Forum Post: Reasoning for Income Gap?
Posted 12 years ago on April 9, 2012, 5:26 p.m. EST by hchc
(3297)
from Tampa, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I have to wonder that a big part of the income gap that has developed in this nation over the last 30 years is due to the masses inabilty to control themselves.
I watch those my age (I'm 31) spending their money on the most insane things. I friend of mine just dropped 600 on a phone. His other one worked fine.
Another friend got his tax return and blew it all on a vacation. This guy barely has his head above water, and now he's blowing every last penny.
I dont think the rich treat their money like this. Im pretty sure that investment is priority number one, and fun is afterwards, from what Ive seen.
Not saying they havent rigged the game in their favor, but the 99% certainly hasnt helped themselves with this wreckless spending the last 30 years.
Thoughts?
The income gap has absolutely nothing to do with individuals spending habits,. it has everything to do with a rigged capitalist system.
It is not what you spend it is what you (vs them) are allowed to earn!
To say that the people bear absolutely no blame in this mess, is extremely naive.
Florida per capita income is 39k. The national savins rate is 2%. That means on average, the person that makes 750 a week saves 15. That is a recipe for staying in whatever "class" the media deems you in.
You cant honestly say that Americans are serious about investing and growing their money? Its a freakin runaway train out there. Credit card debt is a trillion dollars. Its nuts.
Yes, the GAP is due mainly to the people being asleep at the wheel, allowing this to happen, and putting hte same two corrupted corportist parties in there for DECADES.
But their own spending habits, when added up over 30 years, is not a good sign.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A
Watch and understand.
However you want to slice it... I think Warren is very smart, but she is going to end up getting used by those around her.
When a population is educated and even more importantly engaged, this stuff does not happen.
We dont value paying attention to our leaders. Check this chart out.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/presenting-americas-political-apathy-voter-turnout-rate-50
We really suck when it comes to paying attention. Turn on the TV, and you see what we value. 2% saving rate, with is an INCREASE just shows how apathetic we are to waht is going on around us.
The shit it falling apart, and Iphones break records here with every issue.
You didn't watch the video.
They never watch the video..........:(
It made a shambles of your former statements.
Ive seen a ton of them, I know all the stuff she is going to say, and most of it is true.
Here you go, this is my video to you, showing that we the people have to look at the culture we have created here in the states: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEb18fkA-bU
I've seen that video. Too bad you missed mine, yours is just a symptom.
Since you won't watch that one. Try this one, it's short and to the point.
It's why they do it, it's what they're under.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHRHc5HmFHg&ob=av3e
ZZ is still going, ,.....unreal..
I am going to watch that entire video by Beth Warren today, assuming I get a break. Fridays are always nuts.
Here you go again..........................
$600 on a phone? What's that phones capabilities? In most cases all you have to do is renew your provider contract to get $100s off on that phone. His biggest issue, is paying retail.
Friends never let friends pay retail.
Lowly workers shouldn't take a vacation? Or should they limit themselves to Gary Indiana, where motels are dirt cheap?
Why are you posting such 1%er crap?
for a better understanding of what has happened over those 30yrs, Watch this lecture. You're way off the mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A
Im simply saying that our rampant consumerism isnt exactly helping to grow our money or wealth. Apple isnt skyrocketing because the people realize whats going on and are preparing to fight it.
I see four alternatives, all very unlikely.
1.) Ban all advertizing.
2.) Ban all media containing advertizing.
3.) Assure that consumers have enough money to buy all the crap they are selling.
4.) Join the Amish.
Those are just off the top of my head and I'm sure more could be thought of.
The first three have everything to do with advertizing.
Accept it, it's everywhere and it's not going away any time soon.
It's propaganda that blends into all the rest of the propaganda.
As much as you and I, will both say it could never work on us.
It does. I can still hum jingles I heard when I was a little kid.
What you are suggesting is like asking a hungry fish swimming in a lake full of baited hooks to never bite.
The only answer is to find a balance.
Yes, I agree. Balance is key.
Can we also agree that the key to that balance lies in #3?
Where would you rate "spiritual awakening"?
If you're talking #4 on the list? Unlikely.
What about #3?
That just shows we can't afford any more 31 year olds.
Mitt really doesn't have to choose, does he? He can spend all he can and send the rest to Switzerland and the Cayman's. And it just piles up and piles up and ... Poor Mitt, he can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth. (Ann Richards)
Mitt is a stooge and is running with one of two warmongering, corrupted parties.
Would you expect anything less?
I am not quite shocked, shall we say?
One thing he should convince us of, " If he's so rich, why isn't he smart?"
Oh , and I wasn't quite shocked that the Senate just rejected the Buffet Rule.
Of course!! They shot down the oil subsidies, too. How pathetic is that?
It must be crowded in that pocket?
Still, 1/3 of the public (most of which are not in the 1%) are still stupid enough to feed the hand that bites them. How pathetic is that?
Mine is more pathetic than yours.
looks to me like you got the shit kicked out of you on this post - nice going
Thats usually what happens when you suggest that maybe "some" of the blame should go on the idiotic public. Just some. I even said the game is rigged agaisnt them.
But go look at Ipad sales this past issue. Its insane. THAt is not smart move with the money.
Thats all Im saying. We are cheating ourselves to a certain extent with this materialistic love of goods.
And as usual, someone tries to look at things from a central point of view, and the screams of Republicans!! comes flying out. Its these idiotic reactions that dont give most of us hope that thingis will get better.
good to hear that you speak for most of us and that you are in the great center - lots of blame to go around - low income people buying shit they don't need when they are bombarded by the advertising industry would be way down on my list - i stand by my statement - you ghot the shit kicked out of you
Considering the mental midgets that attacked me, the same crew that is going to vote for the duopoly that is bombing innocent people like there is no tomorrow.....
Kind of like telling hte kids its time to go to bed. They dont want to hear that.
And I dont put it as high on the list as the rigged rules that the .01% gets. Im simplly saying that people should check their spending a bit. We buy A LOT of bullshit that doesnt help us advance our careers one bit.
It's amazing how defensive people get when you point out what is definitely one of the biggest problems going, unchecked consumerism. It's as if you were attacking them personally. It bodes ill for society in general and this forum specifically. This thread shouldn't have even elicited a debate.
Must have been the mention of the $600 iPhone. American consumers sure are brainwashed. Mention an iPhone negatively and get chastised. Ridiculous.
Its fuckin insanity. God forbid someone says that we spend our money like freakin fools.
"We are not a responsible nation" Sincerely, The 2% Savings Rate of US Consumers.
You hit the nail on the head there. Negative savings in a lot of cases. One of my friends related the story about one of his in-laws that refinanced his home every time the rates went down just to buy vacations and big boy toys. Had a considerable amount of equity built up. And then, . . . well you probably know the end of that story. Recall the 'Gilligan's Island' tune from the sixties: "No phone, no lights, no motorcar. Not a single luxury."
Far, far from an isolated incident.
not sure what i am missing here - i agree that the dems are mostly worthless - two wings of the same capitalist party. your post is a different matter and it is dumb
Im simply saying we are a reckless consumer economy. Nothing matters but getting "things".... And that MAY be part of the reason why over the course of 30 YEARS we have seen a huge widening.
Part of it. Thats it. Not the whole thing. Part. K? Is that a sensible observation?
we agree that we buy shit that is shit - first i would ask why - second i would say that if we stopped our economy would collapse. shows how silly economic measurements are. lastly that was not what your post said but that's ok
This is why we did this in Tampa:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMc8CR6dppc
Until the people realize what mindless spenders they all, the corps will continue to dominate.
i am with you on any action you take but unless you tackle the political system you can tune in and drop out all you want - things won't change much. do not take this the wrong way - keep fighting the system in any way possible
I address the political system constantly, to the point I end up annoying other occupiers sometimes :)
Hence my helping other parties and trying organize a 3rd Party Gathering and Debate in Tampa during the RNC, to show people that organizing is not hard at all, you just have to want it.
you are right - keep at it, but very important to educate oneself on what is happening and what to do about it - that is not so easy. as i said - keep it up - you original post was not so helpful from my point of view which is how we started this conversation. seems to me it was actually counter productive - a bit of blaming the victim which is the main point i am trying to make - if you turn people off you are not a good organizer - if you point them in the wrong direction you are working for the other side.
I have to disagree. Most tend to appreciate the fact that I, as an American,. put the blame on myself first.
We must realize our apathy, and strive for better, thus accepting part of the blame in this mess. A nation of people that are on their game does not allow this to happen.
There is always blame to go around, regardless of the scenario. And only through accepting at least part of it, do we show that we have a deeper understanding of what is going on than the usual media nonsense. And only by understanding our own role in this mess, can we come to conclusions that will not lead to repeat mistakes.
Take BP for example. Horrible company. If everyone stopped buying from them, they would have to shut down. But the people still do, they just dont care. That is very dangerous. And is a guarantee that those that break the rules will never learn their lesson..
well we just disagree on this - stop bp and someone else will do it with the same profit motive and the same cost cutting problems. the basic problems must be tackled as a society not on an individual basis. you can ride your bike to work and that is great but until you get mass transit going you are just tinkering around the edges. i am all for what you are doing - keep at it - anyway you get through to people is great. it is possible that sitting down with a beer we might find out we agree on much but seems to me you are not reaching the people that need to be reached. time will tell?
Its really hard reaching people. We did our Street Teams for a little while, in a younger neighborhood. Decent responses from the people.
Trying to distribute literature in anything other than young and liberal places is tough though. Most look at you like your nuts, the rest think you are up to something.
I agree with you that sitting down with a beer and talking, its amazing how close most people are to the problems and solutions. Which gets me even more pissed at the MSM for sensationalizing everything.
not that i know much about this but i would think that young liberal is not the best target demographic - my friends - older working class guys are for sure changing their thinking these days - i'll buy the beer - let me know!
Damn right the rich buy cool stuff, like car elevators, not stuipid phones.
One look at Parios Hilton and you know she's doing smart things with money, hell I know she is I've seen her work.
One is already at the top. The other is trying to get there.
Invest the capital or spend it on durable goods.
You tell me which will grow it quicker. ITs obvious.
I have never seen someone so aligned to one side or the other as you, and also as uneducated about how things work. The fact that you didnt join until Dec 22nd shows you are usually late to the party anyways.
Reaganomics, plain and simple.
Uhhhh. . . you say "the 99% certainly hasnt helped themselves with this wreckless spending the last 30 years"
Was that more reckless than the spending of the 1%???
Think corporate jets, multiple mansions, yachts, and many many many dollars poured into so-called "think tanks" and SuperPACs and lobbying efforts that have paid off big time.
