Wealth inequality in the United States

A growing problem of the wealthiest nation in human history.

Here is one site I found demonstrating US living quality better than the unemployment rate.

While the data is not global, it is inspirational for measuring the living quality around world.

1 Like

Former Wall Street banker turned into a photographer, whose work gave voices (and dignity) to the prostitutes, the drug addicts and the homeless in Bronx, NY.


My favorite one. Takeesha and Deja are two prostitutes in Bronx, who suffered years of abuse and drug addiction.

I have forgotten how wonderful it can be to show someone the rings of Saturn for the first time. Or the craters in the moon.

I had my telescope in my car and Takeesha and Deja had seen neither.

Sometimes people are disappointed, growing up seeing images from the space telescope. Not these two. They loved it.

We got the oddest looks. Johns slowed down, truckers were confused. I wanted to have a chance to let the police look as well, but they drove past.

PS: I used to be an Astronomy nut, spending my teenage years out in a cow pasture with a small telescope. What an odd journey to end up in Hunts Point with a much larger telescope.

Check out his photography: Faces of Addiction


Roughly 7.6 million households with low incomes are currently struggling to find a long-term place to live, a housing gap that has been decades in the making. By the mid-1980s, federal and state governments mostly stopped building public housing directly — the thinking was that private investors, lured with tax credits, would build enough affordable housing instead. The policy largely failed people with extremely low incomes, and over roughly the same period, the available public-housing units declined to 958,000 at the end of 2020 from 1.4 million in 1990, according to HUD. “It’s the portion of the housing stock declining the most,” says Andrew Aurand, the vice president for research at the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

The comment section has some interesting perspectives from landlords, on why they wouldn’t accept tenants with low credit scores. Many brought up how hard it is to evict bad tenants. What do you think? Should the government make it easier to evict so the landlords can feel more confident to take in previously evicted people and people with bad credit scores?

I also think however the laws around eviction change, there still will be plenty of people who fall through the crack: wouldn’t able to find jobs, too unhealthy to work, exfelonies, etc. The free market wouldn’t be able to provide housing to these people no matter what. The government just have to build more public housing.

To the extent they are noticed at all, the people who perform such functions tend to be harshly judged, denounced for their involvement in or proximity to violence. Such judgments are not necessarily wrong, but they obscure an uncomfortable reality: We are all implicated in this dirty work, even if the people who do it are conveniently hidden from us.

This was the nature of dirty work as Mr. Hughes conceived of it: unethical activity that was delegated to certain agents and then disavowed by society, even though the perpetrators had an “unconscious mandate” from their fellow citizens. As extreme as the Nazi example was, this dynamic existed in every society, Mr. Hughes wrote, enabling respectable citizens to distance themselves from the morally troubling things being done in their name. The dirty workers were not rogue actors but “agents” of “good people” who passively stood by.

Like so much else in a society that has grown more and more unequal, the burden of dirtying one’s hands — and the benefit of having a clean conscience — are increasingly functions of privilege: of the capacity to distance oneself from the isolated places where dirty work is performed while leaving the sordid details to others.

Conservatives Are Happier Than Liberals. Discuss. https://nyti.ms/2Z4UO6a

We did find, however, that the rationalization of inequality — a core component of conservative ideology — helps to explain why conservatives are, on average, happier than liberals.

Napier and Jost contend that their determinations are “consistent with system justification theory, which posits that viewing the status quo (with its attendant degree of inequality) as fair and legitimate serves a palliative function.”

A very different view of conservatives and the political right emerges in Schlenker, Chambers and Le’s paper:

Conservatives score higher than liberals on personality and attitude measures that are traditionally associated with positive adjustment and mental health, including personal agency, positive outlook, transcendent moral beliefs, and generalized belief in fairness. These constructs, in turn, can account for why conservatives are happier than liberals and have declined less in happiness in recent decades.