72% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck

[CosmicCowboy]

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/majority-of-americans-live-paycheck-to-paycheck-103297369.html

Majority of Americans Live Paycheck to Paycheck

SAN ANTONIO, Sept. 20 /PRNewswire/ -- More than two-thirds of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, according to results released today from a survey by the American Payroll Association.
The "Getting Paid In America" annual survey asked respondents how difficult it would be to meet their current financial obligations if their paychecks were delayed for a week. More than 22,500 of the more than 31,000 respondents, 72 percent, said they would find it somewhat or very difficult to meet their financial obligations if their paychecks were delayed. This is up one percent over the 2009 result of 71 percent.
"This result reinforces the notion that Americans are still struggling in this current economy," said Dan Maddux, executive director of the American Payroll Association. "Employees should use free payroll-related benefits such as direct deposit, 401(k) plans and Flexible Spending Accounts to ease savings, reduce tax burden and maximize paychecks."
Thankfully people feel confident that their paycheck will always be accurate. The survey showed 89 percent of Americans are very or somewhat certain the amount of their paychecks is correct each payday.
Increasingly complex tax laws and benefit structures make paycheck calculation a challenging task. The high percentage of employees satisfied with their paycheck accuracy is a testament to the payroll professionals who calculate paychecks each pay period.
"Automated technology solutions make managing payroll easier to ensure checks are accurate and get out on time," said Joyce O'Donnell Maroney, managing director, Workforce Institute, Kronos Incorporated.
The "Getting Paid In America" survey was held in conjunction with APA's annual public awareness campaign, National Payroll Week (NPW), held annually the week of Labor Day. More than 31,000 employees responded to the survey, providing insight into how workers are paid in America. For complete results, visit www.nationalpayrollweek.com.
Established in 1982, the American Payroll Association is the nation's leader in payroll education, publications, and training. The nonprofit association conducts more than 300 payroll training conferences and seminars across the country each year and publishes a complete library of resource texts and newsletters. Every year, nearly 20,000 professionals attend APA training sessions. Representing more than 23,000 members, APA is the industry's highly respected and collective voice in Washington, D.C. Visit APA online at www.americanpayroll.org.

[RandomGuy]

Child hunger as seen at Wal-Mart (http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/09/21/130015506/formula-at-midnight-what-wal-mart-knows-about-child-hunger)

Why would somebody buy baby formula at midnight?

Bill Simon, the head of Wal-Mart's U.S. operations, answered this question in a talk last week.

And you need not go further than one of our stores on midnight at the end of the month. And it's real interesting to watch, about 11 p.m., customers start to come in and shop, fill their grocery basket with basic items, baby formula, milk, bread, eggs, and continue to shop and mill about the store until midnight, when ... government electronic benefits cards get activated and then the checkout starts and occurs. And our sales for those first few hours on the first of the month are substantially and significantly higher.

And if you really think about it, the only reason somebody gets out in the middle of the night and buys baby formula is that they need it, and they've been waiting for it. Otherwise, we are open 24 hours — come at 5 a.m., come at 7 a.m., come at 10 a.m. But if you are there at midnight, you are there for a reason.

What Wal-Mart calls the "paycheck cycle" has recently been "extreme," Simon said, with lots of shoppers at the beginning of the month and fewer at the end.

Wal-Mart is also seeing an "ever-increasing amount of transactions being paid for with government assistance," he said.

This is what a rising poverty rate looks like.

Here's the full transcript of Simon's talk, which he gave at last week's Goldman Sachs Retail Conference. Hat tip: WSJ

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/09/21/130015506/formula-at-midnight-what-wal-mart-knows-about-child-hunger

[TeyshaBlue]

Child hunger as seen at Wal-Mart (http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/09/21/130015506/formula-at-midnight-what-wal-mart-knows-about-child-hunger)

Why would somebody buy baby formula at midnight?

Bill Simon, the head of Wal-Mart's U.S. operations, answered this question in a talk last week.

And you need not go further than one of our stores on midnight at the end of the month. And it's real interesting to watch, about 11 p.m., customers start to come in and shop, fill their grocery basket with basic items, baby formula, milk, bread, eggs, and continue to shop and mill about the store until midnight, when ... government electronic benefits cards get activated and then the checkout starts and occurs. And our sales for those first few hours on the first of the month are substantially and significantly higher.

And if you really think about it, the only reason somebody gets out in the middle of the night and buys baby formula is that they need it, and they've been waiting for it. Otherwise, we are open 24 hours — come at 5 a.m., come at 7 a.m., come at 10 a.m. But if you are there at midnight, you are there for a reason.

What Wal-Mart calls the "paycheck cycle" has recently been "extreme," Simon said, with lots of shoppers at the beginning of the month and fewer at the end.

Wal-Mart is also seeing an "ever-increasing amount of transactions being paid for with government assistance," he said.

This is what a rising poverty rate looks like.

Here's the full transcript of Simon's talk, which he gave at last week's Goldman Sachs Retail Conference. Hat tip: WSJ

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/09/21/130015506/formula-at-midnight-what-wal-mart-knows-about-child-hunger

Holy Carp. That's some interesting analysis from Wal Mart. I'd never considered the effect seen like this.

[DMX7]

I heard Wal-Marts in one major metro area told their employees that if they wanted health insurance they should just go on Medicaid.

[boutons_deux]

At least The Greatest Empire In The History of the Universe has its kick-ass, suicidal, 5-star, gold-plated military and the financial sector to see us through.

[Crookshanks]

It's the same way on military bases. The commissary is always way, way more crowded on paydays than on other days of the month. When I was a military wife, we'd go the day before and write a check because we knew it wouldn't hit the bank for a couple of days. But it was not unusual to stand in line for 30 minutes to check out!

[DMX7]

But... But....But... If Wal-Mart has to pay for its emlpoyees' health insurance, I won't be able to save 10 cents on a pair of socks from there. You see, it's a fair tradeoff.

[MannyIsGod]

Meanwhile, the top few percent in this country are doing just fine aren't they? Call it populism, call it wealth redistribution, call it whatever you want but if this trend holds up we won't live in a peaceful society.

[rjv]

Meanwhile, the top few percent in this country are doing just fine aren't they? Call it populism, call it wealth redistribution, call it whatever you want but if this trend holds up we won't live in a peaceful society.

what does this mean ?

[coyotes_geek]

Unless you believe that 72% of Americans live in poverty isn't the bigger issue here how many people with the means to provide some kind of financial security for themselves choose not to?

[MannyIsGod]

what does this mean ?

It means that large amounts of people living in poverty tend to breed a lot of discontent. I could just be talking out of my ass here, but I'm fairly certain a fairly large percentage of human violence in the past is based upon trouble between the haves and have nots.

[coyotes_geek]

But... But....But... If Wal-Mart has to pay for its emlpoyees' health insurance, I won't be able to save 10 cents on a pair of socks from there. You see, it's a fair tradeoff.

I'm sure all those poor people buying baby formula at midnight would be glad to fund health insurance for walmart employees.

[MannyIsGod]

72% of Americans aren't in poverty (yet). However, I can imagine scenarios where that could happen in the not too distant future.

[DarrinS]

It means that large amounts of people living in poverty tend to breed a lot of discontent. I could just be talking out of my ass here, but I'm fairly certain a fairly large percentage of human violence in the past is based upon trouble between the haves and have nots.


Par for the course.

[DarrinS]

72% of Americans aren't in poverty (yet). However, I can imagine scenarios where that could happen in the not too distant future.



Call me optimistic, but I don't see that happening.


And by the abundance of impoverished fat asses I see all the time, I really can't invision a violent uprising because the "have nots" are starving.

[Sportcamper]

Can anyone answer what the top 3% is income wise?
Is 50k middle class? 100k top 15% and over 200k top 3%
Who exactly are the have & have nots?

[MannyIsGod]

Par for the course.

Oh snap, DarrinBot received some witty code to his script overnight.

[DMX7]

I'm sure all those poor people buying baby formula at midnight would be glad to fund health insurance for walmart employees.

Yeah, especially if THEY ARE Wal-Mart emlpoyees, lol.

[DarrinS]

I work for a wealthy person and I'm glad he's wealthy (for obvious reasons).

[rjv]

It means that large amounts of people living in poverty tend to breed a lot of discontent. I could just be talking out of my ass here, but I'm fairly certain a fairly large percentage of human violence in the past is based upon trouble between the haves and have nots.

true, but there is no chance for anything close to a bloody revolution here as the powerful control the military. if anything, the masses would spend more time killing one another.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

72% of Americans aren't in poverty (yet). However, I can imagine scenarios where that could happen in the not too distant future.

dude, come on. What's the poverty rate in the US right now? 13%, 14%? and that's after the recent economic shit storm the world went through. What exactly do you think would have to happen for the poverty rate to sky rocket to 70%?

Shit, even with all the crap Argentina has been through, coupled with the amount of corruption we have down here, I don't think we've even reached 50% poverty rate.

Shit, 70% poverty rate is Chavez's Venezuela territory. Think about it.

Plus, nothing good has ever come out of anything done under the guise of "wealth redistribution".

[MannyIsGod]

How can you say nothing good has ever come from wealth redistribution? European history would like a word with you..

Also, in 2008 we were pretty fucking close to an economic collapse. CC just posted figures showing you that 3/4ths of this country is 2 weeks from the poverty level. 2 weeks. ONE paycheck.

Let that soak in. 2 weeks buffer zone.

