I think two different topics are taking place here and they really shouldn’t. I don’t think you can discuss income inequality at the same time as discussing people being stupid with their money.
Income inequality discussions are centered (or should be imo) around the concentrations of wealth.
People are in debt because they are stupid with the income they have is a different discussion. Someone who can’t afford a 73 inch TV on a low salary is a completely different ballgame. That has to do with poor consumer decisions, not whether one makes a “fair wage” or not.
I’m not 100% sure where I stand on income inequality. I definitely think it’s a problem, but I don’t believe the government makes things better in this regard, I think they make things worse. I have no idea how I’d fix it, but I also have no idea how people could say it isn’t an issue. At the very least I’d say it’s unsustainable on the course we’re on as I think the masses WILL eventually revolt (maybe just demand widespread changes) if it gets to a certain level.
[quote]H factor wrote:
… on income inequality. I definitely think it’s a problem, … but I also have no idea how people could say it isn’t an issue. At the very least I’d say it’s unsustainable on the course we’re on as I think the masses WILL eventually revolt (maybe just demand widespread changes) if it gets to a certain level.
What that level is I have no idea. [/quote]
Why though?
I mean, why is it a problem? How is it unsustainable?
Revolt against the rich is about as likely as Canadain revolutionary war against their government at this point. The only reason I say this is because things aren’t all that bad on the whole in America. I do drive through the low income areas to get to the highway everyday, and the number of AC units in windows increases every year in the summer. The cars parked on the side of the street are nicer and nicer, many nicer than the one I drive…
As long as the masses are fed ipods, laptops, spinning rims, beer and food basics they can afford, the “income envy” won’t ever reach the point were rich people need priavte security to defend from the lynch mobs.
Aside from the fact people said all the same stuff before WWII and it never happened, so I just don’t think it is going to happen.
Our government will fall apart before there is an all out class war in the streets.
[quote]H factor wrote:
… on income inequality. I definitely think it’s a problem, … but I also have no idea how people could say it isn’t an issue. At the very least I’d say it’s unsustainable on the course we’re on as I think the masses WILL eventually revolt (maybe just demand widespread changes) if it gets to a certain level.
What that level is I have no idea. [/quote]
Why though?
I mean, why is it a problem? How is it unsustainable?
Revolt against the rich is about as likely as Canadain revolutionary war against their government at this point. The only reason I say this is because things aren’t all that bad on the whole in America. I do drive through the low income areas to get to the highway everyday, and the number of AC units in windows increases every year in the summer. The cars parked on the side of the street are nicer and nicer, many nicer than the one I drive…
As long as the masses are fed ipods, laptops, spinning rims, beer and food basics they can afford, the “income envy” won’t ever reach the point were rich people need priavte security to defend from the lynch mobs.
Aside from the fact people said all the same stuff before WWII and it never happened, so I just don’t think it is going to happen.
Our government will fall apart before there is an all out class war in the streets.
[/quote]
You don’t think a scenario exists where it is a problem? I mean the gap can’t EVER get wide enough in your mind for it to be a problem? Why? What if it concentrates in fewer and fewer hands? You really can’t see it EVER being a problem? You’d ALWAYS be completely ok with our system no matter how uneven it got?
You have no problem with rising productivity, but worker wages being stagnant? You have no problem with bailed out bank CEO’s resigning with massive golden parachutes? NONE of this shit pisses you off?
As long as the gigantic mass of people who don’t do well have enough distractions they won’t be pissed off enough to notice and therefore nothing “bad” will happen. I mean I agree to an extent, but you think that’s a GOOD thing? Don’t worry guys the losers will be too busy watching reality TV to realize a few people have it all? I’m not arguing that things are all bad in America, but we haven’t seen this kind of inequality ever. And with no signs of it decreasing.
I mean I completely understand why people make more money than some other people, but I just can’t understand how some people don’t think it could ever reach a proportion where something will happen (and not like heads in the streets, but a massive political movement). And I will fully admit I have no idea what should happen to change the current system, but it’s quite clear we have nothing resembling a free market.
