Income Inequality is a result of Individual Effort/Choices

[Hoosier4Liberty]

Top Ten Lists :: Highest Paying Jobs
Three rules for staying out of poverty | members.jacksonville.com
With all this recent ado about income inequality and the plight of the poor, I think we need to ask a simple question. That question is "What choices led them to become poor?" Liberals love to think of people as completely out of control of their financial state. That is 100% bogus. For starters this list clearly shows that the wealthy members of society largely got that way through a lot of education and hard work. Note that almost all of the top average salaries are in the medical field. The CEOs that liberals deride are actually #22 on the list. For the most part, the difference in income is largely a result of years of education and their rigor. Liberals love to talk about the unemployed college grads as signs of corporations "being greedy", but students who major in something rigorous like engineering or math do fine. It's the students who do cakewalk grievance/liberal studies majors who do poorly. Thus, careers like engineering/actuaries are around the $100,000 mark for average salary. Postgraduate degrees in legitimate fields like medicine, as well as MBAs, also do very well.
The moral of the story here is that entering the coveted "1%" can be attained simply by earning a medical degree and working for some number of years. Getting to the top 10%(about $125,000/year in household income) could be attained very easily by an average engineer with a spouse as a schoolteacher. This doesn't sound to me like a problem of people exploiting others to get to the top. It appears that wealth simply indicates that someone made smart decisions in life regarding their education. One argument against this is that college is too expensive for poor families. While this is partially true, the reality is that Pell Grants/federal student loans have driven up college prices(government action to lessen inequality actually increased it as is often the case ); the impact of this dis-proportionally hits the middle class, as poor students qualify for a lot of financial aid at most schools. That being said, getting good grades in high school makes college much, much more affordable. Since none of these careers requires an Ivy League degree, a state university, which offers lots of scholarships to top students, is the best bet. I know that any student who gets a National Merit Finalist (about 220+ on the PSAT, scores vary depending on state) automatically gets a full ride to schools like University of Alabama and University of Central Florida. Even state schools that don't offer full rides still tend to offer full-tuition for good students with high grades/test scores(top schools like UC Berkeley and University of Virginia are exceptions).

On the flip side, what causes people to earn low levels of income, particularly below the poverty line? Most people who fall into poverty don't do any of these three things - wait until 21 to get married/not have kids before marriage, graduate high school, and having a full-time job. I understand that the last one may have some factors beyond a person's control, but the first 2 are 100% a result of your choices. And people in the lowest income rungs violate all three norms, on average. And those in poverty because they don't have jobs are partially victims of the Obama economy, but personal choices still influence it greatly. Graduates from Purdue University Calumet in engineering, an affordable, not-very-selective school, have next to a 100% chance of getting a job. It's the dropouts and lousy major recipients that have problems.

Liberals, all I'm trying to get at is this: the income inequality that you bemoan is a result of inequality in effort and ability. Clearly, careers make a huge difference on people's income, and you simply can't equate a doctor and a garbage truck driver. Let's stop resenting success and try to emulate the "evil rich" rather than castigate them.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Top Ten Lists :: Highest Paying Jobs
Three rules for staying out of poverty | members.jacksonville.com
With all this recent ado about income inequality and the plight of the poor, I think we need to ask a simple question. That question is "What choices led them to become poor?" Liberals love to think of people as completely out of control of their financial state. That is 100% bogus. For starters this list clearly shows that the wealthy members of society largely got that way through a lot of education and hard work. Note that almost all of the top average salaries are in the medical field. The CEOs that liberals deride are actually #22 on the list. For the most part, the difference in income is largely a result of years of education and their rigor. Liberals love to talk about the unemployed college grads as signs of corporations "being greedy", but students who major in something rigorous like engineering or math do fine. It's the students who do cakewalk grievance/liberal studies majors who do poorly. Thus, careers like engineering/actuaries are around the $100,000 mark for average salary. Postgraduate degrees in legitimate fields like medicine, as well as MBAs, also do very well.
The moral of the story here is that entering the coveted "1%" can be attained simply by earning a medical degree and working for some number of years. Getting to the top 10%(about $125,000/year in household income) could be attained very easily by an average engineer with a spouse as a schoolteacher. This doesn't sound to me like a problem of people exploiting others to get to the top. It appears that wealth simply indicates that someone made smart decisions in life regarding their education. One argument against this is that college is too expensive for poor families. While this is partially true, the reality is that Pell Grants/federal student loans have driven up college prices(government action to lessen inequality actually increased it as is often the case ); the impact of this dis-proportionally hits the middle class, as poor students qualify for a lot of financial aid at most schools. That being said, getting good grades in high school makes college much, much more affordable. Since none of these careers requires an Ivy League degree, a state university, which offers lots of scholarships to top students, is the best bet. I know that any student who gets a National Merit Finalist (about 220+ on the PSAT, scores vary depending on state) automatically gets a full ride to schools like University of Alabama and University of Central Florida. Even state schools that don't offer full rides still tend to offer full-tuition for good students with high grades/test scores(top schools like UC Berkeley and University of Virginia are exceptions).

On the flip side, what causes people to earn low levels of income, particularly below the poverty line? Most people who fall into poverty don't do any of these three things - wait until 21 to get married/not have kids before marriage, graduate high school, and having a full-time job. I understand that the last one may have some factors beyond a person's control, but the first 2 are 100% a result of your choices. And people in the lowest income rungs violate all three norms, on average. And those in poverty because they don't have jobs are partially victims of the Obama economy, but personal choices still influence it greatly. Graduates from Purdue University Calumet in engineering, an affordable, not-very-selective school, have next to a 100% chance of getting a job. It's the dropouts and lousy major recipients that have problems.

Liberals, all I'm trying to get at is this: the income inequality that you bemoan is a result of inequality in effort and ability. Clearly, careers make a huge difference on people's income, and you simply can't equate a doctor and a garbage truck driver. Let's stop resenting success and try to emulate the "evil rich" rather than castigate them.

So what caused the crash in 2008 that put so many people out of work and trashed our economy? Personal choices? Gally-damn, the turnip truck just swung through here and you fell off.

 

[zeke]

Do you really not see the difference between an income of 125,000 dollars a year and 15 million dollars a year?

Just because BOTH numbers fall in the top 10%, there is a HUGE disparity in the amounts. No one has an issue with the professional who provides a needed service or product who make a couple hundred thousand dollars a year. They earn it far as I am concerned.

But lets talk about a hedge fund manage (John Paulson) who made 5 billion dollars last year. There is no fucking way that this person provided societal value to justify making 5 billion dollars. And his tax rate was a whopping 15%.

But I am sure you don't see the difference. Or even see this as a problem. To you the problem seems to be if anyone complains that this is not a good thing for America.

 

[Moonglow]

I was making great money until my inheritance kicked in, spinal disc deterioration disease.
I live with sciatica, herniated and bulging discs, crushed cervical discs from auto accident 20 years ago,headaches, muscle spasm, numbness in legs and hips.
Drug my right leg for 10 years before seeing a doctor. Trying to get back into the workforce is a real bitch even though I have several trades and a degree.
But it's my fault for being barely able to support myself and my youngest son (out of 4), still at home.
I do not qualify for any welfare since I own to much land that is claimed to be a liquid asset, yet land around here is not selling nor has it for the last 6 years.
So cry me a river about being poor because of my choices, I laugh, how else do you keep your spirits up when you have assholes that author OP's like this one.
nuff said.

 

[bripat9643]

Top Ten Lists :: Highest Paying Jobs
Three rules for staying out of poverty | members.jacksonville.com
With all this recent ado about income inequality and the plight of the poor, I think we need to ask a simple question. That question is "What choices led them to become poor?" Liberals love to think of people as completely out of control of their financial state. That is 100% bogus. For starters this list clearly shows that the wealthy members of society largely got that way through a lot of education and hard work. Note that almost all of the top average salaries are in the medical field. The CEOs that liberals deride are actually #22 on the list. For the most part, the difference in income is largely a result of years of education and their rigor. Liberals love to talk about the unemployed college grads as signs of corporations "being greedy", but students who major in something rigorous like engineering or math do fine. It's the students who do cakewalk grievance/liberal studies majors who do poorly. Thus, careers like engineering/actuaries are around the $100,000 mark for average salary. Postgraduate degrees in legitimate fields like medicine, as well as MBAs, also do very well.
The moral of the story here is that entering the coveted "1%" can be attained simply by earning a medical degree and working for some number of years. Getting to the top 10%(about $125,000/year in household income) could be attained very easily by an average engineer with a spouse as a schoolteacher. This doesn't sound to me like a problem of people exploiting others to get to the top. It appears that wealth simply indicates that someone made smart decisions in life regarding their education. One argument against this is that college is too expensive for poor families. While this is partially true, the reality is that Pell Grants/federal student loans have driven up college prices(government action to lessen inequality actually increased it as is often the case ); the impact of this dis-proportionally hits the middle class, as poor students qualify for a lot of financial aid at most schools. That being said, getting good grades in high school makes college much, much more affordable. Since none of these careers requires an Ivy League degree, a state university, which offers lots of scholarships to top students, is the best bet. I know that any student who gets a National Merit Finalist (about 220+ on the PSAT, scores vary depending on state) automatically gets a full ride to schools like University of Alabama and University of Central Florida. Even state schools that don't offer full rides still tend to offer full-tuition for good students with high grades/test scores(top schools like UC Berkeley and University of Virginia are exceptions).

On the flip side, what causes people to earn low levels of income, particularly below the poverty line? Most people who fall into poverty don't do any of these three things - wait until 21 to get married/not have kids before marriage, graduate high school, and having a full-time job. I understand that the last one may have some factors beyond a person's control, but the first 2 are 100% a result of your choices. And people in the lowest income rungs violate all three norms, on average. And those in poverty because they don't have jobs are partially victims of the Obama economy, but personal choices still influence it greatly. Graduates from Purdue University Calumet in engineering, an affordable, not-very-selective school, have next to a 100% chance of getting a job. It's the dropouts and lousy major recipients that have problems.

Liberals, all I'm trying to get at is this: the income inequality that you bemoan is a result of inequality in effort and ability. Clearly, careers make a huge difference on people's income, and you simply can't equate a doctor and a garbage truck driver. Let's stop resenting success and try to emulate the "evil rich" rather than castigate them.

So what caused the crash in 2008 that put so many people out of work and trashed our economy? Personal choices? Gally-damn, the turnip truck just swung through here and you fell off.

Democrat banking regulations caused it, nimrod.

 

[Pennywise]

I was making great money until my inheritance kicked in, spinal disc deterioration disease.
I live with sciatica, herniated and bulging discs, crushed cervical discs from auto accident 20 years ago,headaches, muscle spasm, numbness in legs and hips.
Drug my right leg for 10 years before seeing a doctor. Trying to get back into the workforce is a real bitch even though I have several trades and a degree.
But it's my fault for being barley able to support myself and my youngest son out of 4, at home.
I do not qualify for any welfare since I own to much land that is claimed to be a liquid asset, yet land around here is not selling nor has it for the last 6 years.
So cry me a river about being poor, I laugh, how else do you keep your spirits up when you have assholes that author OP's like this one.
nuff said.

So you're saying that the bottom 90% of income earners are all there because they have back injuries?

Let's do the math, 300 Million Americans, say 1/3 are working age (100 Million), of which 90 million are beneath the top rung due to circumstances beyond their control. Is that your argument?

 

[bripat9643]

Do you really not see the difference between an income of 125,000 dollars a year and 15 million dollars a year?

Just because BOTH numbers fall in the top 10%, there is a HUGE disparity in the amounts. No one has an issue with the professional who provides a needed service or product who make a couple hundred thousand dollars a year. They earn it far as I am concerned.

But lets talk about a hedge fund manage (John Paulson) who made 5 billion dollars last year. There is no fucking way that this person provided societal value to justify making 5 billion dollars. And his tax rate was a whopping 15%.

But I am sure you don't see the difference. Or even see this as a problem. To you the problem seems to be if anyone complains that this is not a good thing for America.

His customers were willing to pay him that much of their own volition. Who are you to say they aren't free to pay him whatever they like? He must have provided them with $5 billion in value. Otherwise, why would they pay him that much? Whether "society" approves (that means envious mediocrities like you) is beside the point. Society has no right to interfere in private agreements that harm no one.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Income Inequality is a result of Individual Effort/Choices

By and large, this premise is correct. There are, of course, always exceptions to the rule, but for the most part, your lot in life was earned by the decisions you made throughout it.

 

[norwegen]

The beauty of America is that its aristocracy is not inherited.

We succeed and fail on our own.

 

[Vox]

I was making great money until my inheritance kicked in, spinal disc deterioration disease.
I live with sciatica, herniated and bulging discs, crushed cervical discs from auto accident 20 years ago,headaches, muscle spasm, numbness in legs and hips.
Drug my right leg for 10 years before seeing a doctor. Trying to get back into the workforce is a real bitch even though I have several trades and a degree.
But it's my fault for being barely able to support myself and my youngest son (out of 4), still at home.
I do not qualify for any welfare since I own to much land that is claimed to be a liquid asset, yet land around here is not selling nor has it for the last 6 years.
So cry me a river about being poor because of my choices, I laugh, how else do you keep your spirits up when you have assholes that author OP's like this one.
nuff said.

are you able to somehow put your land to work - you live in a picturesque area - maybe like getaway attraction?

plus, if you do not qualify for the help from taxpayer, how exactly taxing somebody who earns 125K per year or 200K per year to death is going to help YOU?

 

[g5000]

Democrat banking regulations caused it, nimrod.

Simple answers from simple minds.

 

[norwegen]

Top Ten Lists :: Highest Paying Jobs
Three rules for staying out of poverty | members.jacksonville.com
With all this recent ado about income inequality and the plight of the poor, I think we need to ask a simple question. That question is "What choices led them to become poor?" Liberals love to think of people as completely out of control of their financial state. That is 100% bogus. For starters this list clearly shows that the wealthy members of society largely got that way through a lot of education and hard work. Note that almost all of the top average salaries are in the medical field. The CEOs that liberals deride are actually #22 on the list. For the most part, the difference in income is largely a result of years of education and their rigor. Liberals love to talk about the unemployed college grads as signs of corporations "being greedy", but students who major in something rigorous like engineering or math do fine. It's the students who do cakewalk grievance/liberal studies majors who do poorly. Thus, careers like engineering/actuaries are around the $100,000 mark for average salary. Postgraduate degrees in legitimate fields like medicine, as well as MBAs, also do very well.
The moral of the story here is that entering the coveted "1%" can be attained simply by earning a medical degree and working for some number of years. Getting to the top 10%(about $125,000/year in household income) could be attained very easily by an average engineer with a spouse as a schoolteacher. This doesn't sound to me like a problem of people exploiting others to get to the top. It appears that wealth simply indicates that someone made smart decisions in life regarding their education. One argument against this is that college is too expensive for poor families. While this is partially true, the reality is that Pell Grants/federal student loans have driven up college prices(government action to lessen inequality actually increased it as is often the case ); the impact of this dis-proportionally hits the middle class, as poor students qualify for a lot of financial aid at most schools. That being said, getting good grades in high school makes college much, much more affordable. Since none of these careers requires an Ivy League degree, a state university, which offers lots of scholarships to top students, is the best bet. I know that any student who gets a National Merit Finalist (about 220+ on the PSAT, scores vary depending on state) automatically gets a full ride to schools like University of Alabama and University of Central Florida. Even state schools that don't offer full rides still tend to offer full-tuition for good students with high grades/test scores(top schools like UC Berkeley and University of Virginia are exceptions).

On the flip side, what causes people to earn low levels of income, particularly below the poverty line? Most people who fall into poverty don't do any of these three things - wait until 21 to get married/not have kids before marriage, graduate high school, and having a full-time job. I understand that the last one may have some factors beyond a person's control, but the first 2 are 100% a result of your choices. And people in the lowest income rungs violate all three norms, on average. And those in poverty because they don't have jobs are partially victims of the Obama economy, but personal choices still influence it greatly. Graduates from Purdue University Calumet in engineering, an affordable, not-very-selective school, have next to a 100% chance of getting a job. It's the dropouts and lousy major recipients that have problems.

Liberals, all I'm trying to get at is this: the income inequality that you bemoan is a result of inequality in effort and ability. Clearly, careers make a huge difference on people's income, and you simply can't equate a doctor and a garbage truck driver. Let's stop resenting success and try to emulate the "evil rich" rather than castigate them.

So what caused the crash in 2008 that put so many people out of work and trashed our economy? Personal choices? Gally-damn, the turnip truck just swung through here and you fell off.

Simple answers from simple minds.

 

[zeke]

Let me ask you this briarpatty.

If 90% of the nation wealth was held by only 5% of the people, would that be a good thing?

Of course you MUST say that it would be a good thing. If the current situation is good (which you claim it is) then a better situation must exist if the ultra wealthy controlled even more. If the ultra wealthy had all the money, would that be the best case?

But it wouldn't be ok. it would be a disaster. And that is the way we are heading. More and more of the countries wealth and income held by fewer people. Given enough time and opportunity, the ultra wealthy will control all the wealth and income. It is what they do. How they measure their success.
They are plutocrats.

Why do you love and support plutocrats? You support people like Timothy Geitner? Obama's rich buddies? Why do you support them? They don't do a fucking thing for YOU dude?

hey and that hedge fund manager making billions. He did it off the QE policies of the Federal Reserve. I thought you hated that shit (Quantitative Easing).

 

[zeke]

Why can't a right winger recognize the difference between someone making 150k a year and a person making 30 million a year. Or a billion a year.

How does a right winger equate those differences in income?

Most people think they understand how to go to school, get a job and maybe make 100k a year. Which would put you in the top 10% of income earnings.

Most people have no fucking idea how to make 30 million a year. Or even 5 million a year. Let alone a billion a year.

Between the top 1/2% and the rest of us, there is no way we can understand how to get that much wealth and power.

You have to be born to that much money. Our very own aristocracy. Our very own plutocrats.

And you right wingers eat that shit up don't ya? You all loves you sum plutocrats.

 

[Mathbud1]

Do you really not see the difference between an income of 125,000 dollars a year and 15 million dollars a year?

Just because BOTH numbers fall in the top 10%, there is a HUGE disparity in the amounts. No one has an issue with the professional who provides a needed service or product who make a couple hundred thousand dollars a year. They earn it far as I am concerned.

But lets talk about a hedge fund manage (John Paulson) who made 5 billion dollars last year. There is no fucking way that this person provided societal value to justify making 5 billion dollars. And his tax rate was a whopping 15%.

But I am sure you don't see the difference. Or even see this as a problem. To you the problem seems to be if anyone complains that this is not a good thing for America.

"societal value"?

What job does provide societal value in your opinion?

How would you like to see societal value determining pay?

Salaries for most jobs (including both the "professional who provides a needed service or product" and the hedge fund manager) are paid by companies. The company pays the salary based on the value they place on the work of the person receiving it. Are you saying that the salary should not be determined by the company, but rather by the government? That seems to be the only way to pay based on the "societal value" of a job. How many people are going to become CEO's if that suddenly becomes one of the lowest paying jobs out there? How well is any company going to do without clear direction and leadership? If the companies that provide all our jobs fall apart, what happens to the "professional who provides a needed service or product?" I'm guessing he doesn't keep providing that needed service or product.

Yes, it makes me jealous that someone out there is making 100 times as much as me for doing what seems like nothing to me. Does that mean that he is a thief, or that I am entitled to a portion of that money because I feel like my job provides more "societal value" than his?

No. Plain and simple.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Income Inequality is a result of Individual Effort/Choices

By and large, this premise is correct. There are, of course, always exceptions to the rule, but for the most part, your lot in life was earned by the decisions you made throughout it.

Prove that, please.

 

[ScienceRocks]

At the least we should give them education. Nothing is more important for advancement then knowledge.

 

[Mathbud1]

Let me ask you this briarpatty.

If 90% of the nation wealth was held by only 5% of the people, would that be a good thing?

Of course you MUST say that it would be a good thing. If the current situation is good (which you claim it is) then a better situation must exist if the ultra wealthy controlled even more. If the ultra wealthy had all the money, would that be the best case?

But it wouldn't be ok. it would be a disaster. And that is the way we are heading. More and more of the countries wealth and income held by fewer people. Given enough time and opportunity, the ultra wealthy will control all the wealth and income. It is what they do. How they measure their success.
They are plutocrats.

Why do you love and support plutocrats? You support people like Timothy Geitner? Obama's rich buddies? Why do you support them? They don't do a fucking thing for YOU dude?

hey and that hedge fund manager making billions. He did it off the QE policies of the Federal Reserve. I thought you hated that shit (Quantitative Easing).

Having money is great... if you have somewhere to spend it. Having power is wonderful... if you have power over something. So, if we're on track for a small percentage of the population to have ALL the wealth, and ALL the power, where are they going to spend that wealth and use that power? I assume that since the rest of us will have NO wealth and NO power we will all just die off. I guess those rich guys will just have to learn how to grow food for themselves, make clothes for themselves, build and maintain houses for themselves, build, sail and repair yachts for themselves...

Rich people don't hoard money to NOT have anywhere to spend it.

 

[zeke]

Do you really not see the difference between an income of 125,000 dollars a year and 15 million dollars a year?

Just because BOTH numbers fall in the top 10%, there is a HUGE disparity in the amounts. No one has an issue with the professional who provides a needed service or product who make a couple hundred thousand dollars a year. They earn it far as I am concerned.

But lets talk about a hedge fund manage (John Paulson) who made 5 billion dollars last year. There is no fucking way that this person provided societal value to justify making 5 billion dollars. And his tax rate was a whopping 15%.

But I am sure you don't see the difference. Or even see this as a problem. To you the problem seems to be if anyone complains that this is not a good thing for America.

"societal value"?

What job does provide societal value in your opinion?

How would you like to see societal value determining pay?

Salaries for most jobs (including both the "professional who provides a needed service or product" and the hedge fund manager) are paid by companies. The company pays the salary based on the value they place on the work of the person receiving it. Are you saying that the salary should not be determined by the company, but rather by the government? That seems to be the only way to pay based on the "societal value" of a job. How many people are going to become CEO's if that suddenly becomes one of the lowest paying jobs out there? How well is any company going to do without clear direction and leadership? If the companies that provide all our jobs fall apart, what happens to the "professional who provides a needed service or product?" I'm guessing he doesn't keep providing that needed service or product.

Yes, it makes me jealous that someone out there is making 100 times as much as me for doing what seems like nothing to me. Does that mean that he is a thief, or that I am entitled to a portion of that money because I feel like my job provides more "societal value" than his?

No. Plain and simple.

Really? You had to ask that question.

How about doctors, engineers, architects, maybe a lawyer, a teacher etc. They all can make a pretty good amount of money. And they all provide a value to our society.

Your turn. What "value" did the hedge fund manager making 5 billion dollars, what value did he impart to society? You know, people like you and me.

Not to his partners or his ultra rich investors. Or even his rich rich investors. He used QE money and the casino of the past year on Wall street and guessed right and made 5 billion dollars.

And didn't provide one bit of value to the overall society.

I don't care he made a killing. But 5 billion. At 15% tax rate. Using government provided funds. (you do know the Federal Reserve was the source of the QE money? Right?)

Fuck that.

 

[ScienceRocks]

doctors, engineers, architects, maybe a lawyer, a teacher and maybe a good ceo should of course get the most money. They benefit our society the most over all.

A good teacher should probably get 100k per year. Certainly it wouldn't be wrong.