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.

(Washington Post)   Rich people are not the reason poor people are poor, so let's stop victimizing the rich through draconian taxes and inflammatory rhetoric and work on real solutions for income inequality, like giving the top 1 percent a tax cut   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 133
    More: Obvious, income inequality, poor people, tax cuts, wealths, disposable income, rhetoric, labor force  
•       •       •

1573 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Feb 2014 at 2:42 PM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



133 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-03 09:20:46 AM
Among men 25 to 55 with a high school diploma or less, the share with jobs fell from more than 90 percent in 1970 to less than 75 percent in 2010, reports   . For African American men ages 20 to 24, less than half were working.

Reasons aside, those numbers - if accurate - are farking frightening.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-02-03 09:29:02 AM
Economic inequality is usually a consequence of our problems and not a cause.

Yes, it's a consequence of wealthy people having too much control and little people not having enough.

For starters, the poor are not poor because the rich are rich. The two conditions are generally unrelated.

Except in reality, which isn't important apparently.
 
2014-02-03 09:53:33 AM
"The Congressional Budget Office examined income trends for the past three decades. It found sizable gains for all income groups."

Was he hoping nobody clicked the link? It says nothing about the past three decades, but does have this:

www.cbo.gov

"As a result of the uneven growth from 2009 to 2010, the share of income for the top 1 percent increased by 1.6 percentage points, and the share for the middle three quintiles taken together fell by 1.3 percentage points.  "
 
2014-02-03 10:14:31 AM
Draconian?

The rich have never had it so good.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-02-03 10:18:46 AM

Marcus Aurelius: Draconian?

The rich have never had it so good.


Paying taxes at all is draconian when getting richer is all that matters.
 
2014-02-03 10:53:56 AM
Rich people are not the reason poor people are poor, so let's stop victimizing the rich through draconian taxes and inflammatory rhetoric and work on real solutions for income inequality, like giving the top 1 percent a tax cut

Did you and I read the same article, submitter? Your headline sort of runs off the rails right after that first comma.
 
2014-02-03 11:05:09 AM

vpb: Yes, it's a consequence of wealthy people having too much control and little people not having enough.


It's not so much "control", as the allocation of social costs leaving the wealthy with disproportionately large discretionary incomes and the poor disproportionately small discretionary incomes. Though I suppose that can be argued to lead back to increased ability of the rich to spend money in politics towards increased social control by the rich as well as increasing that disproportion.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-02-03 11:16:41 AM

abb3w: vpb: Yes, it's a consequence of wealthy people having too much control and little people not having enough.

It's not so much "control", as the allocation of social costs leaving the wealthy with disproportionately large discretionary incomes and the poor disproportionately small discretionary incomes. Though I suppose that can be argued to lead back to increased ability of the rich to spend money in politics towards increased social control by the rich as well as increasing that disproportion.


Precisely, the fact that the wealthy have disproportionate influence is why they are able to bear less of the costs while getting more of the benefits.

t is also the reason that public policy tends to favor the wealthy and ignore the middle class and poor.  It used to be that in order to sell your products in the US you had to either make them here or pay significant income tariffs.  Basically the nations control of the largest consumer market in the world was used to benefit the middle class.

After free trade policies became popular, this control was used to gain access to foreign markets.  It stopped being used for the benefit of the working classes and was used to benefit the businesses.

Claims that it would benefit workers because we would export more were nonsense because the products that US business were making were increasingly made overseas anyway.

It may be that the gains of free trade were larger than the sacrifices, but the sacrifices were made by the middle class and almost all the gains went to the people who owned the businesses.

And that's just the biggest example.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-02-03 01:10:56 PM
vpb:

t is also the reason that public policy tends to favor the wealthy and ignore the middle class and poor.  It used to be that in order to sell your products in the US you had to either make them here or pay significant income tariffs.  Basically the nations control of the largest consumer market in the world was used to benefit the middle class.


Make that import tariffs.  As in duty.
 
2014-02-03 01:33:59 PM
When defending the richest Americans, try not to have a comically villainous mustache.

www.washingtonpost.com
 
2014-02-03 01:43:36 PM

jayhawk88: Among men 25 to 55 with a high school diploma or less, the share with jobs fell from more than 90 percent in 1970 to less than 75 percent in 2010, reports   . For African American men ages 20 to 24, less than half were working.

Reasons aside, those numbers - if accurate - are farking frightening.


They are, but it is a reflection of a changing labor market.  Wealth concentrating at the top hasn't helped, but I feel he's taking the results from that change and saying "Pay no attention to the fact all the the vast majority of the wealth generated in the last 40 years has been concentrated in a small percentage of the population."

I'd also wager the percentage of the population with a high school diploma or less has fallen since the 70's too.

Still looking for a graph that goes back that far.

According to the latest numbers from the BLS, 10,748,000 that don't have a high school diploma are in the civilian labor force, with a participation rate of 43.7% and an unemployment rate of 9.8% for December 2013.

Those with a diploma but no college are at 36,242,000, participation rate of 58.0%, and an unemployment rate of 7.1%

For comparison, Bachelor's degree holders or higher are 49,759,000 civilian labor force, with a participation rate of 75.3%, and an unemployment rate of 3.3%

Total civilian labor force is 133,770,000 if I added up the numbers correctly, so that is about 8% of the labor force that doesn't have at least a high school diploma. and 35% that have a high school diploma or less.

Those numbers seasonally adjusted, and I kinda forgot what point I was trying to make.

Anyways.

It really seems he took a total number of people in those age ranges and said, look at all these people not working, even if they are not looking for work.
 
2014-02-03 01:48:31 PM
For starters, the poor are not poor because the rich are rich. The two conditions are generally unrelated.

for starters, cat shiat smells great.

for starters, McDonald's makes quality food

for starters, the earth is flat and 6000 years old

for starters, this guy's mustache is cool
 
2014-02-03 02:08:49 PM
i1.ytimg.com
 
2014-02-03 02:22:58 PM
Flawed premise: rich people are in fact a big part of the reason poor people are poor. If you believe otherwise, I have a bridge to sell you; send me an email and we'll close this deal.
 
2014-02-03 02:47:47 PM

whistleridge: Flawed premise: rich people are in fact a big part of the reason poor people are poor. If you believe otherwise, I have a bridge to sell you; send me an email and we'll close this deal.


Well, it's not so much that it's not true, as it is unprovable.
 
2014-02-03 02:48:33 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2014-02-03 02:49:05 PM
Just a tax cut for the top 1%? Let's follow the recent suggestions and give them all a yellow star too.
 
2014-02-03 02:49:56 PM
For starters, the poor are not poor because the rich are rich. The two conditions are generally unrelated. Mostly, the rich got rich by running profitable small businesses (car dealerships, builders), creating big enterprises (Google, Microsoft), being at the top of lucrative occupations (bankers, lawyers, doctors, actors, athletes), managing major companies or inheriting fortunes. By contrast, the very poor often face circumstances that make their lives desperate.

These circumstances were created by rich people to make themselves even richer.

The poor are poor because the rich are obscenely rich.
 
2014-02-03 02:50:09 PM
Perhaps if the rich stopped demonizing the less fortunate by calling them lazy, mooching welfare queens buying lobster with their food stamps who should probably work another job if you can't feed your family oh and if you just got married all your problems would go away plus you've already got a refrigerator and anyway you could have it worse somewhere else, all while loudly proclaiming their own righteousness as "job creators" and fighting tooth and nail against or actively trying to dismantle programs that help people, poor people might stop punching back.
 
2014-02-03 02:50:30 PM
*sigh* Solutions to income inequality do not elude us, there are vast numbers of solutions to this problem everything from the government guaranteeing jobs for every able body adult over the age of 18 to just taking the money directly from the rich and giving it to the poor.  What eludes us is the collective will to implement a solution.
 
2014-02-03 02:51:23 PM

mayIFark: Just a tax cut for the top 1%? Let's follow the recent suggestions and give them all a yellow star too.


Not just yellow stars, but we must tattoo their bellies with yellow stars, so they can be star bellied snatches.
 
2014-02-03 02:52:20 PM
I guess the only thing dumber than saying this shiat is the fact that someone is paying him to say this shiat in print.
 
2014-02-03 02:52:27 PM

Slaves2Darkness: What eludes us is the collective will to implement a solution.


This very concept is actually considered evil by ~35% of the population and ~50% of the voting population.
 
2014-02-03 02:52:33 PM

Jackson Herring: [i.imgur.com image 576x432]


What does Legolas have to do with taxes?
 
2014-02-03 02:53:21 PM
The rich need people to be poor.  They need the unemployed.  The fact that they need these things is exactly why they do everything in their power to make sure it is that way.
 
2014-02-03 02:55:46 PM
Leaving aside that the total wealth of a society is a fixed amount...

The reason joblessness is high is because we have so many people and have gotten so damn good at doing the work we have to do that we simply cannot employ everyone. It doesn't work like that. We are in a post-scarcity, post-growth economy.

UBI or bust. Your other option is violent revolution.
 
2014-02-03 02:55:51 PM

FarkedOver: The rich need people to be poor.  They need the unemployed.  The fact that they need these things is exactly why they do everything in their power to make sure it is that way.


Care to explain why the rich need people to be poor and unemployed?
 
2014-02-03 02:57:15 PM

Mr. Eugenides: FarkedOver: The rich need people to be poor.  They need the unemployed.  The fact that they need these things is exactly why they do everything in their power to make sure it is that way.

Care to explain why the rich need people to be poor and unemployed?


It drives down wages.  When more people are competing for jobs.
 
2014-02-03 02:57:51 PM

ikanreed: Slaves2Darkness: What eludes us is the collective will to implement a solution.

This very concept is actually considered evil by ~35% of the population and ~50% of the voting population.


What the hell do they think government programs are then? I mean everything from national defense to education is just the will of the people. For that matter what do they think we are doing when we elect representatives? That too is the collective will of the we the people.

Maybe what we really need is big camps that we can send the poor to for proper training and education. Maybe we can call them Freedom Through Work camps. That would fix the problem, call it a final solution to the poor.
 
2014-02-03 03:00:20 PM
So, the rich people who, I am assured, are the job creators, who hire (or don't hire) poor people and who pay them (or don't pay them) a living wage, suddenly aren't the reason poor people are poor?

Someone should come down to the WaPo offices and slap the Koch out of Samuelson's mouth.
 
