The document summarizes findings from a book on growing U.S. income inequality. It discusses how absolute income inequality is increasing, the middle class is shrinking, and poverty has been increasing. The rich are getting substantially richer, while incomes for most Americans have stagnated or declined. CEO pay has grown massively compared to typical workers. Overall, income inequality in the U.S. has risen dramatically in recent decades.

1. Growing U.S. Income Inequality
A Lecture Presented for the Osher
Program
San Diego State University
April 18, 2011
Denny Braun, Ph.D.
1
Professor Emeritus of Sociology
Minnesota State University

2. 2

3. Major Findings in my Book:
• Absolute income inequality is increasing
(the rich are “getting richer”!)

4. Major Findings in my Book:
• Absolute income inequality is increasing
(the rich are “getting richer”!)
• The middle class is shrinking

5. Major Findings in my Book:
• Absolute income inequality is increasing
(the rich are “getting richer”!)
• The middle class is shrinking
• Poverty has been increasing

6. Major Findings in my Book:
• Absolute income inequality is increasing
(the rich are “getting richer”!)
• The middle class is shrinking
• Poverty has been increasing
• U.S. Multinational Corporations cause mo
inequality both in the U.S. and in the Wor

7. Major Findings in my Book:
• Absolute income inequality is increasing
(the rich are “getting richer”!)
• The middle class is shrinking
• Poverty has been increasing
• U.S. Multinational Corporations cause mo
inequality both in the U.S. and in the Wor
• Huge inequalities exist between U.S. loca

8. Major Findings in my Book:
• Absolute income inequality is increasing
(the rich are “getting richer”!)
• The middle class is shrinking
• Poverty has been increasing
• U.S. Multinational Corporations cause mo
inequality both in the U.S. and in the Wor
• Huge inequalities exist between U.S. loca
• The growth of relative income inequality
not only continuous but has become explo

9. A basic truth about absolute income
differences
is that the U.S. is NOT the richest country!
GDP/ GDP/
Rank Nation capita Rank Nation capita
2009 PPP
1 Luxemb. 104,512 1 Qatar 83,841
2 Norway 79,085 2 Luxemb. 78,395
3 Qatar 68,872 3 Norway 52,561
4 Switz. 67,560 4 Singapore 50,523
5 Denmark 56,115 5 Brunei 49,110
6 Ireland 51,356 6 U.S.A. 46,381
Source: 7 Nether. 48,223 7 Switz. 43,007
Inter-
national
8 U.A.E. 46,857 8 Nether. 39,938
Monetary 9 U.S.A. 46,381 9 Ireland 39,468
Fund
9
10 Austria 45,989 10 Australia 38,911

10. 10

11. The Best and Worst States on Median Household
Highest Median Income
Lowest Median
Income Household Income Household
States Income 2009 States Income 2009
Maryland $69, 272 Mississippi $36,646
New Jersey $68,342 West Virginia $37,435
Connecticut $67,034 Arkansas $37,823
Alaska $66,953 Kentucky $40,072
Hawaii $64,098 Alabama $40,489
Massachusett $64,081 Oklahoma $41,664
s
11 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community
Surveys, 2008 and 2009

12. 12

13. 13

14. Percent Change in Median Household
Income
Within Last Two Decades (2009 Dollars)
-11
African 28
-8 2000-2009
Latinos 19 1991-2000
-5
White 13
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
14 Source: Calculated from Census Data, Report P60-238

15. Who are the poor?
• What are their characteristics?
• Where do they live?
• Have their numbers increased over
time?
• How about the rate of poverty? Is
that unchanged?

