Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Income inequality worst since 1920s: Rich getting richer
rawstory.com — The super-rich are gobbling up an ever larger piece of the economic pie, and the poor are seeing their share of earnings shrink. New data showing the top 1 percent of Americans are claiming a larger share of national income than at any time since before the Great Depression.
johnd24- 1155 diggs
- digg it
- BuckQJohnson, on 10/21/2007, -22/+63I agree with you, the rich did get theirs and definitely got ours to but how did it happen. I will tell you, we the people voted our dreams and aspirations. We voted for lower taxes for the rich because we thought hey one day I may be rich and those laws will help me out. The elite know by using religion, your dreams and our inate abililty for intolerance, they where and are able to make you pay attention to right hand while they rob you from the left hand. We did this to ourselves and by doing so we reap what we sowed.
We sowed intolerance, hatred, racism and bullying of our fellow man and woman and what do we reap. We reap a budding police state that is on the home stretch of coming into fluition (they used to beat up and kill just "those people" minorities but now the mechanism is going after there own supporters), a govt. of the oligarchy for the oligarchy that won't or doesn't listen to there fellow citizen, an economic system that is based on us spending and acquiring debt, and a dog eat dog and one upmanship society where everybody is fighting over whats left from the elite table in order for them to have some form of self esteem. When you have low self esteem, (intolerance, hatred, racism and bullying) is very easy to do and spending to act as if your one of privileged is easy to do also.- NonLeftistDiggr, on 10/14/2007, -25/+15ahhhhhh...... not even one mention of personal accountability. It's hopeless.
- ZenMojo, on 10/13/2007, -11/+22Because personal accountability does not create an income gap this large. Ever. It takes outside actors.
- Sketchcast, on 10/13/2007, -9/+9I have no idea why you're being dugg down. You should move up here to Canada, and let the deluded American wage slaves bask in the glow of their TV's, munching on eating corn based food, while the ruling class consolidates their control over your once great nation. Seriously, the USA is too far gone to be saved, the masses are too blind to their own pitiful state. You should leave while you still can, its only a matter of time before they lock down travel outside of the country. :(
- martoq, on 10/13/2007, -1/+5Please...implying Americans watch more TV is just idiotic. Consider A: There's nothing but ***** on TV, B: Cable prices are becoming so out of control that many people (including myself) have canceled cable and C: well lets be honest here...during Hockey season, your trying to tell me there isn't a single Canadian glued to the television? Careful with that hypocritical fodder blow-horn.
- Sketchcast, on 10/15/2007, -2/+4http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubjec ...
Yeah, we totally watch as much TV as you, oh and our networks are brainwashing networks just like yours.
- Sketchcast, on 10/13/2007, -9/+9I have no idea why you're being dugg down. You should move up here to Canada, and let the deluded American wage slaves bask in the glow of their TV's, munching on eating corn based food, while the ruling class consolidates their control over your once great nation. Seriously, the USA is too far gone to be saved, the masses are too blind to their own pitiful state. You should leave while you still can, its only a matter of time before they lock down travel outside of the country. :(
- LeeSoong, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1in a related news story, there is no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks,,,
- ZenMojo, on 10/13/2007, -11/+22Because personal accountability does not create an income gap this large. Ever. It takes outside actors.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/14/2007, -7/+14Police State:
I keep thinking from what I see, and what I've learned in political science in university, about fascism. It seems the United States is turning into a fascist police state.
But I I don't trust my judgment.
I keep seeing people present reasons why a police state is developing and I keep seeing people deny it without any real reason beyond mentioning this tin foil hat. When you mention someone has a tin foil hat does that make you automatically right? What the heck? Is that some sort of ticket to correctness?
If I want someone to be wrong and I can't think of a good reason should I just say they have a tin foil hat?- cdiggy, on 10/13/2007, -4/+4I like my tinfoil hat. I can stick my head in the oven and turn up the heat slowly so that I don't notice the change. And if I don't notice the change then there must not be a change and therefore everything is peachy. Ahh, the beauty of the slow-cook. Isn't gradualism great?! Remember: "evolution through stealth"...
- kuzotz, on 10/13/2007, -10/+2Hey I turned 18 back in 2006 this is anyone that was born before 1984 fault.... In my opinion. So you deal with it while the youth of America immigrate to a EU country :P
Also being a minority in this country. You are in a police state since the day you are born. blacks, hispanics, asians, natives. We deal with a lot of bull crap.- netant, on 10/13/2007, -2/+7Speaking as a minority, spare me the drama.
I already blame you for everything crappy that is about to happen, because you obviously have already learn how to blame other people for your problems and failures. You can feel better about it, but you're still a whining loser.
Yes, we live in a country where every other individual outside your ethnic group may hate your guts, and may look to undermine you merely because of your ethnic group. But that's not a police state.
A (racist) police state is where the gov't is used to UNEQUALLY abuse its authority over individuals based upon its ethnic group, and where such individual has no LEGAL recourse to mitigate such abuse. That's is just not the case on the coasts. If you live in Jena, LA, and you're black, then yes, you may live in a (racist) police state.
If you live in NYC, are a white cutthroat, then generally you will be abused with the same level of physical violence and procedural discrimination inflicted upon a black/hispanic cutthroat. That may be a police state, but that's not racism. The fact that white cutthroats seem to get lighter criminal punishment and more legal options compared to their colored brethren, that's racism, but that's not necessarily a police state (enforcing racism).
Being a minority may mean dealing with a lot of bull crap, but boo hoo, nobody gives a ***** damn (probably because we're all racists). Man up, grow a skin. Its an obstacle; learn to surmount it, or choose be a whining victim. Life is unfair, deal. The generation that lived in the South during legalized racism, and jury sanctioned murders, think you're a soft pussy.
"The youth of America may immigrate to an EU country", but the EU isn't enlightened culture either. Just ask any Muslim in France or Germany, or "Paki" in England.
What's important, besides stopping the pity party, is to make the effort to understand everything, rather than label everything. Then you'll realize you can't pursue the same tactics in the '50's and '60's and expect them to address your unique issues in the 21st century. Yeah, killing affirmative action programs sucks, but really, why would you want a crappy government job based upon your race? Reparations for Slavery? Are you kidding??? What the ***** do you think you'll get out of that, even if the general population DIDN'T decide to kill you to avoid paying up? A couple of grand? Meanwhile, rich assholes are making a killing from putting "your kind" into the prison industry, and not upsetting the apple cart by applying the same "justice" to "white folk". Instead of focusing on real problems, you're being led by the nose by rich-owned media and its paid Uncle Tom's on crap like "reparations".
The US is a country based on access to opportunity and individual ability. There are few places in the world like it (and if you find one, let me know). Learn to grasp opportunities, rather than be a sucker for pitches.
- netant, on 10/13/2007, -2/+7Speaking as a minority, spare me the drama.
- dissident, on 10/13/2007, -4/+6you can see by the graph that the super rich pay a disproportionately small share of their income in taxes compared to the middle and upper working class. There's so many loopholes and breaks that the very top doesn't pay much at all. The ones that get screwed the hardest are actually the upper/middle class who pull in 60-100k per year.
- SuperWinner, on 10/22/2007, -9/+3I hate to tell you guys this, but the poor are poorer now because people in general are getting stupider. More people now that at any other point in recent memory spend all their time watching TV and reading Star magazine trying to keep up on the latest news about brangelina, while whorshipping people like lindsay lohan and paris hilton like they are new gods, RATHER than spending their time working harder, or investing their money in things like appreciable asssts or stocks/bonds etc. Oh no the stupid people are ready willing and able to take their paycheck down to WalMart and blow the whole roll on the latest useless gadget or 200 dollar sunglasses.
Rich people get richer because they are smart with money, period.- breezyflight, on 10/13/2007, -2/+0What paycheck?
- Evermin7, on 10/13/2007, -1/+2You bring up an interesting point. You are right that it takes a person who is penny-wise to accumulate wealth. However, when those same wealthy people affect the system in such a way that the un-rich cannot get rich as easily, then we start having problems. Getting to the top is one thing. Keeping people down is another.
- EvilGeniusTodd, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1"I hate to tell you guys this, but the poor are poorer now because people in general are getting stupider. "
Exactly. The process of evolutoin which took many millions of years to bring human ancestors down from the trees and then increase our intelligence to where it is today. Only took 75 years and 3 generations to start dialing the evolutionary clock back.
- Vicujozobenaxod, on 10/22/2007, -3/+1There's no helping you. You're just so ingrained with indoctrination of socialism and ultimately communism I would assume, if not already.
You hate the upper class for getting rich. You hate that the middle-class is not rich like the upper class. You weap for the lower class that, coincidentally, exists in every (working) economic structure. Maybe you just hate America? I don't know. One thing is clear, you are so astoundingly full of ***** that to listen to 5 seconds of you in real life could probably pass as child abuse.
Sigh, another soul with no idea what he's talking about.- EvilGeniusTodd, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1"Sigh, another soul with no idea what he's talking about."
I was thinking the same thing.
While I read your comment.
- EvilGeniusTodd, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1"Sigh, another soul with no idea what he's talking about."
- NonLeftistDiggr, on 10/14/2007, -25/+15ahhhhhh...... not even one mention of personal accountability. It's hopeless.
- jeffiek, on 10/21/2007, -43/+41"Americans in the bottom 50 percent of wage earners saw their share of income shrink to 12.8 percent in 2005, down from 13.4 percent."
So? Let's say that last year I make $50k and you made $100k. This year I make $75k and you make $200k. In this case the bottom 50% (me) saw my share of our income shrink to 27%, down from 33% last year. What a horror.
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
There are enough real problems in the world. We don't need to make more playing games with numbers.- NonLeftistDiggr, on 10/13/2007, -20/+4You are exactly right,
Wage earners SAW their share of income shrink. Lots of things happen when you sit and watch.- AnitraWeb, on 10/13/2007, -8/+13The earned income of the majority of wage earners shrank; not by subjective estimate, but by W2 forms. America did not have an epidemic of laziness. America had an epidemic of free-market ideology held superior to real-market facts.
- ZenMojo, on 10/13/2007, -18/+9Except that's not what happened. ive years ago you made 50k, this year you make 30 k. There are lies, damned lies, statistics, and then damned lies about statistics.
- AnitraWeb, on 10/17/2007, -5/+30Can you read? Direct from the article: "IRS data show income for the median earner fell 2 percent between 2000 and 2005 to $30,881. Earnings for the top 1 percent grew to $364,657 -- a 3 percent uptick."
