wealthincome

Survey Results

Tue, 17 Jun 2025 21:10:24 GMT

What you told us about Wealth and Income Disparity

The Center for Study and Advocacy to Reduce Wealth and Income Inequality, d/b/a Wealth Income Equity (WIE) recently conducted a number of surveys to assess attitudes regarding wealth and income inequality and potential remedies. Thank you to those who participated.

The survey was designed by a WIE survey team and piloted among subscribers. The pilot provided valuable input for the public survey. The public survey conducted by California Survey Research Services and distributed nationwide yielded over 400 responses. A follow up survey among subscribers was also completed. The pilot and subscriber surveys yielded 60 respondents.

In addition to attitudinal responses, data was collected on age, race, U.S. State and income; gender was not included. We believe the results are indicative of a significant cross section of the U.S. public. However, the survey responses cannot claim that it is a bona fide representation of all Americans given that those lacking internet access, adequate reading comprehension, an income less than $50,000 annual, those under the age 21 or individuals having a primary language other than English or Spanish were effectively not included in the survey.

Results

Most questions were posed on a Likert scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Some questions required a rank ordering of priorities. For analysis purposes strongly agree and agree were collapsed as was strongly disagree and disagree.

When asked whether respondents believed that wealth and income disparity was a problem, whether greater efforts to reduce wealth and income disparity were required and whether everyone has some responsibility to engage in efforts to reduce wealth and income disparity; approximately two thirds agreed or strongly agreed.

As to whether levying taxes on the very wealthy would make a difference and whether there is political will to do so; about one-half agreed or strongly agreed.

We inquired about respondent strategic priorities to reduce wealth and income disparity. 42% elected education and training followed by guaranteed basic income at 29% and worker owned businesses at 26%. It was notable that only 9% elected longer term organizing, advocacy, policy change or electoral politics as a priority.

Given the history in recent decades regarding congressional and executive initiatives that in fact have reduced and not raised taxes on the wealthy, we were interested in ascertaining attitudes as to whether a modest contribution from many donors would make a difference and whether respondents themselves would be willing to donate. Just over one half agreed or strongly agreed to the possibility that they would donate to efforts.

We also inquired as to potential barriers to contributing. Many individuals indicated that there were no barriers, but a larger percentage indicated that their resources were limited or were already committed to other charities. Some respondents also indicated that the wealthy were more responsible for mitigating wealth and income disparity while others also conveyed that it was the responsibility of lower income people to help themselves.

Demographic Response Differences

We collected racial, age (21 to >65), annual family income ($50,000 to > $250,000) and State residence data. Whites/Caucasians (W/C) were overrepresented while Hispanic/Latino/Chicano (HLC) were underrepresented. Blacks/African Americans (Af Am) and Asians /Pacific Islanders (A/PI) matched US census data. The majority of respondents were in the 21-54 age group; there were more respondents from Southern States and the greatest plurality were in the $50,000 to $100,000 income bracket. The income bracket distribution was uniform across racial groups.

As noted in figure 4 above, there were significant differences among major racial and ethnic groups regarding their willingness to personally contribute to efforts to reduce wealth and income disparity. The differences between Whites and Blacks is the most significant.

Figure 5 above notes that in general, younger respondents, e.g., those 54 and younger conveyed that wealth and income disparity was a problem and in need of greater efforts.

In reviewing other differences among demographic and survey groups : the pilot and subscriber groups were older and less diverse racially. These groups had a greater percentage who endorsed that wealth and income was a problem and in need of greater effort. On all other issues, their responses were similar to the public survey.

As indicated in the bullets below, respondent age, income and racial differences are highlighted:

Younger individuals were:
More concerned about wealth and income inequality.
More willing to donate
Likely to have higher income.
More in favor of guaranteed basic income.
More in favor of workers’ co-operatives.
Older respondents were more in favor of skills training and higher education.
African Americans were:
More concerned with income inequality.
In agreement that more efforts are needed.
Most willing to donate
The $150,000 – $200,000 income group were the most willing to donate.

