The Two Americas

[GoldenToTheGrave]

Do you think that productivity has increased because workers are working harder? Hell no. Technological advancements have allowed productivity to increase. Why should the workers at McDonalds get paid more because the corporation just installed the new "Fry Shit Faster 3000"?

Let's crack open our econ 101 books today....well, workers pay is supposed to equal their marginal productivity of labor. However for the past 30 years labor productivity has risen, but wages have been stagnant or declined. That would indicate structural changes have gone on in our economy that have held down wages for the majority of income earners. It's hard to convince people that economic growth is a positive thing when the majority of people see no benefit.

 

[Cackalacky]

Let's crack open our econ 101 books today....well, workers pay is supposed to equal their marginal productivity of labor. However for the past 30 years labor productivity has risen, but wages have been stagnant or declined. That would indicate structural changes have gone on in our economy that have held down wages for the majority of income earners. It's hard to convince people that economic growth is a positive thing when the majority of people see no benefit.

This in addition to my 1st post agrees with you. There have been significant structural changes in the system to direct worker money upward. the government is taking everyone's money and directing it downward. We need to fix both of these IMO.

 

[Ndaccountant]

This in addition to my 1st post agrees with you. There have been significant structural changes in the system to direct worker money upward. the government is taking everyone's money and directing it downward. We need to fix both of these IMO.

I would bet that the growth in income in that chart for the top 1% tracks very closely to stock market returns.

 

[Cackalacky]

I would bet that the growth in income in that chart for the top 1% tracks very closely to stock market returns.

Safe an accurate assumption. A 250% increase for the top 1%. Comparatively, the level income for the rest of us. All since the late 1970s .....coincidence?

 

[Irish YJ]

You picked out a relatively arbitrary point from a 6 minute video and attack it for having "misleading data" and then you say it has "pretty graphics" in a patronizing way.

The simple fact is: The top 1% in the America has 40% of the nation's wealth. The bottom 80% only has 7% between them. The richest 1% take home 25% of the income (up from 9% 30 years ago).

Listen, I know there are many success stories out there. I consider myself one of them (grew up in one of the roughest areas in Chicago, I was the "white minority" throughout a lot of my schooling, single mother with an income well under the poverty line, etc. etc. and now I am in grad school at one of the top universities in the world and will be earning a great salary when I am out of here). However, I am not naive enough to think that these possibilities are possible for everyone. You need to have more than an individualized perspective to really grasp what is going on in America.

My perspective is shared by many. It is not individualized. I have worked for 3 companies in my life, the past 2 I have left for the better opportunity. I started as craft/union and worked my way into management, and from there executive. I have not had a day of unemployment since my 2nd year in college. In that time I have managed 100s of people directly, and thousands indirectly both union and management. I have experienced the decline of unionized work force, cut backs due to various economical issues, as well as growth spurts. I have seen the impact of government on large and mid sized business. Throughout my life I have volunteered for various charities and organizations. Of late, it's been a group that supports international refugees. I have spent significant time with just about every race and economic class. I have also traveled and experienced 3rd world conditions. I'd like to think I have more experience than most, and in that, perspective. I am neither republican or dem, but I do have economic leanings.

Outside of watching youtube charts, could you share your life experience so I can appreciate your perspective. Yes, that was patronizing.

 

[nsideirish]

My perspective is shared by many. It is not individualized. I have worked for 3 companies in my life, the past 2 I have left for the better opportunity. I started as craft/union and worked my way into management, and from there executive. I have not had a day of unemployment since my 2nd year in college. In that time I have managed 100s of people directly, and thousands indirectly both union and management. I have experienced the decline of unionized work force, cut backs due to various economical issues, as well as growth spurts. I have seen the impact of government on large and mid sized business. Throughout my life I have volunteered for various charities and organizations. Of late, it's been a group that supports international refugees. I have spent significant time with just about every race and economic class. I have also traveled and experienced 3rd world conditions. I'd like to think I have more experience than most, and in that, perspective. I am neither republican or dem, but I do have economic leanings.

Outside of watching youtube charts, could you share your life experience so I can appreciate your perspective. Yes, that was patronizing.

Not sure how this post in any way responds or relates to my video or, more importantly, the whole topic of this thread--the rapidly growing wealth inequality in America, the erosion of America's middle class, the decline of opportunities for America's youth, etc.

 

[connor_in]

Your individual experience =/= what is really going on countrywide. The stats don't lie.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[nsideirish]

Lies, damned lies, and statistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you saying that anything in particular in that video is misleading or a lie?

As I've said before, the simple fact is: The top 1% in the America has 40% of the nation's wealth. The bottom 80% only has 7% between them. The richest 1% take home 25% of the income (up from 9% 30 years ago).