[quote]H factor wrote:
… on income inequality. I definitely think it’s a problem, … but I also have no idea how people could say it isn’t an issue. At the very least I’d say it’s unsustainable on the course we’re on as I think the masses WILL eventually revolt (maybe just demand widespread changes) if it gets to a certain level.
What that level is I have no idea. [/quote]
Why though?
I mean, why is it a problem? How is it unsustainable?
Revolt against the rich is about as likely as Canadain revolutionary war against their government at this point. The only reason I say this is because things aren’t all that bad on the whole in America. I do drive through the low income areas to get to the highway everyday, and the number of AC units in windows increases every year in the summer. The cars parked on the side of the street are nicer and nicer, many nicer than the one I drive…
As long as the masses are fed ipods, laptops, spinning rims, beer and food basics they can afford, the “income envy” won’t ever reach the point were rich people need priavte security to defend from the lynch mobs.
Aside from the fact people said all the same stuff before WWII and it never happened, so I just don’t think it is going to happen.
Our government will fall apart before there is an all out class war in the streets.
[/quote]
You don’t think a scenario exists where it is a problem? I mean the gap can’t EVER get wide enough in your mind for it to be a problem? Why? What if it concentrates in fewer and fewer hands? You really can’t see it EVER being a problem? You’d ALWAYS be completely ok with our system no matter how uneven it got? [/quote]
How in the world did you reach the above conclusion based on Bean’s statement? Why do you always have to take it to the EXTREME?
[quote]
You have no problem with rising productivity, but worker wages being stagnant? You have no problem with bailed out bank CEO’s resigning with massive golden parachutes? NONE of this shit pisses you off? [/quote]
Have you taken the time to even ask what Beans stance is on bank bailouts? I’m pretty sure he’s spoken out against them in the past.
How did you come to the conclusion Beans thinks this is a GOOD thing?
[quote]
I mean I completely understand why people make more money than some other people, but I just can’t understand how some people don’t think it could ever reach a proportion where something will happen (and not like heads in the streets, but a massive political movement). And I will fully admit I have no idea what should happen to change the current system, but it’s quite clear we have nothing resembling a free market. [/quote]
[quote]H factor wrote:
… on income inequality. I definitely think it’s a problem, … but I also have no idea how people could say it isn’t an issue. At the very least I’d say it’s unsustainable on the course we’re on as I think the masses WILL eventually revolt (maybe just demand widespread changes) if it gets to a certain level.
What that level is I have no idea. [/quote]
Why though?
I mean, why is it a problem? How is it unsustainable?
Revolt against the rich is about as likely as Canadain revolutionary war against their government at this point. The only reason I say this is because things aren’t all that bad on the whole in America. I do drive through the low income areas to get to the highway everyday, and the number of AC units in windows increases every year in the summer. The cars parked on the side of the street are nicer and nicer, many nicer than the one I drive…
As long as the masses are fed ipods, laptops, spinning rims, beer and food basics they can afford, the “income envy” won’t ever reach the point were rich people need priavte security to defend from the lynch mobs.
Aside from the fact people said all the same stuff before WWII and it never happened, so I just don’t think it is going to happen.
Our government will fall apart before there is an all out class war in the streets.
[/quote]
You don’t think a scenario exists where it is a problem? I mean the gap can’t EVER get wide enough in your mind for it to be a problem? Why? What if it concentrates in fewer and fewer hands? You really can’t see it EVER being a problem? You’d ALWAYS be completely ok with our system no matter how uneven it got? [/quote]
How in the world did you reach the above conclusion based on Bean’s statement? Why do you always have to take it to the EXTREME?
[quote]
You have no problem with rising productivity, but worker wages being stagnant? You have no problem with bailed out bank CEO’s resigning with massive golden parachutes? NONE of this shit pisses you off? [/quote]
Have you taken the time to even ask what Beans stance is on bank bailouts? I’m pretty sure he’s spoken out against them in the past.
How did you come to the conclusion Beans thinks this is a GOOD thing?
Taking it to the extreme is the only way to find someone’s stance. The data out there is clear on where income inequality has been heading. Why should we assume this will change?