The rich don't need to go to Las Vegas. The jackpots are better from lobbying efforts and political contributions.
HooooAahh!
.
Spending extra money because you are already at the top isnt the same as taking your hard earned money and blowing it on ipads and expensive shoes.
One can afford to do that. The other, if they want to climb the ladder, should be investing that money.
What about those who tread away at two and three jobs to never ever get their head above water? My pay is only $3.00 more than when I started working in offices more 17 than years ago. My first and only car is about to die, I walked to work for 6 years before I finally financed it in my mid 20's. I was laid off from two major corporations both after 3 years of work all before I was 28 years old. I paid my car off took me six years even though it was the cheapest car available: but I've never been able to accumulate savings now in my mid thirties for another one because the cost of living keeps rising (and I chose food instead). It costs me $60.00 a week in gas to commute to my full time job. I only eat 1 meal a day. But FAR MORE IMPORTANT than me is that 50% of Americans make less than $26,000 per year and ALSO live this way. What does it cost to live now? Rent or mortgage, food, gas, electric, internet (to look for employment in case of lay off), basic cell phone (in case car breaks down on way to work), excise tax, income tax, health insurance co-pays and medicines (like anti-depressants and anti-anxiety), toiletries like toothpaste and toilet paper (which is now at 7 dollars a roll I think), electric,heat, car insurance. May as well have every cent I make direct deposited back into the corporations who are setting the prices. Makes it not really seem worth it. Makes me wonder why it has to be this way and which system or who is it that I am serving. Let's see spend about 40 hours (plus usually lunch which I don't get paid to work but do as are now most Americans due to employment fears.) That's 45 hours plus commute time roughly 7.5 hours a week, plus the time spent getting ready in the mornings 5 hours a week, and weekends are an egg-timer to catch up on everything like laundry, grocery shopping, cleaning. Who exactly is benefiting from this system? Oh yes one percent of all people benefit from this system - the rest of us just serve it. And some people (not like me, your friends, just say fuck it realize it doesn't matter what they do they will never get ahead, and buy themselves shit - probably on their 30 percent interest rate credit cards.) Yes 30 percent interest... set by oh yes the corporations who also run the credit rating system by the way which determines if you ever own a piece of land aka the American dream. Why does a phone cost $600 have you ever asked this made in China for peanuts? It's all about creating Scarcity (in jobs, land, oil, products via monopolies outsourcing, and price setting especially on utilities and telecom, food, etc.) plus False Demand and manipulating markets so you will serve the system as it's housekeeper and slave and apparently safety net (whenever and however the banks and corporations deem it so. Free Market my ass (and yours- especially when the dollar crashes. No offense but I hope you eat it too when we all go) Thanks Wall Street and thanks hchc for spreading their propaganda. For Occupy - please see this link and film:http://occupywallst.org/forum/real-estate-4-ransom-global-property-speculation-a/
Wall Street is starting with us but because of this we can see the insanity vs. reason and logic. One percent of the world's population is hording the planet's natural abundance for themselves, creating scarcity and driving a false sense of demand for the rest of the entire population as well as paying off world governments to carry forth their plans and protect them and propagandize on their behalf. We want to stop this:. Is it so hard to believe? We want to prevent Wall Street from creating an anarchic breakdown of our entire planet's financial systems and causing death and destruction in the process; as we have already seen in the third worlds and communistic totalitarian regimes as well as the beginnings in America with downsizing and outsourcing, and land grabs. We are here because we care about you and your family. We are the voice of reason, trust, truth and stability. Wall Street is coming for you, Occupy is only the canary.
So you scrutinized the lower end of the spectrum but completely ignore the possibility that the 1% have become better at what they are doing: >>exploitation and conning others<<
Read the post again dumbass. Man, this forum has really shit the bed since October.
I can edit my post too, angry dumbass.
"I dont think the rich treat their money like this. Im pretty sure that investment is priority number one, and fun is afterwards, from what Ive seen."
The bias here is as clear as day. Do you really think the rich don't treat their money like this? Do you live in a cave? Let us know when you're done sucking on the 1% phallus.
"Not saying they havent rigged the game in their favor, but the 99% certainly hasnt helped themselves with this wreckless spending the last 30 years."
There ya go, ya dumbshit. Im pretty fuckin poor myself, Im just saying that Ipads arent the greatest investment when you can barely pay your bills.
Alright there dumbshit, do you really want me to link articles of frivolous crap the rich have bought? What do you have to back up your sweeping generalization of the 99% and the 1%? Everything based on a few of your loser friends?
I want you to go to your nearest mall or Walmart on Black Friday. The real beast of the consumer comes out then. Very sad.
I dont think we have to have links to something as obvious as our addiction to "things" over just about anything else.
You need a link to the sky being blue, too?
"You need a link to the sky being blue, too?"
Would you please? If it's not too much to ask.
Green skies ahead for the economy though...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fact-or-fiction-if-sky-is-green-run-for-cover-tornado-is-coming
And yet you claimed "I dont think the rich treat their money like this." when they are the same as everyone else. Black Friday goes against your example of "Ipads arent the greatest investment when you can barely pay your bills." when Black Friday makes everything much more affordable. Or are you saying the 99% must always live miserably and never spend on entertainment?
Holy shit. No, that is not what I am saying AT ALL.
I am saying the entire nation is addicted to spending their money. Almost all of it (near zero savings rate, think its up to 2% now with the recession that wont end).
The problem is, the rich are usually better with their money. Which helps them grow it over a 30 year period. We dont make anything here anymore, all we do is spend every last dime on bullshit. It keeps the eocnomy going, but its not a recipe for growth.
A nation that makes things, whether they are new energy devices, new cars, new innovations of any type...
Make things and spend your money wisely. This is good advice, I thought. No one said you need to live like a cave dweller, but prioritize the paycheck. And the size of the house. And the price of the car.
I really dont see how you can go out and see all of this, with the economy faltering, and not think that the people are blinded to a lot of reality by their own culture.
My point questions the validity of this statement: "The problem is, the rich are usually better with their money." It's a sweeping generalization to claim the rich are any better at managing their money than the lower spectrum.
What evidence do you have to prove this? Their wealth? Exploiting and conning others are unfortunately very profitable in this society. Two activities that are a far cry from being "better with their money".
I do agree with promoting good money management but not baseless sweeping generalizations.
Im only going off of what I have seen over the years. Im not a rich guy, but have worked for some people that are very well off.
They spend a lot of time thinking about growing their money. While its true that, for the most part, you need money to make money, those that arent in the top brakcet tend to spend a higher percentage of their total worth on meaningless things, as opposed to investing it.
Maybe Im biased because I grew up in construction, but these guys were absolutely horrible with money. Same goes with all my nieghbors now. Who do you think is buying all these useless $600 ipads? Its the middle class and lower middle, the same one that is being shrunken.
I have a hard time believing the wealthy aren't also buying all those ipads. Why make a sweeping generalization "those that arent in the top brakcet tend to spend a higher percentage of their total worth on meaningless things, as opposed to investing it." based solely on the few well off individuals you know?
There is no doubt that the wealthy are buying the ipads and crap too. Thing is, they can afford to do it. They are already at the top. Someone in their family already went through the pains of thrift and got them up to the top.
All you have to do is look around at the malls. And the national savings rate is around 2%.
Per capita in Florida was 39,000 per year. 2% of that would mean that the average person saved $15 per week of their $750 weekly income.
That is a recipe for disaster.
Again, a sweeping generalization. "Someone in their family already went through the pains of thrift and got them up to the top." You inherently generalize everyone in the top spectrum to earn their wealthy honestly. There is no discernible evidence to support the notion of different spending habits between the upper and lower spectrum.
Right. Those one-half of Americans who earn less than $26,000 per year are just a bunch of spendthrifts.
ice cream is for the rich
Way to cut through the BS!
[Removed]
Actually most of them are high school & college age kids. 15 -24 yrs old
Actually, much of that age group is out of work right now.
Way to take it to an extreme.
You should run for office.
LOL. Come on. The reasons for the income gap are many, but low wages through the exploitation of labor is one of the main reasons. Corporate profits are at an all time high yet workers can work full-time and still qualify for food stamps. Why? Corporate greed. That's why. CEO's who 30 years ago earned an average of 40 times the average workers wage today earn 343 times the average workers wage. What's extreme about this. These are facts.
Time to join a cooperative?
[Removed]
Well which 'workers' are you talking about. I am a 'worker' too and I don't live on food stamps. Looks like your definition of worker only includes those working for near minimum wage. Everyone else including the CEO is a 'worker'. Also the reason for dropping wages are
influx of low skilled workers from other countries (I am not saying people from other countries should not come here. They will and they can).
High skilled jobs of yesteryear become low skilled now due to technology and increased availability of people with the said skills.
Low skilled jobs moving overseas due to labor cost arbitrage.
At the end of the day, wages (at any level) are determined by demand and supply. For mass jobs (like say working at a factory floor or an entry level programmer) wages are even more rigid and individual wage negotiation is impossible.
Prices agreed to are the result of the power dynamics when the contract is made, for instance I worked at a non union job, they offered a nice package, I moved my family across the country and bought a house a while later they started changing things cutting back on what I had been promised, since I had no contract they did not have to checkwith me before doing so, they took only a little at a time never enough to make it worth moving, but the dynamics had changed.
That is why all collective capital, i.e. corporations should be required to have collective labor, just so that fair contract can be worked out with both parties equal not one huge and one little.
People are not commodities, remember we own this country they’re just renting it.
Much easier to just help the worker's cooperative movement grow -)
I don't think so. Collective labor is okay with low level jobs where there isn't much differential across salaries. But as your rise up, your individual bargaining power increases and your salary then is based on your performance which can be very drastically different from someone in the same level in the organization.
You took a non union job and hence the risk. Your call.
Exactly. You prove my point. An economy that solely functions on supply and demand (capitalism) fails to meet the needs of human beings. It is inhumane. Labor does not have to be valued merely through supply and demand. And, of course, management represents labor as well, labor is diverse. But, many laborers in this country cannot live on the wages they earn and their wages are so low that they qualify for food stamps. This is welfare for the corporations they work for who should be paying higher wages from the profits they earn instead of expecting taxpayers to pick up the slack.
For example, six members of the Walton family of Wal-Mart have a net worth equal to the net worth of the bottom 30% of Americans yet many Wal-Mart employees are on food stamps.
What's your solution? Has to be one that you have control over. Buying local keeps more money flowing in the local economy and by extension will encourage local job creation.
Yes. Control over the means of production is a big factor. You don't necessarily need that, if things are conducted fairly, but when greed sets in, you do. Going local is one very effective way to maintain control.
