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

[JoeNormal]

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?

Cecilie, I believe I have diagnosed your problem so that you may begin to take steps to fix it. When you read a paragraph, the focus is on that paragraph and that paragraph alone. All previous paragraphs apparently cease to exist and any subsequent deeper meaning is lost. This makes for quick repartee (as evidenced by the sheer volume of drivel you spout) but prevents you from making any real observations.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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!

Now, me poor ignorant con tool, that was about the stupidest reading of a rational statement I have read today. Profound.

Because rich people don't spend every dollar they make, they are a drag on the economy.

Is that the economic theory you want to support?

 

[Rshermr]

Delta is ready when you are.

I'm glad your ok with it. What a patriot you are.

You are not very smart if you hold Denmark up as your model.
They have a huge problem with immigration, specifically Muslims.
They have a massive welfare state and the highest marginal tax rate in the world.
Only 3 of Denmark's 98 municipalities have a majority of adults working now compared to 59 in 2008.
The Danish government forces producers to finance the moocher class similar to what the left dictates here.
Wake the hell up, no one but a dumbass wants to be like Denmark.
We will never restore economic stability and economic growth here for all until we recognize and protect the right of THE INDIVIDUAL to keep and use the fruits of one's labor according to their own judgment.
The current growth and support of the moocher class here is immoral.

Isn't it amazing the numbers you can come up with when you cruise the bat shit crazy con web sites???
Denmark ue rate in June 2013 was 6.7%.
Denmark unemployment rate | countryeconomy.com
What is the moocher class, me boy? What is it as a percentage of Denmark's population.?
Are you useing the MOOCHER CLASS as a synonym with the romney quote of those who pay no income tax??
Where did you get your numbers??? I see no links.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Or it could be your propensity to spend all of your times cruising the bat shit crazy con web sites that has made you ignorant. Just keep at it, and between you and your con buddy, you will have an IQ over 100. Barely. And only in combination.

Why do you continually refer to the IQ of others as sub-standard? Do you have IQ envy or something? Did Mensa turn you down?

 

[Gadawg73]

I'm glad your ok with it. What a patriot you are.

You are not very smart if you hold Denmark up as your model.
They have a huge problem with immigration, specifically Muslims.
They have a massive welfare state and the highest marginal tax rate in the world.
Only 3 of Denmark's 98 municipalities have a majority of adults working now compared to 59 in 2008.
The Danish government forces producers to finance the moocher class similar to what the left dictates here.
Wake the hell up, no one but a dumbass wants to be like Denmark.
We will never restore economic stability and economic growth here for all until we recognize and protect the right of THE INDIVIDUAL to keep and use the fruits of one's labor according to their own judgment.
The current growth and support of the moocher class here is immoral.

Isn't it amazing the numbers you can come up with when you cruise the bat shit crazy con web sites???
Denmark ue rate in June 2013 was 6.7%.
Denmark unemployment rate | countryeconomy.com
What is the moocher class, me boy? What is it as a percentage of Denmark's population.?
Are you useing the MOOCHER CLASS as a synonym with the romney quote of those who pay no income tax??
Where did you get your numbers??? I see no links.

In Denmark immigrants that do now work are not counted in the unemployment rate.
7% added to that figure.
Anyone that is out on worker's comp, government disability or handicap is not counted.
Add 4 %
Many self employed generational folks that are not working are not counted.
Add 6%
Denmarks early retirement scheme allows them to retire at age 60 yet they still receive full government handouts.
They are raising that to age 67 and guess why, they are going broke there.
The rise in the over 60 demographics has that non working population to age 67 as over 25%.
Add in not all households have 2 parties that work all the time because of their generous time off for raising children-not opposed to that but that is not in the % listed.
Undetermined %
Add it all up over half the adult population in Denmark in those municipalities listed do not work and draw benefits.
Fool.
Denmark is now radically changing their country. Within 15 years they will be not be the handout state they are now.

 

[MikeK]

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!

Rich is a relative term.

There is a difference between wealth and opulence. There is a difference between saving and hoarding. And it is important to understand these differences.

 

[koshergrl]

Lol..no, it's really not.

We have a right to hoard, dearie. Provided we aren't creating a health and safety hazard for our neighbors, or abusing animals in doing so.

 

[JoeNormal]

Lol..no, it's really not.

We have a right to hoard, dearie. Provided we aren't creating a health and safety hazard for our neighbors, or abusing animals in doing so.

At a certain level, that's not true. You can't plug a giant factory into the grid without approval. It might not handle the load. Same idea here.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Lol..no, it's really not.

