US income inequality at record high

[NWB]

You don't DESERVE to own a house just because you were born and you happen to still be breathing.

This makes sense to me. However, the now-defunct Washington Mutual Bank seemed to think otherwise.

They actually gave a $300,000 home loan to a mariachi singer with no verifiable income whatsoever. They were known to process loans for nearly anyone with a pulse and possibly even some without.

A good example of what a lack of due dilligence can get you.

 

[Unrepresented]

How do the poor and middle class help the economy by "responding quickly" to small increases in their prosperity? I'll tell you. They make MORE bad decisions and buy MORE crap they don't need. So they may "help" in the short tern, but in the long term they remain poor and struggling people, only with more crap they didn't need to begin with. I'll find the article somewhere (and link it when I do), but I read recently that most people considered to be "living in poverty" in the US have a microwave, air conditioning, a washer and dryer, at least one flat screen TV, a DVR of some sort (which of course means cable TV), a gaming system, and at least one car (if not more than one). So, you're exactly right. If we just handed the middle class and the poor a check each for $1,000 most of them would blow it and that would cause a bump in the stock market and a rise in orders for new goods (mostly Japanese electronics and appliances). And they would be just as poor 48 hours from now as they are today. But everybody "deserves" an Xbox, right?

And to the second statement in this quote, what "measures" would you take..... exactly? What WOULD you do, with the swipe of a pen, to "improve the security and prosperity of the middle class"? If you were king, what would you order by 10:30 tomorrow morning that would fix it all? Seriously, what policies would you put in place to insure more equal outcome? And what would the poor have to DO to receive such outcome? Just continue breathing?

I like that you take offense to painting the rich with a broad brush, but feel no conflict with accusing the rest of us as being incapable of having additional income and spending it on anything beyond a 13 year old would want.

 

[lax4bags]

Bootstraps!

That is the answer to the blame game for sure! Personal responsibility And demanding the same from our leadership!

 

[fdeck]

This makes sense to me. However, the now-defunct Washington Mutual Bank seemed to think otherwise.

They actually gave a $300,000 home loan to a mariachi singer with no verifiable income whatsoever. They were known to process loans for nearly anyone with a pulse and possibly even some without.

A good example of what a lack of due dilligence can get you.

In so doing, they were probably defrauding their investors. One of the factors contributing to the housing bubble was that loan "bundles" were arbitrarily given high ratings by auditors, thus inflating their value on the market.

 

[avvie]

This makes sense to me. However, the now-defunct Washington Mutual Bank seemed to think otherwise.

They actually gave a $300,000 home loan to a mariachi singer with no verifiable income whatsoever. They were known to process loans for nearly anyone with a pulse and possibly even some without.

A good example of what a lack of due dilligence can get you.

Why WOULDN'T they make the loan? Singer defaults, bank points at regulators, government bails them out, bank keeps property. What a great ROI!

 

[avvie]

I like that you take offense to painting the rich with a broad brush, but feel no conflict with accusing the rest of us as being incapable of having additional income and spending it on anything beyond a 13 year old would want.

Word.
Mahalo.

 

[Immigrant]

I think part of the problem may be that a lot of people use the "half full glass of milk" mindset when it comes to people living below their socio-economic status, and "half empty" when they look at themselves.

It's been mentioned a few times that people below the poverty level have air conditioning, "flat screen" TVs, microwaves, cable, etc... and yes, those things can all be lived without. These are things that have become normal by most standards in the US, but are extravagances in contrast to the people who have no water or food supply that we see in impoverished nations.

A few years ago, TV went digital. Those without cable had to buy a converter for their Tv to work. The Govt accepted applications and issued coupons to get them at half price and you could buy one anywhere. The coupons are no longer available and the converters are hard to find, probably online only. No Internet connection? No credit card? S O L for you.

Can a CRT-type TV even be found anymore? It's funny how the "flat screen" gets slipped in front of TV to make it sound extravagant.

That whole "flat screen, microwave, air conditioned" line comes straight from a radio show I catch occasionally, and he probably read the same "welfare queen" fueled source that was read by posters here.

As you can tell, I'm not comfy being in the bottom percentile, and no, I can't really do anything about it because I don't have the brains or physical ability. I do find comfort in knowing the difference between "you're" and "your" though.

 

[fdeck]

How do the poor and middle class help the economy by "responding quickly" to small increases in their prosperity? I'll tell you. They make MORE bad decisions and buy MORE crap they don't need. So they may "help" in the short tern, but in the long term they remain poor and struggling people, only with more crap they didn't need to begin with. I'll find the article somewhere (and link it when I do), but I read recently that most people considered to be "living in poverty" in the US have a microwave, air conditioning, a washer and dryer, at least one flat screen TV, a DVR of some sort (which of course means cable TV), a gaming system, and at least one car (if not more than one). So, you're exactly right. If we just handed the middle class and the poor a check each for $1,000 most of them would blow it and that would cause a bump in the stock market and a rise in orders for new goods (mostly Japanese electronics and appliances). And they would be just as poor 48 hours from now as they are today. But everybody "deserves" an Xbox, right?

