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 watched the video. Marxism is too extreme, just as pure capitalism is too extreme. Neither one works on its own. Capitalism with a few social programs to help the down and out would be best. And keep balancing it out so that it doesn't veer too far one way or the other.
Pure Marxism would be crazy and I don't think anyone wants that. Trump's old friend Steve Bannon of Briebart is a Marxist and says he's for the people. But that's too extreme. Pure Marxism is just as bad as pure capitalism. Capitalism is best but with a few shots of socialism thrown in so it doesn't fly out of control like it has.
That is what we have now. Capitalism with a few social programs to help the down and out. It's not working. The problem is capitalism. I can't think of a worse system. I honestly believe capitalism is a worse system than communism. But for some strange reason, it's just taking a lot longer to collapse, then communism. But it is coming. 1% can't keep getting richer, and 99% poorer forever. There will be a breaking point.
I can't think of any business services that we have now that couldn't be provided better by government sponsored nonprofit corporations. Businesses should exist to provide good quality, low cost products and services to the public. Not to rape consumers to make investors rich. If we don't change our system fast, China is going to be the number one economy, not us. Actually it's probably already too late, to stop that.
Yet, the United States GDP is over 20 trillion dollars - the highest it's been in history.
Actually, it's the highest that any nation has ever been.
It's a balloon. Just keep blowing air into it and see what happens. Almost all economic forecasts show that China is on course to overtake the US. If our system is so great, then how do you explain that?
try appreciating what you have stop bitching and complaining...
maybe the government should cut our taxes so we could actually keep more of what we earn..
From your screen name I take it you are in Maine. Silicon Valley is another world from the perspective of economics. Starting pay for 22 year old newly minted engineers fresh out of school is north of $100K. Bus drivers for the public school system make north of $100K. Administrative assistants with a few years experience earn north of $100K.
But that doesn't mean they do well financially - the cost of living is extraordinary.
It's a balloon. Just keep blowing air into it and see what happens. Almost all economic forecasts show that China is on course to overtake the US. If our system is so great, then how do you explain that?
And of course the Chinese economy isn’t a balloon and doesn’t have any threats that could take it down a peg? They also have a population 3 times larger.
Also, the U.S economy has stayed pretty consistent at around 20 percent of GDP since the early 1990s until today.
How do you know they rose because our system was no good? Maybe they have a decent system. Maybe our system is good enough that other systems would have failed 15 years ago? Maybe instead of trending gdp as a percentage of world gdp at 20 percent a lessor system would have faltered?
That is what we have now. Capitalism with a few social programs to help the down and out. It's not working. The problem is capitalism. I can't think of a worse system. I honestly believe capitalism is a worse system than communism. But for some strange reason, it's just taking a lot longer to collapse, then communism. But it is coming. 1% can't keep getting richer, and 99% poorer forever. There will be a breaking point.
I can't think of any business services that we have now that couldn't be provided better by government sponsored nonprofit corporations. Businesses should exist to provide good quality, low cost products and services to the public. Not to rape consumers to make investors rich. If we don't change our system fast, China is going to be the number one economy, not us. Actually it's probably already too late, to stop that.
Yeah. 1950s, a working man could make a good living, including buying a nice house and a car. He didn't even need his wife's income to do it. She would just stay home and take care of the kids. By the 1970s they could do the same thing, except the wife had to work too, and the kids were left to fend for themselves. What is left to do next, put the kids to work, to try and keep up?
Your local government is largely to blame for restricting the supply of housing thereby driving up its price in the marketplace.
It's tough to refute the "higher than $100k" portion of the chart, but I do have to question them starting at $35k as "Middle Class". By no means is that middle class. I'd be curious to see what it would look like if middle class started at a more reasonable $50-55k for a household, because that's what you'd need these days to being to approach a middle class lifestyle almost anywhere in the country (and a lot more in most of the large metros where the vast majority of the US population lives).
Another thing is that chart doesn't show how expenses have changed. I guarantee you a good portion of those over $100k households are dual income, because both spouses are working. That likely means student loan debt, as well as childcare costs if they have kids (since both have jobs to go to), plus massively higher healthcare expenses. So while there is a higher share of those making higher incomes, net income after basic needs are provided for I'd wager has barely changed or is actually LOWER than before. I'd love to see a chart that shows that.
It's tough to refute the "higher than $100k" portion of the chart, but I do have to question them starting at $35k as "Middle Class". By no means is that middle class. I'd be curious to see what it would look like if middle class started at a more reasonable $50-55k for a household, because that's what you'd need these days to being to approach a middle class lifestyle almost anywhere in the country (and a lot more in most of the large metros where the vast majority of the US population lives).
Those are fair points, and standards change over time for what each of us consider a "middle class lifestyle." Back in the 1950s, middle class probably meant a car (for suburban and rural people) and no car for urban dwellers. Today, "middle class lifestyle" might mean 2 cars (or even 3 if you have a teenage driver).
At the same time, I think they wanted to distinguish between poverty and one-step-up from poverty; that line changes over time as well. Sometimes people try to color it by creating "lower middle class" and "upper middle class" to generate some more detail.
Currently, the median income in the USA is in the high 50s. Think of a bell curve, and high 50s is about in the middle. But "middle class" does extend both downward and upward from that.
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.
