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'm curious - are rich people forced into the GOP, or are there rich Democrats? Really rich ones.
Not exactly sure what your point is, but people can act on and believe in things that do not directly benefit themselves financially. It's called compassion.
From the 1940s until around 1970, as workers became more productive, their salaries grew accordingly. But around 1970, things changed, and for the next four decades, as productivity skyrocketed 70%, hourly wages hardly budged, rising a mere four percent.
So, where did all that extra money go? Mishel points to the very top.
"Between 1989 and 2007, before the Great Recession, of all the income growth that was generated, the bottom 90 percent [of Americans] got only 15 percent of it. The upper one percent got 55 percent. And the upper tenth of the upper one percent, the one out of 1,000 households, got about a third of all the income growth."
And for some reason W Bush and the Republicans decided to give the richest a tax break (which they achieved through budget reconciliation in the Senate, btw), thereby redistributing even more of the wealth to the wealthiest in America. Are these 1 in 1,000 people really responsible for 1/3rd of the growth in our economy?
News flash, folks. Wealth HAS been redistributed over the last 40 years - TOWARDS THE WEALTHY. It's time to re-redistribute that income to the levels we had in the 50's and 60's - where someone could have a "regular job" and still support a family, preferably on one income, so one parent can stay at home and raise our kids properly. Now, if you want to be like the Cleavers, you have to be in the top 1% of earners. Is that what we want for America?
Gee, Art. Maybe you should have studied harder in school and got better grades. Maybe you chose the wrong line of work or college major. Maybe you did not work that hard along the way.
I undoubtedly grew up much more poor than you. I got an education, worked hard, and things fell into place. I feel no pity for those who did not do the same, as they were too busy partying and enjoying life while I was busting my ass.
Capitalism is a game in which intelligence and hard work is rewarded. Lethargy, lack of education, and lack of innovation is not.
Don't ***** me out for your lack of success. Blame yourself. Introspection is an activity that is not, and cannot, be practiced by a liberal, as it leads one to the uncomfortable conclusion that one has not performed to expectations. Socialism and liberalism is a welcoming club which tells its members that it is okay to be a failure and a loser- it is not YOUR fault. The reason you are a failure in society has nothing to do with your lack of education or effort, it is because the MAN has been keeping you down. Keep on thinking that- it will make you feel better but will not change reality.
Here is the really bad news. Even in a communistic/socialistic system, there are economic and political strata of power. Those who have an education, intelligence, and work hard, rise to the top in those systems, just like in capitalism. So the hopeful wish among losers that the field will be "leveled" in a socialsitic system is unrealistic. A loser will always be a loser, regardless of the political or economic system.
Art123 for president!!! Sorry, Art, I keep trying to rep you but I have to "spread the love" more first.
I want to respond to the free market idealists who say that anyone can make it in America if the simply try harder: What do you say to those of us, like myself, who worked as much as 80 hours per week at building a small business, employing people for better-than-market wages, followed all the rules and laws, but went bankrupt due to unforeseen circumstances, while others who did nothing better or worse became filthy rich due to unforeseen circumstances?
This is not a meritocracy. Michael Dell did not "merit" tens of billions more than the other computer manufacturers who worked just as hard as he did and just as honestly. I don't begrudge the success of Dell or Bill Gates or Sam Walton --- they all deserve just rewards for their hard work and ingenuity, key human factors in creating the wealth of this nation.
Where I take issue with free market fundamentalism is in the acceptance of "winner-take-all" outcomes for equal effort. One person makes it, everyone else loses.
Bill O'Reilly is a classic example of a spokesman for the meritocracy myth. I've heard him say, on several occasions, that he's just a hard-working guy who made it through honest effort and anyone else can do it in America. Well, here's a wee bit of a problem with that argument --- there can only be ONE PERSON in Bill O'Reilly's time slot. Everyone else who works hard to anchor that prime time cable news show loses.
Here's another example --- take 100,000 high school basketball players who dream of being in the NBA. Many of them are very good, and some go on to play in college. Many of them are very good, but only a small handful make the NBA. Within the NBA, being a little bit better than the next guy can mean making a million bucks more in a year. And forget about the guys who are just barely below the NBA level. They worked just as hard but maybe their height is a bit less or their accuracy in shooting isn't quite as good due to a slight vision problem. So they end up doing something that barely pays the bills.
How is any of this fair? Why is it OK for one person to make millions or billions for doing essentially the same thing as another person who goes into bankruptcy? And why is it "envy" to want to live in a just society? Many people who want more equality have all the material wealth they desire and are simply concerned for the well-being of their fellows. To have no concern for the poor is anti-Christian, cold-hearted, selfish and short-sighted.
It's not fair. It's LIFE. And life is not always fair.