16. Percent in Poverty, 2009
30
25.8 25.3
25
20
15
12.5
10 9.4
5
0
White Black Hispanic Asian
16
Source: U.S. Census, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage

17. Percent in Poverty, 2009
65 & Over 8.9
18 - 64 Years 12.9
Children (< 18) 20.7
0 5 10 15 20 2
Source: U.S. Census, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage

18. Percent in Poverty, 2009
32.5
35
30 22
25
20 14.3
15
5.8
10
5
0
All Persons Single (Non- Married Female
Family) Couple Headed with
Family Children
Source: U.S. Census, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage
(Sep., 2010)

19. 19

20. Facts About U.S. Poverty
•How “poor” is poor? It depends on your
family size and your age. In 2009, if you
were a single mom with 2 kids under
18, you were “poor” if your annual
income was $17,285 or less. For a single
person over 65 years old, the cut off was
$ 10,289.

21. Facts About U.S. Poverty
•How “poor” is poor? It depends on your
family size and your age. In 2009, if you
were a single mom with 2 kids under
18, you were “poor” if your annual
income was $17,285 or less. For a single
person over 65 years old, the cut off was
$ 10,289.
• Within the past decade, the poverty rate
has increased 27% for all persons, and
30% for all families.

22. Facts About U.S. Poverty
• How “poor” is poor? It depends on your
family size and your age. In 2009, if you
were a single mom with 2 kids under
18, you were “poor” if your annual
income was $17,285 or less. For a single
person over 65 years old, the cut off was
$ 10,289.
• Within the past decade, the poverty rate
has increased 27% for all persons, and
30% for all families.
• Thus, the poor grew by 12 million in the past
decade, totally obliterating the 4 million

23. Facts About U.S. Poverty
(Cont.)
•The number of Americans who are poor
today, over 43 million, is at an all time
high and surpasses the population of
most nations. One of every 7 persons in
our country is poor!

24. Facts About U.S. Poverty
(Cont.)
• The number of Americans who are poor
today, over 43 million, is at an all time
high and surpasses the population of
most nations. One of every 7 persons in
our country is poor!
• Many, many Americans have such low
incomes that they are on the brink of
poverty at all times. In the four year
period (2004-2007), just before the onset
of The Great Recession, nearly one in
three Americans fell into poverty for 2 or

25. Facts About U.S. Poverty
(Cont.)
• Lastly, one of 11 elderly (65 and over)
and 1 of 5 children are living under
poverty today.

26. Facts About U.S. Poverty
(Cont.)
• Lastly, one of 11 elderly (65 and over)
and 1 of 5 children are living under
poverty today.
• These two innocent, vulnerable groups
comprise 44% of poor
people, approaching the 20 million mark.

27. Facts About U.S. Poverty
(Cont.)
• Lastly, one of 11 elderly (65 and over)
and 1 of 5 children are living under
poverty today.
• These two innocent, vulnerable groups
comprise 44% of poor
people, approaching the 20 million mark.
• Unfortunately, the United States does
not do a very good job protecting our
poor through social services and other
governmental programs.

28. Facts About U.S. Poverty
(Cont.)
• The U.S. has an initial poverty rate
lower than many of our industrial peers
(26.3%, compared to Sweden’s
26.7%, Germany’s 33.6%, U.K.’s
26.3%, Japan’s 26.9%).

29. Facts About U.S. Poverty
(Cont.)
• The U.S. has an initial poverty rate
lower than many of our industrial peers
(26.3%, compared to Sweden’s
26.7%, Germany’s 33.6%, U.K.’s
26.3%, Japan’s 26.9%).
• After taxes and transfers, however, our
poverty rate only declines to 17.1%. Of
the 20 advanced countries, we are last in
reduction.

30. Facts About U.S. Poverty
(Cont.)
• The U.S. has an initial poverty rate
lower than many of our industrial peers
(26.3%, compared to Sweden’s
26.7%, Germany’s 33.6%, U.K.’s
26.3%, Japan’s 26.9%).
• After taxes and transfers, however, our
poverty rate only declines to 17.1%. Of
the 20 advanced countries, we are last in
reduction.
• For example, Sweden goes down to
5.3%, Germany to 11%, U.K. to 8.3%, and
Japan to 14.9%. (Source: Org. for