2014-02-03 03:01:06 PM
You know I'm really thinking I should get two stamps one of them should say "Fark the poor!" and the other "Eat the rich!". Then I should stamp $100 dollar bills with the "Fark the poor!" slogan and $1, $5, $10, and $20 with "Eat the rich!"
 
2014-02-03 03:01:07 PM
I would say the poor are poor because a change in technology allows for a race to the bottom mentality that is perpetuated by all layers of the economy.  The poor are outbidding each other for lower paying jobs and the rich are more than happy to go along and to give it a shove now and then.
 
2014-02-03 03:01:39 PM

Slaves2Darkness: What the hell do they think government programs are then? I mean everything from national defense to education is just the will of the people. For that matter what do they think we are doing when we elect representatives? That too is the collective will of the we the people.

Maybe what we really need is big camps that we can send the poor to for proper training and education. Maybe we can call them Freedom Through Work camps. That would fix the problem, call it a final solution to the poor.


Don't take my simplification(that I think as fair) of someone's views as a launching off point for your attacks on those views.  Come on, man.
 
2014-02-03 03:01:41 PM

meat0918: jayhawk88: Among men 25 to 55 with a high school diploma or less, the share with jobs fell from more than 90 percent in 1970 to less than 75 percent in 2010, reports   . For African American men ages 20 to 24, less than half were working.

Reasons aside, those numbers - if accurate - are farking frightening.

They are, but it is a reflection of a changing labor market.  Wealth concentrating at the top hasn't helped, but I feel he's taking the results from that change and saying "Pay no attention to the fact all the the vast majority of the wealth generated in the last 40 years has been concentrated in a small percentage of the population."

I'd also wager the percentage of the population with a high school diploma or less has fallen since the 70's too.

Still looking for a graph that goes back that far.


thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com
 
2014-02-03 03:02:08 PM

MrBallou: "The Congressional Budget Office examined income trends for the past three decades. It found sizable gains for all income groups."

Was he hoping nobody clicked the link? It says nothing about the past three decades, but does have this:

[www.cbo.gov image 600x403]

"As a result of the uneven growth from 2009 to 2010, the share of income for the top 1 percent increased by 1.6 percentage points, and the share for the middle three quintiles taken together fell by 1.3 percentage points.  "


The actual report (which can be found in the sidebar) does show an increase in after tax income over the last three decades for the bottom quintile.

/Fun Fact: Chrome spellcheck doesn't think quintile is a word.
 
2014-02-03 03:05:33 PM

ikanreed: whistleridge: Flawed premise: rich people are in fact a big part of the reason poor people are poor. If you believe otherwise, I have a bridge to sell you; send me an email and we'll close this deal.

Well, it's not so much that it's not true, as it is unprovable.


Between the two of us, there is a table with 50 burgers on it.  Through various means, I obtain 49 of those 50 burgers, leaving you with 1.  It's not "unprovable" that I am the reason you only have 1 burger.
 
2014-02-03 03:05:45 PM

jst3p: meat0918: jayhawk88: Among men 25 to 55 with a high school diploma or less, the share with jobs fell from more than 90 percent in 1970 to less than 75 percent in 2010, reports   . For African American men ages 20 to 24, less than half were working.

Reasons aside, those numbers - if accurate - are farking frightening.

They are, but it is a reflection of a changing labor market.  Wealth concentrating at the top hasn't helped, but I feel he's taking the results from that change and saying "Pay no attention to the fact all the the vast majority of the wealth generated in the last 40 years has been concentrated in a small percentage of the population."

I'd also wager the percentage of the population with a high school diploma or less has fallen since the 70's too.

Still looking for a graph that goes back that far.

[thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com image 726x475]


That graph has no label.
 
2014-02-03 03:05:45 PM

llortcM_yllort: MrBallou: "The Congressional Budget Office examined income trends for the past three decades. It found sizable gains for all income groups."

Was he hoping nobody clicked the link? It says nothing about the past three decades, but does have this:

[www.cbo.gov image 600x403]

"As a result of the uneven growth from 2009 to 2010, the share of income for the top 1 percent increased by 1.6 percentage points, and the share for the middle three quintiles taken together fell by 1.3 percentage points.  "

The actual report (which can be found in the sidebar) does show an increase in after tax income over the last three decades for the bottom quintile.

/Fun Fact: Chrome spellcheck doesn't think quintile is a word.


DNRTFA, but is that adjusted for inflation?
 
2014-02-03 03:09:04 PM

meat0918: jst3p: meat0918: jayhawk88: Among men 25 to 55 with a high school diploma or less, the share with jobs fell from more than 90 percent in 1970 to less than 75 percent in 2010, reports   . For African American men ages 20 to 24, less than half were working.

Reasons aside, those numbers - if accurate - are farking frightening.

They are, but it is a reflection of a changing labor market.  Wealth concentrating at the top hasn't helped, but I feel he's taking the results from that change and saying "Pay no attention to the fact all the the vast majority of the wealth generated in the last 40 years has been concentrated in a small percentage of the population."

I'd also wager the percentage of the population with a high school diploma or less has fallen since the 70's too.

Still looking for a graph that goes back that far.

[thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com image 726x475]

That graph has no label.


Sorry:

PERCENT OF ADULTS AGE 25 AND OLDER WITH AT LEAST A HIGH SCHOOL DEGREE

http://www.familyfacts.org/charts/545/the-majority-of-adults-in-the- un ited-states-have-high-school-degrees
 
2014-02-03 03:09:09 PM

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: ikanreed: whistleridge: Flawed premise: rich people are in fact a big part of the reason poor people are poor. If you believe otherwise, I have a bridge to sell you; send me an email and we'll close this deal.

Well, it's not so much that it's not true, as it is unprovable.

Between the two of us, there is a table with 50 burgers on it.  Through various means, I obtain 49 of those 50 burgers, leaving you with 1.  It's not "unprovable" that I am the reason you only have 1 burger.


If you did not try to get more than one hamburger then, ya it is kinda your fault
 
2014-02-03 03:14:15 PM
If we don't keep the 1% in the range they are right now, without room to become even more successful, we may put the economy of this country in jeopardy.

Prove me wrong.
 
2014-02-03 03:18:18 PM

Saiga410: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: ikanreed: whistleridge: Flawed premise: rich people are in fact a big part of the reason poor people are poor. If you believe otherwise, I have a bridge to sell you; send me an email and we'll close this deal.

Well, it's not so much that it's not true, as it is unprovable.

Between the two of us, there is a table with 50 burgers on it.  Through various means, I obtain 49 of those 50 burgers, leaving you with 1.  It's not "unprovable" that I am the reason you only have 1 burger.

If you did not try to get more than one hamburger then, ya it is kinda your fault


I tried to get more, but the system for dividing up burgers requires that you put two burgers down to get to the table. Thanks to your parents, your family had six burgers. You put two down and were able to start grabbing. My family only had two, but I have two brothers. Eventually when it was my turn, I put my two in, but was only able to grab one because I had a significant barrier to entry.

Afterward, you thought it was unfair that the restaurant owner asked for one and a half burgers back, so you got together with your buddies and agreed to send your burgers to Table 2. You got your burgers off of Table 2 any time you needed to grab a new batch of burgers at our table, thus ensuring that you never had to give any to the owner and always got first pick. I still had to wait my turn, and found it really hard to save my burgers.

"Just go hungry," you said. "Don't eat for a few turns and you can save!"

Which is an easy thing to say when your Table 2 burger stack is overflowing and you've sent people to the other burger joint over there, bringing some back for you. You've never had to wait a whole turn with just one burger.

All the while, your little echo chamber of friends congratulates each other about how good with burgers you are, never realizing that you've been playing a rigged game since the start. It's just rigged in your favor. So while you get upset because you're playing fair, you refuse to realize that simply by playing, you have a natural advantage to those playing with a handicap.

And as long as you keep the rules the way they are, the game can never be fair.
 
2014-02-03 03:23:39 PM
Rich people are not the reason poor people are poor

[citation needed]
 
2014-02-03 03:25:56 PM

A Cave Geek: llortcM_yllort: MrBallou: "The Congressional Budget Office examined income trends for the past three decades. It found sizable gains for all income groups."

Was he hoping nobody clicked the link? It says nothing about the past three decades, but does have this:

[www.cbo.gov image 600x403]

"As a result of the uneven growth from 2009 to 2010, the share of income for the top 1 percent increased by 1.6 percentage points, and the share for the middle three quintiles taken together fell by 1.3 percentage points.  "

The actual report (which can be found in the sidebar) does show an increase in after tax income over the last three decades for the bottom quintile.

/Fun Fact: Chrome spellcheck doesn't think quintile is a word.

DNRTFA, but is that adjusted for inflation?


It keeps mentioning real income, so I'm assuming it does include inflation.  However, the article defines labor income in the following way:

Cash wages and salaries, including amounts allocated by employees to 401(k) plans;  employment-based health insurance premiums; the employer's share of Social Security, Medicare, and federal unemployment insurance payroll taxes; and the share of corporate income taxes borne by workers.

It would not be surprising if healthcare costs ate into a lot of the income gains described in the report.  This seems consistent with other reports I have seen where median household income has remained flat but household income + employer health insurance has increased alongside productivity.
 
2014-02-03 03:25:58 PM

nmrsnr: When defending the richest Americans, try not to have a comically villainous mustache.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 114x80]


blogs.ajc.com
 
2014-02-03 03:26:31 PM

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: ikanreed: whistleridge: Flawed premise: rich people are in fact a big part of the reason poor people are poor. If you believe otherwise, I have a bridge to sell you; send me an email and we'll close this deal.

Well, it's not so much that it's not true, as it is unprovable.

Between the two of us, there is a table with 50 burgers on it.  Through various means, I obtain 49 of those 50 burgers, leaving you with 1.  It's not "unprovable" that I am the reason you only have 1 burger.


Right, it's completely obvious, but it's not like there's an absolute chain of logic that would stand up in court to show that you it.
 
2014-02-03 03:41:21 PM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: Saiga410: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: ikanreed: whistleridge: Flawed premise: rich people are in fact a big part of the reason poor people are poor. If you believe otherwise, I have a bridge to sell you; send me an email and we'll close this deal.

Well, it's not so much that it's not true, as it is unprovable.

Between the two of us, there is a table with 50 burgers on it.  Through various means, I obtain 49 of those 50 burgers, leaving you with 1.  It's not "unprovable" that I am the reason you only have 1 burger.

