This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Independence should not be listed for the United States on the federal level. To do so is factually and legally inaccurate since the United States is a new entity founded after Independece was secured by the will of the people. I instead recomend that each states have listed the source of their independece from before joining the Union. That would nullify conflict, be legally accurate and not make false assumptions. Here in Louisiana we were never under British rule and to use a blanket independece would lead some ignorant of the history to assume that Louisiana was also subject to britian when that is grossly NOT the case.-- Billiot 03:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Here in CA we were never under British rule as well-we were Spanish colony, then Mexico, then US in 1850. But the US, the concept that is the United States, started in the 13 colonies, who were British colony. Most states like CA or LA were then annex by that former British colony. Listing all states, would make for a really long infobox. You're right about one thing though-people too often forget that the US was actually colonized by three different (four if you count the Neatherlands in the 17^th century) colonial powers and different US states have very different histories. The history of California is very different that that of Texas, Iowa, or New Hampshire. But to make this simple, we just follow the political entity known as the US throughout history and most states come in only after they were annexed. Signature ^brendel 05:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we were colonized by four countries (England, France, Russia, Spain), five if you count the Netherlands. Alaska is a state too, remember? -- R'son-W (speak to me/ breathe) 12:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Atually what I am suggesting is to not have it listed at the federl level at all and instead amend each State Info box.-- Billiot 05:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

While 4th of July is celebrated as the day of independence, the United States got independent officially only after the war of independence, on September 3, 1783 ^[1], when british king George III and US leaders signed the Treaty of Paris. ^[2] -- 195.56.14.113 01:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, one more time I will state that someone READ the treaty of paris before putting this again. The treaty of paris does not grant indepentence to the United States and thus does not belong in this argument. Independece was not given or granted to the Americans by greaoge "randon number" but by the people of America. And by the way, if we are going to talk about people giving or granting independence then Wikipedia needs to be accurage and uniform for all Nations what so ever. So Louisiana was given independence by Nepolean and thus I have a serious problem with an article that makes it seem like the british were involved in any way what so ever. On another note, why doesn't the british page list their independence from France? Here is a really good one that you can't even argue with: why doesn't the Greek page list their independece from the Ottoman empire. Simple, it isn't needed. I have no problem putting relevant info into a history page but is it really needed here? I don't think so. AND AGAIN, I will ask that you PLEASE, PLEASE READ the treaty of paris so that you can have an idea of what you are talking about. The only reason to bicker over this point is to be specifically anti-American. It isn't about truth, or accuracy or fair play, or even just listening. This is all centered around trying to put America down. The british can teach whatever they want in their schools but that doesn't make it correct or right and may actually be causing a human rights violation if they go too far since people everywhere have a right to defend their HUMAN RIGHTS against violators going back to any time. -- Billiot 14:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No one said the Treaty of Paris granted independence. It did however end all competing claims on the nation. The USA was not de facto independent in 1776. -- Golbez 14:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The british crown may have had a claim to the nation, by the way that word actually means PEOPLE, and have had a claim to the land but it was unable to have these claims hold up in international court; since other countries recognized the states as independent well before britian; or the court of the battle field. And even later when the so called crown tried to lay another claim on persons and land again their claim did not hold up in the court of the battle field in 1812. Now since the treaty of paris is so often quoted by you people let me tell you what it is from an Internatinal Law and Political Science point of view. The treaty of paris allows british ships and british merchants into American waters and marketplaces. As to independence, Mr. grearge "random number" simply states what had already become a living breathing reality, that the states were independent, and the states whose independence he is forced to recognize so that his merchants could do business again are listed in the treaty and LOUISIANA is not one of them. You will notice that the states listed do not have to give any consideration, that is a legal term you have to look up, for this independence. They did not buy it from him or need his permission. The Americans went over there and basically said "do you understand now?" and the treaty of paris is him saying, "yah, yah, I got it." Had Mr. "random number" not signed it and the states and britain remained in a state of war it would not have changed a thing. America was already a full member of the international community with several countries siding with us irregardless of what the elector of hanover thought. The current federal government was not created at that time but was a later creation so the article needs to be clear in what it is talking about. Is it talking about the United States as in what is currently trying to be ONE country or is it talking about the United States as in independent states as in independent countries? Now since I am on the topic of the INFOBOX I would also like to mention that it seems strange to put so much extra info under the Government section when no other country does this. Could this just be people wanting to get a mention of their guy? If so then it doesn't belong in the Info Box. I know some people really really really feel like they need to get a mention but all that needs to be there is President unless you want to list all the Governors. If we list extra info for the US then we need to go around to every country's article and do the same. This extra kind of information belongs in an article on US politics and not in the info box. -- Billiot 15:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm of the opinion that when the original 13 colonies said that they were not being represented by the british monarchy and listed their grievances, it was pretty clear that they were declaring their independence, which is what the infobox says, "Independence: Declared July 4, 1776". The Treaty of Paris was the recognition that that declaration was valid, though the United States had been de facto independent from Britain from an Inernational standpoint for seven years. As for listing other states' independences? That's ludicrous. Only three states have been independent nations, and only two of them were internationally recognized. Texas, Hawaii, and the one that was unrecognized internationally, California. All other states were merely territories that were handed over by other sovereign nations, and then became states. None of them had ever been independent. And yes, I realize that the 13 colonies considered themselves independent, but I think that the fact that they declared independence from Britain together, and then quickly formed a confederation speaks that they were one nation. Besides, would you list "July 4, 1776" thirteen times in a row? A tad redundant if you ask me. -- R'son-W (speak to me/ breathe) 12:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is the article title not "United States of America"? Shoreranger 03:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:United_States/Name. — Jaxad 0127 03:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

American history is a very rich history. It has been through many major wars and movements. Its constitution is so strong that it has had only 28 Amendments in its entire history. Many of its Amendments are for rights not included in the Constitution. The US has worked its way to being the most powerful nation on the planet with the most high tech arsenal of weapons.-- Purplethief1 17:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That's nice but this isn't a discussion board. Signature ^brendel 18:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Then do tell, Why this is under a tab labeled discussion? There is no need to ignore reality and be rude in the process. -- 24.128.42.251 22:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

User:BrendelSignature is absolutely correct. The discussion (Talk) page is for discussion of the article, not the general subject that the article is about. If User:Purplethief1 wants to turn his comments into a concrete proposal for addition to the article, such a proposal would be appropriate here -- but his comments as expressed above were not. Raymond Arritt 23:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"Great Britain" shouldn't it be "United Kingdom"? Most other countries that have declared independence from the "British Empire" are classed as "United Kingdom" on here. 81.208.167.238 15:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The United Kingdom did not exist until the Act of Union in 1800. The other countries declared independence after 1800. Prior to 1800, it was the Kingdom of Great Britain. -- Golbez 17:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The Thing that always gets left out of these things is that the American colonies were seen as a burden to the British. The colonies enjoyed low tax (the lowest in The Empire and in the rest of the civilised world) and a good quality of life, which was not the case back in Britain, for this reason when the rebelion started Britain was not willing to use excesive manpower in re-establishing order to the colonies.

Could someone point me to the screenshot of when the United States article was deleted and it said something like "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. View 3000 deleted edits?" I remember seeing it but I don't remember where it was. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 06:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Please comment and weigh in on the nomination for deletion of North America (Americas). Thanks! Corticopia 00:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Before you vote, please make sure to read the article and the sources presented (click here), since the article nomination page is very confusing and misleading, and at the moment of the nomination, the article was not finished yet. It has been improved. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 13:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Though voluminous in text, the nomination and points made therein are rather clear and, even though the article has been updated, remain unchanged. Wikipedians can decide for themselves. Corticopia 13:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Again ...

