U.S. Income Inequality Now Worse Than In Many Latin American Countries

[Meathead]

Why the hell would anyone open a Nordstrom's in Sierra Leone? Even metaphorically, that's a mindless equivalence.

 

[Koios]

Why the hell would anyone open a Nordstrom's in Sierra Leone? Even metaphorically, that's a mindless equivalence.

No one has. And why is that do you suppose? Nordstrom execs are complete fuck-ups and do not know what the abject fucking retards on the right and in Congress like to think is true: businesses create wealth? Or do they know, which should be obvious to any who actually understand business, that businesses exploit wealth and thus open where, and only where, markets already exist?

Tip: the latter.

 

[RightNorLeft]

Income inequality doesn't fly real well in these boards. I find it troubling that people don't care that they are making less than they did 40 years ago and are going no-where income wise. Some don't care, some don't realize it and others have accepted it and gave up.

Why should inflation adjusted wages go up if there is a lower marginal value to that labor?

uhh cuz a loaf of bread was a buck 10 yrs ago and now its 4, workers kids still need shoes that coust 5 times more. They still need to pay rent which costs far more and pay utilities that are through the roof.
Using your philosophy over time everyone but 400 americans will be on food stamps.

 

[Koios]

Latin America has long been viewed as a region plagued by some of the worst wealth inequality in the world.

But in recent years, those figures have turned around, while in the United States income inequality is on the rise.

Adam Isacson, analyst for the Washington Office on Latin America, notes the change on his blog. According to recent figures on income published by the U.N. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, the U.S. income gap now exceeds that of several countries in the Americas. As Isacson writes:

The United States (wealthiest 20% earns 16 times more than the poorest 20%) is now in the middle of the pack. In 1980, the U.S. number was 10.5.

U.S. Income Inequality Worse Than Many Latin American Countries

Then I wonder why Guatemalans are illegally entering the USA instead of Honduras?


Seems like it would be a shorter walk.

You wonder because you're ignorant, of this:

1. Not all of Latin America is doing the same any more than all of North America is doing the same.

2. Places that suck and people are leaving, i.e., Guatemala, have folks fleeing to Canada, US, Mexico, Honduras, Costa Rica, Venzuela ...

 

[Samson]

Latin America has long been viewed as a region plagued by some of the worst wealth inequality in the world.

But in recent years, those figures have turned around, while in the United States income inequality is on the rise.

Adam Isacson, analyst for the Washington Office on Latin America, notes the change on his blog. According to recent figures on income published by the U.N. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, the U.S. income gap now exceeds that of several countries in the Americas. As Isacson writes:

The United States (wealthiest 20% earns 16 times more than the poorest 20%) is now in the middle of the pack. In 1980, the U.S. number was 10.5.

U.S. Income Inequality Worse Than Many Latin American Countries

Then why are they all coming here?


Could it be that Huffpo is full of shit, and anyone posting an OP using them as a reference has burned their credability card?

 

[Meathead]

Why the hell would anyone open a Nordstrom's in Sierra Leone? Even metaphorically, that's a mindless equivalence.

No one has. And why is that do you suppose? Nordstrom execs are complete fuck-ups and do not know what the abject fucking retards on the right and in Congress like to think is true: businesses create wealth? Or do they know, which should be obvious to any who actually understand business, that businesses exploit wealth and thus open where, and only where, markets already exist?

Tip: the latter.

Oh, I see. Suddenly your argument makes sense and is not doctrinaire at all.

I imagine getting a job and creating wealth is crime just as property is theft. Short of that, isn't there some kind of sanctuary for the pathologically damaged?

 

[Koios]

Why the hell would anyone open a Nordstrom's in Sierra Leone? Even metaphorically, that's a mindless equivalence.

No one has. And why is that do you suppose? Nordstrom execs are complete fuck-ups and do not know what the abject fucking retards on the right and in Congress like to think is true: businesses create wealth? Or do they know, which should be obvious to any who actually understand business, that businesses exploit wealth and thus open where, and only where, markets already exist?

