Blah blah blah income inequality

[blazerboy30]

Our GDP is at an all time high, yet poverty still exists. Clearly "trickle down economics" is failing the poor and middle class.

e: sorry I forgot to actually respond. 10000x the minimum wage is too much. (that would be 150,000,000$/yr)

And what is the "correct" multiplier if 10,000 isn't right?

And there is a severe lack of logic in the idea that "poverty still exists" as reasoning for how the rich are too greedy. The only reason the idea of "poverty" exists is because there are some richer in the society. You seem to think that if everybody has the same that everybody will be at the level of the rich. In reality, everybody would be the same but still struggling to eat and survive. But hey, everybody has the same so it must be a better scenario.

 

[Eastoff]

And what is the "correct" multiplier if 10,000 isn't right?

And there is a severe lack of logic in the idea that "poverty still exists" as reasoning for how the rich are too greedy. The only reason the idea of "poverty" exists is because there are some richer in the society. You seem to think that if everybody has the same that everybody will be at the level of the rich. In reality, everybody would be the same but still struggling to eat and survive. But hey, everybody has the same so it must be a better scenario.

I think that there should be a cap closer to 500 times the minimum wage salary. That's just me wanting an incentive for higher minimum wage.

I don't mean for my statement to imply that everyone should be equal. Despite the constitution, all [people] were not created equal. After doing some research, I see that some of my assumptions about wages were wrong. Minimum to be in the top 1% is making 1.12M$/yr, while average top paying doctor is 625k$/yr. These two wages seem to be in line.

I'm not entirely sold on that "1%" figure, but I'll accept it. I guess my point is that the country at the top seems to be improving, but the average income is not improving. I'm just trying to argue that all wages should grow at the same rate, or at least scale for inflation.

 

[maxiep]

Here are my responses.

1. I don't know much about the stock market.

2. Wages were being cut back because of the recession, but are slow to follow the rebound.

3. Technology has allowed for new access to new types of oil reserves and the federal government has issued permits.

4. China

5. no, but there should still be limits.

Don't just post bumper stickers. It speaks to a lack of thinking skills.

.
1. Clearly. The Dow is only 30 stocks, they change occasionally and they're not adjusted for inflation. In other words, the Dow is a largely meaningless indicator of the greater economy. The stock market is up because investors are chasing returns and due to Fed policy, bonds are returning bupkis. Also, in times of economic uncertainty, there's a flight to quality. The Dow is chock full of large, stable firms that are favored in a system of crony capitalism. P/E ratios aren't static, so earnings don't necessarily reflect the price.

2. Wages weren't cut because of the recession, jobs were. The income growth has been slower, but for existing jobs, wages have been increasing. Where wage growth has stagnated is when there is turnover. It's a sign of the weak economy. As for the rebound, it's a dead cat bounce. There is no rebound.

3. Technology--developed by the private sector--has revolutionized the oil industry here in the States. The Federal Government has stood in the way of almost all drilling/fracking on public lands. They starve private plots of water and increase environmental regulations with the goal to stop all drilling. The only increase in drilling you've seen has been on private land.

4. Oil prices are high because of required ethanol inputs and gas taxes. Also, not building the Keystone pipeline has increased the cost of getting oil delivered to the States. Finally, the Federal Government has not allowed a new refinery to be built in the last 25 years. We have a massive refining shortage which increases the price of gasoline. Increased demand by China and India play a role, but it has been more offset by increased production domestically.

5. Who decides the limits on which people can be compensated? Can I decide that you should only make $20K?

My point is that you spout these sound bites that mean nothing. Think about what you write.

 

[maxiep]

I think that there should be a cap closer to 500 times the minimum wage salary. That's just me wanting an incentive for higher minimum wage.

I don't mean for my statement to imply that everyone should be equal. Despite the constitution, all [people] were not created equal. After doing some research, I see that some of my assumptions about wages were wrong. Minimum to be in the top 1% is making 1.12M$/yr, while average top paying doctor is 625k$/yr. These two wages seem to be in line.

