Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I keep seeing this drivel about changes in household income.
Nobody seems to want to say that the people in those quintiles don't stay there. They move around....despite the whining on the left....with a fair amount of mobility.
If don't weight that mobility into those charts....they are pretty much meaningless as far as making a statement about gaps between rich and poor.
NOt true...
U.S. falls behind Europe in Economic Mobility between Classes
And frankly, if the mobility is people moving down, that's not a good thing.
Should the idle rich, who don't work, pay taxes at a lower rate than people who do work?
You are completely enslaved to this class warfare and hate the rich bullshit, aren't you?I keep seeing this drivel about changes in household income.
Nobody seems to want to say that the people in those quintiles don't stay there. They move around....despite the whining on the left....with a fair amount of mobility.
If don't weight that mobility into those charts....they are pretty much meaningless as far as making a statement about gaps between rich and poor.
NOt true...
U.S. falls behind Europe in Economic Mobility between Classes
And frankly, if the mobility is people moving down, that's not a good thing.
And social mobility is less relevant if the lion share of the income goes to the very top. It makes moving between lower quintiles pretty much pointless. So what, if now you can afford to pay for health insurance, instead of relying on Medicaid?
Do you think that the poor have an ETHICAL or MORAL responsibility to their fellow man to work to support themselves?
Since when Medicaid counts as a disposable income? QUOTE]
If I don't have to pay out of my pocket for medical care, the money I WOULD have spent becomes disposable income The same way humanitarian aid becomes military aid to nations. "What? I don't have to feed my people because these suckers... err kind nations are going to do it for me? Hassan! We can buy more guns and tanks!!!!"
Don't be a sap.
And what is the alternative -- let them die from treatable illnesses?
No, buy your own health insurance or pay for your treatment yourself. If you can't, maybe there should be a good hard look as to WHY prices are so high, instead of figuring out why a person who makes minimum wage can't come up with a six figure bill. That reason is patently obvious.
Seen anyone starving on the streets lately? I've been so poor as to need assistance to meet my food needs and have never gotten foodstamps. I've relied on the help of family and private charity. Want to know the funny part? I've eaten better on private assistance than I did when I was buying for myself.
I am living proof you can do WITHOUT government aid on this.
And how screwed he's being by paying taxes for the deadbeat getting that much more disposable income. If his taxes dropped by 20%, he'd probably be doing MUCH better.
So go on welfare and get everything he SHOULD have anyway from the government? Oh that's a sure fire plan with no hidden dangers!
Thanks to your friend and mine, the government, not doing it's proper and constitutional job.
while the top earners see dramatic rise in their real incomes.
More jealous irrelevance. The point is that if you make poverty comfortable, people won't get off it, and more people will rely on it, ultimately collapsing the system. making 60k a year puts him into what tax bracket? The top 25% of tax payers? Why yes, I do believe so.
All this slinging back and forth is fine and dandy, but where it all goes wrong for everyone (IMHO), is when you get the top living in a brand new trend of corruption and greed spread out over the last 25 years or more, in which through their money, they can just about justify anything and everything with it these days and/or by the influence with it these days, but that doesn't mean that they are right because of their money and power of influence, so people need to really do their homework, and to try and connect with what has went down, and what will go down again if they aren't very careful.
I have seen some bad stuff in my time (trust me), and I have also been a federal witness against corruption and some very corrupt people in my time ( these people lived and looked like your patriotic, apple pie eating, American neighbors to), so it's sort of like having been exposed to the apple tree in the garden indirectly, thus accidentally biting it myself through indirect means, where as it then learned me of all the things involved, in which were good and evil, and this once exposed to those things afterwards, thus learning exactly what these people are capable of, and exactly what the trends were with certain ones who have led so many into this trap that we all are in now (or) in which we have been placed into. People don't realize it, but they are simply a Medical issue away from being bankrupt or flat broke because of, and this even if you had been a model citizen in this nation for all your life, now just one incident to happen, and it all goes away. There are thousands now, who have been made voiceless because of, and have been placed on a new journey in their lives now, one that has showed them just how bad people can be, and just how bad the lies are, in which are now being found so much more in this nation amongst each other now, than was in the now so distant past.
It's easy to spew rhetoric and simplicty's at one another on these issues, but the issues and characters involved, are powerful, and sooooo much more complex than what is being covered here in confusion of (or) is being found in alot of these threads.
