Rich Getting Richer in the U.S

[The Rich Port]

Because winning the lottery or being famous is a productive career choice, amirite?

"Working harder" is a vague action, dontchathink? Should the janitor scrub the floors more? Should the electrician be more... Electric-ish? Should the cashier ring people up faster?

How are any of those things going to make their financial situations better?

Add in get lucky, have good friends/acquaintences.

Working harder can cover a lot of things, like the examples you mentioned, or getting a second job.

Hmm, add in being frugal, investing in yourself, etc, etc and all tha jazz.

Well, at least now you're being honest.

Scrubbing a floor harder isn't going to get you anywhere in the janitorial game.

In fact, so far, all of those are rather dead-end, underappreciated jobs.

But, hey, the guy who makes hoola-hoops is more important than the police or firefighters.

[Grave_n_idle]

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?

There's a class war in the US, and it's been being waged for generations - the rich waging war on the poor.

There was a brief lull after the November revolution made it apparent that sometimes the poor fight back, and some concessions were made to make life slightly less shit for the poor - but those gains have been mainly clawed back.

They say the biggest lie ever told was the Devil convincing the world he didn't exist, but they are wrong - the biggest lie ever told is the story that there's no class war in America. There is.

[Disserbia]

Reminds me of my father in economics. Americans are single-issue voters usually. My father supports republicans only because they're against the GAWD DAYUM gayus, but is pro-union and pro-many other socialist ideas, ignorance is the leading cause of this. Which has left the far-right AKA the rich (this includes democrats) to make their own policies regarding taxation against themselves.

It's true, I know people who support a free market, but are liberal on every other issue, but they vote republican. I think Im the only third party voter in my state.

Wait democrats don't support a free market? Last time I checked Obama seemed just as far right as me if not more so. The Republican Party is the party of the .1%, not even the 1% anymore. What kind of political party stays in power in a democracy when their policies benefit literally almost none of their citizens?

[Ljvonia]

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

Well, capitalism is capitalism.

[Ashmoria]

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

How about no and we just give workers a choice?

the right to be screwed?

no. right to work means the right to work for less. if we want to narrow the gap we need to promote unions not destroy them.

[Ashmoria]

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.

We need ideas likely to get passed.

lol. aye.

but there are no ideas likely to get passed that will do anything about income inequality.

[Khadgar]

Well now that the job creators are making more money than ever we'll see them create more jobs than ever right?








Right?

[Ashmoria]

Well now that the job creators are making more money than ever we'll see them create more jobs than ever right?








Right?

sure they will!

all we have to do is lower their taxes

again

[Khadgar]

Well now that the job creators are making more money than ever we'll see them create more jobs than ever right?








Right?

sure they will!

all we have to do is lower their taxes

again

You know when I was a wee little brat and Raygun was in office I was told that by helping raise up the highest we ourselves would be pulled up. I'm still waiting.

[Democratic Koyro]

Yes, that would help, but we need to stop inequality from the start. Increase welfare spending, healthcare spending, and stop letting corporations rule our nation.

1) There is no reason for welfare spending on able-bodied adults if everyone has the opportunity to become educated.

2) The United States already spends more on healthcare than other countries. Throwing money at a problem is not a solution.

3) Large corporations do not rule the country. Drop the sensationalist rhetoric.

Number 3) Yes, they really do.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

I don't have a problem with the rich getting wealthier.

I do.

After all, since all wealth is social and all individuals are of equal moral worth, each individual is entitled to an equal share of social wealth--which means that possession in excess of the social mean is an act of theft from those who have less.

I guess I just don't hate freedom like some people do...

[Seangoli]

Solution:

Tax the shit out of the upper percentiles, force better wages, kill union busting bills and the like with fire. It's getting to be about damn time we stop catering to the upper percentile of Americans, who consistently bitch and moan about how hard it is for them.

[The Black Forrest]

I'm comfortable with it.

Really?

So? You are ok with the upper section being rewarded for success, failure or simply warming a seat?

You think it's ok to be take quarterly increases in income as the company in free fall?

Inequality is a fact of life but significantly increasing it every year is artificial and not good for the whole.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

I'm comfortable with it.

Really?

So? You are ok with the upper section being rewarded for success, failure or simply warming a seat?

It's worse than that: they're being rewarded for their "success" at exploiting, dominating, manipulating, and oppressing others.

This is not something that a healthy, free society rewards.

This is yet another instance of the laziness that is emblematic of the Right: actually getting up off your ass and fixing society's problems is A Lot of Work. It's much easier to just sit back and blame the victims for their own misery and pretend like the oppressors have earned their dominant position.

[Distruzio]

I'm comfortable with it.

Really?

So? You are ok with the upper section being rewarded for success, failure or simply warming a seat?

You think it's ok to be take quarterly increases in income as the company in free fall?

Inequality is a fact of life but significantly increasing it every year is artificial and not good for the whole.

There are, I'll admit, certainly individual cases of malfeasance on the part of many among the wealthier classes. As you point out. But, by and large, as the wealthier get wealthier, they pull the rest of us less wealthy folks up with them.

[Parhe]

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.

If you live a free society then people should be able to negotiate freely on a singular or collective basis for wages. Why shouldn't a union be allowed to negotiate freely? I'll tell you why. Because those who have don't want to give unions bargaining power. I agree it is in the best interests of corporations to pay good wages. And they do. Have you seen the pay and perks the average CEO gets? However when it comes to people on the shop floor a different rule applies. You won't get an economic system that works by paying some people hundred of millions, and millions of people peanuts. Feel free to support it. Don't expect things to improve though.

