The rich get richer and the poorer remain poorer?

[RandomVariable]

Jesus said that the poor would always be among us.

Did he specify just how poor they should be?

He*

 

[Indeependent]

The middle class started losing ground when our capitalists shifted production (manufacturing) to cheaper labor markets in Communist China, only to replace those jobs with a sea of low-wage, no-benefit retail & service sector jobs, ones that left average American families vulnerable to credit (debt) which exploded as we transitioned to a low wage economy so our suppliers could realize higher profits.

In the 2000s Bush aggressively expanded credit to the middle and lower classes so they could buy homes. And yes, like any credit bubble, there was plenty of prosperity in the beginning, especially because the bubble enabled an explosion of spending across consumer markets as Americans furnished their homes . But eventually all bubbles burst and the bills come due. Now we're paying for the so-called prosperity of the Bush years. All the lower and middle class families who were lifted into the American Dream of home ownership are now being foreclosed upon, and all the bubble jobs that were sustained by artificial bubble money are gone. But at least we bailed out the wealthy Wall Street firms that fueled the boom by their willingness to turn those mortgages into a trillion dollar profit cow of securities, swaps and derivatives. As it turns out, the temporary upward mobility of those home owners turned into fools gold, to be sold all over the globe. The number of home owners bankrupted by the Bush years stands in stark contrast to a study which conveniently excludes 2008, the year when the bubble burst and the economy started shedding over a million jobs .... and home owners faced record foreclosures.

Again, why does the study only include the bubble years and not the meltdown?

Yep, I heard that in the 50's - "All them there Chinese Japs are taking the toy making jobs."

Then in the 60's. - "All them there Chinese Japs are taking the car making jobs."

Then in the 70's - "All them there Chinese Japs are taking the steel making jobs."


You Communists sure are a smart bunch, no problem with global competition until other countries started competing...

Fucking morons.

All the above actually happened.
And here we are in 2014.

 

[jasonnfree]

While America certainly has its share of people in chronic poverty and those with vast wealth, we are an economically mobile society. There are no class or cast systems that might prevent anyone with initiative from bettering their station in life. IRS data tracking the same group of taxpayers between 1999 and 2007 showed that Americans can move from one economic group to another fairly quickly.For example, nearly 60% of taxpayers who began in the lowest income group in 1999, moved to a higher income group by 2007. Conversely, roughly 40% of taxpayers who started out in the highest income group moved to lower income groups within eight years.
Official Statistics on Inequality, the Top 1%, and Redistribution | Tax Foundation

Hey lets just go on our merry way here in America. There is no problem. It's just the jealous poor people bitching about whatever they bitch about.

One day, when the ultra rich control 60% of the nations income, will you be surprised that the ultra rich pay an even higher percentage of income tax?

How about if the ultra rich have 80% of the nations income. Still be surprised that they pay the bulk of the income tax.

Them poor ultra rich people. I bet you feel for them. All the vitriol and jealousy directed at them. Poor poor ultra wealthy people.

But I do want to be clear about one thing. I could give a flying fuck less if the ultra rich people were taxed at 50% of their income. If you make 10 million a year and can't get by on 5 million a year, fuck ya is what I say. They don't have an income problem, they must have a spending problem.

So the ultra rich are paying the bulk of the income tax. Probably because they've suffered most of the gains in wealth in the last few decades. Productivity has increased but the average workers income has remained flat. I'm sure the average worker would like to help shoulder that tax burden if they could make more money.

 

[Bombur]

If you pay employees using profit, it isn't profit, it is an expense.

Profit is after ALL expenses are paid.

You pay employees what you can afford and still make a profit and you hope you make a profit, otherwise you are closed.

Like I said employers are not perfect and will sometimes try and keep employees on even when their marginal cost exceeds their marginal benefit.
The comment has nothing to do with timing but possible reality in reference to where MC = MB.

But you called it profit, it is not profit, you don't pay employees with profits, you pay them and it is an expense, you misuse of the terms is pretty common for those that don't know about money and business.

You are missing the point. I could have said "potential profit" and been more clear but I thought it was obvious given the context. You seem hung up on the mechanics of paying the employee when I am talking about the nature of economic decisions.