And guess what? It is only getting worse. Denying that this problem exists doesn't mean it will go away.

 

[Wild Bill]

You picked out a relatively arbitrary point from a 6 minute video and attack it for having "misleading data" and then you say it has "pretty graphics" in a patronizing way.

The simple fact is: The top 1% in the America has 40% of the nation's wealth. The bottom 80% only has 7% between them. The richest 1% take home 25% of the income (up from 9% 30 years ago).

Listen, I know there are many success stories out there. I consider myself one of them (grew up in one of the roughest areas in Chicago, I was the "white minority" throughout a lot of my schooling, single mother with an income well under the poverty line, etc. etc. and now I am in grad school at one of the top universities in the world and will be earning a great salary when I am out of here). However, I am not naive enough to think that these possibilities are possible for everyone. You need to have more than an individualized perspective to really grasp what is going on in America.

Just curious, why do you believe it's not possible for others when it was possible for you?

 

[Cackalacky]

Just curious, why do you believe it's not possible for others when it was possible for you?

I believe his word was "everyone" not "others."

 

[Cackalacky]

Not sure how this post in any way responds or relates to my video or, more importantly, the whole topic of this thread--the rapidly growing wealth inequality in America, the erosion of America's middle class, the decline of opportunities for America's youth, etc.

He is basically saying it is a perception problem. If you want it go get it.

 

[connor_in]

Are you saying that anything in particular in that video is misleading or a lie?

As I've said before, the simple fact is: The top 1% in the America has 40% of the nation's wealth. The bottom 80% only has 7% between them. The richest 1% take home 25% of the income (up from 9% 30 years ago).

And guess what? It is only getting worse. Denying that this problem exists doesn't mean it will go away.

Dude...just warning you about your "the stats don't lie"

Unfortunately, stats can be twisted and massaged to say many (even contradictory) things. [See current unemployment figures and then look at U6 figures and then workforce participation figures]

I was not pointing to a specific item...just telling you to watch out as people will probably give stats back to you that are counter to your argument or solution

 

[ND NYC]

irishpat would love this thread


carry on...

 

[Irish YJ]

Not sure how this post in any way responds or relates to my video or, more importantly, the whole topic of this thread--the rapidly growing wealth inequality in America, the erosion of America's middle class, the decline of opportunities for America's youth, etc.

I am not denying the top x% get y%. I'm saying a) I don't think the data/statistics are perfectly accurate and potentially misleading, and b) we are not comparable to 3rd world states.

Relative to the cause... and there are many. Some would argue that we have created a welfare state. Some would argue that continued growth of social programs create reliance on government assistance, which in a sense de-stimulates the economy. Some would argue that some people are happy to subside on government assistance. Some would also argue that a portion of those who do not file taxes and are factored in under the poverty (are paid in cash, illegal incomes) further impact the data/statistics. Good article somewhere out there about the impact of illegals on the poverty statistics. While they are factored in under the poverty line, they are making enough to send back to Mexico (google how much immigrants sent home per year) while collecting social support.

Someone launches a race/economical/political grenade and you expect people to sit back and enjoy your YouTube statistics as gospel. You're either a young dreamer with no life experience, a peace love and happiness hippy holdover, or a socialist malcontent that wants to always point the finger at the rich guy when confronted with any social or economic issue.

I imagine that you support places like Walmart, AT&T, Shell, etc.. by spending your money there while not thinking about the impacts to small business, minimum wage, the decline of household income, etc.. I'd imagine you also believe banks are the only ones responsible for the housing collapse. Lord knows that people are entitled to live above their financial capabilities and were forced into taking interest only predatory loans.

Bottom line, there are much deeper issues causing such a disparity, and a simple chart supporting the initial grenade is only fodder without talking about causes outside of the rich white man's control.

 

[Irish YJ]

I would bet that the growth in income in that chart for the top 1% tracks very closely to stock market returns.

The stock market must be evil then, must kill the stock market. People be damned for investment. Companies be damned for success.

 

[nsideirish]

I am not denying the top x% get y%. I'm saying a) I don't think the data/statistics are perfectly accurate and potentially misleading, and b) we are not comparable to 3rd world states.

How are the stats misleading? Here's another stat for you: The wealthiest 400 Americans (yes, 400 individuals) have the same combined wealth of the 150 million poorest Americans. (source: Could America's Wealth Gap Lead To A Revolt? - Forbes). If people don't see this as a serious problem, then there is no point in even arguing with them. You aren't the first one here who said these stats can be misleading...but no one has pointed out how they can be misleading.

