Census finds record gap between Rich and Poor

[Bern80]

Then maybe you should cock that other eye in the direction of Donald Trump (and please feel free to cut loose all that derision)

"Donald Trump (and no disrespect to The Donald as I love the guy, but he’s a good example), one of our 1,000 Billionaires, spends $1.2B to put up 1,000 new condos in Manhattan. He sells those condos for $2.2M each to 1,000 of our nation’s 1.8M people who have $10M or more, pocketing an extra $1Bn for all his hard work.

* Since nice condos 'only' cost $1M just 7 years ago, the poor multimillionaires must figure out how to come up with an extra 10% of their net worth in order to maintain the 'Trump Lifestyle.' "Let’s say they earn $500K per year and need an extra 50K - doesn’t seem like much does it?

o "They in turn raise the prices they charge to 1,000 of their clients (the 150M strong "middle class") by 10%. These people are the doctors, lawyers, store owners, white collars, etc. that you do business with every day.

+ That forces the middle class, who can barely afford their lifestyle to pass that 10% on to each other, as well as the 120M Americans who have household incomes of less than $48,000 a year, many FAR less than that in the form of vital services they can’t live without."

"That’s how your housekeeper, who spent $3.20 per gallon to fill up her tank in order to clean your house for $10 per hour, ends up paying for the Trump condo she’s cleaning.

"It’s a nickel here and a dime there but when you pick the pockets of 270M people for "just" a quarter a dozen times a day that’s $3 x 270M x 365 days = $295Bn a year.

" Multiply this petty theft over a 10-year period and that’s how you move $3T of our missing $4T from the poorhouse to the penthouse - Dooh Nibor!

You have a few pretty major unprovable and probably all together false presumptions there to make this particular line of BS work. I'm not really sure where to start.

First I'm not sure you know what net worth actually is.

Second you presume that most of your people with mid six figure incomes actually care about maintaining an image. The fact is most people with a net worth of a million dollars don't.


You presume that consumers have no choice but to by Trump's condo's and the customers of those consumer's who buy Trump's condos have no choice but to do business with those people that just raised their prices to afford them.

You presume to know what it costs to afford those 'vital things you can't live without'. For one person to get by with very little in the way of luxuries doesn't cost all that much. Believe me I know because I'm living it.

What is so funny is that all of you whiners are essentially complaining about how you and other people don't have enough money, but when someone like Trump figures out how to get EXACTLY what you want you throw them under the bus and make up outrageous crap about how they exploited and stealing from housekeepers. GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK YOU WHINY SNIVELING PIECE OF SHIT.

I'm not sure if you clicked on the link or not; however, I picked this stock and options trading site because it's run by people actively involved in the game as opposed to academics, for example, whose income doesn't stem primarily from market trades.

"About Phil:

"Philip R. Davis is the founder Phil’s Stock World, a stock and options trading site that teaches the art of options trading to newcomers and devises advanced strategies for expert traders. Mr. Davis is a serial entrepreneur, having founded software company Accu-Title, a real estate title insurance software solution, and is also the President of the Delphi Consulting Corp., an M&A consulting firm that helps large and small companies obtain funding and close deals.

"He was also the founder of Accu-Search, a property data corporation that was sold to DataTrace in 2004 and Personality Plus, a precursor to eHarmony.com. Phil was a former editor of a UMass/Amherst humor magazine and it shows in his writing — which is filled with colorful commentary along with very specific ideas on stock and options trading."

Since Phil doesn't quite fit the mold of a "whiner" you might want to consider the possibility there are psychopaths among the "richest of the rich" whose only goal is to absorb as much of the world's wealth as possible.

That would include your wealth, too.

About Phil

Who it comes from doesn't really change my opinion. Expertise in something doesn't mean one does not still have biases and when he says Trump building condos is essentially stealing from housekeepers, which is an utter crock, there is some pretty clear bias at work.

Wealth is not finite. There is no set number of dollars that are being shuffled around and me earning more does not prevent you from earning more.

 

[vonbolical5]

wow

 

[Bern80]

I don't think the definition of middle class has changed. It's the middle quintile, or perhaps the middle three quintiles of income. Despite working more, those quintiles have seen their real income shrink. Their effort has not declined, but their income has.

Of course it has changed. Would you consider someone today with an income that can only afford one car, a single tv, no cell phone, no internet, no computer, no cable, to be middle class? Of course you wouldn't.

