Wealth Distribution in America

[VictorG]

Puts things in perspective. (Back in 2012 even.)

Fairly short video......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... PKKQnijnsM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Chizzang]

Puts things in perspective. (Back in 2012 even.)

Fairly short video......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... PKKQnijnsM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've watched that one a few times... it's interesting that even Republicans polled on there couldn't comprehend the wealth differential in this country


BTW:
You'll get killed for this thread (Good luck)

[VictorG]

BTW:
You'll get killed for this thread (Good luck)

Won't be the 1st or last time....Actually, I don't even have any kind of comment....Video says it all!

[kalm]

Puts things in perspective. (Back in 2012 even.)

Fairly short video......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... PKKQnijnsM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've watched that one a few times... it's interesting that even Republicans polled on there couldn't comprehend the wealth differential in this country


BTW:
You'll get killed for this thread (Good luck)

Yeah, it's a good one. But what in the hell are YOU gonna do about it Cleets? The problem is the producers would create jobs if their taxes were lower and regulations weren't so burdensome. Oh, and if the American worker could actually improve himself to the point where he'd be worthy of increased wages...or control his spending habits enough to live within his own means...but just enough to avoid stifling a consumer based economy...because if he quit paying exorbitant costs for healthcare, residential housing, and education...that would be a bad thing...especially the part about him making himself and his kids more employable and worthy of increased wages...which would also be bad...

[Chizzang]

Yeah, it's a good one. But what in the hell are YOU gonna do about it Cleets? The problem is the producers would create jobs if their taxes were lower and regulations weren't so burdensome. Oh, and if the American worker could actually improve himself to the point where he'd be worthy of increased wages...or control his spending habits enough to live within his own means...but just enough to avoid stifling a consumer based economy...because if he quit paying exorbitant costs for healthcare, residential housing, and education...that would be a bad thing...especially the part about him making himself and his kids more employable and worthy of increased wages...which would also be bad...

Well I know for sure we need to hit a few more goat herders with some Drones...
Boeing could use the cash flow closing out Q1
I need them back at $150 by June (thank you very much)



and Northrop Grummybear is hoovering at $120 and sinking
As they sh!t the bed last quarter because Ron Sugar is a steaming pile of monkey crap and Wesley G. Bush has a compensation package that would make Paul Allen blush... f_cking criminals the lot of them

Oh.. yeah and the poor people (may God Bless them)

[CID1990]

you guys are having a real nice circle jerkoff in here

try not to get too much on ya and be sure to use tissues

[VictorG]

you guys are having a real nice circle jerkoff in here

Image please...

...oh wait......

Never mind!

Carry on!

[JohnStOnge]

Just as long as you remember that one person having more wealth doesn't necessarily mean other people having less. There is not some fixed pie of wealth in the sky that is distributed. People generate wealth. Take that Zuckerberg guy who started Facebook, for instance. He's a multi billionaire now.

Suppose he'd never been born. Suppose there was no Facebook. Does that mean you or me would have more wealth? Does it mean that the typical person living in the United States would have more wealth? The answer, of course, is "no."

That video is the same old same old: Appealing to the human tendency towards envy.

[kalm]

Just as long as you remember that one person having more wealth doesn't necessarily mean other people having less. There is not some fixed pie of wealth in the sky that is distributed. People generate wealth. Take that Zuckerberg guy who started Facebook, for instance. He's a multi billionaire now.

Suppose he'd never been born. Suppose there was no Facebook. Does that mean you or me would have more wealth? Does it mean that the typical person living in the United States would have more wealth? The answer, of course, is "no."

That video is the same old same old: Appealing to the human tendency towards envy.

So you're saying the growth of wealth is infinite?

[YoUDeeMan]

The best part of that video was following the links to this:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E[/youtube]

[JohnStOnge]

You know I've seen that video posted before. Maybe even here. I just watched it all the way through again. It's based on that false premise that there is some fixed pie of income and some fixed pie of wealth that is "bestowed" upon the country and divided up.

There was a mention of income in 1976 vs. income when the video was made (2012) and how the upper income people control a higher percentage of it. But I've looked at that before. ALL of the quintiles have higher inflation adjusted income now than they did in 1976.

The most disturbing thing about that video is that most people think there is some "ideal" distribution of wealth. That implies that most people accept the idea that there is some fixed wealth pie that is "bestowed" upon the country. And that's not the truth.

[kalm]

You know I've seen that video posted before. Maybe even here. I just watched it all the way through again. It's based on that false premise that there is some fixed pie of income and some fixed pie of wealth that is "bestowed" upon the country and divided up.

There was a mention of income in 1976 vs. income when the video was made (2012) and how the upper income people control a higher percentage of it. But I've looked at that before. ALL of the quintiles have higher inflation adjusted income now than they did in 1976.

The most disturbing thing about that video is that most people think there is some "ideal" distribution of wealth. That implies that most people accept the idea that there is some fixed wealth pie that is "bestowed" upon the country. And that's not the truth.

So you're saying that the growth of wealth is infinite?

[YoUDeeMan]

Just as long as you remember that one person having more wealth doesn't necessarily mean other people having less. There is not some fixed pie of wealth in the sky that is distributed. People generate wealth. Take that Zuckerberg guy who started Facebook, for instance. He's a multi billionaire now.

