Lets talk about income inequality

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually...there is NO natural state of things. It is what culture nd society are all about...mutual benefit through cooperation.

What makes that unnatural?

Human beings being of the animal kingdom, it was the development of culture that we think allowed mankind to evovle. Look it up

Human beings are human beings. We evolved beyond the animal kingdom when we started using culture and society to help the species, as a whole, survive. Just because it is rare does not mean it is unnatural.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What is the main characteristic of a Third World Nation? Lack of a middle class. You can look that up too.

Actually, third world is a political term applied to countries that didn't align with the US or the USSR during the Cold War, it has squat to do with the lack of a middle class.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World

 

[Vox]

What is the main characteristic of a Third World Nation? Lack of a middle class. You can look that up too.

Actually, third world is a political term applied to countries that didn't align with the US or the USSR during the Cold War, it has squat to do with the lack of a middle class.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World

Leftards don't know simple thigs

USSR was an example of a country without middle class - only the "elite" and everyone else was poor
Every truly socialist country does not have middle class, since there are no private property on the means of production.

 

[Vox]

While my personal example of the changes in wealth and income inequality over the past 40 years is only one among millions, in the mid-1970s a single minimum wage job paid me enough to cover the market rent on a brand new one-bedroom apartment in the East Bay Area with enough left over to pay off and maintain a six year-old Chevy.

Contrast that with today when a single minimum wage job barely covers any market based rental unit and skateboards or bicycles take the Chevy's place.

Baloney.
you won't be able to rent on an Upper East Side on a minimum wage salary, but that was not possible 40 years ago as well.
But I was able to live in a 3B/3bth apartment with all amenities and electronics and we had 2 cars ( though not luxury ones) for 4 people on a salary of 36-40K per year for 4 years while in training.
It is absolutely possible NOWADAYS as well, if one is not whining that he/she needs a new TV set in every room, a new iPhone every time it is on the market for every person in the family and is willing to drive a second-hand car.
While working on own market value


and the very same study provides the numbers which prove exactly the opposite - that there is no difference in the WEALTH distribution between top 1% and other 99% from now to 40 years ago.

and if one actually digs WHO is considered those hated 1% and finds that those are just upper middle classes with incomes starting in 350K+ and not what obama and his minions like to all the time call "millionaires and billionaires", plus that it is exactly those people, earning 66K+ who are thr main payers of the federal income taxes and whose income is being targeted to tax MORE for the "fair share" then you actually might start realizing that the whole class warfare game is ONE BIG LEFTARD LIE.

The (Very) Rich Are Getting (Much) Richer

"The income share of the top 10 percent has risen to a record high; but you're completely missing the picture if you think of the top 10 percent as a homogeneous group.

"Of the gains made by the top 10 percent, almost none went to the 90 percent to 95 percent group; in fact, the great bulk of gains went to the top 1 percent. In turn, the bulk of the gains of the top 1 percent went to the top 0.1 percent; and the bulk of those gains went to the top 0.01 percent. We really are talking about the flourishing of a tiny elite."

BTW, Rockefeller, the current minimum wage where I live is $8 per hour or roughly $1200 per month which is almost exactly the median rental price for a 0 bedroom 1 bath studio apartment.

When will the right stop kissing every very rich ass that waddles by?

Idiot, the 10% starts at 150K per year. Are you retarded to name 150k per year "very rich"?

 

[georgephillip]

Baloney.
you won't be able to rent on an Upper East Side on a minimum wage salary, but that was not possible 40 years ago as well.
But I was able to live in a 3B/3bth apartment with all amenities and electronics and we had 2 cars ( though not luxury ones) for 4 people on a salary of 36-40K per year for 4 years while in training.
It is absolutely possible NOWADAYS as well, if one is not whining that he/she needs a new TV set in every room, a new iPhone every time it is on the market for every person in the family and is willing to drive a second-hand car.
While working on own market value


and the very same study provides the numbers which prove exactly the opposite - that there is no difference in the WEALTH distribution between top 1% and other 99% from now to 40 years ago.

and if one actually digs WHO is considered those hated 1% and finds that those are just upper middle classes with incomes starting in 350K+ and not what obama and his minions like to all the time call "millionaires and billionaires", plus that it is exactly those people, earning 66K+ who are thr main payers of the federal income taxes and whose income is being targeted to tax MORE for the "fair share" then you actually might start realizing that the whole class warfare game is ONE BIG LEFTARD LIE.