Uh, no. I didn't say that anybody "deserves" anything.

And to the second statement in this quote, what "measures" would you take..... exactly? What WOULD you do, with the swipe of a pen, to "improve the security and prosperity of the middle class"? If you were king, what would you order by 10:30 tomorrow morning that would fix it all? Seriously, what policies would you put in place to insure more equal outcome? And what would the poor have to DO to receive such outcome? Just continue breathing?

Uh, no. I didn't say that I want to ensure an equal outcome. I didn't offer an instant solution.

I've already posted what I want, quoting myself:

Instead, let taxation be for raising money to run the government -- whatever that amounts to. My preference would be for the gov't to provide a fairly extensive list of services, not radically different than what we've got right now, but strengthened in areas such as education and health care, plus a more robust safety net. If some activities dump a large cost on society or on the government, then tax those activities. Given that a complex society will discover and exploit loopholes, the tax system has to evolve in order to chase those loopholes. That's unavoidable.

I didn't mention "deserve" or equal outcomes. Trying to guess what people "deserve" would require sending out the morality police to monitor the behavior of every household. That would be impossible. Trying to enforce equal outcomes would be utopian... and impossible. Letting people "blow" money on what they value is called the free market. The Communists tried to solve that problem... look where it got them.

 

[Tony Flow MMMM]

Before you (the OP) gets mad at the richest 1%... look at the amount of tax you actually pay per gallon of gas. In Texas my state tax plus excise tax per gallon of unleaded is 38.4 cents. You should get mad at he government before the top 1% earners. Gas effects all of us.

Fuel tax revenue to the US in 2009 was $38 billion.

Pick your battles OP.

Speaking of Gas... I need to visit the for sale section of TB!!

I can't say I'm mad just really like reading talks opinions

 

[two fingers]

I like that you take offense to painting the rich with a broad brush, but feel no conflict with accusing the rest of us as being incapable of having additional income and spending it on anything beyond a 13 year old would want.

Fair enough. I do infer a lot from what I read and see. I own rental property. I am no "slum lord" but some of my property is in neighborhoods where there are also government assisted housing units. Many of my renters beat me up with stories of not being able to make the rent (some almost every month), while at the same time having flat screen TVs , microwaves, cable, Xbox or other gaming systems, brand name clothing, a purse for every outfit, nails done a different color every time I see them, new tattoos, jewelry all over the dresser when I go to fix a toilet, and newer cars. I have read (and still can't find the article, but I will) that MOST people "living in poverty" in the US have those things. So, yes, I did infer that if a majority of the poor HAVE these things, that they BOUGHT them, rather than prioritizing their expenditures in other ways...... such as the RENT, or healthier FOOD choices, or perhaps health INSURANCE, or maybe not going into some sort of debt or crisis every time their CAR breaks down, or (hold on to your hats folks this could get bumpy) a SAVINGS account for a RAINY DAY FUND!

So, yes, I have a hard time feeling really sorry for the "poor" who have gaming systems and other not-so-important things and can't pay the rent or want me to pay for their healthcare. All the while they claim that OTHERS are somehow holding them back, beating them down, or in any number of ways screwing them. I have seen it FIRST hand, as well as seeing many wealthy people give generously of their money, time, and effort to those less fortunate. A wide brush perhaps. But a brush that widened through experience.

Are there generous poor people? Sure. Are there greedy rich people? Absolutely. Feel better? Now that we got that out of the way...........

 

[BawanaRik]

How do the poor and middle class help the economy by "responding quickly" to small increases in their prosperity? I'll tell you. They make MORE bad decisions and buy MORE crap they don't need. So they may "help" in the short tern, but in the long term they remain poor and struggling people, only with more crap they didn't need to begin with. I'll find the article somewhere (and link it when I do), but I read recently that most people considered to be "living in poverty" in the US have a microwave, air conditioning, a washer and dryer, at least one flat screen TV, a DVR of some sort (which of course means cable TV), a gaming system, and at least one car (if not more than one). So, you're exactly right. If we just handed the middle class and the poor a check each for $1,000 most of them would blow it and that would cause a bump in the stock market and a rise in orders for new goods (mostly Japanese electronics and appliances). And they would be just as poor 48 hours from now as they are today. But everybody "deserves" an Xbox, right?

And to the second statement in this quote, what "measures" would you take..... exactly? What WOULD you do, with the swipe of a pen, to "improve the security and prosperity of the middle class"? If you were king, what would you order by 10:30 tomorrow morning that would fix it all? Seriously, what policies would you put in place to insure more equal outcome? And what would the poor have to DO to receive such outcome? Just continue breathing?

Interesting. I don't have a DVR, a flat screen TV ( technically no TV) no cable, no Xbox. But I do have money and stocks so that I can feel safe and not depend on anyone else.

How can any rational being expect me to be happy supporting someone with expensive luxury toys that I don't have.

 

[two fingers]

This makes sense to me. However, the now-defunct Washington Mutual Bank seemed to think otherwise.

They actually gave a $300,000 home loan to a mariachi singer with no verifiable income whatsoever. They were known to process loans for nearly anyone with a pulse and possibly even some without.

