Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Posts: 29354 Location: La La Land
Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2015 4:31 pm Post subject: Income Inequality in America
If I had 30 minutes of news time, I'd spend it on the wealth inequality in America. I think it is the most pertinent issue to the most Americans.
http://fortune.com/2015/06/11/income-inequality/
I'm lucky to be in professional school at 24. But most of my undergrad peers are saddled with undergrad debt and a job with little room for advancement.
I have to think that will be a key issue to this 2016 Presidential Election. I voted for Barack twice. For me to vote this time around, a candidate needs a cohesive plan to fix the current Grand-Canyon-like gap between the top 1-3% of Americans and everyone else.
I know "redistribution of wealth" is a politically taboo phrase. But at least increase volatility. So more people can bridge the gap. Besides the tech sector. It's tough for me to think of many self made wealthy entrepreneurs lately.
I don't think it will become an important issue in national politics unless and until someone comes up with a coherent and feasible way of dealing with the problem. Most of the "solutions" involve taxes, and taxes are unpopular by nature and at best a crude way of dealing with the issue.
For the past 75 years or so, the monied interests have been playing on fears and prejudices to make "socialism" a derogatory term, at least when it involves programs that benefit ordinary people instead of business interests. I don't know about the rest of you, but the single thing that surprised me most about the Tea Party movement is the extent to which this sort of propaganda has induced millions of ordinary people to support an agenda that is contrary to their own best interests. This is the effect that the Fortune article is describing. We hate income inequality, but we don't want to do anything about it.
I expect that 2016 will give us the same two flawed visions that we've been getting for a long time. The Koch induced GOP will tell us that cutting taxes on the rich, reducing regulations, and cutting social programs will create jobs and prosperity. The Democrats will push tax hikes on the rich, expansion of social programs, and expansion of the minimum wage. Despite the superficial differences, neither of those platforms will address the core issues of income inequality. The GOP mantra is that a rising tide raises all boats, while the Democratic mantra is that we are becoming a nation of low income workers. Neither vision does much for the middle class.
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 35857 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2015 7:46 pm Post subject:
And the worst part is that we have absolutely no real choice in 2016. I can never understand all of these people blindly supporting Hillary. _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
Joined: 17 Jun 2003 Posts: 6287 Location: Central Coast
Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2015 8:02 pm Post subject:
At least addressing the idea of higher education, I would like to see further expansion of jr. colleges being able to offer bachelor's degrees, lesser costs for online degrees and online course work, and expansion of military and paid college programs. e.g. Spend the summer fighting fires, putting in solar systems for schools, other community projects, to pay for college tuitions.
As a conservative, I don't like the tax your way out of method. But I'd be all in favor of their being limits on what top CEO's and administration can make in relation to their full time employees. Colleges as well shouldn't be paying their presidents (or football coaches) millions a year, but can't pay professors $75k a year. Wal-Mart too should have a limit where there top employees can't make more than 300 times their low-end full time employees. And at 20k a year that would be $6 million a year, more than generous.
At least addressing the idea of higher education, I would like to see further expansion of jr. colleges being able to offer bachelor's degrees, lesser costs for online degrees and online course work, and expansion of military and paid college programs. e.g. Spend the summer fighting fires, putting in solar systems for schools, other community projects, to pay for college tuitions.
As a conservative, I don't like the tax your way out of method. But I'd be all in favor of their being limits on what top CEO's and administration can make in relation to their full time employees. Colleges as well shouldn't be paying their presidents (or football coaches) millions a year, but can't pay professors $75k a year. Wal-Mart too should have a limit where there top employees can't make more than 300 times their low-end full time employees. And at 20k a year that would be $6 million a year, more than generous.
Sorry, but I think that's a terrible idea. I'm Walmart.
You do this and I'll RIF my entire low-end workforce and re-hire them as full-time contractors boosting my income potential to $30M under your plan.
Do bonuses, healthcare premiums, other benefits such as retirement plan offerings, paid vacations, etc all count as income or are you talking about annual salary only?
