Income inequality in America

[RandomGuy]

The 99 percent
Oct 26th 2011, 15:34 by The Economist online

.."Occupy Wall Street" gets a boost from a new report on income distribution

OF ALL the many banners being waved around the world by disgruntled protesters from Chile to Australia the one that reads, "We Are the 99%" is the catchiest. It is purposefully vague, but it is also underpinned by some solid economics. A report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) points out that income inequality in America has not risen dramatically over the past 20 years—when the top 1% of earners are excluded. With them, the picture is quite different. The causes of the good fortune of those at the top are disputed, but the CBO provides some useful detail on that too. The biggest component of the increase in after-tax income for the top one percent is "business income" as opposed to income from labour or investments (though admittedly these things are hard to untangle). Whatever the cause, the data are powerful because they tend to support two prejudices. First, that a system that works well for the very richest has delivered returns on labour that are disappointing for everyone else. Second, that the people at the top have made out like bandits over the past few decades, and that now everyone else must pick up the bill. Of course it is a little more complicated than that. But this downturn ought to test the normally warm feelings in America of the 99% towards the 1%.

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/20111029_WOC689.gif

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/10/income-inequality-america

Pdf of the referenced CBO report:
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/124xx/doc12485/10-25-HouseholdIncome.pdf

[RandomGuy]

Here is a question:

If giving more money to the "job creators" means that everybody is better off and more jobs are created, and those "job creators" have had their incomes soar by almost 300% in the last few decades, why are the rest of the poeple who need jobs not doing so well?

Kind of deflates the "give more money to the richest, cause it is best for everybody" idea, doesn't it?

[boutons_deux]

trickle down is a scam

the wealthy as job creators is a scam

yawn

I read an article yesterday that banks are overflowing with cash as people move out of investments to cash.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You should just take the shitty jobs at shitty pay and like it cause otherwise you are just lazy.

[DarrinS]

Of course it is a little more complicated than that. But this downturn ought to test the normally warm feelings in America of the 99% towards the 1%.



Who writes this drivel?

[Drachen]

You should just take the shitty jobs at shitty pay and like it cause otherwise you are just lazy.

I wouldn't say that you should take them and like it, but you should take them if they are what are available and then continue looking.

edit: that being said, I am not disputing the OP at all.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I wouldn't say that you should take them and like it, but you should take them if they are what are available and then continue looking.

Well yeah of course. We all have responsibilities. Thats besides the point though. I just see reductions in the ability to collectively bargain and no limitations on the usury.

[boutons_deux]

VRWC War on Employees: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED (just mopping up now)

[Th'Pusher]

From the comments section: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

A Ted Talk "Richard Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms societies"

...for all of those who see think that income inequality is 'not a bad thing'

[Trainwreck2100]

From the comments section: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

A Ted Talk "Richard Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms societies"

...for all of those who see think that income inequality is 'not a bad thing'

:lol posting links when the same people who believe that believe global warming isn't real, despite mountains of evidence. If they don't believe that they don't give a fuck bout your link

[Th'Pusher]

:lol posting links when the same people who believe that believe global warming isn't real, despite mountains of evidence. If they don't believe that they don't give a fuck bout your link

All you can do is provide the morons with information. Maybe one or more will be swayed.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

All you can do is provide the morons with information. Maybe one or more will be swayed.

Yup and then you can single out the stupid so as to be able to value their input appropriately.

[scott]

Blame yourselves.

[MannyIsGod]

I wouldn't say that you should take them and like it, but you should take them if they are what are available and then continue looking.

edit: that being said, I am not disputing the OP at all.

You can simultaneously do what it takes to survive and fight against what is a total crock of shit.

[Drachen]

You can simultaneously do what it takes to survive and fight against what is a total crock of shit.

Right.

[Trainwreck2100]

Right.

So what happens when you are working at a piece of shit job and you have to show up for an interview at a better job. But if you miss work to interview for the latter job you get fired, and you don't get said better job. Is that your fault

[Drachen]

So what happens when you are working at a piece of shit job and you have to show up for an interview at a better job. But if you miss work to interview for the latter job you get fired, and you don't get said better job. Is that your fault

Learn how to control your damn schedule. If you don't know what that means, then I will give you an example after class.

[Trainwreck2100]

Learn how to control your damn schedule. If you don't know what that means, then I will give you an example after class.

Have you worked at a shitty job lately most of them don't give a fuck about your schedule

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Learn how to control your damn schedule. If you don't know what that means, then I will give you an example after class.

If you work for a guy like DarkReign and you put in 10-12 hour shifts then you have no time. Some employers are willing to work with you but if you are trying to get into a very competitive job market they don't have to and thus won't make allowances over the other 20 candidates.

Headhunters will tell you that the best time to look for a job is when you have a job but thatis because they are the ones doing the work. When you cannot afford one and the entire onus is on you it quickly becomes problematic.

[Wild Cobra]

I see another jealousy fest going on. Sorry guys, not for me.

[Trainwreck2100]

lol not reading the thread and using assumptions based on the title

[boutons_deux]

I see another jealousy fest going on

You're ideological bllinders and imagination always create their own reality. You culpablize/criminalize the 99% as lazy, jealous, cheats, Welfare Queens, etc. GFY.

You Lie.

People just want their fair share of the economy, something to look forward to, young and old, rather than being wage slaves for 45 years, then end up pill-splitting and sick in their old age, held down to a stagnant household income, even with two earners, for 30 years.

[Agitator]

Who writes this drivel?

Someone whose lips arent wrapped around the cocks of the richers. how do you deal with the balls on your chin?

[DarrinS]

Someone whose lips arent wrapped around the cocks of the richers. how do you deal with the balls on your chin?

Sounds like someone is projecting.

[DarrinS]

I happen to work for one of these evil 1% guys (if he is, it's just barely). Many of these people come up with the idea, write the business plan, invest their own money, get venture capital, work their ass off (often at the expense of their personal lives), and, yes, create jobs. If my company tanks, I lose my job (and whatever my stock may have been worth), but my CEO loses a lot more. He's taken more risk and has much more "skin in the game". I suppose he could divide up the company equally amongst the employees, but that doesn't make much sense to me.

[101A]

This is "real" income?

Adjusted for inflation, right?

EVERY quintile has risen; with the top quintile, obviously, tied directly to investment income (look at the boom Clinton years). So, the people who stand to gain the most from investments, do so.

What is not demonstrated is all of the money people have made and invested that DOES NOT show up on this graph. All of my employees (all in the 99%) have 401K accounts - and all are vested; well over a million dollars tied up in those accounts, none of which has EVER been reported as "income". It will be, eventually; but only after those people retire, and it becomes either primary, or secondary to their SS - but, nevertheless, never enough to cause a blip on the chart. There are trillions of dollars tied up in 401K's around this country; only those in ROTH accounts (a great minority) are represented in your chart. BTW, why is 1979 significant? It's the year 401K accounts were born. They've been reducing taxable income (the measured statistic on the chart) ever since. Will it make up all of the difference? Probably not, but it would certainly make for a better representation of what is going on; the 99% are benefiting from, and paying for, the performance in the market, but it is in, largely, unreported income.

[101A]

That said, I have no sympathy for people that are manipulating our systems, and making money taking ridiculous risks, all the while getting bailed out with MY tax money. The problem with the chart is that is painting with too broad a brush; what has wrecked our economy is not the successful, hard working entrepreneurs out there - they ARE the engine of our economy, and if we are going to pull out of us, they will have to do it. Unfortunately, the lure of great sums of easy money are attracting too many of the best, brightest and hardest working into professions that's entire goal is seemingly to game the system, and generate "income" with other people's money (and then, even THAT income is only taxed at 15%). WE HAVE to make working on Wal Street less lucrative, and more risky, if not for any other reason to attract some of those minds back into the "real" working world. Investment bankers don't create jobs.

[boutons_deux]

"what has wrecked our economy is not the successful, hard working entrepreneurs out there"

you mean like Magnetar? Fabulous Fabrice? and all your other heroes?

[ElNono]

I happen to work for one of these evil 1% guys (if he is, it's just barely). Many of these people come up with the idea, write the business plan, invest their own money, get venture capital, work their ass off (often at the expense of their personal lives), and, yes, create jobs. If my company tanks, I lose my job (and whatever my stock may have been worth), but my CEO loses a lot more. He's taken more risk and has much more "skin in the game". I suppose he could divide up the company equally amongst the employees, but that doesn't make much sense to me.

That's all good, but it doesn't address inequality. When the downturn comes, your CEO either "reorganizes" (aka a good wipe of jobs) or he gets replaced for somebody that does. Nothing wrong with that, company has to make a buck. When that happens, he's a job killer though. But what's been happening for the past few decades is that when the economy/company is actually doing good, salaries (outside of a few exceptions, normally tied to the top management) have just not been growing accordingly. Now, it didn't used to be like that. It always has been the management, those with more skin in the game reaping bigger benefits, but not the degree you see today. Which is what the CBO numbers bear out.

[101A]

"what has wrecked our economy is not the successful, hard working entrepreneurs out there"

you mean like Magnetar? Fabulous Fabrice? and all your other heroes?

I don't have any idea who the fuck you are talking about.

I'm talking about me, and people like me, you blind fuck.

[ElNono]

This is "real" income?

Adjusted for inflation, right?

EVERY quintile has risen; with the top quintile, obviously, tied directly to investment income (look at the boom Clinton years). So, the people who stand to gain the most from investments, do so.

What is not demonstrated is all of the money people have made and invested that DOES NOT show up on this graph. All of my employees (all in the 99%) have 401K accounts - and all are vested; well over a million dollars tied up in those accounts, none of which has EVER been reported as "income". It will be, eventually; but only after those people retire, and it becomes either primary, or secondary to their SS - but, nevertheless, never enough to cause a blip on the chart. There are trillions of dollars tied up in 401K's around this country; only those in ROTH accounts (a great minority) are represented in your chart. BTW, why is 1979 significant? It's the year 401K accounts were born. They've been reducing taxable income (the measured statistic on the chart) ever since. Will it make up all of the difference? Probably not, but it would certainly make for a better representation of what is going on; the 99% are benefiting from, and paying for, the performance in the market, but it is in, largely, unreported income.

The markets will require a major reorganization if you don't want to see those 401k's wiped though. I wouldn't just count them as money in the bank. Cuban said it best: the market used to be a place where people would go invest money to help companies grow and flourish, but it has turned into a platform. Over 60% of stocks are algorithmically traded, and with all the computerized micro-trading going on, half of the people don't know what's going on. Add global exposure of the economy and the information overload that entails, and if you have people gaming the system you wouldn't even know. Right now the market is a dangerous place (remember the flash crash?). It's downright scary that so much retirement money is tied there.

[boutons_deux]

0f course, you don't. No surprise. Try to keep up.

The VRWC has plugged your ears and eyes with their spurious, distracting propaganda and lies, while they loot the 99% into poverty and hopeless future.

Here's a great summary

Cheat Sheet: What’s Happened to the Big Players in the Financial Crisis

http://www.propublica.org/article/cheat-sheet-whats-happened-to-the-big-players-in-the-financial-crisis

[101A]

That's all good, but it doesn't address inequality. When the downturn comes, your CEO either "reorganizes" (aka a good wipe of jobs) or he gets replaced for somebody that does. Nothing wrong with that, company has to make a buck. When that happens, he's a job killer though. But what's been happening for the past few decades is that when the economy/company is actually doing good, salaries (outside of a few exceptions, normally tied to the top management) have just not been growing accordingly. Now, it didn't used to be like that. It always has been the management, those with more skin in the game reaping bigger benefits, but not the degree you see today. Which is what the CBO numbers bear out.


I don't think upper management are usually 1%'s.

Doctors, lawyers, business owners and investment guys, I think, make up most in the 1% - and, by number, "doctor" is BOUND to be the largest specific profession.

Doctors are, btw, famously cheap and disrespectful as bosses (been told their whole lives they are the best and brightest; they believe it). I'll try to find a graph of Doc's salaries over that same time period....

[101A]

0f course, you don't. No surprise. Try to keep up.

The VRWC has plugged your ears and eyes with their spurious, distracting propaganda and lies, while they loot the 99% into poverty and hopeless future.

Here's a great summary

Cheat Sheet: What’s Happened to the Big Players in the Financial Crisis

http://www.propublica.org/article/cheat-sheet-whats-happened-to-the-big-players-in-the-financial-crisis

You need to go back and re-read my second post (as the bottom of page one - before you jumped in. You aren't keeping up.

Apology accepted.

[ElNono]

I don't think upper management are usually 1%'s.

Doctors, lawyers, business owners and investment guys, I think, make up most in the 1% - and, by number, "doctor" is BOUND to be the largest specific profession.

Doctors are, btw, famously cheap and disrespectful as bosses (been told their whole lives they are the best and brightest; they believe it). I'll try to find a graph of Doc's salaries over that same time period....

A good amount of management from the cheaters (bankers, hedge funds, multinationals) are. Lawyers are a completely different beast, and I think it has much more to do with their ties to power (lobbying, etc).

I would actually be surprised to find that many doctors in the 1%, tbh. Outside of, say, plastic surgery and the like.

[101A]

A good amount of management from the cheaters (bankers, hedge funds, multinationals) are. Lawyers are a completely different beast, and I think it has much more to do with their ties to power (lobbying, etc).

I would actually be surprised to find that many doctors in the 1%, tbh. Outside of, say, plastic surgery and the like.

This is FIRST YEAR (http://www.valuemd.com/physician-salary-first-year.html) (by specialty):

A lot of these BRAND NEW docs are 1%'s

[Th'Pusher]

I don't think upper management are usually 1%'s.

Doctors, lawyers, business owners and investment guys, I think, make up most in the 1% - and, by number, "doctor" is BOUND to be the largest specific profession.

Doctors are, btw, famously cheap and disrespectful as bosses (been told their whole lives they are the best and brightest; they believe it). I'll try to find a graph of Doc's salaries over that same time period....

Incorrect. I'll look for the link to site this but, it looks something like this:

Percentage of Tax Payers in the top 1% including capital gains, 2004

40.8% - Executives, managers, supervisors (non finance)
18.4% - Financial professionals including managers
6.3% - Not working or deceased
6.2% - Lawyers
4.7% - Real Estate
4.4% - Medical
3.6% - Entrepreneur (not classified elsewhere)
3.1% - Arts, Media Sport
3.0% - Computer, Math, Engineering
2.2% - Business Ops
1.9% - Skilled sales
1.1% - Professors and scientists
1.0% - Farmers and Ranchers

Edit: Can't get the link, but here is the source: Jon Bakija and Bradley T. Helm "Jobs and Income Growth of Top Earners and the Causes of Changing Income Inequality: Evidence from US Tax Data," Working paper, Williams College, Office of Tax Analysis (March 2009), Table 1.

