This 6 minute video sums up the shocking facts of American wealth and inequality

[Vox]

So called wealth inequality does not matter.

What matters is mobility and there is more mobility in the lower and middle classes that there is in the top 10%.

You all seem to think that you can't make any more money than you do now because of some fictional inequality.

It is failure programming. Do not even try, you won't make it. The reason is simple - if people break loose from government dependency they will start to think for themselves, and might find out the left programming is a lie and, God forbid, stop voting democrat. The latter is all what matters therefore the heavy brainwashing of the sheeple.

 

[dblack]

One thing that's worth some consideration in discussions of 'distribution of wealth' is the function of wealth in a capitalist economy. We tend to be preoccupied with the creature comforts wealth can buy us, but under capitalism, the real power of wealth is control over labor and resources.

The key question that any economic system must address is "what do we do?". What should we work on? What products should we produce? That sounds obvious, but the way this works in capitalism is actually quite subtle.

To see the issues involved, it's helpful to look at the question first from the perspective of a non-capitalistic economy. Under a state run socialist economy these decisions are made by government. Whether or not the things you want (the blue jeans you like, your favorite TV series, the medicine you need, etc ...) get produced in sufficient quantities, is fundamentally a political question. It depends on the will of the majority and the decisions of our elected leaders.

Under capitalism, this power is 'privatized'. Each of us has the ability to influence these decisions approximately equal to the amount of wealth we control. At the most personal level, we express this power through our consumer choices and our career decisions. We 'vote' for what we value by deciding how to spend our money. We choose what we do for a living, in part, based on the desires of other people with money to spend. At a broader level, those who can 'concentrate wealth' gain more power to influence our economic direction. To the extent that they can persuade others to give them money (by providing them with something they want), they gain more economic power. If they fail to do things with their money that other people value, they lose it. Capitalistic decision making is, ultimately, a communal process.

So, what's going on with the 'concentration' of wealth? Assuming that private property laws are soundly supported, and assuming the freedom of each individual to spend their money according to their values is protected, people who manage to accumulate wealth do so by spending it (i.e. directing the production of goods and services) in ways that society values. We express our approval of their decisions by the way we spend our money.

Whether we see concentration of wealth as good or bad depends on whether we think the people controlling that wealth are making good decisions or not.

Now, obviously the above is the ideal, and depends on a government that protects private property and our freedom to spend our money in accordance with our values. When either of those are compromised, whether through outright crime or misguided laws, the balance is disrupted.

 

[NightFox]

Stephanie?

the DEMS are quite nearly as responsible for the wealth inequity in the USA as the Reps are.

I say nearly because its the Repbs love of tax breaks for billionaires that makes most of the difference.

FREE TRADE (the root source of the problem) that's as much on the DEMS and REPS, amiga.

So called "Free Trade" (as defined by current policy ) isn't the root source of anything it's just an example of the the root source of the problem which is economic central planning. There's nothing "Free" about our current trade policies since they weren't designed to encourage trade between individuals or nations free of government interference. It was just another bill of goods sold to Americans via false advertising to accelerate the looting of the average Joe by the ruling class, Americans bought it because they're still too blinded by partisan bickering to wake up to the reality that our central planners are just as incompetent as all the other central planners that have catastrophically failed throughout history.

Rule of thumb, whenever a politician mentions the word "Free" in the same sentence as anything to do with economics what they really mean is "making it more expedient for us and our special interest pals to plunder the citizenry".

 

[Brain357]

It's funny to me that so many on the right are ok with this. But while inequality grows so does government. So much for the small government right. Companies no longer give pensions or health insurance into retirement. Can't afford it right? Meanwhile CEOs in the 70s made 30x the average worker, but now it's 300x to do the same job. But they can't afford to take care of workers. They do however spend millions lobbying and giving to political campaigns.

So how do you make government smaller? Well social programs are the biggest part of government. I guess government would get smaller if companies took care of the workers and gave good wages and benefits into retirement. Sending jobs overseas and creating poor paying and part time jobs isn't helping. Why do you think food stamps increases? Wake up right! Crony capitalism is bad.

 

[RKMBrown]

It's funny to me that so many on the right are ok with this. But while inequality grows so does government. So much for the small government right. Companies no longer give pensions or health insurance into retirement. Can't afford it right? Meanwhile CEOs in the 70s made 30x the average worker, but now it's 300x to do the same job. But they can't afford to take care of workers. They do however spend millions lobbying and giving to political campaigns.

