Lets talk about income inequality

[Quantum Windbag]

firefighter Salary in New York, NY | Indeed.com
teacher Salary in New York | Indeed.com

( btw, teachers, firefighters and policemen are payed from our pockets - to their salaris SHOULD not be higher than the "average" income in the area )

you can play by areas and will find pretty amazing AVERAGE salaries for those folks.

heck, if a JANITOR can get a annual salary of 110K in Florida - then there is anything possible

Broward School District pays ex-custodian $108,000 a year to teach janitors - Sun Sentinel

Your links for NY firefighter and teachers still leaves them well out of the top 20%. So again isn't it bad then that their wealth as a percent of overall wealth is going down? It would seem there is now much less wealth equality for them.

The top 20% in income starts somewhere around $90,000. NYFD pays that after 5 years. You want to try and argue that most firefighters quit before they reach 5 years, or do you want to admit you don't know what you are talking about?

Firefighter Benefits and Salary

 

[bayoubill]

Actually heres an article about it...

Dangers of Income Inequality
Here is a good article on income inequality from Joseph Stiglitz. It's only coincidence that I am posting so much from Stiglitz lately, I stumbled across this today looking at other blogs.

I think the dangers he presents are real and the arguments he makes valid. Some highlights:

It’s no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened. The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent. Their lot in life has improved considerably. Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent.

While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall. For men with only high-school degrees, the decline has been precipitous—12 percent in the last quarter-century alone. All the growth in recent decades—and more—has gone to those at the top. In terms of income equality, America lags behind any country in the old, ossified Europe that President George W. Bush used to deride.

Economists long ago tried to justify the vast inequalities that seemed so troubling in the mid-19th century—inequalities that are but a pale shadow of what we are seeing in America today. The justification they came up with was called “marginal-productivity theory.” In a nutshell, this theory associated higher incomes with higher productivity and a greater contribution to society. It is a theory that has always been cherished by the rich. Evidence for its validity, however, remains thin.

Those who have contributed great positive innovations to our society, from the pioneers of genetic understanding to the pioneers of the Information Age, have received a pittance compared with those responsible for the financial innovations that brought our global economy to the brink of ruin.

An economy in which most citizens are doing worse year after year—an economy like America’s—is not likely to do well over the long haul. There are several reasons for this.

First, growing inequality is the flip side of something else: shrinking opportunity.

Second, many of the distortions that lead to inequality—such as those associated with monopoly power and preferential tax treatment for special interests—undermine the efficiency of the economy.

Third, and perhaps most important, a modern economy requires “collective action”—it needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology.

The top 1 percent may complain about the kind of government we have in America, but in truth they like it just fine: too gridlocked to re-distribute, too divided to do anything but lower taxes.

But one big part of the reason we have so much inequality is that the top 1 percent want it that way. The most obvious example involves tax policy. Lowering tax rates on capital gains, which is how the rich receive a large portion of their income, has given the wealthiest Americans close to a free ride.

Much of today’s inequality is due to manipulation of the financial system, enabled by changes in the rules that have been bought and paid for by the financial industry itself—one of its best investments ever.

Wealth begets power, which begets more wealth.

The personal and the political are today in perfect alignment. Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office.

With youth unemployment in America at around 20 percent (and in some locations, and among some socio-demographic groups, at twice that); with one out of six Americans desiring a full-time job not able to get one; with one out of seven Americans on food stamps (and about the same number suffering from “food insecurity”)—given all this, there is ample evidence that something has blocked the vaunted “trickling down” from the top 1 percent to everyone else. All of this is having the predictable effect of creating alienation.

Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.

The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.


The economy and the society as a whole become more and more unstable as income inequality gets worse and worse. I can't stress enough how important it is that this issue be addressed, yet I get the feeling that nothing will be done and that it may already be too late.

The government's role in society is to pursue and provide for the common good of the society for which it serves. Yet, lately, the government has served the pockets of the rich very well, while the common good is suffering.

