"Income inequality" didn't work - i.e. the Left voyeuristically sticking their grubby paws all over our paychecks (those of us that still receive one, anyway) - and so now they've moved on to sticking their grubby paws all over our nest eggs, where their greedy voyeurism is equally unwelcome:
The wealth gap between the country's upper-income and middle-class families has risen to a record high, according to a new study from the Pew Research Center.
The survey, based on thirty years of Federal Reserve data, shows the gap between upper- and lower-income families also has climbed to an all-time peak.
And for the exact same reason that income inequality has exploded under Barack Hussein Obama: The "1%" are having to shelter their resources against O's confiscatory plundering and forcibly imposed, exorbitant regulatory costs instead of investing them in economically productive (i.e. "profitable") and job-creating ventures. In short, "the rich" will remain "rich" no matter how much Obamunists purport to "soak" them, but "lower-income families" can't be upwardly economically mobile if no jobs are being created for them to fill.
The median wealth of upper-income families totaled $639,400 last year, 6.6 times the median wealth of middle-income families — $96,500. That compares with 4.5 times in 2007, the year before the financial crisis.
That's interesting, isn't it? My family and I have never had more than a middle-of-middle class income, and yet our nest egg is somewhere between those two numbers. Why? Because we have never run up huge debt, we've never "house hopped" to bigger and bigger dwellings, we've never purchased new cars but got along with recently "pre-owned" vehicles. In short, we've never consumed conspicuously, and that has enabled us to sock away dough consistently over the years against the proverbial "rainy day" - which turned out to be a fifteen-months-and-counting deluge.
If interest rates were being set by the market instead of Janet Yellen's ouija board, who knows how much additional wealth I would possess by now?
But should I be penalized for not living beyond my means? And is the economic status of "lower-income families" the fault of Americans who have done vastly better?
There's a right answer to those two questions. It just isn't the answer that will come out of the Obama Regime.
"The latest data reinforce the larger story of America's middle-class household wealth stagnation over the past three decades," the report states.
"The Great Recession destroyed a significant amount of middle-income and lower-income families' wealth, and the economic recovery has yet to be felt for them. . . . Middle- and lower-income families' wealth levels in 2013 are comparable to where they were in the early 1990s."
The (Second) Great DEPression - which is still ongoing - destroyed approximately 5% of my wealth, and I subsequently made it back plus an additional 15% or so. Of course, by the same token, in the next year that nest egg will begin declining by about 5% a year, barring the advent of a fresh source of income for me, all of which illustrates that Obamanomics - and horrible bosses - will "get" you sooner or later. But it still isn't any of anybody's damn business what my financial resources look like, or yours, or everybody else's - particularly those who are more well off than you or I are. Economic voyeurism is the principle means by which income and wealth disparities are exacerbated to justify further depressionary government interventions, in a perpetual motion machine of poverty, squalor, and oppression.
Hey, Pew: How's about we each keep our own eyes on our own bank accounts, our own noses to our own grindstones, and the feds get the hell out of the way and allow the former American capitalist economy to function? If you really want to ease income and wealth inequality, that is.
No comments:
Post a Comment