If people were able to choose to be in unions or not? If your hypotherical situation did somehow exist the people would probably by chpice decide to form a union but if theg find no reason to have a Union to improce thibgs they shouldn't have to but if they want they can which is what I have been saying the whole time. After all weren't the original unions that started things by choice not mandatory?

[Mistelemr]

Didn't the super PACs lose ? I thought Obama's 2012 victory would prove super Pacs do not have that effect on elections.

The PACs and super-PACs were dealt a blow by the increase in votes for third parties and Obama's win, but I believe super-PACs have been most effective in Congressional elections. Then again my memory may be wrong, but logic would say it is easier for them to influence a smaller area than the entire nation.

What the hell are you talking about? It's a well known fact that Obama out-raised Romney in funding, and that INCLUDES Super-Pacs. Sure Obama received many more donations of smaller amounts, but he certainly loved the big donations he got.

Also, it was said earlier that somehow money and it's expenditure fall under free-speech. That might be true if the nation weren't chock-full of idiots who only know what happens if it's on the television. If the U.S actually had an informed, engaged political populace than yes money wouldn't matter, but hand over fist IT DOES. 9/10 times the better funded candidate wins (See: damn near every U.S Election, ever).

You know what I say? Fuck money being freedom of speech, what happened to political equality? The person who spends a billion dollars lobbying to get what they want has a larger voice than those who say nothing. In the end, control of speech leads to control of power, and just like freedom of markets leads to massive and damaging inequalities economically, freedom of speech, when applied to material, leads to massive and damaging political inequalities (See: U.S Congress is not at all representative of what Americans actually want, and even so STILL can't do anything)

[Eaglleia]

Sooo?

Solution:

Tax the shit out of the upper percentiles, force better wages, kill union busting bills and the like with fire. It's getting to be about damn time we stop catering to the upper percentile of Americans, who consistently bitch and moan about how hard it is for them.

So basically send the message:Don't make too much money and achieve your dreams.

[Parhe]

Sooo?

Solution:

Tax the shit out of the upper percentiles, force better wages, kill union busting bills and the like with fire. It's getting to be about damn time we stop catering to the upper percentile of Americans, who consistently bitch and moan about how hard it is for them.

So basically send the message:Don't make too much money and achieve your dreams.

They would probably move out the nation. Isn't taxing one of the best ways of making people leave or something? On the bright side statistically income equality would even out a bit.

Also to Seangoli it isn't just the upper percentile bitching and moaning. I know groups from all classifications doing so and the wealthier members of society don't do it any more than others.

[Mike the Progressive]

How about no and we just give workers a choice?

the right to be screwed?

no. right to work means the right to work for less. if we want to narrow the gap we need to promote unions not destroy them.

No, the right to assume workers are not stupid and perfectly capable of making decisions for themselves. If a workers wants to join a union, he/she should have that right. If a worker doesn't, that's also their choice.

[Seangoli]

Sooo?

Solution:

Tax the shit out of the upper percentiles, force better wages, kill union busting bills and the like with fire. It's getting to be about damn time we stop catering to the upper percentile of Americans, who consistently bitch and moan about how hard it is for them.

So basically send the message:Don't make too much money and achieve your dreams.

Oh those poor, poor rich folks who own the vast majority of the wealth in the US. I feel so bad for them, because I want to squelsh their dreams of living in shining towers while they vehemently oppose any sort of social justice, nor give two shits about 40% of the population living in abject poverty. Such a dream, huh?

Do you have any idea how the US tax code works? Even if taxes were raised to 95% on the upper brackets(Which would be ridiculous), they would still under all circumstances earn more money than if they did not reach that bracket.

The American dream is dead son. Long dead. It's been killed long ago. Achieving a higher status in the present is almost an impossibility, as the entire system is tailored to practically forbid it. What's worse is that those at the top have convinced large swaths of the poor that by keeping the vast majority of the wealth at the top somehow- against all logic and against basic observation- will somehow lift them out of poverty because America, that's why.

It's about time we say screw that jazz.

[Khadgar]

Sooo?

Solution:

Tax the shit out of the upper percentiles, force better wages, kill union busting bills and the like with fire. It's getting to be about damn time we stop catering to the upper percentile of Americans, who consistently bitch and moan about how hard it is for them.

So basically send the message:Don't make too much money and achieve your dreams.

If your dream is to crush the proletariat then it's a shitty dream.

[Seangoli]

Sooo?


So basically send the message:Don't make too much money and achieve your dreams.

They would probably move out the nation. Isn't taxing one of the best ways of making people leave or something? On the bright side statistically income equality would even out a bit.

Actually, no. One of the reasons people live in their current location is due more about standard of living, particularly the wealthy. Lower taxes are considered, but if its in a shit-hole that nobody will live in, then by-golly nobody will live there. Hence why there are several corporations headquartered in areas which actually have higher corporate taxes than other areas: Getting executives to live in an area is much easier if it isn't awful to live in.

Also to Seangoli it isn't just the upper percentile bitching and moaning. I know groups from all classifications doing so and the wealthier members of society don't do it any more than others.

Granted, however the upper percentile has the least to bitch and moan about, and I find it particularly baffling that there are people defending who have not, will not, and can not ever reach that point. Further, any time the rich actually moan about it, or try to make it seem that something of some sort is an undue hardship on them I can't help but roll my eyes.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

I find it particularly baffling that there are people defending who have not, will not, and can not ever reach that point.

I don't.

Clearly, they expect that once capitalism's triumph is complete, they will receive a boon from the new ruling class for their loyal and slavish service.

They're horribly wrong about that, of course, but a false hope is still a hope.

[Freiheit Reich]

Don't hate, congratulate.