[ElNono]

This is FIRST YEAR (http://www.valuemd.com/physician-salary-first-year.html) (by specialty):

A lot of these BRAND NEW docs are 1%'s

Uh? That doesn't look like 1% to me... Doctors have always been fairly well paid, but you haven't seen their pay skyrocket by over 200% or so in the last 30 years... I mean, not that I recall.

[101A]

Uh? That doesn't look like 1% to me... Doctors have always been fairly well paid, but you haven't seen their pay skyrocket by over 200% or so in the last 30 years... I mean, not that I recall.

I thought 1% started at $250,000?

Regardless, looks like the post above yours disproves my "doctor" theory, anyway; although by that Docs and Lawyers do make up 10%.

Would like to know where all of these $300,000 managers work; I have some of the largest companies in SA as clients, and, because of what my company does, I know the salaries at those companies; of the 10,000+ salaries listed in my database, VERY few break into the 1% (fewer than 1%, ironically). I'd like to see a chart that shows, by geographic location, WHERE the 1% actually live. (I guess Washington, Manhattan won't be that big of a surprise).

[ElNono]

I think this is where people gets confused. What you make is irrelevant. If you make a great salary, that's great. The reality though is that for the vast majority of people, the income increase has been fairly stagnant. Whereas the top 1% is the only group whose growth has been phenomenal. I mean, good for them. It just didn't used to be like that at all.

[ElNono]

I thought 1% started at $250,000?

Regardless, looks like the post above yours disproves my "doctor" theory, anyway; although by that Docs and Lawyers do make up 10%.

Would like to know where all of these $300,000 managers work; I have some of the largest companies in SA as clients, and, because of what my company does, I know the salaries at those companies; of the 10,000+ salaries listed in my database, VERY few break into the 1% (fewer than 1%, ironically). I'd like to see a chart that shows, by geographic location, WHERE the 1% actually live. (I guess Washington, Manhattan won't be that big of a surprise).

Given the list provided previously, some probably in financial centers. Other in multinationals. And it's not just salaries (those are easily taxed). A lot of these guys are handed heavy stock options as an incentive to boost the stock by shareholders. Toss in a golden parachute if they walk, and it's a win-win for them.

[101A]

Also, if and when my company breaks me into the 1%, I guess I'll be included in the "executives/management/supervisors" group? NOT what I consider myself, FWIW - actually managing employees is a VERY small percentage of my day (compared to posting here). I wonder what percentage of those would be included in the group "small business owner"? Or would I be "Entrepeneur (not classified elsewhere)" because I don't think of myself as THAT anymore, either; maybe in the first few years of my company....

[ElNono]

I thought 1% started at $250,000?

Up to an extent, I don't think salary number matters, tbh. I think you're looking at the wrong thing.

[101A]

I think this is where people gets confused. What you make is irrelevant. If you make a great salary, that's great. The reality though is that for the vast majority of people, the income increase has been fairly stagnant. Whereas the top 1% is the only group whose growth has been phenomenal. I mean, good for them. It just didn't used to be like that at all.

Did you see my post about 401K's?

Also, is the rise that great for the entire top 1%?

I would suspect not. A couple of guys making $250,000,000 can make an average of ANY group jump significantly. In fact, if you, instead of breaking it down like this, included those totals with either the top 10, or even 20%, I suspect the graph would make them appear to be the ones growing at great clip.

Could it be the top .5, or even .1% that is showing extremely dramatic growth?

[ElNono]

Also, if and when my company breaks me into the 1%, I guess I'll be included in the "executives/management/supervisors" group? NOT what I consider myself, FWIW - actually managing employees is a VERY small percentage of my day (compared to posting here). I wonder what percentage of those would be included in the group "small business owner"? Or would I be "Entrepeneur (not classified elsewhere)" because I don't think of myself as THAT anymore, either; maybe in the first few years of my company....

Look, if only 3% of Arts, Sports people are included, and we know what pro players make, in order to be there, you probably have to break the multi-million a year income. If your company pushes you there, I'll buy you a beer. :toast

[101A]

Up to an extent, I don't think salary number matters, tbh. I think you're looking at the wrong thing.

ALL salaries have risen; just not as much as the top 1%.

Other than just being pissed about this, what can we do about it?

If all salaries had fallen, including the top 1%, would we be better off?

[101A]

Look, if only 3% of Arts, Sports people are included, and we know what pro players make, in order to be there, you probably have to break the multi-million a year income. If your company pushes you there, I'll buy you a beer. :toast

It doesn't take nearly a million to get there; like I said a quarter million will do it. We are putting a face on the top 1% that, in reality, doesn't exist. The vast majority of the top 1% are NOT ultra, or even VERY, rich. Two 55 year old married professors could easily be in the group.

[ElNono]

Did you see my post about 401K's?

I did. I don't know that people have multi-million income year over year there though.


Also, is the rise that great for the entire top 1%?

It would look to me like it is.


I would suspect not. A couple of guys making $250,000,000 can make an average of ANY group jump significantly. In fact, if you, instead of breaking it down like this, included those totals with either the top 10, or even 20%, I suspect the graph would make them appear to be the ones growing at great clip.

Could it be the top .5, or even .1% that is showing extremely dramatic growth?

Maybe. Then again, it doesn't stray from the fact that everybody else has seen their growth to be pretty stagnant. Our progressive tax system was supposed to smooth some of that out, but it's pretty obvious those guys know how to get around it.

[DarrinS]

...But what's been happening for the past few decades is that when the economy/company is actually doing good, salaries (outside of a few exceptions, normally tied to the top management) have just not been growing accordingly.

This has not been my experience.

[ElNono]

ALL salaries have risen; just not as much as the top 1%.

Other than just being pissed about this, what can we do about it?

If all salaries had fallen, including the top 1%, would we be better off?

Never said they didn't raise. I actually said they did, just nowhere near as much.

Well, I don't know there's much to do about it when things like collective bargaining seem to be so frowned upon these days.

Some people are out there protesting about it though. Not sure they're going to change anything, tbh.

[ElNono]

This has not been my experience.

Good for you. You're an outlier.

[101A]

I did. I don't know that people have multi-million income year over year there though.



It would look to me like it is.



Maybe. Then again, it doesn't stray from the fact that everybody else has seen their growth to be pretty stagnant. Our progressive tax system was supposed to smooth some of that out, but it's pretty obvious those guys know how to get around it.

Our system is regressive if you make your money by using money (in most cases other people's OR, FREE money you get from the fed - a "Get Rich for Free" card as Taibbii said it yesterday). Capital gains should be treated as all other income (Buffett has said this); would, first, cause working on Wal Street to immediately be that much less lucrative. On this we agree wholeheartedly. I'm just hoping we don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

[DarrinS]

BTW, there's a huge diparity between the 1% and the 0.1%.

[Th'Pusher]

Did you see my post about 401K's?

Also, is the rise that great for the entire top 1%?

I would suspect not. A couple of guys making $250,000,000 can make an average of ANY group jump significantly. In fact, if you, instead of breaking it down like this, included those totals with either the top 10, or even 20%, I suspect the graph would make them appear to be the ones growing at great clip.

Could it be the top .5, or even .1% that is showing extremely dramatic growth?

Absolutely. The higher up you go, the more grotesque the numbers look. The top 0.01% went from less than $4M in average annual income in 1974 to over $35M today - more than 6% of national income to accruing to 0.01% of families

[101A]

BTW, there's a huge diparity between the 1% and the 0.1%.

THAT's what I'm getting at, got a link?

I think that top .1% is happy to keep the discussion about the top 1% where it is; diffuses the anger; and makes allies of people where no natural alliance actually exists. Our anger needs to be focused; it should be directed squarely at Washington and Wal Street - NOT necessarily at our successful neighbors.

[101A]

Absolutely. The higher up you go, the more grotesque the numbers look. The top 0.01% went from less than $4M in average annual income in 1974 to over $35M today - more than 6% of national income to accruing to 0.01% of families

I like you.

I spew bullshit, and you either call me on it, or have the data to back it up. :toast

So, "I'm the 99.99%", although it doesn't roll off the tongue quite as well, probably more accurately gets at the crux of the problem. Warm up the Guillotine!

[Winehole23]

BTW, there's a huge diparity between the 1% and the 0.1%.http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=183527&highlight=0.1%25

[101A]

I like you.

I spew bullshit, and you either call me on it, or have the data to back it up. :toast

So, "I'm the 99.99%", although it doesn't roll off the tongue quite as well, probably more accurately gets at the crux of the problem. Warm up the Guillotine!

And, to me, it's not that those uber rich made all that money, it's specifically HOW they made that money that is the problem....by cheating; legalized stealing with the assistance of our elected officials. THEY have wrecked much of the economy, and not really produced that much in return (the Gates's of the world being the exceptions), but we can name most of those guys - no problem if you create hundreds of thousands of jobs; make what you will. If you created nothing of importance except more money to pay for politicians with, to hell with you.

[ElNono]

Our system is regressive if you make your money by using money (in most cases other people's OR, FREE money you get from the fed - a "Get Rich for Free" card as Taibbii said it yesterday). Capital gains should be treated as all other income (Buffett has said this); would, first, cause working on Wal Street to immediately be that much less lucrative. On this we agree wholeheartedly. I'm just hoping we don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

I don't think the vast amount of people hate (or are envious) of people that make money. I would even argue that it's the other way around.

I think people hate the cheats. Which are the ones you described above. They're sitting pretty at the top playing with our money and using it to gain more influence and cheat more money.

And that includes companies like GE unfortunately.

[101A]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=183527&highlight=0.1%25


Perfect, thanks.

[ElNono]

So we're in agreement here :lol

[DarrinS]

And, to me, it's not that those uber rich made all that money, it's specifically HOW they made that money that is the problem....by cheating; legalized stealing with the assistance of our elected officials. THEY have wrecked much of the economy, and not really produced that much in return (the Gates's of the world being the exceptions), but we can name most of those guys - no problem if you create hundreds of thousands of jobs; make what you will. If you created nothing of importance except more money to pay for politicians with, to hell with you.


:toast

[101A]

I don't think the vast amount of people hate (or are envious) of people that make money. I would even argue that it's the other way around.

I think people hate the cheats. Which are the ones you described above. They're sitting pretty at the top playing with our money and using it to gain more influence and cheat more money.

And that includes companies like GE unfortunately.

Common ground. :toast

[Th'Pusher]

Our system is regressive if you make your money by using money (in most cases other people's OR, FREE money you get from the fed - a "Get Rich for Free" card as Taibbii said it yesterday). Capital gains should be treated as all other income (Buffett has said this); would, first, cause working on Wal Street to immediately be that much less lucrative. On this we agree wholeheartedly. I'm just hoping we don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

That's what I don't get. Every single Republican Candidate (with the exception of Romney) is for eliminating all capital gains taxes. Makes no sense, but you have morons lined up to vote directly against their own financial interests.

[101A]

That's what I don't get. Every single Republican Candidate (with the exception of Romney) is for eliminating all capital gains taxes. Makes no sense, but you have morons lined up to vote directly against their own financial interests.

It's a talking point, I think, that Limbaugh et al. must be spewing. I guess this because my Mom listens to OAI all day long, and it's what she thinks....

Eliminating capital gains is the worst thing we could do. All it would do, for instance, in encourage me to sell my business to a larger corporation; taking my capital gain - but eliminating 25 jobs overnight. NOT what should be happening. Capital gains taxes need to AT LEAST match regular income, if not be higher than them. The government ought to encourage what we need more of (earned income).

[boutons_deux]

"I thought 1% started at $250,000?"

another report in the last week said 50% of US workers make $29K or less.

[101A]

That's what I don't get. Every single Republican Candidate (with the exception of Romney) is for eliminating all capital gains taxes. Makes no sense, but you have morons lined up to vote directly against their own financial interests.

Also, if you are trying to run for president, and you're opponent is going to spend over a billion dollars, you better damn well say and support things that the people who have the money like.....damn we're screwed.

[RandomGuy]

And, to me, it's not that those uber rich made all that money, it's specifically HOW they made that money that is the problem....by cheating; legalized stealing with the assistance of our elected officials. THEY have wrecked much of the economy, and not really produced that much in return (the Gates's of the world being the exceptions), but we can name most of those guys - no problem if you create hundreds of thousands of jobs; make what you will. If you created nothing of importance except more money to pay for politicians with, to hell with you.

I would agree.

That is why Riech's suggestion for an extra tax bracket for those making $5,000,000 sounds good to me.

[boutons_deux]

( "Gates's of the world being the exceptions"

Gates pushing shiny, new un-(long-term)-tested malaria vaccine to 100s of Ms of people ASAP could spell disaster long-term, no matter how well meaning he thinks he is. )

=========

The Big Lie by the VRWC is that the OWS are anti-corporate, when they are really

anti-corporate crime/fraud/theft,

anti-corporate "ethics/morality" where profits are above all (externalized) costs (to humans, land, air, water).

anti-corporate control of government to enrich themselves while fucking everybody and everything else.

Big Lies, it's was the VRWC does.

[101A]

I would agree.

That is why Riech's suggestion for an extra tax bracket for those making $5,000,000 sounds good to me.


I wouldn't argue - however with today's code; they'll just find a shelter or other vehicle to avoid anything punitive.

Must make a "deduction less" tax system; just a few pages (not the 17,000 it currently is); whether flat or progressive; the power brokering that Congress gets to do (be bought off to do), picking winners and losers is destructive and cancerous to our markets.

[boutons_deux]

"Must make a "deduction less" tax system"

try removing the mortgage interest deduction, or taxing people on "benefits" income like employer-paid health insurance, and see what happens.

[boutons_deux]

"they'll just find a shelter"

Only 5K of the 50K US secret accounts in Switzerland were given to IRS.

What kind of deal is that?

and who picked which 5K?

[vy65]

JEFFREY BROWN: Now to our own continuing series on inequality.

A new analysis from the Congressional Budget Office supports the idea that income inequality has grown considerably over the past few decades. The report found that household income grew by 275 percent between 1979 and 2007 for the wealthiest 1 percent of the population. For the rest of the top fifth of the country, it grew by 65 percent. By contrast, the bottom fifth of the population saw its income grow by just 18 percent.

