Income inequality, is it a danger.

[Nicholas_1982]

1st and foremost is the premise. Yes it is a fact that over the past few decades wealth consolidation in the U.S. has accelerated. What that means is that a smaller and smaller percentage of the total population is controlling a larger and larger percentage of the total wealth in this country.

Now can we agree that wealth is finite. Last year our country's GDP was I believe around $21 trillion. So that $21 trillion is the total size of the pie (I will stick with pie because it's easy to understand). Now GDP is a very broad term but for the purpose of this discussion it is the best metric for valuing our economy.

In 2010 which is the last year I can find stats for, the top 10% of earners accounted for 77%.

Now we can postulate numerous different theories. The 2 most popular theories at the moment are that either 90% of the country has just gotten lazier or that 10% of the population has rigged the economy. Obviously the left believes the economy is rigged and the right believes people have gotten lazier.

Either way is irrelevant. What is relevant is how this game ends. And the question is, how will it end?

 

[sonic]

1st and foremost is the premise. Yes it is a fact that over the past few decades wealth consolidation in the U.S. has accelerated. What that means is that a smaller and smaller percentage of the total population is controlling a larger and larger percentage of the total wealth in this country.

Now can we agree that wealth is finite. Last year our country's GDP was I believe around $21 trillion. So that $21 trillion is the total size of the pie (I will stick with pie because it's easy to understand). Now GDP is a very broad term but for the purpose of this discussion it is the best metric for valuing our economy.

In 2010 which is the last year I can find stats for, the top 10% of earners accounted for 77%.

Now we can postulate numerous different theories. The 2 most popular theories at the moment are that either 90% of the country has just gotten lazier or that 10% of the population has rigged the economy. Obviously the left believes the economy is rigged and the right believes people have gotten lazier.

Either way is irrelevant. What is relevant is how this game ends. And the question is, how will it end?

Your generic presumption of left/right beliefs doesn't hold water. The system IS corrupt - pay to play. I don't personally know any one of any political bent that doesn't agree on that point.
It ends with the collapse of the U.S. economy under the weight of greed and corruption (aka He who dies with the most toys wins).

 

[Nicholas_1982]

1st and foremost is the premise. Yes it is a fact that over the past few decades wealth consolidation in the U.S. has accelerated. What that means is that a smaller and smaller percentage of the total population is controlling a larger and larger percentage of the total wealth in this country.

Now can we agree that wealth is finite. Last year our country's GDP was I believe around $21 trillion. So that $21 trillion is the total size of the pie (I will stick with pie because it's easy to understand). Now GDP is a very broad term but for the purpose of this discussion it is the best metric for valuing our economy.

In 2010 which is the last year I can find stats for, the top 10% of earners accounted for 77%.

Now we can postulate numerous different theories. The 2 most popular theories at the moment are that either 90% of the country has just gotten lazier or that 10% of the population has rigged the economy. Obviously the left believes the economy is rigged and the right believes people have gotten lazier.

Either way is irrelevant. What is relevant is how this game ends. And the question is, how will it end?

Your generic presumption of left/right beliefs doesn't hold water. The system IS corrupt - pay to play. I don't personally know any one of any political bent that doesn't agree on that point.
It ends with the collapse of the U.S. economy under the weight of greed and corruption (aka He who dies with the most toys wins).

I was referring to how the candidates and pundits spin income inequality. Most on the right (O'Reilly, Hannity, Romney, etc) refer to them as takers

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Guess what?

Brain surgeons are worth more than fry flippers.

 

[Nicholas_1982]

Guess what?

Brain surgeons are worth more than fry flippers.

I am sure 100% of people will agree.

The question is, how will this end?

 

[The Great Goose]

I was yelling and yelling about this previouslyand yet everyone got angry.

 

[Nicholas_1982]

I really would like to see some non partisan discussion here

 

[Londoner]

Some inequality is necessary to maintain incentives, e.g., an economy that didn't reward Steve Jobs more than a dishwasher would die.

Inequality is only a problem when it goes too far - when one's birth family counts more than effort and merit; when the distribution system chokes opportunity for the poor while perpetuating a caste system that enables a small group of plutocrats to buy government & media while everyone else drifts inside or on the edge of poverty.

The big problem with inequality is that it eventually destroys national greatness and technological progress. This happens when your economy leaves too many potentially talented people behind, i.e., too much talent untapped. We don't want to lose the next Einstein because he is born to a poor family that cannot afford education or health care for their child.

Inequality also undermines informed civic engagement. It means that more people will be uneducated, unhealthy and desperate, making them less able to evaluate complex policy issues, and more vulnerable to demagogues peddling fear and hate.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Guess what?