Christian Economics: Dangers of Income Inequality

yeah, sure...

the rich'll just keep on making more money on top of the money they already have...

that's part of the nature of the capitalist system...

but that doesn't mean the folks at the bottom can't make money...

folks with hardly any money don't have to just sit there feeling sorry for themselves...

there's countless numbers of episodes where folks with little resources took the initiative to make things better for themselves, worked hard, and came out better'n than even they could have imagined...

 

[asterism]

So now the republican story concerning the wealthy getting richer and the rest of us getting by, is that it's no different now than the past 40 years.

And you all seem to believe that. Of course, you all believed Mittens would win the White House. So what's that tell ya?

But if the wealthy control the same amount and the middle class was more prosperous and holding more of the nations wealth, I guess the poor people must of been even poorer. Is that correct?
It must be. There is only so much wealth to hold.

But you all don't have a problem with any of that.

If the ultra wealthy controlled 50% of the nations wealth, would that be good? How about 75% What is the magic number where the wealthy control our wealth and income where you think it might cause a problem? And what might that problem be?

You touched on a good point, and yes - the poor of yesterday were much poorer than they are now.

Now shut the fuck up about what other people have and get to making your own life better. In the end nothing else matters. You are living in the golden age of Democratic political power. If that's not good enough for you then nothing will make you happy.

 

[asterism]

So now the republican story concerning the wealthy getting richer and the rest of us getting by, is that it's no different now than the past 40 years.

And you all seem to believe that. Of course, you all believed Mittens would win the White House. So what's that tell ya?

But if the wealthy control the same amount and the middle class was more prosperous and holding more of the nations wealth, I guess the poor people must of been even poorer. Is that correct?
It must be. There is only so much wealth to hold.

But you all don't have a problem with any of that.

If the ultra wealthy controlled 50% of the nations wealth, would that be good? How about 75% What is the magic number where the wealthy control our wealth and income where you think it might cause a problem? And what might that problem be?

stop screeching. the wealth distribution has never been 50-50. neither has it been 75% of the wealth in the hands of the hated 1%. It was up to 80% once in the hands of 99% - and it was during REPUBLICAN administration

1% accumulates more wealth during dimocrap administration - the gap was much bigger during Clinton, than during Bush and increased during obama again.

The ONLY reason the wealthy have not been able to control even more of the nations wealth in the past is because of government.

Now that populism has died and plutocrats rule, the percentage of the nations wealth will continue to be held in fewer and fewer hands. Just the way our world is.

But if you are to stupid to see that, oh well. You don't even have enough sense to look at what could happen in the future as fewer people hold more wealth.

You all act like the ultra wealthy have YOUR interests at heart. Funny shit. It's all about power and control. More wealth is more power and control. And the ultra wealthy of the world have a long history of doing things to bring them more wealth and power. The ultra wealthy will work to take as much of everything as we the people will allow.

Why you support that I have no idea.

You seem to have had an epiphany.

But then you still support Obama, despite even more government and even more inequity.

 

[Plasmaball]

I have been told it causes crime, gun violence, and is unfair. I say that it isn't a problem and that life ain't fair.

Anyone want to tell me why I am wrong?

Naturally life is not fair. It never will be.
But does being poor cause the above? Yes, and when the scales or gap is so wide does this issue really become a problem.

 

[MikeK]

I have been told it causes crime, gun violence, and is unfair. I say that it isn't a problem and that life ain't fair.

Anyone want to tell me why I am wrong?

Use of the word inequality in relation to the present economic problems is wrong. Because income equality means everyone's income is equal, a circumstance which has never existed in America and never should. That is communism.

The correct word to use in relation to our current economic situation is inequitable, because what has happened to the distribution of America's wealth resources is absolutely and unequivocally unfair!

If you disagree and you need to be told why you're mistaken, try watching the video via the link in my signature line.

 

[auditor0007]

I have been told it causes crime, gun violence, and is unfair. I say that it isn't a problem and that life ain't fair.

Anyone want to tell me why I am wrong?

Oversimplification never works. Income inequality will always exist, and that is okay. The question is whether or not any given amount of income inequality is good or bad, and if so, at what point does it become a bad thing.

