From Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/ID/67846)

Basically it's the same story of the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
But what I don't get is, as the poor get even poorer in the USA they continue to vote in Republicans that make them even more poor. And this isn't some slander against the Right, economist can prove that yes the rich are indeed getting richer and the middle class is shrinking while the poor get poorer.

Is it just that the Right are Masters at playing the Jesus card and running on wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage?

How much of a divide must there be before there are sooo many poor that we have some sort of revolution? Not necessarily a bloody revolution but perhaps a huge tide of socialism voting the capitol out of the hands of the rich? Are Americans happy with the divide that is occurring? I always thought each generation should be better off by building on the labor of the last - I guess I was wrong.

Interesting quotes:
*
The rich-poor divide is most striking in the places that have embraced turbocapitalism most wholeheartedly—namely, the United States and China.

*
Historically, progressive-tax and social-welfare policies have helped to mitigate such inequality, acting as shock absorbers. But in this decade, such policies have acted as an accelerant. "Rather than using the tools that we have to counteract the forces, moneyed interests really grabbed U.S. politics in the last 20 years and exacerbated these trends," says Sachs. "And so the tax structure became less fair, and the public-expenditure side became even less fair." In the past several years, the Bush administration and the Republican Congress slashed marginal income-tax rates sharply and cut taxes on capital gains, dividends and estates—all of which have massively benefited the already wealthy. Observers were surprised—but hardly shocked—to learn that a loophole allows hedge-fund and private-equity managers to pay a 15 percent capital-gains tax rate on the so-called carried interest, the fees they earn for managing other people's money.

*
As friendly as public policy has have been to the wealthy, public policy in many economies has been distinctly unfriendly to the poor. Aneel Karnani, an economist at the University of Michigan, notes the widespread "self-applause" in India over the booming private sector, with the increased penetration of consumer items like cell phones, but is critical of the nation's failure to provide basic health and a social infrastructure to the masses of citizens. "The representative image of contemporary India is not a cell phone, but rather defecating in public," he says. "In Mumbai, the business capital of India, about 50 percent of the people defecate in the open."

*
Even in nations that have celebrated egalitarianism and social benefits, the safety nets are fraying.The number of Japanese applying for welfare payments has reached record highs. Today fully one third of Japan's workers are part-timers, most of them young, who usually work on temporary contracts that offer little in the way of health care or pension benefits. In western Germany, in the wake of the Hartz IV labor reforms, which slashed payments to the long-term unemployed, soup kitchens are reappearing.

*
The often grotesque proportions of income inequality are giving pause to even some of the most ardent believers in the international trading system. "The issue of the presumed justice of the rewards of capitalism has created an angst in all people involved in market economies," former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan told NEWSWEEK earlier this fall. "It's the reason why, despite this extraordinary set of gains, capitalism has not yet gotten closure." He expressed concern that people would turn against free markets if they find the markets can't meet their material needs.

At least some of them already are. In Latin America, voters in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Chile, Brazil and Argentina have all elected populist ideologues in recent years. In the United States, opposition to free trade is growing—even among Republican voters. China experiences thousands of large demonstrations a year, the bulk of them over economic issues ranging from questionable land seizures and nonpayment of wages to egregious industrial pollution. In Nepal, which has the highest Gini coefficient in Asia, inequality has fueled a bloody Maoist insurrection that has raged since the mid-1990s. In India, radical, violent groups (broadly known as Naxalites) who adhere to the Maoist ideology of class struggle, routinely now blow up road links, mine the pathways that security forces take, attack police patrols and extort money from villagers. Last year Prime Minister Manmohan Singh declared the Naxalites "the biggest internal security threat to India since independence."

He expressed concern that people would turn against free markets if they find the markets can't meet their material needs.

Undoubtedly. It is short sighted to think that you can just ignore the suffering of the people and it will cease to exist.

Actually, it seemed the Indians still have some compassion for equality and good of all Citizens (or most anyway).