31. 31

32. The Best and the Worst in 2009 on Poverty
Rates
Poorest Percent in Least Poor Percent
States, 2009 Poverty States, 2009 in
Poverty
Mississippi 21.9 New Hampshire 8.5
Arkansas 18.8 Alaska 9.0
Kentucky 18.6 Maryland 9.1
D.C. 18.4 New Jersey 9.4
New Mexico 18.0 Connecticut 9.4
West Virginia 17.7 Wyoming 9.8
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009

33. 33

34. Poverty translates into
Hunger
• About 15% of U.S. Households experienced “food
insecurity” in 2009—which translates to over 17
million American families.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Report No. (ERR-108), Nov. 2010

35. Poverty translates into
Hunger
• About 15% of U.S. Households experienced “food
insecurity” in 2009—which translates to over 17
million American families.
• These households were stalked by hunger and at
times did not have enough money to buy enough
food at various times during the year.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Report No. (ERR-108), Nov. 2010

36. Poverty translates into
Hunger
• About 15% of U.S. Households experienced “food
insecurity” in 2009—which translates to over 17 million
American families.
• These households were stalked by hunger and at times
did not have enough money to buy enough food at
various times during the year.
• Nearly 7 million households (with one million children)
had such severe financial problems that they were forced
to miss meals on a regular basis.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Report No. (ERR-108), Nov. 2010

37. Poverty translates into Hunger
(Cont.)
• The number of households with
hunger is at an all-time high since data
began to be gathered in 1995.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Report No. (ERR-108), Nov.
2010

38. Poverty translates into Hunger
(Cont.)
•The number of households with
hunger is at an all-time high since data
began to be gathered in 1995.
•The number of households
experiencing hunger has tripled in the
3 years between 2006 and 2009.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Report No. (ERR-108), Nov.
2010

39. 39

40. How is the American Middle Class
Doing?
In one word—”Badly”!

41. How is the American Middle Class
Doing?
In one word—”Badly”!
 Since peaking in 1999 (at
$38,720), median earnings for male
workers is 6% lower eleven years
later ($36,331 in 2009).

42. How is the American Middle Class
Doing?
In one word—”Badly”!
 Since peaking in 1999 (at
$38,720), median earnings for male
workers is 6% lower eleven years
later ($36,331 in 2009)
 Female workers have done slightly
better, going from $23,738 to $26,030
in the same period—a 9.7% increase.

43. How is the American Middle Class
Doing?
In one word—”Badly”!
 Since peaking in 1999 (at
$38,720), median earnings for male
workers is 6% lower eleven years
later ($36,331 in 2009)
 Female workers have done slightly
better, going from $23,738 to $26,030
in the same period—a 9.7% increase
 Thus, in a two-earner, husband/wife
family, earnings have been stagnant
for 10 years.

44. How is the American Middle Class
Doing?
In one word—”Badly”!
 Even more threatening is anemic job
growth. Only 7 million new jobs were
created in 2002-2007 (before the crash)—
compared to 20 million created in the same
5-year period in the 1990s.

45. How is the American Middle Class
Doing?
In one word—”Badly”!
 Even more threatening is anemic job
growth. Only 7 million new jobs were
created in 2002-2007 (before the crash)—
compared to 20 million created in the same
5-year period in the 1990s.
 The Bottom Line: Fewer Americans are
employed today than a decade ago, despite
our population growing by 25 million.

46. 46

47. How have the very rich been
doing?

48. How have the very rich been
doing?
 In 2007, just before the Great
Recession hit us, the top 25 CEOs of
investment houses “earned” $22
billion (about the GDP of Costa Rica).
The top 5 managers each got over $1
billion. (Page and Jacobs)

49. How have the very rich been
doing?
 In 2007, just before the Great
Recession hit us, the top 25 CEOs of
investment houses “earned” $22
billion (about the GDP of Costa Rica).
The top 5 managers each got over $1
billion! (Page and Jacobs)
 In 2007, America’s top 1% of earners
received 23% of the nation’s total
income (almost triple the 8% share
they got in 1980). (Robert Reich)

50. How have the very rich been
doing?
 In the 1960s, CEOs of major American
companies earned 25 times the wages of
their typical workers; by 1980 40 times; by
1990 100 times; by 2007 350 times. (Robert
Reich). As of 2009, Michael Hiltzik (LA
TIMES) reported a Harvard study putting
this ratio at 411 to 1.