Discussion

As WIE endeavors to impact wealth and income disparity, we thought it crucial to get a sense from a sample of Americans regarding their attitudes pertaining to this issue. It was helpful although not surprising to note that a significant majority see wealth and income disparity as a problem and that more effort is needed. It’s cliched to describe and celebrate the individualist American spirit but in contrast and more significant was that most consider mitigation of wealth and income disparity is a shared responsibility.

As we consider efforts to raise funds from a broad cross section of Americans, the response surrounding the willingness to do so and corresponding barriers are crucial considerations. We realize that there are numerous reasons why individuals are unwilling or unable to donate to efforts to mitigate wealth and income disparity. The lack of discretionary income is clearly the most relevant. The lowest (50– 100K) and highest (>250K) income brackets were equally likely to commit to a contribution. Those in the 150– 200K income bracket were significantly more willing to commit to a contribution. The demographic differences also provide food for thought. Younger respondents appear to be more sympathetic and willing to mitigate wealth and income inequality. Perhaps most stark were the racial differences. Whites versus all other racial groups conveyed less concern and less willingness to contribute. This result was most stark between Blacks and Whites where 70% of Blacks versus 47% of Whites were willing to contribute.

However, it is also important to consider minority and qualitative responses. While a significant majority conveyed that wealth and income disparity were problematic, a significant minority disagreed, strongly disagreed or were neutral as to whether it was a problem or in need of more fixing. We invited and received many anecdotal comments, and this is where respondents had the opportunity to amplify their responses. There were two overriding messages represented in the comments. Respondents were emphatic regarding the unfairness of the income and wealth gap and that the wealthy need to step up and take greater responsibility. But there was also a message indicating that lower income individuals need to do more for themselves. A sample of comments follows:

"The wealthy need to do more!"

“A progressive tax system based on those who make the most pay a higher rate is the only fair way to address this problem and then those funds should be used to improve the opportunities for education for those at the bottom.”

“People with higher income brackets should pay more taxes than those who barely get by and are living paycheck to paycheck.”

“With the current administration, the problem is just going to get worse. The tax system must be completely overhauled, there are WAY too many loopholes for millionaires and billionaires.”

“The wealthy are contributing to the erosion of democracy by not contributing fairly based on their income and investments and are paying for legislators who will do their bidding. We are rapidly becoming a third world country.”

"The poorer need to do more for themselves!"

“A lot of wealth disparity is due to the individuals own initiative Getting an education Be willing to get to a job on time.”

“I came from nothing and started working at 15. I went through 30+ years of barely getting by, working smart, learning as much as possible about my profession, making myself valuable to my organization. Through hard work, dedication, saving and investing, I have put myself and my family in the position to live well. I'm 59 now and with 7-8 more years of dedication, et al, i will retire with the resources that will allow me to continue living well and help others. Everyone else should consider following such an example.”

“ I believe in helping those who help themselves.”

Thank you for reading this report. We would love your feedback so please click below to leave comments. We are planning a virtual forum to discuss the above and to share our preliminary ideas and plans to address wealth and income disparity. Please stay tuned.

How Long Do We Wait For Change?

administration@wealthincomeequity.org (Kevin McGirr) — Thu, 04 Apr 2024 16:45:05 GMT

“The Economy is doing well, why aren’t people feeling it?”

The trend line for wealth and income inequality is well documented. As the cliché goes, “the rich have gotten richer while the poor have gotten poorer.” This trend was given significant impetus in the 1980s under the Reagan administration and has continued to diverge since.

There are well-worn explanations for growing inequality, e.g., decreasing taxes on the wealthy, the significant decrease in union membership, increased demand for technical skills. There are many other facilitating elements that stress individuals and families in the lower half of income and wealth - the lack of affordable housing, the increase in education costs, medical and student debt, among other factors.

The expectation for most Americans is that the government needs to address this issue. Just about everyone reading this blog has parents or grandparents who remember the great depression. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the embodiment of the patrician president who saved a nation from the excesses and harms of capitalism. The New Deal and the second world war were the start of the significant decrease in the relative wealth between the top and bottom quintiles. There was growth of labor unions, decent wages, and safety net supports that allowed many individuals and families to actually afford commodities that they struggle to acquire today. The “economy” of course takes twists and turns, and has ups and downs. The government takes incremental and sometimes micro-incremental steps to ameliorate the economic disparity. Even since in the “Reagan Revolution” of the 1980s, both political parties have offered and, at times, actually enacted solutions. In this presidential election year, the inevitable question is, “are you better off than four years ago?”

