Support NeoGAF

[The Technomancer]

I started a minimum wage job in high school, went to community college while working full time, lived at home, graduated, and worked my way up the chain to where I was able to pay off a new car and put down a huge down payment on a house. What was rigged?

I'll say it all day long, distribution of wealth played no part in my life. Opportunities aren't everywhere, but they are there.

The consumer has just as much blame around the economy as a CEO does.

The point is that its very hard to argue "people just need to work harder" when we have a statistical trend like the one we're observing here. Opportunities may exist, but are there as many opportunities as there were forty years ago? Are those opportunities harder to access? Whats changing?

 

[Trojita]

I started a minimum wage job in high school, went to community college while working full time, lived at home, graduated, and worked my way up the chain to where I was able to pay off a new car and put down a huge down payment on a house. What was rigged?

I'll say it all day long, distribution of wealth played no part in my life. Opportunities aren't everywhere, but they are there.

The consumer has just as much blame around the economy as a CEO does.

You do know how Community College is financed right?

 

[EatinOlives]

I started a minimum wage job in high school, went to community college while working full time, lived at home, graduated, and worked my way up the chain to where I was able to pay off a new car and put down a huge down payment on a house. What was rigged?

I'll say it all day long, distribution of wealth played no part in my life. Opportunities aren't everywhere, but they are there.

The consumer has just as much blame around the economy as a CEO does.

I'm not saying you rigged the system, I'm saying you played a game designed against you and you prevailed. It still doesn't account for the people unlucky enough to not be able to get to play from the same starting position, and it doesn't account for the probably countless ways in which you could've done better but didn't because of external, er, "influences".

The game is rigged for everyone. I've just never been complacent to the idea that hey, if we just run through the maze designed by the top 1% like good little boys and girls, we may get the cheese at the end. Just because I ended up getting the cheese at the end doesn't mean I shouldn't question why there's a maze in the first place and why they're the ones designing it.

 

[travisbickle]

I started a minimum wage job in high school, went to community college while working full time, lived at home, graduated, and worked my way up the chain to where I was able to pay off a new car and put down a huge down payment on a house. What was rigged?

I'll say it all day long, distribution of wealth played no part in my life. Opportunities aren't everywhere, but they are there. You can take them or complain about not being handed them.

Your whole life has been the way it has been because of the distribution of wealth.

 

[eBay Huckster]

In case you didn't see my article previously, 84% of Americans more than their parents did (adjusted for inflation)

Now how much of that 84% is making significantly more than the correspondent growth in wages for their quintile's cohort since their parents' generation... let's say, 1978?

(Or do you not have detailed information on hand to defend your positions in a meaningful way?)

 

[Captain Sparrow]

In my workplace, if my managers give us 2% or less of a raise each year (If you knew my type of work you'd find that hilarious), then they get higher raises.

CEO pay has exorbitantly increased beyond anywhere near the equivalent after inflation. Of course it affects you when the work you are producing is giving you less and your CEO more.

I'm sorry to hear that. Not every business functions that way though.

The point is that its very hard to argue "people just need to work harder" when we have a statistical trend like the one we're observing here. Opportunities may exist, but are there as many opportunities as there were forty years ago? Are those opportunities harder to access? Whats changing?

What's changing is 84% of us earn more than our parents did

You do know how Community College is financed right?

Unless it's by a private, 1% of the wealth, by invitation only, then what is the relevance here? Who doesn't have the opportunity to attend? Those with a GED only, and complain about the man holding them back?

I'm not saying you rigged the system, I'm saying you played a game designed against you and you prevailed. It still doesn't account for the people unlucky enough to not be able to get to play from the same starting position, and it doesn't account for the probably countless ways in which you could've done better but didn't because of external, er, "influences".

The game is rigged for everyone. I've just never been complacent to the idea that hey, if we just run through the maze designed by the top 1% like good little boys and girls, we may get the cheese at the end. Just because I ended up getting the cheese at the end doesn't mean I shouldn't question why there's a maze in the first place and why they're the ones designing it.

It's definitely not easy. However, the excuse where everyone isn't given a shot is way overused.

Yes, some people really do have it hard. At the same time, most people create their own problems. We all know a bunch of people that do that, so let's not kid our selves.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Money is used to buy politicians and control the message. The wealth gap is causing an influence gap. The bigger the gap, the less representative the government is.

Pretty damn simple really. We are no longer living in a democracy. We went to war for less than that. The USSR and China demonstrated that you can be an economic and military power house with a minority class that rules the rest while living like nobles. The US is now using that model.

