Rich Getting Richer in the U.S

[Oceania-Eurasia-Eastasia]

You made bare, critical-thought-free assertions; I merely responded in kind, because I assumed that was what you wanted (Golden Rule and all that) and I was trying to be polite and friendly.

I think we're waiting for you to tell us about the true libertarian. He's from Scotland, right?

[Grave_n_idle]

...good for them? They obviously worked a little.

Working and getting rich have never been intrinsically linked.

[Mauretania Tingitana]

What the fuck? These people give to society buy employing, running industry and spending money. What a selfish notion.

Actually, the super rich are very unlikely to directly employ anyone (other than a chef, chauffeur etc). Someone less rich than them does that on their behalf. Those that run businesses (CEO's) get extremely generous pay and other benefits even if by any measure their "running" is a disaster for the business. And if the rich spent ALL their money, they wouldn't be rich any more would they?

How can you look at the strong corporate profits, piles of cash not being spent (eg, Apple and Microsoft), stagnating wages as profits are directed to propping up share prices instead of raising the wages of employees ... let alone employing more ... and far longer unemployment lag now than any previous recession, put that together with the Bush era tax cuts which are still largely intact, and conclude that letting the rich get richer works in any way at all?

Like it wasn't utterly debunked when Reagan was still in office and unemployment hit a ten year peak despite a strong economy. The rich got richer, but that did not express itself in increased employment. Unemployment only grew during those "golden years" of Reagan. People with that much money don't invest in other people, they invest in real estate. They invest in factories built where the labor is cheap. They invest in stocks and bonds, because if there is one thing you know about a super-rich person, it's that they know how to get rich.

The super-rich should be taxed. They should be subject to progressive taxation of assets, that is, of wealth. If they're so good at what they do, let them bear the burden of taxation on their assets. If they're so smart that it is their skill and wisdom which causes their wealth to grow 5% a year or more, then they can easily bear a tax on their assets of 2% per year. They'd still be growing richer year by year, just by being rich already.

There's a reason they're on top and you're on the bottom, and it's not the lack of tax. There's a reason you can replace a worker and not a C.E.O. with a machine. It's a common falsehood that the rich sit on their asses all day doing nothing. They're actually the hardest workers of all. I'm not going to continue this, but we can take a look at all the bankrupt (and soon to be) countries of Europe and find that they all taxed the rich and gave to the poor. They're failing.

You're using generalities, opinions and not one fact or statistic. Clinton was riding the wave of Reagan. Clinton's policies put us in the shitstorm we see now. A worker must be WORTH his wages. If he truly was, if the American worker was truly the best for business (and many are, I don't dispute that) there would be no outsources. A business is a business, not a charity. I agree, many corporations are run by greedy, opportunistic individuals. But to actually blame those who make money as the cause of the problem is just insane. You punish production and you will fall, just like Greece, Italy, Spain, Ireland and soon to be France.

[Mauretania Tingitana]

...good for them? They obviously worked a little.

Working and getting rich have never been intrinsically linked.

You've obviously never been rich.

[AiliailiA]

Working and getting rich have never been intrinsically linked.

You've obviously never been rich.

And you have?

[AiliailiA]

Actually, the super rich are very unlikely to directly employ anyone (other than a chef, chauffeur etc). Someone less rich than them does that on their behalf. Those that run businesses (CEO's) get extremely generous pay and other benefits even if by any measure their "running" is a disaster for the business. And if the rich spent ALL their money, they wouldn't be rich any more would they?

How can you look at the strong corporate profits, piles of cash not being spent (eg, Apple and Microsoft), stagnating wages as profits are directed to propping up share prices instead of raising the wages of employees ... let alone employing more ... and far longer unemployment lag now than any previous recession, put that together with the Bush era tax cuts which are still largely intact, and conclude that letting the rich get richer works in any way at all?

Like it wasn't utterly debunked when Reagan was still in office and unemployment hit a ten year peak despite a strong economy. The rich got richer, but that did not express itself in increased employment. Unemployment only grew during those "golden years" of Reagan. People with that much money don't invest in other people, they invest in real estate. They invest in factories built where the labor is cheap. They invest in stocks and bonds, because if there is one thing you know about a super-rich person, it's that they know how to get rich.

The super-rich should be taxed. They should be subject to progressive taxation of assets, that is, of wealth. If they're so good at what they do, let them bear the burden of taxation on their assets. If they're so smart that it is their skill and wisdom which causes their wealth to grow 5% a year or more, then they can easily bear a tax on their assets of 2% per year. They'd still be growing richer year by year, just by being rich already.

