Income inequality

Subterms

    Latest story

    125 Shares35 Views

    COP29 Climate Talks in Baku, Azerbaijan, Head Into Final Stretch

    by

    Senior ministers are arriving in an effort to break a deadlock over the summit’s main goal: funding to help lower-income countries hit hard by global warming.More than halfway through the United Nations climate talks in Baku, Azerbaijan, negotiators from nearly 200 countries remain far apart on a number of the key issues up for debate.As nations try to agree on a plan to provide potentially trillions of dollars to developing countries suffering from the effects of climate change, divisions remain over how much money should be made available, what kind of financing efforts should count toward the overall goal and how recipient countries should gain access to the funds.Negotiations often go into overtime. But with just four days to go, many attendees fear that this could be the first summit since the Copenhagen talks in 2009 to conclude without a deal.“There is a high risk this could collapse,” said a senior negotiator for a major European country, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.Simon Stiell, the United Nations climate chief, pleaded on Monday with countries to stop fighting and to reach a deal.He warned against a dynamic “where groups of parties dig in and refuse to move on one issue, until others move elsewhere.” He added, “This is a recipe for going literally nowhere.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 88 Shares59 Views

      in Elections

      The ‘Diploma Divide’ and the 2024 Election

      by

      Readers discuss a David Brooks column about how the less educated are being left behind.To the Editor:Re “Voters to Elites: Do You See Me Now?,” by David Brooks (column, Nov. 8):Mr. Brooks is exactly right, but he doesn’t carry his line of reasoning to its logical conclusion. Yes, Donald Trump won the election because of a strong showing by the non-college-educated population. And yes, that segment is disadvantaged in many ways.But why did that segment vote for Mr. Trump? I would suggest there is a reason that people go to college. And contrary to what many believe, it is not just to get a better job. It is to become a better and more informed citizen, and to learn to distinguish truth from falsehood. And that is not easy when confronted with constant disinformation and outright lies.Partly as a result, the non-college-educated do not see that they have been duped. They have voted for a man and a party that have consistently worked to keep them suppressed, that have been against universal health care, against efforts to control global warming, against monopolistic practices, etc., etc.Democrats should stop flagellating themselves for having done something wrong. It is not they who have betrayed the non-college-educated. As global warming, hurricanes and flooding increase; as privatized health care grows more expensive, and epidemics again kill thousands because of vaccine skeptics; as inflation shoots up from tariffs and tax reduction, the non-college-educated will suffer disproportionately.Let them look to their elected Republicans. They have broken it, and now they own it.Robert H. PalmerNew YorkTo the Editor:Trying to blame the Democrats’ loss on their supposed disrespect of voters and behaving like elites is old and tired.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares69 Views

      in Elections

      Lo que los votantes de Estados Unidos le están diciendo a las élites

      by

      Hemos entrado en una nueva era política. Durante los últimos 40 años, más o menos, hemos vivido en la era de la información. Quienes pertenecemos a la clase educada decidimos, con cierta justificación, que la economía posindustrial sería construida por gente como nosotros, así que adaptamos las políticas sociales para satisfacer nuestras necesidades.Nuestra política educativa impulsó a muchos hacia el camino que nosotros seguíamos: universidades de cuatro años para que estuvieran calificados para los “trabajos del futuro”. Mientras tanto, la formación profesional languidecía. Adoptamos una política de libre comercio que llevó empleos industriales a países de bajo costo para que pudiéramos concentrar nuestras energías en empresas de la economía del conocimiento dirigidas por personas con títulos universitarios avanzados. El sector financiero y de consultoría creció como la espuma, mientras que el empleo manufacturero se marchitaba.Se consideró que la geografía no era importante: si el capital y la mano de obra altamente calificada querían concentrarse en Austin, San Francisco y Washington, en realidad no importaba lo que ocurriera con todas las demás comunidades que quedaron olvidadas. Las políticas migratorias facilitaron que personas con un alto nivel educativo tuviesen acceso a mano de obra con salarios bajos, mientras que los trabajadores menos calificados se enfrentaban a una nueva competencia. Viramos hacia tecnologías verdes favorecidas por quienes trabajan en píxeles, y desfavorecimos a quienes trabajan en la industria manufacturera y el transporte, cuyo sustento depende de los combustibles fósiles.Ese gran sonido de piezas en movimiento que has oído era la redistribución del respeto. Quienes ascendían en la escala académica eran aclamados, mientras que quienes no lo hacían se volvían invisibles. La situación era especialmente difícil para los hombres jóvenes. En la secundaria, dos tercios de los alumnos del 10 por ciento superior en las clases son chicas, mientras que aproximadamente dos tercios de los alumnos del decil inferior son chicos. Las escuelas no están preparadas para el éxito masculino; eso tiene consecuencias personales de por vida, y ahora también a nivel nacional.La sociedad funcionó como un vasto sistema de segregación, elevando a quienes estaban mejor dotados académicamente por encima de todos los demás. En poco tiempo, la brecha de los diplomas se convirtió en el abismo más importante de la vida estadounidense. Los graduados de secundaria mueren nueve años antes que las personas con estudios universitarios. Mueren seis veces más por sobredosis de opiáceos. Se casan menos, se divorcian más y tienen más probabilidades de tener un hijo fuera del matrimonio. Tienen más probabilidades de tener obesidad. Según un estudio reciente del American Enterprise Institute, el 24 por ciento de quienes han terminado como mucho la preparatoria no tienen amigos cercanos. Tienen menos probabilidades que los graduados universitarios de visitar espacios públicos o unirse a grupos comunitarios y ligas deportivas. No hablan en la jerga adecuada de justicia social ni mantienen el tipo de creencias sofisticadasi que son marcadores de virtud pública.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares108 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Flirts With the Ultimate Tax Cut: No Taxes at All

