I completely trust dailykos to hand pick the exception rather than the rule to "prove" a point.
Wealth inequality in America
- Thread starter chanson78
- Start date
From your post: In Sherk’s words, “While hourly cash wages measured by the payroll survey have fallen 7 percent since 1973, total compensation as measured by LPC has risen 30 percent.”
How much inflation occurred from 1973 until 2011? This calculator says 417%. http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Calculators/Cumulative_Inflation_Calculator.aspx
So total compensation has fallen woefully short of keeping up with inflation! Your link seems to focus on health insurance as the primary non-cash benefit. This is in no way equivalent to more money in a worker's pocket!
In short, the rich have gotten much richer while most of the populace has lost ground. Does anyone really dispute that?
Some people are energetically involved in trying to earn $money$ legitimately or illegitimately, while some are couch potatoes, others are just plain lazy, some love welfare and others are just plain worthless. In addition, some (maybe like me) waste our time on internet web sites totally involved with recruiting, spring practice, SEC media days, football fall practice, football games, Sunday-Friday Morning Quarterbacking and critiquing every aspect of football, especially Crimson Tide football, when we should be trying every way we can to make a $buck$ and stay off the dole.
Dunno. Give me a link that works, preferably not to dailykos. The source article would be nice if you desire my input.
The nice thing about daily kos is that you can usually click a link in the article to be taken to the source material. That is the case here.
Poor in 2015 vs Poor in 1973 aren't anywhere near equal. Now the poor all have cell phones, flat screens, microwaves and cable.
Also, benefits that are received in addition to wages have value. Someone is paying for them.
Finally, figuring some current President has pumped $4.5 tril into the stock market....in order to stimulate the economy.
So, either our President believes in trickle down economics......or he missed a great opportunity to give $10k to every woman, man and child in the country......and let them spend it in their local economies.....
Anything sounds more erudite when written in Latin. I could write, "I'm fixing to go get a hamburger" and if I wrote it in Latin, it would sound intellectual.Et tu Brute?
My point, though, was that, while Democrats love playing the "we're the party of the little guy" shtick, they are as oriented on the wealthy as Republicans. They merely cover their policies with populist bovine scatology.
Well, I've thought about this post since you left it with us yesterday. At first, I wasn't going to respond, but I have since decided to make at least one comment.
Your posts are generally thoughtful. This post, however, is one of the worst responses I have ever seen you make, particularly since you seem to be purposefully ignoring or perverting the point of the article and you seem to have lost a level of objectivity on the topic as well. Not your usual quality and thoughtfulness in my opinion. Anyway, just thought I'd offer you my thinking on your response -- I didn't want you to think that I casually ignored it.
Last edited:
It's the kill the messenger syndrome; if the truthful message hurts, somebody else has to hurt too.
I have scoured the innerwebs (yesterday) and can't find anything to dispute anything in the article.
If you take four left turns, you end up back where you started.....
Perhaps an occasional right turn might send new and factual information your way......
Can someone explain to me why wealth inequality, even increasing wealth inequality, is an actual problem?
This is something that a lot of people seem to be assuming.
This is something that a lot of people seem to be assuming.
Wealth inequality usually corresponds to effort inequality, applied intelligence inequality, and total financial dumbarse inequality.
IMO It only becomes a problem when those with the wealth do not allow upward movement of those without. That is always a valid concern.
I have a far more comfortable living than my parents did at my age, which was far more comfortable than theirs, and a quantum leap above my share cropping great grandparents. All of us worked hard. I don't really think I am at a higher level in the current socio-economic status than they were (not that that was ever a goal for me). Probably about the same.
There is always going to be wealth inequality. If the power/status/money is in government those that want it will be drawn there. If it is in the private sector they will be drawn there. There are also always going to be those that just want to do the least possible to survive. IMO our system with all its faults has over the long haul made it possible to do what you are willing and get where you want. Yes there were times where this ability was being damaged from the private side, however I think that is currently being damaged more from the public side.
I had a professor who would write Latin phrases on his students' research papers. For a student who bombed the assignment and really produced a bad paper, the prof wrote - and I wish I could remember it Latin - "The more you play with (crap) the more it stinks."
Please tell us how one person's wealth can possibly prevent another from achieving it for themselves.
Last edited:
Latest threads
-
SEC West Showdown Sends Alabama to Oxford to Meet with Ole Miss- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Davis II Named to Stopper of the Year Midseason Watch List
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Eleven-Run Third Powers Alabama to 14-5 Win over Samford
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Maybe aTm's Pockets Aren't So Bottomless After All -- Layoffs In The Athletic Department
- Started by 4Q Basket Case
- Replies: 5
-
Time to un-vacate 2005-2007 on field victories and un-forfeit the 1993 season?
- Started by CmdrThor
- Replies: 20
-