Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
US income inequality at record high
- Thread starter Tony Flow MMMM
- Start date
- Status
That "growth" at the bottom is set by legal minimums. There are no caps at the top. You can earn as much as the market will bare. Is that the fault of the rich? Lest we forget that if the minimum wage were raised something crazy like $5 or $6 dollars an hour to around $12 or $13, the price of goods and services offered by grocery stores, fast food chains, and department stores would go through the roof, hurting the poorest among us the most. I made the point in another thread that if bread were $10 a loaf, I would complain but still buy it. But many couldn't buy it at all at that price. So upper middle class and wealthy people would be virtually unaffected by such price increases. So who are you really trying to help?
Also, part of the point (in my view) is more to do with what one does with his money, rather than how much there is to spend. Sure, there is a point where those decisions are sort of made for you, but most don't live there. At least ONE of the questions, if not THE question, should be "What are the poor doing...... what decisions are they making...... what efforts are they making....... what sacrifices are they making in order to make a better life for themselves down the road?"
So, as cruel or "mean" as it may come across, I would argue that if the minimum wage were increased $3.00 an hour (meaning $120 a week, $480 a month, $5,760 a year + or - for a 40 hour a week employee) many of them wouldn't notice an even slight increase in quality of life. Many are poor because of poor choices. I know this because I have been that guy. It was only a couple decades ago I literally went hungry on occasion. But, looking back, it was primarily because I made poor choices. Also because I rent to some who make those poor choices daily.
Anecdotal proof is proof none the less that bad choices are being made.
Also, it may be anecdotal, but many of us can give you example after example of people who made hard, smart choices and were able to improve their situations and the lives of the next generation (my parents at the top of my list).
Anecdotal proof is proof none the less that something CAN be done.
I think one under estimated way to help the economy is be able to provide for oneself. There's a lot to said for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philonius
Bootstraps!
Gotcha. I posted that as something of a Rorschach Test, knowing that people would find different meanings in it depending on their personal take on the subject. I can't help skimming threads like this, if for no other reason than for a bit of insight into the collective consciousness. How often do you see someone significantly change their opinion on sociopolitical questions because someone else posted a convincing argument in an internet forum? Ever?
I was mainly being a bit sarcastic, echoing the (to me) simplistic view that everyone could make it in this Great Nation if they just effing TRIED. Structurally, there are just too few big pieces of the pie to go around, and too many people with the cards stacked against them at birth to think that it is purely a matter of personal responsibility who makes it and who doesn't. Yep, lots of lazy buggers, but lots of people working really hard just to get by with little chance to improve their lot.
And yes, clearly the change changes in income distribution over the past 30+ years are due to the economics of labor vs. capital and realignment of tax structures bought and paid for by big money interests.
Originally Posted by Philonius
Bootstraps!
Gotcha. I posted that as something of a Rorschach Test, knowing that people would find different meanings in it depending on their personal take on the subject. I can't help skimming threads like this, if for no other reason than for a bit of insight into the collective consciousness. How often do you see someone significantly change their opinion on sociopolitical questions because someone else posted a convincing argument in an internet forum? Ever?
I was mainly being a bit sarcastic, echoing the (to me) simplistic view that everyone could make it in this Great Nation if they just effing TRIED. Structurally, there are just too few big pieces of the pie to go around, and too many people with the cards stacked against them at birth to think that it is purely a matter of personal responsibility who makes it and who doesn't. Yep, lots of lazy buggers, but lots of people working really hard just to get by with little chance to improve their lot.
And yes, clearly the change changes in income distribution over the past 30+ years are due to the economics of labor vs. capital and realignment of tax structures bought and paid for by big money interests.
It says per household, not per person.
At any rate, the point is that the cost is quite modest these days. "Flat screen" has been used many times in this thread as an example of an extravagant item seen in some poor people's houses, but that definition is outdated.
6jase5
Mammogram is down but I'm working manually
Let's just say that I have a friend that got a nice 500K commission on a large account he signed last year. That puts him in the 1%.
It took a year of work, a team of people all making good salaries, but the stress was on the salesperson by far along with the majority of work and travel. Many hours away from home and family. He worked with the company, believed in the idea and had them invest in it, quarterbacked the project internally and to the client, and because of it helped the companies enter a new and very profitable market.