- jeffiek, on 10/16/2007, -8/+3Can YOU read? The sentence I critiqued said nothing about the median.
As I said there are REAL problems, but clouding the matter with BS statistics doesn't help. Crap like sentence I critiqued ( which said nothing about the median) and BS like this pejorative laden phrase - "The superrich are gobbling up an ever larger piece of the economic pie" do nothing but promote envy and jealousy. They to NOTHING to promote understanding of the real problems, ones I might actually like to address if I can ever clear the crap out of the way.- breezyflight, on 10/14/2007, -2/+3Here's the problem: wages have been stagnant for 30 years. That's not a statistic. That's a fact.
Ok, Captain Literalism, now you've got a real problem to address. Knock yourself out.
- breezyflight, on 10/14/2007, -2/+3Here's the problem: wages have been stagnant for 30 years. That's not a statistic. That's a fact.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 11/04/2007, -2/+6"As I said there are REAL problems, but clouding the matter with BS statistics doesn't help."
Clouding the matter with BS hypothetical examples helps much, much less...
- jeffiek, on 10/16/2007, -8/+3Can YOU read? The sentence I critiqued said nothing about the median.
- matt77, on 10/17/2007, -3/+27"We don't need to make more playing games with numbers."
Then why not look at real data instead of just making stuff up? The reality is that adjusted median incomes across all skill levels have been basically stagnant since the 70s. Meanwhile, the adjusted per-capita gdp has been growing. So, while more wealth is being generated, *none* of it is going to the middle class (or the lower class, as shown in the links below). Geez, where could it be going?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:United_States_I ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Income_Educatio ...- LingNoi, on 10/13/2007, -2/+3Because he is one of the millionaires spreading FUD.
- blitzman, on 10/13/2007, -1/+1The government is where it's going. Look at the growth in government.
- vertinox, on 10/13/2007, -2/+4Actually, I think its more like $25,000 vs $500,000 compared to $50,000 vs $1,000,000
From my understanding most Americans have an income less than $50,000
Actually, the GDP is $44,190 which is pretty high compared to most nations, but you have to remember we have the weakest currency. - TheSwashbuckler, on 10/13/2007, -1/+6"From my understanding most Americans have an income less than $50,000"
Median income is a little over $48K.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf
- NonLeftistDiggr, on 10/13/2007, -20/+4You are exactly right,
- NonLeftistDiggr, on 10/14/2007, -35/+33I trade 40+ hours of my life a week for currency to support myself. To be in this position, I traded countless years of my life studying for nothing tangible in return. Along the way I've met a lot of people who were not willing to trade as much of their lives for this which is personal perrogative and perfectly OK..... until they insist on using everyone's paychecks to be GIVEN the same FK'N luxuries I pay for plus more because they WANT them.
Skilled highly motivated people not being able to find jobs is a complete falacy invented by the left. Both qualities can be increased through personal growth.
Blind? Developmentally Disabled? Physically disabled? I will gladly have money taken out of my check for them. I even volunteer during vacation time and weekends with the second group.... and I gave WAY more to Katrina relief than I should have after finding out how that really went down. So I'm really sore about being considered selfish for not entuhsiastically embracing incremental inclreases in forceful donations of my paycheck to the most inefficient, ineffective, and corrupt charrities in the world, government.
And for those of you ready to call my incoherrent relative to the article, read the comments for context.- ZenMojo, on 10/14/2007, -15/+27Skilled highly motivated people not being able to find jobs is a fallacy? How can you say it's a fallacy? The only way it would be a fallacy is if the United States were a meritocracy and you got out of it what you put into it, but if that were true then you would have to know the function of the economy from top to bottom. Now, anyone who has ever worked a day in his life should know better unless he is brainwashed.
Now, to put things in perspective, a white highschool drop-out is four times as likely to find work as a college-educated black person. I have experienced this discrimination directly. I got out of college and over the summer tried to find a job at Home Depot...wouldn't hire me. Tried construction...wouldn't hire me. I finally had to go through three temp agencies before I miraculously found a job paying 60k a year that my conscience would allow (the CIA, surprisingly enough, tried to recruit me probably because my dad's Nigerian and they're all into nation building). Now, as incredible as it sounds that someone wouldn't hire a black man from the number one school in the country to work a ***** cash register, there you go. There's your anecdote. I'm not surprised you got at least one digg from the ignorant self-deafened hands-over-their-eyes people clueless about the discrimination that exists in this country, but I don't have to abide it.- shark615, on 10/15/2007, -6/+20What? Why would Home Depot hire you? Why the ***** would you apply to that? They probably didn't hire you because as a educated, probably young man you were over qualified for the job and it would more then likely be temporary. They dont want tmep workers they want semi-permanent works that will pay back the time involved in learning and training.
Not cause you are black. Why do some blacks always go there when there are several other more likely alternatives.- kuzotz, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1That's what happens to most college graduates. They graduated, and they need income fast because those student loans will start biting you in the ass, and yea as soon as 6 months you must start paying them, and so you need to start gaining some income. My sister is a college graduate( and black like myself).. IF she wasn't told the job is too conservative for her. She was just outright denied before she said anything in the interview. She worked in the mall for 6 months, and now she has an accounting job for the federal gov't. That is just the experience that most college graduates get, and trust me even with work experience in your field. Its hard as hell to get a job.
- NonLeftistDiggr, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1Hell yeah it is hard to get a job, especially out of college, but I've managed to do it many times by doing what my parents and job searching books told me to, even though that was some seriously tedious *****. It was NEVER fun.
- truegodofwar, on 10/14/2007, -7/+5You're gonna need a citation for that load of ***** son.
- EuphopiaB, on 10/16/2007, -3/+4It is a fallacy because it implies that all those that are jobless are in some way skilled, and it provides no statistics or information as to the actual percentage of people. For example, 99% of those unemployed could be unskilled and that still hold true, therefore it is up to implications and persuasion, thus a fallacy.
- w3bsmith, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1I'm a white person, and temp agencies was the only way I could get jobs at first. I've been through many many temp jobs over the years. In fact, it's the only way most people can get "jobs" now days period. The temp agencies have taken over most of the market because companies don't want to invest in long term employees anymore. This has nothing to do with race.
- NonLeftistDiggr, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1I went that route a few times too, having an engineering degree and trying to find a quick job to get some cash. It doesn't work, people can smell that out from a mile away when you apply to jobs like that with a degree. You hold all the cards if you were hired. You know, they know, you are gone in a heartbeat at any point.
Finding a job was never easy for me. I had to follow all those stupid find a job books, and do the tedious seemingly dignity degrading "networking" activites. It was hard to put myself out there and get rejected 8 out of 10 times (even for an informational interview), but it worked.
I went to school with many people who finished and got degrees. The people who sat on their ass and sent out resumes over the internet usually continued to sit on their ass the longest. I even let one friend borrow the books I used. They never opened them, and they started working at Starbucks after being unemployed for 6 months with no responses to internet submitted resumes.
Maybe it's the media, or maybe it's that career people don't talk about how ***** a job search can be very often, but there is definitely a false belief nowadays that having a degree automatically lands a job.
- shark615, on 10/15/2007, -6/+20What? Why would Home Depot hire you? Why the ***** would you apply to that? They probably didn't hire you because as a educated, probably young man you were over qualified for the job and it would more then likely be temporary. They dont want tmep workers they want semi-permanent works that will pay back the time involved in learning and training.
- DucoNihilum, on 10/13/2007, -9/+3You might be willing to take something out of your pocket for them, but not everyone will. It shouldn't be compulsory.
- bobcrotch, on 10/13/2007, -5/+6While I completely agree with the first half of your comment, the last sort of just.. well I don't.
I've increased my salary 4 times over in the passed 3 years because I was willing to give up more of my life for the lifestyle I want. Finding a company to do this with was hard in my area because it's not a major city. It's a medium sized, blue collar area. I've dedicated a lot of time and energy into building my career. Opportunity is always somewhere you just have to seek it out. No one should expect to have a great career handed to them simply because they live somewhere or have a college degree. This is one of the major thinking errors commonly found in the 20 something generation in America today.- bugsy187, on 10/13/2007, -4/+6The point of the article linked above is that even seeking out a good career, working harder, studying harder, or even sacrificing more matters less and less. Wealth is being disproportionately transferred to the rich. If you've found good fortune, good for you and your family. Others are not as well off and often to no fault of their own. This country is flooded with capital. I don't think you realize how much wealth there is even compared to Japan. I do agree that we need to take an active role, but not in the ways you're suggesting. Our system is failing to serve the interests of the majority of society. The wealthy don't want things to change. The game is apparently rigged in their favor while their lives get better and better.
- breezyflight, on 10/13/2007, -0/+0Excuse me. Having a college degree qualifies someone ON ITS FACE for nearly any job in this country that doesn't require a license or certification. That's just a fact, and it doesn't make any difference at all what the major was, either. Anyone who graduates with a four-year degree can do any half-assed cubicle job, and I don't want to hear any ***** about how "complicated" or how many "marketable skills" going to meetings takes.
- kuzotz, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1 You need marketable skills. You need experience, and college graduates who don't goto grad school, or didn't get internships during their undergraduate years. Are screwed in this economy right now. Even people with internship and work experience in the field. They are screwed right now. There aren't that many jobs. So unemployment isn't too surprising.
- bugsy187, on 10/16/2007, -8/+15A lady I know got good grades in school, went to law school, and graduated with straight A's. After college, she was unable to find a job for over a year. She ended up moving to Chicago to find work. I'm honestly not sure if she did, though I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. If someone that elite and accomplished can't find work, something is profoundly wrong. The "laziness" or "stupidity" argument people are parroting on this page is pure pro-rich propaganda.
- bitORlogic, on 10/13/2007, -3/+4She couldn't find a job, or she couldn't find a job in the particular field she went to school for? There is a large difference.
- netant, on 10/13/2007, -1/+1(damned dupe)
- netant, on 10/13/2007, -1/+2What difference is that? Everything is okay if she paid thousands of dollars for a professional occupation, but can only find work flipping burgers?
- breezyflight, on 10/13/2007, -2/+0She couldn't find a job in the field she is trained for. Difference or not, that's wrong and it needs to get fixed. Kay?
- tape250, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1Yes, because being trained for something automatically means the free market needs more of that field. You're an idiot.
Why do you think medical schools limit the number of people who study each field? It's because they know that the more there are, the lower their salaries will be since they won't be as demanded as before. If you train 50 million radiologists in one graduating class, that doesn't mean that the market needs 50 million more radiologists. You don't just train in whatever you want, you have to see whether or not the market needs more of that field. If you waste your time training in a field that is already oversaturated, it's your own fault for being unemployed.
