U.S. Income Inequality Now Worse Than In Many Latin American Countries

[edthecynic]

Meathead -

As I commented earlier - I don't consider either to be at all left wing. If you do, that's fine. It's a subjective issue.

Of course it's a subjective issue. That you do not find either to be "remotely left wing" proves it. I linked a UCLA (not a bastion of right wing thinking) study which concluded that both the LA Times and the WSJ news reporting were among the furthest to the left. Once again:

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom

Given that, it is rather easy to see the subjectivity involved in your comment, which renders it pointless unless prefaced with something like, "In my (very) subjective opinion...".

Without such a preamble, I trust that you can clearly see why I called it BS. It also belies your lack of moderation as well as objectivity despite your efforts to build such an image.
Churchill once spoke of "a sheep in sheep's clothing" which is oddly appropriate here.

That fake UCLA "study" has been thoroughly discredited in numerous threads on this board already, yet some assholes still use it as credible.

They use arbitrary ratings of congressmen and arbitrary ratings of think tanks with meaningless cites of the think tanks by the congressmen that leads to asinine conclusions like Drudge is Liberal!

But the Misinformation Voter swallows that bullshit whole and then mindlessly parrots it in a public forum.

 

[Saigon]

You DO realize that the S&P 500 represents far less than 1% of American companies, don't you?

The top 500 are the elite of the elite. It's like taking the earnings of the Rolling Stones, and claiming that the average rock band, playing in bars and garages, make that kind of money. It's not just dishonest, it's insultingly stupid.

I'm sure 500 would be 1%....but the story is also very clear about what it is reporting. And it has to be said, 500 companies is a more than fair sample size.

Given covering all CEO's would be impractical (does a CEO with 1 staff member count?) I can't imagine what you would think would be a fair sample.

I don't see anything biased, dishonest or unusual that LA Times has done here. It's certainly light years away from the "lying" you alleged earlier, isn't it?

 

[Saigon]

Meathead -

Just to be clear here - my posts represent my subjective opinions. Always.

I assume your posts represent only objective facts, unsullied by opinion? Or do you not have opinions?

 

[Meathead]

Meathead -

As I commented earlier - I don't consider either to be at all left wing. If you do, that's fine. It's a subjective issue.

Of course it's a subjective issue. That you do not find either to be "remotely left wing" proves it. I linked a UCLA (not a bastion of right wing thinking) study which concluded that both the LA Times and the WSJ news reporting were among the furthest to the left. Once again:

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom

Given that, it is rather easy to see the subjectivity involved in your comment, which renders it pointless unless prefaced with something like, "In my (very) subjective opinion...".

Without such a preamble, I trust that you can clearly see why I called it BS. It also belies your lack of moderation as well as objectivity despite your efforts to build such an image.
Churchill once spoke of "a sheep in sheep's clothing" which is oddly appropriate here.

That fake UCLA "study" has been thoroughly discredited in numerous threads on this board already, yet some assholes still use it as credible.

They use arbitrary ratings of congressmen and arbitrary ratings of think tanks with meaningless cites of the think tanks by the congressmen that leads to asinine conclusions like Drudge is Liberal!

But the Misinformation Voter swallows that bullshit whole and then mindlessly parrots it in a public forum.

It is odd that that whatever finding someone does not agree with is discredited while whatever they do is gospel. Spare us your nickle-and-dime store commentary. Your contribution to this thread is even less useful than Saigon's.

Still, with all his faults, he is less disingenuous than you. There is a "dingbat element" on all these public forums which by their nature, are inevitable. I invited Saigon to engage on the subject and was met by platitudes like businesses do better when engaging the workforce. Not the stuff of a serious exchange regarding the subject matter, but at least not as mind-numbing as your "observation".

 

[Uncensored2008]

It is odd that that whatever finding someone does not agree with is discredited while whatever they do is gospel. Spare us your nickle-and-dime store commentary. Your contribution to this thread is even less useful than Saigon's.

Still, with all his faults, he is less disingenuous than you. There is a "dingbat element" on all these public forums which by their nature, are inevitable. I invited Saigon to engage on the subject and was met by platitudes like businesses do better when engaging the workforce. Not the stuff of a serious exchange regarding the subject matter, but at least not as mind-numbing as your "observation".

I'd like to see what "discredited" the UCLA study?

Yo edtheliar, how about a link?

 

[Saigon]

I'd like to see what "discredited" the UCLA study?

Just what he told you - I imagine. That the ratings accorded media agencies were given by politicians etc.

It is very hard to be objective in assessing media, but there are ways of doing it that don't involve asking Dem Senators what they think of Fox, or GOP Senators whether they consider LA Times left wing or right wing.

(btw, I'm a journalist)

 

[Samson]

Meathead -

As I commented earlier - I don't consider either to be at all left wing. If you do, that's fine. It's a subjective issue.

Of course it's a subjective issue. That you do not find either to be "remotely left wing" proves it. I linked a UCLA (not a bastion of right wing thinking) study which concluded that both the LA Times and the WSJ news reporting were among the furthest to the left. Once again:

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom

Given that, it is rather easy to see the subjectivity involved in your comment, which renders it pointless unless prefaced with something like, "In my (very) subjective opinion...".