Tip: the latter.

Oh, I see. Suddenly your argument makes sense and is not doctrinaire at all.

I imagine getting a job and creating wealth is crime just as property is theft. Short of that, isn't there some kind of sanctuary for the pathologically damaged?

Defintely meat in that head of yours, pal, just not a lot of it. Thanks for making that so clear.

Astonishing.

 

[Rshermr]

Sounds like you're upset about the ultra large corporations that are apparently too big to fail. Now tell us, was it Ds and Rs that put regulations, laws and tax codes into place that ensured their crony partners would thrive or was it the libertarians?

Are you suggesting that the other corporations were faced with laws, regulations, and tax codes that the successful ones benefited from? And are you suggesting that we are talking about some the big company, in your little model, is benefiting from that failure? And that leaves just the one really large corporation??? Because, I need to understand the artificial market you are trying to discuss.



that was a really stupid couple of statements. What world are you living on, dipshit?
Ever here of mergers and acquisitions???

And you still haven't explained why income disparity is, in and of itself, a bad thing. Until then, fail.

But i did. Read, dipshit. Until then, fail. (just thought I would repeat your stupid words)

Figured you would resort to ad hominem attacks. It's always the last gasp of someone that has failed to convince using logic or reason.

In any case, until you explain, in your own words, why income disparity is in and of itself a bad thing, you have no case.

Eflat, you are a con. You said you are not a con. So what are you. Because you are absolutely aligned to conservative bat shit crazy sites.

So, based on what I have seen so far, you are a libertarian. And in my experience, talking with libertarians is an exercise in futility. So, is that what you are, step? A libertarian.?

the reason I ask, is quite simply, that I have always found it interesting to try to determine why anyone would be a libertarian. You are talking about a social and economic system that has never successfully existed in the natural world. And, if you are a libertarian, then you must be dishonest. Because the concepts of libertarian economics will cause the country trying to make it work, fail. So, if you understand Libertarianism, then you must know that what you are hoping for is the early period of the drive to the goal. During which, if you are ruthless enough and powerful enough, you can get much, much richer. Then, what the hell, who cares if the system fails. You have yours.

 

[eflatminor]

Are you suggesting that the other corporations were faced with laws, regulations, and tax codes that the successful ones benefited from? And are you suggesting that we are talking about some the big company, in your little model, is benefiting from that failure? And that leaves just the one really large corporation??? Because, I need to understand the artificial market you are trying to discuss.



that was a really stupid couple of statements. What world are you living on, dipshit?
Ever here of mergers and acquisitions???


But i did. Read, dipshit. Until then, fail. (just thought I would repeat your stupid words)

Figured you would resort to ad hominem attacks. It's always the last gasp of someone that has failed to convince using logic or reason.

In any case, until you explain, in your own words, why income disparity is in and of itself a bad thing, you have no case.

Eflat, you are a con. You said you are not a con. So what are you. Because you are absolutely aligned to conservative bat shit crazy sites.

So, based on what I have seen so far, you are a libertarian. And in my experience, talking with libertarians is an exercise in futility. So, is that what you are, step? A libertarian.?

the reason I ask, is quite simply, that I have always found it interesting to try to determine why anyone would be a libertarian. You are talking about a social and economic system that has never successfully existed in the natural world. And, if you are a libertarian, then you must be dishonest. Because the concepts of libertarian economics will cause the country trying to make it work, fail. So, if you understand Libertarianism, then you must know that what you are hoping for is the early period of the drive to the goal. During which, if you are ruthless enough and powerful enough, you can get much, much richer. Then, what the hell, who cares if the system fails. You have yours.

The topic was income disparity. If you want to talk about classical liberalism, start a thread.

Until you address why income disparity is bad, you're only moving the goalposts.

 

[Koios]

Figured you would resort to ad hominem attacks. It's always the last gasp of someone that has failed to convince using logic or reason.

In any case, until you explain, in your own words, why income disparity is in and of itself a bad thing, you have no case.

