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://www.economist.com/blogs/daily...uality-america
Pdf of the referenced CBO report:
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/124xx/doc1248...holdIncome.pdf
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?
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.
You should just take the ty jobs at ty pay and like it cause otherwise you are just lazy.
Who writes this drivel?
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%.
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.
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.
VRWC War on Employees: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED (just mopping up now)
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'
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 bout your link
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.
Blame yourselves.
You can simultaneously do what it takes to survive and fight against what is a total crock of .
So what happens when you are working at a piece of 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.
Have you worked at a ty job lately most of them don't give a about your schedule
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 compe ive 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.
I see another jealousy fest going on. Sorry guys, not for me.
lol not reading the thread and using assumptions based on the le
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.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 10-27-2011 at 08:37 AM.
Someone whose lips arent wrapped around the s of the richers. how do you deal with the balls on your chin?
Sounds like someone is projecting.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
