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.
A high income inequality is not a good thing for a democracy. You will start seeing the disadvantaged population vote for policies that are going to be in direct conflict with those in power. For example, politicians who favor tariffs and stopping outsourcing/globalization or favor income redistribution are going to start gaining votes. This will be in direct conflict with those at the top. Since, the disadvantaged greatly outnumber those in power, it is likely those who favor the policies I mentioned above will be voted in.
Nah, they won't get off their couches so long as the supply of potato chips is not disrupted.
The disadvantaged population will just be manipulated into voting for policies that benefit the American elite, the lack the education that enables them to clearly understand the underlying issues.
Nah, they won't get off their couches so long as the supply of potato chips is not disrupted.
The disadvantaged population will just be manipulated into voting for policies that benefit the American elite, the lack the education that enables them to clearly understand the underlying issues.
You just described the voting base of both parties, particularly the republican party. Build a colisseum and rob them blind, then tell them you share the same values with them. Working great for the elite so far.
For the rest and those in between, pick chicken or lasagna: Spain or Brazil. Those are the two steady state choices for America as far as the outcome of income divergence......
You just described the voting base of both parties, particularly the republican party. Build a colisseum and rob them blind, then tell them you share the same values with them. Working great for the elite so far.
Yep, its all great fun too! Watching the proles hang themselves left and right.
Nah, they won't get off their couches so long as the supply of potato chips is not disrupted.
The disadvantaged population will just be manipulated into voting for policies that benefit the American elite, the lack the education that enables them to clearly understand the underlying issues.
I don't know, if this were true, the Tea Party movement would not have happened. Few people seem to pay attention to the policies that the Tea Party favors but it is directly detrimental to the interests of those in power. There is a reason why the Republican establishment hates Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.
The Tea Party supports policies that are antagonistic towards many supporters in the Republican establishment such as no bailouts (detrimental to the financial elites in the Republican Party), restricted immigration (detrimental to industrial and technological elites who favor H1B), an adversarial stance towards China such as tariffs and currency policies (very detrimental to all the business elites in the Republican Party), and a hawkish stance towards the Middle East (very detrimental to oil executives and finance firms such as hedge funds and private equity firms since they get a significant amount of their investments from these countries).
I don't know, if this were true, the Tea Party movement would not have happened. Few people seem to pay attention to the policies that the Tea Party favors but it is directly detrimental to the interests of those in power. There is a reason why the Republican establishment hates Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.
The policies of the Tea Party are detrimental to the elite? That's funny.....because everything they advocate weakens the middle-class and provides more social stratification.
Yeah, the republican establishment hates the Tea party, that would explain Fox News love affair with it. The only worry in the republican establishment is that they may lose control of the movement, which is a possibility considering how loopy it is. Mostly they yap about the deficit, cutting spending, lowering taxes, reducing regulations, etc. Right on message.
Quote:
Originally Posted by X14Freak
The Tea Party supports policies that are antagonistic towards many supporters in the Republican establishment such as no bailouts (detrimental to the financial elites in the Republican Party), restricted immigration (detrimental to industrial and technological elites who favor H1B), an adversarial stance towards China such as tariffs and currency policies (very detrimental to all the business elites in the Republican Party), and a hawkish stance towards the Middle East (very detrimental to oil executives and finance firms such as hedge funds and private equity firms since they get a significant amount of their investments from these countries).
None of these issues are detrimental, in general, to American's elite. It won't hurt their position, it will instead strengthen it. All of these policies would hurt the nation and most of the pain would be directed towards the bottom 90%.
No bailouts? The financial damage will kill middle-class folks portfolios, the elite have the knowledge to avoid the worst.
Restrict H1B visas? Companies will open up more offices in foreign countries, hurting the local economy.
Tariffs on China? Check your house lately? How much of it is Chinese made? This will just increase costs for the Average American and kill jobs in the US when the Chinese return the favor.
Hawkish towards the middle-east? Millions of jobs lost and $10 gas, yeah its the elite that will be hurting!
The policies of the Tea Party are detrimental to the elite? That's funny.....because everything they advocate weakens the middle-class and provides more social stratification.
Yeah, the republican establishment hates the Tea party, that would explain Fox News love affair with it. The only worry in the republican establishment is that they may lose control of the movement, which is a possibility considering how loopy it is. Mostly they yap about the deficit, cutting spending, lowering taxes, reducing regulations, etc. Right on message.
