Getting specific on income/wealth inequality

[JoeB131]

Here ya go libs, lets give every citizen of the USA a guaranteed income of 150K per year. All jobs same pay. Same pay whether you work or sit on your ass. Same pay whether you have a 9th grade education or a Phd.

Ok so far?

Now, under such a system, who would work? who would invent new electronic gadgets and medical breakthroughs?

Answer: no one

The incentive to improve your station in life is what makes people do great things. Take that away and you have nothing. But we would all be EQUALLY miserable, and to you fools equality is all that matters.

And if people were paid corresponding to the amount of labor they performed, you might have a point.

But the reality is-

This is a taker.

She makes nothing. She produces nothing. SHe doesn't work. She just lives off the industry of others.

Meanwhile,


This is a maker.

She does a hard job for not a lot of money.

 

[Billy000]

Our discussion began on post #20 in this thread and it had nothing to do with Bush. You injected Bush into the discussion later on.

But hey, I understand how hard honesty is for you Obama supporters. I mean he lies so its typical his supporter would follow suit.

You asked me for proof about Obama's job growth verses Bush. I provided it. You then brought up the growing labor force.

You see how that works?

I don't believe I ask for any type of comparison. But if I did then by all means direct me to that post #.


I never said the labor force was growing, I said the labor participation rate is the highest it's been in 36 years. The means more people have simply stopped looking for work. which in turns skews the UE numbers.

Somehow I get the feeling this is all above your pay grade.

How about you just concede 2x more private jobs were created in his first term than in both of Bush's. Also, here's a fun fact. According to the CBO, 2 million jobs still existing today were created directly from his stimulus package. All of this further moots your point that dems don't care about jobs.

 

[Staidhup]

Income inequality is a old tired buzz word, embraced by those that subscribe to the notion that the government should confiscate, through taxation, or expropriation, assets exceeding that which the government determines to be in excess of what is required to live, the only problem is that it has existed since the beginning of time, and just another excuse to warrant punitive taxation against those that have created opportunity. Sound familiar, it has always been the justification employed by the left to increase the standard of living from the top down versus the down up through taxation, however, taxation for what? to feed the beast?. The proponents of the concept of inequality fail to recognize, address the financial and economic impact government "the beast" plays in the very existence of those that they pretend to support. As government grows in strength and size it directly effects the financial and economic sector of the nation resulting in the legislative sponsored destruction of the middle class. This country is number one in the business tax rate and regulation which has, and continues to have, a negative result in manufacturing employment and development of small business and jobs. For the middle class to expand they need jobs, opportunity to prove themselves, thus accumulate wealth, and regain the opportunity to enhance their financial well being, on the other hand entrepreneurs need to receive a financial reward for assuming risk. A positive business environment, based on an equal playing field, devoid of crony capitalism provides the healthy environment for the assumption of risk, creation of jobs, and thus fosters the expansion of the middle class and opportunity. When government picks winners and losers, declares one too big to fail, and uses tax payer dollars to bail out incompetence, the free market is tilted, citizens suffer, and opportunities are diminished. In closing, government legislative action has fostered the realization that there is a growing inequality in wealth and yet fail to recognize that government is the sole party responsible, furthermore the left has resurrected this age old fact of life to promote their objective warranting the further expansion of the beast and erosion of civil liberties and freedom. One can only contemplate the effects of a positive open business environment would have in job creation and heath of the middle class, because government has assumed the position of too big to fail thus accomplishing the objective of those on the left to tax and expropriate in the name of fairness, for whom, the government of the people for the people or their own self interests.

 

[initforme]

"Liberals/Progressives make it a problem for purposes of advancing their class warfare agenda."

And the GOP make it sound like the current system is great and works for everyone who is willing to work incredibly hard. That is factually a huge lie. People are out there working 2 and 3 jobs and not getting ahead whatsoever. In fact, they are falling behind. All empty rhetoric.

 

[Billy000]

Any economy has two distinct components. Wealth creation, and wealth distribution. Without wealth creation, there is no wealth to distribute. Not so difficult to understand.

You can babble on about consumer spending being 70% of the economy, and all that demonstrates is that you know nothing about how an economy actually works. If you did know how an economy actually works, you wouldn't be bemoaning income/wealth inequaltiy. That has no real meaning except to incite ignorant people.

As long as sufficient wealth is being created to support the population according to the skills, knowledge, and labor of that population, then everyone in that population is fully compensated for their contribution, and who has the rest of the wealth is inconsequental to any of them.