And stop thinking about it in terms of less or more effort. That isn't what its about. It doesn't take an abundance of effort to make money. What it takes is a shift in your thinking. 'More' effort in terms of working longer hours, or maybe studying hard to be qualified for a high paying job is not going to yield substantially more income. All the extra effort in the world is irrelevant if it's applied the wrong way. People are told get a good education so you can get a good job becuase that's worked for the last few generations. But the dynamics of the economy have indeed changed. Everybody wants change, but they themselves don't want to have to be the thing that changes.

Your actions certainly play a role, but it defies logic to assume that the aggregated masses in the middle quintile quite suddenly began acting differently in the late 1970's. It seems far more plausible that real, fundamental changes in government policy and US finance / economy caused the trend to turn.

And that is the fundamental difference in the way people think. Some people for whatever reason will not take accountability for the level of control they have on their outcomes. Some people believe that doing things a certain way is suppossed to yield a certain outcome. Unfortuantely when economic conditions change, you have to change with them.

It does not defy logic at all that that has a major impact on one's success. It does not defy logic that initial common sense would say do what the last generations did because it worked for them. That's how the bulk of people are trying to do things. What is separating the haves from the have nots now is hitting that intitial road block where people start to see doing things the old way isn't working. At that point some people reevaluate and figure out a different way(the rich) and the rest just keep plodding along doing it the same way anyway (the shrining middle class and poor).

 

[uscitizen]

Wrong faggot
Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 261:Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the ReaganEconomic Record
On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa261.pdf

The Standard of Living
The Reagan Information Page:The Standard of Living

The CATO Institute? That same CATO Institute, founded by the Koch brothers?

Funded BY:
* Altria (the report identifies Altria Corporate Services as the contributor)
* American Petroleum Institute
* Amerisure Companies
* Amgen
* Chicago Mercantile Exchange
* Comcast Corporation
* Consumer Electronic Association
* Ebay Inc
* ExxonMobil
* FedEx Corporation
* Freedom Communications
* General Motors
* Honda North America
* Korea International Trade Association
* Microsoft
* National Association of Software and Service Companies
* Pepco Holdings Inc.
* R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
* TimeWarner
* Toyota Motor Corporation
* UST Inc
* Verisign
* Verizon Communications
* Visa USA Inc
* Volkswagen of America
* Wal-Mart Stores

Supported by:

* Castle Rock Foundation (Formerly Coors Foundation)
* Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation
* Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation
* Earhart Foundation
* JM Foundation
* John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
* Koch Family Foundations
* Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
* Scaife Foundations (Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage)

What is your point?
In the Reagan years, family incomes (again in 2000 dollars) rose nearly 15 percent from about $47,000 annually to over $54,000.
DLC: America by the Numbers: Comparing the Presidents' Economic Records by Al From

Of course income went up during the Reagan years. The work Carter had done was coming to bear.

 

[8537]

I don't think the definition of middle class has changed. It's the middle quintile, or perhaps the middle three quintiles of income. Despite working more, those quintiles have seen their real income shrink. Their effort has not declined, but their income has.

Of course it has changed. Would you consider someone today with an income that can only afford one car, a single tv, no cell phone, no internet, no computer, no cable, to be middle class? Of course you wouldn't.

The need for two cars is an outcome of the decreasing income, not the other way around. Two working parents created a need for two-car families.

Cell phones, internet etc...were obviously not budget items before they existed. They are in the current basket. That doesn't mean the middle quintile is better off today than they were before they had cell phones, it simply means that the costs associated with meeting middle-class expectations has changed.

And the majority of this new spending isn't coming from new income as much as it is from lowered savings. The savings rate was double digits during the earlier period and it recently floated below zero before the current recession.

And stop thinking about it in terms of less or more effort. That isn't what its about.

I didn't raise the point about effort. You did:
"As we find easier ways of doing things our expectations change about the level of effort that should be required to accomplish certain things. I believe that over the span of just a few decades we have been conditioned by greater convenience to expect things to be easy. "

It doesn't take an abundance of effort to make money. What it takes is a shift in your thinking. 'More' effort in terms of working longer hours, or maybe studying hard to be qualified for a high paying job is not going to yield substantially more income. All the extra effort in the world is irrelevant if it's applied the wrong way. People are told get a good education so you can get a good job becuase that's worked for the last few generations. But the dynamics of the economy have indeed changed. Everybody wants change, but they themselves don't want to have to be the thing that changes.

While this may or may not be true, it doesn't explain some society-wide shift that occured in 1978.