Japan was/is one of the most homogeneous nations on Earth. They greatly valued all Japanese have some level of equality. Even last year a bank CEO was lambasted and about piked for suggesting Japanese CEOs were reaping in too much money and that Corporate CEOs should consider the wellbeing of the Citizens first.

Newsweek: Japan (http://www.newsweek.com/id/67844)

Japan may be the richest country in Asia, but it's not immune to the pressures of the "shrinking middle." In elections earlier this year, the opposition Democratic Party of Japan scored an upset victory that gave it control of the upper house of Parliament largely by harping on the ruling Liberal Democratic Party's perceived failure to deal with the growing "income gap." The numbers do seem compelling. Japan's Gini coefficient—a measure that compares the disparity between the top and bottom extremes of household incomes in an economy—reached a new peak in 2005, putting it more on par with the United States than the superequitable Scandinavian nations that it once resembled.

One recent poll showed 56 percent of respondents citing "inequality" as one of their primary political concerns. Best-selling books address the issue in near-apocalyptic terms. One particularly popular theme: the notion that the growing disparities are the result of former prime minister Junichiro Koizumi's structural-reform drive. Critics rail against Koizumi's "market fundamentalism," contending that his economic reforms eroded Japan's vaunted egalitarian ethic. In 2006, the phrase kakusa shakai ("the gap society") made a national list of the 10 trendiest expressions. In the same year, young Internet millionaire Takafumi Horie and other free-spending paragons of the New Economy paraded their wealth in ways traditionally frowned upon in Japan. The fawning coverage—fawning, at least, until Horie was convicted for securities fraud—exposed millions of Japanese to once unimaginable riches. Contrast that with the recent publicity surrounding the diary of an impoverished Japanese man who documented his own death from starvation.

I wouldn't have too much faith in Indians as a whole. Everyone is equally susceptible to greed.

The wasn't a feudal system for thousands of years for nothing, I mean, there is a reason behind why that system came into being a lasted for so long. And I also think there is a reason why it ended with democracy - we'll have wait and see how it all turns out.

I wouldn't have too much faith in Indians as a whole. Everyone is equally susceptible to greed.Yeah, that's true. And greedy people are so apt at gaining power of less greedy people. Which sucks.


My solution. Do away with money. Each person is chipped with a microPC that assertains their contribution to the overall well being of society and the planet and they are awarded credits accordingly.

Might take awhile to get that one off the ground though...

Yeah, that's true. And greedy people are so apt at gaining power of less greedy people. Which sucks.


My solution. Do away with money. Each person is chipped with a microPC that assertains their contribution to the overall well being of society and the planet and they are awarded credits accordingly.

Might take awhile to get that one off the ground though...

Thats the Anglo-Saxon model which protects the individual.

Dynamics are different in India, for instance

In the caricatured version of the extended family, those who are 'family' are to be protected and nurtured. As for the rest, they can fend for themselves. Kakar writes about the prominent politician who when asked why he nominated his son for an important party post exploded "So whose son will I nominate; yours?" Familial notions are prominent even when family boundaries are transgressed. When I was growing up in Delhi, there were innumerable occasions when a person was introduced to me as "yeh mera bhai hai (he is my brother)" only to be told later that he was no blood relative, just a family friend. Unlike the West, where children leave the home and make their own friends, we seem to invite our close friends into our families.

Our public identity is deeply mediated by family, caste and community, which are all at the subjective, concrete end of the psychological spectrum. Roughly speaking, while in the West, notions of justice stem from a psychological experience of others ae[s 'objectively' equal, in India feelings of justice emerge from the private, subjective and familial feelings of nurture and care. The emotion that one instinctively feels for one's own family is not that of impartial justice (despite all the classical stories of kings punishing their sons as if they were just any other subject) but that of compassion. How can one then expect universal, abstract notions of justice to thrive in the public sphere?

http://www.indiatogether.org/2007/oct/soc-family.htm

The clan-system simply doesn't work and IMO is probably even more unfair as you have dick-heads like this guy who nominated his brainless twit of a son who then is in charge of other people’s lives but because he’s an idiot who got the job because of daddy's connections he runs the whole thing (along with everyone else's lives) straight into the ground, or, better yet, he finds someone who can run things (this is usually the case) and acts like a parasitic leach sucking up resources when he should be been cleaning toilets at McDonalds.

