wealth in America the poorest Americans don’t even register there down to pocket change and the middle class is barely distinguishable from the poor in fact even the rich between the top 10 and 20 percentile are worse off only the top 10% are better off and how much better off so much better off that the top 2 to 5% are actually off the chart at this scale and the top 1% this guy well his stack of money stretches 10 times higher than we can show the fact of inequality is something we’ve become increasingly aware of here in 2012 the United States but to kind of open the debate to kind of get started I’ll start with Professor Horowitz and ask sumir the fact of inequality what exactly is the problem of inequality well I think there’s a couple things to talk about here one is we should ask whether that concern that we see in that video about inequality is the real issue whenever we talk about inequality I think we have to also talk about income mobility and when we look at these static snapshots of how how what percent of wealth or income is controlled by 1% or the bottom 20 percent in one year versus another year we have to remember it’s not the same people in each year who were rich and poor and one of the most important questions for me is how easy is it or how difficult is it for folks who start off poor to no longer be poor after five years or ten years or 15 years that kind of data we just saw tells us nothing about that and I think the data on income mobility suggests that the poor in any one year the majority of them have a good opportunity to be out of poverty within a reasonable number of years so as we we talk about these issues today I hope that’s something that we explore [Music] you [Music]

100 Comments

  1. DustClouds says:

    what liars how much more space will we give them to mask their greed with ridiculous excuses..

  2. FidelKastrat says:

    a video for libertarian lunatics

  3. Shawn Lihou says:

    This is horse shit, oh wow its technically possible to get out of being poor, so this chart isn't an issue…yeah in LA LA land. f'ck off buddy

  4. NoJoyinLife says:

    Its very difficult to move up. Very few poor move into the "middle class" range and almost no middle class move up. The rich stay rich

  5. Joe Simon says:

    bald guy is a liar.

  6. martianshoes says:

    I keep reading all the brain damaged comments….both the wealth distribution and the mobility are nothing to be proud of…but just what do you intend to do? Please, do not give political answers, as that has been tried. The solutions must be economic, societal, and practical. Anyone suggesting another "Cadillac Tax" should have to eat the entire law, hard copy. Get real. Just think what cars would cost if the CEO of GM did NOT get a 16 million golden parachute…

  7. EnjoyMarijuana says:

    oh yeah guys! just keep your hopes up! it's all gonna pan out!

  8. Cody Ramseur says:

    It is unfair, because it allows the bigots that control the whole process to conveniently choose who has money and when. If there was a more fair distribution, things would be inherently less polarized. I speculate that life on earth would also be more peaceful, because it wouldn't allow such a small group of people to have such a direct influence over very large groups of people.

  9. Chris Meyers says:

    That's how it's done kids. Pretend to argue one point, and then change the topic completely and argue that point instead. The film wasn't about if people can get out of poverty…………AT…….ALL………

  10. George Smith says:

    All I can say is this…

    Lower taxes do not increase investment. Demand does. If I gave you $100,000 dollars would you pay someone to create goods that nobody was buying? I rest my case. A strong middle class creates jobs, not a small thriving upper class. Trickle down is a proven failure.

  11. Adam Gonzalez says:

    Such a bullshit argument

  12. Vladislav Popov says:

    They will permit you to feel being 2 times richer if they can get 10 times richer 🙂

  13. Jason Lang says:

    I think there is more to it than that, for example with the tax cuts etc, the rich should again be taxed to the fullest to distribute wealth. By distributing wealth it means cheaper education, better infrastructure and even heaven forbid with a "communist" idea, more accessible healthcare. 
    Mind you those ideas were set by FDR in his second bill of rights, which were forced on their defeated enemies and even adopted by other nations. A US idea passed to other nations, funny.

  14. Alex Holste says:

    This is stupid being poor shouldn't mean living in terrible conditions because it may be temporary (and we all know that in the majority of cases its not). Not only that but 15 years? That's a child's life if like to see him live off less than 15,000 a year. And many people have kids to take care of!

    Not to mention that if the top 1% has 40% of the money how the hell are they going to spend it all? Oh yeah they're not and that means millions if not billions of dollars are out of the US economy. That's the first thing you learn in econ.