Our economy, and the world economy, is suffering because not enough wealth is being created to support the population. Left wingers are sure that we can confiscate enough from those who have excess wealth to make up the difference. That would be a very short term solution, and when the excess wealth ended, so would the economy. This has been amply demonstrated everywhere it has been tried.

We need to increase wealth creation, and the only way to do that is to encourage the creation of wealth through tax policy and regulatory policy. Exploiting our natural resources such as oil, gas, timber, minerals, etc., is one large source of wealth creation. Adding value through manufacturing is another. Agriculture is also a wealth generator, but does not carry the multiplier benefits of the first two.

Dude are you even listening to yourself? You're sayin that wealth creation is down. Nothing about that makes any sense. 1% of the top earners own 40% of the nations weath. Instead of distributig said wealth, they are keeping it.

You have absolutely no idea what you are saying.

Yes, dumbass, wealth creation is down, and you, and your ilk, are discussing how to get your hands on wealth already created. The stock market does not create any wealth, the government does not create any wealth, and consumer spending does not create any wealth. Wealth is only created by adding value to marketable products. If you can't understand that simple principle then you don't have a clue.

The stock market transfers money, it doesn't create any. The government transfers money, it doesn't create any. Consumer spending transfers money, it doesn't create any.

The vast majority of the people of the world depend on the process of wealth creation for their income. Farmers, miners, factory workers, oil drillers, truck drivers, are all earning their living by helping create wealth. Unless one is engaged in the process of creating wealth, one is only in the wealth transfer business.

How do you not understand that plenty of wealth exists? The proof is in my signature. The problem is that the fat cats own most of it.

Yeah, yeah I know. I'm a traitor to America. I'm a jealous mooch who lives off the government blah, blah, blah. You can say that shit all day long but I am right.

 

[pinqy]

You mean those highly manipulated and altered inflation numbers that are cherry picked for the purpose of political expediency?

Those inflation numbers?

Let's look at that chart. Doing a rough guess on where the marks are, according to Williams, average prices have gone up about 150% since 2000. More than doubled, on average. I don't think that squares with reality. BLS says 30%. As an average, that seems about right.

ROI: Don't Trust the Inflation Numbers - WSJ

Soooooo many falsehoods in that opinion. And I'm just talking factual mistakes, not misunderstanding of methodology or spin.

Under the official calculations, if steak prices boom, the government just assumes you buy cheaper hamburger instead. Presto—no inflation!

False. 2 parts here. The weights, which are updated every 2 years, are based on actual expenditures...if people are spending more on hamburger, that'll have a higher weight than steak.
But what he's probably referring to is the use of the geometric mean. That's only used for goods in the same item category, which steak and hamburger are not (factual mistake on his part). And in any case, it's not based on which good is cheaper, but which has the greater relative price change (another factual mistake).
Example: NY Strip and Ribeye are the only 2 types of steak and the same amount of each is bought. NY Strip costs $9.49/lb and ribeye costs $10.99/lb Then ribeye goes up 10% to $12.10/lb. If we assume nobody changes and the same amount of steaks are bought, that would give us an average price increase of 5.4%. But is that reasonable? If instead we use a geometric average, assuming some people do switch to NY strip, our average increase is 5.3%.
Let's reverse that, though. Let's say NY strip goes up 10% to $10.40. Assuming no changes, the average increase is 4.4%. But assuming some people switch to ribeye, the average is 4.3%.
Remember...we're talking average price changes, so the amounts bought make a difference.

Or consider the case of Apple computers. We all know Macs are expensive. And we know Apple doesn't discount. The cheapest Mac laptop today costs $999. A few years ago, it also cost $999. So the price is the same, right?

Ha. Not according Uncle Sam. Using a piece of chicanery called "hedonics," Uncle Sam calls this a price cut. His reasoning? You're getting more for the money. Today's $999 Mac is lighter, fancier and faster than last year's $999 Mac. So the government calculates that the "real" price has actually fallen.

First, the factual error...hedonics aren't used on computers. Quality change is, but hedonics is a statistical technique for measuring quality changes that can't be directly quantified. It works both ways, for increase and decrease in quality.

Second...you have to apply quality adjustment to the Mac...It's not the same computer. You can't just switch items like that...or you could price a low end PC tower one month and then a high end Mac laptop the next and claim computer prices have quintupled. So we have to keep with the same item. How much would the current cheapest Mac have cost a few years ago? If more thatn $999 then the price has gone down.

