Growing Income Inequality and Skewed Distribution of Wealth - Not Good for the Economy! (insurance, school)

[Factsplease]

Originally Posted by andrea3821

So just b/c I haven't read a couple links posted on CD means I'm uninformed? Riiiiiiiiiiight. It's not my opinion, it's fact, the poor become poorer in part b/c they choose to not help themselves. I think responses from people who believe the poor cannot help themselves are ignorant.

Again, no one in this thread said anything like that. Not only do you refuse to read the entire OP, you refuse to read the rest of the posts in this thread. This isn't about poor people who refuse to help themselves. Either you have an issue with comprehension or you are attempting to distort what you've read (which wasn't much at all). This is about the middle class. Why bother coming to a forum where people have different views if you refuse to read anything posted by people who's views differ from yours? The OP is about growing income inequality and skewed distribution of wealth. This affects the middle class more than any other. It is about the the percentage of wealth in the country that is concentrated within a small portion of the population and how this has affected the economy. Again, the market collapsed the last time we were in this situation...not sure why it's so hard for some to see the connection.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by Factsplease

With inflation and increases in cost of living, the slow growth among the middle class has created a burden and people have gone into debt to maintain a lifestyle that was obtainable with a middle class income.

What a subjective and biased view. You want a pity party?

Spare us your platitudes, because you ain't going into debt to put a roof over your family's head, or buy groceries or pay bus fare.

You're going into debt because you live a life of grotesque excess, so much so that a reasonable person would vomit all over your shoes.

Originally Posted by Factsplease

As I stated in the OP, the economy thrives when the middle class thrives, this is what we saw (well some of us since I wasn't born) during the golden years.

You weren't born in the "golden years?" Well, no kidding. That's why you have no clue what you're talking about and your premise is entirely false.

A house-wife in the "golden years" bought a set of four dish rags for $1.49 and they lasted 5 years.

What do you do? You spend $5.99 every week on Chlorox Kitchen Wipes with the pleasant orange sent, and let's be real here, that orange scent is what sets the US apart from all civilizations in the universe and makes your standard-of-living superior.

And so what if you just literally threw $1,557.40 in the garbage . Who cares? It's just money. What do you need money for?

Obviously, the house-wife in the "golden years" was just plain stupid. We should bow to you superior intellectual capabilities and recognize that you are, indeed, the Money Wizard.

You have demanded a disposable throw-away society: you have it. You literally throw a good portion of your income into the garbage can.

And even that wouldn't be so bad, except you have the unmitigated gall to whine like a sissy about not having any money.

What kind of person is so pathetic they have to buy water in a bottle shaped like a penis?

You wanna know why people in the "golden years" had wealth? Because they weren't dumb enough to spend $1,240.20 (or more) each year on bottled water.

When you aren't so busy throwing your money away, you're giving it away and begging the über-rich to take it from you. You get on your hands and knees at the Mall crawling around like an animal with big tears running down your cheeks trying to stuff all the money you make into the pockets of the über-rich.

Do you seriously believe people in the "golden years" bought things that they absolutely did not need on credit cards like you do? The majority of people didn't even have credit cards (don't confuse credit cards with charge cards because they aren't the same -- that isn't just semantics -- the laws and the courts say they aren't the same).

Here's a smashingly brilliant idea: buy the 55" Flat Screen (because it's BIGGER than the 54" Flat Screen) for $1,297 and put it on a credit card. Who cares if it takes 13 years to pay it off, and that the total cost is $2,086 because you got to satisfy your most infantile urges instantly and what a bargain, it only cost you $789 to do that. Besides if you don't voluntarily give that $789 to the über-rich, someone else will, and then you'll feel all empty inside, because, after all, that is your sole function in life: giving all of your money to the über-rich, whether they want it or not.

You're my hero.

Do you need $442,471?

No, you don't need it, and you certainly don't want it. That's chump change to you.

But to people in the "golden years" that was everything to them. And that had it, because there weren't stupid enough to buy a $250,000 McMansion with no money down.