It would help to consider for whom that question is directed. Recent articles in the New York Times and on National Public Radio have collectively wrung hands as to why the public is not appreciating all that President Biden has done for the economy. Inflation has in fact slowed, job growth is significant, and the stock market is flourishing. The crisis of the COVID pandemic compelled governmental intervention. The President and even his predecessor enacted various programs such as, the Paycheck Protection Program which was targeted to employers, the CARES act, the Consolidated Appropriations Act and the American Rescue Plan provided rent assistance and other supports. Both unemployment benefits and the child tax credit increased; a change that has been heralded for pulling children out of poverty. This is on top of various efforts by the Federal Reserve, which issues monetary policy and sets interests rates. In all, this presidential administration has invested trillions of dollars in economic intervention. But how much of a difference does this make?

Change takes time and policy advocacy experience demands slow and prodding incremental change with many twists and turns. We should think about for whom the economy is “good” and ask questions like, “what are the recently created jobs paying? Who is benefiting from the stock market?” It should help to get a more granular sense of the reality for many Americans. The Federal minimum wage is stuck at the 2009 level of $7.25/hour. However, various states have higher minimum wage laws, e.g., D.C. ($17), Washington ($16.28), California ($16), Connecticut ($15.69) and New Jersey ($15.13). New York, Massachusetts, and Maryland all have minimum wages of $15/hour. A handful of U.S. cities have minimum wages of almost $18 up to $20.29 per hour. A new California law will require fast food workers to be paid $20/hour. Yes, this is progress! It also needs to be noted that younger folk, women, black and people of color, part timers, and hospitality and restaurant workers are the most likely to be receiving the actual minimum wage.

Living Wage Calculator

But we need to step back and review the actual cost of living by reviewing data from Amy Glasmeier and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology . The Living Wage calculator ( https://livingwage.mit.edu/ ) estimates the local wage rate that a full-time worker requires to cover the costs of their family’s basic needs where they live. This calculator monitors costs across the U.S. by State, metropolitan region, and some counties. The data is regularly updated and was last done so in February of this year. The effort calculates the cost of eight basic needs, e.g., childcare, food, healthcare, housing, internet, transportation, civic engagement (includes education) and other necessities in a specific geographic location. The needs items derive from governmental entities such as Consumer Price Index and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Reviewing the most current data for two states, e.g., Alabama and California. Note that this is statewide data with differences within each state.

In Alabama, a family with two working parents and two children need $96,805 annually (before taxes) in order to acquire the basic needs as indicated above. Each of the two adults would need to earn $23.27/hour in a full-time job. The minimum wage at $7.25 in Alabama is less than one-third the needed wage. The median annual income in 2022 in Alabama was $59,910. Alabama had 16% of its population at or below the federal poverty level.

In California, a family with two working parents and two children would need $138,357 annually (before taxes) in order to acquire the basic needs as indicated above. That means that each adult would need to earn $33.26/hour in a full -time job. The State minimum wage is less than half that amount at $16.00/ hour. The median annual income in 2022 in California was $91,905. California had 13% of its population at or below the federal poverty level.

Using median income and costs estimates in these two states, those in the middle have 61% and 66% of what they need in order to meet basic needs. As you move up above the median, it of course gets better and conversely, it gets worse as you move further below the median. Hence in both of these states, the majority of the population does not have enough money to acquire all of their basic needs? Is there any wonder why working class people are not appreciating how well the economy is doing?

How and who is going to change this?

As an organization dedicated to impacting wealth and income inequality, we grapple with the questions posed at the beginning of this blog. According to the Pew Research Center, the majority of Americans are concerned about wealth and income inequality and that something needs to be done by corporations, the wealthy and government. Should we expect the government to raise taxes on the wealthy? The same report from the Pew Research Center also indicates that every economic stratum does not want taxes to be raised on them. It would certainly be fair to assert that in any effort to redistribute wealth that the wealthy and powerholding corporations are more responsible. But is there political will to do so? Even in left-leaning states, efforts to enact a wealth tax are consistently stalled. The inevitable concern is that if we raise taxes on the wealthy, they will simply go elsewhere. This in addition to those at the top are more likely to vote and far more likely to donate to political candidates than those at the bottom. What are the other strategies? What strategies are effective and how effective? Our organization is completing a review of the wealth and income advocacy organization networks and their effectiveness. We already know that there are thousands of organizations working directly and indirectly on these issues. Even a random google search will yield hundreds of millions of references on this topic. While wealth and income inequality is not new news, is incremental change the only strategy? How long do we wait and whose responsibility is it?