51. How have the very rich been
doing?
 In the 1960s, CEOs of major American
companies earned 25 times the wages of
their typical workers; by 1980 40 times; by
1990 100 times; by 2007 350 times.
(Robert Reich). As of 2009, Michael Hiltzik
(LA TIMES) reported a Harvard study
putting this ratio at 411 to 1.
 The combined wealth in 2005 of Sam
Walton’s family at $90 billion (Walmart
), Bill Gates (Microsoft) at $46 billion, and
Warren Buffet at $44 billion is much more
than the $95 billion combined wealth of
the bottom 40% in the U.S. In short, 3
families own as much as 120 million

52. Average Pay of Top 500 Corporate CEOs, 1989 -
2009
52
Source: Forbes.com. Pay is in constant 2008 dollars

53. Most Americans are Woefully Ignorant
about How Exorbitant CEO Corporate
Pay Actually Is
• When asked how much they believe
typical corporate CEOs “earn” in a year,
Americans estimate their pay at $500,000
(20 times that of unskilled workers or sales
clerks).

54. Most Americans are Woefully Ignorant
about How Exorbitant CEO Corporate
Pay Actually Is
•When asked how much they believe typical
corporate CEOs “earn” in a year, Americans
estimate their pay at $500,000 (20 times that
of unskilled workers or sales clerks).
• In reality, the CEOs of the largest Standard
and Poors 500 corporations make $14
million per year. (See Jacobs and
Page, CLASS WAR).

55. Most Americans are Woefully Ignorant
about How Exorbitant CEO Corporate
Pay Actually Is
• When asked how much they believe typical
corporate CEOs “earn” in a year, Americans
estimate their pay at $500,000 (20 times that of
unskilled workers or sales clerks).
• In reality, the CEOs of the largest Standard
and Poors 500 corporations make $14 million
per year. (See Jacobs and Page, CLASS WAR).
• This is 700 times more than the average
factory worker and 540 times the salary of the
average sales clerk!

56. Most Americans are Woefully Ignorant about
How Exorbitant CEO Corporate Pay Actually
Is (Cont.)
•Hacker and Pierson (WINNER TAKE ALL
POLITICS) assert that these CEOs form the
bulk of the top 0.1% of income recipients.

57. Most Americans are Woefully Ignorant about
How Exorbitant CEO Corporate Pay Actually
Is (Cont.)
•Hacker and Pierson (WINNER TAKE ALL
POLITICS) assert that these CEOs form the
bulk of the top 0.1% of income recipients.
• This top 0.1% increased their share of all
income from 2.7% in 1974 to 12.3% in 2007.

58. Most Americans are Woefully Ignorant
about How Exorbitant CEO Corporate
Pay Actually Is
•Hacker and Pierson (WINNER TAKE ALL
POLITICS) assert that these CEOs and their
lieutenants form the bulk of the top 0.1% of
income recipients.
• This top 0.1% increased their share of all
income from 2.7% in 1974 to 12.3% in 2007.
• When the capital gains of this richest 1-in-
1000 is counted, this equals $1 trillion per

59. 59
Economic Policy Institute 2011

60. 60

61. The 7 Highest Paid CEO Layoff
Company LeadersTotal
CEO in 2009 Layoffs
2009 Pay (11/08-4/10)
Schering- Fred Hassan $49,653,063 16,000
Plough
Johnson & William Weldon $25,569,844 8,900
Johnson
Hewlett Mark Hurd $24,201,448 6,400
Packard
Walt Disney Robert Iger $21,578,471 3,400
IBM Samuel Palmisano $21,159,289 7,800
AT&T Randall $20,244,312 12,300
Stephenson
Wal-Mart Michael Duke $19,234,269 13,350
61
Source: Institute for Policy Studies

62. 62

63. What About “Relative”
Income Inequality?
63

64. What About “Relative”
Income Inequality?
• It was PresidentJohn Kennedy who termed the
phrase—”A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats”—meaning
the poor also benefit from economic growth.