Thanks to those who commented on this prior AfD. Even though an apparent consensus supported the prior AfD in some way (and the article has been deleted), this has reared its ugly head again -- please peruse and weigh in. Thanks! Corticopia 16:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we have a nice picture for California like beaches, and people in Santa Monica or Malibu instead of high rise buildings picture placed between New York City and Chicago (which does not add much to the article in my opinion). Also something nice and quiet for Dixieland ( Louisiana) would be very welcome.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.116.234.208 ( talk) 06:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

I'm new to this article, so please forgive me if the following concern has already been vetted: the lead section's third paragraph (in the current version) says the U.S. has been the sole world superpower since 1991. I think some sources would argue that China is now or will soon be a superpower as well. Shall we change the wording?-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 08:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It says that the US was the sole superpower after the fall of the Soviet Union and that today is an influencial nation. If you want to read more about the issue see the superpower article. Currently most experts agree that the US is the only country that can be recognized as a superpower. Signature ^brendel 19:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Some would argue that this means nothing today as a new type of enemy has appeared, the enemy unknown. Also the fact that the super power hasn't managed to find one man hiding in a hill after a war dedicated on finding ONE man.

I think it is self evident the US is the only Super Power in the world at the moment. China and the PLA forces are certainly on the rise but they are decades from being considered a Super Power. Remember to be a Super Power you must be able project forces globally, China is only a regional power as they can't operate much outside their borders. Their technology levels are rather low considering they have to rely on Cold War Soviet technology for the bulk of their military purchases. 69.242.205.212 09:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see the article superpower. Also, WP talk pages are not discussion boards. Signature ^brendel 19:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The US was never really a superpower and only said to be one create the feeling we could defeat the USSR. The only war the US has won since World War 2 was the Persian Gulf War, and the was even with the help of a coalition force too.

According to you The United States of America is the only "Super Power" on earth I am american but i dont think china is relying on cold war technology. If USSR and china where to attack the United States we would be screwed.

By the way Mexico has an airforce?

"American football becoming very popular in many developed areas of the world, especially Canada and Germany, where most of the teams in NFL Europe reside." To suggest American football has an international dimension like baseball or basketball is very inaccurate. To describe it as very popular in Canada or Germany is stretching the truth.

Well, I'm not a sports buff, but the only American sport that has truly spanned a global following is basketball. Baseball would be distant second. The sentence above does not seem important enough to fit into this article. Signature ^brendel 00:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Baseball is huge in Latin countries, and popular in some asian countries (South Korea and Japan). It's just non-existent practically everywhere else. But it's more popular than football (soccer) in some latin countries. I would imagine the only place besides the states where amer. football has a claim to popularity is Canada, where the CFL enjoys some success. -- W.marsh 03:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I can see both sides to that. Obviously football is gaining ground, but it's nowhere close to baseball or basketball. I think the sentence should be left. Especially since there are now 2 games scheduled to take place outside of North America (London, and I think Tokyo). It could probably to be phrased differently, but it shouldn't be totally removed. 66.225.27.2 03:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not obvious that football is gaining ground, other than a few high profile events which are not unprecedented. It has no grass roots presence overseas unlike baseball and basketball. An article about the worlds leading democracy does not need POV speculation. 09:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggest changing the political status of the country to one of Dictatorship.

Dictionary.com defines a dictator as "a person exercising absolute power, esp. a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.". With todays news about the US House vote to pull-out of war, and Pres. Bush vetoing it.... doesn't that mean he is now a dictator?

You're kidding, right? -- Kimon ^talk 20:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I wish I was :-(

Let's take it apart:

• absolute, unrestricted control in a government

The Senate and the Congress are by a majority controlled by the opposite party that were elected into office on the platform of opposing the president. So this assertion of yours is false.

• Bush vetoing it.... doesn't that mean he is now a dictator?

No. The executive has the authority and responsibility to veto any decision by the Congress that is disagreed with. It's part of the checks and balances. The veto can be overridden with a majority in the Congress.

In summary, you are incorrect. -- Kimon ^talk 21:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The number of people protesting Bush and his policies seems to prove he isn't a dictator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.12.143.197 ( talk • contribs) 07:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Every leader of every democracy or republic has been protested against. If Bush (43) were a dictator, the protesters would've been shot or imprisoned. The mere fact that they're allowed and encouraged to do so, proves that we still live in a free country, contrary to the belief of the chicken-littles of the world. -- Kimon ^talk 16:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I was agreeing with you Kimon, I just put it at the wrong level. 69.12.143.197 00:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

:) -- Kimon ^talk 00:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

no. a dictator is not a murderer, a dictator is someone that wields absolute power over a state or country by his own. giving an individual a veto right like that is a dictatorial power· Lygophile has spoken 12:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, Congress has the power to override any veto by two-thirds majority. And Congress can impeach the President for crimes against the country (which very well might happen with these declassified pentagon memoes). Also, if the president vetoes the budget, he just won't have any money to operate his administration until he does decide to approve it, and so on, and so on. Seperation of powers, my Dutch compadre, the system is designed to prevent dictatorship. The only way it could happen is by constitutional amendment, and that would require two-thirds of the States' Legislatures' approvals. Oh, and your Queen can still dissolve your parliament whenever she feels like it. Just throwing that out there. -- R'son-W (speak to me/ breathe) 13:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

yeah our royal family has some questionable powers, thats why they never use it. but ok, i wasnt aware that veto didnt actually mean veto· Lygophile has spoken 14:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The chief justice doesn't have any real power, but seeing that the VP is also there, it might be a good thing to show the three branches of government in the US. 69.12.143.197 07:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that would make much sense. The VP and Speaker are there because they are the next 2 directly in line for the presidency and thus are extremely important. 66.225.27.2 03:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added it, as the Cheif Justice is the head of third branch of the US Government. Presidential succession does not make someone more important. Every branch is equal, it's the entire point of the government. The Cheif Justice heads the Supreme Court, which exercises checks on the other two branches just as the other two check it. John Roberts, while not seen as often, is every bit as important as President Bush, Dick Cheney, and Nancy Pelosi. Dooms Day349 03:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have recently re-written the economy section. Making it more neutral, 4Kb shorter, yet more informative. While I am fond of the Wall Steet picture, I could really use the space for a pie-chart explaining economic stratification in the US. So, I have taken the liberty to add my pie chart and rm Wall Street. If you have any suggestion or feel really stronly about having the Wall Street Pic in there-let me know. Signature ^brendel 17:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The color red is not a neutral color for a country's map in my opinion. Red has a strong connotation of an "enemy country" in the US/Allies map to depict the Soviet Union and its allies during the cold war. SSZ 01:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you're right red is by nature an agressive color, commonly used (by animals and humans) as a warning. Blue or green are much calmer and peaceful colors, yet most countries and locations are marked in red in WP articles-perhaps we should change that policy. Signature ^brendel 02:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Blue has connotations of being used by Western capitalist states since the Cold War. Green is a popular colour to depict Islamic countries. Are we going to make a big fuss that we're implying that the United States is an Islamic country by choosing green?

The current red/beige/blue maps are part of the Rei-Artur collection ( commons:User:Rei-artur/by/Mapas de localização de Países). You can change the colours to suit the old scheme (see Image:LocationCanada2.svg), and I've done both red/beige/blue and green/grey/white maps for Australia and Russia (I haven't uploaded the Russia one yet though), but I'm in no mood to go back and overhaul all the existing maps to the green/grey/white scheme. Kelvinc 02:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Geopolitics aside, red is an aggressive color- that's simply human psychology. Thus I have to say, I really prefer the green/grey/white scheme. If you don't mind I'll change the color on this map to green when I get the time. Signature ^brendel 02:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I can re-colour this map, and later on go over any "world size" country maps (like Brazil), but going through the whole collection is just not that appealing to me at this moment.

