The 1% will own more than the 99% by 2016, report says

whysoserious said:

Not a problem with me. There is nothing worse than when I am debating a topic and I am getting attacked by four or five different posters, and that seems to happen a lot on this board.

Click to expand...

Oh, the victimhood....Everyone in here has at one time or another had to deal with 4 or 5 posters that disagree with them arguing at the same time...your experiences are nothing special, in fact you yourself have been in on a group going after other posters in this fashion...So...Don't whine.

Conservative said:

It means nothing to me as I control my own destiny and always did. That social contract you are talking about means exactly what and isn't it different for everyone. I don't care what someone else makes, someone else has, or what someone else pays in taxes. I do care how much our Federal Govt. spends and more importantly their over reach and what they waste. The question is why don't you? Why would you throw more money into a bloated Federal Bureaucracy that has yet to solve a social problem and was never charged with that responsibility?

Click to expand...

Of course I care about that. That's not a language you often choose to talk in. It "liberals this" and "liberals that", cut this, cut that, and socialism. This side of the table is always going to be open to talk about efficiency.

j-mac said:

Oh, the victimhood....Everyone in here has at one time or another had to deal with 4 or 5 posters that disagree with them arguing at the same time...your experiences are nothing special, in fact you yourself have been in on a group going after other posters in this fashion...So...Don't whine.

Click to expand...

Where did I whine? I was simply stating that I'd much prefer have at least a person agreeing with me than getting ganged up on by multiple people.

whysoserious said:

Not a problem with me. There is nothing worse than when I am debating a topic and I am getting attacked by four or five different posters, and that seems to happen a lot on this board.

Click to expand...

You could pick to focus your debate with one of the 4 or 5 and not feel a need to respond to all of them. It isn't like we debate much--we just yell at each other to pass the time mostly.

whysoserious said:

Of course I care about that. That's not a language you often choose to talk in. It "liberals this" and "liberals that", cut this, cut that, and socialism. This side of the table is always going to be open to talk about efficiency.

Click to expand...

Show me a conservative who cares about what someone else makes, someone else has, or what someone else pays in taxes. If you are ashamed of your leaning change it, if not defend it. You telling me that it isn't liberals who are obsessed with what people make and pay in taxes?

LOL, you want to talk about efficiency and you support a President who proposed a 3.9 trillion dollar budget? Where can you show me an example of liberal efficiency/

Conservative said:

What I continue to see here is class envy and jealousy about what someone else has. What has this country come to? I never cared about what someone else had or paid in taxes for that never affected me and my family in anyway. In fact it in some ways motivated me to do better and become part of that group. Doesn't seem to be that way today as so many want to take from those who produced and give it to others which in some way is supposed to motivate them to better themselves and not expect continued handouts. Talk about being naïve

I have also heard that the Middle class is shrinking. Question, where are they going? Wonder if any of them have moved up to the upper class by taking advantages of the opportunities that they have in this country. Naw, that couldn't be it, they just dropped off the face of the earth.

Click to expand...

It is the middle of the middle class that is disappearing. They are going in both directions depending on what their job is and where they are located.

JasperL said:

Disproportion as you call is IS affecting others. Decades long stagnation of wages, declining living standards at the bottom, income and productivity gains all flowing to the top, the rising generation with living standards below that of their parents - those are real effects.

Click to expand...

please illustrate how the rising generation's living standards are lower than that of their parents.

It's perhaps unfair to say the 'rich' are "keeping the people at the bottom from achieving" but the results of policies supported by the political establishment funded by "the rich" and our most powerful corporate interests are devastating to millions of Americans, and no amount of "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" happy talk can change that.

Click to expand...

Which policies are doing that?

Declan said:

It is the middle of the middle class that is disappearing. They are going in both directions depending on what their job is and where they are located.

Click to expand...

So those of us who are positive point to the middle class moving up as a positive, and those that are negative point to the middle class that is moving down? My thoughts then are if people are moving into the Upper class then that class is growing. How can that be? Aren't those people moving into the upper class taking it from someone else?

Conservative said:

So those of us who are positive point to the middle class moving up as a positive, and those that are negative point to the middle class that is moving down?

