US income inequality continues to grow

[Belsnickel]

(08-02-2018, 11:02 AM)Beaker Wrote: All of this is true. But none of it precludes people from living comfortably in the middle class, nor does it prevent them from economic mobility. It may make economic mobility more of a challenge, but does not prevent it. 

It does decrease the size of the middle class, though. And it does prevent economic mobility. Making it more of a challenge is, by definition, preventing it. A better way to put it would be that it doesn't make it impossible, just highly improbable.

(08-02-2018, 11:02 AM)Beaker Wrote: I think its a telltale bad sign about our society when people start to blame others for their situation and use that as an excuse for inaction rather than finding the industry, smart decisions and perseverance to see if you can't change your situation yourself. 

I think that efforts to craft policies that create a social safety net, improve worker conditions and pay, and other things of that nature is a way of changing your situation yourself as well as others. Recognizing the injustices that are occurring in society and then using your vote, your voice, your pen, whatever to push for changes to correct those injustices isn't inaction, it is working to create a better, more equitable society. If the system is rigged against you then you can either work against the system or work to change the system itself. I prefer to work to change the system itself so that others can thrive, as well.

[*Nately120*]

(08-02-2018, 11:26 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: If the system is rigged against you then you can either work against the system or work to change the system itself. I prefer to work to change the system itself so that others can thrive, as well.

Plus the sooner we remove this rigging and promote a legitimately mobile economic environment, the sooner we will be able to truly identify the people who are too lazy to improve themselves and we can super hate on them!

[Beaker]

(07-24-2018, 12:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There are a limited number of jobs 

(07-24-2018, 12:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The question is what do we do with people who can't get those limited number of jobs when we all know there are not enough of them?

(07-24-2018, 12:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There are not enough well paying jobs for everyone to have one 

(07-24-2018, 12:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There are a limited number of well paying jobs.  

(07-24-2018, 05:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: An individual can not create a job market.

(07-25-2018, 05:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Unemployment rate in 1977 was over 7%. 

(08-01-2018, 11:53 AM)fredtoast Wrote: If they all worked as hard as they could there would still be a limited number of good jobs limiting their advancement.

The comments above go all the way back to page 5 of this thread. Then this:

(08-02-2018, 11:14 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The problem is not the people not working.  

Does your mouth ever get tired from all the talking you do out of both sides?

[Beaker]

(08-02-2018, 11:26 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Making it more of a challenge is, by definition, preventing it. A better way to put it would be that it doesn't make it impossible, just highly improbable.

I disagree in that prevent means to keep from happening. These policies don't prevent you, they make the challenge  larger, but do not prevent. 

Quote:I think that efforts to craft policies that create a social safety net, improve worker conditions and pay, and other things of that nature is a way of changing your situation yourself as well as others. Recognizing the injustices that are occurring in society and then using your vote, your voice, your pen, whatever to push for changes to correct those injustices isn't inaction, it is working to create a better, more equitable society. If the system is rigged against you then you can either work against the system or work to change the system itself. I prefer to work to change the system itself so that others can thrive, as well.

I agree that voting to change things is part of an individual working to better their position. But I disagree in that I don't think economic equality within or between classes will ever be achieved, nor should it be expected. And that's ok. It is just framed too often in the form of "look what somebody else has, that's not fair" which fosters entitlement rather than innovation and perseverance.

[*Nately120*]

(08-02-2018, 11:46 AM)Beaker Wrote: I disagree in that prevent means to keep from happening. These policies don't prevent you, they make the challenge  larger, but do not prevent. 

Well, the challenge is getting more uh...challenging, so stay tuned, I guess.

[fredtoast]

(08-02-2018, 11:36 AM)Beaker Wrote: The comments above go all the way back to page 5 of this thread. Then this:


Does your mouth ever get tired from all the talking you do out of both sides?

Every one of my comments was about enough "well paying" jobs.

Go back and read what I wrote.  Educate yourself on the issue we are discussing.  From the very beginning I have been talking about the middle class "workers".  I have commented on the percentage of people who are working but still need government assistance.  I have talked about corporations making record profits because the taxpayers are subsidizing their low wages.

