West Coast 2011
December PF
West Coast
Public Forum
December 2011
Income Disparity Topic
West Coast
Topic Analysis 1/2
Topic Analysis 2/2
Topic Definitions
Pro
Yes Income Disparity
Income Disparity Is At Record Highs
Income Disparity Hurts Democracy
The Public Wants To End Income Disparity
Income Disparity Causes Class Warfare
Income Disparity Hurts Economic Growth
Income Disparity Caused The Financial Crisis
Economic Growth Key To Democracy
Corporations Influence Politics Too Much
Con
No Income Disparity
Income Disparity Is A Myth
Class Warfare Will Not Happen
Wealth Disparity Does Not Hurt The Poor
Economic Freedom Is Good
Nothing Wrong With The 1%
Occupy Wall Street Is Bad
Top 1% Already Pays All The Taxes
We Should Encourage High Incomes
Topic Analysis 1/2
The Public Forum topic for December2011 is “Resolved: In the United States, current income disparities threaten democratic ideals.” The Pro side of this resolution will argue thatthe political and economic system in America overwhelmingly benefits the top 1% of income earners – skewing the democratic process. The Con side will argue that the influence of money on politics is overstated, and that some level of income stratification is a necessary and desirable byproduct of living in a capitalist democracy. This months Public Forum Briefs are intended to give you a set of evidence to prepare and debate these questions.
TOPIC OVERVIEW
To understand the saliency of this month’s topic, it is useful to have a little background on the ongoing Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protests. OWS got underway in mid-September, and is a spontaneous and leaderless mass protest against the perceived inequalities of the US financial and political system. It is comprised of a group of protestors who are living in Zucotti Park in the Wall Street district of New York City, though it has also spun off to include a host of other “Occupy X” protests in cities around the country. While many people criticize OWS for the lack of a definable political agenda or list of specific demands, it is a byproduct of extreme frustration with the banking and political system following the latest financial crisis. The common theme underlying all of these protests is that the financial system in America unfairly benefits the wealthiest individuals, while leaving the poor and the middle class out in the cold. One of the common tropes of the movement is to divide people into two “classes” – the top 1% of income earners in the US, vs. the 99% of everyone else.
There are many ways to measure and characterize the differences in wages and income between the very rich and the rest of society, such as looking at income statistics, or median wage growth. There is quite a bit of disagreement amongst economist about precisely how large the “income gap” is between the super rich and the middle class, but most estimates agree that concentration of wealth in a smaller number of hands is increasing, and that wage disparity is a growing trend. Some estimates say that as high as 35-50% of all wealth in the U.S. is concentrated in the hands of the top 1% of income earners.
Disparities such as this are one of the primary causes of things like the Occupy Wall Street movement. They also underlie many of the day’s most hotly contested political issues surrounding economics, and especially wealth redistribution – how to deal with the crisis in social security, Medicare, or the tax code all touch directly or indirectly on issues of social justice vis a vis the real or perceived wage gap.
It is worth noting that people in the United States generally disfavor this state of affairs. People on both side of the political spectrum and from most social strata agree that wealth disparity is a problem, and that an ideal society would be a great deal more egalitarian. How to go about solving this problem garners a great deal of different proposals from the right or the left – but in any “democratic” sense, the people of America are unhappy with the status quo.
This month’s topic hinges primarily on how you define “democratic ideals.” Some see the existence of wealth disparities as inimical to values such as equality or social justice – while others view them as simply examples of the American Dream working successfully. It is clear that income disparities have important implications society wide, from economic growth to corporate influence on politics to poverty – whether those impacts are positive or negative revolve largely around the value set you choose to adopt.
Topic Analysis 2/2
DEBATING THE PRO SIDE
First, the Pro will need to defend that income disparities in fact exist. This should be relatively easy – despite some economists opinions to the contrary (discussed below), the general consensus is that the wage gap is large and widening. It has not been a static trend – with wealth gaps changing significantly over time in the last several decades. But by almost any measure income disparities in 2011 are at very high rates historically – some even say “all time highs.” To put it in perspective – many comementators say that the status quo compares unfavorably to wealth disparities which existed during the 1920’s era of “Robber Barons” and unchecked corporate greed.
Next, the Pro should decide on which set of “democratic ideals” they will be defending. Is it the idea of general social egalitarianism? Is it economic equality? Is it a broader sense of social justice? While most people can agree on the basic principles of democratic self-rule, it is much harder to agree on what democracy should be attempting to maximize. Equality would be one of the easiest for the Pro to defend. After all, large income gaps are, essentially by definition, unequal. The Pro also needs to defend how this inequality negatively impacts democracy writ large. Wealth disparity, for example, can be argued to undermine the principle of “one person, one vote,” substituting a crude form of “one dollar, one vote,” where corporations and elite special interests have an outsized impact on American politics.
