US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This 6 minute video sums up the shocking facts of American wealth and inequality

This is a discussion on This 6 minute video sums up the shocking facts of American wealth and inequality within the Economy forums, part of the US Discussion category; Quote: Originally Posted by RKMBrown Quote: Originally Posted by Asclepias Quote: Originally Posted by RKMBrown The same way projected sales volume raises the cost of ...


Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Economy

Economy Discuss economic policy and wallstreet

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #376 (permalink)  
Old 08-07-2013, 12:51 PM
Asclepias's Avatar
Work Hard Play Hard
Member #44774
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Breathing rarified air.
Posts: 9,975
Thanks: 3,329
Thanked 1,790 Times in 1,393 Posts
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote: Originally Posted by RKMBrown View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Asclepias View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by RKMBrown View Post

The same way projected sales volume raises the cost of making your widget.
Can you provide an example of what you are talking about?
Think in terms of a spreadsheet

cost of materials for item (* items projected)+
cost of labor for item (* items projected) +
basic cost of doing business = cost of items

now put projected sales as two numbers
high projected 1000
low projected 500
now divide cost by projection for each projected number. Now divide the total cost by items. You'll note the more you sell the lower the impact of basic cost of doing business.
Now set a price to make a profit. You'll note you can sell items for less if you sell more product.

Now increase the cost of labor and see what happens to the price you need to make the same profit.

OK I got it. Thanks
__________________
""Being enlightened is no longer enough, you must apply. Being willing is no longer acceptable, you must do."

"The essence of power is the ability to define someone's reality and make them live according to that definition as if it is a definition of their own choosing."
--Wade Nobles

“If I can't change the people around me, I change the people around me”
Chuck D
"
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
USMessageBoard.com is the premier Political Forum Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see these ads. Please Register - It's Free!
  #377 (permalink)  
Old 08-07-2013, 12:54 PM
Registered User
Member #37583
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,246
Thanks: 136
Thanked 167 Times in 140 Posts
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 65
JoeNormal could be the Buddha JoeNormal could be the Buddha JoeNormal could be the Buddha JoeNormal could be the Buddha JoeNormal could be the Buddha JoeNormal could be the Buddha JoeNormal could be the Buddha JoeNormal could be the Buddha
Quote: Originally Posted by RKMBrown View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by JoeNormal View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by RKMBrown View Post

I wish I had a dollar for every time a someone told me a thing can't be done. Wealth is not a limited resource. There is no such thing as a fixed amount of wealth to go around. It does not work that way. You may not think yourself capable of producing a million in goods but that does not mean everyone is like you.
I think you've spent so much time in the software world, you've forgotten that there are resources that are finite. Energy, water, arable land are the biggies. And that doesn't cover the artificial scarcities like medical care, etc.

So just out of curiosity, how do you think everyone could become a millionaire?
Huh? Do you have any idea how much energy is available for us use? Energy, is for all intents and purposes, infinite. Just how much energy do you think you need to be rich these days? We live on a planet that is covered with water, selling me on water scarcity isn't gonna work. Arable land scarcity, has been solved to a large degree with hydroponics and green houses.
Somehow, I find it less than comforting to know that we're bathed in energy from a variety of sources. Try making it affordable, or available when you need it, or portable in the case of transportation. Better minds than yours have met with only modest success in these areas.

As for water, aquifers are being depleted or contaminated by fracking, rivers have become so polluted that they're useless and due to climate change, precipitation in many cases doesn't fall where it's needed.

Everything you've mentioned ignores the 'commodity' aspect of resources.

Quote: Originally Posted by RKMBrown View Post
How do I think everyone could become a millionaire? First each person is an individual, what works for one person does not work for others. Second, not everyone wants to be a millionaire, let alone do the work to get there. As to particular ways, you have just pointed out a few needs of the people. Addressing needs of the people is usually a good way to get rich.
Here again, thinking that everybody could become a millionare ignores the commodity aspect of the labor market. The bottom rung of the labor ladder is used as a 'force multiplier' for the upper tiers.

I grew up believing in the Walt Disney vision of the future where technology was going to provide a world of leisure and plenty. I swear that this vision was a major force in my becoming an engineer and during my career, I've done all that I could to create the efficiencies that could create that kind of a world. What I've seen happen instead is workers becoming twice as productive for almost no increase in their standard of living. That's the problem with growing wealth disparity.