Living it, is much more different than speaking it, and alot of people are living it hard now, and that my friend is ashame as to what has gone on in the whole ordeal.
Yes, the poor have ethical and moral responsibility to work hard and to make as much money as they can.
I don't dispute that and I can't imagine that anyone does. Get it? Got it? Are you sure?
Because if you don't -- read that sentence again. And again. And again, until the meaning of it gets through your thick skull.
It goes like this: while the poor are responsible for working as hard as anyone else, the are not responsible neither for the talents they are born with, nor for the way the free market rewards those talents. And if the free market starts to send most of the national income to the very few most talented people, and leaves the rest struggling with the low pay -- no amount of ethics or hard work can change that.
And that's what the free market did for the past 30 years
mostly thanks to the technological advances.
It made people on the top very rich, and the rest are free to work hard and move between lower quintiles with no real change in their living standards.
No real change in our living standards?????? Da fuck you on? Are you trying to snow me with the idea that our standard of living today is LESS than 30, 50, 100 years ago? Bull pucky! Do you understand how those advances in chemistry have made our lives better? We are standing on the backs of giants bitching that our lives are not better today because they got all the cash. Where would you be without the giants who created:
A "National Grading System" should be created and implemented in this nation immediately, and it should be run by people who are not part of the cliques or establishment in this nation. This would be a very effective tool that would work to embarass those who hurt badly the workers, as well as the nation in the process, where as they then hide their hand when they are called out on mis-treating and abusing the ones who work for them, by spining it all into oblivian somehow afterwards.Do you think that the poor have an ETHICAL or MORAL responsibility to their fellow man to work to support themselves?
You know it is very difficult to talk to people who do not listen, but I'll try once more.
Yes, the poor have ethical and moral responsibility to work hard and to make as much money as they can. I don't dispute that and I can't imagine that anyone does. Get it? Got it? Are you sure? Because if you don't -- read that sentence again. And again. And again, until the meaning of it gets through your thick skull.
Now that we past the above paragraph -- are you sure, BTW? -- then we can get back to my original point. It goes like this: while the poor are responsible for working as hard as anyone else, the are not responsible neither for the talents they are born with, nor for the way the free market rewards those talents. And if the free market starts to send most of the national income to the very few most talented people, and leaves the rest struggling with the low pay -- no amount of ethics or hard work can change that.
And that's what the free market did for the past 30 years -- mostly thanks to the technological advances. It made people on the top very rich, and the rest are free to work hard and move between lower quintiles with no real change in their living standards.
Those are the facts. The question is what can we do about it.
Will you consider reading, in the book of "JAMES" (Chapter 5) - Verses 1 thru 9 please ?Yes, the poor have ethical and moral responsibility to work hard and to make as much money as they can.
But yet you want the system weighted for people to be dependent on it, and not ENCOURAGE them to get out of the safety hammock.
I don't dispute that and I can't imagine that anyone does. Get it? Got it? Are you sure?
Your lips say no no no, but your philosophical defenses say yes yes yes. So quit sending mixed signals.
My reading comprehension is fine I'm sorry you're having a problem with doublethink.
Oh great. The 'boo hoo hoo, life is so unfair' argument.. 90% of athletes and artists are not working in their desired profession. So what? Are they good? Some are. Are the working ones lucky? Probably, but instant fame comes often from a long line of work and effort. How many hard luck stories as well as success through perseverance stories have we heard in our lives? So what? That's the way this life is and nobody owes you compensation because life is unfair. You should have learned that in kindergarten, but obviously they stopped teaching such lessons.
Free market? I'd love to SEE a free market in this nation again. It's a highly regulated... I'd say OVER regulated market in nearly EVERY aspect and industry. We haven't had a free market since the 1920's, and even that needed a LITTLE curtailing due to rampant fraud and abuse from the industrialists of the era. But we're 80 years past that and have over-corrected to the extreme the other way and are slowly coming to a halt and reversing the trend to something more rational... like what we used to see in the 1940's and 50's.
mostly thanks to the technological advances.
Better living through chemistry, you better believe it.
It made people on the top very rich, and the rest are free to work hard and move between lower quintiles with no real change in their living standards.