  15. mulattomack says:

    Wow this guys point is extremely irrelevant

  16. NeverForget1776 says:

    Income Mobility is simply another misleading statistic designed to create the illusion that there is not an artificially caused wealth disparity in America.  The point of the "Wealth Inequality IN America" video was the difference between the %1 and all others.  Within the "All Others" you have income mobility but that's irrelevant because the %1 don't change.  Those are the families who are known to control the worlds wealth and who have great influence through their money and power and who more often then night shy away from the spotlight.  That's NOT to say they are never in the spot light only that they are for the most part not into being the center of attention publicly.

  17. John Kahin says:

    Amazing the lengths some will go through to justify the status quo, regardless how bad it gets and how obvious these problems are.

  18. Dar Dedar says:

    Upward mobility. America doesn't have it:

    Joseph Stiglitz: 'The American Dream Has Become A Myth'
    Rising from rags to riches isn't the American dream, it's an American fairytale, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.
    "The American dream has become a myth," Stiglitz, an economics professor at Columbia University, told the German news magazine Der Spiegel in an interview published Tuesday. "The belief in the American dream is not supported by the data."
    There's evidence to support such claims. The U.S. has less economic mobility than Canada and much of Western Europe, according to economic research cited by The New York Times. Seven in ten Americans that start out in the bottom fifth of family income stay in the lower class as adults, and more than six in ten Americans that start out in the top family income quintile stay in the upper class as adults, according to a July report by the Pew Charitable Trusts….
    Stiglitz told Der Spiegel that in spite of anecdotes about poor people becoming rich, overall "the life chances of a young U.S. citizen are more dependent on the income and education of his parents than in any other advanced industrial country for which there is data."
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/03/joseph-stiglitz-american-dream_n_1935564.html

  19. Steven O'Bannon says:

    The odds of someone born in the bottom ten percent of earners making it to the top ten percent of earners is about the same as a father who is 5'6" having a son who is 6'1".  Does it happen? It can, but not often.

  20. KevZen2000 says:

    Wealth Inequality In America is bad, but nowhere as bad as people make it out to be. The best way to make a decent living is to get a marketable set of skills, such as welder, automotive mechanic, engineer, medical, etc., and move to a cheaper area. If you are making $2,000 a month after taxes, in a cheap place like Texas, you will do fine.

    That would be around $17/hour an hour, which is not that hard to get with marketable skills. This is why you should leave places like New York, California, Chicagoland, Seattle, etc., which require you to make $20-$25/hour, just to live a normal standard of life. Any place with a major Democratic influence, that is key to not to move there, even if you are one.

  21. Psiink says:

    Absolutely irrelevant

  22. Brian Lucas says:

    Actually income mobility has gone down as well. People that are born on the bottom are 99% likely to stay on the bottom. Same goes for the rich. This video dismisses all the data out there on this. Professor Horowitz you are far off.

  23. AmerginMacEccit says:

    About 80% of people who win lottery are broke after 3-4 years and I wonder why…

  24. Jamie F says:

    Oh yes, there are so many new employment opportunities out there! With better wages at that; especially if you get a bachelor's degree and start out $50-100k in the hole.

    Reality to Horwitz there, in your ivory tower… hello???

    I don't know anyone who is "upwardly mobile"; at best, with luck, people are maintaining the status quo.

  25. Ed Stengel says:

    The mistake most people concerned about income or wealth inequality is they assume the economy is a zero sum game, that if someone else makes or has 10 or 100 times more than they do that somehow this translates into the poor being deprived by the rich.  This is not the case.  The way the economy grows is when someone devises a way to make more product/service using less resources.  For example when autos replaced horses.  Did some people lose their jobs in that transition, yes.  Was this good for society and did the economy grow, yes.  The same can be said for the digital revolution and every other advance in our society.  Yes, the people that built these industries got rich from their efforts, I applaud them for doing so.  It sets an example for others to follow, but in no way does it take away the opportunity for others to do something similar, in fact their efforts raised the standard of living for those who didn't get rich on their idea.

  26. Fly4Video.com says:

    This guy is full of crap. Yes the poor do have a chance, but I have a chance of winning the lottery as well. If you are going to dispute the facts with "mobility" then provide some facts to back your opinion.

  27. Heiny Reimes says:

    We are social animals, to value one person hundreds to even thousands of times more than others in worth is sickening, opposes the so called democracy 'fully' and kills any society on the long run.

    And don't even dare to come up with things like responsibility for which they are being paid. Banks were responsible for the Crisis, yet who are now earning more money and who paid the bills?