65. What About “Relative”
Income Inequality?
• It was President John Kennedy who termed the
phrase—”A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats”—meaning
the poor also benefit from economic growth.
• It is true that our Real GDP doubled between 1983-
2007 while our population increased only by one-
third, i.e., per capita real GDP actually did grow over
this past quarter century.

66. What About “Relative”
Income Inequality?
• It was John Kennedy who termed the phrase—”A
Rising Tide Lifts All Boats”—meaning the poor also
benefit from economic growth.
• It is true that our Real GDP doubled between 1983-
2007 while our population increased only by one-
third, i.e., per capita real GDP actually did grow over
this past quarter century.
• On average, then, Americans should be better
off—but this is definitely not the case.

67. What About “Relative”
Income Inequality?
• It was John Kennedy who termed the phrase—”A
Rising Tide Lifts All Boats”—meaning the poor also
benefit from economic growth.
• It is true that our Real GDP doubled between 1983-2007
while our population increased only by one-
third, i.e., per capita real GDP actually did grow over this
past quarter century.
• On average, then, Americans should be better off—but
this is definitely not the case.
• To get a better idea of who benefits vs. those who do
not, researchers often divide income recipients into
fifths (called Quintiles, or 20% segments).

68. What About “Relative”
Income Inequality?
• It was John Kennedy who termed the phrase—”A Rising
Tide Lifts All Boats”—meaning the poor also benefit from
economic growth.
• It is true that our Real GDP doubled between 1983-2007
while our population increased only by one-third, i.e., per
capita real GDP actually did grow over this past quarter
century.
• On average, then, Americans should be better off—but
this is definitely not the case.
• To get a better idea of who benefits vs. those who do
not, income recipients are often divided into fifths
(Quintiles, or 20% segments).

69. Percent of all Household Income Received
by each Quintile (5th): 2009
Lowest
5th, 3.4%
Second
5th, 8.6%
Middle
5th, 14.6%
Highest
5th, 50.3%
Fourth
5th, 23.2%
Source: U.S. Census
Bureau, Current Population
Reports, P60-238, Income,
Note: Top 5% received 21.7% Poverty, and Health
69 of ALL household income in Insurance Coverage in the
the U.S. United States: 2009

70. 70

71. 71

72. Some Dramatic Shifts
•Between 1945 and 1980, incomes
increased on average by $19,000. While
the richest 10% of our population captured
over 1/3 of this growth in real dollars, the
bottom 90% still received the other 2/3rds
of the income increase.

73. Some Dramatic Shifts
• Between 1945 and 1980, incomes increased on
average by $19,000. The richest 10% of our
population captured over 1/3 of this growth in real
dollars, but the bottom 90% still received the other
2/3rds of the increase.
• Real income rose another $12,000 in the 27 years
between 1981 and 2008. BUT—the richest 10% got
almost all of this increase of income (96%), while
the bottom 90% received only 4% of the growth. In
73
short, the very great majority of Americans have

74. Mean Household Income of Top 5%
Divided by Mean Household Income
of Bottom 40% in 2009 Dollars
27.0
Multiplication Factor
25.0
23.0
21.0
19.0
17.0
15.0
1965 1975 1985 1995 2005
Year
74
Source: Calculated from Census Data in 2010 Income and Poverty

75. (Y-Axis)
(X-Axis)
75

76. 0.5
Household Gini Ratio by Year: 1968-
0.49
0.48
0.47
0.46
0.45
Gini 0.44
Ratio 0.43
0.42
0.41
0.4
0.39
0.38
0.37
0.36
0.35
76 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007
Source: Calculated from Census Data, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United
States: 2009, P60-238 .