Easy example: A car costs $20,000 with a standard 4 cylinder engine. For $1,000 more, there's an optional V6. Next year, the car costs $22,000 but the V6 is now standard. Is the increase 10%? Well, no...that's comparing a 4 cylinder to a 6 cylinder...not the same thing. But we know we could have bought the V6 for $21,000, so comparing the same car, the increase is 5%

Or tuna. A 5oz can sells for $1. Then they get tricky and don't change the price but drop it to a 4.7oz can. BLS would record that as a 6.4% increase in price (from 20 cents/oz to 21.28 cents/oz

Common misconceptions about the Consumer Price Index

The funny thing is that of course there are some actual issues and inaccuracies and points of contention, but all that appears in blogs and message boards are fake problems invented by people who can't do the math or understand the concepts.

 

[pinqy]

UE numbers only count those on unemployment insurance not those that have maxed out their insurance and have stopped looking for work altogether.

Employment Situation Technical Note

The household survey provides information
on the labor force, employment, and unemployment that appears in the "A" tables,
marked HOUSEHOLD DATA. It is a sample survey of about 60,000 eligible households
conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)....

People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria:
they had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at
that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the
4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and
expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The
unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the
eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

Bolding mine.

But out of curiosity, since no one has ever answered this question....Where did you get the idea that the UE rate only included those receiving benefits? I've never figured out why people believe that.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Well............

Is the OP satisfied with the response he got to this thread? Have people been specific enough? Was he completely discouraged by the rampant partisan ideologues on the left?

Earmuffs!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'd argue that it has nothing to do with income, but more with the cost of goods, which has been completely ignored by the media since Obama took office. The cost of virtually everything has skyrocketd, yet that is ignored. I remember constant reports of rising gas and grocery prices when Bush was in office, I've heard nothing about it in recent years, even tho the cost of groceries has almost doubled, along with fuel. I know, none of it is the O's fault, it has nothing to do with his policies of attacking energy production in this country, even after almost 6 years of being in office, nothing is his fault.

Too bad the inflation numbers don't support your allegation.

You mean those highly manipulated and altered inflation numbers that are cherry picked for the purpose of political expediency?

Those inflation numbers?

ROI: Don't Trust the Inflation Numbers - WSJ

How The US Government Manipulates Inflation Data - Business Insider

Williams is full of shit.

 

[pinqy]

Too bad the inflation numbers don't support your allegation.

You mean those highly manipulated and altered inflation numbers that are cherry picked for the purpose of political expediency?

Those inflation numbers?

ROI: Don't Trust the Inflation Numbers - WSJ

How The US Government Manipulates Inflation Data - Business Insider

Williams is full of shit.

Easiest proof of that is that in order to get his "real" unemployment rate of 22.3%, he's adding 22.6 million people to the U6. Considering there are only 4.1 million people who want a job but aren't already included in the U6, it's obviously absurd.

I do wish I knew someone foolish enough to have a subscription to his site so I could see the tables he uses for his inflation numbers, not just the graphs.

 

[dblack]

"Liberals/Progressives make it a problem for purposes of advancing their class warfare agenda."

And the GOP make it sound like the current system is great and works for everyone who is willing to work incredibly hard. That is factually a huge lie. People are out there working 2 and 3 jobs and not getting ahead whatsoever. In fact, they are falling behind. All empty rhetoric.

In your view, should anyone working hard be able to 'get ahead'? What if the work they do just isn't worth enough for anyone to voluntarily pay that much for it?

 

[asterism]

The progressives have been in charge of government spending for 7 years now. Their ideas don't work and have actually increased income and wealth inequality.

I have to laugh when Conservatives do everything in their power to protect the wealthy and then boast that the wealthy are still getting richer "under the Democrats"

"Vote for us and we'll fix things."

"Vote for us because we can't fix things."

"Vote for us because we're not Republicans."

 

[asterism]

The fundamental basis to capitalism is that everyone has "disposable income".

Never heard that one. The fundamentals of capitalism are private property and free trade.

Free trade assumes there is disposable income.

Remove disposable income and all you have is subsistence trade. I exchange my eggs for your corn. If you make a corn doll trinket then I must have surplus eggs in order to trade for it.

Capitalism exploits the surplus above subsistence but unless the surplus is in the hands of the buyers they are stuck on subsistence and cannot participate.

Right now 40% of the population are effectively non participants because they are subsisting without disposable income.