Think a little before you make stupid comments like that. Kay?
- tape250, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1Yes, because being trained for something automatically means the free market needs more of that field. You're an idiot.
- bugsy187, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1If every straight A law school graduate had to settle for a job at McDonalds, how would they pay student loans? How would that affect the rest of the student loan system? How would that affect the rest of the economy?
Also, have you known people rejected from jobs because they were "over qualified"? I do and suspect many of you do as well.
- schoate09, on 10/17/2007, -0/+7She couldn't get a job because theres an overflow of lawyers...
- cranium, on 10/13/2007, -0/+2Opportunity is a fickle mistress. Thinking that you're entitled to her only pushes her away from you.
- breezyflight, on 10/13/2007, -1/+1Yeah but the "rah rah free market" types claim that everything is fine because we have equal opportunity. So which is it?
- kuzotz, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1For any profession. If you are a student studying. GETTING A JOB IN THE FUTURE.. Is extremely unpredictable right now. So you can't blame the law school student for failing to predict something.. Not everyone can, and you don't want to be in school forever trying to make "economic " decisions such as predicting fields and stopping your current study in a major in order to go it no a more profitable field.
- w3bsmith, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1My opinion, don't go to college. Get experience instead. Worked for me.
- bitORlogic, on 10/13/2007, -3/+4She couldn't find a job, or she couldn't find a job in the particular field she went to school for? There is a large difference.
- LowRentDiggs, on 10/13/2007, -4/+8If everyone had the same access to education and opportunity (not to mention healthcare, safety and free time) you would have a point. I don't agree with handouts but I am more than willing to give someone a hand up. Is the current system broken? Absolutely! But it's people like you ensure that the system remains broken and serves only as a political tool that continues to widen the gap between rich and poor.
- shamanlife, on 10/16/2007, -4/+6"Skilled highly motivated people not being able to find jobs is a complete falacy invented by the left. Both qualities can be increased through personal growth."
Bull Plop. Sometimes the creative mind does not find any worth in spending a lot of time and work while surrounded by asshats.- bobcrotch, on 10/16/2007, -4/+7The whole point is that you have to be willing to work and willing to sacrifice your time to better your self.
- breezyflight, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1Millions of people "been there done that" and got screwed. They have degrees and years of professional experience. Don't mean squat when someone can undercut your bid by 80%. So they stay poor and then you come along with your self-congratulatory criticisms. How about getting on the side of your neighbors for a change, huh pal?
- bobcrotch, on 10/16/2007, -4/+7The whole point is that you have to be willing to work and willing to sacrifice your time to better your self.
- bobzibub, on 10/13/2007, -0/+3The average person who is average in moderation and skill. That is who we are talking about.
No, you're special. - vertinox, on 10/13/2007, -3/+5I dunno. It seems that you are thinking you are part of the upper class of America, but unless you made several million dollars last year you aren't on their side.
The issue is that its not about hard work but rather a disparity of effort vs risk. The stock market is a prime example of this. There are thousands of organizations that are simply around to make money from money that is really nothing more than exploitation of people who actually work. Sure, there might be a few hardworking people in those financial organizations but all you have to do at a certain point is rake in the money.
Pretend for an example, my father through shady dealings and politics found his fortune. He dies before I go to college and I inherit his fortune. I could simply put all that money into secure treasury bonds, gold investments, CDs, and stable stocks that give dividends and I would never have to work a day in my life. I don't even have to go to college.
Is that fair? I don't know... But that is how the current system works. As of now, I don't have a life like that but I do understand the system is being exploited as we speak and I like to invest money as well so I can work less. It takes smarts in the end but its not hard work. - demonbaby, on 10/18/2007, -1/+4It's fair to say that people should work hard and educate themselves, and be rewarded for that. Unfortunately, a lot of people do work very hard, and get educations, and still never make it anywhere close to the top income bracket. When you talk about laziness - people not working hard and taking just because they want - you might want to look at the richest people in the world. It's a monarchy where people are routinely rewarded simply for being born into money. They inherit fortunes, and corporations, and have everything handed to them, and keep that slice of the economic pie nice and safely guarded to pass down to the next generation, who did nothing to earn it. You want people to have to work hard and earn their livelihoods based on merit? Get rid of inheritance.
- ZenMojo, on 10/14/2007, -15/+27Skilled highly motivated people not being able to find jobs is a fallacy? How can you say it's a fallacy? The only way it would be a fallacy is if the United States were a meritocracy and you got out of it what you put into it, but if that were true then you would have to know the function of the economy from top to bottom. Now, anyone who has ever worked a day in his life should know better unless he is brainwashed.
- caferrell, on 10/14/2007, -20/+18The problem is monetary policy. The Fed increases the money supply to assure that banks pay very little interest, pushing investors into the stock market where all that cash causs the market to gain great ground through speculation. That way the rich get way richer, and the poor slob goes into debt.
Fix monetary and tax policy, strengthen the currency and we will return towards parity
Vote Ron Paul- luskin, on 10/14/2007, -11/+17If you want a redistribution of income, Ron Paul is the last person you should vote for.
- jmpeagle, on 10/14/2007, -11/+12exactly. If you want to stop the redistribution of income to the richest people, you should vote for Ron Paul. Inflation is basically a transfer of wealth from the poor to Wall Street. When money gets pumped into the system, the stock market does real well but fixed wage earners at the bottom tend to become worse off as the higher prices they see are not met by rising wages.
- shark615, on 10/13/2007, -5/+4Inflation is a transfer of wealth? What? When the market does well fixed income become worse off?
Seriously take a class or something because you are so off it is scary.- jmpeagle, on 10/13/2007, -2/+7I am just assumming you are trolling because no one can be that ignorant. Here is a basic lesson for you.
Do you understand supply and demand of money at all? When supply increases, prices go up. Those on fixed wages by DEFINITION have a FALL in real income because now their wages buy less. The Fed has a basic band of inflation that it is willing to accept (read any article Bernanke has written on the subject especially his criticisms of his predecessor Greenspan) of around 1-3%. If inflation falls too low, then the Fed pumps more money into the system by buying government securities bonds through the open market window (terms open market operations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_market_operation ) The effect of this is two fold, one forcing down interest rates as the price of bonds rise and two is increasing the amount of available money in the economy.
Now anyone who knows anything about money knows that money is neutral in the long run as prices adjust and that only productivity can raise living standards (or a decline in the government created tax wedge that reduce efficiency). However, monetary policy does have real short term effects due to sticky prices etc... so that those who first recieve the extra amount of money recieve the lionshare of the benefit but as it works its way through the system, prices adjust to neutralize the effect. The problem is, the price that is slowest to adjust due to contracts are wages meaning inflation takes away purchasing power from the poor and redisributes it to assets. Falling interest rates move incentives from work to wealth making those with wealth better off and those who work worse off. Read any literature on Monetary policy. I recommend the Journal of Monetary Economics or the Journal of Economic Theory (unfortunalely the copyright holders on this one make it very difficult to access outside of their licensed website ScienceDirect but any University library should have it available). - netant, on 10/13/2007, -1/+3I find it tragic that you have some background in economic theory, and yet apparently fail to grasp the concepts presented to you.
Inflation is not a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. Its the opposite. Its a transfer of value from the creditors to the indebted. That is classically why farmers preferred an inflationary monetary policy while bankers preferred low to no inflation. Many farmers had to borrow money in order to get the capital needed to produce their commodity. If credit is tight, they may not be able to get the means to pursue their livelihood, but when credit is loose, they can get the capital to pursue their livelihood, AND payoff those debts with "easy available" currency. The problem is the currency becomes DEVALUED, which means it can buy less. That screws the people who already had "wealth".
Yes, wage earners do get screwed with inflation, but everyone gets screwed with inflation. The stock market doesn't really do well, because the "irrational exhuberance" of increased valuations, do not match the dropping VALUE of the currency (More dollars, but less purchasing power). Inflation helps speculators, because they are making money while decreasing their risk, because they have less capital to lose.
The only thing monetary policy affects is the rate of growth, and how speculative a bubble you can push the economy into. THAT is why people with capital do not want an inflationary monetary policy. The rich do not do better with inflation. They weather the inflation until there is an economic crash, and then they make money from picking up undervalued properties. (Because a crash will inevitably tighten credit, and the rich will possess the liquidity to purchase property.
You can get a Libertarian (or a Conservative, or a Socialist) to write an economic paper to support their policy arguments, but it doesn't mean its actually true. (Lies, damned lies, and statistics.)
This is all moot anyway. The wealth transfer we're criticizing is the US taxation system, which is reducing tax obligations of the uberwealthy, which means anyone not in the top 1% pays for the uberwealthy's tax break. - bratpack8, on 10/13/2007, -2/+1Netant says banks prefer no or low monetary inflation. This is hogwash. While he correctly points out that debtors tend to win with inflation (those on fixed rates anyway), banks love monetary inflation because of fractional reserve banking. When the Fed pumps $1M into a bank, that bank can magically lend out $10M. That is called making money out of thin air. It has nothing to do with wealth creation. Now just like a counterfeiter who puts $20's or $100's into circulation, the person who gets it and spends it first is not effected because the market hasn't adjusted to the new infusion of money into the system yet (i.e. prices haven't risen). So who gets the money first when the Fed inflates? The banks, and major corporations, the military industrial complex, wall-street, etc.
But I'd agree with netant that the tax system contributes a great deal as well, but not nearly as much as our monetary policy, which is basically a hidden tax.
For those interested in a very plain language description of how the Fed pumps money into the system, read this article -- http://mises.org/story/2728
And after reading that, listen to Ron Paul, the only candidate who constantly talks about this subject, which can be confusing and difficult to understand. - SzaszMan, on 10/13/2007, -2/+2In the context of big government, inflation can easily be a huge transfer of wealth.
1) Government goes into huge debt to buy tons of miliitary equipment, and to finance military contractors.
2) Inflation goes up and shrinks away government debt (because the debt is on a fixed rate)
3) The average Joe gets screwed, while the government and their favored business groups make out like bandits
repeat steps 1, 2, and 3 in that order - jmpeagle, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1@netant
You didn't contradict anything I said. Wealth is money neutral in that its real value is not affeted by changes the money supply in the long run because an increase in inflation will just lead to an equivalent increase on the return on the asset as an asset's value is based on the discounted stream of income or equivalent utility over its lifetime. A fall in interest rates will lead to a corresponding increase the expected value of the lifetime income due to the discount rate falling on bonds or equivalently the higher "alpha" return over the "beta" risk-free return.
