• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Inequality Troubles Americans Across Party Lines, Times/CBS Poll Finds

I didn't ask if anyone become rich. I asked if everyone can be richer. Like every single person in the US together. Is it possible with the right amount of work. Please give me a practical answer.

Sure it's possible...but not likely. Most people don't have the right combination of education, skills, discipline and work ethic to do it.
 
Because if there is a system of legislation in place to help ensure that the balance of economic power remains with a small demographic of people, thereby allowing them to continue to reap the lions share and then some of the profits resulting from increased productivity and technology, our ENTIRE ECONOMY IS GOING TO CRASH, AND NOT RECOVER.

Crash and not recover? When is that going to happen....because for the last entire history of humanity...those laws haven't existed....just sayin.

The 1% need consumers to live their way of life. Consumers need a paycheck that does more than just barely covering the basics to adequately consume. Asking the 1% to please oh please pay their help better doesn't work. So we introduce things like increased minimum wages, and try to disincentivise rampant profiteering via progressive taxes. The mind set being...don't want to pay your people enough to live and be productive members of the economy? Fine, we'll tax you more, and use that help them to continue to consume.

Don't like? Then work on alternatives. Economically VIABLE alternatives.

I see, now you're trying to help the 1% stay the 1%. Very touching. Here's a news flash...we're essentially the highest paid country on earth, all measures averaged. You want more...earn it. Don't expect the govt to give it to you.


Progressive taxation does not fix poverty, never has, never will.
 
...
Progressive taxation does not fix poverty, never has, never will.

It was doing a pretty darned good job of it during the middle of the 20th century. Obviously progressive taxation wasn't the only reason that all income classes grew in income at about the same rate, but it was one of the biggies. Then came "trickle down Ronny".
 
This country was founded by rebelling against an aristocracy. We have built a new aristocracy, ensuring that the rich are very very rich and stay that way across generations, while poverty is inherited and the lower middle class has little chance to move up. Of course that troubles us. It is antithetical to everything we believe in. Unfortunately, we try to pretend that this problem doesn't exist and many people oppose measures to equal the playing field because they don't want anything holding them down when they become rich.

Who's keeping you or anyone else from competing with these aristocrats?
 
Is there an active effort to keep the 99% from becoming a 1%

yes. The TPP deal that Obama and the Republicans want to keep secret is one example.
 
"Inequality" doesn't trouble me in any way, shape, form, or fashion. There's no rational reason for it to trouble anyone.





This country was founded on by rebelling against an absolute central authority that taxed it relentlessly, on the basis that all men are equal and have unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.

You and yours want to build the same thing, only you think it's somehow better when it doesn't involve any kind of a monarch. It isn't.

Pashendale seems to have confused the USA with the Soviet Union.
 
I didn't ask if anyone become rich. I asked if everyone can be richer. Like every single person in the US together. Is it possible with the right amount of work. Please give me a practical answer.

It is possible but only if the fruits of our increasing wealth are shared proportionately between all income levels.
 
When it comes down to it forced wealth redistribution ( theft ) is basically all the left have left as a economic plan for growth.

Its their solution to a problem they made much worse and if its ever implemented it will backfire on the Middle class in epic proportions.

Theft is what the rich politicians, CEO's, bankers, etc. are doing to the middle class and poor... you have it backwards...
 
bingo

we have a winner

i dont care if you make 25k, 250k, or 250m a year

it is none of my business....and if you are making 250m a year....hopefully you are bringing a few others with you into that stratosphere

this country is all about opportunity......the sky is the limit.....

we make more millionaires in this country than anywhere else.....period

my wife and i make a nice living......we also give back

my boss makes a ton more than i do.....he earns it.....his fed income tax paid in april was in the mid 7 figures

he gives back too

the idea is to get as many successful people around as we can....and let others work for them

that is the capitalist society i know.....and it works
One problem with that, currently at least....


Many/most of the decent paying jobs almost require a degree of some sort, and the better require at least a 4-year one. That could cost a person tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, depending on degree, school, and what kind of grants they can get.

It's basically a debt gate to many "good" jobs.

If you don't pay the toll, you don't have the opportunity.


Now, I'm not saying college should be free (or at least not without serious limits, because I know damn well some people would stay in school if that was the case), but for ****s sake it's basically a door that keeps the people with less money out, even if they have the capability.

Sure a few get through, but even then they have to be exceptional, because the public schools in lower-income areas are crappy compared to richer neighborhoods....not to mention a poor family won't have as much time to help their kids (because working a couple-few jobs for what little money they can get...or hell, they may be ****ty parents and not bother to, although that's not a low-income specific thing.