It’s like lefties asking me why I worry about long term deficits because it isn’t the here and now. It’s because if something doesn’t change this is where we are headed. Is there data that suggests income inequality will diminish rapidly in the coming years? Because we have plenty to show it has gone up rapidly. AND I’M NOT SAYING THIS IS A BAD THING. I am saying income inequality CAN reach a point where something would happen. I don’t know why you think discussing that is such a bad thing.
As for the bank bailouts didn’t I just ask him? I’m trying to get a feel for where he is coming from. I think the best way to do that is by asking questions. You have a better idea for figuring out what he thinks? I think the government creates quite a bit of this by propping certain companies up and not letting things work as they would without the involvement.
As for the good thing, that’s what I was trying to figure out as well.
I just don’t see what your issue is with trying to find out what someone feels about an issue is. I fully admitted I have no idea how I completely feel on some of this, so I’m attempting to have a discussion on it. I have no idea why that is pissing you off so much. Maybe because you were the guy who refused to click the link and refused to have a discussion on OP’s statement and instead talked about the stupidity of buying a 73 inch TV.
^^Good posts H factor. Wiping out the middle class will have consequenses. I think the occupy movement may have been an early warning sign, albeit poorly led and organized.
[quote]whatever2k wrote:
^^Good posts H factor. Wiping out the middle class will have consequenses. I think the occupy movement may have been an early warning sign, albeit poorly led and organized.[/quote]
I have a lot of issues with the occupy movement (namely the inconsistency in being anti-corporation, while doing nothing buyt buying from them).
I definitely think history has shown us that economic issues can be the forefront for revolution or widespread social change. I don’t think the rich will be butchered in the streets, but I do think significant political changes could come in the future if large amounts of people view the system as wholly unfair. And I think greatly increasing wealth gaps and corporate bailouts are two recipes that may lead to many people coming to that conclusion.
[quote]whatever2k wrote:
^^Good posts H factor. Wiping out the middle class will have consequenses. I think the occupy movement may have been an early warning sign, albeit poorly led and organized.
[/quote]
I don’t think the Occupy movement was really the middle class being pissed. More like the middle classes children being pissed they aren’t handed MORE things for nothing. Also middle class American don’t works for minimum wage.
Taking it to the extreme is the only way to find someone’s stance. The data out there is clear on where income inequality has been heading. Why should we assume this will change?
[/quote]
You can also ask them.
[quote]
It’s like lefties asking me why I worry about long term deficits because it isn’t the here and now. It’s because if something doesn’t change this is where we are headed. Is there data that suggests income inequality will diminish rapidly in the coming years? Because we have plenty to show it has gone up rapidly. AND I’M NOT SAYING THIS IS A BAD THING. I am saying income inequality CAN reach a point where something would happen. I don’t know why you think discussing that is such a bad thing. [/quote]
Your issues aren’t without merit, but I don’t think the extreme you are taking this is necessary or relevant. Change is typcially pretty rapid like you said. So it’s just as likely the inequality will shrink, right?
Discussion is why we are here, but I didn’t read you discussing more like accussing.
No you didn’t ask him at all. Just because you added a ? at the end doesn’t mean you asked him a question. It looked rhetorical to me.
Again, it didn’t look like a question to me.
[quote]
I just don’t see what your issue is with trying to find out what someone feels about an issue is. I fully admitted I have no idea how I completely feel on some of this, so I’m attempting to have a discussion on it. I have no idea why that is pissing you off so much. Maybe because you were the guy who refused to click the link and refused to have a discussion on OP’s statement and instead talked about the stupidity of buying a 73 inch TV. [/quote]
My issue is you weren’t trying to figure out his stance, at least that’s not how it read to me.
I mean look at how you reacted:
HFACTOR wrote, “I have no idea why that is pissing you off so much.”
I asked what, 4, questions and you think I’m pissed. Your last statement is irrelevant.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Also middle class American don’t works for minimum wage.
[/quote]
True, but I remember reading somewhere that the average americans wages have been stagnant since the 70s adjusted for inflation. Pretty much everything has gone to the richest. That has got to become a problem at some point.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Also middle class American don’t works for minimum wage.