[MannyIsGod]

true, but there is no chance for anything close to a bloody revolution here as the powerful control the military. if anything, the masses would spend more time killing one another.

Well, I don't know about you, but I don't live in a fortified mansion with a personal army. If the shit hits the fan and who do you think is more at danger: Bill gates or you and me?

[DarrinS]

How can you say nothing good has ever come from wealth redistribution? European history would like a word with you..

Also, in 2008 we were pretty fucking close to an economic collapse. CC just posted figures showing you that 3/4ths of this country is 2 weeks from the poverty level. 2 weeks. ONE paycheck.

Let that soak in. 2 weeks buffer zone.

:lmao

[MannyIsGod]

I work for a wealthy person and I'm glad he's wealthy (for obvious reasons).

Darrinbot at work with the old code now. Disappointing. :(

[DarrinS]

Darrinbot at work with the old code now. Disappointing. :(


The field of Meteorology is lucky to be getting you. :lol

[MannyIsGod]

The field of Meteorology is lucky to be getting you. :lol

Thanks! The field of youtube viewers is lucky to have you, Darrinbot! :toast

[rjv]

Well, I don't know about you, but I don't live in a fortified mansion with a personal army. If the shit hits the fan and who do you think is more at danger: Bill gates or you and me?

the only way there would ever be such a state of chaos would be if the primary catalyst was a catastrophic event. in the absence of this, i seriously doubt there would ever be any real threat imposed upon the bourgeoise, gates' eccentricities and paranoia notwithstanding.

[mrsmaalox]

Unless you believe that 72% of Americans live in poverty isn't the bigger issue here how many people with the means to provide some kind of financial security for themselves choose not to?

Surely it is a significant percentage.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Exactly what sort of redistribution are you talking about Manny?

[coyotes_geek]

Also, in 2008 we were pretty fucking close to an economic collapse. CC just posted figures showing you that 3/4ths of this country is 2 weeks from the poverty level. 2 weeks. ONE paycheck.

Let that soak in. 2 weeks buffer zone.

The majority of those people are in that situation by their own doing.

[MannyIsGod]

Exactly what sort of redistribution are you talking about Manny?

For starters, a progressive tax code that actually stays that way when the taxes are done. I feel as long as the top 2% have 50% of the wealth in this country their fair share is far more than 2%.

That the top 2% hold so much in this country says to me they should foot the bill for a lot more than they do.

[MannyIsGod]

The majority of those people are in that situation by their own doing.

Well you can choose to ignore the situation if thats what you believe. Those people will simply get whats coming to them. However, you'd better believe they can drag the rest of the country with them.

You can either be pragmatic or you can wonder why everything went to shit after the fact.

[rjv]

The majority of those people are in that situation by their own doing.

financial wrecklessness? bad investments? unnecessary spending? what percentage fall under this umbrella as opposed to unemployment, lower wages, injury, health issues, medical costs...?

[jack sommerset]

Lets raise the taxes!! That will help 72% of the people!!

[MaNuMaNiAc]

For starters, a progressive tax code that actually stays that way when the taxes are done. I feel as long as the top 2% have 50% of the wealth in this country their fair share is far more than 2%.

That the top 2% hold so much in this country says to me they should foot the bill for a lot more than they do.

Doesn't that top 2% also foot the bill for something like 40% of all federal income taxes?

You make it sound as if they're not already paying their share. What exactly would you consider fair?

[clambake]

there are a million ways to write shit off.

[DarrinS]

For starters, a progressive tax code that actually stays that way when the taxes are done. I feel as long as the top 2% have 50% of the wealth in this country their fair share is far more than 2%.

That the top 2% hold so much in this country says to me they should foot the bill for a lot more than they do.


We already have a progressive tax code, you dumb fuck.

[DarrinS]

It's unfair that people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs created products that millions of people wanted and became super wealthy. And I'm sure they didn't work hard to get it.

[Crookshanks]

Almost 50% pay NO income taxes - how about they start kicking in their "fair share"? Everyone should have some skin in the game, and everyone who has income should pay income tax - even if it's only 5%. That way, when the Feds start talking about raising taxes, EVERYONE will be affected. Right now, those that pay no income tax could care less if the Fed raises taxes on those "evil rich people".

[MaNuMaNiAc]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1



Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax

Recession, new tax credits have nearly half of US households paying no federal income tax


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Tax Day is a dreaded deadline for millions, but for nearly half of U.S. households it's simply somebody else's problem.


About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.


Most people still are required to file returns by the April 15 deadline. The penalty for skipping it is limited to the amount of taxes owed, but it's still almost always better to file: That's the only way to get a refund of all the income taxes withheld by employers.


In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17, according to a separate analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax.
Tax cuts enacted in the past decade have been generous to wealthy taxpayers, too, making them a target for President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress. Less noticed were tax cuts for low- and middle-income families, which were expanded when Obama signed the massive economic recovery package last year.


The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners -- households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 -- paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.


The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment.
"We have 50 percent of people who are getting something for nothing," said Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.


The vast majority of people who escape federal income taxes still pay other taxes, including federal payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare, and excise taxes on gasoline, aviation, alcohol and cigarettes. Many also pay state or local taxes on sales, income and property.


That helps explain the country's aversion to taxes, said Clint Stretch, a tax policy expert Deloitte Tax. He said many people simply look at the difference between their gross pay and their take-home pay and blame the government for the disparity.


"It's not uncommon for people to think that their Social Security taxes, their 401(k) contributions, their share of employer health premiums, all of that stuff in their mind gets lumped into income taxes," Stretch said.


The federal income tax is the government's largest source of revenue, raising more than $900 billion -- or a little less than half of all government receipts -- in the budget year that ended last Sept. 30. But with deductions and credits, especially for families with children, there have long been people who don't pay it, mainly lower-income families.


The number of households that don't pay federal income taxes increased substantially in 2008, when the poor economy reduced incomes and Congress cut taxes in an attempt to help recovery.


In 2007, about 38 percent of households paid no federal income tax, a figure that jumped to 49 percent in 2008, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center.


In 2008, President George W. Bush signed a law providing most families with rebate checks of $300 to $1,200. Last year, Obama signed the economic recovery law that expanded some tax credits and created others. Most targeted low- and middle-income families.


Obama's Making Work Pay credit provides as much as $800 to couples and $400 to individuals. The expanded child tax credit provides $1,000 for each child under 17. The Earned Income Tax Credit provides up to $5,657 to low-income families with at least three children.


There are also tax credits for college expenses, buying a new home and upgrading an existing home with energy-efficient doors, windows, furnaces and other appliances. Many of the credits are refundable, meaning if the credits exceed the amount of income taxes owed, the taxpayer gets a payment from the government for the difference.


"All these things are ways the government says, if you do this, we'll reduce your tax bill by some amount," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.


The government could provide the same benefits through spending programs, with the same effect on the federal budget, Williams said. But it sounds better for politicians to say they cut taxes rather than they started a new spending program, he added.


Obama has pushed tax cuts for low- and middle-income families and tax increases for the wealthy, arguing that wealthier taxpayers fared well in the past decade, so it's time to pay up. The nation's wealthiest taxpayers did get big tax breaks under Bush, with the top marginal tax rate reduced from 39.6 percent to 35 percent, and the second-highest rate reduced from 36 percent to 33 percent.


But income tax rates were lowered at every income level. The changes made it relatively easy for families of four making $50,000 to eliminate their income tax liability.


Here's how they did it, according to Deloitte Tax:


The family was entitled to a standard deduction of $11,400 and four personal exemptions of $3,650 apiece, leaving a taxable income of $24,000. The federal income tax on $24,000 is $2,769.


With two children younger than 17, the family qualified for two $1,000 child tax credits. Its Making Work Pay credit was $800 because the parents were married filing jointly.


The $2,800 in credits exceeds the $2,769 in taxes, so the family makes a $31 profit from the federal income tax. That ought to take the sting out of April 15.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Almost 50% pay NO income taxes - how about they start kicking in their "fair share"? Everyone should have some skin in the game, and everyone who has income should pay income tax - even if it's only 5%. That way, when the Feds start talking about raising taxes, EVERYONE will be affected. Right now, those that pay no income tax could care less if the Fed raises taxes on those "evil rich people".

To be fair, something like the lower 70% of the population of the US holds around 5% of the entire wealth of the country. So, for that nearly 50%, their fair share IS nothing. When you can barely afford rent and food, you certainly can't afford income tax now, can you?

[jack sommerset]

This stat alone says Obongo shouldn't raise taxes. 72 percent of the people live paycheck to paycheck! That's a crazy stat.

[MannyIsGod]

They don't pay taxes because they make amounts underneath where the taxing starts. I don't see how that proves anything more than what I've been saying that the current wealth distribution in this country is absolutely horrible, MM.

The top 5% I believe carry about 50% of the tax burden in this country but they also don't pay the rates their "supposed" to because of the obscene amounts of write off and loopholes in our tax code. They are on the hook for much more but they get out of it a good deal of the time (ask CC about his free golf carts or w/e as an example).

This may not be a solution and there may be different ways of fixing this problem out there that will work better, but I do know that having such a large amount of wealth in such a small concentration and having the trend shift further in that direction is definitely a recipe for disaster.

[George Gervin's Afro]

This stat alone says Obongo shouldn't raise taxes. 72 percent of the people live paycheck to paycheck! That's a crazy stat.

Really? How many people in the top income bracket live paycheck to paycheck jack? Those folks are the only ones who are going to get taxed. You do realize that, don't you?