I'm not entirely sold on that "1%" figure, but I'll accept it. I guess my point is that the country at the top seems to be improving, but the average income is not improving. I'm just trying to argue that all wages should grow at the same rate, or at least scale for inflation.

Did it ever occur to you that the policies promoted by this Administration, while paying lip service to the poor, are really designed to line the pockets of their friends and political allies? The Democratic Party has become the party of Big Government, Big Labor and Big Business.

 

[Paine Tablet]

And what is the "correct" multiplier if 10,000 isn't right?

And there is a severe lack of logic in the idea that "poverty still exists" as reasoning for how the rich are too greedy. The only reason the idea of "poverty" exists is because there are some richer in the society. You seem to think that if everybody has the same that everybody will be at the level of the rich. In reality, everybody would be the same but still struggling to eat and survive. But hey, everybody has the same so it must be a better scenario.

If there are abundant resources then they should be shared at least to insure a healthy standard of living for all members of the group. That otherwise abundant resources are not shared to this standard, it is quite illogical to assume it could be out of anything other than greed.

It doesn't make sense to say that if wealth were spread equally then everybody would be rich, just as it doesn't make sense to say that if wealth were spread equally everyone would "be struggling to eat and survive"(poverty).

 

[maxiep]

If there are abundant resources then they should be shared at least to insure a healthy standard of living for all members of the group. That otherwise abundant resources are not shared to this standard, it is quite illogical to assume it could be out of anything other than greed.

It doesn't make sense to say that if wealth were spread equally then everybody would be rich, just as it doesn't make sense to say that if wealth were spread equally everyone would "be struggling to eat and survive"(poverty).

Who decides how "wealth" is spread?

 

[Paine Tablet]

Did it ever occur to you that the policies promoted by this Administration, while paying lip service to the poor, are really designed to line the pockets of their friends and political allies? The Democratic Party has become the party of Big Government, Big Labor and Big Business.

I think it's wrong to equate the Democratic Party with oligarchic tendencies when they are essentially neoliberal economic reforms supported mainly by conservatives and centrists that reside in both parties.

 

[blazerboy30]

If there are abundant resources then they should be shared at least to insure a healthy standard of living for all members of the group. That otherwise abundant resources are not shared to this standard, it is quite illogical to assume it could be out of anything other than greed.

It doesn't make sense to say that if wealth were spread equally then everybody would be rich, just as it doesn't make sense to say that if wealth were spread equally everyone would "be struggling to eat and survive"(poverty).

You find me some societies and civilizations in history where the wealth was spread equally and we'll compare that to the standard of living for the so-called "poor" of the United States today.

 

[maxiep]

I think it's wrong to equate the Democratic Party with oligarchic tendencies when they are essentially neoliberal economic reforms supported mainly by conservatives and centrists that reside in both parties.

Your statement couldn't be more incorrect.

 

[Paine Tablet]

Who decides how "wealth" is spread?

I imagine it is the people who should decide, and who do support by majority a more equitable dispersion of wealth. But in reality they are handcuffed by a system that doesn't listen to the people.

 

[Paine Tablet]

Your statement couldn't be more incorrect.

You are right, neoliberal reforms do nothing to concentrate wealth at the top. They do nothing to exploit third-world countries in a macro game similar to the micro game we play at home. Reagan, Clinton, W,Obama(conservatives or centrists) had nothing to do with neoliberal reform. You are right. I make no sense.

 

[Paine Tablet]

You find me some societies and civilizations in history where the wealth was spread equally and we'll compare that to the standard of living for the so-called "poor" of the United States today.

What is the point of doing that when at no point in history has it been tried with a modern industrial juggernaut?

 

[jlprk]

What is the point of doing that when at no point in history has it been tried with a modern industrial juggernaut?

Every time a country moves in that direction, the U.S. & Europe label the leader a dictator, then use military might to overthrow his system.

