Wealth Inequality in America

[sd'sker]

truth to power.

[tschu]

Conga, I think you just completely misunderstand the point of what I was saying. The ultra rich don't need that much money. Having so much of the country's wealth locked up with a very small percentage of citizens is not healthy for anyone. I don't care about your math, don't care what you think is fair or unfair. The fact of the matter is that the wealth distribution in the country right now is bad for everyone and we need to change our policies and tax structures and such to skew it back to a healthier state. Otherwise, like I said, the rich will continue to get even richer and the poor will continue to get even poorer. You may see this as socialism, but let's not get dramatic and carried away. The middle class is getting poorer and poorer, while if you're gifted with affluence, it's phenomenally easy for you to turn that into more and more money that you don't need. I mean, beyond say a net worth of, arbitrarily, say $2 million and income of, say, $100,000/yr, your quality of life isn't improving whatsoever. So let's get our financial policies into a position where the rich can still stay rich, but some of the money that would otherwise go into making people multibillionaires goes to people who need it to pay for food and clothes. I don't care about your multi-paragraph bullsh#t that is clearly just you trying to impress me with some financial figures. Doesn't change the fact that this is becoming an increasingly greater problem.

[Junior]

Not sure if this fits here, but I didn't want to start a new thread.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/business/as-pay-cards-replace-paychecks-bank-fees-hurt-workers.html?_r=0

 

A growing number of American workers are confronting a frustrating predicament on payday: to get their wages, they must first pay a fee.

 

For these largely hourly workers, paper paychecks and even direct deposit have been replaced by prepaid cards issued by their employers. Employees can use these cards, which work like debit cards, at an A.T.M. to withdraw their pay.

 

But in the overwhelming majority of cases, using the card involves a fee. And those fees can quickly add up: one provider, for example, charges $1.75 to make a withdrawal from most A.T.M.’s, $2.95 for a paper statement and $6 to replace a card. Some users even have to pay $7 inactivity fees for not using their cards.

 

These fees can take such a big bite out of paychecks that some employees end up making less than the minimum wage once the charges are taken into account, according to interviews with consumer lawyers, employees, and state and federal regulators.

[Axl_sued_me]

I'm pretty sure within the next 2 to 3 generations, there will be a global economic revolution. Hopefully before they stick microchips in our asses.

[strigori]

Not sure if this fits here, but I didn't want to start a new thread.

 

http://www.nytimes.c...rkers.html?_r=0

 

A growing number of American workers are confronting a frustrating predicament on payday: to get their wages, they must first pay a fee.

 

For these largely hourly workers, paper paychecks and even direct deposit have been replaced by prepaid cards issued by their employers. Employees can use these cards, which work like debit cards, at an A.T.M. to withdraw their pay.

 

But in the overwhelming majority of cases, using the card involves a fee. And those fees can quickly add up: one provider, for example, charges $1.75 to make a withdrawal from most A.T.M.’s, $2.95 for a paper statement and $6 to replace a card. Some users even have to pay $7 inactivity fees for not using their cards.

 

These fees can take such a big bite out of paychecks that some employees end up making less than the minimum wage once the charges are taken into account, according to interviews with consumer lawyers, employees, and state and federal regulators.

That kinda crap needs to be outlawed, ASAP.

 

We are coming full circle to the kinds of corporate horse crap that got unions started, and Teddy Roosevelt on the TrustBusting. Until workers wake the hell up and realize until they re-unionize they will continue to get screwed by employers, things will only get worse.

[Junior]

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/202172/mcdonalds-suggested-budget-for-employees-shows-just-how-impossible-it-is-to-get-by-on-minimum-wage/

 

McDonald’s has partnered with Visa to make a website dedicated to showing its employees how to properly budget their meager peasant salaries. However, what it actually does is illustrate the fact that it is nearly impossible to get by on minimum wage, as shown in this “example” budget chart:

Yeah– now, when I first saw that, I assumed that the top line was for a part-time McDonald’s employee. Then I got out my calculator– that is actually what you would make if you were working full-time at McDonald’s. 1,105 dollars a month.

Now let’s say that the “second” job that they budget in here (feels like cheating, but OK) is also minimum wage. That would mean you were working about 62 hours a week, on average. Oh, wait. That’s if they live in Illinois where the minimum wage is $8.25. The national minimum wage is $7.25. That translates to 74 hours a week. That’s almost a whole other full time job.