There are numerous collective efforts, but we need to ask: Do we as individual citizens have a responsibility? Are there voluntary efforts that could make a significant difference?

Stay tuned for more and let us know what you think!

Welcome to Inter-Generational Wealth

Tue, 20 Feb 2024 23:52:45 GMT

Governmental policy, racial advantage, educational opportunities, and technology are but some of the inputs that enabled a massive accumulation of wealth by primarily the baby boomer generation. Upward of $50 trillion will be transferred from one generation to the next over the next twenty years.

Re-allocation of this wealth through inheritance taxation has long been met with resistance. Re-allocation of some of this wealth certainly has the potential to remedy some wealth and income disparity. There are efforts to address this issue even my members of the one percent. Check out: https://patrioticmillionaires.org/

Check back for more detail surrounding these efforts.

Welcome to the Housing Issues category

Tue, 20 Feb 2024 23:47:47 GMT

Needless to state, affordable rents is a growing issue with renters being pushed out by gentrification and the need to allocate upwards of 30% of their income for rent.

Home ownership, the greatest pathway to wealth acquisition and growth is out of reach for over one-third of Americans. The history of

redlining has deprived African Americans of this pathway to wealth. Major U.S. cities have witnessed a growth of homeless encampments.

Advocacy for a right to housing, organizing for rent strikes and tenant owned buildings are but some of the efforts surrounding this essential need.

Participation in labor unions has decreased by over 50% in the last forty years

administration@wealthincomeequity.org (Kevin McGirr) — Sat, 23 Dec 2023 17:33:51 GMT

Labor and Collective Efforts

The overwhelming majority of the global population are in engaged in some form of labor. Labor is also defined as work, a job, a profession, or a career. These descriptors often stratify us along socio-economic lines. Serving a wide variety of functions, work provides meaning and purpose which can often indicates identity and status. Caregiving or parental work are also functions which usually entails uncompensated care and nurturance; a degree of intimacy not associated with most work. Work is social. If we spend a third of our lives on the job then we are engaging with co-workers often for more time than we spend with family and other intimates.

Work is tedious, burdensome, repetitive, imprisoning, demanding, backbreaking, stressful, necessary, demeaning but also satisfying. But ultimately work is survival. Whatever the compensation, it pays at least some of the bills; a necessary vehicle to the acquisition of a wide

array of consumer needs and goods. And for those higher up the socio-economic ladder it is a vehicle for more and better-quality goods. It is a means to an end. Many use their job as a stepping-stone to for other opportunities. A professional career pathway and trajectory is

preserved for a minority of the population. And for some individuals, work is often power. Certain jobs and its compensation can buy influence which may be used to effect dynamics in the social, economic, and political spheres.

W ork can also be exploitative. Karl Marx would suggest that work is always an exercise in exploitation, asserting that capitalism is predicated on exploited labor. The concept of “surplus value” essentially defines the amount of profit minus the cost of labor. Free marketers claim that workers are free to choose for whom to offer their labor. That rarified concept eludes the overwhelming majority of workers. Few have the ability to individually negotiate their salary or working conditions. Economic boom and bust cycles are normal but it is those at the lower ends of the pay scale who become collateral damage in the pursuit of profit. Measuring worker productivity is itself an industry. Henry Ford famously created the assembly line as a means for more efficient production. Few would argue against productivity and greater labor efficiency. The issue is who benefits most from greater efficiency. Between the late 1970s and 2020,

worker productivity increased by 64.7% while hourly wage increased by 14.8%.