I am sorry if my point was not clear but there is no doubt that paying an employee more than what they are worth means you are paying them out of what your profits would have been.

 

[Bombur]

What creates desperation is propaganda and those that use class warfare, to help create division. Hitler was great at creating the divide between the people and the ruling class.

He didn't invent all of the desperation, he simply took advantage of it. This is basic history.

So, why is the left playing the game? We aren't anywhere near the poor of the world.

For a lot of reasons. It is very hard to imagine the US ever getting that desperate. That said the issue of growing income inequality is getting worse and worse as time goes by. In 50 years we may look back at this time as a time of relative income equality.

The other alternative is that the economy simply starts to suck for everyone more equally.

There is also the human cost of the weak labor markets.

 

[jasonnfree]

This "economic equality" ploy by Obama and the Democrats really bothers me.

Sounds an awful lot like communism. Nobody to earn more than anyone else - except for the bigshots who run the system.

It appears to me to be an effort to turn us into a society of drones. Why work hard to get ahead when someone/something is going to take it away from you to give it to the "lesser advantaged"?

We've already got the War on Poverty which hasn't won anything and we still have lots and lots of people living at the Poverty Level - where they own cars, A/Cs, TVs, Refrigerators, with electricity and hot/cold running water.

Millions - nay billions - would give anything to have what our "poor" have.

Growing income inequality leads to desperation which leads to socialism and Fascism. The goal of addressing rising income inequality is to prevent such desperation.

What creates desperation is propaganda and those that use class warfare, to help create division. Hitler was great at creating the divide between the people and the ruling class.

There is a divide between the people and the ruling class. Don't need hitler to tell us that. They keep most of the money and then their working class supporters on the right complain that they pay most of the income taxes. Sure they do. They make most of the money!! It's that simple. According to the 16th amendment only the very wealthy are supposed to pay income taxes anyway.

 

[Papageorgio]

The middle class started losing ground when our capitalists shifted production (manufacturing) to cheaper labor markets in Communist China, only to replace those jobs with a sea of low-wage, no-benefit retail & service sector jobs, ones that left average American families vulnerable to credit (debt) which exploded as we transitioned to a low wage economy so our suppliers could realize higher profits.

In the 2000s Bush aggressively expanded credit to the middle and lower classes so they could buy homes. And yes, like any credit bubble, there was plenty of prosperity in the beginning, especially because the bubble enabled an explosion of spending across consumer markets as Americans furnished their homes . But eventually all bubbles burst and the bills come due. Now we're paying for the so-called prosperity of the Bush years. All the lower and middle class families who were lifted into the American Dream of home ownership are now being foreclosed upon, and all the bubble jobs that were sustained by artificial bubble money are gone. But at least we bailed out the wealthy Wall Street firms that fueled the boom by their willingness to turn those mortgages into a trillion dollar profit cow of securities, swaps and derivatives. As it turns out, the temporary upward mobility of those home owners turned into fools gold, to be sold all over the globe. The number of home owners bankrupted by the Bush years stands in stark contrast to a study which conveniently excludes 2008, the year when the bubble burst and the economy started shedding over a million jobs .... and home owners faced record foreclosures.

Again, why does the study only include the bubble years and not the meltdown?

The credit bubble and housing bubble started long before Bush. It started in the mid 90's when mortgage companies were allowing people to mortgage 125% of their homes value. When we hit the dotcom bust in March of 2000, the economy went into a recession, it then got hit with 9/11 in 2001. America went on another credit spree and lenders started lending to risky businesses and home owners. That is when the great sell offs occurred and the economy fell flat.

If you are going to make shit up, then you are being dishonest. The credit bubble occurred in the mid 90's.

 

[Papageorgio]

Growing income inequality leads to desperation which leads to socialism and Fascism. The goal of addressing rising income inequality is to prevent such desperation.

What creates desperation is propaganda and those that use class warfare, to help create division. Hitler was great at creating the divide between the people and the ruling class.

