If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   US income inequality is the worst of the OECD countries and is on par with third-world countries like Uganda and The Ivory Coast. USA, USA, USA   (wonkroom.thinkprogress.org) divider line 237
    More: Scary, Ivory Coast, OECD, United States, Uganda, income inequality, Jan Schakowsky, Organization for Economic Cooperation, D-IL  
•       •       •

1916 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 May 2011 at 12:21 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



237 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2011-05-11 08:34:37 AM
Not because we have poorer poor people, but because we have more rich people.

And this is supposed to be a bad thing.
 
2011-05-11 09:09:37 AM
Four hundred obscenely wealthy individuals, most of whom benefited in some way from the multi-trillion-dollar taxpayer bailout of 2008 -- now have more cash, stock and property than the assets of 155 million Americans combined. that's more poor people and fewer rich but keep farkin' that chicken.
 
2011-05-11 09:10:20 AM
Ya know, Pol Pot started out calling for "Economic Equality" and he got it...everyone was grindingly poor. Plus it lead to a mountain of skulls, but hey...this time we'll do it right.
 
2011-05-11 09:12:35 AM

FireBreathingLiberal: Four hundred obscenely wealthy individuals, most of whom benefited in some way from the multi-trillion-dollar taxpayer bailout of 2008 -- now have more cash, stock and property than the assets of 155 million Americans combined. that's more poor people and fewer rich but keep farkin' that chicken.


Your burning envy must save a fortune on those home heating bills.
 
2011-05-11 09:15:53 AM
So what if middle class wages are still at 1970 levels. Flat screen TVs have never been cheaper!
 
2011-05-11 09:32:47 AM

DarthBrooks: Not because we have poorer poor people, but because we have more rich people.


A) We have both
B) Know how I know you've never studied history?
 
2011-05-11 09:35:14 AM
DarthBrooks: your statement was dead wrong but I must say the "heating bills" line was pretty funny.
 
2011-05-11 09:58:44 AM

unlikely: DarthBrooks: Not because we have poorer poor people, but because we have more rich people.

A) We have both
B) Know how I know you've never studied history?


A1) Your claim then is that we have poorer poor people than we've ever had in the past, and our poor people experience poverty at the level of Uganda and the Ivory Coast.

A2) You provide no citations, unless you're referencing the horizontal bar "graph" in TFA that has no indices or scale indicators.

B1) Know how I know you've never studied research methodology?
 
2011-05-11 10:59:13 AM

DarthBrooks: Not because we have poorer poor people, but because we have more rich people.

And this is supposed to be a bad thing.



Came to say this. That is all.
 
2011-05-11 11:12:37 AM

DarthBrooks: Not because we have poorer poor people, but because we have more rich people.

And this is supposed to be a bad thing.


It's a bad thing because its unjust. We are more productive than the other OECD countries, but the fruits of that production are not being fairly distributed - rather, the top few percent are taking most of it, and that's wrong.
 
2011-05-11 11:15:49 AM
static.businessinsider.com

static.businessinsider.com

static.businessinsider.com
 
2011-05-11 11:33:18 AM
Vast income inequality is inherently bad, because there's no goddamned difference between "too many poor people" and "too many rich people". They mean the same thing. Both cases indicate a large working segment of the population subsidizing a small aristocracy. Even the capitalist propaganda that the US is awash in is having real trouble maintaining the idea that people working to make a distant elite class of the richest people in history even richer while they work more and more for less and less is a good thing.
 
2011-05-11 11:39:51 AM

DamnYankees:
It's a bad thing because its unjust. We are more productive than the other OECD countries, but the fruits of that production are not being fairly distributed - rather, the top few percent are taking most of it, and that's wrong.


I think Vonnegut covered this subject pretty well in Harrison Bergeron.
 
2011-05-11 11:50:06 AM
As long as there's NFL, cable, and Bud, the serfs will not revolt.
 
2011-05-11 12:00:09 PM

DarthBrooks: DamnYankees:
It's a bad thing because its unjust. We are more productive than the other OECD countries, but the fruits of that production are not being fairly distributed - rather, the top few percent are taking most of it, and that's wrong.

I think Vonnegut covered this subject pretty well in Harrison Bergeron.


If you think Vonnegut is on your side of this argument... well... you're a profoundly silly person.
 
2011-05-11 12:03:29 PM

actualhuman: DarthBrooks: DamnYankees:
It's a bad thing because its unjust. We are more productive than the other OECD countries, but the fruits of that production are not being fairly distributed - rather, the top few percent are taking most of it, and that's wrong.

I think Vonnegut covered this subject pretty well in Harrison Bergeron.

If you think Vonnegut is on your side of this argument... well... you're a profoundly silly person.


I look forward to your citations.
 
2011-05-11 12:07:42 PM
wow, you mean that the entitled rich and the neo cons don't care about the rest of us...

UNPOSSIBLE!
 
2011-05-11 12:18:55 PM
Poor people have air conditioners, your argument is invalid.
 
2011-05-11 12:22:12 PM
I wouldn't worry about it - eventually the imbalance works itself out. granted - it'll lower property values and get rather bloody in the process...but historically speaking, such a large imbalance doesn't last forever.
 
2011-05-11 12:22:27 PM
FACTS ARE A CLASS WAR
 
2011-05-11 12:22:39 PM
Galt's Gulch?
 
2011-05-11 12:24:08 PM

Car_Ramrod: Poor people have air conditioners, your argument is invalid.


Poor people have air conditioners, multiple flat screen TVs, Sony Playstations, $200 Nike sneakers, personal computers, high speed internet, drive Cadillacs, and are fat. Your argument is invalid.
 
2011-05-11 12:24:48 PM
See, Trickle Down Economics does work exactly as the originators intended.
 
2011-05-11 12:24:54 PM

Car_Ramrod: Poor people have air conditioners, your argument is invalid.


You don't need wealth when you can find poorer people than you to make your stuff.


Free trade is basically a global ponzi scheme.
 
2011-05-11 12:25:21 PM
The United States of America: Third Rate Banana Republic.
 
2011-05-11 12:25:50 PM

DarthBrooks: actualhuman: DarthBrooks: DamnYankees:
It's a bad thing because its unjust. We are more productive than the other OECD countries, but the fruits of that production are not being fairly distributed - rather, the top few percent are taking most of it, and that's wrong.

I think Vonnegut covered this subject pretty well in Harrison Bergeron.

If you think Vonnegut is on your side of this argument... well... you're a profoundly silly person.

I look forward to your citations.


'God Bless You, Mr Rosewater' and basically everything else he wrote to some lesser degree.

Harrison Bergeron had nothing to do with economic equality and everything to do with the false intellectual equality of our education system attempting to treat all students the same, as if everyone should have the same skill set and ability.

/But whatever, Mr Confirmation Bias.
 
2011-05-11 12:26:25 PM
All it took for everyone in France to flip out was when bread prices jumped so high most peasants could no longer afford it.
 
2011-05-11 12:27:08 PM
Raising taxes on the richest people in the richest country in the history of the entire human race would be an evil equal to the holocaust and russian famine and Pol Pots pogrom combined!!!
 
2011-05-11 12:27:22 PM

Jake Havechek: All it took for everyone in France to flip out was when bread prices jumped so high most peasants could no longer afford it.


The people aren't hungry enough yet.

Let oil get to $200 a barrel, then we'll talk...
 
2011-05-11 12:27:40 PM

DarthBrooks: burning envy


Holy fark you're dumb
 
2011-05-11 12:28:26 PM

DarthBrooks: Not because we have poorer poor people, but because we have more rich people.

And this is supposed to be a bad thing.


It is a bad thing, for our economy. The gap between the wage earners creates a shrinking middle-class which negatively effects the overall "wealth" of the Nation.
 
2011-05-11 12:28:34 PM

Jake Havechek: All it took for everyone in France to flip out was when bread prices jumped so high most peasants could no longer afford it.


Same basic impetus for what's going on in North Africa right now.
 
2011-05-11 12:28:51 PM

DarnoKonrad: You don't need wealth when you can find poorer people than you to make your stuff.


Free trade is basically a global ponzi scheme.


This. Let's see our poor buy TVs when the people making them start earning a living wage.
 
2011-05-11 12:28:59 PM
Christ. You guys have no idea what you are talking about. Go read Atlas Shrugged: The Movie: The Novel before posting in this thread again.
 
2011-05-11 12:29:06 PM

Jackson Herring: DarthBrooks: burning envy

Holy fark you're dumb


He thinks Harrison Bergeron was about economics.... yeah.
 
2011-05-11 12:29:11 PM

Jake Havechek: All it took for everyone in France to flip out was when bread prices jumped so high most peasants could no longer afford it.


starvation tends to do that.

And with the Republicans pushing to cut welfare spending AND food prices rising like never before....well, I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually get to the point of food riots.
 
2011-05-11 12:29:14 PM

Elvis_Bogart: Ya know, Pol Pot started out calling for "Economic Equality" and he got it...everyone was grindingly poor. Plus it lead to a mountain of skulls, but hey...this time we'll do it right.


Sounds like people should start playing ball if they like their skulls where they are.
 
2011-05-11 12:29:21 PM
This is because if a CEO makes 7,000 times the wage of a minimum-wage worker, he obviously worked 7,000 times harder. Duh, winning.
 
2011-05-11 12:31:22 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Even the capitalist propaganda that the US is awash in is having real trouble maintaining the idea that people working to make a distant elite class of the richest people in history even richer while they work more and more for less and less is a good thing.


Not really. If you're rich, it's because you work hard and have "succeed". If you're poor, it's because you didn't work hard and "made poor life choices". Rich people deserve their money, poor people deserve to be poor, anything else is redistribution/class warfare, ect.

/exploitation, what exploitation?
//if you don't like working for minimum wage with no benefits, just get another job, or some bootstraps
 
2011-05-11 12:31:40 PM
assets.motherjones.com


A huge share of the nation's economic growth over the past 30 years has gone to the top one-hundredth of one percent, who now make an average of $27 million per household. The average income for the bottom 90 percent of us? $31,244.
 
2011-05-11 12:31:48 PM

Weaver95: Jake Havechek: All it took for everyone in France to flip out was when bread prices jumped so high most peasants could no longer afford it.

starvation tends to do that.

And with the Republicans pushing to cut welfare spending AND food prices rising like never before....well, I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually get to the point of food riots.


If this was a bad conspiracy novel, they'd be doing it with the expectation they can take the reins of the revolution in their hands and steer it towards their idea of Utopia.

You know, kinda like how they thought they could use the Tea Party with little to no consequences...
 
2011-05-11 12:31:51 PM

redqueenmeg: he obviously worked 7,000 times harder.


Nah, he's just 7,000x more virtuous, and worthy of the compensation.
 
2011-05-11 12:32:18 PM
History never repeats itself, never.

boylehist9.phoenix.wikispaces.net

www.faqs.org

www.bibletoday.com
 
2011-05-11 12:32:34 PM
img42.imageshack.us


...when did America become so fixated on income 'inequality'?....I say it started with the civil rights movement in the 1960s.
***
Focusing on income equality is the road to serfdom. It's also a formula for impoverishing the country. We should celebrate success and greatness - and our differences!
***
If people want to tighten up the income distribution they need to shrink government. Big government always sets barriers to competition promoting oligopoly. Without competition, the companies paying lower wages can't turn their competitive advantage into beneficial market entry and hence can't siphon the froth to lower income workers.
***
I've always hated this leftist meme about "the poor are getting poorer". On what planet do these people live? We have the richest "poor" in the world. Where else do the poor have flat screen TVs, 2 cars, houses, free medical care, free food, and morbid obesity?
***

Income inequality is a good thing and necessary for a healthy free market economy. It is not a bad thing like the left keeps preaching. Income inequality is the carrot that pulls people up the economic ladder. Only in Marxist ideology is income inequality a bad thing so that "income redistribution" is needed. Our government has no business trying to manipulate income distribution-our free market economy does that more efficiently and correctly that central planned governments
***
Income distribution? How about calling it the truth, it's money they earned.

More Commie garbage.
***
Interesting. when Michael Phelps won a record number of gold medals, he was heralded for being a winner - there were no stories about "acievement gaps" because someone won eight medals and others don't even know how to swim.

Rich people getting richer does not make poor people poorer. Finishing at least high school, not getting married until you do, and NOT HAVING KIDS UNTIL YOU GET MARRIED will virtually guarantee that your kids will not end up in poverty.

Enforcing the immigration laws might help too . . .
***
Precisely as Obama wants. His policies are designed to pit rich against poor, black against white, elitists against common folk. Divide and conquer.......
 
