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

[jasonnfree]

Everybody talking about healthy cooking and I agree. I do my own cooking and even do pinto beans from bulk. And 2 to maybe 3 times a week to 24 hour fitness. That's all good but time consuming. Then I got involved in a fixer upper I partnered in about 30 miles from home. At night, too tired to cook like before and now back to the fast food routine, even the egg mcmuffin type sandwiches at the gas station. No time or energy for gym. After awhile, gained over 20 pounds now trying to get rid of it. Look at all the cops and contractors who are on the road all the time. Big percentage sporting big guts mostly from fast food. If a person's poor and maybe working all day he/she probably has the same problem. Sometimes if a person's poor, that alone is enough to depress you especially if you can't find work. Give the poor a break and if they do the the ding dongs and chips, at least they're not starving.

 

[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.

 

[Billy000]

Wow, dumb and dumber. While I have my doubts about one in every six going or being hungry, there is no doubt that millions go more than 12 hours without a meal at least every now and then. You obviously have no clue about the realities that real poor people face. Yes, they have it much better here in the US than many other parts of the world, but being poor is not fun, pretty, or glamorous. It's a tough life for most and it's not as easy to get out of as you seem to think.

One of the biggest faults of cons is that they have lost all sense of compassion. Greed had so taken over their thought process that they can no longer think straight. Getting back to the point of the thread, the point is that so few people controlling so much of the wealth is just bad for the economy. It's that plain and simple. It has nothing to do with being fair. The bulk of that wealth is not being used to help the economy grow. It's one of the main reasons our economy is stuck and going nowhere. If half of that wealth that is held by the top 1% was spread out amongst the remaining 99%, the vast majority of that wealth would be spent and put back into the economy. Economically speaking, it would do much more good than being held by a very small number of people who have so much they don't even know what to do with it. Sure the top 1% invests that money, but a great deal of it, they invest overseas.

This argument is not about what is fair and what is not; it's about what makes sense and what is better for our economy.

And again.. BY CHOICE.. for how many have luxuries??? You choose a game over a basket of healthy food, that is not the fault of the 'rich' or anyone else

YOU do not get to tell others what they HAVE to do with their wealth.. if they wish to invest it and grow business, fine.. if they wish to spend it, fine... if they wish to stick it in a savings account, fine.. if they wish to bury it in their back yard, fine....

And why are overseas investments chosen? Try the bullshit and complex tax law that is trying o be used for goddamn wealth redistribution at high levels... the Robin Hood mentality of big government..

I don't care if you think government taking 50% from people is 'better' or 'fair'... I will fight against you doing it no matter who that person is....

Once again, this argument has nothing to do with the government taking anyone's money; it has to do with the reasoning behind the top 1% holding 40% of America's wealth, and that number is only going to continue to grow. Are you going to be concerned if the top 1% controls 80 or 90% of the wealth? Will it concern you then?

There is just no reasoning with these people. If you notice, none of them have addressed any of the specifics in the video.

 

[MikeK]

Ok please explain what is the benefit of buying meals with EBT cards from McDonalds. What is the benefit of buying kit kats over making your own scratch cookies. I would like to understand why the poor need these two things, McDonalds and Kit Kats, more than I do.

In New York City of the 1940s there was no Welfare Department, such as exists today. Back then there was a Department of Home Relief, which was administered from store-front centers located in low-rent communities. People who came up against hard times would go to a center where an investigator would be assigned to verify their needs. If they needed temporary assistance with their rent, payment would be made directly to the landlord. The only time cash money was issued to an applicant was if it was deemed necessary for a legitimate purpose.

If they needed food, they were given a shopping bag containing such things as pasta, canned sauces, canned soups, oatmeal, rice, bread, margarine, chicken parts, ground beef, etc. They also were allowed to attend a weekly cooking class at the center. My aunt was employed by that agency as a "Family Services Counselor," which was a cooking instructor. She taught people how to make chicken soup, meat-loaf, Spanish rice, etc., things that could be prepared from the shopping bag items they were given.

That system was contrived during the Great Depression. As I recall it lasted throughout the 40s and into the early 50s, when the economy improved and the Home Relief agency evolved into the Department of Welfare. My aunt quit when my uncle came home from the War.

Different world today.

 

[Brain357]

I'm amazed that so many people can see the stats and be ok with them. Lots of wealth inequality is not going to lead to a healthy society. What people don't seem to realize is that the rich are getting richer off crony capitalism and corporate welfare. I'm very fiscally conservative and I can see the issue. We've gone from CEO's making 30X the average worker in the 70's to almost 300X the average worker now. Am I to believe CEO's are working 10X harder than they were in the 70's? I don't think so. Meanwhile they are sending jobs overseas and making sure the jobs here pay the least they can get away with and have few benefits. I think everyone should see the problem. The argument should be about how to fix it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Income mobility is what you should be concentrating on

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf

Summary
This study examines income mobility of individuals over the past decade (1996 through 2005) using information reported on individual income tax returns. While many studies have documented the
long-term trend of increasing income inequality in the U.S. economy, there has been less focus on the dynamism of the U.S. economy and the opportunity for upward mobility. Comparisons of snapshots of the income distribution at points in time miss this important dimension and can sometimes be misleading.

