View Full Version : The U.S. Has The Worst Income Inequality In The Developed World, Thanks To Wall Stree
debbietoo
08-07-2016, 11:51 AM
Since the 1970s, the top 1 percent of earners in the U.S. has roughly doubled its share of the total American income pie to nearly 20 percent from about 10 percent, according to the paper. This gain is easily the biggest among other developed countries, the researchers note. You can see this in the chart below, taken from the paper, which maps the income gains of the top 1 percent in several countries against the massive tax breaks most of them have gotten in the past several decades. (Story continues after chart.)
Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/15/income-inequality-wall-street_n_3762422.html
And republicans wonder why more and more Americans, including college educated young voters, are moving toward the left! Capitalism in America today simply doesn't work for the 99 percent, period. We have tried the trickle down system and it has failed.
Mister D
08-07-2016, 12:02 PM
The US also absorbs more poor migrants than the rest of the developed world combined so...
Peter1469
08-07-2016, 12:10 PM
The inequality issue is largely driven by Thomas Piketty and his famous tome, On Capital. (http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674430006) Piketty uses more historical data than any other historian, however he misses the mark because he makes two mistakes.
1. He fails to consider the changes in the tax code that cause people to report income on individual returns as opposed to corporate returns.
2. He fails to consider welfare and other government handouts in the income of the poor.
So he tried to do a good job with his book. But he failed.
Common
08-07-2016, 12:12 PM
I absolutely agree with the thread and there are clear reasons and causes for it.
First was Bill Clintons ramming of Nafta through against the wishs of every labor Union and labor organization and many economists. Wall Street bought him.
Because of Nafta the outsourcing began and accelerated and devestated middle class decent paying jobs that afforded americans the opportunity to work for decent wage and take care of their familes. It also provided jobs for low wage minimum wage workers a place to move up to. THEY ARE GONE
Bush did nothing to change it and Obama not only did nothing to change it, hes made it worse, hes ramming through another trade bill just like nafta that Unions are begging him not too along with many DEMOCRATS.
What you have is rich and poor, two castes, guess who wins every time.
As Mr D said, the bringing in of millions of unskilled workers who compete with low wage american workers you have a perfect storm
Subdermal
08-07-2016, 12:54 PM
This is due to several causes, two of which has already been cited.
1. America is the wealthiest country in the world per capita. As such, the top quintile will be expanded as compared to the top quintile in any other country.
2. Peter's point above.
3. Mister D's point above.
4. Simple (Keynesian) math - which I've posted before. When a country utilizes a fiat currency, and monetary policy is Keynesian, then the expansion of the number of dollars in the country will MATHEMATICALLY create this "income inequality".
This is from memory, but I'll go with it.
In 1920, there was approximately 4.3 BILLION dollars in circulation in the entire US economy. We had not yet acknowledged any billionaires at all. The poorest, however, still had - in some cases - negative net worth (credit markets were not yet near fully developed). Therefore, the spread between poorest and wealthiest was - at most - a few billion - and the ratio of billionaires to poor was astronomical.
In 2015 - March, IIRC - the amount of currency circulation approached 5 TRILLION dollars. The poorest, however, are considered even more poor by accounting standards, as deep debt problems due to the availability - and misuse - of credit.
The richest, however, are approaching one TRILLION in net worth - and there are FAR MORE of them.
So.
Wouldn't that skew the numbers, just a smidgen?
More than a little. It is where the numbers originate. It is where the meme originates.
Beyond that: forced inflationary expansion of our currency (read: controlled inflation) is a Keynesian cornerstone. To do so is said to spur economic growth.
It does this because it inflates credit markets as well as require those with wealth to put it at risk in a potential investment, or guarantee a 4%+/annum contraction in their net worth.
Most succeed in keeping abreast of inflation by investing, but that is because they have disposable income/wealth with which to invest.
But what about the poor? They have none - but they do have automatical structural inflation built into their staples, so they're not only NOT keeping up with everyone else, they're going the other direction.
The only thing ameliorating that dynamic is that quality of life has steadily increased during these decades of Keynesian, obfuscating the real problem.
Now ask anyone who complains about "income inequality" if they wish to trash Keynesian - or neo-Keynesian - monetarism.
And watch them equivocate.
Chloe
08-07-2016, 01:01 PM
Since the 1970s, the top 1 percent of earners in the U.S. has roughly doubled its share of the total American income pie to nearly 20 percent from about 10 percent, according to the paper. This gain is easily the biggest among other developed countries, the researchers note. You can see this in the chart below, taken from the paper, which maps the income gains of the top 1 percent in several countries against the massive tax breaks most of them have gotten in the past several decades. (Story continues after chart.)
Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/15/income-inequality-wall-street_n_3762422.html
And republicans wonder why more and more Americans, including college educated young voters, are moving toward the left! Capitalism in America today simply doesn't work for the 99 percent, period. We have tried the trickle down system and it has failed.
There's also been three democratic presidents since the 70's two of which were two term presidents, so 20 years worth of democratic leadership in addition to the republican leadership. It looks like to me that both sides are the same problem.
Newpublius
08-07-2016, 01:02 PM
Income and wealth inequality is irrelevant. Don't go to work and use Facebook on your iPhone while sipping a Starbucks latte while watching your favorite sports team on TV.....
Look at wealth for instance. Somebody like Bezos is exceptionally wealthy because of Amazon stock. Look at what Amazon is, a retailer selling things you want. Amazon's net profit is <2% of sales and you routinely fork over 6%-10% in sales tax.
Bezos' wealth in Amazon stock is entirely derived from Amazon stock which derives it's value as the future market expectation of the NPV of Amazon's future cash flows. In other words, Amazon only has value to the extent it serves its customers.
Bethere
08-07-2016, 04:34 PM
I absolutely agree with the thread and there are clear reasons and causes for it.
First was Bill Clintons ramming of Nafta through against the wishs of every labor Union and labor organization and many economists. Wall Street bought him.
Because of Nafta the outsourcing began and accelerated and devestated middle class decent paying jobs that afforded americans the opportunity to work for decent wage and take care of their familes. It also provided jobs for low wage minimum wage workers a place to move up to. THEY ARE GONE
Bush did nothing to change it and Obama not only did nothing to change it, hes made it worse, hes ramming through another trade bill just like nafta that Unions are begging him not too along with many DEMOCRATS.
What you have is rich and poor, two castes, guess who wins every time.
As Mr D said, the bringing in of millions of unskilled workers who compete with low wage american workers you have a perfect storm
15654
debbietoo
08-07-2016, 05:09 PM
This is due to several causes, two of which has already been cited.
