Wealth Inequality in America

[The Dude]

Great work CNN, yeah THIS IMAGE accurately describes why millennials are living at home.

They forgot the bong.

[tschu]

KJ, answer me this.

 

If all of the sheet metal workers in the world "worked harder" to "get better jobs" ...who would we have to do our sheet metal work?

 

It's not possible for everyone to be rich. We can't all be CEOs. If everyone worked really really hard, which most people do, everyone can't get to the top. And that's why we're having this discussion and why the nation is having this problem.

[KJ.]

KJ, answer me this.

 

If all of the sheet metal workers in the world "worked harder" to "get better jobs" ...who would we have to do our sheet metal work?

Well working hard is a relative thing, so it couldn't really happen. No matter how hard everyone works, 50% of people are always going to be in the bottom half.

 

It's not possible for everyone to be rich. We can't all be CEOs. If everyone worked really really hard, which most people do, everyone can't get to the top. And that's why we're having this discussion and why the nation is having this problem.

Absolutely. It's not possible. But why is the nation "having this problem" when it's something that's just not possible? Is it really an issue if it's inevitable?

 

That aside, my original post directed at you was just in response to the opinion you formed from those charts. I wasn't saying that it's not an issue, just that you can't point to increased wages relative to prior decades after saying some people are going to be more successful than others.

[KJ.]

.

[tschu]

It's an issue because the inequality affects real people in real ways. The cream should always rise to the top and be rewarded for it, but not at such great cost to the majority of the population who are in the lower-middle class. Again, it's not that there's inequality...it's that the inequality is so massively unbalanced and is getting worse. If the top 1% is making crazy absurd amounts of money and the lower-middle class is still making enough to not struggle, then it's not a problem. But clearly the lower-middle class has been struggling more than ever.

[KJ.]

It's an issue because the inequality affects real people in real ways. The cream should always rise to the top and be rewarded for it, but not at such great cost to the majority of the population who are in the lower-middle class. Again, it's not that there's inequality...it's that the inequality is so massively unbalanced and is getting worse. If the top 1% is making crazy absurd amounts of money and the lower-middle class is still making enough to not struggle, then it's not a problem. But clearly the lower-middle class has been struggling more than ever.

Are they? This and the red are not the same thing.

[tschu]

Let me answer that for you; yes they are

[carlfense]

The wealthy got to where they are at by budgeting and being smart with their money, not because of tax breaks and such.

Some of them did.

 

You don't think that changes to our tax code have been extremely beneficial to the wealthiest Americans?

[Stumpy1]

The wealthy got to where they are at by budgeting and being smart with their money, not because of tax breaks and such.

Some of them did.

 

You don't think that changes to our tax code have been extremely beneficial to the wealthiest Americans?

Sure, It is beneficial to them after they became wealthy. Could tax breaks for the middle class help narrow the gap? It might help some but then again, it depends on what people do with it.

[Mavric]

The wealthy got to where they are at by budgeting and being smart with their money, not because of tax breaks and such.

Some of them did.

 

You don't think that changes to our tax code have been extremely beneficial to the wealthiest Americans?

That depends on what changes you're talking about and what time frame you are referring to.

[carlfense]

That depends on what changes you're talking about and what time frame you are referring to.

 

(Keep in mind that the latest change to the to bracket ratchets this all the way back up to 39.6% )

[Mavric]

And saying the tax code changes have benefited the rich because they used to be 94% and now they're only 39.6% is akin to Obama saying he has cut the deficit in half since he took office. Both may be factually accurate but that doesn't really tell you anything without looking at a bigger picture.

 

As I said, it depends on your time frame. Starting at any time in the last 25 years (and others before that), the changes in the tax code have definitely not been "extremely beneficial" to the wealthy.

[carlfense]

And saying the tax code changes have benefited the rich because they used to be 94% and now they're only 39.6% is akin to Obama saying he has cut the deficit in half since he took office. Both may be factually accurate but that doesn't really tell you anything without looking at a bigger picture.

 

As I said, it depends on your time frame. Starting at any time in the last 25 years (and others before that), the changes in the tax code have definitely not been "extremely beneficial" to the wealthy.

I've never been one to settle for mere factual accuracy.

[KJ.]

I'm loving the regression line on that graph.

[Junior]

http://www.thedailyb...m=Cheat%20Sheet

 

This week has seen mass protests and job walk-outs across the fast-food industry, with employees from McDonald’s to Taco Bell demanding higher wages and better treatment. Some labor economists have said that a slight increase in the price of a burger could result in a big jump in wages—enough to raise the fortunes of thousands of $7.25-an-hour employees. (Even working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, a minimum-wage worker only takes home $15,080 a year, well below thepoverty line of $18,480 for a family of three.)

 

 

But if the fast-food giants agreed to do this, would consumers bite?

 

 

To find out, we consulted with economists Jeannette Wicks-Lim and Robert Pollin who have studied the relationship between wage increases in the fast-food industry and the cost of doing business. Using their formula, we created a Big Mac calculator that lets you see how your extra cents could translate into real-life wages. Give it a try!

 

I don't know about you all, but I'd be willing to pay $0.25 more for a Big Mac (assuming I ever ate one) so that people would have something approaching a livable wage.