It does not defy logic at all that that has a major impact on one's success.

again, it's not the impact on an individual's success that is causing me to disagree - it's the assumption that at some period around 1978 there was an aggregated change in the behavior in the middle class that caused the income gap to begin widening. We're not talking about an individual's behavior here. For your hypothesis to hold, you would have to presume that the majority of middle-class American changed behaviors en masse.

In order for that to be the case, one would benefit from offering an explanation of why that change occurred.

I would suggest, instead, that the wedge that is further separating the have-lots from the have-less over the past 30+ years is a result of changes in government policy, regulation and changes in the financial sector - some of those changes quite purposeful and intentional, others the unintended result of policies and changes in the economic landscape.

 

[Big Fitz]

The gap between the rich and the rest becomes a problem as it widens. Currently it stands about as wide as it was in 1929.

So? that's corollary not causation. Till you prove empirically that wealth for one causes poverty for others, there is no connection except for inspiring envy in those undeserving of wealth.

If it's true the richest 0.01% of Americans (10,000 people) have a median annual income of $50,000,000 and they have $350,000,000 in assets AND that is an increase or 550% since 1978, the first question becomes how have you fared in the past 30 years?

Doesn't matter how well I fared. The fact that they may have done well does not affect me... no no... not true. If they do well I tend to do well too. Why? Because they can afford to hire me and pay me more. If they do bad, I do worse. Again Corollary, not causation.

Do you see our elected government as more democratic or less democratic than it was in 1978?

No, I find it far more corrupt since 2000 when McCain/Feingold passed. And even more so since the creation of 527 groups. In a way, the Citizens United decision made it less corrupt as now corporations can act like unions and 527's and compete fairly for politicians.

But till we enact universal term limits and cap time in government, ban government unions and demand total transparency in ALL campaign finance... it will remain a mess. This is not because of the rich, it is because of people protecting their elitist political fiefdoms with special interest law. The worst practitioners of this? Government Unions and 527s. Notice, they were the only ones who got bailed out.

hmmmmmmmmm, Who's the real corruptive influence here?

Do you see our elected government as more democratic or less democratic than it was in 1978?

In theory. That's why you need total transparency of election funding. I'd LOVE to see how much money Gore got from Buddhist temples from the Chinese. I'd love to have access to the books of ACORN/COI, SEIU, La Raza, the NEA, Teamsters, AFL/CIO, TSA, Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae, and every lobbying firm in the nation.

Then again, I want federal bribery a crime punished by public hanging of the lobbyist and politician. (Shut up Tardtard. Nobody gives a fuck about your fake graphs and insanty)

And now corporations will also be freer to spend on political campaigns.

About time. Unless you're willing to remove, unconstitutionally, all public money from elections everyone should be allowed to participate.

Again, you have corollary about why rich people getting richer is a bad thing, not causation. Rich people invest in businesses that will earn them interest. The better the idea and profit, the more they'll invest. They employ people poorer than them, making them more wealthy than what they were when unemployed. They consume, supporting hundreds if not thousands of businesses and their employee.

Where is the downside? Why wouldn't you encourage the creation of MORE rich people? Can you not see the connection between more rich people meaning more growth and less poor people? At least those willing to actually work. Those wanting a handout deserve to stay poor and less entitlement to charity.

Tax what you want less of. Subsidize what you want more of. So why do you want more poor people and less rich people?

 

[Bfgrn]

The gap between the rich and the rest becomes a problem as it widens. Currently it stands about as wide as it was in 1929.

So? that's corollary not causation. Till you prove empirically that wealth for one causes poverty for others, there is no connection except for inspiring envy in those undeserving of wealth.

If it's true the richest 0.01% of Americans (10,000 people) have a median annual income of $50,000,000 and they have $350,000,000 in assets AND that is an increase or 550% since 1978, the first question becomes how have you fared in the past 30 years?

Doesn't matter how well I fared. The fact that they may have done well does not affect me... no no... not true. If they do well I tend to do well too. Why? Because they can afford to hire me and pay me more. If they do bad, I do worse. Again Corollary, not causation.



No, I find it far more corrupt since 2000 when McCain/Feingold passed. And even more so since the creation of 527 groups. In a way, the Citizens United decision made it less corrupt as now corporations can act like unions and 527's and compete fairly for politicians.

But till we enact universal term limits and cap time in government, ban government unions and demand total transparency in ALL campaign finance... it will remain a mess. This is not because of the rich, it is because of people protecting their elitist political fiefdoms with special interest law. The worst practitioners of this? Government Unions and 527s. Notice, they were the only ones who got bailed out.

hmmmmmmmmm, Who's the real corruptive influence here?