There's a reason they're on top and you're on the bottom, and it's not the lack of tax. There's a reason you can replace a worker and not a C.E.O. with a machine. It's a common falsehood that the rich sit on their asses all day doing nothing. They're actually the hardest workers of all. I'm not going to continue this, ...

I stopped reading there.

[Mauretania Tingitana]

There's a reason they're on top and you're on the bottom, and it's not the lack of tax. There's a reason you can replace a worker and not a C.E.O. with a machine. It's a common falsehood that the rich sit on their asses all day doing nothing. They're actually the hardest workers of all. I'm not going to continue this, ...

I stopped reading there.

Then you're just a dumbass, and I win. I don't earn a wealthy income at present, but I would be foolish and decadent to assume I'll never get one because the rich are against me. If you truly work for it, you will attain it. Anything else is an excuse.

[Grave_n_idle]

Working and getting rich have never been intrinsically linked.

You've obviously never been rich.

That depends on what you mean by 'rich'. I've done alright, and I have to say - I've worked a lot harder in other jobs, than I did at that point.

I've also worked 20 hours a day, 7 days a week - and I can tell you that I wasn't as well off at that point.

Working and getting rich have never been intrinsically rich - and not only is that a general truth, it also reflects my own experience.

[Czechanada]

Just introduce Sharia law in the USA.

This will fix all the problems of inequality, since we are all equal under God.

[The Cinnabar and Sevii Islands]

Just introduce Sharia law in the USA.

This will fix all the problems of inequality, since we are all equal under God.

That is easily the most stupid thing ive read all day.

Do you even think when you talk?

Oh right, this is the internet, so you dont. Why not think before you post?

[Democratic Republic of the Triumvirate]

not surprised.

Neither am I, the question is what to do with, and what people think about the massive wealth gaps in the U.S

Is there anything that can be done? The only people in a position to change this are the people getting richer by it.

[The Electoral College]

Neither am I, the question is what to do with, and what people think about the massive wealth gaps in the U.S

Is there anything that can be done? The only people in a position to change this are the people getting richer by it.

More progressive taxation can help to get those cash hordes mobile again.

[Cosara]

And this is bad why?

[The Electoral College]

And this is bad why?

It's a repeat of the 1920's. Income inequality causes a lack of stability by the shrinking of the consumers in the middle class, an increase in poverty, and ultimately economic ruin.

[Bilgeria]

-Snip-

Can you source every last one of these claims, including the studies you say exist? Because I've never seen them

Sure can.
First will post a youtube video that explains this. (Yes, I know its youtube, but he explains it so much better then I could ever do so.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbueX92CKPk

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 5796,d.b2I

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/resear ... isaacs.pdf

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center ... revise.pdf

http://www.bostonfed.org/economic/wp/wp2011/wp1110.pdf

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42400.pdf

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/ ... nd-bottom/

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/d ... household/

Inequality is not the problem. Its the restriction on mobility. We will always have poor people in this country. The question is, how easy is it for them to get out of being poor.

[Grave_n_idle]

Inequality is not the problem.

Inequality is certainly one of the problems.

Its the restriction on mobility.

It's possible that there can be two problems.

We will always have poor people in this country.

Then there's something fundamentally wrong.

The question is, how easy is it for them to get out of being poor.

That's not the question, at all - by your own admission, there will ALWAYS be people who are poor. Thus, the question is - how do we change that.

[Bilgeria]

Inequality is not the problem.

Inequality is certainly one of the problems.

Its the restriction on mobility.

It's possible that there can be two problems.

We will always have poor people in this country.

Then there's something fundamentally wrong.

The question is, how easy is it for them to get out of being poor.

That's not the question, at all - by your own admission, there will ALWAYS be people who are poor. Thus, the question is - how do we change that.

Your missing the bigger picture. The problem is not income inequality, because there is always people entering the workforce with nothing in hand. These people are your eighteen year old young adults, who are entering the workforce for the first time, or college students living off grants and loans. That is why we will ALWAYS have poor people. So there is nothing fundamentally wrong in saying that there will always be poor people. That is just the truth. You cant change that, unless you live in a socialist society, in which case, everyone is then poor. By concentrating on Income Mobility instead of the current QQing of Income Inequality, you can fix the problem for the long term instead of putting band aids on the situation.

