Wealth inequality in America

CajunCrimson · Feb 26, 2015

Bama Reb said:
Please tell us how one person's wealth can possibly prevent another from achieving it for themselves.

You're crazy -- if Peyton Manning was making only $1,000,000 - I'd be making $1,000,000 too.....it's simple math - why don't you understand ???

Bama Reb · Feb 26, 2015

mittman said:
Have you never heard of a company store?

Yes.
Have you ever heard of quitting the mines and finding another job? Essentially there are a thousand ways for an individual to improve their own financial position or that of their family. Blaming someone else for your own failures 'just won't hunt'.

Tide1986 · Feb 26, 2015

cbi1972 said:
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.

I believe some would point to the potential for social unrest if wealth inequality is extreme. Of course, we really haven't seen a material level of unrest to date, so I'm not sure that the current levels of inequality (wealth and/or income) are actually a problem. We probably aren't seeing unrest because there is movement up and down the wealth/income spectrum -- we really don't have a permanent aristocracy (a.k.a. the infamous 1%) and an underclass (everybody else) as liberals would like the uninformed to believe.

cbi1972 · Feb 26, 2015

Tide1986 said:
I believe some would point to the potential for social unrest if wealth inequality is extreme. Of course, we really haven't seen a material level of unrest to date, so I'm not sure that the current levels of inequality (wealth and/or income) are actually a problem. We probably aren't seeing unrest because there is movement up and down the wealth/income spectrum -- we really don't have a permanent aristocracy and underclass as liberals would like the uniformed to believe.

I cannot adequately explain why I love this typo

Bama Reb · Feb 26, 2015

Tide1986 said:
I believe some would point to the potential for social unrest if wealth inequality is extreme. Of course, we really haven't seen a material level of unrest to date, so I'm not sure that the current levels of inequality (wealth and/or income) are actually a problem. We probably aren't seeing unrest because there is movement up and down the wealth/income spectrum -- we really don't have a permanent aristocracy (a.k.a. the infamous 1%) and an underclass (everybody else) as liberals would like the uninformed to believe.

I rarely put my own circumstances into a conversation but in this case I think it's appropriate.
My parents divorced when I was only 11 y/o. My mother worked 3 jobs in order to raise her 6 children on her own. She never draw welfare because she always looked on it as ''charity'', which she was too proud to accept.
She wasn't able to send any of us to college but she raised all of us to use our own brains to make a life for ourselves and our future families. I think she did just fine by us.
Personally, I developed a useful skill that I used to build a business of my own. I recently sold that business and will live comfortably in retirement, and the business I built lives on to provide careers and incomes to others.
I will never believe that others don't have the same opportunities to improve their own lives, whwther it's because of or in spite of what someone else may have accumulated or achieved.

mittman · Feb 26, 2015

Bama Reb said:
Yes.
Have you ever heard of quitting the mines and finding another job? Essentially there are a thousand ways for an individual to improve their own financial position or that of their family. Blaming someone else for your own failures 'just won't hunt'.

Apparently you haven't been in a position where either you "work the mines" or you starve. Then when you do the work you are given vouchers only to be spent for what the owner will allow you to buy. While the company store example has had good and bad history, you just wanted an example.

While I agree with your basic premise, the environment allowing that to work has just not always been available. Putting trust in a completely laissez-faire system has just as many dangers as a completely socialist system. Again those that are unscrupulously power hungry will migrate to where the power is and will work to keep their power. There are still sweat shops, and human slavery (whether actual or effective). I believe our system has made movement between classes and has elevated living conditions for everyone better than any in the past, but It hasn't been perfect either.

Bama Reb · Feb 26, 2015

mittman said:
Apparently you haven't been in a position where either you "work the mines" or you starve. Then when you do the work you are given vouchers only to be spent for what the owner will allow you to buy. While the company store example has had good and bad history, you just wanted an example.

While I agree with your basic premise, the environment allowing that to work has just not always been available. Putting trust in a completely laissez-faire system has just as many dangers as a completely socialist system. Again those that are unscrupulously power hungry will migrate to where the power is and will work to keep their power. There are still sweat shops, and human slavery (whether actual or effective). I believe our system has made movement between classes and has elevated living conditions for everyone better than any in the past, but It hasn't been perfect either.

Do 'the mines' keep their workers in chains? If not then apparently you've never heard of going out and finding another job. It happens every day all over this country.
As I always told my own kids, "The only person who can stop you from turning your dreams into reality is YOU.''

mittman · Feb 26, 2015

Bama Reb said:
As I always told my own kids, "The only person who can stop you from turning your dreams into reality is YOU.''

Good advice. Nothing I have said disagrees with that outlook on life. There are plenty of examples where people have been able to overcome circumstances even when those circumstances are caused by tyrannical environments. I was only reacting to the question of when wealth inequality can become a problem. Whether or not the problem can be overcome does not change the fact that it can be a problem.

tidegrandpa · Feb 26, 2015

mittman said:
Apparently you haven't been in a position where either you "work the mines" or you starve. Then when you do the work you are given vouchers only to be spent for what the owner will allow you to buy. While the company store example has had good and bad history, you just wanted an example.

While I agree with your basic premise, the environment allowing that to work has just not always been available. Putting trust in a completely laissez-faire system has just as many dangers as a completely socialist system. Again those that are unscrupulously power hungry will migrate to where the power is and will work to keep their power. There are still sweat shops, and human slavery (whether actual or effective). I believe our system has made movement between classes and has elevated living conditions for everyone better than any in the past, but It hasn't been perfect either.