And while we may not be comparable to a 3rd world state, in terms of healthcare, quality of life, wealth inequality, education and other factors, we are certainly trending downwards compared to other industrialized "first world" nations

Relative to the cause... and there are many. Some would argue that we have created a welfare state. Some would argue that continued growth of social programs create reliance on government assistance, which in a sense de-stimulates the economy. Some would argue that some people are happy to subside on government assistance. Some would also argue that a portion of those who do not file taxes and are factored in under the poverty (are paid in cash, illegal incomes) further impact the data/statistics. Good article somewhere out there about the impact of illegals on the poverty statistics. While they are factored in under the poverty line, they are making enough to send back to Mexico (google how much immigrants sent home per year) while collecting social support.

All those "arguments" you listed sound like typical tea party fodder. Not saying you are a tea partier, but those are the ideas they have been parroting for a while.

You seem to ignore quite a few potential causes. Some are:

Corporations putting profits ahead of workers (e.g. Wal-Mart which continually shows amazing profits but at the same time, pays its employees such a pathetic wage. In fact, it gives its employees brochures on how to go about obtaining government assistance--essentially admitting that it is impossible to support yourself working there.) Public companies need to do whatever is possible to produce a profit for their employees. Payroll cuts is usually the best way to achieve this.

Companies outsourcing jobs that used to pay decent wages. The U.S. has lost 20% of its factory jobs since 2000 (mostly to the cheap labor in China and India). And an even high percentage since the 70s. These used to be the jobs that those who no work at Wal-Mart/McDonalds would obtain. Fact is, they are extremely difficult to obtain now.

Various tax policies. (Rising Income Inequality and the Role of Shifting Market-Income Distribution, Tax Burdens, and Tax Rates | Economic Policy Institute)

Someone launches a race/economical/political grenade and you expect people to sit back and enjoy your YouTube statistics as gospel. You're either a young dreamer with no life experience, a peace love and happiness hippy holdover, or a socialist malcontent that wants to always point the finger at the rich guy when confronted with any social or economic issue.

Thanks for trying to guess what I am. Turns out the correct answer is (d) I am none of the above.

I imagine that you support places like Walmart, AT&T, Shell, etc.. by spending your money there while not thinking about the impacts to small business, minimum wage, the decline of household income, etc.. I'd imagine you also believe banks are the only ones responsible for the housing collapse. Lord knows that people are entitled to live above their financial capabilities and were forced into taking interest only predatory loans.

People (including many low income) support a place like Walmart because their prices are so low. They've perfectly gamed the system. Pay their employees a low wage and then those employees are forced to shop there (and similar places) because they cannot afford any other place.

In terms of places like AT&T and Shell, a bit difficult to obtain cell phone coverage from a small business. Or to get gas from small businesses.

Banks were primarily responsible for the housing crisis although not solely responsible. You are correct that individuals taking out the predatory loans also bear some responsibility. However, banks/investment firms knew exactly what they were doing with their "teaser rates" and ABS CDOs composed nearly entirely of these sub-prime mortgages. They knew they were building a house of cards that would collapse. And did we punish them? Nah, we bailed them out. The book "The Big Short" provides a great view into the banking industry right before the collapse.

Bottom line, there are much deeper issues causing such a disparity, and a simple chart supporting the initial grenade is only fodder without talking about causes outside of the rich white man's control.

Agreed that there are much deeper causes. However, the chart shows how serious the situation is right now. It is MUCH worse than many think it is and it is only getting worse.

 

[Rack Em]

I think some people should have more money.

I think some people should have less money.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

I think some people should have more money.

I think some people should have less money.

I think we should all get abong. Wait, I mean along.

 

[Irish#1]

I'm staying out of this one. I got worn out just reading this thread.

But I will ask one question.

If everyone age 21 and older was given $1,000,000 tax free. What would those under the poverty level do with it versus those in the middle and upper class? I'm willing to bet those in the middle and upper class would put a good portion away in the bank or investments while those under poverty level would spend it quickly until it was gone.

 

[EddytoNow]

Well hello, community organizer. Welcome to the party.

1) Rich white man: are you saying there are no rich minorities?

2) Those people with money: did they earn it legally with their labor/ service, or did they steal it from someone else?

3) Is there some little council we don't know about that decides how this country's "resources" are distributed?

4) Does anyone force the employees of McDonald's or Wal Mart to work there? Are they free to take their skills/ labor elsewhere?

5) This country was never designed to have wealth distributed equally. Get over it.

1. Not at all. What I'm saying is the wealth is disproportionately concentrated in the hands of white men. You can't really believe that a corporate executive whose company loses money deserves to be paid millions of dollars for spending all day on the golf course, while a man/woman working 60-80 hours a week deserves only $8.00 per hour.

