Our economy stinks

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: KnoxMSP

Well if economists agree with you, I mean. . . they're never wrong!


*rolls eyes*


So to recap. . . .

Rich people suck, our economy sucks, life isn't fair, and personal responsibility is stupid.

Do you have any empirical data to refute what I am saying?

If not, why continue stirring the pot, instead of engaging in useful dialogue? Troll much?

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Aazadan

According to china, middle class makes 9k a year.

Link

If you take the respondent in the article as low/middle class example, like they claim they are, their dual incomes (AKA household income) are under 20k.

I didn't comment on China, only that the US individual income is not in the 50's, it's barely above 30, and it's going down.

a reply to: KnoxMSP



*laughs*

So life isn't fair. That's the ultimate foundation for your premise.

Could have saved a lot of time if you just went with that instead.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: KnoxMSP



*laughs*

So life isn't fair. That's the ultimate foundation for your premise.

Could have saved a lot of time if you just went with that instead.

So no...

Ok, your bed you lie in it.

Just wanted to throw in one of my favorite quotes from one of our founding fathers

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: DBCowboy

So 1/7 of the population .

So if I'm successful, how much do you want to punish and penalize me to give those that are unsuccessful the same lifestyle I have?

I don't think you should be punished, why do you think you should be punished

Big difference between saying its # that 50 million of your fellow Americans are in abject poverty, and that's just the down and out not even considering the working poor and saying those that are successful should give up what the have for the greater good.

I thought we were talking about how great the economy is, fair to say the economy is not good for a good chunk of the population and that's crap and really nothing to be proud of.

There aren't 50 million people in poverty in the US. First off, poverty is just a definition of income. One can be considered "poor" based on income, but far from poor in terms of wealth or other sources of income. When I was a student, I most certainly would have been considered poor.

People move in and out of income groups all the time. The vast majority of people who would be part of say the botto 5% of income earners, don't stay there just as most of the people who are in the top 5% of income earners in any given year eventually fall out as well.

Second, poverty in America is not the same thing as poverty in the rest of the world. The most impoverished neighborhoods in the US look like Beverly Hills, CA compared to sh*t holes in the rest of the world. Being poor the US means instead of Central Airconditioning you might have a window unit. Instead of five pairs of Air Jordans, you have one pair. Instead of an Iphone X, you may have a Iphone 7 or something. Instead of two cars, you have one car. Instead of a 2019 BMW, you have a 2001 Chevy. Instead of three 50 inch TVs, you have one TV.

Oh the horror, your kid might get free school breakfast and lunch.

The poorest Americans live better than the top 5% in a country like India.

In fact, a person making about $30,000 in the US would be part of the Top 1% globally. Let that sink in. Someone making about $15/hr, essentially minimum wage in the US, would be considered part of the top 1% GLOBALLY.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: DBCowboy

So 1/7 of the population .

So if I'm successful, how much do you want to punish and penalize me to give those that are unsuccessful the same lifestyle I have?

I don't think you should be punished, why do you think you should be punished

Big difference between saying its # that 50 million of your fellow Americans are in abject poverty, and that's just the down and out not even considering the working poor and saying those that are successful should give up what the have for the greater good.

I thought we were talking about how great the economy is, fair to say the economy is not good for a good chunk of the population and that's crap and really nothing to be proud of.

There aren't 50 million people in poverty in the US. First off, poverty is just a definition of income. One can be considered "poor" based on income, but far from poor in terms of wealth or other sources of income. When I was a student, I most certainly would have been considered poor.

People move in and out of income groups all the time. The vast majority of people who would be part of say the botto 5% of income earners, don't stay there just as most of the people who are in the top 5% of income earners in any given year eventually fall out as well.

Second, poverty in America is not the same thing as poverty in the rest of the world. The most impoverished neighborhoods in the US look like Beverly Hills, CA compared to sh*t holes in the rest of the world. Being poor the US means instead of Central Airconditioning you might have a window unit. Instead of five pairs of Air Jordans, you have one pair. Instead of an Iphone X, you may have a Iphone 7 or something. Instead of two cars, you have one car. Instead of a 2019 BMW, you have a 2001 Chevy. Instead of three 50 inch TVs, you have one TV.