Last edited by JoeNormal; 08-07-2013 at 12:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to JoeNormal For This Useful Post:
MikeK (08-07-2013)
  #378 (permalink)  
Old 08-07-2013, 12:57 PM
Toddsterpatriot's Avatar
Registered User
Member #29707
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,465
Thanks: 1,522
Thanked 2,930 Times in 2,100 Posts
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 5091
Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow
Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow
Quote: Originally Posted by JoeNormal View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by RKMBrown View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by JoeNormal View Post

I think you've spent so much time in the software world, you've forgotten that there are resources that are finite. Energy, water, arable land are the biggies. And that doesn't cover the artificial scarcities like medical care, etc.

So just out of curiosity, how do you think everyone could become a millionaire?
Huh? Do you have any idea how much energy is available for us use? Energy, is for all intents and purposes, infinite. Just how much energy do you think you need to be rich these days? We live on a planet that is covered with water, selling me on water scarcity isn't gonna work. Arable land scarcity, has been solved to a large degree with hydroponics and green houses.
Somehow, I find it less than comforting to know that we're bathed in energy from a variety of sources. Try making it affordable, or available when you need it, or portable in the case of transportation. Better minds than yours have met with only modest success in these areas.

As for water, aquifers are being depleted or contaminated by fracking, rivers have become so polluted that they're useless and due to climate change, precipitation in many cases doesn't fall where it's needed.

Everything you've mentioned ignores the 'commodity' aspect of resources.

Quote: Originally Posted by RKMBrown View Post
How do I think everyone could become a millionaire? First each person is an individual, what works for one person does not work for others. Second, not everyone wants to be a millionaire, let alone do the work to get there. As to particular ways, you have just pointed out a few needs of the people. Addressing needs of the people is usually a good way to get rich.
Here again, thinking that everybody could become a millionare ignores the commodity aspect of the labor market. The bottom rung of the labor ladder is used as a 'force multiplier' for the upper tiers.

I grew up believing in the Walt Disney vision of the future where technology was going to provide a world of leisure and plenty. I swear that this vision was a major force in my becoming an engineer and during my career, I've done all that I could to create the efficiencies that could create that kind of a world. What I've seen happen instead is workers becoming twice as productive for almost no icrease in their standard of living. That's the problem with growing wealth disparity.

Try making it affordable, or available when you need it, or portable in the case of transportation.


Many new millionaires did just that with shale gas.
__________________
Math is hard, harder if you're a liberal.....
Reply With Quote
  #379 (permalink)  
Old 08-07-2013, 01:01 PM
Stephanie's Avatar
Registered User
Member #1668
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: a place called, Liberty
Posts: 43,295
Thanks: 3,490
Thanked 11,229 Times in 7,883 Posts
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 7539
Stephanie is cooler than the underside of a pillow Stephanie is cooler than the underside of a pillow Stephanie is cooler than the underside of a pillow
Stephanie is cooler than the underside of a pillow Stephanie is cooler than the underside of a pillow Stephanie is cooler than the underside of a pillow Stephanie is cooler than the underside of a pillow Stephanie is cooler than the underside of a pillow Stephanie is cooler than the underside of a pillow Stephanie is cooler than the underside of a pillow Stephanie is cooler than the underside of a pillow Stephanie is cooler than the underside of a pillow Stephanie is cooler than the underside of a pillow Stephanie is cooler than the underside of a pillow Stephanie is cooler than the underside of a pillow
Quote: Originally Posted by Billy000 View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Asclepias View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Billy000 View Post

You people astound me. Are you just ignoring everything I've been saying this entire time or are you really this stupid? I can't even wrap my head around your logic.

One more time: I am not against the CONCEPT of wealth inequality. I am against the idea of wealth inequality reaching the point of 1% of the population controlling 40% of the wealth.

Try reading slower. You'll catch on.
I keep asking what we should do about it. Do you have a solution?
Yes I do. We raise the minimum wage to at least $9.00 an hour.

that simple huh? for ever person to get a raise in minimum wage the company will have to let people go so his business doesn't LOSE money over the bright ideas of the Democrat..or the next bright suggestion from you will have the government FORCE business to keep people..they don't need a PROFIT anyway, right

gawd do any or understand how a business or company is run, you think just raise that minimum wage and the liberal utopia is on it's way
__________________
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself."
Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC)
-------------------------------------------------
"Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-- Ben Franklin

Last edited by Stephanie; 08-07-2013 at 01:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #380 (permalink)  
Old 08-07-2013, 01:17 PM
Registered User
Member #37583
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,246
Thanks: 136
Thanked 167 Times in 140 Posts
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 65
JoeNormal could be the Buddha JoeNormal could be the Buddha JoeNormal could be the Buddha JoeNormal could be the Buddha JoeNormal could be the Buddha JoeNormal could be the Buddha JoeNormal could be the Buddha JoeNormal could be the Buddha
Quote: Originally Posted by Toddsterpatriot View Post
Try making it affordable, or available when you need it, or portable in the case of transportation.