2. Some earned it with their labor or service. Many simply inherited their money and contribute very little actual labor to the country's economy. Many others, in fact, did steal it from their stockholders, their customers (through inflated prices), their employees (through sub-standard wages), or greed (multiple homes, cars, etc. while others remain homeless, including children and the elderly).

3. I never suggested this and don't know why you suggest that I did.

4. No one physically forces them to work at McDonald's or Wal-Mart, but they do so to survive because they have no alternative. They are not lazy, shiftless or whatever else you are implying. They would gladly accept a higher paying job. Are you offering them a job with better wages and benefits for their families?

5. I never suggested that wealth be distributed equally. In fact, I specifically said that wealth redistribution would be unnecessary if their wasn't such a disparity in wages to begin with.

The gap between the wealthy and the poor continues to grow wider. Throughout history greedy societies have come to their end when the poorest in their ranks have been left without hope. The wealthy in America have been able to isolate themselves in their secluded communities ignoring the disparity that exists in standard of living, access to health care, etc. They get very defensive when faced with this disparity. The general attitude seems to be "I got mine. To **** with those less fortunate than I." Such a sad state for a country that prides itself on being the land of opportunity.

 

[DSully1995]

1. Not at all. What I'm saying is the wealth is disproportionately concentrated in the hands of white men. You can't really believe that a corporate executive whose company loses money deserves to be paid millions of dollars for spending all day on the golf course, while a man/woman working 60-80 hours a week deserves only $8.00 per hour.

2. Some earned it with their labor or service. Many simply inherited their money and contribute very little actual labor to the country's economy. Many others, in fact, did steal it from their stockholders, their customers (through inflated prices), their employees (through sub-standard wages), or greed (multiple homes, cars, etc. while others remain homeless, including children and the elderly).

3. I never suggested this and don't know why you suggest that I did.

4. No one physically forces them to work at McDonald's or Wal-Mart, but they do so to survive because they have no alternative. They are not lazy, shiftless or whatever else you are implying. They would gladly accept a higher paying job. Are you offering them a job with better wages and benefits for their families?

5. I never suggested that wealth be distributed equally. In fact, I specifically said that wealth redistribution would be unnecessary if their wasn't such a disparity in wages to begin with.

The gap between the wealthy and the poor continues to grow wider. Throughout history greedy societies have come to their end when the poorest in their ranks have been left without hope. The wealthy in America have been able to isolate themselves in their secluded communities ignoring the disparity that exists in standard of living, access to health care, etc. They get very defensive when faced with this disparity. The general attitude seems to be "I got mine. To **** with those less fortunate than I." Such a sad state for a country that prides itself on being the land of opportunity.

So much wrong in here, although its not truly your fault.

1. Clearly someone does believe that they are worth that much, in fact the only people who truly matter, the owners of the company. Shareholders (through Board of Directors) obviously agree to paying that much, who are you to say they shouldnt? CEO's are paid alot because they matter a lot, imagine what Steve Jobs was worth to apple, CEO's nowadays are truly leaders of the companies.

Furthermore "deserves" is a terrible loaded term. Emotion aside, if this person "deserved more " or was "worth" more then there would be people willing to pay that. Simple

2. Get some facts here, this isnt 14th century england, the 1% is very fluid (and so is the bottom 20%)

3. Just one thing to say, remember labour is a two way transaction.

5. Yes the gap may be getting bigger, but the real debate (which you have glossed over) is what to do about it. Redistribution is a great intention but only that,(IMO) in reality it doesnt work well and makes society worse off. Conservatives or right wingers dont want these people to die, We disagree only on how to "solve" these problems however, and your assumption of heartlessness degrades the conversation totally. Try to come to rational endpoints, using your emotions forever will make you do unwise things in the heat of the moment.

 

[magogian]

Are you saying that anything in particular in that video is misleading or a lie?

As I've said before, the simple fact is: The top 1% in the America has 40% of the nation's wealth. The bottom 80% only has 7% between them. The richest 1% take home 25% of the income (up from 9% 30 years ago).

And guess what? It is only getting worse. Denying that this problem exists doesn't mean it will go away.

Why does it matter how much the top 1% take home? If I can make $60,000 dollars annually, which in most places will provide me with a decent standard of living, why the frack does it matter if some CEO's salary is 1000% times my own?

Moreover, wealth is a not zero-sum pie!

Furthermore, this fixation on historic income tables is largely meaningless. Salary changes by quintile (how the government usually provides such information) is far less important than what the respective salary provides.

As others have explained, the middle class and even (especially!) the poor have so much better affordable access to food, medical care, TV, and other technology than at any time in the past. It is this access, albeit imperfect, that matters. It has only improved and will continue to do so over the long term (despite Obamacare's best efforts to muck up the healthcare aspect).