Rather than just looking at "income", let's look at "wealth". If the top 1% controls 10 to 20 percent of the wealth, is that a problem? What if the top 1% controls 40% of the wealth? Or better yet, what if the top 1% controls 80 to 90 percent of the wealth? Is it a problem then?

 

[Rct_Tsoul]

I have a solution to this:
We move the American Sheeple to safe, secure & clean environments.
Everyone pulls their own weight .......... including children.
Don't waist so much time on education ......... K through 3rd grade, if the child shows advanced intelligence, then it can be determined to continue education.
Children can be separated from the parents so both parents can work, children can start work as early age 4, the only education they will need is to know how to say the following:
1. Boom Boom
2. Yum Yum
3. If you NO like, you NO pay

Now ............ I don't think the American Sheeple will like this, so before we move forward with the Grand Plan, we need to get rid of these damb GUNS then secondly the legal system.
As I seen in another topic about gestation creates, we can put former lawyers & judges in them and consult with them when needed, as we need to keep them separated from the uneducated Sheeple.

 

[Brain357]

There are fewer poor people, and that proves things are bad?

It means of all the wealth in the country the bottom 80% have 11.1 percent of it, when in 1983 they had 18.7 percent. So what do you mean fewer poor?

Sorry, I didn't check who I was replying to.

In 1982 the poverty rate was 15%, in 2000 it was 11%. The bottom 80% does not mean just the poor.

Why did you stop at 2000? Looks like we are somewhere around 16% now.

Census: U.S. Poverty Rate Spikes, Nearly 50 Million Americans Affected « CBS DC

 

[Brain357]

still does not change the figure that the hated 1% did not accumulate more wealth.

what it shows, though, that middle class EXPANDED - the next 19% increased wealth from 47.5% to 53.5% - and that is a very good thing.
because those upper 20% ( which millionaires and billionaires are only 1% and the rest are solid middle class) PAY ALL FEDERAL TAXES.
All of them. The bottom 80% do not pay ANY FEDERAL INCOME TAXES.

so the upper 20% who pay ALL THE FEDERAL INCOME TAXES pay much more than their "fair share"

It shows the bottom 80% have far less than they did. That's a pretty large percent of the population. I'd say there is more wealth inequality than there was in 1983.

Sorry, they do not have "far less." What you are seeing there is the result of the real estate bubble bursting, not them suddenly getting poor. The bursting real estate bubble actually affected the rich people more than it did the poor.

Well are talking about wealth inequality. They have a far smaller % so inequality has increased. The numbers I've seen have the bottom 80% going from 18.7 in 1983 to 11.1 in 2010. Meanwhile the top 20% went from 81.3 to 88.9. It would seem the rich are doing better than the bottom 80%.

 

[Brain357]

firefighter Salary in New York, NY | Indeed.com
teacher Salary in New York | Indeed.com

( btw, teachers, firefighters and policemen are payed from our pockets - to their salaris SHOULD not be higher than the "average" income in the area )

you can play by areas and will find pretty amazing AVERAGE salaries for those folks.

heck, if a JANITOR can get a annual salary of 110K in Florida - then there is anything possible

Broward School District pays ex-custodian $108,000 a year to teach janitors - Sun Sentinel

Your links for NY firefighter and teachers still leaves them well out of the top 20%. So again isn't it bad then that their wealth as a percent of overall wealth is going down? It would seem there is now much less wealth equality for them.

The top 20% in income starts somewhere around $90,000. NYFD pays that after 5 years. You want to try and argue that most firefighters quit before they reach 5 years, or do you want to admit you don't know what you are talking about?

Firefighter Benefits and Salary

From what sources I find breaking the top 20% required around 99,000. So I think at best you can say some firefighters from very expensive cities might make it. But saying firefighters, police officers, and teachers are in the top 20% is not very honest. Most certainly are not.

Regardless the wealth of the bottom 80% has gone down vs the top 20%. That equals more wealth inequality. And it's gone down by a lot.

