Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[dblack]

True, but what is their relationship?
Beyond a certain level, can we say income inequality becomes a necessary but not a sufficient condition for poverty?

Are you suggesting that, if income inequality wasn't allowed, there would be no poverty?

I don' think so.
Maybe if income inequality was reduced poverty would follow?
There will always be some inequality of incomes; however, what we've seen over the past forty years, I believe, has more to do with government tax and trade policies which have been implemented to benefit one percent of workers at the expense of the middle class.

I don't really see how income inequality and poverty are related at all. It's like claiming the cause of shortness is height inequality.

 

[georgephillip]

I don't question IF there is income equality. I don't agree with the left wing extremists as to WHY there is income inequality. As has been posted with links, the disparity is directly correlated to education, marital status, ambition and motivation, common human traits which are relevant to how much a person can earn.

It is obvious that some have quit school, stopped having ambition and motivation because they had been oppressed to some degree. What is equally obvious is, even with oppression, many of the same "oppressed" people have made the choice to succeed in spite of that oppression.

Also obvious is the fact that people who are referred to as "poor white" suffer from that problem as minorities.

Where does all of this start? In school, where the teacher and staff don't do enough to overcome the "failure syndrome" which is perpetrated in some groups of students. Teachers in particular cause many poor people to lose self esteem when they choose to castigate who do poorly on home work and class work instead of giving them the help they need. Most kids respond negatively to that castigation, and most kids who perform poorly can be helped if the schools give them the attention and positive help they need.

But you can take your Huffington article and stick it in with all the other left wing and right wing biased sources and blow them out of existence.

Don't believe opinions of so called "experts," instead look for the studies, skip past the author's conclusions and work to understand the data without being told how to think.

I accept that.

Do you want to dispute that or the following?[/B]

"America’s top 1 percent of earners accounted for 47 percent of all pre-tax income growth over that time period. And that’s excluding capital gains, for God's sake.

"Throw in the rest of the top 10 percent, and you’re looking at a group that got four-fifths of all income growth between the Ford and George W. Bush administrations.

"The rest of us were left to scramble for the last one-fifth of extra income.

"If you add in capital gains, which typically accrue to the highest earners anyway, the picture is probably a lot worse."

The U.S. Is Even More Unequal Than You Realized

If we extended that out a few years that income spike went way down with the recession.

The top 1% get 20% of all income in the US. Their income growth more than doubled in that time period.

Yet when you look at even smaller segments the major income inequality occurred between the top .99% and the top.01% such that only a very small number of Americans participated in that high income inequality growth.

When extrapolating that high % of growth to the top .01% of the people, the TOTAL is not as large as imagined.

I think it is important to take into consideration how much the total is as related to the % of increase of their wealth. Only the top .01% have gotten the lions share of the growth, not unlike the Carnegies, the Rockefellers, the Kennedys, the Vanderbilts et al, in their day. That will not stop. That is one reason people look at the US's economic situation as a giant. People can aspire to grow wealth in an unlimited fashion if they have sufficient intelligence, education, motivation, and ambition plus the get up and go many steps further than the average Joe. Basically trying to compare our prosperity and growth to other countries, ESPECIALLY those that are smaller, is a futile endeavor.

I see your point about the role played by the top 0.1% and 0.01% of US incomes and how that has skewed the trend between 1981 and 2012 of the top one percent doubling their share of total pre-tax income. I certainly don't expect to be around 31 years from now, but I can't help wondering how another doubling of one percent incomes will influence the standard of living in the US for 99% of the population in 2045?

 

[georgephillip]

Are you suggesting that, if income inequality wasn't allowed, there would be no poverty?

I don' think so.
Maybe if income inequality was reduced poverty would follow?
There will always be some inequality of incomes; however, what we've seen over the past forty years, I believe, has more to do with government tax and trade policies which have been implemented to benefit one percent of workers at the expense of the middle class.

I don't really see how income inequality and poverty are related at all. It's like claiming the cause of shortness is height inequality.

So if the top 1% of US earners hadn't doubled their share of total pre-tax earnings over the past four decades, poverty levels in the US today would not be any different from what we see now?

 

[kaz]

Are you suggesting that, if income inequality wasn't allowed, there would be no poverty?

I don' think so.
Maybe if income inequality was reduced poverty would follow?
There will always be some inequality of incomes; however, what we've seen over the past forty years, I believe, has more to do with government tax and trade policies which have been implemented to benefit one percent of workers at the expense of the middle class.