 

[magogian]

1. Not at all. What I'm saying is the wealth is disproportionately concentrated in the hands of white men. You can't really believe that a corporate executive whose company loses money deserves to be paid millions of dollars for spending all day on the golf course, while a man/woman working 60-80 hours a week deserves only $8.00 per hour.

The idiocy wrapped in this one statement is amazing. Please never vote.

 

[Junkhead]

I drove a Ford Grenada.

I followed until you started bragging.

 

[chubler]

Why does it matter how much the top 1% take home? If I can make $60,000 dollars annually, which in most places will provide me with a decent standard of living, why the frack does it matter if some CEO's salary is 1000% times my own?

It doesn't matter how much the top 1% is paid by their employers or their profits. What does matter is how much the top 1% is paid by the government.

Fact: The US Government spends quite a bit more money on asset-building tax breaks than on any other program- over 300 billion per year more than we spend on social security, the next largest program. Allowing each taxpayer to deduct 1000 dollars for having a child is exactly the same as subsidizing each child with an annual 1000 dollar check. To be clear, this is an issue of fact and not partisan opinion: it has an identical effect on the bottom line and how much you and I pay out of pocket. The theory behind asset-building tax breaks is that as a society we all reap the economic rewards from incentiving things like home ownership or higher education- when Steve Jobs puts his education to use and invents the Ipod (I know its a faulty example but you get the idea).

With that said, this program, which is indisputable the largest form of wealth redistribution in this country, over half the money went to the top 5%, while less than 5% went to those below the poverty line. On average, the top 1% receive 96,000 per person per year, while the bottom 60% receive $5 per person per year.

Furthermore, those who need asset building the most, and yet are receiving it the least, are hurt far more than their richer counterparts would be. How can you pull yourself up by your bootstraps out of poverty if your entire monthly income goes to buying food? You have no safety net if your paycheck gets lost in the mail, and no capital to take advantage of opportunities.

The idea that Obama wants to redistribute wealth in some unfair way from earners to leeches is a farce. In reality, "raising taxes" by eliminating tax breaks for high incomes and large corporations is simply putting a stop to the scandal that is the current state of affairs- redistributing wealth, via tax breaks, from the poor and the middle class to the rich and the superrich. There's no reason in the world that fast-food workers should be making 15 dollars an hour, but there's even less reason McDonalds should be paying millions less every year while the middle class and the poor have to make up for it.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

1. Not at all. What I'm saying is the wealth is disproportionately concentrated in the hands of white men. You can't really believe that a corporate executive whose company loses money deserves to be paid millions of dollars for spending all day on the golf course, while a man/woman working 60-80 hours a week deserves only $8.00 per hour.

2. Some earned it with their labor or service. Many simply inherited their money and contribute very little actual labor to the country's economy. Many others, in fact, did steal it from their stockholders, their customers (through inflated prices), their employees (through sub-standard wages), or greed (multiple homes, cars, etc. while others remain homeless, including children and the elderly).

3. I never suggested this and don't know why you suggest that I did.

4. No one physically forces them to work at McDonald's or Wal-Mart, but they do so to survive because they have no alternative. They are not lazy, shiftless or whatever else you are implying. They would gladly accept a higher paying job. Are you offering them a job with better wages and benefits for their families?

5. I never suggested that wealth be distributed equally. In fact, I specifically said that wealth redistribution would be unnecessary if their wasn't such a disparity in wages to begin with.

The gap between the wealthy and the poor continues to grow wider. Throughout history greedy societies have come to their end when the poorest in their ranks have been left without hope. The wealthy in America have been able to isolate themselves in their secluded communities ignoring the disparity that exists in standard of living, access to health care, etc. They get very defensive when faced with this disparity. The general attitude seems to be "I got mine. To **** with those less fortunate than I." Such a sad state for a country that prides itself on being the land of opportunity.

And what is it you do for a living? Just curious.

1) Disproportionately concentrated in the hands of white men? What a joke. I'll defer to DSully on this one.

2) You've got serious issues, but most staggering is you have no concept of theft. If Person A legally EARNED his/ her money, it was not stolen from stockholders, customers, or employees. All three of those transactions require VOLUNTARY decisions by both parties. No theft at all. And having accumulated this money, they are FREE to do whatever they damn well please with it.

3) You did.

4) So if person A "deserves" a better job and a "living wage", are you in position to determine what that wage is and then force companies to hire these people at those wages? No, and neither does anyone else. The market, not the rich white man, determines these wages for people. Netowrk engineers in IT and CFO's in business get paid much more because they contribute more. The same cannot be said for burger flippers and Wal Mart employees.

5) We already have enough wealth redistribution in this country, and it will bankrupt us sooner than later. When this country falls it won't be because of Wall Street or the 1%. It will be the nanny state that engulfs us.