The personal computer
The Telephone
The Automobile
Nuclear Medicine
Anti-Biotics and Vaccinations
Plastics
Refrigeration
The list is extremely long. Every one of those fields have people and companies that made fortunes on the drive and creation of a few men who got rich in the process. The rest of our lives are greatly improved by it. Ask yourself the next time you think that we don't benefit from the inventions if you'd like to live back in the time of the 1890's and the technology they had then. I'd bet you'd wish... nay BEG for a modern toilet and bathroom let alone water treatment.
Save it man, nobody's buying that sob sister story here. Your standard of living is better than 99% of the rest of this planet because of those 'greedy bastards' who got rich on the backs of others.
Then explain why God has lavished wealth on those faithful to Him? Solomon, David, even in the story of Job, God lavishes wealth and power on those He loves as He sees fit. Means that being rich is not evil.Will you consider reading, in the book of "JAMES" (Chapter 5) - Verses 1 thru 9 please ?But yet you want the system weighted for people to be dependent on it, and not ENCOURAGE them to get out of the safety hammock.Yes, the poor have ethical and moral responsibility to work hard and to make as much money as they can.
Your lips say no no no, but your philosophical defenses say yes yes yes. So quit sending mixed signals.
My reading comprehension is fine I'm sorry you're having a problem with doublethink.
Oh great. The 'boo hoo hoo, life is so unfair' argument.. 90% of athletes and artists are not working in their desired profession. So what? Are they good? Some are. Are the working ones lucky? Probably, but instant fame comes often from a long line of work and effort. How many hard luck stories as well as success through perseverance stories have we heard in our lives? So what? That's the way this life is and nobody owes you compensation because life is unfair. You should have learned that in kindergarten, but obviously they stopped teaching such lessons.
Free market? I'd love to SEE a free market in this nation again. It's a highly regulated... I'd say OVER regulated market in nearly EVERY aspect and industry. We haven't had a free market since the 1920's, and even that needed a LITTLE curtailing due to rampant fraud and abuse from the industrialists of the era. But we're 80 years past that and have over-corrected to the extreme the other way and are slowly coming to a halt and reversing the trend to something more rational... like what we used to see in the 1940's and 50's.
Better living through chemistry, you better believe it.
It made people on the top very rich, and the rest are free to work hard and move between lower quintiles with no real change in their living standards.
The personal computer
The Telephone
The Automobile
Nuclear Medicine
Anti-Biotics and Vaccinations
Plastics
Refrigeration
The list is extremely long. Every one of those fields have people and companies that made fortunes on the drive and creation of a few men who got rich in the process. The rest of our lives are greatly improved by it. Ask yourself the next time you think that we don't benefit from the inventions if you'd like to live back in the time of the 1890's and the technology they had then. I'd bet you'd wish... nay BEG for a modern toilet and bathroom let alone water treatment.
Save it man, nobody's buying that sob sister story here. Your standard of living is better than 99% of the rest of this planet because of those 'greedy bastards' who got rich on the backs of others.
Let me know what you think of this area in the Bible, and what it is saying to the situation we have found now so previlent in our society today. Thanks
Yes, the poor have ethical and moral responsibility to work hard and to make as much money as they can.
But yet you want the system weighted for people to be dependent on it, and not ENCOURAGE them to get out of the safety hammock.
Free market? I'd love to SEE a free market in this nation again. It's a highly regulated...
It made people on the top very rich, and the rest are free to work hard and move between lower quintiles with no real change in their living standards.
The personal computer
The Telephone
The Automobile
Nuclear Medicine
Anti-Biotics and Vaccinations
Plastics
Refrigeration
Yes, the poor have ethical and moral responsibility to work hard and to make as much money as they can.
But yet you want the system weighted for people to be dependent on it, and not ENCOURAGE them to get out of the safety hammock.
On the contrary, I want a system that would encourage people to move to up by making the middle class living an attractive option again. I want the difference between lower quintiles to be big, so it will motivate people moving out of the safety net.
Moving from poverty line at 20K to the median income at 50K does not look as good, as a move from 20K to 90K, don't you think?
And you have any reason to think that less regulation would create a more equal society? We have much less regulations now than in 70s, but the inequality has increased dramatically.
OK, it is not that you needed to prove once more that you are a dumbass. I was talking about how the income changes between quintiles, not how it changed since 1900.
