Wealth Inequality in America

[kalm]

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."

Just pipe down, you.

[BlueHen86]

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."

I love Monopoly. I have an unopened set from when they used wooden houses and hotels. The pieces are wooden shapes, but not shapes of any particular object. The set is supposedly worth a few hundred dollars, but I have never tried to sell it, so I don't know for sure.

As far as current pieces, for many years most regular sets had 8 pieces: iron, dog, horse, wheelbarrow, shoe, hat, car and thimble.

The cannon, battleship and locomotive were available in deluxe sets. I think that has since changed and some of those pieces may be in regular sets now. There is also a set with a bag of money, and the iron is being replaced by a cat.

Statistically, the red and orange properties are the best.

Here is a pic of the old Monopoly pieces that are in the set that I have:

[YoUDeeMan]

I love Monopoly. I have an unopened set from when they used wooden houses and hotels. The pieces are wooden shapes, but not shapes of any particular object. The set is supposedly worth a few hundred dollars, but I have never tried to sell it, so I don't know for sure.

As far as current pieces, for many years most regular sets had 8 pieces: iron, dog, horse, wheelbarrow, shoe, hat, car and thimble.

The cannon, battleship and locomotive were available in deluxe sets. I think that has since changed and some of those pieces may be in regular sets now. There is also a set with a bag of money, and the iron is being replaced by a cat.

Statistically, the red and orange properties are the best.

A wooden set? Nice! My friend had one when we were kids.

BTW, I won with the reds the other night (my son bravely fought back the tears), but he beat me with the St. Charles place monopoly when I had the reds again. How many times in a row can you hit Virginia? In my case, at least 4.

Speaking of changes, the new version just makes you pay $200 if you land on the tax spot. I remember the old one had 10% or $200. They are dumbing down the game...how hard is it to calculate 10%?

[BlueHen86]

I love Monopoly. I have an unopened set from when they used wooden houses and hotels. The pieces are wooden shapes, but not shapes of any particular object. The set is supposedly worth a few hundred dollars, but I have never tried to sell it, so I don't know for sure.

As far as current pieces, for many years most regular sets had 8 pieces: iron, dog, horse, wheelbarrow, shoe, hat, car and thimble.

The cannon, battleship and locomotive were available in deluxe sets. I think that has since changed and some of those pieces may be in regular sets now. There is also a set with a bag of money, and the iron is being replaced by a cat.

Statistically, the red and orange properties are the best.

A wooden set? Nice! My friend had one when we were kids.

BTW, I won with the reds the other night (my son bravely fought back the tears), but he beat me with the St. Charles place monopoly when I had the reds again. How many times in a row can you hit Virginia? In my case, at least 4.

Speaking of changes, the new version just makes you pay $200 if you land on the tax spot. I remember the old one had 10% or $200. They are dumbing down the game...how hard is it to calculate 10%?

I also have a used wooden set, which is missing lots of stuff. It has sentimental value because it belonged to my grandparents and is the one I learned to play on 45 years ago (boy am I old).

I agree regarding the 10%. I didn't know that, but that is sad. Did you know that, if played properly, a game should end in 45 to 90 minutes? Many people like to put fines/taxes paid to the bank in the middle of the board and give it to people who land on "Free Parking". That prolongs the game by a lot. We always did that when we were kids.

There are Monopoly tournaments and I want to play in one someday. I won't win, but the experience should be fun (I hope).

[UNI88]

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

And?

A reasonable argument could be made that the poor in this country are living more comfortably today than the middle class were 40 years ago.

I agree that the current trend in the wealth gap is troubling but JSO is correct in that the window of time in which poor to middle class income has declined (2008 - present) is too short to make any inferences. I also would prefer that the market rather than the government attempt to correct the imbalance in CEO to manager/worker compensation.

[YoUDeeMan]

I also have a used wooden set, which is missing lots of stuff. It has sentimental value because it belonged to my grandparents and is the one I learned to play on 45 years ago (boy am I old).

I agree regarding the 10%. I didn't know that, but that is sad. Did you know that, if played properly, a game should end in 45 to 90 minutes? Many people like to put fines/taxes paid to the bank in the middle of the board and give it to people who land on "Free Parking". That prolongs the game by a lot. We always did that when we were kids.

There are Monopoly tournaments and I want to play in one someday. I won't win, but the experience should be fun (I hope).

The new version has a list of questions including some about rules. Some rule are specifically mentioned as not offical ones used in tournaments...money going into Free Parking is one of those no-nos. The official rule that most people forget is that if someone lands on a property and doesn't want to buy it, it gets auctioned off by the bank to the highest bidder.

They also have a speed die. Haven't used it yet...we already have a Junior Monopoly game that finishes in anywhere from 5-20 minutes.

The game is bringing back some fun memories from my yoot.

[Gil Dobie]

The governor of Minnesota, living off his allowance, wants to raise taxes and start taxing clothing. This will hurt the lower income, even though he is has the guilt of inheriting his wealth.

[JohnStOnge]

I continue to shake my head at the way in which people say that the wealthy have a monopoly on power in this country when so much of the system is geared towards taking from the wealthy and giving to the poor. When you stand back and look at it it's a "Robin Hood" system. The wealthy carry the tax load and the poor get a free ride. That's the bottom line.

[kalm]

I continue to shake my head at the way in which people say that the wealthy have a monopoly on power in this country when so much of the system is geared towards taking from the wealthy and giving to the poor. When you stand back and look at it it's a "Robin Hood" system. The wealthy carry the tax load and the poor get a free ride. That's the bottom line.

