6 Ways Income Inequality Makes Your Life Worse

[Avatar4321]

Who said everything had to be equal? Does that person post here? Running away?

So you are complaining about income inequality because you want to keep incomes inequal?

 

[Avatar4321]

which the left demonstrates over and over again.

there is nothing wrong with income inequality. That is what got us all from caves and send to the Moon.

and there is EVERYTHING wrong in it's equality - because it can be achieved ( more or less) only in a concentrated camp.

The issue is growing income inequality and the degree of inequality.

There is income inequality when one person makes $10 and another makes $20. There is also income inequality when one person makes $1 and another makes $29.

Thus ends your lesson for today. Confuse the two again and it will be clear to me that you are incapable of learning.

Is it really up to Government to set the value/price of work or the businessman whom owns the company? And WHY is government involved at all?

Because some people seem to think people can't govern themselves or determine what's in their own best interests.

 

[Avatar4321]

Those are the main goals of the dimocraps - to enrich the 1% first and foremost ( since the ruling dimocraps ARE the 1%) and expand the government dependency class to eventually wipe off the self-sufficient middle class - the core enemy of the leftard ideas...

and even the high school student knows that the main tax target is ALWAYS the middle class - as they are the cow to milk.

Very true.

The left is at war to destroy the middle class, and has been since the time of Marx.

You've heard the left attack the "bourgeoisie," and some might think this means the rich; but it doesn't and never has. The bourgeoisie that democrats and (other) Marxists seek to destroy are the Merchant class, AKA the middle class.

Obama rails against "the rich" and then pumps hundreds of billions of dollars into the DOW - which is direct transfer payments to the most wealthy Americans. At the same time he attacks small business owners with ever mounting taxes and regulations.

This isn't an accident or malfeasance, this a direct and concerted attack on the middle, the bourgeoisie. democrats seek to destroy the middle, the top is reserved for the rulers of the party and must be preserved. But the middle is to be destroyed and the masses kept in poverty and dependance. We'll give you perpetual unemployment, but not jobs...

Interesting...but yet the left always states they're for the "Middle Class"...

Last time I checked? WE weren't a 'Cast system'...nor were we designed that way by the Founders.

And that's the great secret of life. There are no classes. They are political constructs created to divide people. They are used to stir up covetousness and envy in people. They are trying to get those who make less money angry at those making more while making those who make more resent those who make less.

But we don't have to play there game. There is no reason we should have issues with our brethren because they make more or less money than we do. But we have to choose not to hate, to covet, to envy. Or else they win.

 

[Avatar4321]

black-or-white​

You presented two alternative states as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.
Also known as the false dilemma, this insidious tactic has the appearance of forming a logical argument, but under closer scrutiny it becomes evident that there are more possibilities than the either/or choice that is presented. Binary, black-or-white thinking doesn't allow for the many different variables, conditions, and contexts in which there would exist more than just the two possibilities put forth. It frames the argument misleadingly and obscures rational, honest debate.​

Please tell me how you have everyone equal if some people work and some dont?

Not to worry, the Democrats have that already figured out. They will take from the rich and give it to the poor. However, since there will be a likelihood that they will want the rich to suffer, they may take all of the rich's money and give it to the poor.

It's called "get-even-with-em-ism".

Isn't it interesting how the poor they give to always seem to be themselves and their friends who then are rich?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Of course stress has an effect on the body. But I don't live in your fantasy world where poor people stress but rich people dont.

So stress can make you sick like I said. Why do you always do this? Ask a question like you dont understand. Agree with my response then disagree with the straw man you just made. Who (other than you) said that one side stresses and the other doesnt?

Why do you always avoid answering questions and use fallacies to make irrational points?

Who said one side stresses and another doesnt? You'll notice you didnt ask me a question but I did ask you one, that you ignored then asked why I ignore questions that arent there.

You seem to talk a lot about things that no one brought up at all...

 

[The Rabbi]

So stress can make you sick like I said. Why do you always do this? Ask a question like you dont understand. Agree with my response then disagree with the straw man you just made. Who (other than you) said that one side stresses and the other doesnt?

Why do you always avoid answering questions and use fallacies to make irrational points?

Who said one side stresses and another doesnt? You'll notice you didnt ask me a question but I did ask you one, that you ignored then asked why I ignore questions that arent there.

You seem to talk a lot about things that no one brought up at all...

