Vast economic disparity is harmful to the US economy

R1) Inequality growth Technically, if you look at long term rates, the rate is unchanged. It increased throughout the 70s, fell, and then has increased to levels to those at about the 1920s [1. http://www.jstor.org...]. And, again, this begs the question as to whether or not this matters. As I stated, income is not necessarily a good indicator of wealth as it fails to take into account assets and other things. I would like to ask my opponent where his ‘incredible fact’ comes from. The middle class is likely not under stress. Most of the ‘poorer’ middle class did not enter lower income brackets. Most of the middle class has actually gotten wealthier over time. Those with an income of over $100,000 has increased whereas those who earn less than $30,000 has decreased [2. https://www.aei.org...]. Even assuming the rich are getting richer, it doesn’t mean much. A lot of the increased wealth in the upper class has been due to technological advancement--something which benefits everyone. The rich, for example, produce a new breakthrough product and get billions. This is not harmful. As economist Gregory Mankiw notes, “most of the very wealthy get that way by making substantial economic contributions” [3. http://scholar.harvard.edu...]. This means, in order to cause inequality, they have to produce something which benefits everyone. Thus, increasing inequality benefits society. My opponent seems to suggest income inequality caused the great depression. This is untrue. Many economists have pointed to the gold standard as a leading cause of the great depression [4. http://www.nber.org...]. And again, this type of inequality is bad. In the 1920s, most wealthy people were rich due to family lineage [1]. Today, however, most are wealthy because they contribute to the economy [3]. The 1920s inequality is bad because they produce nothing. Today, however, increased inequality means more goods produced based upon the way they become the 1%. Non-farm businesses in the time period my opponent suggests inequality increased had increased compensation (wages) and productivity [5. http://www.heritage.org...]. So I don’t know where his ‘incredible facts’ come from. Wages and productivity has increased in a period in which my opponent seems to think we have been getting poorer. R2) Inequality is bad My opponent states inequality is getting worse. It first states wages are falling. Not really, the website notes how the wages increased but have slightly decreased between 1999 - 2012. Between 1997 - 2008, there is really no change. The decrease happens in 2008. There was a recession--of course wages would fall! The conclusions the website seems to come to are ideological in nature and they cherry pick their dates. The second evidence they present is that the 1% share of income has increased. But as I noted above, it has increased because they are producing goods and services. This means even though the 1% gets richer, everyone else benefits due to their wealth. This is not indicative of potential harm. My opponent agrees *some* inequality is good. He even agrees in some cases inequality benefits the world. As I noted, the vast majority of modern inequality stems from genuine productivity of the 1% and due to the fact they have produced goods and services. Thus, the inequality which exists is directly related to them helping the economy. Recent research suggests economic mobility--the ability to enter higher income brackets--has remained fairly stable in the United States [6. http://obs.rc.fas.harvard.edu...]. Being able to move up and down the ladder is more important than a single snapshot. Movement is indicative of growth--the ability to become rich. A single snap shot ‘hey, on this year this many people are poor’ is a flawed measurement. As people have the ability to become rich due to hard work and productivity, the inequality we are seeing now is not really bad. If you are poor, you can become rich. That is more important to well being than being poor for a specific year. For all we know, they will be in the 1% in the next year, which is not a bad thing. The American Enterprise Institute suggests, “income inequality doesn’t seem to correlate with lower living standards in advanced economies, particularly America’s. And income inequality doesn’t seem to be reducing upward mobility. These would seem to be an important conclusions to acknowledge before beginning an all-out War on Inequality.” [7. http://www.aei.org...] (emphasis added) R3) Taxes To suggest the wealthy—like McDonalds—does not create jobs is insane. McDonald’s They serve 68 million people per day, have 35,000 locations, and have almost half a million employees [8. http://en.wikipedia.org...]. McDonalds also employs people by promoting other business (e.g. the cow industry), etc. So to say Don Thompson does nothing to help people is a flat out misconception. My opponent claims ‘reliable’ sources help him, but I cited a literature review of over twenty peer-reviewed studies and cross-sectional research done between the US and France. So to suggest my sources are unreliable is simply untrue. My opponent claims the rich create no jobs. But he seems to be focusing on the direct effect of job creation, not how the rich indirectly create jobs. Steve Jobs, for example, created jobs directly—workers at apple—but created others indirectly. People who make his products, people who work with his company, people who helped him develop the ideas, etc. etc. To say the rich do not create jobs does not even make sense. In order to become rich, they produce something. And producing things create jobs. In order to produce something, investments must occur. When taxes are increased, there is less capital to be invested in order to create a company/product. In fact, the rich actually—directly or indirectly—create almost every job [9. http://www.forbes.com...]. “Jobs are simply a consequence of an eco-systemic feedback loop between customers and businesses.” This is partially true. But your whole explanation assumes inequality harms the middle class—it doesn’t. When the rich get richer, they put more into the economy, which helps the middle class. This enhances my opponent’s feedback loop, it does not harm it. == Issues of income measurments == My opponent seems to have ignored an important point: measures of income inequality are very flawed. Many of them fail to include benefits, tax rates, and wealth not related to income. The amount of income inequality when this is accounted for is actually much smaller than my opponent is suggesting. The inequality decreases from $14 dollars earned by the rich in comparison to $1 to persons in the lowest quintile to a $4 - $1 ratio [10. http://www.heritage.org...]. Conclusion Is vast economic disparity harming the US currently? No, due to the fact it does not currently exist (in a 'vast' form) when certian measurments arecorrected. And it is not a harm in and of itself as it can be good and bad. As I have noted, the 'good' economic disparity--one based upon merits, not corruption, actually may benefit the world. This is proven by the fact as I argued inequality in cross-sectional datasets is not associated with reduced economic outcomes and in many cases countries with economic disparity have an economically healthier populace. So: (1) Inequality may or may not be increasing (1a) Measurments of inequality are flawed (1b) Measurments exagerate income inequaliy (2) Economic disparity can be good under certian situations (2a) The 'good' economic disparity is what exists in the modern economy (3) Economic disparity is not associated with economic woes