[/quote]
True, but I remember reading somewhere that the average americans wages have been stagnant since the 70s adjusted for inflation. Pretty much everything has gone to the richest. That has got to become a problem at some point.
[/quote]
Maybe, I don’t know. It could become a problem. I doubt it though. Middle class American live very well compared to the rest of the World. Regardless of what % of the pie we get.
[quote]mcdowellsp wrote:
My take on this is that if you don’t like what your job pays - get a better one that pays more. People are in debt because of stupid decisions. You can’t make bad life decisions and expect a bail out over and over. America has lost its way. It used to be about working hard. Now its about free handouts, phones, food stamps, welfare, etc. [/quote]
Thanks for serving our Country and protecting our Freedoms.
Taking it to the extreme is the only way to find someone’s stance. The data out there is clear on where income inequality has been heading. Why should we assume this will change?
[/quote]
You can also ask them.
[quote]
It’s like lefties asking me why I worry about long term deficits because it isn’t the here and now. It’s because if something doesn’t change this is where we are headed. Is there data that suggests income inequality will diminish rapidly in the coming years? Because we have plenty to show it has gone up rapidly. AND I’M NOT SAYING THIS IS A BAD THING. I am saying income inequality CAN reach a point where something would happen. I don’t know why you think discussing that is such a bad thing. [/quote]
Your issues aren’t without merit, but I don’t think the extreme you are taking this is necessary or relevant. Change is typcially pretty rapid like you said. So it’s just as likely the inequality will shrink, right?
Discussion is why we are here, but I didn’t read you discussing more like accussing.
No you didn’t ask him at all. Just because you added a ? at the end doesn’t mean you asked him a question. It looked rhetorical to me.
Again, it didn’t look like a question to me.
[quote]
I just don’t see what your issue is with trying to find out what someone feels about an issue is. I fully admitted I have no idea how I completely feel on some of this, so I’m attempting to have a discussion on it. I have no idea why that is pissing you off so much. Maybe because you were the guy who refused to click the link and refused to have a discussion on OP’s statement and instead talked about the stupidity of buying a 73 inch TV. [/quote]
My issue is you weren’t trying to figure out his stance, at least that’s not how it read to me.
I mean look at how you reacted:
HFACTOR wrote, “I have no idea why that is pissing you off so much.”
I asked what, 4, questions and you think I’m pissed. Your last statement is irrelevant. [/quote]
I suck at multi-quote, but I WAS asking him. As to your second point why in the hell would you think it would rapidly diminish? Do you think the national debt will rapidly diminish if something doesn’t change because it has been rising rapdily? Why would you think it would? Are you not aware of the data on income inequality over the last 30 some odd years? How could you come to the conclusion it will magically change or that it is just as likely to change? That’s being irrational.
I was asking him questions, whether or not you want to believe it doesn’t matter to me. This is an issue I haven’t fully developed how I feel on it yet because it causes very mixed emotions to me. I’m not even remotely against highly paid people, (I suppose I fall into that category to an extent anyways) but I do think it is a growing issue that at least deserves discussion and brainpower.
In fact I wasn’t even talking to you I was talking to Beans. Why you felt the need to interject and add absolutely nothing except for come after me I guess I don’t understand. All it did was derail the thread.
The only solution to these problems is to let the currently lowest paid worker in every corporation decide what everyone gets paid. Everything else has failed to bring common laborers’ standards of living up to the standards of living of Bill Gates, so I can see no other option. Who cares that the poor can now afford things that the rich couldn’t 100 years ago?
I suck at multi-quote, but I WAS asking him. As to your second point why in the hell would you think it would rapidly diminish? Do you think the national debt will rapidly diminish if something doesn’t change because it has been rising rapdily? Why would you think it would? Are you not aware of the data on income inequality over the last 30 some odd years? How could you come to the conclusion it will magically change or that it is just as likely to change? That’s being irrational.
[/quote]
Okay, you were asking him. I didn’t say I THOUGHT it would rapidly diminsish, I asked based on your line of reasoning, if it’s possible.
This is why we have an issue, I’m not being irrational because I never took a stance either way. I asked a series of question. You, like with Beans, have infered things about me that may or may not be true. I don’t believe the debt nor the wage gap will just decrease, I was simply asking a question based on your line of reasoning.