Collective action in the way of labor unions has been a hedge against the excesses of the profit motive. Many experts suggest that the heyday of unionization occurred following the great depression up to the 70s. Wealth and income disparity was at its lowest. Class mobility was on the rise. More individuals could own homes. Shorter work weeks, fewer hours and safer working conditions characterized labor unions’ victories. Unions for better or worse enabled the marriage of health insurance to employment. It is important to acknowledge that unions were not immune to racism. The history of discrimination in unions is well documented. Some suggest that Ronald Reagan’s termination of over 11,000 air traffic controllers after they walked off the job was a seminal event in the decline of labor unions. Many suggested that this action ushered in a more hostile attitude toward unions and decreased interest collective union

action. The cultural zeitgeist in the 1980s turned toward a more individualist approach to work and the relation between individuals and management. The neo-liberal ideal of a “free” and equal exchange between the individual worker and the manager was heralded. The economy moved away from manufacturing and increasingly toward technology. Opportunities to acquire new and skills occurred outside of the more usual union shops. Union membership decreased by 50% over the following four decades.

A glimmer of hope...

Prices for essential goods continually rise and in some time periods they rise faster creating an inflationary spiral. There are a multitude of factors that contribute to inflation, e.g., a genuine shortage of certain goods. However, not everyone equally suffers the consequence of inflation. In fact, Fortune magazine (December, 2023) reported a joint study by two British think tanks ( IPPR and Common Wealth) which found profiteering by some of the world's biggest companies forced prices up significantly higher than costs during 2022. Inflation, the pandemic, continuing and growing inequality as well as public sentiment appear to be boosting interest and defacto

union activity and membership. The bureau of Labor Statistics documents that union membership grew by over 273,000 in this last year. Recent United Auto Workers and Screen Actors Guild victories is hopefully a sign of the new momentum for collective action.

Check out the following on our Resources link:

Unions on the Rise

The Fight for Fair Wages

Cooperative Working

An alternative to unions but also an example of a collective effort are worker coops. The Mondragon “experience” as they prefer to describe it, is a work in progress and perhaps a beacon in the worker coop landscape. Over 70 plus years in the making, worker coops in the Basque region of Spain are alleged to be the most extensive network of worker coops on the globe. At 80 plus coops comprising over 69,000 members, the range of businesses range from agricultural to a university. The effort was given birth by Jose Maria Arizmendieta, a Catholic priest assigned to Mondragon in the Basque region following the Spanish civil war. The area was hurting economically and Arizmendieta was full of ideas and drive. About 10 years following his arrival, the first coop was born. It has thrived and evolved since and clearly has been an inspiration to many globally. The complexity in the arrangement can seem a bit overwhelming or even contradictory, e.g., not all workers are members, but the ten governing principles are often boiled down to a critical two: a democratic work environment and equality in reward. Prospective members are required to make a cash investment in the coop. All

worker members have a vote in the annual general assembly as well as input into the governing councils and daily management. The second most oft mentioned principle is that no one receives more than 6 times the lowest paid worker and, in most businesses the disparity is not more than four and a half. The more interesting aspect of the Mondragon experience is that it exists in the “free market.” Hence, the Mondragon research division studies and plans. It is constantly changing and adapting. These are not utopian seekers of a Marxist model; the coops expand, contract, die and are given birth. The businesses operate with managers and administrators whose roles mirror what happens in a conventional business. The coop education division is consistent in noting that the coops are normalized. There is no flag waving about the coop model. One of the staff in the education division is clear to note that workers still complain. There is no idealization of the model. Most workers are not immersed in any ideological fervor about what they are doing. It is a job but also an opportunity for a humane working environment.

Then so what? Is this a better model than the more hierarchical, more disparate monetary rewards that characterize the reality for most workers globally? Does this more egalitarian model rob entrepreneurial efforts of individual incentive and the fruits found in widespread

economic growth? Hasn’t the neoliberal ethos provided us with incredible products and services largely owed to individuals who have taken the risks and facilitated our reward of their efforts?

One distinguishing characteristic and perhaps one that favors the model is that member workers and not the business are the priority. While it can occur, there are rarely layoffs. There is unemployment compensation and re-training. There is a pension, contribution to health care insurance, and profit sharing.