So how do you make government smaller? Well social programs are the biggest part of government. I guess government would get smaller if companies took care of the workers and gave good wages and benefits into retirement. Sending jobs overseas and creating poor paying and part time jobs isn't helping. Why do you think food stamps increases? Wake up right! Crony capitalism is bad.

Why do you assume anyone on the right is "for" crony capitalism? What has the "left" done, if anything to thwart crony capitalism? Who are the biggest crony capitalists in DC?

 

[Brain357]

It's funny to me that so many on the right are ok with this. But while inequality grows so does government. So much for the small government right. Companies no longer give pensions or health insurance into retirement. Can't afford it right? Meanwhile CEOs in the 70s made 30x the average worker, but now it's 300x to do the same job. But they can't afford to take care of workers. They do however spend millions lobbying and giving to political campaigns.

So how do you make government smaller? Well social programs are the biggest part of government. I guess government would get smaller if companies took care of the workers and gave good wages and benefits into retirement. Sending jobs overseas and creating poor paying and part time jobs isn't helping. Why do you think food stamps increases? Wake up right! Crony capitalism is bad.

Why do you assume anyone on the right is "for" crony capitalism? What has the "left" done, if anything to thwart crony capitalism? Who are the biggest crony capitalists in DC?

Both sides are the problem if that's what you mean. But the right here are mostly saying there is no problem. The left at least recognize the problem. Their fixes will make it worse, but they still recognize it.

 

[RKMBrown]

It's funny to me that so many on the right are ok with this. But while inequality grows so does government. So much for the small government right. Companies no longer give pensions or health insurance into retirement. Can't afford it right? Meanwhile CEOs in the 70s made 30x the average worker, but now it's 300x to do the same job. But they can't afford to take care of workers. They do however spend millions lobbying and giving to political campaigns.

So how do you make government smaller? Well social programs are the biggest part of government. I guess government would get smaller if companies took care of the workers and gave good wages and benefits into retirement. Sending jobs overseas and creating poor paying and part time jobs isn't helping. Why do you think food stamps increases? Wake up right! Crony capitalism is bad.

Why do you assume anyone on the right is "for" crony capitalism? What has the "left" done, if anything to thwart crony capitalism? Who are the biggest crony capitalists in DC?

Both sides are the problem if that's what you mean. But the right here are mostly saying there is no problem. The left at least recognize the problem. Their fixes will make it worse, but they still recognize it.

Who on the right is saying there is no problem? How is recognizing a problem and making it worse, an improvement over the status quo?

 

[NightFox]

It's funny to me that so many on the right are ok with this. But while inequality grows so does government. So much for the small government right. Companies no longer give pensions or health insurance into retirement. Can't afford it right? Meanwhile CEOs in the 70s made 30x the average worker, but now it's 300x to do the same job. But they can't afford to take care of workers. They do however spend millions lobbying and giving to political campaigns.

So how do you make government smaller? Well social programs are the biggest part of government. I guess government would get smaller if companies took care of the workers and gave good wages and benefits into retirement. Sending jobs overseas and creating poor paying and part time jobs isn't helping. Why do you think food stamps increases? Wake up right! Crony capitalism is bad.

Why do you assume anyone on the right is "for" crony capitalism? What has the "left" done, if anything to thwart crony capitalism? Who are the biggest crony capitalists in DC?

Both sides are the problem if that's what you mean. But the right here are mostly saying there is no problem. The left at least recognize the problem. Their fixes will make it worse, but they still recognize it.

I beg to differ, IMHO neither "side" has a clue as to what the problem really is, both use a SYMPTOM of the problem as a filler for it's particular brand of propaganda, it's just fuel for our partisan "who's the better liar" contest.

"Master betrayed us. Wicked. Tricksy, False. We ought to wring his filthy little neck. Kill him! Kill him! Kill them both! And then we take the precious... and we be the master! " -- Gollum

 

[Brain357]

Why do you assume anyone on the right is "for" crony capitalism? What has the "left" done, if anything to thwart crony capitalism? Who are the biggest crony capitalists in DC?

Both sides are the problem if that's what you mean. But the right here are mostly saying there is no problem. The left at least recognize the problem. Their fixes will make it worse, but they still recognize it.

Who on the right is saying there is no problem? How is recognizing a problem and making it worse, an improvement over the status quo?

Have you read this thread? It's not an improvement, but my point was for the right to wake up. Government is already getting bigger, will grow more if the left tries to fix this.