Bush JR is the perfect example of why the familiar system sucks sweaty balls. Everything his daddy put him in charge of he ran into the ground. I have no doubt that this prominent Indian politician’s son is probably near as bad.

The best system supports the individual who is best for the position.

What sucks, is once these people get on top, thanks to an individual based system, they then turn around and f*ck everything up by rigging things so their kids get an unfair advantage over that of other better qualitative individuals.

An unfortunate remnant of our primate past.

Yeah, unfortunately the individual system doesn't appear to be much better.

Yeah, we're f*cked :(

The rich will get richer until the poor get tired of being poor and do something about it. At least in Democracies we won't need to have a bloody revolution. Actually, we don't even need to have a change of system. Just vote the wealth out of the hands of the rich and into the public coffers. One can only tell poor people for so long that things are best for themif things stay the same. Eventually enough people will say screw that and make a big change.

Yeah, we're f*cked :(

The rich will get richer until the poor get tired of being poor and do something about it. At least in Democracies we won't need to have a bloody revolution. Actually, we don't even need to have a change of system. Just vote the wealth out of the hands of the rich and into the public coffers. One can only tell poor people for so long that things are best for themif things stay the same. Eventually enough people will say screw that and make a big change.

Rave on, Michael! Dream on and sing on. Your song is as old as the hills and your dream has never come true - nor will it ever.

So said the French elite before they were led to the guillotines. :D

So said the French elite before they were led to the guillotines. :D

And others as well - but that still proves nothing. As the saying goes. "money makes the world go 'round" and money will ALWAYS determine which way it spins.

And others as well - but that still proves nothing. As the saying goes. "money makes the world go 'round" and money will ALWAYS determine which way it spins.

Is it? I would have thought you needed some people around to make that money meaningful

Is it? I would have thought you needed some people around to make that money meaningful

Stop trying to be cute, Sam. ;) Point is the "haves" always have something else the "have-nots" don't. They also have authority and the ability to send things in the direction they want them to go.

Sure, there could be an uprising, just as the one in France that you mentioned. But what happened afterwords, eh? Just another group with different faces rose up and soon controlled the direction once again. It's inevitable - regardless of what the idealistic OP wants to dream about - it's STILL only a dream and always will be nothing more than that.

Rave on, Michael! Dream on and sing on. Your song is as old as the hills and your dream has never come true - nor will it ever.Well who knows? According to the article I'm one of the few upward mobile people in our society so I will be better off if nothing happens and people keep things pretty much as they are - according to the article anyway.

BUT History is filled to the brink with Revolutions. I mean filled. Sure nothing really changes but that's not the point - they happen more often then they don't happen.

Well who knows? According to the article I'm one of the few upward mobile people in our society so I will be better off if nothing happens and people keep things pretty much as they are - according to the article anyway.

BUT History is filled to the brink with Revolutions. I mean filled. Sure nothing really changes but that's not the point - they happen more often then they don't happen.

Quite the contrary, sir. Check your history once again and a bit clser this time and compare the number of years spent IN actual revolutions compared to the rest.;)

I was very upward mobile myself prior to retirement. One of two children living with our divorced mother who could only earn minimum wage. We both attained 6-figure incomes and now I'm completely and comfortably retired with nice savings/investments and everything is paid for.:)

OK yes timewise revolutions don't take up too much of it. BUT they do seem to occur over and over and for the same sorts of reasons.

Now imagine you lived with a divorced mother (me too by the way) and you had NO oppertunity to get out. Actually you were a clever person but it seemed almost a sure bet that you'd be worse off at the end of it!

Well Read-Only watchya gonna do if such was the case?!?!