2011-05-11 12:33:26 PM

DarthBrooks: DamnYankees:
It's a bad thing because its unjust. We are more productive than the other OECD countries, but the fruits of that production are not being fairly distributed - rather, the top few percent are taking most of it, and that's wrong.

I think Vonnegut covered this subject pretty well in Harrison Bergeron.


Tell me, what do you think of Adam Smith?

But, I'll tell you why I think too much money stagnating at the top is a bad thing.
Capitalism is sort of like an engine. It pushes money from the bottom to the top. That's what it's *designed* to do. It creates new things along the way (products, ideas, etc). In fact, it sort of manages to produce some 'wealth' along the way, too, like an awesome perpetual motion machine.
But it runs on, well, money. And if too much stagnates at the top (Because, yeah, the rich have a bit more buying power, but there's still only so much stuff you can buy. And the poor, even if poor, still have to, you know, buy necesseties and some small bits of luxury/entertainment to make life enjoyable), it starts to bog down and sputter.
Which is why we have, and need, a progressive taxation system. That helps balance the natural driving force of a capitalistic market (pushing money to the top) by taking some of that wealth and pushing it back down to the bottom. Because the engine makes money along the way, it's not like you're taking (or NEED to take) all of the upper-tier's wealth. But you do have to take some of it, or things stop working, go to shiat, and, well, the French Revolution or USSR or what-have-you happens.

This is not about 'fair' or 'deserves'. This is about what, you know, WORKS.
 
2011-05-11 12:34:01 PM

Elvis_Bogart: Ya know, Pol Pot started out calling for "Economic Equality" and he got it...everyone was grindingly poor. Plus it lead to a mountain of skulls, but hey...this time we'll do it right.


Every other civilized country in the world has managed to keep income inequality in check without condemning their citizenry to grinding poverty or erecting a mountain of skulls. But, the United States, in your opinion, can't do the same thing because we're not nearly as competent as France or Germany or Canada.

Way to have faith in the country, jackass.
 
2011-05-11 12:34:07 PM

DarthBrooks: FireBreathingLiberal: Four hundred obscenely wealthy individuals, most of whom benefited in some way from the multi-trillion-dollar taxpayer bailout of 2008 -- now have more cash, stock and property than the assets of 155 million Americans combined. that's more poor people and fewer rich but keep farkin' that chicken.

Your burning envy must save a fortune on those home heating bills.


You know something...I was in a "gifted" class growing up and when kids made fun of us or didn't want to be friends with us we were told "It's ok they're just jealous." It took me several years and some separation to realise that, no, they weren't jealous. I was kind of a dick.

In this thread I predict several more comments about how the middle and lower class are jsut jealous and if they really wanted to be rich they would work harder for it. Not only is this a gross oversimplification, it overlooks the fact that the world does need ditch diggers. It also needs ditch diggers to make a living wage to keep the commerce and service sector of the country in business in order to keep paying the CEOs exorbitant salaries and bonuses.
 
2011-05-11 12:34:55 PM
nice to see the freepers are still stupid.
 
2011-05-11 12:35:27 PM

Elvis_Bogart: Ya know, Pol Pot started out calling for "Economic Equality" and he got it...everyone was grindingly poor. Plus it lead to a mountain of skulls, but hey...this time we'll do it right.


Someone saw the Killing Fields and thinks they are an expert now! Look at that!
 
2011-05-11 12:35:37 PM

Sarsin: DarnoKonrad: You don't need wealth when you can find poorer people than you to make your stuff.


Free trade is basically a global ponzi scheme.

This. Let's see our poor buy TVs when the people making them start earning a living wage.


When the people making them now starting making a living wage, the corporations will move on to the next third world hellhole, and work the serfs there for pennies a day. A generation or two from now, when the American working class is no more, and the bottom 75% of Americans are as desperate and destitute as the people of, say, Uganda, maybe the corporations will move some jobs back here. Hope your grandkids like working 16 hours/day for pennies an hour in unsafe conditions!
 
2011-05-11 12:36:59 PM

redqueenmeg: This is because if a CEO makes 7,000 times the wage of a minimum-wage worker, he obviously worked 7,000 times harder. Duh, winning.


It wouldn't be so bad that the CEO is making so much money if the average worker was also getting his fair share. Too bad CEO pay is incentivized to cut wages and benefits of the average worker and ship manufacturing overseas. No wonder the bottom 90% of American workers have been getting smaller and smaller incomes over the last 30 years.
 
2011-05-11 12:37:36 PM
Why do they equate the American "poor" with the poor in other countries who get categorized as living on less then 1$ a day.

Something else that might skew the numbers is how a college student can go from owing 150K in student loans to being worth 70 billion dollars after investors buy his idea for a 3d lolcats news aggregator massively multiplayer online role playing first person shooter video porn site.
 
2011-05-11 12:37:46 PM

Freep Impact: Where else do the poor have flat screen TVs, 2 cars, houses, free medical care, free food, and morbid obesity?


I love this piece of shiat right here. I'm sure we'll have someone marching into this thread to regale us with the exact same talking point sooner or later
 
2011-05-11 12:38:26 PM

eraser8: Elvis_Bogart: Ya know, Pol Pot started out calling for "Economic Equality" and he got it...everyone was grindingly poor. Plus it lead to a mountain of skulls, but hey...this time we'll do it right.

Every other civilized country in the world has managed to keep income inequality in check without condemning their citizenry to grinding poverty or erecting a mountain of skulls. But, the United States, in your opinion, can't do the same thing because we're not nearly as competent as France or Germany or Canada.

Way to have faith in the country, jackass.


I'm planning a move to France, Canada, or Germany precisely because I have no faith in the Unites States. This shiats gonna end soon and it's not gonna be pretty.
 
2011-05-11 12:38:52 PM

DarthBrooks: FireBreathingLiberal: Four hundred obscenely wealthy individuals, most of whom benefited in some way from the multi-trillion-dollar taxpayer bailout of 2008 -- now have more cash, stock and property than the assets of 155 million Americans combined. that's more poor people and fewer rich but keep farkin' that chicken.

Your burning envy must save a fortune on those home heating bills.


Look here Neal Boortz, the wealth-envy argument is on the intellectual level of a 4th grader.

Person 1: "I have a problem with the massive concentration of wealth and the recent economic strain on the middle class of this country."

You/Boortz: "You're just jealous! And poor!"

farking lame man. farking lame.
 
2011-05-11 12:39:06 PM

Giltric: Why do they equate the American "poor" with the poor in other countries who get categorized as living on less then 1$ a day


No one is doing that.

Do you know how Gini Coefficients work?
 
2011-05-11 12:39:33 PM

aselene: Car_Ramrod: Poor people have air conditioners, your argument is invalid.

Poor people have air conditioners, multiple flat screen TVs, Sony Playstations, $200 Nike sneakers, personal computers, high speed internet, drive Cadillacs, and are fat. Your argument is invalid.


Sweet! I haven't seen this shameless conservatroll active in a few months! Glad to have you back on board, buddy.

By the way, I know several people who qualify as poor under FPL guidelines, and none of them have any of those things that you listed. They happen to live in America.
 
2011-05-11 12:40:11 PM

Giltric: Something else that might skew the numbers is how a college student can go from owing 150K in student loans to being worth 70 billion dollars after investors buy his idea for a 3d lolcats news aggregator massively multiplayer online role playing first person shooter video porn site.


Don't forget the easy money pursuing pro-basketball.
 
2011-05-11 12:40:16 PM
Can one of you water carriers tell me

A: how a concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands is good for America as a whole and

B: Is there a tipping point where you could see yourself saying, "okay, this is too much." How would you feel about 1% of the population with 99% of the wealth? .01% with 99.5%?
 
2011-05-11 12:40:20 PM

DarthBrooks: DamnYankees:
It's a bad thing because its unjust. We are more productive than the other OECD countries, but the fruits of that production are not being fairly distributed - rather, the top few percent are taking most of it, and that's wrong.

I think Vonnegut covered this subject pretty well in Harrison Bergeron.


He did? I must have read a different version of that story.

In the version I read, Harrison Bergeron lived in a society where people weren't allowed to be mentally or physically better than anyone else.

In the version you read, I guess Harrison Bergeron lived in a society where people weren't allowed to be richer than anyone else.

I suppose you'll say something like "it's a metaphor" but the metaphor doesn't work, since a person becoming mentally or physically better than others is largely dependent on a person's determination to work out and hit the books, whereas a person's becoming financially better than others is largely dependent on how wealthy of a family a person has come from or how willing one is to financially screw over subordinates, customers and business associates.
 
2011-05-11 12:40:41 PM

Felgraf: Tell me, what do you think of Adam Smith?

But, I'll tell you why I think too much money stagnating at the top is a bad thing.
Capitalism is sort of like an engine. It pushes money from the bottom to the top. That's what it's *designed* to do. It creates new things along the way (products, ideas, etc). In fact, it sort of manages to produce some 'wealth' along the way, too, like an awesome perpetual motion machine.
But it runs on, well, money. And if too much stagnates at the top (Because, yeah, the rich have a bit more buying power, but there's still only so much stuff you can buy. And the poor, even if poor, still have to, you know, buy necesseties and some small bits of luxury/entertainment to make life enjoyable), it starts to bog down and sputter.
Which is why we have, and need, a progressive taxation system. That helps balance the natural driving force of a capitalistic market (pushing money to the top) by taking some of that wealth and pushing it back down to the bottom. Because the engine makes money along the way, it's not like you're taking (or NEED to take) all of the upper-tier's wealth. But you do have to take some of it, or things stop working, go to shiat, and, well, the French Revolution or USSR or what-have-you happens.

This is not about 'fair' or 'deserves'. This is about what, you know, WORKS.


Along those same lines, our rich now have a lot of ways to invest that DON'T cause money to flow from the bottom up. If you invest in oil futures or the other investment shenanigans that Wall Street has cooked up, you're making money without funneling it through the working class.
 
2011-05-11 12:40:52 PM

redqueenmeg: This is because if a CEO makes 7,000 times the wage of a minimum-wage worker, he obviously worked 7,000 times harder. Duh, winning.


Define work.

meat0918: Jake Havechek: All it took for everyone in France to flip out was when bread prices jumped so high most peasants could no longer afford it.

The people aren't hungry enough yet.

Let oil get to $200 a barrel, then we'll talk...


We do not have to wait for that. With the abismal winter wheat harvist and fears that the cornbelt will not get the crops in the ground because of this super wet spring, you may get your wish early.
 
2011-05-11 12:41:06 PM

Giltric: Why do they equate the American "poor" with the poor in other countries who get categorized as living on less then 1$ a day.


Ah right here it is.
 
2011-05-11 12:41:24 PM
Jackson Herring: Freep Impact: Where else do the poor have flat screen TVs, 2 cars, houses, free medical care, free food, and morbid obesity?

I love this piece of shiat right here. I'm sure we'll have someone marching into this thread to regale us with the exact same talking point sooner or later


Yep.
 
2011-05-11 12:42:28 PM

Serious Black: I haven't seen this shameless conservatroll active in a few months!


Me neither, because no one has been quoting his shiat posts lately.
 
2011-05-11 12:43:13 PM

Jackson Herring: Freep Impact: Where else do the poor have flat screen TVs, 2 cars, houses, free medical care, free food, and morbid obesity?

I love this piece of shiat right here. I'm sure we'll have someone marching into this thread to regale us with the exact same talking point sooner or later


Can you buy anything other than a flat screen at this point?

And those two cars. Were they made in the last decade? The houses are falling apart because they can't afford basic maintenance, free medical care my ass (when I made 14K per year I did not qualify for any free insurance).

The only thing he has is discounted food costs(food stamps don't feed a family of four the whole month), and the morbid obesity caused by poor nutrition and sedentary lifestyles.
 
2011-05-11 12:43:57 PM

Serious Black: aselene: Car_Ramrod: Poor people have air conditioners, your argument is invalid.

Poor people have air conditioners, multiple flat screen TVs, Sony Playstations, $200 Nike sneakers, personal computers, high speed internet, drive Cadillacs, and are fat. Your argument is invalid.

Sweet! I haven't seen this shameless conservatroll active in a few months! Glad to have you back on board, buddy.

By the way, I know several people who qualify as poor under FPL guidelines, and none of them have any of those things that you listed. They happen to live in America.


I forgot to mention houses, because the federal government forced banks to give them home loans regardless of their creditworthiness. Leading to... the great crash of 2008!
 
2011-05-11 12:44:28 PM

Jackson Herring: Serious Black: I haven't seen this shameless conservatroll active in a few months!

Me neither, because no one has been quoting his shiat posts lately.


I love feeding trolls. It's how I get my jollies off when my wife won't let me fark her up the ass.

