World's richest one per cent to own more than the rest: Oxfam

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Edumakated

Some of us are old enough to remember when a job would at least pay rent and food. Something is terribly wrong. All through the sixties, seventies, eighties, the mantra "work hard" and you will achieve the american dream. The other mantra "plan your retirement". We did that for 40 years and now my pension is "criitcal" due to Wall Street Greed.

When has a minimum wage job every been enough to pay rent and food, much less raise a family? Please be specific.

Your pension is critical because the payouts to older retirees far exceed the contributions made by the pensioners. It is a Ponzi scheme. My state IL is on the verge of implosion because of unrealistic pension promises and politicians. It has zero to do with Wall Street. In fact, if it weren't for Wall Street getting returns on that money, many of these pensions would have imploded long ago. Your pension benefits from Wall Street. Who do you think is investing the money to get the returns?

originally posted by: lordcomac
I'm all for people busting ass, getting paid, and running a company.

When that company is run by a "board" of people who sit on ass and make decisions about how to make more money, it's gone wrong.
When that company can buy their way out of paying taxes, it's gone wrong. When a company of that size can get a city to pay them to open a store which bankrupts all of the local business owners, and then offer all of the people they put out of work minimum wage jobs to sell inferior imported products, it's gone wrong.

There's a balance to be had- and with a government that was not corrupt, we would have found it some time ago. It's all out of whack, now, with huge corporations making the rules. At this rate it won't be long before someone like Amazon just starts shipping people excess goods and docking your pay for the service

Those board members guide the company to ensure its shareholders are getting the best returns possible on their investments. You know shareholders like your 401k, pension, and other retirement benefits. Taxes are largely born by consumers. Ultimately, any taxes will get passed on to the end consumer and raise prices.

These companies can't survive if they don't innovate. For all the complaining about Wal-Mart, there sure are a lot of people shopping there when I go to my local Wal-Mart. If you don't like their product or how they treat their employees, stop giving them your money. You might have to pay a little more, but ultimately, the consumer is who decides what companies win and which ones lose. These companies can't stay in business unless they are providing something of value to consumers.

If it is so easy to start a company and pay exorbitant wages to minimally skilled employees, then by all means please start the company! No one is stopping you. Write a business plan, raise the capital, and then run the company from a moral high ground and only pay the CEO 10'xs the lowest worker's salary or whatever BS ratio you think is fair. Pay your cashiers and janitors $20/hr so they can have a living wage and then also offer the lowest prices possible for your customer.

Stop talking sh*t about it and get out there and do it.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Jamie1
I think he is more concerned with what other people don't have. Food, clean water, warm clothes, adequate shelter. Little things like that.

Yes, Haitian people, what have they got so far from the earthquake, apart from the moratorium from that huge debt they owe the french? How are the poor doing in the Philippines after that cyclone last year? how are the poor doing in the middle east?
Not very well at all, looking at news blogs.

a reply to: Edumakated

Our pensions has been "critical" since the Crash and jobs were lost.

In 1969, I and others out of high school, got a job waitressing. I could pay rent and keep food in the frig and did not need help from government or parents. And it was like that until the 90's. Maybe not in New York, but in the rest of the country it was.

You tell the young the BS of how Wall Street is good for the laborer.

a reply to: Edumakated
No one (or almost no one) is arguing that it shouldn't be possible, in fact encouraged, for people to make a success of their own business. Equally large corporations aren't always a bad thing.
What is a an absolutely friggin disgraceful thing is the level of income disparity. We have a system that encourages the vast hoarding of wealth while at the the other end of the spectrum people are living in abject poverty.
Wealth isn't created in a vacuum solely on the efforts of a few entrepreneurial individuals. It is the product of a cohesive society and part of the bargain of being in that society should be making sure that everyone can share in the wealth of it. That doesn't mean income equality or anything like it. It just means a fairer distribution.

Why is it important to you what other people have?

Because when they have all the money, then they have all the power, obviously.

Which means that we have no power which makes us slaves, but you obviously don't have a problem with all of us being enslaved.

a reply to: cuckooold

Love the "trickle down" picture... Trickle (Up, Down) Economics is just another name for wealth redistribution. Everyone hates it when it's redistributed to those who need it. It's only accepted when it's redistributed to the wealthy, which is what has been happening and why we're in this mess.

originally posted by: Edumakated
So what is the optimal amount of wealth they should own? How is it anyone's fault that they create or develop a business that makes them obscenely wealthy while providing jobs for countless other individuals?

So what if Bill Gates is worth $75 billion? How many tens of thousands of millionaires did he create? How many jobs did Microsoft create? Didn't he make your life better by providing you with technology that you can use that makes your life easier?