 

[georgephillip]

While my personal example of the changes in wealth and income inequality over the past 40 years is only one among millions, in the mid-1970s a single minimum wage job paid me enough to cover the market rent on a brand new one-bedroom apartment in the East Bay Area with enough left over to pay off and maintain a six year-old Chevy.

Contrast that with today when a single minimum wage job barely covers any market based rental unit and skateboards or bicycles take the Chevy's place.

Baloney.
you won't be able to rent on an Upper East Side on a minimum wage salary, but that was not possible 40 years ago as well.
But I was able to live in a 3B/3bth apartment with all amenities and electronics and we had 2 cars ( though not luxury ones) for 4 people on a salary of 36-40K per year for 4 years while in training.
It is absolutely possible NOWADAYS as well, if one is not whining that he/she needs a new TV set in every room, a new iPhone every time it is on the market for every person in the family and is willing to drive a second-hand car.
While working on own market value


and the very same study provides the numbers which prove exactly the opposite - that there is no difference in the WEALTH distribution between top 1% and other 99% from now to 40 years ago.

and if one actually digs WHO is considered those hated 1% and finds that those are just upper middle classes with incomes starting in 350K+ and not what obama and his minions like to all the time call "millionaires and billionaires", plus that it is exactly those people, earning 66K+ who are thr main payers of the federal income taxes and whose income is being targeted to tax MORE for the "fair share" then you actually might start realizing that the whole class warfare game is ONE BIG LEFTARD LIE.

The (Very) Rich Are Getting (Much) Richer

"The income share of the top 10 percent has risen to a record high; but you're completely missing the picture if you think of the top 10 percent as a homogeneous group.

"Of the gains made by the top 10 percent, almost none went to the 90 percent to 95 percent group; in fact, the great bulk of gains went to the top 1 percent. In turn, the bulk of the gains of the top 1 percent went to the top 0.1 percent; and the bulk of those gains went to the top 0.01 percent. We really are talking about the flourishing of a tiny elite."

BTW, Rockefeller, the current minimum wage where I live is $8 per hour or roughly $1200 per month which is almost exactly the median rental price for a 0 bedroom 1 bath studio apartment.

When will the right stop kissing every very rich ass that waddles by?

 

[Brain357]

firefighter Salary in New York, NY | Indeed.com
teacher Salary in New York | Indeed.com

( btw, teachers, firefighters and policemen are payed from our pockets - to their salaris SHOULD not be higher than the "average" income in the area )

you can play by areas and will find pretty amazing AVERAGE salaries for those folks.

heck, if a JANITOR can get a annual salary of 110K in Florida - then there is anything possible

Broward School District pays ex-custodian $108,000 a year to teach janitors - Sun Sentinel

Your links for NY firefighter and teachers still leaves them well out of the top 20%. So again isn't it bad then that their wealth as a percent of overall wealth is going down? It would seem there is now much less wealth equality for them.

The top 20% in income starts somewhere around $90,000. NYFD pays that after 5 years. You want to try and argue that most firefighters quit before they reach 5 years, or do you want to admit you don't know what you are talking about?

Firefighter Benefits and Salary

It appears wealth is actually going down for the bottom 93 percent.
A Rise in Wealth for the Wealthy; Declines for the Lower 93% | Pew Social & Demographic Trends

 

[bendog]

Your links for NY firefighter and teachers still leaves them well out of the top 20%. So again isn't it bad then that their wealth as a percent of overall wealth is going down? It would seem there is now much less wealth equality for them.

The top 20% in income starts somewhere around $90,000. NYFD pays that after 5 years. You want to try and argue that most firefighters quit before they reach 5 years, or do you want to admit you don't know what you are talking about?

Firefighter Benefits and Salary

It appears wealth is actually going down for the bottom 93 percent.
A Rise in Wealth for the Wealthy; Declines for the Lower 93% | Pew Social & Demographic Trends

I think, if you look more deeply, that discounting the real estate debacle ... overall, figuring 20 years or so, the top 1% does best, the top two quintiles actually does a little better, and the bottom 60% loses.

