This 6 minute video sums up the shocking facts of American wealth and inequality

[Cecilie1200]

Spending 5 hours in a crappy trailer park constitutes a strong work ethic?

The important part is the crappy trailer park. Having to spend time with the common folk is very difficult for the elite. Probably counts as a 12 hour day for him. If he broke a sweat it is probably a 14 hour day.

LMAO, it's funny 'cause it's true.

Awww. Are you and Brain offended by the idea that some people might find your company unpleasant?

Don't worry, it probably wasn't YOUR trailer park he was in.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Spending 5 hours in a crappy trailer park constitutes a strong work ethic?

Are you really this dense?
I went door to door in a large trailer park interviewing witnesses, it rained twice.
Spoke with numerous people.
You always start off with them saying "I do not know anything, I did not see anything, I do not know any of the parties involved, I do not want to get involved".
And I have to go from there.
And you think that makes it easy for me to get people to tell me what happened?
Wow, what planet do you live on?
And it is Saturday.
This is hard work gaining the trust of people to come forward and tell the truth to help in a civil case.
Again, are you really so dense you do not understand the real world?
My work is extremely difficult as you have to follow leads, nights and weekends.
Today is Saturday, I spent 5 hours there and 4 more on the road on another case.
You are not very normal there Joe.

Yes, everybody's job is difficult. I've come to the conclusion that if you get paid for it, it's gonna suck in some way. I would guess that you're more highly compensated than most however.

Actually, I quite enjoy my jobs. It helps when one has talents and skills to play to. You might not know about that, though.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No one is consistently hungry. Not unless they have other conditions that leads to constant hunger and obesity. Speaking of which, we have the fattest poor people in the world. If you imagine that people are constantly hungry, volunteer at a soup kitchen or homeless shelter. If nothing else, you will be educated out of your erroneous notions. Our "poor" have so much food, coming from so many sources, that they send food back to their home countries by the barrel full.

You misunderstand obesity and poverty. The reason why we have poor obese people is because junk food is cheap. Healthy food is not. Could these people be smarter about what they buy? Sure, but eating healthy is still difficult when you are poor.

Ok..I will proceed to utterly destroy your statement.
What has more nutritional value, a whole chicken at about $2.50 per pound or a one pound bag of Wise potato chips at $4?
Which one of these will last longer? Which of these food items can make three meals?
What is more expensive...One dozen Grade A Large eggs or three Egg Mc Muffin meals at McDonalds? Which is capable of making several meals and is capable to be placed as an ingredient in other foods?
What costs more, one can of Campbells Soup a one lb bag of egg noodles and a small beef brisket or three fast food burger meals?
Because with about 30 mins in the kitchen I can make a casserole with the beef, soup a little corn starch to thicken the sauce and some grated cheese and maybe throw in a can of spinach and that will last me a week. The fast food stuff is one meal that costs just about 75% of the ingredients above can last several meals.
The point is most poor people that are obviously over fed on crap are also too fucking lazy to make nutritious meals on a budget.
Now you will protest, "the kids won't eat that stuff"....TOUGH! A hungry person will eat stone soup if he is hungry enough. The problem is the parents are not able to say "NO" to their kids whining they want Mc Donalds.

If one's kids will not eat healthy food, whose fault is THAT for not having taught them to do so?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, 1 in 6 people face food insecurity, which means they go through periods of time without food.

For Christ's sakes. You assholes do not fucking pay attention. Absolutely nothing i have said so far suggests any of the bullshit you said in your last sentence. How about you be a man and have an actual debate with me?

By CHOICE in what they spend on...

They will buy smokes, but not buy food.. they will not shop wisely in terms of their food... etc...

1 in six are not 'hungry'... it is another made up bullshit tear jerker stat

Sort of like the people that live in the single wide trailer, 3 kids barely dressed in rags eating chicken necks and popcorn while the living has in it a 50" flat panel tv and there is a $30,000 pick up truck parked out front. See it all the time here.
One of the things I hear is "my phone got cut off'....Umm, NO...YOU didn't pay the bill.

One of my jobs is customer service for a retail electric provider. Let me tell you, NO ONE can work up a self-righteous indignation like someone whose power was disconnected for non-payment and who is now awaiting reconnection. How DARE we inconvenience them JUST because they didn't pay their bills for three months?!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Here are the facts about why wealth inequality is bad:
Here's Why Income Inequality Really Is A Big Deal - Business Insider

It is clearly bad for our country. Either debate the facts or stop pretending it's not bad.