BTW Monetary Policy cannot affect the rate of growth in the long run. I haven't heard any economist make that argument in any paper since at least the Great Depression, whether socialist, libertarian, or conservative.
- jmpeagle, on 10/13/2007, -2/+7I am just assumming you are trolling because no one can be that ignorant. Here is a basic lesson for you.
- shark615, on 10/13/2007, -5/+4Inflation is a transfer of wealth? What? When the market does well fixed income become worse off?
- cranium, on 10/14/2007, -3/+7Ron Paul is for free market capitalism, in particular he knows that allowing the elites to rig the system is NOT free market capitalism. The lower and middle classes will make substantial gains once the elites can no longer rig the system.
- jmpeagle, on 10/14/2007, -11/+12exactly. If you want to stop the redistribution of income to the richest people, you should vote for Ron Paul. Inflation is basically a transfer of wealth from the poor to Wall Street. When money gets pumped into the system, the stock market does real well but fixed wage earners at the bottom tend to become worse off as the higher prices they see are not met by rising wages.
- luskin, on 10/14/2007, -11/+17If you want a redistribution of income, Ron Paul is the last person you should vote for.
- readthis, on 10/14/2007, -7/+31A government of the wealthy, and that caters to the wealthy by deceiving the poor and middle class is unsustainable. If history repeats itself, eventually the poor and middle class can bear it no longer and attack the wealthy. It has happened many times even in the history of the United States, and the wealthy have always feared it may happen to them.
- Racerx52, on 10/17/2007, -3/+13What a good time to train a more aggressive policing and controlling tactics.
- cdiggy, on 10/13/2007, -3/+5Yes. And lets build some FEMA camps so we can send em to the gulag when they really get out of line.
- bitORlogic, on 10/13/2007, -0/+10"The middle class is a buffer that keeps the hands of the poor from the throats of the rich."
I forget who said that, but it's very true. - sporg, on 10/14/2007, -1/+5Yes the wealthy fear it very much. Thats why there are more gated communities than ever before and the police forces are more intolerant of the poor than ever before. The message being sent out is clear.
"You will work your low pay long hour job and obey completely or you will be thrown in prison."
In prison you will work for their system for free which is all the better from their vantage point.- parasitewasp, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1People live in gated communities because for some reason other people think they deserve to have stuff that the rich possess...where would they get such an idea?
The DemocRATS telling them that they deserve stuff for free.
- parasitewasp, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1People live in gated communities because for some reason other people think they deserve to have stuff that the rich possess...where would they get such an idea?
- Racerx52, on 10/17/2007, -3/+13What a good time to train a more aggressive policing and controlling tactics.
- w3bsmith, on 10/13/2007, -2/+7Step out. Withhold the talents of your hands and of your mind, so that they cannot be used violently against you. Find your own way to earn money than and you will find a better way.
Do not head the regulations; refuse their validity against your work. Reveal the the impotency of those few against the individual who can simply walk through the rather large holes in their nets. Do not let society teach you that you should feel guilty for not wanting to follow the rules.
The only thing that I ask, is that you not harm anyone yourself. Should you do that, well then you're no better than them.- CanoeBuilder, on 10/13/2007, -5/+1be uh you tif uh li
said
mi amigo - netant, on 10/13/2007, -1/+1Objectivism? Oh pulleeze, give me a break...
- breezyflight, on 10/13/2007, -0/+3Yeah, go back to the ***** cubicle and work a job you hate and go further into debt every two weeks so some tie-wearing illiterate assmunch can drive a BMW.
- w3bsmith, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1I'm not talking about objectivism. I'm not an Objectivist. I'm strictly talking about the freedom and putting it to full use.
- breezyflight, on 10/13/2007, -0/+3Yeah, go back to the ***** cubicle and work a job you hate and go further into debt every two weeks so some tie-wearing illiterate assmunch can drive a BMW.
- CanoeBuilder, on 10/13/2007, -5/+1be uh you tif uh li
- nepawoods, on 10/13/2007, -21/+15"Income inequality worst" implies "income inequality bad", which implies a socialist viewpoint, which implies lame. buried.
- Tenoq, on 10/13/2007, -11/+5Wow - the war with Russia really jaded the vision of the average American, didn't it? Socialism is great when it works. Just no one knows how to make it work.
- shark615, on 10/13/2007, -1/+13except the swedes
- nick111, on 10/13/2007, -7/+1The Swedes are capitalists... they just have a healthier social vision than conservative Americans.
- cdiggy, on 10/13/2007, -2/+7And this is my point. Perfection is a good blend of the two.
- shark615, on 10/13/2007, -1/+13except the swedes
- bobcrotch, on 10/13/2007, -11/+8Great explanation on why socialism never works.
- Tenoq, on 10/13/2007, -11/+5Wow - the war with Russia really jaded the vision of the average American, didn't it? Socialism is great when it works. Just no one knows how to make it work.
- ZephyrNinety, on 10/13/2007, -12/+3Yes the rich are getting richer, no, it's nothing even close to as bad as the 20's
- nick111, on 10/13/2007, -3/+4Says a relatively sheltered child of the middle classes, while bailifs carry away his furniture.
There are 2 million people in prison. How does that compare to the 20s?
- nick111, on 10/13/2007, -3/+4Says a relatively sheltered child of the middle classes, while bailifs carry away his furniture.
- Scumbunny, on 10/13/2007, -3/+5This is sounding the wrong alarm. The real problem is loss of GDP. http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/63/307.html
The Great Crash of '29 was only the warning. The real crash occured after a series of bank falures caused a great spiral. http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/parker.depressi ...
The same thing happened during the Depression: Rich got richer, poor got poorer. Only difference today is you don't see it becuase it's not been as deeply pronounced - until now. With oil prices up, lenders going under, stagflation on the horizon it's just a matter of time.- kuzotz, on 10/13/2007, -1/+2I'll be doing my study abroad next year in europe and if the ***** hits the fan at home in the US... I guess I'll be staying in Europe because there is no way in hell I could come back home poor with no money. I'll have a working visa and a study visa by then and so I would work and send my family back Euros. While I study there also.
- netant, on 10/13/2007, -1/+2What a child.
The US is the engine that drives the world economy. When it shuts down, EVERYONE shuts down (except North Korea). The presumption you make is that the rest of the world will recover faster than the US. It may, but its not so obvious as you seem to think.- breezyflight, on 10/13/2007, -2/+0People are in pain out in the real world, genius.
- breezyflight, on 10/13/2007, -2/+0People are in pain out in the real world, genius.
- netant, on 10/13/2007, -1/+2What a child.
- kuzotz, on 10/13/2007, -1/+2I'll be doing my study abroad next year in europe and if the ***** hits the fan at home in the US... I guess I'll be staying in Europe because there is no way in hell I could come back home poor with no money. I'll have a working visa and a study visa by then and so I would work and send my family back Euros. While I study there also.
- argoff, on 10/15/2007, -3/+30The rich are getting so much richer precisely because we have a fiat money system that creates a bunch of debt and inflation, and because we tax income (vs, say - net worth) - meaning that the guy who busts his chops to create 20 jobs and earn his first million gets his nuts ripped off while the guy already sitting on top of zillions in dollars worth of assets barely even notices.
- roystgnr, on 10/14/2007, -0/+5Wow, so I'm not the only person to have noticed that! Our government has an income tax, and thanks to a nine trillion dollar debt we also have a wealth anti-tax. Money is taken from people who earn it to pay higher interest rates to people who already have it. It's basic economics 101, but you never hear it discussed. It make you wonder how many people are unaware of this effect vs. how many people are aware of it but keep their mouths shut because they benefit from it.
- jambarama, on 10/14/2007, -1/+1If we have to tax, it really only makes sense to tax income. Taxing wealth will exacerbate the problem we have with our negative savings rate. So yes this favors those who already have money, but it also favors anyone who saves.
I know this won't be popular, but rising income inequality isn't necessarily a bad thing, it may be, but doesn't have to be. For example: if you earn $10,000 and I earn $1000, then I earn 10% of what you do. Now lets say we and we both get 10% raises. Now you earn $11,000 and I earn $1100, then my relative status has decreased, I'm now only earn ~9% of what you do.
What we need to test isn't income, but standard of living. If we are living better year to year, then I don't see the problem even if the rich are improving their standard of living at a faster rate (which is what the previous scenario I described would cause). I'm not sure this is happening though. Inflation has been kept pretty low by cheap Chinese imports, housing can't be imported - and housing is big. So our standard of living may actually be stagnant, or declining. I don't know that it is, but I suspect our standard of living hasn't been rising as fast in the 00s as it did in the 90s (and the 70s and 80s weren't great overall either).
It is sometimes hard to tell if people incur debt because they need to and they aren't getting paid enough (i.e. standard of living is falling) or if they incur debt because it is cheap and they are short sighted. - Mavtek, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1Dude you stole all of that from Ron Paul! You sound exactly like him!! The other guy mentioned the same thing but mentioned Ron Paul and he got buried, what gives?
Do People not realize that Ron Paul has studied and written books on the economy? Funny, Ron Paul has a bury brigade! That's so stupid if you don't like what the Dr. has to say no one is forcing you to read it, you shouldn't bury things unless they aren't factual.
- Azur3us, on 10/13/2007, -21/+20It's because the bottom 50% of wage earners are overall uneducated about economics. How about investing some of that money instead of spending it?
The top 50% of income earners pay 90% of taxes. The top 20% pay around 70% of all taxes. It's not the upper class' fault for being rich. Anyone can make money, you just have to be smart about it.
Digg me down, socialists.- naldwell, on 10/13/2007, -2/+12Anyone can make money, but not everyone begins on equal footing. Some people find it easier to get loans, jobs, or an education, for reasons other than their intelligence.
- blackolive, on 10/15/2007, -1/+7@azue3es
"The top 50% of income earners pay 90% of taxes."
This is a lie, Rush Limbaugh says it all the time but really he's talking about the federal income tax, not all income. There's many huge taxes - like sales, gasoline, payroll, etc.
- blackolive, on 10/15/2007, -1/+7@azue3es
- Tenoq, on 10/13/2007, -1/+27Because they can't afford to invest it. Clearly YOU'RE uneducated about economics. That's the whole reason income tax & sales taxes penalise low income earners the most - because they have to spend a great proportion of their income just to live. Take your average earner - $40k. He gets about $33k after income tax (Aus tax rates, US is not much different). It then costs him about $30k just to pay his mortgage/rent, food, bills, etc, etc. He has $3k left to enjoy or invest. Next, look at your above-average earner on $80k. He gets about $65k to take home. It costs him the same $30k to live... perhaps a little more if he bought a fancier house (say $40k). He's still got $25k left to invest or enjoy - so his wealth increases exponentially. That's where your problem lies.