40% are subsisting only? I call bullshit. I bet you cannot quantify your statement with any sourced facts.

 

[Redfish]

"Liberals/Progressives make it a problem for purposes of advancing their class warfare agenda."

And the GOP make it sound like the current system is great and works for everyone who is willing to work incredibly hard. That is factually a huge lie. People are out there working 2 and 3 jobs and not getting ahead whatsoever. In fact, they are falling behind. All empty rhetoric.

In your view, should anyone working hard be able to 'get ahead'? What if the work they do just isn't worth enough for anyone to voluntarily pay that much for it?

then they need to acquire more skills or education to make their work more valuable.

no one is guaranteed success, only the opportunity to achieve success.

 

[Rikurzhen]

.

Two part question:

1. Is income/wealth inequality a problem in America?

2. If it is, instead of just screaming bumper sticker slogans, precisely what would you do about it? And when I say "precisely", for example, if you'd increase tax rates, to precisely what figures?

I'm hoping for less partisan sloganeering and more actual specifics.

.

It's a problem only in the sense that people motivated by envy do things to harm the nation. The fact that a man of Bill Gates' worth exists doesn't harm a poor person.

Here's what we need to do - stop importing poor people:

From 1990 to 2007, the entire increase in official poverty was among Hispanics.​

 

[initforme]

So by the past few posts the so called "American dream" is no longer true. We've always been told ala the empty rhetoric that hard work will get one a long way. Thanks for proving that wrong. I rest my case. I will also add that the opportunity to achieve success is dwindling quickly. We are headed towards a total have vs have nots with nothing in between and for anyone to argue differently is simply being an idiot. Lets call what we have now a tainted form of capitalism and nothing the forefathers wanted.

 

[initforme]

Class warfare is only going to increase as time goes on... if things don't change.

 

[Rikurzhen]

I have no desire to confiscate wealth but I question why we should continue policies that ensure that more wealth is concentrated and maintained at the top. In the last 30 years we have instituted supply side policies with the promise of a rising economic tide and more jobs. That never materialized

Why continue policies that did not work?

You are attempting to blame the engine for a flat tire. Supply side economics doesn't have a damn thing to do with our current economic woes, or wealth/earnings inequality.

Over the last fifty years, the United States, along with all of the countries of the world, have been moving from localized economies to a world economy. This shift has caused disruptions in national economies, as capital shifts with the constantly changing world markets.

Labor suffers because labor, for the most part is not mobile, and is forced to deal with the local conditions, while capital can move freely and rapidly, anywhere in the world to take advantage of favorable economic trends.

Attempting to fight this globalization is futile and counter productive to a local economy. We must accept the inevitable, and learn to prosper in the new environment. Government can do little to help, and most of the politicians efforts have caused more harm than good.

You would have a valid point if the wealthy were also suffering in this economy....they aren't

It is a case of a rising tide only lifting the yachts.

Kirk Kerkorian:

His net worth in 2008, according to Forbes magazine, was $16.0 billion, making him the world's 41st richest person at that time.[34] By 2011, Kerkorian was among those hardest hit by stock market recession as his net worth tumbled to $3.2 billion.​

 

[Derideo_Te]

Never heard that one. The fundamentals of capitalism are private property and free trade.

Free trade assumes there is disposable income.

Remove disposable income and all you have is subsistence trade. I exchange my eggs for your corn. If you make a corn doll trinket then I must have surplus eggs in order to trade for it.

Capitalism exploits the surplus above subsistence but unless the surplus is in the hands of the buyers they are stuck on subsistence and cannot participate.

Right now 40% of the population are effectively non participants because they are subsisting without disposable income.

40% are subsisting only? I call bullshit. I bet you cannot quantify your statement with any sourced facts.

40% of households earning less than $39k p.a.

20% of households earning less than $21k p.a.

 

[Redfish]

So by the past few posts the so called "American dream" is no longer true. We've always been told ala the empty rhetoric that hard work will get one a long way. Thanks for proving that wrong. I rest my case. I will also add that the opportunity to achieve success is dwindling quickly. We are headed towards a total have vs have nots with nothing in between and for anyone to argue differently is simply being an idiot. Lets call what we have now a tainted form of capitalism and nothing the forefathers wanted.

horseshit. get off your lazy ass, stop whining, and do something. There are plenty of ways to get rich. But to your dismay, they all require brains, skills, and a work ethic---things that do not exist in the liberal mind.