If you did not try to get more than one hamburger then, ya it is kinda your fault

I tried to get more, but the system for dividing up burgers requires that you put two burgers down to get to the table. Thanks to your parents, your family had six burgers. You put two down and were able to start grabbing. My family only had two, but I have two brothers. Eventually when it was my turn, I put my two in, but was only able to grab one because I had a significant barrier to entry.

Afterward, you thought it was unfair that the restaurant owner asked for one and a half burgers back, so you got together with your buddies and agreed to send your burgers to Table 2. You got your burgers off of Table 2 any time you needed to grab a new batch of burgers at our table, thus ensuring that you never had to give any to the owner and always got first pick. I still had to wait my turn, and found it really hard to save my burgers.

"Just go hungry," you said. "Don't eat for a few turns and you can save!"

Which is an easy thing to say when your Table 2 burger stack is overflowing and you've sent people to the other burger joint over there, bringing some back for you. You've never had to wait a whole turn with just one burger.

All the while, your little echo chamber of friends congratulates each other about how good with burgers you are, never realizing that you've been playing a rigged game since the start. It's just rigged in your favor. So while you get upset because y ...


All of this is a pretty ridiculous set of assertions. That said I'll play along. What exactly stops guy at table 1 from going to table 2? Further more what stops him from going to the restaurant owner and setting up an agreement in which he will get 3 burgers sell two to table 3 (we'll say) and keep one for himself? Hell why not go to the restaurant owner and say you want to manage the burgers at table 1 and are willing to do this for one burger out of 10 so that the manager no longer has to worry about the issue (negotiate appropriately). For that matter why not suggest that table two is sell burgers to table 1 (in some alternate to burgers economy) for something that table 2 wants and again include yourself at 1/10 ratio?

The game isn't rigged in a fashion which can not be exploited by all. The CHOICE, and it is a choice, to play the game from the perspective you see is your own failing.

1. I don't think the rich should get some massive tax break for no damned reason
2. Stop demanding that they should get punished for success
3. While your analogy is still stupid, thinking even remotely outside the box has given options to your poor kid in which much risk is involved, but will turn reward if fruitful ... kinda like any other business venture.
4. The truly poor generally are in that position due to a systemic issue of bad choices. Staying there or getting out are equally available options if one wants to put in the work.

I also note that you blame the government for fixing the game due to lobbying of the rich. Why is it that you assume that the same people who broke the system are going to provide you with the fix? How does this train of logic run?
 
2014-02-03 03:44:24 PM

ikanreed: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: ikanreed: whistleridge: Flawed premise: rich people are in fact a big part of the reason poor people are poor. If you believe otherwise, I have a bridge to sell you; send me an email and we'll close this deal.

Well, it's not so much that it's not true, as it is unprovable.

Between the two of us, there is a table with 50 burgers on it.  Through various means, I obtain 49 of those 50 burgers, leaving you with 1.  It's not "unprovable" that I am the reason you only have 1 burger.

Right, it's completely obvious, but it's not like there's an absolute chain of logic that would stand up in court to show that you it.


That is what's called a "zero-sum" game, and regardless of non-renewable resource, dwindling water supplies, distribution inefficiencies, and corruption on vast scales,

guess which group of political activists don't believe in it?

Hint: it's not the people with the sum closer to zero
 
2014-02-03 03:45:01 PM
Hey look another apologist for the wealthy that's here to tell us water is not wet and sky is not blue.
 
2014-02-03 03:45:11 PM
Overextending analogies until they are longer than any straws that can possibly be grasped(while trying to get burgers).
 
2014-02-03 03:47:05 PM

Lcpl_Dunno: 2. Stop demanding that they should get punished for success


nobody is saying that. Rather, people are saying people should be punished for obtaining great personal wealth at a great cost to society, via that society's collective effort and on the backs of millions that loved their country and actually paid their share.
 
2014-02-03 03:47:34 PM

Bareefer Obonghit:


Came to say this. You win.
 
2014-02-03 03:48:08 PM
Poor people are poor because our cultural defines "fair" with "the outcomes of free market capitalism", mistakes "free market capitalism" ideology for the corporatist reality, and absolves itself of any moral consequences of it's economic priorities and activities by ascribing them to the unfortunate necessary consequences of the invisible hand of the market, if they even believe that the free market can produce negative consequences.  If they don't, they are forced to conclude that person's poverty is a failure of will, morality, or constitution... why else would a free, fair market discard someone unless they were somehow defective?

It's an obnoxious and insidious meme-complex.
 
2014-02-03 03:48:25 PM
Between the two of us, there is a table with 50 burgers on it. Through various means, the analogy is made increasingly literal and picked apart pedantically to the point that the original poster of the analogy is probably regretting not putting in several more details to make the situation reflect reality more closely. The intent of the analogy is lost as the literal interpretation of the situation as posited is picked apart separate from the issue the analogy is attempting to describe. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping. Why is that, Leon?
 
2014-02-03 03:54:23 PM

Bloody William: Between the two of us, there is a table with 50 burgers on it. Through various means, the analogy is made increasingly literal and picked apart pedantically to the point that the original poster of the analogy is probably regretting not putting in several more details to make the situation reflect reality more closely. The intent of the analogy is lost as the literal interpretation of the situation as posited is picked apart separate from the issue the analogy is attempting to describe. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping. Why is that, Leon?


What do you mean I'm not helping?
 
2014-02-03 03:54:27 PM

Lcpl_Dunno:
1. I don't think the rich should get some massive tax break for no damned reason

The rich do, and have been lobbying hard and successfully to ensure that their gains from other people's productivity are explicitly taxed less. This is a way of rigging the system.

2. Stop demanding that they should get punished for success

When "success" includes being bailed out by the tax payer, sweetheart Federal contracts, rampant cronysim, lobbying to create barriers for new market entrants, and assorted overseas banking shenanigans, it's well past time people were punished.

3. While your analogy is still stupid, thinking even remotely outside the box has given options to your poor kid in which much risk is involved, but will turn reward if fruitful ... kinda like any other business venture.

We're not talking about getting rich here, we're talking about keeping afloat, and when that's not a tenable situation for an American working any full time job, that's a serious systemic flaw. The degradation of bargaining rights has robbed the average worker of leverage in labor/salary negotiations.

4. The truly poor generally are in that position due to a systemic issue of bad choices. Staying there or getting out are equally available options if one wants to put in the work.

This is not true. The whole fundamental promise of the American dream is available to fewer and fewer Americans as wages stay depressed, and jobs remain scarce. Blaming the victim is about the fastest way to convince the poor that the rich have no interest in good faith negotiation with the working class, and that the system is and will continue to remain rigged. 

Lcpl_Dunno: All of this is a pretty ridiculous set of assertions.


Pot, meet kettle.
 
2014-02-03 03:54:36 PM

whidbey: If we don't keep the 1% in the range they are right now, without room to become even more successful, we may put the economy of this country in jeopardy.

Prove me wrong.


Stupid troll is stupid.
 
2014-02-03 03:55:21 PM

sobriquet by any other name: Lcpl_Dunno: 2. Stop demanding that they should get punished for success

nobody is saying that. Rather, people are saying people should be punished for obtaining great personal wealth at a great cost to society, via that society's collective effort and on the backs of millions that loved their country and actually paid their share.


nobody even needs to be "punished" unless punishment is just them paying some farking taxes to alleviate some of the burden on the middle class.
 
2014-02-03 03:58:49 PM
Since I'm on my phone and can't selectively quote:

Table 2 is an offshore bank account. You know, the kind you can't open without substantial capital.

My analogy is: some people are born on third, but believe they hit a triple because they stay on third. They're not stealing home, they say, so why should they be "punished" by being ever so clever?

It's facile to say that everyone can be a capitalist in a capitalist society. It's true in general terms, yes, but EXTERNALITIES make it an outright lie. Some people are born poor. Some people miss opportunities for various reasons, not all of them blameworthy. Sometimes shiat just happens in people's lives. A random illness. Car wreck. Bad emotional breakup in college. Whatever.

Other times people have the talent and smarts but not the opportunity, through accident of birth. It's all well and good to say that if you try really hard, you can succeed, but that's a lie, and anyone saying it has started on third while believing he hit a triple.

So when you ask, "well why doesn't our poor burger grabber cut a deal with the restaurant owner?" Because the owner (federal government) doesn't want to cut a deal with the poor guy. The poor guy has fark all to offer the government. The rich guys are financing reelection campaigns and lobbyist positions. The poor guy has a family to feed and a sick mom without health insurance whose house is underwater on the mortgage.

The rich guy asks the poor guy why he doesn't just turn his yearly income into stock and live off the residuals from an interest bearing account in Switzerland. The poor guy says, "because my father wasn't rich!"

The rich guy counters, "well neither was my dad, but thanks to the post war opportunity he got he was able to build himself up!"

The poor guy reminds the rich guy that the dream of rags to riches died in the 80s when the rich decided they were good and weren't accepting new members.
 
2014-02-03 04:00:55 PM

Lcpl_Dunno: Stop demanding that they should get punished for success


No one's suggesting they are or should be.  What we're saying is that their incessant demands that they pay a smaller and smaller share of the tax burden is more than a little disingenuous.  The obscenely wealthy did NOT get that way (by and large) by their own hard work (People like Buffet, Gates, Bezos, etc.etc are exceptions) They got that way the old-fashioned way:  They inherited it, or only had the opportunities they did because of mommy and daddy's connections. When I hear them whine about their tax rate, I can't help but think of a few quotes from history on the subject.


"I love paying my taxes.  With them, I buy civilization"
- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Aristotle, etc.etc.  Many variants of this theme throughout history, but none more perfectly summed up than in an 1848 memo to the US congress regarding taxes

"Taxation is the price of social order"

Or this one, from an 1863 committee report:

"If we are correct in the position that taxation is the price or penalty exacted by the requirements of civilization and the necessity of regulated liberty of thought, action and property, we cannot conclude that such price or penalty should be as light as possible compatible with the ends in view; ..."

Perhaps this one from an 1866 book "Christian Ethics":

A man's taxes are what he pays for the protection of his life and property, and for the conditions of public prosperity in which he shares. He ought to pay his just portion of the expense of government.

or in 1903:

Taxation is the price which civilized communities pay for the opportunity of remaining civilized.

or 1916:

"Only the savage pays no taxes."
 
2014-02-03 04:01:19 PM

Bloody William: . But you're not helping. Why is that, Leon?


What color is this tortoise?  because a red tortoise killed my father.   The sucker fell off a 50 story building and right on his head.  To heck with all red tortoises.
 