That $442,471 is what happens when you take the difference between payments on a house with no money down and payments with 35% down. Somebody saved $111,000+ in interest payments and stuck that money in a credit union savings account earning 2%.

In 1950, the average house was just under 1,000 square feet, and now they're building them at 4,000+ but then your life is just so much better.

When you start acting financially responsible like the people in the "golden years" did, then you will find you have a whole lot of wealth.

Originally Posted by Factsplease

Minimum wage is not livable wage.

Whoa! Genius at work. No kidding? Rewarding people for not seeking advanced education and training to earn a "livable" wage does not benefit anyone.

Besides, a livable wage in Ohio is not the same as a livable wage in Mississippi which is not the same as a livable wage in California.

The Phrase-of-the-Day: "Cost of Living"

Now you have something new to ponder.

Originally Posted by Factsplease

The working poor cannot support themselves without government assistance.

Yes, they can, they just don't want to.

I find it pretentious that the working poor would berate, debase and demean African, Hispanic and Eastern European immigrants who often share living arrangements, with 2-4 families living in 2-4 bedroom apartments

Yet I'm not surprised that African, Hispanic and Eastern European immigrants have money and the working poor don't.

The working poor could actually learn something here. Never-mind, the working poor are too stupid.

Originally Posted by Factsplease

Widening the gap makes everyone less prosperous. Please do your research. As income inequality grows, the economy is weakened.

Please show us yours. I noticed you have charts and graphs for everything, except proving widening income inequality, or that it has some "Cause and Effect" relationship to anything.

Originally Posted by Factsplease

The same thing happened before the Great Depression...how can you not see the connection?

Perhaps there isn't one.

Originally Posted by Factsplease

The gap has been widening for the last thirty years. While the rich have gotten richer, the income growth of the middle class is almost stagnant.

Yes, and I have explained why and it is entirely 100% of the fault of the Middle Class.

The Middle Class has no money, because the Middle Class acts stupidly.

The Me Generation and the Me, Myself and I Generation has lived with perpetual car payments their whole lives. No one did that prior to the 1980s.

In fact, the US didn't even become a "two-car family" country until the early 1970s. And how many SUVs and cars do you see parked out in front of McMansions?

Do any of you in the in the Me Generation or the Me, Myself and I Generation have a clue what a "starter home" is?

You could actually learn something from the people of the "golden years." They bought a starter home (and put 25% to 35% down) and then paid it off early instead of acting like a 2-year-old and burning up all of their equity in an HELOC, then sold it for a profit and use that money to buy a larger home with a monthly mortgage payment of a whopping $149/month and then sold it and bought a smaller home just before they retired.

You all have it backwards. You buy the biggest home you can't afford, bury yourself in 2nd and 3rd mortgages and HELOCs so you can have lots of trinkets for nothing and then end up getting foreclosed and landing in a trailer park.

Originally Posted by Factsplease

If things any worse, and the gap widens anymore, NO one will prosper.

Sure they will. It is because of stupid that rich people exist.

Originally Posted by Factsplease

The GOP sold you a lemon in trickle down economics.

No, actually it was Carter who initiated legislation that got the FIRE Economy rolling with his Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980.

[Factsplease]

Originally Posted by Mircea

What a subjective and biased view. You want a pity party?

Spare us your platitudes, because you ain't going into debt to put a roof over your family's head, or buy groceries or pay bus fare.

You're going into debt because you live a life of grotesque excess, so much so that a reasonable person would vomit all over your shoes.



You weren't born in the "golden years?" Well, no kidding. That's why you have no clue what you're talking about and your premise is entirely false.

A house-wife in the "golden years" bought a set of four dish rags for $1.49 and they lasted 5 years.

What do you do? You spend $5.99 every week on Chlorox Kitchen Wipes with the pleasant orange sent, and let's be real here, that orange scent is what sets the US apart from all civilizations in the universe and makes your standard-of-living superior.

And so what if you just literally threw $1,557.40 in the garbage . Who cares? It's just money. What do you need money for?

Obviously, the house-wife in the "golden years" was just plain stupid. We should bow to you superior intellectual capabilities and recognize that you are, indeed, the Money Wizard.