Brain surgeons are worth more than fry flippers.

I am sure 100% of people will agree.

The question is, how will this end?

Shrug. Depends.

All the Universe, or nothing. Which shall it be?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I really would like to see some non partisan discussion here

Good luck. That is not the current state of the Republic.

 

[The Great Goose]

I really would like to see some non partisan discussion here

Lurk post.

 

[Londoner]

Guess what?

Brain surgeons are worth more than fry flippers.

Of course.

No economy could thrive without providing incentives to our most productive innovators. The person who cures cancer should make more money than someone who farts in the bathtub. (This is second grade stuff.)

The choice isn't between Reaganomics, which lifts primarily the wealthy, and communism, which makes everyone poor.

The choice is between Reagan and Eisenhower. In Ike's postwar America the wealthy did just find, but wages, benefits and opportunity were much higher for the bottom 70%. Eisenhower's progressive tax system, infrastructure jobs program and heavy subsidies to education allowed more people to thrive.

Liberals don't want communism. They want a return to the pro middle class policies of the postwar years, a time when the wealthy lived well, but a larger share of economic growth went to hard working families.

Turn off talk radio. You've been lied to.

 

[The Great Goose]

You are yelling and yelling!

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Guess what?

Brain surgeons are worth more than fry flippers.

Of course.

No economy could thrive without providing incentives to our most productive innovators. There will always be and should always be inequality. The question is how much? (This is second grade stuff.)

The choice isn't between Reaganomics, which lifts primarily the wealthy, and communism, which makes everyone poor.

The choice is between Reagan and Eisenhower. In Ike's postwar America the wealthy did just find, but wages, benefits and opportunity were much higher for the bottom 70%. Eisenhower's progressive tax system, infrastructure jobs program and heavy subsidies to education allowed more people to thrive.

Liberals don't want communism. They want a return to the pro middle class policies of the postwar years, a time when the wealthy lived well, but a larger share of economic growth went to hard working families.

Turn off talk radio. You've been lied to.

Hardly. I grew up under Eisenhower, and have been observing since.

 

[The Great Goose]

Guess what?

Brain surgeons are worth more than fry flippers.

Of course.

No economy could thrive without providing incentives to our most productive innovators. There will always be and should always be inequality. The question is how much? (This is second grade stuff.)

The choice isn't between Reaganomics, which lifts primarily the wealthy, and communism, which makes everyone poor.

The choice is between Reagan and Eisenhower. In Ike's postwar America the wealthy did just find, but wages, benefits and opportunity were much higher for the bottom 70%. Eisenhower's progressive tax system, infrastructure jobs program and heavy subsidies to education allowed more people to thrive.

Liberals don't want communism. They want a return to the pro middle class policies of the postwar years, a time when the wealthy lived well, but a larger share of economic growth went to hard working families.

Turn off talk radio. You've been lied to.

What? I'm a mediocre fighter.

 

[OnePercenter]

Guess what?

Brain surgeons are worth more than fry flippers.

Guess what?

Brain surgeons are worth more than fry flippers.

Emeril Lagasse has a higher income than a Neurosurgeon.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Guess what?

Brain surgeons are worth more than fry flippers.

Guess what?

Brain surgeons are worth more than fry flippers.

Emeril Lagasse has a higher income than a Neurosurgeon.

Stupid, isn't it?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Guess what?

Brain surgeons are worth more than fry flippers.

I am sure 100% of people will agree.

The question is, how will this end?

We are collapsing into a third world country where a few people own everything and everyone else eats dirt.

There needs to be a free flow of money between investing, producing, and consuming. This gives us the highest velocity of money and leads to a strong economy.

Now if the money collects in one area of the economy (usually at the top) it pinches off the flow of money that will lead to collapse. Of course there are millions of these circles of money flows of various sizes and it is the smaller ones that are the first to bite the dust. Small local businesses need a local population with a few extra bucks in their pockets. If the locals are squeezed down to low wages and unemployment the small businesses take the first hit and this spiral works its way up through our economy.

Now you can throw all the ideology you want at it but that is the road we are on.

 

[OnePercenter]

Guess what?

Brain surgeons are worth more than fry flippers.

Guess what?

Brain surgeons are worth more than fry flippers.

Emeril Lagasse has a higher income than a Neurosurgeon.

Stupid, isn't it?

Stupid, isn't it?

Why is that stupid?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Guess what?

Brain surgeons are worth more than fry flippers.

Guess what?

Brain surgeons are worth more than fry flippers.

Emeril Lagasse has a higher income than a Neurosurgeon.

Stupid, isn't it?

Stupid, isn't it?

Why is that stupid?

What people will pay for simple entertainment.