2014-02-03 04:01:42 PM
Also, I don't think the rich are going to fix it. I think history operates according to empirical principles, which say that if the rich don't stop rigging the game, a revolution results.

I think we will see a lite-socialist revolution in this country before 2030.
 
2014-02-03 04:02:44 PM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: Also, I don't think the rich are going to fix it. I think history operates according to empirical principles, which say that if the rich don't stop rigging the game, a revolution results.

I think we will see a lite-socialist revolution in this country before 2030.


Baloney.  Every major revolution(except the first american revolution) in recent history has coincided with a famine.
 
2014-02-03 04:04:42 PM

ikanreed: Obama's Reptiloid Master: Also, I don't think the rich are going to fix it. I think history operates according to empirical principles, which say that if the rich don't stop rigging the game, a revolution results.

I think we will see a lite-socialist revolution in this country before 2030.

Baloney.  Every major revolution(except the first american revolution) in recent history has coincided with a famine.


And yet the geniuses in the GOP keep cutting food stamps...

/Bread and circuses, you morons, it's only two damn things to remember.
 
2014-02-03 04:08:43 PM

jst3p: meat0918: jst3p: meat0918: jayhawk88: Among men 25 to 55 with a high school diploma or less, the share with jobs fell from more than 90 percent in 1970 to less than 75 percent in 2010, reports   . For African American men ages 20 to 24, less than half were working.

Reasons aside, those numbers - if accurate - are farking frightening.

They are, but it is a reflection of a changing labor market.  Wealth concentrating at the top hasn't helped, but I feel he's taking the results from that change and saying "Pay no attention to the fact all the the vast majority of the wealth generated in the last 40 years has been concentrated in a small percentage of the population."

I'd also wager the percentage of the population with a high school diploma or less has fallen since the 70's too.

Still looking for a graph that goes back that far.

[thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com image 726x475]

That graph has no label.

Sorry:

PERCENT OF ADULTS AGE 25 AND OLDER WITH AT LEAST A HIGH SCHOOL DEGREE

http://www.familyfacts.org/charts/545/the-majority-of-adults-in-the- un ited-states-have-high-school-degrees


thanks.

I realize I farked up up there, and read "less than a high school diploma" not "high school diploma or less".

My reading comprehension is fading the older I get.  I'm starting to worry.
 
2014-02-03 04:08:56 PM
You 47% don't pay taxes either. You live off of the other 53% that do pay taxes, deadbeat. What are you biatching about?
 
2014-02-03 04:09:29 PM

sifr: Bloody William: Between the two of us, there is a table with 50 burgers on it. Through various means, the analogy is made increasingly literal and picked apart pedantically to the point that the original poster of the analogy is probably regretting not putting in several more details to make the situation reflect reality more closely. The intent of the analogy is lost as the literal interpretation of the situation as posited is picked apart separate from the issue the analogy is attempting to describe. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping. Why is that, Leon?

What do you mean I'm not helping?


I mean you're not helping. Why is that, Leon? They're just answers. In answer to your query, they're written down for me.
 
2014-02-03 04:10:58 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: ikanreed: Obama's Reptiloid Master: Also, I don't think the rich are going to fix it. I think history operates according to empirical principles, which say that if the rich don't stop rigging the game, a revolution results.

I think we will see a lite-socialist revolution in this country before 2030.

Baloney.  Every major revolution(except the first american revolution) in recent history has coincided with a famine.

And yet the geniuses in the GOP keep cutting food stamps...

/Bread and circuses, you morons, it's only two damn things to remember.


My point exactly.

The next time get a Republican executive and congress, I predict famine to be the result. They'll keep cutting taxes and welfare spending and privatizing social security and wonder just why it is people are starving.

When you make a man's children go hungry, he forgets to be civil. When enough people forget to be civil, you end up with the sorts of protests we see around the world right now.

As long as the US can keep a protest/revolution from being hijacked by nationalists (cough Ukraine cough), it'll be a center-left/left coalition that rides the protests into power (and probably non-violent).
 
2014-02-03 04:11:03 PM
Why does this all remind me of that heartbreaking story we all got to hear during the last election?  You know, when the Romney's, struggling through college, were reduced to such dire poverty that he had to sell some shares of stock just to get by.  Sad.  Truly sad.

http://www.samefacts.com/2012/01/everything-else/mitt-romney-and-ann -t he-students-struggling-so-much-that-they-had-to-sell-stock/

From the article:  "a few thousand" dollars invested at $6/share.  Call it 500 shares (AMC).  They sold shares at $96/share to get by.  (For perspective, their rent was $62/month). Their 'nest egg' amounted to something like $48K in 1970's dollars.  (Something like $377K in todays dollars.)

It was a heartbreaking story.
 
2014-02-03 04:11:22 PM
Say I had 4 burgers and one tube sock, then what?
 
2014-02-03 04:12:39 PM

Pick: You 47% don't pay taxes either. You live off of the other 53% that do pay taxes, deadbeat. What are you biatching about?


Mitt Romney is that you?
 
2014-02-03 04:12:49 PM

ikanreed: Obama's Reptiloid Master: Also, I don't think the rich are going to fix it. I think history operates according to empirical principles, which say that if the rich don't stop rigging the game, a revolution results.

I think we will see a lite-socialist revolution in this country before 2030.

Baloney.  Every major revolution(except the first american revolution) in recent history has coincided with a famine.


I don't think there will be a revolution or overthrow, but there might be large protests for reform, both politically and economically. Especially if the market craps out again, or recession comes back around.
 
2014-02-03 04:13:29 PM

Pick: You 47% don't pay taxes either. You live off of the other 53% that do pay taxes, deadbeat. What are you biatching about?


So what you're saying is... you're an idiot.
 
2014-02-03 04:16:47 PM

FarkedOver: Say I had 4 burgers and one tube sock, then what?


You place the burgers into the tubesock and use it like a blackjack on the banksters.
 
2014-02-03 04:18:34 PM

Saiga410: FarkedOver: Say I had 4 burgers and one tube sock, then what?

You place the burgers into the tubesock and use it like a blackjack on the banksters.


As gratifying as that would be, it would also be a terrific waste of a 4 perfectly good burgers and a tube sock.  Can we just cheer them on as they jump from their ivory towers?
 
2014-02-03 04:19:12 PM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: Since I'm on my phone and can't selectively quote:

Table 2 is an offshore bank account. You know, the kind you can't open without substantial capital.

My analogy is: some people are born on third, but believe they hit a triple because they stay on third. They're not stealing home, they say, so why should they be "punished" by being ever so clever?

It's facile to say that everyone can be a capitalist in a capitalist society. It's true in general terms, yes, but EXTERNALITIES make it an outright lie. Some people are born poor. Some people miss opportunities for various reasons, not all of them blameworthy. Sometimes shiat just happens in people's lives. A random illness. Car wreck. Bad emotional breakup in college. Whatever.

Other times people have the talent and smarts but not the opportunity, through accident of birth. It's all well and good to say that if you try really hard, you can succeed, but that's a lie, and anyone saying it has started on third while believing he hit a triple.

So when you ask, "well why doesn't our poor burger grabber cut a deal with the restaurant owner?" Because the owner (federal government) doesn't want to cut a deal with the poor guy. The poor guy has fark all to offer the government. The rich guys are financing reelection campaigns and lobbyist positions. The poor guy has a family to feed and a sick mom without health insurance whose house is underwater on the mortgage.

The rich guy asks the poor guy why he doesn't just turn his yearly income into stock and live off the residuals from an interest bearing account in Switzerland. The poor guy says, "because my father wasn't rich!"

The rich guy counters, "well neither was my dad, but thanks to the post war opportunity he got he was able to build himself up!"

The poor guy reminds the rich guy that the dream of rags to riches died in the 80s when the rich decided they were good and weren't accepting new members.


So much of what you are describing as "not his fault" are the results of bad choices. While the sick issue is one that everyone jumps on ... are you really claiming that 99% (occupy reference, not really accurate assessment of ...anything really) of people have had a sickness that precludes them from hard work? A car accident is the result of a choice to drive (comes up as not a right all the time in gun debates) and as sad as that is, this would preclude you for ... months? Years maybe? A lifetime? Probably no. While this might preclude you from a lifetime of back breaking labor, that is not generally defined as a method of getting "rich". A bad emotional breakup on college doesn't preclude you from anything really, unless YOU let it. While you may have missed ONE opportunity at that exact moment due to lack of vigilance ON YOUR OWN PART, that does not preclude you from any future opportunity and further more ought to make one more vigilant (for having missed once in the passed) to those opportunities arising. Whatever isn't quite counter-able, but I would suggest the same method of taking responsibility and work would answer sufficiently.

Since apparently the burger analogy has been "picked apart" and I was wrong for doing so ... I guess I should leave that alone. To be fair I wasn't intending to illustrate that the situation you were describing was wrong, but rather that it had options for creation of opportunity available to it.

The rich guy asking the poor guy why he doesn't turn his yearly income to assets is reasonable ... I guess. To be fair the "poor guy" probably lives an overly lavish lifestyle (considering his income) to make this happen. He makes a choice to own an iPad instead of save the money and invest somewhere. While that investment may not pay off immediately or even at all; the iPad NEVER will (as a business tool aside, purely entertainment use of iPad described). While this life style does not include personal jets or 200,000 cars it is still one that is alterable to suit the needs of wealth gain. This could (potentially with lot's of work viewing investments) set the poor guy up as fairly well off at the very least. I happen to know a couple of people who started this sort of venture off of US military salaries, so I am going to guess that being a billionaire to begin with is not required. (Before one of you says luck, the guy described adamantly refuses to accept that. He has put in hours watching markets and makes deals accordingly).

This sort of sacrifice was initially made by rich guys parents, thus he has wealth at birth. While that guy is a douche, that doesn't change that the ability to work for what you want has not perished (as of yet) and if rags to riches had ceased to exist in the 80's then Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Youtube, and anyone else (who I have forgotten) should not exist and their founders should not be rich. While these are all tech start ups, they remain a great example of how to look outside of the general method (banking in the 80s) of generating wealth. While not everyone has the great invention of the next century on the tips of their tongues, they probably have the ability to work for themselves in the evenings on something that would produce wealth in some fashion.

To a lot of the rest of you. I'm not apologizing for anyone. The rich can apologize for themselves if they feel bad about how they got their money. While I have no interest in discussing with many of you the topic at hand, I do note that basically none of you actually argue the point. Make fun of me? Sure. Curse others? You betcha. Have a legitimate argument? No. This is why these issues can't be decided in any real fashion. You want someone to blame and not a solution. Your choice I guess.
 