Eflat, you are a con. You said you are not a con. So what are you. Because you are absolutely aligned to conservative bat shit crazy sites.

So, based on what I have seen so far, you are a libertarian. And in my experience, talking with libertarians is an exercise in futility. So, is that what you are, step? A libertarian.?

the reason I ask, is quite simply, that I have always found it interesting to try to determine why anyone would be a libertarian. You are talking about a social and economic system that has never successfully existed in the natural world. And, if you are a libertarian, then you must be dishonest. Because the concepts of libertarian economics will cause the country trying to make it work, fail. So, if you understand Libertarianism, then you must know that what you are hoping for is the early period of the drive to the goal. During which, if you are ruthless enough and powerful enough, you can get much, much richer. Then, what the hell, who cares if the system fails. You have yours.

The topic was income disparity. If you want to talk about classical liberalism, start a thread.

Until you address why income disparity is bad, you're only moving the goalposts.

It's not per se. But too much inequality is what economists call a "dual society," which indeed is a very bad thing, as South American style poverty and world's-largest-ever favelas have made quite clear to all who are not blinded by right-wing economic myths.

 

[Rshermr]

Eflat, you are a con. You said you are not a con. So what are you. Because you are absolutely aligned to conservative bat shit crazy sites.

So, based on what I have seen so far, you are a libertarian. And in my experience, talking with libertarians is an exercise in futility. So, is that what you are, step? A libertarian.?

the reason I ask, is quite simply, that I have always found it interesting to try to determine why anyone would be a libertarian. You are talking about a social and economic system that has never successfully existed in the natural world. And, if you are a libertarian, then you must be dishonest. Because the concepts of libertarian economics will cause the country trying to make it work, fail. So, if you understand Libertarianism, then you must know that what you are hoping for is the early period of the drive to the goal. During which, if you are ruthless enough and powerful enough, you can get much, much richer. Then, what the hell, who cares if the system fails. You have yours.

The topic was income disparity. If you want to talk about classical liberalism, start a thread.

Until you address why income disparity is bad, you're only moving the goalposts.

It's not per se. But too much inequality is what economists call a "dual society," which indeed is a very bad thing, as South American style poverty and world's-largest-ever favelas have made quite clear to all who are not blinded by right-wing economic myths.

Unless, of course, you are a libertarian. Then you can make a whole lot of money, if you are powerful and ruthless enough. Because you will never get to a Libertarian state, as they do not exist in the real world. But by continuing to concentrate wealth, until people rebel, then you will make lots and lots and lots of money, all the while saying that a heavily weighted income distribution is no problem
As for Eflat:

Problems of concentration of wealth to the very wealthy
1. People with smaller and smaller comparative incomes can not buy stuff. Demand decreases.
2. Because the wealth concentrates among the very wealthy with the disposition to control their government representatives, pushing those representatives to push legislation allowing more power to accumulate among the wealthy.
3. Go back to 1 again, then to 2, then to 1, and repeat.

 

[Koios]

The topic was income disparity. If you want to talk about classical liberalism, start a thread.

Until you address why income disparity is bad, you're only moving the goalposts.

It's not per se. But too much inequality is what economists call a "dual society," which indeed is a very bad thing, as South American style poverty and world's-largest-ever favelas have made quite clear to all who are not blinded by right-wing economic myths.

Unless, of course, you are a libertarian. Then you can make a whole lot of money, if you are powerful and ruthless enough. Because you will never get to a Libertarian state, as they do not exist in the real world. But by continuing to concentrate wealth, until people rebel, then you will make lots and lots and lots of money, all the while saying that a heavily weighted income distribution is no problem
As for Eflat:

Problems of concentration of wealth to the very wealthy
1. People with smaller and smaller comparative incomes can not buy stuff. Demand decreases.
2. Because the wealth concentrates among the very wealthy with the disposition to control their government representatives, pushing those representatives to push legislation allowing more power to accumulate among the wealthy.
3. Go back to 1 again, then to 2, then to 1, and repeat.