Click to expand...

Well you can certainly try to fashion yourself "positive" and those who disagree with you "negative" if it makes you feel better. I assume based on experience that most people are thinking "manufacturing jobs" in the back of their mind when this subject is being discussed.

My thoughts then are if people are moving into the Upper class then that class is growing. How can that be?

Click to expand...

I am not sure what you mean because to me more people moving up causing a class to grow seems pretty self-evident as to why--some people are making more money than they were.

Aren't those people moving into the upper class taking it from someone else?

Click to expand...

That would depend on how they make the money I suppose

mac said:

please illustrate how the rising generation's living standards are lower than that of their parents.

Click to expand...

OK, median net worth in 2010 is lower than it was in 1989, and probably lower than in 1983. Almost all of that net worth is a house - in 2010 median net worth other than a house was about $2,000. In 2014, almost no one has a pension at work, they have less job security, and their 401(k) is about 30,000, so a couple of years of retirement or so.

Here's wages: Inequality: Wages, income, and time for gardening | The Economist



That's household income, which has barely moved, and that doesn't account for women entering the workforce or that we're on average working longer hours.

I could post the increase in college debt, and household debt and some of that is in the median net worth figures. But over 40 years or so, incomes have barely budged even as women have entered the workforce, but the middle class has no job security, no pension, more debt, almost no savings, and almost nothing saved for retirement. And there is no up trend.

Which policies are doing that?

Click to expand...

Among others, the end of unions and offshoring, replacing decent jobs producing real value with lots of low value added service jobs. We're all competing with $2 an hour in China and $5 an hour in India, technology replacing middle level managers, etc.

JasperL said:

OK, median net worth in 2010 is lower than it was in 1989, and probably lower than in 1983. Almost all of that net worth is a house - in 2010 median net worth other than a house was about $2,000. In 2014, almost no one has a pension at work, they have less job security, and their 401(k) is about 30,000, so a couple of years of retirement or so.

Here's wages: Inequality: Wages, income, and time for gardening | The Economist

That's household income, which has barely moved, and that doesn't account for women entering the workforce or that we're on average working longer hours.

I could post the increase in college debt, and household debt and some of that is in the median net worth figures. But over 40 years or so, incomes have barely budged even as women have entered the workforce, but the middle class has no job security, no pension, more debt, almost no savings, and almost nothing saved for retirement. And there is no up trend.



Among others, the end of unions and offshoring, replacing decent jobs producing real value with lots of low value added service jobs. We're all competing with $2 an hour in China and $5 an hour in India, technology replacing middle level managers, etc.

Click to expand...

Does personal responsibility play any role in your world? What is your proposed solution to what you see as a problem? You seem to put a lot of faith in charts and graphs and have very little understanding about human nature and the ability of humans to make poor choices.

This is a great country for opportunity which liberals always destroy by micromanaging and promoting social engineering. Seems you want equal outcome and redistribution of wealth and punishing producers. The question is why don't you let people spend their money the way they want and not the way you think they should?

Declan said:

You could pick to focus your debate with one of the 4 or 5 and not feel a need to respond to all of them. It isn't like we debate much--we just yell at each other to pass the time mostly.

Click to expand...

I try to debate them all. LOL

Conservative said:

Show me a conservative who cares about what someone else makes, someone else has, or what someone else pays in taxes. If you are ashamed of your leaning change it, if not defend it. You telling me that it isn't liberals who are obsessed with what people make and pay in taxes?

LOL, you want to talk about efficiency and you support a President who proposed a 3.9 trillion dollar budget? Where can you show me an example of liberal efficiency/

Click to expand...

Every conservative who tells people they shouldn't be buying that because he she receives government assistance. Every conservative who complains that not enough people pay federal tax. Every conservative who says that the free market has decided that people shouldn't make more than they do.

Conservatives are all up in other people's business, let's not pretend they aren't.

whysoserious said:

I try to debate them all. LOL



Every conservative who tells people they shouldn't be buying that because he she receives government assistance. Every conservative who complains that not enough people pay federal tax. Every conservative who says that the free market has decided that people shouldn't make more than they do.

Conservatives are all up in other people's business, let's not pretend they aren't.