Without such a preamble, I trust that you can clearly see why I called it BS. It also belies your lack of moderation as well as objectivity despite your efforts to build such an image.
Churchill once spoke of "a sheep in sheep's clothing" which is oddly appropriate here.

That fake UCLA "study" has been thoroughly discredited in numerous threads on this board already, yet some assholes still use it as credible.

They use arbitrary ratings of congressmen and arbitrary ratings of think tanks with meaningless cites of the think tanks by the congressmen that leads to asinine conclusions like Drudge is Liberal!

But the Misinformation Voter swallows that bullshit whole and then mindlessly parrots it in a public forum.

Has anyone noted that Despite the "U.S. Income Inequality Now Worse That In Many Latin American Countries," we are over-run with Illegal Immigrants from Latin America?



Coud it be that Latin Americans WANT income inequality?

Or, Could it be that Huffpo is a source only an idiot would quote in the OP.

 

[Saigon]

Has anyone noted that Despite the "U.S. Income Inequality Now Worse That In Many Latin American Countries," we are over-run with Illegal Immigrants from Latin America?

The US still has a higher standard of living than most Central American countries.

That doesn't mean immigrants will ever earn a real slice of that pie, but many imagine that they will.

 

[Meathead]

I'd like to see what "discredited" the UCLA study?

Just what he told you - I imagine. That the ratings accorded media agencies were given by politicians etc.

It is very hard to be objective in assessing media, but there are ways of doing it that don't involve asking Dem Senators what they think of Fox, or GOP Senators whether they consider LA Times left wing or right wing.

(btw, I'm a journalist)

An unintended consequence of partaking in these threads is making me feel a definite intellectual superiority. I have always been secure in the knowledge that I am not an idiot, but the input of some probably makes me feel that I am far more intelligent than I really am.

Always aware of the dangers of conceit, I would ask that Saigon and the other ditz do not respond. I try to understand that they are not truly typical of average intellect, yet in discourse that fact can be easily lost. I should preface that this was without subjectivity, rather a true observation of the limitations of others.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Just what he told you - I imagine.

Because he said so?

Dayum, the level of evidence by the left is astounding...

That the ratings accorded media agencies were given by politicians etc.

Not exactly.

It is very hard to be objective in assessing media, but there are ways of doing it that don't involve asking Dem Senators what they think of Fox, or GOP Senators whether they consider LA Times left wing or right wing.

(btw, I'm a journalist)

So, as a party operative, do you view serving the needs of the party by disseminating demagoguery against the hated infidels of the right as a greater truth than mere facts?

 

[Uncensored2008]

An unintended consequence of partaking in these threads is making me feel a definite intellectual superiority. I have always been secure in the knowledge that I am not an idiot, but the input of some probably makes me feel that I am far more intelligent than I really am.

Always aware of the dangers of conceit, I would ask that Saigon and the other ditz do not respond. I try to understand that they are not truly typical of average intellect, yet in discourse that fact can be easily lost. I should preface that this was without subjectivity, rather a true observation of the limitations of others.

I try to remain neutral in flames not launched by me; but in all fairness, Saigon is one of the more rational leftists on the board. More likely to engage in rational discussion than most.

For whatever my opinion is worth.....

 

[Samson]

Has anyone noted that Despite the "U.S. Income Inequality Now Worse That In Many Latin American Countries," we are over-run with Illegal Immigrants from Latin America?

The US still has a higher standard of living than most Central American countries.

That doesn't mean immigrants will ever earn a real slice of that pie, but many imagine that they will.

My point is that on the "scale" of ratios presented in the Huffpo article referred to support the OP, the USA has a middle rating.

Thus there is a highest and lowest (note the ratio is highest/lowest average income).

Why aren't immigrants in Latin America going from the country with the highest to the lowest ratio? Honduras to Uraguay?

 

[Koios]

Seems to me this is a because of some very progressive "reforms" in Latin America. So are the poor in Latin America any less poor as a result?

No. They are still quite poor.

Hardly. Lula's first act as Brasil's president was to raise the minimum wage. And it lifted Brasil out of the global recession sooner and faster than any other country in the Americas.

Show the causal relationship and proof that the poor in Brasil are poor no longer.

Why? Did I assert anything of the kind?

Now then, yes; poor still exist in Brasil. Here, too. But the dynamic of higher wroker pay in growing economies has long been understood, and misunderstood, even by Obama. So here we go:

Understood: higher wages due to increased minimum wages and unionization created the Great American Middle Class. That's a fucking fact. And the irony (not ironic if have the basest grasp of political economics) is the higher pay was only that. Same worker. Same jobs. Same output, for the most part. Just more money for doing what previously paid shit. And whadaya know. Glory Days. Workers buying shit like never before, and sales go through the fucking roof.