 

[Partial Gamification]

I couldn't help myself, even with my medicore ms paint skills.

 

[The Technomancer]

It's definitely not easy. However, the excuse where everyone isn't given a shot is way overused.

Yes, some people really do have it hard. At the same time, most people create their own problems. We all know a bunch of people that do that, so let's not kid our selves.

Ah yes, falling back on anecdotal evidence as a means of explaining the behavior of 300 million people. Of course personal responsibility and hard work play roles. But its very difficult for me to look at the graphs posted right above and not think that something somewhere is fucked up. Notice all of the lines at the bottom.

 

[EatinOlives]

It's definitely not easy. However, the excuse where everyone isn't given a shot is way overused.

Yes, some people really do have it hard. At the same time, most people create their own problems. We all know a bunch of people that do that, so let's not kid our selves.

Considering the statement that you're referring to is pretty much factually true, I'm not sure what you mean by "overused". Are you saying a lot of people who say this are simply lazy and are just using that as an excuse?

 

[Captain Sparrow]

Ah yes, falling back on anecdotal evidence as a means of explaining the behavior of 300 million people.

Ah yes, countering anecdotal evidence with.......? Well played.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/11/84-percent-of-americans-are-richer-than

We are making more money. Again, too many people here aren't seeing the real problem here. It's our insane housing, medical, etc costs on top of increased discretionary spending.

 

[The Technomancer]

Ah yes, countering anecdotal evidence with.......? Well played.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/11/84-percent-of-americans-are-richer-than

We are making more money. Again, too many people here aren't seeing the real problem here. It's our insane housing, medical, etc costs on top of increased discretionary spending.

That article a.) doesn't say how much more people are earning (it could be $3,000 for all we know) and b.) says that actual social mobility is incredibly low.

 

[Captain Sparrow]

Ah yes, falling back on anecdotal evidence as a means of explaining the behavior of 300 million people. Of course personal responsibility and hard work play roles. But its very difficult for me to look at the graphs posted right above and not think that something somewhere is fucked up. Notice all of the lines at the bottom.

Here's a graph

CEOs are in charge of more profits than ever before. Look beyond the popular internet opinion. Is it really THAT absurd that they make more than they used to?

 

[eBay Huckster]

Ah yes, countering anecdotal evidence with.......? Well played.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/11/84-percent-of-americans-are-richer-than

Ah, so it's precisely as my post predicted: no detailed information about how much richer anyone is, just meaningless twaddle to point towards.

 

[Captain Sparrow]

Considering the statement that you're referring to is pretty much factually true, I'm not sure what you mean by "overused". Are you saying a lot of people who say this are simply lazy and are just using that as an excuse?

So I'd like some of these facts that explains why so much of this is factually true why people can't go to school.

 

[The Technomancer]

Here's a graph

CEOs are in charge of more profits than ever before. Look beyond the popular internet opinion. Is it really THAT absurd that they make more than they used to?

That they make more then they used to? No, its not. That their rate of income growth is exponentially greater then that of their workers? That's the ridiculous part. Why is all the increased profit only being shared at the top?

 

[Ether_Snake]

Here's a graph

CEOs are in charge of more profits than ever before. Look beyond the popular internet opinion. Is it really THAT absurd that they make more than they used to?

Workers are generating more wealth than ever before, is it THAT normal that the wealth gap has increased so massively? Are non-CEOs less deserving than in the past?

You're a troll. Or change your avatar.

 

[Captain Sparrow]

Ah, so it's precisely as my post predicted: no detailed information about how much richer anyone is, just meaningless twaddle to point towards.

Because how much richer has no importance to whatever argument you are trying to make WHATSOEVER.

The whole point of these 1% of the wealth sensationalist stories is trying to skew how pay is being taken away from the workers to be given to the CEO to where we are making less than we ever have. When we are actually making more than our parents did (adjusted for inflation).

Journalism these days is garbage. It's never about telling the true story. It's about how can we skew a story to get pageviews.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Workers are generating more money than ever before, is it THAT normal that the wealth gap has increased so massively? Are non-CEOs less deserving than the rest of society than in the past?