[jack sommerset]

Really? How many people in the top income bracket live paycheck to paycheck jack? Those folks are the only ones who are going to get taxed. You do realize that, don't you?

Stop being so butthurt. "Rich people" should be treated as everyone else. If you don't think so you are a bigot.

[MannyIsGod]

Obama doesn't want to raise taxes on anyone except the top 2%. Most Americans have had a tax cut under Obama so saying that he wants to raise taxes on those 72% is a flat out lie.

[MannyIsGod]

Stop being so butthurt. "Rich people" should be treated as everyone else. If you don't think so you are a bigot.

No, they shouldn't. When they want to take their money out of the political sphere then I'll have more sympathy for them. But the way they flat out buy political representation in this country shows they are NOT like everyone else.

Lets be clear, Rich people in our system are not victims and will never be victims.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Dumbass-This stat alone says Obongo shouldn't raise taxes. 72 percent of the people live paycheck to paycheck! That's a crazy stat.



Really? How many people in the top income bracket live paycheck to paycheck jack? Those folks are the only ones who are going to get taxed. You do realize that, don't you?

[coyotes_geek]

Well you can choose to ignore the situation if thats what you believe. Those people will simply get whats coming to them. However, you'd better believe they can drag the rest of the country with them.

You can either be pragmatic or you can wonder why everything went to shit after the fact.

I think expecting people who are not poor to be responsible for their own financial well being is being pragmatic. If you disagree, fair enough. What do you propose we do about the 72% living paycheck to paycheck?

[MaNuMaNiAc]

They don't pay taxes because they make amounts underneath where the taxing starts. I don't see how that proves anything more than what I've been saying that the current wealth distribution in this country is absolutely horrible, MM.

The top 5% I believe carry about 50% of the tax burden in this country but they also don't pay the rates their "supposed" to because of the obscene amounts of write off and loopholes in our tax code. They are on the hook for much more but they get out of it a good deal of the time (ask CC about his free golf carts or w/e as an example).

This may not be a solution and there may be different ways of fixing this problem out there that will work better, but I do know that having such a large amount of wealth in such a small concentration and having the trend shift further in that direction is definitely a recipe for disaster.

Fair enough. I can see the logic behind that conclusion. Poverty does not a happy populace make, obviously.

[angrydude]

American tax debate in a nutshell: the wealthy tell the poor that the upper middle class are wealthy and the poor believe them.

wealth does not equal income.

If you want a wealth tax then come out and just say it.

[MannyIsGod]

I think expecting people who are not poor to be responsible for their own financial well being is being pragmatic. If you disagree, fair enough. What do you propose we do about the 72% living paycheck to paycheck?

The problem is that when you're talking about issues that affect a society using personal responsibility as a reasoning completely ignores the obvious evidence of systematic problems.

When you talk to individual A and you try to ascertain his situation and why he's there you can point to decision X or decision Y and say if you had made a better choice here you could have avoided this and I think that is a fine approach because you're looking at things on the very specific micro level.

The problem is that when you look at an entire society and you see that 72% of your population is in a bad situation you cannot simply write things off as bad decision making because even if it is bad decision making you should wonder why that situation is so rampant and wide spread. What circumstances have allowed this problem to manifest itself on a wide basis and what is the cause of those circumstances? Those are the questions you ask on a macro level because you're not trying to save individuals but you're trying to fix the problem in an entire society.

For the individual, you could give him specific advice to correct his situation work with him on a personal basis to fix his problem

But on the macro level you have to devise programs that are far reaching and address the underlying causes. Chalking things up to personal responsibility and righteous indignation have no place if you think there is an actual problem here.

[101A]

American tax debate in a nutshell: the wealthy tell the poor that the upper middle class are wealthy and the poor believe them.

wealth does not equal income.



PROFOUNDLY accurate.

[MannyIsGod]

I agree completely. There's a reason why I've mentioned wealth over and over in this thread and didn't mention an income tax but a true progressive tax code.

:lol Of course Darrinbot and all his knowledge of nuance led him to call me a dumbfuck over this.

[MannyIsGod]

But also, don't think the wealthy don't try to turn the middle class against the poor either. All of the chest thumping over the percentage of Americans who don't pay an income tax is just that.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

That's precisely the reason why forced wealth redistribution wouldn't work. You're not talking about a solution to the circumstances that created the problem to begin with. You're talking about a temporary fix to appease the unhappy poor. Personally, I don't think America's problem lies in lack of taxation.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I should add that I'm no economist, nor do I claim to have my finger on the pulse of America's problems right now. I just don't think that's the solution, is all.

[MannyIsGod]

Thats a fair point, MM. Wealth redistribution is such a bad term to be honest. I don't think that you should take money directly from Bill Gates and send a check to Joe the Plumber because its unfair that he's broke.

I want them to fund the programs that will fix the problem - primarily our education and healthcare systems.

[DarkReign]

The wealth gap in America is insurmountable.

http://www.cafrman.com/images/WealthDistribution.GIF

Dont know what year that is from, and it doesnt matter, it didnt get better.

There is no solution beyond very longterm programs (like MiG mentioned) education and healthcare.

But that gap will never narrow, ever. And that is sort of the point, isnt it?

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Thats a fair point, MM. Wealth redistribution is such a bad term to be honest. I don't think that you should take money directly from Bill Gates and send a check to Joe the Plumber because its unfair that he's broke.

I want them to fund the programs that will fix the problem - primarily our education and healthcare systems.

Now that's something we can agree on

[coyotes_geek]

The problem is that when you're talking about issues that affect a society using personal responsibility as a reasoning completely ignores the obvious evidence of systematic problems.

When you talk to individual A and you try to ascertain his situation and why he's there you can point to decision X or decision Y and say if you had made a better choice here you could have avoided this and I think that is a fine approach because you're looking at things on the very specific micro level.

The problem is that when you look at an entire society and you see that 72% of your population is in a bad situation you cannot simply write things off as bad decision making because even if it is bad decision making you should wonder why that situation is so rampant and wide spread. What circumstances have allowed this problem to manifest itself on a wide basis and what is the cause of those circumstances? Those are the questions you ask on a macro level because you're not trying to save individuals but you're trying to fix the problem in an entire society.

For the individual, you could give him specific advice to correct his situation work with him on a personal basis to fix his problem

But on the macro level you have to devise programs that are far reaching and address the underlying causes. Chalking things up to personal responsibility and righteous indignation have no place if you think there is an actual problem here.

In terms of household income the 72nd percentile is around $75k. What systematic problem is forcing a household making $75k into living paycheck to paycheck? Seems to me that the only systematic problem here is an unwillingness of non-poor Americans to live beneath their means. I'm not saying the percentage of Americans living paycheck to paycheck should be zero. But it should be a hell of a lot less than 72%.

[MannyIsGod]

In terms of household income the 72nd percentile is around $75k. What systematic problem is forcing a household making $75k into living paycheck to paycheck? Seems to me that the only systematic problem here is an unwillingness of non-poor Americans to live beneath their means.

Why?

[boutons_deux]

Repugs and conservatives HATE wealth distribution when applied downward, but they have fought like hell for 35 years for and LOVE wealth distribution and concentration upward, and they've won that war and there's no way to reverse it. GAMEOVER.

Blaming and criminalizing the poor and unemployed is standard Repug/conservative race war and class war.

America's infrastructure (oil/gas/electrical/transport/etc) is old and rotting and would be extremely expensive to repair and maintain correclty. Ain't gonna happen. The decline of America is irreversible.

[coyotes_geek]

Why?

Why do so many Americans choose to not live beneath their means? As someone who does live beneath my means, and as a direct result is not living paycheck to paycheck, I have no idea.

[MannyIsGod]

Why do so many Americans choose to not live beneath their means? As someone who does live beneath my means, and as a direct result is not living paycheck to paycheck, I have no idea.

Don't you think thats an important piece of information? This is exactly what I mean - you just want to write it off without understanding or caring about the repercussion of doing so because of your righteous indignation. YOU manage to live financially responsible so why can't THEY?

Thats fine and your prerogative, but thats not going to solve a damn thing.

[MannyIsGod]

BTW, ManuManiac, an interesting thing I just read about is called the Gini Coefficient which is a measurement of economic inequality in a country. The US and Argentina have very similar numbers.

[Spurminator]

A lot of variables within that $75K HH income... number in HH, geography, employee-provided HC...

I generally agree that a married couple in TX with no children making $75K annually should be able to put some of it into savings but depending on cost of living and other factors, it may not be that easy for all in that percentile. And there's still 51% under $50K HH earnings.

[rjv]

what size of a family are we talking about here ? a family of 6 or 7 with day care, groceries, insurance, clothing, mortgage, cars, gasoline, utilities and medical expenses could easily have to live paycheck to paycheck. and that is in no ways living beyond one's means. that is just the bare bones.

[coyotes_geek]

what size of a family are we talking about here ? a family of 6 or 7 with day care, groceries, insurance, clothing, mortgage, cars, gasoline, utilities and medical expenses could easily have to live paycheck to paycheck. and that is in no ways living beyond one's means. that is just the bare bones.

Those are all expenses over which that family has some level of control. Are there some families who have already exercised all the control available to them and still end up having to live paycheck to paycheck? Obviously yes. I wholeheartedly disagree that those families comprise 72% of the American population though.

[MannyIsGod]

To be honest, I'd also argue that people with large families are extremely guilty of making bad decisions. Having that many kids and not being able to afford it is worse than running up your debt on a CC, IMO.

