US income inequality at record high

[Lee Moses]

Forgive me, but I just don't understand the premise that one group is somehow "doing something" to cause another group to be UNABLE to thrive. I don't understand it. And, frankly, I don't believe it.

You will hear *crickets* on your question. This question has been asked in various forms several times in this thread, and nobody has attempted a direct supported answer.

 

[Truktek2]

Honestly, I have no stats to back up what I'm about to type. But I simply don't SEE any evidence of a dwindling middle class where I live/travel.

It's not that there's less physical people, it's that their disposable income has evaporated. Maybe their salaries haven't kept up with inflation, maybe they were laid off.

Regardless, they are spending less and making their income go further. They could postpone a vacation, stop eating out or put off buying that new car.

At least that's how I understand it. Less money for the middle class to spend, less products the rich need to produce.

 

[bolophonic]

Yes, The News and Observer there in your area is KNOWN for its unbiased accuracy. (That was sarcasm.) So, which newspapers "have it right"? And, I somehow missed the part where those newspaper EXPLAINED what rich people are doing to force middle class families into poverty. Could you sum it up for me? Or is your "pointing to the media" about as much answer as you are able to give? Or did your college professor at Duke or UNC forget to mention the root cause of it all?

I think that part of the disconnect in this conversation here is that I have never attempted to address wealth inequality as a one-on-one, zero-sum game between individual families. There is something a little aggressive to me about your assumption that I must be getting all of my info from one local newspaper that you dislike (an inaccurate assumption) or that I have been somehow misinformed by professors at two universities that you have a problem with (for the record, I have never attended either UNC or Duke.)

 

[Unrepresented]

You will hear *crickets* on your question. This question has been asked in various forms several times in this thread, and nobody has attempted a direct supported answer.

Exploitation is the foundation of capitalism (note: your definition may be rosier than mine). You exploiting others means that they have less access to exploit others.

 

[bolophonic]

You will hear *crickets* on your question. This question has been asked in various forms several times in this thread, and nobody has attempted a direct supported answer.

How do you feel about illegal foreclosures?

 

[spade2you]

Exploitation is the foundation of capitalism (note: your definition may be rosier than mine). You exploiting others means that they have less access to exploit others.

H-O-W? HOW is the middle class being exploited/eradicated. HOW are the rich making the poor even poorer? Give us specifics and not just "do you read the paper?"

I haven't seen a raise in years, but it's not due to the rich exploiting me. It's actually due to schools becoming diploma mills.

 

[Lee Moses]

Exploitation is the foundation of capitalism (note: your definition may be rosier than mine). You exploiting others means that they have less access to exploit others.

So prove that exploitation is taking place. I am in the middle class, and much closer to what is considered "poverty" in this country than I am to being in the top 10%, much less the 1%. But, for the life of me, I cannot figure out how I or others like me are being exploited.

 

[Lee Moses]

How do you feel about illegal foreclosures?

Has everyone, or even a large statistical percentage, of those in the top 1% been guilty of illegal foreclosure?

 

[aborgman]

That still doesn't address the (silly in my view) notion that the poor do more for the economy by spending every dime of their money, whereas that rich are somehow hurting us by leaving a certain percentage of their income in the bank.

The biggest driver of growth in the economy and jobs is velocity of circulation.

 

[Unrepresented]

Those facts are not lost on me. Those were not the good old days in my view. They were communism. 91% of income is robbery. And I never stated that the wealthy not having enough is the problem. But I DID, however, claim that their legally earning and keeping as much as they do is NOT the problem.

"America: former communist country" you heard it here first from Two Fingers.

 

[two fingers]

1) I am a stock holder of a variety of companies through the various retirement accounts to which I contribute, and while I suppose that I am voting with my money as to which funds I contribute to, there is a difference between that more passive level and a higher level of actual engagement that those who actively control larger percentages engage in. There is a difference between your average 401K holder and the hostile takeover types.

The more I have though about this statement, the more it seems to be even MORE ridiculous that #2 of your post. This is selective morality on parade.

So, you, my mom, my dad, and anyone else who "passively" owns stock through a retirement plan are in the clear? But the guy who "pulls the chains" so to speak is an immoral monster.

You are on the Titanic. You are in a lifeboat. A woman is trying to board the lifeboat. Another woman pushes her out of the way and takes the last seat. You do nothing to help. The first woman drowns with the ship. You were passive in your refusal to help. You are in the clear? You still BENEFITED from the lifeboat. While the first woman drowned.

Translate that into our conversation. So, the "evil rich corporate fat cat" does all kinds of "evil and manipulative" things to see to it that his company is profitable. (Your view. Not mine.) He profits a metric crapload of money through his efforts. Meanwhile the poor and middle class somehow got screwed by the fat cat (even though nobody can tell me HOW they got screwed...... but let's just say they did.) You and my parents profited $5,000 each in your retirement account because Mr.Fatcat (and people like him) have driven up the stock market "on the backs of the poor" (I love that phrase). Somehow you are IN THE CLEAR because you ONLY profited $5,000 screwing the poor by passively standing by while the fat cat raped and pillaged them? You are actually BETTING on the fact cat by even HAVING a retirement account. And yet you are bothered by HIS massive profits, but not your own. YOU are the one who brings up percentages and proportions. So, to you, $5,000 is a crapload of money. You profited HUGELY. Why are you not appalled by the evil profiteer in the mirror? How do you get off without impunity even though you sat idly by and watched that other woman get pushed out of the lifeboat and even gained from it?