Nope; businesspeople of all political ideologies need markets that can buy their product or service, or the enterprise fails.

More ruthless, and clever trust/monopolizers can get bigger pieces of the pie, whatever its size. But the pie is what it is, and none can make it bigger, without government intervention or other forces driving wages higher, and growing the middle class.

 

[eflatminor]

Eflat, you are a con. You said you are not a con. So what are you. Because you are absolutely aligned to conservative bat shit crazy sites.

So, based on what I have seen so far, you are a libertarian. And in my experience, talking with libertarians is an exercise in futility. So, is that what you are, step? A libertarian.?

the reason I ask, is quite simply, that I have always found it interesting to try to determine why anyone would be a libertarian. You are talking about a social and economic system that has never successfully existed in the natural world. And, if you are a libertarian, then you must be dishonest. Because the concepts of libertarian economics will cause the country trying to make it work, fail. So, if you understand Libertarianism, then you must know that what you are hoping for is the early period of the drive to the goal. During which, if you are ruthless enough and powerful enough, you can get much, much richer. Then, what the hell, who cares if the system fails. You have yours.

The topic was income disparity. If you want to talk about classical liberalism, start a thread.

Until you address why income disparity is bad, you're only moving the goalposts.

It's not per se. But too much inequality is what economists call a "dual society," which indeed is a very bad thing

In my opinion, the bad thing is what might be causing that "too much inequality", not the level of disparity itself. If high levels of income disparity are due to cronyism and a less than level playing field in what are supposed to be free markets, that is indeed a bad thing. If it's due to unequally applied laws, regulations and tax codes, again, also a very bad thing. I'm sure we could come up with others. Stated differently, we may very well agree on some of the causes of too much inequality but I cannot criticize the very idea of disparate income levels, which I believe is a good thing in a capitalist system.

 

[Rshermr]

It's not per se. But too much inequality is what economists call a "dual society," which indeed is a very bad thing, as South American style poverty and world's-largest-ever favelas have made quite clear to all who are not blinded by right-wing economic myths.

Unless, of course, you are a libertarian. Then you can make a whole lot of money, if you are powerful and ruthless enough. Because you will never get to a Libertarian state, as they do not exist in the real world. But by continuing to concentrate wealth, until people rebel, then you will make lots and lots and lots of money, all the while saying that a heavily weighted income distribution is no problem
As for Eflat:

Problems of concentration of wealth to the very wealthy
1. People with smaller and smaller comparative incomes can not buy stuff. Demand decreases.
2. Because the wealth concentrates among the very wealthy with the disposition to control their government representatives, pushing those representatives to push legislation allowing more power to accumulate among the wealthy.
3. Go back to 1 again, then to 2, then to 1, and repeat.

Nope; businesspeople of all political ideologies need markets that can buy their product or service, or the enterprise fails.

More ruthless, and clever trust/monopolizers can get bigger pieces of the pie, whatever its size. But the pie is what it is, and none can make it bigger, without government intervention or other forces driving wages higher, and growing the middle class.

Yes, I agree with that. But I believe that the distribution of the economy is still the problem. If it is larger, the issue is that the wealthy will still get the lions share, the middle class will still get their small share. Wealth distribution remains the same. Except that those with the wealth will continue to work the politicians they pay to get a bigger and bigger portion of increasing revenues.

 

[eflatminor]

Problems of concentration of wealth to the very wealthy
1. People with smaller and smaller comparative incomes can not buy stuff. Demand decreases.

That would only be true if 'people' are making less over time, which has nothing to do with others that may experience rising incomes over that same period of time. Now, if you want to complain that the working man's wages have not increased enough over time to keep up with inflation, THAT we can discuss. But just know it has nothing to do with what the worker's boss is making.

2. Because the wealth concentrates among the very wealthy with the disposition to control their government representatives, pushing those representatives to push legislation allowing more power to accumulate among the wealthy.