The (Very) Rich Are Getting (Much) Richer

"The income share of the top 10 percent has risen to a record high; but you're completely missing the picture if you think of the top 10 percent as a homogeneous group.

"Of the gains made by the top 10 percent, almost none went to the 90 percent to 95 percent group; in fact, the great bulk of gains went to the top 1 percent. In turn, the bulk of the gains of the top 1 percent went to the top 0.1 percent; and the bulk of those gains went to the top 0.01 percent. We really are talking about the flourishing of a tiny elite."

BTW, Rockefeller, the current minimum wage where I live is $8 per hour or roughly $1200 per month which is almost exactly the median rental price for a 0 bedroom 1 bath studio apartment.

When will the right stop kissing every very rich ass that waddles by?

Idiot, the 10% starts at 150K per year. Are you retarded to name 150k per year "very rich"?

"Of the gains made by the top 10 percent, almost none went to the 90 percent to 95 percent group; in fact, the great bulk of gains went to the top 1 percent. In turn, the bulk of the gains of the top 1 percent went to the top 0.1 percent; and the bulk of those gains went to the top 0.01 percent. We really are talking about the flourishing of a tiny elite."

A tiny elite of 400 Americans controls more wealth than the poorest 150 million Americans.
Does that conform to your understanding of democracy?

The (Very) Rich Are Getting (Much) Richer

 

[Vox]

The (Very) Rich Are Getting (Much) Richer

"The income share of the top 10 percent has risen to a record high; but you're completely missing the picture if you think of the top 10 percent as a homogeneous group.

"Of the gains made by the top 10 percent, almost none went to the 90 percent to 95 percent group; in fact, the great bulk of gains went to the top 1 percent. In turn, the bulk of the gains of the top 1 percent went to the top 0.1 percent; and the bulk of those gains went to the top 0.01 percent. We really are talking about the flourishing of a tiny elite."

BTW, Rockefeller, the current minimum wage where I live is $8 per hour or roughly $1200 per month which is almost exactly the median rental price for a 0 bedroom 1 bath studio apartment.

When will the right stop kissing every very rich ass that waddles by?

Idiot, the 10% starts at 150K per year. Are you retarded to name 150k per year "very rich"?

"Of the gains made by the top 10 percent, almost none went to the 90 percent to 95 percent group; in fact, the great bulk of gains went to the top 1 percent. In turn, the bulk of the gains of the top 1 percent went to the top 0.1 percent; and the bulk of those gains went to the top 0.01 percent. We really are talking about the flourishing of a tiny elite."

A tiny elite of 400 Americans controls more wealth than the poorest 150 million Americans.
Does that conform to your understanding of democracy?

The (Very) Rich Are Getting (Much) Richer

as the study showed the gap is increasing during democrat administrations.
what are you going to do with your fellow democrats?

 

[Brain357]

Sorry, I didn't check who I was replying to.

In 1982 the poverty rate was 15%, in 2000 it was 11%. The bottom 80% does not mean just the poor.

Why did you stop at 2000? Looks like we are somewhere around 16% now.

Census: U.S. Poverty Rate Spikes, Nearly 50 Million Americans Affected « CBS DC

Because now is the result of Obama's policies, and you want to blame someone else.

I've not yet talked of any blame. Clearly it's been a growing issue for sometime.

 

[georgephillip]

Idiot, the 10% starts at 150K per year. Are you retarded to name 150k per year "very rich"?