I'm shedding a giant tear for the poor oppressed wealthy as we speak!

[Ivytalk]

I continue to shake my head at the way in which people say that the wealthy have a monopoly on power in this country when so much of the system is geared towards taking from the wealthy and giving to the poor. When you stand back and look at it it's a "Robin Hood" system. The wealthy carry the tax load and the poor get a free ride. That's the bottom line.

I'm shedding a giant tear for the poor oppressed wealthy as we speak!

Bloody peasant!

[JohnStOnge]

It's not a matter of feeling sorry for the wealthy. It's a matter of realzing that this stuff about the poor in this country having no voice is nonsense. For example: You can do the math using numbers reported in the articles at http://underthemountainbunker.com/2012/ ... pie-chart/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/b ... -programs-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and calculate that about 20 percent of 2011 Federal expenditures were on programs giving direct, unearned benefits to the poor. And I frankly don't think the programs listed in the article at the second link include all means of giving direct unearned benefits to the poor. Pure handouts.

And, again, you can look at voting patters. The CNN people didn't provide sufficiently detalied exit polls this time to get a handle on how "The Poor" voted. But in 2008 about 18 percent of those who voted had incomes of $30,000 or less (presumably that's household income). About 64 percent of them voted for Obama vs. 33 percent for McCain (the other 3 percent were "other"). The net percentage point edge for Obama among that group is about 6 of the 7 percentage points by which Obama won the election. I can't get the numbers this time but I have NO doubt that without the bottom 20 percent or so of the income distribution voting overwhelmingly for Obama this last time Romney would be President right now.

And the Democrats know that; which is why they're going to pander to the poor and the poor are going to have a voice. As long as the Democrats are a factor they're going to get their handouts.

[death dealer]

There is no appreciable wealth inequality in this country. Most people's wealth is identically equal to what there input deserves. And don't give me the "he inherited his wealth" bullshit. If I earn an assload of cash, I have every right and the privilege of passing that wealth down to my children and so on. It's my fucking money, I'll do as I please with it. Don't like it? Quit being such a fuck up and make some of it for yourself,

[JohnStOnge]

Great. Now I'm getting a "Almost 46 Million Americans Live in Poverty" ad from Catholic Charities. It went from "We Don't Like Younger Men, We want You!" to a bunch of kayak ads and now to this.

I still can't believe "it" knows I'm an old guy. Well, I guess I've typed that I'm old sometimes but is "it" THAT sophisticated where it's actually looking at and interpreting what I type?

[kalm]

It's not a matter of feeling sorry for the wealthy. It's a matter of realzing that this stuff about the poor in this country having no voice is nonsense. For example: You can do the math using numbers reported in the articles at http://underthemountainbunker.com/2012/ ... pie-chart/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/b ... -programs-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and calculate that about 20 percent of 2011 Federal expenditures were on programs giving direct, unearned benefits to the poor. And I frankly don't think the programs listed in the article at the second link include all means of giving direct unearned benefits to the poor. Pure handouts.

And, again, you can look at voting patters. The CNN people didn't provide sufficiently detalied exit polls this time to get a handle on how "The Poor" voted. But in 2008 about 18 percent of those who voted had incomes of $30,000 or less (presumably that's household income). About 64 percent of them voted for Obama vs. 33 percent for McCain (the other 3 percent were "other"). The net percentage point edge for Obama among that group is about 6 of the 7 percentage points by which Obama won the election. I can't get the numbers this time but I have NO doubt that without the bottom 20 percent or so of the income distribution voting overwhelmingly for Obama this last time Romney would be President right now.

And the Democrats know that; which is why they're going to pander to the poor and the poor are going to have a voice. As long as the Democrats are a factor they're going to get their handouts.

No you're going to make me cry all over again! Evil moochers are nearly voting the rich into less wealth!

[UNI88]

I continue to shake my head at the way in which people say that the wealthy have a monopoly on power in this country when so much of the system is geared towards taking from the wealthy and giving to the poor. When you stand back and look at it it's a "Robin Hood" system. The wealthy carry the tax load and the poor get a free ride. That's the bottom line.

JSO, question for you - I agree with you that the trend for the middle class over the last 50-70 years has been very good and that the recent downturn (2008-present) is too short to be able to call a trend but (and here's the question) has the last 70 years of a strong and growing middle class been an anomaly? Could we be returning to a pre-WWII norm where there are the wealthy, the poor and a much smaller middle class of "tradespeople"?

[JohnStOnge]

JSO, question for you - I agree with you that the trend for the middle class over the last 50-70 years has been very good and that the recent downturn (2008-present) is too short to be able to call a trend but (and here's the question) has the last 70 years of a strong and growing middle class been an anomaly? Could we be returning to a pre-WWII norm where there are the wealthy, the poor and a much smaller middle class of "tradespeople"?

Hell I don't know. Me, I think the "middle class" is always of the same size in terms of propotion of the population because I think that's how it's defined. I think the middle class is the middle 68% or so of the population (+ or - one standard deviation from the mean). I don't think in terms of how big it is. I thnk in terms of how the middle two-thirds or so are doing.

I really don't know the future. I just feel confident that when you look over history the "middle class" as I conceive it is pretty darned well off right now as compared to most of the past. This thing where people think this "middle class" was way better off back in the 50s, 60s, or 70s is, I think, way off base.