In other parts of this website, you will find a chorus of literature documenting the growing disparity in the U.S. The Basque region has one of the lowest unemployment, poverty, and disparity rates globally. It is not the only model, but it appears to make an important

contribution. From the perspective of individual member workers in the Mondragon coops, their motives are material. They need jobs, housing, health care and education. But perhaps the broader and deeper question is whether this model contributes to greater gains within any social ecology. Do coop members actually have a better quality of life? Do they experience more equitable access to resources? Are they more satisfied in their work life? And then perhaps the question, does it matter? If the majority of people are mostly satisfied in the current system and do not suffer the fact that CEO wages and discrepancies for those lower down the food chain, then maybe neoliberal model is not so bad. Is there and what it the morality of the current system? Does it come down to a value and therefore commitment to a more progressive equity in the work sphere? But perhaps most important, are Americans aware of coops? Do we know to what extent they exist in our communities?

You will find a number of resources about coops (links below) particularly in the U.S which we invite you to explore. Those of you in the San Francisco Bay area may be familiar with the baker coops, some of whom are named after the Mondragon founder. It is also important to note that while there is similarity in coops, there are differences in structure, governance, and compensation. Some coops like these bakeries in San Francisco Bay area are committed to total wage equality for all those involved in the respective bakery. One resource to note is the International Coop Alliance (https://www.ica.coop/en) which claims up to a billion global workers involved in coops.

Check ou t the following on our Resources link:

How Mondragon Became the World

Retiring Small Businesses

Massachusetts: A Hotbed for Employee Ownership

Wealth and Income Inequality in the Basque Region

Landscape of California Cooperatives

Share your thoughts by leaving us a comment.

Call to action: Contact Us for more information

Welcome to Social, Cultural and Political Topics

Thu, 08 Jun 2023 15:07:03 GMT

This domain is not an advocacy effort but rather a forum for continued examination of the subtle and not so subtle political, cultural, and social dynamics surrounding wealth and income inequality.

Changing social attitudes and norms contribute to institutional and systemic justification for economic stratification.

Embedded ideas and values regarding merit, worthiness, and the value of various labor efforts reinforce economic stratification.

Check back for more detail surrounding these efforts.

Wealth and income disparity continues to grow each year

Tue, 30 May 2023 02:47:12 GMT

The disparity in wealth and income has been well documented in popular and academic press. In spite of this documentation and attention, movement to reverse the trend has not gained significant traction.

In fact, wealth and income disparity continues to grow each year under both democratic and republican administrations.

Theoretical and empirical evidence points to various historical and contextual inputs, e.g., the decrease in

manufacturing jobs, decrease in union membership, continued effort to redistribute wealth upwards through tax

relief, racism and other forms of structural factors.

Governmental programs, initiatives and broader safety net attempts to mitigate disparity, such programming has not kept pace with broader economic factors.

The current state of affairs is likely a confluence of all of these factors and others. Disparity owing to racial and gender dynamics are acknowledged. Massive inequity impacting various demographic groups has been codified and practiced openly resulting in a pernicious disparity attributed to practices such as red lining.

It is also critical to consider the wide interplay of cultural and social context and attitudes that sustain disparity.

Americans enjoyed one of the lowest Gini-coefficient ratings post war through the 1970s. Economic mobility was possible, home

ownership was possible and health care was far more affordable. Unions were popular as was government involvement in health, education, and housing. The FDR administration was perhaps the highwater mark of governmental legitimacy in mitigating some of the adverse consequences of capitalism.

The highest tax rate ironically occurred under a republican, Eisenhower administration. The LBJ administration echoed many of these liberal democratic principles with growth in governmental programs.

The Reagan administration was the ‘right’ turn. The evolving social and cultural ethos favored individual initiative and entrepreneurship over more communitarian ideas and practices. Hostility to government intervention, taxes and unions evolved as economists began documenting the change and impact of how the lower economic rungs were being left behind.

Even though a significant percentage of the U.S. population have difficulty paying rent, obtaining, or sending their children to college, accessing affordable health care, debt due to health care there has not been a groundswell of support to reverse the trend.

The outrage and demonstrations surrounding racism, abortion, transphobia has not carried over to issues of economic inequality. Individuals in economic disenfranchisement have also been used as fodder in culture battles by politicians that scapegoat others, e.g., immigrants. There has been a demonization of governmental intervention, despite the fact that and that economic disenfranchisement cuts across racial, religious, ethnic, gender and geographic lines,.