Your point on societies in history couldn't be more wrong. Look at Europe: Italy, Greece, Portugal, Spain are not collapsing because of their 1%. They are collapsing because they built a cushy nanny state, the government couldn't afford it long term, they bankrupted themselves, and they're going belly up. And we're right behind them.

 

[Irish YJ]

How are the stats misleading? Here's another stat for you: The wealthiest 400 Americans (yes, 400 individuals) have the same combined wealth of the 150 million poorest Americans. (source: Could America's Wealth Gap Lead To A Revolt? - Forbes). If people don't see this as a serious problem, then there is no point in even arguing with them. You aren't the first one here who said these stats can be misleading...but no one has pointed out how they can be misleading.

And while we may not be comparable to a 3rd world state, in terms of healthcare, quality of life, wealth inequality, education and other factors, we are certainly trending downwards compared to other industrialized "first world" nations



All those "arguments" you listed sound like typical tea party fodder. Not saying you are a tea partier, but those are the ideas they have been parroting for a while.

You seem to ignore quite a few potential causes. Some are:

Corporations putting profits ahead of workers (e.g. Wal-Mart which continually shows amazing profits but at the same time, pays its employees such a pathetic wage. In fact, it gives its employees brochures on how to go about obtaining government assistance--essentially admitting that it is impossible to support yourself working there.) Public companies need to do whatever is possible to produce a profit for their employees. Payroll cuts is usually the best way to achieve this.

Companies outsourcing jobs that used to pay decent wages. The U.S. has lost 20% of its factory jobs since 2000 (mostly to the cheap labor in China and India). And an even high percentage since the 70s. These used to be the jobs that those who no work at Wal-Mart/McDonalds would obtain. Fact is, they are extremely difficult to obtain now.

Various tax policies. (Rising Income Inequality and the Role of Shifting Market-Income Distribution, Tax Burdens, and Tax Rates | Economic Policy Institute)





Thanks for trying to guess what I am. Turns out the correct answer is (d) I am none of the above.



People (including many low income) support a place like Walmart because their prices are so low. They've perfectly gamed the system. Pay their employees a low wage and then those employees are forced to shop there (and similar places) because they cannot afford any other place.

In terms of places like AT&T and Shell, a bit difficult to obtain cell phone coverage from a small business. Or to get gas from small businesses.

Banks were primarily responsible for the housing crisis although not solely responsible. You are correct that individuals taking out the predatory loans also bear some responsibility. However, banks/investment firms knew exactly what they were doing with their "teaser rates" and ABS CDOs composed nearly entirely of these sub-prime mortgages. They knew they were building a house of cards that would collapse. And did we punish them? Nah, we bailed them out. The book "The Big Short" provides a great view into the banking industry right before the collapse.



Agreed that there are much deeper causes. However, the chart shows how serious the situation is right now. It is MUCH worse than many think it is and it is only getting worse.

Good lord sounds like your finger is only capable at pointing at rich and corporate America. I believe in individual accountability. Are all people below the poverty line there because they deserve it, no, but I would bet a good portion are there due to choices. I also believe a good portion should not be factored in it in the first place. I don't have to look to far back or to far away for several examples.

Case A - 19 year old male, which is my neighbor's son. Made the decision to drop out of high school, now works at Long Horn making under (or reporting under) 20k per year. He has no inclination to improve his situation. He has beer and weed money, and gets subsidized by his parents (helps pay for his apartment). He wakes up every day at noon, bakes with his buddies, goes to work, gets off work and parties. Should he be included in your statistics. I know several in his age group, particularly the restaurant and bar crowd who do the same.

Case B - 42 year female, my cousin. Fired from Walmart because she consistently abused the FMLA act and finally her management fired her for cause to get rid of her. Had been with them for 15+ years, had benefits, etc.. To add, her dad gave her a gently used, used car. What does she do. Trades it in to get the new flashy car she preferred. Is she making the payments, no because she has no job and is living off the government's tit. Her dad is now paying for her vehicle. I have over 130 first and second cousins on my father's side, and well over 70 on my mothers. I can go on and on with examples of personal family members playing the system, making bad choices, who are now counted in your figures.

Case C - mid 20s male. Fired for cause at my company within the last 30 days. Before he was fired he consistently asked for pay advances. He also declined insurance to get extra money. What was this young man driving. A new Ford F150 Raptor. Should he be counted?

Case D - mid 30s male (legal immigrant). Has a family of 6 himself, and has parents living with him (rental house). He works 50 hours or more per week doing cement work for $16/hour. He works for me on the weekends occasionally doing yard work and odd jobs for $12 hour. His day job is unreported. The money I pay him is unreported. I don't know how much that equates to, but he sends over 1k back to MX each month to his sister and wife's parents. I'll be the first to say I admire this guys work ethic and dedication to family. Because he reports no income, he works the welfare system, and is counted in your figures. He also sends US money away. Does he belong in these figures?