The NewsHour's economics correspondent, Paul Solman, has been exploring the consequences of those trends in previous stories he has done in his series. Tonight, he gets a contrarian view, suggesting inequality in a free market system may not be as bad as advertised.

It's part of his ongoing reporting on Making Sense of financial news.

PAUL SOLMAN: Richard Epstein, welcome.

RICHARD EPSTEIN, New York University School of Law: Thank you for having me.
Join Paul on Twitter for a live chat on inequality Friday, Oct. 28, 2011. More information on Making Sen$e.
Join Paul on Twitter for a live chat on inequality Friday, Oct. 28, 2011. More information on Making Sen$e.

PAUL SOLMAN: What's good about inequality?

RICHARD EPSTEIN: What's good about inequality is if, in fact, it turns out that inequality creates an incentive for people to produce and to create wealth, it's a wonderful force for innovation. So let's just go and take somebody like Bill Gates again or any entrepreneur.

Guy earns $50 billion, right? How much consumer welfare has he created by selling products? We can estimate the amount of gains to purchases, because everybody who buys one of his products or one of Steve Jobs' products, in effect, values it more than he receives.

The social gain from inequality to consumers of those goods probably dwarfs the entrepreneurial gain by a factor of 10-1 or 20-1.

PAUL SOLMAN: So you mean the incentive for great wealth had Steve Jobs and Bill Gates create products which created so much value that it far outstripped the compensation to them?

RICHARD EPSTEIN: Yes.

And one of the fundamental mistakes about the egalitarians is they're so interested in trying to minimize differences that they don't understand the completely adverse effects that it has on the size of the pie.

PAUL SOLMAN: Epstein worries about attempts to raise marginal tax rates, that is, the higher percentages paid on higher amounts of income.

RICHARD EPSTEIN: You can tell the difference between a liberal and conservative by the following test. A liberal believes that changes in taxes have very little effect on production, but huge effects favorable on distribution.

Folks like myself believe it's exactly the opposite. Very high tax rates or even small changes in taxes have very adverse effects on production, and they do very little to produce redistribution, because the money gets dissipated and taken away through the political process in the ways that even the most ardent supporters of redistribution will not like.

PAUL SOLMAN: You think that Steve Jobs and Bill Gates wouldn't have done what they had done with higher marginal tax rates?

RICHARD EPSTEIN: Well, yes, because they just don't do it. They have to be able to get investors to sign up for their things. Those investors have to have disposable income.

You start changing the particular policies so that there is high or marginal rates on taxable income, two things happen simultaneously. People have less money to invest, and people will be less willing to invest it because they will get a lower rate of return.

PAUL SOLMAN: In the period in which the American economy grew most vigorously, the United States had higher marginal rates, much higher, higher capital gains rate, and more prosperity and greater economic equality.

RICHARD EPSTEIN: No.

First of all, the highest marginal tax rates were also accompanied with tax shelters for everybody in those rates. The second thing is that the monies that were being spent in those days were being spent in much more intelligent ways. That is, if you go and you look at either state or federal budgets and see the amount of money that is spent on what we would call standard infrastructure improvements, and spent well, like the interstate highway program in 1956, that was very high.

The money that is spent today on infrastructure improvements of a good variety is a tiny fraction of what it was then. And the amount of money that is spent essentially on transfer payments has mushroomed enormously.

The fundamental truth is, the tax system is more redistributive than it was before, which will lead to a reduction in efforts, and the regulatory burden on the economy is vastly greater, and we would expect lower levels of growth.

PAUL SOLMAN: So, if inequality is good because it provides incentives to people, is equality bad because it provides disincentives?

RICHARD EPSTEIN: No, it's not the equality or the inequality. It's the possibility of earning a high rate of return which does it.

And what happens is, if you let people go through voluntary transactions that produce mutual gain, you will increase overall welfare, you will improve the position of those on the bottom. But increased overall welfare will produce greater skews in income, because in a world with genuine opportunities, you will create billionaires.

In a world without it, the people at the bottom will remain where they were, there will be nobody at the top to subsidize them, so everybody will turn out to be worse off.

PAUL SOLMAN: Aren't many of the top 1 percent or 0.1 percent in this country rich because they're in finance?

RICHARD EPSTEIN: Yes. Many of the very richest people in the United States are rich because they are in finance.

And one of the things you have to ask is, why is anyone prepared to pay them huge sums of money if in fact they perform nothing of social value? And the answer is that when you try to knock out the financiers, what you do is you destroy the liquidity of capital markets. And when you destroy the liquidity of those markets, you make it impossible for businesses to invest, you make it impossible for people to buy home mortgages and so forth, and all sorts of other breakdowns.

So they should be rich. It doesn't bother me.

PAUL SOLMAN: Are you worried that a small number of people controlling a disproportionate share of the wealth can control a democratic system?

RICHARD EPSTEIN: Oh, my God no.

If you think the rich are controlling the situation, why is it that anything more than $1 million on a home mortgage turns out to be non-deductible, while the amounts that are below that are left? If one thinks that the rich dominate the particular system, why is it Obama is targeting for political advantage people with incomes over $250,000, rather than those who are under that particular figure?

You're talking about 1 percent of the people, and they're going to win an electoral battle against the multitudes? Forget it. It's just not going to happen.

PAUL SOLMAN: You mean to tell me that you don't think the top 1 percent of Americans don't have a disproportionate impact on the political process?

RICHARD EPSTEIN: No, of course they have a disproportionate impact, but that doesn't mean that they control it. They also ought to have it.

The last thing you would want to do in any kind of sensible society is to have a set of rules in which one man/one vote dictates over every issue. And the last thing we need is a popular democracy in which one man/one vote and which you can have select taxes on people, because once you can have selected taxes on certain people, why not go along and say, you know, this is a wonderful mansion that Mr. Gates owns, what we ought to do is just take it and sell it off to some foreign sheik, and take the money and divide it amongst ourselves?

PAUL SOLMAN: Are you in favor of an inheritance tax?

RICHARD EPSTEIN: I'm in favor of its abolition. I have said that for years. I think the estate tax is the most mad tax imaginable.

PAUL SOLMAN: But if the point of inequality is to provide economic incentives to productivity, then why shouldn't everybody start from scratch?

RICHARD EPSTEIN: Because that's a crazy -- I mean, starting everybody from scratch turns out to be exactly the worst way to do this thing, because it means that no parent is now going to be entitled to make investments in human capital, in their children.

That means you're going to try to socialize all the wealth. And once you try to do that, what will happen is that the level of excellence that you will get at the top, which is where you generate most of your future wealth, will be necessarily compromised.

PAUL SOLMAN: Wait. But if you think that transfer payments to poorer people disincentivizes them, why wouldn't transfer payments that you and I would make to our children disincentivize them?

RICHARD EPSTEIN: Because I can take care of my own money and deal with my own family in a prudential and rational way, knowing this incentive, knowing who my children are.

I give it to the United States government, they just give it out at random. The chances are that it will be watched and flourished is completely different.

PAUL SOLMAN: I assume you have some sympathy for people who are increasingly falling behind?

RICHARD EPSTEIN: Everybody does. The question is, you will not be able to help them through transfer payments. The only way you could help them is through increased opportunities. The rules that people put into place to protect workers strangle them.

PAUL SOLMAN: You don't think there's any change over the last bunch of decades in the United States, in the ethos that we all share as to what's fair?

RICHARD EPSTEIN: No, I think there is a change, I think.

But it runs both ways. Most Americans like both things. They like to have opportunities for themselves and they like to have guaranteed incomes for themselves. And it turns out that one of the things that is so sad today about the American ethos is that people are much more talking about the me generation or themselves, instead of trying to think about this thing as a more systematic and global issue.

And if you start to think about that -- I'm going to quote Abraham Lincoln, because I like to do that -- which is, he said, quite rightly, that you do not make the poor rich by making the rich poor.

PAUL SOLMAN: Richard Epstein, thank you very much.

RICHARD EPSTEIN: It's been a great pleasure to be here.

JEFFREY BROWN: That was libertarian law professor Richard Epstein. He teaches at New York University School of Law.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec11/makingsense_10-26.html

[101A]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec11/makingsense_10-26.html

It's a good academic discussion.

Unfortunately, that's not where we are. Our financial sector did not behave as Epstein suggests they should. They took deep bets on risky ventures with ridiculous returns, and then got bailed out where it all went to shit - talk about the wrong kind of incentive! Much as what Krugman spouts only works in a vacuum, what Epstein is alleging doesn't meat the "where the tire meets the road" test.

[vy65]

FWIW, I don't think Epstein is necessarily talking about the financial sector. That discussion was more in terms of general income inequality. The financial sector definitely contributes to the wealth gap - but is not the sole cause.

[RandomGuy]

I wouldn't argue - however with today's code; they'll just find a shelter or other vehicle to avoid anything punitive.

Must make a "deduction less" tax system; just a few pages (not the 17,000 it currently is); whether flat or progressive; the power brokering that Congress gets to do (be bought off to do), picking winners and losers is destructive and cancerous to our markets.

I agree with that as well.

A simple flat tax, with no deductions other than for those with low incomes would be the thing I favor, as much as it pains me to agree with Ricky Perry.

I used to be opposed to flat taxes, but it has become patently clear that our tax system is too complex. As much as that means less work for accountants, I favor it anyways. :lol

[101A]

PAUL SOLMAN: Aren't many of the top 1 percent or 0.1 percent in this country rich because they're in finance?

RICHARD EPSTEIN: Yes. Many of the very richest people in the United States are rich because they are in finance.

And one of the things you have to ask is, why is anyone prepared to pay them huge sums of money if in fact they perform nothing of social value? And the answer is that when you try to knock out the financiers, what you do is you destroy the liquidity of capital markets. And when you destroy the liquidity of those markets, you make it impossible for businesses to invest, you make it impossible for people to buy home mortgages and so forth, and all sorts of other breakdowns.

So they should be rich. It doesn't bother me.

It's not finance, per se, it's the way the game is rigged to make it easy for them that is wrong. Lower tax rate on how THEY make money, for instance; then the fact that none are in jail.....

[vy65]

I don't see what you're saying and what Epstein is arguing are really mutually exclusive. You can argue that systematic economic inequality is a good thing while at the same time arguing that certain, lawless behavior, should be punished. The fact that some iBankers aren't in jail doesn't mean Epstein is wrong.

[101A]

I don't see what you're saying and what Epstein is arguing are really mutually exclusive. You can argue that systematic economic inequality is a good thing while at the same time arguing that certain, lawless behavior, should be punished. The fact that some iBankers aren't in jail doesn't mean Epstein is wrong.

You're right. I have no problem with inequality, however Epstein seems to be defending the current situation; when I see it as untenable. He as brought in, after all, as a counterpoint to Occupy Wall Street, after all.

If we could have a system as Epstein defines it, with winners AND losers, great; but as it is; there are seemingly no losers once people achieve a certain level.

[vy65]

You're right. I have no problem with inequality, however Epstein seems to be defending the current situation; when I see it as untenable. He as brought in, after all, as a counterpoint to Occupy Wall Street, after all.

This might be quibbling over minutia, but I don't see him as responding to the OWS crowd so much as to those who take issue with the wealth gap in general. I think he's responding to those who would support aggressive wealth redistribution measures - not those who decry financial corruption/cronyism on wall st.

[scott]

BTW, there's a huge diparity between the 1% and the 0.1%.

I'm actually working on similar data for another project - not necessarily the top 0.1%, but actually the top 0.029% of the Top 1%: The Top 400 Wealthiest Americans.

I can't give away all my work in progress just yet (and I'll probably eventually post some of it here - I'm working on actual academic research, not internet musings) - but here is an interesting tidbit I think illustrates the point of why a strict adherence to using whole numbers (99% vs. 1%) is a mistake and creates division where they may not be any:

The average Net Worth of the Top 400 is 2,654 times greater than the last person who makes the cutoff for the Top 1%.

[101A]

This might be quibbling over minutia, but I don't see him as responding to the OWS crowd so much as to those who take issue with the wealth gap in general. I think he's responding to those who would support aggressive wealth redistribution measures - not those who decry financial corruption/cronyism on wall st.

Fair enough.:toast

[RandomGuy]

I'm actually working on similar data for another project - not necessarily the top 0.1%, but actually the top 0.029% of the Top 1%: The Top 400 Wealthiest Americans.

I can't give away all my work in progress just yet (and I'll probably eventually post some of it here - I'm working on actual academic research, not internet musings) - but here is an interesting tidbit I think illustrates the point of why a strict adherence to using whole numbers (99% vs. 1%) is a mistake and creates division where they may not be any:

The average Net Worth of the Top 400 is 2,654 times greater than the last person who makes the cutoff for the Top 1%.

Yeah, someone had a really good graphic that I saw the other day that illustrated this rather well.

Let me know when to fire up the guillotine. I jest, but the corrosive effects of such concentration are not something to be taken lightly, IMO.

[RandomGuy]

aggressive wealth redistribution measures

What would you call a system where most of the wealth created benefitted a tiny fraction of society, if not an "aggressive wealth redistribution measure"?

People piss and moan about "class warfare" but as I have said before, it is already happening and one class is clearly winning.

[vy65]

As usual, I have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

I'd call any policy that redistributes money from those who have earned it to those who haven't a wealth redistribution measure. The more money spread around the more aggressive the measure is.

[101A]

I think this would be easy.

We line up the richest 5,000, from poorest to richest, and put their heads, one at a time, in the machine. We ask them a series of questions about how they achieved their great wealth; we have a voice recognition switch that automatically trips the release on the word "derivative", or phrase "mortgage backed securities".

Those that are remaining get to keep ALL their wealth, and I'll even buy them a beer.

[Borat Sagyidev]

I happen to work for one of these evil 1% guys (if he is, it's just barely). Many of these people come up with the idea, write the business plan, invest their own money, get venture capital, work their ass off (often at the expense of their personal lives), and, yes, create jobs. If my company tanks, I lose my job (and whatever my stock may have been worth), but my CEO loses a lot more. He's taken more risk and has much more "skin in the game". I suppose he could divide up the company equally amongst the employees, but that doesn't make much sense to me.

I doubt your boss will lose enough to put him on the street. That's what getting venture capital is all about genius. The bank looks at your risks as high, so rather risk it all yourself you ask others.

and apparently to you they work their ass off at the expense of their personnel lives? Really, maybe so..and often to the extent of many many more people. Most of the executives I have met ...and I have met many being a engineering contractor will sacrifice to no end to take advantage of slave wage labor.

