Wealth Inequality in America

[carlfense]

believe it or not, there is a finite amount of wealth. and the issue is a lot bigger than you vs. your rich neighbor.

Exactly. If a given company brings in $1 million each year and the CEO's pay is increased from $250,000 to $750,000 . . . where is the money for the other employees going to come from?

 

but how, pray tell, is the 99% less competive than in the '80s? seriously? please explain how the hell that is and how you can demonstrate it with empirical evidence.

^^^This.

[carlfense]

The term that will get marched out immediately is 'class warfare' which Fox has done such a great job riling the poor people up to defend the ultra wealthy. The right wing has done such a masterful job of convincing people to vote against their own economic interests.

Another Luntzian success story.

 

Luckily they aren't making as many old angry white people as they used to.

[carlfense]

I think the correct way to address this issue would be a consumption tax. If you spend high amounts of money, then pay taxes on it.

 

Every time something like this, I preach the same thing. We have lost manufacturing jobs in this country. We have been sold out by the crooks on both sides of the aisle. There are no reasonable jobs for a high school individual that is intelligent and wants to work. Furthermore, we are sending people through degree mills to come up to $20K service jobs.

 

I am concerned about how many corporations literately pay no taxes. I would also see them passing it along to the customer if things were to change. I don't see how this would be any different with minimum wage. In the end the middle class pays for it.

The problem is that consumption taxes tend to be more regressive than income taxes. Rather than alleviating the problem . . . a consumption tax would exacerbate it.

[Junior]

That's some scary shhhhhtuff. The problem I see is that, when dealing with the top 1 or 2%, wealth and taxable income are not remotely the same thing. I'm not opposed to punitively taxing that groups income but I really don't see how it would begin to make a dent in Washington's drunken spending spree. And, it would do little to nothing towards balancing out the wealth distribution in the country. I guess we could feel better knowing that small group was paying through the teeth but would it really fix anything? Is there enough possible tax revenue in that group to actually increase funding for the government and at the same time allow some relief for the middle class?

 

I don't know what the answer is, but the situation we are currently looking at is unsustainable. The people at the top don't care that, in the long run, a healthy middle and lower class is better for everyone. They only care what their salary is right now. The guys at the top do control the wealth of the rest of us. They control how much the factory workers get paid, how much health insurance they get, etc. If $1000 of goods are sold and the CEOs keep, say, 80% of it... there's not a lot to "trickle down" to the rest of us.

[carlfense]

I quit watching in the first few seconds when it was 500 people were asked how they though wealth was distributed. I'm sick of this. Wealth is not distributed. It's earned. If you dont like what you earn, then find a way to earn more.

 

No, I didnt watch the entire video and I didnt read any of the thread. The title caugh my eye, and this is my simple opinion. This isnt China or Russia.

Totally agree. Go where/do something where you have a comparative advantage.

Didn't take statistics at Creighton or Duke . . . did you?

[Junior]

http://www.forbes.co...on-12_land.html

 

You're telling me some of these guys couldn't stand to make a little less? The CEO of Target making $30 million a year?

 

#1 on the list? CEO of McKesson - Health care information and medical supplies. He makes... $131 Million a year. Keep trying to tell me the medical system isn't completely rigged.

[Creighton Duke]

I quit watching in the first few seconds when it was 500 people were asked how they though wealth was distributed. I'm sick of this. Wealth is not distributed. It's earned. If you dont like what you earn, then find a way to earn more.

 

No, I didnt watch the entire video and I didnt read any of the thread. The title caugh my eye, and this is my simple opinion. This isnt China or Russia.

Totally agree. Go where/do something where you have a comparative advantage.

Didn't take statistics at Creighton or Duke . . . did you?

Nope, and neither did you.

[carlfense]

I quit watching in the first few seconds when it was 500 people were asked how they though wealth was distributed. I'm sick of this. Wealth is not distributed. It's earned. If you dont like what you earn, then find a way to earn more.

 

No, I didnt watch the entire video and I didnt read any of the thread. The title caugh my eye, and this is my simple opinion. This isnt China or Russia.

Totally agree. Go where/do something where you have a comparative advantage.

Didn't take statistics at Creighton or Duke . . . did you?