Misunderstood (Obama, too): lift yourself up. Get an education and the better paying job that goes with it. Hell; let's spend billions making that easier!!! Yippee ... except for, it does zero to create incremental higher paying jobs. Just someone else getting the job, and displacing a worker who ... you guessed it, DOES NOT GET THE JOB. It's worker musical chairs, and does ZIP to increase average worker pay.

Maybe realizing the folly, Obama spends billions more, being a venture capitalist and funding pet projects, i.e., green energy. Terrific ... except those workers are already in demand and making good dough. Plus if there was a market for the shit, VCs would have been all over it with zero encouragement from government. It's their job to find the cream puffs, and they're actually very, very good at it. And if they wouldn't touch it, maybe that oughta tell us something. If not, perhaps the many failures, even with government buckos is telling us something.

Solution: don't change a fucking thing, nor spend a dime having politicians pretend they know shit about venture capitilization. Just have them vote for a higher minimum wage and better regs that foster more unionization. Do their jobs, and not the job of VCs.

Upside: economy grows at a faster rate, folks can buy more stuff, and poverty diminishes, as it did when Lula raised Brasil's minimum wage, which by the way, is a fact. Read up on it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Upside: economy grows at a faster rate, folks can buy more stuff, and poverty diminishes, as it did when Lula raised Brasil's minimum wage, which by the way, is a fact. Read up on it.

of course only a perfect idiot illliterate liberal would say raising minimum wage diminishes poverty and helps economy grow.

We got from stone age to here as Republican capitalists invented new products, not as we raised minimum wage.

 

[Koios]

Upside: economy grows at a faster rate, folks can buy more stuff, and poverty diminishes, as it did when Lula raised Brasil's minimum wage, which by the way, is a fact. Read up on it.

of course only a perfect idiot illliterate liberal would say raising minimum wage diminishes poverty and helps economy grow.

We got from stone age to here as Republican capitalists invented new products, not as we raised minimum wage.

Actually "welfare capitalism" grew this country, and one of it's authors / leading advocates was Henry Ford, whose wealth in todays's dollars would exceed the wealth of Gates, Buffet and the next 5 richest Americans, combined. Google "Fordism." Or what I subscribe to: "consumerism," in which our value has less to do with our work than it does what we spend.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Actually "welfare capitalism" grew this country, and one of it's authors / leading advocates was Henry Ford, whose wealth in todays's dollars would exceed the wealth of Gates, Buffet and the next 5 richest Americans, combined. Google "Fordism." Or what I subscribe to: "consumerism," in which our value has less to do with our work than it does what we spend.

Have you ever had even an introductory class on economics?

Your ignorance is jaw dropping.

 

[Koios]

Actually "welfare capitalism" grew this country, and one of it's authors / leading advocates was Henry Ford, whose wealth in todays's dollars would exceed the wealth of Gates, Buffet and the next 5 richest Americans, combined. Google "Fordism." Or what I subscribe to: "consumerism," in which our value has less to do with our work than it does what we spend.

Have you ever had even an introductory class on economics?

Your ignorance is jaw dropping.

No. I skipped most intro-level courses, since I already had an idea of what my education goals were.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Actually "welfare capitalism" grew this country, and one of it's authors / leading advocates was Henry Ford, whose wealth in todays's dollars would exceed the wealth of Gates, Buffet and the next 5 richest Americans, combined. Google "Fordism." Or what I subscribe to: "consumerism," in which our value has less to do with our work than it does what we spend.

Have you ever had even an introductory class on economics?

Your ignorance is jaw dropping.

No. I skipped most intro-level courses, since I already had an idea of what my education goals were.

translation: he's never been near Econ 101 and it show in his pure ignorance

 

[Koios]

Have you ever had even an introductory class on economics?

Your ignorance is jaw dropping.

No. I skipped most intro-level courses, since I already had an idea of what my education goals were.

translation: he's never been near Econ 101 and it show in his pure ignorance

Coming from you, Ed, it's a compliment.

Now then, some very, very basic concepts on economies and shit: the US is not a capitalist country. But we allow many forms of capitalism, such as bankers, venture capital firms, and public funding of corporations.

Our economy, and indeed, our country's economic system is, consumerist. And you, assuming you're still employed, are a consumer, and not a capitalist.

But don't feel too badly. Wyatt Earp also called himself a capitalist, having gained some respect for his employers (Capitalists) who capitalized on the silver mining in Tombstone and needed a deputy marshall on its payroll, since they displaced the many small entrepreneurs (speculators) who flooded the area after silver was discovered in great quantity.

So, in short, capitalism exists within economic systems, everywhere, damn near. Capitalists are those who capitalize ventures. Workers are either quasi-indentured (communist countries) or consumers (free republics).

And, btw, nothing of much significance is taught in intro-level courses, which you'd know, had you ever been inspired by one (if you needed to be thus inspired) and then took higher level courses where shit is taught. Ergo, when folks say it's "this and that 101," they're actually saying they're idoits and poorly educated.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Now then, some very, very basic concepts on economies and shit: the US is not a capitalist country.

IF I said it was I'll pay you $10,000. Bet or run away with your liberal strawman between your legs once again!

Next time maybe you can get past the first sentence???