I don't really see how income inequality and poverty are related at all. It's like claiming the cause of shortness is height inequality.

In fact it's a tide rising all boats. The more the rich have, the more then invest and spend which provides jobs for everyone else.

 

[georgephillip]

I don' think so.
Maybe if income inequality was reduced poverty would follow?
There will always be some inequality of incomes; however, what we've seen over the past forty years, I believe, has more to do with government tax and trade policies which have been implemented to benefit one percent of workers at the expense of the middle class.

I don't really see how income inequality and poverty are related at all. It's like claiming the cause of shortness is height inequality.

In fact it's a tide rising all boats. The more the rich have, the more then invest and spend which provides jobs for everyone else.

Today the rich seem to speculate with their money or invest in productive enterprises outside the US which could partially explain why rising income inequality shows no signs of slowing down.

 

[bripat9643]

I don' think so.
Maybe if income inequality was reduced poverty would follow?
There will always be some inequality of incomes; however, what we've seen over the past forty years, I believe, has more to do with government tax and trade policies which have been implemented to benefit one percent of workers at the expense of the middle class.

I don't really see how income inequality and poverty are related at all. It's like claiming the cause of shortness is height inequality.

So if the top 1% of US earners hadn't doubled their share of total pre-tax earnings over the past four decades, poverty levels in the US today would not be any different from what we see now?

They might be higher. Neither you nor any other libturd in this forum has ever demonstrated that the income of the wealth causes anyone to be poor.

 

[georgephillip]

I don't really see how income inequality and poverty are related at all. It's like claiming the cause of shortness is height inequality.

So if the top 1% of US earners hadn't doubled their share of total pre-tax earnings over the past four decades, poverty levels in the US today would not be any different from what we see now?

They might be higher. Neither you nor any other libturd in this forum has ever demonstrated that the income of the wealth causes anyone to be poor.

"Prior to the 1970s, the poverty rate was falling as economic growth improved—until that relationship frayed, too.

"The EPI produced a projection of what would have happened to poverty if growth continued to reduce poverty as quickly as it did from 1959 to 1973.

"Their conclusion: poverty was on track to being eliminated by the mid-1980s."

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/06/04/what-if-the-rise-in-income-inequality-had-never-happened/

 

[bripat9643]

So if the top 1% of US earners hadn't doubled their share of total pre-tax earnings over the past four decades, poverty levels in the US today would not be any different from what we see now?

They might be higher. Neither you nor any other libturd in this forum has ever demonstrated that the income of the wealth causes anyone to be poor.

"Prior to the 1970s, the poverty rate was falling as economic growth improved—until that relationship frayed, too.

"The EPI produced a projection of what would have happened to poverty if growth continued to reduce poverty as quickly as it did from 1959 to 1973.

"Their conclusion: poverty was on track to being eliminated by the mid-1980s."

What If the Rise in Income Inequality Had Never Happened? - Real Time Economics - WSJ

The poverty rate declined until LBJ's Great Society programs kicked in. It has nothing to do with "income inequality."

 

[Chris]

From 1941 to the 1960's we had high taxes on the rich and high wages. The taxes were invested in education and infrastructure, and the high wages created consumer demand.

Now we have low taxes for the rich and low wages, and 23% of total income goes to the top 1%.
70% of our economy is consumer demand, so too much money in too few hands is starving our economy of demand.

We need to raise the minimum wage and tax capital gains as income.

 

[kaz]

I don't really see how income inequality and poverty are related at all. It's like claiming the cause of shortness is height inequality.

In fact it's a tide rising all boats. The more the rich have, the more then invest and spend which provides jobs for everyone else.

Today the rich seem to speculate with their money or invest in productive enterprises outside the US which could partially explain why rising income inequality shows no signs of slowing down.

Marxist talking points, nothing more

 

[dnsmith35]

I accept that.

If we extended that out a few years that income spike went way down with the recession.

The top 1% get 20% of all income in the US. Their income growth more than doubled in that time period.

Yet when you look at even smaller segments the major income inequality occurred between the top .99% and the top.01% such that only a very small number of Americans participated in that high income inequality growth.

When extrapolating that high % of growth to the top .01% of the people, the TOTAL is not as large as imagined.

