One theory says the 1% a larger and larger share of the cake and the average workers weniger-- earn, because the rich countries are only exceptional. However, the clashes with the reality of who the winners are.
Who killed the American dream?
What is the promise that anyone could build a better life by honest work? That my life would be better than my parents and my children's lives would be better than me?
That America is gone, now seen only in old movies from Frank Capra late into the night.
Today in America, the rich pulls away from the rest of us, leaving almost all profits for themselves, that leave middle-class crawl, only to where they are, and forcing the poor to an increasingly frayed safety net to survive.
Much attention was the question of the expansion of the inequality of opportunities and results, partly because writer George Packer, "The unwinding," narrated terrible lost an eerie new release of New York like the dream.
Recently an academic debate in an upcoming issue of the journal of the economic has again perspective inequality in the headlines, thanks to paper sheet bluntly "Defense of one percent" of Harvard Economist Greg Mankiw argues (and entitled) (who a former adviser to George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney) installed.
In his speech, Mankiw explains why the top 1% do well, while the rest of us desperately to sprint to catch up: the rich are simply better than us. They make more money, as they more contribution than we do for the society. You are intelligent, have the skills that are in high demand, have better entrepreneurial instincts and work harder. Their children inherit these properties genetically what's more.
Not only the rich are better than us, the world is whatever your type of place. Technological changes over the last 30 years have their advantages even more rewarding as before made.
The top 1% really earn their money, and any effort to reduce inequality of us all poorer, says Mankiw. We would have without having to do the innovations made by people like Steve Jobs, j.k. Rowling and Greg Mankiw.
Mankiw takes it as a given that the marginal product allowance is equal to. The rich earn her money, because someone will pay it to you, and that someone is a good reason, so much needs to be paid. The markets decide, numbers, which only Econ 101, and is on this topic.
Many experts have on Mankiw's thesis, but none responded more effectively than Josh Bivens and Larry Mishel of the economic policy Institute, which is also a paper on the special problem of the JEP have contributed.
It turns out, made it not so much what you know as Mankiw argued, but you have what makes, especially the power to extract yields. Bivens and Marie show that the increase in the income of the top more successful profiteering owes 1% over the last 30 years than it does for efficient and competitive markets reward, training and skills.
What do the economists 'rent' mean? Simply put, it is the income, which in addition would require, inducing to those who deliver their work or capital receive is.
For example, say Bevins and Mishel, "it seems likely that many top-level remain essentially the same amount of work to get their sport professional athletes also supply if their salary by a significant portion was reduced, because even the reduced salary would be significantly higher than the next best options."
0 коммент.:
Post a Comment