Is he somehow exploiting the middle class or poor by making that money, which is just 2% of the gross revenue his company gained by taking on the new business? Also, the other company made 8 digits in pure profit which helped their shareholders, thus retirement accounts, their employees, hired more employees, etc.
Where is the negativity surrounding this that I can't find?
I just heard that the Gisel model made 42mil...which again was more or less a % of sales. Is she greedy and hurting the world's poor as well?
Should both of them have earnings caps and if so, who benefits from that? Who is hurting because they did well?
It took a year of work, a team of people all making good salaries, but the stress was on the salesperson by far along with the majority of work and travel. Many hours away from home and family. He worked with the company, believed in the idea and had them invest in it, quarterbacked the project internally and to the client, and because of it helped the companies enter a new and very profitable market.
Is he somehow exploiting the middle class or poor by making that money, which is just 2% of the gross revenue his company gained by taking on the new business? Also, the other company made 8 digits in pure profit which helped their shareholders, thus retirement accounts, their employees, hired more employees, etc.
Where is the negativity surrounding this that I can't find?
I just heard that the Gisel model made 42mil...which again was more or less a % of sales. Is she greedy and hurting the world's poor as well?
Should both of them have earnings caps and if so, who benefits from that? Who is hurting because they did well?
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
I realize I probably can't change your mind about the spending habits of those in poverty, and I also admit that some of their actions are clearly self-defeating, but having $500 worth of electronics in their household doesn't make someone comfortable. Perhaps better than third world standards, but shouldn't we expect everyone in our nation to live well above third world standards? We're the richest nation ever.
The poor actually are more generous than the rich, for the record.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/why-the-rich-dont-give/309254/
You will always depend on others. It's how living in society works. You will walk down roads that someone else has paved in shoes that someone else has made. You will eat and drink food that others have harvested or assembled. You will have your financial well being secured by other people in armies, behind desks, and walking beats.
No man is an island. Even the rich ones.
Oh crap. You can read all my "HeavyDuty is a poophead!" posts I compulsively type and then delete?!
I drive a 25 year old vehicle, one tv, still have some of my clothes from high school, and generally tend to stay away from extravagance in general. My money --after deductions to charity and retirement, goes mostly to paying rent (I loathe San Diego's asinine housing market -- if you want to see firsthand the irrationality of the free market, try living here) and supporting my girlfriend who's working on finishing up her masters.
By the end of the month, most of my money's gone, but I don't think I live wildly, it's just the cost of life, especially in San Diego is expensive. I guess that's my luxury.
I am barely home 8 hours a day. I really need to up my game to stop dragging down the average.
You can't cap the maximum wage (although, I'd be entirely for enacting that), but you may remember earlier in this thread where the marginal tax rate was higher on higher income during the better years in America? That's effectively a backdoor way of capping an income.
You're basically arguing that inflation will be catastrophic if the minimum wage is raised, which unfortunately the data doesn't actually support.
So instead of a $4 dollar loaf of bread, you'd be buying a $4.05 loaf of bread while all the people down the line would be that much closer to liveable wages. So, yeah. Nowhere close to the 250% markup you're guesstimating.
Out of interest, if wages are such an issue, how come Costco is still able to give customers a decent deal and pay staff a comparatively decent wage with benefits?
EXACTLY. What kind of IDIOT would take on that kind of debt without NEARLY enough income to cover it????? That has NOTHING to do with how the loan is PRESENTED to him by some slick loan guy.
With the first part you are STILL stuck on PERCENTAGES. But without getting into a biblical debate, I still maintain that donating $312 million to build a hospital is more generous than giving a bum $5, even if the $5 is 1% of your total worth. The porr guy bought a bum some beer. The $312 million will potentially saved hundreds for decades. And it IS, after all, $312 million dollars.