Again, that's a problem of politicians engaging in cronyism outside of the enumerated powers of the Constitution. It has nothing to do with income disparity. It has everything to do with corrupt and unconstitutional meddling.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What market is that, eflat?? You are talking about the ceo marketplace as though it was a market system. Which it is not.

You keep repeating your mantra as if it were rational, which it is not.

What I just said is that it is not a market system. It is a highly monopolistic market with very few competitors. Obviously, there are usually competitors. And, step, you are trying to change my words. That is a bit dishones, don't you think?

Your claim is utter stupidity.

Everyone wants the top job.

The Board has millions to choose from.

But what they want are performers. What is the job of the board of directors? To maximize shareholder value. How do they do that? A professional management team, usually comprised of a CEO, CFO, CIO and Sales/Marketing. The competition for these jobs is fierce. Basic price of admittance is generally an MBA or equivalent degree and a whole lot of experience. The BoD hires them because they perform, they increase the holdings of those who invested in the company.

Tell me, when you hire someone to work on you car, do you rate the "fairness" of your decision? I mean, do you look to make sure that the mechanic you use doesn't make more than other mechanics? Do you demand the mechanic be certified? Why not have a skid row bum work on your car? They need the money more, it would be more fair.

As for CEO pay, you're spewing class hatred and total bullshit.

The average total compensation for a CEO in the United States is $500,000 a year. That includes bonuses.

Chief Executive Officer Salary - Salary.com

That's a lot of money, double what I make, but not the obscene numbers you leftists float. You take Eisner, Tim Cook, and Jeffery Immelt and then represent them as the norm, when they are anything but. The average Hollywood star makes 3 to 5 times what a CEO does, but you'll still have sleazy fucks like Matt Damon stand with a straight face condemning CEO pay.

 

[Koios]

Unless, of course, you are a libertarian. Then you can make a whole lot of money, if you are powerful and ruthless enough. Because you will never get to a Libertarian state, as they do not exist in the real world. But by continuing to concentrate wealth, until people rebel, then you will make lots and lots and lots of money, all the while saying that a heavily weighted income distribution is no problem
As for Eflat:

Problems of concentration of wealth to the very wealthy
1. People with smaller and smaller comparative incomes can not buy stuff. Demand decreases.
2. Because the wealth concentrates among the very wealthy with the disposition to control their government representatives, pushing those representatives to push legislation allowing more power to accumulate among the wealthy.
3. Go back to 1 again, then to 2, then to 1, and repeat.

Nope; businesspeople of all political ideologies need markets that can buy their product or service, or the enterprise fails.

More ruthless, and clever trust/monopolizers can get bigger pieces of the pie, whatever its size. But the pie is what it is, and none can make it bigger, without government intervention or other forces driving wages higher, and growing the middle class.

Yes, I agree with that. But I believe that the distribution of the economy is still the problem. If it is larger, the issue is that the wealthy will still get the lions share, the middle class will still get their small share. Wealth distribution remains the same. Except that those with the wealth will continue to work the politicians they pay to get a bigger and bigger portion of increasing revenues.

Not that billionaries are a problem. Indeed, the few Microsoft created along with 1000s of millionaires has been a boom to the local Seattle economy.

But when workers are making more, and markets are growing, shit begins to happen in economies, which are not only highly dynamic, but fickle as all get out. A big part of the Great Recession was that businesses reduced staff by roughly double the rate of sales losses. They panic and plan for a worse future -- and become a self-fulling prophecy. And when things get going, they're fickle in reverse, and can over hire, banks lend more, new start ups get VC capital, likely for a more rosy future than is expected, once again, being a self-fulfilling prophecy to the positive side.

And while middle and lower class do better, upper classes do better still. Business owners, investors and top execs get pay-backs that scale with the success of their enterprises, which are subject to boader market forces. Average workers only get new co-worker's names they need to memorize, in essence; their paychecks do not get bigger when sales grow, with exception of commission sales, which often has the commission stucture reformulated whenever it's getting so lucrative that companies fear a de-incentive.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Zero sum gain, for the country; and thus it does nothing to help reduce the widening inquality.