Nope, and neither did you.

Correct! I took it at UNL.

 

Whether due to that education or not . . . I can look at a statistical distribution of something without having a minor socialism/fascism/communism panic attack.

[Creighton Duke]

I quit watching in the first few seconds when it was 500 people were asked how they though wealth was distributed. I'm sick of this. Wealth is not distributed. It's earned. If you dont like what you earn, then find a way to earn more.

 

No, I didnt watch the entire video and I didnt read any of the thread. The title caugh my eye, and this is my simple opinion. This isnt China or Russia.

Totally agree. Go where/do something where you have a comparative advantage.

Didn't take statistics at Creighton or Duke . . . did you?

Nope, and neither did you.

Correct! I took it at UNL.

Cool

[sd'sker]

Let's say you work 8-hours a day, 5 days a week and spend 100% of your income on living expenses. At the end of each month your bank account is $0.

 

If you increase your productivity - and that can mean many things - or increase your efficiency - which can also mean many things - you will have a surplus at the end of the month.

 

This surplus is wealth.

 

And yes, 'money' is created out of thin air when an economy is more productive/efficient. Money is not matter.

 

-------

this is an unsatisfactory answer and i am not sure what it explains. that money comes from somewhere. it comes from the business that pays the worker. this is a good example of microeconomics, but it hardly explains wealth distributions and american macroeconomics. you are explaining how someone can increase their spending power, but not how money is created. money is a zero sum game. the only aberration is the amount of debt a person is able to take on, then money seems to come from thin and vanishes just as quickly.

Economic concepts are sometimes difficult to wrap your head around.

 

For example, if you go to Walmart and grab a cart out of the parking lot instead of the cart rack at the front of the store, you are reducing the prices of the goods you are about to buy in the store. The amount maybe negligible, but the economic concept is nonetheless true.

 

---

what does this have to do with anything and do you have any empirical evidence that this or true or normative reports of how this effects the economy?

The word 'productivity' is used throughout economic discussions but its meaning varies greatly.

 

Like the point made earlier that "productivity" gains have outpaced "wages" since the 70's...

 

These words/concepts are incredibly deceiving when discussing them at the level of the US Economy.

 

The MSNBC article and EPI report tried to correlate wages and productivity, but kinda sorta forgot to mention the biggest thing to happen in the last 30 years to effect productivity. Also, 'wages' is not compensation.

with computers, would productivity not be increased? according to you that equals more wealth. but there have been technological advancements throughout time, usually it means greater wealth for all. how, exactly, has computers effected wealth distribution?

----

and to those who say that 'wealth is earned, not distributed', do you really believe the the top 1% really work that much harder than everyone else? do you really believe the rest of the nation are just that much lazier than 30 years ago? do you really think it is just that simple? that changes in tax code, wages stagnating, increased debt at younger ages and everything else has no effect?

[carlfense]

and to those who say that 'wealth is earned, not distributed', do you really believe the the top 1% really work that much harder than everyone else?

It's simpler than that . . . those who leave in disgust about a discussion of the statistical distribution of wealth almost certainly don't understand what "distribution" means in context.

[carlfense]

Cool

I disagree . . . other than the fact that the TA was extremely attractive.

[sd'sker]

Cool

I disagree . . . other than the fact that the TA was extremely attractive.

a ta with t&a?

[Creighton Duke]

Cool

I disagree . . . other than the fact that the TA was extremely attractive.

My undergrad stats profs and TAs were all Asian and my graduate economics prof (same guy for Macro and Micro) was a nerd from Oregon. Guess you got me there.

[sd'sker]

and to those who say that 'wealth is earned, not distributed', do you really believe the the top 1% really work that much harder than everyone else?

It's simpler than that . . . those who leave in disgust about a discussion of the statistical distribution of wealth almost certainly don't understand what "distribution" means in context.

that is true. people posses wealth and that share of wealth is what is being referred to. i think they want to frame those who are concerned about wealth 'distribution' as communists and just leave it at that. that way we are just simple-minded, idealistic fools and they can easily dismiss us.

 

seeing people so simply dismiss this complex and serious issue, it is no wonder republicans always want to cut education and make college more exclusive, they are protecting their base.