Unemployment is at a near record low and people are still saying the middle class needs help.  Pull your head out of the echo chamber and get a clue.

[fredtoast]

(08-02-2018, 11:46 AM)Beaker Wrote: . But I disagree in that I don't think economic equality within or between classes will ever be achieved, nor should it be expected. And that's ok. 

Unfortunately history proves that it is not "ok" for there to be a very small ruling elite class and everyone else being slowly pressed into poverty.  If the current trends continue that is what will happen to the United States.

Not oner singfle person has said there should be total equality among the classes, but I believe that if a person works full time and is creatinhg wealth for his employer then he should receive a fair benefit.  When it gets to the point that everyone who works full time just struggles to get by there will be big problems in this country.

[Benton]

(08-02-2018, 11:02 AM)Beaker Wrote: All of this is true. But none of it precludes people from living comfortably in the middle class, nor does it prevent them from economic mobility. It may make economic mobility more of a challenge, but does not prevent it. 

I think its a telltale bad sign about our society when people start to blame others for their situation and use that as an excuse for inaction rather than finding the industry, smart decisions and perseverance to see if you can't change your situation yourself. 

That's great, but I don't know how well it fits the majority of Americans.

For years we've been told the economy is being drug down by people too lazy to work. But there's about three times as many underemployed people (those working multiple jobs or seeking multiple jobs to earn a living) as there are unemployed people just sitting around soaking up your tax dollars. Unfortunately, many of those underemployed people are also receiving financial assistance because sometimes two or three jobs just isn't enough with the cost of living.

Yes, we need to tell people to work harder. That's always a good thing to do, like telling people to eat more vegetables. At the same time, if the mechanics aren't there to improve life or at least maintain a functional one, then there's no incentive for people. 

[Belsnickel]

(08-02-2018, 11:46 AM)Beaker Wrote: I disagree in that prevent means to keep from happening. These policies don't prevent you, they make the challenge  larger, but do not prevent. 

Making something more difficult is preventing it from happening. Take it up with Daniel Webster.

(08-02-2018, 11:46 AM)Beaker Wrote: I agree that voting to change things is part of an individual working to better their position. But I disagree in that I don't think economic equality within or between classes will ever be achieved, nor should it be expected. And that's ok. It is just framed too often in the form of "look what somebody else has, that's not fair" which fosters entitlement rather than innovation and perseverance.

I don't expect a completely egalitarian society, but I'd like a society more equal than it is, today. Experts has estimated the Gini coefficient for 1779, and it showed a more economically equal society than today. This includes the slaves. Think about that for a second. There were literally people that were owned by others, yet the United States was more egalitarian than it is today. Our society was built upon the idea that there are no economic classes in our society. The framers created our Constitution with that premise in mind. Because of this, increased economic inequality lessens our democracy because we lack the safeguards put in place in some other democracies to protect against the power that comes with extreme wealth.

Our framers didn't want this. Hell, people complain about the estate tax these days but Jefferson didn't want inherited wealth and would have taxed it to the extreme. They saw the threat in economic inequality but they didn't have the foresight to see the industrial revolution and the corporations that would come from it that have dismantled the society they knew.

[fredtoast]

(08-02-2018, 11:18 AM)Beaker Wrote: No it's not. They say there are two kinds of people in a conversation, those who listen, consider and respond thoughtfully, and those who sit there hearing Charlie Brown's teacher while they think of what they want to say next. Belsnickel is the first type.

Okay the,  I will just sit here quietly while you explain why you think middle class weages have been stagnate since the 1970's (adjusted for inflation) and what should be done to help them afford things like higher education and helath care that have increased in cost far greater than the rate of inflation.

If it is all just based on individual decisions why did everyone in the middle class startb making poor decisions forty years ago?

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(07-23-2018, 02:09 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Here is an interesting take on what could be the main reason for income inequality, as it hasn't been mentioned yet in here. It centers around the Federal Reserve.

https://www.thestreet.com/story/13743381/1/what-s-really-causing-income-inequality-federal-reserve-policies.html#2

Here's another good somewhat related article.....and relates to small businesses, and not just common folks.

http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2012/01/24/why-corporate-personhood-is-bad-for-business/

[Beaker]

(08-02-2018, 12:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote:  Pull your head out of the echo chamber and get a clue.

