CDZ The Income Inequality Charade

[fncceo]

Because that's what's been happening the past decade.

Did President Trump have a base 10 years ago? Three years ago those were Obama's citizens.

I never blamed Trump.

But it’s been Trump’s base who have suffered the most while the highly educated have done extremely well.

I'm moderately well educated and I'm part of President Trump's base. Perhaps you shouldn't try to make generalizations about people with whom you're unfamiliar.

 

[Toro]

So you're OK with Trump's base's wages stagnating?

Because that's what's been happening the past decade.

These liberal fuckers just have to lie, lie, lie. Biggest ass liars.

Pay gains during Trump's first year in office are the best since the Great Recession

Pay gains during Trump's first year in office best since the Great RecessionThe Employment Cost Index, a measure of salary and benefit costs, registered a 2.6 percent gain for the full year, tied for the best since 2007.That gives President Donald Trump the best wage gains since the Great Recession, easily topping any during former President Barack Obama's entire term.

How to spot a sociopath - 10 red flags that could save you from being swept under the influence of a charismatic nut job

#10) Sociopaths are delusional and literally believe that what they say becomes truth merely because they say it!

Now watch, when I just proved him wrong, this Sociopathic event will happen next.

#5) Sociopaths seek to dominate others and "win" at all costs. They hate to lose any argument or fight and will viciously defend their web of lies, even to the point of logical absurdity.

#9) Sociopaths never apologize. They are never wrong. They never feel guilt. They can never apologize. Even if shown proof that they were wrong, they will refuse to apologize and instead go on the attack.

Over the last decade, wages for uneducated workers have stagnated whereas compensation for highly educated people have soared. That’s the rise in income inequality. Are you OK with that anrdeanjim?

So you are saying that in the past decade minimum wages haven't risen? I dont give a rats ass about uneducated workers. You know why? Because that is their "CHOICE" to be uneducated. I was a minimum wage worker, but instead of whining about the pay, I entered the military and got skills. If you are a liberal twit, and dont want to find your God given gift, then you must suffer for being a "victim" of liberalism because you vote for the very people who keep you poor.

The median wage of white working class Americans with no more than a high school has declined over the past decade.

 

[Toro]

Because that's what's been happening the past decade.

Did President Trump have a base 10 years ago? Three years ago those were Obama's citizens.

I never blamed Trump.

But it’s been Trump’s base who have suffered the most while the highly educated have done extremely well.

I'm moderately well educated and I'm part of President Trump's base. Perhaps you shouldn't try to make generalizations about people with whom you're unfamiliar.

And I know billionaire friends of Trump in Palm Beach who voted for him.

You do understand the differences between individuals and populations, right? Individual anecdotes are meaningless in a broad context. The largest block that voted for Trump were white males with a high school education or less at ~75%. No group voted more for Trump.

And their wages have broadly declined over the past decade.

 

[jwoodie]

Today's Right is refusing to acknowledge a couple of important fundamentals about human nature.

First, within any given socioeconomic system, certain people will be better equipped to flourish materially than others. They will have the aptitudes and strengths that best match that system; they will have an upbringing that lends itself well to that system; they will possess the inner drive that is requisite for success in that system; and they will have the kind of intelligence that is best matched for that system. So, while "pulling yourself up by the bootstraps" is a nice and simple platitude, it fundamentally ignores the natural constraints different people will have within any given system.

Second, the Right doesn't want to consider the possibility (fact, in my view) that a strong socioeconomic safety net functions essentially as an insurance policy against electoral revolution. A cost of doing business, as it were. Whether one likes it or not, people in the lower economic strata vote, and that won't be changing any time soon. So within any given civilization, once inequities reach a certain point, those in the top half or third or tenth have a decision to make: Is it worth it to support those who don't have the capacity to reach higher, or is the risk of electoral disaster worth having a few extra goodies?

To make things worse, the Right itself appears to lack the capacity to rationally consider these fundamentals. I can guarantee that platitudes and insults aren't going to stop what's coming.
.

First, you ignore the concept of incentive. Second, you confuse "strong socioeconomic safety net functions" with income redistribution (to reduce inequality). Third, you resort to bogeyman arguments ("the Right...).

Instead of offering bread and circuses to the masses, how about giving them jobs?

 

[Mac1958]

Today's Right is refusing to acknowledge a couple of important fundamentals about human nature.

