Wealth Inequality in America

[Junior]

A study last fall by the Institute for Policy Studies, a liberal Washington D.C. research group, found that CEOs in the country's S&P 500 companies make, on average, 319 times more than the average American worker.

 

IPS associate fellow Sam Pizzigati said that in the 1970s, that ratio was 30 to 1.

 

 

http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=11067470

 

But hey, just work harder and you'll be fine! (If the CEO wants you to be fine...)

[BigRedBuster]

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.

 

 

Sure they can. But, what right does anyone other than the people paying them that money have to say they can't?

[Creighton Duke]

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.

 

So you'd prefer the present model of making college more and more accessible by creating instituions that are of lower quality, more poorly administered, and teach little to no critical thinking? The same institutions that charge exorbitant tuition with little guarantee of a job afterwards? Yeah, let's just keep feeding into the college debt crisis (the next bubble).

 

Sorry, college isn't for everyone and to tell you the truth, I envy many of those who went the trade school route. Little debt and marketable skills that will always be in demand and will always pay a lot of money.

[carlfense]

Sorry, college isn't for everyone and to tell you the truth, I envy many of those who went the trade school route. Little debt and marketable skills that will always be in demand and will always pay a lot of money.

I agree.

[sd'sker]

So you'd prefer the present model of making college more and more accessible by creating instituions that are of lower quality, more poorly administered, and teach little to no critical thinking? The same institutions that charge exorbitant tuition with little guarantee of a job afterwards? Yeah, let's just keep feeding into the college debt crisis (the next bubble).

where did i say any of that? i think paper-mills are criminal. but i do not think that someone qualified to go to a state school should be burdened with debt for the next 50 years, nor do i think that the first course of action for state gov't in slumping economies should be to raise tuition.

 

Sorry, college isn't for everyone and to tell you the truth, I envy many of those who went the trade school route. Little debt and marketable skills that will always be in demand and will always pay a lot of money.

i agree.

[BigRedBuster]

Sorry, college isn't for everyone and to tell you the truth, I envy many of those who went the trade school route. Little debt and marketable skills that will always be in demand and will always pay a lot of money.

I agree.

 

 

Completely agree. AND, the education of the people that really should be there would be better if the many of the people who shouldn't be there weren't.

 

I'll flat out admit, I should not have been in college when I went. The first 2-2.5 years was a total waste. I should have gone out and worked/military first and understand what the hell real life was before I went to school.

[Creighton Duke]

So you'd prefer the present model of making college more and more accessible by creating instituions that are of lower quality, more poorly administered, and teach little to no critical thinking? The same institutions that charge exorbitant tuition with little guarantee of a job afterwards? Yeah, let's just keep feeding into the college debt crisis (the next bubble).

where did i say any of that? i think paper-mills are criminal. but i do not think that someone qualified to go to a state school should be burdened with debt for the next 50 years, nor do i think that the first course of action for state gov't in slumping economies should be to raise tuition.

 

"Qualified" is a very relative term. Also, there is more than enough financial aid out there for "qualified" kids to tap into. Why doesn't the kid have a job in HS and in college to help with expenses? Why did the parents never save a dime for college? Why do the kids major in "art appreciation" or "comparative literature" and complain when they can't find a job? Kids that are too stupid to realize that they GREATLY contributed to their own plight aren't "qualified" IMHO

[HuskerShark]

In a capitalist economy, there are going to be people who have great amounts of wealth, those who don't have much of anything, and those who fall somewhere in the middle. There is not a solution because there does not need to be.

I find it amazing, and somehow completely unsurprising that you are championing unfettered greed after debates in other threads. Kinda proves my point though

 

Who's championing greed, and what point would that prove? The reason that the wealthy people are so wealthy is because they are the SOURCE of the money. They either came up with something revolutionary and made a killing off of it (Bill Gates), they run HUGE, multi-national companies (Warren Buffet), or a combination of both. OR they inherited the money/assets from their father, grandfather, great grandfather who fit the other categories. That's all I'm saying. Wealthy people create jobs, middle-class citizens work those jobs, and middle-class citizens go to the store and buy products that were produced by the wealthy people. That's how the world works. Welcome to life.

[carlfense]

Who's championing greed, and what point would that prove? The reason that the wealthy people are so wealthy is because they are the SOURCE of the money. They either came up with something revolutionary and made a killing off of it (Bill Gates), they run HUGE, multi-national companies (Warren Buffet), or a combination of both. OR they inherited the money/assets from their father, grandfather, great grandfather who fit the other categories. That's all I'm saying. Wealthy people create jobs, middle-class citizens work those jobs, and middle-class citizens go to the store and buy products that were produced by the wealthy people. That's how the world works. Welcome to life.

Yikes.

[Junior]

In a capitalist economy, there are going to be people who have great amounts of wealth, those who don't have much of anything, and those who fall somewhere in the middle. There is not a solution because there does not need to be.

I find it amazing, and somehow completely unsurprising that you are championing unfettered greed after debates in other threads. Kinda proves my point though

 

Who's championing greed, and what point would that prove? The reason that the wealthy people are so wealthy is because they are the SOURCE of the money. They either came up with something revolutionary and made a killing off of it (Bill Gates), they run HUGE, multi-national companies (Warren Buffet), or a combination of both. OR they inherited the money/assets from their father, grandfather, great grandfather who fit the other categories. That's all I'm saying. Wealthy people create jobs, middle-class citizens work those jobs, and middle-class citizens go to the store and buy products that were produced by the wealthy people. That's how the world works. Welcome to life.