      by

      The former president has repeatedly praised a period in American history when there was no income tax, and the country relied on tariffs to fund the government.Former President Donald J. Trump has spent much of the presidential campaign brainstorming new, and sometimes untested, ways to cut taxes. In the election’s final stretch, he raised the possibility of going even further: eliminating income taxes entirely.During a Fox News segment on Monday, Mr. Trump took questions at a barbershop in the Bronx. When asked if the United States could potentially end all federal taxation, Mr. Trump said the country could return to the economic policies in the late 19th century, when there was no federal income tax.“It had all tariffs — it didn’t have an income tax,” Mr. Trump said. “Now we have income taxes, and we have people that are dying. They’re paying tax, and they don’t have the money to pay the tax.”In June, Mr. Trump floated the idea of replacing federal revenue from income taxes with money received from tariffs. Mr. Trump has not provided specific details of how that would work, and it is unclear if he wants to eliminate all federal taxes, including corporate income taxes and payroll taxes, or only end the individual income tax.Either way, both liberal and conservative experts have dismissed his idea as mathematically impossible and economically destructive. Even if Republicans control Congress, lawmakers are unlikely to dismantle the income tax system. Yet Mr. Trump’s combination of tax cuts and tariff increases has been central to his political pitch.“There is a way, if what I’m planning comes out,” Mr. Trump said of ending income taxes.Replacing income taxes with tariffs would reverse the progressivity of the tax system in the United States. In general, income taxes are progressive, meaning that Americans with more income pay a higher tax rate. Tariffs, which impose a tax on products imported into the United States, are regressive. They raise the prices on imported items like clothing and groceries, placing a larger burden on lower-income Americans who spend a bigger percentage of their income on those goods.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares138 Views

      in Elections

      U.N. Report on Climate Goals Says Countries Have Made No Progress

      by

      An annual assessment by the world body tracks the gulf between what countries have vowed to do and what they’ve actually achieved.One year after world leaders made a landmark promise to move away from fossil fuels, countries have essentially made no progress in cutting emissions and tackling global warming, according to a United Nations report issued on Thursday.Global greenhouse gas emissions soared to a record 57 gigatons last year and are not on track to decline much, if at all, this decade, the report found. Collectively, nations have been so slow to curtail their use of oil, gas and coal that it now looks unlikely that countries will be able to limit global warming to the levels they agreed to under the 2015 Paris climate agreement.“Another year passed without action means we’re worse off,” said Anne Olhoff, a climate policy expert based in Denmark and a co-author of the assessment, known as the Emissions Gap Report.The report comes a month before diplomats from around the world are scheduled to meet in Baku, Azerbaijan, for annual United Nations climate talks, where countries will discuss how they might step up efforts to address global warming.Lately, those efforts have faced huge obstacles.Even though renewable energy sources like wind and solar are growing rapidly around the world, demand for electricity has been rising even faster, which means countries are still burning more fossil fuels each year. Geopolitical conflicts, from the U.S.-China rivalry to war in places like Ukraine and Gaza, have made international cooperation on climate change harder. And rich countries have failed to keep their financial promises to help poor countries shift away from oil, gas and coal.At last year’s climate talks in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, representatives from nearly every nation approved a pact that called for “transitioning away from fossil fuels” and accelerating climate action this decade. But the agreement was vague on how to do so and on which countries should do what, and so far there has been little follow-through.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Trump and Harris Both Like a Child Tax Credit but With Different Aims

