Why The Rich Are Getting Richer

[Sundial]

Link.

All the income in this country goes either to workers (people who make stuff) or to owners (people who own stuff). When it goes to workers, it's called "salary" or "wages". When it goes to owners it's called "profits" or "interest" or "dividends" or "capital gains".

What this chart shows is that the part of the nation's income that goes to workers has fallen from about 67% to about 57%.

Is that sustainable? What happens when more and more income goes to people who don't work, and less and less goes to people who do?

 

[expat_panama]

...Is that sustainable?...

Of course it's sustainable. Left wing loonies have been making up stuff for years, they always have and they always will. Here we have a goofy unsupported 'chart' from --no not an economist, from a lawyer. OK, lawyers know lots of stuff, but it's law they study and work with, not economics for heaven sake!

...income in this country goes either to workers (people who make stuff) or to owners...

--as if owners don't work?

I feel like writing an op-ed with the line "...income in this country goes either to Democrat union people (people who have to be told what to do) or to honest thinking people (owners)..."

Naw, that would be slimy, I couldn't possibly stoop so low...

 

[Liability]

Link.

All the income in this country goes either to workers (people who make stuff) or to owners (people who own stuff). When it goes to workers, it's called "salary" or "wages". When it goes to owners it's called "profits" or "interest" or "dividends" or "capital gains".

What this chart shows is that the part of the nation's income that goes to workers has fallen from about 67% to about 57%.

Is that sustainable? What happens when more and more income goes to people who don't work, and less and less goes to people who do?

Figures lie. Liars figure.

If the cahrt has any validity at all (a highly debatable premise), the question would still be: so what?

If making 57% of the non-farm business "income" means that the average standard of living has gone up (despite the relative share going down), then the share dropping is of no real significance.

The problem is not that the rich might get richer, is it?

 

[Mr. H.]

Where have all the farm folk gone?

 

[Brutus]

I What happens when more and more income goes to people who don't work,

this shows the liberal IQ perfectly. If more and more money goes to people who don't work then it would make great sense not to work.

 

[expat_panama]

...shows the liberal IQ perfectly. If more and more money goes to people who don't work then it would make great sense not to work.

--and explains why so many have quit their jobs to protest rising unemployment by marching with OWS.

 

[editec]

What this is showing us are two things

1. the effect that imports are having on the percentage of the GNP that is workers incomes

2. The effect that production efficiencies are having on worker incomes.

 

[uscitizen]

Why The Rich Are Getting Richer


So they can creat jobs for the rest of us. Of course!

 

[editec]

Why do people WITH CAPITAL do better in a CAPITALIST system than people without CAPITAL?


Why do people with GUNS do better in GUNFIGHTS than people without guns?

 

[Sallow]

When you have a small portion of the population with all the marbles..revolution follows. Almost every time.

Don't like Communism? Don't support this shit.

 

[Dragon]

No, it is not sustainable, for two reasons. The political reason has already been mentioned.

The economic reason is that there are far more workers than owners. [Note in passing: that owners also work is not relevant to the distinction and to bring this up is a deliberate, dishonest, and frankly contemptible red herring. SHAME on you. And you know who you are.]

Since there are far more workers than owners, a higher percentage of the income going to owners instead of workers also means a higher percentage going to fewer people. This results in depressed consumer demand, and ultimately in a depressed economy, such as we now have.

 

[Wiseacre]

Why do people WITH CAPITAL do better in a CAPITALIST system than people without CAPITAL?


Why do people with GUNS do better in GUNFIGHTS than people without guns?

Just focusing on the first question, is it not obvious that those with the most capital to invest in a growing economy will be the ones to make the most profit? Over the past 30 years the stock market has grown from around 800 to approx 12,000. There's no mystery here, it takes money to make money. I thought everyone understood that.

The question the becomes what to do about it. You don't want to hinder economy growth and the creation of more jobs, right? Many propose raising taxes on the rich, as though that would settle the issue. Aside from the fact that most economists will tell you that raising taxes at a time of low or no economic growth is a bad idea, even Bill Clinton and Barack Obama himself has said so, the truth is that raising taxes really doesn't address the problem in a meaningful way.

The best answer is not to take money away from somebody and give it to somebody else, instead we should be creating an economy that fosters competition so that more people can move up the income ladder. We need an economy that encourages investment, incentivizes entrepeneurship, and rewards the risk takers. That's not so say that gov't shouldn't be protecting the interests of the consumer or the employee or the investor either, but it's gotta be done in a non-intrusive and cost effective way. Which right now we ain't doing.

 

[expat_panama]

...this chart shows is that the part of the nation's income that goes to workers has fallen from about 67% to about 57%....

No it doesn't. All it shows is some lawyer wants us to believe that there is a growing diversification in incomes, and he does so convincingly without supporting evidence.

Lawyers are paid good money to do that every day.

 

[expat_panama]

When you have a small portion of the population with all the marbles..revolution follows. Almost every time. Don't like Communism? Don't support this shit.

Huh.

You believe power became less concentrated in countries where revolting communists took over?

 

[Dragon]

...this chart shows is that the part of the nation's income that goes to workers has fallen from about 67% to about 57%....

No it doesn't. All it shows is some lawyer wants us to believe that there is a growing diversification in incomes, and he does so convincingly without supporting evidence.

Lawyers are paid good money to do that every day.

Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Granted that a lawyer is not an authoritative source, if you're claiming that the data he presented is wrong, you still have to prove that. The fact that he's a lawyer by itself doesn't prove squat.

 

[Wiseacre]

When you have a small portion of the population with all the marbles..revolution follows. Almost every time.

Don't like Communism? Don't support this shit.

I don't think so, for most of recorded human history a small portion of the populations has always had most of the marbles. The only difference now is that the aggregate amount of new wealth over the past 30 years has been so immense and those who were in the best position to earn most of it were the people who had money to invest.

Bitching about how much somebody else has is a waste of time IMHO. Instead, you should be focused on how to improve competition and increasing opportunities for more people to get richer. What we've been doing up to now has been ineffective, and that includes both the repubs and the dems who have misued their power and authority to help the most influential and richest among us rather than doing what was best for everybody.

 

[expat_panama]

...Granted that a lawyer is not an authoritative source, if you're claiming that the data he presented is wrong, you still have to prove that...

Ah, what he says is right unless I can prove it wrong to your satisfaction.

How about if I posted a graph showing the percentage of errors in logic you were making increased from 65% to 79% over the past week. No evidence. No supporting data. Would everyone have to accept it as true until you proved it wrong to my satisfaction?

 

[waltky]

Granny says is `cause the rich gettin' richer an' the poor gettin' poorer...

Report: Rich, Poor Gap Widens in Most Countries
December 05, 2011 - Report shows biggest wealth gaps in Chile and Mexico, where richest make 25 times more than poorest.

The gap between rich and poor has grown in most of the world's major economies, and now stands at its highest level in 30 years. A report released Monday by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a research and policy group that has 34 member countries, calls for governments to act quickly to address the growing inequalities.

The report shows that the gap between the income of the richest 10 percent and the poorest 10 percent has risen in nearly all OECD member countries. The biggest gap is in Chile and Mexico, where the richest make 25 times more than the poorest. The gap is 14-to-1 in the United States, Turkey and Israel; 10-to-1 in Japan, South Korea and Britain; and 6-to-1 in Germany, Denmark and Sweden.

OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurria said the study shows that "the social contract is starting to unravel in many countries." Gurria said the study shows that the benefits of economic growth in countries do not automatically trickle down to the poor. The OECD attributed the rising income gaps to several factors, including changes in tax and benefits policies and differences in education and training.

Source

 

[Mr. H.]

I am wealthy beyond my dreams.
Not by dollars, as our President would have me believe.

I learned long ago the true value of wealth, while mired in the grip of poverty.

Personal dignity, a sense of self-worth, and the love of family defines my fortunes.
Not the hollow words of an ill-gotten nation leader.

President Obama is not the self-professed prophet of my world.
My world is my own prophecy. And I profess a bright future for myself and my family irrespective.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What happens when more and more income goes to people who don't work, and less and less goes to people who do?

do you mean people on welfare or do you mean business owners?

Can you tell me how I can own a business without working?