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.
It is a level playing field. Why else would immigrants who come here with nothing, and can't speak the language, become successful? Because if you work hard, are committed to being successful, and are smart about your money, anyone in this country can be a success.
Cue the excuses.......
The life expectancy of lower middle class white people has fallen a full five years in the last decade. That is HUGE! Life expectancy has never gone retrograde for a human sub-group in the history of such tracking. The life expectancy of all other racial and economic groups has either held steady, or has risen in that time. Suicide and drug use, both markers for despair, are the chief drivers of the decline in life expectancy of lower middle class whites. Blacks have the lowest life expectancy of all Americans (no surprise) and upper class whites the highest. Hispanics have a life expectancy that is approaching that of elite whites and is called the Hispanic Paradox by some researchers because, as a group, Hispanics aren't especially healthy with respect to lifestyle. This reader does not think it is much of a paradox. Hispanics have, hands down the best employment metrics in the working class, even if the wages are low and the work not particularly fulfilling.
So, if you don't think it matters. If you really think the playing field is level... well you are wrong, and people... lots of people, are dying before their time because of it.
Liberals keep parroting meaningless statistics like "The X richest people own Y% of the wealth". My question is, why do you consider this an issue?
Are you saying that you're poor because someone else is rich? Did you ever consider that all the extra wealth they have is wealth that was produced by them or their company? Them generating wealth doesn't somehow make you less wealthy.
Maybe it's time to get over your envy of others' success. It sounds like babies crying about how other children have more toys than them.
Because they are stuck on stupid, with their idiotic egalitarianism crap.
Liberals keep parroting meaningless statistics like "The X richest people own Y% of the wealth". My question is, why do you consider this an issue?
Are you saying that you're poor because someone else is rich? Did you ever consider that all the extra wealth they have is wealth that was produced by them or their company? Them generating wealth doesn't somehow make you less wealthy.
Maybe it's time to get over your envy of others' success. It sounds like babies crying about how other children have more toys than them.
Why? Because the flip side of growing inequality is shrinking opportunity. Whenever we diminish equality of opportunity, it means that we are not using some of our most valuable assets -- our people -- in the most productive way possible. Second, many of the distortions that lead to inequality -- such as those associated with monopoly power and preferential tax treatment for special interests -- undermine the efficiency of the economy. This new inequality goes on to create new distortions, undermining efficiency even further. To give just one example, far too many of our most talented young people, seeing the astronomical rewards, have gone into finance rather than into fields that would lead to a more productive and healthy economy.
Third, and perhaps most important, a modern economy requires "collective action" -- it needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology. The United States and the world have benefited greatly from government-sponsored research that led to the Internet, to advances in public health, and so on. But America has long suffered from an under-investment in infrastructure (look at the condition of our highways and bridges, our railroads and airports), in basic research, and in education at all levels. Further cutbacks in these areas lie ahead as the more divided a society becomes in terms of wealth, the more reluctant the wealthy are willing to spend money on common needs, because they can provide these services for themselves.
back to the 1% topic being good/bad/indifferent....
I saw this article today - Walmat has been around for many years. However in the last 20 or so Walmart's stock performance has created 20 or so billionaires on the list of "Richest in America" including several who had nothing to do with starting or running Walmart (family members).
Why? Because the flip side of growing inequality is shrinking opportunity. Whenever we diminish equality of opportunity, it means that we are not using some of our most valuable assets -- our people -- in the most productive way possible. .
There is no connection between inequality and opportunity. Those are two unrelated topics. You could have total equality and no opportunity or vice versa.
There is no connection between inequality and opportunity. Those are two unrelated topics. You could have total equality and no opportunity or vice versa.
Inequality in all things puts some at a disadvantage. Stupid men and ugly men are at a huge disadvantage when it comes to competing for a mate. What would you like to do about that?
when gender imbalance is excessive, either social order breaks down or politicians try to reduce the surplus by sending men off to foreign wars. e.g. china's one-child policy has created a vast surplus of young men and china's been getting expansionist lately.
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.