Now, is there also people who are poor, who have always been poor? Yes. I am not going to disregard that. But the major amount of low wage earners are teens and young adults moving out of their parents house for the first time. You learn how to scrape by, to save, to plan for the future. As you gain experience, you change jobs, maybe make a bit more money from your new job, and start all over. You do this again and again until you get settled in a career.

When I was 18, I made about fifteen thousand a year. I am twenty seven now, and I make almost seventy thousand. Next year I'll be making almost eighty thousand. In ten years, with the company I am in, so when I am thirty seven, Ill be making roughly one hundred thirty five thousand. That is income mobility. How easy is it from someone starting out, in the course of say twenty years, to move up the brackets.

Edited for some spelling errors

[Brickistan]

Inequality is certainly one of the problems.



It's possible that there can be two problems.



Then there's something fundamentally wrong.



That's not the question, at all - by your own admission, there will ALWAYS be people who are poor. Thus, the question is - how do we change that.

Your missing the bigger picture. The problem is not income inequality, because there is always people entering the workforce with nothing in hand. These people are your eighteen year old young adults, who are entering the workforce for the first time, or college students living off grants and loans. That is why we will ALWAYS have poor people. So there is nothing fundamentally wrong in saying that there will always be poor people. That is just the truth. You cant change that, unless you live in a socialist society, in which case, everyone is then poor. By concentrating on Income Mobility instead of the current QQing of Income Inequality, you can fix the problem for the long term instead of putting band aids on the situation.

Now, is there also people who are poor, who have always been poor? Yes. I am not going to disregard that. But the major amount of low wage earners are teens and young adults moving out of their parents house for the first time. You learn how to scrape by, to save, to plan for the future. As you gain experience, you change jobs, maybe make a bit more money from your new job, and start all over. You do this again and again until you get settled in a career.

When I was 18, I made about fifteen thousand a year. I am twenty seven now, and I make almost seventy thousand. Next year I'll be making almost eighty thousand. In ten years, with the company I am in, so when I am thirty seven, Ill be making roughly one hundred thirty five thousand. That is income mobility. How easy is it from someone starting out, in the course of say twenty years, to move up the brackets.

Edited for some spelling errors

The problem is that it is becoming increasingly difficult for 18 year olds to get a job straight out of school. In fact, forget about even getting a job at that age - you will, at least, need a college or university degree. Trade school might also be an option, but good luck getting an apprenticeship...

Indeed, we have a situation where people - especially singles - won't ever get to own a house. They simply cannot afford it. Their parents, on the other hand, can as they already have assets available to them - usually in the form of their old house.

I'm in my mid-thirties, got a Masters degree and won't ever get close to owning a house or flat as, being currently single, there's no way I could afford such a place without putting myself in a real bad spot, economically speaking. So I'm stuck in a rented flat which will never give me the assets that my parents have. Getting a better pay then? Yeah, right... With the current economy, the employers have taking the opportunity to put the pressure on. Ask for better pay and you're likely to get fired instead - been there, done that. Plenty of desperate people willing to take over your job if you make a fuss.

Yes, some might make it. Those who are lucky enough to have parents with resources to send them to a good school. A few might even make it on their own, either by having the right idea at the right time or by sheer coldblooded ruthlessness and determination. But many of us are stuck in the same job, not getting a decent wage, nor being able to get another job.

Sad thing is, we let this happen. We let the rich get richer through a series of inflated bubbles, all the while slowly loosing our own buying-power as real-wages not only stagnated, but decreased.

[Autismiah]

All rich people are lazy!
All rich people are thieves!
I bet you've never gone a day without food!
$70,000 for a horse? Outrageous! There are plenty of other things that could have been done with that money!
Instead of buying that suit, why don't you donate to the food bank? No, I don't care how much you've already donated this year, GIVE MORE!
STOP GIVING MONEY TO (Republican) POLITICIANS!
You don't deserve that money; black people do!
PAY YOUR FAIR SHARE! 20%+ of tax income ISN'T ENOUGH!

Why do liberals hate successful people?

[Khadgar]

All rich people are lazy!
All rich people are thieves!
I bet you've never gone a day without food!
$70,000 for a horse? Outrageous! There are plenty of other things that could have been done with that money!
Instead of buying that suit, why don't you donate to the food bank? No, I don't care how much you've already donated this year, GIVE MORE!
STOP GIVING MONEY TO (Republican) POLITICIANS!
You don't deserve that money; black people do!
PAY YOUR FAIR SHARE! 20%+ of tax income ISN'T ENOUGH!