Like my pop used to say after he returned from Europe in WWII, we ain't perfect but we beat anything else out there.

Bama Reb · Feb 26, 2015

mittman said:
Good advice. Nothing I have said disagrees with that outlook on life. There are plenty of examples where people have been able to overcome circumstances even when those circumstances are caused by tyrannical environments. I was only reacting to the question of when wealth inequality can become a problem. Whether or not the problem can be overcome does not change the fact that it can be a problem.

The only problem in this country right now is it's tyrannical government. We can and will overcome that as well. The history of this country says we can, and the freedom of our future generations demands that we do.

Al A Bama · Feb 26, 2015

Bama Reb said:
The only problem in this country right now is it's tyrannical government. We can and will overcome that as well. The history of this country says we can, and the freedom of our future generations demands that we do.

That tyrannical government may have gone toooooooooo far for us to really do anything about it except pray that a supreme being from above intervene. The hearts of this tyrannical government are just as hardened as the Pharaoh. Those with hard hearts need arteriosclerosis.

Gr8hope · Feb 26, 2015

Al A Bama said:
That tyrannical government may have gone toooooooooo far for us to really do anything about it except pray that a supreme being from above intervene. The hearts of this tyrannical government are just as hardened as the Pharaoh. Those with hard hearts need arteriosclerosis.

I agree, the republic and much of our freedom is gone. Most people do not realize how far our country has fallen but they will in the coming months and years. Will we find the courage and the leadership to restore it? I don't know but, like you, I am praying for that and that we can do it before we have to defend our mainland from outside forces.

Tide1986 · Mar 27, 2015

Yeah, this thread is about wealth inequality; nevertheless, this seemed like a good place to post this Bloomberg article on wages:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-24/unions-wages-and-the-hand-of-competition

Many theories have been advanced for why unions, and median wages, aren't growing very fast. Some say there's a causal link, which runs something like this: The Reagan administration gutted union protections, making it harder to organize workers. Without a powerful union to represent them, workers were at the mercy of greedy bosses who ruthlessly forced down their wage packets. What America needs, therefore, is a powerful labor movement, protected by more powerful laws that favor organizing of employees.

It's an obviously attractive story, both because it gives us a nice, satisfying morality tale and because it offers a (relatively) easy policy solution. But there's a little problem with this story: How, then, do you explain the fate of the United Automobile Workers employees at General Motors? Theirs was a very powerful union, one that managed to stave off a lot of job-threatening changes. And thanks to that power, the union was able to mobilize politicians to get them a much better deal out of GM's bankruptcy than they probably would have gotten in a more normal proceeding. What they weren't able to do was save the old wage structure. Old workers still have some semblance of the old package, but new workers make substantially less. Meanwhile, there are a lot fewer of them than there used to be. In the 1970s, GM employed nearly a half million auto workers. Today, that number is more like a tenth of that.

What happened?

bama_wayne1 · Mar 27, 2015

Tide1986 said:
Yeah, this thread is about wealth inequality; nevertheless, this seemed like a good place to post this Bloomberg article on wages:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-24/unions-wages-and-the-hand-of-competition

We exported all those jobs. The government would rather care for us.......yeah right

Bama Reb · Mar 27, 2015

bama_wayne1 said:
We exported all those jobs. The government would rather care for us.......yeah right

If the government cared for us at all, it would get out of the way and let the economy grow on it's own. The American economy is a prime example of where the government is more a hindrance than a help.

Tide1986 · Aug 2, 2015

More on income inequality vis-a-vis progressive policies to reduce it:

http://www.city-journal.org/2015/eon0731fm.html

PHOTO BY JOHN MOORE, GETTY IMAGES

New York City mayor Bill de Blasio has left no doubt that he wants to be the nation’s preeminent spokesman for progressivism. Since unveiling his 13-point Progressive Agenda to Combat Income Inequality in May, de Blasio has campaigned on the message that income inequality is “the defining challenge of our time.” His key policy prescriptions are well known: more “affordable” housing, generous welfare programs, higher minimum wages, and income-tax hikes on high earners. However, if such policies actually reduced the gap between rich and poor, jurisdictions that have already adopted them would experience less income inequality. They don’t.

Bama Reb · Aug 2, 2015

Tide1986 said:
More on income inequality vis-a-vis progressive policies to reduce it:

http://www.city-journal.org/2015/eon0731fm.html

New York City mayor Bill de Blasio has left no doubt that he wants to be the nation’s preeminent spokesman for progressivism. Since unveiling his 13-point Progressive Agenda to Combat Income Inequality in May, de Blasio has campaigned on the message that income inequality is “the defining challenge of our time.” His key policy prescriptions are well known: more “affordable” housing, generous welfare programs, higher minimum wages, and income-tax hikes on high earners. However, if such policies actually reduced the gap between rich and poor, jurisdictions that have already adopted them would experience less income inequality. They don’t.

I've heard of his idea of "affordable housing". The "apartments" he has in mind are only about 200 sq. ft. each.

Tide1986 · Aug 3, 2015

Bama Reb said:
I've heard of his idea of "affordable housing". The "apartments" he has in mind are only about 200 sq. ft. each.

Wealth inequality in America

Moderator (FB,BB) and Vinyl Enthusiast

Suspended

Suspended

Hall of Fame

Suspended

All-American

Suspended

All-American

All-American

Suspended

Hall of Fame

All-American

Suspended

All-American

Suspended

Suspended

Suspended

Suspended

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!