Do you see our elected government as more democratic or less democratic than it was in 1978?

In theory. That's why you need total transparency of election funding. I'd LOVE to see how much money Gore got from Buddhist temples from the Chinese. I'd love to have access to the books of ACORN/COI, SEIU, La Raza, the NEA, Teamsters, AFL/CIO, TSA, Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae, and every lobbying firm in the nation.

Then again, I want federal bribery a crime punished by public hanging of the lobbyist and politician. (Shut up Tardtard. Nobody gives a fuck about your fake graphs and insanty)

And now corporations will also be freer to spend on political campaigns.

About time. Unless you're willing to remove, unconstitutionally, all public money from elections everyone should be allowed to participate.

Again, you have corollary about why rich people getting richer is a bad thing, not causation. Rich people invest in businesses that will earn them interest. The better the idea and profit, the more they'll invest. They employ people poorer than them, making them more wealthy than what they were when unemployed. They consume, supporting hundreds if not thousands of businesses and their employee.

Where is the downside? Why wouldn't you encourage the creation of MORE rich people? Can you not see the connection between more rich people meaning more growth and less poor people? At least those willing to actually work. Those wanting a handout deserve to stay poor and less entitlement to charity.

Tax what you want less of. Subsidize what you want more of. So why do you want more poor people and less rich people?

Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.
Edmund Burke

Big FIZZZZ ...a prime example of a pea brained right wing authoritarian follower.

The history of mankind has proven over and over and over that aristocracies and plutocracies are oppressive and totalitarian...BUT, they just didn't know how to do it. America's right wing pea brains can perfect it!

Hey Big FIZZZZ...maybe you just live in the wrong country? There are countries that embrace your authoritarian solutions...

China food safety head executed

Zheng Xiaoyu headed the food and drug agency for seven years

The former head of China's State Food and Drug Administration, Zheng Xiaoyu, has been executed for corruption, the state-run Xinhua news agency reports.

He was convicted of taking 6.5m yuan ($850,000; £425,400) in bribes and of dereliction of duty at a trial in May.

BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | China food safety head executed

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"
Albert Einstein

 

[Big Fitz]

(Shut up Tardtard. Nobody gives a fuck about your fake graphs and insanty)

Do you have a reading comprehension problem, Tardtard? Of course you do. Nobody gives a fuck about your pro-criminal pansyass reality.

 

[Bern80]

Cell phones, internet etc...were obviously not budget items before they existed. They are in the current basket. That doesn't mean the middle quintile is better off today than they were before they had cell phones, it simply means that the costs associated with meeting middle-class expectations has changed.

That's what I just said. So why are people wonderng why the same effort that achieved middle class befoe doesn't achieve middle cass now?

And the majority of this new spending isn't coming from new income as much as it is from lowered savings. The savings rate was double digits during the earlier period and it recently floated below zero before the current recession.

And that is a choice individuals make. Life is trade offs. Would you rather have more in savings or would you rather have all of things that symbolize being middle class?

I didn't raise the point about effort. You did:
"As we find easier ways of doing things our expectations change about the level of effort that should be required to accomplish certain things. I believe that over the span of just a few decades we have been conditioned by greater convenience to expect things to be easy. "

You said people are working more and getting less. My point is expecting that working more hours is going to keep you ahead or even with the curve is a false expectation. I repeat: It is not about working harder. It's about working smarter.

While this may or may not be true, it doesn't explain some society-wide shift that occured in 1978.

again, it's not the impact on an individual's success that is causing me to disagree - it's the assumption that at some period around 1978 there was an aggregated change in the behavior in the middle class that caused the income gap to begin widening. We're not talking about an individual's behavior here. For your hypothesis to hold, you would have to presume that the majority of middle-class American changed behaviors en masse.

In order for that to be the case, one would benefit from offering an explanation of why that change occurred.

I don't believe there was a shift in mentality at some specific point in time. I explained how I believe it occurred, I think it is a mentality that has changed over many generations of conditioning.

I would suggest, instead, that the wedge that is further separating the have-lots from the have-less over the past 30+ years is a result of changes in government policy, regulation and changes in the financial sector - some of those changes quite purposeful and intentional, others the unintended result of policies and changes in the economic landscape.

What policies specifically? What is holding you down? What is in the way that is making it simply impossible for you to achieve?

 

[8537]

And that is a choice individuals make. Life is trade offs. Would you rather have more in savings or would you rather have all of things that symbolize being middle class?