And I don't think "calm" or "passive" is any more neutral of a concept than "aggressive". Kelvinc 03:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

ARGH it turns out the Rei-Artur maps are based on a blank map that is missing Hawai'i. Keep the PNG for now. I'll take a look at Commons and see whether there's a better map that can be used as a template. Sorry for the inconvenience. Kelvinc 03:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Should we perhaps sprinkle flowers around the map, and add a little baby panda bear, to make it even sweeter and unthreatening? -- Golbez 05:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I've found a blank SVG map that does have Hawai'i (and is generally more accurate) and did locator maps using the old colours for Russia, Canada, the United States, Brazil, and Australia. This is the same map as the one used for the European Union. The map uses actual controlled areas, which will be problematic for the People's Republic of China and India, so I skipped those, and any smaller countries should use a zoomed map (I disagree with the current usage of a world map as the locator for Argentina).

And Golbez, pandas would be Sinocentric POV. I'm pretty sure flowers would piss someone else off too.  ;) Kelvinc 05:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, very funny-but seariously red is a bad color to use- its the same reason that you shouldn't grade your students' papers in red ink. Flowers are a good idea though- but instead of Pandas I have to say, I'd prefer kittens.

Kelvinc, I appreciate your efforts and tank you for changing the map so promptly! Regards, Signature ^brendel 05:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It's too bad though that the existing map would be useless to create zoomed maps, unless the country was near the Prime Meridian (e.g. South Africa). I'm looking into using the map on Oceania to do maps for that region.

On a separate note: I love grading with red ink. Then again I was doing it to high school and university students, so hurting their feelings wasn't a big concern. On the other hand, my hands-on experience does suggest some truth to your concerns: marking wouldn't be anywhere near as much fun with any other colour. Kelvinc 21:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

At one point, a single consistent map style was used for all country infoboxes: the prior PNG maps (which are simple but functional) depicted topical countries in green, and surrounding ones in grey with water/borders in white. New maps should do the same while depicting water as light blue; as well, for maps that exhibit the entire world, the projection border should be shown ... otherwise, one might assume that oceans extend to the four corners of the map! ;) Now -- sadly -- a variety of inconsistent map styles of varied quality are used in country infoboxes -- for instance, the maps used for EU countries are absolutely horrid: like I still can't clearly identify Cyprus on its map. Someone please restore order to chaos ... Corticopia 19:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: "please restore order to chaos" But first we need a crisis (lol) 69.116.234.208 06:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Who took out mention of the US and it's contributions to the Internet? I wouldn't think this is a minor detail since, you know, we're on the Internet right now.-- Rotten 15:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite know what you have in mind but it does seem minor in this article as it is not key to understanding America-though I suppose a short sentence on Internet development in the US can't hurt-if you find a good source. Signature ^brendel 22:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There was stuff in there but some pinhead deleted it. I put back in the sentence.-- Rotten 05:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"A recent BBC poll, interviewing 28,000 individuals in 27 counties, found that 51% of respondents saw the US as having a mostly negative effect on global affairs."

What's the point of that line being included in the article? Ryratt 19:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The current perception of US policy around the other corners of the global village. Signature ^brendel 20:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Shall we put opinion polls of other countries in their respective articles? Ryratt 20:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If they are authoritative, sure. Signature ^brendel 23:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I recommend it be taken out because it is not cited. If one could see the other countries included in the poll, it would put it into context. Ryratt 20:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your recommendation, I see your point, but still think the poll is worthwhile keeping. Signature ^brendel 01:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This artical contradicts every other page on the size of the united states in comparason to Canada and should probably be changed accordingly —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.38.178.254 ( talk) 22:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

It does? Canada is larger in total area - but smaller in land area alone. Can you specify which sentence is contradictory? -- Golbez 22:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Since when is the official name of the U.S. "The Federation of the United States of America?"

Since someone vandalized it. -- Golbez 03:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

By 1770 they had a population of three million, about half as many as Britain itself. However, no representation was allowed them in the British Parliament.

Isn't this an urban myth? As far as I know Britain offered representation several times but Ben Franklin (who wanted to accept it) was ordered to refuse because it would have led to less support for independance. Wayne 02:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC) who cares america kicks ass!!!!

No it is not an urban myth. If you think you are correct in your claim them show proof. I can tell you as someone who has a degree in this subject that your claim in nothing I have ever heard of and would be really amazed if you could produce it.-- Billiot 15:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This is wrong: "The long-term trend for wages of middle-income Americans has largely been stagnant since the 1970s and fallen for low-income earners, despite substantial gains in hourly labor productivity." The source given is a radio interview from NPR. I know that real wages (including counting job benefits like health insurance as part of income) have been increasing since the 1970's. I know they've increased every year since 1996, because I've seen the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The problem is I don't know where to find the data. Anyone know where to find it? I mean official, direct, data, not a radio interview, and not an article from the New York Times or some other untrustworthy rag like that. This is an egregious error that needs to be corrected. (Note that the data should include employment benefits. Just looking at take-home pay does not give the whole picture). BillyBoom 07:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

the current data is BLS report the key point is that "compensation" includes pension and health care that is of critical importance to workers & families. Rjensen 15:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

the current data is at BLS report the key point is that "compensation" includes pension and health care that is of critical importance to workers & families. For long-term data see [1] It shows: "Over the last 10 years, there was a 25% increase in real hourly compensation"

File:Real$1947-2006.jpg

Rjensen 15:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That statement is correct for wages.

Interestingly productivity increased by 40% since 1979 while wages for those with a college degree or higher increased some 20% (almost all the increase was 1995-2000). Those with less than a degree (70% of workforce) took a marginal loss in real terms and those on minimum wage (78% of whom are the primary breadwinner in the household) actually had a wage reduction of 21% in real terms so that statement is conservative. What proportion of the workforce gets benifits and how much? Those on minimum wage dont usually get enough benifits to matter and I bet most of that 70% of workforce don't get a lot either so gross wages without benifits are a fairer way to use the statistics.

The reason the standard of living has not fallen to match is that the average family now works (overtime/spouse/part time etc) 5 months more per year compared to 1979 thus increasing overall family income substantially which tends to hide real value. Executive income on the other hand has increased from 40X the average wage in 1979 to 500X which should also skew the graph. What I gave you comes from Jack Rasmus' book, The War At Home, who used Towers Perrin for his data. You should be able to find plenty of confirmation. Wayne 16:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

actually it's a bad mistake to pretend that people do not get benefits: they make up 28% of payrolls right now. Even minimum wage forlks get social security and unemployment comp, for example. What's happened is that there are big tax advantages to the employee to get $100 in benefits rather than $100 in wages. Rjensen 16:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"The reason the standard of living has not fallen to match is that the average family now works (overtime/spouse/part time etc) 5 months more per year compared to 1979 thus increasing overall family income substantially which tends to hide real value."- true but let's not forget the biggest factor that has increased the standard of living for American families: the two-earner family! 76% of households with six figure incomes have two income earners! Remember that only 6% of Americans have six figure incomes, but 18% of households do! With two earner families you now have 2-earner working class families making as much as some 1-earner professional class families (Gilbert, 2002). (Granted those working class families will likely have a lower standard of living as they will likely have more dependents- a single lawyer making $88k/yr. is actually more affluent than a family of five making $120k/yr.)

As for personal annual income-it has been somewhat stagnant- depending on sex. Income for women has increased greatly, but for men income was lower in 1996 than in 1973. Yet, it too has increased since '96 and is now $2k above its 1973 level. See this US Census Bureau table for median personal income since 1947.