1. America is the wealthiest country in the world per capita. As such, the top quintile will be expanded as compared to the top quintile in any other country.
2. Peter's point above.
3. Mister D's point above.
4. Simple (Keynesian) math - which I've posted before. When a country utilizes a fiat currency, and monetary policy is Keynesian, then the expansion of the number of dollars in the country will MATHEMATICALLY create this "income inequality".
This is from memory, but I'll go with it.
In 1920, there was approximately 4.3 BILLION dollars in circulation in the entire US economy. We had not yet acknowledged any billionaires at all. The poorest, however, still had - in some cases - negative net worth (credit markets were not yet near fully developed). Therefore, the spread between poorest and wealthiest was - at most - a few billion - and the ratio of billionaires to poor was astronomical.
In 2015 - March, IIRC - the amount of currency circulation approached 5 TRILLION dollars. The poorest, however, are considered even more poor by accounting standards, as deep debt problems due to the availability - and misuse - of credit.
The richest, however, are approaching one TRILLION in net worth - and there are FAR MORE of them.
So.
Wouldn't that skew the numbers, just a smidgen?
More than a little. It is where the numbers originate. It is where the meme originates.
Beyond that: forced inflationary expansion of our currency (read: controlled inflation) is a Keynesian cornerstone. To do so is said to spur economic growth.
It does this because it inflates credit markets as well as require those with wealth to put it at risk in a potential investment, or guarantee a 4%+/annum contraction in their net worth.
Most succeed in keeping abreast of inflation by investing, but that is because they have disposable income/wealth with which to invest.
But what about the poor? They have none - but they do have automatical structural inflation built into their staples, so they're not only NOT keeping up with everyone else, they're going the other direction.
The only thing ameliorating that dynamic is that quality of life has steadily increased during these decades of Keynesian, obfuscating the real problem.
Now ask anyone who complains about "income inequality" if they wish to trash Keynesian - or neo-Keynesian - monetarism.
And watch them equivocate.
Nice post. You would probably enjoy some of the ideas of George Soros. I do. I found this one paper, written by Thomas I. Palley, about how to manage and control International Capital Markets, in an effort to control wealth inequality.
http://www.thomaspalley.com/docs/articles/international_markets/intl_capital_mrkts.pdf
debbietoo
08-07-2016, 05:28 PM
15654
Bill Clinton admitted he was wrong in passing the NAFTA legislation. Hillary is against TPP; let's see if that passes if/when she gets elected. I know Obama is in favor of it. Her tax increases are actually very modest, only on the wealthiest Americans, so the middle class won't notice anything. Her tax plan will actually cut the deficit over the next decade, while Trump's plan will add to the deficit in the trillions.
debbietoo
08-07-2016, 05:33 PM
Income and wealth inequality is irrelevant. Don't go to work and use Facebook on your iPhone while sipping a Starbucks latte while watching your favorite sports team on TV.....
Look at wealth for instance. Somebody like Bezos is exceptionally wealthy because of Amazon stock. Look at what Amazon is, a retailer selling things you want. Amazon's net profit is <2% of sales and you routinely fork over 6%-10% in sales tax.
Bezos' wealth in Amazon stock is entirely derived from Amazon stock which derives it's value as the future market expectation of the NPV of Amazon's future cash flows. In other words, Amazon only has value to the extent it serves its customers.
Well, let's just call it wealth inequality then. How about that?
zelmo1234
08-07-2016, 05:39 PM
Since the 1970s, the top 1 percent of earners in the U.S. has roughly doubled its share of the total American income pie to nearly 20 percent from about 10 percent, according to the paper. This gain is easily the biggest among other developed countries, the researchers note. You can see this in the chart below, taken from the paper, which maps the income gains of the top 1 percent in several countries against the massive tax breaks most of them have gotten in the past several decades. (Story continues after chart.)
Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/15/income-inequality-wall-street_n_3762422.html
And republicans wonder why more and more Americans, including college educated young voters, are moving toward the left! Capitalism in America today simply doesn't work for the 99 percent, period. We have tried the trickle down system and it has failed.
Well first supply side economic has not been Used in the USA, since the Clinton Administration. His Tax cuts in 1996 and the accompanying spending cuts sent the economy skyrocketing.
Bush tired, but 911 and the Wars just caused too much government spending. Because of his insistence on Government spending, and his refusal to stand up to the CBC, Barnie Franks and Christopher Dodd. the Housing market collapsed.
Now just a question for you? If we have seen more wealth transfer to the top 10% under Obama that any of the modern presidents, and Wall Street is overwhelmingly supporting Hillary Clinton?
How do you think that she is going to change this. And what makes you think that she wants to.
Chris
08-07-2016, 05:40 PM
Have to ask what is the value of comparing abstract aggregates? There isn't really a permanent rich or permanent poor or permanent middle class. Insurance individuals move in and out of those statistical categories, some up, some down. As Thomas Sowell has repeatedly shown look at individuals more poor move up to become rich and vice versa.
Peter1469
08-07-2016, 05:41 PM
If Hillary is elected the TTP is going through. She is for it, although she tells the sheep that she isn't.
zelmo1234
08-07-2016, 05:45 PM
Nice post. You would probably enjoy some of the ideas of George Soros. I do. I found this one paper, written by Thomas I. Palley, about how to manage and control International Capital Markets, in an effort to control wealth inequality.
http://www.thomaspalley.com/docs/articles/international_markets/intl_capital_mrkts.pdf
Debbie, you seem to be a good person.
You need to see how Mr. Soro's made his billions.
Betting against and economy and the collapsing it is not something that is good for the poor and middle class.
zelmo1234
08-07-2016, 05:48 PM
Bill Clinton admitted he was wrong in passing the NAFTA legislation. Hillary is against TPP; let's see if that passes if/when she gets elected. I know Obama is in favor of it. Her tax increases are actually very modest, only on the wealthiest Americans, so the middle class won't notice anything. Her tax plan will actually cut the deficit over the next decade, while Trump's plan will add to the deficit in the trillions.
Here is something to consider.
Where do jobs come from?
So lets say that I am one of the wealthy people I take home 500K after taxes under the current system.
If you raise my taxes like Hillary about 5% How much would I take home?
zelmo1234
08-07-2016, 05:49 PM
If Hillary is elected the TTP is going through. She is for it, although she tells the sheep that she isn't.
Well she was for it before Bernie made her against it.
So then she appointed a VP to calm the fears of those that actually thought she was going to truly oppose it?
