Income is a "flow variable," it's measured over a particular period of time, say a year thus Jane Doe's annual income of $81,000 in 2009 is a flow variable. Income and wealth are not interchangeable.
In part this is because most people are understandably confused about the difference economists make between income and wealth. Discussions about wealth distribution in the US (or almost any other nation) are less common than income. I guess it's a good thing tea-partiers don't seem to understand economic irony of any sort. While crowds of tea-partiers (including seemingly thick folks like Joe the Plumber) claim to want much smaller, less oppressive government, they apparently (once again) want "their" politicians to vote against the own economic self-interests and not venture to redistribute income (to them). In my mind this demand wins a Gordon Gekko Gold Star award for excessive greed to the already-richest people. The above facts lay bare the complete hypocrisy behind the alleged popular support for the Republicans' single-minded demand to extend after Dec 31 st the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% of earners. This time, because the still-charismatic Obama wasn't on any ballot, "the kids" mostly stayed away from the voting booths as they mostly do so much for the important new trend.Īs an example of how different income groups have been affected by these changes in income distribution, the ratio of a typical CEO's income to an average worker's income has increased more than an order of magnitude – from a "mere" 42 times as large in 1980 to a beyond astounding 531 times as large as a worker's in 2001. Unlike the 2008 presidential election, where a multitude of young people first voted (that the media dutifully then reported as an "important new trend"), this November was shown to return to the norm. The most important distinction is that older voters actually voted this November, as they consistently do, whereas younger people (especially 18-24 year olds) don't vote nearly as often or consistently – much to the chagrin of more liberal, Democratic candidates. Sure, geographic location is important – witness the interesting distinction in results on the east and (especially) west coasts as compared with almost everywhere else – but unsurprisingly older voters again voted distinctively differently from younger voters. In my mind the election results once again showed the importance of a single, key characteristic – voter age.
0 kommentar(er)