- shark615, on 10/13/2007, -10/+4Your numbers are ***** up. Finally if people lived with in their means it wouldnt be a problem. But people don't they get 10 credit cards and buy a new wardrobe everywhre and by a 5 bedroom house when they only need 2.
- kuzotz, on 10/13/2007, -1/+7a lot of people do live within their means and still struggle. Stop ignoring the real problems and stop blaming the victims and the poor that are stuck in a flawed economic system such as pure capitalism.
- netant, on 10/13/2007, -2/+1The US economic system is not PURE capitalism. At the moment, its starting to resemble a plutocracy moving to a kleptocracy.
Stop blaming capitalism for idiots. They're the problem for everything. - bratpack8, on 10/13/2007, -2/+1Netant is right, anyone who thinks we live in a true free-market simply doesn't understand what a true free-market really is. Basically, it is free of government (or other third party) intervention by force. Think of a trade in a free-market. That trade only occurs if both parties to the trade believe they are getting something better in return than what they are giving up at that particular moment in time. If either party doesn't believe that, the trade does not occur. Contrast this with when the government interferes, whether it be subsidies to large corporations, targeted tax breaks, tariffs, regulations, which all give politically-connected companies and folks a huge advantage over their competitors. Think of minimum wage, which distorts what is basically a simple trade between and employee and employer. The examples are endless. Vote for Ron Paul, the only guy who gets it.
- netant, on 10/13/2007, -2/+1The US economic system is not PURE capitalism. At the moment, its starting to resemble a plutocracy moving to a kleptocracy.
- bitORlogic, on 10/13/2007, -0/+2The problem is that extreme income disparity distorts the market. If car companies decide they can make more money selling overpriced SUVs to rich people than durable, cheap cars to average people, then they'll make fewer cars that average people can afford. This means that average people _have_ to live "outside" their means just to survive - they don't have many options. This is especially true with housing. If someone thinks they can make more money selling $300,000 homes to wealthy people, then they aren't going to bother building, say, a decent $80,000 home that an average person might be able to afford. Which means that average people generally have to rent, meaning they aren't investing in an appreciating asset like a house.
- kuzotz, on 10/13/2007, -1/+7a lot of people do live within their means and still struggle. Stop ignoring the real problems and stop blaming the victims and the poor that are stuck in a flawed economic system such as pure capitalism.
- Vocifer, on 10/13/2007, -2/+5Neither of you are correct. The income gap is due to monetary policy and not wealth redistribution. Wealth redistribution is just money fed back into the system. Monetary policy however, is a literal manipulation of the system itself. It reduces the value of the dollar, and regardless of the how much money is shifted around, the rich will always benefit, and the poor will always lose, and the gap will always increase.
- Lumet, on 10/13/2007, -6/+230K for rent, food, bills?! I'm making 12K. I'm doing just fine. Yes I have roommates. Yes I do NOT HAVE KIDS. Maybe that is the answer. Do not have kids till you are ready. Get educated. Get a job. Get a house. Then think about kids.
- netant, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1But what if you won't achieve a desirable level of income until after you lose fertility? Not an optimal Darwinian strategy. Also, not an optimal strategy for warmongering nationalism.
- breezyflight, on 10/13/2007, -1/+1You missed a step. It's "get educated, get a job, get FIRED, LOSE the house."
- YoureAllSoDumb, on 10/14/2007, -2/+4Thank you for pointing this out. Some people can't understand the simplicity of how rich get richer and wealth builds exponentially. Nobody needs to have a billion dollars in America, nobody.
- parasitewasp, on 10/14/2007, -1/+2The question isn't if someone needs a billion dollars, it's who do you think you are saying someone cannot have a billion dollars...socialist idiot
FREEDOM - bratpack8, on 10/14/2007, -0/+2What right do you (or the government) have in telling people what they can and can't have, or can strive for?
- parasitewasp, on 10/14/2007, -1/+2The question isn't if someone needs a billion dollars, it's who do you think you are saying someone cannot have a billion dollars...socialist idiot
- parasitewasp, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1The poor do not pay income taxes
- shark615, on 10/13/2007, -10/+4Your numbers are ***** up. Finally if people lived with in their means it wouldnt be a problem. But people don't they get 10 credit cards and buy a new wardrobe everywhre and by a 5 bedroom house when they only need 2.
- vertinox, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1@"How about investing some of that money instead of spending it? "
Oh good. Lets save and invest or meager savings when inflation makes it a moot point. Do you know why people go into debt? Because the value of the dollar will make it pointless in 5 years. Now I don't like it any more than you, but chastising people on not saving or investing when the dollar is so weak and continues to plummet makes no sense.
Wait... I take that back. You could invest in gold and the Euro. The only way to solve the debt problem is to solve the inflation problem first. - vertinox, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1 []
- TheSwashbuckler, on 10/13/2007, -2/+5"It's because the bottom 50% of wage earners are overall uneducated about economics. How about investing some of that money instead of spending it?"
The bottom 50% of wage earners don't earn enough to invest. They have to support their families.
- naldwell, on 10/13/2007, -2/+12Anyone can make money, but not everyone begins on equal footing. Some people find it easier to get loans, jobs, or an education, for reasons other than their intelligence.
- postal21, on 10/13/2007, -1/+3Bush told the Journal. "And what needs to be done about the inequality of income is to make sure people have got good education, starting with young kids."
is that correct grammar?- popltree2, on 10/13/2007, -1/+1I think my brain just exploded trying to decipher that. It's like you need a ***** Rosetta Stone!
- TheSwashbuckler, on 10/13/2007, -1/+3A good education? When high tech jobs are being sent to India and China and good education ain't gonna do you squat...
- Fogdelune, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1It appears that even though Bush had got a good education, he had not got the ability to speak correctly.
- footodors, on 10/13/2007, -12/+2Unfortunately, you ain't seen nothin' yet!
ALL of your sales jobs, inventory, delivery, accounting, customer development, setup and even the basic product R&D will be taken over by SMART and no-cost software/hardware within a few short years.
Why pay ANYONE at all when I can open a superstore with
NO EMPLOYEES and simply use powerful, smart and no-fatigue AI-based software and robotic hardware to design, build, package, sell, deliver and setup the products I make.
The sales-based 80/20 rule (i.e. 80% of sales from 20% of customers) will eventually apply to the rest of the population as well. A certain futurist CEO said it best...in the very near future, I'll need only 20% percent of my employees to make and sell 80% of my products.
In fact, MY OWN JOB is to make sure this rapid acceleration to full automation goes faster and faster. What the majority of the people on this site do NOT realize is that in the future, 80% of the world's population (like you!) will be basically "Useless Eaters" since they can't afford to buy or be able to make use of what us 20% Elite make and have.
That same 80% "Useless Eater" population also won't have or make anything of what us 20% elite want or need.
Thus YOU WILL be relegated to the fringes of a high-tech, cognitively and physically elite society.
The future is a bleak one for those on the cognitive fringes.
Even now, it is the innate smarts, ability and drive that count and this will only get worse as 80% of the world simply doesn't have what it takes and the 20% who do, will stratify ourselves even further into a cognitive elite with the best education, best biological and cognitive enhancements, and of course the best robotic servants money can buy. The rest of you will starve outside of our well-fortified, well-armed, robotically-patrolled, hermetically-sealed enclaves, while the rest of humanity starves and fights over the scraps we will throw out to you......and you know what? I'm all right with that!
The Earth is already overpopulated with stupid dolts who are mostly illiterate, ignorant and indolent. Based upon this site,
I would be highly surprised that the majority has even matriculated from a primary-level education.
Can anyone spell anymore?
Since smarts and ambition are primarily genetic and thus heritable traits, the rich will only get richer (and generally smarter as we enhance our cognitive and physical abilities) while the poor will get poorer, sicker and more stupid! In 50 to 100 years, advanced technology and biology will make us Elite as above you as you are currently above the amoeba!
And in the end, there is NOTHING you can do about it since you WON'T be able to win a fight against an advanced, cognitively and physically elite society. It would be like the caveman throwing sticks and stones at a 70 ton tank. You get run over in the process....- ThomasPaine23, on 10/13/2007, -0/+6In all your well eudcated elitist life you have obviously overlooked the word hubris.....
While it may be true that the "elite" may overcome the rest of humanity, with such a mindset they will invent the very tools that destroy themselves. Your post even foreshadows that outcome. With this mindset comes the belief that one should not have to "lower" oneself and get your hands dirty. Thus, why should I guard the gates? I'll make a robot to do it.... At some point those robots will come to the same conclusion you have. At which point they will view YOU as the "Useless Eaters"- beautifulqueen, on 10/13/2007, -0/+3Oh yeah. That is the "antagonistic vs friendly AI" transhumanistic issue that is getting so much attention nowadays. Indeed, no matter how much more "elite" you get, you will be disposed of just as quickly & carelessly as you disposed of all others.
- etnu, on 10/13/2007, -1/+6Interestingly enough, your arguments are pretty much the same as those made by the leaders of France, Russia, England, etc. shortly before their citizens revolted and destroyed them.
You greatly overestimate your importance in the world. - friedman420, on 10/13/2007, -4/+2thing is tho, companies aren't so braindead that they would just fire all their employees. Because they need consumers to at least have enough money to shop at their stores and buy mc donalds cheeseburgers. Thats why they'll keep everyone like paycheck to paycheck poor
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/13/2007, -1/+5If everyone you are trying to sell to is poor. Then the system collapses.
So the situation you are mentioning cannot sustain itself.
Eventually if these people cannot find work, then you will go out of business. Because nobody will be buying from you. - RockinRoel, on 10/13/2007, -0/+3Go back to the early 20th century!
Computers and machines have become a tool to make work easier for employees, not to sack them.- ferrofluid, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1Expert systems destroy middle class jobs, same way as power tools and big machines reduced the number of manual jobs.
- ferrofluid, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1Expert systems destroy middle class jobs, same way as power tools and big machines reduced the number of manual jobs.
- cdiggy, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1If it ever comes down to it... Target A? Acquired. Status? Eliminated. Target B? Acquired. Status? Eliminated...... and so on and so forth. No massive uprising required.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1"and even the basic product R&D will be taken over by SMART and no-cost software/hardware within a few short years."