I have re-written the questioned sentence to accurately reflect our primary source-the US Census Bureau and will soon create a graph that will make those numbers easier to comprehend. Also, let's stick to gross income data for this article-it is the easiest to comprehend- our readers are more accustomed to seeing pay figures and they are a good indicator. Yes, compensation is important but is best left to the Economy of the United States article. Best Regards, Signature ^brendel 17:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think compensation is most important. Whatever benefits you receive from your employer is part of what you receive for your labor. If compensation for labor was going down or flat, there would be something very wrong with capitalism. But we can see that in the U.S people get more and more back for the same amount of labor. I disagree with you about your two income earner point. If compensation for labor increases over the years, then obviously less and less labor is needed to maintain the same standard of living. The reason most households with 6 figure incomes have two wage earners is simply because these are people that desire to buy large houses, expensive cars, the latest technological gadgets, etc. There is no need to have two wages earners if you want to live modestly (which is living richly according to the standards of many years ago). That's true more than ever today. Living has never been cheaper (requires less labor), and it will continue to get cheaper. Looking into the extended future, living will require hardly any effort at all. BillyBoom 19:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if you put a graph of income in this article, without showing total earnings from labor including employee benefits, I'm going to challenge it as POV. Leaving benefits out of wages is a deceptive gimmick that socialists used to try to discredit capitalism. I recommend a chart that shows both, and throughout the whole history of the U.S. And please tell me the point of this that you added to the article: "For men, however, income actually decreased from 1973 to 1996 and remains only $2,000 higher in 2005 than in 1973." Why did you select 1973? If you used 1974 instead of 1973, you wouldn't have been able to make such a statement. What matters is what the long term trends are, not some specially selected time frame. And, again, the picture is much different if you look at total compensation. Many more employers provide health insurance to employees than they did in the past. It used to have to come from their take-home pay. If the employer pays for it instead to entice the worker to work there, then the employee is that much better off. It is crucial that total compensation be discusses with at least equal weight with non-benefit wages. Leaving out benefits is POV, so I'm putting a POV tag there. BillyBoom 22:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Three things:

• Don't remove household income stats, they don't include everything but are still valid info that ought to be mentioned here. If you want to add benefit data go ahead, but there is no good reason to remove exsisting data as presented by the US government. The Census Bureau places much greater emphasis on income levels than anything else, as should this section. So long as the DoC says that median income is the way to go, it will be mentioned here.
• I agree standard of living has increased-I have never said anything to the contrary
• Beware of your own POV-conservative POV is as bad/good as liberal POV. Income stats themselves as I have used them, do not have a POV! They just are- yes they have shortcomings but are still among the most meaningful data sets out there, otherwise the DoC wouldn't spent so much effort collecting them!

Regards, Signature ^brendel 01:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: I will write a new paragraph about "income over time" including the stats about rise in benefits (mentioned by another user above) next to info pertaining to changes in income. Both pieces on info will be mentioned side by side, and given the same amount of text to ensure a balance. The other paragraph citing median income levels will stay as the US Census Bureau uses it [median household/personal income] as the main measure the wealth of this great nation. So long as the DoC placed a high degree of emphasis on annual gross income figures, they will be mentioned right here in this article (whether we agree or not-we need to go w/ what the DoC says here on WP). The paragraph in question will be re-written, however, to mention both flacutations in income and employer benefits. That way the increasing standard of living will be presented and our section will be meaningful to our readers and in accord w/ the DoC's view-point. I thereby propose the following sentence to be added:

“

"While most income gains in the US have gone mostly to the upper 20%, technological progress, increased worker benefits, and the emergence of the two-earner household have boosted the nation's standard of living.

”

Signature ^brendel 04:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, what time frame are you talking about there? Secondly, it looks a bit POV. To make it less POV it should say something like "Income gains have gone to all levels, with the largest percentage of income gains going to ..." BillyBoom 06:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Also, it should be pointed out that the higher income levels also work longer hours. That's one of the reasons why most of the income gains go to higher income people. I've seen data for this, but again, I don't know where to find it. BillyBoom 06:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

We are just talking about income and benefits, not why-that's a bit too much detail. There are quite a few reasons why-education is perhaps the biggest one. Half of those w/ PhDs are among the top 15% of earners-there is a good reason for that. As for the time span, the CIA (from which that quote comes) is refering to the time after the post-industrialization (ca. 1970+). Signature ^brendel 14:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Benifits can be mentioned in it's own section? To include benifits in wage statistics is POV for several reasons. The benifits of those that do get them gives a large bias to statistics giving the appearance everyone is better off rather than only a small proportion of the population which is deceptive. ie:There are 7.5 million on minimum wage with few if any benifits that have a real purchasing power 30% lower than 30 years ago.

The the average real wage for all production and nonsupervisory workers in the private sector is 14% lower than 30 years ago but including benifits is 5% higher (average of all workers). This looks good but 20% of these workers receive 80% of the benifits so you can see how this makes the data inaccurate.

Also companies in the US have exceptionally low taxes compared to the rest of the world. For example in my country you do not get any benifits from employers so they (and the workers) pay much higher taxes. The government provides our benifits which even the homeless receive (need a heart transplant? It's free, want a pension but never worked? No problem). Statistics always compare our income to Americas without taking benifits into consideration and I'm sure other countries do it the same way.

I think Brendans sentence is good if added to the original rather than replacing it. Wayne 10:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

WLRoss wants to cut benefits, but they are very important indeed to people. (People who lack benefits at WalMar are very angry about it.) Why does he want to cut them? to make it seem that people appear to be less well off! That's pure politics-- not even rising to the level of POC. The data is straight from the BLS. Rjensen 10:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Again my proposal a bit revised:

“

While the bulk of income gains have gone to the upper 20%, technological progress, increased worker benefits, and the emergence of two-earner households have increased the nation's standard of living.

”

This sentence is very NPOV-it says that the bulk of (but clearly not all) income gains have gone to the top 20%-which is true- and it also says that the standard of living along w/ benefits and household income is up- which is true as well. The info will come from the BLS and the Census Bureau. Also, please beware of OR-I'm trying to just present the data-not evaluate it. The sentence above combines the data in such a way as to make the statement neither right nor left slanted. Take out the part about the top 20% getting most income gains and the phrase will be conservative-POV; take out the part about rising standard of living and the phrase will be liberal POV. As for why there is incom inequality, people can read my articles on Household and Personal income where I explore the relationships between gender, education, marital status, age and income. There are a lot of reasons for income and benefit inequality -which is rising by all accounts- and explainig them fully w/o leaning to the left or right would take about 100kb! Signature ^brendel 14:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Income inequality is rising according to what time frame? Anyone can pick specific time frames to show that something is higher or lower than it was at the start of the time frame. But it's irrelevant. What is relevant is the long term trend. The U.S. economy has been around for over 200 years. And, that most of the income gains go to the people with the top 20% of incomes has little to do with education. We're talking about people that already have high incomes. They already have the education, and that's one of the reasons they have a higher income. We're talking, as far as I know, about "gains" as a percentage of national income when national income increases. The higher income people work longer hours than lower income people. That's why most of the income gains go to them. I'm going to look for some statistics on that. BillyBoom 21:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Bill, I'm not going to argue about w/ you here whether or not income inequality is rising- we will never agree or convince each other but most any college-level economics or sociology book as well as the US government agree that there is grave income inequality (look at the gini index). The 20% comes straight from the CIA factbook-if you disagree, then call the government ;-) That's sourced information which will appear in this article. Second, "The higher income people work longer hours than lower income people. That's why most of the income gains go to them."- that's far to great a simiplification. Some earn more than others beucase some have higher educational attainment (MDs have the highest $ of any profession- ca. 2/3 of PhDs are among the top 15% of earners.), are the children of wealthy parents (trust-fund babies and those who get a job becuase their dad runs the company), and yes hard working professionals in the upper middle class do often work more than others. However, the biggest inequality is not between the top 20% and the bottom 80%-it is the top 0.1% who are pulling far ahead of those hard working attorneys and doctors- no they don't work harder-their portfolio does (Men may also earn more than women, even they don't work harder). But that is a different story.
The following things will be mentioned:

• Income inequality w/ most gains going to top 20% (CIA factbook)
• Income inequality may be increasing (Gilbert, 2002 (Cornell U) and Warren (Harvard), 2004)
• Standard of living has increased
• Benefits have increased (BLS)
• Household income has increased due to 2+ earner families (Census Bureau)

Again, these statement combined into one sentence or small paragraph give a fair balance, are sourced and need to be included. Regards, Signature ^brendel 22:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "grave" inequality? You speak as if inequality is something bad. I don't see anything wrong with it, especially when it comes with rising income at all levels. Increasing national income isn't a zero-sum game where one group increases their income by reducing the income of others. But, again, what time frame are you talking about? Anyone can pick specific time frames to show that something is higher or lower than it was at the start of the time frame. What is relevant is the long term trend. I won't allow you to say, in the article, that income inequality is increasing without giving the time frame you are talking about and without also given the longer term trend. BillyBoom 22:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I meant strong or considerable. I'm not saying that income inequality is bad or good-I'm just ponting out it's there! (obviously I'm not gonna use any sway-potential carrying adjectives in the paragraph ;-) The reader can make of it whatever the hell he or she wants! "Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households."- CIA factbook, right here. That quote is going in as is. We are talking about tha past 30 yrs. because the economy changes direction frequently-this statement shows the reader what recent trends have taken place in the US economy- That's why the CIA decided to put that statement it it's factbook! PS. The longer term trend is up and down (inequality increases and decreases)-you can dig up some historical gini index figures that will illustrate how income differences grow and shrink over the long-long-long run. Signature ^brendel 23:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought they were a good idea to have in the infobox.. why remove them? -- drumguy8800  C T 03:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Because at that size they're completely illegible and add nothing to the article. -- Golbez 03:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Per above, they add nothing to the article, except a couple of kbs (though not many). Signature ^brendel 04:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The data on inequality in a nutshell: % of income received by highest 5% of families

• 1924 29.1%
• 1929 31.9%
• 1935 28.8%
• 1940 26.8%
• 1945 19.6%
• 1955 20.3%
• 1965 20.0%
• 1975 19.5%
• 1985 16.1%
• 1995 20.0%
• 2002 20.8%

Meaning: very little change 1945-2002. Heavy declines before then especiall in ww2. Source: Historical Statistics G36, G340; St Abstract 2005 p 447

• Some reading: By Janet L. Yellen, President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco November 6, 2006, "Economic Inequality in the United States" online at [2] Rjensen 22:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That chart is quite the red-herring-I wasn't even talking about aggregate income distribution. Hypothetically, if 85% of income gains went to the top 20% in 1924 and it 1995 it was only 60% of gains- then it is nonetheless correct to state that "most income gains have gone to the top 20%. In other words, the bulk of income gains has always gone to the top 20%; thus there shouldn't be any change in the % of aggregate income. As for the top 5% income treshold has changed considerably. In 2005 dollars the income of the top 5% rose from $88,678 in 1967 to $154,120 in 2003- a 42% increase; the national median rose from $33,338 in 1967 to $43,318 in 2003- a 30% increase. If household income increased by 30% for the median, but 42% for the top 5%, that's increased income inequality as it means that the top 5% are seeing greater increases in their annual income (US Census Bureau). Signature ^brendel 22:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"Aside from stock option windfalls during the late-1990s stock-market boom, there is little evidence of a significant or sustained increase in the inequality of U.S. incomes, wages, consumption, or wealth over the past 20 years." [3] BillyBoom 23:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah there is. You can find papers from a liberal and a conservative POV-you dug one up that represents a conservative POV-I dug one up that doesn't. Any article you find from the Heritage Foundation I can counter with one from the Brookings Institute. So how long do want to play this game, before you are willing to compromise and agree to a balanced statement? If you, like me, want to build a balanced paragraph that is neutral, look at this report from the perhaps only un-biased source there is: the Census Bureau. Census Bureau showing income inequality increasing since WWII

“

The Gini index for households indicates that there has been growing income inequality over the past quarter-century. -US Census Bureau

”

or I could use this quote:

“

"The wage distribution has become considerably more unequal with more highly skilled, trained, and educated workers at the top experiencing real wage gains and those at the bottom real wage losses. One factor is the shift in employment from those goodsproducing industries that have disproportionately provided" -US Census Bureau

”

Or...

“

"In sum, when money income is examined, each of these indicators shows increasing income inequality over the 1968 to 1994 period." -US Census Bureau

”

Oh, yeah... Which is your favorite graph in there? Figure 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5? I lean towards figure 1, then again... maybe figure 4 is my favorite ;-). Serious voice resumes: As for the gini index which measures inequality it increased from .40 in 1967 to .47 in 2001- see this Census Bureau report. Again, I'm not saying that this is good or bad, just that it's happening-if the CIA and Census Bureau find it worth mentioning, I do too. Regards Signature ^brendel 23:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This is 2007. If inequality was rising from 1968-1994, what does it matter? Again, what matters is the long term trend. Also, I guess you didn't read the article I gave you. Whether income inequality is rising depends on how you measure income. If you say in this article that income inequality rose, then it also needs to be pointed out how income is being measured. And, it also needs to be pointed out that tax rules changed over time which have made a big difference on what is reported as income, as is explained in the article I gave you above. Finally, again, if you want to give a short term trend that is fine as long as you also give contradicting short-term trends, and the long term trend. BillyBoom 23:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, your entitlted to your opinion and theories as am I. Also, your source above is biased! Anyone can dig up a biased source! But the Census Bureau and the CIA say income inequality has been rising over the past 25 yrs. and that's going in the article. If the CIA thinks it is worth mentioning in the US factbook entry-then it's worth mentioning in WP's US entry and it will. Now, if you want we can start and RfC, I'll gadly do so. If you think the past 25 yrs. don't matter than that's your opinion but the CIA and DoC beg to differ. I think it does matter and you don't, So? Doesn't matter, the US government says it matters-so it does! Again, if the US Government thinks it's important-and so do I. You want ot include long-term stats? Fine, find some and I'll put them right in! But note that the CIA doesn't do so either and I'll be damned if you tell me the CIA factbook is a bunch of liberal nonsense. Signature ^brendel 00:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It's POV to only talk about "incomes" without taking into account other benefits to employees besides cash payment (and without taking into account transfer payments by government to people). If you talk about "income" then it needs to be mentioned what is being excluded from that measure. BillyBoom 00:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I already agreed to mentioning the rise in worker benefits. I already said that the new paragraph is going to mention the rise in benefits alongside rising income inequality. Also, who says income isn't important? The Census Bureau seems to think that income is a mighty important thing that's why we have a section titled "income." But again I already agreed to mentioning benifits. If you want to add a definition of income to the section instead, that's fine with me too! I'll gladly add a short definition of what the US Census Bureau means w/ income. So how about adding a short little sentence or two about what income is-so that everyone knows what the income section is talking about and what it is not talking about. Signature ^brendel 00:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The BLS statistics whow that the top 5 percent's share of the national income has remained flat since 1994. [4] You have any problem with me adding that? Do you see my point? Anyone can selectively pick what percentage of the population they want to talk about and select a specific time frame. BillyBoom 00:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Besides the point. Does the BLS actually say that income inequality isn't rising? Where does it say so? You can interpret stats however you want, but the CIA and Census Bureau find it worth mentioning that income inequality has been rising over the past 30 years and that's going in! You can do all the research you want and come to all the little conclusions you want, but so long as the CIA and US Census Bureau chose to point out rising income inequality this article will too. I am not trying to push my own interpertation of the stats-I'm trying to push the interpretation the Census Bureau and CIA present to the public. I am not "selectively picking" anything, I am attempting to quote the US government! Now do we need to start an RfC and get some new users involved to end this thing? Signature ^brendel 00:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I just gave you data from the US Census Bureau. [5] It can easily be seen that the top 5 percent's share of income to households has been flat since 1994. I'm going to add that to the article if you add the above to the article. BillyBoom 00:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't pertain to income inequality but if I add the above feel free to quote your stats-let's wait about the RfC first though. Signature ^brendel 00:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course it pertains to inequality. If the top 5% increased their income at the same proportion as everyone else, then inequality between the top 5% and everyone else has not increased since 1994. BillyBoom 00:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