You brought it up.
ANyway, your thread is a total failure, the hypothesis is absurd. That wont prevent you from referring to it in future discussions on why income inequality is bad, of course. Because the left never learns, they merely repeat the same tripe over and over.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Except I havent made a straw man. I've attacked your ridiculous argument that somehow making the rich poor is going to make people healthier. As well as your ridiculous argument that somehow the poor get sick and are stressed while the rich are not.

Illness and bacteria don't pay attention to the amount of money in your bank account. Nor does life cause accidents for the poor while avoiding the homes of the rich.

The man concerned with where to deploy new capital improvements, how to smooth delivery schedules to please both the customer and keep the workforce employed, while wondering if the failure to collect over-60 invoices will impact the ability to meet payroll, if new taxes will force him to lay off a valued employee, etc. has a bit more stress than woman watching Oprah and waiting for the EBT to get refilled.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And that's the great secret of life. There are no classes. They are political constructs created to divide people. They are used to stir up covetousness and envy in people. They are trying to get those who make less money angry at those making more while making those who make more resent those who make less.

But we don't have to play there game. There is no reason we should have issues with our brethren because they make more or less money than we do. But we have to choose not to hate, to covet, to envy. Or else they win.

I don't agree.

One of the most amazing features of Pre-Obama America was the vast middle class. A transitory stage where most Americans spent a good portion of their lives. The rotter societies of Europe have very solid barriers to to keep the working class in their place, but to the everlasting glory of America, our Capitalist system destroyed such barriers and anyone could rise to the level of his talent, or sometime his luck.

In Germany, if you are born to a factory worker, you will be a factory worker, and die a factory worker. It's a virtual caste system. But in America, the child of a factory worker could be a CEO, or a doctor, or an engineer, or anything they want. I suppose this is what you mean that there are no classes.

But from an economic sense, there very much are classes. I define "rich" as having enough wealth that one does not need to be employed in order to maintain their lifestyle. The Kennedys, the Feinsteins, the Kerry and Heinz klan, etc.

I report to the CEO of my company. He makes a lot of money, but I don't consider him "rich," because in order for him to maintain his lifestyle, he has to show up to work every day. He works harder than I do. He is UPPER middle class, but still a working stiff, still middle class.

Then there is the lower class, those who never keep a job for more than a few months at a time - just to build up UE credit. Who spend every dime the second they get it. Have a new iPhone, but get evicted for not paying their rent.

These are three, distinct economic classes. The good news is that people can and do transition from one class to another, constantly.

 

[ClosedCaption]

So stress can make you sick like I said. Why do you always do this? Ask a question like you dont understand. Agree with my response then disagree with the straw man you just made. Who (other than you) said that one side stresses and the other doesnt?

Why do you always avoid answering questions and use fallacies to make irrational points?

Who said one side stresses and another doesnt? You'll notice you didnt ask me a question but I did ask you one, that you ignored then asked why I ignore questions that arent there.

You seem to talk a lot about things that no one brought up at all...

Oh I get it...this is when Avatar is going to wait until 3 pages later to claim he answered some shit and ask why I havent answered his question that doesnt exist.

Perfect

 

[Londoner]

During the postwar years we built the world's largest consumption economy partly because our workers had such high wages. Research the economic growth in the 50s and 60s and you will see what happens when consumers have a lot of spending money. This created a massive incentive for capital investment and job growth.

Then came Reagan. He said that our high wage & benefit system was too expensive for suppliers, and created a disincentive for investment.

So we listened to Reagan and we opened trade so that our suppliers could move to production to places with ultra cheap labor markets like China, Taiwan, and Vietnam. This resulted in massive profits for suppliers, the downside being a progressive lowering of wages/benefits for our workers, who now had to compete with oppressed Chinese labor markets for work.

As American wages went down, the new pro-business Reagan Economy aggressively expanded credit to consumers so that our great American families could continue to consume and keep our domestic consumption economy afloat. [Republicans get this, right? If workers don't go into Main Street stores and buy stuff, than those very same main street businesses will eventually die. This is why middle class purchasing power ("demand") is so absolutely vital to sustaining and growing jobs. This is why Reagan had to expand credit to fill the gap left by lost wages.] Here's the funny thing. The spectacular rise in credit created a multi-decade economic boom. However, as a consequence of debt-fueled consumption, Americans slowly lost their savings and went deeper and deeper into debt. Meaning: the boom we saw in the 80s and 90s was over-reliant on consumer borrowing ... and now we're paying for that borrowing as a generation of consumers are too indebted to consume at the needed levels to sustain job growth. Even worse: our great middle class consumer lacks the good job to get out of debt. As a result the economy will flounder for years/decades until we find a way to re-capitalize the middle class so that the economy has enough consumers.