Many new millionaires did just that with shale gas.
Unfortunately, I think it's going to be an environmental disaster.
Reply With Quote
  #381 (permalink)  
Old 08-07-2013, 01:31 PM
MikeK's Avatar
Registered User
Member #23819
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Lakewood, New Jersey
Posts: 8,241
Thanks: 3,239
Thanked 2,371 Times in 1,757 Posts
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1022
MikeK could be on the Supreme Court
MikeK could be on the Supreme Court MikeK could be on the Supreme Court MikeK could be on the Supreme Court MikeK could be on the Supreme Court MikeK could be on the Supreme Court MikeK could be on the Supreme Court MikeK could be on the Supreme Court MikeK could be on the Supreme Court MikeK could be on the Supreme Court MikeK could be on the Supreme Court MikeK could be on the Supreme Court MikeK could be on the Supreme Court MikeK could be on the Supreme Court
Quote: Originally Posted by Toddsterpatriot View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Billy000 View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Vox View Post

don't lie. you DO.

the whole premise of your stupid video is wealth EXPROPRIATION and redistribution.

which is a fundamental feature of socialism ( initially, as then there is no wealth)
You people astound me. Are you just ignoring everything I've been saying this entire time or are you really this stupid? I can't even wrap my head around your logic.

One more time: I am not against the CONCEPT of wealth inequality. I am against the idea of wealth inequality reaching the point of 1% of the population controlling 40% of the wealth.

Try reading slower. You'll catch on.
I am against the idea of wealth inequality reaching the point of 1% of the population controlling 40% of the wealth.

What is the proper amount for the top 1% to control?
The best answer to that question is the percentage of wealth held by the upper income levels during our most prosperous period, which was between the late 40s and the early 80s. If you're looking for an amount, just pick a specific time frame and extrapolate from it. A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
__________________
Watch Inside Job here -- FREE! http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/inside_job_2010/ LEARN how we were robbed by Wall Street and the bankers.
Reply With Quote
  #382 (permalink)  
Old 08-07-2013, 01:37 PM
MikeK's Avatar
Registered User
Member #23819
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Lakewood, New Jersey
Posts: 8,241
Thanks: 3,239
Thanked 2,371 Times in 1,757 Posts
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1022
MikeK could be on the Supreme Court
MikeK could be on the Supreme Court MikeK could be on the Supreme Court MikeK could be on the Supreme Court MikeK could be on the Supreme Court MikeK could be on the Supreme Court MikeK could be on the Supreme Court MikeK could be on the Supreme Court MikeK could be on the Supreme Court MikeK could be on the Supreme Court MikeK could be on the Supreme Court MikeK could be on the Supreme Court MikeK could be on the Supreme Court MikeK could be on the Supreme Court
Quote: Originally Posted by Toddsterpatriot View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Billy000 View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Toddsterpatriot View Post

I am against the idea of wealth inequality reaching the point of 1% of the population controlling 40% of the wealth.

What is the proper amount for the top 1% to control?
Much less than that. Can we at least agree on that?
Just looked at the Forbes 400 list.
The Waltons on the list are worth $115.5 billion combined.
How much should they be worth, to make things fair?
If it were up to me each of them would be worth $20 million. Because I believe that should be the limit applied to individual accumulation of personal assets.

Twenty million -- and confiscate every penny in excess of that amount. And I want to hear some greedy sonofabitch tell me he/she can't get along with so little.

And I really don't give a damn how you feel about that!
__________________
Watch Inside Job here -- FREE! http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/inside_job_2010/ LEARN how we were robbed by Wall Street and the bankers.
Reply With Quote
  #383 (permalink)  
Old 08-07-2013, 01:39 PM
RKMBrown's Avatar
Supporting Member
Member #43831
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,496
Thanks: 856
Thanked 1,590 Times in 1,233 Posts
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1364
RKMBrown has disabled reputation
Quote: Originally Posted by JoeNormal View Post
Somehow, I find it less than comforting to know that we're bathed in energy from a variety of sources.
Why does that make you uncomfortable?