Again, it's certainly a choice. But it defies logic to presume that every middle class person woke up in 1978 and started making different choices without reason.

Some exogenous factor influenced that choice.

You said people are working more and getting less. My point is expecting that working more hours is going to keep you ahead or even with the curve is a false expectation. I repeat: It is not about working harder. It's about working smarter.

and again, did people suddenly wake up in 1978 and start working dumber?

I don't believe there was a shift in mentality at some specific point in time. I explained how I believe it occurred, I think it is a mentality that has changed over many generations of conditioning.

The very distinct change that occured in the late 1970's and early 1980's can not be explained by a slow-moving trend in changing mentality. We got from 1940 to 1980 with compression, despite this alleged change in mentality. Something made that compression stop and reverse course. The "something" is what I'm asking you to speak to.

What policies specifically?

1. The end of Bretton Woods.
2. The temporary move to peg the money supply.
3. Changes in the tax structure.
4. A Fed shift in focus from "employment and inflation" to almost strictly inflation.
5. Removing the tax deduction on interest payments except for mortgages.
6. The growth in the financial sector from 10% or so of GDP to 40% of GDP.
7. Ongoing deregulation of the financial sector
8. Greater corporate concentration and the Too Big to Fail / socialized risk doctrine it necessitates.

I could go on, but those are for starters.

What is holding you down?

Not much. I do pretty well, thanks. I'm not in the quintile we're discussing.

 

[Bern80]

Not much. I do pretty well, thanks. I'm not in the quintile we're discussing.

And why are you not in the quintile we are discussing?

 

[8537]

And why are you not in the quintile we are discussing?

A mix of hard work, luck, family, community support, a corporate liability structure rigged to socialize some of my risk, and having a couple ideas that others didn't.

 

[Bern80]

And why are you not in the quintile we are discussing?

A mix of hard work, luck, family, community support, a corporate liability structure rigged to socialize some of my risk, and having a couple ideas that others didn't.

Do you see yourself as being a major exception to the rule in terms of your ability to work hard or your intellect?

 

[8537]

And why are you not in the quintile we are discussing?

A mix of hard work, luck, family, community support, a corporate liability structure rigged to socialize some of my risk, and having a couple ideas that others didn't.

Do you see yourself as being a major exception to the rule in terms of your ability to work hard or your intellect?

No.

I don't think I work harder than most folks (you'll recall it's 2:00 p.m. and I've been posting off-and-on here for a few hours ) I have one benefit many don't: I happen to love what I do.

and my intellect? As I said, I had a couple insights that others didn't have yet. Not exactly paradigm-shifting stuff, mind you. Just enough to be able to charge others to access it. And those ideas derived from government-funded graduate school research

 

[Bern80]

A mix of hard work, luck, family, community support, a corporate liability structure rigged to socialize some of my risk, and having a couple ideas that others didn't.

Do you see yourself as being a major exception to the rule in terms of your ability to work hard or your intellect?

No.

I don't think I work harder than most folks (you'll recall it's 2:00 p.m. and I've been posting off-and-on here for a few hours ) I have one benefit many don't: I happen to love what I do.

and my intellect? As I said, I had a couple insights that others didn't have yet. Not exactly paradigm-shifting stuff, mind you. Just enough to be able to charge others to access it. And those ideas derived from government-funded graduate school research

Okay let's re-cap.

You are bemoaning the plight of the middle class. A class you admit you are not a part of in terms of your income. Yet you don't see yourself as too terribly different than them in terms of your intelligence and the effort you are able to give. Somehow you achieved what you achieved. You are essentially telling me the variables that make you similar to the them. That variabe I woud call potential.

We have two groups: You (1) and the people that make less than you in the middle class(2). Okay so we ahve eliminated basic ability as a reason you are a have and they are have not or middle class. What variable is different that created the different outcomes between you and them?

 

[8537]

Do you see yourself as being a major exception to the rule in terms of your ability to work hard or your intellect?

No.

I don't think I work harder than most folks (you'll recall it's 2:00 p.m. and I've been posting off-and-on here for a few hours ) I have one benefit many don't: I happen to love what I do.

and my intellect? As I said, I had a couple insights that others didn't have yet. Not exactly paradigm-shifting stuff, mind you. Just enough to be able to charge others to access it. And those ideas derived from government-funded graduate school research

Okay let's re-cap.

