Wealth Inequality in America

[ASUG8]

I'm making the assumption that you know when to stop spending discretionary income when it exceeds your available discretionary income. I don't save all my money either and support the folks you mention in your example. Buying pizzas, going to dinner, oil changes, etc. all keep the economy going. Being an idiot and buying a McMansion or a 7-series that the bank said you could afford that you truly couldn't is more what I'm talking about.

Who the HELL has been doing this since 2009???? No one does this anymore

Right, the bubble burst in 2006-07. Banks don't like handing out equity lines when you have negative equity in your home, and that stopped a lot of folks from tapping that to make additional purchases

[CAA Flagship]

I said consume less, save more and you disagreed.

If I saved all of my money, how does the guy working at the Movies get paid, or the Bartender at the sports bar?????? Or the guy who washes cars for 10.00.

......or the male masseuse.....

[mrklean]

If I saved all of my money, how does the guy working at the Movies get paid, or the Bartender at the sports bar?????? Or the guy who washes cars for 10.00.

......or the male masseuse.....

SO GAY

[GannonFan]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - making wealth equality a target of economic policy is both foolhardy and impossible. The rich will always benefit more from any economic expansion from the simple fact that they already have more. If everyone grows their wealth 10%, the wealth gap will increase since 10% of a smaller number will be less of a nominal increase than 10% of a bigger number. No matter want we want, we can't escape math.

If we want wealth equality, we need a good, old-fashioned depression that lasts a long time. No one will like it, but at least we'll all be more equal in our misery. Yay.

Should they benefit more during a recession? For that matter, should corporations experience record profits during a sloooooow economy? At least Wall Street is setting records.

Not all recessions affect everyone equally. What's a slow economy for some is not for others. It's a pretty complicated world out there. And Wall Street and how it performs has been, to a large part, disconnected from the actual economy for some time now - it's almost a game anymore. Of course, a game that a lot of our pensions and even more so 401k's are tied to, so it's still important, but it's not really a good economic barometer anymore.

[biobengal]

Purchasing power of the US Dollar.... hmmmm.

[JohnStOnge]

Yet, is income inequality necessarily bad and a predictor of collapse as Krugman suggests?

I think the answer to "is income inequality necessarily bad?" is "Obviously not." Obviously, if everybody is doing well it doesn't matter if some people are doing "more" well than others. Not unless just pure envy is a factor.

Collapse? I don't know. If so it'll be because of demagoguery over the income gap rather than the effects of the income gap itself.

[Skjellyfetti]

Here's our income inequality compared with the rest of the world just as a comparison.

[kalm]

Yet, is income inequality necessarily bad and a predictor of collapse as Krugman suggests?

I think the answer to "is income inequality necessarily bad?" is "Obviously not." Obviously, if everybody is doing well it doesn't matter if some people are doing "more" well than others. Not unless just pure envy is a factor.

Collapse? I don't know. If so it'll be because of demagoguery over the income gap rather than the effects of the income gap itself.

Obviously, but follow income equality to its conclusion and you get feudalism where a very small few make decisions for the rest.

[JohnStOnge]

Here's our income inequality compared with the rest of the world just as a comparison.

If I'm at least generally interpreting that correctly I think it illustrates how meaningless the concept of "wealth inequality" is in terms of how well off the "typical" person in a nation is. It looks to me like it shows our wealth inequality as about equal to that of Mexico. Is there anybody here who thinks the "typical" person in Mexico is as well off as the "typical" person in the United States?

Also, it appears to me to show wealth inequality in the United States as greater than that of countries like India and Bangladesh. Does anybody here think the "typical" person in Bangladesh is better off than the "typical" person in the United States?

BTW it appears to indicate that Bangladesh is really "progressive" in terms of wealth inequality. As "equal" as it gets in terms of the categories presented. Yeah. Let's go for that. Let's be like Bangladesh.

The "wealth inequality" thing is crap. It's classical "politics of envy" stuff. The "typical" person in the United States is very well off. VERY both in terms of as compared to the typical person in the current world overall and in terms of the typical person who has existed on Earth during human history.

[JohnStOnge]

Here's a good one if it's accurate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_hou ... statistics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Click on "International Statistics." It will take you to a section on "annual median equivalised disposable household income," which is defined as "an amount remaining for spending or savings after deduction of taxes and other social contributions, according to the Eurostat definition."

It shows the figure for the United States as $31,111 and the figure for Canada as $25,363.

Now look at the map Sky posted. It shows Canada as having far less "income inequality" than the United States does.

But in which country was the typical citizen better off? It's the United States. The middle of the income distribution in the United States was about 23% higher. That's a lot.

Again: "Income inequality" is a virtually meaningless metric when it comes to deciding on how well off the "typical" person in the group being referenced is.

[YoUDeeMan]

JSO schools analjelly!

[JohnStOnge]

Obviously, but follow income equality to its conclusion and you get feudalism where a very small few make decisions for the rest.

I don't think that necessarily true at all. And I think if you look at the United States there's no evidence at all of a correlation between increasing income inequality and less political influence on the part of "the poor."

Again: If "The Rich" controlled things we'd have had Republicans in total control for a long time now. That's how "The Rich" vote. The fact that the opposite is the case...that over time the Democrats have had the edge...puts the lie to the idea that the Rich control this country. If they did Obama would not be President right now.

[biobengal]

I see spanos pushed this topic after I did.. please, don't judge me too harshly.

[kalm]

Obviously, but follow income equality to its conclusion and you get feudalism where a very small few make decisions for the rest.