We have a right to hoard, dearie. Provided we aren't creating a health and safety hazard for our neighbors, or abusing animals in doing so.

At a certain level, that's not true. You can't plug a giant factory into the grid without approval. It might not handle the load. Same idea here.

Saving money is like plugging a factory into the grid?

 

[JoeNormal]

Lol..no, it's really not.

We have a right to hoard, dearie. Provided we aren't creating a health and safety hazard for our neighbors, or abusing animals in doing so.

At a certain level, that's not true. You can't plug a giant factory into the grid without approval. It might not handle the load. Same idea here.

Saving money is like plugging a factory into the grid?

In large enough quantities, it fucks up the system. Is that really so hard to understand?

 

[Rshermr]

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!

Now, me poor ignorant con tool, that was about the stupidest reading of a rational statement I have read today. Profound.

Because rich people don't spend every dollar they make, they are a drag on the economy.

Is that the economic theory you want to support?

Perhaps you can find a place where I have ever said that. You seem to be trying to make a point that you would like to show exists. It does not. What Prof. Brown showed was simply that decreasing taxes on the wealthy has very little effect on spending, and therefor demand. Which has been proven many ways outside of his study.
Now, taking that statement to indicate that it is a claim that rich people are bad is stupid. On the face of it. That you are incapable of seeing what he was saying, and the fact that it has been proven in many studies, does indeed cast doubt on your cognitive reasoning. Or perhaps your intent.

 

[Gadawg73]

These mental midgets believe saving money is stuffing it in a Mason jar and burying it in the backyard.
Saving money goes into banks and other financial institutions.
They take those savings and loan it out as capital to businesses and corporations that want to expand their businesses either hiring new employees and/or construction new facilities.
Savings is the lifeblood of capitalism and economic growth.
Without investors in savings and stock nothing gets done.
Amazing the ignorance of basic Econ 101 here.

 

[Rshermr]

These mental midgets believe saving money is stuffing it in a Mason jar and burying it in the backyard.
Saving money goes into banks and other financial institutions.
They take those savings and loan it out as capital to businesses and corporations that want to expand their businesses either hiring new employees and/or construction new facilities.
Savings is the lifeblood of capitalism and economic growth.
Without investors in savings and stock nothing gets done.
Amazing the ignorance of basic Econ 101 here.

Wow. Now that was profound. Did you believe that someone said that saving was bad???
Of course you did. Because you wanted to believe that.
Nice thing about con tools like you is that you are so predictable. You can always know, before you say anything, what you are going to say. Because you lack the ability to think independently. And you take you statements from the far right wing bat shit crazy con sites. ALWAYS.

I call it the Koch test. If the koch bros. would be in favor of it, so would the con tool. If the koch bros. would be against it, so would you be against it. Makes life so simple. Hell you do not even have to think. Just copy and paste. Take those right wing talking points and go forth.
So, if a study comes up saying that the wealthy do not spend new income at the level of the poor, you can get behind "liberals think weathy people are bad". Or you can post drivel like "liberals think saving is bad".
Which, technically, makes you a dipshit. IMHO.

 

[RKMBrown]

These mental midgets believe saving money is stuffing it in a Mason jar and burying it in the backyard.
Saving money goes into banks and other financial institutions.
They take those savings and loan it out as capital to businesses and corporations that want to expand their businesses either hiring new employees and/or construction new facilities.
Savings is the lifeblood of capitalism and economic growth.
Without investors in savings and stock nothing gets done.
Amazing the ignorance of basic Econ 101 here.

I think he means that when the rich have money that's money that is not being redistributed to him.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Now, me poor ignorant con tool, that was about the stupidest reading of a rational statement I have read today. Profound.

Because rich people don't spend every dollar they make, they are a drag on the economy.

Is that the economic theory you want to support?

Perhaps you can find a place where I have ever said that. You seem to be trying to make a point that you would like to show exists. It does not. What Prof. Brown showed was simply that decreasing taxes on the wealthy has very little effect on spending, and therefor demand. Which has been proven many ways outside of his study.
Now, taking that statement to indicate that it is a claim that rich people are bad is stupid. On the face of it. That you are incapable of seeing what he was saying, and the fact that it has been proven in many studies, does indeed cast doubt on your cognitive reasoning. Or perhaps your intent.

Perhaps you can find a place where I have ever said that.

So you don't agree with Christopher Brown, that's good, he doesn't sound very bright.

What Prof. Brown showed was simply that decreasing taxes on the wealthy has very little effect on spending,

He said nothing about taxes, he said, “income inequality can exert a significant drag on effective demand.”