/you don't want to know what happens when she won't even give me handjobs
 
2011-05-11 12:47:00 PM
I think we need to let the free market determine income tax rates in order to curb income inequality.
 
2011-05-11 12:47:42 PM

Saiga410: redqueenmeg: This is because if a CEO makes 7,000 times the wage of a minimum-wage worker, he obviously worked 7,000 times harder. Duh, winning.

Define work.

meat0918: Jake Havechek: All it took for everyone in France to flip out was when bread prices jumped so high most peasants could no longer afford it.

The people aren't hungry enough yet.

Let oil get to $200 a barrel, then we'll talk...

We do not have to wait for that. With the abismal winter wheat harvist and fears that the cornbelt will not get the crops in the ground because of this super wet spring, you may get your wish early.


I'm involved with a food security plan for the city, so... looks like we need to get crackin' on the plan.

On the plus side, it will help the new crop of Willamette grain growers that used to be growing lawn seed.

//It actually does rely on a bit of communal giving, pooling resources, etc. Some of it is really simple, like not letting all the fruit trees in the neighborhoods drop their fruit and having it left to rot on the ground.
 
2011-05-11 12:47:51 PM

Gangway Fathead: Can one of you water carriers tell me

A: how a concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands is good for America as a whole and


Not a water carrier myself but my guess is: SOCIALISM
 
2011-05-11 12:49:22 PM

aselene: Car_Ramrod: Poor people have air conditioners, your argument is invalid.

Poor people have air conditioners, multiple flat screen TVs, Sony Playstations, $200 Nike sneakers, personal computers, high speed internet, drive Cadillacs, and are fat. I don't know any poor people. Your My argument is invalid.


/there we are
 
2011-05-11 12:52:09 PM

meat0918: Can you buy anything other than a flat screen at this point?


I have a 13" TV with a built in VCR :(
 
2011-05-11 12:52:33 PM

aselene: Serious Black: aselene: Car_Ramrod: Poor people have air conditioners, your argument is invalid.

Poor people have air conditioners, multiple flat screen TVs, Sony Playstations, $200 Nike sneakers, personal computers, high speed internet, drive Cadillacs, and are fat. Your argument is invalid.

Sweet! I haven't seen this shameless conservatroll active in a few months! Glad to have you back on board, buddy.

By the way, I know several people who qualify as poor under FPL guidelines, and none of them have any of those things that you listed. They happen to live in America.

I forgot to mention houses, because the federal government forced banks to give them home loans regardless of their creditworthiness. Leading to... the great crash of 2008!


zombietime.com
 
2011-05-11 12:53:50 PM

Jackson Herring: Freep Impact: Where else do the poor have flat screen TVs, 2 cars, houses, free medical care, free food, and morbid obesity?

I love this piece of shiat right here. I'm sure we'll have someone marching into this thread to regale us with the exact same talking point sooner or later


It's like you summoned him.

blogs.westword.com
 
2011-05-11 12:54:57 PM

Jackson Herring: meat0918: Can you buy anything other than a flat screen at this point?

I have a 13" TV with a built in VCR :(


Now you think you're better than me!?
 
2011-05-11 12:55:37 PM

aselene:

I forgot to mention houses, because the federal government forced banks to give them home loans regardless of their creditworthiness. Leading to... the great crash of 2008!


Wow. Really? Still blaming "poor people" for the crash despite the volumes of evidence pointing to the real culprits?

Keep carrying that water.
 
2011-05-11 12:56:18 PM

FarkedOver: Now you think you're better than me!?


I won't be happy until the majority of people below the poverty line in this country are literally starving to death in the streets.
 
2011-05-11 12:56:28 PM
Maybe Americans deserve to be serfs.
 
2011-05-11 12:57:04 PM

Jackson Herring: I won't be happy until the majority of people below the poverty line in this country are literally starving to death in the streets.


So vote Republican.
 
2011-05-11 12:57:28 PM
I paid $350,000 in Federal taxes last year. Your argument is invalid.
 
2011-05-11 12:57:53 PM
 
2011-05-11 12:59:02 PM
we could adopt the Green Party platform of taxing all income above 10X their new minimum wage of $12.60 (in 2000) at 100%. That would virtually eliminate the income inequality. Then all that would be left is to figure out what that accomplished.
 
2011-05-11 12:59:28 PM
The most brilliant thing the capitalists ever did is create the false dichotomy between capitalism and socialism, as if there were no market based economic systems that don't rely on fetishizing capital and granting it preferential treatment over labor at every turn.

The second most brilliant thing capitalists ever did was to install a system of farm subsidies to keep food prices artificially low.
 
2011-05-11 12:59:51 PM

Jackson Herring: FarkedOver: Now you think you're better than me!?

I won't be happy until the majority of people below the poverty line in this country are literally starving to death in the streets.


I know your kind. You'll be laughing the entire time I am crawling and begging for scraps on the street. While you sit in your fancy ivory tower studio apartment, microwaving your 1 lbs. hungry man dinners and watching your basic cable on your unnecessary 13" tv screen. You make me sick. SICK!
 
2011-05-11 01:00:31 PM
"Poor people have stuff"

yes all poor people have 5 flat screens and 10 Cadillacs.

Imagine if this line of thinking was used throughout history...

*Nazi Germany*

Oh you Jews are such whiners. You get to live in a comfy ghetto, you have jewelry, you have food and money, why are you complaining about our anti-Jew laws?

*British India*

Oh stop whining you Indians. So what if you don't have freedom from our imperialism? You've got food, water, shelter, so shut up you filthy ingrates!

*Third world diamond mine*

Keep working in our diamond mines you filthy commoners! Look, we're paying you 1 cent a day, you're getting plenty of money! And you've got food, water, shelter, so quit complaining about our obscene profits only going to our company management!

*1788 France*

Shut up you filthy peasants! You got food, water, big-assed houses, you live in the richest country in Europe, you people are such whiners! Whats that, you don't like the autocracy of the king and his obscene palace of Versailles? SHOVE IT PEASANT, HE WORKS HIS ASS OFF FOR YOU!
 
2011-05-11 01:01:32 PM

skullkrusher: we could adopt the Green Party platform of taxing all income above 10X their new minimum wage of $12.60 (in 2000) at 100%. That would virtually eliminate the income inequality. Then all that would be left is to figure out what that accomplished.


Anarchy, but since no one is really, wait, I'll need a citation from the Green Party on this one.

I'd be happy with a new bracket of 49% on amounts over 10 million, but that's just me.
 
2011-05-11 01:01:58 PM

FarkedOver: I know your kind. You'll be laughing the entire time I am crawling and begging for scraps on the street. While you sit in your fancy ivory tower studio apartment, microwaving your 1 lbs. hungry man dinners and watching your basic cable on your unnecessary 13" tv screen. You make me sick. SICK!


You forgot "cackling with decadent glee as I enjoy VHS tapes of Season 3 of the X-Files"
 
2011-05-11 01:02:30 PM
economist had a few articles about this and how it relates to happiness in a country. It was pretty good but it never called otu if they were including illegal immigrants.

Even if it did and excluding them bumps us up a few spots it is still a huge problem, just wondering if anyone knows how they come up with this to know if they are included.
 
2011-05-11 01:04:05 PM

Marcus Aurelius: So what if middle class wages are still at 1970 levels. Flat screen TVs have never been cheaper!


How is a flat avg wage over time bad? All the graphs I have seen are in constant dollars so it is keeping up with inflation.
 
2011-05-11 01:04:10 PM
Ah yes another problem that is probably the fault of illegal immigrants.
 
2011-05-11 01:04:20 PM

Jackson Herring: FarkedOver: I know your kind. You'll be laughing the entire time I am crawling and begging for scraps on the street. While you sit in your fancy ivory tower studio apartment, microwaving your 1 lbs. hungry man dinners and watching your basic cable on your unnecessary 13" tv screen. You make me sick. SICK!

You forgot "cackling with decadent glee as I enjoy VHS tapes of Season 3 of the X-Files"


Well, that was a solid season...
 
2011-05-11 01:05:38 PM

skullkrusher: we could adopt the Green Party platform of taxing all income above 10X their new minimum wage of $12.60 (in 2000) at 100%. That would virtually eliminate the income inequality. Then all that would be left is to figure out what that accomplished.


That's the green party platform? Really? Wow. No wonder no one takes them seriously.
 
2011-05-11 01:07:31 PM

FarkedOver: Well, that was a solid season...


Well shiat. I suddenly have a strong desire to watch Jose Chung's From Outer Space
 
2011-05-11 01:10:35 PM

meat0918: skullkrusher: we could adopt the Green Party platform of taxing all income above 10X their new minimum wage of $12.60 (in 2000) at 100%. That would virtually eliminate the income inequality. Then all that would be left is to figure out what that accomplished.

Anarchy, but since no one is really, wait, I'll need a citation from the Green Party on this one.



I'd be happy with a new bracket of 49% on amounts over 10 million, but that's just me.


They even call it "Maximum Income" (new window)

/Feminist Economic Accounting?
 
2011-05-11 01:12:23 PM
We have poorer not poor people and richer rich people
 
2011-05-11 01:14:36 PM

skullkrusher: meat0918: skullkrusher: we could adopt the Green Party platform of taxing all income above 10X their new minimum wage of $12.60 (in 2000) at 100%. That would virtually eliminate the income inequality. Then all that would be left is to figure out what that accomplished.

Anarchy, but since no one is really, wait, I'll need a citation from the Green Party on this one.



I'd be happy with a new bracket of 49% on amounts over 10 million, but that's just me.

They even call it "Maximum Income" (new window)

/Feminist Economic Accounting?


Huh, I thought you were joking.
 
2011-05-11 01:14:45 PM

BMulligan: The most brilliant thing the capitalists ever did is create the false dichotomy between capitalism and socialism, as if there were no market based economic systems that don't rely on fetishizing capital and granting it preferential treatment over labor at every turn.


To me it's a close call. It's either a false dichotomy between capitalism and socialism.

i56.tinypic.com

Or it's spam.
 
2011-05-11 01:15:06 PM

Saiga410: How is a flat avg wage over time bad? All the graphs I have seen are in constant dollars so it is keeping up with inflation.


Wages are keeping up with inflation, perhaps, but not with increases in productivity. Workers are creating more wealth per unit of labor than ever, but they are not being compensated for it. Instead, that additional wealth is being distributed among people who themselves are unproductive.
 
2011-05-11 01:15:37 PM

skullkrusher: meat0918: skullkrusher: we could adopt the Green Party platform of taxing all income above 10X their new minimum wage of $12.60 (in 2000) at 100%. That would virtually eliminate the income inequality. Then all that would be left is to figure out what that accomplished.

Anarchy, but since no one is really, wait, I'll need a citation from the Green Party on this one.



I'd be happy with a new bracket of 49% on amounts over 10 million, but that's just me.

They even call it "Maximum Income" (new window)

/Feminist Economic Accounting?


Wouldn't it be simpler and more equitable to have a progressive tax on income, regardless of source?
 
2011-05-11 01:16:44 PM

meat0918: Wouldn't it be simpler and more equitable to have a progressive tax on income, regardless of source?


you'd think so. Apparently that's not crazy enough for the Greens
 
2011-05-11 01:16:50 PM

meat0918: Wouldn't it be simpler and more equitable to have a progressive tax on income, regardless of source?


Why are you so jealous of wealthy Americans
 
2011-05-11 01:18:12 PM

skullkrusher: meat0918: skullkrusher: we could adopt the Green Party platform of taxing all income above 10X their new minimum wage of $12.60 (in 2000) at 100%. That would virtually eliminate the income inequality. Then all that would be left is to figure out what that accomplished.

Anarchy, but since no one is really, wait, I'll need a citation from the Green Party on this one.



I'd be happy with a new bracket of 49% on amounts over 10 million, but that's just me.

They even call it "Maximum Income" (new window)

/Feminist Economic Accounting?


Good lord. They seriously advocate for an income cap. That's pretty insane there.
 
2011-05-11 01:18:38 PM

Jackson Herring: meat0918: Wouldn't it be simpler and more equitable to have a progressive tax on income, regardless of source?

Why are you so jealous of wealthy Americans


I never got my Guinness bar towel.
 
2011-05-11 01:20:55 PM

BMulligan: Saiga410: How is a flat avg wage over time bad? All the graphs I have seen are in constant dollars so it is keeping up with inflation.

Wages are keeping up with inflation, perhaps, but not with increases in productivity. Workers are creating more wealth per unit of labor than ever, but they are not being compensated for it. Instead, that additional wealth is being distributed among people who themselves are unproductive.


Have you read my comments about productivity via payroll accountants? 1950s a huge room full of people, now a single guy hitting buttons on a computer. Productivity gain... does the computer guy deserve to be compenstated the same as a room full of people?