You're dreaming. AI's been talked about in this way for the last 20+ years. And people like you will be talking about it that way for the next 20 years and it STILL won't work.- ferrofluid, on 10/15/2007, -0/+150 plus years
- ThomasPaine23, on 10/13/2007, -0/+6In all your well eudcated elitist life you have obviously overlooked the word hubris.....
- DucoNihilum, on 10/14/2007, -14/+8Shouldn't we be worrying about the poor getting richer rather than some unimportant 'gap' between the rich and poor? Most "Poor" aren't that bad off taking into consideration africa and other actual "poor" nations.....
"Income Inequality" is really just selfishness, people who think they deserve your money.- etnu, on 10/14/2007, -0/+8No -- income inequality leads to slow buying, slow development, etc.
If only wealthy, well off people can afford to go to college and buy things, the entire economy suffers. EVERYONE gets poorer.
An ideal society will have a wealth distribution curve where the majority of the population controls the majority of the wealth. You still have rich people, you still have poor people -- but the average person does OK.
When you have massive gaps, you get social unrest and stagnation. You get the great depression, you get world war 2, and you get the french revolution. - RockinRoel, on 10/13/2007, -0/+4Well, aren't you a little pompous?
Take a look around! Rich people don't need all that money, but there are a crapload of people who do. - kuzotz, on 10/13/2007, -3/+5Ok so you move to a poor neighborhood in a US city, and see some of the problems they deal with..
1.No health care for one. You get sick you hope it passes.. Hope it isn't something serious that warrants surgery.
2.You get to live in a dangerous area. I know you love it when the local rival gangs wage turf wars on your block on a weekly basis.
3.Deal with extremely abusive police. Seeing that being poor in america is so easy. Its great to know that the police sure as hell isn't on your side. They will assume you are guilty and might possibly take advantage of your poor uneducated ass in order to fulfill their quotas.
4.Natural disasters- Yea this one is my favorite. You will now be blamed for being stuck in a destroyed area with no place to go and no real savings to fall back on until you can get back on your feet in another city.
5.THis means say no-no to moving. That's right. You are stuck in whatever ***** city you were born or were you fell into poverty.
Also you confuse poor with working class. While the working class can be considered poor they are basically lower middle class. They work a form of skilled labor that is the working class and its still yes by any standards decent to live.......
In short you(duconihilum) are disconnected from the problems that many Americans deal with on a daily basis. - TheSwashbuckler, on 10/14/2007, -1/+4""Income Inequality" is really just selfishness, people who think they deserve your money."
No, income inequality is the beginning of the end of democracy and the beginning of oligarchy.
- etnu, on 10/14/2007, -0/+8No -- income inequality leads to slow buying, slow development, etc.
- valleyguy, on 10/13/2007, -5/+6Having lots of money does not equal happiness. A lot of these super-rich have more problems than you or I. (drugs, nasty divorce settlements, disfunctional kids, etc.).
- shamanlife, on 10/13/2007, -1/+1That is so true.
- PaulDrake, on 10/15/2007, -1/+6There's no provable fact that money equals happiness...so?
There's provable correlations between money and health care and money and housing/food/clothing.
Stupid slogans mean nothing. - RockinRoel, on 10/13/2007, -4/+1Yeah, rich people's kids get spoiled so much and makes them grow up in the wrong way, while in the end, they're just like you and me. I never thought I'd refer to this movie, but check out the Richie Rich situation.
BUT a lot of their problems they cause themselves by stopping to be a normal person. Be rich, okay, but stay normal. (And realise that you really don't need all that money and others might be better off with it, like charities) And I have little to no respect for the fraudulent. There's a lot of tax money getting lost because of them. - vertinox, on 10/15/2007, -0/+10Ummm... Poor people have drug, divorce, and dysfunctional kids too.
- YoureAllSoDumb, on 10/15/2007, -0/+3Money does equal happiness when you're struggling just to find cash to pay your health insurance and car repair bills. The bottom line: money = a way to place a number value and how much society values you. Do you think Bill Gates is 40,000x better than you? Is his contribution of a software monopoly worth 4,000 times more money than you will earn in your life time? That's what our current under regulated capitalist system is saying.
- netant, on 10/13/2007, -0/+2Ah yeah, how dissatisfying the life of the outer party members, you proles. They have so much more to worry about than your simple lives.
- ferrofluid, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1Wide stances and picking up 'trade' in public restrooms, I agree.
- ferrofluid, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1Wide stances and picking up 'trade' in public restrooms, I agree.
- Batfishy, on 10/13/2007, -0/+2If money buys freedom from worry, than money can buy something pretty close to happiness. In other words - it's hard to be happy in real poverty. I would guess that on the road to happiness one would find financial security.
- kuzotz, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1I definitely don't want to be wealthy and apart of an elite circle that help, and at times backstab each other.
I prefer to just be financially stable, and secure enough to know that if the ***** hits the fan I can atleast have some place to move to..
- kuzotz, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1I definitely don't want to be wealthy and apart of an elite circle that help, and at times backstab each other.
- SiNN4R, on 10/14/2007, -12/+6There is only one solution. We must nationalize every resource.
- sangjmoon, on 10/13/2007, -3/+8Sure. It did wonders in the USSR.
- RockinRoel, on 10/13/2007, -4/+9In the USSR the resources were privatized, rather than nationalized, just like in capitalism. Only difference: they were owned by one person rather than many. The USSR was definitely not communist, it was a dictatorship. All serious communist ideals ended after Lenin. Trotski would have continued his ideals, but Stalin took over.
True communism has never been applied. Every communist regime is a dictatorship. I'm not saying that it would work, but don't judge the ideology by looking at the application.- netant, on 10/13/2007, -3/+4What kind of rot is that?
Castro has 50 years to implement his Communist ideal. As did Vietnam.
The USSR's resources weren't put in Josef Stalin's name. It wasn't privatized, it was nationalized! Communism HAS to operate as a dictatorship, in order to redistribute wealth. What the pinko theorists believed was that the dictatorship would dissolve once the "new" governmental mechanisms were put into place.
True Communism will never be applied because its FLAWED. You can't get EVERYONE to agree relinquish wealth, Communism doesn't provide incentive to excel at one's endeavors, and Communism's implementation is probably contrary to any well functioning society. The philosophy was invented before Marx and Engel had ever been exposed to the concept of worker unions to negotiate compensation with the rich.- moocow1452, on 10/13/2007, -0/+3That's why communism always devolves into a dictatorship.
- parasitewasp, on 10/13/2007, -0/+2Communism starts of as a dictatorship and stays there, that's one reason why it doesn't work.
- netant, on 10/13/2007, -3/+4What kind of rot is that?
- vertinox, on 10/13/2007, -1/+240% of the US economy is from the Government. I think these two issues are related. Debt inequality is from nationalization and the fact that wealthy corporations own the government in their pocket.
- LuaPron, on 10/14/2007, -11/+4I think a lot of people on the left fail to realize that many of the rich people simply position themselves to take advantage of taxpayer funded programs. health care - drugs and HMOs. War - defense industry and oil if its relevant. Education - supplies/technology/student loans. Food - farming/retail. Housing - construction/loans. Increased deficit - government bonds. The "income gap" isn't about to get taxed away, though the middle and lower classes can suffer greatly from tax programs.
Welfare programs often increase prices by establishing a new minimum price. If an industry offers a low end service for 100 dollars a month, then the government is willing to pay 150 a month for anyone, the price for everyone eventually goes up (government will eventually cry foul if they find out they're being "overcharged"). People will take every penny our government offers, then expect the same amounts from others.- MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/17/2007, -3/+7Yeah and people are Idiots and think think a corporation running programs is better then the governments running things.
People actually think the government running health care is bad. Idiots.
The government is concerned with providing for the people and a corp. is ONLY responsible for making profit.
Everyone in the free world outside of America would laugh their ass off at this.- kuzotz, on 10/17/2007, -1/+4MAc you almost have it correct.
More so even in a Republic. The people HAVE A SAY in what the gov't does. And the people can and should hold the gov't accountable for its actions at all times. You can't do the same to a corporation. Which is why coporatist societies are horrible.
We are turning into that seeing that the people don't question things and trust corporations to allow the gov't to give them subsidies. Screwing us, and third world countries.- netant, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1...And our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that perfect world in which there's no war or famine, oppression or brutality -- one vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock, all necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused...
- LuaPron, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2Its actually considerably easier to hold corporations accountable. Its much harder to hold the government accountable. its almost impossible to hold anyone accountable when its government and corporations working in collusion. If the government where run similarly to a corporation, Bush would have been booted out long ago over war issues. Corporate executives don't get to stay in control very long with 75% disapproval. I don't want a corporatist society either - I tend to respond very negatively when I see corporations attempting to influence my decisions.
Corporations are not the force that really screws third world nations. That would be governments, often in collusion with corporations. Who screwed Iraq - was it the corporations that misbehaved, or the government that started the war. Who screwed Iran in the 50s, was it the oil companies that benefited from the Shah's policies, or the government which assisted in the coup. Just about all of the worst crimes of the past century came out of actions by various governments around the world
Government run health care IS quite bad. The politicians will use it to control more aspects of your life. Want your kid to be taken away when you refuse to put him on narcotics because his teacher was told to look for immature behavior as a sign of a severe medical condition? Expect to see more of that with gov't run health.
Want to have cheap effective cures banned by politicians more concerned about acting 'tough on drugs', forcing you to use expensive, potentially dangerous medication? - Expect to see more with gov't health care.
Want to see corporations bilk people out of cash by charging the government the maximum in a restricted market (read: monopoly)? Expect to see more of that under gov't health care.
It certainly is nice to talk about doing all sorts of wonderful things with the government. Unfortunately, the more responsibilities the government takes on, the greater the opportunity becomes for the wrong people to get involved and use it toward selfish ends.
- kuzotz, on 10/17/2007, -1/+4MAc you almost have it correct.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/17/2007, -3/+7Yeah and people are Idiots and think think a corporation running programs is better then the governments running things.
- ZenMojo, on 10/14/2007, -3/+12Income inequality is bad because the value of the dollar changes within a closed economic system. Por ejemplo, let's say a Big Mac (a predictable measurement of good costs anticipating the cost of making a Big Mac, the energy costs, and all of those things used across the economic spectrum that go into Big Mac construction) costs 3 dollars. If the lowest 80% of incomes are stable and the highest 20% of incomes double, then the wealth of the country as a whole increases by about 80% (nee, the pareto principle). The value of the Big Mac trends, too, up by 80%.
So now you have a Big Mac that costs $5.40 when you once had a Big Mac that once cost $3.00. This wouldn't be a problem if everybody's wealth increased by a similar percentage, but where there is increasing income inequality, the trend in the price of goods trends with GDP and/or inflation regardless of the lower end of the wage scale. Poor people get POORER, rich people get RICHER.