Please explain. The deeper into this conversation we go, the more I get confused by the social justice crowd. So SOME profit off the backs of the poor is OK, as long as it isn't a LOT? And you are morally in the clear because you weren't at the meetings where they stacked up the dead bodies of the poor and tried to figure out how to make a buck off of them?

Seems like "iffy" morality to me.

 

[two fingers]

I think that part of the disconnect in this conversation here is that I have never attempted to address wealth inequality as a one-on-one, zero-sum game between individual families. There is something a little aggressive to me about your assumption that I must be getting all of my info from one local newspaper that you dislike (an inaccurate assumption) or that I have been somehow misinformed by professors at two universities that you have a problem with (for the record, I have never attended either UNC or Duke.)

Get literal much? Of course I can't know what you read or where you attended school. And, no, I am not aggressive. I don't hate anyone. I don't wish you any ill will. And I love a good UNC basketball game. Lighten up!

While we're at it, which newspapers? And WHAT did they say was the ROOT CAUSE of a "dwindling middle class"? That, after all, was my point. Your answer to the question "How are we screwing people out of the middle class?" was "read a newspaper". Doesn't seem like much of an answer. What IS the answer? Just curious.

 

[bolophonic]

Has everyone, or even a large statistical percentage, of those in the top 1% been guilty of illegal foreclosure?

When did I say anything like that? My point is that an illegal foreclosure sure seems like one way that a wealthy institution could force a family into economic hardship. And it has happened thousands and thousands of times in recent years and the result in those cases is that a bank was able to directly extract wealth from less powerful individuals with impunity. So there is one example of a way that wealth can flow upwards when it shouldn't be.

 

[aborgman]

Honestly, I have no stats to back up what I'm about to type. But I simply don't SEE any evidence of a dwindling middle class where I live/travel. I live in a town that I would argue is 80% or more middle class. Most towns around me (I feel) are the same. Unless there are millions and millions of "closet poor" out there, I just don't believe it. In other words, unless there are millions and millions of families living in a 3 bedroom brick ranch with two cars, a DVR, a flat screen (or three), and a new lawn tractor from Lowe's, but are actually somehow POOR, then I don't buy it. Maybe the failed experiments we call "major metropolitan areas" are skewing the number so badly that all of fly over country can't bring them back up. Sure, there are a couple of areas where government housing and/or just not-so-nice conditions prevail. And there are a coupld of "rich" neighborhoods. But I do work in just about every area of this place and it is almost ALL middle class. Other towns around here (Raleigh Durham Chapel Hill, Cary, Wilson, Rocky Mount, Washington, Goldsboro, Kinston, Wilmington to name a few) ALL seem to be MOSTLY middle class. So, where are these huddled masses of poor people and wealthy people? What areas of the country are SO bad that they are able to indicate a "dwindling middle class" for the rest of the entire country?

I suspect a large number of those people are "working class" and not "middle class".


Generally (depedning on the study) they are defined as:

Upper Class - 95th+ percentile
Middle Class - 50-95th percentile
Working Class - 15-50th percentile
Poor - Bottom 15%

And, while we're at it, HOW are these middle class families being FORCED into poverty? Who is doing it? HOW can a rich person FORCE a middle class family into poverty?

They aren't "forcing" them.

They are often FOSTERING CONDITIONS which increase the number of middle class families moving out of the middle class (and that isn't necessarily into poverty).

Forgive me, but I just don't understand the premise that one group is somehow "doing something" to cause another group to be UNABLE to thrive. I don't understand it. And, frankly, I don't believe it.

You don't understand how one group can change conditions such that another group has an increased difficulty in thriving, thus statistically increasing the number of people in a population unable to survive?

Really?

I suggest a watching of "Roger and Me"

 

[aborgman]

Those facts are not lost on me. Those were not the good old days in my view. They were communism. 91% of income is robbery.

It was never 91% of income.

I suggest a through investigation of "marginal tax rates"

 

[two fingers]

Exploitation is the foundation of capitalism (note: your definition may be rosier than mine). You exploiting others means that they have less access to exploit others.

I guess what some of us are looking for is the definition (specific to this discussion) of "exploitation". WHAT are the companies doing to exploit poor people. HOW are they forcing them to act in any certain way? Buy certain products? Eat certain foods? Buy TVs instead of health insurance, etc. I see mostly bad decisions, and you see the same actions as somehow coerced.

HOW does the exploitation occur? WHY can't the exploitation be avoided? WHO forces exploitation onto the poor? Specifically, how do RICH people exploit the poor?

