

Obama Says Income Gap Is Fraying U.S. Social Fabric - georgebonnr
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/us/politics/obama-says-income-gap-is-fraying-us-social-fabric.html?hp&_r=0

======
spikels
I'm not listening to this politician tell me what my values are or what it
means to be an American until he stops tracking my phone calls, watching my
email account, photographing my snail mail and examining my bank and credit
card statements. If he can't stop making obvious mistakes, how can he possibly
think he is going to "fix" something as complex and subtle as the economy.
This is pure politics from someone who knowns nothing else.

Edit: Sorry if this seems harsh but I'm having a hard time taking this guys
bullshit anymore. Is there any substance in this new focus on the economy or
is it just a way to change the subject.

~~~
tnuc
How is this guys bullshit any different from the last guys bullshit?

The tracking of phone calls and internet started long before Obama stepped
into office.

------
khawkins
>“And that’s what’s been eroding over the last 20, 30 years, well before the
financial crisis,” he added.

Is he still blaming Bush for what are unarguably, by this point, his problems?

>The economy is “far stronger” than four years ago, he said, yet many people
who write to him still do not feel secure about their future, even as their
current situation recovers.

It seems wants to have his cake and eat it too: "I've fixed the recession, but
there's still massive unemployment." I've never understood this obsession with
stock markets as economic health indicators and obscuring of unemployment by
calling it "underemployment"
([http://www.cnbc.com/id/100870095](http://www.cnbc.com/id/100870095)).

------
georgebonnr
Sorry, here is the bare link (shouldn't be paywalled):
[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/us/politics/obama-says-
inc...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/us/politics/obama-says-income-gap-
is-fraying-us-social-fabric.html)

------
muzz
I'm not sure why this submission is on HackerNews?

Many of the comments seem to be less about the article, and more about the
commenter's opinion of Obama.

~~~
georgebonnr
Yes, unfortunately. Next time maybe I don't put the word "Obama" in the actual
title...

~~~
muzz
That might lower the number of visceral responses to the speaker, but I still
don't see the relevance of the content, i.e. commentary on the social fabric,
to HackerNews.

------
omarchowdhury
Thanks Obama.

~~~
logical42
It is getting a bit difficult to take the dude seriously, isn't it?

~~~
mathgladiator
I don't know. I think history will tell, but I get the same president-y vibe
as all the others. My gut is that it isn't the president (we should put anyone
in there), but a toxic system of governance.

This is why I'm a huge fan of attacking the root of all problems: the
confluence of money + power. Power shouldn't be bought.

~~~
logical42
Really? I feel rather let down by this guy.

I mean, he was supposed to be different. He wasn't supposed be a dude
emanating the "same persident-y" vibe as everyone else. He was supposed to be
about change and morality. Honestly I'm more upset at Obama than Bush because
I expected the bullshit from Bush but I feel like Obama tricked an entire
nation.

~~~
abrown28
He didn't fool me.

------
cyphunk
pw;dr (paywalled), other version please

~~~
spikels
Just clear your cookies or use incognito mode in your browser - no NYT paywall

~~~
georgebonnr
Yep, cmd+shift+n works like a charm in Chrome

------
iterative
[http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/07/yes-the-middle-class-has-
be...](http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/07/yes-the-middle-class-has-been-
disappearing-but-they-havent-fallen-into-the-lower-class-theyve-risen-into-
the-upper-class/)

~~~
metricman
I'm also not really sure about this article. I find the evidence in that graph
not to be compelling enough for summarizing with "bottom line:" and some real
clean explanation.

I find the trending cumulative percentage a little confusing to think about.

I also wondered, does this mean there is some income bracket losing people?
That is, no more families making 25-75k but still as many making <25k, so the
<25k have fewer slightly-above peers?

Then I wondered if maybe this means something about the <25k potentially
having less income? That percentage stays flat, but those other earners are
changing classification to rich... I don't really know.

After writing this up I realize that what I'd like to see is the whole income
distribution. This cherry-picks certain points on the CDF and plots them over
time (the income cutoffs of 25k and 75k).

What's interesting to me is whether or not we've gone from a unimodal income
distribution to a bimodal one, in the sense that there's a trough between the
lowest income families and the highest. If we have a 'middle class' we avoid
that, and probably that is socially important.

I think this graph is better for understanding the main article, which plots
the Gini coefficient for income distribution over time by country [a few,
anyway]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gini_since_WWII.svg](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gini_since_WWII.svg)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient)

------
iterative
Obama says a lot of things.