Does Walmart make any employee work for them or any customer shop at their stores? Face it, the growth of Walmart is strictly due to the quality and price of their products (not saying the quality is necessarily great, but the price relative to the quality is). I just did a quick bit of looking at Walmart Stores figures from 2011. They had net sales of $443 billion with a net profit margin of 3.54%, and 2.1 million employees. The profit equates to $7,333 per employee. Technically, Walmart could raise prices by this same 3.54% and give every employee a raise of this amount, which would be substantial, unless you think that Walmart shouldn't make a profit at all. It would cost everyone an extra dollar or two each time they went to Walmart to support those 2 million people getting a raise. Not too bad a trade off if they were operating in a vacuum without any competition and if there weren't 50 million people out there that would drive 10 miles out of the way to save a nickel on a gallon of milk.
gathering is an instinct
?? Please explain
humans forage a territory to gather their needs
perhaps why we drive 10 miles to save a nickle
Probably right. My point is that it is much more complicated that just railing on Walmart to pay their employees more. I'm sure Walmart would hire less people but pay more if they could provide the same level of service and pricing to their customers. People like and now expect to have these little old ladies serving free samples of various products every week. They could easily not do this at all, but it helps drive sales, let's people try before they buy, etc. But they have to take into account the entire picture, about how an action or inaction will affect their customers decisions. With $443 billion in sales, a $12 billion dollar profit relative to the size of the enterprise and the number of jobs provided is not that much even though a chunk of it is going into a single family's pockets.
Walmart would hire less people and pay less if they could provide the same level of service and pricing to their customers.
So I guess you're saying they should pay more and either 1) eat the additional cost and make no profit whatsoever, or 2) raise prices. I thought we had already established that people will drive 10 miles to save a nickle. If that's the case, Walmart will lose sales by raising prices. That's OK though, they can just be a good citizen and deficit finance their employees.
just suggesting a motivation of walmart would not object to
You can look at it two ways. I choose to look at it that Walmart is fulfilling a desired niche in the market and is employing people who agree to the pay structure that they offer, willingly. They employ a significant chunk of unskilled people. You look at it as they exploit people, and could and should raise their prices to pay these people "what they're worth", whatever that is, or be in business as a charitable endeavor and not make a profit.
almost all jobs are none skilled
WalMart is supported by an economic system that favors it in every way even to the extent that the American people pay for many of their employees to eat. Who's receiving entitlements here?
Americans seem to be happy to do just that. I think maybe Walmart should be outlawed and all their stores closed. We need another 2 million people thrown into the unemployment line.
So your argument is "take the crumbs."
Yours seems to be for everyone to have an equally miserable existence. I feel for you, I do. Living in an utterly unrealistic dreamworld that never has been nor ever will be. I could be wrong, of course. Maybe the world will wake up someday and get rid of money as a basis for trading goods and services, and we'll go back to local bartering of our skills, homegrown food, and homemade goods for our subsistence. Maybe.
All markets function on supply and demand. You can try to twist it into something else, but the principles are unavoidable. Price fixing governments just create distortions, shortages, and poverty, not the utopia you envision.
Again, you want to complain about wages IN THIS COUNTRY. You just can't accept the math of what we've done with the border. If you're the globalist you claim to be, that borders don't matter, stopping bitching about income skew IN THIS COUNTRY. The people that come here see a tremendous lift in their incomes. So, quit the tired America is bad nonsense and deal with what's real. An open border severely pressures our social metrics and these people you see as our victims overwhelmingly disagree with you; the US remains their destination of choice for a reason. You're out of touch with their reality.
And you are out of touch with the reality of the problems of the society in which you live. We rank 37th in healthcare, our kids rank 25 in math, 17 in science, our infrastructure is crumbling, "Hunger Games" is the biggest selling movie of all time. But, oh. Yeah. I forgot. We're so great.
Reality is that supply and demand always applies.
Again, stop taking a national view if you support open borders because we're all one human race. What you support worsens what you just mentioned. Just make up your mind. If you support holes in the boat, don't bitch about getting wet. The people you support coming here all benefit. The dilute us and worsen our metrics, but on a global basis our system is lifting these people tremendously from their previous situations. So, stop bitching.
Supply and demand does not always have to apply. And, it really bothers you, doesn't it, that I view all people as equal whether they are within the "border" or not. You can continue to fool yourself into thinking your nation is superior and criticizing people who are trying to make things better but my wish for you is that you can open your mind to the problems your nation has. Without addressing them, by sticking your head in the sand, things will only get worse.
Its not about viewing all people as equal. My team has Mexicans, Chinese, Indians, Koreans, British people and I don't care where they come from. But the point is your desire for open borders is at a 180 degrees to your desire to increase employment, keep Americans jobs here etc.And yes they do make the US of A worse in most of the metrics you mentioned. That's just statistics and numbers don't lie. Check it for yourself. I am suggesting for a second that we should drive away immigrants, this is a country of immigrants. But achieving the simultaneous goals of a 'open border policy' and high literacy (and low poverty and higher median wages) is not possible, unless of course you want to only let the very well educated foreigners enter the country.
All people are equal to me. You will not sway me in that thought. Humanity is humanity. It matters not what they look like or where they come from. That is reactionary thinking. It's time to move on. The old nationalistic, divisive ways are not working.
really? they aren't? Then why do you complain about jobs going to Chinese? Why have there been attacks against Indians working in IT because some IT jobs got outsourced to that country?
You've never heard that from me. But, while we are continuing to live in a world with nation-states that divide resources and jobs, then, yes, that's a problem for Americans.
Yeah it does. Gravity too. People want get to get different amounts of things depending on what it costs. People want to give up different amounts of things depending on what they receive. Always.
Liberalism truly is a mental disorder. It isn't a criticism, it's an ASSESSMENT. You bitch about social metrics within the United States, yet support things that make them worse. You bitch because American poor don't have more, but then complement poor societies for having little and see western influence as corruption by introducing materialism. So, someone in Uganda is living the dream life because it's so simple (and utterly poor), but then think that same person coming to U.S. and having a huge ramp in standard of living now has a life that sucks.
Let's try something. Say we have 10 people in the United States that have all completed one year of schooling post high school. The average educational attainment is then 1 year post high school (which it happens to be). Now, let's add someone that has a 6th grade education. Here's the question: did the educational average of the country, 1) rise; 2) fall; 3) I gotta ask if that person was virtuous or came here for a better life before I can crunch the numbers? Seriously, you'd go with 3) because that's what you're saying.
If you honestly look at things globally, you'd stop your bitching. Becoming an American poor person represents a huge raise for many of the people that come here. There's a giant line of people desperately wanting to come here. Apparently, they need to hear from you to talk them out of it. What do they know that you can't bring yourself to accept? LOL
You're stuck in anti-Americanism. Your views are riddled with inconsistencies.
Mental disorder?? Liberals??
You must have missed all the research that says it's the conse(R)vatives who are brain lazy. There's plenty posted on the forum to check out.
With the (R)epelican't reliance on ALEC to write legislation for them, it's a no brainer to suggest the it's the conse(R)vatives who are suffering from a mental disorder.
In fact it's a term popularized by Anne Coulter herself, the woman who claimed radiation is good for you.
If that ain't nutz, I guess I don't know what is.
You couldn't put together a worthwhile post even if your GED tutor helped.
Nor you a response.
You should go and take a nice radiation bath with Coulter.
She DID say that. So I guess you do have that lazy brained conse(R)vative mental disorder.
You couldn't put together a worthwhile post with all that 1% jizz in your eye. I sure hope you're well compensated for drinking that much of their cum over the internet.
You are xenophobic, full of hubris and fear-mongering. Try love and compassion, it feels much better.
I always thought I was a liberal. But I sure am not like you. There is something called reason and logic too. I may not be conservative but in this case I would totally agree with conservativemajority. Look at the fact, use your brain and then come to conclusions.
Reason? Reason in his third paragraph? There is none there. That's b.s. is what that is. How about instead of "Now, let's add someone that has a 6th grade education" how about we replace it with "Now, let's add someone that has a PhD or an M.D." Too hard for you to reason? Many immigrants that come here are better educated than the average American. Reason with that.
The sure are. For example, my team has people with BS, MS, PhD and even 1 MBA (besides me). But if you looked at the demographic and the literacy and income in those demographics, things will be crystal clear.
Now I'm xenophobic and a fear-monger. LOL. Nice dodge. Why is it so painful to examine?
Love and compassion are wonderful things. But a capacity for reason is a gift as well.
Please, just tell me what I got wrong. Answer the question, would you pick 1), 2) or 3)?
Let's try something. Say we have 10 people in the United States that have all completed one year of schooling post high school. The average educational attainment is then 1 year post high school (which it happens to be). Now, let's add someone that has a 6th grade education. Here's the question: did the educational average of the country, 1) rise; 2) fall; 3) I gotta ask if that person was virtuous or came here for a better life before I can crunch the numbers? Seriously, you'd go with 3) because that's what you're saying.
There's a giant line of people desperately wanting to come here. Apparently, they need to hear from you to talk them out of it. What do they know that you can't bring yourself to accept? What do these people know that the anti-American Euro-trash doesn't? It must be something. Just please PLEASE tell me what it is.
Why can't you just say something like this: Moving people into the United States provides a wonderful life improvement for those people. The giant numbers that want to move there are right. Of course, doing so worsens social metrics like educational attainment, income inequality, and poverty and the like as measured in the United States. But the bigger picture is a huge improvement in standard of living if you look beyond the U.S. borders?
Your anti-Americanism is showing.
"There's a giant line of people desperately wanting to come here?" Have you seen Detroit? Baltimore? From what I've heard immigration is on the decline.
First of all, I'd pick neither 1, 2 or 3. Your example is far too simplistic. Second of all, immigrants move to countries all over this blessed earth. Smart ones go to Canada or Australia or Norway or numerous other places where they fair quite well. Your desire to blame immigrants for low educational attainment in this country is a joke and tells a lot about you. Many immigrants come here that succeed immeasurably in educational attainment far above and beyond the average American. Your anti-humanity is showing.
You were done well before that. You have severe problems with reasoning and are amazingly easy to trip up in your inconsistencies. It wasn't going to get any better; you can't even successfully answer a simple word problem about what happens to an average if you add below average numbers.
You're going bitch no matter how much what you support fuels exactly what you're bitching about. You're continue to insist American is unjust and shamelessly ignore the billion long line waiting to get in. You're right and those voting with their feet are wrong. People with nothing in other countries are living great lives (as long as we don't bring them material things), but those same people if they come here and get wildly more, live lives of suffering because someone else has more still. You'll chose anti-Americanism despite the multitude whose actions say you're wrong.