[CosmicCowboy]

to be honest, i'd also argue that people with large families are extremely guilty of making bad decisions. Having that many kids and not being able to afford it is worse than running up your debt on a cc, imo.

x2

[coyotes_geek]

Don't you think thats an important piece of information? This is exactly what I mean - you just want to write it off without understanding or caring about the repercussion of doing so because of your righteous indignation.

And all you're doing is wanting to write it all off over some "systematic problem" that you can't seem to define. Couldn't possibly be that there is anyone in that 72% who's living paycheck to paycheck because they bought more shit than they really need. Nope, it's all due to "systematic problems".

I have already said on multiple occasions that there are people who legitimately can't avoid living paycheck to paycheck. All I've said is that percentage is a hell of a lot less than 72%. Do you agree or disagree with that statement?


YOU manage to live financially responsible so why can't THEY?

As I have already stated, the "they" I am referring to are the non-poor Americans who are living paycheck to paycheck. So yes, why can't THEY live financially responsible? Care to provide an answer?


Thats fine and your prerogative, but thats not going to solve a damn thing.

If you've got a solution for your "systematic problem" I'd be more than happy to hear it.

[101A]

The wealth gap in America is insurmountable.

http://www.cafrman.com/images/WealthDistribution.GIF

Dont know what year that is from, and it doesnt matter, it didnt get better.

There is no solution beyond very longterm programs (like MiG mentioned) education and healthcare.

But that gap will never narrow, ever. And that is sort of the point, isnt it?

The 10% is static, but how about who makes up the 10%?

I know people that were in it, but now aren't, and many people who were not in it, but now are. There is no convention of the top 10% (that's 30,000,000 people, folks) where they get together and figure how to keep the other 90% down.

[101A]

Off the top of my head; serious expenses people don't NEED, but almost all HAVE:

1. Cable TV.
2. Cell Phone(s)
3. Car payments (because they buy new, and trade it in too often)

another killer many poor are guilty of:

Cigarettes!

If they have any of those; I have little sympathy.

[Homeland Security]

true, but there is no chance for anything close to a bloody revolution here as the powerful control the military. if anything, the masses would spend more time killing one another.

The program is simple:

1) Get newly poor whites agitated against groups they already hate, like blacks, Mexicans, etc. It gives them an outlet for their anger and lets them do the dirty work of stamping the boot in the face of those other groups so those in power don't have to get their hands bloody.

2) Pick a group of wealthy outcasts, for example gays and other urban liberals, liquidate them, seize their assets, and redistribute them to poor whites. This will make lower-class whites utterly loyal and ready to serve at the whim of their dictator.

[MannyIsGod]

And all you're doing is wanting to write it all off over some "systematic problem" that you can't seem to define. Couldn't possibly be that there is anyone in that 72% who's living paycheck to paycheck because they bought more shit than they really need. Nope, it's all due to "systematic problems".


Who ever said the 2 are mutually exclusive? You don't think this statistic points to a problem with our society? Asking WHY these people are making bad decisions or how we can avoid them in the future is a bad thing?




I have already said on multiple occasions that there are people who legitimately can't avoid living paycheck to paycheck. All I've said is that percentage is a hell of a lot less than 72%. Do you agree or disagree with that statement?


I agree.



As I have already stated, the "they" I am referring to are the non-poor Americans who are living paycheck to paycheck. So yes, why can't THEY live financially responsible? Care to provide an answer?



I don't think there is a simple answer but I think many aspects of our consumer society have definitely pushed us here. I think there has been a deliberate push by our nation toward this by corporations who seek short term profits over long term society health. I think a lack of education for our nation has helped lead to this. Uneducated people make worse decisions in almost every measurable way. I believe that wage stagnation and increased costs have attributed to this situation.




If you've got a solution for your "systematic problem" I'd be more than happy to hear it.

There's not a simple solution and I'm no expert but I can see many ways in we could curb this starting with what I mentioned above.

Are you advocating we just ignore it?

[Sportcamper]

Waiting for the chart that breaks down household incomes?

[MannyIsGod]

Off the top of my head; serious expenses people don't NEED, but almost all HAVE:

1. Cable TV.
2. Cell Phone(s)
3. Car payments (because they buy new, and trade it in too often)

another killer many poor are guilty of:

Cigarettes!

If they have any of those; I have little sympathy.

So why do you think poor people tend to purchase these items? What about our society makes me walk into a house delivering Elf Louise gifts and see a 60 inch HD TV in the living room?

[coyotes_geek]

Off the top of my head; serious expenses people don't NEED, but almost all HAVE:

1. Cable TV.
2. Cell Phone(s)
3. Car payments (because they buy new, and trade it in too often)

another killer many poor are guilty of:

Cigarettes!

If they have any of those; I have little sympathy.

+ eating out
+ clothes
+ HD TV's
+ season tickets
+ alcohol
+ etc.......

There are far more people living paycheck to paycheck because they're struggling to meet their wants than there are people living paycheck to paycheck because they're struggling to meet their needs.

[MannyIsGod]

Ok, but why are people's priorities so fucked up?

[Crookshanks]

Ok, but why are people's priorities so fucked up?

Because we're a nation of people who are trying to fill the void in their lives with things rather than with God. I realize this will probably start a firestorm of comments - but that's what I believe. People think they will feel better if they have material possessions - or they think people will think better of them. It's also about "keeping up with the Joneses".

I agree with the comment earlier that said "poor" people have cellphones, cars, cable TV and other things that poor people in other countries don't have. I can't even begin to count the number of times I've seen people paying for food with the Lone Star card, but yet they're yakking away on a nice cellphone and they have tattooes and piercings and are buying cigarettes and alcohol with a $100 bill. That's NOT poor!!!

[Wild Cobra]

--

[MannyIsGod]

Good, you quickly edited your strawman that I already addressed.

[baseline bum]

This country is so fucked when we judge whether people are well off by whether they have a cellphone and a big tv instead of whether they can get a decent house, afford medical care, have money for their kids' education, and so on.

[Wild Cobra]

Good, you quickly edited your strawman that I already addressed.
Yep, you caught me. What can I say.

Feel better?

[MannyIsGod]

This country is so fucked when we judge whether people are well off by whether they have a cellphone and a big tv instead of whether they can get a decent house, afford medical care, have money for their kids' education, and so on.

I have to wonder in a day and age where advertising has reached all time sophistication if that has ANY big of influence over how people spend their money.

[Crookshanks]

I have to wonder in a day and age where advertising has reached all time sophistication if that has ANY big of influence over how people spend their money.
Of course it does - or companies wouldn't pay the big bucks to advertise their products! Think about some recent commercials you've seen - they probably perpetuate the notion that you're a better person if you have such and such product. I'm thinking about one I saw last night (I think it was for Sears) where this woman is wondering how her neighbor could afford a new washer and dryer. It was because she could put it on lay-away. The commercial ended with the woman saying wistfully "I want her life".

[clambake]

Because we're a nation of people who are trying to fill the void in their lives with things rather than with God.

:lol what a freak.

[101A]

I have to wonder in a day and age where advertising has reached all time sophistication if that has ANY big of influence over how people spend their money.


Of course it does.

...and if people can be so easily influenced to do things that are, ultimately, not in there best interest; makes one wonder if Democracy is now over-rated, or very wise a form of government.

[rjv]

lets take 2 teachers at a salary of 40,000 each in the city of san antonio. after taxes and insurance they are probably left with about 68,000 which is about 5600 per month. if they have 2 kids, which is not a large family, both under the age of 5 then they spend about 1000 a month on day care. then they have probably 2 cars at about 1000 after the car payment and insurance. gasoline runs about 300 per month. utilities another 300 (and this is a modest estimate), groceries about 500 per month, clothing another 500 and then car upkeep and the usual assortment of miscellaneous expenses of the househould such as lawn care and car maintenance have to reach close to another 500 or so a month as well. if they have student loans to pay off on top of that they really are left with about a few hundred dollars per month. not exactly the sort of left over income to stash away in real estate investments.

so the argument being made here, even by manny is god, who is supposedly the one defending the proletariat is that people should make better choices about their jobs and the amount of children they have. everyone just seems to be arguing in a vacuum from what i can tell.

[ploto]

I know single people who make $100,000 a year in San Antonio and who live paycheck to paycheck and have no kids. The statistic simply means that most people live above their means and does not really say anything about what those means are.

[word]

Fuck 'em.

[CosmicCowboy]

Of course it does.

...and if people can be so easily influenced to do things that are, ultimately, not in there best interest; makes one wonder if Democracy is now over-rated, or very wise a form of government.

WTF?

So since some people make bad choices you are advocating that government make all the choices for all the people?

[SnakeBoy]

Because we're a nation of people who are trying to fill the void in their lives with things rather than with God.


http://s.chakpak.com/se_images/59876_-1_564_none/winner-wallpaper.jpg


To the big government crowd...do we get to declare the war on poverty lost now or do we stay the course?

[MannyIsGod]

Of course it does.

...and if people can be so easily influenced to do things that are, ultimately, not in there best interest; makes one wonder if Democracy is now over-rated, or very wise a form of government.

Such a dangerous line of thinking but one that anyone with any form of political curiosity has to come to quite frequently these days.

[clambake]

prayer should handle it!

[MannyIsGod]

WTF?

So since some people make bad choices you are advocating that government make all the choices for all the people?

I tend to think of it being more along the lines of people can be easily manipulated and your fortunes are tossed in along with them.

I used to think libertarianism was the solution to this but then when you realize that in that case you're just allowing corporations to take the place of the government.

[rjv]

Of course it does.

