Screw Income Equality

People in the US by and large have little to no understanding of basic finance. Working for money is not the thing. Can't build wealth doing that. Have to put the money to work. In order to do that it takes sacrifice for the average person. The average US citizen is not going to make those sacrifices.

Look at them. Buying new cars, cable bill, nice phones, nice sneakers, eating out and having kids they can't afford.

The saddest part of all of it is those that do make sacrifices, do the right thing get rewarded with higher taxes. They get financially punished. I have a serious problem with that system so I always vote for the candidate who lowers my taxes. They almost always lose though because the financially feeble minded out number me.

I guess all CEOs must be immagrants then as in the 1990s, the ratio of their earning to the average worker was 59 times the amount, it now stand at over 296 times the average worker wage

I would guess that you could give some of the poorest of the poor welfare recipients a monthly income of idk 3-5k a month, and in 2 years most of them would still be poor.

Lack of financial education and poor spending habits.

a reply to: Edumakated

I'm all for free enterprise and very much pro Capitalism but this is seriously messed up. Beings I work in a major industry, I'm just fine with billionaires as they give me a place to work. However, the amount of profit these companies make and people who are just 3 spots above me are making a few million a year while I can't get a cost of living raise for the life of me... Yet their bonuses are hundreds of thousands of dollars... Still, my rent goes up every year. Mortgages and taxes go up every year. Food prices go up every year but I'm still making the same.

Sure... 65k a year sounds wonderful but it's only great if you live in a small town with no economy. If you're living in a big city, you can't afford to make any less than that. Living in other cities and small towns throughout my life, it's pretty much the same no matter where you live. The cost justifies the salary and no the other way around. It makes it so middle class is really low class and the rich remain rich. There is such a huge gap between the 'can afford' and 'can't afford'.

face it... unless you're making a cool easy half mil a year, you're just a surf in a national fiefdom. If you're making 100k or more, you're fortunate but you can still struggle. Anyone making less than 100k a year in a big city, you only think you're wealthy by the mention of the number but the value is so far less once you actually experience it.

The poor only survive off of the scraps because they're used to it and it's always been their life with little to zero hope of ever getting more. Sure, I make more than much of my family but they live in a small town, in 30,000 dollar houses while I live in a city where I can't buy a 30,000 house because they're all priced at 150,000 and more.

If I wanted to buy a MOBILE home on a piece of land that could barely fit the trailer... Do you realize that around Austin, a distance at least manageable to get to work every day without driving hours, it would still cost me 200-300 thousand dollars? That's the same price as a used 10 year old 250,000 3 bedroom house. Anything less than 200k is so hard to find it's unreal and likely junk.

City dwelling and the reasons make a good story based off reason. Influx of californians vs property vs rising property taxes... That's how cities grow and die and people end up on the streets or in hud housing. From go to bust in a matter of a decade or so.

a reply to: Edumakated

Yeah, but what you don't get is that, it's a race to the bottom, it's devastating to society. Capitalism is entirely based of reacting to things, not actually improving things. It's random #ing chaos.

Of course people are going to look for the cheapest option, most people can barely afford those tickets in the first place, the option is, buy the cheapest ticket available once every few years or never see your ailing grandma before she dies.

It's a choice, but not a reasonable one to expect people to make, so it needs to be accounted for.

That's the problem with capitalism, it takes no responsibility for anything because it reacts to needs and wants, and succeeds by finding ways to create new needs and wants to prey on.

Is why most addictive products are illegal or restricted because if they weren't capitalism would have us all be junkies working til we're dead to get the next fix. It's an attempt to curb the naturally predatory nature of capitalism. Unfortunately making them illegal isn't the solution, but that's a whole different topic.

How are we supposed to improve humanity by putting all our resources towards random # based entirely on the random actions of the general populace?