You're just so stupid. It's amazing how easy it is to send your twisted "thinking" down in flames. Liberalism is a mental disorder.
So, I don't really care if you won't tell me again how someone's intentions are the determining factor in if a drop out immigrant worsens our social metrics. Virtue tests trump math, who knew?
"We do have many educated immigrants, I'm aware of that. We also have giant numbers that aren't, in fact, giant numbers that haven't come close to even graduating a credible high school." Sounds like a load of bullshit, where's your source?
"You're just so stupid. It's amazing how easy it is to send your twisted "thinking" down in flames. Liberalism is a mental disorder."
You certainly seem to have a mental disorder of your own. In fact, this world would be a much better place without people like you.
I'm going to hold back from saying what I really think of you. But, you don't have any hard numbers, here, do you. How many immigrants come here and earn PhD's, huh? You don't know do you? You don't know much. Your mind is closed. You've already decided that immigrants are worthless and you're not budging from that, and, nope, I'm not budging from my position because I'm a stupid fuck, remember?
We do have many educated immigrants, I'm aware of that. We also have giant numbers that aren't, in fact, giant numbers that haven't come close to even graduating a credible high school. Now here's the complicated part: one group averages our metrics up, the other averages them down. We don't even have to ask them their intentions to know that. LOL. When you support mass immigration of drop-outs, and you do, you make the things you bitch about worse. Complicated, I know.
You're the stupid fuck. You replied to yourself, you dumb ass. If you can't open your mind and see that there are many educated immigrants then I can't help you. Please refrain from ever commenting to me again. And, I've been on this forum for months and this is the first time I've ever cursed so you're bringing me down, dude, and I don't appreciate it.
That's funny. PhDs? I dunno, but lemme go to my nearest car wash and check. LOL. But those that do are not problems in terms of social metrics. They don't add to the things you bitch about. But the country has imported giant numbers of utterly unskilled and uneducated people that'll never get GEDs. That's put great pressure on our social metrics. You, like a dope, now pitch having an open mind as a way to make reality go away. I guess it works like evaluating people's motives. LOL.
And, yes, you're not budging from your position because you're a stupid fuck. Drop-outs only average down the country's educational attainment if they lack good intentions. LOL. Yeah, that's pretty stupid.
That's hilarious. Your liberals really are mentally impaired.
Someone stopped school in 6th grade. Now, if we mention that that person quit school in 6th grade are we blaming them or making a statement of fact? Are statement of facts like this unspeakable? The state of something and then the assigning of blame for that state are two different things. Really, learn how to reason at some point in your life.
Some immigrants that come to the United States do very well. Some come here with skills that don't average down the educational and skill level of the country. Those immigrants do the opposite; they're accretive to our social metrics. Of course, a nut like you can easily see that point, but somehow the opposite rolls off into the fog of the mental condition known as liberalism.
However, the leading indicator of educational attainment is the educational attainment of the parents. Children of drop-outs, even imported ones UNDER-participate in graduating, not over-participate.
Anti-humanity? You are anti-reason. I didn't even say that we shouldn't do it. I merely tried to tell an extreme stupid fuck like you the consequences and then carefully walked you through a rational way to look at it.
Again, why can't you just say something like this: Moving people into the United States provides a wonderful life improvement for those people. The giant numbers that want to move there are right. Of course, doing so worsens social metrics like educational attainment, income inequality, and poverty and the like as measured in the United States. But the bigger picture is a huge improvement in standard of living if you look beyond the U.S. borders?
You're calling me an "extreme stupid fuck." Wow. I'm done with you.
You may think it's funny, but you're incorrect (imagine that).
It not the libs with mental difficulties, it's the conse(R)vatives.
Just so you know,and get your facts straight next time.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/conservative-politics-low-effort-thinking-linked-i/
This is just the latest study demonstrating lazy brained thinking in conse(R)vatives. There are many more, if you care to explore the truth, rather than paraphrase such brain dead illuminaries as Ann Coulter.
Thinking, as I've said is difficult. This is particularly true for the brain lazy, such as yourself.
You should consider getting professional help, if you can afford it.
So Walmart ought to pay more? May be they do but that won't work for 2 reasons
Paying the lowest wage earners more will mostly increase their wealth in nominal terms, not real terms. As the income level rises, these workers with their extra wages would demand more goods and services (as in spend more on food and clothing etc) and that increased demand will in turn increase the prices of those goods and services. So over a not so long period, prices will reach an equilibrium again and those low wage earners will again find it tough to get by. Take the example of India where there are much more poorer people and the govt decided to run a 100 day employment guarantee scheme where out of work laborers were given 100 days of employment with above min wage. While the scheme helped but it also drove food prices up sharply in the country, far sharper than the rest of the world.
Walmart has a profit margin of around 3-4%. Quite frankly they don't have the room to increase salaries of the minions of employees any further.
You are still working within a supply and demand economy. It doesn't have to be that way.
[Removed]
and what economy do you suggest my dear enlightened friend? Besides, I am talking about this economy, the way things are in real life, in the present. If you want to change the structure of the economy then there may not be any Walmart. So let's keep things factual, shall we?
Not having a walmart is not necessarily a bad thing -)
Actually it is. A retail chain like Walmart brings you goods from all over the world at prices that are cheaper than when there was no Walmart or big retail chains. With their capacity planning, they ensure minimal wastage etc. I can go on and on. The fact that you guys think they ought to pay their employees more is a different matter. But to suggest that we will be in some way better off without large retail chains is just crazy.
Don't try opening your mind. That might hurt.
I agree my dear enlightened friend. Looks like the only people who have their minds opened a mile wide are those jobless hippies squatting in parks.
the jobbless hippies don't really matter that much, but the jobbless trust fund babies are running this country into the ground
Ben Bernanke or Lloyd Bankien arent trust fund babies.
so neither of them have recieved or set up trust funds huh, that would make them exceptions
Right, that's me. You know what they say happens when you "assume."
So it begs the question, why don't the workers become the CEOs and pay themselves more?
Why don't you become the CEO and pay everybody the way you want to pay them.
I'm baffled why there is so much complaining here and not more self action. Why don't you pay the workers more?
CEOs should work for minimum wage too. It's the best thing for the corporation and the investors. If any employee at all wants more, they should by stock. It's the natural way. It's the only way to assure the survival of the corporate person.
[Removed]
That's fine as long as it is not mandated by regulations. If the company can get a CEO at that price then that works, if not then the company will suffer. Good CEOs are hard to find.
Good CEOs are hard to find?
Only in their own minds.
Pay them minimum wage too, for the good of the corporate person.
Anything else is slavery.
Yes good CEOs are hard to find. Leaders hard are the 1% of our society.
I don't agree with the whole slavery thing. That just ridiculous. You need to pay a leader what it takes to get them. So you wouldn't pay Bill Belicheck or Nick Saban or Steve Jobs or Jack Welch or George Patton what they want?
Not hard to find at all. Why would you think so?
Most of them have to hire someone to put in a light bulb, and are unable to put in a year of actual hard work in any environment.
That's one of the reasons they ship it overseas.
They enslave the corporate citizen with their out sized salaries, and profit extracting bonuses.
Cut all their bonuses, they were just doing the job they were hired to do.......Minimum wage fits them best of all.
End corporate slavery!!!!!
The profits belong to the corporate citizen, not their slave driver CEOs!
What are you talking about, good CEOs are very hard to find just as good leaders are hard to find. If it was easy then we wouldn't have any problems executing.
CEOs work very hard so I have no idea what you are saying.
What do you do for a living, because you obviously haven't worked for a company.
They are not that hard to find, and their salaries and bonuses are enslaving corporate citizens all over our Nation. They even sell parts of the beleaguered corporate citizen to WallStreet as indentured slaves.
Free them from this tyranny!!
For the good of the corporation they should be paid minimum wage, because as you said, it's an advantage.
Are you backing down from your statement?
Well, we will have to disagree on this one since good leaders are very hard find.
Companies don't enslave anybody as employees have the freedom and choice to leave. They don't have to work if they don't want to.
Low costs are an advantage. You have to spend money for inputs that aren't commodities and impact performance. So you think the cost for natural gas should be the same as the minerals for litium batteries? Should the employees who work in the cafeteria be payed the same as the employee working on those batteries? The market says not, as the latter employee is more crucial than the former.
You have a real problem sticking to the subject.
If low wages are such an advantage? They should be corporation wide.
Why limit that advantage only to what you describe as lowly workers?
Why are you confusing a commodity with a production corporation?
You should most definitely be working for minimum wage.......!
It's such an advantage.
That wasn't a yes or no. That was hedging, as you have throughout this "conversation".
I've pointed out numerous advantages and you've hedged on every single one of them.
So, are low wages an advantage? Yes or No.
Not hedging one but low wages are an advantage because you can have lower costs.
You are nothing but an empty echo chamber.
Unable to answer the simplest of questions.
Unable to achieve clarity.
I can now only accept you as confused.
I wish you well anyway, but please remember you can help, and it's a simple process.
Understand how this one thing works.
OccupyWallStreet!
Now you want to hedge what you said?
Are they, or are they not an advantage?
NO BS. Just yes or no.
Not hedging one bit. Low costs that come from low wages are an advantage to the company.
That wasn't a yes or no. That was hedging, as you have throughout this "conversation".
I've pointed out numerous advantages and you've hedged on every single one of them.
So, are low wages an advantage? Yes or No.
Low wages can be advantage but don't confuse it for low cost.
Why limit low wage to lowly workers? That's not the point, you pay for employees that can produce higher revenues and can't be replaced. An employee who can produce lithium batteries will command a higher price than an employee who is replacable.
I'm not confusing a commodity with production. I'm saying that workers who are not differentiated are commodity like.
Probably true, as I don't have the skill set like a Jack Welch or Steve Jobs.
Now you want to hedge what you said?
Are they, or are they not an advantage?
NO BS. Just yes or no.
You should see some of the Union leaders we have. They make some of these CEOs look like children.
Are you serious with this question? Good grief. Our capitalist economic system relies on the good workers of this country to maintain it. If everyone were a CEO who would do the work? You might get a subsistence economy out of that, but it would no longer be a capitalist system. As I think it over, maybe it is a good idea. LOL
You need all of the functions of a company to thrive however good top management are very hard to find. How many Steve Jobs are out there? How many Jack Welch's are out there. It is easy to find a salesman or a head of HR but difficult to find a CEO who can lead the company.
I will say it again if you think this equal pay scale can work then why don't you become a CEO. I can tell you that I can't do it, so I don't begrudge somebody who can.