Define unproductive.
 
2011-05-11 01:21:26 PM

skullkrusher: meat0918: skullkrusher: we could adopt the Green Party platform of taxing all income above 10X their new minimum wage of $12.60 (in 2000) at 100%. That would virtually eliminate the income inequality. Then all that would be left is to figure out what that accomplished.

Anarchy, but since no one is really, wait, I'll need a citation from the Green Party on this one.



I'd be happy with a new bracket of 49% on amounts over 10 million, but that's just me.

They even call it "Maximum Income" (new window)

/Feminist Economic Accounting?


That's the lefty-er Green Party (yes, there is more than one Green Party). This^ (new window) is the platform of the one that most candidates for office are aligned with.
 
2011-05-11 01:22:55 PM
This is exactly why we are losing all our intellectual talent to Uganda and the Ivory Coast. No one wants to come to America anymore. It's just impossible to improve your station or achieve any decent standard of living here. People are literally fleeing across our border to Mexico to take advantage of their wonderful social services and low crime.
 
2011-05-11 01:25:16 PM

Saiga410: BMulligan: Saiga410: How is a flat avg wage over time bad? All the graphs I have seen are in constant dollars so it is keeping up with inflation.

Wages are keeping up with inflation, perhaps, but not with increases in productivity. Workers are creating more wealth per unit of labor than ever, but they are not being compensated for it. Instead, that additional wealth is being distributed among people who themselves are unproductive.

Have you read my comments about productivity via payroll accountants? 1950s a huge room full of people, now a single guy hitting buttons on a computer. Productivity gain... does the computer guy deserve to be compenstated the same as a room full of people?

Define unproductive.


Does the CEO deserve it?

I wouldn't say CEOs are unproductive. But they are compensated out of all reasonable proportion to their objective contribution.
 
2011-05-11 01:26:13 PM

Karma Curmudgeon: That's the lefty-er Green Party (yes, there is more than one Green Party). This^ (new window) is the platform of the one that most candidates for office are aligned with.


still lots of crazy. Just not the same OMG DID THEY REALLY JUST FARKING SAY THAT?! variety :)
 
2011-05-11 01:26:20 PM

mysticcat: People are literally fleeing across our border to Mexico to take advantage of their wonderful social services and low crime.


Mexico's health care lures Americans

Holy crap, I thought you were joking. But, it's really true!
 
2011-05-11 01:27:07 PM

Karma Curmudgeon: skullkrusher: meat0918: skullkrusher: we could adopt the Green Party platform of taxing all income above 10X their new minimum wage of $12.60 (in 2000) at 100%. That would virtually eliminate the income inequality. Then all that would be left is to figure out what that accomplished.

Anarchy, but since no one is really, wait, I'll need a citation from the Green Party on this one.



I'd be happy with a new bracket of 49% on amounts over 10 million, but that's just me.

They even call it "Maximum Income" (new window)

/Feminist Economic Accounting?

That's the lefty-er Green Party (yes, there is more than one Green Party). This^ (new window) is the platform of the one that most candidates for office are aligned with.


That's the main problem the Greens have in the US. They're divided between the reasonably compromising political types and the batshiat crazy activists.

/Ex-Green.
 
2011-05-11 01:28:23 PM

captain_heroic44: I wouldn't say CEOs are unproductive. But they are compensated out of all reasonable proportion to their objective contribution.


What are you talking about?

I'm sure CEOs work 400x harder than the average worker.

Plus, today's CEOs obviously work 150x harder than 1960s CEOs did.
 
2011-05-11 01:30:17 PM

eraser8: captain_heroic44: I wouldn't say CEOs are unproductive. But they are compensated out of all reasonable proportion to their objective contribution.

What are you talking about?

I'm sure CEOs work 400x harder than the average worker.

Plus, today's CEOs obviously work 150x harder than 1960s CEOs did.


it's really not about how "hard" you work. If it were, ditchdiggers would be complaining about their yacht maintenance costs
 
2011-05-11 01:32:44 PM
What workers need to realize is the power of their labor. As it is they do not. Workers now are uninformed about the vast majority of issues when it comes to labor. They feel they are lucky to have a job. Companies should be the ones feeling lucky to have such a capable workforce. After all, how much revenue could an empty factory bring in?
 
2011-05-11 01:33:39 PM

skullkrusher: still lots of crazy. Just not the same OMG DID THEY REALLY JUST FARKING SAY THAT?! variety :)


meh. No more crazy than continually electing corporatized Democrats and expecting different results.

actualhuman: That's the main problem the Greens have in the US. They're divided between the reasonably compromising political types and the batshiat crazy activists.

/Ex-Green.


I'm still registered, but I haven't been active in quite a few years. I was very much involved from just before and through several years after that absurdity.
 
2011-05-11 01:34:53 PM

skullkrusher: eraser8: captain_heroic44: I wouldn't say CEOs are unproductive. But they are compensated out of all reasonable proportion to their objective contribution.

What are you talking about?

I'm sure CEOs work 400x harder than the average worker.

Plus, today's CEOs obviously work 150x harder than 1960s CEOs did.

it's really not about how "hard" you work. If it were, ditchdiggers would be complaining about their yacht maintenance costs


Which is why I specified "value added."
 
2011-05-11 01:36:07 PM

FarkedOver: Workers now are uninformed about the vast majority of issues when it comes to labor.


This is surprising to you? Did you think the movement to demonize organized labor was just for shiats and giggles?
 
2011-05-11 01:36:29 PM

Saiga410: 1950s a huge room full of people, now a single guy hitting buttons on a computer. Productivity gain... does the computer guy deserve to be compenstated the same as a room full of people?


Of course not. Should that computer guy be payed no more than just one of the people in that room? Let some of that additional wealth flow to the computer guy and he will spend it - and therefore, by application of the multiplier effect, create additional wealth.

Define unproductive.

Unproductive - producing nothing. Capital in and of itself produces nothing. It is simply a tool with which labor creates wealth. Labor needs capital, and I certainly don't propose that labor should be treated preferentially relative to capital, but likewise it makes no sense to tax capital preferentially relative to labor, to allow capital to flow across international borders more easily than labor, or to encourage the combination and organization of capital while impeding the combination and organization of labor. Capital, when properly applied (i.e., invested in productive plant rather than derivatives and the like), is an element of productivity - but capitalists, per se, are not themselves productive. The guy who lent me his table saw when I built my deck did not himself work toward the creation of my deck. I'm happy to invite him to share a beer with me on my deck, but I'm not about to let him kick me off of it whenever he pleases.
 
2011-05-11 01:36:33 PM

captain_heroic44: skullkrusher: eraser8: captain_heroic44: I wouldn't say CEOs are unproductive. But they are compensated out of all reasonable proportion to their objective contribution.

What are you talking about?

I'm sure CEOs work 400x harder than the average worker.

Plus, today's CEOs obviously work 150x harder than 1960s CEOs did.

it's really not about how "hard" you work. If it were, ditchdiggers would be complaining about their yacht maintenance costs

Which is why I specified "value added."


note how I wasn't responding to you
 
2011-05-11 01:36:38 PM

captain_heroic44: skullkrusher: eraser8: captain_heroic44: I wouldn't say CEOs are unproductive. But they are compensated out of all reasonable proportion to their objective contribution.

What are you talking about?

I'm sure CEOs work 400x harder than the average worker.

Plus, today's CEOs obviously work 150x harder than 1960s CEOs did.

it's really not about how "hard" you work. If it were, ditchdiggers would be complaining about their yacht maintenance costs

Which is why I specified "value added."


Er. Actually, I didn't specify "value added." But it was what I was thinking. And that's what really matters.
 
2011-05-11 01:37:24 PM

Karma Curmudgeon: meh. No more crazy than continually electing corporatized Democrats and expecting different results.


true
 
2011-05-11 01:37:54 PM

skullkrusher: captain_heroic44: skullkrusher: eraser8: captain_heroic44: I wouldn't say CEOs are unproductive. But they are compensated out of all reasonable proportion to their objective contribution.

What are you talking about?

I'm sure CEOs work 400x harder than the average worker.

Plus, today's CEOs obviously work 150x harder than 1960s CEOs did.

it's really not about how "hard" you work. If it were, ditchdiggers would be complaining about their yacht maintenance costs

Which is why I specified "value added."

note how I wasn't responding to you


Note how your post was nonetheless relevant to my interests.
 
2011-05-11 01:39:11 PM

eraser8: FarkedOver: Workers now are uninformed about the vast majority of issues when it comes to labor.

This is surprising to you? Did you think the movement to demonize organized labor was just for shiats and giggles?


It's not news to me. It just makes me scratch my head that people are this easily misinformed.
 
2011-05-11 01:39:19 PM

captain_heroic44:
Does the CEO deserve it?

I wouldn't say CEOs are unproductive. But they are compensated out of all reasonable proportion to their objective contribution.


Nice answer. I would have to agree that some/most CEO pay is beyond the value addition and labor pool force demands. I would rather the money go to the stock holders myself.
 
2011-05-11 01:39:52 PM

captain_heroic44: skullkrusher: captain_heroic44: skullkrusher: eraser8: captain_heroic44: I wouldn't say CEOs are unproductive. But they are compensated out of all reasonable proportion to their objective contribution.

What are you talking about?

I'm sure CEOs work 400x harder than the average worker.

Plus, today's CEOs obviously work 150x harder than 1960s CEOs did.

it's really not about how "hard" you work. If it were, ditchdiggers would be complaining about their yacht maintenance costs

Which is why I specified "value added."

note how I wasn't responding to you

Note how your post was nonetheless relevant to my interests.


note how your hair is a bird
 
2011-05-11 01:40:59 PM

DarthBrooks: Not because we have poorer poor people, but because we have more rich people.

And this is supposed to be a bad thing.



Thankfully, as history shows, the poor and middle class folks don't have to figure out a way to fix it. The rich do. Otherwise we kill them and take their shiat.

Now remember that I'm a "good guy" in American society. I'm college educated, never been in trouble with the law, pay my taxes, etc. But I'll still watch your rich-ass bleed out on the carpet as I steal your property.

I don't really care one way or the other. Just fix it.
 
2011-05-11 01:41:27 PM

FarkedOver: What workers need to realize is the power of their labor.


In about half the country, whether they realize their power or not is secondary to it being rendered impotent by 'right to work' legislation.
 
2011-05-11 01:43:24 PM

eraser8: mysticcat: People are literally fleeing across our border to Mexico to take advantage of their wonderful social services and low crime.

Mexico's health care lures Americans

Holy crap, I thought you were joking. But, it's really true!

eraser8: mysticcat: People are literally fleeing across our border to Mexico to take advantage of their wonderful social services and low crime.

Mexico's health care lures Americans

Holy crap, I thought you were joking. But, it's really true!


Because they can afford to access it, unlike the Mexicans.
 
2011-05-11 01:44:14 PM

Saiga410: captain_heroic44:
Does the CEO deserve it?

I wouldn't say CEOs are unproductive. But they are compensated out of all reasonable proportion to their objective contribution.

Nice answer. I would have to agree that some/most CEO pay is beyond the value addition and labor pool force demands. I would rather the money go to the stock holders myself.


There's no reason why only capital should benefit from technological improvements to labor productivity.
 
2011-05-11 01:44:42 PM

actualhuman: That's the main problem the Greens have in the US. They're divided between the reasonably compromising political types and the batshiat crazy activists.

/Ex-Green.


The problem with people on the political fringe is that they sometimes forget that they are on the political fringe and they don't realise how strange their ideas sound to the mainstream.

If you accept the premiss that unrestricted consumption of resources will eventually destroy the planet, then it obviously follows that we have to do something to limit consumption. Because limiting consumption by raising prices hurts the poorest, which is bad, it's far more equitable the limit the consumption of the rich, and the best way to do that is by an income cap. From this perspective the policy makes perfect sense.

The problem is that most people are less concerned with conservation than they are with amassing wealth and increasing their consumption, so to them, limiting income sounds crazy. The Greens should be a bit more sneaky, they should try to convince people to lower their consumption by emphasising the damage it does to the environment and once enough people have come around to the Green point of view, then you can start talking about things like income limits for those who don't get the message.
 
2011-05-11 01:45:17 PM
Maybe we have income inequality because America's poor are not productive enough due to terrible government educations. The rich didn't get richer - the poor just got poorer. Nah, it's always the ebil rich twirling their ebil mustaches after they kill your dog and tear up your homework.
 
2011-05-11 01:47:55 PM

skullkrusher: we could adopt the Green Party platform of taxing all income above 10X their new minimum wage of $12.60 (in 2000) at 100%. That would virtually eliminate the income inequality. Then all that would be left is to figure out what that accomplished.