As for you going bankrupt for unforeseen circumstances, that's a shame for you. But to say that someone else succeeded because they did the same as you is missing something. Do you know for SURE that they did the same things? Maybe they worked harder. Or smarter. Or SAW those circumstances ahead of time and prepared for them. Or they were just lucky. Get over it, brush yourself off, and try again. That's what American is - the land where you have the OPPORTUNITY to make it, not the guarantee.
What's wrong with the winner-take-all mentality? It's better than the loser-take-all version......
Not exactly sure what your point is, but people can act on and believe in things that do not directly benefit themselves financially. It's called compassion.
And when people pretend to act compassionate and believe in things that DO directly benefit themselves directly is called being a Democrat in politics.
I want to respond to the free market idealists who say that anyone can make it in America if the simply try harder: What do you say to those of us, like myself, who worked as much as 80 hours per week at building a small business, employing people for better-than-market wages, followed all the rules and laws, but went bankrupt due to unforeseen circumstances, while others who did nothing better or worse became filthy rich due to unforeseen circumstances?
...
How is any of this fair? Why is it OK for one person to make millions or billions for doing essentially the same thing as another person who goes into bankruptcy? And why is it "envy" to want to live in a just society? Many people who want more equality have all the material wealth they desire and are simply concerned for the well-being of their fellows. To have no concern for the poor is anti-Christian, cold-hearted, selfish and short-sighted.
It is the luck of the draw...just the way it is. I am sorry that you wallow in self-pity because life is not fair. Seems you once had it in you to be an entreprenuer, why did you decide to give up if what you wanted to be was a business owner? Bankruptcy is a big hurdle, but not impossible to overcome. Have you ever heard of Robert Kyosaki? He was a millonaire who lost it all...and then made it all back and then some. He didn't give up as it was his dream to own his own business. Probably one of the reasons he did make it back is that he didn't decide that the 'velcro wallet' business was the only way he could make millions. That idea is pretty different than the ones you have used. Those who only give themselves only one way to make a dream of wealth come true are more likely to fail than those who are willing to try multiple ideas. There is a saying that seems to fit well here - Fortune favors the Bold.
BTW - I dont understand how you can equate one who started a business, ran it, and ended up going bankrupt to those who are destitute. Is that what you meant by the poor?
Not exactly sure what your point is, but people can act on and believe in things that do not directly benefit themselves financially. It's called compassion.
The point is clear: the media bias against the rich is politicized. In our media, rich = Republican.
Yet they have somehow convinced millions of people to vote against their own best interests by electing Republicans into office. They are brilliant politicians. People still seem to believe their rhetoric, despite their deeds.
It's more like the tinkle down theory...
It's trickle down because the workers get pis*ed on.
In modern society, skewed by money madness, there is a disconnect between reality and abstraction.
Money is an abstraction, a medium of exchange to facilitate trade of usable surplus goods and services. Having a surplus of money tokens is presumed to be wealth, but unless there are marketplaces stocked, money is useless. ("Gilligan's Island" illustrates that well)
You may be 'wealthy' but not truly prosperous. And it is apparent that many who are wealthy, are also bored and desperately seeking distraction. Perhaps they lack prosperity.
Prosperity is the creation, trade and enjoyment of usable surplus goods and services. People busy at creating goods and services are not bored. And if equitable trade is available, they can trade and enjoy that bounty. Unfortunately, there are many obstacles preventing people from being creative and trading their wares. Not the least is the money token drought, and control by usurers.
Instead of seeking to dispossess others, consider how you may be more creative and productive. "Sharing the wealth" forcibly is nothing less than thievery by government. And that is a poor use of the awesome cooperative power that government represents.
Remember, governments are instituted among men to (a) secure rights [endowed by our Creator] and (b) govern those who consent to be governed. Governments were not instituted to impose involuntary servitude and stoop to thievery, for the benefit of another.
Commonly fallacy of the left. They base the quality of their own lives using somebody else as the baseline... in almost all cases the ubber rich.[/quote] Well there are a lot of ways to look at things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcarlilesiu
Thats envy.
Not in all cases. Looking at the average hourly wage is a way to look at things after inflation. But the subject of this thread was redistribution of wealth and that has most definitely happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcarlilesiu
Lets instead take a look at the minimum wage considering simple inflation for equating dollars.
Yes simple inflation is a good way to masseur things but the cost of food and the cost of gasoline isn't counted in simple inflation. Those two things make up a big portion of the budget of a minimum wage worker. And they have been going up at 10% a year when the stuff used to count inflation has been constant or dropping.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newonecoming
Macro Vs. Micro
When the kid takes a treat to school in kindergarten. The teacher takes it away and says don't bring a treat to school unless you bring enough for everyone. That should be everyone's first lesson in the difference between what is good for you and what is good for everyone.
The reason is that in some schools there are kids that can't afford a treat going to school with rich kids. (I went to one of those schools) It isn't fair to have something that others can't. There are those that can't earn more than minimum wage. It should be set high enough for them to live on. It's like not bringing a treat to school unless you bring enough for everyone.
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.