Click to expand...

Your opinion noted, name for me the Conservative who voted for Obamacare, the Obama stimulus, or raising taxes on anyone?

Conservative said:

Your opinion noted, name for me the Conservative who voted for Obamacare, the Obama stimulus, or raising taxes on anyone?

Click to expand...

Mitt Romney signed off on Obamacare, John McCain voted for the stimulus, and George HW Bush raised taxes.

JasperL said:

OK, median net worth in 2010 is lower than it was in 1989, and probably lower than in 1983. Almost all of that net worth is a house - in 2010 median net worth other than a house was about $2,000. In 2014, almost no one has a pension at work, they have less job security, and their 401(k) is about 30,000, so a couple of years of retirement or so.

Here's wages: Inequality: Wages, income, and time for gardening | The Economist

That's household income, which has barely moved, and that doesn't account for women entering the workforce or that we're on average working longer hours.

I could post the increase in college debt, and household debt and some of that is in the median net worth figures. But over 40 years or so, incomes have barely budged even as women have entered the workforce, but the middle class has no job security, no pension, more debt, almost no savings, and almost nothing saved for retirement. And there is no up trend.

Click to expand...

Most of the reduction in net worth is directly related to the increase in debt. The increase in debt is a responsibility of the person, not society. Regardless, the reduction in net worth is minimal and doesn't in and of itself illustrate a reduction in living standards. More middle class kids go to college now than they did in 1989, more middle class people buy more new cars now than they did in 1989....etc, etc.

Among others, the end of unions and offshoring, replacing decent jobs producing real value with lots of low value added service jobs. We're all competing with $2 an hour in China and $5 an hour in India, technology replacing middle level managers, etc.

Click to expand...

What policies cause this?

rocket88 said:

Mitt Romney signed off on Obamacare, John McCain voted for the stimulus, and George HW Bush raised taxes.

Click to expand...

Romney holds no public office, McCain did not vote for the Stimulus, and Bush has been out of office for over 6 years plus that fact that none of them are true conservatives. Romney beats the alternative of Obama as did Bush and McCain but the low information voters disagreed.

rocket88 said:

Mitt Romney signed off on Obamacare, John McCain voted for the stimulus, and George HW Bush raised taxes.

Click to expand...

Mitt Romney did not "sign off" on obamacare. In fact, the parts he opposed in Obamacare are the same parts he vetoed in Romneycare (vetoes overruled by Mass's legislature).

Conservative said:

Does personal responsibility play any role in your world? What is your proposed solution to what you see as a problem? You seem to put a lot of faith in charts and graphs and have very little understanding about human nature and the ability of humans to make poor choices.

Click to expand...

First of all, I put some faith in evidence, because that is how we make informed judgments about the question at hand. I'm not sure what else to do but look at the data, observe the trends. Anecdotal evidence - how YOU did in your particular part of the world when you started work with your skill set and education - isn't data.

Of course personal responsibility plays a role, but the fact is no amount of "personal responsibility" makes up for the fact that wages have stagnated for decades, or that a person of average intelligence, willing to work hard, 30 years ago could get a good job, with regular raises, a pension, etc. and that job either doesn't exist - it's been offshored - or exists in far fewer numbers. If there are 1,000x of those jobs, only 1,000x people CAN fill them. People can't work really hard and fill 2,000x of those good jobs - 1000x are simply GONE.

This is the constant refrain from conservatives that it's all about personal responsibility and all that. For each person, sure, their success will depend in large part on their effort. But not everyone can be above average, make above average wages in an above average job in a booming field with lots of future growth potential. So no amount of hard work changes those broad trends reflected in those numbers.

This is a great country for opportunity which liberals always destroy by micromanaging and promoting social engineering. Seems you want equal outcome and redistribution of wealth and punishing producers. The question is why don't you let people spend their money the way they want and not the way you think they should?

Click to expand...