Today we are stuck with a terrible problem. China is the new center of global manufacturing. We have a middle class that spent the last 30 years going into debt. They can no longer borrow enough to consume at the needed volume to drive economic growth. The suppliers have more cash sitting on the sidelines than at any time in history, but they have no incentive to invest in the American economy because they lack consumers. So we have unused capital and unused labor sitting side by side, but we lack the political courage to facilitate their union.

We need to stop all this fluffy talk about equality and realize the following. Any economy that does not pay its workers enough to buy what they produce will eventually turn to credit, and then, when the credit runs out, the economy will flounder under a mountain of debt. Henry Ford, one of our great capitalists, was right. He understood that he needed to pay his workers enough to buy the cars they produce - otherwise he would be stuck in a crisis of overproduction, which always leads to a recession (unless a sly rat like Reagan expands credit so that the economy can keep growing while, in the background, American families slowly destroy themselves with debt).

 

[Katzndogz]

Until democrats created the buzz word, there was no such thing as income inequality. There was success and failure.

 

[Bombur]

During the postwar years we built the world's largest consumption economy partly because our workers had such high wages. Research the economic growth in the 50s and 60s and you will see what happens when consumers have a lot of spending money. This created a massive incentive for capital investment and job growth.

Then came Reagan. He said that our high wage & benefit system was too expensive for suppliers, and created a disincentive for investment and the resulting job growth.

So we listened to Reagan and we opened trade so that our suppliers could move to production to places like China, Taiwan, and Vietnam. This resulted in massive profits for suppliers, the downside being a progressive lowering of wages/benefits for our workers, who now had to compete with oppressed Chinese labor markets for work.

As American wages went down, the new pro-business Reagan Economy aggressively expanded credit so that our great American families could continue to consume and keep our domestic consumption economy afloat. The spectacular rise in credit created a multi-decade economic boom, while Americans slowly lost their savings and went deeper and deeper into debt.

Today we are stuck with a terrible problem. China is the new center of global manufacturing. We have a middle class that spent the last 30 years going into debt. They can no longer borrow enough to consume at the needed volume to drive economic growth. And now we are stuck with a demand problem. The suppliers have more cash sitting on the sidelines than at any time in history, but they have no incentive to invest in the American economy because they lack consumers.

We need to stop all this fluffy talk about equality and realize the following. Any economy that does not pay its workers enough to buy what they produce will eventually turn to credit, and then, when the credit runs out, the economy will flounder. Henry Ford, one of our great capitalists was right. He understood that he needed to pay his workers enough to buy the cars that they produce - otherwise he would be stuck in a crisis of overproduction, which always leads to a recession (unless a sly rat like Reagan expands credit so American families can destroy themselves on debt).

I wouldn't put all the blame at Reagan's feet. Clinton did his fair share too.

 

[Bombur]

Until democrats created the buzz word, there was no such thing as income inequality. There was success and failure.

I believe you meant "lords and peasants"

 

[ClosedCaption]

Until democrats created the buzz word, there was no such thing as income inequality. There was success and failure.

Tell that to the Great Depression

 

[The Rabbi]

Until democrats created the buzz word, there was no such thing as income inequality. There was success and failure.

I believe you meant "lords and peasants"

No you don't.
See you lie even when you try to be funny.

 

[The Rabbi]

Until democrats created the buzz word, there was no such thing as income inequality. There was success and failure.

Tell that to the Great Depression

Huh???

 

[Bombur]

Until democrats created the buzz word, there was no such thing as income inequality. There was success and failure.

I believe you meant "lords and peasants"

No you don't.
See you lie even when you try to be funny.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Until democrats created the buzz word, there was no such thing as income inequality. There was success and failure.

Tell that to the Great Depression

Huh???

The. Great. Depression.

Income. Inequality.

 

[Indeependent]

Until democrats created the buzz word, there was no such thing as income inequality. There was success and failure.

Tell that to the Great Depression

Huh???

Oh, Thick One!
The artificial cocaine high produced by both parties resulted in a crash.
You DO remember Sep 2008?

 

[The Rabbi]

Tell that to the Great Depression

Huh???

The. Great. Depression.

Income. Inequality.

Make. Sense. Or. STFU.