I think it is important to take into consideration how much the total is as related to the % of increase of their wealth. Only the top .01% have gotten the lions share of the growth, not unlike the Carnegies, the Rockefellers, the Kennedys, the Vanderbilts et al, in their day. That will not stop. That is one reason people look at the US's economic situation as a giant. People can aspire to grow wealth in an unlimited fashion if they have sufficient intelligence, education, motivation, and ambition plus the get up and go many steps further than the average Joe. Basically trying to compare our prosperity and growth to other countries, ESPECIALLY those that are smaller, is a futile endeavor.

I see your point about the role played by the top 0.1% and 0.01% of US incomes and how that has skewed the trend between 1981 and 2012 of the top one percent doubling their share of total pre-tax income. I certainly don't expect to be around 31 years from now, but I can't help wondering how another doubling of one percent incomes will influence the standard of living in the US for 99% of the population in 2045?

I personally don't believe that altering the growth of income in the top .01% will affect the standard of living of the majority of our people one iota. What is important to remember is, the tip 20% include people who are not outlandishly wealthy, and that no matter what you do, there will always be the top 20% and the bottom 20%, and those in between as well. Will there be a tightening of the spread help the poor? Or will it simply mean that the bottom 20% are still the bottom quintile and effectively the relatively poor of our population?

What I see as more important is addressing the 600,000 of our citizenry who are living in abject poverty. How do we help them? Many of them, if not most of them have mental issues and they choose not to live like we believe they should. I have personal experience with several. At issue is his inability to hold a job. He is in constant battle with himself and it has an effect on his work and his life. Yet he does not fit the description of disabled that is recognized as a reason to get assistance. He will wander off from his apartment which has been prepaid for long periods of time and his family has to go to the city in which he wants to live, and find him on the street and do one more intervention. They get him back to his apartment, they clean him and his space so as not to have it look like a trash dump, feed him, buy him clothes and work to find him a job. This is a repeat issue several times a year. The family is not wealthy by any means but this one young man takes almost half of their family income. It is a sad affair, but the extended family does its best and they are unable to get public assistance because he does not comply with the regulations.

It is people like him in this country, and those in the 3rd world who have even less than he who need our help the most. It is the care for "the least of his people" that is important.

 

[Indeependent]

In fact it's a tide rising all boats. The more the rich have, the more then invest and spend which provides jobs for everyone else.

Today the rich seem to speculate with their money or invest in productive enterprises outside the US which could partially explain why rising income inequality shows no signs of slowing down.

Marxist talking points, nothing more

You know people who ensure their assets are invested in the continental US?

 

[dnsmith35]

I don't really see how income inequality and poverty are related at all. It's like claiming the cause of shortness is height inequality.

In fact it's a tide rising all boats. The more the rich have, the more then invest and spend which provides jobs for everyone else.

Today the rich seem to speculate with their money or invest in productive enterprises outside the US which could partially explain why rising income inequality shows no signs of slowing down.

The interesting part of my work the last 20 years of my working life was as a business consultant to firms trying to create a stable work force and keep their employees happy. Wage and benefits were important but there are other considerations as well.

In the process I have met with many wealthy people who search for investments and have asked me to do the research to help them process the direction they go.

One of the things I observed was how many of them feel they are being unfairly castigated and have chosen to venture outside of the US for no other reason than the nagging and constant criticisms aimed at them as part of the wealthy of our country and simply want to escape. In many cases it is simple stubbornness, but in some cases seeing a true picture of life in a poverty stricken part of the world, to include some pockets of destitution in the US and in third world countries as well.

Human behavior drives economics, and if an individual gets to see and become a part of a more positive and life enhancing activity they learn to love it.

The school from which I graduated high school in 1952 was instrumental in assisting the Dalai Lama in settling in India after he left Tibet. My school helped him and his entourage set up living spaces and schools in what is called Happy Valley, Mussoorie, Uttarakhand, India. He lived there until the government of India offered him a place of his own, where he and his people built their own village. Though many remained in Happy Valley, he and his staff and families have moved to Dharamsala, India. (The 23-year-old Dalai Lama fled Tibet in March 1959 and reached Mussoorie where he began staying at the Birla House in Happy Valley which had been requisitioned for his use by the Indian Government.)

http://www.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/dehradun/mussoorie-dalai-lamas-first-home-in-india.html

When I look up to someone who puts his "money" where his mouth is, it is the Dalai Lama.

