[quote=flyer]I wonder if it’s really a question of “what we want,” versus, a confluence of events (some, beyond our control), that have irreversibly positioned us (as a country) in a situation where the financial “winners” in life will slowly, but surely diminish in number?
My wife is an exec in the film business, and we were having this very conversation with regard to a film she has worked on recently. “Elysium” presents a very thought-provoking scenario of what may or may not be in our future. (This is not an endorsement, merely a comment pertaining to the topic of this thread.)[/quote]
Doesn’t America already look like Elysium to a 3rd world rice paddy farmer. It depends on your perspective. I won’t argue that the natural state of an economy tends to concentrate wealth at the top, but if left to it’s own devices that concentration of wealth will collapse on it’s own. It’s when governments protect/bailout large monopolies that we are left with long lasting periods of concentrations of power. During the great depression wealth inequality declined.
It’s the choices we’ve made to bail out the wealthy over the years that has increased the wealth gap more than anything. Of course retirements and pensions depend on maintaining that wealth gap.
If there were no low income housing, no section 8, no rent control would rents be higher or lower. Would companies and landlords have to adjust their rents and wages to some level where people would be able to work in the area and afford to live there. The answer would likely be yes but those holding assets and those owning businesses probably wouldn’t like that solution very much. They’d rather fight over another government program that maintains their place in society and places the resulting burden on somebody else.