This would actually discourage companies from hiring employees full-time unless they were mid-to-senior level -- that's not what we're trying to do right?
And the worst part is that we have absolutely no real choice in 2016. I can never understand all of these people blindly supporting Hillary.
You assume that this is a product of blindness, but it is you who may not be seeing clearly.
Elaborate.
Most if not all Hillary supporters are well aware of her flaws and are well aware that she is an insider, an establishment candidate, and closer to Jeb Bush than to Bernie Sanders. This is a big part of why she got swept away by the Obama tsunami in 2008. Remember that she was viewed as unbeatable about this time in 2007. If a truly electable alternative arises, you could see the same thing happen.
Otherwise, this is NOT the right moment in history to throw up another George McGovern. Do you know what would happen if the GOP took the White House and both houses of Congress? Admittedly, the GOP would self-destruct, and that is a tempting scenario. However, the damage would last for a long time.
I see income inequality as an inevitability, especially in an age of innovation. It is the natural outcome in a capitalist society, and one that is not undesirable. What needs to be addressed are the tax loopholes that allow high income earners and the wealthy from paying a commensurately fair share of taxes vis a vis the middle class. That of course extends to corporations, which Mitt Romney observed "are people too."
I see income inequality as an inevitability, especially in an age of innovation. It is the natural outcome in a capitalist society, and one that is not undesirable. What needs to be addressed are the tax loopholes that allow high income earners and the wealthy from paying a commensurately fair share of taxes vis a vis the middle class. That of course extends to corporations, which Mitt Romney observed "are people too."
Agreed. I think income inequality is a wonderful thing.
Why should the slacker who doesn't feel like working get paid the same as, say, an attorney?
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90307 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2015 8:34 am Post subject:
ringfinger wrote:
angrypuppy wrote:
I see income inequality as an inevitability, especially in an age of innovation. It is the natural outcome in a capitalist society, and one that is not undesirable. What needs to be addressed are the tax loopholes that allow high income earners and the wealthy from paying a commensurately fair share of taxes vis a vis the middle class. That of course extends to corporations, which Mitt Romney observed "are people too."
Agreed. I think income inequality is a wonderful thing.
Why should the slacker who doesn't feel like working get paid the same as, say, an attorney?
That really not what is driving income inequality to the levels they are at. In countries with much better equality, lawyers make a lot more than the unemployed. It is about stagnating and even falling wages for the working and middle class (who by and large aren't slackers any more than most welfare recipients are welfare queens).
I see income inequality as an inevitability, especially in an age of innovation. It is the natural outcome in a capitalist society, and one that is not undesirable. What needs to be addressed are the tax loopholes that allow high income earners and the wealthy from paying a commensurately fair share of taxes vis a vis the middle class. That of course extends to corporations, which Mitt Romney observed "are people too."
Agreed. I think income inequality is a wonderful thing.
Why should the slacker who doesn't feel like working get paid the same as, say, an attorney?
Who is proposing that? I have not read or heard one person say they want to see an educated professional make as much as a bum. It is this type of nonsense that makes it tough to even have a discussion on the issue. What an absolutely extreme and unrealistic example and question. lol
Income inequality is the biggest issue being ignored in mainstream politics. It gets it's blurb here and there. But overall, we're spending way too many times beating a dead horse with gay marriage, abortion, and gun control. Income inequality arguably affects 100% of Americans compared the three mentioned issues but yet it takes a backseat to it. Legalized pot anyone?
The article reframes the class distinction from one of wealth to income, which raises a red flag (propaganda alert) as you cannot substitute those two separate definitions of class. Income is a very transient measurement in our society; you can be a top 5% earner one year in this country and get laid-off, rapidly deflating your income to unemployment payments or nothing. That is actually somewhat common in our country as continuous employment is a tenuous proposition in many industries and professions. A better way to measure would be to apply a moving-average of income, but the study conveniently ignores that. We evade answers by confusing the definitions.