...and if people can be so easily influenced to do things that are, ultimately, not in there best interest; makes one wonder if Democracy is now over-rated, or very wise a form of government.

well there's always china...

[rjv]

I tend to think of it being more along the lines of people can be easily manipulated and your fortunes are tossed in along with them.

I used to think libertarianism was the solution to this but then when you realize that in that case you're just allowing corporations to take the place of the government.

of course, you are kind of running in circles now. if the people are really all that gullible and prone to such bad decision making then why even advocate any sort of revolution on their behalf? why not let the status quo exist as it is? this is sort of an ortega y gasset "revolt of the masses" argument that i seem to be reading from you here.

[CosmicCowboy]

You guys realize that elections are just another form of marketing, right?

[MannyIsGod]

You guys realize that elections are just another form of marketing, right?

I think that was 101's point.

[jack sommerset]

I know single people who make $100,000 a year in San Antonio and who live paycheck to paycheck and have no kids. The statistic simply means that most people live above their means and does not really say anything about what those means are.

That stat is crazy! I don't believe it's that high. 7 out of 10 people would be FUCKED if they lost there jobs lets say two-four weeks later. How our these people saving for retirement or if they have kids a car for them, college. If some emergency happens how would they pay for it. I can't wrap my head around that 7 out of 10 people live week to week or month to month.

[MannyIsGod]

of course, you are kind of running in circles now. if the people are really all that gullible and prone to such bad decision making then why even advocate any sort of revolution on their behalf? why not let the status quo exist as it is? this is sort of an ortega y gasset "revolt of the masses" argument that i seem to be reading from you here.

Not familiar with who you mention but I tend to think higher levels of education inspire more critical thinking necessary to recognize such manipulation but I have a closet full of Adidas and Nike clothes (I can afford it though! LOL) so yeah - maybe not.

[MannyIsGod]

That stat is crazy! I don't believe it's that high. 7 out of 10 people would be FUCKED if they lost there jobs lets say two-four weeks later. How our these people saving for retirement or if they have kids a car for them, college. If some emergency happens how would they pay for it. I can't wrap my head around that 7 out of 10 people live week to week or month to month.

Yeah thats what I was saying earlier - statistics like this show you how thin the string that holds our economy together actually is.

[jack sommerset]

You guys realize that elections are just another form of marketing, right?

That don't hide that fact. The machines are always talking about how much money they raise to sell their candidate. The rich lady in California is making it a contest because she is so fucking rich. Repugs are not suppose to win in California these days.

[clambake]

ummm the current governor is republican.

[MannyIsGod]

That don't hide that fact. The machines are always talking about how much money they raise to sell their candidate. The rich lady in California is making it a contest because she is so fucking rich. Repugs are not suppose to win in California these days.


ummm the current governor is republican.

:lmao

[101A]

I think that was 101's point.


Thanks for the assist, M.

[MannyIsGod]

But, its no surprise that the person that wins most elections is the person who spends the most money.

[jack sommerset]

ummm the current governor is republican.

Umm is he really or is he a wolf in sheeps clothing.

[baseline bum]

Umm is he really or is he a wolf in sheeps clothing.

He's a guy who won after a scandalous smear campaign to recall Gray Davis and make him the fall guy for California's rolling blackouts when it was really Enron slashing supply and gouging Californians.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

BTW, ManuManiac, an interesting thing I just read about is called the Gini Coefficient which is a measurement of economic inequality in a country. The US and Argentina have very similar numbers.

That is pretty interesting. I'll have to read up on that one.

[LnGrrrR]

Why do so many Americans choose to not live beneath their means? As someone who does live beneath my means, and as a direct result is not living paycheck to paycheck, I have no idea.

One would say in the interest of fairness CG, you should probably at least ballpark your income if you're going to talk about "living beneath your means". Your means may be different than others.

[LnGrrrR]

Off the top of my head; serious expenses people don't NEED, but almost all HAVE:

1. Cable TV.
2. Cell Phone(s)
3. Car payments (because they buy new, and trade it in too often)

Cell phones are often a NEED for many jobs. I'm just a lowly network technician SSgt, but you better believe that nearly everyone in the military should have cell phones. It's highly "encouraged" for all airmen to be reachable at all times.

[boutons_deux]

15 Shocking Facts Show That the Middle Class is Being Wiped Out

#1 Approximately 45 million Americans were living in poverty in 2009.

#2 According to the Associated Press, experts believe that 2009 saw the largest single year increase in the U.S. poverty rate since the U.S. government began calculating poverty figures back in 1959.

#3 The U.S. poverty rate is now the third worst among the developed nations tracked by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

#4 According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, on a year-over-year basis, household participation in the food stamp program has increased 20.28%.

#5 The number of Americans on food stamps surpassed 41 million for the first time ever in June.

#6 As of June, the number of Americans on food stamps had set a new all-time record for 19 consecutive months.

#7 One out of every six Americans is now being served by at least one government anti-poverty program.

#8 More than 50 million Americans are now on Medicaid, the U.S. government health care program designed principally to help the poor.

#9 One out of every seven mortgages in the United States was either delinquent or in foreclosure during the first quarter of 2010.

#10 Nearly 10 million Americans now receive unemployment insurance, which is almost four times as many as were receiving it in 2007.

#11 The number of Americans receiving long-term unemployment benefits has risen over 60 percent in just the past year.

#12 According to one recent survey, 28% of all U.S. households have at least one member that is looking for a full-time job.

#13 Nationwide, bankruptcy filings rose 20 percent in the 12 month period ending June 30th.

#14 More than 25 percent of all Americans now have a credit score below 599.

#15 One out of every five children in the United States is now living in poverty.

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/148236

==========

These people are losers, made bad decisions, it's all their fault, even their crime.

--- Heritage Inst, VRWC, Crooky, WC, Yoni, Jack, etc.

[Drachen]

To be honest, I'd also argue that people with large families are extremely guilty of making bad decisions. Having that many kids and not being able to afford it is worse than running up your debt on a CC, IMO.

I hear ya. I have a 13 year old step-daughter and a 3 year old daughter. My wife and I wanted to try for our last one starting at the beginning of this year. Last year, I started to look at finances, make a plan, etc. and realized that we needed to make about 11k more in order comfortably have another child (we made 63k last year pre-tax). A little frustrating obviously. We are only about 4k closer at this time, so, still waiting working and looking.

That was all back story to say this... throughout this entire process (planning financially and putting off having a child) almost everyone I talked to about this said "OH no, you don't worry about money when deciding about a child. If it is in your heart to have a child, you do it and things will take care of themselves (or god will take care of you, or something similar)." It completely baffles me how prevalent this thought process is. I know exactly how "things take care of themselves." First, the opportunities that you are able to provide your children go down the toilet, then the government has to step in and start providing you food. What's even more dumbfounding is that to me, THE MOST important time to worry about money is when deciding about a child. If this is the thing that is so special, doesn't it follow that I should do everything I can to do the best for it?

It confuses the hell out of me, I still get those questions from the aforementioned people "so are you and your wife going to be trying anytime soon?" I tell them that I haven't been promoted yet, and they know we aren't. I get the old eye roll and they say "Oh, you're still on THAT!"

[Blake]

that was all back story to say this... Throughout this entire process (planning financially and putting off having a child) almost everyone i talked to about this said "oh no, you don't worry about money when deciding about a child. If it is in your heart to have a child, you do it and things will take care of themselves (or god will take care of you, or something similar)."

it completely baffles me how prevalent this thought process is

+1

[Wild Cobra]

Cell phones are often a NEED for many jobs. I'm just a lowly network technician SSgt, but you better believe that nearly everyone in the military should have cell phones. It's highly "encouraged" for all airmen to be reachable at all times.
Of course the military wants another leash on it's soldiers. However, if you really needed it, they would issue you one.

You know the old saying, in they wanted you to have a wife, they would issue you one.

[boutons_deux]

That 'Official' Poverty Rate? It's Much Worse than You Think

If we were to include all of these people, we'd be looking at almost 60 million Americans living in poverty. Which means the government number doesn't account for over 14.1 million Americans in poverty.

52 million, roughly 17 percent of the population -- who are currently enrolled in “anti-poverty” programs. Over 50 million are on Medicaid, 41 million on food stamps, 10 million on unemployment, 4.4 million receive welfare. Not counted in this “anti-poverty” total are 30 million children enrolled in the National School Lunch Program. Another metric: if it wasn’t for Social Security -- note to deficit hawks -- 20 million more would be added to the poverty total.

77 percent of Americans are now living paycheck to paycheck. This means in our nation of 310 million citizens, 239 million Americans are one setback away from economic ruin.

corporate profits are soaring while all this is devastation is occurring. Despite this economic crisis, it’s not like our country doesn’t have the money. A recent study done by Capgemini and Merrill Lynch Wealth Management found that a mere 1 percent of Americans are hoarding $13 trillion in “investible wealth.” Yep, 1 percent of Americans are hoarding $13 TRILLION in “investible wealth,” and that doesn’t even factor in all the money they have hidden in offshore accounts.

“There is no such thing as the liberty or effective power of an individual, group, or class, except in relation to the liberties, the effective powers, of other individuals, groups or classes.”

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/148255

===========

--- thanks to the VRWC stealing from the people and redistributing wealth upwards, while lying that government is the root of all evil. The VRWC owns that govt and games it to enrich itself.

Watch the Repugs' campaign plaftorm today continue the VRWC's War on America.

[Winehole23]

The VRWC. Are you fucking serious?

You say that, and you expect people to take you seriously, correct?