I'm kind of interested in seeing the data for the "top 20%" in those graphs shown excluding the upward weight of the top 1%, unless it already does this

Because how much richer has no importance to whatever argument you are trying to make WHATSOEVER

Fairly sure the entirety of multiple posts on this page alone (INCLUDING the ones immediately above each of your posts), if not the majority of this thread, have to do with the degree of enrichment of specific cohorts of the population, but keep fucking that chicken

 

[Captain Sparrow]

That they make more then they used to? No, its not. That their rate of income growth is exponentially greater then that of their workers? That's the ridiculous part. Why is all the increased profit only being shared at the top?

Workers are generating more wealth than ever before, is it THAT normal that the wealth gap has increased so massively? Are non-CEOs less deserving than in the past?

You're a troll. Or change your avatar.

Both of these replies are irrelevant to anything. The worker is still responsible for the same amount of work (yes slightly even more in some cases). The CEO is responsible for MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF PROFIT. Not the same job. Not the same skill. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

More money for a CEO in a growing corporation causing greater inequality =/= less money for a worker

Who ever said the workers should make in line with what the company makes? Do you think if a corporation makes 25% more profit, the workers should get 25% more pay? Do you think a CEO from 1950 handles the kind of business than Tim Cook does?

 

[pigeon]

We are making more money. Again, too many people here aren't seeing the real problem here. It's our insane housing, medical, etc costs on top of increased discretionary spending.

If the problem is really that people are spending more on necessities than the study isn't properly adjusted for inflation and is thus worthless. So your argument is basically that everybody is making more but everybody's also spending more on "discretionary spending." Which raises the question of what, exactly, is considered discretionary spending. Inflationary adjustment wouldn't properly account for an increased cost of living as a result of previously optional expenditures becoming essentially mandatory.

So I'd like some of these facts that explains why so much of this is factually true why people can't go to school.

The report that you offered us says that only 23% of this generation has a college education. What, exactly, is your theory as to why 77% of the population isn't going to college even though it's widely agreed that it's a vital step towards economic mobility? Are they all just lazy and stupid?

Both of these replies are irrelevant to anything. The worker is still responsible for the same amount of work (yes slightly even more in some cases). The CEO is responsible for way more.

You live in a fantasy world. What would make you think the CEO is doing more work? Any helpful charts for that claim?

Who ever said the workers should make in line with what the company makes?

They're the ones who make the money. Without workers, CEOs produce no wealth. Without CEOs, workers still produce wealth, albeit less efficiently. Why do CEOs deserve all the wealth produced?

 

[Captain Sparrow]

If the problem is really that people are spending more on necessities than the study isn't properly adjusted for inflation and is thus worthless. So your argument is basically that everybody is making more but everybody's also spending more on "discretionary spending." Which raises the question of what, exactly, is considered discretionary spending. Inflationary adjustment wouldn't properly account for an increased cost of living as a result of previously optional expenditures becoming essentially mandatory.

Not all of it is discretionary. I don't think anyone can argue that "necessities" have gone up in price. Medical costs alone are astronomical. At the same time, no one can also argue that we don't spend more on complete BS. Wages have gone up too though. At what point do we raise wages to a level that is sufficient to meet these high costs (without driving them up more)?

The report that you offered us says that only 23% of this generation has a college education. What, exactly, is your theory as to why 77% of the population isn't going to college even though it's widely agreed that it's a vital step towards economic mobility? Are they all just lazy and stupid?

Maybe I'm looking at it wrong. I'm the one looking for a theory why 77% of the population isn't going to college. Is 77% of the population that busy working (remember everyone, the real unemployment rate is probably much higher than reported, MIRITE?). Or is it because community college is too expensive?

You live in a fantasy world. What would make you think the CEO is doing more work? Any helpful charts for that claim?

My most recent charge already explains this.

Work =/= responsibility. Apple pays more to their CEO because he is responsibile for a significantly larger business than anyone else. Would you agree that Tim Cook deserves more pay than a CEO of a small business? On the same token, what about the workers for Apple and that small company? Do the Apple employees REALLY do that much more to justify significant higher wages?

They're the ones who make the money. Without workers, CEOs produce no wealth. Without CEOs, workers still produce wealth, albeit less efficiently. Why do CEOs deserve all the wealth produced?

I agree that your workers are extremely important, and need to be taken care of. Contrary to what you might take away from most of my points, I definitely side with driving the employee experience. I just don't believe most of the inequality opinions. Apple CEO vs baseline worker is a FAR different comparison than 20 years ago.

 

[CrushDance]

Wealth is a BS argument, and there are many ways to skew it. For example, everyone spends and saves differently.