There is a divide between the people and the ruling class. Don't need hitler to tell us that. They keep most of the money and then their working class supporters on the right complain that they pay most of the income taxes. Sure they do. They make most of the money!! It's that simple. According to the 16th amendment only the very wealthy are supposed to pay income taxes anyway.

Democrats are the ones that think people should should pay more taxes, that the rich do not pay enough, then they level the health care cost on middle class. It isn't the Republicans that set the burden on the middle class, it is the Democrats and then tell the middle class that the rich need to take the burden. Kind of tough when the current Democratic administration gives business a one year reprieve on ObamaCare and then forces the middle class to carry the bulk of the cost.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Tax Foundation is a Rightwing think tank funded by billionaires. Using their research and data would be like using Michael Moore's data. They cherry pick and distort on behalf of the people who fund them. Unlike academic settings where Econ depts feature arguments from multiple sides of the issue, the Tax Foundation ONLY allows research and conclusions that support their tax agenda. They are activists in pursuit of one goal: lower taxes. Research their donor base. I wouldn't trust their data any more than I would trust a Soviet think tank on the Left.

They're citing the upward mobility of poor Americans during a time when Bush put more poor Americans in homes than at any time in history. They're using home values from a corrupt mortgage system/housing bubble to credit poor people with assets that they would later loose during the housing meltdown in 2008, about which they provide no data. By the end of the Bush years, poor and middle class Americans had been bankrupted by the greatest meltdown in the last 70 years. The fact that the study curiously leaves out 2008, a year when all their data is proved to be bubble based, is telling, not to mention all the flawed assumptions that gloss over the debt those same Americans accumulated, a debt that is now strangling the economy.

The reason we can't solve our greatest problems is because we have a generation of talk radio republicans who have been fully captured by propaganda.

You should see the data and finely displayed graphs in Al Gore's climate research. It looks great until you start evaluating the actual data. The fact that OP doesn't show us how this data was collected, or what the research model's assumptions are should tell you that he is another cut-&-paste drone. Be weary of anyone who can't fully and completely explain the conclusions they import from the work of other people.

::snore:: Oh, I'm sorry, were you saying something?

"Blah blah blah, I don't like your source, end of discussion". Here's a thought, dimwit. Show me that people DON'T move between income quintiles, or shut the fuck up. Saying, "Oh, it's right-wing, I win" accomplishes nothing except to tell me you know you're wrong and too much of a chickenshit to admit it.

The data isn't simply about whether upward mobility happens. It's about the fact that it happened from 2000-2007, and the reasons or policies that enabled it. Since you are citing the study, we assume you know how they collected the data, their research methods and the assumptions built into them. So please defend their study rather than cutting and pasting it. Show us you know the particulars so we can have a debate. Otherwise you are just stealing work you don't understand.

Again: please explain what they base their data on. Don't speculate, source it.

And I didn't merely impeach the source, I cited the problems with measuring upward mobility during the greatest bubble of the last 70 years, one that was nearly exclusively driven by lifting up poor people and putting them into higher tax bracket by simply giving them a massive taxable asset.

But we do agree on this. Impeaching the source is bad form. So next time someone shits on the NYT or MSNBC or Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky or any liberal/socialist as slanted or biased, I'm happy that your side will start talking about the actual ideas rather than name calling and liberal bashing. Thanks for finally coming around .

Still waiting for a refutation. "That was years ago. Nowadays, I just KNOW it's different, and besides, I'm SURE they were lying then!" impresses me with nothing except what a waste of oxygen you are.

Next post will be a refutation or believe me, it'll be a surrender, whether you think so or not.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If someone is worth $100 to you and you pay them $100 how much do you make on the deal?

It is called math not bullshit. I will grant you that more often then not the two won't be equal because the employer will be taking risks and possibly even using profit to pay some employees more than they are worth. Many employers are not perfect.

If you really want to learn about the economics I am talking about I bet there are some labor economics classes you can take for free online.

They're worth $100 to you because they bring in $1000 worth of revenue, you dimwit. Do you need someone to draw you a diagram of what "worth to you" means and how to determine it?

What a fucking moron.

ROFL
Am I the only one that finds your flailing around hilarious?