[MaNuMaNiAc]

The VRWC. Are you fucking serious?

You say that, and you expect people to take you seriously, correct?

I don't even think he expects it anymore, to tell you the truth. Its become remarkably clear that bouton's doesn't really give a shit what people think.

[101A]

Cell phones are often a NEED for many jobs. I'm just a lowly network technician SSgt, but you better believe that nearly everyone in the military should have cell phones. It's highly "encouraged" for all airmen to be reachable at all times.

I get that; a phone for the bread winner who needs it makes complete sense; however, when each of his/her children ALSO has a phone, and there is a $220 bill? Too much for a "poor" family, IMO.

[boutons_deux]

The VRWC. Are you fucking serious?

You say that, and you expect people to take you seriously, correct?


Yes, I'M FUCKING SERIOUS about VRWC.

And anybody who doesn't admit to the VRWC is either part of the VRWC or fucking dumbfuck.

[TeyshaBlue]

Yes, I'M FUCKING SERIOUS about VRWC.

And anybody who doesn't admit to the VRWC is either part of the VRWC or fucking dumbfuck.

Or, conversely, anybody who admits to believing there is a VRWC is either fucking nuts, or is a fucking dumbfuck.

See how that works?

Extremism. It's not just for religious hacks anymore.

[desflood]

if anything, the masses would spend more time killing one another.
Good riddance.

Well, I don't know about you, but I don't live in a fortified mansion with a personal army. If the shit hits the fan and who do you think is more at danger: Bill gates or you and me?
Buy a gun or two, learn how to shoot 'em, stock up on ammo and you'll be fine.

[LnGrrrR]

Of course the military wants another leash on it's soldiers. However, if you really needed it, they would issue you one.

You know the old saying, in they wanted you to have a wife, they would issue you one.

I'm surprised there isn't already a Basic Rate for Cell Phones.

But nowadays (at least in my career), if you don't have your own cell phone and you're on call (which happens about a week a month) they give you a "shop pager"... which is probably from the 90's, and ensures you pretty much can't go more than 25 miles away from base. Plus, commanders go batshit nowadays if they initiate a phone recall and you don't answer in the required 10 to 15 mins window.

The military may be more "high-speed" than when you were in WC. :)

[LnGrrrR]

I get that; a phone for the bread winner who needs it makes complete sense; however, when each of his/her children ALSO has a phone, and there is a $220 bill? Too much for a "poor" family, IMO.

Eh, fair enough. I think phones for children who are of age to go out with friends by themselves (14 and up or so) should have at least pay phones for emergency, but I agree with your overall point.

[Winehole23]

England, but something similar holds here, the rudiments of prosperity are out of reach for the many:




Markets are not making things better.
Austerity did not work.
People are worse off.
Real inequality is growing.
People are suffering.
And this in the supposed sixth richest nation on earth.
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2018/07/04/ignore-what-the-gini-coefficient-says-real-inequality-is-growing-and-people-are-suffering-as-a-result/

[dbestpro]

..........but at least now they have a paycheck verses a few short years ago,

[Winehole23]

Minuscule recovery for the bottom 90% in the last ten years. Almost all went to the top.

Not sure what you're talking about.

Trend since the early 1970s is down for wage earners factoring in inflation.

The rising tide did not float all boats.

[Winehole23]

That it didn't is part of the angry DJT base.

Guess what?

He ain't fixing it.

[Winehole23]

Quite the reverse in fact.

Check the tax cut.

$1.5 trillion, how much did you get?

[boutons_deux]

VRWC aka oligarchy is now PROVEN

Bitch McC screws Obama out of SCOTUS seat, then put in an VRWC extremist

VRWC/oligarchy pays itself with the oligarchy tax cut

VRWC/oligarchy gonna install another rightwing extremist to SCOTUS to kill Obergfell, Roe, and why no minimum wage and Dept of Labor?

Oligarchy killing EPA, financial regs, CFPB, raping the entire Exec branch with Repug kakistocrats, etc, etc.

the oligarchy owns and operates the country, while the lower 80% stagnate.

one of these years, you assholes will catch up to The Great Boutons.

[Chucho]

Quite the reverse in fact.

Check the tax cut.

$1.5 trillion, how much did you get?

How much were you getting before the cut?

[Chucho]

VRWC aka oligarchy is now PROVEN

Bitch McC screws Obama out of SCOTUS seat, then put in an VRWC extremist

VRWC/oligarchy pays itself with the oligarchy tax cut

VRWC/oligarchy gonna install another rightwing extremist to SCOTUS to kill Obergfell, Roe, and why no minimum wage and Dept of Labor?

Oligarchy killing EPA, financial regs, CFPB, raping the entire Exec branch with Repug kakistocrats, etc, etc.

the oligarchy owns and operates the country, while the lower 80% stagnate.

one of these years, you assholes will catch up to The Great Boutons.

:lmao

[Xevious]

The majority of people are going to live paycheck to paycheck regardless of how much money they make or what is going on in the economy, etc. Because people are stupid and spend every last dollar they make. There's a reason why debt is the most heavily marketed product on the planet. People keep buying it.

One thing that's troublesome now though is the crazy housing market. That bubble will burst eventually though. There's no way wages could ever keep up.

[Chucho]

The majority of people are going to live paycheck to paycheck regardless of how much money they make or what is going on in the economy, etc. Because people are stupid and spend every last dollar they make. There's a reason why debt is the most heavily marketed product on the planet. People keep buying it.

One thing that's troublesome now though is the crazy housing market. That bubble will burst eventually though. There's no way wages could ever keep up.


That is the whole of it, the simple truth. Luxury spending is at all time highs. Starbucks, Nike and Apple are the retail kings and even the poorest of people in American "poverty" have these luxuries.

It's a societal issue, one we refuse to address and be honest about just like so many other issues in this country. We are a blame culture, a victim culture and with the insane popularity of social media, a competing culture, a culture that worships celebrities and athletes.

I think it was Bill Murray that recently said something to the tune of "social media is having the opposite effect of what it was intended to have. Instead of sharing our lives, everyone uses it to compete against everyone else". Everyone is trying to keep up with the Joneses, just way more than they can really afford.

[boutons_deux]

Because people are stupid and spend every last dollar they make.

10Ms of Americans are "rent burdened" spending 50% or more of their take home pay on rent, then add in utilities, gas, insurance, food, etc.

Average US Rent Cost Rises 3% to All-Time High of $1,405


Half of the 10 U.S. cities where average rent was highest in June are located in or near the Silicon Valley of northern California. Here’s the list:


Manhattan, New York: $4,116
San Francisco, California: $3,561
Boston, Massachusetts: $3,374
San Mateo, California: $3,269
Cambridge, Massachusetts: $3,111
Sunnyvale, California: $2,945
Santa Clara, California: $2,902
Jersey City, New Jersey: $2,880
Brooklyn, New York: $2,801
San Jose, California: $2,744


Half of the cities where rent was lowest in June are located in Texas and Oklahoma. Here’s the list:



Wichita, Kansas: $639
Brownsville, Texas: $675
Tulsa, Oklahoma: $676
Killeen, Texas: $699
Toledo, Ohio: $703
Amarillo, Texas: $730
Independence, Missouri: $733
Dayton, Ohio: $737
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: $741
Fort Wayne, Indiana: $750


https://247wallst.com/housing/2018/07/06/average-us-rent-cost-rises-3-to-all-time-high-of-1405/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+typepad%2FRyNm+%2824%2F7+Wall +St.%29

==================

The rent is too damn high, according to a new Pew report

In 2015, 38 percent of renter households spent more than 30 percent of their gross income on housing,

according to a new report (http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2018/04/american-families-face-a-growing-rent-burden) released today by Pew Charitable Trusts.

The Pew report said high rates of families living in such a precarious financial state threatens the long-term economic mobility of American families, and has implications for the economy as a whole.

"If you're spending 30, 40, or 50 percent of your income just on shelter, you are absolutely not going to be in a position to consume and contribute to the economy in other ways,"

https://cms.marketplace.org/sites/default/files/Rent-Burden_Fig-2_650px.png

https://www.marketplace.org/2018/04/19/business/17-million-families-are-rent-burdened

Naturally, rightwingnutjobs "blame the victims" of the economy for getting screwed.

[Xevious]

Boots, I mentioned the crazy housing market... I'm not dismissing the fact that it plays a part in people's financial woes. Some are genuinely struggling and don't have the means to fight their way out - for any number of reasons.

But when you say 72% of Americans (I realize this is an old thread, but I bet the number is still around 3/4) live paycheck to paycheck. That indicates a different problem. The average American household income is enough to pay for a place to live, food and clothing for your children, reliable transportation, and still have enough left over to save/invest. If it isn't in your area (NYC, California, Miami, etc.) You have the freedom to move to a place where your dollar lasts longer.

The problem is, as Chucho and myself were saying earlier, people were sold that the American dream is two brand new cars, a 300 grand home, 10 grand vacations every year, starbucks every day, new smart phones every year, eating out twice a day, etc. And fact is most people can't afford any of that shit. They keep buying it though, because they deserve it. :cry Not everybody gets all the toys. That's just life. We live in a "I want it now" culture. If somebody offers to let you sign a piece of paper to take something you can't afford home, most people will do it.

[ducks]

Boots, I mentioned the crazy housing market... I'm not dismissing the fact that it plays a part in people's financial woes. Some are genuinely struggling and don't have the means to fight their way out - for any number of reasons.

