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.

(Huffington Post)   Hey, 90 percent of Americans, what are you complaining about? Your incomes have gone up nearly $60. Sure, that's over forty years, but still   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 122
    More: Sad, Americans, tax analysts, AlterNet, Pulitzer Prize-winning, incomes  
•       •       •

6169 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Mar 2013 at 11:25 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



122 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-26 12:20:01 AM

morg: I'm tired of hearing how poor I am. I was told there would be cake?


Or death.
 
2013-03-26 12:20:23 AM
1992 Base Crappy Chevy Camaro v8 $14,000.
 
2013-03-26 12:20:28 AM

Great Janitor: What are the odds of going from poor to rich? I don't know. What I do know is that there are more first generation millionaires right now in the US than at any other time, and that the vast majority of millionaires are first generation.


That's what inflation does.  1 million in 1973 (going from the 40 years in TFA to most current 2012 data) is about 5 million today.  To compare millionaires in these generations of significant inflation is ludicrous.
 
2013-03-26 12:20:53 AM

morg: I'm tired of hearing how poor I am. I was told there would be cake?

We're out of cake. We only had three bits and we didn't expect such a rush. We still have plenty of "or death" though

 
2013-03-26 12:21:18 AM

Notabunny: morg: I'm tired of hearing how poor I am. I was told there would be cake?

Or death.


It's called Hedonism, morons.

Life feels good.
 
2013-03-26 12:22:23 AM

12349876: Great Janitor: What are the odds of going from poor to rich? I don't know. What I do know is that there are more first generation millionaires right now in the US than at any other time, and that the vast majority of millionaires are first generation.

That's what inflation does.  1 million in 1973 (going from the 40 years in TFA to most current 2012 data) is about 5 million today.  To compare millionaires in these generations of significant inflation is ludicrous.


Blah blah, or Labor theory of value. Internet. Derrr...
 
2013-03-26 12:22:51 AM

Great Janitor: Oh, an article about class differences.  Is there any economic system out there where there is no haves and have nots and has hot running water and medicine?


Maybe we should get the "medicine" part right before we have that discussion.
 
2013-03-26 12:24:11 AM
Americans keep demonizing unions, voting for corporate whores, and are A-OK with moneyed elite controlling the media.  They knew what they were getting into, I say let them crash eat cake.
 
2013-03-26 12:25:44 AM
I miss 'Hee Haw'.....

dawncompk.files.wordpress.com

I'm a pickin'

cred911.files.wordpress.com
and I'm a grinnin'
 
2013-03-26 12:26:23 AM

Nutsac_Jim: Sgygus: netizencain: it just doesn't matter who you vote for

So the political shift of the country to the right (since Reagan) is just in my imagination.

/I need to get my weather-vane cleaned
//not disagreeing with you about the lack of any genuine leftiness in the Democrats.

you mean the three terms for republicans and three terms for democrats?
yes, it is your imagination.


Yes, we heard the part about "all the same". You repeat it, but you apparently can't comprehend what he said.

Clinton's 8 years were largely extensions of Reagan policy. Decreased regulation and oversight, NAFTA, *further* expansion of trade with China, and welfare "reform". Hillary was on the board for Walmart for crying out loud.
 
2013-03-26 12:28:19 AM

StoPPeRmobile: Notabunny: morg: I'm tired of hearing how poor I am. I was told there would be cake?

Or death.

It's called Hedonism, morons.

Life feels good.


Unless you're a vegetarian painter lying in a ditch, covered in petrol, and on fire
 
2013-03-26 12:33:11 AM
We need the trustbusters to come and regulate
 
2013-03-26 12:38:02 AM

Great Janitor: Oh, an article about class differences.  Is there any economic system out there where there is no haves and have nots and has hot running water and medicine?


For fark's sake, no one is arguing that hard work shouldn't be rewarded.  I really don't know why you guys keep believing that those of us who criticize the wealth in equality in this country somehow want to plunge it head first into Stalinism.  Quite honestly, the voting trends in this country indicate that the 'OMG Soshulizm' sales pitch is running on fumes.

Furthermore, there are examples available of first world countries that do a much better job in this regard than we do; we're not talking about political abstractions anymore like we were in the 1920s.  See:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-03-26 12:54:21 AM
Oh, that darn Bush gets me so maaaaaad!!!!
 