I guess what I'm saying is, you are a clever person and you could see a path and together with smarts and determination you could work your way out of a bad situation and into a better one. BUT lets say there were no paths. University was only for the elite and wealthy and jobs were only through a good connection with a high member of society. You, not being girl, had only one option - thank god you had a strong back- you were to work as a servant (of some sort) to the rich. There was no property to be bought (it was all owned) and you lived in a rented house and had to work 60 hours a week to pay that rent and still maybe a little more if you wanted to eat.

I guess what I'm saying is, you are a clever person and you could see a path and together with smarts and determination you could work your way out of a bad situation and into a better one. BUT lets say there were no paths. University was only for the elite and wealthy and jobs were only through a good connection with a high member of society. You, not being girl, had only one option - thank god you had a strong back- you were to work as a servant (of some sort) to the rich. There was no property to be bought (it was all owned) and you lived in a rented house and had to work 60 hours a week to pay that rent and still maybe a little more if you wanted to eat.

That's precisely what I like about living in a capitalistic society - there's ALWAYS a way out if you just look for it. The people who seem unable to escape are generally victims of their own personalities - like not being able to manage their money, for a good example.

They simply WANT things and a lot of them will go to a Rent-To-Own store and get a big TV (that they can't really afford) and after two or three weeks the store comes and reclaims it. Then they start the whole cycle over again.

Another good example is the group that blows their earnings on drugs and alcohol as an escape from their lowlife existence. And since that's where the vast majority of their money goes, they hang themselves into that loop forever.

In this kind of society EVERYONE has choices - but many are too foolish to select good ones. I've known a lot of them like that and tried to help several. It never worked, though, because they always returned to their bad choices at the very first opportunity.

That's precisely what I like about living in a capitalistic society - there's ALWAYS a way out if you just look for it. That's only true if the middle class is large enough, and the rich aren't too rich.

A capitalistic economy can (and if ungoverned will) lock in poverty - one mechanism is child labor. Another is putting all financial burden of raising children on their immediate parents. A third is failure to control inheritance. A fourth is neglect of the essentially public infrastructure - the roads and transport system, the hospitals and medical system, etc.

Two things I was thinking.
1) In Japan, China, Europe, etc...l all of the land was owned by land Lords. There was almost, outside of war, no possibility of ever owning land. Oh, it took 100s of years to become like that but it happened again and again. This lack of owning land was one of the main reasons why the Chinese were so inclined towards Communism and also one of the main reasons for the Crusades and probably one of the main reasons Japanese were inclinded to side with the Axis in WWII.
Is it conceivable that one day all land in the USA could be in the hands of Lords? History seem to suggest it must happen. Maybe not but I wonder.....

Regardless, how does this effect a Capitalistic society?

2) Economists all AGREE (as in it is a measurable fact) that the American middle class is shrinking and the rich are indeed getting richer while the poor are getting poorer. It is happening. That window of opportunities that led to your (and I) getting the f*ck out of the ghetto or white trash trailer park is closing.

What does this say about our system?

If Capitalism is supposed to benefit society then why isn't it working? Why are the poor getting poorer? I hardly think "it's all their fault" is really a good explanation? This is a country wide phenomenon - the middle class is shrinking.

How will the poor respond when that window is so slim that only a few lucky can squeeze through it? When even the healthy and clever get left in the dark... then what?

Two things I was thinking.
1) In Japan, China, Europe, etc...l all of the land was owned by land Lords. There was almost, outside of war, no possibility of ever owning land. Oh, it took 100s of years to become like that but it happened again and again. This lack of owning land was one of the main reasons why the Chinese were so inclined towards Communism and also one of the main reasons for the Crusades and probably one of the main reasons Japanese were inclinded to side with the Axis in WWII.
Is it conceivable that one day all land in the USA could be in the hands of Lords? History seem to suggest it must happen. Maybe not but I wonder.....

Regardless, how does this effect a Capitalistic society?