But when you say 72% of Americans (I realize this is an old thread, but I bet the number is still around 3/4) live paycheck to paycheck. That indicates a different problem. The average American household income is enough to pay for a place to live, food and clothing for your children, reliable transportation, and still have enough left over to save/invest. If it isn't in your area (NYC, California, Miami, etc.) You have the freedom to move to a place where your dollar lasts longer.

The problem is, as Chucho and myself were saying earlier, people were sold that the American dream is two brand new cars, a 300 grand home, 10 grand vacations every year, starbucks every day, new smart phones every year, eating out twice a day, etc. And fact is most people can't afford any of that shit. They keep buying it though, because they deserve it. :cry Not everybody gets all the toys. That's just life. We live in a "I want it now" culture. If somebody offers to let you sign a piece of paper to take something you can't afford home, most people will do it.

:bobo

[Winehole23]

How much were you getting before the cut?ha, you first

[Xevious]

I obviously was incorrect about chuko, but the Stuart varney bullshit talking point is for retards like ducks to be thought for

the level of insincerity it requires to run this out, while pretending that it’s some sort of salient point is disingenuous at best, and pathetically sheeplike at worst.

I understand the little box makes you feel safe, but it doesn’t ever resemble honesty.
Okay. Feel free to refute.

[florige]

The majority of people are going to live paycheck to paycheck regardless of how much money they make or what is going on in the economy, etc. Because people are stupid and spend every last dollar they make. There's a reason why debt is the most heavily marketed product on the planet. People keep buying it.

One thing that's troublesome now though is the crazy housing market. That bubble will burst eventually though. There's no way wages could ever keep up.


Saving money is a thing of the past nowadays for most people. People take a only live once attitude and usually go broke buying things they really can't afford. I personally know three people who have lost their homes to foreclosure when they bought these houses in the 2000's when they were approving people who worked at McDonald's for 250K house loans.

[boutons_deux]

Is it great to be a worker in the U.S.?

Not compared with the rest of the developed world.

So why does a large subset of workers continue to feel left behind?

In particular, the report shows the United States’s

unemployed and at-risk workers are getting very little support from the government, and

their employed peers are set back by a particularly weak collective-bargaining system.

Those factors have contributed to the

United States having a higher level of income inequality and a larger share of low-income residents than almost any other advanced nation.

Only Spain and Greece, :lol AmeriKKK beats Spain and Greece! :lol

whose economies have been ravaged by the euro-zone crisis, have more households earning less than half the nation’s median income — an indicator that unusually large numbers of people either are poor or close to being poor.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/nkfvhAZQF--xSjPq5zoyrFWqjwk=/1484x0/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/2OJW5FLLVQ5FPL4BAX7ZFKJ3XA.png


it’s also strikingly easy to lose a job here.

An average of 1 in 5 employees lose or leave their jobs each year, and 23.3 percent of workers ages 15 to 64 had been in their job for a year or less in 2016 — higher than all but a handful of countries in the study.

an unusually large amount of job turnover in the United States is due to firing and layoffs,

and Labor Department figures show the rate of layoffs and firings hasn’t changed significantly since the research was conducted.

The United States and Mexico are the only countries in the entire study that don't require any advance notice for individual firings.

The U.S. ranks at the bottom (https://stats.oecd.org/viewhtml.aspx?datasetcode=EPL_OV&lang=en) for employee protection even when mass layoffs are taken into consideration as well,

When you lose your job in the United States, it’s harder to find another.

Fewer than half of displaced workers find a job within a year, the researchers found. That puts the United States near the bottom of the five countries for which the researchers provided recent data.

Even when Americans do find another job, their earnings don’t recover.

After four years, displaced workers are still about 6 percent behind their peers in terms of annual earnings.

These gaps at the lower end of the labor market can be traced back to

weak government programs and

hamstrung union bargaining,

the report says. The United States spends less of its economic wealth on active efforts to help people who either don’t have a job or who are at risk of becoming unemployed than almost any other country in the study.

The unemployed, in particular, receive relatively little assistance.

U.S. unemployment benefits provide less support in the first year of unemployment than those in any other country in the study, and

the maximum length of benefits in a typical U.S. state (https://www.cbpp.org/research/economy/policy-basics-how-many-weeks-of-unemployment-compensation-are-available), 26 weeks, is shorter than in all but a handful of countries. In some states, the maximum benefit length is less than half of that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/f331Uq5oEPK5KYDHk8sr89sGrhY=/1484x0/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/UJ223KFO346VPLAZ2PXM2JMOC4.png




Workers’ share of national income dropped about eight percentage points between 1995 and 2013,

faster than anywhere but Poland and South Korea over that time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/07/04/is-it-great-to-be-a-worker-in-the-u-s-not-compared-to-the-rest-of-the-developed-world/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.252bb03fd003

The above is not "natural", but a decades long strategy and policies by the oligarchy / Capital to screw Labor

But Labor's main problem, according to you rightwingnugjob / oligarchy-fellators, is workers don't save! :lol

[Xevious]

You make blanket proclamations using anecdotes. Retarded as that worthless **** retard mt.

People live paycheck to paycheck because the costs of things increase with wages not keeping up with cost of living.

Understanding my audience, I’ll keep it simple. How much did a fucking Big Mac cost in 2000? How much does it cost today? What was the minimum wage in 2000? How does the increase to today’s level compare with the cost of a shitty burger?

reality is, the people you are trying to castigate aren’t the main offenders of your prejudice and unwarranted arrogance.

2017 every new dollar generated in this economy saw 83 cents of it go to the top one percent. Wages are continuing to not meet colas and the gap is growing.

The people that keep all the money and are trying to get what’s leftover count on frightened fucks like you and the rest of the envy the rich brigade to further their message. Congrats you’re on the wrong side. You could win a billion dollar powerball, and they still wouldn’t let you in.
:lol Who's frightened? You and boutons are the ones fear mongering about the big bad oligarchy and how they are keeping the little man down.

I acknowledge that there are individuals who don't have the means to better their situation, that need help. And I'm well aware that inflation is a thing. Minimum wage is not a livable wage. But the average household income is somewhere around 55k. That's still enough to feed your two kids and not blow your wad every two weeks. Now when you say three out of every four households are broke... those numbers don't match up. We aren't just talking about the folks that I mentioned above that are struggling to eat on minimum wage, that can't find affordable child care, might have had illness/injury/death ravage their family, etc. You are also talking about people in affluent areas that have over extended themselves (and there are a lot out there). Those people have no one to blame but themselves.

[Chucho]

Average US Rent Cost Rises 3% to All-Time High of $1,405


Half of the 10 U.S. cities where average rent was highest in June are located in or near the Silicon Valley of northern California. Here’s the list:


Manhattan, New York: $4,116
San Francisco, California: $3,561
Boston, Massachusetts: $3,374
San Mateo, California: $3,269
Cambridge, Massachusetts: $3,111
Sunnyvale, California: $2,945
Santa Clara, California: $2,902
Jersey City, New Jersey: $2,880
Brooklyn, New York: $2,801
San Jose, California: $2,744


Half of the cities where rent was lowest in June are located in Texas and Oklahoma. Here’s the list:



Wichita, Kansas: $639
Brownsville, Texas: $675
Tulsa, Oklahoma: $676
Killeen, Texas: $699
Toledo, Ohio: $703
Amarillo, Texas: $730
Independence, Missouri: $733
Dayton, Ohio: $737
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: $741
Fort Wayne, Indiana: $750




Everything I said about California...that is going to be 1 fucking nasty bubble when it bursts here in the coming years. We were looking for homes in areas here in Modesto/surrounding areas in 2010. A whole lot of subdivisions of track houses had been built from the late 90s and all the way through the first half of the first decade of this century when even penniless douchebags were getting loans and of course these were the first schmucks to lose their shit when it crashed here and it crashed fucking hard.

Having just moved from a growing metropolis in San Antonio to this place and seeing these subdivisions look like ghost towns was eerie. We're talking foreclosed homes, no older than 10 years old in most cases, 3-5 bathroom, 2 bedroom, 1.5k-2k homes you could have paid $100k for and be moved in at the end of the week and the only thing you'd really have to restore was the lawn. Less than 8 years later, a lot of these homes are now $300k+ homes. Tripled value in the Central Valley?

This place is headed for a major crash. Hate to sound ugly, but it's as addressed in an exchange I had with RG...the politicians don't care. Every day more jobs leave here because the state is killing SMBs with taxes and making the companies that are good employers and trying to make it work here pick up their tab to the Feds. More and more homeless. More and more crime in the Bay. Frisco is not that far off from being renamed Oakland East but the Brown Cartel can't ever stop and gloat about det surplus and det balanced budget and all their fans just eat that shit up. No one cares here. They say they do, but the actions just don't show that whatsoever. Thanks, Dems. You're fucking ruining this state.

[DMX7]

Who was it that said the American dream is dead???

[sickdsm]

Everyone talking about price of rent yet avoiding health Care. I could rent 2-3 houses in the country for what it costs for health insurance.

[Chucho]

Who was it that said the American dream is dead???


It's not dead, it just depends where you live and it shouldn't be that way.

[Xevious]

Location, location, location. There isn't is big enough pay increase in my profession to offset the increase in taxes and housing costs to get me to move to California.

[boutons_deux]

"average household income is somewhere around 55k "

that's median, not average, and it was up to 59K in 2017

but

"Adjusted for inflation, current median household income has finally edged past its 1999 level which was close to, but under, $59,000, inflation-adjusted.