Oh the horror, your kid might get free school breakfast and lunch.

The poorest Americans live better than the top 5% in a country like India.

In fact, a person making about $30,000 in the US would be part of the Top 1% globally. Let that sink in. Someone making about $15/hr, essentially minimum wage in the US, would be considered part of the top 1% GLOBALLY.

Someone making 30,000 in the USA is not in the top 1% globally if they have to spend that money in America. Sure, if you took that 30,000 to India it would buy a lot but that is not reality.

You can get a 3 bedroom apartment for 100 bucks a month in India, try doing that in the USA.

Also, the working homeless living out of their cars or on the street or no better off than the homeless in India. They both fear for their safety and lack sleep and eat what they can get.

a reply to: jacobe001

And who determines what is a "reasonable" profit margin? The government or the consumer? If you're charging too much only a very few will buy and you will be forced to lower the price. If you desire to rent my property (keyword "desire"- there's always other options) and you feel the rent is unreasonable then move on. I'll find another tenant or adjust my price downward until someone (not the city gov't] finds it reasonable. As far as widgets made in China, decide to buy American if that's what your conscience tells you to do.
Sorry but the fewer decisions I have to relinquish to the government the better.

originally posted by: jacobe001

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: DBCowboy

So 1/7 of the population .

So if I'm successful, how much do you want to punish and penalize me to give those that are unsuccessful the same lifestyle I have?

I don't think you should be punished, why do you think you should be punished

Big difference between saying its # that 50 million of your fellow Americans are in abject poverty, and that's just the down and out not even considering the working poor and saying those that are successful should give up what the have for the greater good.

I thought we were talking about how great the economy is, fair to say the economy is not good for a good chunk of the population and that's crap and really nothing to be proud of.

There aren't 50 million people in poverty in the US. First off, poverty is just a definition of income. One can be considered "poor" based on income, but far from poor in terms of wealth or other sources of income. When I was a student, I most certainly would have been considered poor.

People move in and out of income groups all the time. The vast majority of people who would be part of say the botto 5% of income earners, don't stay there just as most of the people who are in the top 5% of income earners in any given year eventually fall out as well.

Second, poverty in America is not the same thing as poverty in the rest of the world. The most impoverished neighborhoods in the US look like Beverly Hills, CA compared to sh*t holes in the rest of the world. Being poor the US means instead of Central Airconditioning you might have a window unit. Instead of five pairs of Air Jordans, you have one pair. Instead of an Iphone X, you may have a Iphone 7 or something. Instead of two cars, you have one car. Instead of a 2019 BMW, you have a 2001 Chevy. Instead of three 50 inch TVs, you have one TV.

Oh the horror, your kid might get free school breakfast and lunch.

The poorest Americans live better than the top 5% in a country like India.

In fact, a person making about $30,000 in the US would be part of the Top 1% globally. Let that sink in. Someone making about $15/hr, essentially minimum wage in the US, would be considered part of the top 1% GLOBALLY.

Someone making 30,000 in the USA is not in the top 1% globally if they have to spend that money in America. Sure, if you took that 30,000 to India it would buy a lot but that is not reality.

You can get a 3 bedroom apartment for 100 bucks a month in India, try doing that in the USA.

Also, the working homeless living out of their cars or on the street or no better off than the homeless in India. They both fear for their safety and lack sleep and eat what they can get.

The point is poverty is relative. Sure, trying to live on $30k in the US is tough, but our standard of living is very high. You aren't truly impoverished when contrasted with the rest of the world. Again, we don't have kids walking around barefoot with distended bellies, even in the worst neighborhoods in the US.

We have public housing in the US that is nicer than upper income housing in most of the world.

Once you've traveled to see how the rest of the world lives, you realize that the US really doesn't have poor people.