YES she is and has always been for it.
Beevee
08-07-2016, 05:50 PM
The US also absorbs more poor migrants than the rest of the developed world combined so...
you won't be able to cite that from November if the Donald has his way
zelmo1234
08-07-2016, 05:51 PM
Well, let's just call it wealth inequality then. How about that?
What kind of wealth does a person that works at McDonalds deserve?
MisterVeritis
08-07-2016, 06:15 PM
you won't be able to cite that from November if the Donald has his way
That is a reason to elect Trump. The US is for Americans. Canada can have as many of the poorest, dumbest, sickest brown and black people, as you want. Go for it.
debbietoo
08-07-2016, 06:43 PM
I read that initially Hillary was in favor of TPP until recently, when she looked at it in its current format. Then, somewhere else I read she might pass it, but with certain changes so that it won't effect a lot of American workers. So, guess we will have to find out. I know Hillary is in favor of raising minimum wage to $15 per hour. Economists have proven, through several studies, that raising minimum wage has a minimal effect on consumer prices. California is trying to pass legislation for raising their minimum wage, as well as New York. We need to give these states some time to the see the full results, but I have an idea they will have a dramatic effect on their economy for the better!
A proposed gradual increase in New York’s minimum wage from $9 to $15 an hour would increase wages by an average of 23 percent for nearly 3.2 million workers by mid- 2021 and will not have a negative effect on overall employment, says a comprehensive new study (http://irle.berkeley.edu/cwed/briefs/2016-01.pdf) released today by UC Berkeley.
Source:
Study sees positive impact of raising New York’s minimum wage to $15 an hour
http://news.berkeley.edu/2016/03/10/study-sees-positive-impact-of-raising-new-yorks-minimum-wage-to-15-an-hour/
Mister D
08-07-2016, 06:43 PM
That is a reason to elect Trump. The US is for Americans. Canada can have as many of the poorest, dumbest, sickest brown and black people, as you want. Go for it.
But Canadians would never stand for that.
Newpublius
08-07-2016, 06:47 PM
I read that initially Hillary was in favor of TPP until recently, when she looked at it in its current format. Then, somewhere else I read she might pass it, but with certain changes so that it won't effect a lot of American workers. So, guess we will have to find out. I know Hillary is in favor of raising minimum wage to $15 per hour. Economists have proven, through several studies, that raising minimum wage has a minimal effect on consumer prices. California just raised their minimum wage, as well as Washington State, and now New York is following suit. We need to give these states some time to the see the full results, but I have an idea they will have a dramatic effect on their economy for the better!
A proposed gradual increase in New York’s minimum wage from $9 to $15 an hour would increase wages by an average of 23 percent for nearly 3.2 million workers by mid- 2021 and will not have a negative effect on overall employment, says a comprehensive new study (http://irle.berkeley.edu/cwed/briefs/2016-01.pdf) released today by UC Berkeley.
Source:
Study sees positive impact of raising New York’s minimum wage to $15 an hour
http://news.berkeley.edu/2016/03/10/study-sees-positive-impact-of-raising-new-yorks-minimum-wage-to-15-an-hour/
The current minimum wage as it stands today is having a negative impacthoughts even as total employment increases. The prediction is that the minimum wage will impact those who are statistically less likely to possess the requisite skills necessary to command the minimum wage. That class should be those who are young and relatively inexperienced. This exists of course, the youth unemployment rate has been, will be and will continue to be much higher than the general unemployment rate in a way that is proportionate to the average wage.
Common
08-07-2016, 06:50 PM
Bill Clinton admitted he was wrong in passing the NAFTA legislation. Hillary is against TPP; let's see if that passes if/when she gets elected. I know Obama is in favor of it. Her tax increases are actually very modest, only on the wealthiest Americans, so the middle class won't notice anything. Her tax plan will actually cut the deficit over the next decade, while Trump's plan will add to the deficit in the trillions.
Could you show a link to her modest tax cuts. I have seen what was reported about what she claims she will raise and they were not modest. So if you could, post the source
Common
08-07-2016, 06:54 PM
15654
You try to hard bethere take a doctored picture from a left wing hit site wont work
This Day in HIstory (http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history)The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Clinton said he hoped the agreement would encourage other nations to work toward a broader world-trade pact.NAFTA, a trade pact between the United States, Canada, and Mexico, eliminated virtually all tariffs and trade restrictions between the three nations. The passage of NAFTA was one of Clinton’s first major victories as the first Democratic president in 12 years–though the movement for free trade in North America had begun as a Republican initiative.
During its planning stages, NAFTA was heavily criticized by Reform Party presidential candidate Ross Perot, who argued that if NAFTA was passed, Americans would hear a “giant sucking sound” of American companies fleeing the United States for Mexico, where employees would work for less pay and without benefits. The pact, which took effect on January 1, 1994, created the world’s largest free-trade zone.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/nafta-signed-into-law
Now conveniently after the fact and because nafta destroyed the middleclass and his wife is running for Potus, he admits it was a mistake. It was not a mistake, a mistake is when you unknowingly or inadvertently do something. He was told by all the unions, liberal economists and he rammed it through anyway.
Subdermal
08-07-2016, 07:07 PM
Nice post. You would probably enjoy some of the ideas of George Soros. I do. I found this one paper, written by Thomas I. Palley, about how to manage and control International Capital Markets, in an effort to control wealth inequality.
http://www.thomaspalley.com/docs/articles/international_markets/intl_capital_mrkts.pdf
It seems like you punted on the topic by directing me to the writings of a guy I know fully and fully despise.
There is no controlling wealth inequality. There will always be a massive spread - and the only way to normalize such a spread is to prevent an exponential explosion via currency expansionism.
And that isn't what Soros is about.
Peter1469
08-08-2016, 04:47 AM
I read that initially Hillary was in favor of TPP until recently, when she looked at it in its current format. Then, somewhere else I read she might pass it, but with certain changes so that it won't effect a lot of American workers. So, guess we will have to find out. I know Hillary is in favor of raising minimum wage to $15 per hour. Economists have proven, through several studies, that raising minimum wage has a minimal effect on consumer prices. California is trying to pass legislation for raising their minimum wage, as well as New York. We need to give these states some time to the see the full results, but I have an idea they will have a dramatic effect on their economy for the better!
A proposed gradual increase in New York’s minimum wage from $9 to $15 an hour would increase wages by an average of 23 percent for nearly 3.2 million workers by mid- 2021 and will not have a negative effect on overall employment, says a comprehensive new study (http://irle.berkeley.edu/cwed/briefs/2016-01.pdf) released today by UC Berkeley.