A good example of what a lack of due dilligence can get you.

On that we can certainly agree.

 

[BawanaRik]

I think part of the problem may be that a lot of people use the "half full glass of milk" mindset when it comes to people living below their socio-economic status, and "half empty" when they look at themselves.

It's been mentioned a few times that people below the poverty level have air conditioning, "flat screen" TVs, microwaves, cable, etc... and yes, those things can all be lived without. These are things that have become normal by most standards in the US, but are extravagances in contrast to the people who have no water or food supply that we see in impoverished nations.

A few years ago, TV went digital. Those without cable had to buy a converter for their Tv to work. The Govt accepted applications and issued coupons to get them at half price and you could buy one anywhere. The coupons are no longer available and the converters are hard to find, probably online only. No Internet connection? No credit card? S O L for you.

Can a CRT-type TV even be found anymore? It's funny how the "flat screen" gets slipped in front of TV to make it sound extravagant.

That whole "flat screen, microwave, air conditioned" line comes straight from a radio show I catch occasionally, and he probably read the same "welfare queen" fueled source that was read by posters here.

As you can tell, I'm not comfy being in the bottom percentile, and no, I can't really do anything about it because I don't have the brains or physical ability. I do find comfort in knowing the difference between "you're" and "your" though.

I have a crt tv. Of course it's no longer a tv but it plays DVDs that I get from the library.

I am busy enough that I can get through the day without TV.

Imagine that.

In fact there's a chart indicating that the average TV time per day in the US is 8 hours.

Imagine how rich those people would be if they were to spend that 8 hours a day working!

http://vorg.ca/2505-Average-daily-TV-hours-per-country

 

[HeavyDuty]

By the way, let me just say that I appreciate the mods for letting this conversation go. And I also appreciate everyone for the most part staying away from politics to allow this conversation to continue. It is my contention that we could do this more often than not in OT. I disagree with many of you but don't hate anyone here (or anywhere for that matter). And I actually enjoy discussions like this. Cheers to all involved.

So long as people stay away from partisan politics or hard political positions and don't fight, there's no reason threads like this can't exist. We can see self deleted posts, and several users have demonstrated great self moderation.

Carry on.

 

[two fingers]

Interesting. I don't have a DVR, a flat screen TV ( technically no TV) no cable, no Xbox. But I do have money and stocks so that I can feel safe and not depend on anyone else.

How can any rational being expect me to be happy supporting someone with expensive luxury toys that I don't have.

Ha! Same here. I own rental property, stocks, and even more than one house of my own. And I drive a vehicle with a street value of about $1,000 with a broken door handle I refuse to get fixed. My wife makes good money and had to be talked into a $25K used car. All but one TV in my house are CRT. My younger daughter wears hand-me-downs from the older one and the older one wears hand-me-downs from my brother's kids. (And they will never own a gaming system so that sitting in front of it drooling for hours is not an option.) Most of the shirts I wear were on sale at Old Navy for about $4. I guess by not buying a new car, TVs, and clothes for my kids I am not doing my fair share to improve the economy. I am hoarding the wealth! I am part of the problem!

Or I might just be good with money.

 

[DerHoggz]

I have a crt tv. Of course it's no longer a tv but it plays DVDs that I get from the library.

I am busy enough that I can get through the day without TV.

Imagine that.

In fact there's a chart indicating that the average TV time per day in the US is 8 hours.

Imagine how rich those people would be if they were to spend that 8 hours a day working!

http://vorg.ca/2505-Average-daily-TV-hours-per-country

Not that rich, considering the great disparity in incomes.

I think we need to separate the anecdotal evidence of poor people misusing money from the point of this thread which is the lack of growth in income for the majority of Americans over the past ~30 years compared to the astronomical growth of those at the top.

 

[GregC]

I just went to bestbuy.com. You can get a 24" HD "flat screen" for $130, 32" for $180, 40" for $280, I'll bet you can do better elsewhere, too. Not exactly "luxury" prices. And if you have kids and work a lot, I imagine it turns into a cheap babysitter ( unfortunate but perhaps necessary).

 

[Sav'nBass]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24039202
.
The income gap between the richest 1% of Americans and the other 99% widened to a record margin in 2012, according to an analysis of tax filings.

The top 1% of US earners collected 19.3% of household income, breaking a record previously set in 1927.

in the last three years, 95% of all income gains have gone to the richest 1%.

Ya think..

 

[12bass]

This thread is interesting largely as an excellent example of motivated reasoning with regard to politics and economics. Basically, there are a lot of ex post facto rationalizations which have been constructed to bolster strongly-held preexisting views.

Link Removed

Carry on....

 

[BawanaRik]

I just went to bestbuy.com. You can get a 24" HD "flat screen" for $130, 32" for $180, 40" for $280, I'll bet you can do better elsewhere, too. Not exactly "luxury" prices. And if you have kids and work a lot, I imagine it turns into a cheap babysitter ( unfortunate but perhaps necessary).

The eight hours a day the average American spends in front of the TV is a luxury.

To waste that time like that is a sin.

http://vorg.ca/2505-Average-daily-TV-hours-per-country