"Flailing around"? You mean pointing out how incredibly fucking retarded you sound in as simple a manner as possible, so that you might actually have a chance to understand it?

 

[Erand7899]

Actually the issue is about macro economic market trends that benefit one group over the other. The hope is to somehow account for these changes to ensure economic prosperity for the working people of America and the long term growth of the nation.

Market trends never benefit one group over another, with the exception of the group that is wise, versus the group that is not so wise. The only macro economic issue that is at work here, is the effect that government regulation has on small and emerging businesses.

When government makes it difficult for new businesses to enter the market, and/or makes it difficult for small businesses to grow, then it benefits established businesses, and threatens the middle class. The same government forces that hinder small businesses, stiffles the growth of employment, stagnates wages, and increases poverty.

Although, we need reasonable government regulation to conserve our environment, keep business honest, and ensure that markets are not skewed by corruption or economic power, we definitely do not need tens of thousands of pages of regulations that have little more purpose than to cater to special interest groups and/or increase the political power of the bureaucracy.

Who wants to empty their savings account, mortgage their house, and borrow everything they can from friends and relatives, just to pay lawyers to comb through all those regulations and obtain all the necessary licenses needed before one can start a basic business? Then, if that person is still financially able to open the business, put his heart, soul, and the future of his children, into the business, he/she takes the gamble that they have missed a new regulation, and some bureaucrat has assessed a huge fine and a need for expensive corrective action.

That is why we have a problem in the middle class.

I have no problem with a political ideology based on the principle that government should ensure that small businesses and start up businesses have the opportunity they need to enter the market place.

The middle class doesn't begin and end with small business though and a lot of the middle class will always be made up of people selling their labor in the labor market.

If it was up to me these two areas would get a lot more attention but our current political parties tend to focus on the other ends of the spectrum IMO.

You are wrong about the macro economic trends though.

You don't know enough about economics to know whether I am right or wrong.

For the most part, the middle class is made up of those in business or those in the professions. Very few wage earners are middle class, although that pretty much depends on how you define the middle class. I am of the old school where five classes are considered. Those in poverty, the poor, the working class, the middle class and the wealthy. Left wing politics likes to combine the working class and the middle class for the simple purpose of pushing programs for the working class while claiming to benefit the middle class.

Poverty is the condition where family income is unable to provide for all the essential needs of the family.

Poor is the condition where family income is able to provide for all the essential needs, but few if any of the social needs or wants. May be working poor or non working poor.

Working class is the condition where family income is able to provide for essential needs, social needs and some wants. Usually skilled or semi-skilled labor.

Middle class is the condition where family income is able to provide all needs, and most of the reasonable wants. Executives, businessmen and the professions.

Wealthy is the condition where family income is able to provide all needs and pretty much all wants. Executives, businessment, the professions, actors, ball players, stock traders, etc.

 

[Erand7899]

The middle class started losing ground when our capitalists shifted production (manufacturing) to cheaper labor markets in Communist China, only to replace those jobs with a sea of low-wage, no-benefit retail & service sector jobs, ones that left average American families vulnerable to credit (debt) which exploded as we transitioned to a low wage economy so our suppliers could realize higher profits.

In the 2000s Bush aggressively expanded credit to the middle and lower classes so they could buy homes. And yes, like any credit bubble, there was plenty of prosperity in the beginning, especially because the bubble enabled an explosion of spending across consumer markets as Americans furnished their homes . But eventually all bubbles burst and the bills come due. Now we're paying for the so-called prosperity of the Bush years. All the lower and middle class families who were lifted into the American Dream of home ownership are now being foreclosed upon, and all the bubble jobs that were sustained by artificial bubble money are gone. But at least we bailed out the wealthy Wall Street firms that fueled the boom by their willingness to turn those mortgages into a trillion dollar profit cow of securities, swaps and derivatives. As it turns out, the temporary upward mobility of those home owners turned into fools gold, to be sold all over the globe. The number of home owners bankrupted by the Bush years stands in stark contrast to a study which conveniently excludes 2008, the year when the bubble burst and the economy started shedding over a million jobs .... and home owners faced record foreclosures.

Again, why does the study only include the bubble years and not the meltdown?