A string of straw men. If you don't want to have a serious conversation, fine, but I've never claimed I want anything close to 'equal outcomes' nor do I want to 'punish producers.' In the past few decades the "producers" have seen their wages and wealth skyrocket. That's great. The problem is the other 90% of the country which has not. If there's anything I "want" it is that the country as a whole SHARE in the increased prosperity. It's fine with me if a CEO makes $50 million. What's missing is his employees wages are going down or stagnant (economy wide). It's the latter that is the problem, for all of us, including the CEO who needs BROAD wage gains to fuel real, sustainable economic growth.

mac said:

Mitt Romney did not "sign off" on obamacare. In fact, the parts he opposed in Obamacare are the same parts he vetoed in Romneycare (vetoes overruled by Mass's legislature).

Click to expand...

Romneycare = Obamacare for all intents and purposes. Did he not sign it into law in Massachussetts?

Conservative said:

Romney holds no public office, McCain did not vote for the Stimulus, and Bush has been out of office for over 6 years plus that fact that none of them are true conservatives. Romney beats the alternative of Obama as did Bush and McCain but the low information voters disagreed.

Click to expand...

Romney did hold public office when he signed it, McCain was sure in favor of the Bush stimulus, and you can't even keep your Bushes straight.

Sure is convenient that you can just write them off as "not conservatives." I'm beginning to think the "true conservative" is as elusive as Bigfoot.

Conservative said:

Your opinion noted, name for me the Conservative who voted for Obamacare, the Obama stimulus, or raising taxes on anyone?

Click to expand...

Well two of those are asking me to name a conservative that voted something with Obama's name on it... so no, that's not happening. And Reagan raised some taxes.

Not sure what this has to do with anything. The point is that conservatives are just as concerned about other people and their money as anyone else. They just follow this ridiculous, unproven theory of these magical "job creators" who we all suckle off of.

We live on a planet with scarce resources. This is not Star Trek, we cannot just replicate everything we need. As such, it's important to realize that the wealth centralization as described in the OP is basically mass theft. It is restricting access to the world's natural resources and forcing people to go without. It is economic authoritarianism.

j-mac said:

You want to go after true "predatory lending"? Do something about the 'pay day lenders', and the 'title loan places'.... These parasites go after the poorest of society with APR's that can top 300% annually....But I don't see anyone going after them.

Click to expand...

Didn't we used to have laws against usury? Whatever happened to them?

You're right about the predatory lenders and mortgages. What happened was that houses were sold to perfectly willing buyers who couldn't afford those houses using "creative loans". Lots of buyers as well as lenders made money on the deal until the bottom fell out of the market. Rates were no higher than for any other mortgages.

What should have happened is laws passed to ensure that buyers had enough skin in the game to lose if the houses were foreclosed, and to have a reasonable assurance that people weren't buying houses that they couldn't afford, that dreaded but necessary word: Government regulation. That didn't happen, and so the whole house of cards eventually fell.

mac said:

Most of the reduction in net worth is directly related to the increase in debt. The increase in debt is a responsibility of the person, not society. Regardless, the reduction in net worth is minimal and doesn't in and of itself illustrate a reduction in living standards. More middle class kids go to college now than they did in 1989, more middle class people buy more new cars now than they did in 1989....etc, etc.

Click to expand...

You asked me to defend my points and I did with links and evidence. What you've responded with is your opinion. It's not how this works.

And you can't point to more people buying cars and going to college as a positive, and evidence of rising living standards, then condemn the debt that makes that POSSIBLE because of decades of stagnant wages. Yes, many families funded what appeared to be rising living standards by taking on more debt. That's not sustainable, which is in large measure why growth is so anemic - real, sustainable growth can ONLY come from rising wages, and we haven't had that in the broad middle for DECADES.

What policies cause this?

Click to expand...

A couple are globalization made possible with "free trade" agreements, the end of tariffs, and "right to work" for less laws, and a general institutional hostility towards unions of all kinds. I could say more, but you're just going to dismiss those points out of hand so why bother.

rocket88 said:

Romneycare = Obamacare for all intents and purposes. Did he not sign it into law in Massachussetts?

Click to expand...

No, they are not equal, first off. Secondly, he opposed parts of the law and was overruled. So, what he signed into law were the parts he agreed with. The parts he didn't...the individual mandate, most importantly, he didn't sign into law. He was overruled and they were "signed into law" by the Mass legislature.