Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,206,701 times
Reputation: 57821
Why is this not considered a good thing? People are always talking about the importance of diversity. If we all made the same amount of income, we would not have the "economic diversity" that we have today with people making minimum wage or less, millions per year, and everything in between.
America's socioeconomic problems could be largely solved if we were to convert to a "one country, two systems" setup, like Hong Kong and China after the handover in 1997.
A couple of states (e.g. Mississippi, Alaska) could be designated and run under a completely independent socialist government. Anyone who can't cut it in capitalist America could elect (or would be required) to live there. Criminals would also be restricted to this area. Anyone who later acquires the education and skills to be productive citizens in "America A" would have the option of moving back.
Like the people of MS and AK would ever accept being ruled by a socialist government. They should not be effective penal colonies.
America's socioeconomic problems could be largely solved if we were to convert to a "one country, two systems" setup, like Hong Kong and China after the handover in 1997.
A couple of states (e.g. Mississippi, Alaska) could be designated and run under a completely independent socialist government. Anyone who can't cut it in capitalist America could elect (or would be required) to live there. Criminals would also be restricted to this area. Anyone who later acquires the education and skills to be productive citizens in "America A" would have the option of moving back.
ahh yes, lets create a separate system for the rich to live under, while lumping the "poors" together. IE "we've taken all their wealth, now lets separate us from them"
As long as the government subsidizes and rewards poverty, we will continue to have more of it.
This is one of the primary reasons the labor force participation rate has fallen so dramatically.
Yes, its sooo awesome being in poverty, I highly recommend it to ALL of my friends. (sarcasm)
No, the labor force participation has fallen dramatically due to a combination of factors, people aging out of course, but mostly....lack of jobs as thing are being moved overseas or automated away.
Yes, its sooo awesome being in poverty, I highly recommend it to ALL of my friends. (sarcasm)
No, the labor force participation has fallen dramatically due to a combination of factors, people aging out of course, but mostly....lack of jobs as thing are being moved overseas or automated away.
So what about the jobs that nobody wants to do that are given to undocumented immigrants? Their whole sets of jobs that American citizens simply see beneath them.
So what about the jobs that nobody wants to do that are given to undocumented immigrants? Their whole sets of jobs that American citizens simply see beneath them.
It isn't beneath them it is the jobs just don't pay enough.
the phrase 'income inequality' doesn't even make sense when describing a capitalist society, as it suggests that income equality (i.e. socialism) is the ideal state to strive for (which I don't think many people who use the phrase are trying to say). 'Income disparity' would make more sense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.