Music at 11 can hurt your ears. So you shouldn't listen to music on 2 because OBVIOUSLY it is a bad idea.
 
2011-05-11 01:48:03 PM

nlscb: Maybe we have income inequality because America's poor are not productive enough due to terrible government educations. The rich didn't get richer - the poor just got poorer. Nah, it's always the ebil rich twirling their ebil mustaches after they kill your dog and tear up your homework.


Well, not always.
 
2011-05-11 01:48:19 PM

BMulligan: I certainly don't propose that labor should be treated preferentially relative to capital,


You should. Labour is, ultimately people. They have value in and of themselves. People should be treated preferentially to inanimate objects that have no value outside of a given set of social relations. This is common sense.
 
2011-05-11 01:50:40 PM

Bad_Seed: actualhuman: That's the main problem the Greens have in the US. They're divided between the reasonably compromising political types and the batshiat crazy activists.

/Ex-Green.

The problem with people on the political fringe is that they sometimes forget that they are on the political fringe and they don't realise how strange their ideas sound to the mainstream.

If you accept the premiss that unrestricted consumption of resources will eventually destroy the planet, then it obviously follows that we have to do something to limit consumption. Because limiting consumption by raising prices hurts the poorest, which is bad, it's far more equitable the limit the consumption of the rich, and the best way to do that is by an income cap. From this perspective the policy makes perfect sense.

The problem is that most people are less concerned with conservation than they are with amassing wealth and increasing their consumption, so to them, limiting income sounds crazy. The Greens should be a bit more sneaky, they should try to convince people to lower their consumption by emphasising the damage it does to the environment and once enough people have come around to the Green point of view, then you can start talking about things like income limits for those who don't get the message.


Even that sounds crazy to the masses.

"Forgo driving 15 miles to get my triple shot half-caf skinny caramel macchiato? Fark that you controlling asshole."

Hyperbolic? Yes, but is is an example of the attitude I have received when suggesting that perhaps someone doesn't need an item they want.

I'm considered nuts* though by my peers, so what do I know?

*It's because I'm a home brewer/soap maker/gardener/software developer.
 
2011-05-11 01:52:18 PM

captain_heroic44: Saiga410: captain_heroic44:
Does the CEO deserve it?

I wouldn't say CEOs are unproductive. But they are compensated out of all reasonable proportion to their objective contribution.

Nice answer. I would have to agree that some/most CEO pay is beyond the value addition and labor pool force demands. I would rather the money go to the stock holders myself.

There's no reason why only capital should benefit from technological improvements to labor productivity.


For me I see the productivity gains ie increased value addition per work hour is offset by decreasing labor force demands. Bother are caused by the increased computerization and mechination of jobs. You can get more done and be a monkey/drone that is an easily replacable cog. If no one is in a position to be paid more then where else are we going to dump the money but to pay back the people who originally loaned it out.
 
2011-05-11 01:53:39 PM

Lando Lincoln: DarthBrooks: DamnYankees:
It's a bad thing because its unjust. We are more productive than the other OECD countries, but the fruits of that production are not being fairly distributed - rather, the top few percent are taking most of it, and that's wrong.

I think Vonnegut covered this subject pretty well in Harrison Bergeron.

He did? I must have read a different version of that story.

In the version I read, Harrison Bergeron lived in a society where people weren't allowed to be mentally or physically better than anyone else.

In the version you read, I guess Harrison Bergeron lived in a society where people weren't allowed to be richer than anyone else.

I suppose you'll say something like "it's a metaphor" but the metaphor doesn't work, since a person becoming mentally or physically better than others is largely dependent on a person's determination to work out and hit the books, whereas a person's becoming financially better than others is largely dependent on how wealthy of a family a person has come from or how willing one is to financially screw over subordinates, customers and business associates.


In addition, there is no tangible limit to a persons mental or physical prowess other than their own genetic disposition. With wealth there is only so much. Once the few have most of it, there isn't enough to go around so people will end up more like in Harrison Bergeron b/c they will have to split up what little is left between themselves.
 
2011-05-11 01:53:43 PM

mysticcat: Because they can afford to access it, unlike the Mexicans.


The fact that Mexicans are still working the kinks out of their system doesn't change the facts of the article I linked.

Americans ARE going to Mexico for coverage...which pretty much demolishes your sarcasm about US citizens crossing the border to take advantage of Mexico's public services.
 
2011-05-11 01:54:26 PM
Only by giving the rich more tax breaks can we beat this!
 
2011-05-11 02:00:06 PM

DarthBrooks: Derp.


It is a bad thing. Unless you ignore history and the sorts of things that tend to take place in countries with extraordinarily wide wealth gaps.

So either you're an under-educated lout, or you're a tool of the wealthy. Which would you like to be categorized as?
 
2011-05-11 02:00:09 PM

nlscb: Maybe we have income inequality because America's poor are not productive enough due to terrible government educations.


So we don't need anybody to do the jobs that don't require a college education??? The answer to poverty is not always better education.
 
2011-05-11 02:00:49 PM

Sarsin: skullkrusher: we could adopt the Green Party platform of taxing all income above 10X their new minimum wage of $12.60 (in 2000) at 100%. That would virtually eliminate the income inequality. Then all that would be left is to figure out what that accomplished.

Music at 11 can hurt your ears. So you shouldn't listen to music on 2 because OBVIOUSLY it is a bad idea.


what does music at 2 get us? Aside from shifting the tax burden further towards the very wealthy allowing us to lessen the burden on lower incomes - what about reducing the disparity itself helps?
 
2011-05-11 02:02:21 PM

Pincy: nlscb: Maybe we have income inequality because America's poor are not productive enough due to terrible government educations.

So we don't need anybody to do the jobs that don't require a college education??? The answer to poverty is not always better education.


www.carlspackler.com
 
2011-05-11 02:04:08 PM
Say what you will, but the fact of the matter is that more abortions would help this problem dramatically.
 
2011-05-11 02:04:30 PM
As long as the income is being earned by fair and honest means, this is not a problem. And if the income is not being earned by fair and honest means -for example, by fraud, theft, or extortion- there are already legal structures in place to deal with such things.
 
2011-05-11 02:04:53 PM

eraser8: mysticcat: Because they can afford to access it, unlike the Mexicans.

The fact that Mexicans are still working the kinks out of their system doesn't change the facts of the article I linked.

Americans ARE going to Mexico for coverage...which pretty much demolishes your sarcasm about US citizens crossing the border to take advantage of Mexico's public services.


American's aren't going to Mexico for coverage and they aren't taking advantage of Mexico's public services. They're paying out of pocket. If they went to Mexico so that they could get free health care insurance, then that would be taking advantage of Mexico's public services. They're simply taking advantage of Mexico's prices.

If you want your hip replacement at Walmart, then knock yourself out.
 
2011-05-11 02:05:42 PM

Jackson Herring: You forgot "cackling with decadent glee as I enjoy VHS tapes of Season 3 of the X-Files"


What kind of monster are you?
 
2011-05-11 02:06:14 PM

DarnoKonrad: FarkedOver: What workers need to realize is the power of their labor.

In about half the country, whether they realize their power or not is secondary to it being rendered impotent by 'right to work' legislation.


Indeed. I'd just like to pinpoint the exact moment where people started believing in corporate rights and shunning workers rights.
 
2011-05-11 02:06:24 PM
and I don't know why I apostrophed Americans
 
2011-05-11 02:15:10 PM

mysticcat: American's aren't going to Mexico for coverage and they aren't taking advantage of Mexico's public services.

a health care plan with no limits, no deductibles, free medicines, tests, X-rays, eyeglasses, even dental work - all for a flat fee of $250 or less a year.
Um, they're taking advantage of Mexico's public services.

If you'd read TFA, it's called IMSS (Instituto Mexicano de Seguro Social). It's a public service "designed to support Mexican taxpayers who have been paying into the system for decades."

It's clearly more of a public system than Obama's plan, which right wingnuts decried as "socialism" and "free" healthcare for illegal immigrants.

So, if you're going to be honest (*snicker, snicker*) you have a choice to make: either the people campaigning against health care reform in the US were incorrigible liars or Americans are looking to Mexican public services for their health care needs. IT CAN'T BE BOTH.
 
2011-05-11 02:20:04 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: eraser8: Elvis_Bogart: Ya know, Pol Pot started out calling for "Economic Equality" and he got it...everyone was grindingly poor. Plus it lead to a mountain of skulls, but hey...this time we'll do it right.

Every other civilized country in the world has managed to keep income inequality in check without condemning their citizenry to grinding poverty or erecting a mountain of skulls. But, the United States, in your opinion, can't do the same thing because we're not nearly as competent as France or Germany or Canada.

Way to have faith in the country, jackass.

I'm planning a move to France, Canada, or Germany precisely because I have no faith in the Unites States. This shiats gonna end soon and it's not gonna be pretty.


Yep Yep. Me too. I wonder if we'll start to see a mass exodus of US citizens in the future?
 
2011-05-11 02:23:46 PM

raerae1980: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: eraser8: Elvis_Bogart:

I'm planning a move to France, Canada, or Germany precisely because I have no faith in the Unites States. This shiats gonna end soon and it's not gonna be pretty.

Yep Yep. Me too. I wonder if we'll start to see a mass exodus of US citizens in the future?


I'm actually kind of intrigued by the coming changes ... I want to take a wilderness survival course, start farming my own food, purchase and learn to use a gun, etc. While living in Revolutionary America may not be fun, I have no doubt that it will be exciting, and if I survive it I can totally write a book.
 
2011-05-11 02:25:10 PM
"I'm against a homogenized society, because I want the cream to rise."

--Robert Frost
 
2011-05-11 02:27:38 PM

eraser8: mysticcat: American's aren't going to Mexico for coverage and they aren't taking advantage of Mexico's public services.
a health care plan with no limits, no deductibles, free medicines, tests, X-rays, eyeglasses, even dental work - all for a flat fee of $250 or less a year.Um, they're taking advantage of Mexico's public services.

If you'd read TFA, it's called IMSS (Instituto Mexicano de Seguro Social). It's a public service "designed to support Mexican taxpayers who have been paying into the system for decades."

It's clearly more of a public system than Obama's plan, which right wingnuts decried as "socialism" and "free" healthcare for illegal immigrants.

So, if you're going to be honest (*snicker, snicker*) you have a choice to make: either the people campaigning against health care reform in the US were incorrigible liars or Americans are looking to Mexican public services for their health care needs. IT CAN'T BE BOTH.


FTFA::"It's unclear how many Americans use IMSS....., the number probably runs "well into the thousands," said David Warner, a public policy professor at the University of Texas.

OMG literally probably thousands. It's a tidal wave of emigration! Probably. Nothing like that hard factual USA today reporting.

The IMSS plan is primarily designed to support Mexican taxpayers who have been paying into the system for decades, and officials say they don't want to be overrun by bargain-hunting foreigners.

"If they started flooding down here for this, it wouldn't be sustainable," said Javier Lopez Ortiz, IMSS director in San Miguel de Allende.


Any attempt to equate the level of social services, economic opportunity and standard of living between Mexico and the U.S. is either a troll or sheer stupidity. Nice try.
 
2011-05-11 02:28:42 PM

raerae1980: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: eraser8: Elvis_Bogart: Ya know, Pol Pot started out calling for "Economic Equality" and he got it...everyone was grindingly poor. Plus it lead to a mountain of skulls, but hey...this time we'll do it right.

Every other civilized country in the world has managed to keep income inequality in check without condemning their citizenry to grinding poverty or erecting a mountain of skulls. But, the United States, in your opinion, can't do the same thing because we're not nearly as competent as France or Germany or Canada.

Way to have faith in the country, jackass.

I'm planning a move to France, Canada, or Germany precisely because I have no faith in the Unites States. This shiats gonna end soon and it's not gonna be pretty.

Yep Yep. Me too. I wonder if we'll start to see a mass exodus of US citizens in the future?


bon voyage
 
2011-05-11 02:30:38 PM

mysticcat: eraser8: mysticcat: American's aren't going to Mexico for coverage and they aren't taking advantage of Mexico's public services.
a health care plan with no limits, no deductibles, free medicines, tests, X-rays, eyeglasses, even dental work - all for a flat fee of $250 or less a year.Um, they're taking advantage of Mexico's public services.

If you'd read TFA, it's called IMSS (Instituto Mexicano de Seguro Social). It's a public service "designed to support Mexican taxpayers who have been paying into the system for decades."

It's clearly more of a public system than Obama's plan, which right wingnuts decried as "socialism" and "free" healthcare for illegal immigrants.