The Pro could also defend that the existence of large wage gaps pragmatically undermines the US economy – many economists bemoan the decline of the middle class and the negative effects that wealth disparities had on creating a housing bubble which ultimately led to the recent financial crisis. In turn, the Pro can then defend that a healthy economy is a vital precursor to the functioning of any democracy.
The Pro should be ready to defend against charges that income disparity is really a statistical myth invented by the liberal media. The should also primarily be ready to defend against claims that wealth disparities are just an inevitable outcome of the capitalist system. They need to argue that while in theory, anyone can “rise through the ranks” to better their social position, that pragmatically income disparities create an elite plutocracy which can control the system to the detriment of the lower classes.
DEBATING THE CON SIDE
The Con should start by questioning whether or not wealth disparities even exist. There are a number of economists who claim that the Pro’s understanding of economics is off base, and that while the rich have certainly gotten richer, the poor have as well. They argue that rising median wages over the past few decades, along with a complex set of statistical factors actually show that income disparities are not nearly as large a problem as the Pro claims. This is a helpful claim for the Con to win, regardless of the rest of their attacks.
The Con should also defend that current wealth disparities are not necessarily evidence of a system gone wrong. They can argue that the rich have earned their position in society via hard work and ingenuity – and they are entitled to the fruits of their labors. They should argue that freedom to pursue profit in a capitalist economy is what separates American democracy from the failures of socialist economies throughout history – and that the existence of the American Dream is a vital component to US democratic ideals.
They should also argue that one ideal we should maximize is a set of positive incentives for social mobility – and focusing on the 1% is a way to encourage people to reach for the stars – rather than ensuring economic mediocrity for the whole 99%. They should argue the US is hardly experiencing class warfare. An ever increasing segment of society has access to things which were formerly considered the exclusive province of the ultra-rich – after all, everybody these days has an ipod.
Topic Definitions
Current means going on now
RandomHouse Dictionary, 2011, “current,”
1. passing in time; belonging to the time actually passing: the current month. 2. prevalent; customary: the current practice. 3. popular; in vogue: current fashions. 4. new; present; most recent: the current issue of a publication. 5. publicly reported or known: a rumor that is current.
Income disparity means a wage gap for equal labor
InvestorDictionary, 2011, “Income disparity,”
An income disparity or wage gap is most commonly an inequality in pay or salary for equal labor. For example, these terms are commonly used to describe the income differences between males and females for the same job or labor. However, they may be used in any situation when wages are arbitrarily different between two or more groups. However, income disparity is also used by those people concerned with the low level of the minimum wage, relative to the income of the wealthy. In this context, it is not equal money for equal work as it is in the previous sense, but the sense that money should be a just reward, earned when deserved at the rate that is deserved. For example, many jobs the poor take on involve much harder labor than jobs the rich take, and some rich people never work. If that were the case, that would be income disparity, a man works all day and makes less money than a man that does not work.
Threaten means to be a danger to
RandomHouse Dictionary, 2011, “threaten,”
1. to utter a threat against; menace: He threatened the boy with a beating. 2. to be a menace or source of danger to: Sickness threatened her peace of mind. 3. to offer (a punishment, injury, etc.) by way of a threat: They threatened swift retaliation. 4. to give an ominous indication of: The clouds threaten rain.
Democratic ideals are dignity, justice and equality
Paul Gorskiand Bob Covert, 2000, “Defining Multicultural Education,”
The national identity of the individual requires his/her understanding and commitment to the democratic ideals such as human dignity, justice and equality. Here the focus is on becoming effective members of a democratic society. An individual's strong national identification is essential to his/her development of a global identity.
Pro
Yes Income Disparity
Massive income disparity now – most recent statistics prove
Hope Yen, 9-28-2010, “Census finds record gap between rich and poor,” Salon,
The income gap between the richest and poorest Americans grew last year to its widest amount on record as young adults and children in particular struggled to stay afloat in the recession. The top-earning 20 percent of Americans — those making more than $100,000 each year — received 49.4 percent of all income generated in the U.S., compared with the 3.4 percent earned by those below the poverty line, according to newly released census figures. That ratio of 14.5-to-1 was an increase from 13.6 in 2008 and nearly double a low of 7.69 in 1968. A different measure, the international Gini index, found U.S. income inequality at its highest level since the Census Bureau began tracking household income in 1967. The U.S. also has the greatest disparity among Western industrialized nations. At the top, the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans, who earn more than $180,000, added slightly to their annual incomes last year, census data show. Families at the $50,000 median level slipped lower. “Income inequality is rising, and if we took into account tax data, it would be even more,” said Timothy Smeeding, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor who specializes in poverty. “More than other countries, we have a very unequal income distribution where compensation goes to the top in a winner-takes-all economy.”