"Of the gains made by the top 10 percent, almost none went to the 90 percent to 95 percent group; in fact, the great bulk of gains went to the top 1 percent. In turn, the bulk of the gains of the top 1 percent went to the top 0.1 percent; and the bulk of those gains went to the top 0.01 percent. We really are talking about the flourishing of a tiny elite."

A tiny elite of 400 Americans controls more wealth than the poorest 150 million Americans.
Does that conform to your understanding of democracy?

The (Very) Rich Are Getting (Much) Richer

as the study showed the gap is increasing during democrat administrations.
what are you going to do with your fellow democrats?

I'm not self-destructive enough to be Democrat or Republican, and even if I was it wouldn't change the bipartisan consensus on Crushing the Middle Class in this country:

"After all, the Dow Jones and S & P 500 have more than doubled in the last 4 years, corporate earnings just hit an all-time high of $2.1 trillion, the banks announced record profits of $42 billion in Q2, and–according to a new study by Emmanuel Saez, an economics professor at UC Berkeley— the top 10% of earners in the US captured 50.4% of total income in 2012, a level higher than any other year since 1917.” (LA Times)."

 

[Brain357]

Sorry, they do not have "far less." What you are seeing there is the result of the real estate bubble bursting, not them suddenly getting poor. The bursting real estate bubble actually affected the rich people more than it did the poor.

Well are talking about wealth inequality. They have a far smaller % so inequality has increased. The numbers I've seen have the bottom 80% going from 18.7 in 1983 to 11.1 in 2010. Meanwhile the top 20% went from 81.3 to 88.9. It would seem the rich are doing better than the bottom 80%.

In order to claim they have far less you have to do a lot of things you aren't doing.

What is the margin of error of the numbers you are using?
What percent of the change is a result of the fed stimulus of the market through QE?
There are other questions, but most of them are technical, and some of them would take pages to answer.

18.7 to 11.1 is far less. Pretty simple math really.

 

[Brain357]

The top 20% in income starts somewhere around $90,000. NYFD pays that after 5 years. You want to try and argue that most firefighters quit before they reach 5 years, or do you want to admit you don't know what you are talking about?

Firefighter Benefits and Salary

It appears wealth is actually going down for the bottom 93 percent.
A Rise in Wealth for the Wealthy; Declines for the Lower 93% | Pew Social & Demographic Trends

Tough ******* shit.

By the way, your link clearly shows that the increase in Wealth for the upper 7% is in liquid assetts, which makes them a direct result of QE, something I have argued against repetedly. The makes the problem a result of government meddling, not the free market, and puts the ball squarely in the court of the people, like you, that support government meddling in the market.

Well Vox said wealth was important and I've clearly showed wealth inequality is growing with income inequality.

When did I say that I support government meddling? Much of the meddling has gotten us here.

 

[Dante]

What is the main characteristic of a Third World Nation? Lack of a middle class. You can look that up too.

Actually, third world is a political term applied to countries that didn't align with the US or the USSR during the Cold War, it has squat to do with the lack of a middle class.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World

There is no agreement on what is a middle class, but there is on where doesn't exist

 

[Dante]

What is the main characteristic of a Third World Nation? Lack of a middle class. You can look that up too.

Actually, third world is a political term applied to countries that didn't align with the US or the USSR during the Cold War, it has squat to do with the lack of a middle class.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World

Leftards don't know simple thigs

USSR was an example of a country without middle class - only the "elite" and everyone else was poor
Every truly socialist country does not have middle class, since there are no private property on the means of production.

[MENTION=44192]Vox[/MENTION]
Moron, do try to keep up. wingnut windy is the one saying there exist no nation without a middle class.

Do you even know wtf you are replying to?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why did you stop at 2000? Looks like we are somewhere around 16% now.

Census: U.S. Poverty Rate Spikes, Nearly 50 Million Americans Affected « CBS DC

Because now is the result of Obama's policies, and you want to blame someone else.