2014-02-03 04:20:32 PM

Saiga410: FarkedOver: Say I had 4 burgers and one tube sock, then what?

You place the burgers into the tubesock and use it like a blackjack on the banksters.


Then you make them into burgers and pretty soon your burger portfolio is looking up!
 
2014-02-03 04:20:39 PM
I'm terribly sorry that the rich are ashamed at having so many more magnitudes of obscene and unnecessary wealth. The fleeting guilt mixed with greedy sociopathy is not enough to save their souls however, no matter how many bullshiat articles apologists write.

Own it: you think you deserve to be above all others, ethics apply not if there's money involved.... YOU ARE SPECIAL and obscene wastes of money or hoarding it are your BIRTHRIGHT. Sure, people are starving or out of work, fark 'em!

You got yours, that's what's important.

Greedy, sociopathic narcissists. I'm getting tired of these 'don't be mean to the wealthy, proles' submissions. Push that camel through the needle farkers.
 
2014-02-03 04:22:17 PM

inclemency: I'm terribly sorry that the rich are ashamed at having so many more magnitudes of obscene and unnecessary wealth. The fleeting guilt mixed with greedy sociopathy is not enough to save their souls however, no matter how many bullshiat articles apologists write.

Own it: you think you deserve to be above all others, ethics apply not if there's money involved.... YOU ARE SPECIAL and obscene wastes of money or hoarding it are your BIRTHRIGHT. Sure, people are starving or out of work, fark 'em!

You got yours, that's what's important.

Greedy, sociopathic narcissists. I'm getting tired of these 'don't be mean to the wealthy, proles' submissions. Push that camel through the needle farkers.


"They were careless people, Tom and Daisy--they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back to their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made..."
 
2014-02-03 04:23:59 PM

inclemency: I'm terribly sorry that the rich are ashamed at having so many more magnitudes of obscene and unnecessary wealth. The fleeting guilt mixed with greedy sociopathy is not enough to save their souls however, no matter how many bullshiat articles apologists write.

Own it: you think you deserve to be above all others, ethics apply not if there's money involved.... YOU ARE SPECIAL and obscene wastes of money or hoarding it are your BIRTHRIGHT. Sure, people are starving or out of work, fark 'em!

You got yours, that's what's important.

Greedy, sociopathic narcissists. I'm getting tired of these 'don't be mean to the wealthy, proles' submissions. Push that camel through the needle farkers.


Do you think expressing extraordinary anger aids your position?
 
2014-02-03 04:24:52 PM

inclemency: I'm terribly sorry that the rich are ashamed at having so many more magnitudes of obscene and unnecessary wealth. The fleeting guilt mixed with greedy sociopathy is not enough to save their souls however, no matter how many bullshiat articles apologists write.

Own it: you think you deserve to be above all others, ethics apply not if there's money involved.... YOU ARE SPECIAL and obscene wastes of money or hoarding it are your BIRTHRIGHT. Sure, people are starving or out of work, fark 'em!

You got yours, that's what's important.

Greedy, sociopathic narcissists. I'm getting tired of these 'don't be mean to the wealthy, proles' submissions. Push that camel through the needle farkers.


People aren't hungry enough yet.

If they keep cutting food stamps while food prices continue to go up, and you'll see the change happen, and it has a good chance of not being pretty.

California's drought is going to hit a lot of people in the pocket book this year for fruits and vegetables, just like the Texas drought and their beef cattle cull a year or two ago hit beef prices.
 
2014-02-03 04:28:18 PM
If you think that someone who got injured in a car wreck deserves to be poor because he's unable to work because he made the poor choice to drive, then god help you.

If you think some people are poor because they looked at the wealth of educational options their rural or inner city guidance counselor told them about and said, "nah, fark it, paycheck to paycheck it is!" then god help us all.

Even if someone makes a stupid choice (running up a moderate amount of credit card debt when young, or getting addicted to drugs, or a bad relationship), then seriously fark you if you would write someone off for a mistake.

I'm sure you've lived your life careful and cautious and error free, always making perfect decisions and always doing everything for yourself without no help from nobody, but seriously, quit extrapolating your situation to everyone else. Try seeing stuff from the other guy's perspective and for god's sake look at your own privilege before you start yanking those bootstraps.
 
2014-02-03 04:29:11 PM

meat0918: inclemency: I'm terribly sorry that the rich are ashamed at having so many more magnitudes of obscene and unnecessary wealth. The fleeting guilt mixed with greedy sociopathy is not enough to save their souls however, no matter how many bullshiat articles apologists write.

Own it: you think you deserve to be above all others, ethics apply not if there's money involved.... YOU ARE SPECIAL and obscene wastes of money or hoarding it are your BIRTHRIGHT. Sure, people are starving or out of work, fark 'em!

You got yours, that's what's important.

Greedy, sociopathic narcissists. I'm getting tired of these 'don't be mean to the wealthy, proles' submissions. Push that camel through the needle farkers.

People aren't hungry enough yet.

If they keep cutting food stamps while food prices continue to go up, and you'll see the change happen, and it has a good chance of not being pretty.

California's drought is going to hit a lot of people in the pocket book this year for fruits and vegetables, just like the Texas drought and their beef cattle cull a year or two ago hit beef prices.


The poor are unable to get access to fruits and vegetables now so what is the bfd if the price of them skyrocket?
 
2014-02-03 04:30:09 PM

Lcpl_Dunno: To be fair the "poor guy" probably lives an overly lavish lifestyle (considering his income) to make this happen.


"Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well-warmed, and well-fed." -Herman Melville
 
2014-02-03 04:31:22 PM

nmrsnr: When defending the richest Americans, try not to have a comically villainous mustache.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 114x80]


Looks like that HR dude from the Onion
 
2014-02-03 04:31:59 PM

Lcpl_Dunno: actually argue the point.


I argued four of your explicit points, without name-calling. The problem with your arguments is that they rest on premises derived from stereotypes.

You saying that the poor are most likely poor due to bad decisions is not a fact, it's a meme that has been pushed by the wealthy and those who speak for them. I'm not saying people don't become poor as a result of bad decisions: that happens every day.

HOWEVER, assuming that all (or most) poor people are lazy/incompetent/morally deficient is a cruel stereotype that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Most people want to work, and many who do can't make ends meet on the salaries available, even when working full time/multiple jobs. This is also why cries of "class warfare" from the rich are so laughably out of touch.
 
2014-02-03 04:37:12 PM

ikanreed: inclemency: I'm terribly sorry that the rich are ashamed at having so many more magnitudes of obscene and unnecessary wealth. The fleeting guilt mixed with greedy sociopathy is not enough to save their souls however, no matter how many bullshiat articles apologists write.

Own it: you think you deserve to be above all others, ethics apply not if there's money involved.... YOU ARE SPECIAL and obscene wastes of money or hoarding it are your BIRTHRIGHT. Sure, people are starving or out of work, fark 'em!

You got yours, that's what's important.

Greedy, sociopathic narcissists. I'm getting tired of these 'don't be mean to the wealthy, proles' submissions. Push that camel through the needle farkers.

Do you think expressing extraordinary anger aids your position?


More and more people are really, really pissed off.  Right now they are content to point their fingers at "the other side" but a galvanizing event could tip the scales pretty damn quickly.
 I think we're a long way off from that point in the US though.
 
2014-02-03 04:38:18 PM

Mr. Eugenides: FarkedOver: The rich need people to be poor.  They need the unemployed.  The fact that they need these things is exactly why they do everything in their power to make sure it is that way.

Care to explain why the rich need people to be poor and unemployed?


They don't necessarily NEED people to be poor, but often people become poor as a result of what the wealthy do to get wealthy.

Case in point, look at the hundreds of thousands of middle class jobs and small business that have been destroyed by the Walton family, and replaced with poverty-wage jobs.  That's a clear-cut case of a single family making billions of dollars by shifting a large number of people from the middle class into poverty.
 
2014-02-03 04:38:33 PM

meat0918: ikanreed: inclemency: I'm terribly sorry that the rich are ashamed at having so many more magnitudes of obscene and unnecessary wealth. The fleeting guilt mixed with greedy sociopathy is not enough to save their souls however, no matter how many bullshiat articles apologists write.

Own it: you think you deserve to be above all others, ethics apply not if there's money involved.... YOU ARE SPECIAL and obscene wastes of money or hoarding it are your BIRTHRIGHT. Sure, people are starving or out of work, fark 'em!

You got yours, that's what's important.

Greedy, sociopathic narcissists. I'm getting tired of these 'don't be mean to the wealthy, proles' submissions. Push that camel through the needle farkers.

Do you think expressing extraordinary anger aids your position?

More and more people are really, really pissed off.  Right now they are content to point their fingers at "the other side" but a galvanizing event could tip the scales pretty damn quickly.
 I think we're a long way off from that point in the US though.


If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention, but a lot of the people who are outraged are also clearly not paying attention.
 
2014-02-03 04:38:44 PM

ikanreed: inclemency: I'm terribly sorry that the rich are ashamed at having so many more magnitudes of obscene and unnecessary wealth. The fleeting guilt mixed with greedy sociopathy is not enough to save their souls however, no matter how many bullshiat articles apologists write.

Own it: you think you deserve to be above all others, ethics apply not if there's money involved.... YOU ARE SPECIAL and obscene wastes of money or hoarding it are your BIRTHRIGHT. Sure, people are starving or out of work, fark 'em!

You got yours, that's what's important.

Greedy, sociopathic narcissists. I'm getting tired of these 'don't be mean to the wealthy, proles' submissions. Push that camel through the needle farkers.

Do you think expressing extraordinary anger aids your position?


Likely not, but playing nice in this instance has proven futile time and time again.

Doubling down instead of meekly apologizing for your MAJOR transgressions on the overall populace is something only narcissists could do. It's disturbing.
 
2014-02-03 04:41:09 PM

Saiga410: meat0918: inclemency: I'm terribly sorry that the rich are ashamed at having so many more magnitudes of obscene and unnecessary wealth. The fleeting guilt mixed with greedy sociopathy is not enough to save their souls however, no matter how many bullshiat articles apologists write.

Own it: you think you deserve to be above all others, ethics apply not if there's money involved.... YOU ARE SPECIAL and obscene wastes of money or hoarding it are your BIRTHRIGHT. Sure, people are starving or out of work, fark 'em!

You got yours, that's what's important.

Greedy, sociopathic narcissists. I'm getting tired of these 'don't be mean to the wealthy, proles' submissions. Push that camel through the needle farkers.