Why do liberals hate successful people?

What the fuck are you on about?

[Vetalia]

Yes, some might make it. Those who are lucky enough to have parents with resources to send them to a good school. A few might even make it on their own, either by having the right idea at the right time or by sheer coldblooded ruthlessness and determination. But many of us are stuck in the same job, not getting a decent wage, nor being able to get another job.

One big problem is the dysfunctional system we have that incentivizes taking on huge amounts of student loan debt, not because of necessity but because the system creates a perverse incentive to drastically and continually increase the cost; the government guarantees most student loan debt, which means the lenders and school will get their money no matter what happens and changes over the past couple of decades have made discharging debt via bankruptcy difficult or even impossible for some people. So, there's basically no incentive not to hike costs as much as possible, especially since it also allows universities to bolster payrolls for "administrators" and other staff who have no direct involvement in education...leading to over a 16%/year growth rate in outstanding debt since 2004. That's insane.

And if you graduate college with the average student loan debt of $26,000 and start a job making, say, $40,000 per year, over 10% of your net pay is going to repay loans...that's a big hit when you consider all the other expenses you'll have, to say nothing of saving up money for emergencies, retirement, buying a car/house or anything else. And that's the average, not some of the huge amounts people have borrowed for, say, a medical degree or graduate degree.

[Grave_n_idle]

Your missing the bigger picture. The problem is not income inequality,

Wrong. Income inequality is one of the problems.

...because there is always people entering the workforce with nothing in hand. These people are your eighteen year old young adults, who are entering the workforce for the first time, or college students living off grants and loans.

Historically, this has tended to be true. It's no longer true.

That is why we will ALWAYS have poor people. So there is nothing fundamentally wrong in saying that there will always be poor people.

There's nothing wrong with saying it - there's something wrong that it's true.

That is just the truth. You cant change that, unless you live in a socialist society, in which case, everyone is then poor.

Or wealthy. The terms are meaningless without inequality.

Now, is there also people who are poor, who have always been poor? Yes. I am not going to disregard that. But the major amount of low wage earners are teens and young adults moving out of their parents house for the first time. You learn how to scrape by, to save, to plan for the future. As you gain experience, you change jobs, maybe make a bit more money from your new job, and start all over. You do this again and again until you get settled in a career.

Or you don't. The grim truth is that we're in a generation where people who made careers are 'starting over' at Wal-Mart.

When I was 18, I made about fifteen thousand a year. I am twenty seven now, and I make almost seventy thousand. Next year I'll be making almost eighty thousand.

That's nice for you. Irrelevant to anyone else though.

In ten years, with the company I am in, so when I am thirty seven, Ill be making roughly one hundred thirty five thousand. That is income mobility. How easy is it from someone starting out, in the course of say twenty years, to move up the brackets.

And you'[re probably aware of how your own experience poorly reflects current trends in employment.

Even if we allow for anecdote as an alternative to evidence - of all my friends, only the aerospace engineer is in a situation like the one you describe. And we can't all be aerospace engineers.

[Bilgeria]

The problem is that it is becoming increasingly difficult for 18 year olds to get a job straight out of school. In fact, forget about even getting a job at that age - you will, at least, need a college or university degree. Trade school might also be an option, but good luck getting an apprenticeship...

Indeed, we have a situation where people - especially singles - won't ever get to own a house. They simply cannot afford it. Their parents, on the other hand, can as they already have assets available to them - usually in the form of their old house.

I'm in my mid-thirties, got a Masters degree and won't ever get close to owning a house or flat as, being currently single, there's no way I could afford such a place without putting myself in a real bad spot, economically speaking. So I'm stuck in a rented flat which will never give me the assets that my parents have. Getting a better pay then? Yeah, right... With the current economy, the employers have taking the opportunity to put the pressure on. Ask for better pay and you're likely to get fired instead - been there, done that. Plenty of desperate people willing to take over your job if you make a fuss.

Yes, some might make it. Those who are lucky enough to have parents with resources to send them to a good school. A few might even make it on their own, either by having the right idea at the right time or by sheer coldblooded ruthlessness and determination. But many of us are stuck in the same job, not getting a decent wage, nor being able to get another job.

Sad thing is, we let this happen. We let the rich get richer through a series of inflated bubbles, all the while slowly loosing our own buying-power as real-wages not only stagnated, but decreased.