Try to stop being impressed by "lots of charts and graphs" and actually read for comprehension. That article actually says nothing more than your posts do: some people are richer than others, and we don't like it. *yawn*

 

[Cecilie1200]

The only thing I know about the inequality of the wealth system is, that

There are some pretty smart bees that go to school and are talented. They work hard and are at the top of the hive..

There are other bees that finish school and work hard and get right up near the top, too.

There's the middle bees that finish school and work hard everyday and feel good in the middle of the hive where all of the action is at.

Then there is the lower bees who didn't finish school who are always complaining about inequality while they sit on their bums and wait for someone from the top or the middle to do their work for them too.


There's complaining to do, but it shouldn't be from the lower bees, it should be the middle and upper bees that should complain about them!

Great, more hate the poor. Well sorry but the facts paint a different picture:

Here's Why Income Inequality Really Is A Big Deal - Business Insider

Still nobody has debated the facts. Go figure.

*sigh* Let me see if I can cut through the fog of "Ooh, graphs. It MUST be true!" that always seems to envelop the illiterate. Consider this my good deed for the week.

Here's what your article actually SAID, minus the pretty pictures that so distract you:

People are talking a ton right now about income inequality, especially because Occupy Wall Street has brought the issue to the fore.

But perhaps people aren't talking enough about why it's a big deal. After all, one common response people have, when presented with data about inequality is that America is an incredibly rich country (due to our capitalist system) and that even most of the "poor" are rich by historical and global standards.

And that's no doubt true, but...

Frankly, they already lost me at "no doubt true", as though there might actually BE some doubt about that.

But I digress.

It turns out that even in a rich society, income and wealth disparity still matters.

Richard Wilkinson, Professor Emeritus of Social Epidemiology at England's University of Nottingham, recently did a TED Talk about what he found while researching his book about income inequality, The Spirit Level.

The basic thesis is that social ills, like crime and teen pregnancy, that have long been associated with poverty, actually have a stronger correlation with income inequality.

In other words, it doesn't matter how big the pie gets, inequality ends up tearing away at society.

Okay, so now we have his thesis: rich people are responsible for all of society's evils, simply by being rich. Anyone who had graduated from a high school English Composition course would expect this to be followed by supporting evidence of this thesis, right?

First let's start with the basics. In the U.S. the richest 20% are 8.5 times richer than the poorest 20%.

Okay, so first we need to establish just how much non-rich people should hate those rich devils, and we have a pretty picture showing us how much more money they have than the poor folks, compared to other countries, which are presumably much better places to live because their rich people are much closer to being poor.

Around the world, there's not much correlation between wealth and various lifestyle outcomes.

Another pretty picture, demonstrating that being rich in other countries doesn't stop your life from sucking like it does here.

What matters is the level of inequality WITHIN countries.

THIS pretty picture tells us that in England and Wales, their rich people have a longer life expectancy than poor people, as measured by neighborhood.

Life expectancy is not related to average income.

But THIS pretty picture tells us that life expectancy is NOT related to being rich. Hmmm.

Child well-being does the same thing when measured against GNP.

Is anyone else wondering what the point of all this contradiction is? Or just wondering when they're going to get around to it?

Now look at it up against income inequality by country.

THIS pretty picture is titled "Child Well-Being is Better in More Equal Countries". Which frankly makes me wonder how they're measuring "child well-being", especially since they're allegedly getting their figures from the UN.

This inequality permeates every part of a child's life, especially education. This is U.S. state high school dropout rates plotted against state inequality.

Of course, that only proves that the US has high dropout rates. Doesn't prove what the cause is[are]. We're just supposed to assume that, since wealth inequality ALSO exists, that's the cause.

And of course, this correlation extends to violent crime.

Different topic, same method.

Because there's more crime in general, people don't trust each other. That really hurts a country's (or state's, or city's) sense of unity.

My, THAT'S a rather large leap in logic to make.

You can even see this correlation in mental illness.

Different topic, same flawed method.

That could be because inequality makes individuals feel intense judgment and competition. These are the most stressful social situations for human beings.

Ooh, more assumptions. THAT'LL help. This pretty picture is entitled "What kind of stressful tasks raise stress hormones the most?" Nowhere does it prove that stress has diddly squat to do with wealth inequality.

Worst of all, it destroys the thing Americans take pride in about our country the most — opportunity.

You might note, if you happen to read the actual article, that the charts get more and more simplistic and include fewer and fewer numbers and stats as you go on. I wonder why.