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown
I guess all CEOs must be immagrants then as in the 1990s, the ratio of their earning to the average worker was 59 times the amount, it now stand at over 296 times the average worker wage

CEO's run much larger global organizations now than then... not too mention CEO comp is largely equity based. So as stock prices increased, CEO compensation swells with it. Shareholders want CEO comp tied to stock price more so than anything else as an incentive to focus on share prices.

You can also say that A list actor income has increased a lot. Same with star athletes. Movies have much larger budgets and global audiences, so top actors are making more money. Same with athletes. I always find it curious we don't see the same complaints, but everyone wants to talk about the top 500 business executives...

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: JAGStorm

I think the big thing for me is that life isn't fair. There will always be some sort of inequality. In addition, there have always been mega rich since the beginning of time.

We all have different abilities and circumstances. All you can do is play the hand you are dealt to the best of your abilities.

No centralized government will every make everyone equal nor can they determine outcomes.

I've yet to hear a rational and coherent argument beyond simple jealousy as to why so many leftist hate rich people.

I'm not really a leftist but believe we need more income equality. I also do not believe or believe that many "leftist' think that everyone should be making the same thing. What they they have a problem with is that the majority of the value a worker produces is not given to the worker.

As to having a problem with the rich, I think most do not "hate' the rich like you say. I think they hate the fact that rich have a great proportion of the money that is made available under our currency systems. They are rich because they make much more than they can spend, so the excess is set aside and only indirectly put back in the economy. In many cases that money is sent off shore, forever out of reach to the citizens of the country where that money originated. The biggest problem with having so many people with immense wealth is that wealth is no longer available to the rest of society.

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown
I guess all CEOs must be immagrants then as in the 1990s, the ratio of their earning to the average worker was 59 times the amount, it now stand at over 296 times the average worker wage

The quality of life of a billionaire/millionaire is not that much better than the average person despite the massive wealth gap. Not many in the US are starving, using candle lanterns, out houses. Even their access to healthcare is not that much better. Look at Steve Jobs. All that money didn't save him. It didn't get him anything but some nice luxury possessions. And Warren Buffet. Dude still lives in a modest house and eats at McDonald's everyday.

If people were starving, didn't have electricity, running water, access to an ER I would say yes, that would be a major gap in "wealth" but they are not in that situation. They just want stuff they don't need. If someone has the time to protest about wealth inequality they would also have the time to put down the picket, get a job, save money and invest. Nothing is stopping them from also building wealth but themselves.

originally posted by: tinner07
I would guess that you could give some of the poorest of the poor welfare recipients a monthly income of idk 3-5k a month, and in 2 years most of them would still be poor.

Lack of financial education and poor spending habits.

The lower to mid middle class make 3-5k per month are are still poor.... When you start adding up the numbers, that money goes away quick. It's a struggle!

If you gave the poor 3-5k a month while in their current living standards, they may be poor but at least they'll have the ability to feed their families and enjoy life a little without worrying how they're going to feed their family and pay for school, utilities and bus fare every day. They might even be a little healthier too. Maybe even their children will have a better education and not be the kid that everyone always picks on and runs away from in elementary... the time when life really teaches them how to be for the rest of theirs.

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: JAGStorm

I think the big thing for me is that life isn't fair. There will always be some sort of inequality. In addition, there have always been mega rich since the beginning of time.

We all have different abilities and circumstances. All you can do is play the hand you are dealt to the best of your abilities.

No centralized government will every make everyone equal nor can they determine outcomes.

I've yet to hear a rational and coherent argument beyond simple jealousy as to why so many leftist hate rich people.

I'm not really a leftist but believe we need more income equality. I also do not believe or believe that many "leftist' think that everyone should be making the same thing. What they they have a problem with is that the majority of the value a worker produces is not given to the worker.

As to having a problem with the rich, I think most do not "hate' the rich like you say. I think they hate the fact that rich have a great proportion of the money that is made available under our currency systems. They are rich because they make much more than they can spend, so the excess is set aside and only indirectly put back in the economy. In many cases that money is sent off shore, forever out of reach to the citizens of the country where that money originated. The biggest problem with having so many people with immense wealth is that wealth is no longer available to the rest of society.