People aren't hungry enough yet.

If they keep cutting food stamps while food prices continue to go up, and you'll see the change happen, and it has a good chance of not being pretty.

California's drought is going to hit a lot of people in the pocket book this year for fruits and vegetables, just like the Texas drought and their beef cattle cull a year or two ago hit beef prices.

The poor are unable to get access to fruits and vegetables now so what is the bfd if the price of them skyrocket?


It's not exactly just the poor I'm talking about here, but a combination of both poor and middle class, especially those middle class folk that are still relatively comfortable.

The food stamp cuts will make the poor that have them grumble.

The higher fruits and veggies prices will make people with more money grumble and ask "What the hell is going on?".
 
2014-02-03 04:42:45 PM
It's not that we hate the rich.

It's that, to do many of the things we need to do to help the poor (education, shovel-ready jobs, etc) we have to have taxes.

And those taxes have to be on the rich.

Why do the taxes need to be on the rich, you might ask?

For the same reason that Jesse James robbed banks.  "That's where all the farking money is!"
 
2014-02-03 04:45:15 PM

inclemency: Likely not, but playing nice in this instance has proven futile time and time again.

Doubling down instead of meekly apologizing for your MAJOR transgressions on the overall populace is something only narcissists could do. It's disturbing.


How do you fix it?
 
2014-02-03 04:48:42 PM

meat0918: The food stamp cuts will make the poor that have them grumble.


But welfare does not interfere with people bringing forth their full economic pressure to recieve just compensation.
 
2014-02-03 04:52:00 PM

Lcpl_Dunno: You want someone to blame and not a solution. Your choice I guess.


The blame and the solution are one in the same.

You do realize this game has been rigged for quite some time now. Crony capitalism isn't just a damning turn of phrase, there are volumes written on the issue. The investor class has been profiting unfairly off the working class for decades now. You get that right? This isn't some clever ruse formulated out of jealousy by the poor.

I mean have fun with your delusion that the rich are not directly to blame, but that's the reality.
 
2014-02-03 04:53:25 PM

Pick: You 47% don't pay taxes either. You live off of the other 53% that do pay taxes, deadbeat. What are you biatching about?


That's not true, the bottom 47% pays an amount of taxes FAR out of proportion with the amount of wealth they possess, while the top earners that control 80% of the country's wealth pay only about 40% of the taxes.

I don't begrudge wealth, but at that point, you're obviously getting more than average out of the services provided by the government  (your property rights are FAR more expensive to maintain, you most likely have employees that rely heavily on public infrastructure to provide you with the labor you demand).

Just pay your fair share, already!
 
2014-02-03 04:54:04 PM

ikanreed: inclemency: Likely not, but playing nice in this instance has proven futile time and time again.

Doubling down instead of meekly apologizing for your MAJOR transgressions on the overall populace is something only narcissists could do. It's disturbing.

How do you fix it?


Tax capital gains at a rate equal to or closer to income.
Increase the minimum wage.
Restore collective bargaining rights where they have been rolled back.
Reinstitute Glass-Steagall separation of commercial and investment banks.
Intense crackdowns on white-collar crimes.
Single payer healthcare.
Abandon the "War on Drugs" in favor of rehabilitation programs.
Criminalize predatory lending practices (payday loans, capping credit card interest rates, etc.)


Many more, but those would do a great deal to lift the poor out of poverty and protect them from those who prey on financial desperation, and to limit some of the worst abuses of the system by the wealthy.
 
2014-02-03 04:58:19 PM

ikanreed: inclemency: Likely not, but playing nice in this instance has proven futile time and time again.

Doubling down instead of meekly apologizing for your MAJOR transgressions on the overall populace is something only narcissists could do. It's disturbing.

How do you fix it?


What makes you so sure we can?
 
2014-02-03 04:58:41 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: ikanreed: inclemency: Likely not, but playing nice in this instance has proven futile time and time again.

Doubling down instead of meekly apologizing for your MAJOR transgressions on the overall populace is something only narcissists could do. It's disturbing.

How do you fix it?

Tax capital gains at a rate equal to or closer to income.
Increase the minimum wage.
Restore collective bargaining rights where they have been rolled back.
Reinstitute Glass-Steagall separation of commercial and investment banks.
Intense crackdowns on white-collar crimes.
Single payer healthcare.
Abandon the "War on Drugs" in favor of rehabilitation programs.
Criminalize predatory lending practices (payday loans, capping credit card interest rates, etc.)


Many more, but those would do a great deal to lift the poor out of poverty and protect them from those who prey on financial desperation, and to limit some of the worst abuses of the system by the wealthy.


That's how the government could fix it.  How do you fix it?  Or get the goverment to fix it?
 
2014-02-03 04:59:27 PM

llortcM_yllort: ikanreed: inclemency: Likely not, but playing nice in this instance has proven futile time and time again.

Doubling down instead of meekly apologizing for your MAJOR transgressions on the overall populace is something only narcissists could do. It's disturbing.

How do you fix it?

What makes you so sure we can?


Nothing but my own willingness to work on it, given a good enough plan.
 
2014-02-03 04:59:45 PM

Saiga410: meat0918: The food stamp cuts will make the poor that have them grumble.

But welfare does not interfere with people bringing forth their full economic pressure to recieve just compensation.


I think the only thing that does that is fear.

Maybe that's what we are waiting for; the will that gets the people to overcome that fear and be able to demand that just compensation.
 
2014-02-03 05:08:26 PM

FarkedOver: Mr. Eugenides: FarkedOver: The rich need people to be poor.  They need the unemployed.  The fact that they need these things is exactly why they do everything in their power to make sure it is that way.

Care to explain why the rich need people to be poor and unemployed?

It drives down wages.  When more people are competing for jobs.


How does that in any way benefit the "rich"?

An unstated premise you are assuming is that economics is zero sum; that for me to have more, someone else must have less.  That's simply not true, wealth expands and contracts (though it mostly expands).

What helps the wealthy the most is for the economy (and total wealth) to expand. High unemployment and low wages is a sign of a contracting economy which is bad for the wealthy.
 
2014-02-03 05:09:38 PM

Mr. Eugenides: High unemployment and low wages is a sign of a contracting economy which is bad for the wealthy.


Except that it's happening during an expansion.  And as an underlying trend through several bigger expansions.
 
2014-02-03 05:09:41 PM

meat0918: Saiga410: meat0918: The food stamp cuts will make the poor that have them grumble.

But welfare does not interfere with people bringing forth their full economic pressure to recieve just compensation.

I think the only thing that does that is fear.

Maybe that's what we are waiting for; the will that gets the people to overcome that fear and be able to demand that just compensation.


It is going to happen one of 3 ways.  Violence, govt edict or we as indidual actors in the economy stand up for ourselves.  I want number 3 but as many have stated (pentulant whine of a 5 year old) "but that is hard" so my money is on two.
 
2014-02-03 05:22:14 PM
thinkprogress.org
 
2014-02-03 05:24:05 PM
Everyone is oversimplifying the issue. Lowering taxes on the wealthy isn't going to add one more job to the world, or give one more person a raise. But you also can't create jobs by raising taxes either. And given the fact that the government is mostly made up of bought and paid for whores, the government can't and won't save you.

It seems to me that the only way for the middle class to regain any ground is to be able to advocate for its own best interest. The problem is that unionization is largely useless because you aren't competing with non-unionized labor, but with foreign, near slave labor and technology. It seems counterintuitive to me that adding extremely low paying jobs to the economy is good for anyone, yet China has a fast growing middle class due to its manufacturing base, and you can't argue with that. So it would appear that having low skill, low paying manufacturing jobs (like we did during periods of explosive growth) is the best way to go forward.

If I could do anything, I would impose stiff tariffs on imported products. We need factory jobs here. They are going to suck and you're they're not going to pay well. Tough shiat. Pick up a book if you don't like it.
 
2014-02-03 05:37:30 PM

Mr. Eugenides: FarkedOver: Mr. Eugenides: FarkedOver: The rich need people to be poor.  They need the unemployed.  The fact that they need these things is exactly why they do everything in their power to make sure it is that way.

Care to explain why the rich need people to be poor and unemployed?

It drives down wages.  When more people are competing for jobs.

How does that in any way benefit the "rich"?

An unstated premise you are assuming is that economics is zero sum; that for me to have more, someone else must have less.  That's simply not true, wealth expands and contracts (though it mostly expands).

What helps the wealthy the most is for the economy (and total wealth) to expand. High unemployment and low wages is a sign of a contracting economy which is bad for the wealthy.


In the long run, sure, but that's not the view they're taking. It's not surprising, given that corporate America is set up to overwhelmingly reward short term success even at the expense of long term strategy.

In the short term, quarterly profits are everything, which in turn means the bottom line is of special importance, and labor is a major line-item expenditure that is exceedingly easy to reduce. Reductions in labor is the first thing most companies will look at if they decide it's necessary to cut expenses.

Since labor is such a major component of the bottom line, and the bottom line is such a major component of the short-term reward mindset, it makes a lot of sense that people whose wealth is directly tied to corporate management and the stock market would want to keep labor costs as low as possible. You can only cut your workforce so far, and after that the easiest way to reduce labor costs is to depress wages; the easiest way to put downwards pressure on wages is to have more supply than demand, i.e. have more job seekers than available jobs.

The rich don't need lots of people unemployed, and would certainly be better off in the long run with more people employed, but from a business standpoint, high supply and low demand for labor is a very desirable situation over the short term.
 
2014-02-03 05:37:35 PM
Magnanimous_J
The problem is that unionization is largely useless because you aren't competing with non-unionized labor, but with foreign, near slave labor and technology.

They could have been organizing with them instead of against them, and investing in worker ownership.
 
2014-02-03 05:41:27 PM

Saiga410: Maybe that's what we are waiting for; the will that gets the people to overcome that fear and be able to demand that just compensation.

It is going to happen one of 3 ways.  Violence, govt edict or we as indidual actors in the economy stand up for ourselves.  I want number 3 but as many have stated (pentulant whine of a 5 year old) "but that is hard" so my money is on two.


This individual actor is saying 'f it'.  I'm at the point that I can afford a midwestern shack, rice and beans, and some 5-year-old tech castoffs for the rest of my life. I can't afford to have a kid or consume, consume, consume, but I can live.  You want me to wear an RFID tracking badge and put up fake smiling emotions? F that. You want me to be a 'ninja' on some half-baked moving target development platform that you can't even pronounce correctly? F that. Doing something entirely meaningless? That you can't even explain how it would be useful? And, you want to pay me crap because it's 'good experience'? F that. You want me to apply in thirty different cities and move on a moment's notice for a bloody job? F that.  You want me to work from home too? F that.