 

[Paine Tablet]

Every time a country moves in that direction, the U.S. & Europe label the leader a dictator, then use military might to overthrow his system.

Which is precisely a great argument for anyone who uses failed socialist states as a model or as a point of reference. Of course, when the world's economic power is doing everything possible legally and illegally to subvert you, you are bound to fail.

 

[blazerboy30]

What is the point of doing that when at no point in history has it been tried with a modern industrial juggernaut?

There would be no such thing as an industrial juggernaut without this terrible "greed".

So thank you for proving my point.

 

[drexlersdad]

 

[Denny Crane]

Liberté, égalité, fraternité

Turned out great.

Reign of terror. Napoleon.

 

[drexlersdad]

Liberté, égalité, fraternité

Turned out great.

Reign of terror. Napoleon.

not gonna be fun, i agree

 

[Sinobas]

The relative wealth of people is irrelevant. What counts is whether people can afford food, housing, gasoline, etc. And they can.

Irrelevant to whom? A medieval equivalent to this statement, would be to say as long as the peasants have their huts, bread, and an ox to pull the plow, they shouldn't complain about their share of the wealth. Who cares if you have royalty living in luxury while the peasants live in squalor.

The only telling stat in the whole video is that rich people figure out to save money and invest it, while "poor" people don't. Whose fault is that?

You. Can't. Be. Fucking. Serious.

It's poor people's fault that they don't invest money they don't have? People live pay check to paycheck, but they would have more money if they invested their money in the stock market. Wow! Pull your head out of your ass.

 

[Denny Crane]

Irrelevant to whom? A medieval equivalent to this statement, would be to say as long as the peasants have their huts, bread, and an ox to pull the plow, they shouldn't complain about their share of the wealth. Who cares if you have royalty living in luxury while the peasants live in squalor.



You. Can't. Be. Fucking. Serious.

It's poor people's fault that they don't invest money they don't have? People live pay check to paycheck, but they would have more money if they invested their money in the stock market. Wow! Pull your head out of your ass.

It is irrelevant to everyone except those who are petty and jealous. People are not peasants in huts, with just bread, and an ox to pull the plow. A full 2/3 of the population does not work at all - in a peasant world 100% would.

No matter what size your paycheck, if you pay yourself first, 10% off the top, you won't be living paycheck to paycheck and you will survive and thrive.

It is a lame excuse that people don't have the money to invest.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://beginnersinvest.about.com/cs/personalfinance1/a/051701a.htm

Money, like water, expands to fill the container in which it is placed. If you lack an objective set of financial goals for your life, you probably reach the end of each month and find yourself broke. You vow that next month will be different, but it never is.

This scenario is certainly one with which millions of people can identify. Fortunately, it doesn't have to be that way. One of the most powerful and effective strategies for building wealth is to pay yourself first.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Some people think that paying God first is a decent way to go about it...

Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this,” says the Lord Almighty, “and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that there will not be room enough to store it.

 

[BrianFromWA]

this seemed appropriate, also. It's similar to how I spend the first decade or so of my life. Clotheslines, coupons, hand-me-downs, patches in clothes instead of new clothes, etc.