... FLAT for 20 years, and flat before those 20 years, essentially FLAT for 40 years.

flat because the oligarchy is getting 90%+ of all new wealth, now they got the HUGE tax cut, and horrible inequality will get a lot worse.

[boutons_deux]

Paychecks Lag as Profits Soar, and Prices Erode Wage Gains

Corporate profits have rarely swept up a bigger share of the nation’s wealth, and workers have rarely shared a smaller one. (http://www.hamiltonproject.org/charts/the_share_of_economic_output_that_workers_receive_ has_fallen)

For the first time in a long while, workers have some leverage to push for more.

Yet many are far from making up all the lost ground.

Hourly earnings have moved forward at a crawl, with higher prices giving workers less buying power than they had last summer.

Last-minute scheduling,

no-poaching (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/12/business/fast-food-wages-no-poach-deal.html?action=click&module=In%20Other%20News&pgtype=Homepage&action=click&module=Latest&pgtype=Homepage) and

noncompete clauses (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/business/noncompete-clauses.html), and

the use of independent contractors are

popular tactics that put workers at a disadvantage.

Threats to move operations overseas, where labor is cheaper, continue to loom.

And in the background,

the nation’s central bankers stand poised to raise interest rates and deliberately rein in growth if wages climb too rapidly.
Workers, understandably, are asking whether they are getting a raw deal.

Businesses have been more successful at regaining losses from the downturn.

Since the recession ended in 2009, corporate profits have grown at an annualized rate of 6.5 percent.

Several sectors have done much better. On Friday, for example, banks like JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup reported outsize double-digit earnings in the second quarter.

Yearly wage growth has yet to hit 3 percent (https://www.epi.org/nominal-wage-tracker/#chart3).

And when it does, the Federal Reserve — which has a mandate to keep inflation under control even as it is supposed to maximize employment — can be expected to tap the brakes.

As Fed policymakers have explained, allowing the economy to run too hot “could lead eventually to a significant economic downturn.” And persistent wage increases, unlike growing profit margins, are considered a signal that the heat is on.

The thinking goes like this: Better to inflict some pain now, in the form of higher joblessness and sluggish wage growth, than to allow more pain later.

The conventional wisdom that higher wages inevitably lead to higher prices, however, is flimsy,

some economists argue.

“It theoretically makes sense,” Michael R. Strain, an economist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said of the link between wage increases and inflation, “but

empirically, it’s increasingly difficult to find a real strong link. (https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/feds/2015/files/2015042pap.pdf)”

A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (https://www.clevelandfed.org/newsroom-and-events/publications/economic-commentary/2014-economic-commentaries/ec-201414-on-the-relationships-between-wages-prices-and-economic-activity.aspx), for example, concluded that

“the connections among wages, prices, and economic activity are more akin to a tangled web than a straight line,” and that

“the ability of wages to help predict future inflation is limited.”

there is plenty of evidence that workers have yet to receive their fair share of this most recent expansion

— or even the previous one.

labor’s share of the nation’s income (http://www.hamiltonproject.org/charts/the_share_of_economic_output_that_workers_receive_ has_fallen) has sunk to the lowest levels in decades. (https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2017/article/estimating-the-us-labor-share.htm)

If workers’ share had not shrunk, they would have had an additional $532 billion, or about $3,400 each, said Jared Bernstein,

In the tug of war between workers and investors, Americans living on a paycheck have seldom been left with a shorter end of the rope.

Economists have offered various explanations for why workers are not doing better:

the steady weakening of labor unions,

the ability of American companies to find cheaper labor abroad or automate further,

piddling productivity growth and the rise of superstar companies (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/business/economy/labor-share-economic-output.html) that are extremely efficient with a relatively small labor force.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/business/economy/wages-workers-profits.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Having destroyed unions, Capital is fucking over Labor, as it always had done wherever it could.

And Capitalists' very own toy, the Fed, is always ready to kill Ms of jobs if Labor takes too much of Capital's profits.

[Winehole23]

rent, health care and college are increasingly unaffordable.

I can think of one good reason why:

1029120606749437954

[ElNono]

rent, health care and college are increasingly unaffordable.

I can think of one good reason why:

1029120606749437954

muh trickle down...

That said, why do you envy the rich and hate America, tbh?

[Winehole23]

if one sticks up for the 2/3rds of humanity that works for a living, even rhetorically, it must be because one hates America.

[ElNono]

if one sticks up for the 2/3rds of humanity that works for a living, even rhetorically, it must be because one hates America.

You just need to strap on your boots and make it to the top 1/3... then you can live off the 2/3 and don't have to hate America!

[Winehole23]

the whole point of life is to acquire assets and build wealth so you don't have to work and so you can love America.

if only everyone understood this, everyone could get rich and nobody would have to work and everybody could love America.

the damn poors ruin everything!

[FrostKing]

the whole point of life is to acquire assets and build wealth so you don't have to work and so you can love America.

if only everyone understood this, everyone could get rich and nobody would have to work and everybody could love America.

the damn poors ruin everything!
Lol. The whole point is to acquire enough assets/wealth to escape America

[Winehole23]

you can be an exploiter, or you can be exploited.

law of the jungle.

[Winehole23]

“About 40 million [Americans] live in poverty, 18.5 million in extreme poverty, and 5.3 million live in Third World conditions of absolute poverty.”http://undocs.org/A/HRC/38/33/ADD.1

[Winehole23]

It has the highest youth povertyrate in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and thehighest infant mortality rates among comparable OECD States. Its citizens live shorter andsicker lives compared to those living in all other rich democracies, eradicable tropicaldiseases are increasingly prevalent, and it has the world’s highest incarceration rate...

[Winehole23]

where in the world is it easiest to get rich?

https://evonomics.com/where-in-the-world-is-it-easiest-to-get-rich/

[TDMVPDPOY]

yet the ppl who live on welfare...look like they are living fine...given that they dont have a mortgage or whatever shit like health insurance commitments...

[DMX7]

where in the world is it easiest to get rich?

https://evonomics.com/where-in-the-world-is-it-easiest-to-get-rich/

The other problem here is that we've lost sight of what the American dream even means in this country. Quality of life is what should matter most, not simply getting rich.

[boutons_deux]

yet the ppl who live on welfare...look like they are living fine

your evidence for Welfare Queens in Cadillacs?

[sickdsm]

your evidence for Welfare Queens in Cadillacs?

Same that whine about not having 32 hour work weeks are the same about not having enough to live on.

A 40 hr week is a Wed. morning, not bragging or complaining just stating why sometimes the 1% or the 10% is where they are.

[Winehole23]

they mostly get there through inheritance. working 40 hours isn't a good predictor of social mobility at all.

[sickdsm]

they mostly get there through inheritance. working 40 hours isn't a good predictor of social mobility at all.

Statistics of that? Maybe the one percent, doubtful the top 10.

[Chucho]

The other problem here is that we've lost sight of what the American dream even means in this country. Quality of life is what should matter most, not simply getting rich.


That's so hard to do as "Quality of life" is subjective to most. Toss in the "keeping up with the Joneses" competitive lifestyle that social media creates and American society in general (we're obese consumers) and it's a way too abstract and diverse concept to put anything quantitative behind people losing sight of the American dream.

[RandomGuy]

Lol. The whole point is to acquire enough assets/wealth to escape America

A dream that for many debt slaves... is out of reach.

The boomers are discovering that to their dismay. They have not collectively saved enough.

[RandomGuy]

Same that whine about not having 32 hour work weeks are the same about not having enough to live on.

A 40 hr week is a Wed. morning, not bragging or complaining just stating why sometimes the 1% or the 10% is where they are.

Most really wealthy attribute "dumb luck" to their success. Statistics tend to support that. US social mobility is low, putting the myth to the "American dream" ethos.

Our country is structured to benefit the wealthy, and hyper-wealthy in particular. That is why almost all economic growth in the last few decades have gone exclusively to them.

It is just the way it is.

[Winehole23]

it's not just the way it is; it's the result of politics and policies.

[RandomGuy]

Statistics of that? Maybe the one percent, doubtful the top 10.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/

The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

You are so, very, very wrong about that, and provably so.

An article, if you have the time, and inclination to re-assess your underlying assumptions.

[RandomGuy]

it's not just the way it is; it's the result of politics and policies.

True. My statement belies my overall pessimism that their power will be challenged.

[boutons_deux]

sickdsm brain poisined with glyphosate

most of the top wealthy inherited not earned their wealth

born rich die rich

born poor die poor

is AMERICA now and forever, The American Dream, aka upward eco/social mobility, is still alive in social democratic Western Europe

[RandomGuy]

I heard Wal-Marts in one major metro area told their employees that if they wanted health insurance they should just go on Medicaid.

dang... blast from 2010.

Hang on for the Trump Depression.

[boutons_deux]

Why Americans Are Dying from Despair


The unfairness of our economy, two economists argue, can be measured not only in dollars but in deaths.

One reality in particular will surely fester. Because

economic policy is inseparable from health-care policy,

the unfairness of the health system is inseparable from the unfairness of the economy—

an unfairness measured not only in dollars but in deaths.

The blighted prospects of the less educated are a public-health crisis, and,

as the number of victims mounts, it will be harder to ignore.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/03/23/why-americans-are-dying-from-despair?utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&%E2%80%A6 (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/03/23/why-americans-are-dying-from-despair?utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&%E2%80%A6)

I guarantee there will be stories about seriously ill covid-19 victims who incurred many $10Ks, with insufficient insurance, who were bankrupted by medical bills. The Fed and Mnuchin will effectively tell them GFY