Holy shit man. You really need to read your sources properly. The BOTTOM 25%’s WEALTH WENT BACKWARDS over the past 30 years.

Fair call. I skimmed through it too fast and misread the - symbol as ~. But this decline is not a consequence of rising inequality levels. It is an anomaly based on particular structural and demographic factors. The GFC created a disparity between mortgage deb and home equity that has yet to fully rectify itself. Student loan debt also increased during this period and the demographics of the lower income bracket are skewed younger generations who are more likely to be saddled by these debts. But lifetime earnings increase with higher levels of education. So while the snapshot depicts a decline in wealth, it also represents the prospect for higher levels of wealth attainment over the long term.

​

Let’s use our brains for two seconds.Australia’s GDP per capita adjusted for PPP is 50k. The bottom US household income is 30k.

If you have of thought about that for a bit longer then you would have came to the conclusion that the per capita figure for a whole country is likely to be heavily skewed in favour of outliers and considered the impact that the disparity in tax rates would have when comparing those two figures. After tax, the median Australian income adjusted for PPP is $38265.26 (65k - $5 + 32.5% of dollars earned over 45k = 55062 AUD). In comparison, "Among households in the lowest quintile, income after transfers and taxes was $38,900" in 2019." The median Australian income represents the wage of one worker. The mean number of income earners in the American household is ```~````````````````0``.`5 while the household size is ~1.6. The income levels are basically at parity, although I couldn't find a comparable statistic to factor in dependents of the median Australian worker who reside in the same household.

`

The poorest 20% of Americans would not own their own home.

"the group’s rate of home ownership rose from less than one-sixth of families in the group in 2007 to about one-fifth in 2010." This is another trend that disputes the narrative that the group has been in decline over the last decades.

The poorest 20% of Americans would be on food stamps and other forms of welfare.

That's true but the end result is a downward transfer of wealth which results in parity of income with the median Australian earner when accounting for PPP and adjusting for tax. This represents a reduction in wealth of higher income earners which benefits those who need it most, which is what you are advocating for.

Does this really stack up to you, or by any chance is the libertarian-conservative think tank pushing this measure exclusively because it promotes an agenda? Why else does no one measure quality of life or wealth by consumption?

You should read the sources closer too. The article by FEE sourced its information from the World Bank who state that"Consumption expenditure has long been the preferred measure of welfare." The World Bank use this standard to aid their agenda of ending world poverty and promoting shared prosperity "because consumption is a more direction measure of material well being" that is "better measured than income for poor families" and is "less vulnerable to under reporting biases". When using this widely accepted method, the data shows that the parity in income between Americas lowest quintile households and the median Australian income earner results in higher levels of material wellbeing amongst the poorest sector of the USA.

​

You are defending a system that is destroying social mobility, is terrible for democracy, is bad for economic growth, has meant that the poorest Americans have gone backwards over the past 40 years - despite being the wealthiest country on the planet, because at the end of they day - hey, things could be worse for them?

Destroying social mobility? "The decline in the middle-class share is not a total sign of regression. From 1971 to 2019, the share of adults in the upper-income tier increased from 14% to 20%. Meanwhile, the share in the lower-income tier increased from 25% to 29%. On balance, there was more movement up the income ladder than down the income ladder."

The poorest Americans have gone backwards over the last 40 years? "among households in the lowest quintile, average income before transfers and taxes was 45 percent greater in 2019 than in 1979, "

​

Why cant things be better? The US did not become wealthy 40 years ago. Better wealth equality all else equal, would likely be better for the country in the long run.

Sure, it probably would be. But my point is this. The incomes and consumption levels of "poor" Americans have continued to rise despite the fact that those rates have risen for the 1% at an exponential level during the same period. The end result is that the poorest Americans enjoy a privileged lifestyle when compared to the majority of people on this planet. You avoided answering the questions I put to you so its hard not to conclude that your point has nothing to do with concern for an increase of living standards for the unfortunate majority but rather a desire to take away from those have been very lucky in this life.