So I guess you disagree with Ms. Yellen, President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco when she said that "we find striking evidence of increasing inequality." Mmm... your opinion or that of the Ms. Yellen, your opinion or the CIA factbook-choices! Signature ^brendel 00:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What time frame was he talking about? BillyBoom 00:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

1973 to 2005-there is also a nice little graph. Let's wait and see, what our RfC brings. Signature ^brendel 00:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Wiki articles have to based on solid scholarship, of which there is plenty on inequality. Please drop the speculation and try quoting some reliable sources, that is serious economists. The problem of using raw data is the problem of OR -- that is it's too easy for editorts to do their own reinterpretation. That is not allowed in Wiki. Try reading Yellin: Janet L. Yellen, President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco November 6, 2006, "Economic Inequality in the United States" online at [6] Rjensen 00:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Try reading the US Census Bureau or the CIA factbook entry. Both say, income inequality is rising! Besdies the aritlce you gave me link to above shows Ms. Yellen, President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco sayin that "we find striking evidence of increasing inequality." I guess I should tank you for finding an article that so shows such a reputable source agreeing with me! I am not the one nit-picking through articles toback up a conervative agenda-I am the one trying to quote the CIA factbook-hardly OR. The CIA factbook is hardly raw data! I have started an RfC-let's get some other users involved! If you want a thin-tank report try this one. Signature ^brendel 00:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Quotes supporting the statement that inequality is increasing

To state my case, here are several quotes (some of which I have used during this discussion) that support the notion that income inequality is rising.

"When we look at data on the distribution of real wages, which constitute the bulk of compensation, we find striking evidence of increasing inequality" [7] -Ms. Yellen, CEO SF Federal Reserve

"we distinguished two periods: the Age of Shared Prosperity (1946-1975) and the Age of Growing Inequality (since 1975)... the general pattern is unmistakable in the data on wealth, income, earnings poverty..." (p. 291)- Dennis Gilbert, sociologist, Cornell University

""In sum, when money income is examined, each of these indicators shows increasing income inequality over the 1968 to 1994 period." -US Census Bureau

"The wage distribution has become considerably more unequal with more highly skilled, trained, and educated workers at the top experiencing real wage gains and those at the bottom real wage losses. One factor is the shift in employment from those goodsproducing industries that have disproportionately provided"- US Census Bureau

"The Gini index for households indicates that there has been growing income inequality over the past quarter-century. -US Census Bureau"- US Census Bureau

"The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households." -CIA factbook

"If you go back to 1979, prior to the period when the growth in inequality really took off in the United States, the top 5 percent on average had 11 times the average income of the bottom 20 percent. If you fast forward to the year 2000, the most recent economic peak, you find that that ratio increased to 19 times. So over the course of those two decades, the gap between the wealthiest and the lowest income families grew from 11 times to 19 times." -Jared Bernstein, co-director of research at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., co-author of The State of Working America 2002/2003

I have provided these quotes for those coming here, via RfC and will not check this page again until 12 hours have elapsed and some new editors have had the chance to look at the issue. Regards, Signature ^brendel 01:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to add a paragraph stating that income inequality in the US has been rising over the past 30 years with most income gains going to the upper 20% since 1975. This statement is supported by the US entry in the CIA factbook and several US Census Bureau reports such as [8] as well as independent think-tank reports such as this. Furthermore, I have two college-level textbooks (Dennis Gilbert, The American Class Structure, Cornell University Press, 2002 and William Thompson & Joseph Hickey, Society in Focus, Pearson, 2005) supporting the statement that income inequality in the US is rising. Rjensen and BillyBoom, however, have argued that income inequality isn't rising and accused me of conduction OR and the discussion has stalled. Signature ^brendel 00:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You're not stating my position correctly. I said whether income inequality is increasing depends on what you are measuring as income. And, it depends on what time frame you're talking about. BillyBoom 00:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The past 25 to 30 years-since the US became a post-indutrial nation. Signature ^brendel 01:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If "income" is discussed, then it needs also to be mentioned what is being exluded from "income," such as benefits from employers and transfer payments from government. Also, the longer term trend needs to be mentioned. BillyBoom 01:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I already agreed to that, didn't I? Signature ^brendel 01:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that of the thousands of data series published by the federal government brendel picks the ones he likes and ignores the rest. What is the long-term trend in inequality (down), what is the short term trend (up a little-- but it depends on the years. The rich lost $trillions of dollars when the dot-com bubble burst, and the poor lost little. That is not mentioned because it contradicts the POV here. "Rising" a little is trivial. brendel is now on the right track using serious textbooks (but he does not quote them...what exactly do they say?) Rjensen 01:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Not ture, it just happens that the US government seem to think that income inequality is increasing and has been for about 30 years. Signature ^brendel 01:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, if it's said that income inequality was rising for a particular period it also needs to be pointed out that all income levels increased their incomes. I know some socialists try to pretend that it's a zero-sum game, by conveniently neglecting to mention that. BillyBoom 01:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Quoting the Census Bureau, CIA factbook and the President of the SF Federal Reserve isn't being on the "right track?"... The textbook by Dennis Gilbert of Cornell University says that there is a "tremendous shift, somwhere in the early 1970s, from increasingly quality to rising inequality. On this basis we distinguished two periods: the Age of Shared Prosperity (1946-1975) and the Age of Growing Inequality (since 1975)... the general pattern is unmistakable in the data on wealth, income, earnings poverty..." (p. 291). Then there is Ms. Yellen, President of the SF Federal Reserve who put it very clear in her 2006 speech (with which Rjensen has so kindly provided me): "When we look at data on the distribution of real wages, which constitute the bulk of compensation, we find striking evidence of increasing inequality" [9]. I have continously been quoting the CIA factbook, US Census Bureau, and CEO of the SF Federal Reserve. Only to see Rjensen and BillyBoom disagree with the CIA, Census Bureau, college textbooks and Ms. Yellen, CEO of the SF Federal Reserve. Signature ^brendel 01:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedic artical not a blog so we need to provide the maximum amount of cited information using the minimum number of words. Brendels suggestion does that and complies with NPOV. BillBooms suggestion while factually correct (as is Brendels) removes much relevant information of interest to readers by masking it with a generalisation. This is POV. The fact that reliable sources that are seen by many/most to be conservative also agree with Brendel should be given weight. Wayne 02:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Signature ^brendel 22:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know it is about the US economical that turns people into blathering idiots? Who knows. Why not present both opinions? That's more balanced.-- Rotten 17:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for that constructive comment that will surely bring all sides together. -- Kimon ^talk 17:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, you know I'm right. The US and it's economic system turns people into angry, blathering idiots.-- Rotten 17:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether I agree with you or not isn't the point. When trying to build consensus, it's generally not a good idea call people "idiots". Anyway, we can continue this discussion on either of our talk pages instead of here (if you want). -- Kimon ^talk 17:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Brendel's proposed addition violates WP:NPOV. Add one sentence saying "Economists disagree whether income inequality in the US is growing over time" and cite to the EPI and a contrary rebuttal of Billy Boom's choice. Perhaps add a second sentence citing one of the many economists who note that income inequality is a misleading measure, because it reflects immigration at the low end of the wage scale, while income has gone up relatively uniformly for the people who were in the country all thirty years (especially if one accounts for inter-quartile movement--I was in the bottom quintile 15 years ago, for example). One or two sentences in the socio-economic section are all that's needed. -- THF 21:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