You are bemoaning the plight of the middle class. A class you admit you are not a part of in terms of your income. Yet you don't see yourself as too terribly different than them in terms of your intelligence and the effort you are able to give. Somehow you achieved what you achieved. You are essentially telling me the variables that make you similar to the them. That variabe I woud call potential.

We have two groups: You (1) and the people that make less than you in the middle class(2). Okay so we ahve eliminated basic ability as a reason you are a have and they are have not or middle class. What variable is different that created the different outcomes between you and them?

Luck, a couple small pieces of insight I came up with, government protection of the associated intellectual property rights, a community of people willing to risk a bit on my insights, and a corporate liability structure that allows me to socialize some of the downside risk.

I spent a lot of time and effort getting educated, and the education presented the opportunity for the ideas, but the education itself was just a vehicle i enjoyed riding in. I have a talent for exactly two things in life: Riding a bike very fast on very steep hills and brewing very good beer. Neither has made me a dime, and one has cost me thousands and thousands. The ability to fund that hobby is a function of some rather mundane ability combined with some good fortune and being in the right place at the right time. I don't particularly work harder than my very middle-class friends, nor do I claim to be smarter.

 

[Bern80]

No.

I don't think I work harder than most folks (you'll recall it's 2:00 p.m. and I've been posting off-and-on here for a few hours ) I have one benefit many don't: I happen to love what I do.

and my intellect? As I said, I had a couple insights that others didn't have yet. Not exactly paradigm-shifting stuff, mind you. Just enough to be able to charge others to access it. And those ideas derived from government-funded graduate school research

Okay let's re-cap.

You are bemoaning the plight of the middle class. A class you admit you are not a part of in terms of your income. Yet you don't see yourself as too terribly different than them in terms of your intelligence and the effort you are able to give. Somehow you achieved what you achieved. You are essentially telling me the variables that make you similar to the them. That variabe I woud call potential.

We have two groups: You (1) and the people that make less than you in the middle class(2). Okay so we ahve eliminated basic ability as a reason you are a have and they are have not or middle class. What variable is different that created the different outcomes between you and them?

Luck, a couple small pieces of insight I came up with, government protection of the associated intellectual property rights, a community of people willing to risk a bit on my insights, and a corporate liability structure that allows me to socialize some of the downside risk.

I spent a lot of time and effort getting educated, and the education presented the opportunity for the ideas, but the education itself was just a vehicle i enjoyed riding in. I have a talent for exactly two things in life: Riding a bike very fast on very steep hills and brewing very good beer. Neither has made me a dime, and one has cost me thousands and thousands. The ability to fund that hobby is a function of some rather mundane ability combined with some good fortune and being in the right place at the right time. I don't particularly work harder than my very middle-class friends, nor do I claim to be smarter.

Luck is overrated. Luck can not maintain success. Luck might land you a job interview here or there or luck may play a role in who gives you opportunities. But luck can not keep that job you got from the interview. YOU have to do that.

You admit your middle class friends have the same potential you do and you really think the difference between you and them is attributable to luck and not say.....motivation? I'm sorry, but luck simply isn't how the rich got rich. They find a way. I don't know how much simpler to make it. They don't wait for the luck cloud to land on them.

I have to admit I find you very interesting. Not because of opposite beliefs, but because of our respective financial situations. I find it interesting that you are financially well off and you attribute much of that to luck and good timing. I on the other hand would be considered dirt poor by most standards (though to hear people complain it actually surprises me what I am able to afford on what I make). I don't have any delusions as to why I am where I am. Me not making more money isn't anyone elses fault but my own. I know this because I know I am capable of more. There is no insurmountable road block between me and more money. The road block is my level of motivation to do what it takes to accomplish that.

 

[8537]

Okay let's re-cap.

You are bemoaning the plight of the middle class. A class you admit you are not a part of in terms of your income. Yet you don't see yourself as too terribly different than them in terms of your intelligence and the effort you are able to give. Somehow you achieved what you achieved. You are essentially telling me the variables that make you similar to the them. That variabe I woud call potential.

We have two groups: You (1) and the people that make less than you in the middle class(2). Okay so we ahve eliminated basic ability as a reason you are a have and they are have not or middle class. What variable is different that created the different outcomes between you and them?

Luck, a couple small pieces of insight I came up with, government protection of the associated intellectual property rights, a community of people willing to risk a bit on my insights, and a corporate liability structure that allows me to socialize some of the downside risk.

