Wealth Inequality Continues to Grow

[AZGrizFan]

I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a solution for this, if one exists.

There's no need for a solution unless there is a problem. People keep saying that an expanding wealth gap is a problem in itself and I think that's a false premise.

If I think I have a problem because I don't have enough wealth the problem is that I don't have enough wealth. How much wealth someone else has is irrelevant unless they got their wealth by taking something that rightfully belonged to me.

There seems to be this assumption that if, say, Wall Street bankers weren't doing as well other people would be doing better on average. That's a very questionable assumption.

Well, by default the concept of "wealth redistribution" implies that the wealth DOES rightfully belong to someone else...it's a basic tenet of the democratic stance.

[kalm]

I know the world needs ditch diggers…that's why I mentioned it.

All I'm pointing out is that if we want to reduce the size of government, have less people on government assistance, and get the bottom 47% paying federal income tax, then folks need to get paid more. As Chizzy likes to point out, it's a pretty cozy arrangement for the top earners right now.

We make a choice to let jobs go away. We do it through our trade and tax policies and we do it as consumers. Not that any of those things will change but they are all choices we make.

So I'm tipping my hat to you and Gannon.

It's not just about choices we make, that's why there isn't an easy solution to "just pay people more". We can't adjust our trade and tax policies to make that happen. It's a big world out there, and like it or not, we don't get to dictate to the whole world how things happen. There will be competition always, unless we get lucky again and have most of the industrialized world destroy itself and we're left standing after a world war. But those things don't come around too often. When it comes down to it, we need to make things that the world needs (not necessarily make, services are part of that too) and we need to make things that the rest of the world can't easily make. That's what drives economic proseperity, and in the absence of that you end up slipping towards economic malaise and stagnation. We're not there, but stale wage growth is a symptom of that and we do have that now. We can't wish these things away and it's not as easy as rewriting a policy to make it better either.

You always have choices from both a policy standpoint, a business standpoint, and a consumer standpoint. Companies like Patagonia and Costco chose to take care of their employees while still managing a profit. For the other end of the extreme, google Jack Abrahamoff and Marianna Islands.

These are values choices we've made.

America use to be the good guys...

[houndawg]

I know the world needs ditch diggers…that's why I mentioned it.

All I'm pointing out is that if we want to reduce the size of government, have less people on government assistance, and get the bottom 47% paying federal income tax, then folks need to get paid more. As Chizzy likes to point out, it's a pretty cozy arrangement for the top earners right now.

We make a choice to let jobs go away. We do it through our trade and tax policies and we do it as consumers. Not that any of those things will change but they are all choices we make.

So I'm tipping my hat to you and Gannon.

It's not just about choices we make, that's why there isn't an easy solution to "just pay people more". We can't adjust our trade and tax policies to make that happen. It's a big world out there, and like it or not, we don't get to dictate to the whole world how things happen. There will be competition always, unless we get lucky again and have most of the industrialized world destroy itself and we're left standing after a world war. But those things don't come around too often. When it comes down to it, we need to make things that the world needs (not necessarily make, services are part of that too) and we need to make things that the rest of the world can't easily make. That's what drives economic proseperity, and in the absence of that you end up slipping towards economic malaise and stagnation. We're not there, but stale wage growth is a symptom of that and we do have that now. We can't wish these things away and it's not as easy as rewriting a policy to make it better either.

Well if we don't get to have our way then lets save some of the gargantuan sums that we're currently spending on the military so that we can have our way....

[houndawg]

I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a solution for this, if one exists.

There's no need for a solution unless there is a problem. People keep saying that an expanding wealth gap is a problem in itself and I think that's a false premise.

If I think I have a problem because I don't have enough wealth the problem is that I don't have enough wealth. How much wealth someone else has is irrelevant unless they got their wealth by taking something that rightfully belonged to me.

There seems to be this assumption that if, say, Wall Street bankers weren't doing as well other people would be doing better on average. That's a very questionable assumption.

Have you taken a look at the fees your 401k pays to these leeches?

[GannonFan]

There's no need for a solution unless there is a problem. People keep saying that an expanding wealth gap is a problem in itself and I think that's a false premise.

If I think I have a problem because I don't have enough wealth the problem is that I don't have enough wealth. How much wealth someone else has is irrelevant unless they got their wealth by taking something that rightfully belonged to me.

There seems to be this assumption that if, say, Wall Street bankers weren't doing as well other people would be doing better on average. That's a very questionable assumption.

Have you taken a look at the fees your 401k pays to these leeches?

All the more reason why you should look at your 401k every now and then and make sure you aren't paying a lot in fees. Anyone who's paying a lot in fees for a 401k should complain loudly to their employer (if they can't change it themselves) or pick funds with vastly lower fees. Unfortunately, most people don't even look at their 401Ks. Suckers.

[AZGrizFan]

There's no need for a solution unless there is a problem. People keep saying that an expanding wealth gap is a problem in itself and I think that's a false premise.

If I think I have a problem because I don't have enough wealth the problem is that I don't have enough wealth. How much wealth someone else has is irrelevant unless they got their wealth by taking something that rightfully belonged to me.

There seems to be this assumption that if, say, Wall Street bankers weren't doing as well other people would be doing better on average. That's a very questionable assumption.

Have you taken a look at the fees your 401k pays to these leeches?

There are, literally, thousands of other options out there if you'd prefer not to pay someone else to manage your money. You want they should work for free?