And these are the places where you can see it all played out in front of you.

And there's a list of "The 21 Most Unequal Cities in America".

That's the end of the article. Now, having excised the distracting colors and pictures - and I assure you, every single word of the article IS included in this post - does anyone see any proof that wealth inequality is bad, or do you see the same thing I do, ie. a statement of "correlation equals causation" that everyone is supposed to accept and assume the charts have proven?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Great, more hate the poor. Well sorry but the facts paint a different picture:

Here's Why Income Inequality Really Is A Big Deal - Business Insider

Still nobody has debated the facts. Go figure.

The basic thesis is that social ills, like crime and teen pregnancy, that have long been associated with poverty, actually have a stronger correlation with income inequality.

So if the government raises taxes on the mean rich people, crime and teen pregnancy will decline?

Let's debate those facts.

Who said anything about raising taxes? We still haven't really debated the best way to fix the problem. Unfortunately there are still many who refuse to admit it is a problem so I'm still just debating whether it is a problem. I assume you've concluded that it is a problem and you want to know how to fix it?

Sweetie, you still haven't proven that there IS a problem, let alone proven what the problem IS, so there's no reason in the world that "many" of us should "admit it is a problem", or let dimwits like you start trying to decide how to "fix" it.

I'm waiting breathlessly for you to START debating whether it's a problem, and stop wasting everyone's time with these empty "Look, I found a link with a good headline" posts of yours. Try thinking for yourself for once and writing a post that contains YOUR understanding of the situation.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well I have stated that we will get a liberal fix if the right keeps deny that wealth inequality is the problem. I still haven't heard people on this thread calling for more taxes. Since you bring up crime, that is also worse when there is more wealth inequality.

I haven't heard any conservative fixes for wealth inequality. Please share them.

Well I have stated that we will get a liberal fix if the right keeps deny that wealth inequality is the problem.

Your link didn't say it was a problem.

The basic thesis is that social ills, like crime and teen pregnancy, that have long been associated with poverty, actually have a stronger correlation with income inequality.

Do you understand the difference?

Yes I do.

I'm still waiting for your conservative fixes.

Really? Conservatives are still waiting for you to show them a problem to fix, rather than just screaming that "it's OBVIOUS there's a problem!"

Prove it, and we'll show you some solutions. Until then, you're getting the cart ahead of the horse.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I love that one of the graphs is from "the spirit level" and another one is from some weird psych source.

Most of the "stats" in the charts - or possibly all of them - are from some group called "EqualityTrust.org", whoever the fuck they are.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Then you must have some stats that refute them. Please share. Just repeating yourself with nothing to back it up is getting tiring.

You haven't established any *facts*. You posted a link to a garbage article, with a bunch of big shiny and completely ridiculous graphs.

When you post some *facts* then we'll talk. But I don't waste time on disputing garbage. It's garbage, everybody knows it's garbage, and you just post it to confuse imbeciles into going along with you.

I didn't think you had anything to refute them. Your losing quickly.

How can she be losing a fight you haven't even entered into yet? You have REALLY got to start reading the whole article, instead of just the headline.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Wilkinson and Pickett claim that ‘more equal societies almost always do better’ – a universalist, sweeping statement – which cannot be substantiated by most of their data."

Vague and undefined, sort of like all of Brain's *facts*....

"The book’s success, itself a tipping point, taps into deep psychological yearnings and liberal guilt about affluence, inequality and the direction of our society in recent years. This is wish-fulfilment and what Isaiah Berlin called the propensity of human beings to want to make the mess of the world into ‘symmetrical fantasies’ (6)"

....

"Time and time again the interviewer, Iain Ferguson, mentions neo-liberalism and other political concepts, reads ‘The Spirit Level’ in this way, and gets replies which are filled with liberal vagueness and a lack of political intelligence. "

...

"‘The Spirit Level’ isn’t on its own, but part of an industry of books including Layard’s ‘Happiness’ (9), Oliver James ‘Affluenza’ (10) and Neal Lawson’s ‘All Consuming’ (11), which reflect the growth of a health and well-being and anti-consumerist trend. There is in this a profound loss of confidence in progress: once felt to be the exclusive property of the left, but now they feel seized by the liberationist forces of the market. And then there is the whiff of nostalgia, a yearning for a simpler time which was more egalitarian and filled with less choice and ‘stuff’."

...
"There is a deep, moralising, middle class liberal superiority in all of this: of people who have gained from the labour market and consumed enough preaching at the rest of us."