I see income inequality as an inevitability, especially in an age of innovation. It is the natural outcome in a capitalist society, and one that is not undesirable. What needs to be addressed are the tax loopholes that allow high income earners and the wealthy from paying a commensurately fair share of taxes vis a vis the middle class. That of course extends to corporations, which Mitt Romney observed "are people too."
Agreed. I think income inequality is a wonderful thing.
Why should the slacker who doesn't feel like working get paid the same as, say, an attorney?
Who is proposing that? I have not read or heard one person say they want to see an educated professional make as much as a bum. It is this type of nonsense that makes it tough to even have a discussion on the issue. What an absolutely extreme and unrealistic example and question. lol
So what's wrong with income inequality then? It's a good thing right?
It's just the degree of said inequality that is the concern (and, a valid one IMO).
I see income inequality as an inevitability, especially in an age of innovation. It is the natural outcome in a capitalist society, and one that is not undesirable. What needs to be addressed are the tax loopholes that allow high income earners and the wealthy from paying a commensurately fair share of taxes vis a vis the middle class. That of course extends to corporations, which Mitt Romney observed "are people too."
Agreed. I think income inequality is a wonderful thing.
Why should the slacker who doesn't feel like working get paid the same as, say, an attorney?
Who is proposing that? I have not read or heard one person say they want to see an educated professional make as much as a bum. It is this type of nonsense that makes it tough to even have a discussion on the issue. What an absolutely extreme and unrealistic example and question. lol
So what's wrong with income inequality then? It's a good thing right?
It's just the degree of said inequality that is the concern (and, a valid one IMO).
I think what the general argument is that the income gap continues to grow, not necessarily that X person under given conditions makes substantially less than Y person under other conditions.
No one will argue that an attorney should make comparable wages to say a local transit bus driver.
I for one am not opposed to a CEO making mass amounts of money, people don't realize that importance of visionary/great CFOs.. look at Kodak, Nokia, Motorola, Xerox, etc. if you want an example of companies who failed to adapt and might have actually be better off if they had visionary CEOs with the likes of say Steve Jobs.
Personally, I don't know what to think of income inequality. I won't say I'm balling, but I make very reasonable wages and have a decent level of education and put in a substantial amount of time to get my CPA license. I would love to be paid more, but I'm not exactly complaining with my current salary.
The more I look at the numbers. The more important this issue appears to me.
I do think it is a bad thing. And I think our economy would benefit from having a healthy, larger middle class.
I get infuriated when I hear CEO's threaten massive layoffs if there is a minimum wage increase. Makes me sick to my stomach. The profits are there a lot of the times to support a wage increase.
I know the free market is considered pure and perfect. It's fragile and can't be restrained in any way.
But the wealth inequality reminds me of "The Tragedy of the Commons".
Quote:
individuals acting independently and rationally according to each's self-interest behave contrary to the best interests of the whole group by depleting some common resource
In this case, the resource depleted is the middle class consumer spending power we had prior to the "Great Recession".
Last edited by kikanga on Mon Jun 29, 2015 4:27 pm; edited 1 time in total
Still, income inequality worsened in 2014. The richest 1 percent of Americans posted a much bigger increase in pay: their incomes soared an average of 10.8 percent to $1.3 million. The wealthiest 1 percent also captured 21.2 percent of all income in 2014, up from 20.1 percent the previous year.
Someone needs to start standing up for the personhood rights of Corporations. Since they worked so hard to gain personhood status, then now the natural next step would be to start punishing those who seek to bilk corporations out of their hard earned profits. There is no way on earth that any person would go out and earn income only to turn around and watch those living in it's house drain it's bank accounts in the manner executives are robbing corporations. The corporation earned that money, not the executives, therefore the corporation should get to keep the lions share of it's earnings. There needs to be a new Office postion created at all corporations; that of: CEPO (Corporate Earnings Protection Officer) whose sole purpose is to protect the financial interests of the corporation and to make sure that greedy execs don't drain it's bank accounts with combined salaries which are greater than what the Corporation itself is keeping. It's only fair that a person keep the majority of his earnings. _________________ I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail.