I would never aspire to be like Steve Jobs. And, when did I ever say I'm for an "equal pay scale?" I'm for fairness and less greed.
We also have mass immigration of people without skills. Liberals whine about income skew, but try to turn off this obvious source and watch how fast they brand you a racist. Flood the country with poor people and then complain about poor people. Not much sense, but that's what they support doing.
That is ridiculous. Immigrants come here because there are jobs for them, because they have the skills that employers want. Blame the employers, the capitalist exploiters, don't blame the workers who are merely trying to get by.
[Removed]
They're here because we allow it. I'm not blaming them, I'm merely pointing out something obvious. If you flood the country will no-skill people, they'll obviously have low incomes. If you add a bunch small numbers to a set of bigger numbers, does the average 1) Go up; 2) Go down; 3) Only meanie racists ask questions like that? LOL.
Please, answer something else for me: does the motivation of the people coming here, that they're only trying to get by, somehow alter the math? Just curious if when I calculate my new average if the calculator will give me a different answer. One thing's for sure: it doesn't stop liberals from bitching about poverty, that much is certain.
Fight poverty and income skew: Occupy the border.
Right, kick all the poor people out of this country, then we won't have a inequality problem anymore!
I never called you a racist, first of all. If you think that of yourself, maybe you can correct it.
Anyway, my point is, and I don't think I made it clear enough, is that many immigrants come here to fulfill a need that U.S. employers have created. U.S. employers want low-skilled workers that they can exploit by paying very low wages. If we allow capitalism to continue on this path and we do not intervene in how we value labor this will go on and on. And, you are right, low paying jobs keeps the entire economy down because people don't have money to spend, but the greedy folks don't care, as long as they are lining their own pockets.
You didn't, but that's typical of anyone wanting to control the border, no matter what the reason.
Sure, businesses want cheap labor, that's true. But liberals want victims, future dependents, and any sort of "diversity" they can get their hands on. Both sides create demand.
The path of capitalism makes it better, not worse. Come on, think about it. Hmmm, all these poor people, where would they like go? The biggest capitalist country. You must see that as strange. The poor reject your model with their feet.
Wages aren't low because of capitalism. Funny, but our "exploitation" manages to give massive raises to people from China, Mexico, Pakistan, you name it. Hmm, strange, huh?
Wages relate to productivity. Leftists don't like wages, but they're brought about by supply and demand. The only way to absorb the supply, to create demand for what they do, is to have a low price. Demand for lawn cutting is different at $100 than it is at $25. You can mandate that wages for lawn cutting be $100, but you can't mandate the demand to back it up and absorb the labor.
But the fact remains. Mass immigration of people without skills increases income skew and poverty. Liberals want the immigration, but then pivot and bitch about income skew and poverty. You didn't tell me how the motivation changes the outcome.
explain exactly what do you have to show liberals want victim? the cheap labor we see business fighting for that everyday, show me where liberals are fighting to create victim?
If you could just clear up that lie you wrote up front then I would be happy to address the rest, which I assume are lies as well since that is how you started your statement.
Liberals support and open border and smear anyone wanting it closed as a racist. That's a well-spring of poverty which liberals then offer government as chief caretaker. It's also brown people that happen to be those in poverty. That fuels the race industry and those building careers off of it. Poverty and dysfunction means government can remain a growth industry. That serves liberals just fine.
Given your response, I just gotta ask: what's your point? OK, so the people coming here are virtuous and good. That's great. And they're people, with real names and neato cultures. That's great too. And they work really really hard. Fab! That means all consequences vanish and normal math simply no longer applies. Motives and virtue undo math and reason.
So, here's the question: please tell me specifically what part I got wrong. The floor is yours. Is it the part that low skill people have low incomes? Right or wrong? Is it the part that low income people have trouble buying healthcare? Right or wrong? Is it is the part about adding low income people to the country increases income skew and poverty? Right or wrong. Please straighten out this "hater". LOL.
who are these liberals that support the open borders?
you can't fix a lie by telling another lie no matter how conserative you are, refer me to the link please, show me this "open border" person
Sure, they don't call it that, I get that part. Obama is creating stealth amnesty and suing states to protect the federal government's right to do nothing.
Read about this guy's positions. You may be dense enough not to understand what he supports, but don't expect others to be.
Liberals support mass immigration of unskilled people and weak to non-existent immigration enforcement.
Still can't seem to answer a few math riddles, I see. LOL. Please, explain to me how the math works and how the math is suspended if someone has good motives and is nice. LOL
http://www.gutierrez.house.gov/
How dare him! Go after a law that is just trying to help a poor prison owner make a buck! What won’t these Democrats stoop to?
Did you hear that Romney was planning to expand Gitmo to add a OWS section?
Yeah, how dare him. He purports to be an American, yet sides with illegal aliens at our expense. He's also been linked with Puerto Rican terrorists.
Nice, huh?
At least he caucuses with the democrats; I guess he’s trying to pay for his sins a bit.
"Wages aren't low because of capitalism. Funny, but our "exploitation" manages to give massive raises to people from China, Mexico, Pakistan, you name it. Hmm, strange, huh?"
Strange, no ... that's called Treason where I come from. Supporting Communist regimes with our jobs and cash, benefiting foreign nationals over our own. I'm really interested in bettering those who live here in America, and as an American (I assume you are one) I would hope that you would feel the same way.
Conservatives bitch about wealth distribution, but Free Trade is the largest wealth distribution scheme ever devised. Hypocrites.
I think completely differently than you. I think an economic system should work to benefit all people, not just those who hold the capital and control the resources. I also think that ALL people matter. I don't care what border they cross, because personally I think borders are nonsense. A human being is a human being. An American "person" has no more value to me than the "immigrant other" you try to degrade. And, as far as motivation changing the outcome, this is an argument I've heard over and over. It's just a euphemism to blame the poor for being poor. I'm not buying it.
Good post!
Thanks.
And it does. Our poor are envied by billions. Tell me that isn't true.
There's nothing wrong with your view of human value, per se. But then make sure you aren't a hypocrite and adjust your criticisms for the common sense consequences of what you advocate. Fine, you want countries like the U.S. buried in social costs. That's OK, if it's your resources you're talking about. Charity is signing up to lose your things, not signing someone else up to lose theirs. Don't be like the Catholics that hide illegals, but then stick the public with the healthcare costs of the illegals they shelter. Fair?
And soften your bitching about the U.S. model. Mass immigration of unskilled people creates a lot of pressure on social metrics. Compassion doesn't require stupidity. In reality, the people coming here experience a huge economic lift, even if they're our poor for a generation of two. Reality is, this model you hate is the destination of choice for billions. I guess you need to tell them how dumb they are.
Have you ever heard the saying: The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence?
Well for right "now" Americas grass is still mostly greener than many other places in the world - but that is changing fast. Pretty soon the safe haven land of opportunity will be dead, unless we can regain our government and regulate our corporations properly.
Center, you'll never get these people to admit any of the facts you've laid out. They'll talk about ancient history, but not admit that Mexicans, if they so desired, could live an agrarian life and be self-sustaining. They have very fertile soil, vast coastlines for fishing, lots of oil. Yet they come here. Why?
Corrupt government? ( worse than ours is currently? )
Drug Lord armies of mass murderers?
Gee tough question.
I mean south America is perfectly lovely if you don't mind getting kidnapped and ransomed.
Huh. Why would anyone want to leave such a paradise?
BTW - unless we get a-hold of our runaway government and runaway corporations - we may soon be looking at the same situation here.
Is there something deficient in Mexicans' character that prevents them from rebelling against their government and changing their own country? You're seeing it all around the world, but I don't ever see or hear about revolt down in Mexico. I mean, they're already getting killed, how could it be any worse to get in the streets and demand change?
It does benefit all the people. And your view that borders don't matter is fine assuming 1) You share in the social cost burden, and not just advocate that someone else get the bill; 2) You stop bitching about income skew because you understand that it's natural from what you advocate. You might also think about the incredible upward income mobility that's achieved in just joining America's poor from so many countries on earth. People come here for a reason. Your capitalism evil thing is contradicted by the people that you claim are its victims.
It isn't blaming the poor. It's a set of circumstances and consequences. If we're going to wheel in a bunch of poor people, we'll worsen our social metrics and increase the strain on social services. It's just a fact. Is this "you're blaming the poor" thing to say that's made up? If not, it's true, but not nice? WTF?
you make no connection between bitching and boders, and boders are nothiong but an excuss for one guy to tell another guy to kill a third guy, total bullhit
Are you aware that much of the poverty around the world is a direct result of the affects of the capitalism and false borders that ensued after the end of colonialism?
Capitalism is an economic system that requires a set of "poor" to exploit for profit. Get that through your head.
Capitalism? False. Problematic post-colonial borders? Somewhat as it's contributed to conflict.
That's just nonsense on capitalism. Capitalism continues to lift huge numbers of people out of poverty wherever it's enacted. China is just the latest example. People sure as shit aren't becoming better off because of anything else in China but capitalism. The more freedom they allow, the better off the people become. Capitalism unleashes and creates.
Again, funny but the line is pretty long of people wanting to come to capitalist countries to be exploited. The people you think you're for, vote something different with their feet. You're an elite, by global standards, and leave it to an elite not to really understand. It's also so ironic how many that have benefited and live comfortably under capitalism have trained themselves to hate it. It's pretty fucked up, when you think about it.
What did China create? Low wages? Lousy working conditions? Poisoned rivers? Smog? Ooooops, that was capitalism
They will be wanting to form unions before too long.
We'll see how the real commies like that.
As they get richer under capitalism, they'll start "buying" better working conditions and a cleaner environment. Rich countries have good environments and working conditions. But it's capitalism and its freedom that makes them rich. The more a country acts like us, the better off they become.
So far it's the American European and Japanese consumers that are making them rich, for the most part. Someone over there just sold a kidney for an iphone, so Bernays style propaganda is having an effect too.
Plus the Chinese government uses all sorts of subsidies, tariffs, new infrastructure, government intervention and such. The stuff that drives (R)epelican'ts to scream bloody murder at the very thought.
So should I assume you like the idea of a tyrannical dictatorship here too?
THINK man!! It's a lot more complicated then you've stated.
By a long shot.
No. What's f'd up is the way colonial countries forced themselves around the world carrying industrialization and capitalism with them. There was very little starvation in Africa, for instance, prior to colonialism. And China! China is one of the oldest civilizations on earth! The Chinese made it just fine without capitalism for a very long time. What happened was they were pillaged during the Opium Wars by the British. You don't know much about history and you've already degraded the "other" to "needing" capitalism which is false. Most indigenous people were just fine without it. It was it's introduction that has caused so many problems. And, capitalism exploits on a macro level as well, country to country. For the most part, the Western nations, that were the earliest to introduce capitalism, have had the upper hand.