When I look around my city, I see all kinds community benefits that these billionaires have provided for general use through their donations... museums, libraries, universities, arts, non-profit organizations, etc.

My employer is hardly a billionaire, but I'd guess he is worth $20-30 million, maybe $50. However, he provides jobs for about 200 people that they would not otherwise have. I earn a very good living working for him because of the risk / investment he took to start a business at his kitchen table that is now grown to be one of the larger in my industry. He works his azz off everyday running the company.

Windows was probably the biggest mistake in my life. On other hand now I understand much better how I should do business: Force suboptimal solution by marketing, bribing, steeling and lying. That is how money are made.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Edumakated
No one (or almost no one) is arguing that it shouldn't be possible, in fact encouraged, for people to make a success of their own business. Equally large corporations aren't always a bad thing.
What is a an absolutely friggin disgraceful thing is the level of income disparity. We have a system that encourages the vast hoarding of wealth while at the the other end of the spectrum people are living in abject poverty.
Wealth isn't created in a vacuum solely on the efforts of a few entrepreneurial individuals. It is the product of a cohesive society and part of the bargain of being in that society should be making sure that everyone can share in the wealth of it. That doesn't mean income equality or anything like it. It just means a fairer distribution.

How is wealth being hoarded? If someone creates a business whose value gives them a ton of wealth, why is it any business of yours how they choose to spend their money? Again, nothing is stopping any of you from creating a business, running it as you see fit, and giving all the money away if it makes you extremely rich. Put up or shut up.

I guess none of you have heard of philanthropy? How do you think many of the great universities were founded? Museums? Ballets? I can go on and on. The problem with "redistribution" is that government is inherently corrupt and inefficient in distribution of capital. Many wealthy people (and not so wealthy) freely give money to any number of good causes not because government tells them so, but because they truly believe the causes are important. The more government takes, the less people have to donate to worthy causes. There is a hedgefund multi-billionaire here in Chicago. From what I've heard, he is a first class azzhole personally when it comes to work. However, the guys name is all over the city in terms of donations to museums, universities, and all kinds of other good causes. His company has made thousands of millionaires locally I'd figure and employs thousands of people at high paying jobs.

Secondly, the money the wealthy have is continually being reinvested. Where do you think capital comes from to start new businesses or for existing businesses to expand? Rich people aren't sitting by a fireplace burning $100 bills to heat their houses. That money is being invested and it indirectly benefits YOU whether you see it or not. Your pension. Your 401k. Your ability go get a mortgage. New technology.

The fallacy of many of you is thinking that wealth is a fixed pie. It is not. Wealth is gained and it is lost. However, the pie grows too as value is created. Those who become extremely wealthy are just fortunate enough to have created that value on a very large scale and they benefit from it, just like the rest of society whether it is new technology, breakthrough drugs, processes, or any kind of other business that provides value to consumers.

There has always been and always will be "inequality". I note none of you can answer my previous questions succinctly about what exactly is acceptable inequality. Most of you are in the top 1% of the world globally. It may not feel like it, but I assure you that anyone making minimum wage in a first world country lives like royalty compared to say someone in rural Africa or in a South America favela. There isn't anyone in any government housing project on welfare and food stamps in America who has it as bad as the poor in Africa or those South American favelas. NONE. So should we tax YOU at 50% so those in rural Africa can get basic plumbing? After all, you are in the 1% globally.

a reply to: Edumakated
The problem is not inequality per se, but its rising. From 70. working performance in USA raised by 80%, workers wages by 8% and income of highest 1% by 240% (all cleaned from inflation). Do you think this is sustainable trend?

originally posted by: CB328

Why is it important to you what other people have?

Because when they have all the money, then they have all the power, obviously.

Which means that we have no power which makes us slaves, but you obviously don't have a problem with all of us being enslaved.

You mean like how unions out spent any other lobbyist in elections? Or how ebay billionaire Meg Whitman spent like $50 million of her own money in an election and still lost? Or how a little unknown guy named Barak Obama who at best was considered upper middle class, beat out Mitt Romney who is worth $250 million?

Money in politics has nothing to do with being wealthy, but more to do with our system being over run with corrupt professional politicians whose power comes from doling out tax dollars.

originally posted by: JanAmosComenius
a reply to: Edumakated
The problem is not inequality per se, but its rising. From 70. working performance in USA raised by 80%, workers wages by 8% and income of highest 1% by 240% (all cleaned from inflation). Do you think this is sustainable trend?