Case E - mid 60s female - my aunt. Retired. Has no income. Married well, lives off her departed husbands investments. Does she belong in these figures?

Case D - mid 20 female - single mother of a 3 year old. I hired her as some friends referred her to me as a single mother that needed work. I hired her to clean my house, and told her if she worked out, I'd help get her an admin job at my office, or my buddy's business. She worked part time at a local bar, loved the "Dead" scene, and prioritized weed over both her financial situation as well as he kid's. I paid her $16/hour which is far above the rate of a house cleaner, gave her an old laptop to help her look for a job, and did other things to help her situation. How did this work out... well she was unreliable. In the 3 months she worked for me, she canceled 4 weeks, two of which she attended "Dead" festivals, one of which she went to Florida with friends to watch a friends band. All the time leaving her kid with someone I wouldn't trust to rake leaves. When I encouraged her to look for a full time job, she said she hated getting up early, and she would likely fail to be eligible for government assistance if she did. She preferred "cash only" jobs. Does she belong in these figures.

I can go on and on, but I actually have work to do. You also said you are "D", none of the above, but cite no real world experience, or historical background to explain your perspective on life.

One more bonus - I donate and volunteer for a refugee organization near me. The majority of those people are so hungry for jobs and want to be productive, tax paying, legal citizens. Working with them sometimes makes me ashamed to be American (at least in its current state). They come from real desolation, real abuse, real poverty. And they all for the most part look at America as an opportunity to improve their situation. And do me a favor, next time you make fun of the Slurpee selling Asian, African, or Middle Eastern working hard to make it in this country, think about all those born here who feel they are entitled to the other guys wealth, but are to proud to go sell a Slurpee and lotto tix because it's beneath them, and it's easier to sit on their @$$es with the support of their social programs (which rich corporate America is paying for).

 

[Black Irish]

How are the stats misleading? Here's another stat for you: The wealthiest 400 Americans (yes, 400 individuals) have the same combined wealth of the 150 million poorest Americans. (source: Could America's Wealth Gap Lead To A Revolt? - Forbes). If people don't see this as a serious problem, then there is no point in even arguing with them. You aren't the first one here who said these stats can be misleading...but no one has pointed out how they can be misleading.


The flip side of that coin is to explain why this wealth disparity is a "huge problem." Seriously, what is the nuts and bolts breakdown of why it's a problem if the top earners in this country have x percent of wealth versus the bottom having y percent? What's the tipping point between good and bad wealth distribution? How does the top 1% having more translate directly into the bottom 40% having less? Wealth and income in this country is not a zero sum game. Just because someone got more doesn't automatically mean that someone else must be getting less. As an example, if Warren Buffet makes more money this year than last year, who exactly is getting screwed as a result and how is it happening? There may be correlation but it's not a slam dunk that there is also direct causation with regard to wealth disparity.

 

[Cackalacky]

How are the stats misleading? Here's another stat for you: The wealthiest 400 Americans (yes, 400 individuals) have the same combined wealth of the 150 million poorest Americans. (source: Could America's Wealth Gap Lead To A Revolt? - Forbes). If people don't see this as a serious problem, then there is no point in even arguing with them. You aren't the first one here who said these stats can be misleading...but no one has pointed out how they can be misleading.


The flip side of that coin is to explain why this wealth disparity is a "huge problem." Seriously, what is the nuts and bolts breakdown of why it's a problem if the top earners in this country have x percent of wealth versus the bottom having y percent? What's the tipping point between good and bad wealth distribution? How does the top 1% having more translate directly into the bottom 40% having less? Wealth and income in this country is not a zero sum game. Just because someone got more doesn't automatically mean that someone else must be getting less. As an example, if Warren Buffet makes more money this year than last year, who exactly is getting screwed as a result and how is it happening? There may be correlation but it's not a slam dunk that there is also direct causation with regard to wealth disparity.

For a financial system based on consumerism, at some point if the majority of people can't afford to buy things or all of the nation's GDP is controlled by a few, it is pretty much a positive feedback loop leading to economic collapse. What is that point? IDK. Our society gets screwed and would pretty much fall apart.

 

[Irish#1]

Good lord sounds like your finger is only capable at pointing at rich and corporate America. I believe in individual accountability. Are all people below the poverty line there because they deserve it, no, but I would bet a good portion are there due to choices. I also believe a good portion should not be factored in it in the first place. I don't have to look to far back or to far away for several examples.