[Removed]
Socialism exploits.
"Upper hand"? Wherever it's copied, things get better. What the hell are you talking about?
All your "victims" have a peculiar habit of wanting to move to capitalist countries.
You're absorbed in demagoguery. What I wrote is true. Capitalism has created the highest standard of living in history. Nations that copy it do better and lift up the life experience of their peoples. Capitalist countries are destinations, not origins of immigrants. Poor in capitalist countries are massively better off than poor in other countries.
China made it fine? Huh? You bitch about poverty and then can say something like that? Sure, waddaya suppose your what chances were of getting chemotherapy were in China 25 years ago? But yet you'll complain about an American poor not getting the latest 21st century medicine. This just shows the persistence of your bash capitalism bash America mindset. At least deal with what's real.
[Removed]
You show a lot of hubris with your comments. You think the American capitalist way is the only way and that it is superior. Read:
"In the Wake of the Affluent Society: An Exploration of Post Development" by Serge LaTouche and "The World and a Very Small Place in Africa: A History of Globalization in Niumi, the Gambia" by Donald R. Wright.
Think about how capitalism has only been around for a few hundred years and how world civilizations managed to survive for thousands of years prior to that, without that economic system. Think about the empty detrimental consumerism that capitalism has brought to the Western world and the ravages bestowed on the developing world.
That's the conservative mindset in a nutshell: "We are better then YOU, so we're taking all of the rewards while fighting to take away everything that YOU have!" The conservatives will stop at nothing to destroy the lives of those that they hate.
No one is safe, not even women! If you're not a white male who already has money, then you are scum according to conservatives. You don't deserve a decent life with things like healthy food and steady shelter. If you are poor, then you get to live in cages:
http://www.fotoevidence.com/injust/176 http://chinaworker.info/en/content/news/1332
This is what conservative fiscal policy did to China. This is what conservative fiscal policy WILL do to the US as more and more people are driven out of society by greed. Don't let these conservatives put you down. You have worth and value, no matter how much "skill" they deem you to have.
Remember which side considers you to be human the next time you cast a vote.
Try, just try to think sometimes. Your post is just nut-talk. Just deal with some simple ideas, and see how you do.
It isn't a character judgment, it's an economic one. Get ready, some people create more economic value than others. It doesn't make anyone better than anyone else, but your emoting doesn't undo the truth. Don't think so? Cutting lawns is equal to designing a new airplane? In nut emotional world, is that true?
Mass immigration of unskilled people deepens our healthcare problems by expanding the number of people that can't and won't be buying it for themselves. Unskilled people have low incomes. People with low incomes have trouble affording things, especially healthcare. So, someone else will be buying it for them. The more of this we do, the worse it gets. Pretty fucking simple.
It also affects other things liberals pee themselves over. It worsens income equality in the U.S. and poverty. It doesn't? Please do tell! LOL. I'm curious as hell how adding huge numbers of parking valets, lawn cutters, dish washers and the like doesn't average down our social metrics. Seriously, bring me into the head of a dummy like you.
Liberals support the immigration, but then pivot and bitch about healthcare, income skew and poverty as though the two have utterly no connection. That's dumb. You disagree. Tell me why. Walk me though the math and then I'll get a 5th grade math teacher to straighten you out. LOL.
Sure, conservatives kill and eat babies too. But this still isn't China there slugger.
If we do it your way, we will be in much worse shape than China before you know it.
Please step away from the Heritage Foundations talking point and attempt to think independently.
But, of course, no reason why. Smarten up, it would do you some good.
It's OK to think, really, it is.
I do it all the time.
The difference is, I don't get my information from known slanted propaganda mills.
You pretty much quote Heritage, whether you know it or not.
For real, man. You should try thinking for yourself, instead of just mindlessly thinking. It makes you spill out talking points, in a Rush.
Yeah, your posts are so informative. Sure, because you rack up a lot of intelligent points. LOL. You read a multi-paragraph post and that's all you have, not a single explained disagreement. None. Congratulations.
You haven't done a thing, except reiterate points I dealt with months ago.
In fact I did post what started the gap. You just ignored it.
You want more? I'll give it to you even though unlike (R)epelican'ts, I don't like repeating myself.
The other killer was neo-liberal trade policies, and that's the honest truth.
Just listen to yourself. You are filled with hate for the poor. Chock full of it. Have you done ANY backbreaking work in your life? Any hard labor? Didn't think so...
All you see are $ and numbers. I see people. Families with kids. They have names, cultures, lives. You're pre-judging these people since they don't make enough money, so somehow now they're not good enough to live in this country.
People are coming here because this country provides more opportunities than one that is owned by the drug trade (which we promoted BTW thanks to your hero Reagan's "war on drugs" BS.) You would rather see those families forced into prostitution, drugs, and violence because all they are to you is $$$.
Do you want to end immigration to this country? Go down to Mexico and kill all of the drug cartel members. Go ahead, I won't stop you.
[Removed]
Welfare/Warfare society rages on.....
But you cant deny that most people spend their money like jackasses..
Okay. I won't deny you that many Americans are caught up in the sad religion of consumerism believing that their unhappy lives will be fulfilled with the accumulation of "stuff." However, at this point, it is true that most Americans have very little to no, nada, zero, discretionary income.
I can see you working hard here for the 99%, I guess since we all know you're "vote for nobody" is just more crap like this the cat's out the bag heh?
on $10,000 a year?
Thats only $192 per week. @ min wage, thats only 26 hours per week.
Theres 168 hours in a week. 50 are for sleeping. That leaves us with 118 hrs per week for whatever we deem important. If someone values getting ahead financially, they should prob work a lot.
No, if you dont want to work fulltime, and not have a spouse or a roommate to share bills, then you probably dont have a whole lot of extra income.
not always a choice not to work full time if at all
I understand that, but it is usually the exception, not the rule.
sucks to be the exception
actually,
part tome is often offered in order to avoid paying benefits that full time might require
I understand that there will always be exceptions. Thats where the other job comes in..
and travel time and expenses
yes, that is part of it
Yeah, imagine how much the average American pays in interest each year (credit cars, car loans, etc.), for cable television, not only cell phones and tablets, but much more expensive (ultimately), monthly fees to service providers. Yet, we could easily get an inexpensive phone (that can make/receive calls & texts), use a cheaper local provider (avoiding the bells and whistles), you could get internet only DSL very cheaply, dump cable (invest $40 in a HDTV antenna and order Netflix for $8 per month), buy a fuel efficient, small, used car for cash, avoid credit cards, and whalla, you probably give yourself about a $500 per month pay raise (not counting what you save on gasoline with a more fuel efficient car), and we can do all these things without really missing anything or having less fun. I mean, you still have a car, still have a cell phone, still have internet, and most of the channels on cable are bullshit anyway (and between an antenna and Netflix, you can still enjoy all the good stuff).
But still, even with all that .... you won't really get "rich" (although if you own a home, pay it off in 20 or 30 years, invest that $500 per month, or ideally more, an average worker could in theory retire a millionaire, assuming we don't have another 2008 market crash).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68GbzIkYdc8
Jobs moving to India and China, Free Trade, globalism... are the main reasons for the income gaps we see.
Manufacturing jobs that normally would support a family are gone. Lower paying Service Sector jobs are left, or high tech jobs that need specialized training and education, which is expensive, and frankly not suitable for everyone.
However, the business owners that use cheap foreign labor are getting wealthier.
Yes, I agree that globalization and the outsourcing is a leading, if not THE leading factor. These corporations are loving their cheap labor in China, and then sell it to us for what they would normally sell it for, if it was made here.
Financial responsibility and living within your means are very important. Going into debt is just insane and people do not realize it. Though some people have a hard time making ends meet without extravagant expenses. On the other hand, rich people spend quite a bit too, just they making a lot more money, append two or three zeros to the amounts you are familiar with.
For anyone interested to reduce the income gap in our society I started an online petition to tax speculative financial transactions, please review, sign and pass on!!! http://signon.org/sign/tax-speculative-financial
Reckless. Not wreckless.
And it's a free country. People want to buy shit. What business is it of yours how much your friend spent on a phone and whether he "needed" it or not?
(sorry bout the the type)
Its no business of mine. I have a friend who barely has his head above water. And bitching all the time about being broke and sh*t isnt fair.
This guy just took his tax return and blew it all on a vacation.
Its none of my business, except I have to constantly here him bitch. But I do have the right to look at it and wonder to myself "what the hell is this guy thinking"....and its a good point. If you never invest any money, dont expect to keep moving forward.
Read: The Millionaire Next Door by Thomas J. Stanley. An eye opening study that describes the most common characteristics of a millionaire. Not what you expect.
The problem is massive inequality. For prosperity to endure it needs to be shared. Mass production, demands mass consumption, but people can’t afford to consume if the wealth an economy generates is concentrated at the top. In consequence, as in a poker game, where the chips are concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other people can stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit runs out, the game stops.
Dont worry, the country is bankrupt and the entire game is going to end soon.
I believe there is some truth to that. But I hope that the ones who are doing it, spending idiotically, are still in their twenties; at least, that's where I see that type of behavior the most. The "keeping with the Joneses' bug" seems to subside older you get. So I'm curious, does any of your frivolous friends have kids?
Oh yes. Most do. And many are in their 40's and 50's, some in their 60's.
Yep! As long as people gotta have an Iphone, a laptop, how about a notebook, pay that cable, electric, phone, and internet bill, drive all over the place with these gas prices, who's not gonna sell to them? This is why the war on drugs is a failure. If you'll take out the loan, if you'll still take out a student loan after the college jacks tuition somebody who wants you to be a slave to your debts will find a way to give it to you. If you can afford more than a crust of bread, the corporation thinks they are paying you too much. I am annoyed with people being so brainwashed they are shopaholics. Buy this, it'll make you happy, still not happy, here's some Prozac. Still not happy? Try some coke, don't feel as tired now do ya? Maybe you can make it to your third job! You GO!
How people spend their money has no effect on income inequality!
What could a person who earns the $33k median income possibly do with the few hundred bucks they spend on an unnecessary phone to reduce the gap between their $33k income and the income of someone making $3.3 million!?!
Income inequality exists for 1 reason only: the few at the top use their bargaining power to unfairly take the lion's share of the income all the people below them produce who do not have bargaining power. They are taking income they did not earn and do not deserve.