The reason you see more income gains in the top 1% is because technology is concentrating the economy around those who are highly educated. It isn't some grand conspiracy. We are in a knowledge economy, plus a global economy. Unfortunately too many of those at the bottom of society have little to no education and skills. They are quickly being replaced by technology advancements.

With that said, I agree that it is a major problem, but it is not one of taking money from those that earned to give to those that didn't. We have to work harder at ensuring the lowest classes are gaining the skills necessary so that they are mobile between classes. We no longer have an economy (particularly those of us who live in first world countries) where you can be uneducated and still maybe get a factory job making widgets that provides a decent living. Our economy is getting more and more unforgiving due to global competition and technology.

a reply to: Edumakated

Yeah there it is. "Oh you are so lucky that you don't live in Africa". What a load of crap. They willingly let corporations enslave them in their mines. This is america, who sent warriors in WW2 to end the Nazi regime. Only to let it back in disguised in the name of conservatism. You go live in Africa, or Yemen or any enslaved country.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Edumakated

Yeah there it is. "Oh you are so lucky that you don't live in Africa". What a load of crap. They willingly let corporations enslave them in their mines. This is america, who sent warriors in WW2 to end the Nazi regime. Only to let it back in disguised in the name of conservatism. You go live in Africa, or Yemen or any enslaved country.

You are lucky you don't. You live in a country where people will float on inner tubes across shark infested ocean waters to get the opportunities you have here. The FACT is that the poor in America live better than 90-95% of the rest of the world. Poor in America means you still have clothes, food, housing, flat screen TVs, obamaphones, internet, facebook, skateboards, bicycles, public transportation, air conditioning, etc.

True story. A good family friend who is a die hard Obamabot liberal recently went with a friend to Brazil. He isn't the most well read or traveled man. He visited the friends family who lived in a favela. He absolutely could not believe the abject poverty. It completely changed his tune on poverty in America. All he could say was the urban poor he knew here were not poor. Yeah, they don't have it as good as middle class, but he couldn't wrap his head around how much better they have it.

I also had a classmate in business school who was from Africa. We mentored some kids in one of the most notorious housing projects in the country. He could not get over that we called these kids poor. Their school still had air condition, books, desks, chalkboard, gym, etc. He lamented about how he went to school in a one room building with a dirt floor. Yet these kids used their "poverty" as an excuse to not get a basic education.

Try to make a coherent rebuttal next time.

Money in politics has nothing to do with being wealthy

That's a bunch of baloney, the wealthy get most of their policies pushed through congress now, which is why they had that study that says America is now an Oligarchy.

a reply to: Edumakated

Luck has nothing to do with the greatness of america. Hard work, sacrifice, civil war, world wars and veterans. Not luck.

a reply to: Edumakated

Your first paragraph would suggest that at least higher middle class is raising. This is simply not true. What is happening is that the highest class is taking bigger piece of pie than in 70..
Technological advancement is big trouble. By 2050 will be at least 1/3 of current factory jobs fully robotized. Better and longer education will correct this move only by few %. There are more college graduates then ever, still they have trouble to find job. On other hand higher number of students mean quality of education is going down (its different work if average IQ in class is 120 or 105). This may be solved by prolonging standard education while keeping quality of universities. But this is against market logic: More students = more money for school. Not to speak about student loans which are set to explode in USA and UK. Education should be free on all levels. While "trickle down economy" doesn't work "trickle down knowledge" is working pretty well.

The only true wealth is people's sweat equity.

Unfortunately people haven't discovered, think, understand, or even care enough to know that their time is just as valuable as everyone else.

Until that happens people will always be poor, or needy.

Time is all we have to trade, in this lifetime. It's just that most people expect and think they deserve crumbs. Those same people believe everything that they have been told their entire life, so crumbs it is for their time.

While all the people, at the top, laugh their asses off by pushing papers and signing masses of people into sweat equity contracts.

a reply to: Realtruth

I will try to finish watching this video tomorrow. I made it to 29:. What I don't understand about the money trusts. People were already wanting the financial system changed before the Fed Res was formed, correct? How did they feel about the Fed Reserve the first few years after it was formed, I wonder. I am beginning to think all economic systems eventually lead to monopolies.

I guess that is why all civilizations rise and fall.

What bugs me is the spread between the lowest paid employee of the company and' it's CEO.
Granted they should make more, they are usually well schooled with strong resumes, but the spread now compared to what it was in the 70's and 80's percentage wise is astronomically higher.

And sometimes these guys just aren't good at their job either, a new VP once complained to a lumber store he was in charge of that there was dust on the lumber(2X4) and somebody needed to clean it up, yup sawdust, that type of dust.
Overpaid fool.