The personal computer
The Telephone
The Automobile
Nuclear Medicine
Anti-Biotics and Vaccinations
Plastics
Refrigeration
Yup -- the average family living was getting much better through most of the last century -- but not much has changed in the past 30-40 years. An average family does not live much better now than 40 years ago. Yes, we have microwaves, iPhones and TVs are bigger, and there is Internet -- but that's about it.
As for the real incomes, they have stagnated for the past 40 years despite the fact, that the productivity grew by 80%. If the median household income had kept pace with the economy since 1970, it would now be nearly $92,000 -- instead it increased 10% to $50K.
Doesn't it bother you that while US economy produces twice as much of goods and services per capita than in 1970, the median household did not see their incomes rising? Which means that the lion share of that extra incomes went to the super-rich?
On the contrary, I want a system that would encourage people to move to up by making the middle class living an attractive option again.
I want the difference between lower quintiles to be big, so it will motivate people moving out of the safety net.
Equal justice, not equal results. That's the goal. Everyone's treated the same under the law, and it is not used to enrich or impoverish anyone, save by their own lack of or overload of effort.And you have any reason to think that less regulation would create a more equal society?
We have much less regulations now than in 70s, but the inequality has increased dramatically.
OK, it is not that you needed to prove once more that you are a dumbass.
I was talking about how the income changes between quintiles, not how it was changing with time.
Yup -- the average family living was getting much better through most of the last century --
but not much has changed in the past 30-40 years.
An average family does not live much better now than 40 years ago.
Yes, we have microwaves, iPhones and TVs are bigger, and there is Internet -- but that's about it.
As for the real incomes, they have stagnated for the past 40 years despite the fact, that the productivity grew by 80%.
If the median household income had kept pace with the economy since 1970, it would now be nearly $92,000 -- instead it increased 10% to $50K.
Doesn't it bother you that while US economy produces twice as much of goods and services per capita than in 1970, the median household did not see their incomes rising? Which means that the lion share of that extra incomes went to the super-rich?
Will you consider reading, in the book of "JAMES" (Chapter 5) - Verses 1 thru 9 please ?Yes, the poor have ethical and moral responsibility to work hard and to make as much money as they can.
But yet you want the system weighted for people to be dependent on it, and not ENCOURAGE them to get out of the safety hammock.
Your lips say no no no, but your philosophical defenses say yes yes yes. So quit sending mixed signals.
My reading comprehension is fine I'm sorry you're having a problem with doublethink.
Oh great. The 'boo hoo hoo, life is so unfair' argument.. 90% of athletes and artists are not working in their desired profession. So what? Are they good? Some are. Are the working ones lucky? Probably, but instant fame comes often from a long line of work and effort. How many hard luck stories as well as success through perseverance stories have we heard in our lives? So what? That's the way this life is and nobody owes you compensation because life is unfair. You should have learned that in kindergarten, but obviously they stopped teaching such lessons.
Free market? I'd love to SEE a free market in this nation again. It's a highly regulated... I'd say OVER regulated market in nearly EVERY aspect and industry. We haven't had a free market since the 1920's, and even that needed a LITTLE curtailing due to rampant fraud and abuse from the industrialists of the era. But we're 80 years past that and have over-corrected to the extreme the other way and are slowly coming to a halt and reversing the trend to something more rational... like what we used to see in the 1940's and 50's.
Better living through chemistry, you better believe it.
It made people on the top very rich, and the rest are free to work hard and move between lower quintiles with no real change in their living standards.
The personal computer
The Telephone
The Automobile
Nuclear Medicine
Anti-Biotics and Vaccinations
Plastics
Refrigeration
The list is extremely long. Every one of those fields have people and companies that made fortunes on the drive and creation of a few men who got rich in the process. The rest of our lives are greatly improved by it. Ask yourself the next time you think that we don't benefit from the inventions if you'd like to live back in the time of the 1890's and the technology they had then. I'd bet you'd wish... nay BEG for a modern toilet and bathroom let alone water treatment.
Save it man, nobody's buying that sob sister story here. Your standard of living is better than 99% of the rest of this planet because of those 'greedy bastards' who got rich on the backs of others.