 

I think the point currently being made is that the "wealthy people create jobs" line is bunk. WE create jobs by purchasing, using, etc. The wealthy people are hoarding their wealth, taking exorbitant salaries from their companies, and then claiming the companies aren't making enough money to pay for Obamacare. They they go around laying off employees, while raking in money most people can't even fathom.

[KJ.]

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?

 

The other $500,000

 

If a company makes $1mm, you have to ask yourself why they made it and who gets the credit. The CEO obviously has a much bigger influence on the bottom line than any other person in the company, especially the peasants. It's a tough reality to accept for a lot of people, but if you're an entry-level employee at a large company you have ~ zero significance towards the company's revenues. Sure, your work is important, but you're replaceable. If you were to suddenly quit, co-workers could probably step up and complete your duties or they'd hire somebody else who can.

 

CEOs, on the other hand, are difficult to replace. They are required to know their company and industry inside-and-out and are responsible for a significant amount of the profits. They're also responsible for negative profits, so when a company doesn't do so well they're the first to be let go. By nature it is a high risk job, and they expect (and deserve) to be compensated for that. Peasants, on the other hand, just need to get somewhat satisfactory reviews, not watch porn at work, and they'll know they have a job next year.

[KJ.]

So you'd prefer the present model of making college more and more accessible by creating instituions that are of lower quality, more poorly administered, and teach little to no critical thinking? The same institutions that charge exorbitant tuition with little guarantee of a job afterwards? Yeah, let's just keep feeding into the college debt crisis (the next bubble).

where did i say any of that? i think paper-mills are criminal. but i do not think that someone qualified to go to a state school should be burdened with debt for the next 50 years, nor do i think that the first course of action for state gov't in slumping economies should be to raise tuition.

 

"Qualified" is a very relative term. Also, there is more than enough financial aid out there for "qualified" kids to tap into. Why doesn't the kid have a job in HS and in college to help with expenses? Why did the parents never save a dime for college? Why do the kids major in "art appreciation" or "comparative literature" and complain when they can't find a job? Kids that are too stupid to realize that they GREATLY contributed to their own plight aren't "qualified" IMHO

Exactly. Anyone who actually goes to college strictly to "learn about their interest" or something is a moron. College is an investment. Make a list of all degrees that will actually get you a job and make you money upon graduation, and then pick the one that is most interesting to you from that list. If you're not smart enough to do that or anything else on the list, go get a job out of high school and save yourself the debt. If nothing is interesting, go get a job at Starbucks and follow your passion of art loving through Google images and save yourself the debt.

[sd'sker]

So you'd prefer the present model of making college more and more accessible by creating instituions that are of lower quality, more poorly administered, and teach little to no critical thinking? The same institutions that charge exorbitant tuition with little guarantee of a job afterwards? Yeah, let's just keep feeding into the college debt crisis (the next bubble).

where did i say any of that? i think paper-mills are criminal. but i do not think that someone qualified to go to a state school should be burdened with debt for the next 50 years, nor do i think that the first course of action for state gov't in slumping economies should be to raise tuition.

 

"Qualified" is a very relative term. Also, there is more than enough financial aid out there for "qualified" kids to tap into. Why doesn't the kid have a job in HS and in college to help with expenses? Why did the parents never save a dime for college? Why do the kids major in "art appreciation" or "comparative literature" and complain when they can't find a job? Kids that are too stupid to realize that they GREATLY contributed to their own plight aren't "qualified" IMHO

is that how you view the average college student? and why do you assume all these families just have spare cash they are wasting instead of saving?

 

does this seem reasonable to you?:

[Junior]

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?

 

The other $500,000

 

If a company makes $1mm, you have to ask yourself why they made it and who gets the credit. The CEO obviously has a much bigger influence on the bottom line than any other person in the company, especially the peasants. It's a tough reality to accept for a lot of people, but if you're an entry-level employee at a large company you have ~ zero significance towards the company's revenues. Sure, your work is important, but you're replaceable. If you were to suddenly quit, co-workers could probably step up and complete your duties or they'd hire somebody else who can.

 

CEOs, on the other hand, are difficult to replace. They are required to know their company and industry inside-and-out and are responsible for a significant amount of the profits. They're also responsible for negative profits, so when a company doesn't do so well they're the first to be let go. By nature it is a high risk job, and they expect (and deserve) to be compensated for that. Peasants, on the other hand, just need to get somewhat satisfactory reviews, not watch porn at work, and they'll know they have a job next year.

 

I had a job all through high school and college. And I still graduated (11 years ago) with almost $20,000 of student loans.

[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?

 

The other $500,000

 

If a company makes $1mm, you have to ask yourself why they made it and who gets the credit. The CEO obviously has a much bigger influence on the bottom line than any other person in the company, especially the peasants. It's a tough reality to accept for a lot of people, but if you're an entry-level employee at a large company you have ~ zero significance towards the company's revenues. Sure, your work is important, but you're replaceable. If you were to suddenly quit, co-workers could probably step up and complete your duties or they'd hire somebody else who can.

 

CEOs, on the other hand, are difficult to replace. They are required to know their company and industry inside-and-out and are responsible for a significant amount of the profits. They're also responsible for negative profits, so when a company doesn't do so well they're the first to be let go. By nature it is a high risk job, and they expect (and deserve) to be compensated for that. Peasants, on the other hand, just need to get somewhat satisfactory reviews, not watch porn at work, and they'll know they have a job next year.

That'd be a wonderful theory . . . but haven't you seen enough examples of golden parachutes and lavish compensation packages despite absolutely terrible results?

 

 

—though Obermatt's pay-for-performance metric for the largest firms shows no correlation between performance and shareholders' voting patterns.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/02/focus-0