Hence the manufacturing sector of this country >>>>> Asia.

Just wondering, does your boss notice that you screw around on the net forums all day? I'd fire you a long time ago, sounds like a incompetent guy to say the least.

[Borat Sagyidev]

As usual, I have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

I'd call any policy that redistributes money from those who have earned it to those who haven't a wealth redistribution measure. The more money spread around the more aggressive the measure is.


Blah blah blah stfu. Wealth redistribution? The entire country was stolen by white males that utilized free slave labor. That's wealth redistribution.

Taxes? hardly.

Conservatives usually trying to relabel a concept in this case... taxation when the same keywords aren't working. Play it over again.

[vy65]

Clearly slavery is relevant to this conversation. Thanks bell hooks!

[Th'Pusher]

As usual, I have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

I'd call any policy that redistributes money from those who have earned it to those who haven't a wealth redistribution measure. The more money spread around the more aggressive the measure is.

I believe he is referring to the sustained upward redistribution of wealth to the top 1% that has occurred over the last 30 years.

[Winehole23]

Due adjustment to an inequitable system. This is totally different.

[RandomGuy]

As usual, I have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

I'd call any policy that redistributes money from those who have earned it to those who haven't a wealth redistribution measure. The more money spread around the more aggressive the measure is.

Shit man, just read the OP. It isn't rocket science.

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/20111029_WOC689.gif

Given the growth in the US economy over the same time period, the conclusion that our economic system has given the majority of that growth to a vanishingly small portion of the population.

The gains that used to go to the providers of labor have instead gone almost exclusively to the providers of capital.

That is a VERY aggressive wealth redistribution from those not in that upper, upper, upper bracket to those 400 or so families that now control an even greater portion of the overall wealth in this country.

(edit)

Now that you have this really hard to find information, I will ask the question again:


What would you call a system where most of the wealth created accrued to a tiny fraction of society, if not an "aggressive wealth redistribution measure"?

People piss and moan about "class warfare" but as I have said before, it is already happening and one class is clearly winning.

[101A]

Shit man, just read the OP. It isn't rocket science.

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/20111029_WOC689.gif

Given the growth in the US economy over the same time period, the conclusion that our economic system has given the majority of that growth to a vanishingly small portion of the population.

The gains that used to go to the providers of labor have instead gone almost exclusively to the providers of capital.

That is a VERY aggressive wealth redistribution from those not in that upper, upper, upper bracket to those 400 or so families that now control an even greater portion of the overall wealth in this country.

(edit)

Now that you have this really hard to find information, I will ask the question again:


What would you call a system where most of the wealth created accrued to a tiny fraction of society, if not an "aggressive wealth redistribution measure"?

People piss and moan about "class warfare" but as I have said before, it is already happening and one class is clearly winning.

The logical failing of the last statement is that is suggests a finite amount of wealth - of which the super rich are getting at the expense of everybody else. In truth EVERY bracket has, in fact, increased its income, in real dollars, over the period represented (with caveats as documented in this thread - no one has responded to my very poignant post about 401K accounts that began in EXACTLY the same year as the OP's data). Meaning, necessarily, wealth is not finite at all, and there need not be RE distribution of wealth for one group to benefit more than another; and it ONLY stands to reason that, regardless of system, that the top 1% will ALWAYS be accelerating beyond the mean, because that is what making them the top 1%! What would be interesting, would be to delineate the top 1% in 1979 - and graph those specific PERSONS from then forward.

For instance, if I made $100,000 one year, while my wife made $50,000 - the top 50% would have made 2X what the bottom 50% made. Then, I lose my job in July, after earning 50K, but my wife patents a new vaccine she's been working on, and makes 500K - THEN the top 50% is earning 10 times the bottom, increased its income 5X, while the bottom 50% stayed the same ! Doesn't tell the story very well, does it.

[vy65]

Shit man, just read the OP. It isn't rocket science.

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/20111029_WOC689.gif

Given the growth in the US economy over the same time period, the conclusion that our economic system has given the majority of that growth to a vanishingly small portion of the population.

The gains that used to go to the providers of labor have instead gone almost exclusively to the providers of capital.

That is a VERY aggressive wealth redistribution from those not in that upper, upper, upper bracket to those 400 or so families that now control an even greater portion of the overall wealth in this country.

(edit)

Now that you have this really hard to find information, I will ask the question again:

Why does everyone have an equal right to redeem the benefits of economic growth? And I don't see how your chart explains how the "gains that used to go to the providers of labor have instead gone almost exclusively to the providers of capital." Help me out there.

Your chart is also irrelevant to what we were discussing. The Epstein bit was directed towards government tax policy which would redistribute cash earned by someone to others. You're just mad that those with access to capital have profited more than those who provide human capital.

Just because 400 families or whatever have accumulated wealth at a greater rate than the rest of the country doesn't mean there's some sinister wealth-redistribution plot. It means they either had an innovative and profitable idea, gamed the system, or did anything else that made them billions. Put the fucking koolaid down.

[CosmicCowboy]

The logical failing of the last statement is that is suggests a finite amount of wealth - of which the super rich are getting at the expense of everybody else. In truth EVERY bracket has, in fact, increased its income, in real dollars, over the period represented (with caveats as documented in this thread - no one has responded to my very poignant post about 401K accounts that began in EXACTLY the same year as the OP's data). Meaning, necessarily, wealth is not finite at all, and there need not be RE distribution of wealth for one group to benefit more than another; and it ONLY stands to reason that, regardless of system, that the top 1% will ALWAYS be accelerating beyond the mean, because that is what making them the top 1%! What would be interesting, would be to delineate the top 1% in 1979 - and graph those specific PERSONS from then forward.

For instance, if I made $100,000 one year, while my wife made $50,000 - the top 50% would have made 2X what the bottom 50% made. Then, I lose my job in July, after earning 50K, but my wife patents a new vaccine she's been working on, and makes 500K - THEN the top 50% is earning 10 times the bottom, increased its income 5X, while the bottom 50% stayed the same ! Doesn't tell the story very well, does it.

Unfortunately, although you make perfect sense you are wasting your time trying to convince this crowd the "man" isn't holding them down.

[clambake]

thats right. they gamed the system, made billions, and then took all the money from the 99% to stay in their perch.

[RandomGuy]

The logical failing of the last statement is that is suggests a finite amount of wealth - of which the super rich are getting at the expense of everybody else. In truth EVERY bracket has, in fact, increased its income, in real dollars, over the period represented (with caveats as documented in this thread - no one has responded to my very poignant post about 401K accounts that began in EXACTLY the same year as the OP's data). Meaning, necessarily, wealth is not finite at all, and there need not be RE distribution of wealth for one group to benefit more than another; and it ONLY stands to reason that, regardless of system, that the top 1% will ALWAYS be accelerating beyond the mean, because that is what making them the top 1%! What would be interesting, would be to delineate the top 1% in 1979 - and graph those specific PERSONS from then forward.

For instance, if I made $100,000 one year, while my wife made $50,000 - the top 50% would have made 2X what the bottom 50% made. Then, I lose my job in July, after earning 50K, but my wife patents a new vaccine she's been working on, and makes 500K - THEN the top 50% is earning 10 times the bottom, increased its income 5X, while the bottom 50% stayed the same ! Doesn't tell the story very well, does it.

Wealth is finite and measurable.

It is not, however, fixed and immutable.

New wealth is created all the time. Some create it through providing labor to the economy, some create it by providing capital.

The data we have shows that our system has provided almost all the new wealth created to those with capital, at the expense of those whose only asset is the labor they provide.

Is this a fair system?

Is it moral?

[Th'Pusher]

Wealth is finite and measurable.

It is not, however, fixed and immutable.

New wealth is created all the time. Some create it through providing labor to the economy, some create it by providing capital.

The data we have shows that our system has provided almost all the new wealth created to those with capital, at the expense of those whose only asset is the labor they provide.

Is this a fair system?

Is it moral?


Not to mention there appear to be societal benefits to having low economic inequality - Longer life expectancy, better education, lower infant mortality rates, fewer homicides, less people in prison, etc.

[RandomGuy]

Why does everyone have an equal right to redeem the benefits of economic growth? And I don't see how your chart explains how the "gains that used to go to the providers of labor have instead gone almost exclusively to the providers of capital." Help me out there.

Your chart is also irrelevant to what we were discussing. The Epstein bit was directed towards government tax policy which would redistribute cash earned by someone to others. You're just mad that those with access to capital have profited more than those who provide human capital.

Just because 400 families or whatever have accumulated wealth at a greater rate than the rest of the country doesn't mean there's some sinister wealth-redistribution plot. It means they either had an innovative and profitable idea, gamed the system, or did anything else that made them billions. Put the fucking koolaid down.

The chart was in the OP. That kind of makes it, by definition, relevant to the discussion.

You were complaining about a mechanism that aggresively redistributes wealth, and I pointed out that our economic system already does that, to the benefit of a very small portion of the population.

For whatever reason, you appear not to want to admit that. That seems to me far more dogmatic than anything I have put forth so far.

Leave it to the wanna-be lawyer to argue legality and ignore morality.

[CosmicCowboy]

So redistribution of wealth by force is moral?

[RandomGuy]

Not to mention there appear to be societal benefits to having low economic inequality - Longer life expectancy, better education, lower infant mortality rates, fewer homicides, less people in prison, etc.

That is because the economic data we have is that it doesn't take much income gain to make huge strides in well-being.

Give the average person an extra $10,000 per year and you get a massive uptick in health, education and so forth.

Give those with incomes of $250,000 per year, have almost no appreciable gain in well-being.

The marginal benefit of each additional dollar vanishes to next to nothing at some point. This is why progressive taxation is both desirable and ethical.

[RandomGuy]

So redistribution of wealth by force is moral?

Yes.

[vy65]

That chart shows that the rich have accumulated wealth at a greater rate than the not-rich. The chart does not show that the rich have accumulated wealth at the expense of the not-rich -- or -- that wealth is zero-sum. Your bald assertions don't prove that fact either. That's why your chart is irrelevant to this conversation.

I wasn't complaining about anything either ... I just said Epstein was responding to a specific claim.

You're always quick to point out ad homs and specious arguments. I'd suggest taking a look at your post and doing some soul-searching ...

[RandomGuy]

While that answer is percolating, "yes" is too simple an answer.

Better:

"yes, but..." with a lot of qualifiers.

Like everything, taxation and government represents tradeoffs. Sometimes you do not get an obvious good/bad choice, but are forced by reality to choose between bad/less bad.

[CosmicCowboy]

Yes.

Everything is relative. Compared to a homeless guy you are extremely wealthy. If he puts a knife to your throat and takes your wallet because you clearly have hundreds if not thousands times more wealth than he does, is that moral?

[RandomGuy]

You're always quick to point out ad homs and specious arguments. I'd suggest taking a look at your post and doing some soul-searching ...


Put the fucking koolaid down.

I generally respond with the same level of respect I am given, young man. Sorry you seem to have missed that.

[RandomGuy]

Everything is relative. Compared to a homeless guy you are extremely wealthy. If he puts a knife to your throat and takes your wallet because you clearly have hundreds if not thousands times more wealth than he does, is that moral?

No, it is clearly not.

Drawing an equivalence between that action and that of taxation, as you are probably implying, is a bit of a stretch.

[vy65]

I generally respond with the same level of respect I am given, young man. Sorry you seem to have missed that.

Insinuating that you're "drinking the koolaid" is clearly equivalent to saying some is shitty at their job.

But I don't even care - you didn't bother answering my substantive questions - how is wealth zero sum and how does the chart prove that fact?

[Borat Sagyidev]

No, it is clearly not.

Drawing an equivalence between that action and that of taxation, as you are probably implying, is a bit of a stretch.


A bit of a stretch? That has to be one the dumbest justifications I have ever heard.


http://troll.me/images/michael-scott-declare/i-declare-moron.jpg

[RandomGuy]

Why does everyone have an equal right to redeem the benefits of economic growth? And I don't see how your chart explains how the "gains that used to go to the providers of labor have instead gone almost exclusively to the providers of capital." Help me out there.

Why does everyone NOT have an equal right to redeem the benefits of economic growth?

It seems to me that the goal of any economic system is to maximize overall well-being of its participants.

The chart shows that, because if you look at the period before it, income gains were not quite to lop-sidedly given to the top 1%.

[CosmicCowboy]

No, it is clearly not.

Drawing an equivalence between that action and that of taxation, as you are probably implying, is a bit of a stretch.

Is it?

Lets say that there are you and 5 homeless guys on the street.

All six of you vote whether or not they should take your money.

The vote is 5 to 1 to take your money, because you clearly have thousands of times as much wealth as they do..

Is this moral?

[RandomGuy]

Insinuating that you're "drinking the koolaid" is clearly equivalent to saying some is shitty at their job.

But I don't even care - you didn't bother answering my substantive questions - how is wealth zero sum and how does the chart prove that fact?

Overall wealth is finite and measurable.

Income is, generally speaking, a measure of the increase in wealth.

Income is finite and measureable.

If an economy as a whole increases wealth by 100, then the economic system divides that according to that system.

We have chosen a system where most of that increase benefits 400 people out of 300,000,000.

Not sure how much easier I can make it.

[RandomGuy]

Is it?

Lets say that there are you and 5 homeless guys on the street.

All six of you vote whether or not they should take your money.

The vote is 5 to 1 to take your money, because you clearly have thousands of times as much wealth as they do..

Is this moral?

Yes. From an overall group standpoint, this is a very moral action.

[scott]

The logical failing of the last statement is that is suggests a finite amount of wealth - of which the super rich are getting at the expense of everybody else. In truth EVERY bracket has, in fact, increased its income, in real dollars, over the period represented (with caveats as documented in this thread - no one has responded to my very poignant post about 401K accounts that began in EXACTLY the same year as the OP's data). Meaning, necessarily, wealth is not finite at all, and there need not be RE distribution of wealth for one group to benefit more than another; and it ONLY stands to reason that, regardless of system, that the top 1% will ALWAYS be accelerating beyond the mean, because that is what making them the top 1%! What would be interesting, would be to delineate the top 1% in 1979 - and graph those specific PERSONS from then forward.

For instance, if I made $100,000 one year, while my wife made $50,000 - the top 50% would have made 2X what the bottom 50% made. Then, I lose my job in July, after earning 50K, but my wife patents a new vaccine she's been working on, and makes 500K - THEN the top 50% is earning 10 times the bottom, increased its income 5X, while the bottom 50% stayed the same ! Doesn't tell the story very well, does it.