2013-03-26 12:59:24 AM
www.heahea.org
 
2013-03-26 01:02:31 AM

evil saltine: That's adjusted for inflation. Why would wages be expected to grow faster than inflation?


Productivity increases by an average of 2.9 percent per year in the U.S.  The average worker is producing twice what he did forty years ago.  Should he not be sharing in the extra wealth he is creating?

/we all know where that extra wealth is going ... all of it
 
2013-03-26 01:07:24 AM

Sgygus: evil saltine: That's adjusted for inflation. Why would wages be expected to grow faster than inflation?

Productivity increases by an average of 2.9 percent per year in the U.S.  The average worker is producing twice what he did forty years ago.  Should he not be sharing in the extra wealth he is creating?

/we all know where that extra wealth is going ... all of it


An average worker needs to work a mere 11 hours per week to produce as much as one working 40 hours per week in 1950.

http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/

So, wages should be 4x as much as they were then!  Or somethng.

/not how capitalism works
 
2013-03-26 01:10:59 AM
This is the way the world ends.
 Not with a bang, but a whimper.
 
2013-03-26 01:11:37 AM

jehovahs witness protection: Thanks to tax increases, our income came DOWN since January.

 
2013-03-26 01:16:22 AM

fusillade762: We should just let the hyper-rich have ALL THE MONEY. Then we could simply live off their largesse. Maybe they would be generous enough to feed my family for a while if I agree to allow them to hunt me for sport.


If we gave the rich "all the money," then some enterprising Poor would just come along with a new idea and create value out of nothing, thus negating the "all the money belongs to the rich...." so what we really need to do are enact a bunch of laws and health care taxes to really crush anyone who tries to raise himself up from the government welfare baseline.
 
2013-03-26 01:24:15 AM
the trigger for our downfall was the civil rights movement, busing etc. The Dem betrayal of the white working class and the subsequent anti-white, pro-non-white culture that the elite infected trueleftism with drove the white working class into the arms of the GOP. Now, the more anti-white, pro-nonwhite, pro-immigration the Dems get, the more whites flee into the arms of the GOP. This captive voter base allows the GOP to go even more anti-worker, pro-rich, e.g., regressive taxation, anti-social safety net with their policies. This dynamic all depends on the multiculti/affirmative action/race-spoils/white-guilt/anti-white pseudoleftist subculture created by the elites over the past 60 years or so. The so-called civil rights movement was the primary mechanism of the elite coup over the white working class. That was the genesis.

The pseudoLeft that the elite created over the past 60 years has allowed them to effect their greatest coup in america since they illegally ditched the articles of confederation and installed the pseudo-democratic constitution.

/you may now return to your regularly scheduled nonsense.
 
2013-03-26 01:25:24 AM
This is not a Democrat/Republican problem.

This is a "how our economic and political system is structured" problem. Corporations do not exist to make money for employees, they exist to make money for "shareholders" and owners. Lower level employees are thought of as disposable and are offered as little money as practical, and no stake in the company itself (sometimes a token stake).

Additionally, land is all owned, and no-one has a right to a place to live, so the most of the poor start out with nothing. Rent serves as a constant drain on income which prevents the accumulation of wealth.  The rent being too damn high and lack of owned property is a central, not marginal, part of the problem of wealth and income inequality.The rent issue extents to other forms of private capital. Ownership of the means of production gives one a way to constantly accumulate capital. No ownership, no means of self-sufficiency. The worker becomes dependent on the employer.

Marx was fundamentally right about the problems of capitalism but fundamentally wrong about the solutions.

I say, Basic Income and Distributism!
 
2013-03-26 01:39:22 AM
Excuse my ignorance, but given that it's adjusted for inflation, why would you expect it to go up at all?
I surprised it hasn't gone down given that we are not a net exporter of goods.
 
2013-03-26 01:40:55 AM
Simple solution:

STOP HAVING BABIES ALREADY.

Why inflict a lifetime of poverty on a kid?  Get a snip job and not only will you not have kids born into poverty, but what little money you do have can be spent on having a few luxuries in your life.  You might not be able to sail on a yacht, but at least you'll have a relatively stress-free life by not having kids.  Not only that, but in the long term, you're socking it to the rich--the rich need poor people far more than the poor need rich people.  The reason the 1% own 99% of everything is that they've relied upon the poor for millennia to keep popping out more kids than they (the poor) can afford to feed; show me a guy who's willing to toil in the shiat mines for a dollar a day, and I'll show you some schmuck who has 7 kids and a wife to feed back in some tin-roofed shack.
 