It's great for you or me should we get the CEO job. But we can't both get it, since taking the job does not miraculously create a new CEO or a new company. It's just you, or me, or someone else taking the job, which by the way, is already happening, and yet, inequality (economic) is still widening.

Thus the only solution, which worked here back when unions were strong and the minimum wage kept pace with productivity gains (50s thru 70s), and which worked in Brasil when Lula came into office and raised the minimum wage, and which has worked for decades in Nordic Model countries, and much of Europe (who by the way, learned from our New Deal / Fair Deal era policies) is, quite simply: raise worker pay.

The upside is CEOs can then seem like real fucking geniuses, since now millions are buying more shit and creating an environment in which CEO efforts can actually pay out.

Because, what abject fucking retards on the political right do not seem to grasp, as anyone with adult intelligence should know: effort + environment = outcome. Effort alone has relatively little value. For example, be a general manager of a new Nordstrom store in Sierra Leone; have great marketing; tons of wonderful goods, and; really great sales promotions, weekly. And still, you'll sell sqaut, since workers there are few, and those lucky few haven't the price of one sock, much less a pair of them, at Nordstrom, even during the once a year sale.

Simple really.

Koios, you're a fucktard, and I assume by your grammatical errors you are currently drunk to the point of passing out.

But did you REALLY just suggest the USA should follow the economic path of Brazil?

Lagarde surprised at the ?very slow? recovery of the Brazilian economy ? MercoPress

 

[Avorysuds]

Thank you Obama and Progressives everywhere!!!

 

[Koios]

The topic was income disparity. If you want to talk about classical liberalism, start a thread.

Until you address why income disparity is bad, you're only moving the goalposts.

It's not per se. But too much inequality is what economists call a "dual society," which indeed is a very bad thing

In my opinion, the bad thing is what might be causing that "too much inequality", not the level of disparity itself. If high levels of income disparity are due to cronyism and a less than level playing field in what are supposed to be free markets, that is indeed a bad thing. If it's due to unequally applied laws, regulations and tax codes, again, also a very bad thing. I'm sure we could come up with others. Stated differently, we may very well agree on some of the causes of too much inequality but I cannot criticize the very idea of disparate income levels, which I believe is a good thing in a capitalist system.

The disparity is becuase workers are become commoditized, some of which we're guilty of doing to ourselves, by fearing decent wages will put lattes and Big Macs beyond our reach (absurdly ignorant of forces affecting product prices)

Tax policy has been a big part, too. We're relying more on regressive taxation, which shifts the tax burden more so to the middle class.

Anti-union rhetoric too has diminsihed worker pay. But the biggest problem is our minimum wage being half of what it was at its peak, inflation-adjusted, in combination with more workers moving into services which are heavily influenced by wage minimums.

As for free markets, that's largely a myth. Little beyond typical consumer goods, and even those are supply and demand tweaked, are in fact driven by free market forces of supply and demand. Market protections, virtual-trusts and market monoplozation rule the day, in ways that are both obvious and not.

For example, Big Pharma and the Health Care lobby rule this fucking country. Hell; Medicare has to pay the goddamn asking price for prescription meds, vis a vis, Medicare Part D, which is fucking ridiculous. Yet, our trial regs to bring new medical devices or meds to market are off the fucking scale. Getting new stuff to market in Europe and elsewhere is WAY easier. How could that be if their lobbyist have so much influence? BECAUSE THEY WANT IT THAT WAY!!! It keeps small players out of this market, which is fucking goldmine. Let the little guy get through clinical trials elsewhere, and if it looks like they have something, the Big Guys, who control the USA market, buy them up and run it thorugh cinical trials here. PURE MARKET MONOPOLIZATION, in regulation drag, by folk who whine about regulations to throw up a smoke screen in front of what's really happening: THEY WROTE THE FUCKING REGULATION!!!!

Merely one example.