I spent a lot of time and effort getting educated, and the education presented the opportunity for the ideas, but the education itself was just a vehicle i enjoyed riding in. I have a talent for exactly two things in life: Riding a bike very fast on very steep hills and brewing very good beer. Neither has made me a dime, and one has cost me thousands and thousands. The ability to fund that hobby is a function of some rather mundane ability combined with some good fortune and being in the right place at the right time. I don't particularly work harder than my very middle-class friends, nor do I claim to be smarter.

Luck is overrated. Luck can not maintain success.

Oh. I disagree. I think Luck is far under-rated, included the luck of where you were born and the circumstances surrounding that.

Luck might land you a job interview here or there or luck may play a role in who gives you opportunities. But luck can not keep that job you got from the interview. YOU have to do that.

True, but without the lucky break you wouldn't get the interview in the first place, so therefore never have the opportunity.

You admit your middle class friends have the same potential you do and you really think the difference between you and them is attributable to luck and not say.....motivation?

Certainly not just luck, but motivation? Nah. Many (if not most) of them are more self motivated than I. They just either aren't as motivated by money or that motivation hasn't led to higher incomes. It happens.

I have to admit I find you very interesting. Not because of opposite beliefs, but because of our respective financial situations. I find it interesting that you are financially well off and you attribute much of that to luck and good timing.
I on the other hand would be considered dirt poor by most standards (though to hear people complain it actually surprises me what I am able to afford on what I make). I don't have any delusions as to why I am where I am. Me not making more money isn't anyone elses fault but my own. I know this because I know I am capable of more. There is no insurmountable road block between me and more money. The road block is my level of motivation to do what it takes to accomplish that.

I have all the respect in the world for people who can see that within themselves. I lived on far, far less than my current income for years...no, decades!....until returning to graduate school as an "alternative student" (that's french for "older than most"). I'm probably happier now than i was when I was poor like all grad students, but that has virtually nothing to do with money. It's because I'm doing what I love or like most of the time. The only thing the increased income has given me is a fancier bike and a better beer selection.

By the way, I should add that I'm not filthy stinking rich. I still work for a living and don't live the jet-set.

 

[georgephillip]

You have a few pretty major unprovable and probably all together false presumptions there to make this particular line of BS work. I'm not really sure where to start.

First I'm not sure you know what net worth actually is.

Second you presume that most of your people with mid six figure incomes actually care about maintaining an image. The fact is most people with a net worth of a million dollars don't.


You presume that consumers have no choice but to by Trump's condo's and the customers of those consumer's who buy Trump's condos have no choice but to do business with those people that just raised their prices to afford them.

You presume to know what it costs to afford those 'vital things you can't live without'. For one person to get by with very little in the way of luxuries doesn't cost all that much. Believe me I know because I'm living it.

What is so funny is that all of you whiners are essentially complaining about how you and other people don't have enough money, but when someone like Trump figures out how to get EXACTLY what you want you throw them under the bus and make up outrageous crap about how they exploited and stealing from housekeepers. GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK YOU WHINY SNIVELING PIECE OF SHIT.

I'm not sure if you clicked on the link or not; however, I picked this stock and options trading site because it's run by people actively involved in the game as opposed to academics, for example, whose income doesn't stem primarily from market trades.

"About Phil:

"Philip R. Davis is the founder Phil’s Stock World, a stock and options trading site that teaches the art of options trading to newcomers and devises advanced strategies for expert traders. Mr. Davis is a serial entrepreneur, having founded software company Accu-Title, a real estate title insurance software solution, and is also the President of the Delphi Consulting Corp., an M&A consulting firm that helps large and small companies obtain funding and close deals.

"He was also the founder of Accu-Search, a property data corporation that was sold to DataTrace in 2004 and Personality Plus, a precursor to eHarmony.com. Phil was a former editor of a UMass/Amherst humor magazine and it shows in his writing — which is filled with colorful commentary along with very specific ideas on stock and options trading."

Since Phil doesn't quite fit the mold of a "whiner" you might want to consider the possibility there are psychopaths among the "richest of the rich" whose only goal is to absorb as much of the world's wealth as possible.

That would include your wealth, too.

About Phil

Who it comes from doesn't really change my opinion. Expertise in something doesn't mean one does not still have biases and when he says Trump building condos is essentially stealing from housekeepers, which is an utter crock, there is some pretty clear bias at work.

Wealth is not finite. There is no set number of dollars that are being shuffled around and me earning more does not prevent you from earning more.

If money is a commodity then, you and I can NOT possess the same dollar bill and neither can Trump and the housekeeper.