78. Family Income Gini Score by
Country: 2009
78
Source: CIA- The World Factbook 2009

79. Most Equal Country Gini Most Unequal Gini
Sweden .230 Country
Namibia .707
Norway .250 South Africa .650
Luxembourg .260 Lesotho .632
Czech Republic .260 Botswana .630
Slovakia .260 Sierra Leone .629
Serbia .260 Central Africa Republic .613
Malta .260 Bolivia .592
Austria .260 Haiti .592
Albania .267 Columbia .585
Germany .270 Brazil .567
Belarus .279 Bosnia & Herzegovina .562
Iceland .280 Panama .561
Hungary .280 Guatemala .551
Belgium .280 Chile .549
Slovenia .284 Honduras .538
79
Source: CIA, The World Factbook 2009

80. inequality?
Research shows that high relative income inequality is
associated with:
80

81. inequality?
Research shows that high relative income inequality is associated
with:
 High homicide Rates (nations and U.S. states)

82. inequality?
Research shows that high relative income inequality is associated
with:
 High homicide Rates (nations and U.S. states)
 High rates of imprisonment (nations and U.S.
States)

83. inequality?
Research shows that high relative income inequality is associated
with:
 High homicide Rates (nations and U.S. states)
 High rates of imprisonment (nations and U.S.
States)
 High Teen Birthrates (nations and states)

84. inequality?
Research shows that high relative income inequality is associated
with:
 High homicide Rates (nations and U.S. states)
 High rates of imprisonment (nations and U.S.
States)
 High Teen Birthrates (nations and states)
 High rates of illegal drug use (nations)

85. inequality?
Research shows that high relative income inequality is
associated with:
 High homicide Rates (nations and U.S. states)
 High rates of imprisonment (nations and U.S.
States)
 High Teen Birthrates (nations and states)
 High rates of illegal drug use (nations)
 High infant mortality rates (nations)

86. inequality?
Research shows that high relative income inequality is
associated with:
 High homicide Rates (nations and U.S. states)
 High rates of imprisonment (nations and U.S.
States)
 High Teen Birthrates (nations and states)
 High rates of illegal drug use (nations)
 High infant mortality rates (nations)
 Lower life expectancy (nations)

87. inequality?
Research shows that high relative income inequality is
associated with:
 High homicide Rates (nations and U.S. states)
 High rates of imprisonment (nations and U.S.
States)
 High Teen Birthrates (nations and states)
 High rates of illegal drug use (nations)
 High infant mortality rates (nations)
 Lower life expectancy (nations)
 High rates of Mental Illness (nations)

88. inequality?
Research shows that high relative income inequality is associated
with:
 High homicide Rates (nations and U.S. states)
 High rates of imprisonment (nations and U.S.
States)
 High Teen Birthrates (nations and states)
 High rates of illegal drug use (nations)
 High infant mortality rates (nations)
 Lower life expectancy (nations)
 High rates of Mental Illness (nations)
 Low rates of contraceptive usage (nations)

89. inequality?
Research shows that high relative income inequality is associated
with:
 High homicide Rates (nations and U.S. states)
 High rates of imprisonment (nations and U.S.
States)
 High Teen Birthrates (nations and states)
 High rates of illegal drug use (nations)
 High infant mortality rates (nations)
 Lower life expectancy (nations)
 High rates of Mental Illness (nations)
 Low rates of contraceptive usage (nations)
 Lower access to safe water (nations)

90. For detailed charts and graphs
exploring these findings, see:
Richard Wilkinson and Kate
Pickett, THE SPIRIT LEVEL: WHY
GREATER EQUALITY MAKES
SOCIETIES STRONGER, 2009.
See especially their
free, downloadable Power Point
presentation at