2013-03-26 01:53:32 AM
A very big story that the media seems to be overlooking is the plummeting birth rates in industrialized countries.  The whole multiply-and-foul-the-Earth mentality seems to be dying out.  The biggest reason is the rising educational levels of women; when they realize they can have a career, being a human Pez dispenser loses its appeal.  Even in the US, the rate just fell below the replacement level of 2.1 kids per woman, even with a huge influx of Hispanic immigrants.  About the only people I know who have more than 2 kids are on welfare; most of the so-called middle-class families I know have both husband and wife working to maintain their precarious economic position and they're just too stressed out to have more than one or two kids...
 
2013-03-26 02:10:54 AM

GORDON: fusillade762: We should just let the hyper-rich have ALL THE MONEY. Then we could simply live off their largesse. Maybe they would be generous enough to feed my family for a while if I agree to allow them to hunt me for sport.

If we gave the rich "all the money," then some enterprising Poor would just come along with a new idea and create value out of nothing, thus negating the "all the money belongs to the rich...." so what we really need to do are enact a bunch of laws and health care taxes to really crush anyone who tries to raise himself up from the government welfare baseline.


There you go. That's the solution.
Or else fire.
Lots of fire.
 
2013-03-26 02:21:17 AM

jso2897: This is the way the world ends.
 Not with a bang, but a whimper.


Sure seems that way to me.  Enrico Fermi postulated the idea that we're not finding extra-terrestrial life because any civilization that's advanced enough ends up inventing nukes or some other WMD that brings about the end of their civilization.  I propose an alternative:  when a civilization gets advanced enough, they get some sort of existential shock and collectively say "meh" to having offspring.

I think people are finally realizing that government won't bail you out.  Whether they're the Republican branch of the Corporate Sell-Out Party and pander to God, country, and apple pie, or whether they're the Democratic branch and appeal to a false egalitarianism, all politicians in this country basically serve the 1%.  However, it's always been that way; theocracies have always offered peasants pie in the sky when they die in exchange for being screwed in this temporal existence, and even Marxist regimes end up screwing the proletariat they claim to be emancipating.  I think that smart people are realizing that they can only save themselves.  Instead of having kids and thus making yourself vulnerable to exploitation, people are deciding to voluntarily drop out of the gene pool; in some places like Singapore, the fertility rate is maybe 1.1 kids per woman, far below the replacement rate.

Listen to corporate-tool ass-clowns like Rash Lamebrow, and they make it sound as if the poor need the rich to give them jobs; the reality is that some greedball needs hundreds or thousands of worker drones to support their extravagant life-styles.  If the birthrate in industrialized countries continues to plummet, watch how the governments give out increasingly lavish incentives to get the lower classes to increase their birthrates.  Ironically, the only people who seem to breed enthusiastically without restraint--with a few exceptions--seem to be welfare mommies and the deadbeat bums who impregnate them.  Things will get very interesting in the next few decades...
 
2013-03-26 02:50:45 AM

evil saltine: That's adjusted for inflation. Why would wages be expected to grow faster than inflation?


Because GDP has been rising higher than inflation. Because incomes for the upper strata of the tax base have been rising higher than inflation. Value has been added to the economy of the last 40 years. But none of those gains has made it to the very people that made that growth possible.

In fact, when you consider what your dollar buys, purchasing power has been all but diluted because of the massive spike in housing, education, energy, and health care prices. Which all have been growing at several times the rate of inflation over the past 40 years.
 
2013-03-26 03:30:46 AM

evil saltine: Why would wages be expected to grow faster than inflation?


Because if they don't purchasing power doesn't increase. If purchasing power doesn't increase people don't buy more stuff. If people don't buy more stuff demand doesn't increase. If demand doesn't increase the economy doesn't grow.

wademh: why would you expect it to go up at all?


Because the sign of a health economy is incomes increasing faster than the rate of inflation thus giving people more money to buy stuff.

sendtodave: So, wages should be 4x as much as they were then! Or somethng.