Income disparity is large and growing
Common Dreams, 10-26-11, US Income Disparity,
Income for the richest Americans has grown 15 times faster than for the poor since 1979, a government study showed, as a poll out Wednesday highlighted deep anxiety over uneven wealth distribution a year ahead of US elections. The income disparity, and concentration of more than 80 percent of US income wealth in the top 20 percent of earners, highlights the volatility in the race for the White House as President Barack Obama's Republican challengers push plans to reduce taxes for the wealthy as a way to prime the sluggish economy. From 1979 to 2007, the wealthiest one percent of Americans more than doubled their share of the nation's income, from nearly eight percent to 17 percent, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said in a report released Tuesday. "Income after transfers and federal taxes for households at the higher end of the income scale rose much more rapidly than income for households in the middle and at the lower end of the income scale," it said.
End of the recession did nothing to end income inequality
Matthew P. Drenna, Prof @ Cornell, 11-14-2011, “Income inequality is bad economics,” Huffington Post,
The Occupy Wall Street movement is a helpful reminder that banks were bailed out by taxpayers while households received no significant government help in avoiding foreclosure, lessening debt burdens, or finding work through a serious economic stimulus. But, we might wonder, why is this anger flaring up now, when economists declare that the Great Recession is over? The answer is the economic condition of millions of individuals is either worse or no better than it was at the depth of decline in 2009. It was recently reported that median household income, adjusted for inflation, has fallen 6.7 percent since the official end of the recession. That verified what millions know to be true -- that inequality has gotten out of hand and no abatement is in sight.
Income Disparity Is At Record Highs
Wealth disparity is at record highs
Michael I. Norton, Harvard Business School, and Dan Ariely, Psychology @ Duke, 2011, “Building a Better America,” Perspectives on Psychological Science,
Most scholars agree that wealth inequality in the United States is at historic highs, with some estimates suggesting that the top 1% of Americans hold nearly 50% of the wealth, topping even the levels seen just before the Great Depression in the 1920s (Davies, Sandstrom, Shorrocks, & Wolff, 2009; Keister, 2000; Wolff, 2002). Although it is clear that wealth inequality is high, determining the ideal distribution of wealth in a society has proven to be an intractable question, in part because differing beliefs about the ideal distribution of wealth are the source of friction between policymakers who shape that distribution: Proponents of the ‘‘estate tax,’’ for example, argue that the wealth that parents bequeath to their children should be taxed more heavily than those who refer to this policy as a burdensome ‘‘death tax.’’
Income inequality is at an all time high
Huffington Post, 8-14-2009, “Income Inequality is at an all-time high,”
Income inequality in the United States is at an all-time high, surpassing even levels seen during the Great Depression, according to a recently updated paper by University of California, Berkeley Professor Emmanuel Saez . The paper, which covers data through 2007, points to a staggering, unprecedented disparity in American incomes. On his blog, Nobel prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman called the numbers "truly amazing ." Though income inequality has been growing for some time, the paper paints a stark, disturbing portrait of wealth distribution in America. Saez calculates that in 2007 the top .01 percent of American earners took home 6 percent of total U.S. wages, a figure that has nearly doubled since 2000. As of 2007, the top decile of American earners, Saez writes, pulled in 49.7 percent of total wages, a level that's "higher than any other year since 1917 and even surpasses 1928, the peak of stock market bubble in the 'roaring" 1920s.'" Beginning in the economic expansion of the early 1990s, Saez argues, the economy began to favor the top tiers American earners, but much of the country missed was left behind. "The top 1 percent incomes captured half of the overall economic growth over the period 1993-2007," Saes writes.
Median income is dropping like a rock
Matthew P. Drenna, Prof @ Cornell, 11-14-2011, “Income inequality is bad economics,” Huffington Post,
The decline of median income does not represent the reversal of a previously upward trend. To the contrary, the standard of living for most Americans has been in a downward trend for a decade. On the eve of the Great Recession, in 2007, median income was lower than it had been in 2000, the eve of the prior recession. Now it has dropped more. In the three decades prior to 2000, household income for 95 percent of Americans was basically stagnant while the top 5 percent of households captured most of the growth of income. In other words, income inequality marched ever upward, approaching its former zenith of the roaring 1920s.