Bias is something we all have, and while they may be perfectly clear to others they're often invisible to the person clinging to his/her prejudices.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

WebStrong Group is a communications company. The article it features is THIS one: On the Way Down: The Erosion of America's Middle Class - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

Sam Pizzigati is quoting FACTS from CBO reports.


Listen you little fucking moron. I've been around since Harry Truman was in the White House. I LIVED through all of the changes in this country. I KNOW what I've seen and how things have changed. The Reagan years were not good for middle class workers. Reagan and his henchmen began the dismantling of the middle class vehicles to pay increases and better working conditions like unions. Reagan was the biggest socialist in history. He re-distributed the wealth to the top and left the middle class to sink or swim in the river. And now stupid fucking right wing pea brains ideologues like you are throwing rocks to them and spewing the propaganda of the new robber barons, the multinational cartels that have NO allegiance to America or the American people. LOOK at the fucking FACTS. The middle class is disappearing. 6 in 10 families are in major debt. Children today have MORE parents that are going through bankruptcy than divorce!

The long history of mankind has been a dark and sad story of monarchies, aristocracies and plutocracies. Then along came America. From the New Deal through the Great Society America built the most robust middle class in history. It was a boom of prosperity and growth that ALL America shared in...

NOW, a short 40 years later America's poor have the lowest chance of reaching upper middle class status compared to every other industrialized nation. We rank with México and Turkey. Our health care outcomes are comparable with Costa Rica, Slovenia and Cuba. Our education system is at the bottom of first world countries.

The Reagan revolution was the biggest failure in history. It compares to the failure of the Bolshevik revolution.

The failed Reagan revolution and 30+ years of regressive conservative policies and authoritarian governance have taken the American dream and replaced it with the fate of Robert Frost's hired man, the fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, and nothing to look forward to with hope."

WebStrong Group is a communications company. The article it features is THIS one


You are a fucking moron stupid bitch
WebStrong Group supports democratic only people. WebStrong Group supports SEIU, which is union. Sam Pizzigati spent 20 years directing the publishing operations of America's largest union. Every fucking link you use is a liberal source and liberals lie. I was 19 years old when Reagan was elected President. There is no way in hell you know what the fuck you are talking about.


LIBERAL UNION ACTIVIST

Listen you little fucking moron. I've been around since Harry Truman was in the White House. I LIVED through all of the changes in this country. I KNOW what I've seen and how things have changed.

OMG you have been here since the second socialist president was in charge of this country and you want to call Reagan a socialist?

Socialist presidents
Wilson
Roosevelt
Truman continued with Roosevelt agenda
Carter
obama

First off, you can hit the 'Quote' button, but stop cutting up my quotes asshole.

I learned about Pavlov's dogs, Reagan created Ronbo's dogs...human beings who drool anti-union propaganda as a reflex reaction, but are not even as smart as a pile of dogshit.

How can you right wing scum bags have such utter contempt for the common man and loathe fellow human beings so much and then turn around and worship ONE despot so much? It has to be the authoritarian follower illness your tiny little brain is afflicted with...

I clearly remember when Reagan became president...

Ronald Reagan…our TRAITOR President…

It was during the 1980 Iran hostage crisis that a traitor candidate undercut the President of the United States and made a backdoor deal with the DEVIL...



The same DEVIL you are poopin' your pants, under your bed, afraid to come out of the house, scared the sky is falling, crying and whining about!!!



It won a traitor an election, at a high cost still being paid today...NOW the DEVIL knows America has a PRICE!!!



The lives of 53 hostages were forfeited for 650,053 people!!!



Traitor: someone guilty of treason.

Treason: In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation or state. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. Wikipedia

First off, you can hit the 'Quote' button, but stop cutting up my quotes asshole.

Hey faggot I am not misquoting one fucking thing you post. I quote your whole post then quote what I want to respond to do you understand this bitch?

I clearly remember when Reagan became president...

Ronald Reagan…our TRAITOR President…

Horseshit.

It was during the 1980 Iran hostage crisis that a traitor candidate undercut the President of the United States and made a backdoor deal with the DEVIL...

You are a fucking lunitic

The same DEVIL you are poopin' your pants, under your bed, afraid to come out of the house, scared the sky is falling, crying and whining about!!!



It won a traitor an election, at a high cost still being paid today...NOW the DEVIL knows America has a PRICE!!!



The lives of 53 hostages were forfeited for 650,053 people!!!

Excuse me? you are insane.
There is a couple things you have said
1. was calling Reagan a socialist give me the definition of socialist.
2. The only traitor we have is obama, and thats a facts.