As for the second part, I don't buy it. In the "living wage" thread I pointed out where Wal-Mart has over 300,000 employees. If they were to raise salaries by the amount requested by the protesters, the corporation would literally be spending millions more per HOUR. Are you really going to sit there and try to convince me that shelling out millions of dollars PER HOUR is going to affect the price of bread a NICKEL? Grow up. That simply isn't true. I don't care how many PHDs the author of an article or the guy in a social justice video has. It simply is not true. If Wal-Mart did it, dozens of other companies would have to follow suit. And if the top ten employers in America were suddenly spending about a billion dollars PER HOUR more (just a figure of speech but I bet it would LITERALLY be hundreds of millions per day), you would have to be an idiot to think that the price of goods and services would not go up by a LOT.
Please explain how it is possible for that NOT to be true.
Well after reading all your posts about the wealthy giving away millions of dollars to charity (which I don't believe has been disputed), and all the program leeches that dwell in your rental units (whose actions haven't been defended that I'm aware of), it's good to know that the middle class (the ones that bear the burden of making the world go around) once again goes completely ignored.
Ironically, people on EBT and welfare are now seeping into the middle class. Folks with no jobs, several kids and living on the government teat are now edging up around 40k a year.
Hmm, even though the US is such a horribly unfair place full of evil capitalists, it seems our poor are living better than most middle class people in other civilized countries.
They all are able to whine about the evil capitalists on social media using their new iPhone 5Cs. lol
Hmm, even though the US is such a horribly unfair place full of evil capitalists, it seems our poor are living better than most middle class people in other civilized countries.
They all are able to whine about the evil capitalists on social media using their new iPhone 5Cs. lol
How much money is Walmart making per hour in the first place?
Also, Costco seems to still do fine while providing more for staff.
I think it's a given that we live in a world with biased media. As a hardcore moderate, I'd much prefer accuracy than spins.
I think a forgotten part of the economy equation was rampant spending like there was no tomorrow. Many got away with this when the cash flow was good, much like the auto industry thriving off of people who got a new car every couple of years. That cash flow stopped.
The mortgage situation was insane. It's unfortunate that we only focus on banks and not "our" mistakes. The decision to ignore it tells me that the public won't learn from it.
No.
People are responsible for CHOOSING to move jobs offshore in response to regulations.
Labor rates vs. regulations as a driver of offshoring will be highly dependent on industry.
Fender didn't move all their Nitro spraying out of California due to relative labor rates, and Dell doesn't employ Indian call centers because of regulations.
You seem to want to ignore large frauds on the part of those originating mortgages.
If someone signed a loan they couldn't afford - they're responsible.
For folks who had their docs changed without their knowledge, signatures faked, appraisal fraud committed, etc., etc. - they aren't resposnsible
Unless the originator takes pieces of paperwork out, or fakes your signature on a different loan, or misrepresents a loan, or the appraiser commits appraisal fraud, or..
I disagree to some extent.
Standardized loan documentation would help.
Requiring banks to "own" a higher percentage of the loans they generate would help.
Financially punishing and removing license to operate from institutions which engage in illegal/fraudulent practices would help.
Significant barriers between mortgage originators and appraisers (see "appraising to the loan" would help.
If CLEARLY written in the contract - me, assuming the loan follows all applicable laws.
Some currently allowed types of loans (see check cashing places for example) should be illegal (and were in the recent past).
Yes, and those laws were relatively regularly being violated.
In some cases because they materially misrepresented the loans they were offering.
In some cases because they altered the loan documents after signing.
In some cases because they conspired with the appraiser to overinflate the value of the home.
In some cases by altering income statements from borrowers.
How is it illegal? By violating the laws of the state where the action is taken.
All of those procedures do... but if the bank violates them, it's illegal.
Never mind the foreclosures on homes the banks didn't even own.
1) Single payer healthcare
2) Compulsory public service
3) Standardized loan documentation
4) "Public" education provided through college
5) Usury laws re-instituted
6) Change capital gains from long term/short term to long, middle, and short term. Middle corresponding to current long term rate, long term with a lower tax rate, and short term treated as regular income plus a penalty.
7) Significantly cut military capital spending, while increasing military pay such that no soldier qualifies for public assistance.
8) End the war on drugs
9) Re-institute publicly funded mental health treatment
...there is just a start.
Worse than that - it wasn't arbitrary.
The ratings agencies, if they rated them poorly, stood to lose business to another rating agency. It was pure falsity to continue the dollars flowing in.
- Status