News | The Office of His Holiness The Dalai Lama

I am not Buddhist, but I believe sincerely of the goodness of practicing adherents, like the Dalai Lama and is another reason why my personal motto is, "A champion for the rights of people should be a champion for the rights of ALL PEOPLE," not for a select few based on boundaries.

 

[kaz]

Today the rich seem to speculate with their money or invest in productive enterprises outside the US which could partially explain why rising income inequality shows no signs of slowing down.

Marxist talking points, nothing more

You know people who ensure their assets are invested in the continental US?

So our economy should be banned from feriners, companies should be forced to stay here and keep their organization production here and Americans should keep their investments here because we don't want some feriner to get a job, screw them. America for Americans.

But our borders should be open and we should confiscate our money from our economy and give it to feriners.



When you buy a clue, let me know.

 

[georgephillip]

In fact it's a tide rising all boats. The more the rich have, the more then invest and spend which provides jobs for everyone else.

Today the rich seem to speculate with their money or invest in productive enterprises outside the US which could partially explain why rising income inequality shows no signs of slowing down.

Marxist talking points, nothing more

Can you explain why US average wages for non-supervisory workers are about where they were in 1972, when Nixon was in the White House, while average labor productivity has doubled since that time?

 

[georgephillip]

Marxist talking points, nothing more

You know people who ensure their assets are invested in the continental US?

So our economy should be banned from feriners, companies should be forced to stay here and keep their organization production here and Americans should keep their investments here because we don't want some feriner to get a job, screw them. America for Americans.

But our borders should be open and we should confiscate our money from our economy and give it to feriners.



When you buy a clue, let me know.

Currently, borders are open to capital and closed to labor; does that explain why 90% of economic gains since the "end" of the Great Recession have gone to one percent of workers in the US?

 

[kaz]

Today the rich seem to speculate with their money or invest in productive enterprises outside the US which could partially explain why rising income inequality shows no signs of slowing down.

Marxist talking points, nothing more

Can you explain why US average wages for non-supervisory workers are about where they were in 1972, when Nixon was in the White House, while average labor productivity has doubled since that time?

First of all, that's hard to believe if you were around in 1972 and you saw what typical people owned then and what they own now that they are in the same place. Everything keeps getting cheaper because of those productivity raises.

Second, we have pursued your policies of taxing and redistribution since then. Government spending is out of control. We are punishing companies that try to operate efficiently. What you are asking me is why when we've pursued your policies we haven't achieved my results. Well, think about it...

 

[kaz]

You know people who ensure their assets are invested in the continental US?

So our economy should be banned from feriners, companies should be forced to stay here and keep their organization production here and Americans should keep their investments here because we don't want some feriner to get a job, screw them. America for Americans.

But our borders should be open and we should confiscate our money from our economy and give it to feriners.



When you buy a clue, let me know.

Currently, borders are open to capital and closed to labor; does that explain why 90% of economic gains since the "end" of the Great Recession have gone to one percent of workers in the US?

Your statement is preposterous

 

[dnsmith35]

Currently, borders are open to capital and closed to labor; does that explain why 90% of economic gains since the "end" of the Great Recession have gone to one percent of workers in the US?

That is not a factual statement. I have read that propaganda.

More specifically, the researchers found that increasing offshore jobs by 1 percent is linked to a 1.72 percent increase in overall U.S. employment of native workers, though they describe the effect as neutral overall because the 0.72 percent difference is too small to be statistically significant. Offshoring also tends to push native U.S. workers toward more complex jobs, while offshore workers tend to specialize in less-skilled employment. Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills, study says​

 

[georgephillip]

Marxist talking points, nothing more

Can you explain why US average wages for non-supervisory workers are about where they were in 1972, when Nixon was in the White House, while average labor productivity has doubled since that time?

First of all, that's hard to believe if you were around in 1972 and you saw what typical people owned then and what they own now that they are in the same place. Everything keeps getting cheaper because of those productivity raises.

Second, we have pursued your policies of taxing and redistribution since then. Government spending is out of control. We are punishing companies that try to operate efficiently. What you are asking me is why when we've pursued your policies we haven't achieved my results. Well, think about it...

I was not only around, I remember how a single minimum wage job paid enough to cover rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with a surplus sufficient to pay-off and maintain a six year-old Chevy. Think that could happen today?