Quote: Originally Posted by JoeNormal View Post
Try making it affordable, or available when you need it, or portable in the case of transportation.
It is affordable. It is available. It is portable. Duh.

Quote: Originally Posted by JoeNormal View Post
Better minds than yours have met with only modest success in these areas.
Only "modest" success? ROFL What would be great success in your mind? Free? ROFL

Quote: Originally Posted by JoeNormal View Post
As for water, aquifers are being depleted or contaminated by fracking, rivers have become so polluted that they're useless and due to climate change, precipitation in many cases doesn't fall where it's needed.
blah blah blah the sky is falling we are all gonna die of thirst... blah blah blah

Quote: Originally Posted by JoeNormal View Post
Everything you've mentioned ignores the 'commodity' aspect of resources.
Huh? WTF Why should I provide you with free power? Are you some sort of Marxist?

Quote: Originally Posted by JoeNormal View Post
Here again, thinking that everybody could become a millionare ignores the commodity aspect of the labor market. The bottom rung of the labor ladder is used as a 'force multiplier' for the upper tiers.
And? Please explain your alternative to working for someone, everyone for themselves? ROFL Ok by me. I don't need to work for the man.

Quote: Originally Posted by JoeNormal View Post
I grew up believing in the Walt Disney vision of the future where technology was going to provide a world of leisure and plenty.
Yeah that's pretty much how nearly every single American lives. Everyone has a big screen TV, computers, video games, microwave ovens, nearly everyone in this country has a wireless phone. Even the "poor" folks are over weight because of this life of leisure and plenty. What did you think this life of leisure and plenty would include, that the poorest of this country do not have aplenty? Did you think money would grow on trees or would not be used any more like star trek?

Quote: Originally Posted by JoeNormal View Post
I swear that this vision was a major force in my becoming an engineer and during my career, I've done all that I could to create the efficiencies that could create that kind of a world. What I've seen happen instead is workers becoming twice as productive for almost no increase in their standard of living. That's the problem with growing wealth disparity.
Bull shit. Paychecks for engineers sky rocketed during the dot com era. Now they have scaled back a bit, but it's still way over what it was pre dot com. What goes up comes down. Get over it. Or talk to your representatives about the offshoring and inshoring efforts they are allowing.

Last edited by RKMBrown; 08-07-2013 at 01:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #384 (permalink)  
Old 08-07-2013, 01:40 PM
DiamondDave's Avatar
Army Vet
Member #11393
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: MD, on the Potomac River
Posts: 18,000
Thanks: 6,950
Thanked 5,035 Times in 3,250 Posts
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 2920
DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute
DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute DiamondDave has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by MikeK View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Toddsterpatriot View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Billy000 View Post

You people astound me. Are you just ignoring everything I've been saying this entire time or are you really this stupid? I can't even wrap my head around your logic.

One more time: I am not against the CONCEPT of wealth inequality. I am against the idea of wealth inequality reaching the point of 1% of the population controlling 40% of the wealth.

Try reading slower. You'll catch on.
I am against the idea of wealth inequality reaching the point of 1% of the population controlling 40% of the wealth.

What is the proper amount for the top 1% to control?
The best answer to that question is the percentage of wealth held by the upper income levels during our most prosperous period, which was between the late 40s and the early 80s. If you're looking for an amount, just pick a specific time frame and extrapolate from it. A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Control freak... it should not be limited at all... you invest more, risk more, work more, and gain/accumulate more because of it.. or even if you hit the fucking lotto.. more power to you...

NONE of it is OWED to society for any 'fair share' because some asshole like you thinks you have more than what you need or should be able to use
__________________
Fuck the subjective notion of 'fair'
Embrace true equality in treatment in all aspects, not just ones that benefit you or your cause

Quote: Originally Posted by Truthmatters View Post
A pure Democracy is NOT Democracy.
Reply With Quote
  #385 (permalink)  
Old 08-07-2013, 01:48 PM
Vox's Avatar
Vox Vox is offline
Registered User
Member #44192
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 10,937
Thanks: 3,034
Thanked 3,191 Times in 2,384 Posts
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 3504
Vox has a reputation beyond repute
Vox has a reputation beyond repute Vox has a reputation beyond repute Vox has a reputation beyond repute Vox has a reputation beyond repute Vox has a reputation beyond repute Vox has a reputation beyond repute Vox has a reputation beyond repute Vox has a reputation beyond repute Vox has a reputation beyond repute Vox has a reputation beyond repute Vox has a reputation beyond repute
Ok, this is from your link:

Table 1
Change in CBO Comprehensive Income by Income Group and Time Period
Change in
average income
Bottom20 percent
Middle60 percent
Next19 percent
Top1 percent
before tax (1979-2007) 37% 32% 64% 266%
after tax (1979-2007) 41% 39% 69% 304%
before tax (1979-2009) 35% 26% 50% 133%
after tax (1979-2009) 45% 37% 58% 155%

strange table as it provides 2 sets of figures. gthe first provides the data up to 2007 and then the same group - until 2009.

from the set is it is obvious that ALL groups grew until 2007 and that the biggest hit in 2008 was on the top 1% - their income dropped from 304% of 1979 level to 123% of that level - which is almost 3 times - which is understandable, since that is the group which plays the markets and therefore got hit really hard. Those are the people who make money on investing - they play hard, earn big, but loose big as well.


ALL the groups experienced growth in income - 45% for the bottom 20%, 37% for the middle 60% and 58% for the upper middle 19%, if compared from 1979 to 2009


If one takes into consideration the amount of taxes and who is carrying the burden - it is obvious, that the burden is carried mostly by the upper middle class, since their benefit disparity in the income change before and after taxation is the smallest.

So what is the problem?

Last edited by Vox; 08-07-2013 at 01:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #386 (permalink)  
Old 08-07-2013, 01:55 PM
Registered User
Member #37583
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,246
Thanks: 136
Thanked 167 Times in 140 Posts
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 65
JoeNormal could be the Buddha JoeNormal could be the Buddha JoeNormal could be the Buddha JoeNormal could be the Buddha JoeNormal could be the Buddha JoeNormal could be the Buddha JoeNormal could be the Buddha JoeNormal could be the Buddha
Quote: Originally Posted by RKMBrown View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by JoeNormal View Post
Somehow, I find it less than comforting to know that we're bathed in energy from a variety of sources.
Why does that make you uncomfortable?

Quote: Originally Posted by JoeNormal View Post
Try making it affordable, or available when you need it, or portable in the case of transportation.
It is affordable. It is available. It is portable. Duh.


Only "modest" success? ROFL What would be great success in your mind? Free? ROFL


blah blah blah the sky is falling we are all gonna die of thirst... blah blah blah


Huh? WTF Why should I provide you with free power? Are you some sort of Marxist?


And? Please explain your alternative to working for someone, everyone for themselves? ROFL Ok by me. I don't need to work for the man.

Quote: Originally Posted by JoeNormal View Post
I grew up believing in the Walt Disney vision of the future where technology was going to provide a world of leisure and plenty.
Yeah that's pretty much how nearly every single American lives. Everyone has a big screen TV, computers, video games, microwave ovens, nearly everyone in this country has a wireless phone. Even the "poor" folks are over weight because of this life of leisure and plenty. What did you think this life of leisure and plenty would include, that the poorest of this country do not have aplenty? Did you think money would grow on trees or would not be used any more like star trek?

Quote: Originally Posted by JoeNormal View Post
I swear that this vision was a major force in my becoming an engineer and during my career, I've done all that I could to create the efficiencies that could create that kind of a world. What I've seen happen instead is workers becoming twice as productive for almost no increase in their standard of living. That's the problem with growing wealth disparity.
Bull shit. Paychecks for engineers sky rocketed during the dot com era. Now they have scaled back a bit, but it's still way over what it was pre dot com. What goes up comes down. Get over it. Or talk to your representatives about the offshoring and inshoring efforts they are allowing.
Yeah, everybody has a lot of gadgets. Some of them are pretty cool and I'll take some credit for that since I work in consumer electronics. What people don't have (increasingly) are homes that they can own, good medical care, high quality food (no McDonald's doesn't count) and quality education for the kiddies.