And what do you get for working 74 hours a week? Well, you don’t get heat, clearly. There’s a big ol’ zero next to the heat in that chart. In my building– we have separate checks for gas and electric– that would mean that not only do you not get to heat and cool your home, but also that you do not get to heat your water, or cook on your stove, if you have a gas stove (I do).

 

Also noticeably absent in this budget? Food. And gas. There’s a line for a car payment, but not for gas. Which is suspect, because if you’re working two jobs it’s possible you will pay more for your gas than you’d be paying for your car.

[strigori]

But clearly, as they are only working 60-72 hours a week, for $2k a month, they are a no good bums who just wants a hand out from the Gov right?

[Junior]

But clearly, as they are only working 60-72 hours a week, for $2k a month, they are a no good bums who just wants a hand out from the Gov right?

 

They obviously should get another job.

[Mavric]

But clearly, as they are only working 60-72 hours a week, for $2k a month, they are a no good bums who just wants a hand out from the Gov right?

 

They obviously should get another job.

Does it ever say that it has to be the same person with the second job, as opposed to a spouse/partner/whatever?

[BigRedBuster]

But clearly, as they are only working 60-72 hours a week, for $2k a month, they are a no good bums who just wants a hand out from the Gov right?

 

They obviously should get another job.

 

 

How about a different job?

[sd'sker]

you seem to have a double standard with this advice:

 

One of the biggest reasons besides the obvious that we can not afford to have this douche as our President is the simple fact that he has caused My family's small business thousands and thousands of dollars that we can not afford to lose anymore. I am sure that we are not alone in this even though some people seem to want to turn a blind eye.

sounds like your family's small business just needs to earn more or they need to find different jobs. easy solution.

 

 

Wow.......just.....wow........

i was just using your advice:

 

I wouldn't be happy either. But, you can sit and stew about it and be pissed or go find another job.

[carlfense]

you seem to have a double standard with this advice:

[BigRedBuster]

Simple.

 

I tend to distinguish between these two groups.

 

a) A business owner in a family business who has invested his own resources and has grown the business to be an asset to him and his family. Over a long period of time, investing personal assets can happen multiple times along with personally guaranteeing loans and supplier accounts in a manner that puts their own assets in jeopardy.

 

b) An employee working for the company. I know the employee works hard and is a value to the business owner and puts his own time in to make the company successful. But, in no way has an average employee committed personally as much to the company as the business owner.

 

Now, you might say..."Yeah, but the business owner takes more home from the company"...not necessarily. I have employees who make a lot more than me.

 

Now, I said that about McDonald's employees because quite frankly, I am not a fan of that company and if nobody ever went and ate another Big Mac I would be happy. So, I wish those employees would see that and find a better job.

 

 

PS...also.....there is a big difference between not getting paid what you want and so you find a different job than working hard to be successful only to have a government think they should have access to take more and more of what you make. Really, it's not apples to apples.

 

So, you have a different opinion. I get that. You see one side and I see the other.....

[sd'sker]

Simple.

 

I tend to distinguish between these two groups.

 

a) A business owner in a family business who has invested his own resources and has grown the business to be an asset to him and his family. Over a long period of time, investing personal assets can happen multiple times along with personally guaranteeing loans and supplier accounts in a manner that puts their own assets in jeopardy.

 

b) An employee working for the company. I know the employee works hard and is a value to the business owner and puts his own time in to make the company successful. But, in no way has an average employee committed personally as much to the company as the business owner.

 

Now, you might say..."Yeah, but the business owner takes more home from the company"...not necessarily. I have employees who make a lot more than me.

 

Now, I said that about McDonald's employees because quite frankly, I am not a fan of that company and if nobody ever went and ate another Big Mac I would be happy. So, I wish those employees would see that and find a better job.

 

So, you have a different opinion. I get that. You see one side and I see the other.....

i do not disagree with you thoughts. i just think everyone deserves a living wage. it is funny how people on welfare are lazy freeloaders and the people with jobs deserve no more sympathy.

[Count 'Bility]

I've kept tabs on this thread from the get-go. Nice work everyone. And I have to say, my original opinions are becoming quite swayed and I find myself agreeing with perspectives that I did not agree with even as soon as 3 months ago.