You have demanded a disposable throw-away society: you have it. You literally throw a good portion of your income into the garbage can.

And even that wouldn't be so bad, except you have the unmitigated gall to whine like a sissy about not having any money.

What kind of person is so pathetic they have to buy water in a bottle shaped like a penis?

You wanna know why people in the "golden years" had wealth? Because they weren't dumb enough to spend $1,240.20 (or more) each year on bottled water.

When you aren't so busy throwing your money away, you're giving it away and begging the über-rich to take it from you. You get on your hands and knees at the Mall crawling around like an animal with big tears running down your cheeks trying to stuff all the money you make into the pockets of the über-rich.

Do you seriously believe people in the "golden years" bought things that they absolutely did not need on credit cards like you do? The majority of people didn't even have credit cards (don't confuse credit cards with charge cards because they aren't the same -- that isn't just semantics -- the laws and the courts say they aren't the same).

Here's a smashingly brilliant idea: buy the 55" Flat Screen (because it's BIGGER than the 54" Flat Screen) for $1,297 and put it on a credit card. Who cares if it takes 13 years to pay it off, and that the total cost is $2,086 because you got to satisfy your most infantile urges instantly and what a bargain, it only cost you $789 to do that. Besides if you don't voluntarily give that $789 to the über-rich, someone else will, and then you'll feel all empty inside, because, after all, that is your sole function in life: giving all of your money to the über-rich, whether they want it or not.

You're my hero.

Do you need $442,471?

No, you don't need it, and you certainly don't want it. That's chump change to you.

But to people in the "golden years" that was everything to them. And that had it, because there weren't stupid enough to buy a $250,000 McMansion with no money down.

That $442,471 is what happens when you take the difference between payments on a house with no money down and payments with 35% down. Somebody saved $111,000+ in interest payments and stuck that money in a credit union savings account earning 2%.

In 1950, the average house was just under 1,000 square feet, and now they're building them at 4,000+ but then your life is just so much better.

When you start acting financially responsible like the people in the "golden years" did, then you will find you have a whole lot of wealth.



Whoa! Genius at work. No kidding? Rewarding people for not seeking advanced education and training to earn a "livable" wage does not benefit anyone.

Besides, a livable wage in Ohio is not the same as a livable wage in Mississippi which is not the same as a livable wage in California.

The Phrase-of-the-Day: "Cost of Living"

Now you have something new to ponder.



Yes, they can, they just don't want to.

I find it pretentious that the working poor would berate, debase and demean African, Hispanic and Eastern European immigrants who often share living arrangements, with 2-4 families living in 2-4 bedroom apartments

Yet I'm not surprised that African, Hispanic and Eastern European immigrants have money and the working poor don't.

The working poor could actually learn something here. Never-mind, the working poor are too stupid.



Please show us yours. I noticed you have charts and graphs for everything, except proving widening income inequality, or that it has some "Cause and Effect" relationship to anything.



Perhaps there isn't one.



Yes, and I have explained why and it is entirely 100% of the fault of the Middle Class.

The Middle Class has no money, because the Middle Class acts stupidly.

The Me Generation and the Me, Myself and I Generation has lived with perpetual car payments their whole lives. No one did that prior to the 1980s.

In fact, the US didn't even become a "two-car family" country until the early 1970s. And how many SUVs and cars do you see parked out in front of McMansions?

Do any of you in the in the Me Generation or the Me, Myself and I Generation have a clue what a "starter home" is?

You could actually learn something from the people of the "golden years." They bought a starter home (and put 25% to 35% down) and then paid it off early instead of acting like a 2-year-old and burning up all of their equity in an HELOC, then sold it for a profit and use that money to buy a larger home with a monthly mortgage payment of a whopping $149/month and then sold it and bought a smaller home just before they retired.

You all have it backwards. You buy the biggest home you can't afford, bury yourself in 2nd and 3rd mortgages and HELOCs so you can have lots of trinkets for nothing and then end up getting foreclosed and landing in a trailer park.



