Americans on Wrong Side of Income Gap Run Out of Means to Cope

[NeoConsSuck]

Source: Bloomberg

Rising income inequality is starting to hit home for many American households as they run short of places to reach for a few extra bucks.

As the gap between the rich and poor widened over the last three decades, families at the bottom found ways to deal with the squeeze on earnings. Housewives joined the workforce. Husbands took second jobs and labored longer hours. Homeowners tapped into the rising value of their properties to borrow money to spend.

Those strategies finally may have run their course as women’s participation in the labor force has peaked and the bursting of the house-price bubble has left many Americans underwater on their mortgages.

“We’ve exhausted our coping mechanisms,” said Alan Krueger, an economics professor at Princeton University in New Jersey and former chairman of President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers. “They weren’t sustainable.”


Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-30/americans-on-wrong-side-of-income-gap-run-out-of-means-to-cope.html

---

I guess banana republics can exist in northern climates.

[Laelth]

1. k&r for the truth, however depressing it may be. n/t

-Laelth

[ConcernedCanuk]

2. I see nothing short of a Revolution to change this trend in the USA.

.
.
.

Presidents, no matter how well wishing, are pretty well powerless in the USA.

The electoral system is designed to give power to those with money.

Those with money don't give a shit about the poor.

Obama had no idea of the mobsters he would have to dance around to accomplish anything and stay alive.

He's danced well imo, and I'll bet he's pissed as hell that he couldn't fulfill his goals/promises.

But he ain't done yet!

Count on it.

CC

[BumRushDaShow]

3. "Obama had no idea of the mobsters he would have to dance around"

He most certainly did. This is not the first time that "barons" have gone hog wild. The President is a student of history and taught Constitutional Law.

These current days of the Kochs, Bloombergs, Adelsons, and Waltons was preceded by the era of the Rockefellers, Hughes, Annenbergs, and Gettys, which was preceded by the era of the Mellons, Clarks, Carnegies, and Vanderbilts.... and on and on.

None of this is new. It is "The American Way™".

[dixiegrrrrl]

6. You are spot on.

sadly, economic history, even social history, is not taught in schools, except at the Graduate level, IF one wants to
take those courses.
Anyone who is aware of the cycle of history can pretty quickly start looking for what solutions were used to address the problem.
If solutions are indeed being sought.

[enlightenment]

12. I took it as an undergrad.

I even teach it as a full module in my survey courses. It is taught - probably not enough, and since STEM has taken over everything, history education in general is on the decline.

I think the real issue is your last comment; the government knows what needs to be done - they just don't want to do it. They are owned by the corporations in no less a fashion than they were in the 19th century by the trusts. I guess they figure since they passed a few anti-trust laws back then that everything is peachy now.

These days, the lobbying groups have taken the place of the trusts - but they serve the same purpose. The "energy lobby" represents the same interests as Standard Oil back in the day - it may represent more than one company, but the goal to push forward legislation that benefits the interests of that group is no different than if it represented a monopoly. Business is more careful to get around the anti-trust act, but they are still monopolies in everything but actual make-up and they have successfully created a method to control the legislature through the lobbying groups.

If we can't control the money, we can't control the conversation on the Hill.

[1StrongBlackMan]

8. Perhaps ...

But I suspect, President Obama went into this believing that NOW was/is the time (with the existence of the internet and a bunch of informed, politically astute people) that the people would have his back ... that hasn't been the case. It seems we have the opposite of politically astuteness in opposition to his initiatives, with "Democrats" and "Liberal", rejecting the incrementalism that serves as the foundation of progress, in favor of simplistic "all he (not we, but he) has to do is ..." argumentation.

[BumRushDaShow]

17. That about sums up the result of the attempt! nt

[imthevicar]

4. Sorry I have given up. (Remember, This is an Opinion and Just like any butt it may stink.)

POTUS is a Tool of the 1% just like everyone of them (Billy boy too.) since Kennedy. And happy to comply to keep from Being put down. ("You saw what happened to Martin Luther King&quot The only difference is the speed at which we hit the wall. The NSA is in complete Paranoia mode trying to thwart a Revolution. Mean while the squeezed are beginning to feel resentment, frustration, anger, the result of which will not be pretty. For anyone.

[L0oniX]

9. Democracy has failed us.

[onwardsand upwards]

18. Actually, we've never really had a democracy.

It's always been a plutocracy, dressed up to look like a democracy.

A wolf in sheep's clothing ...

A real democracy has regular people participating, regularly, in the decision-making -- not just lining up to vote for who will be their dictator for the next few years.

Actually, the infrastructure already exists -- but we need to hold our representatives' feet to the fire by holding REGULAR town hall meetings, where they are grilled about what they are doing for us, and why.

Once a month, maybe ...

[Doctor_J]

19. oh, come on

He hired Geithner. He hired Duncan. Wake the hell up.

[PeoViejo]

5. Ironic this should come from Bloomberg

Is it heartfelt or just objective reporting?

[Yo_Mama]

10. It's only news to a few

But their readers probably are some of the most ignorant about this reality.

[mountain grammy]

7. K & R To right a wrong, we first have to recognize the wrong.

So, are enough Americans recognizing this wrong?

[Brigid]

13. Maybe not just yet.

But in time, things will get so bad that even the most apathetic, uninformed, teabaggerish person in this country will start wondering why life has to be so damned hard, and start looking around for someone to blame. Will the 99% place the blame where it belongs, namely the 1% and the politicians they have bought and sold, or will they turn on one another like starving rats trapped on a sinking ship? Will that awareness come in time for any result other than violence? It is impossible to say, but if history is any guide, I am not optimistic.

[nilesobek]

16. The 1% method

for dealing with this is the old Nixon move. "Kick them upstairs." Complain enough and you may be fired or targeted by security forces. Some of these bosses have the cops on speed dial. But, sometimes, they give you a promotion, extra incentive to keep quiet, especially if you are well spoken and educated.

I really didn't believe this was true until it happened to me.

[Drew2510]

11. It is vital that

this be addressed and addressed soon, as some bad "dodo" eventually will happen.

[Purveyor]

14. K&R Thank you for posting. eom

[cprise]

15. “We're in a pre-revolutionary society

"...this is extremely dangerous"
- Chris Hedges


http://americablog.com/2013/12/hedges-pre-revolutionary-society-extremely-dangerous.html