91. 91

94. Percent Who Say Others Cannot be
Trusted
65
by Household Income Inequality and Year
63
2006
1996
1994
% Cannot Be Trusted
61 1993
59 1983 1986
2000 2004
1990 1998 2002
57 1975
1988 1991
1978 1989
55
53 1976 1987
1980
51 1973
1972
49 1984
47
45
0.39 0.4 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.48
Household Gini Ratio
94 Source: General Social Survey (GSS) Data

95. Percent of Those Eligible who Voted in
75.0
2008 by State Household Income Gini
Score
MN
70.0 NH ME
WI LA
IA MS
SD ND
% Eligible who Voted
65.0 NE MT MI
OH MO VA NC
WY VT WA RI SC
AK MD OR CO
PA KY MA AL PA
60.0 KS GA
IN
ID
NM
OK NJIL FL
55.0
AZ TN
NV WV
AR NY
CA
50.0 UT
TX
HI
45.0
0.41 0.43 0.45 0.47 0.49
Household Gini Ratio 2007
95
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports

96. 96

97. Obesity Rates By Inequality in U.S.
35
States
33 MS
WV AL
31 TN
SC OK
KY
29 OR
Percent Obese 2008
MO AR NC LA
SD MI
PA TX
27 NE DE ND KS GA
AK IN IL
IA MD
WI WA
25 ME NV VA NM
WY FL NY
NH ID MN OR AZ
MT CA
23 UT VT NJ
HI
RI
21 MA CT
19 CO
17
15
0.41 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.48 0.49 0.5
97 Household Gini Ratio 2007
Source: Center for Disease

98. 2010 Unemployment Rate
in States by Gini Ratio
14 NV
MI
CA
12 RI
% Unemployed 2010
FL MS
OH OR SC AL
IL
10 IN NC GA TN
AZ NJ
MO PA MA
ID WA CT
DE WV TX
8 AK ME CO NM
WI NY
UT MT AR
WY IA MN VA OK LA
HI KS
6 NH
VT
NE
SD
4
ND
2
0.41 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.48 0.49 0.5
Source: Bureau of Household Income Gini Ratio 2007
Labor Statistics

99. 99

100. 100

101. What is to be Done?
Policies at the National Level
• Allow the Bush-era tax cuts for the very rich to
expire.
• Since 1995, the richest 400 households have had
their taxes cut 45%, or $46 million per household per
year.
• Even for those earning $1 million per year, their tax
cut equals $128,000 annually.
• For those with middle class incomes, our yearly
tax cut savings comes to $300.
101
• If these “temporary” tax cuts are discontinued, $1

102. What is to be Done?
Policies at the National Level
 Allow the Bush-era tax cuts for the very rich to
expire.
 Cut defense spending/stop fighting needless wars
(Stiglitz estimates the Iraq War has cost $3 trillion)

103. What is to be Done?
Policies at the National Level
 Allow the Bush-era tax cuts for the very rich to
expire.
 Cut defense spending/stop fighting needless wars
(Stiglitz estimates the Iraq War has cost $3 trillion)
 Invest in R & D (cutting-edge Green Technology)

104. What is to be Done?
Policies at the National Level
 Allow the Bush-era tax cuts for the very rich to
expire.
 Cut defense spending/stop fighting needless wars
(Stiglitz estimates the Iraq War has cost $3 trillion)
 Invest in R & D (cutting-edge Green Technology)
 Re-industrialize our country, especially hi-tech
areas!

105. What is to be Done?
Policies at the National Level
 Allow the Bush-era tax cuts for the very rich to
expire.
 Cut defense spending/stop fighting needless wars
(Stiglitz estimates the Iraq War has cost $3 trillion)
 Invest in R & D (cutting-edge Green Technology)
 Re-industrialize our country, especially hi-tech
areas!
 Continue to fully fund our public university
system—the envy of the world and the font of our
national productivity.