Do better than the workforce is doing now, and we'll talk. Otherwise, this National Merit Scholar is going out for a God-damned bike ride and splitting some firewood later. I'll be dead in fifty years either way.
 
2014-02-03 05:44:39 PM

Magnanimous_J: Everyone is oversimplifying the issue.


Magnanimous_J: We need factory jobs here. They are going to suck and you're they're not going to pay well. Tough shiat. Pick up a book if you don't like it.


You don't say. :)

There's no historical reason that factory jobs have to pay terribly, though. "Re-shoring" of jobs by American companies is a direct function of living standards and pay increasing in China and elsewhere. We need our government investing in research and tech to develop new industries, instead of competing for the lowest-paying jobs.
 
2014-02-03 05:47:49 PM

Mr. Eugenides: FarkedOver: Mr. Eugenides: FarkedOver: The rich need people to be poor.  They need the unemployed.  The fact that they need these things is exactly why they do everything in their power to make sure it is that way.

Care to explain why the rich need people to be poor and unemployed?

It drives down wages.  When more people are competing for jobs.

How does that in any way benefit the "rich"?

An unstated premise you are assuming is that economics is zero sum; that for me to have more, someone else must have less.  That's simply not true, wealth expands and contracts (though it mostly expands).

What helps the wealthy the most is for the economy (and total wealth) to expand. High unemployment and low wages is a sign of a contracting economy which is bad for the wealthy.


No it's mostly zero sum. There's a finite money supply, finite resources, finite amount of usable land, finite time, and finite demand. In a very real sense it's a zero sum game. To say otherwise is to dismiss reality and buy into magical economic thinking, and this is a popular delusion many economists still believe.

The only way in which the economy isn't a zero sum game is in the sense that we can ascribe any monetary value to an object. However the object still has finite utility and finite demand within the market.
 
2014-02-03 05:52:02 PM

RanDomino: Magnanimous_J
The problem is that unionization is largely useless because you aren't competing with non-unionized labor, but with foreign, near slave labor and technology.

They could have been organizing with them instead of against them, and investing in worker ownership.


That's a good point, but how do you even begin to organize labor across multiple cultures and governments that are so very different?

UrukHaiGuyz: We need our government investing in research and tech to develop new industries, instead of competing for the lowest-paying jobs.


Couldn't agree more. Here's where I have a bit of cognitive dissonance: I hate how much money we spend on defense, yet it seems like the whole 20th century was built on the technologies that were developed for the military (or NASA/ the Military).
 
2014-02-03 06:08:57 PM
I always love the, "Rich make better decisions than poor people argument."  because it just is so wrong.  I know two guys who were born into wealthy families, not 1%ers but well off.  These two guys have made more poor decisions than any dozen poor people I know.  Time after time when presented with a good choice or bad choice they will choose the one that hurts them most.  A poor person making the exact same choices would have devastating effects.  The reason they can make poor choice after poor choice is they have more cushion to fall back on.
Recent examples;
Send $3000 to internet 'girlfriend' so she can buy a plane ticket to visit.  No big deal, pocket change.  Poor person, that is 6 weeks pay, going to miss lots of bills and eat Ramen for a couple months.
Walk of a job in the morning...have a friend they met at the rich kids club in college get them a management position in their firm(even though they have never worked in the field).
One just up and disappeared for a couple weeks.  No phoning work or telling friends and family where he was going.  Came back and all was fine.  Still had a job, someone had paid his bills, fed his dog, watered his lawn and plants.  Poor guy does this, there is no job when he returns, plants and lawn are dead, and bills were not paid.
Same choice by a rich and poor person, the poor person is worse off and 1 step closer to being destitute.  Rich person makes the same choice and it is business as usual for them.
 
2014-02-03 06:12:36 PM
Here's an interesting article that touches on inequality, among other things.
 
2014-02-03 06:14:56 PM
I personally think taxes are too high across the board.  Our debt problem is the result of out of control spending, not a lack of funds.

However, I damn well better get a tax cut before those 1% bastards.  As a single guy making just shy of six figures, I'm being raped by the tax man.

Also, increasing the income tax on the rich won't bother them.  Very little of their money comes from "income".  If you want to get their attention, threaten to increase the capital gains tax.
 
2014-02-03 06:17:45 PM

OgreMagi: I personally think taxes are too high across the board.


Yeah. I could see how someone living a bit too comfortably might think that.

Our debt problem is the result of out of control spending, not a lack of funds.

translation=stop giving handouts to poor people who won't work shiatty jobs

Makes sense.
 
2014-02-03 06:28:37 PM
The reason  specific people are poor?  Usually no.

The reason that there are poor people around in general?  Most definitely yes.

The fact that responsibility and the consequences are distributed (i.e. an individual rich guy isn't responsible for an individual poor guy's poverty) doesn't mean that there isn't a problem, that it isn't caused by the rich, and that you don't bear some responsibility for it if you're in that group.
 
2014-02-03 07:01:05 PM

jayhawk88: Among men 25 to 55 with a high school diploma or less, the share with jobs fell from more than 90 percent in 1970 to less than 75 percent in 2010, reports   . For African American men ages 20 to 24, less than half were working.

Reasons aside, those numbers - if accurate - are farking frightening.


They're true.

Go read "Coming Apart: The Story of White America 1960-2010".

There's literally 2 Americas.  There's the high-IQ, went-to-college super-rich super-liberal* church-going, married, not-having-bastards, voting, working, virtuous, rich people, and there's everyone else.  Who are none of those things.  And because of the internet and some selective moving, you're developing a separate culture ("I can't believe Nixon won.  No one I know voted for him."  Imagine that, but for every single person above the 80th percentile and for every single thing.)

And then if you want to have some real fun, consider that IQ was the main correlating factor (So if you're stupid and rich, you probably, on the average, won't be rich much longer, and ditto for smart/poor), the average black/hispanic IQ is somewhere in the high 80's (for reasons that shall not be discussed here).

*Around DC, NYC, LA, and SF.  Otherwise, they're normal.  Of course, since that's our politicians and our media...
 
2014-02-03 07:05:17 PM

Jim_Callahan: The reason  specific people are poor?  Usually no.

The reason that there are poor people around in general?  Most definitely yes.

The fact that responsibility and the consequences are distributed (i.e. an individual rich guy isn't responsible for an individual poor guy's poverty) doesn't mean that there isn't a problem, that it isn't caused by the rich, and that you don't bear some responsibility for it if you're in that group.


Good distinction. That does seem to be a common topic the argument devolves into.
 
2014-02-03 07:21:11 PM

meat0918: jayhawk88: Among men 25 to 55 with a high school diploma or less, the share with jobs fell from more than 90 percent in 1970 to less than 75 percent in 2010, reports   . For African American men ages 20 to 24, less than half were working.

Reasons aside, those numbers - if accurate - are farking frightening.

They are, but it is a reflection of a changing labor market.  Wealth concentrating at the top hasn't helped, but I feel he's taking the results from that change and saying "Pay no attention to the fact all the the vast majority of the wealth generated in the last 40 years has been concentrated in a small percentage of the population."

I'd also wager the percentage of the population with a high school diploma or less has fallen since the 70's too.

Still looking for a graph that goes back that far.

According to the latest numbers from the BLS, 10,748,000 that don't have a high school diploma are in the civilian labor force, with a participation rate of 43.7% and an unemployment rate of 9.8% for December 2013.

Those with a diploma but no college are at 36,242,000, participation rate of 58.0%, and an unemployment rate of 7.1%

For comparison, Bachelor's degree holders or higher are 49,759,000 civilian labor force, with a participation rate of 75.3%, and an unemployment rate of 3.3%

Total civilian labor force is 133,770,000 if I added up the numbers correctly, so that is about 8% of the labor force that doesn't have at least a high school diploma. and 35% that have a high school diploma or less.

Those numbers seasonally adjusted, and I kinda forgot what point I was trying to make.

Anyways.

It really seems he took a total number of people in those age ranges and said, look at all these people not working, even if they are not looking for work.


What's the rate of those with Masters degrees who are unemployed? Cuz I'm one of them.

/and no, it ain't Philosophy.
 
2014-02-03 07:24:07 PM

nmrsnr: When defending the richest Americans, try not to have a comically villainous mustache.


img.fark.net

Or a pair of 70's-era Rapist Glasses
 
2014-02-03 07:33:15 PM
Well, if I ever really want the shiat kicked out of a complete strawman, I'll hire the dunce that wrote TFA.
 
2014-02-03 07:55:56 PM

jso2897: Well, if I ever really want the shiat kicked out of a complete strawman, I'll hire the dunce that wrote TFA.


Yeah. Why pay attention to the opinion of an award-winning business journalist?

After all, we have all the biting social commentary and tangled hamburger analogies we need, right here, from a bunch of anonymous FARKers.
 
2014-02-03 07:59:02 PM

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: ikanreed: whistleridge: Flawed premise: rich people are in fact a big part of the reason poor people are poor. If you believe otherwise, I have a bridge to sell you; send me an email and we'll close this deal.

Well, it's not so much that it's not true, as it is unprovable.

Between the two of us, there is a table with 50 burgers on it.  Through various means, I obtain 49 of those 50 burgers, leaving you with 1.  It's not "unprovable" that I am the reason you only have 1 burger.


Except that the only reason the 50 burgers exist is because you invented the concept of burgers in the first place.

It's not zero-sum, we've got a fairly good idea about how to create wealth, and the price that you pay for it is that someone(s) end up with way too damn much of it.  But if you actually do something about that, then they stop making wealth, and you get the massive income disparities between the first and second world that were the result of the Cold War and Communism (and honestly, the existing difference between Europe and the USA.  Just saying, $20K/year/person plus much lower taxes buys a LOT of inequality).

The price for Windows was Bill Gates (and Microsoft Millionaires)
Apple - Jobs/Wozniak
Facebook - Zuckerberg
Netflix guys are worth a few hundred million at this point.
Repeat for every single big tech company.   There's a billionaire or two combined with a few hundred or thousand millionaires.  The price you pay for fast, accurate search is Larry Page.