Sure they will. It is because of stupid that rich people exist.



No, actually it was Carter who initiated legislation that got the FIRE Economy rolling with his Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980.

I'm sure you didn't click the links either. Again, I provided information to back up my OP. I love the way you keep saying "you" in your post. I have stated many times, this isn't about my personal situation. As for the Golden Years, are you attempting to deny that the minimum wage was liveable, labor unions were a good thing, the rich were taxed at a much higher rate and income inequality was no where near what it is now? Those are the facts. People didn't go into debt because they could afford things that then that the middle class no longer can. By the way, I never said that rich people were stupid. Many of them are greedy but there are also many that feel the same way I do and don't mind paying taxes. Again, when the market crashes, we'll all feel it.

[Evenstar51]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Yes they have because every time they walk into Wally World they want the cheapest prices they can possibly find. Are you willing to pay $270 for pair a boots like I just did?

Actually, yes. I've spent that much on purses as well. I believe in the old adage,
"Buy cheap, pay dear." A good pair of leather boots will last me for years, as opposed to the cheap ones made from synthetic materials that only last one or two seasons. And I detest Wal-Mart...they've entirely changed small towns by
putting local stores out of business. Ask women you know about Ugg, Coach and Dooney & Burke...they'll be familiar with those brands.

[BigJon3475]

Originally Posted by Factsplease

Ummm...no. Nothing is simple when it comes to economic growth and the shrinking middle class. There is no simple fix to a complex problem. Furthermore, the OP is not about my position in society, nor is it about the poor, it is about growing income inequality. The same level of income inequality that we had prior to the Great Depression. Please read the OP and the links. This isn't about me, I'm fine for now. I know millionaires that feel the same way I do. Again, if we experience a market crash like the one in 1929, you'll be forced off your high horse, to the back of the soup line. Back then, many people were in denial. You will not be immune when this happens.

Do you even know why it crashed? Why FDR doubled the value of gold? Why gold isn't being used as the standard anymore? How about anything to do with the fractional reserve banking system? How money's created? How much money can be created with $10,000? Anything other than the talking points you were given via Slate who also shows an extreme negligence in anything historical or in economics would be great, thanks!

[Neuling]

I just read that rich Germans have moved more than 250 billion dollars to Swiss bank accounts in order to evade taxes. Now that Switzerland is cooperating with German authorities, people are getting worried and starting to move their money further away to Singapore and Hong Kong. It is that kind of attitude that casts a very negative light on rich people and makes them look like greedy parasites.

[ozzie679]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

The problem with liberal policies is while shrinking that gap you're also making everyone less properous.

Do you have any historical and factual evidence to this "talking point"?

[Factsplease]

Originally Posted by BigJon3475

Do you even know why it crashed? Why FDR doubled the value of gold? Why gold isn't being used as the standard anymore? How about anything to do with the fractional reserve banking system? How money's created? How much money can be created with $10,000? Anything other than the talking points you were given via Slate who also shows an extreme negligence in anything historical or in economics would be great, thanks!

If you would like to add more factual information to the discussion, please do so. There are a variety of opinions about the cause of the Great Depression and the market crash of 1929. The discussion here was about growth in income inequality. I have pointed out that it was the way it is now prior to the market crash, several times. There were several factors involved but I don't change my opinion about widening the gap and skewed distribution of wealth. Bottom line, when the economy got back on track after the Great Depression, it wasn't due to simply allowing the market to correct itself with no government intervention and as I've pointed out several times, the rich paid a high tax rate, unions were popular and the mimum wage was livable. America products were made in America. Our economy was thriving at the time. I don't think this is a mere coincidence and as this gap has widened, the economy has gotten worse. Is it the cause or an effect of something else? Either way, we are not moving toward a better economy by implementing policies designed to concentrate wealth within a small portion of the population.

[Lycanmaster]

Great chart and article. It is in the best interests of everyone (including the rich) to have a more equal distribution of wealth in terms of both economic and social stability...

[lkm370]

People have to accept the fact that some amount of income distribution IS necessary for a high standard of living.