Actually it used to be that as productivity went up so did wages, because people were producing more. The short explanation of why it's bad not to pay more as productivity increases is that by not paying more you're limiting the number of people to buy that stuff, either directly or indirectly, but you are most definitely limiting it. Or put even more simply, you're undercutting demand, which is a very bad thing.
 
2013-03-26 03:43:49 AM
The future of America looks something like Haiti.
 
2013-03-26 03:49:18 AM

WhyteRaven74: Actually it used to be that as productivity went up so did wages,


www.irle.berkeley.edu

And then something changed.
 
2013-03-26 03:51:28 AM
it's the huffington post, so you just KNOW that these stats aren't fudged or misrepresented in any way
 
2013-03-26 03:53:39 AM

El Pachuco: And then something changed.


Yep it did, now if only people actually wanted to deal with it.

super_grass: it's the huffington post, so you just KNOW that these stats aren't fudged or misrepresented in any way


HuffPo isn't close to the first place to mention them. Pretty well common knowledge these days for anyone who follows such things.
 
2013-03-26 04:01:35 AM

WhyteRaven74: Pretty well common knowledge these days for anyone who follows what I choose to read and accept.


Fix'd. I'm going to be as skeptical about this as others did about the report that military style assault rifles killing fewer people than hammers.
 
2013-03-26 04:27:48 AM
There are no democrats, there are no republicans, there are no liberals or conservatives.

There's just the people in the 700.00 shoes and the people polishing them.

Now stop acting silly and get some sleep.

And don't forget to vote early and vote often.
 
2013-03-26 04:30:45 AM
There is a clear path towards reducing wage inequality...Outlaw political contributions from corporation, groups and wealthy individuals.  Blaming congress, the senate, any president or governing body for protecting the interests of their largest contributers only serves to identify oneself as ignorant of cause and effect.

I'm apologize to the few remaining idealists left, but the US is not and has not been a democracy or representative government for a very long time now.  Holding it up to that standard will succeed in infuriating you and others, but it will not accomplish anything productive.  The way to remove mass corruption is to remove it's incentive, and in that endeavor I still hold out some hope for us to eradicate...but only thru a persistent and collective will to do so.  Our government genuinely 'wants' to create incentives to reduce economic disparity, but corporate influence compels both Republican and Democratic parties alike to widen the chasm between Have's and Have Not's.

Again the solution is simple...Remove the monetary incentive for our government to cater to corporations and special interests.  The way to accomplish this is enact one single, solitary law that would; Cap the maximum yearly political contribution from both wealthy and normal citizens alike.  And render all corporate or collective contributions to a party, politician, campaign or political agenda; illegal.
 
2013-03-26 04:37:15 AM

Mosfet23: There is a clear path towards reducing wage inequality...Outlaw political contributions from corporation, groups and wealthy individuals.  Blaming congress, the senate, any president or governing body for protecting the interests of their largest contributers only serves to identify oneself as ignorant of cause and effect.

I'm apologize to the few remaining idealists left, but the US is not and has not been a democracy or representative government for a very long time now.  Holding it up to that standard will succeed in infuriating you and others, but it will not accomplish anything productive.  The way to remove mass corruption is to remove it's incentive, and in that endeavor I still hold out some hope for us to eradicate...but only thru a persistent and collective will to do so.  Our government genuinely 'wants' to create incentives to reduce economic disparity, but corporate influence compels both Republican and Democratic parties alike to widen the chasm between Have's and Have Not's.

Again the solution is simple...Remove the monetary incentive for our government to cater to corporations and special interests.  The way to accomplish this is enact one single, solitary law that would; Cap the maximum yearly political contribution from both wealthy and normal citizens alike.  And render all corporate or collective contributions to a party, politician, campaign or political agenda; illegal.


Or you could just realize that the system has been 'broken' (i.e. biased in favor of the 1%) since the dawn of history, get a vasectomy or tubal ligation, and stop being a tool of the rich already.
 
2013-03-26 05:05:34 AM

super_grass: I'm going to be as skeptical about this


So instead of reading the article and perhaps seeing if there's a source, which may itself lead to something, you'll just ignore it because you'd rather things not be so bad? Alrighty.
 
2013-03-26 05:26:20 AM

WhyteRaven74: super_grass: I'm going to be as skeptical about this

So instead of reading the article and perhaps seeing if there's a source, which may itself lead to something, you'll just ignore it because you'd rather things not be so bad? Alrighty.