A few fallacies...

First, any wealth the rich have is put back into the economy. Again, most of the uber rich have the wealth tied up in the stock market. Their investments in stocks allow companies to grow and fund operations. Even money that is not in the stock market may be in private equity or venture capital funds. Again, used to invest in new companies.

Your ability to get a loan or even indirectly, for your employer to operate is often made possible by these rich people's investments.

Again, when you hear that Bezos or whoever is worth X billions it doesn't mean he has that much in cash or is that "liquid". That is his NET WORTH. This means he'd need to sell every asset he owned.

Secondly, wealth is not finite. The pie of wealth continually grows. When someone creates a new product or service and becomes immensely wealthy, it doesn't always mean that wealth was taken from someone else. They grew the pie. They created a market that may not have existed previously.

a reply to: Stupidsecrets

People in the US by and large have little to no understanding of basic finance. Working for money is not the thing. Can't build wealth doing that. Have to put the money to work. In order to do that it takes sacrifice for the average person. The average US citizen is not going to make those sacrifices.

The weird thing, is that a lot of people do understand but they don't care. They place entertainment, and things above all else.

1000 on a new phone, or 1000 invested in a business, education, stocks, etc... You know which one will be picked!

a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

Correct... It's not a left or right thing. It's a common sense thing. I don't hate the rich. Hell, I'd love to be rich like anyone else. I just think that what we're representing right now is horribly gross and destructive to humanity across the world. This is what could cause our final extinction in more than just a few ways.

originally posted by: StallionDuck
a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

Correct... It's not a left or right thing. It's a common sense thing. I don't hate the rich. Hell, I'd love to be rich like anyone else. I just think that what we're representing right now is horribly gross and destructive to humanity across the world. This is what could cause our final extinction in more than just a few ways.

Yea, survival of the fittest hasn't worked so far.

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown
I guess all CEOs must be immagrants then as in the 1990s, the ratio of their earning to the average worker was 59 times the amount, it now stand at over 296 times the average worker wage

The quality of life of a billionaire/millionaire is not that much better than the average person despite the massive wealth gap. Not many in the US are starving, using candle lanterns, out houses. Even their access to healthcare is not that much better. Look at Steve Jobs. All that money didn't save him. It didn't get him anything but some nice luxury possessions. And Warren Buffet. Dude still lives in a modest house and eats at McDonald's everyday.

If people were starving, didn't have electricity, running water, access to an ER I would say yes, that would be a major gap in "wealth" but they are not in that situation. They just want stuff they don't need. If someone has the time to protest about wealth inequality they would also have the time to put down the picket, get a job, save money and invest. Nothing is stopping them from also building wealth but themselves.

A fact many of these whiners don't want to acknowledge is that making about $35k in the US actually puts you in the top 1% of global income earners.

The US has practically no poverty by global standards. Even our poor have public educations, running water, food, clothing, cars, electricity, TVs, etc. We don't have kids walking around buck naked with distended bellies. This is not to say their lives aren't hard, but it isn't true poverty.

Most of the lower class has better living conditions than the rich did 50 years ago.

The difference between rich and poor is BMW vs 10 year old Kia. Iphone 11 vs Iphone 6. 4k TV vs 1080p. Xbox One vs Xbox 360. The gap really isn't that large.

I owned a construction company. As workers became more experienced I boosted their wages. Some new guy who is a nice guy and trainable might take a while before you started making money off of him/her until they learned how to do things correctly. I had many times we had to redo things that a new guy worked on. And then you hire someone who says they know how to do something and they screw it up. So raising a person's wage when they gain experience on your crew is essential. If you don't, they go to work for someone that will pay more.

I trained a lot of people to work in my life.

