Wealth Inequality in America

[gobiggergoredder]

This isn't what I was talking about. Was talking about the economy as a whole.. Also if the banks stopped lending, there would be zero money. All money is bank debt.

The banks ensure that we are always fighting to pay them back more money than actually exists at any one time.

So what exactly are you talking about? Please explain?

 

Also, if banks stopped lending how exactly would there be no money? An individual, business or organization has to operate in debt?

[Conga3]

i have no idea what you're saying and you have no idea what I'm saying. probably a good place to just end it

Don't give up so easy.

 

Remember, someone else not understanding what you're talking about has more to do with your ability to express your thoughts and ideas into words that can be interpreted correctly by others who aren't already thinking the same things as you.

 

This sub-forum is a great place to practice thinking and communicating with others of a different view point as you.

[tschu]

This isn't what I was talking about. Was talking about the economy as a whole.. Also if the banks stopped lending, there would be zero money. All money is bank debt.

The banks ensure that we are always fighting to pay them back more money than actually exists at any one time.

So what exactly are you talking about? Please explain?

 

Also, if banks stopped lending how exactly would there be no money? An individual, business or organization has to operate in debt?

 

Apparently sd'sker is the only one here who shares this knowledge...and i only took 1/2 of 1 econ class

[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.

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...2012/02/focus-0

Carl, got anything on compensation including base pay? That's an interesting article/analysis (thanks for posting ) but here's my issue with it:

 

Their evaluation of performance uses a relation to industry average instead of a nominal number. So they are regressing pay (number) on industry position (ratio). Since a regression is a measure of linear fit, you'd like the things in the regression to have a somewhat linear relationship to each other. I would argue that they aren't linear but instead logarithmic - especially as profits increase - meaning that for every additional $1 the company makes the CEO's cut will be less and less as the company becomes richer. That affect gets compounded when analyzing industry position: when the top company in the industry makes that extra $1, they are still #1 by about the same percentage amount.

 

Anyway...to summarize, most of the CEOs on that "Most underpaid" part happen to work for some great companies. If Steve Jobs makes twice as much as a competitor CEO, but Apple makes 3x as much money as them, he'd look underpaid. I would argue that this is going to happen naturally by a logarithmic nature of salary pay, but you could always argue it's linear or exponential and take the other side.

[Conga3]

This isn't what I was talking about. Was talking about the economy as a whole.. Also if the banks stopped lending, there would be zero money. All money is bank debt.

The banks ensure that we are always fighting to pay them back more money than actually exists at any one time.

So what exactly are you talking about? Please explain?

 

Also, if banks stopped lending how exactly would there be no money? An individual, business or organization has to operate in debt?

 

Apparently sd'sker is the only one here who shares this knowledge...and i only took 1/2 of 1 econ class

 

Thanks for sharing. That's a pretty good video explaining our "money system" and brings up some important points about how 'money' has changed since the creation of the Fed Reserve.

 

I will say, however, money is not wealth (wtf??!) and the video does not tell the whole story.

 

No time right now to get into this, but thanks for explaining the origin of your previous statements.

 

This is a HUGE topic... and very important to understand, discuss and explore. I'll be back!

[carlfense]

i just worry about the long term economic effect of the disappearing middle-class and the lack of upward mobility.

[Junior]

i just worry about the long term economic effect of the disappearing middle-class and the lack of upward mobility.

 

As long as the "job creators" are rich, who cares!

 

[carlfense]

i just worry about the long term economic effect of the disappearing middle-class and the lack of upward mobility.

 

As long as the "job creators" are rich, who cares!

Unemployment would drop if we'd just cut their taxes and lower the capital gains rates!

[knapplc]

i just worry about the long term economic effect of the disappearing middle-class and the lack of upward mobility.

 

As long as the "job creators" are rich, who cares!

Unemployment would drop if we'd just cut their taxes and lower the capital gains rates!

And repeal Obamacare. Look a all the jobs we've lost since 1/1/13!!

[tschu]

Conga, money isn't necessarily wealth, but it often times can be wealth, and more importantly is the means to acquire wealth. When you can manipulate money like the rich can (guess where all the interest us common folk pay goes to? That's right, the 1%) and manipulate political policy, and even take measures to try to steer the markets in whatever direction, you have the power to accumulate even more wealth. And it will always be at the expense of the 99%.

 

I'm not trying to complain about what the 1% does, it's only human nature to try to get richer, but it's just a dumb system that government currently does nothing to solve. You can make $1 billion in capital gains and still pay just 15% on it. There are teachers and bank tellers and construction workers that pay more taxes than that. I love capitalism and there will always be rich folks, but it's government's job to protect and serve its citizens - all of its citizens, and there are a lot of middle and lower class people out there

[The King]

Conga, money isn't necessarily wealth, but it often times can be wealth, and more importantly is the means to acquire wealth. When you can manipulate money like the rich can (guess where all the interest us common folk pay goes to? That's right, the 1%) and manipulate political policy, and even take measures to try to steer the markets in whatever direction, you have the power to accumulate even more wealth. And it will always be at the expense of the 99%.

