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.
I don't understand then why you would mock Walmart's increase in starting pay. They are the one company that is most likely to hire people who've had hard times, like the people who end up in a shelter, the ones who are still able to work.
Pay raise is great but I think you completly missed the whole point of that post and rrufs right after it. Please go re-read it.
Income inequality is a meaningless stat and means nothing.
Country D - Person A makes $100k/yr and person B makes $1 million/yr
Country E - Person A makes $20k/yr and person B makes $25k/yr
Income inequality is much greater in Country D, but I much rather be person A have that disparity than the more income equitable Country E.
What if the median income in Country D is $500,000? Person A probably is not going to be able to own a home in that case and might be lucky to rent a room they can afford.
Nope, rents are soaring in most metro areas of the country, including all of the ten largest except Chicago where rents are flat and people are fleeing.
Tax cuts + bonuses --> ppl have more money in their pockets -->more money to spend on rent + increased retail spending -->employers hire more workers --> increased household formation --> lower rental vacancy --> landlords raise rents Because They Can.
You should try to bring your ideas a little closer to reality.
In the majority of the country landlords are not able to suck up any spare change a tenant has. Rather there is competition for tenants which controls the rents that can be charged. You really should get out more, and not base the whole world on your warped perception of your neighborhood.
Rents have generally gone up the last few years in hot markets, but this is because of a sudden drop in home ownership, and higher demand for rentals.
What if the median income in Country D is $500,000? Person A probably is not going to be able to own a home in that case and might be lucky to rent a room they can afford.
if you think person in lower col has it better, then move out of your own high col area
your what if example means nothing when you are unwilling to change your own situation
I disagree with this statement. While this country has some degree of regulation, it is not "incredibly far from unregulated."
Capitalism should be allowed free rein... but it should be strenuously prevented from being predatory. We tend to stray over that line and are creeping (hell, trotting) further every day, this round.
There is, frankly, no better economic system that works outside a tightly encapsulated instance. Capitalism is not the enemy; the inevitable predators are.
(I am pleased, by the way, that most in this thread see income/wealth inequality as a consequence or a result, and not some sort of freestanding problem of its own. Been in too many discussions where inequality just "is, y'know" and the suggested solutions involve tumbrels and tossing captured ducats to the mobs.)
Get off drugs, stop wasting money and live responsibly.
My mother was forever worrying about the family of my brother who drank, smoked and finally died of cancer in his 50's after his wife died of cancer probably from second hand smoke. One day my husband said, "Why do you and your family worry all the time about your brother? He makes as much money as I do." He was right.
It would be interesting to compare lifestyles and how they influence our outcome in life. Some people have trouble living on $100,000 while others do well on a lot less.
You should try to bring your ideas a little closer to reality.
In the majority of the country landlords are not able to suck up any spare change a tenant has. Rather there is competition for tenants which controls the rents that can be charged. You really should get out more, and not base the whole world on your warped perception of your neighborhood.
Rents have generally gone up the last few years in hot markets, but this is because of a sudden drop in home ownership, and higher demand for rentals.
Rental vacancy rates are traditionally much higher than homeowner vacancy rates. For all but the smallest landlords - who need full occupancy - rent levels are DESIGNED for vacancy because profits maximized at non-zero vacancy. (If a large landlord has zero vacancy, there is SOME rent increase that increases profit.)
In the rental market, a great deal depends on WHERE you are: vacancy rates are low (~5%) and rents are high in the West and the Northeast, while vacancy rates are high in the Midwest (~8%) and South (near 10%). A few years ago vacancy rates were 4% in the West; it appears a lot of (pricey) new construction has recently come on the market, so today's vacancy rate probably reflects greater vacancy at the high end while affordable low-end units continue to have very low vacancy.
Capitalism should be allowed free rein... but it should be strenuously prevented from being predatory. We tend to stray over that line and are creeping (hell, trotting) further every day, this round.
There is, frankly, no better economic system that works outside a tightly encapsulated instance. Capitalism is not the enemy; the inevitable predators are.
(I am pleased, by the way, that most in this thread see income/wealth inequality as a consequence or a result, and not some sort of freestanding problem of its own. Been in too many discussions where inequality just "is, y'know" and the suggested solutions involve tumbrels and tossing captured ducats to the mobs.)
If you (over)regulate one sector of the economy, it causes economic distortions in other sectors.
Landlords are not predatory; they are doing only what government enables them to do. When government creates supply shortages in housing, landlords and home sellers do what the distorted market allows them to do.
It's easier for government to mitigate THAT problem with housing programs and minimum wage increases than it is for government to actually resolve the housing shortage.
if you think person in lower col has it better, then move out of your own high col area
your what if example means nothing when you are unwilling to change your own situation
No, I think a person closer in income to the local mainstream has it better.
A person earning $100K where the median income is $500K probably has zero opportunity to buy a home, while a person earning $20K where the median is $25K has good prospects.
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.
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.