Everyone has the right to go tanning, get a cell phone (every year), colorful cases for the phone, new car, new $200 jeanns, $5 mocha choca latte vanilla bean cream, cigarettes, hair color, tablets, video games, high speed internet, premium cable channels, and beer, to name a few.

So no, I am not suprised some people never amount to anything. You will never be able to help some people. Articles like the OP posted keep the entitlement justified.

Question:

1) What are the basics that everyone needs than? Did people need phones before we had them? Did people need computers before we had them? Did people need chemotherapy before we had it? Do the needs and ability to fit into a society not change over time? If not. Please, do list the the things that we should all have and never need beyond that.

 

[Captain Sparrow]

Question:

1) What are the basics that everyone needs than? Did people need phones before we had them? Did people need computers before we had them? Did people need chemotherapy before we had it? Do the needs and ability to fit into a society not change over time? If not. Please, do list the the things that we should all have and never need beyond that.

That is difficult to say, and everyone is different. Some "needs" have evolved over the years. Some have become bad habits. Credit card debt is relatively "new," and applies differently to everyone.

Speaking in generalities, are you trying to insinuate that we don't spend more on discretionary purchases than previous generations? Trying to nitpick me to find a hole in my logic for the sake of arguments is not the point.

I love the phone comparison. We used to keep one phone for years, shared by the family, with one (somewhat low) bill. Now each person needs their own phone, replaced almost annualy, the bill is significantly higher, we buy accessories for it, content for it. Is it really our employers problem that we want to spend more on things?

 

[CrushDance]

That is difficult to say, and everyone is different. Some "needs" have evolved over the years. Some have become bad habits. Credit card debt is relatively "new," and applies differently to everyone.

Speaking in generalities, are you trying to insinuate that we don't spend more on discretionary purchases than previous generations? Trying to nitpick me to find a hole in my logic for the sake of arguments is not the point.

I love the phone comparison. We used to keep one phone for years, shared by the family, with one (somewhat low) bill. Now each person needs their own phone, replaced almost annualy, the bill is significantly higher, we buy accessories for it, content for it. Is it really our employers problem that we want to spend more on things?

You said that people are buying non-essentials. I'm asking you what things are essential that people need and will never change as technology and the world changes. When I said phone, I'm talking about old school, not cellphones. Before we had phones, people used written mail most commonly. Do we *need* phones in 2012 or not? What will we need tomorrow that we haven't even contemplated about?

Is a cellphone a necessity in today's world?

 

[Captain Sparrow]

You said that people are buying non-essentials. I'm asking you what things are essential that people need and will never change as technology and the world changes. When I said phone, I'm talking about old school, not cellphones. Before we had phones, people used written mail most commonly. Do we *need* phones in 2012 or not? What will we need tomorrow that we haven't even contemplated about?

Is a cellphone a necessity in today's world?

Once again, the article was a discussion around pay, where the very bait of this story is to say we are making less, but we aren't. Now we are trying to make more excuses to point the finger in any way possible.

That is the end of that argument from me. I'm not looking to fill in anymore lines, and go into anymore non-relevant discussions to my point.

 

[CrushDance]

Once again, the article was a discussion around pay, where the very bait of this story is to say we are making less, but we aren't. Now we are trying to make more excuses to point the finger in any way possible.

That is the end of that argument from me. I'm not looking to fill in anymore lines, and go into anymore non-relevant discussions to my point.

It's completely relevant. Times change and the things needed for people to be able to keep pace do as well. You cannot have all these new things created and remain at the same level(s) that you were before. If you don't want to discuss it any-more, that's fine. But I sincerely disagree with your assertion that there is or ever will be a "These are the necessities" moment for anyone.

 

[pigeon]

Not all of it is discretionary. I don't think anyone can argue that "necessities" have gone up in price. Medical costs alone are astronomical. At the same time, no one can also argue that we don't spend more on complete BS. Wages have gone up too though. At what point do we raise wages to a level that is sufficient to meet these high costs (without driving them up more)?

You're missing my point, I think. The study says that the incomes are adjusted for inflation (as obviously the argument would be meaningless otherwise; it's trivial to show that we're making more on average in uninflated dollars than we were twenty years ago, but also irrelevant, because the dollars ARE inflated, and thus worth less). If you're arguing that the cost of necessities has risen faster than the adjustment for inflation then that means that the adjustment for inflation isn't correct -- because inflation is measured against the cost of necessities! So if you're right about that, the study's methodology is wrong, which means the conclusion is unjustified. We might be making more in practical terms, or we might not be; a study done with lousy methodology doesn't make any statement either way.