So, if you're going to be honest (*snicker, snicker*) you have a choice to make: either the people campaigning against health care reform in the US were incorrigible liars or Americans are looking to Mexican public services for their health care needs. IT CAN'T BE BOTH.

FTFA::"It's unclear how many Americans use IMSS....., the number probably runs "well into the thousands," said David Warner, a public policy professor at the University of Texas.

OMG literally probably thousands. It's a tidal wave of emigration! Probably. Nothing like that hard factual USA today reporting.

The IMSS plan is primarily designed to support Mexican taxpayers who have been paying into the system for decades, and officials say they don't want to be overrun by bargain-hunting foreigners.

"If they started flooding down here for this, it wouldn't be sustainable," said Javier Lopez Ortiz, IMSS director in San Miguel de Allende.

Any attempt to equate the level of social services, economic opportunity and standard of living between Mexico and the U.S. is either a troll or sheer stupidity. Nice try.


I guess you haven't noticed there are huge enclaves in Mexico where Americans can retire so they can take advantage of the socialized medicine in Mexico huh?

Link

/Yes, even CBN has realized this
 
2011-05-11 02:30:48 PM
I wonder if the immigrants I met from the Ivory Coast yesterday know that we are just like their country. They didn't seem to.
 
2011-05-11 02:31:06 PM

OozoSoozo: raerae1980: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: eraser8: Elvis_Bogart:

I'm planning a move to France, Canada, or Germany precisely because I have no faith in the Unites States. This shiats gonna end soon and it's not gonna be pretty.

Yep Yep. Me too. I wonder if we'll start to see a mass exodus of US citizens in the future?

I'm actually kind of intrigued by the coming changes ... I want to take a wilderness survival course, start farming my own food, purchase and learn to use a gun, etc. While living in Revolutionary America may not be fun, I have no doubt that it will be exciting, and if I survive it I can totally write a book.


You're in a good place to survive at least. We can grow just about anything in the Willamette.
 
2011-05-11 02:34:43 PM

skullkrusher: raerae1980: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: eraser8: Elvis_Bogart: Ya know, Pol Pot started out calling for "Economic Equality" and he got it...everyone was grindingly poor. Plus it lead to a mountain of skulls, but hey...this time we'll do it right.

Every other civilized country in the world has managed to keep income inequality in check without condemning their citizenry to grinding poverty or erecting a mountain of skulls. But, the United States, in your opinion, can't do the same thing because we're not nearly as competent as France or Germany or Canada.

Way to have faith in the country, jackass.

I'm planning a move to France, Canada, or Germany precisely because I have no faith in the Unites States. This shiats gonna end soon and it's not gonna be pretty.

Yep Yep. Me too. I wonder if we'll start to see a mass exodus of US citizens in the future?

bon voyage


*smooch* *smooch*
 
2011-05-11 02:39:30 PM

skullkrusher: raerae1980: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: eraser8: Elvis_Bogart: Ya know, Pol Pot started out calling for "Economic Equality" and he got it...everyone was grindingly poor. Plus it lead to a mountain of skulls, but hey...this time we'll do it right.

Every other civilized country in the world has managed to keep income inequality in check without condemning their citizenry to grinding poverty or erecting a mountain of skulls. But, the United States, in your opinion, can't do the same thing because we're not nearly as competent as France or Germany or Canada.

Way to have faith in the country, jackass.

I'm planning a move to France, Canada, or Germany precisely because I have no faith in the Unites States. This shiats gonna end soon and it's not gonna be pretty.

Yep Yep. Me too. I wonder if we'll start to see a mass exodus of US citizens in the future?

bon voyage


Insert Tombstone pic here.
 
2011-05-11 02:39:42 PM

mysticcat: OMG literally probably thousands. It's a tidal wave of emigration! Probably. Nothing like that hard factual USA today reporting.


They're still there, aren't they?

Despite how claim that Americans AREN'T looking to Mexico for social services.

You can't explain that (and, you don't).

mysticcat: Any attempt to equate the level of social services, economic opportunity and standard of living between Mexico and the U.S. is either a troll or sheer stupidity.


And Medicare wouldn't survive if every patient was being treated for cancer.

Your argument is what's sheer stupidity.

But, please explain why Americans are going to Mexico for their health care when you seemed to claim that it wasn't happening at all.
 
2011-05-11 02:41:17 PM

Saiga410: skullkrusher: raerae1980: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: eraser8: Elvis_Bogart: Ya know, Pol Pot started out calling for "Economic Equality" and he got it...everyone was grindingly poor. Plus it lead to a mountain of skulls, but hey...this time we'll do it right.

Every other civilized country in the world has managed to keep income inequality in check without condemning their citizenry to grinding poverty or erecting a mountain of skulls. But, the United States, in your opinion, can't do the same thing because we're not nearly as competent as France or Germany or Canada.

Way to have faith in the country, jackass.

I'm planning a move to France, Canada, or Germany precisely because I have no faith in the Unites States. This shiats gonna end soon and it's not gonna be pretty.

Yep Yep. Me too. I wonder if we'll start to see a mass exodus of US citizens in the future?

bon voyage

Insert Tombstone pic here.


Imagine if all the left leaning people left the U.S. for a moment. Imagine the crazy shiat you'd have to say to get elected! It'd be awesome.
 
2011-05-11 02:45:55 PM

CaspianXth: "I'm against a homogenized society, because I want the cream to rise."

--Robert Frost


Yeah, there are probably no options other than "homogenized society" and "third-world-level income inequality".
 
2011-05-11 02:49:33 PM

joethebastard: CaspianXth: "I'm against a homogenized society, because I want the cream to rise."

--Robert Frost

Yeah, there are probably no options other than "homogenized society" and "third-world-level income inequality".


No stable ones, at any rate. Attempts to create such things inevitably move over time toward one or the other, often reaching that endpoint shockingly quickly.
 
2011-05-11 02:57:30 PM

DarnoKonrad: Giltric: Something else that might skew the numbers is how a college student can go from owing 150K in student loans to being worth 70 billion dollars after investors buy his idea for a 3d lolcats news aggregator massively multiplayer online role playing first person shooter video porn site.

Don't forget the easy money pursuing pro-basketball.


Plenty of "ballers" making over 20m a year in salary and endorsements. A couple golfers....probably a number of musicians...rappers...actors/actresses...Oprah....a few boxers...NASCAR drivers.

We have no problem paying "entertainers" large sums of money yet if someone is able to make 20m while managing a 200bn portfolio of pension plans we cry foul.

people who produce are evil and should be introduced to the guillotine.


The left is thinking so far outside the box they are coloring on the wall.
 
2011-05-11 02:58:57 PM

CaspianXth: "I'm against a homogenized society, because I want the cream to rise."

--Robert Frost


santorum is not cream.
 
2011-05-11 02:59:02 PM

DamnYankees: Giltric: Why do they equate the American "poor" with the poor in other countries who get categorized as living on less then 1$ a day

No one is doing that.

Do you know how Gini Coefficients work?


Statisticals is not my strong suit....even after reading the wiki about Gini....its doesn;t seem to tell the whole story though.
 
2011-05-11 03:03:26 PM

Millennium: No stable ones, at any rate.


Because "pure socialist states" and "states with third-world-level economic disparities" are so stable, right?

Seriously?

Attempts to create such things inevitably move over time toward one or the other, often reaching that endpoint shockingly quickly.

Right. Which is why all the lines on a graph of world GINI coefficients suddenly drop to the top or the bottom, often "shockingly quickly", right?
 
2011-05-11 03:03:58 PM

FarkedOver: Imagine if all the left leaning people left the U.S. for a moment. Imagine the crazy shiat you'd have to say to get elected! It'd be awesome.


It is kinda funny how the lefts Gault's Gulch is to go to another country where momma govt takes care of them while the rights Gault's Gulch is to move out into the hillside and fend for themselves in a comunal farming experiment.
 
2011-05-11 03:06:00 PM
I don't care how much money other people are making
 
2011-05-11 03:06:28 PM

Jackson Herring: FarkedOver: Well, that was a solid season...

Well shiat. I suddenly have a strong desire to watch Jose Chung's From Outer Space Home featuring the Peacock family


FTFY

/♫ Wonderful, wonderful ♫
 
2011-05-11 03:06:31 PM
Freep Impact - "Focusing on income equality is the road to serfdom. It's also a formula for impoverishing the country. We should celebrate success and greatness - and our differences!"



"You and I are different. Everyone in my family can afford to buy their own fleet of Gulfstreams. Your entire family can't scrape together enough money for a gallon of milk. Isn't that great?!?!?! Yayyy!!!"
 
2011-05-11 03:09:04 PM

Giltric: We have no problem paying "entertainers" large sums of money


No we should tax them too.
 
2011-05-11 03:11:38 PM
Truly, the greatest expression of the conservative vision of America would be the final "winner."

The man who finally owns everything... every company, every property, every asset worth owning and employs everyone in the nation. A single man with a stack of money that reaches all the way to Mars and looks at everyone else in the country and says "haters!"

/go start your own company if you don't like it
 
2011-05-11 03:13:37 PM

Saiga410: FarkedOver: Imagine if all the left leaning people left the U.S. for a moment. Imagine the crazy shiat you'd have to say to get elected! It'd be awesome.

It is kinda funny how the lefts Gault's Gulch is to go to another country where momma govt takes care of them while the rights Gault's Gulch is to move out into the hillside and fend for themselves in a comunal farming experiment.


There's no u in Galt. It's spelled Gamelt.
 
2011-05-11 03:14:00 PM

Saiga410: the rights Gault's Gulch is to move out into the hillside and fend for themselves leverage the lack of labor protections in a 'communal' farming 'experiment.'




ftfy mas'er
 
2011-05-11 03:14:41 PM
gearsprocket - I don't care how much money other people are making

...but I spend endless sleepless nights worrying intensely about who they're farking.
 
2011-05-11 03:16:44 PM

technicolor-misfit: gearsprocket - I don't care how much money other people are making

...but I spend endless sleepless nights worrying intensely about who they're farking.


you training for the World's Strawman Building Competition?
 
2011-05-11 03:26:08 PM

technicolor-misfit: Truly, the greatest expression of the conservative vision of America would be the final "winner."

The man who finally owns everything... every company, every property, every asset worth owning and employs everyone in the nation. A single man with a stack of money that reaches all the way to Mars and looks at everyone else in the country and says "haters!"

/go start your own company if you don't like it



And the water carriers would defend that awesome man to the death because they see poors with TVs every day.
 
2011-05-11 03:26:59 PM
Saiga410 - FarkedOver: Imagine if all the left leaning people left the U.S. for a moment. Imagine the crazy shiat you'd have to say to get elected! It'd be awesome.

It is kinda funny how the lefts Gault's Gulch is to go to another country where momma govt takes care of them intelligence and education isn't considered a mark of shame, science isn't considered anyone's enemy, and no inbred shiatheads are trying to teach schoolkids that Jesus rode around on dinosaurs while the rights Gault's Gulch is to move out into the hillside and fend for themselves in a comunal farming experiment imagine that being a $25K/yr cubicle jockey is in no way an indication that one is NOT a shining example of a Randian Superman. Actual billionaires pay lobbyists very good salaries devising new ways to take as much government money as they can with both hands out.



The actual world is quite a bit different than the one magicked before your eyes by your beloved radio spell-weaver, junkie, and butt-f***er of small brown boys.
 
2011-05-11 03:28:04 PM

skullkrusher: technicolor-misfit: gearsprocket - I don't care how much money other people are making

...but I spend endless sleepless nights worrying intensely about who they're farking.

you training for the World's Strawman Building Competition?


So the far right DOESN'T spend an inappropriate amount of time thinking about who other people are farking? That's news to me.
 
2011-05-11 03:32:44 PM
skullkrusher - technicolor-misfit: gearsprocket - I don't care how much money other people are making

...but I spend endless sleepless nights worrying intensely about who they're farking.



you training for the World's Strawman Building Competition?



How is that a strawman?


The right loves to throw that "I don't care how much money other people make" line out there to suggest that they're nose-to-the-grindstone folks who mind their own business and just want to be left alone and leave others alone...

But then, we all know that's complete bullshiat, don't we?

They want to dictate to others who they can fark, what gods they worship, what books they read, what corporations they subsidize, what countries they fight, what plants they smoke, what they do with their bodies... etc. etc. etc.
 
2011-05-11 03:35:28 PM

technicolor-misfit: skullkrusher - technicolor-misfit: gearsprocket - I don't care how much money other people are making

...but I spend endless sleepless nights worrying intensely about who they're farking.


you training for the World's Strawman Building Competition?


How is that a strawman?


The right loves to throw that "I don't care how much money other people make" line out there to suggest that they're nose-to-the-grindstone folks who mind their own business and just want to be left alone and leave others alone...