    Differences in wages are normally a good thing, based on knowledge, experience, hours worked, 'real' responsibility, 'real' risk etc. But things need to be limited 'to some degree'. Don't get me wrong, the graph above actually says to me that people earning 200k should actually even pay 'less' taxes.

  28. notoriouskodiak says:

    Is this chart seriously suggesting that between 1975 and 1991 20% of the poorest 20% move up to the wealthiest 20%?? and only 5% of the poor remain in the poor

  29. DynamicUnreal says:

    Using the same you are "soon to be rich" tactics that have been used for a hundred years. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of human beings will never be rich no matter how smart you are or how hard you work.

  30. Adam Young says:

    If his argument is for income mobility from poverty to middle class, he missed the point of the video. The middle class is barely distinguishable from poverty–as a matter of fact, it is a myth.

  31. NasalSnack4 says:

    Lol this is a super funny vid, so many good jokes

  32. David Spondike says:

    America is one the least economically mobile of all industrialized societies on earth.

  33. Mary Kaye Waterson says:

    Baloney.

  34. Susan Averello says:

    So how many of us are making it to the top 10% where things finally get decent? It's hard to move up. Even if upward income mobility is really feasible for most, why should the bottom 40% or even 80% have to struggle to make it to comfortable. Who is cycling back to poverty than if upward mobilty is actually happening?

  35. kuluswick says:

    Am I wrong here but the initial video talks about the distribution of wealth in the US and the comment is about the variability in Income (some people may have a high income in a particular year) – which is not relevant to the video.

    I am far from a socialist, but when the wealth distribution gets too out of whack – bad things happen. It is not dissimilar to a game of monopoly where one person amasses all the wealth – the other players have no chance of getting it back. However it has more serious consequences when the health of society deteriorates because of this inequality. No money for education, health and infrastructure but plenty of money for the tycoon is simply going to end in disaster and a bad outcome for everyone. Higher taxes on excessive income from passive investments coupled with responsible expenditure of course is a good solution in my view.

  36. cristi1990an says:

    Same old Libertarian bullshit.

  37. Ministry of Truth says:

    1113 fools and hypocrites

  38. JZ says:

    Wealth inequality doesn't exist people! Nothing to see here, get back to work.

  39. Rose Pena says:

    sounds like a bunch of BS from that Professor… Don't believe everything you hear a professor say, they don't know everything…..

  40. It's not relevant says:

    Why should I care about the income mobility experienced from form 1971 to 1991? That was from 14 to as much as 34 years ago. We do know that at least five large studies have found the United States to be less mobile than comparable nations in recent years.

  41. Alex Wilson says:

    This video is so dumb. Fuck wealth mobility.

  42. Robert Hirtz says:

    Education and hard work aside, unless you are willing to step on and over other people and screw them over on a consistent basis, the average person will not become wealthy.

  43. Kleavers says:

    Social mobility in the United States is absolutely terrible when compared to other modern countries.

  44. Fernando Trebien says:

    Income and wealth are two VERY different things, mr. economist. The more accumulated wealth, the lower the need for income. What the tables in "Get The Most Recent Data" really reveal are the natural variation in income through career progression and retirement.

  45. Fernando Trebien says:

    And, besides, wealth inequality can cause civil wars. So it IS a real issue. http://www.wfs.org/futurist/2014-issues-futurist/september-october-2014-vol-48-no-5/inequality-predictor-civil-war

  46. Lucifer be praised says:

    in top 10 of the most rich people on the earth, 7 of them are Murricans, their total amount of wealth in $ is 374.3 kkk $.
    There are 318.9 kk of Murricans in the USA. If you redistributed the wealth of the those rich people, each murrican would get 374.3 kkk $/318.9 kk = 1.17k dollars (1170 dollars) as you can see, it wouldn't change life of an avarage Murrica citizen. Of course most of their wealth is accumulated in companies they own, so they would cease to exist, so there would be no more Microsoft, Walmart (literally) etc. but the 'poor' would have additional 1170 bucks, worth it?

  47. Dave Andrews says:

    This is a weak argument, Steve… Go back to the drawing board. The lower class is STILL growing, you have people that have become conditioned to welfare and government assistance, and you think these people have social/economic mobility? They have no social capital to begin with!

