Rich Getting Richer in the U.S

[Castille de Italia]

Obviously They have been working harder than the poor I mean that's what capitalism does isn't it? It rewards Hard work with money the harder some one works the more money they get.... right?

Yes, but some don't realize the importance of a work ethic.

[Nationalist Eminral Republic]

Obviously They have been working harder than the poor I mean that's what capitalism does isn't it? It rewards Hard work with money the harder some one works the more money they get.... right?

Tell me you are joking..

[Mike the Progressive]

Obviously They have been working harder than the poor I mean that's what capitalism does isn't it? It rewards Hard work with money the harder some one works the more money they get.... right?

Tell me you are joking..

If anything, capitalism doesn't necessarily value hard work, otherwise Mexican laborers would be billionaires. It rewards valued knowledge, something that everybody needs but few have.

[Ensiferum]

Not surprised at all. That's why Occupy came to be. Pity America allowed the Iron Heel to come down on it, unconstitutionally at that. You'd think after they cut the internet in Oakland the first time America would have woken up and realized what was going on but I suppose they enjoy being abused and having their rights stripped.

Internet is a constitutional right now?

Actually the U.N. classifies it as a human right, but yes it is technically a constitutional right as it is a form of press and speech. Two amendments cover it. Besides cutting the internet to shut down a protest brings in the right to peacefully assemble on top of that, plus the fact that they are cutting live feeds to do so makes one wonder if they are violating the right to due process. But then again common sense must be difficult.

[Nationalist Eminral Republic]

Tell me you are joking..

If anything, capitalism doesn't necessarily value hard work, otherwise Mexican laborers would be billionaires. It rewards valued knowledge, something that everybody needs but few have.

Exactly, I would be rich by now, considering how hard my parents worked, but they aren't like the 1%, who still gets tax cuts for sending jobs overseas, hiding their wealth overseas and getting tax cuts (or getting low tax rates)

[Parhe]

As long as the rich are in a position to exploit the workers, they will always prosper in times when the poor, working people suffer.

Not really true. Though in most cases the rich get richer even more so when the poor are also prospering.

[Parhe]

If anything, capitalism doesn't necessarily value hard work, otherwise Mexican laborers would be billionaires. It rewards valued knowledge, something that everybody needs but few have.

Exactly, I would be rich by now, considering how hard my parents worked, but they aren't like the 1%, who still gets tax cuts for sending jobs overseas, hiding their wealth overseas and getting tax cuts (or getting low tax rates)

I don't see much bad at hiring overseas. I mean I do think it is from the point of view that they may be doing it just for cheaper costs but otherwise it is still someone doing hard work and getting paid for it. Why does it matter if that particular person shares the same citizenship?

[Densaner]

That's what happens when you have your economic and social policies governed by theories that just don't work. Laffer Curve, War on Drugs, Trickle-down, Neoliberalism. It's all just a massive economic land grab by those that can. In short it's all cobblers. If you want an economy that works. If you want consumers then they must have capacity to consume. Pay folk a decent income. Instead of the current race to the bottom. All that leads to is the current state of affairs.

[Castille de Italia]

Exactly, I would be rich by now, considering how hard my parents worked, but they aren't like the 1%, who still gets tax cuts for sending jobs overseas, hiding their wealth overseas and getting tax cuts (or getting low tax rates)

I don't see much bad at hiring overseas. I mean I do think it is from the point of view that they may be doing it just for cheaper costs but otherwise it is still someone doing hard work and getting paid for it. Why does it matter if that particular person shares the same citizenship?

Corporations wouldn't have to move their business overseas if it weren't for so much government regulation.

[Parhe]

I don't see much bad at hiring overseas. I mean I do think it is from the point of view that they may be doing it just for cheaper costs but otherwise it is still someone doing hard work and getting paid for it. Why does it matter if that particular person shares the same citizenship?

Corporations wouldn't have to move their business overseas if it weren't for so much government regulation.

But why is it bad if they are and are still being taxed by some government? I mean unless the problem iss the government they do pay to are corrupt or something- as in the money may mostly go intot he pockets of politicians.

[Ensiferum]

That's what happens when you have your economic and social policies governed by theories that just don't work. Laffer Curve, War on Drugs, Trickle-down, Neoliberalism. It's all just a massive economic land grab by those that can. In short it's all cobblers. If you want an economy that works. If you want consumers then they must have capacity to consume. Pay folk a decent income. Instead of the current race to the bottom. All that leads to is the current state of affairs.

Hey now! A great many economic theories are perfectly sound, however, in the U.S. they've been twisted to serve the rich instead of the whole. In theory companies would want to hire more employees and pay more than they do now in order to meet optimum profits, but instead companies like to play politics and thus bend economics to fit them.

[Parhe]

During the recession and recovery the upper class managed to get even wealthier here in the states. Read here http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/art ... g-recovery

I know this is old news, even though its a new article. But it makes you think about how bad wealth gaps are in America, and what we need to do to overcome them.