Economic historian Joseph Schumpeter compared the income distribution to a hotel
where some rooms are luxurious, but others are small and shabby. Important aspects of
fairness are that those in the small rooms have an opportunity to move to a better one, and that the luxurious rooms are not always occupied by the same people. The frequency
with which people move between rooms is a crucial aspect of the trends in income
inequality in the United States.

The key findings of this study include:

There was considerable income mobility of individuals in the U.S. economy during
the 1996 through 2005 period as over half of taxpayers moved to a different income
quintile over this period.

Roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved
up to a higher income group by 2005.

Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 – the top 1/100 of 1 percent –
only 25 percent remained in this group in 2005. Moreover, the median real income of
these taxpayers declined over this period.

The degree of mobility among income groups is unchanged from the prior decade
(1987 through 1996).

Economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the period from
1996 to 2005. Median incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after
adjusting for inflation. The real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over
this period. In addition, the median incomes of those initially in the lower income
groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the higher
income groups.

 

[Brain357]

Income mobility is what you should be concentrating on

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf

Summary
This study examines income mobility of individuals over the past decade (1996 through 2005) using information reported on individual income tax returns. While many studies have documented the
long-term trend of increasing income inequality in the U.S. economy, there has been less focus on the dynamism of the U.S. economy and the opportunity for upward mobility. Comparisons of snapshots of the income distribution at points in time miss this important dimension and can sometimes be misleading.

Economic historian Joseph Schumpeter compared the income distribution to a hotel
where some rooms are luxurious, but others are small and shabby. Important aspects of
fairness are that those in the small rooms have an opportunity to move to a better one, and that the luxurious rooms are not always occupied by the same people. The frequency
with which people move between rooms is a crucial aspect of the trends in income
inequality in the United States.

The key findings of this study include:

There was considerable income mobility of individuals in the U.S. economy during
the 1996 through 2005 period as over half of taxpayers moved to a different income
quintile over this period.

Roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved
up to a higher income group by 2005.

Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 – the top 1/100 of 1 percent –
only 25 percent remained in this group in 2005. Moreover, the median real income of
these taxpayers declined over this period.

The degree of mobility among income groups is unchanged from the prior decade
(1987 through 1996).

Economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the period from
1996 to 2005. Median incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after
adjusting for inflation. The real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over
this period. In addition, the median incomes of those initially in the lower income
groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the higher
income groups.

Any newer stats? 2005 seems like a long time ago.

 

[editec]

A consumer based Capitalist economy demands that both SUPPLY and DEMAND sides bear some relationbip to each other.

When wealth inequity is too vast?

We no longer have a very functional consumer based capitalist economy.

THAT is what is happening to this nation, right now.

Right now the SUPPLER SIDE CLASS has far more money than the DEMAND SIDE CLASSES do and so the economy is feeble.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

 

[Billy000]

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.

Explain how it is the "masses" fault for the inequality and why it should be accepted simply because it is true.

 

[kaz]

I encourage you to watch the 6 minute video completely and keep an open mind.

If you're going to ask people to keep an "open mind" why don't you present a clip with one?

Right off the bad the heavy left bias is obvious. Wealth isn't "distributed" it's earned. Right there you and the clip lost all credibility. Though I kept going and all the rest of the drivel does is confirm I was right in the first place.

 

[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.

Explain how it is the "masses" fault for the inequality and why it should be accepted simply because it is true.

Because the masses buy what the 1% are selling. Accepting that truth is the first step in correcting that issue. You dont need an Iphone. You dont need a brand new car. You dont need the latest fashions. You dont need to eat at McDonalds. Does that make sense to you?

 

[kaz]

No, none of the 'Conservatives' are going to comment on it, because it shows how great the perception of both liberals and conservatives of the distribution of wealth strays from the reality. It is a sad comment on the state of this nation that so much of it's wealth is owned by so few.

Your greed and wealth envy are pathetic.

If you're a median American, you're an evil one percenter of the world's population. Why don't you enjoy that you live in the richest country in the history of man and how much you have and how much more you can earn if you so chose instead of spending your time in pathetic jealousy of what someone else did with the opportunity you decided not to work hard enough to pursue.

Anyone can be anything they want in this country. Including rich beyond their belief. But you gotta work for it. Or don't, but then don't whine that someone else did.

 

[Billy000]

I encourage you to watch the 6 minute video completely and keep an open mind.