First, within any given socioeconomic system, certain people will be better equipped to flourish materially than others. They will have the aptitudes and strengths that best match that system; they will have an upbringing that lends itself well to that system; they will possess the inner drive that is requisite for success in that system; and they will have the kind of intelligence that is best matched for that system. So, while "pulling yourself up by the bootstraps" is a nice and simple platitude, it fundamentally ignores the natural constraints different people will have within any given system.

Second, the Right doesn't want to consider the possibility (fact, in my view) that a strong socioeconomic safety net functions essentially as an insurance policy against electoral revolution. A cost of doing business, as it were. Whether one likes it or not, people in the lower economic strata vote, and that won't be changing any time soon. So within any given civilization, once inequities reach a certain point, those in the top half or third or tenth have a decision to make: Is it worth it to support those who don't have the capacity to reach higher, or is the risk of electoral disaster worth having a few extra goodies?

To make things worse, the Right itself appears to lack the capacity to rationally consider these fundamentals. I can guarantee that platitudes and insults aren't going to stop what's coming.
.

First, you ignore the concept of incentive. Second, you confuse "strong socioeconomic safety net functions" with income redistribution (to reduce inequality). Third, you resort to bogeyman arguments ("the Right...).

Instead of offering bread and circuses to the masses, how about giving them jobs?

Nope, incentive is absolutely critical for innovation. The question is the amount of trade-off we make, finding a point of equilibrium at which the incentive is not enough to compensate for the effort. That's the bottom line to all of this. We are nowhere near being at that point.

Call a strong safety net whatever you'd like. And people on the lower strata will still vote.

And this argument is only coming from the Right, specifically the segment that has been consumed by binary, libertarian-soaked thought, the segment that has been convinced to take Reagan's "government is the problem" speech line as absolute, unimpeachable gospel.

You don't have to agree with anything I said. The last sentence in my post still applies.
.

 

[initforme]

Someone has to be rich and some have to live in abject poverty. The system is designed so both must exist. Thankfully those in the latter can get some govt assistance to survive.

 

[Moonglow]

Someone has to be rich and some have to live in abject poverty. The system is designed so both must exist. Thankfully those in the latter can get some govt assistance to survive.

Not if they are excluded.

 

[Moonglow]

I would support the idea that wealth equality was only due to effort if the everyone started at the same level yet that is not the case..

 

[Mac1958]

To make things worse, the Right itself appears to lack the capacity to rationally consider these fundamentals. I can guarantee that platitudes and insults aren't going to stop what's coming.

Speaking of platitudes and insults...

I provided a clear, comprehensive and (as usual) independent response to your OP.

If you think things are going your way, and that you're doing the right things to get your way, great!
.

 

[danielpalos]

Someone has to be rich and some have to live in abject poverty. The system is designed so both must exist. Thankfully those in the latter can get some govt assistance to survive.

The Best Capitalism can do?

 

[jwoodie]

I provided a clear, comprehensive and (as usual) independent response to your OP.

Then why didn't you answer any of the questions I raised:

What, exactly, is wrong with "income inequality?" It is popularly reported that a tiny percentage of people own a large percentage of the world's wealth, but so what? Much of that wealth is ownership of companies they started which have contributed immensely to the world's economy. Just who would be better off if Jeff Bezos didn't own all that Amazon stock?

Is income inequality really a problem in itself? Or is it just a way of appealing to people's baser emotions (e.g., envy) for political purposes?

 

[Mac1958]

I provided a clear, comprehensive and (as usual) independent response to your OP.

Then why didn't you answer any of the questions I raised:

What, exactly, is wrong with "income inequality?" It is popularly reported that a tiny percentage of people own a large percentage of the world's wealth, but so what? Much of that wealth is ownership of companies they started which have contributed immensely to the world's economy. Just who would be better off if Jeff Bezos didn't own all that Amazon stock?

Is income inequality really a problem in itself? Or is it just a way of appealing to people's baser emotions (e.g., envy) for political purposes?

Simplistic, binary question. There's nothing wrong with income inequality. It's going to happen in any socioeconomic system.

The question is degree. How pronounced the inequality is. Life is not just one or the other. There is a spectrum.

It's about finding the proper equilibrium. Striking a workable balance between (a) creating & maintaining a strong enough safety net to avoid an social/electoral revolution and (b) not retarding the dynamics of capitalism by imposing too many restrictions and taxes.