Now, income inequality is GREAT for rich people...they can buy more with their dollar. Where you stand on either side of this debate will pretty much reflect who you are and where you stand on the wage scale. Rich people will of course argue FOR income inequality and everyone else who isn't rich should argue AGAINST it. But if you're just a brainwashed tool like most people were in the 1920's jerking off to Horatio Alger myths, then, yeah, you can cheer for the rich as well hoping that your purity of heart and Puritan work ethic (no one mentions there weren't many rich Puritans) will rescue you from reality.- ZenMojo, on 10/13/2007, -4/+9Republicans use "the free market" promise to perpetuate the monstrosity that is their "Italian-model" fascist nightmare in the same way that they prop themselves up with "G-d and religion." Atheists and socialists are their great boogeymen, enough to rally the crowds by painting the world in simple black and white and scaring the masses into submission to a higher power ... the dollar.
- andrew1193, on 10/13/2007, -4/+5"Republicans use "the free market" promise to perpetuate the monstrosity that is their "Italian-model" fascist nightmare"
You do realize the two are mutually exclusive, don't you?- kuzotz, on 10/13/2007, -3/+2well the republicans use it then give companies corporate welfare.
- bratpack8, on 10/13/2007, -1/+2That's not a free market kuzot and zenmojo. A free-market is free of government intervention (no subsidies, no corporate welfare, no targeted tax breaks, no minimum wage, no price caps, no regulations, no tariffs, nothing)...
- kuzotz, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1of course but they still ***** brag about that *****. REpublicans do talk dont ***** deny that.
IF you know what they do, and know what they say then you should know the ***** difference between doing and talking.
- netant, on 10/13/2007, -1/+1Actually, you mean neocon (as you losely describe the Leo Strauss wetdream). Not all Republicans are neocons.
- LuaPron, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1Thats a pretty "black and white" way to look at the situation...
- andrew1193, on 10/13/2007, -4/+5"Republicans use "the free market" promise to perpetuate the monstrosity that is their "Italian-model" fascist nightmare"
- jambarama, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1Hence the massive transfer program known as graded income taxes. Ideally having income brackets should remedy some of this by not taxing those getting poorer, and taxing increasingly heavily those who get richer. If our tax system wasn't the most complex set of loopholes, for those who can afford them, in the world it might work.
- LokitheComplex, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1Completely agree with this. For a long time we've been told that it doesn't matter if some people are very very rich if we're all getting richer. I think its a lie.
Surely property is a problem too. In a finite market where the price of a palace goes up it affects all lesser properties and lands. I also think there is a social cost in such a separate society.
I think its likely to end in unpleasant war and revolution.
- ZenMojo, on 10/13/2007, -4/+9Republicans use "the free market" promise to perpetuate the monstrosity that is their "Italian-model" fascist nightmare in the same way that they prop themselves up with "G-d and religion." Atheists and socialists are their great boogeymen, enough to rally the crowds by painting the world in simple black and white and scaring the masses into submission to a higher power ... the dollar.
- andrew1193, on 10/17/2007, -12/+7"The super-rich are gobbling up an ever larger piece of the economic pie"
Yes, it couldn't be that these people produce products and services that people want! Wealth is something that falls from the sky in a finite amount, and the super-rich conspire to take it all!- MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/17/2007, -4/+6They do. And everyone else in the G7 is watching America self destruct.
- RockinRoel, on 10/17/2007, -3/+2There's still a difference between the money owned by the company (for research, products, services) and owned by the owners of the company. The superrich would rather compromise on the quality of their products and put some more money into their own pockets.
- LuaPron, on 10/17/2007, -1/+2So they can later get caught making shoddy products, sued, and out-done by competition, assuming they aren't operating in a government restricted market.
- breezyflight, on 10/17/2007, -3/+1Produce what? We don't build anything 'round here any more. We grow food and make ***** sequels. Other than that we haven't invented anything or built anything of any consequence since the 1960s. We manufacture *****. We invent *****. Know why? If you build or invent you get FIRED and replaced by someone who will say "oh yes sir, your new pie chart is so compelling that I must make a Powerpoint about it right away!"
Want proof? Go to any company and look for the creative people. Look for the writers and composers. Look for the theoretical mathematicians. Look for the concept engineers. Look for the computer programmers who start with a BLANK editor screen. Look for the graphics artists. Watch them being harassed and criticized. Watch them being persecuted until they are driven from the company. Go ahead.
Then ask yourself why we don't build anything. - YoureAllSoDumb, on 10/13/2007, -1/+3Yea! Awesome, superior products, like those from Microsoft.
- LuaPron, on 10/13/2007, -0/+2Actually, Microsoft does produce decent software, though I tend to balk at the offered price and opt for cheaper or free alternatives.
- ferrofluid, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1Most super rich are vulture capitalists, they vacuum up other peoples ideas and companys.
They dont do the inventing or product building and R&D.
- sangjmoon, on 10/13/2007, -7/+9There were about 106 million Americans in 1920. There are about 300 million now. Our GDP was about $88 billion in 1920, and it is about $13 trillion now. $1 in 1920 is worth about $11 now accounting for inflation. This means that our population increased 300% while the GDP for those people increased about 1,340%. So this means that if we divide 1340% by 3, the wealth of the 99% who own about 79% of the wealth still increased by over 4 times in real terms. What does mean in layman language? It is better to be the "downtrodden" now than in the past in spite of the attempt to make it seem worse in this article.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/13/2007, -2/+1If that's correct, I find it very interesting dugg up.
- beyondinfinity, on 10/17/2007, -6/+9Capitalism works...to a point. It is selfish to sit on excessive amounts of money while people all over the country (all over the world really) struggle to live. Sharing is caring.
- Lumet, on 10/17/2007, -3/+3I agree, but I don't think a moral problem should be fixed by immoral ways. Such as force wealth redistribution.
- YoureAllSoDumb, on 10/17/2007, -1/+2ie. progressive tax?
- netant, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3"progressive" taxation is a form of wealth distribution. And you are one dumbass if you think the uberwealthy will voluntarily relinquish "excess" wealth necessary for a stable, egalitarian society.
- cranium, on 10/17/2007, -1/+2The elite are gaming the system. That's not capitalism, that's corruption.
- ChimpFlix, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1You don't know what you're talking about until you experience corruption first-hand in the 3rd world. American corruption is child's play.
- Lumet, on 10/17/2007, -3/+3I agree, but I don't think a moral problem should be fixed by immoral ways. Such as force wealth redistribution.
- natmaster, on 10/17/2007, -1/+9That's what happens when you inflate the currency and give the money directly to the wealthy before it is devalued.
- kuzotz, on 10/17/2007, -1/+5that's how the depression happened. No one likes to talk about it but the gov't caused the first great depression.
- netant, on 10/17/2007, -1/+2Sigh. What is wrong with you and your history education?
1) Not all depressions occur when you inflate the currency, and give tax breaks to the rich.
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/depressions.ht ...
2) Everyone blames the Federal Gov't for "Great" depressions. No one likes to talk about it because no one likes to talk about things they find boring or do not understand.
3) When gov't emplaces trade restrictive tariffs, or legislate actions to trigger economic upheaval, then YES, federal gov't "causes depressions".
4) When a Central (private) bank, Federal Reserve (private bank), or wealthy bankers trigger aboundances or shortages in available credit, that is NOT the federal gov't fault.- kuzotz, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1 Not all depressions happen but that is how the one int he 1930s occur. Inflation, and misuse of credit.
btw the federal reserve is private but they operate on GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY. So yes by proxy the gov't did cause the depression in the 1930s.
- kuzotz, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1 Not all depressions happen but that is how the one int he 1930s occur. Inflation, and misuse of credit.
- netant, on 10/17/2007, -1/+2Sigh. What is wrong with you and your history education?
- jambarama, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1Wait so we give money to the rich, then devalue the currency and that hurts who? Wouldn't that devalue all hte money the rich people have stockpiled? Devaluing money hurts those WITH money, not those without - assuming one big thing: wages keep up with inflation. Indebted people actually get a break when inflation rises, if I have a $100,000 school loan, and inflation rises 5% I just got a $5,000 break (assuming I locked in my interest rate before the inflation).
The issue isn't timing, it is that assumption I pointed out. Economics predicts, and history mostly agrees, wages should & do keep up with linflation. That doesn't seem to be happening here - the question is why not?- BlacklabelSAR, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1To answer your first point. Yes, if the rich held their net worth in cash, they too would be hurt by inflation. But that's why they invest. The value of thier investments, an ounce of gold for example, would rise as the value of the currency falls. Otherwise you are on the right track as far as I know.
- kuzotz, on 10/17/2007, -1/+5that's how the depression happened. No one likes to talk about it but the gov't caused the first great depression.
- PhpProgrammer, on 10/17/2007, -10/+2Just goes to show, you can lie and tell people to do things you do the opposite of but still win a nobel prize and get on apples site if it fits the liberal agenda.
- Erectile, on 10/14/2007, -13/+6The poor are still getting richer, so who really gives a *****?
Buried.- MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/13/2007, -2/+3Homeless and hungry is still homeless and hungry.
- Erectile, on 10/14/2007, -4/+4There are still less "homeless and hungry" people now per capita than there were in the 20's. Are you denying that?
- TheSwashbuckler, on 10/13/2007, -2/+2ROFLMAO!!!
Have you ever heard the phrase "daming with faint praise?" - breezyflight, on 10/13/2007, -1/+0There shouldn't be any.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 10/13/2007, -2/+2ROFLMAO!!!
- skyshock1, on 10/13/2007, -5/+9Oh yeah, the USA has a HUGE problem w/ homeless and hungry people.
Sorry, but I grew up in Mexico. The USA has no such poverty problems like those that exist in other countries. I have absolutely no sympathy for those in the US who manage to screw up their lives when it's basically spoon-fed to them on a silver platter. You have mandatory public education, Mexico does not. You honestly have to TRY VERY HARD to ***** your life up if you live in the USA. Homeless and hungry in the US.... bah, nonsense.- kuzotz, on 10/13/2007, -4/+3you obviously have never grown up in the US as a poor person.. You get a horrible education, and you know nothing about college, and you know that you need to work so you do that, but then you hit a glass ceiling.. And then if there is a hostile take-over of the company you worked for by a competing company, and you get fired in the process then you become ***** out of luck if you can't find a job within 15 days and right now we are currently in a recession. So why don't you shut the ***** up.. Being poor no matter where the ***** you are is hard as ***** hell. People work hard, and I know a lot that work hard in the US just to keep their heads above the water. Just to eat the next day I mean hell by the time the bills are paid they barely have enough for food.