None of these issues are detrimental, in general, to American's elite. It won't hurt their position, it will instead strengthen it. All of these policies would hurt the nation and most of the pain would be directed towards the bottom 90%.
No bailouts? The financial damage will kill middle-class folks portfolios, the elite have the knowledge to avoid the worst.
Restrict H1B visas? Companies will open up more offices in foreign countries, hurting the local economy.
Tariffs on China? Check your house lately? How much of it is Chinese made? This will just increase costs for the Average American and kill jobs in the US when the Chinese return the favor.
Hawkish towards the middle-east? Millions of jobs lost and $10 gas, yeah its the elite that will be hurting!
Tariffs on China will lead to China locking American companies out of access to its market. Google for instance was almost locked out. This is very detrimental to the elites' financial status. The bailout was absolutely necessary for most of the elite since they need the cheap money to make profits and recover. Dick Fuld (CEO of Lehman Brothers) and Jim Cayne (CEO of Bear Stearns) lost billions of dollars in net worth since they weren't bailed out. Being antagonistic towards the Middle East will lead to some of the wealthy sheiks to not invest in American hedge funds. The elite will suffer since they won't be able to use the capital provided by the sheiks to make money. I agree with you about the H1B visas though.
I also agree with you that the Tea Party policies will increase stratification although Tea Party members will support it regardless. The Tea Party members' reason for being against so called socialist policies has a lot to do with racial conflict. They generally live in regions that have large black populations and they have the perception that blacks do not contribute as much taxes and thus are not deserving of social welfare programs. That is why they want smaller governments and more restrictive policies regarding social welfare since they do not want to share tax revenues with so called leeches especially not black ones. Less diverse countries like Sweden and Japan don't have this problem which is why social welfare programs succeed there.
This problem is not just limited to the USA though, Belgium for example has this problem. The Dutch speaking Belgians think that the French speaking Belgians are leeches and many of them want the country to split so that they won't have to support the French speaking Belgians. Malaysia has this problem as well with Chinese Malaysians and native Malays. Singapore declared independence from Malaysia back in the 60s for this reason as well. Europeans right now have this problem with Muslims and many of them want to deport Muslims or find a way to restrict social welfare programs.
Tariffs on China will lead to China locking American companies out of access to its market. Google for instance was almost locked out. This is very detrimental to the elites' financial status.
It would lead to far more than that. The question isn't whether or not it will hurt the position of some American companies, but rather who will feel most of the pain.
You are thinking about this the wrong way, losing some money isn't really that big of a deal when you're worth hundreds of millions or billions. The American aristocracy could lose 50% of its net worth tomorrow and still not lose your position within American society, it is the position that matters most. Their net worth is ultimately just some digits on screen.
So although some Tea Party ideas may hurt some wealthy folks pocket book, it actually strengthens their position in society and that is really what they care about.
Americans reasonably accept the fact that some people are more industrious than others.
Well said. There isn't income equality in this country because people don't do equal work.
The CEOs and surgeons who are working up to 60 hour work weeks in highly demanding fields are obviously going to be making a lot more money than the person who slides by with a low skilled and undemanding job. That's common sense. The gap between rich and poor is expanding because the difference in skills between the highest level workers and the lowest level workers is expanding. As a whole, the highest level workers are becoming more educated and more savvy each year, while the lowest level workers seem to be completely static.
Well said. There isn't income equality in this country because people don't do equal work.
The CEOs and surgeons who are working up to 60 hour work weeks in highly demanding fields are obviously going to be making a lot more money than the person who slides by with a low skilled and undemanding job. That's common sense. The gap between rich and poor is expanding because the difference in skills between the highest level workers and the lowest level workers is expanding. As a whole, the highest level workers are becoming more educated and more savvy each year, while the lowest level workers seem to be completely static.
I don't think anyone is actually denying that. The question is what will happen if the growing inequality lingers and from what history has shown it isn't very pretty. The vast majority of countries with a high Gini index are authoritarian (Singapore and China) or seriously corrupt democracies (Mexico and South Africa).
Are you one of the Americans that reasonably accept that?
Absolutely.
What do you believe?
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.