At least on the tech side (ignoring niggling anti-trust issues), it's not like they sat down and stole money.  They created awesome products and worked 100 hour weeks doing so (and paid in stock so that their employees went along for the ride) and everyone agreed that they were awesome, and paid them a bunch of money because they were awesome.  And the founders took a risk in part because they thought that they could get super-rich doing this and would on average get richer than working an actual job.  And the VC's took a risk in part because they thought that, on average, they would make their investments back plus a bit plus a bit more as compensation for risk.

And if you don't have startups, you don't have as much tech, partly because of corporate politics (Look how much trouble Microsoft had creating a phone), and partly because you can invest a couple million dollars to a hundred teams trying a hundred different ways, make a 30000% return on the successful ones, and then have BigCorp buy out the best 2 or 3 a couple years down the line.  Low cost, high reward, high inequality technical development.  And the price you pay for startups is billionaires.

IT and China killed off manufacturing.   Computers increased income disparity because the winners won that much more (and economies of scale and network effect exist with avengeance), and it was that much easier to go off on your own.  That's the unfixable problem, and your current ways of trying to do it will just destroyAmerica'sentrepreneurial and technical leadership (and the corresponding brain drain).  Because while the current world sucks, you REALLY don't want to see the alternate world where Silicon Valley is based in [Not-USA] (or worse yet, doesn't exist at all, and we're stuck in the 1970's).  Because then we don't have our software engineers to make up for all the out-of-work manufacturers.

Besides, while wealth doesn't trickle down, tech does.  A Nexus 5 is $400 + $60/month to have the internet in your pocket.  Smartphones didn't exist 20 years ago.  Repeat for every single thing being developed since about 1975 until you hit some physical limit.


Mind you, I'd be for a *Getting you to poor* guaranteed minimum income if that was the entirety of the American welfare state (and people would stop  biatching about the inequality, because the inequality is  cool,because it says that people are/were doing cool things (or are providing the necessary "least evil" that is the investor class that actually funds all this crap in the hopes of making even more money)).  We're just about to the point where the GMI's cheaper than all the welfare anyways, so I'm kind of surprised we don't see a Republican bringing it up.  Paul Ryan's almost there with his "Seriously, with all the money we spend on poor people, how are there still poor people?"

And corporate welfare and unnecessary regulations are more or less the root of all evil because they DON'T create the even playing field that's necessary for the startups.

/And since someone's about to talk about equality, part of the defacto definition of capitalism is unequal reward for unequal value (as determined by what people are willing to pay).  And the general push of the 20th century was that the more inequality you were willing to accept (right up until you walked off the curve and hit Africa levels), the generally better off you became.  America > Europe > Commies > Africa.
//And since someone else is going to complain about government policies and corporate welfare, then I'd say that your problem is not wealth, but the conversion rate from wealth to power.  Figure out what to do about that.
 
2014-02-03 08:07:20 PM

rvesco: Yeah. Why pay attention to the opinion of an award-winning business journalist?


are the people he is carrying water for giving out the awards?
 
2014-02-03 08:29:20 PM
The "super rich" have completely gamed the system to extract as much as they can from it while contributing as little as possible. Money has inherent power in a Capitalist society and we need a government who caters to the needs of the average citizen in order to maintain the balance of power.
 
2014-02-03 08:52:44 PM

A Cave Geek: Lcpl_Dunno: Stop demanding that they should get punished for success

No one's suggesting they are or should be.  What we're saying is that their incessant demands that they pay a smaller and smaller share of the tax burden is more than a little disingenuous.  The obscenely wealthy did NOT get that way (by and large) by their own hard work (People like Buffet, Gates, Bezos, etc.etc are exceptions) They got that way the old-fashioned way:  They inherited it, or only had the opportunities they did because of mommy and daddy's connections. When I hear them whine about their tax rate, I can't help but think of a few quotes from history on the subject.


Gates doesn't belong on that list; if his daddy hadn't bankrolled him he'd never have got anyplace.
 
2014-02-03 09:58:05 PM

Lackofname: meat0918: jayhawk88: Among men 25 to 55 with a high school diploma or less, the share with jobs fell from more than 90 percent in 1970 to less than 75 percent in 2010, reports   . For African American men ages 20 to 24, less than half were working.

Reasons aside, those numbers - if accurate - are farking frightening.

They are, but it is a reflection of a changing labor market.  Wealth concentrating at the top hasn't helped, but I feel he's taking the results from that change and saying "Pay no attention to the fact all the the vast majority of the wealth generated in the last 40 years has been concentrated in a small percentage of the population."

I'd also wager the percentage of the population with a high school diploma or less has fallen since the 70's too.

Still looking for a graph that goes back that far.

According to the latest numbers from the BLS, 10,748,000 that don't have a high school diploma are in the civilian labor force, with a participation rate of 43.7% and an unemployment rate of 9.8% for December 2013.

Those with a diploma but no college are at 36,242,000, participation rate of 58.0%, and an unemployment rate of 7.1%

For comparison, Bachelor's degree holders or higher are 49,759,000 civilian labor force, with a participation rate of 75.3%, and an unemployment rate of 3.3%

Total civilian labor force is 133,770,000 if I added up the numbers correctly, so that is about 8% of the labor force that doesn't have at least a high school diploma. and 35% that have a high school diploma or less.

Those numbers seasonally adjusted, and I kinda forgot what point I was trying to make.

Anyways.

It really seems he took a total number of people in those age ranges and said, look at all these people not working, even if they are not looking for work.

What's the rate of those with Masters degrees who are unemployed? Cuz I'm one of them.

/and no, it ain't Philosophy.


3.3% for Bachelor's degree or higher.  They don't break it down beyond that mark.
 
2014-02-03 10:49:15 PM
meyerkev
It's not zero-sum, we've got a fairly good idea about how to create wealth

At any given moment, there's only so much wealth in existence.

At least on the tech side (ignoring niggling anti-trust issues), it's not like they sat down and stole money. They created awesome products and worked 100 hour weeks doing so (and paid in stock so that their employees went along for the ride) and everyone agreed that they were awesome

Blah blah blah, the old Horatio Alger bullshiat. Yes, it's occasionally possible to get a bunch of money by designing something that can be copied a billion times and getting a cut. But it's far more viable and common to fark over your employees, manipulate governmental bodies, own a bank, and generally engage in legal robbery.

Mind you, I'd be for a *Getting you to poor* guaranteed minimum income if that was the entirety of the American welfare state (and people would stop biatching about the inequality, because the inequality is cool,because it says that people are/were doing cool things

You have no friends because you don't understand the importance of opening with the statement that everyone agrees with, and then shutting your facehole.
 
2014-02-03 10:57:46 PM
I think some time in the near future there will be two types of Americans.  One populated by people that were born on third base thinking they hit a triple while the rest are born on first base but never advance to second because each deep sac fly life gives them they are too busy complaining about the biatch standing on third base eating crackers like she owns the place.
 
2014-02-04 01:16:00 AM
Lcpl_Dunno:
While you may have missed ONE opportunity at that exact moment due to lack of vigilance ON YOUR OWN PART, that does not preclude you from any future opportunity and further more ought to make one more vigilant (for having missed once in the passed) to those opportunities arising. Whatever isn't quite counter-able, but I would suggest the same method of taking responsibility and work would answer sufficiently.

The rich guy asking the poor guy why he doesn't turn his yearly income to assets is reasonable ... I guess. To be fair the "poor guy" probably lives an overly lavish lifestyle (considering his income) to make this happen. He makes a choice to own an iPad instead of save the money and invest somewhere. While that investment may not pay off immediately or even at all; the iPad NEVER will (as a business tool aside, purely entertainment use of iPad described). While this life style does not include personal jets or 200,000 cars it is still one that is alterable to suit the needs of wealth gain. This could (potentially with lot's of work viewing investments) set the poor guy up as fairly well off at the very least. I happen to know a couple of people who started this sort of venture off of US military salaries, so I am going to guess that being a billionaire to begin with is not required. (Before one of you says luck, the guy described adamantly refuses to accept that. He has put in hours watching markets and makes deals accordingly).

You make some fair points, but on some others I think you're either making assumptions that don't add up or are mistaken about a few things.

While any person is certainly responsible for any opportunities that they miss that shouldn't be taken to mean that opportunities are so abundant that every one willing to work hard will be presented with several and can miss one or two and still seize another. If opportunities were that abundant then there would be so many sitting out there from people not being vigilant enough to grab them that we'd all be stumbling over opportunity and prospering by sheer force of statistical probability.
Equivalent opportunity does not necessarily exist across the socio-economic scale. I would expect it to be much more likely that fewer opportunities exist for those in the bottom two quintiles than for those in the top three (and now I have to go look and try and find out, dammit).
Also, anecdotally, I've known several soldiers who were able to take their modest pay and turn it into something. They told me how helpful it was not to have any bills since all they had to pay for themselves was car insurance and fuel. They lived on post, ate on post, were clothed on post and had their health tended on post. I'm not suggesting they didn't work their asses off for their pay or that they didn't deserve any of those things. I just feel it should be pointed out that a soldier can avail himself of things that a civilian worker cannot.


As far as the "poor guy" with an iPad, I'm not sure you and most most people in favor of strengthening social safety nets are talking about the same group of people. A "poor guy" with an iPad is usually a lower middle class white guy who thinks he's poor because he's not rich and biatches about being poor because he's envious of those who are. This is not the guy people are thinking of when they condemn politicians for cutting food stamps.
They're thinking of an actual poor person, one who lives with poverty every day. A guy who's working a dead end job, or two, and if someone gave him an iPad as a gift he'd sell it to put food on the table. He makes a choice to try and avoid seeing his family starve every day.

You mention back breaking labor not being a means to getting "rich" as if getting rich was the goal of poor people (or people in general). Are most non-wealthy trying to become rich? Most of what I've seen and read suggests the goal is more moderate than that. A decent home, good schools, the ability to vacation or travel more than once a decade, etc. and most advocates for the poor aren't trying to create a system that allows poor people to become wealthy. They're just want to see upward mobility more of a possibility than it currently is.
 
2014-02-04 05:56:57 AM

rvesco: jso2897: Well, if I ever really want the shiat kicked out of a complete strawman, I'll hire the dunce that wrote TFA.

Yeah. Why pay attention to the opinion of an award-winning business journalist?

After all, we have all the biting social commentary and tangled hamburger analogies we need, right here, from a bunch of anonymous FARKers.


AH - the "Argument from Authority" - subversion "Fancy Shingle on the Wall".
 
2014-02-04 08:39:51 AM
FTA:

Mostly, the rich got rich by running profitable small businesses

LOL!
 
Displayed 133 of 133 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report