From the fact that you cited yourself as an example I must conclude that you feel strongly about this issue and are therefore not neutral. Also, that's a nice theory there with immigration artifically increasing inequality... you don't happen to have any NON-biased sources (Heritage Fnd. & Brookings Inst. are biased ;-)) from the Census Bureau or a Fed chairman, do you. Signature ^brendel 23:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

it's more complicated. Since 1929 inequality has declined. Since 1970 it has gone up again (but not to previous levels). The real issue is the POV --some people want to denounce some policies (like deregulation and world trade) by saying 1) they cause inequality and 2) inequality is bad. Rjensen 22:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

How about saying "Income inequality had been declining in the mid 20^th century, but has been increasing since 1975." The rising inequality info is referenced info-see the quotes above. These are not biased sources, the Census Bureau and CIA who directly state that income inequality has been rising since 1975 are the best, non-partisan sources available, they beat the Heritage Foundation or the Brookings Institute by a long shot. Let me make this clear: I don't have a political agenda here-I am not saying that deregulation doesn't work, nor am I saying that inequality is bad- I am just looking at all my sources-the Census Bureau, the CIA, College textbooks and the speech by Ms. Yellen, CEO of the SF Federal Reserve-they all say, very directly, that income inequality has been rising since 1975-so that info must go in the article. There shouldn't even be an argument here; I am not evaluating raw data myself but am simply repeating what the US government has said. Even Rjensen is finally agreeing with the US government that inequality has gone up in the past 30 or so years. Signature ^brendel 22:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the word "inequality" could have POV problems all to its own because of the root word. Most people perceive the word "equality" to be a good thing in most cases. Obviously that is not the case in all instances. If a girls brother is punished for something they do together and she is not punished - it would be somewhat against human nature for her to complain that their treatment was "inequal".

What would "inequality" mean in this sense, exactly? One person can earn a million dollars a year and a second person can earn 1.1 million dollars a year. Are their incomes a case of "inequality"? Perhaps "income differences" would be more neutral and easier to understand. Having said that, I don't see a strong reason for including the informaiton in the main article on the country. Johntex\ ^talk 23:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well the US government uses the word "inequality"-but we can use "inequity" or "uneven distribution." ("Income differences" would work too) Why mention it here? Well, the CIA factbook mentions it in its entry on the US-and the Census Bureau spends millions each year researching it-so the US government seem to think it's a pretty important thing. (It only takes up one sentence anyways) What does inequity measure? The difference between how much people in the various income brackets make (research by the college textbooks I cited above, also includes non-in-the-pocket-pay benefits)-For example, the Census Bureau looks at the flactuation in income for the those in the top 5% ($88k in '67 to $160k in '03) and, say, those at the median -the mid point- ($33k in '67 to $44k in '03)-the Census Bureau looks at something like this and finds that the income difference between those two groups have been rising (All those figures are in '03 dollars, inflation adjusted). Now the US government economists also use more complex measures (gini index)-but fortunately they sum it all up in their reports-see the quotes above. Signature ^brendel 23:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The term "income inequality" is actually an important concept in economics. I can't remember the figures offhand but there is an optimum range of inequality required for a healthy economy. If the income difference between rich and poor gets too large (or too small) the economy suffers. Therefor I suggest the word be kept as it is NPOV due to it's use in this field. We even have President Bush saying this during his Wall Street address on January 31 "The fact is that income inequality is real, it's been rising for more than 25 years."

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the wealthiest 20 percent of households accounted for 45.4 percent of total U.S. income in 1979, but claimed 53.5 percent in 2004. Households in the bottom fifth dropped from 5.8 to 4.1 percent over the same period. Economists are in agreement that inequality increases as GDP rises but the gains must be eventually passed down (lowering inequality) or the bottom drops out. This is why too much inequality is bad. Wayne 03:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"Too much inequality is bad." That's circular. Just by saying it's "too much" you're already assuming it's too much, that is, "bad." If wealth inequality is increasing, but, at the same time, everybody's wealth is increasing there is no problem. A problem would be if the wealthier were getting wealthier and the poor getting poorer. That's not happening. And it's not happening because capitalism is not a zero-sum game. When the rich get richer, everybody else gets richer too. It's not a problem if some get richer at a different rate than others. BillyBoom 03:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well thank you for your opinion on why income inequality isn't bad ("It's not a problem if some get richer at a different rate than others.", billy-but we are not discussing opinions and our own view-point here-this is not a blog. As for "Too much inequality is bad."- I am not going to put such a phrase in the text. I simply propose saying that "While income inequities have decreased in the mid 20^th century, they have been rising since the early 1970s." Note that I am not evaluating this piece of info-the reader can make of it whatever he or she wants-I am just repeating what the US government tells me. Signature ^brendel 14:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Cant you just add both opinions and be done with it?-- Rotten 14:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can't add opinions of our own. But yes I am proposing to add both sides! The statement that "Income inequity had been decreasing in the mid 20^th century but has been rising since the early 1970s." mentions both sides. Even Rjensen agrees with the Census Bureau and CIA that income inequities have increased since 1973-75. The sentence above features ZERO opinion or OR-It simply repeats what the US government says. Signature ^brendel 14:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if Billy can find a written article which mentions that total compensation isn't factored in with rising inequality, we can add that alongside what you just wrote as well. I agree that your contribution is NPOV and that we can't just add opinion.-- Rotten 14:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually have source (Dennis Gilbert, Cornell University, 2002) that also mentions rising inequality in benefits since 1975-but yes if Billy finds a source stating directly that the inequity in income and benefits hasn't been rising since 1975, we can always add that. Thank you for seeing that my contribution is NPOV. Regards, Signature ^brendel 14:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I came here from the RfC page, and I have some training in Economics, so I hope I can help. First of all, it's important that this is mentioned somewhere in the article - not only is it an important economic indicator, for a variety of reasons, it's also a notable news item. I would, however, avoid commenting on any implications of this disparity - there are arguments to be made that it's good, and that it's bad. However, Wikipedia is not the place to argue them, and the general economic consensus on income disparity being "good" or "bad" is highly situational in nature. I would also suggest that you choose the broadest possible measure of "income" when choosing which data to report - use the data provided, and report it as the data is listed - i.e. don't report it as "income differences"; it's income inequality. That's the accepted term for it in the economic literature, and it's not productive to change it for an encyclopedia. The fact that "inequality" has a slightly negative connotation should be mitigated by the fact that this is being presented in an economic context, wherein it is clear that equality is not always good. Anyways, those are my 0.02$. -- Haemo 06:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This is mainly for those who are not sure exactly what the RfC is about. Haemo may have overlooked the original discussion and the RfC is getting rather long lol.

This is the sentence in dispute:

"The long-term trend for wages of middle-income Americans has largely been stagnant since the 1970s and fallen for low-income earners, despite substantial gains in hourly labor productivity. While most income gains in the US have gone mostly to the upper 20%, technological progress, increased worker benefits, and the emergence of the two-earner household have boosted the nation's standard of living."