[houndawg]

Have you taken a look at the fees your 401k pays to these leeches?

There are, literally, thousands of other options out there if you'd prefer not to pay someone else to manage your money. You want they should work for free?

Not at all, but $10-$15/hr is more than enough for what they do. Most of the time they're just churning anyway. Pay them by the hour would save them work and me money.

[89Hen]

There are, literally, thousands of other options out there if you'd prefer not to pay someone else to manage your money. You want they should work for free?

Not at all, but $10-$15/hr is more than enough for what they do. Most of the time they're just churning anyway. Pay them by the hour would save them work and me money.

You're such an idiot.

[Cap'n Cat]

[bluehenbillk]

I have a question on the 2001 & 2007 middle income #'s. Are they higher solely due to the housing bubble? What's the deal?

It can't be based on incomes.

[Ivytalk]

Sounds like a mantra that Donks repeat ad nauseam under the influence of weed. Keep talkin'.

[kalm]

Sounds like a mantra that Donks repeat ad nauseam under the influence of weed. Keep talkin'.

I see only two that are even debateable.

[Ivytalk]

Sounds like a mantra that Donks repeat ad nauseam under the influence of weed. Keep talkin'.

I see only two that are even debateable.

Make that 8, Taibbi-boy.

[kalm]

I see only two that are even debateable.

Make that 8, Taibbi-boy.

You honestly disagree with 8 of those? Jesus!

[Ivytalk]

Make that 8, Taibbi-boy.

You honestly disagree with 8 of those? Jesus!

Name your 2, Son of Pelosi.

[CAA Flagship]

I have a question on the 2001 & 2007 middle income #'s. Are they higher solely due to the housing bubble? What's the deal?

It can't be based on incomes.

I'm guessing that 2001 is influenced by the dot.com boom, and 2007 reflects the housing boom. In 2007, skilled workers were very much in demand in just about all disciplines.

[AZGrizFan]

Sounds like a mantra that Donks repeat ad nauseam under the influence of weed. Keep talkin'.

I see only two that are even debateable.

Benghazi wasn't a conspiracy. The COVERUP related to Benghazi so Obama could win in 2012 was the conspiracy.
The US is overwhelmingly a Christian nation. Indisputable.
Global warming is real. Man-caused global warming is still vastly unproven.
Gun violence is only a national public health crisis among non-whites.
Obamacare hasn't destroyed the economy only because they keep delaying the most impactful parts of it until the "next" election cycle...it WILL happen. Book it.
Fox is as much news as MSNBC, CNN or BBC.

[JohnStOnge]

That would be very clever if everything in it was the truth. But it's not.

[JohnStOnge]

Well, by default the concept of "wealth redistribution" implies that the wealth DOES rightfully belong to someone else...it's a basic tenet of the democratic stance.

Wealth is not a fixed quantity. It's generated. The fact that the "wealth gap" increases does not necessarily mean wealth has been "redistributed."

The "wealth" of one person can go down because they decide to borrow money to buy things like a nicer house than the "typical" person had 30 years ago, flat screen TVs, etc. That debt goes to the negative side of their net worth. The wealth of another person can go up because they actually do something to generate that wealth.

[kalm]

That would be very clever if everything in it was the truth. But it's not.

Trickle down and gun violence are debateable, the rest are not by anyone with half a brain... Including Louis Gohmert ball fondlers like Ivytalk.

[JohnStOnge]

Trickle down and gun violence are debateable, the rest are not by anyone with half a brain... Including Louis Gohmert ball fondlers like Ivytalk.

Some of it is also simplistic. Like for instance: It's not just a question of whether "global warming" is occurring or not. It's a question of whether or not it's been demonstrated that anthropogenic activity is the cause or not, whether or not the actions proposed would be sufficient to change anything, whether or not the negative impacts of the actions necessary to hopefully change anything would outweigh the positive impacts, and on and on. As I wrote some time ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has itself said that unequivocal "attribution" as to the causes of climate change is not possible.

It goes WAY beyond the question of whether or not the Earth has experienced a warming trend over some defined time frame.

[JohnStOnge]

And by the way, Corporations are indeed people. They're composed of people. If you're telling a corporation it can't do something you are indeed telling people they can't do something.

[kalm]

And by the way, Corporations are indeed people. They're composed of people. If you're telling a corporation it can't do something you are indeed telling people they can't do something.

A corporation is not a person. It's breathtaking that you don't get this.

[houndawg]

I see only two that are even debateable.

Benghazi wasn't a conspiracy. The COVERUP related to Benghazi so Obama could win in 2012 was the conspiracy.
The US is overwhelmingly a Christian nation. Indisputable.
Global warming is real. Man-caused global warming is still vastly unproven.
Gun violence is only a national public health crisis among non-whites.
Obamacare hasn't destroyed the economy only because they keep delaying the most impactful parts of it until the "next" election cycle...it WILL happen. Book it.
Fox is as much news as MSNBC, CNN or BBC.

Treaty with Tripoli, ratified by Congress in 1790. Read it and weep, son.

[Baldy]

And by the way, Corporations are indeed people. They're composed of people. If you're telling a corporation it can't do something you are indeed telling people they can't do something.

A corporation is not a person. It's breathtaking that you don't get this.

You better tell Webster's just how wrong they are.

To quote the village idiot, "read it and weep, son"

per·son - noun \ˈpər-sən\ one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person

Endlessly repeating a lie just doesn't make it become magically true