I disagree with this on a theoretical level. While "money" may not be finite, wealth certainly is because it is by it's very nature a relative term.

Does having $1,000,000 dollars make you wealthy? How about 1 million euros? Or ten galictaspherons?

Wealth is what you have relative to everyone else, and by it's very nature requires inequality. Depending on what our objectives are, that inequality is important for the progress of a society: it gives people incentives to innovate, work harder, etc. In a pure socialistic system, there is complete equality and thus no wealth. However, just as in a case where the lack of inequality and wealth is harmful to a society, a too-narrow concentration of wealth and increased inequality with very little economic mobility is equally harmful to a society.

A big problem I have with people discussing "ideal solutions" is that the problem and/or objective to which the solution tries to deal with has never been defined, or even whispered about. It's akin to a bunch of people walking around shouting out random numbers to answer a math problem we haven't been made aware of.

[CosmicCowboy]

Yes. From an overall group standpoint, this is a very moral action.

So you are saying that the 99% taking the 1%'s accrued wealth by force is moral?

What if it is the 51% taking the 49%'s wealth by force?

still moral?

[RandomGuy]

Insinuating that you're "drinking the koolaid" is clearly equivalent to saying some is shitty at their job.


I never said you were shitty at your job, that I can remember.

To be 100% clear:
I think you can be a bit rude and hot-headed, as you let this stuff get you riled up (not exactly a bad thing in my book). I think the kinds of things you argue when talking about this subject ultimately are immoral.

[vy65]

Why does everyone NOT have an equal right to redeem the benefits of economic growth?

There's no equal right because you get what you put in. In any capitalistic system, there will be winners and losers. The losers shouldn't be entitled to as much as the winners simply because they're a part of the system. If my company has a good idea, and turns a profit, should a flailing company be entitled to my profits because both entities have an equal right to my company's growth?


It seems to me that the goal of any economic system is to maximize overall well-being of its participants.

That's great. I disagree


The chart shows that, because if you look at the period before it, income gains were not quite to lop-sidedly given to the top 1%.

Incorrect. That chart shows that the rate at which the 1% accumulated wealth grew at a greater rate than any other cohort. It does not indicate that the 1%'s wealth was accumulated at the expense of any cohort. You're projecting your assumptions into the chart (i.e. that economic growth is some type of community property) and then claiming that chart is proof.

[RandomGuy]

So you are saying that the 99% taking the 1%'s accrued wealth by force is moral?

What if it is the 51% taking the 49%'s wealth by force?

still moral?

Let me turn that around.

Is the 400/300,000,000 % taking most of the wealth by force moral?

[CosmicCowboy]

Let me turn that around.

Is the 400/300,000,000 % taking most of the wealth by force moral?

it's not by force.

HUGE difference.

[vy65]

Wealth is what you have relative to everyone else, and by it's very nature requires inequality. Depending on what our objectives are, that inequality is important for the progress of a society: it gives people incentives to innovate, work harder, etc. In a pure socialistic system, there is complete equality and thus no wealth. However, just as in a case where the lack of inequality and wealth is harmful to a society, a too-narrow concentration of wealth and increased inequality with very little economic mobility is equally harmful to a society.

This.

[scott]

There's no equal right because you get what you put in. In any capitalistic system, there will be winners and losers. The losers shouldn't be entitled to as much as the winners simply because they're a part of the system.

This is 100% correct.



Incorrect. That chart shows that the rate at which the 1% accumulated wealth grew at a greater rate than any other cohort. It does not indicate that the 1%'s wealth was accumulated at the expense of any cohort. You're projecting your assumptions into the chart (i.e. that economic growth is some type of community property) and then claiming that chart is proof.

But then you go and contradict yourself. All wealth is accumulated at the expense of others... that's what "there will be winners and losers" means.

[vy65]

Overall wealth is finite and measurable.

Income is, generally speaking, a measure of the increase in wealth.

Income is finite and measureable.

If an economy as a whole increases wealth by 100, then the economic system divides that according to that system.

We have chosen a system where most of that increase benefits 400 people out of 300,000,000.

Not sure how much easier I can make it.

Why is wealth finite?

So when the economy, as a whole, grows, everyone is entitled to a piece of the action? We don't care about what they've done in that system to make it grow (or shrink)?

[DarrinS]

I generally respond with the same level of respect I am given, young man. Sorry you seem to have missed that.

:rolleyes

[RandomGuy]

There's no equal right because you get what you put in. In any capitalistic system, there will be winners and losers. The losers shouldn't be entitled to as much as the winners simply because they're a part of the system. If my company has a good idea, and turns a profit, should a flailing company be entitled to my profits because both entities have an equal right to my company's growth?



That's great. I disagree



Incorrect. That chart shows that the rate at which the 1% accumulated wealth grew at a greater rate than any other cohort. It does not indicate that the 1%'s wealth was accumulated at the expense of any cohort. You're projecting your assumptions into the chart (i.e. that economic growth is some type of community property) and then claiming that chart is proof.

I have provided my interpretation of that data, yes.

The chart itself is proof of nothing more than what it says.

The defintion of overall economic growth is that it is community property. We chose a system by which that is divided. Some are rewarded more than others.

Profit motive is a good thing, and generally provides a mechanism that has, up until recently, provided for solid gains in human well-being.

[vy65]

But then you go and contradict yourself. All wealth is accumulated at the expense of others... that's what "there will be winners and losers" means.

What I'm not saying - and why I think we're in agreement - is this: on a transaction-to-transaction basis, there will be winners and losers. However, those losers still have the opportunity to accumulate wealth on other deals. In other words, on an individualized basis profit might be zero-sum. However, aggregated, wealth is not zero-sum because of the opportunities the "losers" have to make their cash back.

And one other thing - my point was just to show that the chart doesn't do the work that RG thinks it does. It does not, in any way demonstrate, that the rich have profited at the expense of the poor. Quite the contrary, it shows that both have accumulated wealth, albeit at different rates.

[vy65]

The defintion of overall economic growth is that it is community property. We chose a system by which that is divided. Some are rewarded more than others.

Profit motive is a good thing, and generally provides a mechanism that has, up until recently, provided for solid gains in human well-being.

That's the most convoluted way of looking at the economy I've ever heard of. You're saying that we should view total economic growth as a big national unit of production - and then that unit is cut up and divided amongst the winners and losers?

[RandomGuy]

:rolleyes

Dishonesty is a form of disrespect, in my book. Half-truths might be considered accidental or simple ignorance if isolated, but after years of such things, the pattern to deceive becomes fairly clear, troll boy.

[scott]

And one other thing - my point was just to show that the chart doesn't do the work that RG thinks it does. It does not, in any way demonstrate, that the rich have profited at the expense of the poor. Quite the contrary, it shows that both have accumulated wealth, albeit at different rates.

Actually, I don't think that chart shows either of those things. It shows that everyone has more dollarsy, some have accumulated more faster than others. But dollars are not in-and-of-themselves measures of wealth (going back to my theoretical view of what wealth is).

[vy65]

I equivocated dollars with wealth. My bad.

[RandomGuy]

Why is wealth finite?

So when the economy, as a whole, grows, everyone is entitled to a piece of the action? We don't care about what they've done in that system to make it grow (or shrink)?

As I said before, wealth is finite. There is a measureable end to it.

It is NOT fixed and immutable. Overall wealth changes over time.

I would say the answer to your second question is yes, everyone is entitled to a piece of any new wealth created. Whoever is most responsible for that new wealth should be given a larger share though.

What is your answer to that question?

[scott]

What I'm not saying - and why I think we're in agreement - is this: on a transaction-to-transaction basis, there will be winners and losers. However, those losers still have the opportunity to accumulate wealth on other deals. In other words, on an individualized basis profit might be zero-sum. However, aggregated, wealth is not zero-sum because of the opportunities the "losers" have to make their cash back.



I agree on a transaction level basis, but disagree on your intrepretation of the aggregate. Imagine a two-person society with just you and me. Only one of us can acquire "wealth" and be "rich" and it necessitates that the other be "poor".

Having more stuff doesn't make you wealthy. Having more stuff than everyone else does.

[scott]

As I said before, wealth is finite. There is a measureable end to it.

It is NOT fixed and immutable. Overall wealth changes over time.

I would say the answer to your second question is yes, everyone is entitled to a piece of any new wealth created. Whoever is most responsible for that new wealth should be given a larger share though.

What is your answer to that question?

I disagree here too. In my view, which I proudly indoctrinate all my students with, Wealth can neither be created or destroyed.

With that said, if we want to define "wealth" has "stuff" for the purposes of this thread, then I have nothing futher to add.

[vy65]

As I said before, wealth is finite. There is a measureable end to it.

It is NOT fixed and immutable. Overall wealth changes over time.

You still haven't explained why wealth is finite. What's the measurable end to it?


I would say the answer to your second question is yes, everyone is entitled to a piece of any new wealth created. Whoever is most responsible for that new wealth should be given a larger share though.

What is your answer to that question?

Speaking of immoral. My answer is that I have no right to the wealth accumulated by another just as much as another has no right to my wealth. Everything good and decent comes from this simple fact.

[RandomGuy]

That's the most convoluted way of looking at the economy I've ever heard of. You're saying that we should view total economic growth as a big national unit of production - and then that unit is cut up and divided amongst the winners and losers?

Essentially yes. Not by any specific decision, but by the results of countless decisions.

Profit for a company is allocated among the labor and among the shareholders by an individual decision in that company.

Macroeconomics is, roughly, the sum of microeconomic decisions like that.

[RandomGuy]

I disagree here too. In my view, which I proudly indoctrinate all my students with, Wealth can neither be created or destroyed.

With that said, if we want to define "wealth" as "stuff" for the purposes of this thread, then I have nothing futher to add.

How exactly would you define wealth?

[vy65]

I agree on a transaction level basis, but disagree on your intrepretation of the aggregate. Imagine a two-person society with just you and me. Only one of us can acquire "wealth" and be "rich" and it necessitates that the other be "poor".

Thankfully, our society is more populated and more complicated than a two-person world. I'm not trying to be glib - I just think that, overall, the opportunities present in the system eventually even out.


Having more stuff doesn't make you wealthy. Having more stuff than everyone else does.

Absolutely agree. I think that, in toto, there are plenty of opportunities to get more stuff than everyone else - and that's what makes the system "work."

[vy65]

Essentially yes. Not by any specific decision, but by the results of countless decisions.

Profit for a company is allocated among the labor and among the shareholders by an individual decision in that company.

Macroeconomics is, roughly, the sum of microeconomic decisions like that.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

[RandomGuy]

Speaking of immoral. My answer is that I have no right to the wealth accumulated by another just as much as another has no right to my wealth. Everything good and decent comes from this simple fact.

Corporations benefit from the accumulated labor of their employees.

If the decision making power of how to divide that benefit rests in a small group of people, who collectively take most of that benefit, is this a conflict of interest?

[RandomGuy]

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

What does a quote from an obscure Frenchman have to do with anything?

[vy65]

Corporations benefit from the accumulated labor of their employees.

That's a very simplistic world-view. They also benefit from the risks taken by their executives and officers, by the capital contributed by its investors, from the poor decisions of their competitors, etc... etc...


If the decision making power of how to divide that benefit rests in a small group of people, who collectively take most of that benefit, is this a conflict of interest?

There's no conflict of interest because the employees are not entitled to the full benefits accrued by the corporation.

[vy65]

What does a quote from an obscure Frenchman have to do with anything?

I wouldn't call Karl Marx obscure or French.

[Winehole23]

A big problem I have with people discussing "ideal solutions" is that the problem and/or objective to which the solution tries to deal with has never been defined, or even whispered about.Problem and solution, fumbling ardently for each other in the back seat, with predictably messy results. Such is life. Such are 49 out of 50 posts in this sports subforum so sadly lacking in technical rigor.

Why do you love it so, Doctor?

[scott]

How exactly would you define wealth?

The distinction between my definition and the one it seems everyone is using is subtle, but not insignificant.

Common definition used in this thread: Wealth = How much [stuff] you have.

My definition: Wealth = How much [stuff] you have relative to everyone else.

The sum of all wealth always equals 100%, where the defining line between who is wealthy and who is not is who has a Disproportionality Index* greater than 1 (those greater are wealthy, those less than are not).

We, as a population of human beings, can all have more stuff - but the person who has the least amount of stuff is still "poor".



*an original Scott concept that I use for a lot of different applications, find my economics blog if you want to learn more, but basically is the % of [whatever it is we are trying to measure] divided by the % of the population the people who [whatever we are trying measure] have that thing. For example, in a 5 person economy, if one person holds 80% of the assets, they have a Disproportionality Index of 4 (80%/20%).

[scott]

Problem and solution, fumbling ardently for each other in the back seat, with predictably messy results. Such is life. Such are 49 out of 50 posts in this sports subforum so sadly lacking in technical rigor.

Why do you love it so, Doctor?

Masochism, I presume.

[CosmicCowboy]

Corporations benefit from the accumulated labor of their employees.

If the decision making power of how to divide that benefit rests in a small group of people, who collectively take most of that benefit, is this a conflict of interest?

No

The people have those jobs because the organization is successful, and the organization is successful because of the guidance and innovation of those people.

You are typing on a computer that more than likely operates on either microsoft or apple software. Gates and Jobs are bazillionaires. They are bazillionaires because people like you choose to give them money for the products they created. They got their wealth from mutually beneficial business transactions and not by "stealing" your wealth.

[boutons_deux]

"but the person who has the least amount of stuff is still "poor"."

VRWC, Heritage Foundation branch, says Americans aren't poor if they have a TV, phone, electricity, car, food.

Your definition is stupid. If everyone had a net worth of $1M, your "everyone" would be poor.

[vy65]

The distinction between my definition and the one it seems everyone is using is subtle, but not insignificant.

Common definition used in this thread: Wealth = How much [stuff] you have.

My definition: Wealth = How much [stuff] you have relative to everyone else.

The sum of all wealth always equals 100%, where the defining line between who is wealthy and who is not is who has a Disproportionality Index* greater than 1 (those greater are wealthy, those less than are not).

We, as a population of human beings, can all have more stuff - but the person who has the least amount of stuff is still "poor".

*an original Scott concept that I use for a lot of different applications, find my economics blog if you want to learn more, but basically is the % of [whatever it is we are trying to measure] divided by the % of the population the people who [whatever we are trying measure] have that thing. For example, in a 5 person economy, if one person holds 80% of the assets, they have a Disproportionality Index of 4 (80%/20%).