So true.

"This industry, ‘Happiness’, ‘Affluenza’, ‘The Spirit Level’ and ‘All Consuming’ are a manifestation of the times we are living in: of a deep sense that something has gone wrong, a sense for meaning, structure and the desire for an over-arching interpretation for what has happened to our societies. Instead, serious research and political work need to be undertaken which goes back to fundamentals, asks difficult questions and does not try to create a new faith, religion or groupthink to challenge the existing order and orthodoxies."






The Fantasyland of ?The Spirit Level? and the Limitations of the Health and Well-Being Industry | openDemocracy

Are there some sort of facts in all that or your link? Cause I'm not seeing them. I don't see any statistics or anything. Seems to be all fluff. But if there are some good statists please pull them out and post.

Of course you're not seeing them. You didn't read her post any more than you read your own article.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I didn't think you had anything to refute them. Your losing quickly.

No, I haven't lost anything. You have yet to state any *facts*. You post a link to a piece of bullshit propaganda, and you think that will serve.

It doesn't. You can't *win* with a faulty premise, and your premise, whatever it is, is massively faulty.

Then your saying the statistics in my link are incorrect? Give us some statistics that refute them then. Or else you lose.

That's not how it works, punkin, and it's not surprising that you know nothing about debating, given how little you think on your own.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I didn't think you had anything to refute them. Your losing quickly.

No, I haven't lost anything. You have yet to state any *facts*. You post a link to a piece of bullshit propaganda, and you think that will serve.

It doesn't. You can't *win* with a faulty premise, and your premise, whatever it is, is massively faulty.

Since you like Forbes here is one stating how inequality is damaging the economy:
How Income Inequality Is Damaging the U.S. - Forbes

Yeah, and if you'd actually read the whole article, instead of just the headline, you'd know it says that it's government intervention to make things "fair" that causes the damage.

Oops.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Since you like Forbes here is one stating how inequality is damaging the economy:
How Income Inequality Is Damaging the U.S. - Forbes

Did you read your own link?
GOVERNMENT actions is what causes it.

Do you pay attention to anything? Here I go again for the slow. I am arguing that it is bad. Not how we got it, not how to fix it. Simply that it is in fact bad for our country. Many here seem to be in some kind of denial of the obvious, including you.

Do YOU pay attention to anything? Here I go again for the braindead: you are arguing that it is bad. You are arguing that based on an article THAT SAYS IT'S BAD BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. Nowhere in your linked article does it say, or demonstrate, that the inequality ITSELF is bad.

So you are arguing a point that your alleged "supporting evidence" doesn't support. Exactly how many times do you have to be told that, by how many people, before you get it into that bag of fluff you call a brainpan?

 

[Billy000]

I did not say it's easy. Why do you assume if I can do it, anyone else can?

Working hard does not equal working smart. You can try all you want but you won't get to china by digging straight down.

Most small businesses go belly up because the owners did not know what they were doing. Bad idea, bad execution...

But the numbers just aren't there. Big corporations purposely lobby for laws for small businesses not to succeed. I mean is that really so hard to believe? Corporations are completley self interested. They will do anything for profit. Even at the expense of the country at large.

You should know that a successful business is also based on a blind luck to a small extent. Happy circumstances that fall into place that make it so smart business men can succeed.

>>> Big corporations purposely lobby for laws for small businesses not to succeed.

Correct. Our government, both parties, won't do their job. We'd have less unemployment and higher levels of income if this government would do it's job of breaking up the monopolies and oligarchs.

>>> I mean is that really so hard to believe? Corporations are completley self interested. They will do anything for profit. Even at the expense of the country at large.

Correct.

>>> You should know that a successful business is also based on a blind luck to a small extent. Happy circumstances that fall into place that make it so smart business men can succeed.

Correct. And if you keep doing the "right" things, luck usually follows... eventually.

But like i said before, big corporations don't even make it a competition. They destroy your chances before you leave the gate. This of course doesn't apply to all small businesses, but it does show you how evil some corporations are and how they are contributing to the downfall of this country.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I didn't think you had anything to refute them. Your losing quickly.

No, I haven't lost anything. You have yet to state any *facts*. You post a link to a piece of bullshit propaganda, and you think that will serve.

It doesn't. You can't *win* with a faulty premise, and your premise, whatever it is, is massively faulty.