2) Economists all AGREE (as in it is a measurable fact) that the American middle class is shrinking and the rich are indeed getting richer while the poor are getting poorer. It is happening. That window of opportunities that led to your (and I) getting the f*ck out of the ghetto or white trash trailer park is closing.

What does this say about our system?

If Capitalism is supposed to benefit society then why isn't it working? Why are the poor getting poorer? I hardly think "it's all their fault" is really a good explanation? This is a country wide phenomenon - the middle class is shrinking.

How will the poor respond when that window is so slim that only a few lucky can squeeze through it? When even the healthy and clever get left in the dark... then what?

I honestly believe you are painting a much too grim a picture. People are always rising above their current level. There are some that are flipping burgers in the day and going to night school to better themselves. Exceptions to the gloom you're presenting are all around us in this country.

But it does require ambition - and THAT'S what really seems to be on the decline. We've always had people that felt the world or the government owed them a living and should take care of all their needs. That was really intensified by the introduction of all the various social entitlement programs. And that's why you see people like pjdude who, rather than working and providing his own insurance, wants the government (read that as YOU and ME) to give it too him free of all costs to himself.

In an honest attempt to do good, what we've really done is create a slightly different kind of beggar - hundreds of thousands of them!

So said the French elite before they were led to the guillotines. :D
Sure, first they killed the royalists, then the moderate girondists, and then, everyone was fair game:

"...and never heads enough..."

Domestic carnage, now filled the whole year
With feast-days, old men from the chimney-nook,
The maiden from the busom of her love,
The mother from the cradle of her babe,
The warrior from the field - all perished, all -
Friends, enemies, of all parties, ages, ranks,
Head after head, and never heads enough
For those that bade them fall.
William Wordsworth
And after all that blood and death, what was the result? An emperor with absolute power! Read this Robespierre quote, it sounds like something Hitler or Osama bin Ladin would say:
http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/french/robespierre.jpg
"Terror is nought but prompt, severe, inflexible justice; it is therefore an emanation of virtue; it is less a particular principle than a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to the most pressing needs of the fatherland."
Maximillien Marie Isidore de Robespierre
Address, National Convention, 1794
Ironically, he himself was ultimately guillotined.

2) Economists all AGREE (as in it is a measurable fact) that the American middle class is shrinking and the rich are indeed getting richer while the poor are getting poorer.
Bull. The poor are not getting poorer. Please back up this claim with some data.
Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.1

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

* Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
* Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
* Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
* The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
* Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
* Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
* Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
* Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.1

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

* Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. The apologists for the increasing demographic stratification of American society always use "households" for their stats. This obsures certain realities.

Households in the US are working more hours, by between 50 and 100 %, than they were in 1950s. Households are also much more likely to be childless. And the bottom quintile now includes many retired people, whose low income is offset by government supplied health care and the accumulated resources of a lifetime working in a healthier economy - such as a paid for house.

The statistical comfort levels of the "poor" in the US are thus partly the effects of successful government programs (indoor plumbing in cities is a government program), and partly illusion.

The gap between the rich and the poor is much more significant than such assessments of the comfort level of the poor. It governs the access the poor enjoy to social mobility, various resources such as parks and beaches and travel, housing and medical care, higher education, good food, time for childraising, etc. - things for which they can be outbid by the wealthy, even with "higher" incomes of their own.

The apologists for the increasing demographic stratification of American society always use "households" for their stats. This obsures certain realities.