If you're going to ask people to keep an "open mind" why don't you present a clip with one?

Right off the bad the heavy left bias is obvious. Wealth isn't "distributed" it's earned. Right there you and the clip lost all credibility. Though I kept going and all the rest of the drivel does is confirm I was right in the first place.

Explain how 1% of the population earned 40% of the nation's wealth.

 

[Billy000]

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.

Explain how it is the "masses" fault for the inequality and why it should be accepted simply because it is true.

Because the masses buy what the 1% are selling. Accepting that truth is the first step in correcting that issue. You dont need an Iphone. You dont need a brand new car. You dont need the latest fashions. You dont need to eat at McDonalds. Does that make sense to you?

Boycotting would not fix the problem. Tell me why is it justified that 1% of the population controls 40% of the nation's wealth.

 

[Billy000]

No, none of the 'Conservatives' are going to comment on it, because it shows how great the perception of both liberals and conservatives of the distribution of wealth strays from the reality. It is a sad comment on the state of this nation that so much of it's wealth is owned by so few.

Your greed and wealth envy are pathetic.

If you're a median American, you're an evil one percenter of the world's population. Why don't you enjoy that you live in the richest country in the history of man and how much you have and how much more you can earn if you so chose instead of spending your time in pathetic jealousy of what someone else did with the opportunity you decided not to work hard enough to pursue.

Anyone can be anything they want in this country. Including rich beyond their belief. But you gotta work for it. Or don't, but then don't whine that someone else did.

You are kidding yourself if you think the American dream is anything like it used to be.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I encourage you to watch the 6 minute video completely and keep an open mind.

If you're going to ask people to keep an "open mind" why don't you present a clip with one?

Right off the bad the heavy left bias is obvious. Wealth isn't "distributed" it's earned. Right there you and the clip lost all credibility. Though I kept going and all the rest of the drivel does is confirm I was right in the first place.

Explain how 1% of the population earned 40% of the nation's wealth.

It's the Democrats.

An analysis of the Top 20 Richest People in America (from Forbes Top 100) reveals that a full 60% are actually Democrats. Furthermore, if you look at it from a “family” point of view and not as individuals, that ratio widens even further to: 25% Republican / 75% Democrat.

Analyzing the data takes us even further. Not only are there more Democrats in the Top 20 list, but those Democrats are a lot more stingy with their money when it comes to campaign contributions. Republicans coughed up $5.2 million while Democrats squirted out only $2.1 Million. These statistics would indicate that the more you have, the less you give to your political party.

Those “Evil, Rich People” – are Democrats

 

[kaz]

I encourage you to watch the 6 minute video completely and keep an open mind.

If you're going to ask people to keep an "open mind" why don't you present a clip with one?

Right off the bad the heavy left bias is obvious. Wealth isn't "distributed" it's earned. Right there you and the clip lost all credibility. Though I kept going and all the rest of the drivel does is confirm I was right in the first place.

Explain how 1% of the population earned 40% of the nation's wealth.

That statistic is crap because it doesn't count most of the assets of most of the people, like the NPV of their retirement incomes or the market value of their homes.

But first, as long as you're free to work and enjoy the fruits of your labor, why are you so jealous of the people who earned more than you did?

And why is it a job of government to take things away from people?

You're asking for people to keep an "open mind" to a heavy left propaganda film. Why don't you seriously address my questions with an open mind yourself.

 

[kaz]

An analysis of the Top 20 Richest People in America (from Forbes Top 100) reveals that a full 60% are actually Democrats

And they don't give dime one voluntarily despite their arrogant lecturing. In fact Warren Buffet hires an army of tax attorneys and accountants to find tricks like getting paid in capital gains instead of income to evade taxes. Gates says how people should be forced to pay massive death taxes then sets up tens of billions in foundations and trusts to not pay them himself.

It just goes to show when you go from liberal to rich liberal, hypocrite is still just part of your DNA.

 

[kaz]

No, none of the 'Conservatives' are going to comment on it, because it shows how great the perception of both liberals and conservatives of the distribution of wealth strays from the reality. It is a sad comment on the state of this nation that so much of it's wealth is owned by so few.

Your greed and wealth envy are pathetic.

If you're a median American, you're an evil one percenter of the world's population. Why don't you enjoy that you live in the richest country in the history of man and how much you have and how much more you can earn if you so chose instead of spending your time in pathetic jealousy of what someone else did with the opportunity you decided not to work hard enough to pursue.

Anyone can be anything they want in this country. Including rich beyond their belief. But you gotta work for it. Or don't, but then don't whine that someone else did.

You are kidding yourself if you think the American dream is anything like it used to be.

I live it every day. I own my own business. You can do anything you want, you just have to do two things.

1) Stop listening to self centered arrogant liberal lawyers who tell you what is in their interest, not yours.

2) Get off your keister.