Interesting concept. I think you could make a similar argument about power (cannot be created/destroyed; is always differential) but not quantify it to the extent you have.

That being said, it seems like two conclusions can be drawn from your theory: either a) some external power (i.e. the government) should (re)organize people's stuff to deal with the simple fact that some people will have more stuff than others or b) we're content with a system where there are winners and losers (those with more stuff and those with less stuff) because the losers have the ability to become winners and the winners could always lose their stuff.

If you agree with this characterization, where do you fall?

[Th'Pusher]

The distinction between my definition and the one it seems everyone is using is subtle, but not insignificant.

Common definition used in this thread: Wealth = How much [stuff] you have.

My definition: Wealth = How much [stuff] you have relative to everyone else.

The sum of all wealth always equals 100%, where the defining line between who is wealthy and who is not is who has a Disproportionality Index* greater than 1 (those greater are wealthy, those less than are not).

We, as a population of human beings, can all have more stuff - but the person who has the least amount of stuff is still "poor".



*an original Scott concept that I use for a lot of different applications, find my economics blog if you want to learn more, but basically is the % of [whatever it is we are trying to measure] divided by the % of the population the people who [whatever we are trying measure] have that thing. For example, in a 5 person economy, if one person holds 80% of the assets, they have a Disproportionality Index of 4 (80%/20%).

Is it your opinion that the current concentration of wealth in the US is too-narrow and therefor harmful to our society?

[101A]

Why does everyone NOT have an equal right to redeem the benefits of economic growth?

It seems to me that the goal of any economic system is to maximize overall well-being of its participants.

The chart shows that, because if you look at the period before it, income gains were not quite to lop-sidedly given to the top 1%.

It is specifically how the benefits of economic growth are distributed that, to a very large measure, define HOW MUCH economic growth there is.

Trust me, I DO NOT hire 4 new salesmen last week, plus a couple of secretaries to roll out a new product I'VE developed if I don't get to reap great, if not the preponderance of, the reward for that.

[101A]

It seems to me that the goal of any economic system is to maximize overall well-being of its participants.

I agree with this.

Every sector on the chart has INCREASED in their monetary well-being since 1979. EVERY ONE. Seems like we're doing a pretty good job (other than that whole bringing the entire world's economy to a standstill -thing; but most of us came to common ground on that - and those that caused it - being bad.

[Th'Pusher]

Interesting concept. I think you could make a similar argument about power (cannot be created/destroyed; is always differential) but not quantify it to the extent you have.

That being said, it seems like two conclusions can be drawn from your theory: either a) some external power (i.e. the government) should (re)organize people's stuff to deal with the simple fact that some people will have more stuff than others or b) we're content with a system where there are winners and losers (those with more stuff and those with less stuff) because the losers have the ability to become winners and the winners could always lose their stuff.

If you agree with this characterization, where do you fall?

The system we have has some external power (i.e. the government) (re)organizing people's stuff to deal with the simple fact that some people have more stuff than others. The question is to what degree the wealth is redistributed.

[boutons_deux]

:INCREASED in their monetary well-being since 1979. EVERY ONE. Seems like we're doing a pretty good job"

no, since 1979, real household income has been basically stagnant.

If you want a non-BULLSHIT "pretty good job", take the same stats for 1945-1975, after which the General Welfare flattened, and the wealthy exploded, based on policy decisions, man-made, not the mysterious "invisible hand", defined by the VRWC, not by the "natural" economic order.

[RandomGuy]

I wouldn't call Karl Marx obscure or French.

Neither would I.

Then again, he didn't coin the phrase. :p:

[RandomGuy]

If the decision making power of how to divide that benefit rests in a small group of people, who collectively take most of that benefit, is this a conflict of interest?



There's no conflict of interest because the employees are not entitled to the full benefits accrued by the corporation.

Fail.

It is a very clear conflict of interest.

Here is the pie we made. I will divide it into two pieces then get first pick as to which piece I get, and which piece you get.

Care to guess how big your piece is going to be? I like pie.

[vy65]

Workers aren't entitled to a piece the same size as management. Your assumption that the contribution made by workers is equivalent to management is incorrect.

If any particular worker doesn't agree with this, they can move along to another company or start one.

[101A]

:INCREASED in their monetary well-being since 1979. EVERY ONE. Seems like we're doing a pretty good job"

no, since 1979, real household income has been basically stagnant.



Look at the chart in the OP.

[clambake]

which group got the redistribution of wealth?

[101A]

There was no REdistribution

[RandomGuy]

Workers aren't entitled to a piece the same size as management. Your assumption that the contribution made by workers is equivalent to management is incorrect.

If any particular worker doesn't agree with this, they can move along to another company or start one.

Now who is making assumptions?

I didn't say the pie slices had to be equal. That is your faulty stereotype of what someone you perceive as liberal believes.

I am saying that the decision as to how that pie is divided is strongly and disporportionately skewed to benefit the people making that decision.

Most "particular workers" don't have any idea that this is taking place. Why would they move to a different company based on something they dont' know?

[RandomGuy]

There was no REdistribution

Argue with scott about that. :)

[scott]

"but the person who has the least amount of stuff is still "poor"."

VRWC, Heritage Foundation branch, says Americans aren't poor if they have a TV, phone, electricity, car, food.

Your definition is stupid. If everyone had a net worth of $1M, your "everyone" would be poor.

If everyone had a net worth of $1M, then no one would be poor and no one would be rich. We'd all be the same. Your reading comprehension is stupid.

[vy65]

Now who is making assumptions?

I didn't say the pie slices had to be equal. That is your faulty stereotype of what someone you perceive as liberal believes.

I am saying that the decision as to how that pie is divided is strongly and disporportionately skewed to benefit the people making that decision.

Who cares? This is only an issue for someone who assumes that the workers should but don't have a say on the piece of pie that they're getting -- or that worker's should be entitled to more benefits than they actually receive -- or that worker's aren't aware of these facts.


Most "particular workers" don't have any idea that this is taking place. Why would they move to a different company based on something they dont' know?

Worker's don't know that management decides how much their salary is?

[scott]

Interesting concept. I think you could make a similar argument about power (cannot be created/destroyed; is always differential) but not quantify it to the extent you have.

That being said, it seems like two conclusions can be drawn from your theory: either a) some external power (i.e. the government) should (re)organize people's stuff to deal with the simple fact that some people will have more stuff than others or b) we're content with a system where there are winners and losers (those with more stuff and those with less stuff) because the losers have the ability to become winners and the winners could always lose their stuff.

If you agree with this characterization, where do you fall?

I don't think we are at a point to make conclusions or characterizations on (a) or (b), because we still haven't identified what we are trying to accomplish. Is it total income equality? Is it the level of income equality that maximizes quality of life? Is income equality moot to what we're really trying to accomplish?

I have my personal opinions on this, but honestly I have more fun stepping back and being the scientist to other people's positions.

[clambake]

There was no REdistribution

fair enough. which group got the cash and where did it come from?

[scott]

Is it your opinion that the current concentration of wealth in the US is too-narrow and therefor harmful to our society?

Now there is a more pointed question, that I can answer!

If by harmful, we are talking about some measurable quality of life standard, then the data certainly points to our level of income inequality being greater than optimal.

When we graph quality of life (by a measurable standard index) against income inequality (by a measurable standard index), we see a clear inverted U shape: there is some level of "too much equality" and a level of "not enough equality" and if we set out to maximize those meausrable standard indicies of quality of life - then we (America) have "not enough equality".

[scott]

PS: My theory on what "wealth" is... is just like, my opinion man.

[vy65]

I don't think we are at a point to make conclusions or characterizations on (a) or (b), because we still haven't identified what we are trying to accomplish. Is it total income equality? Is it the level of income equality that maximizes quality of life? Is income equality moot to what we're really trying to accomplish?

I have my personal opinions on this, but honestly I have more fun stepping back and being the scientist to other people's positions.

I don't believe in equality, so there goes the first two options.

If I'm playing social engineer, I'd want a system that emphasizes (economic) mobility and incentivizes hard-work, creativity, and intelligence. If wealth is relative, then I'd argue for a system that maximizes the most opportunity for any person to increase their wealth relative to others.

I'm also a bit curious as to the way you've phrased the issue. The notion that wealth is relative seems to be a natural concept (I don't see it being much different than saying "the world is unfair," or that power/hierarchy/etc... will always exist). I find it odd that we need to engineer a system to deal with what I see to be a natural occurrence. Not saying that it's bad, just seems odd to me.

[Th'Pusher]

Now there is a more pointed question, that I can answer!

If by harmful, we are talking about some measurable quality of life standard, then the data certainly points to our level of income inequality being greater than optimal.

When we graph quality of life (by a measurable standard index) against income inequality (by a measurable standard index), we see a clear inverted U shape: there is some level of "too much equality" and a level of "not enough equality" and if we set out to maximize those meausrable standard indicies of quality of life - then we (America) have "not enough equality".

Is there a better way to address the inequality than through taxes/government transfers? I would be all for trickle down economics, if only it worked. The evidence does't seem to show that it does.

[Th'Pusher]

I don't believe in equality, so there goes the first two options.

If I'm playing social engineer, I'd want a system that emphasizes (economic) mobility and incentivizes hard-work, creativity, and intelligence. If wealth is relative, then I'd argue for a system that maximizes the most opportunity for any person to increase their wealth relative to others.

I'm also a bit curious as to the way you've phrased the issue. The notion that wealth is relative seems to be a natural concept (I don't see it being much different than saying "the world is unfair," or that power/hierarchy/etc... will always exist). I find it odd that we need to engineer a system to deal with what I see to be a natural occurrence. Not saying that it's bad, just seems odd to me.

But didn't you agree with Scott when he said "too-narrow concentration of wealth and increased inequality with very little economic mobility is equally harmful to a society."? This appears to be the natural occurrence of unfettered capitalism, so it seems we would need to engineer a system to prevent that, no?

[DarrinS]

Our economic system is one where pies are privately owned and the owners determine how the pie is sliced. Is it fair? No, but it has created a shitload of wealth amongst all classes, even if disproportionately so. Some would like the govt to seize larger portions of these pies and redistribute them more "fairly". What percentage is "fair" and who gets to decide that?

[vy65]

But didn't you agree with Scott when he said "too-narrow concentration of wealth and increased inequality with very little economic mobility is equally harmful to a society."? This appears to be the natural occurrence of unfettered capitalism, so it seems we would need to engineer a system to prevent that, no?

I don't think unfettered capitalism restricts mobility.

[ElNono]

At the end of the day, we're all animals ;)

[ElNono]

I don't think unfettered capitalism restricts mobility.

I think it inherently does not, but I also do think it can be manipulated so it is.

[101A]

fair enough. which group got the cash and where did it come from?

Most people got the cash the sweat of their brow and/or the ingenuity of their intellect earned. Others got cash by gaming the system and cheating (to a certain extent ingenuity, but ill begotten), others got their cash after it was coerced from their fellow citizens and given to them.

[Th'Pusher]

Our economic system is one where pies are privately owned and the owners determine how the pie is sliced. Is it fair? No, but it has created a shitload of wealth amongst all classes, even if disproportionately so. Some would like the govt to seize larger portions of these pies and redistribute them more "fairly". What percentage is "fair" and who gets to decide that?

I would prefer the the government not have to seize larger portions of the pie. I would prefer the owners slice the pie more fairly. That's how trickle down economics was sold. Unfortunately, since productivity has increased, while wages have remained flat, I don't think that's been true historically. So, the government has to step in, which is unfortunate, as it's a much less efficient way to narrow income inequality.

[CosmicCowboy]

Do you and your family make at least $51,000 a year?

If so, that makes you "rich" as half the population makes less than you do.

And in a democracy, that half can vote to take the money from YOU since you are relatively rich compared to them.

Welcome to USA 2011.

[vy65]

I think it inherently does not, but I also do think it can be manipulated so it is.

That mobility is raped in practice. But from an academic and policy perspective, I stand by what I said.

[Th'Pusher]

I don't think unfettered capitalism restricts mobility.

I don't think the evidence supports that, but do you think it results in too-narrow concentration of wealth and increased inequality?

[scott]

Is there a better way to address the inequality than through taxes/government transfers? I would be all for trickle down economics, if only it worked. The evidence does't seem to show that it does.

An interesting question that raises another question: does increased (or decreased, if you are on that side of the curve) income equality lead to an increased quality of life, does an increased quality of life lead to increased (or decreased, if you are on that side of the curve) income equality, or is there some other factor that is the cause and the other two are correlated effects?

I don't have that answer.

[Th'Pusher]

That mobility is raped in practice. But from an academic and policy perspective, I stand by what I said.

Academic, fine. But why from a policy perspective if that, as you admit, is not reality?

[vy65]

I don't think the evidence supports that, but do you think it results in too-narrow concentration of wealth and increased inequality?

Then we should have a debate about the evidence and what it means.

As for the second question, I don't know if unfettered capitalism necessarily results in too-narrow concentrations of wealth (I also don't know how narrow too narrow is). But given that I'm not concerned with inequality, I'm not so sure I'd care about wealth's concentration. I'd want a better view of the picture before commenting.

[vy65]

Academic, fine. But why from a policy perspective if that, as you admit, is not reality?

I think the alternatives are worse.

[Th'Pusher]

An interesting question that raises another question: does increased (or decreased, if you are on that side of the curve) income equality lead to an increased quality of life, does an increased quality of life lead to increased (or decreased, if you are on that side of the curve) income equality, or is there some other factor that is the cause and the other two are correlated effects?

I don't have that answer.

You're supposer to have all the answers :lol

Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but how has Japan achieved low inequality while also maintaining low taxes?

[Winehole23]

I don't think unfettered capitalism restricts mobility.Has unfettered capitalism ever been tried, in your opinion?

[scott]

I don't believe in equality, so there goes the first two options.

If I'm playing social engineer, I'd want a system that emphasizes (economic) mobility and incentivizes hard-work, creativity, and intelligence. If wealth is relative, then I'd argue for a system that maximizes the most opportunity for any person to increase their wealth relative to others.

I'm also a bit curious as to the way you've phrased the issue. The notion that wealth is relative seems to be a natural concept (I don't see it being much different than saying "the world is unfair," or that power/hierarchy/etc... will always exist). I find it odd that we need to engineer a system to deal with what I see to be a natural occurrence. Not saying that it's bad, just seems odd to me.

I haven't thought enough about the goal you set forth, so I can't really say what (my opinion of) the right system for that would be - but I would it's a great first ste to set that goal ("if I'm playing social engineer"). Those who fail to do so are just throwing darts and hoping there is a dart board somewhere in the room.