So we have a person who starts in a poor situation, with barriers all around to realizing their full potential, then if they manage to get decent grades in school and survive whatever else their youth throws at them, they have to indebt themselves to what seems an overly expensive higher education system just to get through the door that leads to....


A job market which is frankly seemingly unable to provide jobs for them all...or why do you have overqualified (degree-wise, at least) people in multiple areas?

Sure they could just not care, or they don't know how to find a new job, or whatever you want as a reason.

But it seems to me that if this ****storm were working as well as you say, we'd have more capable people getting the jobs that require said capability.


And then when they do get hired, they're liable to be underpaid.

In short, generally higher education is too expensive, and job availability/pay is too low.

And thousands of poor individuals don't even encounter that **** because they can't get away from the ****storm the society they were born into placed them in.




Ok that got long-winded and probably covers multiple problems....
 
"Better"? How is taking what someone earned and giving it to someone that didn't earn it, specially when it's not actually necessary....."better"?
Frankly, I have a hard time understanding how some of the CEO/upper management incomes I've heard/read about can be justified.

What the hell could they possibly be doing that justified 100m (as an example, some make more, some make less) in income/stock options/benefits/whatever?
 
Do you think everyone can become rich?
No, but from where I sit there sure as hell does not appear to be any attempt to reduce the number of poor.
 
It was doing a pretty darned good job of it during the middle of the 20th century. Obviously progressive taxation wasn't the only reason that all income classes grew in income at about the same rate, but it was one of the biggies. Then came "trickle down Ronny".

actually, Americas manufacturing position post WWII plus expanded college attendance had the biggest impact on income growth.
 
Frankly, I have a hard time understanding how some of the CEO/upper management incomes I've heard/read about can be justified.

What the hell could they possibly be doing that justified 100m (as an example, some make more, some make less) in income/stock options/benefits/whatever?

Spend some time as a CEO, then you'll find out.

and..."Justified"? Justified by whom? It's not like they're stealing it....they're being paid, willingly. Ask the people that pay them why it's justified.
 
Trickle down is the only economics. Money doesn't flow from where it's not to wear it is.

Wealth is created by production. Production requires workers. Money flows both up and down, but the net value of production is an upwards trickle (or else the rich wouldn't be rich).
 
Everyone willing to educate themselves and put in the work...coupled with sensible fiscal choices can.

LOL, that's ridiculous. The vast majority don't have the temperament or skill or intelligence or tolerance for risk or the ability to prioritize their career over all else, so someone to take care of any family, and the luck or fortune to fill a niche that pays well, etc.
 
Spend some time as a CEO, then you'll find out.

and..."Justified"? Justified by whom? It's not like they're stealing it....they're being paid, willingly. Ask the people that pay them why it's justified.

The people who pay them are ultimately shareholders, but for public companies it's rare that any shareholders or small group of them can effectively exert power, and so the decision is made by Board members, who are often CEOs who are deciding on the pay of other CEOs, some of them on their board, informed by "consultants" who justify escalating pay packages for CEOs by looking at other pay packages with escalating pay. It's like housing prices in the bubble. One sale at an inflated price was used to justify other nearby sales at inflated prices. The pay for CEOs is a market of sorts, but one with a lot of known problems.

I'm an investor and the big problem with escalating pay packages is they (typically) lavishly reward mediocre performance. When the market is booming, in large part because of factors beyond the control of any CEO (general economy, Fed policy on rates, etc.) their stock options pay off handsomely even if they underperform their peers. And when the market tanks, they typically don't share that risk. They get new options at the low prices after a crash, and so get rewarded on the bounce that, again, they have little to nothing to do with.
 
One problem with that, currently at least....


Many/most of the decent paying jobs almost require a degree of some sort, and the better require at least a 4-year one. That could cost a person tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, depending on degree, school, and what kind of grants they can get.

It's basically a debt gate to many "good" jobs.

If you don't pay the toll, you don't have the opportunity.


Now, I'm not saying college should be free (or at least not without serious limits, because I know damn well some people would stay in school if that was the case), but for ****s sake it's basically a door that keeps the people with less money out, even if they have the capability.

Sure a few get through, but even then they have to be exceptional, because the public schools in lower-income areas are crappy compared to richer neighborhoods....not to mention a poor family won't have as much time to help their kids (because working a couple-few jobs for what little money they can get...or hell, they may be ****ty parents and not bother to, although that's not a low-income specific thing.