Several editors want to delete any reference to income inequality (or implied inequality) and want mention of income only if it includes benifits. The term income inequality is not mentioned although i feel it should be somewhere and that paragraph could be tidied a little. There is no inference in that paragraph that the economy is either good or bad. Wayne 15:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry if I didn't make myself clear - I did read the discussion; I was just trying to give my general impressions on ALL the issues stated, regardless of whether or not they'd been more specifically discussed. This paragraph is okay, though the first line doesn't make a lot of sense. I don't really see what the great problem is with this - it could be expanded, but you'll have to go into more depth if that happens.

Thank you, Haemo for chiming in. I am glad to see that you agree that "it's important that this is mentioned somewhere in the article - not only is it an important economic indicator, for a variety of reasons". I also agree with you that we should not argue whether or not income inequality is bad or not here on WP. Just stating what the government tells us is sufficient. Regards, Signature ^brendel 22:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

In the second sentence of the article: "Forty-eight contiguous states lie in central North America between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, *bound* on land by Canada to the north", the word "bound" should be "bounded". (It would be "bound" if Canada "binds" the US to the north, but it doesn't, it "bounds" it...) 144.254.45.145 17:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, you are right. I fixed it - thank you! Johntex\ ^talk 23:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

america is a biparty dictatoship, not a liberal democracy. it may not be catagorised as one since it is not· Lygophile has spoken 16:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

sigh. Wouldn't a dictatorship have banned other parties? With the exception of North Carolina, I don't think that's the case. So no, the category is not going away. Not just because of what I said here, but on general principles, congrats, you came up with a witty attack on the United States. *clap clap*-- Golbez 16:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hehehe. I doubt Lygophile is attacking anyone because he is sort of on the right track. America is not a liberal democracy purely because there is no liberal (left leaning) political party. As for dictorship.... that can be a concept as well as a reality. Several years ago Prime Minister Howard was being questioned about pushing through legislation that the public did not want and he replied that Australian politics was not really a democracy but a benevolent dictatorship so he could do it. We can't elect our Prime minister so technically he is right but we would never call it that because we have democratic freedoms. America through the Presidential use of signing statements may technically be a biparty dictatorship (check the dictionary definition) but the freedoms outweigh the restrictions of that system so it can't be called that. Wayne 17:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Liberal in this sense doesn't mean left-leaning, and we do have the Greens. And since the president is vaguely directly elected, you can't bring up that "we can't elect our prime minister" bit. Sorry, liberal democracy it is. -- Golbez 17:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Golbez. "Liberal democracy" should stay. Johntex\ ^talk 18:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

over 50% of americans have claimed never to vote for an atheist. there are only 2 electible parties for the government is there not? one of which is right winged conservative, and the other is extremely right winged conservative. that is not liberal democracy. also id say not having direct elections failes you as a liberal democracy, as living in a state where you are outnumbered your vote is void· Lygophile has spoken 09:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Over half of Americans have never voted for an atheist? Well I'm sold. Apparently we're a dictatorship because we ... vote for religious people! And even if we did have direct elections, wouldn't that mean that if we lived in a country where we were outnumbered, our vote would be invalid? Ooh, keep going, this is fun. -- Golbez 09:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

thats teh point. you just made my case. in a liberal democracy, the answere to your question would be no, cause you have a multyparty government, so your vote would no be void when outnumbered. but in the american system.... · Lygophile has spoken 10:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Everyone's vote is always void when outnumbered. Show me a system where the losing guy wins. -- Golbez 14:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree - this is a silly argument. Even the term "biparty dictatorship" doesn't make very much sense. -- Haemo 19:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

teh biparty dictatorship makes a lot of sense. it would fail to actually classify as a dictatorship im sure, but theres only two parties that have a shot at having any kind of power. and golbez, since when does the 'loser' have to win to have anything to say? in a liberal democracy such as nederland has, no vote is void· Lygophile has spoken 19:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

How is a vote for the loser not void in the Netherlands? -- Golbez 19:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

because we have a multiparty government, a "coalition". its still not perfect since to make a coalition, the parties that est out to have to come to an agreement, so your never really sure which party will be in it and which wont, but there is much less focus "the winner" and "the loser", since no party alone will ever reach over 50% (NSDAP in germany in WW2 aside). thats because in a liberal democracy a large number of parties can be elected for government, contrasting american politics· Lygophile has spoken 12:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

What if the party I vote for gets no seats, though? Then my vote is void, isn't it? -- Golbez 15:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I can tell you right now; whatever your delusions are, if the term dictatorship is ever put up on this page in reference to America you're gonna get so much shit raining down that it's not even gonna be funny. And dude, really, America is not a dictatorship. If it was, then it would be ruled solely by one person. That's it. Now there's something like 530 members in Congress, 9 Supreme Court Justices, and one President (who has loads of advisers) and that's only at the Federal level. America is not a dictatorship; America fought to be free from dictatorship. I have no delusions about understanding the Dutch government, so I can't comment on that, but I understand the American government, and I can tell you it's a democratic republic/liberal democracy, however you please to say it. I suggest you read the Constitution. Dooms Day349 20:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

well duh, cut the strawman· Lygophile has spoken 12:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Always a good suggestion. Another is not to give trolls the attention they crave, so we can avoid pointless (if mildly entertaining) discussions such as this. Raymond Arritt 22:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

im not a troll, you pretentious bigot· Lygophile has spoken 12:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

He's pretentious? Dude, you called the country in which I was born and raised a dictatorship. Your system of government is a Westminster Parliamentary Constitutional Monarchy. You have a Queen who can dissolve your parliament. If Bush sneezed in a way that suggested that he was going to destroy the Congress (destroy is really the only appropriate term, because the executive branch is wholly separate from the legislative), he would be dead. Not by any law-based means, but someone would just shoot the guy. But your country? Your country has a premise built-in to your constitution called reserve power that says that your so-called democracy is really just a blessing of your monarch, and by the grace of God, your monarch can take it away. Also, you show no knowledge whatsoever of how our political system works in comparison with yours. Parties mean A LOT more in a parliamentary system than in a congressional system. Here's why: A Republican (or Democrat or Whig or whatever) can go completely against party lines and have no fear whatsoever of losing his or her seat in congress. Noticed how a lot of Republicans are turning against Bush? It's because we elect the individual, not the party who selects the individual. And if we don't like the individual, but we like the party? There are primaries to see who gets to run under what ticket. You just have an entirely different system than we do, and you're ignorant (which isn't a bad thing until you start accusing other countries of being dictatorships) as to how our system works. Yeah, if we were parliamentary, it'd be a little odd that there are only two parties. But as it stands, you can have someone in congress pro-choice, against the War in Iraq, and in favor of national healthcare (Democrat objectives) call themselves Republican, and since it's the person, not that party that truly matters, that's okay. -- R'son-W (speak to me/ breathe) 13:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

so america is not a dictatorship because the president gets killed to easely? yeah, good argument. and the republicans and the democrats will not have just anybody in their party, but if you create your own party you dont get equal oppurtunity. so if someone with controversial ideas wants to get involved he doesnt get a chance because of your political system, hence it is not a liberal democracy, since that is what a liberal democracy means, that any idea gets equal opportunity. so america is not, not at all, a liberal democracy· Lygophile has spoken 14:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Everyone, please stop the personal attacks, and get back to discussing the categorization. Although I'm not an expert on political theory, my understanding is that the most important aspects of a liberal democracy are the protection of civil liberties and the imposed legality of public decisions made by elected officials. I think that America satisfies both of these criteria through institutions like the Bill of Rights and the system of checks and balances, respectively. The lack of political pluralism doesn't necessarily preclude America from being considered a liberal democracy. Calling it a biparty dictatorship is too extreme, since no one person or body has enough power to unilaterally make decisions, and all elected officials are still subject to the law (even if they're sometimes charged with offenses long after the fact.) -- Confiteordeo 13:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - consensus is clear on this issue, and there isn't any reason for all the flaming. -- Haemo 20:33, 8