  48. Sean B says:

    This (https://youtu.be/LfgSEwjAeno?t=12m6s) is a more relevant to income inequality than income mobility. You cannot logically say that there is an equal chance for someone born poor to become rich than for someone born rich becoming rich. The fact that you are trying to debate that is just stupid.

  49. Shane Courtland says:

    We just had a great public debate on Economic Inequality at my university — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C21vejYDM88

    Panelists include:
    1. Joshua Preiss, Associate Professor and Director of the Philosophy, Politics, & Economics (PPE) Program at Minnesota State University, Mankato – His current research is in moral and political philosophy and the philosophy of economics, in particular, theories of equality, justice and personal responsibility, ethics and economics, freedom (including normative conceptions of free exchange), institutional approaches to diversity, and the philosophy of race, class, and gender. Preiss has presented at such institutions as the University of Chicago, Oxford University, the University of Minnesota, Roskilde University (Denmark), the University of Edinburgh, the University of Lisbon, Queens University Belfast, Utrecht University (Netherlands), Jesuit University in Krakow (Poland), Fatih University (Turkey), and the Winter Institute for Economics and Public Affairs. His work has appeared in such journals as Public Affairs Quarterly, Ethics, Business Ethics Quarterly, Social Theory and Practice, Res Publica, the European Journal of Philosophy, and the Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy.

    2. Steven Horwitz, Charles A. Dana Professor of Economics at St. Lawrence University. An Affiliated Senior Scholar at the Mercatus Center in Arlington, VA and a Senior Fellow of the Fraser Institute in Vancouver, BC. — He is the author of two books, Microfoundations and Macroeconomics: An Austrian Perspective (Routledge, 2000) and Monetary Evolution, Free Banking, and Economic Order (Westview, 1992), and he has written extensively on Austrian economics, Hayekian political economy, monetary theory and history, and macroeconomics. In addition to several dozen articles in numerous professional journals, he has also done nationally recognized public policy work on the role of the private sector during Hurricane Katrina. The author of numerous op-eds, Horwitz is also a frequent guest on TV and radio programs, and has a series of popular YouTube videos for the Learn Liberty series from the Institute for Humane Studies. He also blogs at “Coordination Problem” and “Bleeding Heart Libertarians.” He was awarded the Hayek Prize in 2010 by the Fund for the Study of Spontaneous Order for his work on the economics of the family among other contributions. A member of the Mont Pelerin Society, Horwitz has spoken to professional, student, policymaker, and general audiences throughout North America, as well as in Europe, Asia, and South America. His current research is on the economics and social theory of the family, and he has a forthcoming book on the Hayek, the family, and classical liberalism, due out from Palgrave-Macmillan in 2015.

    3. Nikolai G. Wenzel, professor of economics at Flagler College – Dr. Wenzel is a former Foreign Service Officer with the US State Department; he worked at the US Embassy in Mexico City, where he was vice consul and special assistant to the US ambassador. He later worked for various Washington, DC-area think tanks, including the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, the Mercatus Center, and the Institute for Humane Studies, while completing his doctoral coursework, and a dissertation on Argentina's failed constitution and economy. Dr. Wenzel's research focuses on constitutional political economy and the institutions that promote human liberty and flourishing, with an emphasis on the role of ideology and culture, the history of ideas, and the work of Austrian economist F.A. Hayek. His work has been published in a dozen journals, including the Review of Austrian Economics, the Journal of Private Enterprise, and the Oxford Handbook of the Sociology of Religion. Dr. Wenzel is a member of the Mont Pelerin Society, sits on the Executive Committee of the Association of Private Enterprise Education, and teaches for the Institute for Humane Studies and the Foundation for Economic Education.

    4. Robert H. Frank, Henrietta Johnson Louis Professor of Management and Professor of Economics at Cornell's Johnson Graduate School of Management and the co-director of the Paduano Seminar in business ethics at NYU’s Stern School of Business — His “Economic View” column appears monthly in The New York Times. He is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Demos. He received his B.S. in mathematics from Georgia Tech, then taught math and science for two years as a Peace Corps Volunteer in rural Nepal. He holds an M.A. in statistics and a Ph.D. in economics, both from the University of California at Berkeley. His papers have appeared in the American Economic Review, Econometrica, Journal of Political Economy, and other leading professional journals. His books, which include Choosing the Right Pond, Passions Within Reason, Microeconomics and Behavior, Principles of Economics (with Ben Bernanke), Luxury Fever, What Price the Moral High Ground?, Falling Behind, The Economic Naturalist, The Darwin Economy, and Success and Luck, have been translated into 22 languages. The Winner-Take-All Society, co-authored with Philip Cook, received a Critic's Choice Award, was named a Notable Book of the Year by The New York Times, and was included in Business Week's list of the ten best books of 1995. He is a co-recipient of the 2004 Leontief Prize for Advancing the Frontiers of Economic Thought. He was awarded the Johnson School’s Stephen Russell Distinguished teaching award in 2004, 2010, and 2012, and its Apple Distinguished Teaching Award in 2005.