Another thing is a guy working in a nice warm office should not get as much as people working out in the hot sun, the freezing cold, and in the rain and snow. Office workers should not get paid as much as a guy working on a roof or high building or lifting heavy things where risk is higher. The society we are in has pay not relative to work preformed. Work that is hard on the body should pay more. Everyone would want to work at McDs if the pay was equal, there would not be any construction workers.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: Edumakated

It isn't about need. Most billionaires are billionaires because they created a product/service that is worth many times that...

Exactly, how many people scream that, but use Microsoft everyday and order from Amazon?
They might even use those two for their own businesses to make money.

Never thought I'd say this but it's not that black and white. Most people have to use microsoft in one way or another at their jobs to make a living. Amazon is the new walmart. It's a catch 22. You buy what you can afford. Unfortunately all you can afford is from the very thing that's making the inequality dominant.

I think this argument is better brought up when monopolies no longer exist in the US, the one place they are supposed to be illegal. They just call them "corporations" and "incorporations" now.

originally posted by: Puppylove
It's not about you, it's about what's healthy for society as a whole. If it were about you and you alone there would be no limit, it's just dog eat dog. I don't agree with a dog eat dog world.

I love you puppylove, really I do, however, we are creatures of nature, and nature is DOG eat DOG.

we are not civilized as some folks think, if we were we would not need laws and cannbalisim would not be taboo.

we can have sympathy, but it cannot be mandated, or governed.

it's like making "moral" laws, morals have nothing to do with law, that is why she wears a blindfold.

the problem is folks want to make subjective laws, not objective ones..

and again I do love you, this is not an attack.

a reply to: rickymouse

Another thing is a guy working in a nice warm office should not get as much as people working out in the hot sun, the freezing cold, and in the rain and snow.

I've worked high in the office and I've worked in hard labor. I have to disagree with you.
People are free to work in whatever field they want. No one is forced to work labor or an office.

A person working in an office might be gifted in math, a person working as a carpenter might be gifted in woodworking.
We should not pit the two against each other. They should be paid according to what the free market decides.

originally posted by: JAGStorm

originally posted by: StallionDuck
a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

Correct... It's not a left or right thing. It's a common sense thing. I don't hate the rich. Hell, I'd love to be rich like anyone else. I just think that what we're representing right now is horribly gross and destructive to humanity across the world. This is what could cause our final extinction in more than just a few ways.

Yea, survival of the fittest hasn't worked so far.

If you really want to call this "survival". In the end, the "survivors" will picking through ash to try and get a meal - while they're dying of radiation sickness. Sooner or later, the wolves will run out of sheep and they will start eating each other (oh wait... that's now - they're just eating sheep and each other at the same time) and eventually there will be nothing left to devour.

I'm not even a democrat and I realize this. We're at the point to where almost everything will kill us. The soil is poison so much that there is hardly any safe places to live, grow food or pump water to drink. You don't have to believe in global warming. Just look at how we put so much cancer into the ground that we freely eat every day.

originally posted by: rickymouse
I owned a construction company. As workers became more experienced I boosted their wages. Some new guy who is a nice guy and trainable might take a while before you started making money off of him/her until they learned how to do things correctly. I had many times we had to redo things that a new guy worked on. And then you hire someone who says they know how to do something and they screw it up. So raising a person's wage when they gain experience on your crew is essential. If you don't, they go to work for someone that will pay more.

I trained a lot of people to work in my life.

Another thing is a guy working in a nice warm office should not get as much as people working out in the hot sun, the freezing cold, and in the rain and snow. Office workers should not get paid as much as a guy working on a roof or high building or lifting heavy things where risk is higher. The society we are in has pay not relative to work preformed. Work that is hard on the body should pay more. Everyone would want to work at McDs if the pay was equal, there would not be any construction workers.

Physical labor has nothing to do with earnings. Often times, it is far easier to replace a ditch digger than an office worker. It is supply and demand. Also, it has to do with how much money you generate in your position.