Rising riches: 1 in 5 in US reaches affluence (companies, parties, world)
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.
Well, it is true that in the past 40 years the lower classes have moved in the wrong direction financially, and it has nothing to do with welfare programs. They are on welfare because of that movement to the wrong direction, not because they want to be on welfare. The capitalist system which has worked wonderfully for hundreds of years mutated in the wrong direction in US in the 1970. Even the libertarian Greenspan admitted there was "a flaw" in his way of thinking, but he didn't admit it until the economy already laid in ruins in 2008. The middle class has less to spend on consumer goods and they have taken in more debt than ever, while the elite accumulates money, which they spend on accumulating more assets, often overseas.
How do you explain the NON-welfare working class becoming worse off financially and not better off over the past 40 years?
But earning $250,000 or more still puts them in only the top 2% of earners. And Temporarily earning that kind of money puts you no where near the big boys club and allows you no influence.
The burger flippers can't purchase houses, but they have to pay the inflated rents driven up by the well-off.
So what are you doing about it? Everyone has a right to pursue happiness and to it is obvious it is to buy a house, but the achievement of that happiness is in your hands but not everyone has equal ability either because they don't have drive, education, ability. Food, healthcare, next you'll expect us to buy you a house.
I am so %$#*& at you people. If you don't have what you want its' your own damn fault.
How do you explain the NON-welfare working class becoming worse off financially and not better off over the past 40 years?
Same reasons. Whether or not they are on welfare is irrelevant. The direction for most of the population has been wrong in the past 40 years. Look at the trends of debt taking. Look at the trends of house values and salaries. People are buying more houses, and more crap, but not with their own money. They are being enslaved by debt.
So what are you doing about it? Everyone has a right to pursue happiness and to it is obvious it is to buy a house, but the achievement of that happiness is in your hands but not everyone has equal ability either because they don't have drive, education, ability. Food, healthcare, next you'll expect us to buy you a house.
I am so %$#*& at you people. If you don't have what you want its' your own damn fault.
??? Under free market capitalism, it is in my hands, but government takes the option of home ownership of my hands because government prohibits property owners from selling me property I can afford. I do not expect anyone to buy me a house, all I ask is that government not tell others that they may not sel me a house I can afford. Whatever happened to economic liberty?
Same reasons. Whether or not they are on welfare is irrelevant. The direction for most of the population has been wrong in the past 40 years. Look at the trends of debt taking. Look at the trends of house values and salaries. People are buying more houses, and more crap, but not with their own money. They are being enslaved by debt.
Burger flippers don't buy houses and I don't know any who are buying more crap (they can't afford it).
Which type of enslavement is worse, enslavement by mortgage debt or enslavement by rent?
Seeing as median incomes are declining, it's no surprise that the ranks of the poor (and lower middle) and the ranks of those that have to be on welfare* are growing much faster than the ranks of the affluent. That's the problem, not inequality; the current rise in inequality is a symptom of deep structural flaws in the economy, not the disease in and of itself. Regardless of the cause of it, though, if inequality was rising but we also had rapidly rising incomes across all percentiles things would be going pretty well. We had a situation like this temporarily in the late 1990's - the basis of that particular boom wasn't sustainable, but it does illustrate the general idea.
Also, according to this nifty tool, the top 20% threshold for households (the top fifth) is closer to $100 000, not $250 000 (the latter places you in the top 3%). $100 000 provides ample security for a household's middle class lifestyle, but I wouldn't call that rich or even affluent. If you look at either household income or individual income, far fewer than 1 in 5 are over the $250 000 line.
*This is not a reference to the 47% meme - the fact that so many people need to be on welfare in the first place is the outrage. It's pretty much impossible** to live on an income below the poverty thresholds without help of some kind. Whether that help comes from the government or from other sources doesn't matter as much as their underlying situation; for someone in that kind of need I can't fault them for taking welfare benefits.
**With the exception of people who have a lot of wealth but generate almost no income. This was more common in the era of the agriculture economy than it it today, however, when it was not uncommon for people to be land-rich but cash-poor.
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.
