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.
Did he have statistics on how many poor own cars or cell phones in that video?
About 90% of households have a car according to the US Department of Commerce.
Off hand I do not know the percentage of cell phones. If you hang outside of certain agencies providing aid in NY you will see lots of smart phones, lots of cigarettes, lots of tattoos, etc. The "average" poor person in America is not that poor. Of course some are.
The stat about cell phones is in the video but no cars. I don't think 90% of those below the poverty line have a car, that stat may be of all families.
However, if the poor live in rural areas, it certainly would make sense having access to a car to get a job.
Ignoring everything else, there might be good reasons not to want too much income inequality, even if it's not a zero sum game.
Google will take you to some studies of the correlation between income inequality and lower levels of perceived happiness.
I'm not saying this is necessarily definitive (I'm not a psychologist, so I wouldn't want to pretend to be an expert on that), but it seems that there is at least a case to be made.
Btw, someone said that the gap becomes wider because the poor are reproducing like rabbits.
In that link it says that the change takes place on both sides, the rich become richer and richer, and the poor poorer and poorer.
"The wealth of those 62 one-percenters has risen by more than half-a-trillion dollars in the last five years, the report said. At the same time, the total owned by the poorest half has fallen by a trillion dollars.
In monetary terms, that club of 62 has seen its riches climb by $542 billion, or 44%, to $1.76 trillion since 2010. That’s as the less-fortunate half has seen its wealth slide by 41%."
Btw, someone said that the gap becomes wider because the poor are reproducing like rabbits.
In that link it says that the change takes place on both sides, the rich become richer and richer, and the poor poorer and poorer.
"The wealth of those 62 one-percenters has risen by more than half-a-trillion dollars in the last five years, the report said. At the same time, the total owned by the poorest half has fallen by a trillion dollars.
In monetary terms, that club of 62 has seen its riches climb by $542 billion, or 44%, to $1.76 trillion since 2010. That’s as the less-fortunate half has seen its wealth slide by 41%."
This is also a factor
Bill Gates doesn't have many children but some folks in Africa have
I have a topic in Great Debates section about overpopulation and this came there as well.
A control mechanism of poor population would definitely help
Lots of corporations use the assistance of government when it provides them something at a lower cost than other alternatives. Why wouldn't they?
"Sure, I could either go the bank and get a loan for 8% or go to the small business administration and get the loan for 3%, I guess I'll do the 8%" Hardly anybody is going to do this.
Most businesses are going to do what is in their best interests. If this means getting research from a government organization like DARPA, why wouldn't they?
However, pretending that people and/or companies wouldn't have been able to receive the funding, R&D or infrastructure help without government is ridiculous. Government have allowed for cheaper financing, research at a lower cost and/or ahead of schedule, but that doesn't mean there would have been no financing option or that the research wouldn't have been accomplished.
Crazy. One year before it was still the 80 richest people, so the inequality is accelerating.
One reason for that exploding inequality they say is that 9 out of 10 big corporations make use of tax havens in order to avoid paying taxes. This costs developing countries where those companies are active more than 100 billion dollars per year.
Why doesn't anyone do anything about that? I don't get it, really. There are global trade and other organizations, which could simply rule that income has to be fully taxed where it is earned, no matter where, without exception.
It is all legal and the tax code was guarded by democtrat charlie rangel. Charlie allowed enough loopholes to make business more profitable for, whatever reason? ask Charlie.
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.
