Income inequality does not equal economic inequality

Despite rising levels of income inequality within the United States, real standards of living have become more equal. While it is true that disparity between incomes is on the rise, the gap between our actual standards of living have remained relatively unchanged, and have even improved. Measurements of income inequality produce distorted pictures of actual economic equality. Anyone interested in refuting this argument is welcome to try. My opponent's case: In response to my opening statement my opponent states that standards of living have not become more equal but have moved further apart. To support this claim he states that the growing disparity between incomes disenables the lower earners to spend as much. I agree. He then immediately follows up with the statement that as the cost of goods and services increases (inflation), the value of monies earned by the lower earners decreases. I agree, even though that's only half the truth. In actuality, everybody's money experiences a decrease in purchasing power whether your rich, poor, or in the middle. To be honest I agree with just about everything my opponent has written, nonetheless, he still fails to prove his opening statement that standards of living have declined. Contention 1 covers inflation and health trends for those that are poor. Well yes, it's common sense that those who can afford better health care are generally in better health. The rich have better health care than the poor and that's a fact, no argument. However, even though we all know that the rich get better health care, are the poor receiving worse care than during previous time periods? This is my debate. I argue that the poor are receiving better health care today, due to many of the technological and pharmaceutical advancements, than they did 10-20-50-100 years ago. In my book, that's a rise in the standard of living. Contention 2 is slightly confusing. First sentence: Income inequalities vs. Economic inequalities are far more reaching than a simplified solution. I'm really not looking for a solution, in fact, inequality whether economic or income related, creates incentives. If everything and everybody was equal, who would want to go through law school or medical school? If I could get the same pay for working at McDonalds as anywhere else, what would make me want to go through years of extra schooling to join a profession with high levels of stress for the same pay? But this is beside the point and completely off topic. The remainder of contention 2 lists five important sources of parametric variation. This is where you totally loose me. Are you stating that everybody in America does not have the privilege to start from the same level of social status due to these variations? If so, I agree. The great thing about America is we have the highest levels of income mobility. Just because you're poor doesn't mean you have to stay poor. In fact, "according to a U.S. Treasury Department study of American taxpayers, about half of those in the lowest income group when filing their tax returns in 1996 moved into a higher income category by 2005. Twenty-five percent moved into a middle- or upper-income group, while more than 5 percent moved into the highest quintile." If you were implying something different when mentioning parametric variations, I apologize. Once again though, we are totally off topic. These statements in no way, shape, or form support your argument that standards of living are declining. My Case: My case is very simple and easy for everybody to understand. I restate my argument to clear any misunderstanding – Despite rising levels of income inequality, gaps between our actual standards of living have remained relatively stable and have even improved. And yes I could have reworded that statement in a more concise manner, but let me explain so as not to contradict myself. The gap, or difference, of living standards between the poor and rich has remained stable. While this gap has remained stable, levels for standards of living have been rising. Evidence: From an article, Aren't the Rich Getting Richer at Other People's Expense, posted on Forbes.com - •"In 1985, 38% of poor households owned a home--by 2005 it was 43%. And these homes were of better quality than the 1985 homes. In 1985, 17% of these homes had central air conditioning, and in 2005, 50% did. •Fifty-six percent of homes owned by poor households had washing machines in 1985, and in 2005, it was 64%." •"Many people who are today labeled as "poor" by the U.S. government actually have a higher living standard than those above the poverty line in the 1960s and '70s." •"In 1999, nearly 36 percent of all ‘poverty level' African American households had central air conditioning--well over twice the figure for America's white non-poverty population in 1970." •"According to the Census Bureau, over three-quarters of a million "poor" persons own homes worth over $150,000; and nearly 200,000 "poor" persons own homes worth over $300,000. These numbers do not reflect the hundreds of thousands of people who became homeowners during the subprime binge of 2004-2006. Even with substantial defaults of these particular mortgages, the fact remains that hundreds of thousands of supposedly poverty-stricken people owned valuable homes." ……and the list goes on. To summarize, while there are factors which make income inequality relational to economic inequality, these relationships are weak and income inequality remains a poor measurement of actual economic inequality in terms of standards of living. I patiently await my opponents rebuttal.