Case A - 19 year old male, which is my neighbor's son. Made the decision to drop out of high school, now works at Long Horn making under (or reporting under) 20k per year. He has no inclination to improve his situation. He has beer and weed money, and gets subsidized by his parents (helps pay for his apartment). He wakes up every day at noon, bakes with his buddies, goes to work, gets off work and parties. Should he be included in your statistics. I know several in his age group, particularly the restaurant and bar crowd who do the same.

Case B - 42 year female, my cousin. Fired from Walmart because she consistently abused the FMLA act and finally her management fired her for cause to get rid of her. Had been with them for 15+ years, had benefits, etc.. To add, her dad gave her a gently used, used car. What does she do. Trades it in to get the new flashy car she preferred. Is she making the payments, no because she has no job and is living off the government's tit. Her dad is now paying for her vehicle. I have over 130 first and second cousins on my father's side, and well over 70 on my mothers. I can go on and on with examples of personal family members playing the system, making bad choices, who are now counted in your figures.

Case C - mid 20s male. Fired for cause at my company within the last 30 days. Before he was fired he consistently asked for pay advances. He also declined insurance to get extra money. What was this young man driving. A new Ford F150 Raptor. Should he be counted?

Case D - mid 30s male (legal immigrant). Has a family of 6 himself, and has parents living with him (rental house). He works 50 hours or more per week doing cement work for $16/hour. He works for me on the weekends occasionally doing yard work and odd jobs for $12 hour. His day job is unreported. The money I pay him is unreported. I don't know how much that equates to, but he sends over 1k back to MX each month to his sister and wife's parents. I'll be the first to say I admire this guys work ethic and dedication to family. Because he reports no income, he works the welfare system, and is counted in your figures. He also sends US money away. Does he belong in these figures?

Case E - mid 60s female - my aunt. Retired. Has no income. Married well, lives off her departed husbands investments. Does she belong in these figures?

Case D - mid 20 female - single mother of a 3 year old. I hired her as some friends referred her to me as a single mother that needed work. I hired her to clean my house, and told her if she worked out, I'd help get her an admin job at my office, or my buddy's business. She worked part time at a local bar, loved the "Dead" scene, and prioritized weed over both her financial situation as well as he kid's. I paid her $16/hour which is far above the rate of a house cleaner, gave her an old laptop to help her look for a job, and did other things to help her situation. How did this work out... well she was unreliable. In the 3 months she worked for me, she canceled 4 weeks, two of which she attended "Dead" festivals, one of which she went to Florida with friends to watch a friends band. All the time leaving her kid with someone I wouldn't trust to rake leaves. When I encouraged her to look for a full time job, she said she hated getting up early, and she would likely fail to be eligible for government assistance if she did. She preferred "cash only" jobs. Does she belong in these figures.

I can go on and on, but I actually have work to do. You also said you are "D", none of the above, but cite no real world experience, or historical background to explain your perspective on life.

One more bonus - I donate and volunteer for a refugee organization near me. The majority of those people are so hungry for jobs and want to be productive, tax paying, legal citizens. Working with them sometimes makes me ashamed to be American (at least in its current state). They come from real desolation, real abuse, real poverty. And they all for the most part look at America as an opportunity to improve their situation. And do me a favor, next time you make fun of the Slurpee selling Asian, African, or Middle Eastern working hard to make it in this country, think about all those born here who feel they are entitled to the other guys wealth, but are to proud to go sell a Slurpee and lotto tix because it's beneath them, and it's easier to sit on their @$$es with the support of their social programs (which rich corporate America is paying for).

Well stated.

While everyone is afraid of not being PC, the fact of the matter is that a large percentage of the poor are that way because they choose it. They have no real desire to improve themselves or their situations. There are so many programs available to these people (like free education) that would help them get a better job, but they refuse to put in the effort. The only thing they look for is the free money.

Last March I lost my $80K a year job. I had trouble finding another job even though I have 41 years experience in IT. I'm certain it was because of my age and a lack of a degree. I immediately got back in school and am taking classes at two colleges at the same time. I didn't qualify for any financial assistance because my earnings for the previous year were too high, so I'm paying for school out of my pocket. I ended up having to take a job that pays $25K less than what I was making, but I'm not crying or looking for handouts. I refinanced our mortgage (what a pain that process is), quit eating out, looked for other ways to cut costs and took some money out of our retirement fund to pay off the car so our bills would be manageable.

I mention this, because I came from a family that could considered upper lower class. We could afford a house and car, but we didn't have many extras. I made the conscientious decision that I wasn't going to live like that and raise a family in that manner. Yes there are some who just have faced unfortunate circumstances, but there are plenty of poor people who are poor because they choose to be. Why should they get a free hand out?

Sorry, I did say I was going to stay out of this debate, but couldn't resist! lol