Apologies if I've misunderstand your second paragraph, but if you are saying that "a system that maximizes the most opportunity for any person to increase their wealth relative to others" is a natural occurence, so we don't need to engineer a system that does that for us... I disagree.

Some parts of the necessary system are in place and we all agree on them: you can't murder all your rivals to capture their wealth, for example. And maybe, in some ways, those "self-evident" parts of the system we've put in place necessitate more parts of the system. Since we can't kill our rivals, and those rivals have used their vast resources to restrict our mobility, then what recourse are we left with?

One project I'd like to do, but I haven't figured out the right way to gather, analyze and report the data, is a "mobility heatmap". Industrialized nations, and especially the United States offer a lot of mobility within certain ranges. While possible, the game is not rigged to allow mobility from the absolute bottom to the absolute top of rung. Mobility is restricted by existing parts of the system. Should we go about removing those restrictions (my opinion is yes), and if so, how do we do it (I don't have a concise opinion on this)?

If we value income mobility (which I very much do), it is important to note that greater income inequality makes income mobility more difficult, but the nature of the distance between rungs on the social ladder.

In my classes, I always define an economic community like a piece of taffy. It's very flexible and you can stretch it quite a bit before it breaks. But eventually, it will break if you weaken the middle enough. This is a fantastic illustration of income equality. We stretch the taffy because we don't want to eat a dense lump of taffy, but we don't want our taffy breaking into a bunch of little pieces either.

[Th'Pusher]

Then we should have a debate about the evidence and what it means.

As for the second question, I don't know if unfettered capitalism necessarily results in too-narrow concentrations of wealth (I also don't know how narrow too narrow is). But given that I'm not concerned with inequality, I'm not so sure I'd care about wealth's concentration. I'd want a better view of the picture before commenting.

Would you agree the US has less relative mobility than other industrialized nations?

I guess I don't understand why you're not concerned with inequality if you agree that too-narrow concentration of wealth and increased inequality is harmful to a society.

[vy65]

Has unfettered capitalism ever been tried, in your opinion?

In some respects yes, in some no.

[vy65]

Would you agree the US has less relative mobility than other industrialized nations?

I guess I don't understand why you're not concerned with inequality if you agree that too-narrow concentration of wealth and increased inequality is harmful to a society.

Well, part of the problem might be that I don't think increased inequality is necessarily harmful to society. In other words, I don't think economic inequality is a bad thing. And I'm not concerned with inequality for several reasons, one of which is its not being harmful to society (imo).

And we'd need to dig deeper into what constitutes a narrow-concentration of wealth before I'd feel comfortable commenting on that point one way or another.

As for the mobility question - truthfully, I don't know. My gut would tell me its average to above average, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

[scott]

You're supposer to have all the answers :lol

Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but how has Japan achieved low inequality while also maintaining low taxes?

I don't know the answer to that one either. They are a country that falls at the peak of the "equality v. quality of life" curve. But which is the chicken, and which is the egg... or is there some kind of Chicken God that made them both appear at the same time?

[vy65]

I haven't thought enough about the goal you set forth, so I can't really say what (my opinion of) the right system for that would be - but I would it's a great first ste to set that goal ("if I'm playing social engineer"). Those who fail to do so are just throwing darts and hoping there is a dart board somewhere in the room.

Apologies if I've misunderstand your second paragraph, but if you are saying that "a system that maximizes the most opportunity for any person to increase their wealth relative to others" is a natural occurence, so we don't need to engineer a system that does that for us... I disagree.

Some parts of the necessary system are in place and we all agree on them: you can't murder all your rivals to capture their wealth, for example. And maybe, in some ways, those "self-evident" parts of the system we've put in place necessitate more parts of the system. Since we can't kill our rivals, and those rivals have used their vast resources to restrict our mobility, then what recourse are we left with?

One project I'd like to do, but I haven't figured out the right way to gather, analyze and report the data, is a "mobility heatmap". Industrialized nations, and especially the United States offer a lot of mobility within certain ranges. While possible, the game is not rigged to allow mobility from the absolute bottom to the absolute top of rung. Mobility is restricted by existing parts of the system. Should we go about removing those restrictions (my opinion is yes), and if so, how do we do it (I don't have a concise opinion on this)?

If we value income mobility (which I very much do), it is important to note that greater income inequality makes income mobility more difficult, but the nature of the distance between rungs on the social ladder.

In my classes, I always define an economic community like a piece of taffy. It's very flexible and you can stretch it quite a bit before it breaks. But eventually, it will break if you weaken the middle enough. This is a fantastic illustration of income equality. We stretch the taffy because we don't want to eat a dense lump of taffy, but we don't want our taffy breaking into a bunch of little pieces either.

Thanks for the response. Only thing I'll say is that the way I worded that second paragraph was piss-poor, so just ignore it.

[Winehole23]

In some respects yes, in some no. That more resembles the description of an answer than an actual answer. Can you be more specific?

[Jamtas#2]

IMO, closing the tax loopholes is more important than raising the tax rate. If the loopholes still exist, raising the rates won't have as much effect as the super rich jsut employ their accountants to keep what they actually pay low.

Much like healthcare should focus on lowering the costs as a seperate issue. Just mandating everyone have healthcare will not bring down the rates and the poor will still have issues dealing with the high deductibles that come with the affordable monthly payments.

[byrontx]

So you are saying that the 99% taking the 1%'s accrued wealth by force is moral?

What if it is the 51% taking the 49%'s wealth by force?

still moral?

It is natural for wealth and influence to concentrate. It is also a natural process than the rich surrender power when their blood runs in the streets or, at least, when the threat seems real enough. I am not sure if the use of force is less moral than the use of coercion (the use of capital and influence to expand the wealth of a few at a cost to the majority). The electoral process is so fixed now that the masses only real solution may be the use of force; especially with corporations being legal people and all. In that respect it could be considered moral.
It is not something that I expect will happen soon maybe not even for another generation but we will have events that mirror the 1880-90’s. Just as the income disparity is beginning to mirror those times.
I am only addressing the morality of the use of force to address wrongs and fight influence not the hypothetical percentages you offer since your 51/49% has no correlation to the current situation.

[Winehole23]

In any event these are complex issues that conservative wonks should care about. Just as conservative wonks should care about massively disproportionate income gains. It’s (tautologically) true that putting money in the hands of job-creators create jobs. But is a 275-percent gain in income for the top one percent of households required to create that 40 percent gain in income for the middle classes? Is all that accumulated cash likely to be reinvested, or tucked away? Are there free-market-based policies that help channel gains to middle class investors and would-be entrepreneurs, e.g. to those who are most likely to put the marginal dollar to good economic use? Like I said, I’m too dumb to know the answers. But I know we should care about them.

So yes, to my commenter, conservatives should care about the CBO report on income inequality. But there’s another major finding of that report of which liberals should take careful note. Namely:
Government Transfers and Federal Taxes Became Less Redistributive
That’s right, according to that same CBO study, the share of government transfer payments (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/281500/how-make-it-america-contd-daniel-foster#) going to the poorest 20 percent of Americans has declined from 50 percent to 35 percent. And the share of those payments going to the wealthiest 80 percent has risen from 50 to 65 percent. In other words, the entitlement state is ever less about keeping the poor out of destitution, and ever more about subsidizing the health care and retirement benefits of the likes of Warren Buffett. Liberals are likely to use the CBO report to buttress the case for taxing “the rich” more. But they ought to think instead about subsidizing them less.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/281500/how-make-it-america-contd-daniel-foster

[DarrinS]

Would anyone prefer we were all less wealthy, as long as the gap was reduced?

[Drachen]

Would anyone prefer we were all less wealthy, as long as the gap was reduced?

I have actually often thought about this, though not in those terms. The way I have framed it is "would I accept slower overall growth as long as it was stable and sustainable".

I go back and forth on this. Does slow and steady win the race, or does the world benefit more from country after country flying far too high far too fast then burning out quickly.

Also, yes, I realize that this is not the same question as you posed, but maybe a different way to look at things. I guess you may want to ask the wealthy your question since their concentration of power and wealth is unsustainable and it would seem that ultimately, one way or another, things would have to revert back to a more justifiable distribution of wealth.

[CosmicCowboy]

It is natural for wealth and influence to concentrate. It is also a natural process than the rich surrender power when their blood runs in the streets or, at least, when the threat seems real enough. I am not sure if the use of force is less moral than the use of coercion (the use of capital and influence to expand the wealth of a few at a cost to the majority). The electoral process is so fixed now that the masses only real solution may be the use of force; especially with corporations being legal people and all. In that respect it could be considered moral.
It is not something that I expect will happen soon maybe not even for another generation but we will have events that mirror the 1880-90’s. Just as the income disparity is beginning to mirror those times.
I am only addressing the morality of the use of force to address wrongs and fight influence not the hypothetical percentages you offer since your 51/49% has no correlation to the current situation.

On the contrary, the 51/49 ratio is extremely relevant if you morally support taking from the haves to give to the have nots. When the have nots (many by their own choice) become the majority ALL the working/producing minority will have targets on their backs.

[Winehole23]

Income inequality as such isn't the problem. The problem is that (too many) people don't have enough and that very many people think the system is unfair/corrupt.

[RandomGuy]

Who cares? This is only an issue for someone who assumes that the workers should but don't have a say on the piece of pie that they're getting -- or that worker's should be entitled to more benefits than they actually receive -- or that worker's aren't aware of these facts.

Worker's don't know that management decides how much their salary is?

Not what I am saying at all.

I am saying that your average employee has no clue whatsoever how much the CEO and the executives of their business elect to pay themselves, especially relative to how much those executives decide to allot to paying non-executives.

The faulty assumptions you are operating under is that free markets systems never suffer distortions that mask the true interplay of supply and demand.

There is a segment of the population that worships the "free market" as if it is a infallible God of some sort, incapable of doing wrong.

To these dogmatics, less than optimal outcomes of free market activies like monopolies or cartels don't seem to exist. They are as incapable of admitting that capitalism might lead to immoral or distorted outcomes, as any religious fanatic would admit that their version of God might be fallible.

Answer this question:

If executives of corporations decided to take a 10% paycut, and use the money to pay for higher salaries for employees, what would happen to the salary of your average employee?

[RandomGuy]

I don't know the answer to that one either. They are a country that falls at the peak of the "equality v. quality of life" curve. But which is the chicken, and which is the egg... or is there some kind of Chicken God that made them both appear at the same time?

Japanese CEO pay relative to their own workers is far lower than that in the US. They tend to view such excess as shameful.

They have achieved the outcome of less wealth inequality through social norms somewhat unique to their culture.

[RandomGuy]

On the contrary, the 51/49 ratio is extremely relevant if you morally support taking from the haves to give to the have nots. When the have nots (many by their own choice) become the majority ALL the working/producing minority will have targets on their backs.

"many by their own choice".

Blaming the victim again, as if babies born into crushing poverty with shitty parents, no positive role models, and never learning anything better will spontaneously rise up out of that swamp.

People can escape that, but to not allow for the fact that environment plays a huge part in the ultimate outcome of how self-actualized a person is seems foolish to me.

[Parker2112]

There is a segment of the population that worships the "free market" as if it is a infallible God of some sort, incapable of doing wrong.


There is a segment of the population that refuses to admit the fallibility of government as a means of achieving a rich, fulfilling life...free of strife and poverty.

With free markets, each citizen retains at least as much power as his pocketbook can muster.

With government playing "our" superman, corporations retain the power with their pocketbooks. Average joes and random guys' pocketbooks can no longer compete.

[Parker2112]

The Soviets had, and the Chinese have a pretty flat income distribution curve (small number of extremely wealthy outliers notwithstanding) and I would say their quality of life is pretty shitty.

[CosmicCowboy]

"many by their own choice".

Blaming the victim again, as if babies born into crushing poverty with shitty parents, no positive role models, and never learning anything better will spontaneously rise up out of that swamp.

People can escape that, but to not allow for the fact that environment plays a huge part in the ultimate outcome of how self-actualized a person is seems foolish to me.

Oh please.

I know plenty of kids from upper-middle class families that fucked their lives off and basically would be living in poverty if it weren't for their parents. As a matter of fact, they ARE counted as poor in the statistics because the parental help is under the table. Hell, just look at your typical over-educated under-achieving OWS protester.

[ChuckD]

On the contrary, the 51/49 ratio is extremely relevant if you morally support taking from the haves to give to the have nots. When the have nots (many by their own choice) become the majority ALL the working/producing minority will have targets on their backs.

It's called history, and it happens repeatedly when the few hold everything and the many have nothing to lose.

I don't understand the resistance to taxes and hand outs by some, other than they fail to understand that this is what keeps the villagers with pitch forks and torches at bay. It's a small price to keep Bastille Day and Krasny Oktyabr down the road.

[CosmicCowboy]

LOL at all these veiled threats of violence if the spoiled brats don't get their free tuition, free health care, and free housing.

[CosmicCowboy]

Little bitches think they are bad asses because they watched a couple of Tarantino flicks and play call of duty on their x-boxes...:lmao

[ChuckD]

LOL at all these veiled threats of violence if the spoiled brats don't get their free tuition, free health care, and free housing.

It's not threats. Threats are something that may or may not happen. Look into your history. When the wealth gap gets too wide, violence ensues 100% of the time. If you don't understand that, you'll soon be in the middle of it.

“Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.”
- Edmund Burke

[CosmicCowboy]

It's not threats. Threats are something that may or may not happen. Look into your history. When the wealth gap gets too wide, violence ensues 100% of the time. If you don't understand that, you'll soon be in the middle of it.

“Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.”
- Edmund Burke

Pfft. I assume you are referring to the French Revolution. Huge difference. The poor were REALLY poor and weren't a bunch of toothless little bitches like the OWS crowd.

[RandomGuy]

There is a segment of the population that refuses to admit the fallibility of government as a means of achieving a rich, fulfilling life...free of strife and poverty.

With free markets, each citizen retains at least as much power as his pocketbook can muster.

With government playing "our" superman, corporations retain the power with their pocketbooks. Average joes and random guys' pocketbooks can no longer compete.

Full government control is a horrible way to run an economy. Governments are shitty at doing it. Any government meddling in the economy should be kept to a minimum needed to provide a framework for business and free markets to operate.

[ChuckD]

Pfft. I assume you are referring to the French Revolution. Huge difference. The poor were REALLY poor and weren't a bunch of toothless little bitches like the OWS crowd.

