1947-1979 v 1980-now

[Trajan]

So, another left wing columnist in a left wing newspaper with one more diatribe over income inequality. Do you think it's possible that the inequality grpah shows pre tax income, so the top earners maybe didn't make quite as much money. And the low enders, the graph doesn't show the gov't payments that are not added onto their incomes either. IOW, the gap may not be as great as many would whine about.

nor a word on who pays the net taxes collected, by income, nor any quantification of the VALUE of goods and services provided at little to no cost either, but hey, when every problem is a nail, every answer is a hammer.

 

[Toro]

it explains the increasingly large gap between the haves and have-nots.

the article/chart explained that, how so?

it isn't healthy for our society.... which is kind of what we've been saying. yet the right complains about even minimum wage and anything that sets standards for pay, with their ire particularly focused on unions.

how so?exactly?

There is a fair amount of empirical evidence in sociology concluding that nations with lower levels of income inequality are generally more cohesive, content and happy.

It dovetails with studies in psychology which have concluded that people are generally more miserable when others they know become successful while they do not.

 

[elvis]

it explains the increasingly large gap between the haves and have-nots.

the article/chart explained that, how so?

it isn't healthy for our society.... which is kind of what we've been saying. yet the right complains about even minimum wage and anything that sets standards for pay, with their ire particularly focused on unions.

how so?exactly?

There is a fair amount of empirical evidence in sociology concluding that nations with lower levels of income inequality are generally more cohesive, content and happy.

It dovetails with studies in psychology which have concluded that people are generally more miserable when others they know become successful while they do not.

when did the lower levels of income inequality in Europe start? Because they didn't seem too happy in the first half of the twentieth century.

 

[Trajan]

it explains the increasingly large gap between the haves and have-nots.

the article/chart explained that, how so?

it isn't healthy for our society.... which is kind of what we've been saying. yet the right complains about even minimum wage and anything that sets standards for pay, with their ire particularly focused on unions.

how so?exactly?

There is a fair amount of empirical evidence in sociology concluding that nations with lower levels of income inequality are generally more cohesive, content and happy.

hum, like the ussr? wait they''re gone, uhm Sweden? who ?

It dovetails with studies in psychology which have concluded that people are generally more miserable when others they know become successful while they do not.

you forgot the sarcasm smiley bro

 

[elvis]

the article/chart explained that, how so?




how so?exactly?

hum, like the ussr? wait they''re gone, uhm Sweden? who ?

It dovetails with studies in psychology which have concluded that people are generally more miserable when others they know become successful while they do not.

you forgot the sarcasm smiley bro

Denmark has the highest level of satisfaction.... at least since 1945...

 

[jillian]

it explains the increasingly large gap between the haves and have-nots...

--exactly as today's Marxists would have us believe.

sorry troll... pictures don't help your lack of insight and insistance on ignoring data.

 

[elvis]

it explains the increasingly large gap between the haves and have-nots...

--exactly as today's Marxists would have us believe.

sorry troll... pictures don't help your lack of insight and insistance on ignoring data.

what? you think people should be allowed to own property?

 

[jillian]

it explains the increasingly large gap between the haves and have-nots.

it isn't healthy for our society.... which is kind of what we've been saying. yet the right complains about even minimum wage and anything that sets standards for pay, with their ire particularly focused on unions.

frankly, it also explains our falling educational position in the world and slowing social mobility since you can't focus on education when you're trying to subsist.

and the economy can't recover when the majority of people can't afford the goods produced.

In the 80's we became a debtor nation and a consumer spending driven economy.
THAT was the beginning of the end when combined with free/world trade and globalization.

Blame Obama or even Bush if you want but they were just playing the game that has been going on for 30 years.

that's cause repubs didn't believe daddy bush when he called 'supply side' "voodoo economics". he was right then and he's still right.

 

[jillian]

--exactly as today's Marxists would have us believe.

sorry troll... pictures don't help your lack of insight and insistance on ignoring data.

what? you think people should be allowed to own property?

amazing, isn't it?

what can i say? i like nice stuff.

 

[jillian]

I think at least one of the major reasons for the increase in productivity without the corresponding increase in wages was the advances of technology. US companies found ways to do more with less people, labor being a very costly resource and growing more costly all the time.

that's probably a small part of it, i'd think. but the reality is that workers pay has been stagnant while management pay has gone up massively. i'd say that's the larger problem.

 

[Trajan]

hum, like the ussr? wait they''re gone, uhm Sweden? who ?



you forgot the sarcasm smiley bro

Denmark has the highest level of satisfaction.... at least since 1945...

you forgot your sarcasm smiley too

 

[elvis]

Denmark has the highest level of satisfaction.... at least since 1945...

you forgot your sarcasm smiley too

Not really. I just wonder if there are confounding variables that haven't been considered in these studies.

 

[Wiseacre]

it explains the increasingly large gap between the haves and have-nots.

the article/chart explained that, how so?

it isn't healthy for our society.... which is kind of what we've been saying. yet the right complains about even minimum wage and anything that sets standards for pay, with their ire particularly focused on unions.

how so?exactly?

There is a fair amount of empirical evidence in sociology concluding that nations with lower levels of income inequality are generally more cohesive, content and happy.

It dovetails with studies in psychology which have concluded that people are generally more miserable when others they know become successful while they do not.

One wonders how many of those countries are social democracies that are now experiencing debt/deficit problems for which they have no answers. Or if their lower levels of inequality results in a much lower standard of living or is soon about to.

I don't think many people, other than liberals, obsess too much about how much money Bill Gates or Warren Buffett make. Or the movie stars, sports stars, or other artists are paid. Mostly they're interested in the fairness in their own lives, why does somebody else get a break on their mortgage when I don't, why are my tax dollars going to save somebody else's job, who's going to save my job or bail me out?

 

[elvis]

the article/chart explained that, how so?




how so?exactly?

There is a fair amount of empirical evidence in sociology concluding that nations with lower levels of income inequality are generally more cohesive, content and happy.

It dovetails with studies in psychology which have concluded that people are generally more miserable when others they know become successful while they do not.

One wonders how many of those countries are social democracies that are now experiencing debt/deficit problems for which they have no answers. Or if their lower levels of inequality results in a much lower standard of living or is soon about to.

I don't think many people, other than liberals, obsess too much about how much money Bill Gates or Warren Buffett make. Or the movie stars, sports stars, or other artists are paid. Mostly they're interested in the fairness in their own lives, why does somebody else get a break on their mortgage when I don't, why are my tax dollars going to save somebody else's job, who's going to save my job or bail me out?

I know a lot of conservatives and neocons who get mad about how much sports stars and movie stars make. Jealousy knows no party lines.

 

[uscitizen]

Supply side economics is not viable for the long term in a consumer spending driven economy.

 

[Wiseacre]

There is a fair amount of empirical evidence in sociology concluding that nations with lower levels of income inequality are generally more cohesive, content and happy.

It dovetails with studies in psychology which have concluded that people are generally more miserable when others they know become successful while they do not.

One wonders how many of those countries are social democracies that are now experiencing debt/deficit problems for which they have no answers. Or if their lower levels of inequality results in a much lower standard of living or is soon about to.

I don't think many people, other than liberals, obsess too much about how much money Bill Gates or Warren Buffett make. Or the movie stars, sports stars, or other artists are paid. Mostly they're interested in the fairness in their own lives, why does somebody else get a break on their mortgage when I don't, why are my tax dollars going to save somebody else's job, who's going to save my job or bail me out?

I know a lot of conservatives and neocons who get mad about how much sports stars and movie stars make. Jealousy knows no party lines.

True, but not many people are going to riot in the streets over how much money is paid to the super talented. I thnk people get upset over the obscene money that is paid to some CEOs or hedge fund managers or whoever on Wall Street and in big biz, but what puts 'em into the street is not the difference in incomes but their own personal situation. If they got no job and no hope, that's when you have trouble.

Many on this board have opined that the rise in wealth is zero sum, the rich guys suck up the extra money at the expense of the lower income folks. But such is just not true, the truth is that the people at the bottom of the income ladder do not get much of the increase because there's enough competition to hold down wages and frankly speaking, if you have little or no special skills then you just aren't worth a higher salary.

 

[elvis]

One wonders how many of those countries are social democracies that are now experiencing debt/deficit problems for which they have no answers. Or if their lower levels of inequality results in a much lower standard of living or is soon about to.

I don't think many people, other than liberals, obsess too much about how much money Bill Gates or Warren Buffett make. Or the movie stars, sports stars, or other artists are paid. Mostly they're interested in the fairness in their own lives, why does somebody else get a break on their mortgage when I don't, why are my tax dollars going to save somebody else's job, who's going to save my job or bail me out?

I know a lot of conservatives and neocons who get mad about how much sports stars and movie stars make. Jealousy knows no party lines.

True, but not many people are going to riot in the streets over how much money is paid to the super talented. I thnk people get upset over the obscene money that is paid to some CEOs or hedge fund managers or whoever on Wall Street and in big biz, but what puts 'em into the street is not the difference in incomes but their own personal situation. If they got no job and no hope, that's when you have trouble.

Many on this board have opined that the rise in wealth is zero sum, the rich guys suck up the extra money at the expense of the lower income folks. But such is just not true, the truth is that the people at the bottom of the income ladder do not get much of the increase because there's enough competition to hold down wages and frankly speaking, if you have little or no special skills then you just aren't worth a higher salary.

Such is life in a global economy.

 

[Wiseacre]

I know a lot of conservatives and neocons who get mad about how much sports stars and movie stars make. Jealousy knows no party lines.

True, but not many people are going to riot in the streets over how much money is paid to the super talented. I thnk people get upset over the obscene money that is paid to some CEOs or hedge fund managers or whoever on Wall Street and in big biz, but what puts 'em into the street is not the difference in incomes but their own personal situation. If they got no job and no hope, that's when you have trouble.

Many on this board have opined that the rise in wealth is zero sum, the rich guys suck up the extra money at the expense of the lower income folks. But such is just not true, the truth is that the people at the bottom of the income ladder do not get much of the increase because there's enough competition to hold down wages and frankly speaking, if you have little or no special skills then you just aren't worth a higher salary.

Such is life in a global economy.

Yes, precisely. Money flows to wherever it makes the most return on investment. That is just a fact of life, so if you raise taxes on the rich they will put their money somewhere else to avoid the additional tax burden. That too is a fact of life, there are repercussions to be considered when you try to address the income inequality in this country. Doesn't mean you have to ignore the problem, but you do need to be careful about making changes. Gov't intervention into the marketplace is usually not done wisely or effectively.

 

[sparky]

So, another left wing columnist in a left wing newspaper with one more diatribe over income inequality. Do you think it's possible that the inequality grpah shows pre tax income, so the top earners maybe didn't make quite as much money. And the low enders, the graph doesn't show the gov't payments that are not added onto their incomes either. IOW, the gap may not be as great as many would whine about.

Robert Riech is a former Secretary of Labor

if you then catagorize RR with all former Labor secretaries as 'left wing whiners' i think you'll find the need for a lot of backpeddaling WiseA

~S~

 

[Wiseacre]

So, another left wing columnist in a left wing newspaper with one more diatribe over income inequality. Do you think it's possible that the inequality grpah shows pre tax income, so the top earners maybe didn't make quite as much money. And the low enders, the graph doesn't show the gov't payments that are not added onto their incomes either. IOW, the gap may not be as great as many would whine about.

Robert Riech is a former Secretary of Labor

if you then catagorize RR with all former Labor secretaries as 'left wing whiners' i think you'll find the need for a lot of backpeddaling WiseA

~S~

Dude, Reich is a democrat, he ran for office as a democrat. I don't recall saying anything about all former Labor Secys, but I will say this: the constant playing of the class warfare card by continually pointing out the inequalities that have always existed to some degree does nothing help an already divided country and may very well be stirring up trouble.