First, Bush did not create the housing bubble, although he did contribute to it. The cause of the bubble was established in the early 90's and the bubble began in 1998, two years before Bush took office. BTW, we have another bubble in the making.

The bubble burst in 2006, and the subsequent dry up of credit, caused the recession in 2007. The flaws in housing finance caused the financial meltdown that was averted by the TARP.

 

[Erand7899]

He didn't invent all of the desperation, he simply took advantage of it. This is basic history.

So, why is the left playing the game? We aren't anywhere near the poor of the world.

For a lot of reasons. It is very hard to imagine the US ever getting that desperate. That said the issue of growing income inequality is getting worse and worse as time goes by. In 50 years we may look back at this time as a time of relative income equality.

The other alternative is that the economy simply starts to suck for everyone more equally.

There is also the human cost of the weak labor markets.

Wow! Who would have thunk it? A weak economy generates a weak labor market. A good economy generates a stronger labor market.

So, how do we fix a weak labor market? Easy, we fix the economy. We fix the economy by improving the economic environment so that those with capital to invest will look favorably upon investing that capital here.

 

[dannyboys]

"Mommy! Billy's daddy bought him a new bike. When is daddy going to buy me a new bike so I can be like Billy?"
The LIB whiners here can't fathom the reality that throughout the history of human existence there have always been the 'makers, who end up with more than the 'takers'. It's part of the human condition.
Only the LIBs/communists/Marxists around the world live with the delusion that man-kind isn't really basically an aggressive avarice animal. News flash LIBs. That is the definition of mankind and no number of MSNBC 'Metros and Bull Dykes and Race whores and 'posers' screaming at the moon will ever change mankind.
Go live in fucking Mumbai and find out what real inequality looks like.

 

[RandomVariable]

"Mommy! Billy's daddy bought him a new bike. When is daddy going to buy me a new bike so I can be like Billy?"
The LIB whiners here can't fathom the reality that throughout the history of human existence there have always been the 'makers, who end up with more than the 'takers'. It's part of the human condition.
Only the LIBs/communists/Marxists around the world live with the delusion that man-kind isn't really basically an aggressive avarice animal. News flash LIBs. That is the definition of mankind and no number of MSNBC 'Metros and Bull Dykes and Race whores and 'posers' screaming at the moon will ever change mankind.
Go live in fucking Mumbai and find out what real inequality looks like.

"Mommy, Billy's dad robbed us and bought his kid a bike and now we can't afford to fix the bike I have." "Well Johny, Billy's dad bought the police department so now we just get fucked and the only thing we can do about it is smile."

Keep smiling dannyboys, keep smiling.

 

[Bombur]

They're worth $100 to you because they bring in $1000 worth of revenue, you dimwit. Do you need someone to draw you a diagram of what "worth to you" means and how to determine it?

What a fucking moron.

ROFL
Am I the only one that finds your flailing around hilarious?

"Flailing around"? You mean pointing out how incredibly fucking retarded you sound in as simple a manner as possible, so that you might actually have a chance to understand it?

So this basic lesson in economics is "incredibly fucking retarded" in your mind. No you are not flailing around at all.

 

[Bombur]

So, why is the left playing the game? We aren't anywhere near the poor of the world.

For a lot of reasons. It is very hard to imagine the US ever getting that desperate. That said the issue of growing income inequality is getting worse and worse as time goes by. In 50 years we may look back at this time as a time of relative income equality.

The other alternative is that the economy simply starts to suck for everyone more equally.

There is also the human cost of the weak labor markets.

Wow! Who would have thunk it? A weak economy generates a weak labor market. A good economy generates a stronger labor market.

So, how do we fix a weak labor market? Easy, we fix the economy. We fix the economy by improving the economic environment so that those with capital to invest will look favorably upon investing that capital here.

The labor market has been getting weaker for decades through both ups and downs in the economic cycle. The weakness was largely hidden by improvements in other places but eventually the economy needs a stronger labor market.

The supply side of the equation is only half of the equation. We are experiencing a demand problem and need fixes on the demand side.