  50. Garrik Cook says:

    This is my basic critique about this video. Let's start with a established hierarchy mainly in a triangle form. The bottom of the triangle are the low end workers, while the middle section are the managers and then the top would include Vice President in whatever he overseas and also have the top of the pyramid the ceo. Now let's all look at the triangle and come to the conclusion that not all the people are gonna rise into higher positions due to the hierarchy structure you just couldn't fit the bottom of the triangle into the top without having a surplus in skilled labor and thus lower wages for the skilled workers in whatever field. So relying on income mobility within the inequality video that learn Liberty is using as a measure of poverty isn't going to help this video's position. I hope this comment doesn't get blocked.

  51. Leon Herperger says:

    umm, the point of the wealth distribution video was to show that 1% of the population hold 80% of the wealth.
    are you really trying to tell me ANY of the poor reach that 1%?
    let's just say some poor people make it to middle class, so now they are earning, what, 2% of the wealth as a category?
    when everyone except the rich are only earning 20% of the wealth that is a problem, no matter how you dress it up

  52. theromulanwarhawk says:

    If hard work and sacrifice truly made you wealthy, every kid in China assembling laptops and smartphones, every farmer in Africa or India barely eking out a living would be billionaires.

  53. Sun Tzu says:

    Income mobility? The rich get richer every single year, whilst the middle class is losing trillions to the billionaire class who buy and sell our politicians to further strengthen their death hold on the worlds economy.

  54. !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? says:

    i always wonder what percentage of these people are serious and how many of them are just getting paid to say this shit

  55. Michael Durrigan says:

    Ask any poor person if one thinks being poor is a matter of luck or if opportunity is around the door. Horwitz misses some salient points about mobility. Perfect example of arm chair economics. Absolute lunacy!

  56. tony232cool says:

    I was poor in 2000 and I am still poor today and so are the rest of you and will be forever, nothing changed. Growth and opportunity in USA and Canada have diminished and it is not like it used to be.
    But it is not the fault of that 1 guy with all the money. Everyone wants to be him and tries and that what makes wheels churn

  57. Aaron Lee says:

    1975-1991 CHERRY PICKED STATS

    lolololololololololol

  58. 1000REMBOY says:

    what's the outro song?

  59. Tonamewith says:

    Not a word about #usury?

  60. coilstapped says:

    these people will one day find themsleve lit on fire and chained to tires in the middle of a street.

  61. Jonathan Phillips says:

    LMAO! What a deflection tactic! Did you see the unrealistic movement chart at the end? They didn't even look at static statistics that prove a pattern! "PHDs"? Must be in BS. There IS a pattern we can go by and it is penned in the monetary history of wealth leaving the middle class and going to the top. However, to be fair, mobility was not mentioned. But nor did it need to be mentioned.

  62. ForeverRepublic says:

    Equal opportunity doesn't guarantee equal outcome.
    Deal with it liberals.

  63. Sierra Davis says:

    o.O so years to get out of poverty… and what about those people who stay there? What about all the problems in this country, where people complain that we don't have money to fix them? how about we just tax the wealthy and redistribute to the poor, and it will stimulate the economy and our government will also have money to invest in education so they can do even better. We are the richest country in the world, it is not right that we have such a high rate of childhood poverty compared to other major countries. It is not right that the rich have so much because they can bribe politicians to give them tax breaks, when the poor are just trying to survive. Take care of everyone's basic needs and they can move to achieve self actualization.