106. What is to be Done?
Policies at the National Level
 Allow the Bush-era tax cuts for the very rich to
expire.
 Cut defense spending/stop fighting needless wars
(Stiglitz estimates the Iraq War has cost $3 trillion)
 Invest in R & D (cutting-edge Green Technology)
 Re-industrialize our country, especially hi-tech
areas!
 Continue to fully fund our public university
system—the envy of the world and the font of our
national productivity.

107. What is to be Done?
Policies at the National Level
 Allow the Bush-era tax cuts for the very rich to
expire.
 Cut defense spending/stop fighting needless wars
(Stiglitz estimates the Iraq War has cost $3 trillion)
 Invest in R & D (cutting-edge Green Technology)
 Re-industrialize our country, especially hi-tech
areas!
 Continue to fully fund our public university
system—the envy of the world and the font of our
national productivity.
 Reduce our national debt.

108. What is to be Done?
Personal Actions You Can Take

109. What is to be Done?
Personal Actions You Can Take
• “Thing Globally—Act Locally”. Join local action
groups that address social ills
(hunger, homelessness, political advocacy, etc.)

110. What is to be Done?
Personal Actions You Can Take
• “Thing Globally—Act Locally”. Join local action
groups that address social ills
(hunger, homelessness, political advocacy, etc.)
• Consume less, and when you do—buy
carefully, e.g., coops. (Sounds Un-American—
right?) Read Annie Leonard, THE STORY OF
STUFF.

111. What is to be Done?
Personal Actions You Can Take
• “Thing Globally—Act Locally”. Join local action
groups that address social ills
(hunger, homelessness, political advocacy, etc.)
• Consume less, and when you do—buy
carefully, e.g., coops. (Sounds Un-American—
right?) Read Annie Leonard, THE STORY OF
STUFF.
• Read widely (NEVER STOP LEARNING), use
unbiased news sources/avoid hate-mongering
broadcast media pundits, e.g., beware of the FOX in
the hen-house.

112. What is to be Done?
Personal Actions You Can Take
• “Thing Globally—Act Locally”. Join local action
groups that address social ills
(hunger, homelessness, political advocacy, etc.)
• Consume less, and when you do—buy
carefully, e.g., coops. (Sounds Un-American—
right?) Read Annie Leonard, THE STORY OF
STUFF.
• Read widely (NEVER STOP LEARNING), use
unbiased news sources/avoid hate-mongering
broadcast media pundits, e.g., beware of the FOX in
the hen-house.

113. What is to be Done?
Personal Actions You Can Take
(Cont.)
• Invest your retirement, IRAs, 401K money in Social
Responsible Investment (SRI) funding companies
that “Do No Evil”, e.g., Calvert Fund.

114. What is to be Done?
Personal Actions You Can Take
(Cont.)
• Invest your retirement, IRAs, 401K money in Social
Responsible Investment (SRI) funding companies
that “Do No Evil”, e.g., Calvert Fund.
• Avoid simplistic, extremist politicians hawking
know-nothing solutions (cutting taxes will not solve
all of our problems, but only reward the rich).

115. What is to be Done?
Personal Actions You Can Take
(Cont.)
• Invest your retirement, IRAs, 401K money in Social
Responsible Investment (SRI) funding companies
that “Do No Evil”, e.g., Calvert Fund.
• Avoid simplistic, extremist politicians hawking
know-nothing solutions (cutting taxes will not solve
all of our problems, but only reward the rich).
• Network, Network, Network—especially through
the internet. Power accrues to individuals when
they act as groups!

116. What is to be Done?
Personal Actions You Can Take
(Cont.)
• Invest your retirement, IRAs, 401K money in
Social Responsible Investment (SRI) funding
companies that “Do No Evil”, e.g., Calvert Fund.
• Avoid simplistic, extremist politicians hawking
know-nothing solutions (cutting taxes will not solve
all of our problems, but only reward the rich).
• Network, Network, Network—especially through
the internet. Power accrues to individuals when
they act as groups!
• Fatal acceptance leads to defeat. Never lose
hope! To preserve equality and democracy, we
must not fail to act.

117. Thank You so much!
Questions or Comments?