 

[Katzndogz]

Democrats can tax the middle class out of existence by simply redefining middle class as rich. Now they have license to raise taxes on working men and women as much as they like by claiming they are taxing the rich.

The rich used to be multimillionaires or billionaires who live in mansions. Now they are working men and women who live in nice houses in nice neighborhoods.

 

[Bombur]

Market trends never benefit one group over another, with the exception of the group that is wise, versus the group that is not so wise. The only macro economic issue that is at work here, is the effect that government regulation has on small and emerging businesses.

When government makes it difficult for new businesses to enter the market, and/or makes it difficult for small businesses to grow, then it benefits established businesses, and threatens the middle class. The same government forces that hinder small businesses, stiffles the growth of employment, stagnates wages, and increases poverty.

Although, we need reasonable government regulation to conserve our environment, keep business honest, and ensure that markets are not skewed by corruption or economic power, we definitely do not need tens of thousands of pages of regulations that have little more purpose than to cater to special interest groups and/or increase the political power of the bureaucracy.

Who wants to empty their savings account, mortgage their house, and borrow everything they can from friends and relatives, just to pay lawyers to comb through all those regulations and obtain all the necessary licenses needed before one can start a basic business? Then, if that person is still financially able to open the business, put his heart, soul, and the future of his children, into the business, he/she takes the gamble that they have missed a new regulation, and some bureaucrat has assessed a huge fine and a need for expensive corrective action.

That is why we have a problem in the middle class.

I have no problem with a political ideology based on the principle that government should ensure that small businesses and start up businesses have the opportunity they need to enter the market place.

The middle class doesn't begin and end with small business though and a lot of the middle class will always be made up of people selling their labor in the labor market.

If it was up to me these two areas would get a lot more attention but our current political parties tend to focus on the other ends of the spectrum IMO.

You are wrong about the macro economic trends though.

You don't know enough about economics to know whether I am right or wrong.

For the most part, the middle class is made up of those in business or those in the professions. Very few wage earners are middle class, although that pretty much depends on how you define the middle class. I am of the old school where five classes are considered. Those in poverty, the poor, the working class, the middle class and the wealthy. Left wing politics likes to combine the working class and the middle class for the simple purpose of pushing programs for the working class while claiming to benefit the middle class.

Poverty is the condition where family income is unable to provide for all the essential needs of the family.

Poor is the condition where family income is able to provide for all the essential needs, but few if any of the social needs or wants. May be working poor or non working poor.

Working class is the condition where family income is able to provide for essential needs, social needs and some wants. Usually skilled or semi-skilled labor.

Middle class is the condition where family income is able to provide all needs, and most of the reasonable wants. Executives, businessmen and the professions.

Wealthy is the condition where family income is able to provide all needs and pretty much all wants. Executives, businessment, the professions, actors, ball players, stock traders, etc.

I know enough about economics to know that market forces can impact different groups differently and reducing the issue to "wisdom" is not really a meaningful argument. I also know enough that regulations are not that impactful compared to the other factors impacting the market. While they have a cost, that cost is often less than the perceived cost and not comparable to hidden market trends.

Everything else you said just clarifies what set of definitions you use when talking about the middle class. Doesn't contradict anything I said.

 

[thereisnospoon]

While America certainly has its share of people in chronic poverty and those with vast wealth, we are an economically mobile society. There are no class or cast systems that might prevent anyone with initiative from bettering their station in life. IRS data tracking the same group of taxpayers between 1999 and 2007 showed that Americans can move from one economic group to another fairly quickly.For example, nearly 60% of taxpayers who began in the lowest income group in 1999, moved to a higher income group by 2007. Conversely, roughly 40% of taxpayers who started out in the highest income group moved to lower income groups within eight years.
Official Statistics on Inequality, the Top 1%, and Redistribution | Tax Foundation

The issue of income inequality and wealth inequality is a false narrative. The reason behind this is the presupposition that income and wealth should be equal.
That is not only incompatible with a society based on liberty and freedom of the individual, it is demonstrated as impossible in societies where government confiscation and redistribution have been tried. In every nation on the planet regardless of the type of system/government, there exists a wealthy sector of the population.
This issue of income inequality is nothing more than a political ploy.