 

[Rshermr]

These mental midgets believe saving money is stuffing it in a Mason jar and burying it in the backyard.
Saving money goes into banks and other financial institutions.
They take those savings and loan it out as capital to businesses and corporations that want to expand their businesses either hiring new employees and/or construction new facilities.
Savings is the lifeblood of capitalism and economic growth.
Without investors in savings and stock nothing gets done.
Amazing the ignorance of basic Econ 101 here.

I think he means that when the rich have money that's money that is not being redistributed to him.

And right on time, there is rkm to prove my statement. The Koch test example for all to see. He makes the assumption that I want income distribution to be to me. When, fact is, over the past 30 years, income distribution has been to the wealthy. And, me boy, I worked for what I got. Worked my way through college (back in the 60's when that was much easier to do than today). Found my jobs, worked my way up through organizations, etc. So, making stupid conservative statements like that is simply proof of your ignorance. Which is demonstrably massive in nature.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

These mental midgets believe saving money is stuffing it in a Mason jar and burying it in the backyard.
Saving money goes into banks and other financial institutions.
They take those savings and loan it out as capital to businesses and corporations that want to expand their businesses either hiring new employees and/or construction new facilities.
Savings is the lifeblood of capitalism and economic growth.
Without investors in savings and stock nothing gets done.
Amazing the ignorance of basic Econ 101 here.

Wow. Now that was profound. Did you believe that someone said that saving was bad???
Of course you did. Because you wanted to believe that.
Nice thing about con tools like you is that you are so predictable. You can always know, before you say anything, what you are going to say. Because you lack the ability to think independently. And you take you statements from the far right wing bat shit crazy con sites. ALWAYS.

I call it the Koch test. If the koch bros. would be in favor of it, so would the con tool. If the koch bros. would be against it, so would you be against it. Makes life so simple. Hell you do not even have to think. Just copy and paste. Take those right wing talking points and go forth.
So, if a study comes up saying that the wealthy do not spend new income at the level of the poor, you can get behind "liberals think weathy people are bad". Or you can post drivel like "liberals think saving is bad".
Which, technically, makes you a dipshit. IMHO.

Did you believe that someone said that saving was bad???


Christopher Brown said

"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.”"

Do you believe he meant that saving was good?

 

[JoeNormal]

These mental midgets believe saving money is stuffing it in a Mason jar and burying it in the backyard.
Saving money goes into banks and other financial institutions.
They take those savings and loan it out as capital to businesses and corporations that want to expand their businesses either hiring new employees and/or construction new facilities.
Savings is the lifeblood of capitalism and economic growth.
Without investors in savings and stock nothing gets done.
Amazing the ignorance of basic Econ 101 here.

Not when it's in an offshore account.

 

[Rshermr]

So, again toddster said:

Because rich people don't spend every dollar they make, they are a drag on the economy.

To which I said "Perhaps you can find a place where I have ever said that."

So you don't agree with Christopher Brown, that's good, he doesn't sound very bright.

That does show you to be either very ignorant, or simply a con tool. Probably the latter. Really, trying to change the context of what someone said does indeed lack integrity.

Really, toddster, if you were not so dishonest it would be much easier to have a discussion with you. As it is, it is pretty much impossible. You are simply a con tool. Obviously. And another who passes the koch test each and every time.

 

[Rshermr]

These mental midgets believe saving money is stuffing it in a Mason jar and burying it in the backyard.
Saving money goes into banks and other financial institutions.
They take those savings and loan it out as capital to businesses and corporations that want to expand their businesses either hiring new employees and/or construction new facilities.
Savings is the lifeblood of capitalism and economic growth.
Without investors in savings and stock nothing gets done.
Amazing the ignorance of basic Econ 101 here.

Wow. Now that was profound. Did you believe that someone said that saving was bad???
Of course you did. Because you wanted to believe that.
Nice thing about con tools like you is that you are so predictable. You can always know, before you say anything, what you are going to say. Because you lack the ability to think independently. And you take you statements from the far right wing bat shit crazy con sites. ALWAYS.

I call it the Koch test. If the koch bros. would be in favor of it, so would the con tool. If the koch bros. would be against it, so would you be against it. Makes life so simple. Hell you do not even have to think. Just copy and paste. Take those right wing talking points and go forth.
So, if a study comes up saying that the wealthy do not spend new income at the level of the poor, you can get behind "liberals think weathy people are bad". Or you can post drivel like "liberals think saving is bad".
Which, technically, makes you a dipshit. IMHO.

Did you believe that someone said that saving was bad???


Christopher Brown said

"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.”"

Do you believe he meant that saving was good?

He stated a fact about savings and the wealthy. Do you believe that facts are bad??