Since every one of the quotes in my post you replied to are by you, I wouldn't say I'm the one influenced by the echo chamber.

[Beaker]

(08-02-2018, 12:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Unfortunately history proves that it is not "ok" for there to be a very small ruling elite class and everyone else being slowly pressed into poverty.

Once again, not what was said.

Quote:Not oner singfle person has said there should be total equality among the classes,

Amazing....that's what I said! There will never be equality within or between classes, nor should it be expected that there will be. (4th sentence, post 244)

Quote:but I believe that if a person works full time and is creatinhg wealth for his employer then he should receive a fair benefit.

The problem is the term "fair" is interpreted differently by every individual.

Quote:When it gets to the point that everyone who works full time just struggles to get by there will be big problems in this country.

Agreed. But we are far from everyone who works full time is struggling. 

[Beaker]

(08-02-2018, 12:14 PM)Benton Wrote: That's great, but I don't know how well it fits the majority of Americans.

Then if you want to change the system, that's a great place to start.

[Beaker]

(08-02-2018, 12:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't expect a completely egalitarian society, but I'd like a society more equal than it is, today. 

That is completely reasonable and I think we all would like to see it more balanced. But do you not agree that any changes to a system have their effectiveness lessened if individuals are not willing? The mindset change I am referring to throughout this thread is that we need to teach and encourage problem solving, innovation, better decision making in terms of debt and spending, and perseverance in the face of obstacles. Those things coupled with prudent system changes is how this turns around. Where is that incorrect?

[Belsnickel]

(08-02-2018, 04:12 PM)Beaker Wrote: That is completely reasonable and I think we all would like to see it more balanced. But do you not agree that any changes to a system have their effectiveness lessened if individuals are not willing? The mindset change I am referring to throughout this thread is that we need to teach and encourage problem solving, innovation, better decision making in terms of debt and spending, and perseverance in the face of obstacles. Those things coupled with prudent system changes is how this turns around. Where is that incorrect?

Careful, Beaker, it sounds like you're encouraging a liberal arts education.

The issue with conversations like this is they tend to focus on one part of the overall conversation. Were it up to me, our entire education system would be overhauled from top to bottom in addition to all of this and a number of other things as well. Every problem that our government looks to address requires a comprehensive approach to find a remedy that will serve as a long term solution. Unfortunately, the policymakers do not look for these comprehensive solutions and it is because the public often has little patience for them. They aren't as easy to make campaign ads about. They can't be tailored for special interests as easily.

Because of all of this, we have to look at piecemeal solutions. Things that we can do now that may only focus on one part of the issue. It's an unfortunate truth of the political climate not just of our current society, but of pretty much every society throughout history. Democratic processes don't allow for technocratic solutions. Now, as a technocrat one might think this bothers me, and to an extent it does. But I am also a democrat (note the small d) that believes in the people holding power. My role as a technocrat is to help find the best solutions possible within the political barriers erected by our democracy. So one piece at a time is what we have to focus on. That first piece right now has to be increased tax revenue and decreased spending, and that spending decrease will come primarily from defense since it is the biggest hole in our government budget. Without that first step, we won't be able to afford any other. After that we can talk about infrastructure improvements, universal healthcare, education overhaul, etc.

[fredtoast]

(08-02-2018, 04:01 PM)Beaker Wrote: Agreed. But we are far from everyone who works full time is struggling. 

Then why so much talk about "helping middle class workers".  Things are getting worse for the middle class instead of better.

How bad does it have to get before you admit there is any kind of problem?

[Beaker]

(08-02-2018, 06:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then why so much talk about "helping middle class workers".  Things are getting worse for the middle class instead of better.

How bad does it have to get before you admit there is any kind of problem?

Once again, getting worse is still far from "everyone who works full time."

[Benton]

(08-02-2018, 04:03 PM)Beaker Wrote: Then if you want to change the system, that's a great place to start.

I’m open to ideas. So far the most prevelant is increasing the minimum wage (which I’m against) or providing more educational opportunities (which generally aren’t feasible to someone working 2-3 jobs).

[GMDino]