That’s fine. I never said it wasn’t worth discussing.
[quote]
In fact I wasn’t even talking to you I was talking to Beans. Why you felt the need to interject and add absolutely nothing except for come after me I guess I don’t understand. All it did was derail the thread. [/quote]
HAHAHAHAHA, sorry I forgot, you are only supposed to answer direct questions from people on the interent. I, “came after you,” because you made false statements about Beans stancea and I, “came at you,” by asking a few questions. That’s called integrity where I’m from, but I guess that’s not always the case.
You don’t think a scenario exists where it is a problem? [/quote]
Certainly, but there has to be social factors other than pure economics to drive to a allout class war.
As long as aristocractic behavior from the richest is kept in check, the effects of the spread should be mitigated. A consumeristic economy (at least on some levels) does just this. Because demand is important, not the sole import, but important none the less. And the larger part of the demand comes from those not in the upper crust levels for the vast majority of products and services.
So the “little people” need to make a peice of the pie in order for the “big people” to make profits.
I don’t think the gap is as important as mobility. As long as the poorest has the opportunity to move up the latter, the gap isn’t all that important.
There is certianly still mobility, without question. But everyone can’t expect to wake up and be Mark Zuckerberg tomorrow. I think doubling your parents combined income before your 30 is a difficult and respectable achivement.
Concentration will and always has happened throughout the history of man. As long as it is in the hands of private citizens and not government or ruling class, we are vastly better off than otherwise.
But, for this to happen to any significant degree would require a lack of innovation for generations. Think of what kind of careers all those web designers would have if not for the internet. I know a could kids that would be digging ditches…
That is why giving incentive to investment is important. As long as the concentrated wealth is invested back into the market, velocity becomes more important than who “owns” the capital.
Based on what stats? This conversation is tough to have sometimes because I’ve seen the same stats be used to argue opposite sides of the argument and both be valid.
There are so many factors that go into both measure, I’d need more info before I could give an answer either way.
I think if our government was going to issue TARP, the money should have gone to the citizens, and they should have let the banks fail, AIG fail, and bailed out the people.
I have no issue with retirement packages, because of the same reason I’m okay with their pay. But given above, there would have been no funds to give those specific people the retirement packages.
But, because we live in a crony-capitalist government situation, TARP happened. Once it did, if the bank was better off paying someone to leave, and improved their situation by doing so, it was money well spent. Particularly if that CEO would have cost the company and investor 3, 5 or 10 times more.
Yes, it is a good thing. Mainly because you are comparing ‘not doing well’ to people making 8 figures. By definition if someone can afford those luxury items, they are doing okay.
These aren’t distractions, they are our way of life. Air conditioning isn’t a distraction, it isn’t even a luxury item anymore. When I was a kid, it certianly was. When people are so poor on the other side of the Earth they will never even see an automobile, and people here who are “poor” have an XboX, 200 inch HDTV and lobster and steak… Things aren’t all that bad.
So if we are getting down to it, all over America is the 1%, compared to much of the rest of the world. So pardon me while I don’t feel bad for some kid making $7 to microwave a “burger” for someone who has so much food they are going to die from eating too much…
Not having millions of dollars doesn’t make one a loser. Some of the best people I’ve ever met can barely rub two dimes together.
I don’t measure people’s net worth to society or myself based on wage scale.
I’m not arguing that things are all bad in America, but we haven’t seen this kind of inequality ever. And with no signs of it decreasing.
Well, we just elected the most progressively leftest president this side of WWII, and then re-elected after he failed to do a damn thing of substance, so… Shit maybe we are already there.
Class warfare rhetoric works now just as well as it did when FDR used the same playbook Bam works from.
No, and we really haven’t in a long long time. Depends on who’s kool-ade you drink as to who you blame for it.
[quote]whatever2k wrote:
^^Good posts H factor. Wiping out the middle class will have consequenses. I think the occupy movement may have been an early warning sign, albeit poorly led and organized.
[/quote]
Occupy is/was beyond fucked up. They missed the mark in so many ways their relevance beyond putting people in neat little % boxes is zero.