 

[RKMBrown]

Both sides are the problem if that's what you mean. But the right here are mostly saying there is no problem. The left at least recognize the problem. Their fixes will make it worse, but they still recognize it.

Who on the right is saying there is no problem? How is recognizing a problem and making it worse, an improvement over the status quo?

Have you read this thread? It's not an improvement, but my point was for the right to wake up. Government is already getting bigger, will grow more if the left tries to fix this.

You appear to be making an assumption that the people on the right are less intelligent than yourself and / or have some mental disability making them incapable of "waking" up. I assume that makes you an Independent. It is common for people to assume others just don't get it.

 

[Brain357]

Who on the right is saying there is no problem? How is recognizing a problem and making it worse, an improvement over the status quo?

Have you read this thread? It's not an improvement, but my point was for the right to wake up. Government is already getting bigger, will grow more if the left tries to fix this.

You appear to be making an assumption that the people on the right are less intelligent than yourself and / or have some mental disability making them incapable of "waking" up. I assume that makes you an Independent. It is common for people to assume others just don't get it.

Like I said just read this thread.

 

[auditor0007]

Here is the point that many people miss. Even if wealth was redistributed evenly in this country it would be the same top 1% that would again be far ahead in 5 or more years. The problem is not who has the wealth. The problem is that most lack the knowledge to create it and make it grow. Those in the top 1% know how to create wealth. Everyone else dances to the beat and contributes to that wealth.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. The problem occurs when the workers who help create that wealth for those who are just a bit harder working or a bit more creative are not compensated fairly. This is something that has been happening for much to long, and it's the reason we are where we are today. Nobody is suggesting that the regular laborer or employee should be compensated at the same rate as the CEO or an upper level manager. But should the CEO be compensated 300 times more than the average worker? In many cases these average workers are college educated with advanced degrees, but the CEO is making 300 times more than them. I should probably also stipulate that there is a big difference between the CEO who actually started the company versus a CEO who was brought in from the outside. If someone starts a business and it is hugely successful, I really don't have any problem with any amount that he/she makes. The thing is that most of the people who are making these crazy amounts of money were not ones who actually started these businesses. What is worse is when they are paid absurd amounts of money when the company actually loses money. In most cases, their compensation isn't even tied to performance and when it is, we then run into a problem where decisions are made strictly on how it will affect profits immediately rather than based on long term growth.

Please dont take this the wrong way. Do you understand the concept that you are not entitled to make X amount of dollars? If you do then you understand that you are paid exactly what you are worth to a company. If I pay an employee more than what he is bringing to the table then I only have myself to blame when I have to later turn around and fire that employee because I am now losing my business. This is all because I broke the rules of running a business. If a person doesn't like or cant get by on what they are being paid they can do only 2 things. Complain about it or get a better job. Ultimately what happens to you in life is solely dictated by your philosophy. It may not seem fair that the wealth is concentrated in the top 1% but you only have the masses to blame for that. The masses make and keep the 1% on top.

The discussion has nothing to do with entitlement. You are missing the point completely. By allowing so much wealth to be concentrated by only a few people, we are destroying our economy. It boggles my mind how supposedly intelligent people cannot see this. If you want to know what leads to socialism, you are seeing it happen right now.

 

[RKMBrown]

Have you read this thread? It's not an improvement, but my point was for the right to wake up. Government is already getting bigger, will grow more if the left tries to fix this.

You appear to be making an assumption that the people on the right are less intelligent than yourself and / or have some mental disability making them incapable of "waking" up. I assume that makes you an Independent. It is common for people to assume others just don't get it.

Like I said just read this thread.

I read the thread and see no evidence to support your theory that the right is asleep on this matter. You confuse the rights' refusal to be as stupid as the left as some sort of ignorance on their part.

 

[koshergrl]

Nor is there any evidence to support the theory that socialism improves the economy.

 

[koshergrl]

In fact, the exact opposite is demonstrably true.

 

[RKMBrown]

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. The problem occurs when the workers who help create that wealth for those who are just a bit harder working or a bit more creative are not compensated fairly. This is something that has been happening for much to long, and it's the reason we are where we are today. Nobody is suggesting that the regular laborer or employee should be compensated at the same rate as the CEO or an upper level manager. But should the CEO be compensated 300 times more than the average worker? In many cases these average workers are college educated with advanced degrees, but the CEO is making 300 times more than them. I should probably also stipulate that there is a big difference between the CEO who actually started the company versus a CEO who was brought in from the outside. If someone starts a business and it is hugely successful, I really don't have any problem with any amount that he/she makes. The thing is that most of the people who are making these crazy amounts of money were not ones who actually started these businesses. What is worse is when they are paid absurd amounts of money when the company actually loses money. In most cases, their compensation isn't even tied to performance and when it is, we then run into a problem where decisions are made strictly on how it will affect profits immediately rather than based on long term growth.