Let me know what you think of this area in the Bible, and what it is saying to the situation we have found now so previlent in our society today. Thanks
Then explain why God has lavished wealth on those faithful to Him? Solomon, David, even in the story of Job, God lavishes wealth and power on those He loves as He sees fit. Means that being rich is not evil.Will you consider reading, in the book of "JAMES" (Chapter 5) - Verses 1 thru 9 please ?But yet you want the system weighted for people to be dependent on it, and not ENCOURAGE them to get out of the safety hammock.
Your lips say no no no, but your philosophical defenses say yes yes yes. So quit sending mixed signals.
My reading comprehension is fine I'm sorry you're having a problem with doublethink.
Oh great. The 'boo hoo hoo, life is so unfair' argument.. 90% of athletes and artists are not working in their desired profession. So what? Are they good? Some are. Are the working ones lucky? Probably, but instant fame comes often from a long line of work and effort. How many hard luck stories as well as success through perseverance stories have we heard in our lives? So what? That's the way this life is and nobody owes you compensation because life is unfair. You should have learned that in kindergarten, but obviously they stopped teaching such lessons.
Free market? I'd love to SEE a free market in this nation again. It's a highly regulated... I'd say OVER regulated market in nearly EVERY aspect and industry. We haven't had a free market since the 1920's, and even that needed a LITTLE curtailing due to rampant fraud and abuse from the industrialists of the era. But we're 80 years past that and have over-corrected to the extreme the other way and are slowly coming to a halt and reversing the trend to something more rational... like what we used to see in the 1940's and 50's.
Better living through chemistry, you better believe it.
The personal computer
The Telephone
The Automobile
Nuclear Medicine
Anti-Biotics and Vaccinations
Plastics
Refrigeration
The list is extremely long. Every one of those fields have people and companies that made fortunes on the drive and creation of a few men who got rich in the process. The rest of our lives are greatly improved by it. Ask yourself the next time you think that we don't benefit from the inventions if you'd like to live back in the time of the 1890's and the technology they had then. I'd bet you'd wish... nay BEG for a modern toilet and bathroom let alone water treatment.
Save it man, nobody's buying that sob sister story here. Your standard of living is better than 99% of the rest of this planet because of those 'greedy bastards' who got rich on the backs of others.
Let me know what you think of this area in the Bible, and what it is saying to the situation we have found now so previlent in our society today. Thanks
What you refer to is not some sort of blanket condemnation of capitalism, but a reminder that wealth here should not interfere with your spiritual life and connection with God. You can't take it with you, and the real riches you can build up are not of the physical kind. If your faith is in the material gain of this world, you will suffer greatly when it is gone as all things in this world will become. Put your faith in God and things of eternal value.
It cautions against cheating your employees and breaking the commandments as well.
But of course, if you want to pretend this is a blanket condemnation of achievement and growing rich through honest work and effort which most people do, you do that on your own, without me.
Don't forget James 5:11 mentioning Job and hinting at the reward for being faithful.
Well. I could find alot more to do with 90k than 50k, so if it was obtainable by me and realistic in my vision, I think I would work harder to get to that 90k if truly obtainable, than just being satisfied with the 50k (anyday).But yet you want the system weighted for people to be dependent on it, and not ENCOURAGE them to get out of the safety hammock.
On the contrary, I want a system that would encourage people to move to up by making the middle class living an attractive option again. I want the difference between lower quintiles to be big, so it will motivate people moving out of the safety net.
Moving from poverty line at 20K to the median income at 50K does not look as good, as a move from 20K to 90K, don't you think?
And you have any reason to think that less regulation would create a more equal society? We have much less regulations now than in 70s, but the inequality has increased dramatically.
OK, it is not that you needed to prove once more that you are a dumbass. I was talking about how the income changes between quintiles, not how it changed since 1900.
The personal computer
The Telephone
The Automobile
Nuclear Medicine
Anti-Biotics and Vaccinations
Plastics
Refrigeration
Yup -- the average family living was getting much better through most of the last century -- but not much has changed in the past 30-40 years. An average family does not live much better now than 40 years ago. Yes, we have microwaves, iPhones and TVs are bigger, and there is Internet -- but that's about it.
As for the real incomes, they have stagnated for the past 40 years despite the fact, that the productivity grew by 80%. If the median household income had kept pace with the economy since 1970, it would now be nearly $92,000 -- instead it increased 10% to $50K.