Source:
Study sees positive impact of raising New York’s minimum wage to $15 an hour
http://news.berkeley.edu/2016/03/10/study-sees-positive-impact-of-raising-new-yorks-minimum-wage-to-15-an-hour/
NYC can survive a $15 minimum wage. Upstate NY can't. Localize, don't federalize.
zelmo1234
08-08-2016, 06:56 AM
NYC can survive a $15 minimum wage. Upstate NY can't. Localize, don't federalize.
There are a few things that the left assumes when Raising the Minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour.
#1 That wages will increase across the board. With the exception of the Union contracts that are tied to the minimum wage, Nobody that makes over 15 dollars an hour is getting a raise. So they will take about a 10% pay cut due to the caused inflation. Next the Factories that do have to raise the wages will begin building off shore factories as soon as the law is passed.
#2 The thing that when the raise the minimum wage and Raise Taxes that the owners are going to willingly and Happily accept lower wages? That of course is not True. As I have said in the past, I will not be taking one red cent less out of the business. I may raise my percentage, just for Spite.
debbietoo
08-08-2016, 08:56 AM
Could you show a link to her modest tax cuts. I have seen what was reported about what she claims she will raise and they were not modest. So if you could, post the source
Here they are:
http://apps.urban.org/features/tpccandidate/
debbietoo
08-08-2016, 09:03 AM
There are a few things that the left assumes when Raising the Minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour.
#1 That wages will increase across the board. With the exception of the Union contracts that are tied to the minimum wage, Nobody that makes over 15 dollars an hour is getting a raise. So they will take about a 10% pay cut due to the caused inflation. Next the Factories that do have to raise the wages will begin building off shore factories as soon as the law is passed.
#2 The thing that when the raise the minimum wage and Raise Taxes that the owners are going to willingly and Happily accept lower wages? That of course is not True. As I have said in the past, I will not be taking one red cent less out of the business. I may raise my percentage, just for Spite.
When wages are increased, there is increased consumer spending and that is a proven fact. Therefore, smaller businesses actually benefit from increased wages for employees in the long term. Also, there is less overturn of employees and they work harder when paid more. Many small business owners already pay their employees over minimum wage and are in favor of raising minimum wage.
FindersKeepers
08-08-2016, 09:15 AM
When wages are increased, there is increased consumer spending and that is a proven fact. Therefore, smaller businesses actually benefit from increased wages for employees in the long term. Also, there is less overturn of employees and they work harder when paid more. Many small business owners already pay their employees over minimum wage and are in favor of raising minimum wage.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/d8/27/fe/d827fe112256adc7cb4eee6e884754e0.jpg
HoneyBadger
08-08-2016, 09:57 AM
Well, let's just call it wealth inequality then. How about that?
There's no such animal as "wealth inequality" or "income inequality". That's a made up term that presupposes all wealth must be shared equally regardless of the labor, time and effort that was required to actually earn said wealth.
zelmo1234
08-08-2016, 10:02 AM
Here they are:
http://apps.urban.org/features/tpccandidate/
Ok Under this tax plan why would I continue doing Business in the USA she is adding 4% That brings the federal level up to 43%
Why would I even think about paying that as a business owner when I can off shore for a low as 11%
Next those wonderful tax cuts for the poor and lower middle class???? They already pay nothing. so it is lip service
HoneyBadger
08-08-2016, 10:04 AM
When wages are increased, there is increased consumer spending and that is a proven fact. Therefore, smaller businesses actually benefit from increased wages for employees in the long term. Also, there is less overturn of employees and they work harder when paid more. Many small business owners already pay their employees over minimum wage and are in favor of raising minimum wage.
My employees earn over the minimum wage. The key word being: EARN. Some people just don't have the skills, education or work ethic required to earn more than the minimum. If they want to earn more, they need to improve themselves to make them more valuable to their employers. Even when I was in high school working part time, I earned higher than the minimum wage and that's because I was dependable and willing to take on any task. I didn't just phone it in and spend my time at work gossiping and whining.
HoneyBadger
08-08-2016, 10:06 AM
They already pay nothing.
And that's a problem. If you're getting a free ride, you have no skin in the game.
zelmo1234
08-08-2016, 10:09 AM
When wages are increased, there is increased consumer spending and that is a proven fact. Therefore, smaller businesses actually benefit from increased wages for employees in the long term. Also, there is less overturn of employees and they work harder when paid more. Many small business owners already pay their employees over minimum wage and are in favor of raising minimum wage.
Actually what many do not understand is that a Minimum wage increase is very hard on the Small Business.
Why? Because they do not have the revenue to absorb it. So if you have a local Hamburder shop and you are paying your employees. 8 dollars and hour and they raise it to 15, you are going to nearly double your payroll
Of course anyone making over 15 dollars an hour is not going to get a raise for a long time, and they actually receive a pay cut due to inflation. So the increase in spending is not real there are not buying more products they are buying less, they just cost more.
So our little Hamburger shop has to raise his prices by about 30% to cover his cost, but McDonalds does not, because they just put in a self order system and fired half of the staff.
Now many people have reduced income due to inflation and even though the local shop has a better product it is twice as much, So not only is he or she paying more, but they are selling less.
And last guess how much less the owners are going to take out of the business??? YES that would be ZERO
If I am taking 500k today and you raise the minimum, there will be cuts and price increases, but I am still getting my money.
That is how Business works.
birddog
08-08-2016, 10:09 AM
Since the 1970s, the top 1 percent of earners in the U.S. has roughly doubled its share of the total American income pie to nearly 20 percent from about 10 percent, according to the paper. This gain is easily the biggest among other developed countries, the researchers note. You can see this in the chart below, taken from the paper, which maps the income gains of the top 1 percent in several countries against the massive tax breaks most of them have gotten in the past several decades. (Story continues after chart.)
Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/15/income-inequality-wall-street_n_3762422.html
And republicans wonder why more and more Americans, including college educated young voters, are moving toward the left! Capitalism in America today simply doesn't work for the 99 percent, period. We have tried the trickle down system and it has failed.
Reagan's "trickle down" did work although it was years in the making. When Reagan made a big tax cut, the dimocrat congress promised to cut spending. They lied!
In the 90s, positive results were accomplished partial due to "trickle down" and Newt Gingrich's legislation. Slick Willie was smart enough to sign good legislation, and take the credit for it.
zelmo1234
08-08-2016, 10:17 AM
There are far too many people that don't give Bill Clinton the Credit he deserves when it comes to the Economy.