Households in the US are working more hours, by between 50 and 100 %, than they were in 1950s.
Gee. Why could it be that households are working more hours than the fifties. Hmmm. 50 to 100% more you say? Hmmm. It's almost like half the population started working outside the home since the fifties.
Households are also much more likely to be childless. And the bottom quintile now includes many retired people, whose low income is offset by government supplied health care and the accumulated resources of a lifetime working in a healthier economy - such as a paid for house. Well, yes, old people don't earn as much money because they're retired. And they've had plenty of time to save up money and buy things like houses that allow them to live without a high income. Hell, even a retired millionaire living off his savings has a low income!
The statistical comfort levels of the "poor" in the US are thus partly the effects of successful government programs (indoor plumbing in cities is a government program), and partly illusion. bunk
The gap between the rich and the poor is much more significant than such assessments of the comfort level of the poor. It governs the access the poor enjoy to social mobility, various resources such as parks and beaches and travel, housing and medical care, higher education, good food, time for childraising, etc. - things for which they can be outbid by the wealthy, even with "higher" incomes of their own.Bunk again. There's plenty of social mobility in the US. My grandfather came to this country with nothing (not even a knowledge of the English language), and did quite well for himself. Hell, I started my education in Gary, Indiana and worked my way thru school to become a doctor of Optometry (although I'm still paying off my student loans). Anyone can go to college if they have the dedication and the brains.

Even without college, if you show up on time and put in the effort, you'll move up in any organization. How many immigrants come here and open their own laundromats, restaurants, etc?

Where on earth is there more social mobility than the US?

The wasn't a feudal system for thousands of years for nothing, I mean, there is a reason behind why that system came into being a lasted for so long. And I also think there is a reason why it ended with democracy - we'll have wait and see how it all turns out.

Exactly. We are entering the era of Feudal Capitalism.

The poor are not getting poorer. Please back up this claim with some data.True. The poor have much higher oppurtunity to gather food thanks to poverty programs. Also note that the middle class is much larger than it was in the '50s. I have a feeling that America is becoming a nation in the(quote) "Middle".
Households in the US are working more hours, by between 50 and 100 %, than they were in 1950s. Households are also much more likely to be childless. And the bottom quintile now includes many retired people, whose low income is offset by government supplied health care and the accumulated resources of a lifetime working in a healthier economy - such as a paid for house.That may be fact, but workers (Especially those in the white-collar class) tend to think that, If you work as strenuously as possible, your family will be proud of you. Such a philosophy destroys a man's relationship with the family because he does not put time for the family. Only for labor. I call this thinking, "Providing Sp*rm and cash".
The rich will get richer until the poor get tired of being poor and do something about it. At least in Democracies we won't need to have a bloody revolution. Actually, we don't even need to have a change of system. Just vote the wealth out of the hands of the rich and into the public coffers. One can only tell poor people for so long that things are best for them if things stay the same. Eventually enough people will say screw that and make a big change.Such a statement lacks credibility, since the capitalists just about control what we hear in the media. The following quote might shine a light on the truth:
Point is the "haves" always have something else the "have-nots" don't. They also have authority and the ability to send things in the direction they want them to go.

Sure, there could be an uprising, just as the one in France that you mentioned. But what happened afterwords, eh? Just another group with different faces rose up and soon controlled the direction once again. It's inevitable - regardless of what the idealistic OP wants to dream about - it's STILL only a dream and always will be nothing more than that.What I believe we (the people) should do, however, is make something that puts renewable resources to industrial use.

Where on earth is there more social mobility than the US? Most of Europe. A lot of Asia.

The increasing class stratification of American society is a fairly interesting phenomenon. There are a lot of people who still remember when someone could actually work their way through college, for example, not as an exception but as a viable, normal strategy - no killer debt load or family connections involved.
Gee. Why could it be that households are working more hours than the fifties. - -
- -
Well, yes, old people don't earn as much money because they're retired. - The point is that your stats conceal realities that don't support your conclusions.

The jobs of the poor pay less, per hour, than they used to in the US. This reduces the standard of living of the poor - any possessions they have, they have to work harder for.

The middle class is shrinking, in the US - this reduces social mobility, in both directions.

The gap between the rich and the poor is growing, in the US. Again, this reduces social mobility, in both directions.

The wealth of the US economy is being rapidly accumulated, on a percentage basis most obviously but also in absolute, in the onwership of the rich. This reduces the economic power of the poor - they become poorer, less able to compete for resources.

And so forth. Reversal of these trends will require government interference in the economy. Continuation of these trends (already established for over thirty years) would eventually change American society, culture, and government quite dramatically.