This acceptance of persistent and growing inequality results in an unarticulated economic segregation, leaving those who ‘have’ distanced and protected from those who ‘have not’. While not as pernicious or morally abhorrent as in racist practice, this economic segregation approaches an economic apartheid.

The economic disenfranchisement does not deny rights to economic fruits but the interplay and myriad number factors places a significant percentage of the U.S. population enduring a de facto apartheid to all the goods and services enjoyed by others.

Have an opinion? Let's hear them, leave a comment below.

You can also contact us directly

Welcome to Higher Education and Vocational Training

Mon, 15 May 2023 22:56:07 GMT

The cost of higher education has significantly outpaced the rate of inflation over recent decades. Students and families are burdened with debt that prevents them from utilizing those funds for basic needs such as home ownership.

The idea that “getting ahead” and gaining wealth is tied to a college degree also needs to be challenged. There should be equal access to supported vocational training.

Welcome to Single Payer Healthcare

Mon, 15 May 2023 22:54:32 GMT

The right to healthcare continues to challenge the wealthiest nation in history. There is clear correlation between income and wealth and health status. Individuals on the lower end of SES have more health problems and shorter life spans than their wealthier peers.

Health care in the U.S. is for profit and unpaid medical bills account for more than half of all debt in collections.

Efforts to enact a right to healthcare and a single payer are too numerous to list yet we will continue to monitor advocacy efforts surrounding this issue.

Check back for more detail surrounding these efforts.

Welcome to Tax Policy

Mon, 15 May 2023 22:53:42 GMT

It is old news that re-allocation of the wealth has been upward for the better part of the last 40 years. “Tax relief” for the wealthy has been a hallmark of various presidential administrations.

There is no argument that the wealthy do pay a lot of taxes but economists have demonstrated that individuals in lower socio-economic status pay a much larger share of their annual income in the way of payroll, local and sales taxes.

Check back for more detail surrounding these efforts.

Welcome to the Universal Basic Income category

Mon, 15 May 2023 22:45:55 GMT

There is a growing list of municipalities that are experimenting or even committing to a basic level of income for its citizens.

In fact, there is an organization of U.S. Mayors who have committed to the concept ( https://www.mayorsforagi.org) .

The underlying principle is that individuals should be guaranteed an income floor.

Check back for more detail surrounding these efforts.

Welcome to the Worker Owned Co-ops category

Mon, 15 May 2023 22:44:44 GMT

Worker cooperatives vary in ownership and governance but an overriding principle is that the workers in the enterprise have a significant input into decision making and the economic gain.

The number of worker cooperatives in the United States grew more than 30 percent since 2019, an astonishing figure when you consider the obstacles to new businesses during the pandemic.

Through its bi-annual economic census completed in 2021, the Democracy at Work Institute (DAWI) verified 612 worker cooperatives employing 5,966 workers.

In 2019, DAWI identified 465 worker co-ops employing 6,454 workers. The worker co-ops verified in the census must have at least three workers and 50 percent ownership of the business. DAWI estimates that there are closer to 1,000 worker co-ops operating in the U.S., with 10,000 workers.

Perhaps the most extensive network of worker cooperatives is centered in Mondragon, the Basque region of Spain. It is the seventh-largest Spanish company in terms of asset turnover. At the end of 2016, it employed 74,117 people in 257 companies and organizations in four areas of activity: finance, industry, retail and knowledge. By 2019, 81,507 people were employed.

Mondragon cooperatives operate in accordance with the Statement on the Co-operative Identity maintained by the International Co-operative Alliance.

Check back for more detail surrounding these efforts.

Call to action: Contact Us for more information

Welcome to the Union Activity category

Mon, 15 May 2023 22:41:17 GMT

Participation in labor unions has decreased by over 50% in the last forty years.

The growth and membership in labor unions in the post war years is often cited as a significant contributor to income inequality. There appears to be glimmers of a reversal in union membership in recent years.

Businesses such as Starbucks, Amazon, Trader Joes and Whole Foods are amidst union organizing drives.

Check back for more detail surrounding these efforts.

For more information CONTACT US