 

[Unrepresented]

H-O-W? HOW is the middle class being exploited/eradicated. HOW are the rich making the poor even poorer? Give us specifics and not just "do you read the paper?"

I haven't seen a raise in years, but it's not due to the rich exploiting me. It's actually due to schools becoming diploma mills.

So prove that exploitation is taking place. I am in the middle class, and much closer to what is considered "poverty" in this country than I am to being in the top 10%, much less the 1%. But, for the life of me, I cannot figure out how I or others like me are being exploited.

The very idea of supply and demand is based around exploitation. You probably hear the word "profit" being used in place of it.

If you are employed someone is making a "profit" from your work, otherwise you would not be employed. That net "profit" is a good thing if you are making it, and if you think outside the box a little, it's exploitation of your true worth.

 

[BawanaRik]

Honestly, I have no stats to back up what I'm about to type. But I simply don't SEE any evidence of a dwindling middle class where I live/travel. I live in a town that I would argue is 80% or more middle class. Most towns around me (I feel) are the same. Unless there are millions and millions of "closet poor" out there, I just don't believe it. In other words, unless there are millions and millions of families living in a 3 bedroom brick ranch with two cars, a DVR, a flat screen (or three), and a new lawn tractor from Lowe's, but are actually somehow POOR, then I don't buy it. Maybe the failed experiments we call "major metropolitan areas" are skewing the number so badly that all of fly over country can't bring them back up. Sure, there are a couple of areas where government housing and/or just not-so-nice conditions prevail. And there are a coupld of "rich" neighborhoods. But I do work in just about every area of this place and it is almost ALL middle class. Other towns around here (Raleigh Durham Chapel Hill, Cary, Wilson, Rocky Mount, Washington, Goldsboro, Kinston, Wilmington to name a few) ALL seem to be MOSTLY middle class. So, where are these huddled masses of poor people and wealthy people? What areas of the country are SO bad that they are able to indicate a "dwindling middle class" for the rest of the entire country?

And, while we're at it, HOW are these middle class families being FORCED into poverty? Who is doing it? HOW can a rich person FORCE a middle class family into poverty?

Forgive me, but I just don't understand the premise that one group is somehow "doing something" to cause another group to be UNABLE to thrive. I don't understand it. And, frankly, I don't believe it.

I see the same thing. I'm surrounded by people who own thier own homes. Tend to have successful careers and seem to be happy.

 

[aborgman]

The more I have though about this statement, the more it seems to be even MORE ridiculous that #2 of your post. This is selective morality on parade.

So, you, my mom, my dad, and anyone else who "passively" owns stock through a retirement plan are in the clear?

No.

Those folks would have a lower proportion of the guilt - because they weren't in the position of making decision, but would still hold some due to funding an organization they knew was engaging in immoral practices.

But the guy who "pulls the chains" so to speak is an immoral monster.

If he pulls the chains in an immoral way? Yep.

 

[Unrepresented]

The more I have though about this statement, the more it seems to be even MORE ridiculous that #2 of your post. This is selective morality on parade.

So, you, my mom, my dad, and anyone else who "passively" owns stock through a retirement plan are in the clear? But the guy who "pulls the chains" so to speak is an immoral monster.

You are on the Titanic. You are in a lifeboat. A woman is trying to board the lifeboat. Another woman pushes her out of the way and takes the last seat. You do nothing to help. The first woman drowns with the ship. You were passive in your refusal to help. You are in the clear? You still BENEFITED from the lifeboat. While the first woman drowned.

Translate that into our conversation. So, the "evil rich corporate fat cat" does all kinds of "evil and manipulative" things to see to it that his company is profitable. (Your view. Not mine.) He profits a metric crapload of money through his efforts. Meanwhile the poor and middle class somehow got screwed by the fat cat (even though nobody can tell me HOW they got screwed...... but let's just say they did.) You and my parents profited $5,000 each in your retirement account because Mr.Fatcat (and people like him) have driven up the stock market "on the backs of the poor" (I love that phrase). Somehow you are IN THE CLEAR because you ONLY profited $5,000 screwing the poor by passively standing by while the fat cat raped and pillaged them? You are actually BETTING on the fact cat by even HAVING a retirement account. And yet you are bothered by HIS massive profits, but not your own. YOU are the one who brings up percentages and proportions. So, to you, $5,000 is a crapload of money. You profited HUGELY. Why are you not appalled by the evil profiteer in the mirror? How do you get off without impunity even though you sat idly by and watched that other woman get pushed out of the lifeboat and even gained from it?

Please explain. The deeper into this conversation we go, the more I get confused by the social justice crowd. So SOME profit off the backs of the poor is OK, as long as it isn't a LOT? And you are morally in the clear because you weren't at the meetings where they stacked up the dead bodies of the poor and tried to figure out how to make a buck off of them?

Seems like "iffy" morality to me.

Fair points if we were living in a black and white world, it'd fall under immoral. If we're living in a grayscale one, I would like to think I am less worse than others.