This isn't a binary issue. It just takes a little extra thinking. Not much of that right now.

If this doesn't make sense to you, then great. Keep doing what you're doing, that's up to you.
.

 

[sparky]

What, exactly, is wrong with "income inequality?" It is popularly reported that a tiny percentage of people own a large percentage of the world's wealth, but so what?

 

[danielpalos]

social services and our alleged wars the right wing refuses to pay wartime tax rates are a drag on our economy.

 

[alang1216]

Is income inequality really a problem in itself? Or is it just a way of appealing to people's baser emotions (e.g., envy) for political purposes?

I don't see income inequality as a problem, the problem I see is when wealth is passed down.

Bill Gates and other billionaires earned their money but their children did not. Why should their kids have the best health care when some poor kid does not?

Dubya and Trump were born rich. Would either have become president if they had not?

 

[DandyDonovan]

Most of this issue revolved around personal responsibility though. Why so many refuse to acnowledte that is beyond me.

If you took 50% of accumulated wealth from the top 10% richest people in this country and gave it to the lowest 10% of the poor in this country and came back to check on them in 5 years, the top 10% would have increased their wealth and the lowest 10% would be as poor or poorer than they were before you gave them the money.

 

[sartre play]

Been thinking about a post I read a few days ago, it stated that the rich did not get more defense more court, more paved roads than the average person.
is it possible that those beating on Trump supporter's as dumb or uneducated got it wrong, and that those supporter's are just naïve?
because its an absolute fact that the rich get more defense, better court results, better roads, not even to speak of preferential treatment at every level of government.

 

[danielpalos]

Most of this issue revolved around personal responsibility though. Why so many refuse to acnowledte that is beyond me.

If you took 50% of accumulated wealth from the top 10% richest people in this country and gave it to the lowest 10% of the poor in this country and came back to check on them in 5 years, the top 10% would have increased their wealth and the lowest 10% would be as poor or poorer than they were before you gave them the money.

Practice makes perfect. The Poor merely need as much capital practice as the rich.

 

[Picaro]

The economy isn't producing many 'high paying jobs for the well educated' for one, the vast majority of jobs created here are low paying part time crap jobs. Until most people understand that, they will continue to be played as suckers by both 'Parties'. There is no labor shortage in the U.S., never has been, and most certainly no reason at all to allow massive immigration of low skilled illiterates or green cards for highly skilled workers who can be abused by employers and work a lot cheaper.

 

[DandyDonovan]

So you're OK with Trump's base's wages stagnating?

Because that's what's been happening the past decade.

These liberal fuckers just have to lie, lie, lie. Biggest ass liars.

Pay gains during Trump's first year in office are the best since the Great Recession

Pay gains during Trump's first year in office best since the Great RecessionThe Employment Cost Index, a measure of salary and benefit costs, registered a 2.6 percent gain for the full year, tied for the best since 2007.That gives President Donald Trump the best wage gains since the Great Recession, easily topping any during former President Barack Obama's entire term.

How to spot a sociopath - 10 red flags that could save you from being swept under the influence of a charismatic nut job

#10) Sociopaths are delusional and literally believe that what they say becomes truth merely because they say it!

Now watch, when I just proved him wrong, this Sociopathic event will happen next.

#5) Sociopaths seek to dominate others and "win" at all costs. They hate to lose any argument or fight and will viciously defend their web of lies, even to the point of logical absurdity.

#9) Sociopaths never apologize. They are never wrong. They never feel guilt. They can never apologize. Even if shown proof that they were wrong, they will refuse to apologize and instead go on the attack.

Over the last decade, wages for uneducated workers have stagnated whereas compensation for highly educated people have soared. That’s the rise in income inequality. Are you OK with that anrdeanjim?

So you are saying that in the past decade minimum wages haven't risen? I dont give a rats ass about uneducated workers. You know why? Because that is their "CHOICE" to be uneducated. I was a minimum wage worker, but instead of whining about the pay, I entered the military and got skills. If you are a liberal twit, and dont want to find your God given gift, then you must suffer for being a "victim" of liberalism because you vote for the very people who keep you poor.

Actually it' s proven fact that the minimum wage has DECREASED in value since the 1960, let alone in the last 10 years.