      by

      Kamala Harris’s campaign is pushing a version of the credit intended to fight child poverty, while Donald J. Trump sees the program primarily as a tax cut for people higher up the income scale.Vice President Kamala Harris has made an expanded child tax credit central to her campaign, and former President Donald J. Trump boasts, “I doubled the child tax credit.” With a quick look, voters might think the child-rearing subsidy the rare matter on which the rival candidates agree.It is anything but. The common vocabulary masks profound differences over which parents the government should help and what constitutes fairness for children in a country of great wealth and inequality.Mr. Trump sees the $110 billion program mostly as a tax cut, which as president he increased to $2,000 per child and extended to high-income families. But his policy denies the full benefit to the poorest quarter of children because their parents earn too little and owe no income tax.Ms. Harris would expand the tax cuts and add a large anti-poverty plan, sending checks to millions of parents with low pay or no jobs. That would turn a tax cut into an income guarantee, in a landmark expansion of the safety net.Supporters of the Harris plan say the payments would shrink child poverty. Critics see an expensive welfare scheme that could weaken the willingness to work.“They’re both talking about something called the ‘child tax credit,’ but they’re not at all talking about the same policy,” said Scott Winship of the conservative American Enterprise Institute.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Lilly Ledbetter, Whose Fight for Equal Pay Changed U.S. Law, Dies at 86

      by

      Her lawsuit against Goodyear helped pave the way for the 2009 Fair Pay Act, which was signed into law by former President Barack Obama.Lilly Ledbetter, whose lawsuit against her employer paved the way for the Fair Pay Act of 2009 and who dedicated decades of her life to fighting for equal pay, died in Alabama on Saturday, her family said in a statement. She was 86.The cause was respiratory failure, the statement said. In 1979, Ms. Ledbetter got a job at the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company in Gadsden, Ala. “We needed that money to pay college tuition and the mortgage,” she said at Forbes Magazine’s women’s summit in 2021.At first, Ms. Ledbetter earned the same as her male counterparts, she said. But over time, her pay dropped “way out of line” compared to that of her male peers — unbeknown to her. At the factory, she said in 2021, employees could lose their jobs for sharing information about their salaries. It was not until 1998 that Ms. Ledbetter found out, by receiving an anonymous note, that she in fact earned much less than men working the same position.“I was devastated,” she said.In a 2018 Opinion essay in The Times, Ms. Ledbetter wrote that she was also sexually harassed early on in her tenure at Goodyear.After finding out about the pay discrepancy, Ms. Ledbetter went home and talked to her husband. “And we decided to fight,” she said in a speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2012.Ms. Ledbetter filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 1998 and a lawsuit against Goodyear in 1999. In 2003, she won her case at a federal court in Alabama, with the jury awarding her $3.8 million. (In a 2009 interview with NPR, Ms. Ledbetter said that the sum was reduced to a $300,000 cap and $60,000 in back pay.)We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Trump vs. Harris Would Be Nothing Without Myths

      by

      Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are making their appeals to the American electorate on the basis of personality, character and policy. But they are also framing themselves as actors in the American story — the events of the recent past and the deeper narrative of U.S. history carried by the symbol-rich stories of our national mythology.There has been very little common ground expressed between the parties in this election, except the belief that a victory by the opposition would be apocalyptic. Even when they invoke the same historical references, they present them in radically different ways. To Democrats, Jan. 6 was a shameful assault on democracy. To many Republicans, it was a patriotic protest of a rigged election.It’s as if we are living in two different countries, each with a different understanding of who counts as American.Each candidate is trying to pitch the contest to voters as a heroic episode in the unfolding of American history and invites them to imagine themselves as players in the narrative.In the “story wars,” Mr. Trump has an advantage over Ms. Harris: Conservatives have devised over decades a store of established mythological American “scripts,” something liberals have failed to do.Among the big issues at stake in the 2024 election, for both the campaigns and the country, is no less than shaping what it means to be an American and who gets to have power.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Here’s Why We Shouldn’t Demean Trump Voters

      by

      Some of the best advice Democrats have received recently came from Bill Clinton in his speech at the Democratic National Convention.First, he warned against hubris: “We’ve seen more than one election slip away from us when we thought it couldn’t happen, when people got distracted by phony issues or overconfident.” That’s something that any Clinton understands in his — or her — gut.Second, related and even more important, he cautioned against demeaning voters who don’t share liberal values.“I urge you to meet people where they are,” said Clinton, who knows something about winning votes outside of solid blue states. “I urge you not to demean them, but not to pretend you don’t disagree with them if you do. Treat them with respect — just the way you’d like them to treat you.”That’s critical counsel because too often since 2016, the liberal impulse has been to demonize anyone at all sympathetic to Donald Trump as a racist and bigot. This has been politically foolish, for it’s difficult to win votes from people you’re disparaging.It has also seemed to me morally offensive, particularly when well-educated and successful elites are scorning disadvantaged, working-class Americans who have been left behind economically and socially and in many cases are dying young. They deserve empathy, not insults.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More