Sunday, January 25, 2015
Some Thoughts on Income and Wealth Inequality
a) The biggest determinants of inequality are age (the largest demographic among the highest earners is 45 to 54), number of workers per family (the top quintile has four times as many workers per family - 2:.5 on average - than does the bottom quintile), and education/skills/human capital (people in the bottom quintile generally possessing little more than a high-school diploma and/or GED).............b) Government regulation disproportionately harms small businesses (according to the BBB, the cost of compliance per worker is 40% greater) and in many instances even bars entry into the market (certificates of necessity, they call it). Talk about a war on the middle class.............c) Sin taxes disproportionately harm people in the bottom quintile in that more people in that category smoke and the tax itself is regressive (thank you, Mrs Cuomo, Bloomberg, de Blasio, etc.).............d) One of the major reasons why the median income has flattened out is the high cost of healthcare. Businesses would like to raise wages but can't because the benefit packages have gotten so expensive.............e) If you look at the actual human beings that comprise these income groups, you would notice that the majority of those in the bottom quintile are out of it in less than a decade (the actual human beings in the bottom quintile in 1996 saw their incomes rise by 91% in nine years - and this is adjusted for inflation), and that the majority of those in the top 1% are out of that group in less than a decade (the actual human beings in the top 1% in 1996 saw their incomes DECREASE by 26% during that same time frame).............f) These income inequality numbers are almost always figured on a pre-taxed basis and they almost always never include the myriad of transfer payments which the poor have long been eligible for. Adjust the stats for this and the disparity shrinks considerably.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
'Businesses would like to raise wages.." On what planet?
It's the marginal revenue product that an employee brings to the table, and when benefits keep going up and up, a lot of the compensation ends up being a part of that. If we could somehow remove the connection between employment and health insurance I think that wages would probably go up across the board (the bottom rung, possibly excepted).
Will, that is conjecture but a fair statement nevertheless. A rational decision for businesses would be to transfer health insurance benefit costs to wages/salary if the connection were severed.
My guess, having been a business manager for years is that would likely not happen. A majority of businesses would simply funnel the money to their bottom line enriching themselves and or shareholders, or both in the case of corporations.
Health insurance benefits can cost employers in the vicinity of $7,200 and up per annum per employee for a decent plan. If your idea was to come to pass a business would be smart splitting 60/40, putting 60% of the health
insurance cost back into employee wages and using the 40% for the businesses improvement in technology and productivity; ie growth.
Post a Comment