Since you like Forbes here is one stating how inequality is damaging the economy:
How Income Inequality Is Damaging the U.S. - Forbes

Those who make the least consume the most of their income; those who make the most tend to save a great deal, and for that reason, according to the economist Christopher Brown, at Arkansas State, “income inequality can exert a significant drag on effective demand.”

I love this claim. Rich people are bad, because they save. Wow!

 

[Brain357]

Here are the facts about why wealth inequality is bad:
Here's Why Income Inequality Really Is A Big Deal - Business Insider

It is clearly bad for our country. Either debate the facts or stop pretending it's not bad.

Try to stop being impressed by "lots of charts and graphs" and actually read for comprehension. That article actually says nothing more than your posts do: some people are richer than others, and we don't like it. *yawn*

Can you read? So child well being is not important to you? More children dropping out of high school isn't important? You don't care about more crime? I'm sure social mobility isn't important in your eyes. haha Your a joke.

 

[Brain357]

No, I haven't lost anything. You have yet to state any *facts*. You post a link to a piece of bullshit propaganda, and you think that will serve.

It doesn't. You can't *win* with a faulty premise, and your premise, whatever it is, is massively faulty.

Since you like Forbes here is one stating how inequality is damaging the economy:
How Income Inequality Is Damaging the U.S. - Forbes

Yeah, and if you'd actually read the whole article, instead of just the headline, you'd know it says that it's government intervention to make things "fair" that causes the damage.

Oops.

There is no oops. When inequality grows the government is always going to intervene. Like I've said wealth inequality leads to bigger government.

 

[beagle9]

Small example, but here is an example of government being oppressive instead of helpful to the new wanta be small businessman or women in society. I built with my own two hands a nice sized produce shed on my property, and I put in a small parking lot by their stipulations and rules, and I also built a green house along with plenty of room for growing locally grown vegetables to sell, and then I filled out the proper permit forms for seasonal operations, but then shockingly I was denied the operational permits to therefore operate the thing. I went to some meetings about it all, and found out that I was really being denied because there was the promotion of a farmers market in the city in which the city wanted to drive all available participants and buyers to this market having no competition involved by way of doing this, so they engaged in stamping out the competition by use of government power in which they abused in the situation I thought. I made my observations clear to them, and later on they sent out some reps to my place, and began telling me how I could operate even with none of the necessary permits needed, because I was growing my own products to sell. I still don't know why they don't issue more licenses or permits to people whom want to start up a small business or why they don't support such a concept, but as I learned about all of this, it was as clear as the nose on ones face as to what was going in all of this sort of stuff. It's either they have their own interest in which they are protecting, for which usually is a conflict of interest to their office and duties or it is that they are protecting corporate interest in the area by means of oppressing another, and it all leads up to being anti-small business on their part, but no one can put their finger upon it because they use zoning codes and all sorts of other rules made up, and then the oppressive regulations to make the small guy think he cannot break into that world, while they end up with the other hand getting the kick backs from all of those whom he or she is protecting by way of that government office in which is being used and abused in these ways.

Sounds like you wanted to convert the zoned purpose of a plot of land from ag/rural to commercial and got stymied?

To change zoning usually requires some amount of convincing. Your neighbors need to approve for example. Commercial use of land carries all kinds of issues.

If it was not a zoning change, then my recommendation is to expose them in one of the local papers. Most papers eat that kind of stuff up.

No it wasn't a zoning issue, because the zoning was limited commercial, and I think the meetings was all the publicity they needed or that it took, where as the voices got through to them (exposure they hate), and they sent out the investigative party to clear it all up. Still these kinds of things shouldn't be stumbled upon in the first place, because we should be a better country than this, but we are not.

I hear so many horror stories coming from good Americans when they are dealing with their local governments and such, that it is ridiculous what goes on, and so why is it that we need to have these kinds of stories and problems happening in the first place ?

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, I haven't lost anything. You have yet to state any *facts*. You post a link to a piece of bullshit propaganda, and you think that will serve.

It doesn't. You can't *win* with a faulty premise, and your premise, whatever it is, is massively faulty.

Since you like Forbes here is one stating how inequality is damaging the economy:
How Income Inequality Is Damaging the U.S. - Forbes

Those who make the least consume the most of their income; those who make the most tend to save a great deal, and for that reason, according to the economist Christopher Brown, at Arkansas State, “income inequality can exert a significant drag on effective demand.”

I love this claim. Rich people are bad, because they save. Wow!

Couldn't be their propensity for saving, rather than consuming, that helped them get rich, could it? Nah.