Yeah, you want to discount that our economy is so fragile that $4 gas sent it over the tipping point a few years ago. Whatever. If you actually looked around, you'd see a ton of people working long hard hours with not much to show for it and neither time nor energy to change that very much.
Reply With Quote
  #387 (permalink)  
Old 08-07-2013, 01:59 PM
Vox's Avatar
Vox Vox is offline
Registered User
Member #44192
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 10,937
Thanks: 3,034
Thanked 3,191 Times in 2,384 Posts
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 3504
Vox has a reputation beyond repute
Vox has a reputation beyond repute Vox has a reputation beyond repute Vox has a reputation beyond repute Vox has a reputation beyond repute Vox has a reputation beyond repute Vox has a reputation beyond repute Vox has a reputation beyond repute Vox has a reputation beyond repute Vox has a reputation beyond repute Vox has a reputation beyond repute Vox has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by MikeK View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Toddsterpatriot View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Billy000 View Post

Much less than that. Can we at least agree on that?
Just looked at the Forbes 400 list.
The Waltons on the list are worth $115.5 billion combined.
How much should they be worth, to make things fair?
If it were up to me each of them would be worth $20 million. Because I believe that should be the limit applied to individual accumulation of personal assets.

Twenty million -- and confiscate every penny in excess of that amount. And I want to hear some greedy sonofabitch tell me he/she can't get along with so little.

And I really don't give a damn how you feel about that!
***aggressive stupid commie detected***

it is not up to you, thanks God
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Vox For This Useful Post:
DiamondDave (08-07-2013)
  #388 (permalink)  
Old 08-07-2013, 02:16 PM
Toddsterpatriot's Avatar
Registered User
Member #29707
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,465
Thanks: 1,522
Thanked 2,930 Times in 2,100 Posts
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 5091
Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow
Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow
Quote: Originally Posted by MikeK View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Toddsterpatriot View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Billy000 View Post

Much less than that. Can we at least agree on that?
Just looked at the Forbes 400 list.
The Waltons on the list are worth $115.5 billion combined.
How much should they be worth, to make things fair?
If it were up to me each of them would be worth $20 million. Because I believe that should be the limit applied to individual accumulation of personal assets.

Twenty million -- and confiscate every penny in excess of that amount. And I want to hear some greedy sonofabitch tell me he/she can't get along with so little.

And I really don't give a damn how you feel about that!
Your feelings are noted.
__________________
Math is hard, harder if you're a liberal.....
Reply With Quote
  #389 (permalink)  
Old 08-07-2013, 02:19 PM
Toddsterpatriot's Avatar
Registered User
Member #29707
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,465
Thanks: 1,522
Thanked 2,930 Times in 2,100 Posts
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 5091
Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow
Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow Toddsterpatriot is cooler than the underside of a pillow
Quote: Originally Posted by MikeK View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Toddsterpatriot View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Billy000 View Post

You people astound me. Are you just ignoring everything I've been saying this entire time or are you really this stupid? I can't even wrap my head around your logic.

One more time: I am not against the CONCEPT of wealth inequality. I am against the idea of wealth inequality reaching the point of 1% of the population controlling 40% of the wealth.

Try reading slower. You'll catch on.
I am against the idea of wealth inequality reaching the point of 1% of the population controlling 40% of the wealth.

What is the proper amount for the top 1% to control?
The best answer to that question is the percentage of wealth held by the upper income levels during our most prosperous period, which was between the late 40s and the early 80s. If you're looking for an amount, just pick a specific time frame and extrapolate from it. A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
The best answer to that question is the percentage of wealth held by the upper income levels during our most prosperous period, which was between the late 40s and the early 80s.

Why?
__________________
Math is hard, harder if you're a liberal.....
Reply With Quote
  #390 (permalink)  
Old 08-07-2013, 02:47 PM
Registered User
Member #37583
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,246
Thanks: 136
Thanked 167 Times in 140 Posts
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 65
JoeNormal could be the Buddha JoeNormal could be the Buddha JoeNormal could be the Buddha JoeNormal could be the Buddha JoeNormal could be the Buddha JoeNormal could be the Buddha JoeNormal could be the Buddha JoeNormal could be the Buddha
Quote: Originally Posted by Toddsterpatriot View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by MikeK View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Toddsterpatriot View Post

I am against the idea of wealth inequality reaching the point of 1% of the population controlling 40% of the wealth.

What is the proper amount for the top 1% to control?
The best answer to that question is the percentage of wealth held by the upper income levels during our most prosperous period, which was between the late 40s and the early 80s. If you're looking for an amount, just pick a specific time frame and extrapolate from it. A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
The best answer to that question is the percentage of wealth held by the upper income levels during our most prosperous period, which was between the late 40s and the early 80s.

Why?
Presumably, so we can return to prosperity.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Lower Navigation
Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Economy
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:44 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.