  64. KevinCS says:

    I think the wealth inequality is perfectly fair. The rich worked for their money, and most people are too delusional or butt hurt that the rich make more, to see it. You make up stories, such as how "the rich control all the wealth and the wealth flow, they buy out the politics." This is completely false, the rich do not do this. Maybe a few attempt to do some corrupt things, but that doesn't mean they all do. Look at all the rich people, or even well off people, and how many worked to get there. Elon musk, bill gates, warren buffet, steve jobs (when he was alive), All the doctors, surgeons, successful entrepreneurs who worked their asses off to get where they are. Who did great things to get their wealth. Their wealth is very well deserved, and many of them deserve to be paid MORE.
    In fact, the ones who really control a lot of the wealth and buy out the politics, and do corrupt things, are the very ones you dumb-ass liberal, socialists vote for. Look at all of the corrupt things the clintons have done. Bill and hillary clinton have over 100 million dollars. Hell, half the time that hillary clinton is giving a speech about how the rich need to pay more, she is wearing a fucking 15,000 dollar shirt. America, and all of these bernie-bots need to wake the fuck up, and get rid of the real problem, which are most democratic politicians.

  65. Some Norwegian Guy says:

    Regarding a study on income inequality and social mobility: "Of the eight countries studied—Canada, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Germany, the UK and the USA, the USA had both the highest economic inequality and lowest economic mobility." – excerpt from wiki page on social mobility, original source: https://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2008/2/economic%20mobility%20sawhill/02_economic_mobility_sawhill_ch3.pdf.

  66. jackgoldman1 says:

    One word, "counterfeiting". Since 1971 wealth has been counterfeiting, debasing the currency, driving the wealth into twenty times more wealth. It's counterfeiting, debasing the currency, that makes the rich, so much richer, wiping out dividends, replacing dividends and yields with inflation. The poor lose out in counterfeiting.

  67. Jesteria78 says:

    Horrible. Those rich people cannot be rich and live their happy lifes without the work of a lot of poor people. Second, a lot of the rich peoples money is not going into the economy. Give a somebody with a minimum wage a 10% increase, the money will be spend in the local economy. It is greedy and immoral to exploit your own employees and it is immoral to have such a wealth inequality.

  68. jay V says:

    99.9% of everybody i know in the hood is still there.

  69. Justin Land says:

    This conflicts heavily with Pew research. Please cite the source of your study which indicated 33% of the bottom 20% became the wealthiest 20% from 1975 to 1991, or better yet, use a data set from less than two decades ago to prove a point about the economic conditions of today. Else I'd have to assume this to just be an official looking attempt to coerce your audience to help prevent any kind of meaningful reform on Income Inequality to occur.

  70. Brian Pollard says:

    Um no. This video is a non factual piece of conservative propaganda. Income mobility in America is absolutely horrible. The American dream is dead, except in Denmark, which has the highest income mobility in the world. AND very high wealth equality

  71. Wuud52 says:

    If the ratios stay the same, or keep sliding further out of whack, then mobility doesn't matter. The issue is not who can get out, the issue is how far off the skew the situation is. We need a healthy and large number of middle class people regardless of who they are. They are the engine of our economy.

  72. Ralph Tharp says:

    That was a debunk?

  73. bjjsalzberry13 says:

    Ahhhh yes the myth of the detrimental income inequality and the Gini coefficient…. please progressive liberals and socialists put on your thinking cap!

  74. Stephen Goodfellow says:

    An attempt at apologism.

  75. Nicholas Pipitone says:

    https://goo.gl/images/CvKsbd What is known is that strongly conservative states have horrendous rates of income mobility in America.

  76. Hercule Holmes says:

    1:35 And this is where I call bullshit. It's not about the wealth curve – although it is plenty hard to get anywhere above minimum wage level if you start at minimum wage level – it's about that insane spike at the end of the curve.

  77. Hercule Holmes says:

    I have £5000. It is not enough money to make interest on. Nor is £50,000 – which is the kind of money a working-class person who has saved wisely and paid into a pension scheme might have when they retire; you could make a little interest on that, but not much. To get into the club, you need more like £500,000 for your money to make money.

    Savings and investments don't scale, unless you start with a large sum of money – a sum far beyond what 99% will ever have – you cannot make your money work for you.

  78. martini1179 says:

    "It's not the same people each year who are rich and poor." LOL So it's not about wealth inequality, folks. Totally not important. People are getting rich year after year. Maybe one day the income fairy will visit you in your dreams if you wish hard enough!

  79. steam-engines o tool says:

    who could be so naive. ?

  80. ToadStar100 says:

    1K likes and 1K dislikes. The comments section is probably dangerous.