That's a societal change. Simply taking from one person to give to another doesn't really accomplish anything. Perhaps we could progressively fund higher educ or healthcare, but those things would have to be actual planks in a party platform, e.g. bedrock principles of a party.

But the short term effect is the top 1% is paying more in overall taxes, and more of a % of overall fed taxes collected, but their % of income paid in taxes still goes up less than their overall gain in income. That's the classwarfare rub.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Actually heres an article about it...

Dangers of Income Inequality
Here is a good article on income inequality from Joseph Stiglitz. It's only coincidence that I am posting so much from Stiglitz lately, I stumbled across this today looking at other blogs.

I think the dangers he presents are real and the arguments he makes valid. Some highlights:

It’s no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened. The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent. Their lot in life has improved considerably. Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent.

While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall. For men with only high-school degrees, the decline has been precipitous—12 percent in the last quarter-century alone. All the growth in recent decades—and more—has gone to those at the top. In terms of income equality, America lags behind any country in the old, ossified Europe that President George W. Bush used to deride.

Economists long ago tried to justify the vast inequalities that seemed so troubling in the mid-19th century—inequalities that are but a pale shadow of what we are seeing in America today. The justification they came up with was called “marginal-productivity theory.” In a nutshell, this theory associated higher incomes with higher productivity and a greater contribution to society. It is a theory that has always been cherished by the rich. Evidence for its validity, however, remains thin.

Those who have contributed great positive innovations to our society, from the pioneers of genetic understanding to the pioneers of the Information Age, have received a pittance compared with those responsible for the financial innovations that brought our global economy to the brink of ruin.

An economy in which most citizens are doing worse year after year—an economy like America’s—is not likely to do well over the long haul. There are several reasons for this.

First, growing inequality is the flip side of something else: shrinking opportunity.

Second, many of the distortions that lead to inequality—such as those associated with monopoly power and preferential tax treatment for special interests—undermine the efficiency of the economy.

Third, and perhaps most important, a modern economy requires “collective action”—it needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology.

The top 1 percent may complain about the kind of government we have in America, but in truth they like it just fine: too gridlocked to re-distribute, too divided to do anything but lower taxes.

But one big part of the reason we have so much inequality is that the top 1 percent want it that way. The most obvious example involves tax policy. Lowering tax rates on capital gains, which is how the rich receive a large portion of their income, has given the wealthiest Americans close to a free ride.

Much of today’s inequality is due to manipulation of the financial system, enabled by changes in the rules that have been bought and paid for by the financial industry itself—one of its best investments ever.

Wealth begets power, which begets more wealth.

The personal and the political are today in perfect alignment. Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office.

With youth unemployment in America at around 20 percent (and in some locations, and among some socio-demographic groups, at twice that); with one out of six Americans desiring a full-time job not able to get one; with one out of seven Americans on food stamps (and about the same number suffering from “food insecurity”)—given all this, there is ample evidence that something has blocked the vaunted “trickling down” from the top 1 percent to everyone else. All of this is having the predictable effect of creating alienation.

Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.

The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.


The economy and the society as a whole become more and more unstable as income inequality gets worse and worse. I can't stress enough how important it is that this issue be addressed, yet I get the feeling that nothing will be done and that it may already be too late.

The government's role in society is to pursue and provide for the common good of the society for which it serves. Yet, lately, the government has served the pockets of the rich very well, while the common good is suffering.

Christian Economics: Dangers of Income Inequality

yeah, sure...

the rich'll just keep on making more money on top of the money they already have...

that's part of the nature of the capitalist system...

but that doesn't mean the folks at the bottom can't make money...

folks with hardly any money don't have to just sit there feeling sorry for themselves...

there's countless numbers of episodes where folks with little resources took the initiative to make things better for themselves, worked hard, and came out better'n than even they could have imagined...