Joined: 03 Oct 2003 Posts: 8352 Location: Santa Monica
Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2015 10:42 am Post subject:
To me, "income inequality" means that people across the socioeconomic spectrum don't have equal opportunities to become upwardly mobile.
Due to this problem, as well as outsourcing, downsizing, and overpopulation, many working class Americans are actually "working poor". By "poor" I mean broke. And it's because those people just aren't making enough income. There are even a fair number of people who make $100-$200k a year who are also broke. We used to have this middle class where people had long term job security, they could save at least 10% of their income every month into a savings or investment account, they could take one nice vacation a year, pay for at least some of the kids college tuition, and retire at age 65. All that has gone the way of the dinosaur.
The median income in our nation is at best the same as it was in 1980. Yet at the same time, the price of oil, housing, health care, and college have all gone up faster than inflation. There's no "middle class" anymore, just broke people and well-off people. Our nation has always done well however when we have a solid middle class, because their consumer spending accounts for 65-70% of the GDP. _________________ Lakers 49ers Chargers Dodgers
Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Posts: 29354 Location: La La Land
Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2015 10:56 am Post subject:
slavavov wrote:
To me, "income inequality" means that people across the socioeconomic spectrum don't have equal opportunities to become upwardly mobile.
Due to this problem, as well as outsourcing, downsizing, and overpopulation, many working class Americans are actually "working poor". By "poor" I mean broke. And it's because those people just aren't making enough income. There are even a fair number of people who make $100-$200k a year who are also broke. We used to have this middle class where people had long term job security, they could save at least 10% of their income every month into a savings or investment account, they could take one nice vacation a year, pay for at least some of the kids college tuition, and retire at age 65. All that has gone the way of the dinosaur.
The median income in our nation is at best the same as it was in 1980. Yet at the same time, the price of oil, housing, health care, and college have all gone up faster than inflation. There's no "middle class" anymore, just broke people and well-off people. Our nation has always done well however when we have a solid middle class, because their consumer spending accounts for 65-70% of the GDP.
Great post! _________________ "Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Joined: 21 Mar 2004 Posts: 7846 Location: San Jose, CA
Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2015 1:02 pm Post subject:
slavavov wrote:
To me, "income inequality" means that people across the socioeconomic spectrum don't have equal opportunities to become upwardly mobile.
Due to this problem, as well as outsourcing, downsizing, and overpopulation, many working class Americans are actually "working poor". By "poor" I mean broke. And it's because those people just aren't making enough income. There are even a fair number of people who make $100-$200k a year who are also broke. We used to have this middle class where people had long term job security, they could save at least 10% of their income every month into a savings or investment account, they could take one nice vacation a year, pay for at least some of the kids college tuition, and retire at age 65. All that has gone the way of the dinosaur.
The median income in our nation is at best the same as it was in 1980. Yet at the same time, the price of oil, housing, health care, and college have all gone up faster than inflation. There's no "middle class" anymore, just broke people and well-off people. Our nation has always done well however when we have a solid middle class, because their consumer spending accounts for 65-70% of the GDP.
And the worst part is that we have absolutely no real choice in 2016. I can never understand all of these people blindly supporting Hillary.
You assume that this is a product of blindness, but it is you who may not be seeing clearly.
Elaborate.
Most if not all Hillary supporters are well aware of her flaws and are well aware that she is an insider, an establishment candidate, and closer to Jeb Bush than to Bernie Sanders. This is a big part of why she got swept away by the Obama tsunami in 2008. Remember that she was viewed as unbeatable about this time in 2007. If a truly electable alternative arises, you could see the same thing happen.
Otherwise, this is NOT the right moment in history to throw up another George McGovern. Do you know what would happen if the GOP took the White House and both houses of Congress? Admittedly, the GOP would self-destruct, and that is a tempting scenario. However, the damage would last for a long time.
Yep. Astute post. _________________ “It took many years of vomiting up all the filth I’d been taught about myself, and half-believed, before I was able to walk on the earth as though I had a right to be here.”
― James Baldwin, Collected Essays
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
