Getting specific on income/wealth inequality

[Billy000]

I don't see a wealth gap problem. That's just some liberal talking point to divide the nation.

Republicans want to create jobs and one way to do that is to ease the burden on those that create jobs and another way is to simplify the tax codes. Democrats want to regulate everyone and everything which stifles job creation and entrepreneurship.

In the past 12 months, Texas has added 274,700 new jobs — that’s 12% of all jobs added nationwide and 51,000 more than California added … In fact, from 2002 to 2011, with 8% of the U.S. population, Texas created nearly one-third of the country’s highest-paying jobs.

10 Reasons Texas Is Our Future

If dems don't care about jobs then why was twice as many private jobs created in Obama's first term than in both of Bush's terms? Don't believe me? Look it up.

Link to your claim or admit you lie.

The onus is on you. Support your claim Buckwheat.

[MENTION=19381]Lonestar_logic[/MENTION]

Fair enough.

Obama?s Numbers, October Update

 

[Billy000]

.

Two part question:

1. Is income/wealth inequality a problem in America?

2. If it is, instead of just screaming bumper sticker slogans, precisely what would you do about it? And when I say "precisely", for example, if you'd increase tax rates, to precisely what figures?

I'm hoping for less partisan sloganeering and more actual specifics.

.

1. It is a very serious problem. It is unhealthy for the economy as a whole. 1% of the top earners own 40% of the nation's wealth. This is a consumption based economy. The middle class is shrinking. Economists warn this problem will only lead to more economic crises.

2) Not much can be done about it if there is no regulation on wages. A start would be to raise the minimum wage so it will at least be kept up with inflation.

Reply to #1...How so. Please explain.
Reply to #2.....So who pays for this unfunded government mandate?
You do realize that any government mandated artificial increase in wages will not only cause an upward adjustment in consumer prices, it will also ratchet up inflation.
I digress.
I would like to see your ideas. Let's discuss. In a civil manner if possible.

Like I said this is a consumer based economy. Consumer spending represents 70% of our economy. If more and more money is concentrated at the top the less the lower classes have to spend. That is why crises are inevitable. The middle class, one of the main driving forces for the economy, is shrinking.

Secondly, how could raising the wage drive inflation? Also, the hike on prices would depend on the actual wage increase. If it was raised, say $3, the actual increase in prices would be small. Finally, prices would likely go back down because with higher wages comes more consumer spending. That will boost the economy. If it doesn't lower prices right away it would still create jobs. The job loss from a $3 raise would be about 500,000 jobs (from the CBO and that's a liberal estimate).

 

[Lonestar_logic]

If dems don't care about jobs then why was twice as many private jobs created in Obama's first term than in both of Bush's terms? Don't believe me? Look it up.

Link to your claim or admit you lie.

The onus is on you. Support your claim Buckwheat.

[MENTION=19381]Lonestar_logic[/MENTION]

Fair enough.

Obama?s Numbers, October Update

President Obama, and the Myth About 4.5 Million New Jobs

 

[Billy000]

Link to your claim or admit you lie.

The onus is on you. Support your claim Buckwheat.

[MENTION=19381]Lonestar_logic[/MENTION]

Fair enough.

Obama?s Numbers, October Update

President Obama, and the Myth About 4.5 Million New Jobs

Lol dude did you even read that article? It is so obviously partisan. The entire point it makes is that job growth has not kept up with population growth. When has job growth ever kept up with population? That certainly didn't happen under Bush. We lost 8 million jobs from the Great Recession. This wouldn't change the fact that millions more were created under Obama.

 

[Darkwind]

The cost of education is based upon the cost of labor. Education is one of the highest labor intensive jobs to be found. There is no "automation" in education. There is no way to "cut costs" or "downsize" an education.

Educators have advanced degrees and you have to pay them on a par with what they could earn in the private sector.

Blaming government is not the answer.

Again...you're wrong...labor does not account for this..




College Costs Out Of Control - Forbes

Gotta when your link disproves your position and validates mine!

The overwhelming cost culprit is labor costs. Between 1993 and 2007, total university expenses rose 35%. But administration expenses rose a whopping 61% and instruction expenses rose 39%. In fact, as a 2010 Goldwater Institute study finds, “universities have in recent years vastly expanded their administrative bureaucracies, while in some cases actually shrinking the numbers of professors.” While enrollment rose between 1993 and 2007 by 14.5%, administrators employed per 100 students rose nearly 40% and spending on administration per student rose by 66%.

Good one...Nice try.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Again...you're wrong...labor does not account for this..




College Costs Out Of Control - Forbes

Gotta when your link disproves your position and validates mine!

The overwhelming cost culprit is labor costs. Between 1993 and 2007, total university expenses rose 35%. But administration expenses rose a whopping 61% and instruction expenses rose 39%. In fact, as a 2010 Goldwater Institute study finds, “universities have in recent years vastly expanded their administrative bureaucracies, while in some cases actually shrinking the numbers of professors.” While enrollment rose between 1993 and 2007 by 14.5%, administrators employed per 100 students rose nearly 40% and spending on administration per student rose by 66%.

Good one...Nice try.

I notice that you didn't even try to refute the fact that your position was defeated by your own link.

 

[Plasmaball]

.

Two part question:

1. Is income/wealth inequality a problem in America?

2. If it is, instead of just screaming bumper sticker slogans, precisely what would you do about it? And when I say "precisely", for example, if you'd increase tax rates, to precisely what figures?

I'm hoping for less partisan sloganeering and more actual specifics.

.

1. No its not a problem, its the starting point of every Progressive dictatorship. They say they will do something and all they do is make slaves of the poor and stupid, murder the rich and those who'd stand against them

whos been murdered?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

[MENTION=19381]Lonestar_logic[/MENTION]

Fair enough.

Obama?s Numbers, October Update

President Obama, and the Myth About 4.5 Million New Jobs

Lol dude did you even read that article? It is so obviously partisan. The entire point it makes is that job growth has not kept up with population growth. When has job growth ever kept up with population? That certainly didn't happen under Bush. We lost 8 million jobs from the Great Recession. This wouldn't change the fact that millions more were created under Obama.

More jobs were lost than created. I don't care who you are or who you cite. That is a fact.

More people have stopped looking for work which makes the UE numbers look better than they are.

No matter how you spin it, we are not recovering very well. Red States like Texas and North Dakota are carrying the entire nation in job creation.

This is in spite of Obama, not because of Obama.

 

[Billy000]

President Obama, and the Myth About 4.5 Million New Jobs

Lol dude did you even read that article? It is so obviously partisan. The entire point it makes is that job growth has not kept up with population growth. When has job growth ever kept up with population? That certainly didn't happen under Bush. We lost 8 million jobs from the Great Recession. This wouldn't change the fact that millions more were created under Obama.

More jobs were lost than created. I don't care who you are or who you cite. That is a fact.

More people have stopped looking for work which makes the UE numbers look better than they are.

No matter how you spin it, we are not recovering very well. Red States like Texas and North Dakota are carrying the entire nation in job creation.

This is in spite of Obama, not because of Obama.

Okay I'm going to break this down for you.

Yes, 5 million jobs have been lost under Obama HOWEVER that 5 million figure is from the Great Recession which began in sept of 08 and concluded in June of 2009. It was a massive job free fall that began 3 months before Obama sworn in. That means nothin Obama did made this happen.


Not only that but as of two months ago, we regained all the jobs we lost.

 

[Plasmaball]

It may be shrinking where you live but here in Texas the middle class is growing.

Nationally it is shrinking. It has been for decades. See links in my signature.

Then they need to model their states after Texas and stop electing idiot democrats.

how about we don't.

 

[Erand7899]

1. It is a very serious problem. It is unhealthy for the economy as a whole. 1% of the top earners own 40% of the nation's wealth. This is a consumption based economy. The middle class is shrinking. Economists warn this problem will only lead to more economic crises.

2) Not much can be done about it if there is no regulation on wages. A start would be to raise the minimum wage so it will at least be kept up with inflation.

Reply to #1...How so. Please explain.
Reply to #2.....So who pays for this unfunded government mandate?
You do realize that any government mandated artificial increase in wages will not only cause an upward adjustment in consumer prices, it will also ratchet up inflation.
I digress.
I would like to see your ideas. Let's discuss. In a civil manner if possible.

Like I said this is a consumer based economy. Consumer spending represents 70% of our economy. If more and more money is concentrated at the top the less the lower classes have to spend. That is why crises are inevitable. The middle class, one of the main driving forces for the economy, is shrinking.

Secondly, how could raising the wage drive inflation? Also, the hike on prices would depend on the actual wage increase. If it was raised, say $3, the actual increase in prices would be small. Finally, prices would likely go back down because with higher wages comes more consumer spending. That will boost the economy. If it doesn't lower prices right away it would still create jobs. The job loss from a $3 raise would be about 500,000 jobs (from the CBO and that's a liberal estimate).

Any economy has two distinct components. Wealth creation, and wealth distribution. Without wealth creation, there is no wealth to distribute. Not so difficult to understand.

You can babble on about consumer spending being 70% of the economy, and all that demonstrates is that you know nothing about how an economy actually works. If you did know how an economy actually works, you wouldn't be bemoaning income/wealth inequaltiy. That has no real meaning except to incite ignorant people.

As long as sufficient wealth is being created to support the population according to the skills, knowledge, and labor of that population, then everyone in that population is fully compensated for their contribution, and who has the rest of the wealth is inconsequental to any of them.

Our economy, and the world economy, is suffering because not enough wealth is being created to support the population. Left wingers are sure that we can confiscate enough from those who have excess wealth to make up the difference. That would be a very short term solution, and when the excess wealth ended, so would the economy. This has been amply demonstrated everywhere it has been tried.

We need to increase wealth creation, and the only way to do that is to encourage the creation of wealth through tax policy and regulatory policy. Exploiting our natural resources such as oil, gas, timber, minerals, etc., is one large source of wealth creation. Adding value through manufacturing is another. Agriculture is also a wealth generator, but does not carry the multiplier benefits of the first two.

 

[Redfish]

Lol dude did you even read that article? It is so obviously partisan. The entire point it makes is that job growth has not kept up with population growth. When has job growth ever kept up with population? That certainly didn't happen under Bush. We lost 8 million jobs from the Great Recession. This wouldn't change the fact that millions more were created under Obama.

More jobs were lost than created. I don't care who you are or who you cite. That is a fact.

More people have stopped looking for work which makes the UE numbers look better than they are.

No matter how you spin it, we are not recovering very well. Red States like Texas and North Dakota are carrying the entire nation in job creation.

This is in spite of Obama, not because of Obama.

Okay I'm going to break this down for you.

Yes, 5 million jobs have been lost under Obama HOWEVER that 5 million figure is from the Great Recession which began in sept of 08 and concluded in June of 2009. It was a massive job free fall that began 3 months before Obama sworn in. That means nothin Obama did made this happen.


Not only that but as of two months ago, we regained all the jobs we lost.

Bush did it, conservatives are racist, rich people are evil, corporations are evil, minimum wage should be $40/hr, obama is the savior of the usa and the world, hillary is a godess, pelosi is brilliant, whoopi rocks


There, I used all of your talking points for you, NOW STFU and let the adults talk.

 

[Redfish]

Nationally it is shrinking. It has been for decades. See links in my signature.

Then they need to model their states after Texas and stop electing idiot democrats.

how about we don't.

yes, we should use Detroit as a model for the entire country---------look what liberals, democrats, unions, and minority rule has done for that city

Your liberal philosophy is a failed idea, it has never worked and never will.

 

[Erand7899]

Lol dude did you even read that article? It is so obviously partisan. The entire point it makes is that job growth has not kept up with population growth. When has job growth ever kept up with population? That certainly didn't happen under Bush. We lost 8 million jobs from the Great Recession. This wouldn't change the fact that millions more were created under Obama.

More jobs were lost than created. I don't care who you are or who you cite. That is a fact.

More people have stopped looking for work which makes the UE numbers look better than they are.

No matter how you spin it, we are not recovering very well. Red States like Texas and North Dakota are carrying the entire nation in job creation.

This is in spite of Obama, not because of Obama.

Okay I'm going to break this down for you.

Yes, 5 million jobs have been lost under Obama HOWEVER that 5 million figure is from the Great Recession which began in sept of 08 and concluded in June of 2009. It was a massive job free fall that began 3 months before Obama sworn in. That means nothin Obama did made this happen.


Not only that but as of two months ago, we regained all the jobs we lost.

During that period, millions of people were added to the working age population, and that means that we are far below the curve in employment. Every June, millions of Americans graduate from high schools, and colleges and go looking for work.

 

[Billy000]

More jobs were lost than created. I don't care who you are or who you cite. That is a fact.

More people have stopped looking for work which makes the UE numbers look better than they are.

No matter how you spin it, we are not recovering very well. Red States like Texas and North Dakota are carrying the entire nation in job creation.

This is in spite of Obama, not because of Obama.

Okay I'm going to break this down for you.

Yes, 5 million jobs have been lost under Obama HOWEVER that 5 million figure is from the Great Recession which began in sept of 08 and concluded in June of 2009. It was a massive job free fall that began 3 months before Obama sworn in. That means nothin Obama did made this happen.


Not only that but as of two months ago, we regained all the jobs we lost.

Bush did it, conservatives are racist, rich people are evil, corporations are evil, minimum wage should be $40/hr, obama is the savior of the usa and the world, hillary is a godess, pelosi is brilliant, whoopi rocks


There, I used all of your talking points for you, NOW STFU and let the adults talk.

Talking points? I gave you facts. You provided nothing in response.

 

[Billy000]

Reply to #1...How so. Please explain.
Reply to #2.....So who pays for this unfunded government mandate?
You do realize that any government mandated artificial increase in wages will not only cause an upward adjustment in consumer prices, it will also ratchet up inflation.
I digress.
I would like to see your ideas. Let's discuss. In a civil manner if possible.

Like I said this is a consumer based economy. Consumer spending represents 70% of our economy. If more and more money is concentrated at the top the less the lower classes have to spend. That is why crises are inevitable. The middle class, one of the main driving forces for the economy, is shrinking.

Secondly, how could raising the wage drive inflation? Also, the hike on prices would depend on the actual wage increase. If it was raised, say $3, the actual increase in prices would be small. Finally, prices would likely go back down because with higher wages comes more consumer spending. That will boost the economy. If it doesn't lower prices right away it would still create jobs. The job loss from a $3 raise would be about 500,000 jobs (from the CBO and that's a liberal estimate).

Any economy has two distinct components. Wealth creation, and wealth distribution. Without wealth creation, there is no wealth to distribute. Not so difficult to understand.

You can babble on about consumer spending being 70% of the economy, and all that demonstrates is that you know nothing about how an economy actually works. If you did know how an economy actually works, you wouldn't be bemoaning income/wealth inequaltiy. That has no real meaning except to incite ignorant people.

As long as sufficient wealth is being created to support the population according to the skills, knowledge, and labor of that population, then everyone in that population is fully compensated for their contribution, and who has the rest of the wealth is inconsequental to any of them.

Our economy, and the world economy, is suffering because not enough wealth is being created to support the population. Left wingers are sure that we can confiscate enough from those who have excess wealth to make up the difference. That would be a very short term solution, and when the excess wealth ended, so would the economy. This has been amply demonstrated everywhere it has been tried.

We need to increase wealth creation, and the only way to do that is to encourage the creation of wealth through tax policy and regulatory policy. Exploiting our natural resources such as oil, gas, timber, minerals, etc., is one large source of wealth creation. Adding value through manufacturing is another. Agriculture is also a wealth generator, but does not carry the multiplier benefits of the first two.

Dude are you even listening to yourself? You're sayin that wealth creation is down. Nothing about that makes any sense. 1% of the top earners own 40% of the nations weath. Instead of distributig said wealth, they are keeping it.

You have absolutely no idea what you are saying.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Lol dude did you even read that article? It is so obviously partisan. The entire point it makes is that job growth has not kept up with population growth. When has job growth ever kept up with population? That certainly didn't happen under Bush. We lost 8 million jobs from the Great Recession. This wouldn't change the fact that millions more were created under Obama.

More jobs were lost than created. I don't care who you are or who you cite. That is a fact.

More people have stopped looking for work which makes the UE numbers look better than they are.

No matter how you spin it, we are not recovering very well. Red States like Texas and North Dakota are carrying the entire nation in job creation.

This is in spite of Obama, not because of Obama.

Okay I'm going to break this down for you.

Yes, 5 million jobs have been lost under Obama HOWEVER that 5 million figure is from the Great Recession which began in sept of 08 and concluded in June of 2009. It was a massive job free fall that began 3 months before Obama sworn in. That means nothin Obama did made this happen.


Not only that but as of two months ago, we regained all the jobs we lost.

No we haven't regained all the jobs that were lost when more people have stopped looking the lowest labor participation rate in 36 years which skews the UE numbers big time!

UE numbers only count those on unemployment insurance not those that have maxed out their insurance and have stopped looking for work altogether.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), in 2007 on the eve of the recession, there were 146.6 million Americans working. Today, there are 145.8 million Americans in jobs. So nearly 7 years later, we are still 800,000 jobs below the previous peak.

Here is the bottom line. The higher than expected unemployment rate and the lower than expected labor force participation rate has created a jobs deficit of nearly 5.5 million fewer Americans working than should be in this economic recovery. This 5.5 million employment shortfall is the equivalent of the entire population of Colorado. Another way to think of it is that the jobs shortage nationwide is the equivalent of every worker in Ohio losing their job.

Mr. Obama, where are our 5 million missing jobs?

Now attack the source like a good little Obama butt licker.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The goal is this

When you look at a source of additional revenue why would you go after the 40 percent that have two tenths of the wealth rather than the 1 percent that have 34.6% of the wealth?

"Go after"?.....Explain that.
It has been well established that the top earners in the US share a disproportionate burden of the total taxation in the US...
Also please explain your theory that appears to support the idea that less money in the hands of the private sector and more in the hands of government is good economic policy.
Before you respond, think clearly.

Go after as in incessantly harp on those "47 percent" who pay no income taxes
Top earners pay more taxes for the very reason they monopolize wealth and income. Republicans refuse to acknowledge that you cannot get blood from a stone. Those 40% who control 2 TENTHS of a percent of our wealth do not have the disposable income to pay more in taxes.....the 1% who control 34% of the wealth do

Monopolize? No, they earn it. Their employers pay them a wage or salary the employer deems appropriate.
I asked you for ideas. Furthermore I asked you if you thought wealth was better off in the hands of the federal government and why.
Please respond to those questions/statements.
One thing I must point out that given the fact that the top earners of the country bear 70% of the total tax burden, I ask. How much is enough?".....IN your mind when does taxation become confiscatory and for what purpose do you believe extremely high tax rates would be served?
So far, your responses have essentially been "because they have it and they can afford it"..
That doesn't wash. Focus on the revenue issue. Why should all of this extra wealth go to government?
And please do not come back with anything mentioning "leveling the playing field". That's nonsense.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What I can't figure out is, what is the goal with the top 1%?

Is the goal to make it the top 10% or the top 0.00001%?

Help me out here liberals.

The goal is this

When you look at a source of additional revenue why would you go after the 40 percent that have two tenths of the wealth rather than the 1 percent that have 34.6% of the wealth?

And yet, we have Republicans attacking the 40% of Americans who only have 2 tenths of a percent of the wealth. It cost Romney an election

Attacking...Nice political talking point.
Pointing out a FACT is not an attack. Of course your side went into spin mode and the uninformed were hooked like a boated fish.

 

[Billy000]

More jobs were lost than created. I don't care who you are or who you cite. That is a fact.

More people have stopped looking for work which makes the UE numbers look better than they are.

No matter how you spin it, we are not recovering very well. Red States like Texas and North Dakota are carrying the entire nation in job creation.

This is in spite of Obama, not because of Obama.

Okay I'm going to break this down for you.

Yes, 5 million jobs have been lost under Obama HOWEVER that 5 million figure is from the Great Recession which began in sept of 08 and concluded in June of 2009. It was a massive job free fall that began 3 months before Obama sworn in. That means nothin Obama did made this happen.


Not only that but as of two months ago, we regained all the jobs we lost.

No we haven't regained all the jobs that were lost when more people have stopped looking the lowest labor participation rate in 36 years which skews the UE numbers big time!

UE numbers only count those on unemployment insurance not those that have maxed out their insurance and have stopped looking for work altogether.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), in 2007 on the eve of the recession, there were 146.6 million Americans working. Today, there are 145.8 million Americans in jobs. So nearly 7 years later, we are still 800,000 jobs below the previous peak.

Here is the bottom line. The higher than expected unemployment rate and the lower than expected labor force participation rate has created a jobs deficit of nearly 5.5 million fewer Americans working than should be in this economic recovery. This 5.5 million employment shortfall is the equivalent of the entire population of Colorado. Another way to think of it is that the jobs shortage nationwide is the equivalent of every worker in Ohio losing their job.

Mr. Obama, where are our 5 million missing jobs?

Now attack the source like a good little Obama butt licker.

We have already established job growth hasn't kept up with the growing labor force. My point is that it didn't under Bush either. Not only that, but We lost 3 million jobs in his final months. None of this changes the fact that under Obama 2x more private jobs were created in his first term than both of Bush's. Your source makes no mention of Bush at all. Do I even have to tell you that?

You also bring up overall labor participation. That has been declining before Obama took office. Not only that, but the drop in labor participation is primarily because of retirement and more people going on disability.