- breezyflight, on 10/13/2007, -1/+0Get fired from your job. You've got six weeks before you're living out of your car, provided it doesn't get reposessed. Nobody gives a ***** about your education.
Any questions?
- RockinRoel, on 10/13/2007, -3/+3Yes, maybe the USA is better off than Mexico, but it's still pretty bad. There aren't much homeless and hungry people in America, but there are a lot of people who live in awful, downright dangerous houses. The problems aren't as big as in Mexico, maybe. I agree that the wealth is even more skewed in Mexico, but don't be so pompous. It is very possible to "screw up" in the USA or just be born in a screwed up situation.
- cranium, on 10/13/2007, -0/+2Go visit a developing country, then STFU. You have no idea.
- Erectile, on 10/14/2007, -4/+4There are still less "homeless and hungry" people now per capita than there were in the 20's. Are you denying that?
- YoureAllSoDumb, on 10/14/2007, -0/+5Have they taught you ratios in your math class at middle school yet?
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/13/2007, -2/+3Homeless and hungry is still homeless and hungry.
- DutchGuilder, on 10/15/2007, -2/+16If possible, read the amazing "Lessons of History" by Will and Ariel Durant. Income inequity is nothing new, it has occurred many times in the past 2000 years and always ends in collapse/revolution/rebirth of civilizations.
- frygar, on 10/13/2007, -0/+3My father once had me read "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" when I was younger. It's a pretty simplistic book, but one thing from it stood out to me - that was the part where the "rich dad" mentioned that wealth grows, people get richer, and *always* the lower class rise up and kill them, thus starting the cycle anew. I know that wasn't the focus of that book, but that part has stuck with me ever since I read it. And throughout history, it has always happened that way, will continue to, regardless of how advanced we become.
- ReDoEr, on 10/14/2007, -15/+4More accurate headline:
"Lower-class relief rats lazier than in 1920's. Motivated rich getting richer despite having to pay for their sorry asses." - mahela, on 10/13/2007, -7/+5size of the government at its largest since EVER.
maybe the two are correlated? - truegodofwar, on 10/14/2007, -11/+3Whatever the problem is, the treatment is Dr. Ron Paul.
- RockinRoel, on 10/14/2007, -3/+7Hell no, he would probably make it worse.
- CanoeBuilder, on 10/13/2007, -2/+1Well, if you think that by repealing federal subsidies on corn,
which makes high fructose corn syrup highly profitable,
which leads to its widespread use in processed foods,
which lead to high rates of diabetes in people who eat alot processed junk
which leads to ever more exorbitant profits for the people at the top of the food chain of the highly subsidized
healthcare and pharmaceutical industries,
"would probably make it worse,"
well then you're probably right.
Because as you may know Ron Paul is for doing away with federal subsidies.- twinklyJesus, on 10/13/2007, -0/+5What I think, is, that people eating a lot of processed junk is what causes high rates of diabetes, not high fructose corn syrup. If it was the fault of HFCorn syrup, how do you explain the high rates of diabetes prior to it's introduction?
My theory is that your fat ass should get off the couch, off the internet, step away from the twinkies and the instances of diabetes will subside.
***** Ron Paul can't get my shirts whiter, he cant cure the common cold, he's not the answer to life, the universe, and everything. You are repeating a marketing mantra. Stop being an idiot.
- twinklyJesus, on 10/13/2007, -0/+5What I think, is, that people eating a lot of processed junk is what causes high rates of diabetes, not high fructose corn syrup. If it was the fault of HFCorn syrup, how do you explain the high rates of diabetes prior to it's introduction?
- CanoeBuilder, on 10/13/2007, -2/+1Well, if you think that by repealing federal subsidies on corn,
- YoureAllSoDumb, on 10/13/2007, -1/+3Can Dr. Paul treat these funny warts on my dick?
- truegodofwar, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1Yes he can. Can me make you stop being a dick? Probably not.
- RockinRoel, on 10/14/2007, -3/+7Hell no, he would probably make it worse.
- lordmike, on 10/14/2007, -6/+11Well, what do you expect when we've spent the last generation destroying the New Deal which basically established the healthy middle class we used to have before Reagan came into office.
- rotundo, on 10/21/2007, -2/+11But wait! Give "trickle down" a chance to work! Please! The richer the billionaires get the more likely they'll drop money on us poor working shmucks! Don't be impatient... it'll happen any day now!
Actually: I think "trickle down" works... if you assume that the poor people are at the top and the rich at the bottom. All money that goes to the poor eventually goes back to the rich.- TheSwashbuckler, on 10/13/2007, -2/+2Let's try trickle up economics for a change.
- YoureAllSoDumb, on 10/13/2007, -1/+1word
- jambarama, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1You are right that trickle-down and supply-side is mostly a load of hooey. One problem is that both of these theories sound nice - trickle-down, a rising tide lifts all ships, etc. The alternatives have been demonized by nasty words like welfare, socialism, and such. Many people (most of them not rich) think that the government forcing income transfers from rich to poor (which is essentially what you're suggesting) infringes some inalienable right to keep what you earn. I guess that might make sense if it really was earned.
- kuzotz, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1what is strange is that these same people can't ***** realize that they aren't able to keep what they earn.
- ferrofluid, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1It finally happened :)
(quote) HAZELWOOD, MO—Twenty-six years after Ronald Reagan first set his controversial fiscal policies into motion, the deceased president's massive tax cuts for the ultrarich at last trickled all the way down to deliver their bounty, in the form of a $10 bonus, to Hazelwood, MO car-wash attendant Frank Kellener. (endquote)
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/reaganomics_f ...
- skyshock1, on 10/13/2007, -8/+2You hear that?? I think I hear the WAAAAHHHmbulance coming.
- NSResponder, on 10/19/2007, -14/+4Utter *****. The rich don't "gobble up the pie", they CREATE the ***** pie.
-jcr- nick111, on 10/15/2007, -3/+11Which is itself utter *****.
Never ceases to amaze met - the degree to which the unlettered will argue for the rights of wealthy speculators while their own go quietly down the pan- YoureAllSoDumb, on 10/13/2007, -1/+3Yea, exactly. It's as if everybody has a filthy rich uncle they're sticking up for.
- NSResponder, on 10/21/2007, -0/+1who are you calling "unlettered", you ignorant pinko?
Do you even have any inkling of the benefit that buyers and sellers of financial securites get from the fact that there are speculators in the market?
-jcr
- bobzibub, on 10/13/2007, -2/+5For example, Paris Hilton.
- NSResponder, on 10/21/2007, -0/+1Paris Hilton's grandfather created the hilton hotel chain, and it's his prerogative to give the money away to his slutty granddaughter if he so chooses.
-jcr
- NSResponder, on 10/21/2007, -0/+1Paris Hilton's grandfather created the hilton hotel chain, and it's his prerogative to give the money away to his slutty granddaughter if he so chooses.
- nick111, on 10/15/2007, -3/+11Which is itself utter *****.
- velvus, on 10/17/2007, -10/+7The rich are getting richer- but relatively, the poor have much higher living standards compared to the 1920's aswell.
- YoureAllSoDumb, on 10/17/2007, -3/+2Ummm... Yea, like paying for a car to get to work to make that meager salary and paying a doctor to well.... Keep living.
- tehxen3, on 10/17/2007, -10/+12Typical socialist ***** article proved wrong by reality where rich get richer, middle class get richer and the poor get richer.
US is among the countries with lowest unemployment in the developed world, and even with only a high school degree you can make more money than people with college do in Europe and Japan. Not to mention much better possibilities and climate for entrepreneurship.
20s were very prosperous years for everyone in US, but a correction crash has been turned into a massive deflationary depression because the Fed didn't know what the heck were they doing back then. FYI, current Fed. reserve chairman Ben Bernanke admitted this couple years back.
US would be waaay more prosperous if Roosevelt didn't build an idiotic huge welfare state which has eaten nearly 50% of US economy every year since.
Government social spending fosters dependence, increases unemployment by perversely redistributing country's resources and kills economic growth which is responsible for all positive change in a society.
US govt. spending before big depression, in prosperous 20's: less than 5% of the economy
Next, Fed massively screws up and cuts the money supply during this decade.
US govt. spending through 30's all the way to 00's: nearly 40% percent of the economy (majority not defense related)
Just remember, tax increases hurt the poor first.- netant, on 10/17/2007, -3/+1"Just remember, tax increases hurt the poor first."
Only when they have to pay for it. When Clinton raised taxes on the top 1% of wealth holders, no one else screamed.- tehxen3, on 10/17/2007, -0/+5Except all around unemployment is lower now than in Clinton years after Bush's $1.1 trillion tax cuts, and that little massive 2000 recession thingie. Also economic growth is at an all time high. Ask thousands of small and medium businesses who they prefer.
- netant, on 10/17/2007, -3/+1"Just remember, tax increases hurt the poor first."
- bobzibub, on 10/17/2007, -5/+13Reason being is not that the rich are more productive, but their parents were.
George Bush --> GW Bush.
Hilton (hotel magnate) --> Paris Hilton.
Traditionally, the "second son" ends the fortune. But today, you're can remain wealthy for many generations based upon low dividend tax rates. Plus, companies write 90% of laws, and they also have a legal duty to share holders. So legally they are bound to thwart the political system to their ends. Which they are successful at. That is why there is no more bankruptcy, far more have no health insurance and it costs far more to go to school. And the purpose of the state (once to protect and lift people up) is now simply to suppress.
For those that fear socialism, understand that it already exists: The only difference is that today the beneficiaries' last names all end in "Inc." The state will go to war for them. It will go into debt for them. It will allow pollution for them. Of course the peeps are the ones that fight the war, pay the debt and breath the pollution.
Governments and companies are not inherently evil entities. They can be very good. But the system must be tweaked so that these two parties never enter into a compact. The compact is the evil thing. It must end. - jeffiek, on 10/17/2007, -3/+5"IRS data show income for the median earner fell 2 percent between 2000 and 2005"
I already critiqued one point of statistical BS. Time for round two.
"Median" may be very precise in definition, but it's usage in this article is highly dubious. The median simply means half above/ half below. It says NOTHING about causes. The whole tone of this article is based on the old-wives tale that wealth is a zero-sum game, and tries to appear intelligent with the use of statistics.
There are MANY reasons for the median to decrease. Some of the them indicate real problems, such as people experi