Doesn't it bother you that while US economy produces twice as much of goods and services per capita than in 1970, the median household did not see their incomes rising? Which means that the lion share of that extra incomes went to the super-rich?
Anybody who won't work for 50K won't work for 90K either.
Well. I could find alot more to do with 90k than 50k, so if it was obtainable by me and realistic in my vision, I think I would work harder to get to that 90k if truly obtainable, than just being satisfied with the 50k (anyday).On the contrary, I want a system that would encourage people to move to up by making the middle class living an attractive option again. I want the difference between lower quintiles to be big, so it will motivate people moving out of the safety net.
Moving from poverty line at 20K to the median income at 50K does not look as good, as a move from 20K to 90K, don't you think?
And you have any reason to think that less regulation would create a more equal society? We have much less regulations now than in 70s, but the inequality has increased dramatically.
OK, it is not that you needed to prove once more that you are a dumbass. I was talking about how the income changes between quintiles, not how it changed since 1900.
Yup -- the average family living was getting much better through most of the last century -- but not much has changed in the past 30-40 years. An average family does not live much better now than 40 years ago. Yes, we have microwaves, iPhones and TVs are bigger, and there is Internet -- but that's about it.
As for the real incomes, they have stagnated for the past 40 years despite the fact, that the productivity grew by 80%. If the median household income had kept pace with the economy since 1970, it would now be nearly $92,000 -- instead it increased 10% to $50K.
Doesn't it bother you that while US economy produces twice as much of goods and services per capita than in 1970, the median household did not see their incomes rising? Which means that the lion share of that extra incomes went to the super-rich?
Anybody who won't work for 50K won't work for 90K either.
Anybody who won't work for 50K won't work for 90K either.
Well then, I owe you an apology for biting a hand that came too close to the mouth. I was in error.Then explain why God has lavished wealth on those faithful to Him? Solomon, David, even in the story of Job, God lavishes wealth and power on those He loves as He sees fit. Means that being rich is not evil.Will you consider reading, in the book of "JAMES" (Chapter 5) - Verses 1 thru 9 please ?
Let me know what you think of this area in the Bible, and what it is saying to the situation we have found now so previlent in our society today. Thanks
What you refer to is not some sort of blanket condemnation of capitalism, but a reminder that wealth here should not interfere with your spiritual life and connection with God. You can't take it with you, and the real riches you can build up are not of the physical kind. If your faith is in the material gain of this world, you will suffer greatly when it is gone as all things in this world will become. Put your faith in God and things of eternal value.
It cautions against cheating your employees and breaking the commandments as well.
But of course, if you want to pretend this is a blanket condemnation of achievement and growing rich through honest work and effort which most people do, you do that on your own, without me.
Don't forget James 5:11 mentioning Job and hinting at the reward for being faithful.
Why try and put words into my mouth like you just did ? That is absolutely not what I was saying or did I ever say here in these forums concerning these subjects or issues debated or conversed about in that sort of thing, especially by which you have now tried to imply in this response that I did.... Now that aside, you did a very good job at interpereting what the chapter and verses meant, in which I asked for you to read in kind there of, but then you supposed or assumed that somehow I am against wealth, and a man having such wealth, in which he had then honestly worked for in his life was somehow a bad thing, when infact I am not at all against this in which you have now implied or claimed against me, but rather the opposite is known of me, just as long as a person makes his or her living honestly and decently (having no regrets afterwards), or when all is said and done.
I just want people to know that these things in which people do speak of today (curruption, fraud, greed), are real and very much at play in alot of ways these days, so I always say that (if the shoe fits then wear it), but never do I say that capitalism as a whole, is somehow bad on whole (or) that wealth generation in honesty of such generation of good wealth is bad either.
Not if it costs you an extra 40k in taxes, they won't or there's an easier way to make 90k or even more than 50k, they'd be just as satisfied.Anybody who won't work for 50K won't work for 90K either.
Anyone would work harder to get to 90K.
Stupid responses for stupid statements. You can up the level of your discourse any time you want... if you can. Don't say we're not better off thanks to the achievements of rich men and then ignore the benefit those achievements gave society.OK, it is not that you needed to prove once more that you are a dumbass.
I was talking about how the income changes between quintiles, not how it changed since 1900.
So you're building castles in the clouds with what you want, not what is.
Why have wages stagnated? Simple. We're now competing in a GLOBAL marketplace