I can take 33k and turn it into a very nice investment after my expenses are paid. Throw in a wife to share all the expenses, and we are talking about one couple making 66,000 a year. Two weeks pays all the living expenses. The other two weeks is for whatever you deem needed.
Its the exact situation I am in right now.
If you cant figure out a way to live off that and have some for investment, then you arent serious about investing.
how many hours a week do you work / what type of work do you do/ depending - this might help or hurt your argument...
Hrs per week: 168 Spent Sleeping: 68
That leaves 100 hours for whatever one deems most important. If it is getting ahead financially, you do whatever it takes.
The type of work doesnt matter. Is it paying off and getting you towards another opportunity?
just wondering how you got started since you claim it's so simple I'd love to get some foothold... and the work matters (do you kill people for a living, sell drugs, bid construction projects to the government, own lots of land? How'd ya get the land?etc.) The start is important - u won't tell me because it doesn't fit with your statements?
I got started by working in my uncles pathetic construction company, went to school, and am now still working my ass off 15 yrs later at the age of 32 with business stuff.
no one said it was easy. Its probably going to take me my entire life to get ahead. But my kids will be better off than I, and that is the name of the game.
I think we have gotten so into instant gratification, that many have forgotten how hard and long our grandparents worked, back when it wasnt as rigged as it is now.
That work ethic is dying quickly. Lots of good qualities are dying. Just turn on the TV.
Let's go through the math of this claim.
Let's say after taxes you take home $50k and invest half that for the next 20 years.
For 20 years you will have to live right at the poverty line. So for 1/3rd of your adult life, you must live in poverty. If you got 2 kids, your monthly income will be just $100 above the poverty line.
So for 20 years, all you could do is just barely meet your basic expenses.
A person who got paid $3.3 million per year lived like a king and could essentially do anything they wanted and could get the best of everything. And let's say they invested nothing.
So over 20 years, you had $500k to live off of. Over that same period, the rich guy had $66 million to live off of. That is an enormous gap, he had $65.5 million more to live off of, but we haven't figured in your investing yet.
Let's say that you are a very good investor and can get a real rate of return after inflation, taxes and fees of 4% per year.
After 20 years you will have $766k. If we continue with that 4% return and you want to start benefiting from the fruits of your investing, let's say you take that 4% as income. That amounts to a whopping extra $30k in income.
You had to virtually live in poverty for a good chunk of your adult life, your kids spent their entire life growing up in poverty, but now you have an extra $30k in income.
So let's do the math again and see if you have made a dent in the inequality for your super-human feat of saving half your money for 2 decades.
If you both continue to work for the next 20 years, you will have $1.8 million to live off of, the rich guy will have another $66 million to live off of. He still made $64.2 million more than you.
If you had done zero investing, you would have had $1.3 million to spend over that 20 year period instead of $1.8 million. If you had done zero investing the difference between you and the rich guy would have been $64.7 million. With your super-human feat of sacrifice you managed to get the difference down to $64.2 million.
The difference is literally a rounding error.
Inequality has nothing to do with how you spend your money. It is insane to think that forcing yourself into poverty for decades is a way to get ahead or a way to reduce inequality.
4%? You should fire your financial adviser immediately if that is what he is making you.
Try 15% that keeps up with inflation. You may different results.
The 4% is after you factor in inflation, fees and taxes.
If you are getting 15% every year after you factor in inflation, fees and taxes, you are part of a ponzi scheme. That is more than what Madoff promised.
Or you are just a smart investor. Nothing ponzi about hard assets.
Just have to see where the trends are. Housing is still great, if you buy cheap and rent out after a good flip job.
It is nearly impossible to average a 15% return every year for several decades and it is even more difficult to do that with housing since you cannot compound your investment.
Your entire premise is absurd. Not only cannot you not generate those returns, but when you are poor and then you save half your money for several decades, you are making yourself twice as poor for several decades.
The solution to unfair income inequality is to allocate income fairly so that you are not poor to begin with. The solution is not to make the poor even more poor for several decades so that they can be less poor when they are old and retire.
We are currently doing high teens to lower 20's in ROI right now, and have been. If something happens in the market, we shift strategy. Its not a hard game to figure out.
If inflation kicks into the housing market, which it probably wont , you get a bigger boost. If not, rents keep going up on a house that is paid for.
Explain to me how you are able to get a compounding return in housing.
There is no compounding. Unless you get some appreciation due to taking profits and upgrading. Ofcourse, you can always take the profits and put it in something that compounds.
Hard assets my friend. The world is broke, and that stock paper is just something for someone else to wipe their asses with. Not saying its not decent, but the bubble is only getting bigger. What will be the trigger? Not sure. Maybe Wallst will keep getting richer while mainst bears the burden...
If there is no compounding, a 20% return over the course of 20 years will earn you what 4% would get you with compounding.
I still don't see how this closes the gap between you and the wealthy.
I think you are deluding yourself. You will never get anywhere near what the wealthy are earning. You are not closing the gap. And you wouldn't get anywhere near the income you would earn if we had a system that allocated income fairly.
I am sure you and your wife work hard every week for 80 hours. That should entitle you to all the income you need. You shouldn't have to force yourself into further poverty and work even more hours flipping and managing houses.
If we had a fair system, you would be able to earn at least $115k for 20 hours per week.
Your missing the point here. I never said it was easy. Im going through it right now. But the stupidity I see from the middle class in how they spend their money is staggering. And the amount of BS that I see lower class spend their money on is staggering too.
The top half have all the breaks, yes. But the rest of us are helpless shopaholics that have very little self control. You dont jump classes overnight. It has to be earned. Just it always has.
But what I think the math above shows is that even if you were to perform super-human feats of sacrifice that it really does not make any difference on inequality.
And it shows that even if you save half your income, it doesn't really make your life better. It makes your already dire circumstance significantly worse for decades with little payoff. So if saving half your income has little effect, certainly not spending a few bucks on things that you may find wasteful is going to be pointless.
It shows that the claim that inequality is caused by how people spend is not true. And it shows that the claim that people are poor because of how they spend is also not true.
Poverty and inequality exist because most people are paid too little income.
It is completely illogical to claim that people are not poor because they have a low income but because they don't spend their income correctly.
Life sucks. Get tough or get run over.
Unless you can change the selfish nature of this world, then you had better find a more practical way to get things going.
No one wants to pay for you. They all say they do, but when it comes down to it, they will take care of their family first. Its always been like that.
Some of us are realistic enough to realize it may take an entire career to make it from lower class to middle class. Plenty have done it before. And plenty still will.
"Unless you can change the selfish nature of this world, then you had better find a more practical way to get things going."
The problem isn't that people are selfish. The problem is that we have a system that allows a small handful of people with bargaining power to take as much as they can. I don't think people take the incomes they do because they are selfish. They don't understand how the system works. A-Rod does not think his $25 million salary is causing someone else to live in poverty.
The Yankees don't sit down with A-Rod and say we can pay you $115k, what everyone else who works hard gets paid. Or we can pay you $25 million by forcing 300 families into poverty who have no real say over what they get paid.
If we didn't have a system that allows people like A-Rod to unfairly take more income than they worked for, this would not be a problem. And if people are selfish, it would not matter because they wouldn't be allowed to take more than they deserve.
.
"No one wants to pay for you. They all say they do, but when it comes down to it, they will take care of their family first."
I don't know what you mean by this.
Aside from the disabled, nobody should be expected to pay for anyone else. What I advocate is that everyone should be paid based on hard work. That is the only fair way to allocate income. And if we allocated income this way, there would be no poverty or financial struggle.
.
"Some of us are realistic enough to realize it may take an entire career to make it from lower class to middle class."
I don't disagree with you. What I'm saying is that system is unfair. If income was allocated fairly, based on hard work, nobody would have to spend their entire career living in poverty.
If you don't think people are selfish, go into a parking lot and start asking people for $1. See how many give it to you.
Break down on the side of the road. See how many stop.
Offer community service to a few streets. See how many show up.
This culture is a run away train. No one cares about anything except getting a new phone and new shoes. Thats it. Occupy represents about 1% of the nation (I'm one of them). But the other 98% dont care about anyone besides themselves and their families. And for good reason.
I never said people are not selfish. Obviously some people are selfish some of the time.
But if we had a system that allocated income fairly - and the only way to allocate income fairly is based on hard work - it would not matter whether people were selfish or not. Selfishness would have no impact on income inequality.
Unless making sure you are working harder than those around you is considered selfish.
Weakest link in the chain rule tends to discourage people from paying everyone the same wage. You want to encourage the competition, it brings out the best in people.
Most wealth is passed down not earned and they get a big "congratulations you didn't fuck it up" from me. Starting out with money is hard - keeping it is easy.
There is always blame to go around with any problem. To think otherwise is naive at best, straight up stupid at worst.
The only reason why we have inequality is because we have a system that pays people unequally. There is no additional blame to go around. If we had a system that paid people equally, there would be no inequality.
Apparently you haven't spent much time in the workforce.
I don't know what that comment means.
Completely true even if we were all paid the same amount. There would be people that were rich and people that were poor. It is just a fact of life
More bizarre logic from you. Your wealth is determined by the income you get, not by how you spend your income. If everyone was paid equally, everyone would have equal wealth.
we would not have equal wealth since social class is not identical to wealth and since (wealth = income - expense) If we were all paid the same what about people who invest money or would this be illegal.
This world is hard to understand. Putting a single pay for all to make things fair would hinder those who try to succeed. Government does get in the way sometimes. To encourage growth we must have a free market with free wage.
I'll give you an example im getting an engineering degree i spend hours and hours working on hw and studying for test. The amount i put in is around 80-100 hours to a week. I could have done something i'm equally good at such as history. Now one of my friends is in this and he spends around 20 hours a week doing work.
Now my job security is much higher than his due to my skill set that i have developed. i will also make more and have no end cap on my salary . Now why my future salary is so high is based on the free market when industry is moving and people want to build things my salary increases and so forth. The historian how ever usually has the same salary over and over depending on if you going to be a teach or not. But again the market drives the price. Since his degree requires less work and easier to get the demand is not so high. As mine is a limited degree and is hard to get making the price high. So to reach my end i will say salary caps or a one price for all will never happen. In our time engineers and other skilled labor wont allow that since we use logical thinking to process how we should get paid.
"we would not have equal wealth since social class is not identical to wealth"
I have no idea what that means.
And I have no idea what you are trying to say in the rest of your comment.
Explain to me the scenario where i would be poor and you would not if we both got paid the same income.
it means exactly what it say social class is not identical to wealth. there will be groups and sub groups
OK you spend money normally 25% on savings 50% expenditures(utilities living and food) and 25 % on fun activities.