You know instead of building strawmen you can just throw the straw to save time

 

[Redfish]

I gave you liberals the solution yesterday---the govt should guarantee every american citizen over the age of 18 an income of 100K per year. Everyone gets 100K---doctors, students, teachers, entertainers, athletes, garbage men, cops, firemen, those in mental institutions, everyone equal. No income inequality---FAIR.

Thats what you fools keep demanding----fairness and equality, right?

What I am proposing is the end game of all the games that you fools want to play with taxation etc.

Now, let me ask you, under this system who will choose the hard or dirty or dangerous jobs?

Socialism does not work, capitalism and freedom work.

Wake up to reality and stop bitching because Bill Gates and Oprah have more money than you do.

 

[kwc57]

Ok I'm listening...You're saying that the top 1% aren't earning more than 40 years ago or just the amount of wealth?

nope. the WEALTH distribution is THE SAME as 40 years ago.

Wealth Distribution? Ok, what happened to income inequality? I'm confused..

Hand in glove. Those who believe in income inequality typically believe in "spreading the wealth" thru wealth redistribution.

 

[DGS49]

Whining about "income inequality" invariably comes from people who fail to grasp two very fundamental facts about our economy:

First, it is not a Zero-Sum-Proposition. Their unstated assumption is that if one person get an extra dollar, it must be taken away from another person. And that might be true if the total number of dollars in circulation were fixed. But the total amount money in circulation is constantly expanding because it MUST constantly expand due to productivity. If I take $50 worth of lumber and build a dog house that I can sell for $200, I have created $150 in wealth. I didn't take it from anybody. The buyer of the doghouse considered it a good expenditure of his $200, so that his dog would be happy and protected from the elements.

Second, the talk about the "Top 1%" or the Upper Quintile, or whatever other segment of the population as though it were a specific group of people. It's not. People are constantly moving from one economic level to another. When you look at, for example, the PEOPLE who were in the "bottom quintile" in a given year and look back at where those people are ten years later, it is invariably the case that most of them have moved up the economic ladder. I have personally lived in all five mythical quintiles in my adult life. With no student debt, my net worth was below zero until I was approaching 30 years old.

So to talk about the wretchedness of the people in the bottom X percent or the fabulous wealth of the people in the top Y percent is basically nonsense. Those people, for the most part - exepting cases of those who manifestly DESERVE to be where they are - will be changing, year after year.

Which is as it should be.

 

[Redfish]

Whining about "income inequality" invariably comes from people who fail to grasp two very fundamental facts about our economy:

First, it is not a Zero-Sum-Proposition. Their unstated assumption is that if one person get an extra dollar, it must be taken away from another person. And that might be true if the total number of dollars in circulation were fixed. But the total amount money in circulation is constantly expanding because it MUST constantly expand due to productivity. If I take $50 worth of lumber and build a dog house that I can sell for $200, I have created $150 in wealth. I didn't take it from anybody. The buyer of the doghouse considered it a good expenditure of his $200, so that his dog would be happy and protected from the elements.

Second, the talk about the "Top 1%" or the Upper Quintile, or whatever other segment of the population as though it were a specific group of people. It's not. People are constantly moving from one economic level to another. When you look at, for example, the PEOPLE who were in the "bottom quintile" in a given year and look back at where those people are ten years later, it is invariably the case that most of them have moved up the economic ladder. I have personally lived in all five mythical quintiles in my adult life. With no student debt, my net worth was below zero until I was approaching 30 years old.

So to talk about the wretchedness of the people in the bottom X percent or the fabulous wealth of the people in the top Y percent is basically nonsense. Those people, for the most part - exepting cases of those who manifestly DESERVE to be where they are - will be changing, year after year.

Which is as it should be.

well said and totally accurate

 

[kwc57]

I have been told it causes crime, gun violence, and is unfair. I say that it isn't a problem and that life ain't fair.

Anyone want to tell me why I am wrong?

Well, there's income inequality and then there's wealth disparity. When the top 10% of the nation owns more wealth than the bottom 90% combined, there is something wrong. No country can long stand with such a disparity of wealth.

You act as if that is something new instead of the natural state of things since the beginning of time.