In the case of 18 year old people not finding work, there is plenty of jobs out there, if people are willing to look hard enough. There is companies all over the country who are screaming for more employees. In North Dakota, the unemployment rate is around 3%. This is due to the boom in oil and natural gas there. You don't need an education, and you will receive the training there.

The trucking industry is looking for people constantly. They are needing more drivers then ever, and actually have a driver shortage. Most large companies, will pay for your training, if your willing to sign up to a contract for a year or so. This is a good stable job, and you can make a lot of money quickly.

Apprenticeship is in fact fairly easy to get. Go to Job Corps. Many of the trades that are taught are Union and Apprenticeship oriented. Many Apprenticeships will reduce the amount of years you need to be in apprenticeship before you are a journeyman. Many apprentice programs will take a Job Corps student over someone off the street, because that person has the basics down.

The thing is, there is jobs out there. In general, we have a bunch of 18 year old lazy teens who only go to the mall to apply for jobs. This is not good. What happened to the work ethic and drive that use to be instilled on the young?

College is expensive, and counter productive at this point. It costs too much money, places the person in college too much in debt, and your never able to really get out from under it, and by the time you do, you have not made much more money then someone straight from high school. We also have a problem with people going to college to "discover" themselves. The costs of these colleges are because of the government. It use to be, not even that long ago, that a student could work in the summer, and have made enough money to be able to pay for school that year. A student could actually graduate with money in their hand.

In your case, I don't know what you do for a living, or what you make, but I will say this. If you have that view that you will NEVER own a home or flat, then you never will. Your setting yourself up for failure. Its all about attitude. Its about goal setting. You may not have a job that does not pay well. Ask for a raise, or look for a better job. If your in a competitive market, bring your skills that you have to a competitor. They may value the skills you have more then the current company you work for.

Buy land slowly. There is places in the country where land is selling for dirt cheap. If you live in California or New Jersey, or New York, that is your problem right there. If you live in Detroit, run for your life. One does not have to buy a home at one time. It can be done over time. Build it yourself. Talk to an architect, get a floor plan, learn what the general cost of supplies will be. Get the education done yourself, libraries and online is great for this. College isn't needed for this. This is a LONG process, and there is risk, but it can be considerably cheaper.

A business firing you because you ask for a raise: If the business fired you, they were already looking for a a reason to fire you. You may not be doing well at the current job your doing. It could be that the owner, or your current boss does not value your skills that you have, as while you may be getting a pay check from them, your the reason that they are getting any money at all. A foolish boss is one who does not see that. There is plenty of reasons that a boss could fire you, but this is the least likely of reasons.

One should not be afraid to ask for a raise. But before asking, have a good reason. If they fired you for that reason, speak to their competitors. I am sure that many would love to take an employee who has skills and experience in the field, and you may find yourself getting that raise from them instead.

We have let this happen, we let this happen because we have placed so many rules and regulations, that any person who wishes to start a company is going to have an uphill battle. We have so many requirements and applications that a person has to do to become a viable business that they give up, or don't even try from the beginning.

In terms of the bubbles, that is due to the Keynesian Monetary Policy that we have.

But getting back on topic, these are problems with mobility, not with inequality. Everyone is equal, everyone is equally given the chance to succeed or fail based on their ethics, ability, and drive. The problem we have though, is that one is unable to do well because we have so many hurdles to jump through, that it makes it very hard for people to succeed. Is it true that someone who starts with nothing, vs someone who starts rich will have a tougher time? Yes. But at the same time, if that person who has more drive to complete their goals, never gives up and has a better ability then the man who is rich, they could easily find themselves switching places.

[Grave_n_idle]

In the case of 18 year old people not finding work, there is plenty of jobs out there, if people are willing to look hard enough.

This is the kind of self-affirming nonsense people say when they aren't looking for work.

[Bilgeria]

In the case of 18 year old people not finding work, there is plenty of jobs out there, if people are willing to look hard enough.

This is the kind of self-affirming nonsense people say when they aren't looking for work.

Because you don't seek to go where the jobs are, or only submit applications to stores in a mall, it your fault. I'm sorry that you have to have your hand held to get a job.

There is many large and small companies who are struggling to find workers. Microsoft just recently announced that they are looking for 3000 employees. In the trucking industry, companies are hiring in the hundreds. The company I work for, hires almost 50 people a week. You just don't know how to look.