But then, we all know that's complete bullshiat, don't we?

They want to dictate to others who they can fark, what gods they worship, what books they read, what corporations they subsidize, what countries they fight, what plants they smoke, what they do with their bodies... etc. etc. etc.


all the guy said was "I don't care how much other people are making".
 
2011-05-11 03:36:09 PM

Mike Chewbacca: skullkrusher: technicolor-misfit: gearsprocket - I don't care how much money other people are making

...but I spend endless sleepless nights worrying intensely about who they're farking.

you training for the World's Strawman Building Competition?

So the far right DOESN'T spend an inappropriate amount of time thinking about who other people are farking? That's news to me.


where logic, whar?
 
2011-05-11 03:38:01 PM

skullkrusher: Mike Chewbacca: skullkrusher: technicolor-misfit: gearsprocket - I don't care how much money other people are making

...but I spend endless sleepless nights worrying intensely about who they're farking.

you training for the World's Strawman Building Competition?

So the far right DOESN'T spend an inappropriate amount of time thinking about who other people are farking? That's news to me.

where logic, whar?


NO U
 
2011-05-11 03:39:28 PM

FarkedOver: skullkrusher: Mike Chewbacca: skullkrusher: technicolor-misfit: gearsprocket - I don't care how much money other people are making

...but I spend endless sleepless nights worrying intensely about who they're farking.

you training for the World's Strawman Building Competition?

So the far right DOESN'T spend an inappropriate amount of time thinking about who other people are farking? That's news to me.

where logic, whar?

NO U


I'm farking lost. Apparently there are conversations going on in people's heads that I am not being made privy to.
 
2011-05-11 03:43:51 PM
Tax code thoughts:

Set Minimum wage as $x/year.
Set ten progressive Brackets, between X and 125X (Arbitrary number, chosen to be ~2M/year income)
Set brackets to begin at 5% taxation and end at ~60% taxation.
Include all income sources. Dividents, business related, income, estate, Stocks.
No loopholes.

Thoughts?
 
2011-05-11 03:48:27 PM
skullkrusher - technicolor-misfit: skullkrusher - technicolor-misfit: gearsprocket - I don't care how much money other people are making

...but I spend endless sleepless nights worrying intensely about who they're farking.


you training for the World's Strawman Building Competition?


How is that a strawman?


The right loves to throw that "I don't care how much money other people make" line out there to suggest that they're nose-to-the-grindstone folks who mind their own business and just want to be left alone and leave others alone...

But then, we all know that's complete bullshiat, don't we?

They want to dictate to others who they can fark, what gods they worship, what books they read, what corporations they subsidize, what countries they fight, what plants they smoke, what they do with their bodies... etc. etc. etc.



all the guy said was "I don't care how much other people are making".




And like "welfare queen," it's a common talking point with a whole slew of rhetoric tied to it.
 
2011-05-11 03:50:53 PM
skullkrusher - FarkedOver: skullkrusher: Mike Chewbacca: skullkrusher: technicolor-misfit: gearsprocket - I don't care how much money other people are making

...but I spend endless sleepless nights worrying intensely about who they're farking.

you training for the World's Strawman Building Competition?

So the far right DOESN'T spend an inappropriate amount of time thinking about who other people are farking? That's news to me.

where logic, whar?

NO U

I'm farking lost. Apparently there are conversations going on in people's heads that I am not being made privy to.



I'm sorry you're unable to detect subtext.
 
2011-05-11 03:51:37 PM

technicolor-misfit: And like "welfare queen," it's a common talking point with a whole slew of rhetoric tied to it.


you might wanna wait til someone makes an argument before you attack it.

I don't give a shiat how much people make.
I also don't give a shiat who people fark. Can you milk me, Focker?
 
2011-05-11 03:54:36 PM

JokerMattly: Tax code thoughts:

Set Minimum wage as $x/year.
Set ten progressive Brackets, between X and 125X (Arbitrary number, chosen to be ~2M/year income)
Set brackets to begin at 5 60% taxation and end at ~60 5% taxation.
Include all income sources. Dividents, business related, income, estate, Stocks.
No loopholes.

Thoughts?

 
2011-05-11 03:56:40 PM

DarthBrooks: Not because we have poorer poor people, but because we have more rich people.

And this is supposed to be a bad thing.


To the Left, this is a bad thing. They will never permit the US to be measured by how well everyone is doing on an absolute basis. As long as someone is making "too much", then everything is bad and unfair and the "too much" must be confiscated and given to the bottom of the pile (regardless of whether the bottom of the pile needs it). They theorize that there's no way anyone at the top could have made "too much" without stepping on the backs of or taking it away from those at the bottom.

The rest of us see the world as something other than a zero-sum-game.
 
2011-05-11 03:57:06 PM
phil, paging phil, this is your arena man! come white knight for the rich! they need your help so badly! without fools like you they will have nothing!
 
2011-05-11 04:03:51 PM
Worthless comparison is worthless. Sorry most of the uber-wealthy are Americans.
 
2011-05-11 04:12:04 PM
static.newworldencyclopedia.org

It is with regret that I pronounce the fatal truth: Louis must die that the country may live.
 
2011-05-11 04:16:51 PM
Saiga410:

I'm not entirely sure if you're making fun of me or retarded. might you elaborate your correction.
 
2011-05-11 04:18:03 PM

JokerMattly: Tax code thoughts:

Set Minimum wage as $x/year.
Set ten progressive Brackets, between X and 125X (Arbitrary number, chosen to be ~2M/year income)
Set brackets to begin at 5% taxation and end at ~60% taxation.
Include all income sources. Dividents, business related, income, estate, Stocks.
No loopholes.

Thoughts?


I like your plan, but allow me to present a suggestion for changing the bolded part.

My plan with the bracket system is that they're (as you note) basically arbitrary. For ten brackets, you've got twenty parameters to determine. If we had a rational, systematic system for determining (and updating) them, it might not be so bad, but we really don't. Consider an alternative- a tax rate R that scales continuously with your income I:

R(I)=Rmax*[1-exp(-I/I0)]

There are only two parameters here: Rmax determines the highest tax rate that anyone pays. I0 determines how fast you get there as you make more money.

So everybody pays some taxes, but if you make an income much less than I0, then your rate is very low. If you make much more than I0, your rate is Rmax. So there's only two things to argue about, and either could be chosen systematically. There are no arbitrary places where your tax rate suddenly goes up.

If we wanted to make it one notch more fair (at the cost of a bit more complication), I0 could vary based on the cost of living in your area. Again, this could be done systematically (i.e. make I0 some number times the poverty-level income in that area), so there are still only two parameters to argue about.
 
2011-05-11 04:20:12 PM

joethebastard: My plan problem with the bracket system


FTFM. bloody hell.
 
2011-05-11 04:22:02 PM
joethebastard:

Oooh, i like that. Maybe I0 ought to be indexed locally to Standard of living? Hm. that does add complication...
 
2011-05-11 04:30:15 PM

joethebastard: R(I)=Rmax*[1-exp(-I/I0)]


Your post reminds me why so many states have a lottery - AKA "the tax on people who can't do math."
 
2011-05-11 04:32:49 PM

JokerMattly: joethebastard:

Oooh, i like that. Maybe I0 ought to be indexed locally to Standard of living? Hm. that does add complication...


It does, but it does it in a way we could address systematically. If your income is exactly I=I0, then you'd be paying about 2/3 of the max rate. So we can set it by saying "if the richest billionaires in the country are paying 45%, then how much more than the poverty line should you be making before you pay 30%?"

That is, if we set I0=x*(some cost-of-living metric), then we still have just one parameter (x) to argue about- a parameter that essentially determines the progressiveness of the tax code.

Moreover, by indexing the income scale I0 to a cost-of-living metric, we have a tax code that automatically updates itself as costs of living increase.
 
2011-05-11 04:35:37 PM
Not good but what are the trends on these figures. That could be fascinating (if depressing).
 
2011-05-11 04:38:05 PM

BMulligan: joethebastard: R(I)=Rmax*[1-exp(-I/I0)]

Your post reminds me why so many states have a lottery - AKA "the tax on people who can't do math."


Hey, that tax put me through college :-P

For the math-impaired- the function is shaped like this:

www.revisemri.com

Where the y axis would be the tax rate you pay (1.0 on the graph would be the max tax rate Rmax), and the x axis would be your income (400 on the graph represents income I0).
 
2011-05-11 04:38:55 PM

Weaver95: I wouldn't worry about it - eventually the imbalance works itself out. granted - it'll lower property values and get rather bloody in the process...but historically speaking, such a large imbalance doesn't last forever.


Oh please, all the pussies out there will keep doing what they have been doing, sitting there with their hands out and be drains on society.
Then, now, all the same.
 
2011-05-11 04:41:17 PM

BMulligan: joethebastard: R(I)=Rmax*[1-exp(-I/I0)]

Your post reminds me why so many states have a lottery - AKA "the tax on people who can't do math."


I get so tired of this statement.

Buying a $1 lottery ticket gives one a chance to think about what they'd do if they won the lottery for a few hours. It's a cheap high.

People that spend more than a dollar...THOSE are the suckers.
 
2011-05-11 04:46:01 PM

Lando Lincoln: Buying a $1 lottery ticket gives one a chance to think about what they'd do if they won the lottery for a few hours. It's a cheap high.


Yeah, but you don't need the lottery ticket to do that.
 
2011-05-11 04:46:06 PM

eraser8: Elvis_Bogart: Ya know, Pol Pot started out calling for "Economic Equality" and he got it...everyone was grindingly poor. Plus it lead to a mountain of skulls, but hey...this time we'll do it right.

Every other civilized country in the world has managed to keep income inequality in check without condemning their citizenry to grinding poverty or erecting a mountain of skulls. But, the United States, in your opinion, can't do the same thing because we're not nearly as competent as France or Germany or Canada.

Way to have faith in the country, jackass.


They have faith in the country, just not in your kind ever getting anything right.
 
2011-05-11 04:46:38 PM

eraser8: Elvis_Bogart: Ya know, Pol Pot started out calling for "Economic Equality" and he got it...everyone was grindingly poor. Plus it lead to a mountain of skulls, but hey...this time we'll do it right.

Every other civilized country in the world has managed to keep income inequality in check without condemning their citizenry to grinding poverty or erecting a mountain of skulls. But, the United States, in your opinion, can't do the same thing because we're not nearly as competent as France or Germany or Canada.

Way to have faith in the country, jackass.


I do like the cognitive dissidence on the right that says that America can possibly provide the services that other governments do, while at the same time claiming American exceptionalism.
 
2011-05-11 04:47:17 PM
America can't

/stupid preview
 
2011-05-11 04:52:56 PM

Lando Lincoln: BMulligan: joethebastard: R(I)=Rmax*[1-exp(-I/I0)]

Your post reminds me why so many states have a lottery - AKA "the tax on people who can't do math."

I get so tired of this statement.

Buying a $1 lottery ticket gives one a chance to think about what they'd do if they won the lottery for a few hours. It's a cheap high.

People that spend more than a dollar...THOSE are the suckers.


it's fun. It's ok to spend disposable income on fun.
 
2011-05-11 04:53:51 PM
DERPDERPDERP POL POT R WHAT THE LIBRULS WANT 2 DO DERPDERPDERP

Christ, you know the whole link between democracy and capitalism was invented by Edward Bernays as a method of propaganda in the 1950's, right?
 
2011-05-11 05:06:02 PM

VoteOrDie: eraser8: Elvis_Bogart: Ya know, Pol Pot started out calling for "Economic Equality" and he got it...everyone was grindingly poor. Plus it lead to a mountain of skulls, but hey...this time we'll do it right.

Every other civilized country in the world has managed to keep income inequality in check without condemning their citizenry to grinding poverty or erecting a mountain of skulls. But, the United States, in your opinion, can't do the same thing because we're not nearly as competent as France or Germany or Canada.

Way to have faith in the country, jackass.

They have faith in the country, just not in your kind ever getting anything right.


My kind? What the hell are you talking about, stupid?
 
2011-05-11 05:32:31 PM
captain_heroic44 - Lando Lincoln: Buying a $1 lottery ticket gives one a chance to think about what they'd do if they won the lottery for a few hours. It's a cheap high.


Yeah, but you don't need the lottery ticket to do that.



And you have almost exactly the same chance of winning.
 
2011-05-11 05:52:33 PM

technicolor-misfit: captain_heroic44 - Lando Lincoln: Buying a $1 lottery ticket gives one a chance to think about what they'd do if they won the lottery for a few hours. It's a cheap high.


Yeah, but you don't need the lottery ticket to do that.

And you have almost exactly the same chance of winning.