What do you think of the article, and the rising inequality in the U.S?

I think we need to raise the minimum wage to $10/hour and put in a big jobs program to get everyone back to work

once everyone is back to work they will be able to demand the wages they were getting before the big collapse.

oh and we need to get rid of right-to-work laws.

I rather not be forced to join a union to work. it seems rather against personal freedoms. Not assuming that is a bad thing or good thing.

[Pragia]

Internet is a constitutional right now?

Actually the U.N. classifies it as a human right, but yes it is technically a constitutional right as it is a form of press and speech. Two amendments cover it. Besides cutting the internet to shut down a protest brings in the right to peacefully assemble on top of that, plus the fact that they are cutting live feeds to do so makes one wonder if they are violating the right to due process. But then again common sense must be difficult.

As I recall (being a Bay Area guy) it WASN'T peaceful, there was quite a bit of violence, so peaceful assembly don't apply. It's laughable that intranet is a human right, it's technological comfort. Speech can be suppressed on majority rule, and they were ordered to cease and desist. Internet is only one form of press, there wasn't surpression of the papers, or any other form of news.

[Post War America]

Saddened but not at all surprised, this has been going on for decades.

[Densaner]

That's what happens when you have your economic and social policies governed by theories that just don't work. Laffer Curve, War on Drugs, Trickle-down, Neoliberalism. It's all just a massive economic land grab by those that can. In short it's all cobblers. If you want an economy that works. If you want consumers then they must have capacity to consume. Pay folk a decent income. Instead of the current race to the bottom. All that leads to is the current state of affairs.

Hey now! A great many economic theories are perfectly sound, however, in the U.S. they've been twisted to serve the rich instead of the whole. In theory companies would want to hire more employees and pay more than they do now in order to meet optimum profits, but instead companies like to play politics and thus bend economics to fit them.

They also hire high priced lobbyists to get regulations and laws changed to suit themselves. When they do that they are being smart businessmen. When Unions try the same move they are called corrupt. They then pass laws restricting Unions and laughingly call it "right to work".

[Christian Democrats]

Saddened but not at all surprised, this has been going on for decades.

Stupid Digital Revolution, giving everyone personal computers, cell phones, and other gadgets.

[Mike the Progressive]

If anything, capitalism doesn't necessarily value hard work, otherwise Mexican laborers would be billionaires. It rewards valued knowledge, something that everybody needs but few have.

Exactly, I would be rich by now, considering how hard my parents worked, but they aren't like the 1%, who still gets tax cuts for sending jobs overseas, hiding their wealth overseas and getting tax cuts (or getting low tax rates)

I hate to be this blunt, but the wealthy aren't bad. Should they pay their fair share? Of course. But I don't think they should be hated, used as props to knock down via populist rhetoric, and their work shouldn't be taxed to the point where it punishes them. My father was poor when he was a child, as was my grandfather, the same is true on my mother's side (where poverty in rural Korea was especially harsh, especially for women during the 50s-60s). But they worked hard and rose to wealth, to where they are now part of the notorious 1%.

And I don't think there is anything wrong with a system that rewarded them that. With that said, I also don't think we should hate sending jobs overseas, especially since poverty in India and China is considerably worse and in the end, it means cheaper goods for consumers. Markets change, but the government should definitely be there to offer a helping hand to those who fall on hard times.

[Parhe]

Hey now! A great many economic theories are perfectly sound, however, in the U.S. they've been twisted to serve the rich instead of the whole. In theory companies would want to hire more employees and pay more than they do now in order to meet optimum profits, but instead companies like to play politics and thus bend economics to fit them.

They also hire high priced lobbyists to get regulations and laws changed to suit themselves. When they do that they are being smart businessmen. When Unions try the same move they are called corrupt. They then pass laws restricting Unions and laughingly call it "right to work".

No, not really. I have meet more people who call coporations corrupt for hiring lobbylists than Unions. Unions though I have meet people who call annoying. Of course, maybe that is because I live in liberal Texas...

Why are right to work laws so bad?

[Mike the Progressive]

Saddened but not at all surprised, this has been going on for decades.

Stupid Digital Revolution, giving everyone personal computers, cell phones, and other gadgets.

That's another thing that irks me. New technologies are developed every year that literally destroys industries (creative destruction), should we oppose their development? Should we bankroll certain jobs with the hopes of keeping them even though they've been rendered useless?

[Castille de Italia]

Corporations wouldn't have to move their business overseas if it weren't for so much government regulation.

But why is it bad if they are and are still being taxed by some government? I mean unless the problem iss the government they do pay to are corrupt or something- as in the money may mostly go intot he pockets of politicians.

It's not bad that corporations should pay taxes, but if it goes into the pockets of the bureaucrats in Washington, then corporations should not pay taxes. To add so much government regulation to the economy after putting tax money into greedy politicians pockets, in the end, you will lose money. That's why many are moving their base of operations to places like China, where there's little concern for the environment.