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: jacobe001

And who determines what is a "reasonable" profit margin? The government or the consumer? If you're charging too much only a very few will buy and you will be forced to lower the price. If you desire to rent my property (keyword "desire"- there's always other options) and you feel the rent is unreasonable then move on. I'll find another tenant or adjust my price downward until someone (not the city gov't] finds it reasonable. As far as widgets made in China, decide to buy American if that's what your conscience tells you to do.
Sorry but the fewer decisions I have to relinquish to the government the better.

The government already controls everything we buy since the corporate and banking lobbyists own them. The government does not work for the consumers nor workers nor most people of this country, it works only for the corporate and banking elite.

Lets throw them out of Washington DC.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: jacobe001

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: DBCowboy

So 1/7 of the population .

So if I'm successful, how much do you want to punish and penalize me to give those that are unsuccessful the same lifestyle I have?

I don't think you should be punished, why do you think you should be punished

Big difference between saying its # that 50 million of your fellow Americans are in abject poverty, and that's just the down and out not even considering the working poor and saying those that are successful should give up what the have for the greater good.

I thought we were talking about how great the economy is, fair to say the economy is not good for a good chunk of the population and that's crap and really nothing to be proud of.

There aren't 50 million people in poverty in the US. First off, poverty is just a definition of income. One can be considered "poor" based on income, but far from poor in terms of wealth or other sources of income. When I was a student, I most certainly would have been considered poor.

People move in and out of income groups all the time. The vast majority of people who would be part of say the botto 5% of income earners, don't stay there just as most of the people who are in the top 5% of income earners in any given year eventually fall out as well.

Second, poverty in America is not the same thing as poverty in the rest of the world. The most impoverished neighborhoods in the US look like Beverly Hills, CA compared to sh*t holes in the rest of the world. Being poor the US means instead of Central Airconditioning you might have a window unit. Instead of five pairs of Air Jordans, you have one pair. Instead of an Iphone X, you may have a Iphone 7 or something. Instead of two cars, you have one car. Instead of a 2019 BMW, you have a 2001 Chevy. Instead of three 50 inch TVs, you have one TV.

Oh the horror, your kid might get free school breakfast and lunch.

The poorest Americans live better than the top 5% in a country like India.

In fact, a person making about $30,000 in the US would be part of the Top 1% globally. Let that sink in. Someone making about $15/hr, essentially minimum wage in the US, would be considered part of the top 1% GLOBALLY.

Someone making 30,000 in the USA is not in the top 1% globally if they have to spend that money in America. Sure, if you took that 30,000 to India it would buy a lot but that is not reality.

You can get a 3 bedroom apartment for 100 bucks a month in India, try doing that in the USA.

Also, the working homeless living out of their cars or on the street or no better off than the homeless in India. They both fear for their safety and lack sleep and eat what they can get.

The point is poverty is relative. Sure, trying to live on $30k in the US is tough, but our standard of living is very high. You aren't truly impoverished when contrasted with the rest of the world. Again, we don't have kids walking around barefoot with distended bellies, even in the worst neighborhoods in the US.

We have public housing in the US that is nicer than upper income housing in most of the world.

Once you've traveled to see how the rest of the world lives, you realize that the US really doesn't have poor people.

The rest of the world is actually surpassing many parts of America.
I can take you to places in America that look like the third world and I can take you to what once was the third world now looks like Beverly Hills.

When I say Ethiopia, most think of a third world hell hole in the desert.
That time has passed, now it has country clubs, 5 star hotels, tract housing and skycrapers.

a reply to: jacobe001

You still haven't stated who will be determining what is "fair and reasonable". What are the parameters? Someone making 100k a year probably has a different idea of "fair and reasonable" than someone making 40k. It's an impossible standard and it pisses me off that my city government is imposing it on me.
What if your boss sent out a memo saying they have determined that it's fair and reasonable to cut pay across the board by 30%. Would you agree?

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: jacobe001

You still haven't stated who will be determining what is "fair and reasonable". What are the parameters? Someone making 100k a year probably has a different idea of "fair and reasonable" than someone making 40k. It's an impossible standard and it pisses me off that my city government is imposing it on me.
What if your boss sent out a memo saying they have determined that it's fair and reasonable to cut pay across the board by 30%. Would you agree?