Yes his equity in Housing was a disaster and led to the collapse of 2007 but He was a Tax cutter.
When he first took the oath he raised taxes on the Rich, which turned out to be anyone making over 38K per year. but he put in new deductions so the rich really were not paying more.
Then when the economy finally started to slow near the end of his first term. He proposed and signed a much large tax cut than Reagan ever dreamed of.
Bill Clinton was a supply side propionate.
debbietoo
08-08-2016, 10:48 AM
There's no such animal as "wealth inequality" or "income inequality". That's a made up term that presupposes all wealth must be shared equally regardless of the labor, time and effort that was required to actually earn said wealth.
Bull****.
debbietoo
08-08-2016, 10:51 AM
There are far too many people that don't give Bill Clinton the Credit he deserves when it comes to the Economy.
Yes his equity in Housing was a disaster and led to the collapse of 2007 but He was a Tax cutter.
When he first took the oath he raised taxes on the Rich, which turned out to be anyone making over 38K per year. but he put in new deductions so the rich really were not paying more.
Then when the economy finally started to slow near the end of his first term. He proposed and signed a much large tax cut than Reagan ever dreamed of.
Bill Clinton was a supply side propionate.
Amen! There was also huge job growth under Clinton's watch. Actually, the economy does better under a democratic president every single time and that's a proven fact. Here's the link.
http://www.salon.com/2015/12/28/these_5_charts_prove_that_the_economy_does_better_ under_democratic_presidents/
Overall, Hatch and Rigby find that conservative policies tend to exacerbate inequality, while liberal policies tend to reduce it. Rigby tells me that the “more redistribution” scenario can be considered the “liberal” scenario, and “less redistribution” the “conservative” scenario, although Democrats don’t always line up perfectly behind liberal policies. Kelly and Witko concur: “We observe that when unions are stronger and left party governments are in power at either the federal or state level we see lower levels of inequality.” Numerous other studies surveyed by Anne Case and Timothy Besley suggest (http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/71518/1/350862397.pdf) that Democrats boost government spending, particularly on workers’ compensation and Medicaid (see pages 44 and 45 (http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/71518/1/350862397.pdf)).
Now that's something we democrats can boast about.:grin:
Mac-7
08-08-2016, 11:35 AM
Taxing the rich more does not help the un-rich unless we adopt a socialist system that redistributes the money government takes from those who have it to those who dont
and there is too much of that going on already
zelmo1234
08-08-2016, 12:39 PM
Amen! There was also huge job growth under Clinton's watch. Actually, the economy does better under a democratic president every single time and that's a proven fact. Here's the link.
http://www.salon.com/2015/12/28/these_5_charts_prove_that_the_economy_does_better_ under_democratic_presidents/
Overall, Hatch and Rigby find that conservative policies tend to exacerbate inequality, while liberal policies tend to reduce it. Rigby tells me that the “more redistribution” scenario can be considered the “liberal” scenario, and “less redistribution” the “conservative” scenario, although Democrats don’t always line up perfectly behind liberal policies. Kelly and Witko concur: “We observe that when unions are stronger and left party governments are in power at either the federal or state level we see lower levels of inequality.” Numerous other studies surveyed by Anne Case and Timothy Besley suggest (http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/71518/1/350862397.pdf) that Democrats boost government spending, particularly on workers’ compensation and Medicaid (see pages 44 and 45 (http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/71518/1/350862397.pdf)).
Now that's something we democrats can boast about.:grin:
Democrats can? But you can't
You just told us that Supply side Economics! did not work??? Although you called it Trickle down!
Bill Clinton's Economic police was the very essence of supply side economics with one exception? He raised taxes on the middle class!
So you have a decision to make? Does Supply side or Trickle down work? is so then you can be very proud of Bill Clintons Economic record. If not, then you have to explain why the best economies in the past 75 years have been under supply side polices of Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush the Younger.
President Obama will be first president in US history to serve at least a full term and not have a year with 3% economic growth?
That is pretty hard to believe.
MisterVeritis
08-08-2016, 12:40 PM
When wages are increased, there is increased consumer spending and that is a proven fact. Therefore, smaller businesses actually benefit from increased wages for employees in the long term. Also, there is less overturn of employees and they work harder when paid more. Many small business owners already pay their employees over minimum wage and are in favor of raising minimum wage.
A trillion dollar tax increase is modest?
MisterVeritis
08-08-2016, 12:44 PM
Amen! There was also huge job growth under Clinton's watch. Actually, the economy does better under a democratic president every single time and that's a proven fact. Here's the link.
http://www.salon.com/2015/12/28/these_5_charts_prove_that_the_economy_does_better_ under_democratic_presidents/
Overall, Hatch and Rigby find that conservative policies tend to exacerbate inequality, while liberal policies tend to reduce it. Rigby tells me that the “more redistribution” scenario can be considered the “liberal” scenario, and “less redistribution” the “conservative” scenario, although Democrats don’t always line up perfectly behind liberal policies. Kelly and Witko concur: “We observe that when unions are stronger and left party governments are in power at either the federal or state level we see lower levels of inequality.” Numerous other studies surveyed by Anne Case and Timothy Besley suggest (http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/71518/1/350862397.pdf) that Democrats boost government spending, particularly on workers’ compensation and Medicaid (see pages 44 and 45 (http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/71518/1/350862397.pdf)).
Now that's something we democrats can boast about.:grin:
Democrats are Marxists? Who knew?
decedent
08-08-2016, 01:10 PM
There's no such animal as "wealth inequality" or "income inequality". That's a made up term that presupposes all wealth must be shared equally regardless of the labor, time and effort that was required to actually earn said wealth.
From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient):
The Gini coefficient (sometimes expressed as a Gini ratio or a normalized (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_(statistics)) Gini index) (/dʒini/ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English) jee-nee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Pronunciation_respelling_key)) is a measure of statistical dispersion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_dispersion#Measures_of_statistical_dis persion) intended to represent the income distribution of a nation's residents, and is the most commonly used measure of inequality.
Archer0915
08-08-2016, 01:37 PM
Since the 1970s, the top 1 percent of earners in the U.S. has roughly doubled its share of the total American income pie to nearly 20 percent from about 10 percent, according to the paper. This gain is easily the biggest among other developed countries, the researchers note. You can see this in the chart below, taken from the paper, which maps the income gains of the top 1 percent in several countries against the massive tax breaks most of them have gotten in the past several decades. (Story continues after chart.)
Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/15/income-inequality-wall-street_n_3762422.html
And republicans wonder why more and more Americans, including college educated young voters, are moving toward the left! Capitalism in America today simply doesn't work for the 99 percent, period. We have tried the trickle down system and it has failed.
Entitled and lazy!
AZ Jim
08-08-2016, 01:54 PM
America where CEO's of major corporations make 30 million dollar bonus's, where athletes earn 100's of millions, actors multi-millionaires.....Cancer research doctors make less than a high school dropout who can run like the wind after catching a football in a game he would play for applause only if the big bucks weren't there. A widow with her $1200 monthly income from Social Security but we need more billion dollar ships and 35 million dollar airplanes. America, where we lost all sight of fairness, equality, prospective.....
Professor Peabody
08-08-2016, 02:22 PM
Since the 1970s, the top 1 percent of earners in the U.S. has roughly doubled its share of the total American income pie to nearly 20 percent from about 10 percent, according to the paper. This gain is easily the biggest among other developed countries, the researchers note. You can see this in the chart below, taken from the paper, which maps the income gains of the top 1 percent in several countries against the massive tax breaks most of them have gotten in the past several decades. (Story continues after chart.)
Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/15/income-inequality-wall-street_n_3762422.html
And republicans wonder why more and more Americans, including college educated young voters, are moving toward the left! Capitalism in America today simply doesn't work for the 99 percent, period. We have tried the trickle down system and it has failed.
So where are the transcripts of Hillary's Wall st speeches?
Chris
08-08-2016, 02:22 PM
America where CEO's of major corporations make 30 million dollar bonus's, where athletes earn 100's of millions, actors multi-millionaires.....Cancer research doctors make less than a high school dropout who can run like the wind after catching a football in a game he would play for applause only if the big bucks weren't there. A widow with her $1200 monthly income from Social Security but we need more billion dollar ships and 35 million dollar airplanes. America, where we lost all sight of fairness, equality, prospective.....
And Clinton is a 0.1%er bought and paid for by corporate America. Speaking of losing sight.
AZ Jim
08-08-2016, 02:55 PM
And Clinton is a 0.1%er bought and paid for by corporate America. Speaking of losing sight.Chris, I never really gave you credit for deep thought but surely even you can come closer to the subject than that? No. Never mind.
Chris
08-08-2016, 03:36 PM
Chris, I never really gave you credit for deep thought but surely even you can come closer to the subject than that? No. Never mind.
It doesn't require deep thought to see Clinton is an anti-liberal snake, everything you listed as evil. It just requires open eyes.
zelmo1234
08-08-2016, 03:39 PM
Ok guy goes to work everyday and he welds the hinges on a car door. He makes 25 dollars and hour. Has a Pension but does not take advantage of the 401K program, lives in a good home in a nice area, saves a little for his children's education, and has some of the toys that he wants! Maybe even has a little cottage on a lake an hour away.
Next Guy drops out of High school and he works for a landscaping company Makes 13.00 and your Goes to the bar on Friday night spends have of his check, has 1 kid from his first wife and 2 with his current wife is mortgages to the hilt on everything that he owns. and has no retirement.
Third guy worked at the local burger join starting in the 10th grade, mowed lawns and shoveled snow in the winter to save money. Goes to community collage and then a university to become an engineer. He makes about 40 dollars an hour but works at the local pizza joint nights and weekends to pay of his student loans. He gets married and they purchase a very small fixer upper in an not so great neighborhood, but it is paid for. In a few years he sells it and does the same in a better neighborhood. Soon He invests in his 401K at 15% with matching funds to 5%. before they have children he starts saving for their college. Soon the invest in a commercial rental property. and then another. When the owner of his company get ready to retire he borrows every cent he can on everything that he owns to purchase the company. Works nights and weekends to gain new clients. Purchases the state of the art equipment, expands the business. Move into a new area that they never tried before. In a few years he doubles the size of the company. But he keeps driving.
So in your opinion do all of these people deserve the same outcome?
donttread
08-08-2016, 04:13 PM
Since the 1970s, the top 1 percent of earners in the U.S. has roughly doubled its share of the total American income pie to nearly 20 percent from about 10 percent, according to the paper. This gain is easily the biggest among other developed countries, the researchers note. You can see this in the chart below, taken from the paper, which maps the income gains of the top 1 percent in several countries against the massive tax breaks most of them have gotten in the past several decades. (Story continues after chart.)
Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/15/income-inequality-wall-street_n_3762422.html
And republicans wonder why more and more Americans, including college educated young voters, are moving toward the left! Capitalism in America today simply doesn't work for the 99 percent, period. We have tried the trickle down system and it has failed.
Incomes is a fair describtion but please don't call it "earned" Most of the 1% have never really worked a day in their lives
Since the 1970s, the top 1 percent of earners in the U.S. has roughly doubled its share of the total American income pie to nearly 20 percent from about 10 percent, according to the paper. This gain is easily the biggest among other developed countries, the researchers note. You can see this in the chart below, taken from the paper, which maps the income gains of the top 1 percent in several countries against the massive tax breaks most of them have gotten in the past several decades. (Story continues after chart.)
Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/15/income-inequality-wall-street_n_3762422.html
And republicans wonder why more and more Americans, including college educated young voters, are moving toward the left! Capitalism in America today simply doesn't work for the 99 percent, period. We have tried the trickle down system and it has failed.
H. Clinton is in up to her neck with wall street payoffs, yet you will vote for her. Why?
MisterVeritis
08-08-2016, 05:08 PM
Incomes is a fair description but please don't call it "earned" Most of the 1% have never really worked a day in their lives
How many of them do you know?
Peter1469
08-08-2016, 05:09 PM
When wages are increased, there is increased consumer spending and that is a proven fact. Therefore, smaller businesses actually benefit from increased wages for employees in the long term. Also, there is less overturn of employees and they work harder when paid more. Many small business owners already pay their employees over minimum wage and are in favor of raising minimum wage.
You are dooming the unskilled to pink slips (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/11/fast-food-robot_n_5668600.html).
Momentum Machines of San Francisco has invented a fully-automated contraption that can grind meat, slice tomatoes, grill patties, wrap fully cooked burgers and do pretty much anything else human fast-food workers can do. The machine is capable of cranking out 360 burgers per hour, according to Momentum Machines’ website (http://momentummachines.com/).
texan
08-08-2016, 05:19 PM
Since the 1970s, the top 1 percent of earners in the U.S. has roughly doubled its share of the total American income pie to nearly 20 percent from about 10 percent, according to the paper. This gain is easily the biggest among other developed countries, the researchers note. You can see this in the chart below, taken from the paper, which maps the income gains of the top 1 percent in several countries against the massive tax breaks most of them have gotten in the past several decades. (Story continues after chart.)
Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/15/income-inequality-wall-street_n_3762422.html
And republicans wonder why more and more Americans, including college educated young voters, are moving toward the left! Capitalism in America today simply doesn't work for the 99 percent, period. We have tried the trickle down system and it has failed.
Couple things you've failed to mention.
1. Capitalism has provided the growth you mention without it you do not have it.
2. The other forms of government I assume you're u are suggesting have proven to be failures in creating wealth.
3. It can be arugula that much of our issues are due to the welfare programs I assume you prefer.
4. Wall Street needs an adjustment but it t has nothing to do with capitalism.
Chris
08-08-2016, 05:23 PM
https://i.snag.gy/0GWVYC.jpg
God damn capitalism.
https://i.snag.gy/AJbw2k.jpg
What are we doing wrong?
Subdermal
08-08-2016, 08:08 PM
Ok guy goes to work everyday and he welds the hinges on a car door. He makes 25 dollars and hour. Has a Pension but does not take advantage of the 401K program, lives in a good home in a nice area, saves a little for his children's education, and has some of the toys that he wants! Maybe even has a little cottage on a lake an hour away.
Next Guy drops out of High school and he works for a landscaping company Makes 13.00 and your Goes to the bar on Friday night spends have of his check, has 1 kid from his first wife and 2 with his current wife is mortgages to the hilt on everything that he owns. and has no retirement.
Third guy worked at the local burger join starting in the 10th grade, mowed lawns and shoveled snow in the winter to save money. Goes to community collage and then a university to become an engineer. He makes about 40 dollars an hour but works at the local pizza joint nights and weekends to pay of his student loans. He gets married and they purchase a very small fixer upper in an not so great neighborhood, but it is paid for. In a few years he sells it and does the same in a better neighborhood. Soon He invests in his 401K at 15% with matching funds to 5%. before they have children he starts saving for their college. Soon the invest in a commercial rental property. and then another. When the owner of his company get ready to retire he borrows every cent he can on everything that he owns to purchase the company. Works nights and weekends to gain new clients. Purchases the state of the art equipment, expands the business. Move into a new area that they never tried before. In a few years he doubles the size of the company. But he keeps driving.
So in your opinion do all of these people deserve the same outcome?
Reposted, as the liberal fish don't like bait that bites back.
Subdermal
08-08-2016, 08:12 PM
Incomes is a fair describtion but please don't call it "earned" Most of the 1% have never really worked a day in their lives
That's totally unfair.
I'm a 1%er by virtue of my income, and was dirt poor growing up. What I am, though, is exceptionally good at what I do - and I work 6 days a week doing it.
By definition, 1% means "1 every 100". You actually think 1 in a 100 people have never worked a day in their lives?
Subdermal
08-08-2016, 08:18 PM
Since the 1970s, the top 1 percent of earners in the U.S. has roughly doubled its share of the total American income pie to nearly 20 percent from about 10 percent, according to the paper. This gain is easily the biggest among other developed countries, the researchers note. You can see this in the chart below, taken from the paper, which maps the income gains of the top 1 percent in several countries against the massive tax breaks most of them have gotten in the past several decades. (Story continues after chart.)
Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/15/income-inequality-wall-street_n_3762422.html
And republicans wonder why more and more Americans, including college educated young voters, are moving toward the left! Capitalism in America today simply doesn't work for the 99 percent, period. We have tried the trickle down system and it has failed.
:facepalm:
Have you considered that the rate at which the wealthy gain more wealth has nothing to do with the rate at which the remaining classes improve their station?
Can you imagine a scenario in which the wealthiest country in the world has - let's say - 5 fiscal classes, and all 5 outperform the rest of the world?
But the top quintile is even outperforming the others additionally? Because this is the most fertile ground on Earth for those with capital to invest?
Has that occurred to you?
Or do you just want to throw Capitalism under the bus merely because you're not happy with the fact others are doing better than you?
Did Capitalism fail because the people in the US are doing better than the people in Africa? After all - to Africans - the US is the 1%.
All of us.
zelmo1234
08-08-2016, 10:45 PM
Incomes is a fair describtion but please don't call it "earned" Most of the 1% have never really worked a day in their lives
Really? That would be interesting being that 80% of Millionaires are first Generation?
Where do all these people come from that have not worked.
What I think is happening here is liberals are taught to believe that they get a trophy for showing up. They tend to get very jealous of those that work their asses of and become wealthy because of it.
In real life only the winners get a trophy.
HoneyBadger
08-08-2016, 11:49 PM
Bull****.
Perhaps you'd rather respond with a little more "fact" and a little less feeling? Provided, you're capable of it.
HoneyBadger
08-08-2016, 11:53 PM
From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient):
The Gini coefficient (sometimes expressed as a Gini ratio or a normalized (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_(statistics)) Gini index) (/dʒini/ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English) jee-nee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Pronunciation_respelling_key)) is a measure of statistical dispersion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_dispersion#Measures_of_statistical_dis persion) intended to represent the income distribution of a nation's residents, and is the most commonly used measure of inequality.
So? Income is EARNED. If you work 35 hours a week flipping burgers or ringing up sales, you're not going to EARN as much as someone who is working 60 hours a week in a job that requires a higher skill set... and that is how it should be.
decedent
08-09-2016, 12:53 AM
So? Income is EARNED. If you work 35 hours a week flipping burgers or ringing up sales, you're not going to EARN as much as someone who is working 60 hours a week in a job that requires a higher skill set... and that is how it should be.
You said there is no such thing as income inequlity but there is, and it's fairly easy to calculate with enough data.
It turns out that countries with gini indices that are not too high or too low are the most prosperous. 0.2 to 0.4 seems to be ideal.
Mac-7
08-09-2016, 01:03 AM
You said there is no such thing as income inequlity but there is, and it's fairly easy to calculate with enough data.
It turns out that countries with gini indices that are not too high or too low are the most prosperous. 0.2 to 0.4 seems to be ideal.
I see a problem with contribution inequality.
you want to tax those who contribute the most and hand it over to those who contribute the least.
debbietoo
08-09-2016, 05:09 PM
:facepalm:
Have you considered that the rate at which the wealthy gain more wealth has nothing to do with the rate at which the remaining classes improve their station?
Can you imagine a scenario in which the wealthiest country in the world has - let's say - 5 fiscal classes, and all 5 outperform the rest of the world?