Please dont take this the wrong way. Do you understand the concept that you are not entitled to make X amount of dollars? If you do then you understand that you are paid exactly what you are worth to a company. If I pay an employee more than what he is bringing to the table then I only have myself to blame when I have to later turn around and fire that employee because I am now losing my business. This is all because I broke the rules of running a business. If a person doesn't like or cant get by on what they are being paid they can do only 2 things. Complain about it or get a better job. Ultimately what happens to you in life is solely dictated by your philosophy. It may not seem fair that the wealth is concentrated in the top 1% but you only have the masses to blame for that. The masses make and keep the 1% on top.

The discussion has nothing to do with entitlement. You are missing the point completely. By allowing so much wealth to be concentrated by only a few people, we are destroying our economy. It boggles my mind how supposedly intelligent people cannot see this. If you want to know what leads to socialism, you are seeing it happen right now.

Socialism, is what has led us to this point. Socialism breeds dependents. Socialism does not breed an independently wealthy middle class.

 

[Asclepias]

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. The problem occurs when the workers who help create that wealth for those who are just a bit harder working or a bit more creative are not compensated fairly. This is something that has been happening for much to long, and it's the reason we are where we are today. Nobody is suggesting that the regular laborer or employee should be compensated at the same rate as the CEO or an upper level manager. But should the CEO be compensated 300 times more than the average worker? In many cases these average workers are college educated with advanced degrees, but the CEO is making 300 times more than them. I should probably also stipulate that there is a big difference between the CEO who actually started the company versus a CEO who was brought in from the outside. If someone starts a business and it is hugely successful, I really don't have any problem with any amount that he/she makes. The thing is that most of the people who are making these crazy amounts of money were not ones who actually started these businesses. What is worse is when they are paid absurd amounts of money when the company actually loses money. In most cases, their compensation isn't even tied to performance and when it is, we then run into a problem where decisions are made strictly on how it will affect profits immediately rather than based on long term growth.

Please dont take this the wrong way. Do you understand the concept that you are not entitled to make X amount of dollars? If you do then you understand that you are paid exactly what you are worth to a company. If I pay an employee more than what he is bringing to the table then I only have myself to blame when I have to later turn around and fire that employee because I am now losing my business. This is all because I broke the rules of running a business. If a person doesn't like or cant get by on what they are being paid they can do only 2 things. Complain about it or get a better job. Ultimately what happens to you in life is solely dictated by your philosophy. It may not seem fair that the wealth is concentrated in the top 1% but you only have the masses to blame for that. The masses make and keep the 1% on top.

The discussion has nothing to do with entitlement. You are missing the point completely. By allowing so much wealth to be concentrated by only a few people, we are destroying our economy. It boggles my mind how supposedly intelligent people cannot see this. If you want to know what leads to socialism, you are seeing it happen right now.

So what do you think can or should be done about it? I understand that there is an inequity. What I don't believe is that somehow there is going to be a revolution that will permanently correct it until people understand why it exists and what to really do to correct it.

 

[koshergrl]

I don't have a problem with inequity if everybody has the right to build their own wealth.

It's when the state prevents them from doing that that there's a problem.

 

[JoeNormal]

Who the **** cares? Nobody is equal, we all have different skills and abilities.

The USA became the world's #1 economy BECAUSE we let people have the freedom to try things for themselves while your Progressive economies are the worlds poorest and need armed guards to keep running and walls to keep the sane and productive from fleeing

I am not suggesting we become equal. I am okay with the idea of a CEO making much more money than a low level employee. However, these stats are insane. This is NOT how it should be. The middle class is shrinking. That is a problem.

Now see, here's your mistake. You're trying to argue nuance. Most of the conservatives on this site (probably in the world) are too ******* stupid to divide any issue into more than black and white. Shades of gray require thought. Know your audience.

 

[Asclepias]

I don't have a problem with inequity if everybody has the right to build their own wealth.

It's when the state prevents them from doing that that there's a problem.

Why do you feel the state prevents some people from building wealth?