[Parhe]

But why is it bad if they are and are still being taxed by some government? I mean unless the problem iss the government they do pay to are corrupt or something- as in the money may mostly go intot he pockets of politicians.

It's not bad that corporations should pay taxes, but if it goes into the pockets of the bureaucrats in Washington, then corporations should not pay taxes. To add so much government regulation to the economy after putting tax money into greedy politicians pockets, in the end, you will lose money. That's why many are moving their base of operations to places like China, where there's little concern for the environment.

I was asking rather why is it bad if the corporations do send jobs in foreign countries. I mean it is still paying people and helping them support and, it seems, the average worked in say China is worse off than one in America. If China were to, for example, actually implement concerns for environment would it be okay? I am hoping yes.

[Densaner]

They also hire high priced lobbyists to get regulations and laws changed to suit themselves. When they do that they are being smart businessmen. When Unions try the same move they are called corrupt. They then pass laws restricting Unions and laughingly call it "right to work".

No, not really. I have meet more people who call coporations corrupt for hiring lobbylists than Unions. Unions though I have meet people who call annoying. Of course, maybe that is because I live in liberal Texas...

Why are right to work laws so bad?

Because they restrict the free market and the right of a union to negotiate freely with an employer through collective bargaining. I thought the GOP liked free markets. Only where employees cannot negotiate freely for a decent wage it seems.

[Parhe]

No, not really. I have meet more people who call coporations corrupt for hiring lobbylists than Unions. Unions though I have meet people who call annoying. Of course, maybe that is because I live in liberal Texas...

Why are right to work laws so bad?

Because they restrict the free market and the right of a union to negotiate freely with an employer through collective bargaining. I thought the GOP liked free markets. Only where employees cannot negotiate freely for a decent wage it seems.

I do not see how it restricts free market, could you please elaborate on that? I didn't even know unions were essential for a market to be considered a free market. Also why does a union have a right to negotiate freely? I mean rather, where is it said they should have that right. So the right for a union to collectively bargin is more important than the right of individuals to decide whether or not to join an organization just so they can work and provide for themselves? In the end it is best for the corporations to pay good wages to it's works so that they have a market. Of course that does turn a bit when laws and regulations change so much over areas.

And no, the GOP is in support of things like regulations and, though maybe not as much as the Democratic Party, the GOP leans in favor of some regulations.

[Castille de Italia]

It's not bad that corporations should pay taxes, but if it goes into the pockets of the bureaucrats in Washington, then corporations should not pay taxes. To add so much government regulation to the economy after putting tax money into greedy politicians pockets, in the end, you will lose money. That's why many are moving their base of operations to places like China, where there's little concern for the environment.

I was asking rather why is it bad if the corporations do send jobs in foreign countries. I mean it is still paying people and helping them support and, it seems, the average worked in say China is worse off than one in America. If China were to, for example, actually implement concerns for environment would it be okay? I am hoping yes.

Okay, now I understand the question. It is bad because it's the corporations that create jobs. You can't have a functioning economy without workers, and in the current US economy, corporations are the main job creators. Of course there are other employers, but the majority of the US economy is in the private sector. With bureaucrats in Washington implementing regulations, you have unnecessary government agencies like the EPA which regulate the economy cause corporations, who are the job-creating Americans, to move their manufacturing to other countries, like China, who have little concern for the environment. Pollution has no respect for international borders. In truth, the EPA and FDA are destroying the economy. In 2010, new regulations cost the economy 26.5 billion while total regulations cost 2 trillion. I, like anybody else, want clean air and safe medicine, but adding excessive regulations that stack up year after year isn't good for the economy.

[Parhe]

I was asking rather why is it bad if the corporations do send jobs in foreign countries. I mean it is still paying people and helping them support and, it seems, the average worked in say China is worse off than one in America. If China were to, for example, actually implement concerns for environment would it be okay? I am hoping yes.

Okay, now I understand the question. It is bad because it's the corporations that create jobs. You can't have a functioning economy without workers, and in the current US economy, corporations are the main job creators. Of course there are other employers, but the majority of the US economy is in the private sector. With bureaucrats in Washington implementing regulations, you have unnecessary government agencies like the EPA which regulate the economy cause corporations, who are the job-creating Americans, to move their manufacturing to other countries, like China, who have little concern for the environment. Pollution has no respect for international borders. In truth, the EPA and FDA are destroying the economy. In 2010, new regulations cost the economy 26.5 billion while total regulations cost 2 trillion. I, like anybody else, want clean air and safe medicine, but adding excessive regulations that stack up year after year isn't good for the economy.

Oh, okay that makes sense. Anyway originally I was asking Nationalist Eminral Republic the question because of the way [s]he worded the comment it sounded like [s]he was saying it is bad to create jobs in foreign countries.