But the top quintile is even outperforming the others additionally? Because this is the most fertile ground on Earth for those with capital to invest?
Has that occurred to you?
Or do you just want to throw Capitalism under the bus merely because you're not happy with the fact others are doing better than you?
Did Capitalism fail because the people in the US are doing better than the people in Africa? After all - to Africans - the US is the 1%.
All of us.
You sure have an eloquent way of skewing the facts. You cannot possible compare America to Africa. It's like comparing apples to oranges, and you know it. We are talking about distribution of wealth in America. It's disproportionately concentrated to a few very, very rich folks at the top who are growing vastly richer by the minute, while the middle class in America continues to shrink and slide down into poverty. There is no reason for anyone in this country to be homeless or living on the street, when America has the most wealth of any other developed Country in the world! It's utter nonsense and immoral in my opinion. How much money do these multimillionnaires actually need and why are they not putting it back into the economy? It's not doing any good just sitting there. Money flows. It's the law of the universe. When it's not spent, it does no good to anyone, including the economy. I believe market fundamentalism is the problem and that it does need to be regulated as Soros has theorized Capitalism has taken the driver's seat. Corporations have made their own rules and monopolized the economy. We need to bring back small business and the Mom and Pop shops. Minimum wage does need to be raised to $15 per hour. America needs to start thinking about the little guy again, once and for all.
"Although the primary manifestation of the reflexive process that Soros discusses is its effects in the financial markets, he has also explored its effects in politics. He has stated that whereas the greatest threats to the "Open Society (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Society)" in the past were from Communism and Fascism (as discussed in The Open Society and its Enemies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Society_and_its_Enemies) by his mentor Karl Popper (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper)), the largest current threat is from market fundamentalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_fundamentalism)."
Mac-7
08-09-2016, 05:18 PM
You sure have an eloquent way of skewing the facts. You cannot possible compare America to Africa. It's like comparing apples to oranges, and you know it. We are talking about distribution of wealth in America. It's disproportionately concentrated to a few very, very rich folks at the top who are growing vastly richer by the minute, while the middle class in America continues to shrink and slide down into poverty. There is no reason for anyone in this country to be homeless or living on the street, when America has the most wealth of any other developed Country in the world! It's utter nonsense and immoral in my opinion. How much money do these multimillionnaires actually need and why are they not putting it back into the economy? It's not doing any good just sitting there. Money flows. It's the law of the universe. When it's not spent, it does no good to anyone, including the economy. I believe market fundamentalism is the problem and that it does need to be regulated as Soros has theorized Capitalism has taken the driver's seat. Corporations have made their own rules and monopolized the economy. We need to bring back small business and the Mom and Pop shops. Minimum wage does need to be raised to $15 per hour. America needs to start thinking about the little guy again, once and for all.
We take in more dirt poor foreigners, both legal and illegal, than any other nation.
they skew the income distribution down
Peter1469
08-09-2016, 05:18 PM
You sure have an eloquent way of skewing the facts. You cannot possible compare America to Africa. It's like comparing apples to oranges, and you know it. We are talking about distribution of wealth in America. It's disproportionately concentrated to a few very, very rich folks at the top who are growing vastly richer by the minute, while the middle class in America continues to shrink and slide down into poverty. There is no reason for anyone in this country to be homeless or living on the street, when America has the most wealth of any other developed Country in the world! It's utter nonsense and immoral in my opinion. How much money do these multimillionnaires actually need and why are they not putting it back into the economy? It's not doing any good just sitting there. Money flows. It's the law of the universe. When it's not spent, it does no good to anyone, including the economy. I believe market fundamentalism is the problem and that it does need to be regulated as Soros has theorized Capitalism has taken the driver's seat. Corporations have made their own rules and monopolized the economy. We need to bring back small business and the Mom and Pop shops. Minimum wage does need to be raised to $15 per hour. America needs to start thinking about the little guy again, once and for all.
$15 minimum wage is counter to your intent. Otherwise a good post.
Mac-7
08-09-2016, 05:22 PM
$15 minimum wage is counter to your intent. Otherwise a good post.
A good post except for that?
I dont think it was so great.
The homeless bums I see are the victims of bad personal choices and drugs not corporate greed.
debbietoo
08-10-2016, 08:42 AM
Social Immobility: Climbing The Economic Ladder Is Harder In The U.S. Than In Most European Countries
Recent economic events may be increasing social mobility in the U.S. — but only of the downward variety. Harvard Professor Elizabeth Warren (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-warren/america-without-a-middle_b_377829.html), for example, argues that America’s middle class had been eroding for 30 years even before the massive blows caused by the financial crisis. And with unemployment currently at astronomical levels, if there are no jobs for young people leaving school, the result could be long-term underemployment and, effectively, a lost generation.
According to the OECD report, the main cause of social immobility is educational opportunity. It turns out that America’s public school system, rather than lifting children up, is instead holding them down.
One particularly effective way governments can help children from disadvantaged backgrounds improve their prospects, according to the report, is to increase the social mix within schools. Doing so “appears to boost performance of disadvantaged students without any apparent negative effects on overall performance.” Early childhood education also helps a lot.
Another big factor in social mobility is inequality, the report finds. The greater a nation’s inequality, the harder it is for its children to improve their lot.
That confirms findings by other researchers. “The way I usually put this is that when the rungs of the ladder are far apart, it becomes more difficult to climb the ladder,” Brookings Institution economist Isabel Sawhill tells HuffPost. “Given that we have more inequality in the U.S. right now than at any time since the 1920s, we should be concerned that this may become a vicious cycle. Inequality in one generation may mean less opportunity for the next generation to get ahead and thus still more inequality in the future.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/17/social-immobility-climbin_n_501788.html
Peter1469
08-10-2016, 08:45 AM
Inequality in the US is not as bad as many claim. Factor in the government assistance.
debbietoo
08-10-2016, 09:18 AM
Inequality in the US is not as bad as many claim. Factor in the government assistance.
Factor in the student loan debt.
Mac-7
08-10-2016, 09:51 AM
Factor in the student loan debt.
Factor in beer, pizza, and trips to florida for spring break as well as the rising cost of supporting lazy lib professors and adminstrative personnel.
also factor in a flood of foreigners legal and illegal willing to work for less.
Peter1469
08-10-2016, 10:56 AM
Factor in the student loan debt.
Yes. And a lot of those people are on the labor force participation rate as not participating.
They won't be contributing to economic growth, and they won't be saving for retirement.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.