

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The Gini Coefficient is a measure of economic inequality, from 0 to 1, with 1 representing the most severe degree of inequality. The U.S. Gini, one of the highest among developed countries, has risen steadily, from .39 in 1970 to .47 in 2009.

Based on Tax Foundation figures, the richest 1% has TRIPLED its share of the income pie over the past 30 years, mainly through tax cuts and financial deregulation. If their income had increased only at the pace of American productivity (80%), they would be taking about a TRILLION DOLLARS LESS out of our economy.
That amount of money, taken in just one year, could provide a $40,000 per year job to every unemployed person and new college graduate in the United States and have enough left over to pay off the deficits of all 50 states.
And it might be worse. A report in Dollars & Sense calculates that TWO TRILLION DOLLARS A YEAR is transferred from wage earners to the lucky few in corporate management and the financial industry.
So Gini is growing up fast. Despite a near-doubling of productivity since 1980, average Americans make the same money, adjusted for inflation, that they made 30 years ago. If the median household income had increased at the pace of American productivity (80%), families would be making $92,000, not $50,000.
How about the superstars at the top? One man (John Paulson) made enough money last year to hire a quarter of a million entry-level health care workers, all by himself.
It helped that most of his earnings were subject to a 15% tax rate.
So for those of us just learning to play the free-market capitalism game, here's the question: How much should one man be able to make? $10 billion? $100 billion? $1 trillion? $8 trillion? Wait a minute -- that's ALL of America's income. That wouldn't work, because then some of you wouldn't get your share. You'll have to figure out a means of redistribution. But that's socialism. OK, John Paulson, go for the $8 trillion.
After all, that's the purpose of free-market capitalism, to allow any individual to take all he can get, even if his financial maneuverings contribute nothing to a productive society.
It's all part of the game, our new national pastime. Although, as with baseball, most of us can just sit and watch as Gini goes for #1.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The Gini Coefficient is a measure of economic inequality, from 0 to 1, with 1 representing the most severe degree of inequality. The U.S. Gini, one of the highest among developed countries, has risen steadily, from .39 in 1970 to .47 in 2009.

Based on Tax Foundation figures, the richest 1% has TRIPLED its share of the income pie over the past 30 years, mainly through tax cuts and financial deregulation. If their income had increased only at the pace of American productivity (80%), they would be taking about a TRILLION DOLLARS LESS out of our economy.
That amount of money, taken in just one year, could provide a $40,000 per year job to every unemployed person and new college graduate in the United States and have enough left over to pay off the deficits of all 50 states.
And it might be worse. A report in Dollars & Sense calculates that TWO TRILLION DOLLARS A YEAR is transferred from wage earners to the lucky few in corporate management and the financial industry.
So Gini is growing up fast. Despite a near-doubling of productivity since 1980, average Americans make the same money, adjusted for inflation, that they made 30 years ago. If the median household income had increased at the pace of American productivity (80%), families would be making $92,000, not $50,000.
How about the superstars at the top? One man (John Paulson) made enough money last year to hire a quarter of a million entry-level health care workers, all by himself.
It helped that most of his earnings were subject to a 15% tax rate.
So for those of us just learning to play the free-market capitalism game, here's the question: How much should one man be able to make? $10 billion? $100 billion? $1 trillion? $8 trillion? Wait a minute -- that's ALL of America's income. That wouldn't work, because then some of you wouldn't get your share. You'll have to figure out a means of redistribution. But that's socialism. OK, John Paulson, go for the $8 trillion.
After all, that's the purpose of free-market capitalism, to allow any individual to take all he can get, even if his financial maneuverings contribute nothing to a productive society.
It's all part of the game, our new national pastime. Although, as with baseball, most of us can just sit and watch as Gini goes for #1.
The Gini Coefficient is a measure of economic inequality, from 0 to 1, with 1 representing the most severe degree of inequality. The U.S. Gini, one of the highest among developed countries, has risen steadily, from .39 in 1970 to .47 in 2009.

Based on Tax Foundation figures, the richest 1% has TRIPLED its share of the income pie over the past 30 years, mainly through tax cuts and financial deregulation. If their income had increased only at the pace of American productivity (80%), they would be taking about a TRILLION DOLLARS LESS out of our economy.
That amount of money, taken in just one year, could provide a $40,000 per year job to every unemployed person and new college graduate in the United States and have enough left over to pay off the deficits of all 50 states.
And it might be worse. A report in Dollars & Sense calculates that TWO TRILLION DOLLARS A YEAR is transferred from wage earners to the lucky few in corporate management and the financial industry.
So Gini is growing up fast. Despite a near-doubling of productivity since 1980, average Americans make the same money, adjusted for inflation, that they made 30 years ago. If the median household income had increased at the pace of American productivity (80%), families would be making $92,000, not $50,000.
How about the superstars at the top? One man (John Paulson) made enough money last year to hire a quarter of a million entry-level health care workers, all by himself.
It helped that most of his earnings were subject to a 15% tax rate.
So for those of us just learning to play the free-market capitalism game, here's the question: How much should one man be able to make? $10 billion? $100 billion? $1 trillion? $8 trillion? Wait a minute -- that's ALL of America's income. That wouldn't work, because then some of you wouldn't get your share. You'll have to figure out a means of redistribution. But that's socialism. OK, John Paulson, go for the $8 trillion.
After all, that's the purpose of free-market capitalism, to allow any individual to take all he can get, even if his financial maneuverings contribute nothing to a productive society.
It's all part of the game, our new national pastime. Although, as with baseball, most of us can just sit and watch as Gini goes for #1.