There is a significant difference between zero and not-zero.
 
2011-05-11 06:25:50 PM
CEO pay is too high! I demand that we immediately slash the CEO pay of big companies like GM from the (2007) $15.7 million annual compensation down to $100,000k and distribute the money equally amongst the 280,000 employees they have world-wide! I will be a hero, truly for the working class American! I mean, when those employees get their extra $56 a year things will change for the better!

Oh wait, damn, you mean that a multinational hundreds of billion dollar company with tens of thousands of employees the executive pay is actually a tiny percentage of actual spending?

I mean, the rich could certainly pay more in taxes, but acting like the CEO pay is the reason why thousands of people whose only ability is to turn a screw aren't being paid better wages than skilled workers is ignorant.
 
2011-05-11 06:31:36 PM

Marcus Aurelius: So what if middle class wages are still at 1970 levels. Flat screen TVs have never been cheaper!


Umm if you measure it by goods, services and standard of living, wages have never been higher. Measure it by how much paper you can eat and it's a diff story.

There is a measure of truth in flat screens have never been cheaper. That is actually a very good measure of growing wealth.
 
2011-05-11 06:38:25 PM

Chimperror2: Marcus Aurelius: So what if middle class wages are still at 1970 levels. Flat screen TVs have never been cheaper!

Umm if you measure it by goods, services and standard of living, wages have never been higher. Measure it by how much paper you can eat and it's a diff story.

There is a measure of truth in flat screens have never been cheaper. That is actually a very good measure of growing wealth.


The innovations, productivity increases, and globalization drive down the costs of many items people used to not be able to afford. Much of the income gap comes from these same factors as automation and global distribution systems have made it such that low educated low skill workers can no longer demand premium union wages and benefits since their value-add is shrinking.
 
2011-05-11 06:39:37 PM

Chimperror2: Marcus Aurelius: So what if middle class wages are still at 1970 levels. Flat screen TVs have never been cheaper!

Umm if you measure it by goods, services and standard of living, wages have never been higher. Measure it by how much paper you can eat and it's a diff story.

There is a measure of truth in flat screens have never been cheaper. That is actually a very good measure of growing wealth.


I can't eat an ipod.
 
2011-05-11 06:40:32 PM
ipad, dammit!
 
2011-05-11 06:42:20 PM

Gangway Fathead: Chimperror2: Marcus Aurelius: So what if middle class wages are still at 1970 levels. Flat screen TVs have never been cheaper!

Umm if you measure it by goods, services and standard of living, wages have never been higher. Measure it by how much paper you can eat and it's a diff story.

There is a measure of truth in flat screens have never been cheaper. That is actually a very good measure of growing wealth.

I can't eat an ipod.


Sure you can.

The jury is still out in regards to if it has any nutritional value.


I'm sure some hipster can whip up a chart and white knight the nutritional value of Aple branded items though.
 
2011-05-11 07:23:13 PM

aneki: Chimperror2: Marcus Aurelius: So what if middle class wages are still at 1970 levels. Flat screen TVs have never been cheaper!

Umm if you measure it by goods, services and standard of living, wages have never been higher. Measure it by how much paper you can eat and it's a diff story.

There is a measure of truth in flat screens have never been cheaper. That is actually a very good measure of growing wealth.

The innovations, productivity increases, and globalization drive down the costs of many items people used to not be able to afford. Much of the income gap comes from these same factors as automation and global distribution systems have made it such that low educated low skill workers can no longer demand premium union wages and benefits since their value-add is shrinking.


if goods and services fall faster than wages (or rise less quickly), it doesn't matter. Purchasing power is the end-all/be-all, not a mythical currency with fancy letters. If those uneducated, unskilled workers can afford color flat screens, microwaves, automobiles and air conditioning, they are competing with the top 10% of 40 years ago in terms of actual wealth.
 
2011-05-11 07:25:44 PM

Gangway Fathead: Chimperror2: Marcus Aurelius: So what if middle class wages are still at 1970 levels. Flat screen TVs have never been cheaper!

Umm if you measure it by goods, services and standard of living, wages have never been higher. Measure it by how much paper you can eat and it's a diff story.

There is a measure of truth in flat screens have never been cheaper. That is actually a very good measure of growing wealth.

I can't eat an ipod.


You must have missed the part where obesity is the largest problem facing the poor in the U.S. Food has never been cheaper. Being fat isn't a condition that the Ivory Coast is facing. Their calories are a lot emptier then the ones in the U.S.
 
2011-05-11 07:33:15 PM

aneki: CEO pay is too high! I demand that we immediately slash the CEO pay of big companies like GM from the (2007) $15.7 million annual compensation down to $100,000k and distribute the money equally amongst the 280,000 employees they have world-wide! I will be a hero, truly for the working class American! I mean, when those employees get their extra $56 a year things will change for the better!

Oh wait, damn, you mean that a multinational hundreds of billion dollar company with tens of thousands of employees the executive pay is actually a tiny percentage of actual spending?

I mean, the rich could certainly pay more in taxes, but acting like the CEO pay is the reason why thousands of people whose only ability is to turn a screw aren't being paid better wages than skilled workers is ignorant.


You didn't include the benefits or the additional bonuses the CEOs get.

One president of one division gets 10k a month, not in pay but in living expenses. That is at least 4-5 different employees salaries combined for a month. In which the employees dont get living expenses.

Come back and talk when you get all the figures and not just base salary.

When we asked for more staff due to the influx of operations we were told they didn't have enough money to even hire one person.

The pay inequality does matter, and the lot of people you included all empolyees, even the ones that could get a pay cut and still have an ass load of cash.
 
2011-05-11 08:02:29 PM
Lando Lincoln - technicolor-misfit: captain_heroic44 - Lando Lincoln: Buying a $1 lottery ticket gives one a chance to think about what they'd do if they won the lottery for a few hours. It's a cheap high.


Yeah, but you don't need the lottery ticket to do that.

And you have almost exactly the same chance of winning.



There is a significant difference between zero and not-zero.




Tell it to a bookie, professor.
 
2011-05-11 08:11:24 PM
We wouldn't have this problem if the poor would earn more money.
 
2011-05-11 08:29:05 PM

redqueenmeg: This is because if a CEO makes 7,000 times the wage of a minimum-wage worker, he obviously worked 7,000 times harder. Duh, winning.


You probably make 100 times more than a worker in Africa. Do YOU work 100 times harder?
 
2011-05-11 10:12:46 PM

luckybastard: redqueenmeg: This is because if a CEO makes 7,000 times the wage of a minimum-wage worker, he obviously worked 7,000 times harder. Duh, winning.

You probably make 100 times more than a worker in Africa. Do YOU work 100 times harder?



"You're not starving to death in a third-world country!!! You have no reason to complain!!! Unleds you're a millionaire being asked to pay 3% more income tax on your wage earnings over $250k a year...then you are a pitiable victim of a most brazen and deplorable tyranny, you poor, poor man."
 
2011-05-11 10:35:00 PM

mysticcat: This is exactly why we are losing all our intellectual talent to Uganda and the Ivory Coast. No one wants to come to America anymore. It's just impossible to improve your station or achieve any decent standard of living here. People are literally fleeing across our border to Mexico to take advantage of their wonderful social services and low crime.


I can't stand this "at least we are better than Uganda" crap. The fact of the matter is that the US may be better than third world hell holes in Africa, but we are worse than plenty of other countries. You don't see many people from Switzerland or Norway wanting to move here. It is like having you son drop out of high school, but taking solace in the fact that at least he is not a murderer. Shouldn't we expect better?
 
2011-05-11 10:49:06 PM

DarthBrooks: Not because we have poorer poor people, but because we have more rich people.

And this is supposed to be a bad thing.


Holy crap - is every wingnut as unblemished by actual economic fact as you are?
 
2011-05-11 10:53:13 PM
If Europe jumped off a bridge would you do it too?
 
2011-05-12 06:47:48 AM
The obvious solution is more tax cuts for the rich and less government regulation. I'm sure the invisible hand will fix this in no time.
 
2011-05-12 08:57:36 AM
I assumed that if everyone was getting worked up over it, then there was a new Gini chart.

Nope.

Same old chart, based on the OECD paper that was published in 2008, which is itself based on surveys conducted between 2003 & 2006, which asked about income in the previous year.

In other words, depending on which country you look at, this data is actually from 2002-2005!
 
2011-05-12 10:12:40 AM
The income inequality comparisons are pointless. All they show is that America is still a very dynamic place where people can generate good ideas and make themselves multi-billionaires. What's more important to the average Joe is our quality of life compared to other countries.

Look at the top of our wealth list. It's mostly filled with people who founded the likes of Microsoft, facebook, google, etc. These companies are GOOD for America and Americans because they sell shiat to foreigners and help counteract our balance of trade problems. Obviously you have some, like the Waltons, who are doing the opposite by importing cheap Chinese shiat and selling it to us. But most of those at the top built their own empires and are having a positive efect on our balance of trade.

Compare that to Germany for example where most of the richest are the offspring of rich industrialists from yesteryear who manage to concentrate, and keep wealth in the family. Germany's top 10% own over 60% of all wealth and the top one percent owns 25%. Meanwhile the bottom 70% of Germans own less than 10% of the wealth.

Does anyone really think we compare that badly? Seriously? For the man in the street it doesn't make much difference.
 
2011-05-12 01:56:37 PM

Ebbelwoi: The income inequality comparisons are pointless. All they show is that America is still a very dynamic place where people can generate good ideas and make themselves multi-billionaires. What's more important to the average Joe is our quality of life compared to other countries.

Look at the top of our wealth list. It's mostly filled with people who founded the likes of Microsoft, facebook, google, etc. These companies are GOOD for America and Americans because they sell shiat to foreigners and help counteract our balance of trade problems. Obviously you have some, like the Waltons, who are doing the opposite by importing cheap Chinese shiat and selling it to us. But most of those at the top built their own empires and are having a positive efect on our balance of trade.

Compare that to Germany for example where most of the richest are the offspring of rich industrialists from yesteryear who manage to concentrate, and keep wealth in the family. Germany's top 10% own over 60% of all wealth and the top one percent owns 25%. Meanwhile the bottom 70% of Germans own less than 10% of the wealth.

Does anyone really think we compare that badly? Seriously? For the man in the street it doesn't make much difference.


The top 10% of Americans own about 73% of the net worth and about 83% of the financial wealth in the country; the corresponding figures for the top 1% of Americans are 35% and 43%. Meanwhile, the bottom 80% of Americans own about 15% of the net worth and about 7% of the financial wealth in the country, and the VAST majority of that is in the middle quintile since the bottom 40% own about 0.3% of the financial wealth in the country and have negative net worths.

You should really do some research before you shoot yourself in the foot. Or the head.

/shooting yourself in the head might not be such a bad idea
 
2011-05-13 06:39:05 AM
I'm not sure what killer point you're trying to make. The bottom 70% of Germans owns less than ten percent of the wealth and the bottom 80% of Americans own 15% of the wealth. Those are very similar figures and that's why I said for the man in the street the differences in wealth distribution are largely meaningless.

That the top tier in the US has a bigger chunk than the top tier in Germany is a simple factor of the US having a larger number of Bill Gates/Michael Bloomberg/Larry Ellison types who invent/create/build game-changing technologies and companies which is, in no way, a negative thing for America.

Most people seem incapable of looking at the issue logically. If you assume some of our top tier gazillionaires simply never existed, if Gates, Bloomberg, Dell, and Ellison were never born and never created their fortunes, America's wealth distribution would instantly be more "fair" and closer to that of, say, Germany. But would America and Americans be better off? Nope.
 
2011-05-13 07:22:49 AM
A simple exercise in logic:

Two countries A & B have identical populations of exactly four people. In each country three people earn 50,000 currency units and one person earns 100,000 currency units. Wealth and income distributions are identical.

Suddenly the richest guy in Country A develops an operating system for desktop PCs which he sells worldwide. He now makes 10 million instead of 100,000. The income and wealth distribution is suddenly massively skewed. "It's worse than Guatemala!!!!"

Now, how have the three other guys in country A suffered economically? Country A's GDP is now larger, tax receipts are larger, and the balance of trade is improved. Please indicate why this is "bad" for the three lower earners.
 
2011-05-13 12:15:58 PM

Ebbelwoi: Please indicate why this is "bad" for the three lower earners.


Rich guy closes the factory that employs the other three, and moves it to Guatemala. The three have to subsist on government programs. The rich guy greases the right palms and gets his taxes lowered, forcing the government to cut social services with deep austerity measures.

Though there's so many things wrong with your scenario to begin with, I'm surprised I didn't go cross-eyed trying to read it.
 
Displayed 237 of 237 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report