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
Right. My dad is
62 years old, entire family (including elderly mother he takes care of) live in town, his health isn't spectacular so can't go without health insurance, he owns home outright - but housing market is massively depressed...
It seems so easy - if you're young and unencumbered.
There was something about laborers being buried in a certain way which showed they were in fact (or at least incredibly likely) laborers and not slaves (though I can't recall the exact details).
...or own rental properties from earlier in your life and marry a medical doctor who can provide financial stability while you make a large financial investment such as post-secondary education (which I want to mention not only carries a discreet financial cost but also many opportunity costs) when you are middle-aged.
Not pickin' on ya, TwoFingers, but your reductionist answers often totally ignore social and economic structures at both micro and macro levels. That's not some form of learned helplessness or justification for the po' to stay po'. It's just a general reality of our social world. Luckily in America, we can overcome these structures (although perhaps not as easily as we can in certain European countries), but to pretend it's simple is just not inline with reality. Again, I urge you to register for a sociology course beyond Soc. 101 if you still have electives.
For the record, I purposefully remained unencumbered throughout my young adult life to gain as much education as I can. There have been a lot of sacrifices (i.e., opportunity costs) along the way. But the reality is we all succumb to a certain amount of bounded rationality. What is an otherwise sound financial/career decision at 25 may not be so much at 45, because the world has changed. At that point in time, you need to adapt but adapting ain't always so easy.
Most provisions of Glass-Steagall were repealed in 1999. A step that may have been at least partly responsible for the housing bubble.
WaMu introduced an advertising campaign during the 2003 Academy Awards known as The Power of Yes. This was to promote the offering of loans to all consumers, particularly borrowers that the banks deemed too risky. Another commercial in the ad series showed WaMu representatives in casual clothes, contrasting with traditionally-dressed bankers in suits.
Did the government actually force WAMU to do this?
If you can't respond to this I understand.
I recall reading that with the advent of agriculture in Egypt, that food production was plentiful enough that it didn't take much of the population for everyone to be fed. With the surplus of potential workers, the pyramids were something of an ancient make-work program.
I really wish I could remember where I read this.
I recall reading that the way in which people were mummified (or what they were buried with) often reflecting their class in society, so it was easy to tell who was in the nobility class, peasantry class, slave class, etc... I'm still not sure about this though, so if someone finds something on it then please share it!
6jase5
Mammogram is down but I'm working manually
In all honestly, nobody really likes the thought of hard working people losing their shirts and jobs going overseas. I've been involved with many of the people making these decision to lay off thousands. They don't do it with a smile. We work in secrecy, I have to lie about my identity and employer. Nobody is laughing in the board room. It's heart wrenching and here I am touring factories and warehouses every month saying to myself "Well Pam, thanks for showing me how you make the chocolate and I am inspired by your pride...psst, work on your resume tonight." I get sad at times as I have a heart, but it's the global consumer economy we live in.
But but but....how about learning the oil trades? Try researching fracking jobs and welding....many jobs in North Dakota and other locations paying 6 figures. They can't fill them fast enough. Have you noticed how many automobile related jobs have been created in the US lately either? A lot of good paying jobs in Global Logistics (my field) being created every year too by those same overseas manufacturing shifts.
Complaining that we make consumer and industrial products in China is not understanding the reality of a global economy or global sourcing.
People, you make your own history and understand that you make it in a world that is constantly changing so be ready for anything. You could get laid off tomorrow for spending too much time on TBOT....are YOU ready?
But but but....how about learning the oil trades? Try researching fracking jobs and welding....many jobs in North Dakota and other locations paying 6 figures. They can't fill them fast enough. Have you noticed how many automobile related jobs have been created in the US lately either? A lot of good paying jobs in Global Logistics (my field) being created every year too by those same overseas manufacturing shifts.
Complaining that we make consumer and industrial products in China is not understanding the reality of a global economy or global sourcing.
People, you make your own history and understand that you make it in a world that is constantly changing so be ready for anything. You could get laid off tomorrow for spending too much time on TBOT....are YOU ready?
Actually no. If you're over fifty, male and looking for work you have an uphill battle. to put it mildly.
And you don't get any of the trillions of handouts available to young healthy types who just won't look.
I'm glad I saved. It comes in handy now.
Here's some more interesting meat to chew on:
The X-axis is Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality. Countries on the right are less equal than ones on the left.
The Y-axis is PPP-adjusted GDP per capita, i.e. "US $ value of the number of loaves of bread the average person can buy" (PPP is good because it gets around the "different countries have different costs of living" factor).
Posted without comment so as to stimulate discussion.
The X-axis is Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality. Countries on the right are less equal than ones on the left.
The Y-axis is PPP-adjusted GDP per capita, i.e. "US $ value of the number of loaves of bread the average person can buy" (PPP is good because it gets around the "different countries have different costs of living" factor).
Posted without comment so as to stimulate discussion.
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
Here's some more interesting meat to chew on:
The X-axis is Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality. Countries on the right are less equal than ones on the left.
The Y-axis is PPP-adjusted GDP per capita, i.e. "US $ value of the number of loaves of bread the average person can buy" (PPP is good because it gets around the "different countries have different costs of living" factor).
Posted without comment so as to stimulate discussion.
Once again I feel kinda cheated I wasn't born in a Scandinavian country. They always seem to score better on the graphs I see.
Here's some more interesting meat to chew on:
The X-axis is Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality. Countries on the right are less equal than ones on the left.
The Y-axis is PPP-adjusted GDP per capita, i.e. "US $ value of the number of loaves of bread the average person can buy" (PPP is good because it gets around the "different countries have different costs of living" factor).
Posted without comment so as to stimulate discussion.
So it looks like the US is one of the more "Equal" distributors of money. We are on the left of the spread. It goes from what looks like 25 to 75 and we're at 45.
Yeah US!
Look again, we're definitely on the right.
It's harder to see their names but Sweden and Norway are both some of the furthest to the left, meaning they have less inequality amongst their people than we do (by 20 points).
The chart also shows gross household income before taxes.
Some of the other high ranking countries pay much more taxes than we do in the USA so their net spendable income is less. Also, consumer products are higher priced in many of those countries. I think we have it better in the US than many people realize.
It's my opinion that we are clearly on the left. The nations start at about 25 and the spread goes to 75.
We are at 46 which is close to 30 point leftwards of the right side nations.
Clearly we are to the left of the center of the worlds nations according to this graph.
Thanks for the chance to clear that up
- Status