Most people have moral understanding of what is right and wrong and that is how you determine what is reasonable.

If you preach capitalism as holy gospel where everyone has choices and freedoms, and then go hop in a communist country to take advantage of people that do not have free choice is wrong. It is reasonable to practice what you preach. Do not be a hypocrite and hop in a country you would not support if it was our own country. Do not hop in bed with a bunch of diamond mine owners that use slaves that do not have free choice.

If I kidnap and cut up babies to sell baby parts for millions of dollars it is not reasonable.

a reply to: jacobe001

Not sure why you are quoting my post when nothing you wrote addressees anything in it. I guess what you are saying is that there should be a "morality committee" to set prices? I am wrong to feel my property (hence my livelihood] is worth more? Because just like your boss cutting wages and making them "fair", the city is cutting my income. Now, if you were forced to stay in that job for 30% less than you could have made, that would be something akin to indentured servitude would it not? Yet I am forced to rent my property at a rate that is considerably less than I could earn (don't forget this is my income) and I have no recourse.
And drop the whole baby body parts crap, why do libs always bring the drama sheesh!

a reply to: Aazadan


The average US individual income was $50,321 in 2017, according to the SSA.
Link

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Aazadan


The average US individual income was $50,321 in 2017, according to the SSA.
Link

That is not average wages. That is what they refer to as wage indexing. What that does is it brings wages from previous years up to the years current index so that past contributions are calculated at current dollar amounts. Using that index, they then look at average total contributions. The result of this is that as purchasing power declines, previous years contributions are disproportionately weighted such that someone who started contributing in 1960 would see a much bigger index adjusted benefit than someone who started contributing in 2000. Here is where they go into detail on it:

www.ssa.gov...

Also, if your presumption were right, since the average household contains 1.8 wage earners, your statement would then be implying that the average US household income was about $90k, which it is not.

Now, for the actual stats, if you go by actual tax data which the IRS has and census bureau have, they actually publish individual income. The chart you will be interested in is Table A-4, though keep in mind that prior years are using CPI inflation adjusted dollars so the most recent year is the only one that's really accurate.

www.census.gov...

a reply to: Aazadan

While I disagree with your characterization of the wage index computation, I don't really care enough to argue about it. Especially considering even your other source is a far cry from the 30k you attempted to claim in your first post.

So according to that it's $38.4k. Which is quite a bit more than you originally stated. That was my point. The interesting thing to me is how many part time workers there are. A full 25% of male workers are part time and 37% of females are part time. Full time work in the US seems to pay particularly well, with the median income being 47,812.

This calls into question your previous computation of wage earners (being 1.8 on average). While you tried to make it a linear move it's much more nuanced than that. While there are 1.8 wage earners, that doesn't translate to 1.8 full time jobs held and therefore makes your argument that the household income would need to be 90k, to justify the wages I posted from the SSA, incorrect. The fact that there are 1.8 wage earners per household can be chalked up to a part time working spouse or teen, which explains why the median full time salary is nearly 50k while the median household income is ~60k.

I'd love to see the stats on two full time adults in the same household vs 1 full time and 1 part time job.

a reply to: Dfairlite

31,000 comes from tax returns, I think it is full time wages from 1 job.

a reply to: Aazadan

That's not the average according to the census data you provided. According to that; the average full time job pays $47.8k. Its 49.3k for men, 41.9k for women.

The median wage for workers in the United States in the first quarter of 2019 was $905 per week or $47,060 per year for a 40-hour workweek.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Aazadan

That's not the average according to the census data you provided. According to that; the average full time job pays $47.8k. Its 49.3k for men, 41.9k for women.

The median wage for workers in the United States in the first quarter of 2019 was $905 per week or $47,060 per year for a 40-hour workweek.

I counter with a link of my own, that you will call fake news.
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: dfnj2015
I think the government needs to print some interest free money and get this economy going again in real terms!

You do realize the last President that tried to do that Kennedy) was assassinated, and the EO he had issued ordering said printing was immediately rescinded by the man (Johnson) who was instrumental in covering up the coup (and his involvement in it)?

We have a debt/usury based monetary system.