The alternative (the necessary alternative if we want to go by this study) is to assume that all of the additional expenditure we're talking about is completely discretionary, but as noted, that calls into question the classification of goods as discretionary versus mandatory.

Maybe I'm looking at it wrong. I'm the one looking for a theory why 77% of the population isn't going to college. Is 77% of the population that busy working (remember everyone, the real unemployment rate is probably much higher than reported, MIRITE?). Or is it because community college is too expensive?

Well, yeah, I mean, 50% of the population has 1% of the wealth, apparently, so it's not surprising that none of them can afford to go to college, right? Since 1986, college tuition has inflated at five times the official inflation rate. Unless people are making hugely more money than they used to be (and, even if we refer to the study, they aren't -- your gain is proportional to your quintile), more and more people are going to be locked out of it. And that doesn't even consider the large numbers of people for whom the public school system fails so comprehensively that it is impossible for them to go to college. My ex-girlfriend went to a high school where students with Hispanic last names were routinely put into ESL their first year. Of course, California college admission (and many if not most other colleges) require four years of high school English, and ESL doesn't qualify. Guess how many of them went to college?

Work =/= responsibility. Apple pays more to their CEO because he is responsibile for a significantly larger business than anyone else. Would you agree that Tim Cook deserves more pay than a CEO of a small business? On the same token, what about the workers for Apple and that small company? Do the Apple employees REALLY do that much more to justify significant higher wages?

All of the profit that Apple makes is wealth created by labor. Some of it is direct labor, some of it is hidden costs (such as health and wellbeing costs to employees in their Chinese factories). Shouldn't labor share at LEAST proportionately to the gain? A rising tide lifts all boats, right?

 

[Lagspike_exe]

But according to the free market, if an idea is good, someone will finance it anyway. Under that light, the investor is merely lucky to be the one providing the investment, since someone else would have otherwise provided the financing anyway, depriving him of a source of income. It is therefore obvious that the investor's share of the profit should be limited since it is merely compensation for being provided with an opportunity to grow his investment, not for providing capital that would have been provided anyway. If anything, the workers are selling a service to the investor in return for a share of profit. The workers are effectively the wealth creators.

Checkmate.

Except that you forgot that it takes intelligence to know whether to invest early into Facebook... Or Solyndra. And if free market regulates how money flows into new companies, why shouldn't free market regulate how much the investors get compensated for their risk? Besides, if the idea is that good and so many investors want it, it will increase the price of the shares, thus giving the start up more capital to work with.

Your position is similar to saying that people with ideas are just lucky to have figured out something first since someone else would have tought of it at one point in time, so they shouldn't really get that much money, as they aren't really doing anything.

Effectively, in real life, what matters is who has a cool idea and who wants to invest to make that idea happen. And, shockingly, those are the people that get paid the most. But keep dreaming of your socialist utopia.

 

[Dead Man]

Both of these replies are irrelevant to anything. The worker is still responsible for the same amount of work (yes slightly even more in some cases). The CEO is responsible for MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF PROFIT. Not the same job. Not the same skill. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

More money for a CEO in a growing corporation causing greater inequality =/= less money for a worker

Who ever said the workers should make in line with what the company makes? Do you think if a corporation makes 25% more profit, the workers should get 25% more pay? Do you think a CEO from 1950 handles the kind of business than Tim Cook does?

What the fuck sort of logical disconnect is this? Bloody hell. It's like you managed to ignore everything that contradicts your position in one post.

 

[The Technomancer]

Work =/= responsibility. Apple pays more to their CEO because he is responsibile for a significantly larger business than anyone else. Would you agree that Tim Cook deserves more pay than a CEO of a small business? On the same token, what about the workers for Apple and that small company? Do the Apple employees REALLY do that much more to justify significant higher wages?

I would not agree at all that Tim Cook has exponentially more responsibility then a similarly sized corporation from the 70s. The amount of responsibility of a CEO in charge of hundreds of people has increased. It has not increased that much, and no, I don't accept that seeing your profits skyrocket places so much responsibility on you that you and you alone deserve even more personal money. (you alone here meaning "a handful of people at the top of the organization")
Do you think that there weren't large multi-national corporations a few decades ago or something?

 

[Funky Papa]

The bigger a company is, the bigger the number of aids and lower executives is.

The notion of CEOs being some kind of Atlas holding the world for the plebs is hilariously misguided and could only be espoused by someone with absolutely no idea of the inner workings of a big business.