So we have a person who starts in a poor situation, with barriers all around to realizing their full potential, then if they manage to get decent grades in school and survive whatever else their youth throws at them, they have to indebt themselves to what seems an overly expensive higher education system just to get through the door that leads to....


A job market which is frankly seemingly unable to provide jobs for them all...or why do you have overqualified (degree-wise, at least) people in multiple areas?

Sure they could just not care, or they don't know how to find a new job, or whatever you want as a reason.

But it seems to me that if this ****storm were working as well as you say, we'd have more capable people getting the jobs that require said capability.


And then when they do get hired, they're liable to be underpaid.

In short, generally higher education is too expensive, and job availability/pay is too low.

And thousands of poor individuals don't even encounter that **** because they can't get away from the ****storm the society they were born into placed them in.




Ok that got long-winded and probably covers multiple problems....


i have 155 employees

i have over 40 that made over 100k last year

only 3 of the 40 have college degrees.....3 out of 40

my college degree employees work in advertising, or hr, or accounting.....and all make 45-80k

now....is that unusual?

no....not in the sales business

it is long hours, and the ability to deal with every facet of people

from the ditch diggers to the brain surgeons.....and sell them our product

a college degree is one way out

trade schools are another.....i have a number of ASE certified mechanics that made bank last year

i have body shop technicians that make bank

again...is this abnormal......no

the key is skills.....every one of them is VERY good at what they do......at or near the top in their fields

and i bet if you asked where some of them came from, it wasnt pleasant suburbia......

so i go by what i see.....where i came from.....where my employees came from

i am so tired of excuses as to why people cant better themselves

yes....it isnt easy.....success never is
 
Frankly, I have a hard time understanding how some of the CEO/upper management incomes I've heard/read about can be justified.

What the hell could they possibly be doing that justified 100m (as an example, some make more, some make less) in income/stock options/benefits/whatever?

ever been to a board meeting?

ever asked a question like that in one of them?

maybe you need to.....

the board decides what to pay the executives.....

just as most people have a boss, the executives report to the board.....and yes....they get canned also

but what does it matter if Jeff Immelt makes 25 million last year? why would i care?

does what he earn affect me in any way imaginable? no

his earnings dont affect mine.....never will
 
Wealth is created by production. Production requires workers. Money flows both up and down, but the net value of production is an upwards trickle (or else the rich wouldn't be rich).

First the straw man. Wealth is not necessarily created by production. On to the rest of the tortured logic. Nothing happens in a vacuum but if you see this as the chicken and egg as to which comes first, Capital always precedes production.
 
LOL, that's ridiculous. The vast majority don't have the temperament or skill or intelligence or tolerance for risk or the ability to prioritize their career over all else, so someone to take care of any family, and the luck or fortune to fill a niche that pays well, etc.

all self-limiting factors. :shrug:
 
The people who pay them are ultimately shareholders, but for public companies it's rare that any shareholders or small group of them can effectively exert power, and so the decision is made by Board members, who are often CEOs who are deciding on the pay of other CEOs, some of them on their board, informed by "consultants" who justify escalating pay packages for CEOs by looking at other pay packages with escalating pay. It's like housing prices in the bubble. One sale at an inflated price was used to justify other nearby sales at inflated prices. The pay for CEOs is a market of sorts, but one with a lot of known problems.

I'm an investor and the big problem with escalating pay packages is they (typically) lavishly reward mediocre performance. When the market is booming, in large part because of factors beyond the control of any CEO (general economy, Fed policy on rates, etc.) their stock options pay off handsomely even if they underperform their peers. And when the market tanks, they typically don't share that risk. They get new options at the low prices after a crash, and so get rewarded on the bounce that, again, they have little to nothing to do with.

Then invest in a different company. :shrug:
 
i have 155 employees

i have over 40 that made over 100k last year

only 3 of the 40 have college degrees.....3 out of 40

my college degree employees work in advertising, or hr, or accounting.....and all make 45-80k

now....is that unusual?

no....not in the sales business

it is long hours, and the ability to deal with every facet of people

from the ditch diggers to the brain surgeons.....and sell them our product

a college degree is one way out

trade schools are another.....i have a number of ASE certified mechanics that made bank last year

i have body shop technicians that make bank

again...is this abnormal......no

the key is skills.....every one of them is VERY good at what they do......at or near the top in their fields

and i bet if you asked where some of them came from, it wasnt pleasant suburbia......

so i go by what i see.....where i came from.....where my employees came from

i am so tired of excuses as to why people cant better themselves

yes....it isnt easy.....success never is
Perhaps some of the situations I see are specific to my area then.
 
Back
Top Bottom