金融危機(jī)過后,美國有錢人更有錢了
????最近在美國,上至決策層,下至快餐店員工都在要求華盛頓上調(diào)最低工資。這個(gè)傷腦筋的話題催生了無數(shù)支持和反對(duì)的爭論。但一項(xiàng)最新研究顯示,目前只有最富有的美國人從這場經(jīng)濟(jì)大衰退中恢復(fù)了過來,這個(gè)發(fā)現(xiàn)應(yīng)能讓反對(duì)者重新考慮上調(diào)最低工資的問題。 ????收入不均是美國幾十年的頑疾,但在最近這場經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退后,貧富差距進(jìn)一步拉大。房價(jià)和股價(jià)上漲可能令最富有的美國人獲益,而最貧困的人被落在了后邊:加州大學(xué)伯克利分校(University of California Berkeley)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家伊曼紐爾?塞斯和托馬斯?皮凱蒂進(jìn)行的一項(xiàng)最新研究顯示,2009年至2012年,收入最高的1%人群收入增長了31.4%,余下99%人群的收入僅增長了微不足道的0.4%。 ????這兩位經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家指出,這意味著收入最高的1%人群拿走了所有美國人收入總額的1/5以上,達(dá)到1913年現(xiàn)代聯(lián)邦所得稅開征以來的最高水平之一。不僅如此,收入最高1%人群的收入已接近全面恢復(fù),而剩下99%人群的收入基本上剛剛開始恢復(fù)。 ????上調(diào)最低工資不能彌合這一差距,但肯定會(huì)在一定程度上緩解這個(gè)問題。遺憾的是,上調(diào)最低工資的提案目前沒有取得任何進(jìn)展,阻力不小。上個(gè)月,美國快餐業(yè)工人在全美60個(gè)城市罷工一天,要求將最低工資提高到每小時(shí)15美元。這將是當(dāng)前最低工資每小時(shí)7.25美元的兩倍還多,也高于奧巴馬總統(tǒng)今年2月在國情咨文中提議的每小時(shí)9美元。 ????這不只是工人希望上調(diào)工資(我們所有人都想上調(diào),不是嗎?)的問題,同時(shí)也是收入分化加劇癥狀的表現(xiàn)。不難想到反對(duì)上調(diào)最低工資的理由:上調(diào)將使得公司的用人成本上升;事實(shí)上提高失業(yè)率,因?yàn)楦吖べY將鼓勵(lì)更多的人求職;它不會(huì)對(duì)更宏觀層面的經(jīng)濟(jì)起到什么作用,因?yàn)槟米畹凸べY的人并不多。 ????這些說法也許有道理,也許沒道理,但白宮已表示,將最低工資提高到9美元將增加約1,500萬低收入工人的工資。這當(dāng)然比不上收入最高1%人群最近在股市和房市中取得的收益,但正如白宮所講,將最低工資上調(diào)1.75美元足以彌補(bǔ)自1980年以來新增收入差距的10-20%。 ????這點(diǎn)錢彌合不了貧富差距,但至少能幫助最貧困的人稍許趕上些。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))?? |
????Lately everyone from policymakers to fast-food workers have urged Washington to raise the minimum wage. It's a thorny topic that's spawned countless arguments both for and against an increase, but a new study suggesting that only the richest Americans are recovering from the Great Recession should make opponents rethink a minimum wage hike. ????Income inequality has been a problem for decades, but the gap between the haves and have-nots has worsened in the years following the recession. The rise in home and stock prices may be benefitting the richest Americans, but the poorest are being left behind: From 2009 to 2012, the top 1% incomes grew by 31.4% while the bottom 99% incomes grew a mere 0.4%, according to an updated study by University of California Berkeley economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty. ????That means the top 1% took more than one-fifth of the income earned by Americans -- one of the highest levels since 1913 when the modern federal income tax started, the economists note. More than that, the top 1% incomes are close to full recovery while the bottom 99% incomes have barely started to recover. ????Raising the minimum wage won't close the gap, but it could certainly ease it. Sadly proposals haven't gone anywhere and face stiff opposition. Last month, fast-food workers staged a one-day strike in 60 U.S. cities to demand a minimum wage of $15 an hour, more than double the current minimum of $7.25 and more than the $9 an hour President Obama proposed in February during his State of the Union address. ????These aren't just workers looking for a raise (aren't we all), but symptoms of bigger income disparity problems. It's easy to argue against raising the minimum wage: that an increase would make hiring more expensive for companies; that it would actually raise the unemployment rate, since higher wages would encourage more people to apply for jobs; that it wouldn't help the broader economy because only a few workers actually earned the minimum wage. ????That may or may not be so, but the White House has said raising the minimum wage to $9 would boost wages for about 15 million low-income workers. This of course wouldn't equal to gains the top 1% of earners have enjoyed recently from the stock market and home prices, but as the White House has said, a $1.75 increase in the minimum wage would be enough to offset roughly 10% to 20% of the increase in income inequality since 1980. ????That won't close the gap between rich and poor, but it would at least help the very poor play catch-up. |