I give it as much attention as you would a source like Breitbart or Reason.
 
2013-03-26 05:26:37 AM
Let's tax the rich and give the poor government programs with that money. That'll STFU those poor bastards. We'll say it's "fair" and then we don't have to work on the actual problem of crap jobs being the only work out there. If we get desperate we can hike up the minimum wage and by the time they realize that the inflation caused because of the wage increase being artificial instead of market driven cancels out the ammount of the increase we'll already be out of office hocking books, getting appearance fees, and drinking Moet and Chandon as we're limo'd to appear on whatever show Oprah has happening at the moment.

Sound like a plan? Good, let's go play some golf.
 
2013-03-26 05:56:13 AM

pedobearapproved: that the inflation caused because of the wage increase being artificial instead of market driven cancels out the ammount of the increas


now if only there was any proof such a thing ever happens. Ever.
 
2013-03-26 06:10:04 AM
The unaffected 10% are politicians.
 
2013-03-26 06:53:50 AM

WhyteRaven74: pedobearapproved: that the inflation caused because of the wage increase being artificial instead of market driven cancels out the ammount of the increas

now if only there was any proof such a thing ever happens. Ever.


If only you could use common sense, and/or google.


With a minimum wage hike labor costs go up instantly for any business that has minimum wage employees, plus for most other low wage employees that have some status over minimum wage employees. However the goods or services provided don't suddenly become more profitable. (eg, if your selling bread, and suddenly your labor costs go up 100K, it doesn't mean you'll suddenly make an extra 100K more this year to cover the increases). So what do businesses do? Well, in every business EVER they raise the cost of goods and services to cover the increased labor costs while maintaining the same level of profit. And what do you call it when you have "a rise in the general level of prices of goods and services in an economy over a period of time." Well considering I took that quote from the definition of inflation I'm going to go ahead and call it inflation.


I know you want it to be that the business takes a hit on the profit and keeps the costs of the goods or services the same, but that's not reality. Because if you have a business that has 40 employees and they are suddenly all making 10.25 instead of 7.25, that's $240,000 extra in labor. Now before you think I'm heartless and just against any increase, we could have indexed the minimum wage to inflation and that would be far easier on the economy and probably result in more spending power for low-wage earners, but then we couldn't have a political go-to every time the economy is in the crapper, and everyone automatically getting a $.14/hr raise (or $290 a year) for 2012 isn't nearly as exciting to a voter as telling them you're "fighting for them" ™ to get $6,000 more a year!!
 
2013-03-26 07:03:07 AM

super_grass: WhyteRaven74: Pretty well common knowledge these days for anyone who follows what I choose to read and accept.

Fix'd. I'm going to be as skeptical about this as others did about the report that military style assault rifles killing fewer people than hammers.


Too much to ask that you follow the link in the HuffPo article to the originating source, eh?

Better to whine...
 
2013-03-26 07:52:12 AM
I've gotten between 3-6% every year for the past 5 years...maybe subby should stop flipping burgers
 
2013-03-26 07:54:40 AM

jehovahs witness protection: Thanks to tax increases, our income came DOWN since January.


Increase? I don't think you understand what happened..hint: a bill expired
 
2013-03-26 08:11:39 AM

netizencain: Sgygus: We all need to keep voting the Republicans into office.  Look at the benefits we are reaping!

Over the past 40 years, the Senate has been controlled by the Democrats 13 out of 22 times.
The House has been controlled by the Democrats 15 out of 22 times

 Democrats have had a majority of the power in Congress over the past 40 years.  So unless you're going to spout off about filibusters and what not, it just doesn't matter who you vote for.


Rarely has such a perfect specimin of "STFU YOU COCK" been posted  :)
 
2013-03-26 08:19:11 AM

evil saltine: That's adjusted for inflation. Why would wages be expected to grow faster than inflation?


Because productivity has increased as well?
 
2013-03-26 08:25:09 AM

awruk!: Here is a bit of interesting statistics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QPKKQnijnsM


files.list.co.uk
 
2013-03-26 08:39:26 AM

Popcorn Johnny: I willingly took a $10,000 pay cut. A hell of a lot less stress on a daily basis is well worth it.


Great, let the rest of us pay for EVERYTHING for YOU! Enjoy your free 0bummer phone, idiot.
 
Displayed 50 of 122 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report