I don't think that necessarily true at all. And I think if you look at the United States there's no evidence at all of a correlation between increasing income inequality and less political influence on the part of "the poor."

Again: If "The Rich" controlled things we'd have had Republicans in total control for a long time now. That's how "The Rich" vote. The fact that the opposite is the case...that over time the Democrats have had the edge...puts the lie to the idea that the Rich control this country. If they did Obama would not be President right now.

So we've clearly established that the rich have never had it better. We've also established that the poor have never had it better. The Dow Jones broke a record. Corporate profits are breaking records....What's the problem here?

[Skjellyfetti]

JSO schools analjelly!

Haha. Or does he? JSO is fun. Post a random infographic and get a ~10 paragraph response.

[Ivytalk]

Here's our income inequality compared with the rest of the world just as a comparison.

I want to move to South Africa.

[CitadelGrad]

I don't think that necessarily true at all. And I think if you look at the United States there's no evidence at all of a correlation between increasing income inequality and less political influence on the part of "the poor."

Again: If "The Rich" controlled things we'd have had Republicans in total control for a long time now. That's how "The Rich" vote. The fact that the opposite is the case...that over time the Democrats have had the edge...puts the lie to the idea that the Rich control this country. If they did Obama would not be President right now.

So we've clearly established that the rich have never had it better. We've also established that the poor have never had it better. The Dow Jones broke a record. Corporate profits are breaking records....What's the problem here?

Quantitative easing. That is why the equities markets are bubbling.

I get tired of people blathering about corporate profits breaking records. The truth is that the only sector that is making record profits is the financial sector. The others sectors are mostly hurting. Again, quantitative easing.

[GannonFan]

So we've clearly established that the rich have never had it better. We've also established that the poor have never had it better. The Dow Jones broke a record. Corporate profits are breaking records....What's the problem here?

Quantitative easing. That is why the equities markets are bubbling.

I get tired of people blathering about corporate profits breaking records. The truth is that the only sector that is making record profits is the financial sector. The others sectors are mostly hurting. Again, quantitative easing.

Stop it already. You can't take away kalm's talking point. I think he's hashtagging #record corporate profits. You'll steal his thunder. We all know there is just one large, monolithic "corporation" out there. Don't pretend like there are hundreds of thousands of different ones that all have different performances.

[JohnStOnge]

Haha. Or does he? JSO is fun. Post a random infographic and get a ~10 paragraph response.

I wasn't arguing with you. I think you just offered the info graphic without comment. I was just saying that the graphic is useful because it allows any reasonable person to see that the degree of "equality" or lack thereof in terms of wealth is not a meaningful indicator of societal well being.

And really common sense should tell us that. If everybody's dirt poor there's little wealth inequality. And if 90% of the people can afford flat screen TVs, ipads, and iphones they're well off regardless of whether 1% of the population has 100 times the wealth of that 90% combined.

[kalm]

And if 90% of the people can afford flat screen TVs, ipads, and iphones they're well off regardless of whether 1% of the population has 100 times the wealth of that 90% combined.

The point you're missing and the point that's coming home to roost is...they really can't.

[JohnStOnge]

The point you're missing and the point that's coming home to roost is...they really can't.

Well, they can afford more than 99% of the people in the "wealth equality capital of the world" Bangladesh can.

[Ibanez]

JSO schools analjelly!

That isn't difficult. If one uses common sense and sound facts, then the task is easily achieved.

[kalm]

The point you're missing and the point that's coming home to roost is...they really can't.

Well, they can afford more than 99% of the people in the "wealth equality capital of the world" Bangladesh can.

And?

[kalm]

Quantitative easing. That is why the equities markets are bubbling.

I get tired of people blathering about corporate profits breaking records. The truth is that the only sector that is making record profits is the financial sector. The others sectors are mostly hurting. Again, quantitative easing.

Stop it already. You can't take away kalm's talking point. I think he's hashtagging #record corporate profits. You'll steal his thunder. We all know there is just one large, monolithic "corporation" out there. Don't pretend like there are hundreds of thousands of different ones that all have different performances.

The financial sector is not the "only" sector experiencing record profits although admittedly, they do account for a large amount of it. You no full well what my point is. Government for hire begets entrenched wealth which begets entrenched power and monopoly. The ugly truth is that thanks in part to the financial sector we are overbuilt in many if not most industries. This is what you get when you reward trickle down theory and deregulate the financial sector...lack of competition, bubbles, suppressed wages, increased personal debt, increased government dependency...

[YoUDeeMan]

You no full well what my point is. Government for hire begets entrenched wealth which begets entrenched power and monopoly.

No Jesus, no peace. Know Jesus, know peace.

Anyway, speaking of monopoly, my son beat me today by getting the Atlantic/Marvin Gardens/Ventnor monopoly while shutting me out of any other monopoly. I taught him to mortgage his other properties in order to put up houses and he eventually wiped me out.

Me owning 3 of the 4 railroads only helped prolong my demise.

And he has chosen the battleship in each of his first four games. C'mon, man!



Say, did anyone own the deluxe version with the cannon? I thought I played a game with a two wheeled canon, but the pictures only show a one wheeled thing (I do remember that one...never liked it, so I chose the horse if the b-ship was taken). Was there ever a two wheeled cannon? If not, was there one in another game?

And yes, I tried to Google it. Instead, I found out where our resident 6.93 mensa guy is working.

http://www.chacha.com/question/is-the-p ... ning-wheel" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"The 12 playing pieces are a wheelbarrow, battleship, horse and rider, car, thimble, cannon, shoe, Scottie dog, iron, and top hat."