 

I'm not trying to complain about what the 1% does, it's only human nature to try to get richer, but it's just a dumb system that government currently does nothing to solve. You can make $1 billion in capital gains and still pay just 15% on it. There are teachers and bank tellers and construction workers that pay more taxes than that. I love capitalism and there will always be rich folks, but it's government's job to protect and serve its citizens - all of its citizens, and there are a lot of middle and lower class people out there

 

Too bad our government is run by corporations at this point. Whoever gets money from corporations ----> win the election. Lots of the same corporations will donate money to both political parties, to keep a 3rd party out of it...and maintain their interests.

 

Governments main purpose is to maintain the interests of there corporate sponsors at this point... They know the recipe to getting elected is corporate money and sponsors, so they won't change that.

[gobiggergoredder]

Too bad our government is run by corporations at this point. Whoever gets money from corporations ----> win the election. Lots of the same corporations will donate money to both political parties, to keep a 3rd party out of it...and maintain their interests.

 

Governments main purpose is to maintain the interests of there corporate sponsors at this point... They know the recipe to getting elected is corporate money and sponsors, so they won't change that.

 

According to the Washington Post[/url], the median net worth in 2009 of a House representative was more than 2.5 times more than it was in 1984 — $725,00 vs. $280,000 — adjusted for inflation.]

http://www.pri.org/stories/politics-society/government/average-net-worth-of-congressmen-and-women-now-913-000-7658.html

[gobiggergoredder]

Lawmaker Net worth Party, state

Rep. Michael McCaul $290.5 million R-Texas

Sen. John Kerry $198.8 million D-Mass.

Rep. Darrell Issa $140.6 million R-Calif.

Rep. Jared Polis $91.1 million D-Colo.

Sen. Mark Warner $85.9 million D-Va.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller $83.1 million D-W.Va.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal $80.1 million D-Conn.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg $56.9 million D-N.J.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein $47.2 million D-Calif.

Rep. Jim Renacci $36.7 million R-Ohio

Rep. Vern Buchanan $36.5 million R-Fla.

Rep. Chellie Pingree $31.8 million D-Maine

Rep. Nancy Pelosi $26.4 million D-Calif.

Rep. Diane Black $24.8 million R-Tenn.

Rep. Rick Berg $23.8 million R-N.D.

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen $21.7 million R-N.J.

Sen. Bob Corker $19.6 million R-Tenn.

Sen. Jim Risch $19.1 million R-Idaho

Rep. Gary Miller $17.4 million R-Calif.

Rep. Mike Kelly $14.9 million R-Penn.

Sen. Claire McCaskill $14.6 million D-Mo.

Sen. Ron Wyden $14.5 million D-Ore.

Rep. Nita Lowey $14.3 million D-N.Y.

Rep. Richard Hanna $13.7 million R-N.Y.

Rep. Nan Hayworth $12.3 million R-N.Y.

Sen. Ron Johnson $12 million R-Wis.

Rep. Trent Franks $11.6 million R-Ariz.

Rep. Scott Rigell $10.8 million R-Va.

Rep. Kenny Marchant $10.4 million R-Texas

Rep. James Sensenbrenner $10.2 million R-Wis.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney $10.1 million D-N.Y.

Rep. Herb Kohl $10.1 million D-Wis.

Sen. Tom Harkin $10 million D-Iowa

Rep. Tom Petri $9.5 million R-Wis.

Rep. Shelley Berkley $9.2 million D-Nev.

Sen. Olympia Snowe $9 million R-Maine

Sen. Mitch McConnell $8.9 million R-Ky.

Rep. Lloyd Doggett $8.9 million D-Texas

Rep. John Campbell $8.9 million D-Calif.

Sen. Johnny Isakson $8.7 million R-Ga.

Sen. John Hoeven $8.4 million R-N.D.

Rep. Tom Price $8.1 million R-Ga.

Rep. Fred Upton $7.7 million R-Mich.

Rep. Steve Pearce $7.5 million R-N.M.

Rep. Bill Flores $7.1 million R-Texas

Rep. Randy Neugebauer $7.1 million R-Texas

Sen. Rob Portman $6.7 million R-Ohio

Rep. John Yarmuth $6.5 million D-Ky.

Sen. Ben Nelson $6.1 million D-Neb.

Rep. Cynthia Lummis $5.9 million R-Wyo.

[strigori]

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.

Maybe you need to go open your book again and re-read for all the anti-greed messages. You sure missed that message.

 

You also need to lean how economics work. You are trumpeting supply side, or as its also know, trickle down, economics. Consumer demand creates jobs. Not money, shop being a Fox Shill. Companies are sitting on massive stockpiles of capital, and they arn't sitting around going "Damn, we have all this money, lets go hire people, or give raises to the workers" They are stuffing the lettered jobs pockets, and kicking back eating cake.

[gobiggergoredder]

There is one thing that is common in the thread. If you say anything about personal accountability or capitalism, you are one of the following:

1. A know nothing about economics.
   
2. A raging right winger.
   
3. A Fox News DVR freak.
   
4. All together ignorant.
   

Go back and read some of your responses to items you don't agree with. Some people aren't victims. Some people still believe that they have some control over their destiny. My favorite is the college kids that think they are Ernie Goss.