For Jason and Danielle Wagasky, $14,000 is enough for their family of four to live comfortably and debt-free all year.
According to 2012 federal guidelines, a family of four living on $14,000 a year puts them $9,000 below the poverty line. The median household income in the U.S. was $50,054 in 2011, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, but the Wagasky family’s frugal approach has them living a life that is “blissful and domestic,’’ according to the title of Danielle’s blog.
For four years, the couple and their kids, Keigan and Libby, have managed with careful planning, using a clothes line in lieu of a dryer and making their own laundry soap. Danielle, 28, shares her tips for frugal living on her blog, writing about how she learned to cook and how her husband built their kitchen.
“I’m happier this way,’’ Danielle told TODAY Friday. “I feel like we’re happier. We’re a better family.”
Their frugal living began when Jason, 31, a former Army sergeant, was stationed in Iraq in 2008, leaving Danielle to manage the family budget.
"He was gone, and I was sad,’’ Danielle said. “Then I had two children to take care of, and all of a sudden, I had to pay these bills. We'd have overdrafts on our bank because I'd be like, ‘Oh man, I forgot that bill that was supposed to come out.’ But I had already spent money."
She was inspired by reading the book "America's Cheapest Family Gets You Right on the Money,” by Steve and Annette Economides, who claim they spend $350 a month to maintain a family of seven. Her goal was to save enough money in two years to help them put a down payment on a home.
When Jason returned from his deployment, he decided to return to school. The GI Bill provided him with $14,000 a year in living expenses.
Read story: America's 'cheapest family': 'We are hope and change'
“You have to decide, as a family, this is what we have, so how do we make it work?’’ Jason said.
The couple dipped into their savings to pay off their car bills and then bought a home outright with the money Danielle had saved while Jason was deployed. They paid $30,000 in cash in a foreclosure sale, taking advantage of the struggling market in Las Vegas to buy a three-bedroom house.
By carefully mapping out meals and sticking to the grocery list without any splurges, the couple has been able to make their $14,000-a-year budget work. They pay only in cash and save credit cards for emergencies, and are also firm believers in the do-it-yourself approach.
“We make our own laundry soap, cleaners, and it saves us money,’’ Danielle said.
They use the local public library to check out books for the children, who are home-schooled. The family’s financial situation could soon improve now that Jason is applying for a job in law enforcement, but they say that more money will not change the way they live.
“The American mentality is to have and want more, like, bigger is never enough,’’ Jason said. “So I think that's where we're kind of different."

http://lifeinc.today.com/_news/2013...-of-four-lives-comfortably-on-14k-a-year?lite

I don't know that homeschooling has a lot to do with it, since public schooling doesn't cost very much.

 

[drexlersdad]

she saved 30k in 2 years, when they make 14k a year?

wow, she really is a savvy coupon clipper

 

[BrianFromWA]

no, she saved 30k while he was in Iraq, making what a deployed soldier makes. Now that he's out of the Army and using only his GI bill benefits (which are only 14k a year) she's making do on only that 14k.

An E-5 with 8 years in (I don't know that that's what he was, but it's probably within 10% or so either way) makes 2800 a month in base pay and probably another 1000 or so in housing allowance (with kids), depending on his home of record. While in Iraq that would've been tax-free, and he probably got hostile fire pay and family separation pay for another 500 a month. Not a stretch to think his wife could save 30K over a couple of deployments.

 

[drexlersdad]

not a stretch at all

4300 a month tax free is prolly not "check to check" but who knows

and living on 14k a year whith no rent or mortgage is alot easier than it sounds

 

[maxiep]

You are right, neoliberal reforms do nothing to concentrate wealth at the top. They do nothing to exploit third-world countries in a macro game similar to the micro game we play at home. Reagan, Clinton, W,Obama(conservatives or centrists) had nothing to do with neoliberal reform. You are right. I make no sense.

I'm glad we agree that you make no sense.

 

[maxiep]

I imagine it is the people who should decide, and who do support by majority a more equitable dispersion of wealth. But in reality they are handcuffed by a system that doesn't listen to the people.

In other words, all wealth--no matter who generated it--belongs to everyone, to be distributed as the majority sees fit? Wow. Where'd you get that drivel, a 1960s issue of Pravda?

 

[Paine Tablet]

In other words, all wealth--no matter who generated it--belongs to everyone, to be distributed as the majority sees fit? Wow. Where'd you get that drivel, a 1960s issue of Pravda?

Who distributes wealth is another away of saying who sets budgets and tax policy. I claim that it is the people who should decide and you assume I'm a communist. It doesn't quite follow.

 

[Paine Tablet]

I'm glad we agree that you make no sense.

How else would you explain growing inequality in wealth and income between the top and the bottom if not for tax reforms and trade reforms that happened on the watch of those listed presidents?