I've not yet talked of any blame. Clearly it's been a growing issue for sometime.

Clearly, it hasn't. If it had been there would be a steady increase over time, not the peaks and valleys of a cycle.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well are talking about wealth inequality. They have a far smaller % so inequality has increased. The numbers I've seen have the bottom 80% going from 18.7 in 1983 to 11.1 in 2010. Meanwhile the top 20% went from 81.3 to 88.9. It would seem the rich are doing better than the bottom 80%.

In order to claim they have far less you have to do a lot of things you aren't doing.

What is the margin of error of the numbers you are using?
What percent of the change is a result of the fed stimulus of the market through QE?
There are other questions, but most of them are technical, and some of them would take pages to answer.

18.7 to 11.1 is far less. Pretty simple math really.

Seven cents is far less money?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It appears wealth is actually going down for the bottom 93 percent.
A Rise in Wealth for the Wealthy; Declines for the Lower 93% | Pew Social & Demographic Trends

Tough ******* shit.

By the way, your link clearly shows that the increase in Wealth for the upper 7% is in liquid assetts, which makes them a direct result of QE, something I have argued against repetedly. The makes the problem a result of government meddling, not the free market, and puts the ball squarely in the court of the people, like you, that support government meddling in the market.

Well Vox said wealth was important and I've clearly showed wealth inequality is growing with income inequality.

When did I say that I support government meddling? Much of the meddling has gotten us here.

Funny, I didn't see you clearly showing anything.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What is the main characteristic of a Third World Nation? Lack of a middle class. You can look that up too.

Actually, third world is a political term applied to countries that didn't align with the US or the USSR during the Cold War, it has squat to do with the lack of a middle class.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World

There is no agreement on what is a middle class, but there is on where doesn't exist

Yet, despite your agreement with non existent people about a non existent phenomenon, you can't show me a single example.

By the way, did you notice that I actually proved that Third World Country does not mean a country without a middle class after you told me to look it up?

 

[Brain357]

Tough ******* shit.

By the way, your link clearly shows that the increase in Wealth for the upper 7% is in liquid assetts, which makes them a direct result of QE, something I have argued against repetedly. The makes the problem a result of government meddling, not the free market, and puts the ball squarely in the court of the people, like you, that support government meddling in the market.

Well Vox said wealth was important and I've clearly showed wealth inequality is growing with income inequality.

When did I say that I support government meddling? Much of the meddling has gotten us here.

Funny, I didn't see you clearly showing anything.

Clearly you ignore statistics. I posted several showing the bottom 80% have a much smaller percent of total wealth. I've also post a link showing the bottom 93% are losing wealth.

 

[Brain357]

In order to claim they have far less you have to do a lot of things you aren't doing.

What is the margin of error of the numbers you are using?
What percent of the change is a result of the fed stimulus of the market through QE?
There are other questions, but most of them are technical, and some of them would take pages to answer.

18.7 to 11.1 is far less. Pretty simple math really.

Seven cents is far less money?

7.6 percent is a lot when starting at only 18.7. Gone from almost 20 to close to 10.

 

[Dante]

Actually, third world is a political term applied to countries that didn't align with the US or the USSR during the Cold War, it has squat to do with the lack of a middle class.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World

u

There is no agreement on what is a middle class, but there is on where doesn't exist

Yet, despite your agreement with non existent people about a non existent phenomenon, you can't show me a single example.

By the way, did you notice that I actually proved that Third World Country does not mean a country without a middle class after you told me to look it up?

Nations' economies are not static. A third world nation that has an economy that feeds an emerging middle class is no longer a true third world nation. Emerging classes defy your static and rigid pseudointellectual ramblings and reasoning

 

[Dante]

Even one of CNN's Angry old white drunkards gets tbis one: What will the United States be like if there is no middle class? ? Cafferty File - CNN.com Blogs