Now i spend the 25%on saving 50% on expenditures and only 10% on fun. What i do with the last 15% is invested in a couple of businesses or bonds. This money grows overtime and my ROI is twice what i put in. Now i have more money than you even though we started off the same. Unless you make investing illegal, which will kill businesses, this will always work out. The point being is you cant force anything to be equal it doesn't work that way. People will always be rich and people will always be poor.
Your comment still does not make sense.
If I got paid $100k per year and saved nothing and you got paid $100k per year and saved 15%, I would not be poor.
And if I did that for my entire life, never saving a dime, I would still never become poor BECAUSE I HAVE A $100K INCOME.
its all relative the minimum wage could be a $100k the fact of the matter is i would be growing my money so the first year i would get $100k then the next year i would get $115k since i doubled my investment + the amount saved. Im sorry you dont understand investments it fairly simple. You invest in something it grows and you get money + a certain percentage back.
My point is people can invest and make 1000% back on what they invest in. So there is no way to force equality since we will always have people investing.
You are not following along with the conversation.
You did not claim that investing will lead to unequal incomes. Everyone obviously agrees with that.
What you claimed was that "even if we were all paid the same amount. There would be people that were rich and people that were poor".
And that is obviously FALSE. If we paid everyone equally, it is mathematically impossible for 1 person to be rich and another to be poor since they are all getting paid EQUAL incomes.
yes that is true.
If we were all paid the same we would have equal income of that. But people who invest would have additional incomes making them richer than those with out. That is the point.
That is what I've been saying that with investments there will be unequal incomes. Therefore creating poor and rich. Investments can not be made illegal since they drive the economy and create new business.
Ok, but that is a separate argument.
Getting paid for gambling your money in the market is UNEARNED income since it is income paid without the need to work. In order to start a new company, it requires work. People who launch new businesses should therefore get paid like the rest of the workforce.
There is nothing special about the work of launching a new business that requires us to pay people more for doing it. So entrepreneurs should get paid the same as every other worker.
And we don't need people to gamble with their savings in order to fund new businesses. Banks should continue to fund start ups just like they do now. But they should use public funds to invest. And when you use public funds, you will continue to launch just as many new businesses as you do today, without having to compensate anyone with unearned income for gambling their savings on the market.
The economy should be a place where people get paid to work. It shouldn't be a casino. If you want to gamble your savings, you should be free to gamble at a casino.
Its a very relative argument
Life is has risk every day we go through risk. i get off on these risk. I've started a company while I'm still in college. I started them by getting investors. It works wonders. Now these people are going to either lose this money or get ROI. I started an online business because i saw a market and a way to make it better and more efficient also it helps students a lot.
To make this illegal which is what your going to do. This will drive business and people like me away to countries that allow us to start and become rich on our ideas. which brings us to the bigger point how do we deal with immigration, green cards and everything that follows.
there's too many holes with a system like this. it sounds perfect but it cant happen because in the end it unfair to a certain party of people.
"I've started a company while I'm still in college. I started them by getting investors"
We don't need to pay people unearned income in order for you to continue doing exactly that.
People like your investors will get paid to do the work of properly investing money into viable ventures. People like you will get paid to do the work of launching new companies. And other people will get paid to maintain the existing companies.
.
"To make this illegal which is what your going to do"
It would not be illegal. If you couldn't convince any of the investment companies to invest in your idea, you could invest your own money. And if your idea was successful you would be entitled to take whatever net income it generates up to whatever amount the national pay plan allowed plus whatever money you invested.
.
"This will drive business and people like me away to countries that allow us to start and become rich on our ideas"
You will be free to go to China's casino and have a less than 1% chance at becoming wealthy.
Or you can stay here, launch your new company here, and have a 100% chance at becoming wealthy since, unlike China, income is allocated fairly, based on hard work, so every worker will be guaranteed a high enough income to make them wealthy.
.
"which brings us to the bigger point how do we deal with immigration, green cards and everything that follows"
Since our current system preys on the most desperate, the last thing I want to do is have to compete with someone from Mexico who is willing to work for poverty wages.
So as long as I am forced to have to live with this unfair system, I am against immigration because it only weakens my bargaining power as a worker. Capitalists love illegal immigration. It enables them to pay their workers less and earn more profits.
Of course, the only humane solution is to treat all humans equally. Workers in Mexico should have a right to get paid the same as workers in America and American workers who are currently in the bottom 1% should have a right to the same income as the workers in the top 1%, so long as they work as hard.
.
"it cant happen because in the end it unfair to a certain party of people."
This is logic is incredibly backwards.
We can't have a system that is guaranteed to work well for everyone as a right, that pays people based on how hard they work. That is unfair. But our current system which forces 97% of workers to get paid a below average income, forces 50% of Americans to live in or close to poverty, forces the majority of the world into poverty and condemns 10,000 children every day to death from lack of food even though we have enough food to feed everyone is fair?
Your sense of fairness is backwards.
Second paragraph you contradicted yourself. If we allow people to gain money due to investments over time we will have the exact same system as we do now. The stock market is investments buying into a business is an investment. Our system rewards people who take time and invest. Those who invested in me knew the risk of not getting their money back. I told them this and they accepted it. Again Risk must be in a system to drive business it is one of the many factors. The reason we pay investors back is out of respect for what they have done. When someone gave me a huge sum of money to do something and to get a profit of course i will pay them back with interest.
Huge capitalist here hate illegal immigrants just because they over inflated the market with unskilled labor. It is making people hate capitalism when in fact it wasn't broken just responding to the social aspect of it. Since people refuse to contain a real problem we have something get out of hand break a part of the system But that is also how our system works and will always works. We know we have a good country when thousands want to reach the land of a free market where you can be what you want to be.
I believe in evolution those who fail fail those who succeed go on in life. I'm for the Entrepreneurs those who start business and drive the market.
don't respond I'm done. we will never agree and I'm fine with that
"Second paragraph you contradicted yourself. If we allow people to gain money due to investments over time we will have the exact same system as we do now"
Read the paragraph again. You do not get paid for your investment. All you are getting paid for is your work time just like every other worker and you are getting paid your investment money back. So the best your investment will do is break even.
.
"Our system rewards people who take time and invest. Those who invested in me knew the risk of not getting their money back."
The system I advocate will also reward people who effectively invest. Investing will be a performance based job. So the people who work that job have every incentive to make sure they make viable investments.
.
"Again Risk must be in a system to drive business"
You have consistently demonstrated that you don't understand a lot fundamental things about how the world operates. Let's now add business to the list. Because you also don't understand business. Businesses are not driven by risk, they are driven by maximizing income.
Although earning income is not the only motivator, it is an effective one. The system I advocate will also reward people who effectively manage their businesses with higher income.
.
"The reason we pay investors back is out of respect for what they have done. When someone gave me a huge sum of money to do something and to get a profit of course i will pay them back with interest. "
It is moronic for an economy to rely on that kind of system to generate its investment funds. It is the reason why 18% of the work force cannot find a full-time job. A child can think of a better system than the one we got.
.
"We know we have a good country when thousands want to reach the land of a free market where you can be what you want to be."
More of your twisted logic.
Just because someone thinks America is not as bad as the country they live in does not mean America's system is good.
Everyone cannot be what they want to be. Most are broke and they aren't broke by choice.
.
"I believe in evolution those who fail fail those who succeed go on in life"
No you don't. You want most handed to you on a silver platter. If you live in America, you are getting hundreds of years of development for free. If you really believe in making it on your own, move to Afghanistan or Liberia.
.
"I'm for the Entrepreneurs those who start business and drive the market."
I am too.
[Removed]
How many people on this forum have a smart phone?
Only the ones demanding access to birth control via healthcare insurance. LOL.
We've developed a clear hierarchy in our society. People's own money goes for fun stuff today, and other people's money goes for essentials both today and tomorrow.
We've gutted the culture of personal responsibility. If you borrow money and default, you are now simply a victim of a bank is just one great example.
$150 for smart phone, $25 a month includes internet. Previous land line plus internet $70 a month. Saved $390 the first year.
When people spend the first 20 years of their life being inundated with media that glorifies certain types of lifestyles what do you expect? System corrections are a good thing in that they help to wake people up and the deeper they are asleep the harder will be the shock - kind of like waking up right in the middle of a good dream -)
[Removed]
It really matters not your income; if you don't attempt to save some fraction, your condition will never improve. Money in America is a resource easily replaced; there is no immediate need of frugality. I'm guilty myself but there is really no excuse for not saving for the future.
I agree. All I was trying to do wtih this post was get people to look at themselves for a second and ask themselves "Have I been giving my ability to get more money, 120%?"
Thats all. And you can see from the responses, most have no intentions of saving anything at all. I would assume they were almost offended I mentioned such a thing.
Deferring to desire is addictive... the desire to save money has to outweigh the desire to not save money. Like all addictions we have to first acquire this future vision of rock bottom, before we kick ourselves into kicking the habit.
That is an excellent piece.
Ok, so my neighbor is a fireman. He is trying to do a good job with life.
Wife just went and bought a 2k Mac laptop. One she had was only 2 yrs old.
This is the type of stupidity Im talking about.
I think this is a very large part of the problem
http://www.moneycrashers.com/bankrupt-celebrities-rich-broke/
So many rich people have gone broke.
http://save.net/blog/lottery-winners-some-lost-all-their-millions-others-gained-more/
[Removed]
[Removed]
your reasons are a good example of the "wealth" gap....
the "income gap" is IMO more based on the motivation of people to improve themselves and whether they are more interested in entertainment, distraction and diversion than they are at becoming "better" at whatever goals and course of action they choose for their lives.......
later in life the income gap could be accounted for because of these decisions and behaviors, especially at retirement........
But, you'll get a lot of excuse making and outwardly directed blame from most of the OWS crowd, because the truth doesn't back up the victim identity most of them live in...and they must defend that at all cost.....
good post !
It stared in earnest with the Reagan tax cuts.
Just so's you know.
[Removed]
Yes it did. With plenty of bi-partisan support. Just like everything else that they screw us with
We do as we see. Our parents are our representative of god. The information they pass on to us becomes the dreams of the future. To take a vacation is about the best way to spend money in someone's reality. Yours may have been directed into save every dime.
Try and get someone to change beliefs about themselves and their self worth is the hard sell. If your parents told you that you are worthless then you may end up that way.
Our grandparents and parents were of the time when wall street was a source of capital for ventures to large to borrow against from banks. It meant jobs for the new company. It was a way for all to share. They told us how WS was America and our way of life.
So when you tell someone that WS is the devil they choose not to believe you because it conflicts with beliefs.
Same goes for income and the way it is spent.
The question is? Did he have a great vacation.