  81. RadiatedDalek says:

    Here are some things for the future that they can take into consideration if they make an updated video:

    1. Take into account that this is only focused on the net economic wealth and not end total wealth. Due to all of these statistics only focusing on how much each person makes, it doesn't hover over the charity that most wealthy and higher-classed people donate to the much more impoverished part of society. Because of this, that 1% of the nation's total money is actually much lower after giving charity, and the lower-classed total is much higher after receiving it.
    2. This doesn't clearly specify the economics of US citizens vs US residents. If this video is about residents, then the many illegals in poverty are added to the statistics, which can skew results in economy, even though they are assumed to be a part of the American population.
    3. By mixing dates of 2009, 2012, and other dates, there is a very visible altering of statistics, which can lead to people being skeptical about the facts they give.
    4. It is true that we don't need socialism to fix America. But by adding more and more taxes onto the wealthier people, socialism is becoming more and more real in the US. Perhaps give statistics on taxing rates to further their proof of their facts.
    In conclusion, this study should not be titled "wealth inequality" because the wealth is quite fair, as I said before. This study, instead, should be called "economic inequality" even though there isn't much of that either.

  82. Stewart Smith says:

    Stop complaining about wealth inequality and work your way to the top, complaining won't get you there and excuses wont too! Any excuse on this comment will be ignored you can continue to live as you do or you can become the 1% it's up to you.

  83. Non-Partisan Dispatch says:

    Wealth inequality in the US is actually on par, and even better than most of the developed world when you factor in wealth redistribution through government and charity. Income inequality is not necessarily bad as long as the economy is large enough to sustain its population, and allow for new wealth to be created and along with income mobility. Food for thought, theirs two sides to everything.
    I have a more in depth video on the same topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tG9NqNQQws&t=1s
    REPLY

  84. Emperor Alvis says:

    Just tax the rich at 100% so I can get free shit

  85. Mystical Treasures Emporium Store says:

    Mobility is a distraction from wealth inequality.

  86. Itsme 27 says:

    That doesn’t matter. It’s still the same amount of poor people

  87. Terry Tater says:

    The data on income mobility, crossed with the time lapsed data of economic inequality proves Job Loss you fools!! Of course people lose position to each other as they lose their jobs! The guy Still making 50k, is now in top 70%! "Hooray for more poor people!"… This is a humiliation….

  88. Paul Judkins says:

    Bunch of commies in the comments section

  89. Al Smith says:

    https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2018/preliminary/paper/5Kk8keNA
    income inequality in the united states: using tax data to measure …

  90. Tom Kenny says:

    The majority of poor stay poor…they'e not moving up into higher income positions, as Horowitz claims.

  91. Tom Kenny says:

    As of July 2018, the hyperlinks to watch the full debate and get to get the latest stats are all broken, rendering this video pretty useless.

  92. Winter Park Mark says:

    Learn Liberty, who put out this video, is funded by the Koch brothers. Propaganda to serve Koch brother interests who own our us government to feed their money and power addiction.

  93. WILL V says:

    Is this a bad thing?

  94. Al Clark says:

    He says "we have to look at income/economic mobility. OK. let's do it: Economic Policy Institute: “According to the data, there is now considerably more economic mobility in most other developed economies.” http://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobility/

  95. John Burns says:

    Guy makes $285,000.00 per year with super-right-wing groups including Schnatter Institute, the Mercatus Center, and teaching lies and distortions to naive right-wing college kids at Ball State. He is worth 3.2 million dollars. So hey, The System is Great!!

  96. skyler bowerbank says:

    Ok, at first i was like, who cares

    Now, i think this is the most important video on the internet

  97. skyler bowerbank says:

    Wow…
    Everyone in these comments are so full of shit

    Is there a conservative out there?

  98. ScienceGuy says:

    Who cares? Oh wow you can get yourself above the poverty line relatively quickly. Woopty doo. What does that have to do with the fact that we live in a plutocracy, where Republicans are fighting viciously for their social Darwinist utopia where nobody pays taxes and there’s no social spending?

  99. REDneck Nestor says:

    So income inequality had been growing since the 70's when this dingus said this trash and it's only gotten worse since yall made this video.

  100. S Mode says:

    Koch brothers funded propoganda to convince you to vote against yourself. They don't mention that what officially counts as poverty is $12000 for an individual and about $24000 for a family of 4. You are in actual poverty at numbers quite a bit higher than those. Thank Nixon for those ridiculous numbers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *