Income inequality is fine by me.

[Vox]

It is fine by me as well, however with one addition - every system is balanced until the balance is tipped to one or the other direction.

For the last 80 years wealth distribution was more or less in the same range.
At it should be kept there.

The manufactured term "income inequality" was specifically designed to LIE.
Because income inequality does not matter - it changes every year, what matters is WEALTH inequality.

And the last has stayed more or less the same almost a century.

Are you aware of what you said here is 100% false?

Denial or ignorance. Which is it?

I assume you are ignorant. as the left always is.

 

[francoHFW]

OP- Great idea if you want a banana republic where there is little demand for product because 90 per cent have no money to spend...just where we're going under Voodoo tax rates-

If you count ALL taxes and fees, the poorest fifth pay 16 per cent, while everyone else pays about 21 per cent, and the richest quadruple their wealth while the country goes to hell. By 2007 people were spending savings and on credit. HELLO....

The DRIVEL hater dupes are made to believe...ay caramba...

 

[Billy000]

It is fine by me as well, however with one addition - every system is balanced until the balance is tipped to one or the other direction.

For the last 80 years wealth distribution was more or less in the same range.
At it should be kept there.

The manufactured term "income inequality" was specifically designed to LIE.
Because income inequality does not matter - it changes every year, what matters is WEALTH inequality.

And the last has stayed more or less the same almost a century.

YOU must have missed THIS...

no, I did not miss anything

Share of wealth held by the Bottom 99% and Top 1% in the United States, 1922-2010.

Year Bottom 99% Top 1%
1922 63.3% 36.7%
1929 55.8% 44.2%
1933 66.7% 33.3%
1939 63.6% 36.4%
1945 70.2% 29.8%
1949 72.9% 27.1%
1953 68.8% 31.2%
1962 68.2% 31.8%
1965 65.6% 34.4%
1969 68.9% 31.1%
1972 70.9% 29.1%
1976 80.1% 19.9%
1979 79.5% 20.5%
1981 75.2% 24.8%
1983 69.1% 30.9%
1986 68.1% 31.9%
1989 64.3% 35.7%
1992 62.8% 37.2%
1995 61.5% 38.5%
1998 61.9% 38.1%
2001 66.6% 33.4%
2004 65.7% 34.3%
2007 65.4% 34.6%
2010 64.6% 35.4%
Sources: 1922-1989 data from Wolff (1996), 1992-2010 data from Wolff (2012)[23]

the figures prove what I said ( and I said it based on this table) and they also prove that when we have the left in power - the 1% accumulates MORE than 99%.

as it is happening in the last 5 years

That is complete bullshit. You didn't even provide a link. The real proof is in my signature

 

[JakeStarkey]

YOU must have missed THIS...

no, I did not miss anything

Share of wealth held by the Bottom 99% and Top 1% in the United States, 1922-2010.

Year Bottom 99% Top 1%
1922 63.3% 36.7%
1929 55.8% 44.2%
1933 66.7% 33.3%
1939 63.6% 36.4%
1945 70.2% 29.8%
1949 72.9% 27.1%
1953 68.8% 31.2%
1962 68.2% 31.8%
1965 65.6% 34.4%
1969 68.9% 31.1%
1972 70.9% 29.1%
1976 80.1% 19.9%
1979 79.5% 20.5%
1981 75.2% 24.8%
1983 69.1% 30.9%
1986 68.1% 31.9%
1989 64.3% 35.7%
1992 62.8% 37.2%
1995 61.5% 38.5%
1998 61.9% 38.1%
2001 66.6% 33.4%
2004 65.7% 34.3%
2007 65.4% 34.6%
2010 64.6% 35.4%
Sources: 1922-1989 data from Wolff (1996), 1992-2010 data from Wolff (2012)[23]

the figures prove what I said ( and I said it based on this table) and they also prove that when we have the left in power - the 1% accumulates MORE than 99%.

as it is happening in the last 5 years

That is complete bullshit. You didn't even provide a link. The real proof is in my signature

Vox will not provide a link.

 

[Vox]

YOU must have missed THIS...

no, I did not miss anything

Share of wealth held by the Bottom 99% and Top 1% in the United States, 1922-2010.

Year Bottom 99% Top 1%
1922 63.3% 36.7%
1929 55.8% 44.2%
1933 66.7% 33.3%
1939 63.6% 36.4%
1945 70.2% 29.8%
1949 72.9% 27.1%
1953 68.8% 31.2%
1962 68.2% 31.8%
1965 65.6% 34.4%
1969 68.9% 31.1%
1972 70.9% 29.1%
1976 80.1% 19.9%
1979 79.5% 20.5%
1981 75.2% 24.8%
1983 69.1% 30.9%
1986 68.1% 31.9%
1989 64.3% 35.7%
1992 62.8% 37.2%
1995 61.5% 38.5%
1998 61.9% 38.1%
2001 66.6% 33.4%
2004 65.7% 34.3%
2007 65.4% 34.6%
2010 64.6% 35.4%
Sources: 1922-1989 data from Wolff (1996), 1992-2010 data from Wolff (2012)[23]

the figures prove what I said ( and I said it based on this table) and they also prove that when we have the left in power - the 1% accumulates MORE than 99%.

as it is happening in the last 5 years

That is complete bullshit. You didn't even provide a link. The real proof is in my signature

LOL

there is a name and you can find the table easily ,
but of course everything, what contradicts your leftard brainwashing narrative is BS

the chart is freely available even in wiki:

Distribution of wealth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I could not care less about your sig - I don't see it

 

[Vox]

no, I did not miss anything

Share of wealth held by the Bottom 99% and Top 1% in the United States, 1922-2010.

Year Bottom 99% Top 1%
1922 63.3% 36.7%
1929 55.8% 44.2%
1933 66.7% 33.3%
1939 63.6% 36.4%
1945 70.2% 29.8%
1949 72.9% 27.1%
1953 68.8% 31.2%
1962 68.2% 31.8%
1965 65.6% 34.4%
1969 68.9% 31.1%
1972 70.9% 29.1%
1976 80.1% 19.9%
1979 79.5% 20.5%
1981 75.2% 24.8%
1983 69.1% 30.9%
1986 68.1% 31.9%
1989 64.3% 35.7%
1992 62.8% 37.2%
1995 61.5% 38.5%
1998 61.9% 38.1%
2001 66.6% 33.4%
2004 65.7% 34.3%
2007 65.4% 34.6%
2010 64.6% 35.4%
Sources: 1922-1989 data from Wolff (1996), 1992-2010 data from Wolff (2012)[23]

the figures prove what I said ( and I said it based on this table) and they also prove that when we have the left in power - the 1% accumulates MORE than 99%.

as it is happening in the last 5 years

That is complete bullshit. You didn't even provide a link. The real proof is in my signature

Vox will not provide a link.

Poor jakey does not know how to google the names of the authors of the table

 

[Londoner]

I just heard this on Bulls n Bears and I think its a great analogy.

Income inequality complaints are akin to taking an A student and giving him a B instead so the D student can have a C and pass even though someone else earned his grade.

Discuss

For starters, economic competitors don't start at the same starting line - so your analogy seems simplistic. Our system is based on the unearned transfer of wealth and resources. Those born into wealthier families are far likelier to succeed. They start the race with a huge head start. But life isn't far, and I think there are bigger problems with our distribution system that have nothing to do with your complaint.

Government policy has distributive consequences that you've probably never analyzed. For example, can you name ways in which government protects skilled labor from foreign competition in ways that it doesn't protect unskilled workers? - and how this effects wages? That is, have you ever analyzed policies and regulations that effect the leverage of Labor v Capital? My sense is no.

And there's another problem.

If a system of distribution cannot pay workers enough to buy the products they make, than it is going to die. Who gives a shit about equal or unequal distribution. These are cloudy moral terms designed to clog the debate. Nobody should be comfortable giving somebody something they didn't earn. We shouldn't be happy when a child is born into wealth and doesn't have to pay a dime for college compared to his poor friends, but the American system is based on unearned transfers of wealth. Life isn't fair, but that's not the issue.

Capitalism has a potential flaw. It's need for higher returns causes it to drive down labor costs (in the form of lower wages and fewer benefits). Unfortunately, workers need sufficient wages/benefits to be solvent enough to consume (i.e., buy the things they produce). So when not enough of the wealth generated from economic activity trickles down to workers in the form of purchasing power, those workers either become over-reliant on credit or they stop consuming. In both cases, the results are toxic for economic health.

We've created a large consumer base of wage-serfs who cannot consume at the needed levels to sustain economic growth. We originally tried to fix this problem by expanding credit (debt) inside the lower classes - but this has now run its course and consumer debt is crushing us.

Right now our corporations don't have enough consumers to justify adding jobs. Our largest employer Walmart doesn't pay workers enough to survive much less consume at the needed levels to sustain economic growth.

Who gives a shit about equality? Life isn't fair. Deal with it. Some people are born to be greeters at Walmart, while others are born to discover the cure cancer - and, more importantly, we must not penalize the productive to help the lazy or we will undermine the incentives of those who would otherwise cure cancer. No shit - we get it; this is third-grade shit. But here's something else we need to think about. We're not paying our workers enough to consume, and that is undermining the incentive to innovate and add jobs. The cheap Chinese Labor Model that has enriched our capitalist class has finally come home to roost. The consumer has gone away, and the current wage/benefit system will not bring him back. Meaning: we are stuck.

Problem is: your analogy doesn't help us out of this impasse because it's too simplistic. I like a lot of the stuff you write, but this post doesn't seem very enlightening.

 

[Billy000]

no, I did not miss anything

Share of wealth held by the Bottom 99% and Top 1% in the United States, 1922-2010.

Year Bottom 99% Top 1%
1922 63.3% 36.7%
1929 55.8% 44.2%
1933 66.7% 33.3%
1939 63.6% 36.4%
1945 70.2% 29.8%
1949 72.9% 27.1%
1953 68.8% 31.2%
1962 68.2% 31.8%
1965 65.6% 34.4%
1969 68.9% 31.1%
1972 70.9% 29.1%
1976 80.1% 19.9%
1979 79.5% 20.5%
1981 75.2% 24.8%
1983 69.1% 30.9%
1986 68.1% 31.9%
1989 64.3% 35.7%
1992 62.8% 37.2%
1995 61.5% 38.5%
1998 61.9% 38.1%
2001 66.6% 33.4%
2004 65.7% 34.3%
2007 65.4% 34.6%
2010 64.6% 35.4%
Sources: 1922-1989 data from Wolff (1996), 1992-2010 data from Wolff (2012)[23]

the figures prove what I said ( and I said it based on this table) and they also prove that when we have the left in power - the 1% accumulates MORE than 99%.

as it is happening in the last 5 years

That is complete bullshit. You didn't even provide a link. The real proof is in my signature

LOL

there is a name and you can find the table easily ,
but of course everything, what contradicts your leftard brainwashing narrative is BS

the chart is freely available even in wiki:

Distribution of wealth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I could not care less about your sig - I don't see it

Um here is the actual relevant wiki article. It completely supports what I have been saying and has nothing to do with what You are saying.

Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[G.T.]

You guys are all retards, seriously.

Its not that a burger flipper wants to make the same as a CEO.

Its not that people dont want to work hard to advance and earn their money.

You are being pig headed about the issue.

The issue is that 400 people own 40% of wealth, that is a very unstable system.

The issue is that corporate profits are at all time highs, while since the 70s CEO pay has grown 300% to an accountant/officer/machinist/small business owners earnings have only gone up 23%.

As a percent, they should have grown the same. The same %, dummies, not the same dollar amount.

So 300% more for doing the same job versus 23% more for doing the SAME JOB.

ceos didnt become super heros and regular joe store managers became lazy and retarded.

No.

Something else is going on, and youre a dumbfuck for buying into the "theyre jealous....lazy...dont wanna work for it..." lines.

THEY are YOU. THICK FUCKS.

 

[candycorn]

I just heard this on Bulls n Bears and I think its a great analogy.

Income inequality complaints are akin to taking an A student and giving him a B instead so the D student can have a C and pass even though someone else earned his grade.

Discuss

It sucks, boiling down a complex problem into a simplistic metaphor that ultimately ignores reality is the height of intellectual laziness.

Well there is a difference between laziness and not being able to comprehend it to start with. One can understand but chooses not to; the other can't.

 

[candycorn]

When you have an economy based on consumers and middle income workers' income has been flat while executive income has grown by leaps and bounds, your economy is going to have problems.

Put another way...

Companies are better served by having 300 people who can afford their products (lets call them MP3 Players) as opposed to having one person who can afford 300 MP3 Players. Why? Because one person won't buy 300 where 300 people might. Currently, the right wing seems to be happy that only 3 can buy one.

It explains why they have lost 5 of the last 6 general elections.

 

[Billy000]

When you have an economy based on consumers and middle income workers' income has been flat while executive income has grown by leaps and bounds, your economy is going to have problems.

Put another way...

Companies are better served by having 300 people who can afford their products (lets call them MP3 Players) as opposed to having one person who can afford 300 MP3 Players. Why? Because one person won't buy 300 where 300 people might. Currently, the right wing seems to be happy that only 3 can buy one.

It explains why they have lost 5 of the last 6 general elections.

Very well said.

 

[Erand7899]

You guys are all retards, seriously.

Its not that a burger flipper wants to make the same as a CEO.

Its not that people dont want to work hard to advance and earn their money.

You are being pig headed about the issue.

The issue is that 400 people own 40% of wealth, that is a very unstable system.

The issue is that corporate profits are at all time highs, while since the 70s CEO pay has grown 300% to an accountant/officer/machinist/small business owners earnings have only gone up 23%.

As a percent, they should have grown the same. The same %, dummies, not the same dollar amount.

So 300% more for doing the same job versus 23% more for doing the SAME JOB.

ceos didnt become super heros and regular joe store managers became lazy and retarded.

No.

Something else is going on, and youre a dumbfuck for buying into the "theyre jealous....lazy...dont wanna work for it..." lines.

THEY are YOU. THICK FUCKS.

What difference does it make to your food bowl whether CEOs make $1 or $1 million? It doesn't, and that applies to the burger flippers and the accountants.

You determine what you are worth in the marketplace by your own actions or inactions. You are the master of your economic fate, and failure or success is yours alone. That success or failure is not dependent upon what others do with their lives.

Working hard does not bring success. Working smart brings success, and working hard at that brings better success. One has to have something to sell that others are interested in buying. Since most of us were not born with anything worth selling, we have to obtain it through education and endeavor. How well we do this determines where we end up on the economic ladder.

 

[G.T.]

Hey dumbfuck. An accountant in the 70's versus an accountant today does not do anything less. Their wage simply did not keep up with inflation.

The same is true for 85% of the Country amd jobs out there.

Its not a determined fate thing you pie eyed schmuck, its a system is rigged thing.

God damn the arrogance.

If youre not one of the 400 then just shut the fuck up....seriously. just shut the fuck up. Youre the horse they lead to the edge of the lava willfully smiling gleefully and theyll give you that last lil nudge while laughing their asses off. Dipstick.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is complete bullshit. You didn't even provide a link. The real proof is in my signature

Vox will not provide a link.

Poor jakey does not know how to google the names of the authors of the table

Not my responsibility. Yours.

That you don't merely makes it your opinion.

 

[Vox]

That is complete bullshit. You didn't even provide a link. The real proof is in my signature

LOL

there is a name and you can find the table easily ,
but of course everything, what contradicts your leftard brainwashing narrative is BS

the chart is freely available even in wiki:

Distribution of wealth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I could not care less about your sig - I don't see it

Um here is the actual relevant wiki article. It completely supports what I have been saying and has nothing to do with what You are saying.

Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

you can find any article on the wiki which will support any bullshit, including yours.

except THE STATISTICS do not support that bullshit.

the wealth distribution has not radically changed throughout the last 90 yeas and all your whining about increasing gaps is just that - whining.

period.

 

[occupied]

You guys are all retards, seriously.

Its not that a burger flipper wants to make the same as a CEO.

Its not that people dont want to work hard to advance and earn their money.

You are being pig headed about the issue.

The issue is that 400 people own 40% of wealth, that is a very unstable system.

The issue is that corporate profits are at all time highs, while since the 70s CEO pay has grown 300% to an accountant/officer/machinist/small business owners earnings have only gone up 23%.

As a percent, they should have grown the same. The same %, dummies, not the same dollar amount.

So 300% more for doing the same job versus 23% more for doing the SAME JOB.

ceos didnt become super heros and regular joe store managers became lazy and retarded.

No.

Something else is going on, and youre a dumbfuck for buying into the "theyre jealous....lazy...dont wanna work for it..." lines.

THEY are YOU. THICK FUCKS.

What difference does it make to your food bowl whether CEOs make $1 or $1 million? It doesn't, and that applies to the burger flippers and the accountants.

You determine what you are worth in the marketplace by your own actions or inactions. You are the master of your economic fate, and failure or success is yours alone. That success or failure is not dependent upon what others do with their lives.

Working hard does not bring success. Working smart brings success, and working hard at that brings better success. One has to have something to sell that others are interested in buying. Since most of us were not born with anything worth selling, we have to obtain it through education and endeavor. How well we do this determines where we end up on the economic ladder.

Must be nice to have such faith in something but it's tragic to have such faith in what some jokingly call "free enterprise".

 

[Vox]

Vox will not provide a link.

Poor jakey does not know how to google the names of the authors of the table

Not my responsibility. Yours.

That you don't merely makes it your opinion.

It is not responsibility at all.
sometimes links are difficult to post.

when I could - I did.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I posted without any difficulty.

Share of wealth held by Top 1% in the United States, 1922-1998.
Source: 1922-1989 data from Edward N. Wolff, Top Heavy (New Press: 1996). 1992-1998 data from Edward N. Wolff, "Recent Trends in Wealth Ownership, 1983-98," Jerome Levy Economics Institute, April 2000.
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

A review of the criteria demonstrates this is an inaccurate low-value rating. It is probably 25 to 30% under represented.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Here is a good article to clear up the issue.

Top 1% wealth ownership 1922-2007 | Liberate Oakland