OWS is nothing, just the waking giving a big yawn, the first wavelet days or even weeks before the tsunami comes.

When it happens, it will be the truly poor from the barrio/ghetto/hood, and it will be such a spasm of rage and anger, no one will control it or direct it.

[RandomGuy]

Pfft. I assume you are referring to the French Revolution. Huge difference. The poor were REALLY poor and weren't a bunch of toothless little bitches like the OWS crowd.

Because the best way to convince young people that your ideas are good ones is to insult them and belittle them for having the temerity to doubt those ideas.

[CosmicCowboy]

Because the best way to convince young people that your ideas are good ones is to insult them and belittle them for having the temerity to doubt those ideas.

:lmao

Thats the whole point of the political forum!

Has anyone ever REALLY changed someone elses mind? If ChuckD REALLY wants to believe the revolution is just weeks away and the barrios are going to empty en-mass and slaughter the middle and upper class will anything I post in here change his mind?

[ChuckD]

"Let them eat cake..."

- Cosmic Cowboy 2011

[ChuckD]

:lmao

Thats the whole point of the political forum!

Has anyone ever REALLY changed someone elses mind? If ChuckD REALLY wants to believe the revolution is just weeks away and the barrios are going to empty en-mass and slaughter the middle and upper class will anything I post in here change his mind?

LOL. You think that I think the revolution is weeks away because of my tsunami reference? I was thinking of a time frame when there would be no indication of a tsunami, CC.

It's years away, but I don't think decades. You're probably safe, and will die in your bed with a half eaten steak hanging out of your mouth, which I'm sure is all you care about. It'll be your kids and grand kids who will be slaughtered.

[RandomGuy]

:lmao

Thats the whole point of the political forum!

Has anyone ever REALLY changed someone elses mind? If ChuckD REALLY wants to believe the revolution is just weeks away and the barrios are going to empty en-mass and slaughter the middle and upper class will anything I post in here change his mind?

Changing minds happens occasionally. Winehole changed my mind about Afghanistan, and I have occasionally changed a mind or two with some reasoned, polite arguments.

I don't see any kind of violent revolution anytime soon, barring some widespread heavy-handed police crackdowns.

I do wonder how much more angry people will get.

dib2-HBsF08

[CosmicCowboy]

LOL. You think that I think the revolution is weeks away because of my tsunami reference? I was thinking of a time frame when there would be no indication of a tsunami, CC.

It's years away, but I don't think decades. You're probably safe, and will die in your bed with a half eaten steak hanging out of your mouth, which I'm sure is all you care about. It'll be your kids and grand kids who will be slaughtered.

I actually see myself going out smoking a couple of joints, and then drinking a morphine laced bloddy mary, but thanks for the best wishes.

If my son that lives in LA gets consumed by the revolution it will be the ultimate irony as he is a die hard west coast liberal, even thought he is a relatively wealthy productive citizen.

If my daughter that lives here gets consumed by the revolution it will only be because she ran out of my rather generous stockpile of ammo.

[RandomGuy]

If my son that lives in LA gets consumed by the revolution it will be the ultimate irony as he is a die hard west coast liberal, even thought he is a relatively wealthy productive citizen.

Wierd that wealthy productive people might be liberals. :rolleyes

That's just crazy talk. We all know that a requisite for being a liberal is ignorance of how free markets work and a total dependence on the government.

:p:

[CosmicCowboy]

Wierd that wealthy productive people might be liberals. :rolleyes

That's just crazy talk. We all know that a requisite for being a liberal is ignorance of how free markets work and a total dependence on the government.

:p:

Actually, attorneys seem to be the exception to the rule. They can be wealthy and liberal.

[CosmicCowboy]

Wierd that wealthy productive people might be liberals. :rolleyes

That's just crazy talk. We all know that a requisite for being a liberal is ignorance of how free markets work and a total dependence on the government.

:p:

Actually, attorneys seem to be the exception to the rule. They can be wealthy and liberal because they get paid whether they win or lose at work...:toast

[Bartleby]

LOL. You think that I think the revolution is weeks away because of my tsunami reference? I was thinking of a time frame when there would be no indication of a tsunami, CC.

It's years away, but I don't think decades. You're probably safe, and will die in your bed with a half eaten steak hanging out of your mouth, which I'm sure is all you care about. It'll be your kids and grand kids who will be slaughtered.

I'm not convinced (yet) that we will see widespread revolution during this decade or even my lifetime, but if the present trajectory continues what does seem highly likely is a steady increase in crime and social unrest. Much of the latter will be manifested by incidents of domestic terrorism, often directed towards the rich (or super-rich) either directly or symbolically.

Although the consequent response to this from the police/military may ultimately bring about some sort of revolution, that still seems decades away.

[ChuckD]

I actually see myself going out smoking a couple of joints, and then drinking a morphine laced bloddy mary, but thanks for the best wishes.

If my son that lives in LA gets consumed by the revolution it will be the ultimate irony as he is a die hard west coast liberal, even thought he is a relatively wealthy productive citizen.

If my daughter that lives here gets consumed by the revolution it will only be because she ran out of my rather generous stockpile of ammo.

It won't make any difference what anyone's political bent is, and she will run out of ammo. 99 to 1, and your support of the NRA will make sure that everyone is armed. That's as ironic as your son being a liberal, and still on their hit list.

[ChuckD]

I'm not convinced (yet) that we will see widespread revolution during this decade or even my lifetime, but if the present trajectory continues what does seem highly likely is a steady increase in crime and social unrest. Much of the latter will be manifested by incidents of domestic terrorism, often directed towards the rich (or super-rich) either directly or symbolically.

Although the consequent response to this from the police/military may ultimately bring about some sort of revolution, that still seems decades away.

The crime and destruction are simply the precursors, the artillery salvo in advance of the incursion. The match that ignites things will be the inevitable violent, brutal response. I think it's 20 years away at the outside. People always underestimate the time frame, and then are surprised. The Vandals and Goths are already at our southern border while we are fucking around in the middle east. They are well armed, thanks to the NRA lobbying again, and violent beyond anything most people in the US can imagine.

[RandomGuy]

Much of the latter will be manifested by incidents of domestic terrorism, often directed towards the rich (or super-rich) either directly or symbolically.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list/

It's not like they, or their interests, would be hard to identify.

CC might pooh-pooh OWS, but all it takes is one or two nutjobs with an automatic weapon or two, or a good shot with a rifle.

That is what worries me most. OWS represents some genuine feeling of a lot of people. Fox "news" and company demonizing or belittling them will not help assuage the anger and discontent fueling this.

[Wild Cobra]

That is what worries me most. OWS represents some genuine feeling of a lot of people. Fox "news" and company demonizing or belittling them will not help assuage the anger and discontent fueling this.
I agree they have some real honest feelings out there. Still, they have a bunch of nut jobs also. I think they are more likely to have trouble from within than from outside.

[RandomGuy]

I agree they have some real honest feelings out there. Still, they have a bunch of nut jobs also. I think they are more likely to have trouble from within than from outside.

I would agree.

Leftish protests tend to be more diverse, less disciplined, and more raucous.

That is a lot more room for error and over-reaction.

[byrontx]

On the contrary, the 51/49 ratio is extremely relevant if you morally support taking from the haves to give to the have nots. When the have nots (many by their own choice) become the majority ALL the working/producing minority will have targets on their backs.

So you think 51% represents the haves and 49% the have-nots? I think what we are talking about here is the 1% that represents the haves and 99% who see their portion of the pie shrinking. The shrinkage is a progressing number so those that are in a comfortable position now will have their ranks thinned over time. This is not a movement to "take" from hard-working folks, it is a peaceful protest against the erosion of the middle-class.
I am a entreprenuer and definitely a "have-not." My concern is that a strong America depends on a strong middle class. The disparity in wealth as a growing trend and shrinking middle class will likely lead to an economic collapse. There is a class war going on but it is the fat porkers on the top slaughtering the sheep.

[DarrinS]

Because the best way to convince young people that your ideas are good ones is to insult them and belittle them for having the temerity to doubt those ideas.

Aha! Please apply this line of thinking to AGW skepticism.

[ChuckD]

Aha! Please apply this line of thinking to AGW skepticism.

FOX news is not a person, and RG is not a news media outlet.

[DarrinS]

FOX news is not a person, and RG is not a news media outlet.

Non sequitur

[boutons_deux]

"they have a bunch of nut jobs also"

like a black guy carrying an assault weapon to tea bagger rally?

childish fake-patriot assholes in leggings, vests, muskets, tricorner hats?

tea bagger rallies had plenty of assholes, flakes, nuts, spittle-spewing screaming jerkoffs.

[DarrinS]

"they have a bunch of nut jobs also"

like a black guy carrying an assault weapon to tea bagger rally?

childish fake-patriot assholes in leggings, vests, muskets, tricorner hats?

tea bagger rallies had plenty of assholes, flakes, nuts, spittle-spewing screaming jerkoffs.

How many arrests?

[The Reckoning]

:greedy

[Ignignokt]

The solution is simple.

Lets have a society that has civil law to where no one can use force or fraud to obtain wealth or happiness, and we have voluntary mutual transactions free of govt. The govt would be only there as a retalliatory force against force, fraud and coercion.

Anyone who wants to redistribute wealth, and doesn't want to live by their own means can go fuck off to Guyana and drink cyanide laced purple Flavor-aid.

[Ignignokt]

Show the world that you'd rather commit revolutionary suicide rather than live from the rational capabilities of your mind.

I will just laugh as you choke to death and convulse like the vermin you are.

[Drachen]

The solution is simple.

Lets have a society that has civil law to where no one can use force or fraud to obtain wealth or happiness, and we have voluntary mutual transactions free of govt. The govt would be only there as a retalliatory force against force, fraud and coercion.

Anyone who wants to redistribute wealth, and doesn't want to live by their own means can go fuck off to Guyana and drink cyanide laced purple Flavor-aid.

Sounds great! What happens when a mutual transaction between group A and group B harms group C?

[ChuckD]

Sounds great, Iggy. How do you go about changing 7 billion humans so that there's no force used and no fraud/deception, though? That's kind of human nature.

[Drachen]

Sounds great, Iggy. How do you go about changing 7 billion humans so that there's no force used and no fraud/deception, though? That's kind of human nature.

Imagine . . . .

[ElNono]

What do we do with those that want to live by their own means, but are either temporarily or permanently unable to do so? Charity? More cyanide?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao

Thats the whole point of the political forum!

Has anyone ever REALLY changed someone elses mind? If ChuckD REALLY wants to believe the revolution is just weeks away and the barrios are going to empty en-mass and slaughter the middle and upper class will anything I post in here change his mind?

I have seen quite a few young people come around to the ideas I presented of the legacy and worth of the baby boomer generation as a whole earlier this year in the 'where have all the good men gone' thread over the last 6 months.

Thats what you seem to fail to grasp. For the younger generations the perception is changing very rapidly. The behavior of their predecessors is pretty hard to ignore and they have less ties to party or other ideological constraints.

People such as yourself, Darrin, WC and the elder crowd are of course intractable. That does not make the whole like that at all.

[Ignignokt]

Sounds great! What happens when a mutual transaction between group A and group B harms group C?

You have the courts to enforce against fraud and coercion or damage of property. Are you a stupid fuck or not? I already stated govt's role in this in my posts.

[Ignignokt]

Sounds great, Iggy. How do you go about changing 7 billion humans so that there's no force used and no fraud/deception, though? That's kind of human nature.

I don't know, i'm not an ancap nor do I advocate no govt. This question does not apply to me.

[Ignignokt]

What do we do with those that want to live by their own means, but are either temporarily or permanently unable to do so? Charity? More cyanide?

Do you need progressive taxation and wealth redistriubtion schemes to be charitable? To you it seems so.

I guess we took the premise that you actually give a shit about poor people. You only give a shit about poor people when you don't have to contribute and you force others through the arm of govt to do so. There's no virtue in that, and you're a big piece of shit for thinking so.

[RandomGuy]

You have the courts to enforce against fraud and coercion or damage of property. Are you a stupid fuck or not? I already stated govt's role in this in my posts.

"the courts" will solve all the problems if information and resource asymmetry.

Multibillion dollar corporations A and B with legal budgets of hundreds of millions of dollars and armies of experienced legal specialists will be completely cowed by group C of middle-class layman land-owners with a legal budget of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Wow, why didn't I think of that?

[RandomGuy]

What do we do with those that want to live by their own means, but are either temporarily or permanently unable to do so? Charity? More cyanide?



Spirit of Christmas Present: If it's too hard a lesson for you to learn, then learn this lesson!
[opens his robe, revealing two starving children]
Ebenezer: [shocked] Spirit, are these yours?
Spirit of Christmas Present: They are Man's. This boy is Ignorance, this girl is Want. Beware them both, but most of all, beware this boy!
Ebenezer: But have they no refuge, no resource?
Spirit of Christmas Present: [quoting Scrooge] Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?"

[RandomGuy]

Getting rid of governments will not get rid of economic cycles.

The problem with simply waving your hands and saying "private charity" will take care of people who would literally starve or become homeless in a downturn, is illustrated rather starkly by the plight of the private charity food pantries, i.e. when need is most, donations are least.

[Ignignokt]

"the courts" will solve all the problems if information and resource asymmetry.

Multibillion dollar corporations A and B with legal budgets of hundreds of millions of dollars and armies of experienced legal specialists will be completely cowed by group C of middle-class layman land-owners with a legal budget of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Wow, why didn't I think of that?

How is legislating law any different? I know you're not so naive..

[boutons_deux]

"How is legislating law any different?"

legislators and regulators do the bidding of the UCA/capitalists, not Human-Americans.

And the unConstitutional 60-vote-rule in the Senate combined with the bad-faith, smash-mouth Repug strategy of (threatening to) filibuster every Dem bill creates obstructed/dysfunctional legislature.

iow, the power of NO is much greater than the power of YES

[RandomGuy]

How is legislating law any different? I know you're not so naive..

Asymetry problems still exist with our current system, yes.

But throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and trying out a vast libertarian experiment, seems a bit extreme to me.

Wouldnt' it be easier to find a solution to the corrosive effects of corporate cash than going off the deep end?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Getting rid of governments will not get rid of economic cycles.

The problem with simply waving your hands and saying "private charity" will take care of people who would literally starve or become homeless in a downturn, is illustrated rather starkly by the plight of the private charity food pantries, i.e. when need is most, donations are least.

You have to love how they willfully ignore 1750-1930. Private charities did not do shit and economic cycles were exacerbated. Corporate dick sucking gets old.