Suppose he'd never been born. Suppose there was no Facebook. Does that mean you or me would have more wealth? Does it mean that the typical person living in the United States would have more wealth? The answer, of course, is "no."

That video is the same old same old: Appealing to the human tendency towards envy.

So you're saying the growth of wealth is infinite?

All I want to know is if I can purchase a Russian bride or a Nigerian school girl if I even had a craving for one or the other...or both.

If so, then everything is cool and the system is working.

[kalm]

So you're saying the growth of wealth is infinite?

All I want to know is if I can purchase a Russian bride or a Nigerian school girl if I even had a craving for one or the other...or both.

If so, then everything is cool and the system is working.

I'll need a credit app.

[YoUDeeMan]

All I want to know is if I can purchase a Russian bride or a Nigerian school girl if I even had a craving for one or the other...or both.

If so, then everything is cool and the system is working.

I'll need a credit app.

kalm is into distribution mode...excellent!

Let's put those Montanan beer shipping girly men to shame.

[JohnStOnge]

So you're saying the growth of wealth is infinite?

No. But it's also not fixed. It's not a situation where there is some amount of wealth a society is assigned then it is divided up in certain ways.

I've used this illustration before but I'll use it again:

You have a community consisting of 10 farmers. Last year each one produced an equal amount of crops and each generated 10% of the total wealth of the community. This year nine did the same thing. But one found a way to make his land 10 times more productive. So he produced 10 times the crop as he did last year. So now the total community produced 190% of the wealth or income it produced last year. And one guy produced more than half the wealth.

Does that mean one person got more of their "share" of the wealth? Of course not.

[ASUG8]

Pro Sports
Hollywood directors
Hollywood actors
Sports/Hollywood agents
Investment bankers
Wealthy on their own by building their own business(although they didn't really do that...the government did)
Wealthy by doing well at someone else's business

Order them how you like, then tell me from whom we should be taking funds. People earn money through their natural intellectual or athletic gifts, inheritance, or luck. And they're penalized for it because it just isn't fair to those who don't have the same. We have a welfare system to take care of those who can't take care of themselves, but not enough for those who simply refuse to participate in the work force.

What is the incentive to take a risk, to be the best you can be, to try to aspire to something more? Why doesn't the government or the video author just propose that we all make a consistent wage regardless of ability or anything else? Why would anyone take the personal risk to start a business, hire people, manage them, provide a safe working environment by government standards, and hope for some premium for taking on that risk and responsibility?

[Ivytalk]

Pro Sports
Hollywood directors
Hollywood actors
Sports/Hollywood agents
Investment bankers
Wealthy on their own by building their own business(although they didn't really do that...the government did)
Wealthy by doing well at someone else's business

Order them how you like, then tell me from whom we should be taking funds. People earn money through their natural intellectual or athletic gifts, inheritance, or luck. And they're penalized for it
because it just isn't fair to those who don't have the same. We have a welfare system to take care of those who can't take care of themselves, but not enough for those who simply refuse to participate in the work force.

What is the incentive to take a risk, to be the best you can be, to try to aspire to something more? Why doesn't the government or the video author just propose that we all make a consistent wage
regardless of ability or anything else? Why would anyone take the personal risk to start a business, hire people, manage them, provide a safe working environment by government standards, and hope for some premium for taking on that risk and responsibility?

Well put! And has PETA come after you for that siggy, G8?

[Baldy]

So you're saying that the growth of wealth is infinite?

Are you implying that the growth of wealth is a zero sum game?

[OL FU]

You know I've seen that video posted before. Maybe even here. I just watched it all the way through again. It's based on that false premise that there is some fixed pie of income and some fixed pie of wealth that is "bestowed" upon the country and divided up.

There was a mention of income in 1976 vs. income when the video was made (2012) and how the upper income people control a higher percentage of it. But I've looked at that before. ALL of the quintiles have higher inflation adjusted income now than they did in 1976.

The most disturbing thing about that video is that most people think there is some "ideal" distribution of wealth. That implies that most people accept the idea that there is some fixed wealth pie that is "bestowed" upon the country. And that's not the truth.

So you're saying that the growth of wealth is infinite?

Looking back through history, it would seem to be (on a limited basis of course )

[ASUG8]

Well put! And has PETA come after you for that siggy, G8?

It's a stunt cat. No animals were harmed in the making of this gif.

[LeadBolt]

Expanding the energy economy in this country through the increased production and export of hydrocarbons has the potential to be the largest expander of worldwide wealth over the next 20-30 years until the development of alternative energy sources can be made economically viable.

[89Hen]

it's interesting that even Republicans polled on there couldn't comprehend the wealth differential in this country

You say that as if there are no Dems in the top 1%. Some of the most wealthy people I know are Liberals. Where's that troll meme?

[GannonFan]

So you're saying that the growth of wealth is infinite?

Looking back through history, it would seem to be (on a limited basis of course )

I agree, whether it is truly infinite or just really, really, far out there, it doesn't really matter. What does matter is that the ceiling on the growth of wealth, if it does exist, isn't terribly close by. So that means, from our perspective, it could be infinite. But again, it doesn't really seem to matter.

[CID1990]

But again, it doesn't really seem to matter.

Apparently it does to Mr. "Smug Leading Question" Klam