Big time CEOs usually live like fucking kings in comparison with their small companies counterparts. Middle and low level executives are usually the ones stuck in corporate HELL, working insane hours and being responsible of their departments but also for the fuckups of the higher ranks.

 

[Sulik2]

My father usually works 80 hours a week.

Legitimate question, why? Some extra money isn't worth giving yourself a heart attack.

 

[The Technomancer]

Legitimate question, why? Some extra money isn't worth giving yourself a heart attack.

Since he has total control over his own schedule it doesn't impact family time too much, but its pretty usual for him to be working from 8pm to midnight every night on top of his regular workday. We're not too happy either though, we worry about him sometimes. (It would be more accurate to say "60 is usual, 80 isn't uncommon")

 

[Deleted member 1235]

Question:

1) What are the basics that everyone needs than?

food
water
shelter
healthcare (how soon is a variable, but everyone will need it)

I would say are the base things.

The way for most of us to 'get rich' is by identifying all the shit we are marketed into buying, don't buy that shit and generate a net worth for yourself. Never live in debt, you can't be rich with a minus sign on your bank account, therefore never borrow or only do it for a house as this often makes more financial sense than renting.

Live within (or better, below) your means and start to generate extra money you don't need to live on. Then advantage your offspring. Give that something like 8 generations and if your family is smart, you'll probably produce a CEO one day.

these arguments are part greed on the CEOs part and part jealousy from the rest of us.

People can start living more like a CEO today by budgeting. Most CEOs are rich as shit because they are clever with money. the rest of us middle class either go up or down based in part (depending on promotions and so) on money decisions we make with our available cash. Ideally, a middle class guy should finish the game of life a few steps up on the ladder, by being shrewd with cash/business decisions and so forth.

a guy that starts out as an immigrant cleaning toilets, should be happy if he can finish up as a taxi driver with his own vehicle and hopefully a kid with a decent education that can apply for something non-manual.

CEOs probably start and the top couple steps of the ladder, have no debt to worry over, get that first house young etc.

 

[Kosmo]

Both of these replies are irrelevant to anything. The worker is still responsible for the same amount of work (yes slightly even more in some cases). The CEO is responsible for MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF PROFIT. Not the same job. Not the same skill. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

More money for a CEO in a growing corporation causing greater inequality =/= less money for a worker

Who ever said the workers should make in line with what the company makes? Do you think if a corporation makes 25% more profit, the workers should get 25% more pay? Do you think a CEO from 1950 handles the kind of business than Tim Cook does?

You will never win over a large portion of GAF with these arguments - they are simply blind to the fact that CEOs (not all, as there are bad apples in every bunch from CEO down to line worker) make decisions that are vastly more important - one of the best recent examples being Alan Mullaly. They refuse to admit that a decision that affects thousands of workers and billions of dollars is worth a lot more than putting a screw in a hole.

And I don't begrudge line workers (my brother is in the UAW at Ford), but what you point out about increasing pay 25% is a funny thing. This is what Ford was pushing for, and I think they eventually got, but the UAW mentality is "profits increased 25% this year, we want a 20% raise EVERY year. If you can't manage that, it's poor management on your part."

 

[Dash27]

I suppose it's not very hard to convince most people that things are rigged against them. It's comforting to think the people with more money than you got it because of some scheme or by nefarious methods while you, gosh darn it, are just working hard and trying to make a living.

A lot of that 50% is just the standard progression of people through their lives. When you're in school you have no "wealth". Just out of college too, no real wealth to speak of. You might be making good money but you havent had time to amass wealth: savings, property, investments. It's only later in life that you get the chance to build that to a significant degree.


On top of that, I'm not really too surprised to see that wealth is low for a certain segment of the population regardless of age. Based on my personal experience I've had more wealth than people I've worked with making as much or more than me. People who lived paycheck to paycheck. People who save exactly nothing and went out drinking every night or had the latest iphone, a nice apartment, sweet clothes... but didnt contribute a dime to their 401k. Didnt own anything of value. Had no savings or investments. Credit was cheap, people are dumb and live above their means.

 

[empty vessel]

In case you didn't see my article previously, 84% of Americans more than their parents did (adjusted for inflation).

I don't get this argument. People in the USSR could make the same argument in support of Communism. All you are doing is pointing to the fact that economic growth is occurring. We expect wages to rise. It's a basic given for any economic system at all that doesn't use labor as a buffer stock. If a majority of people see their real incomes fall over a generation, that country is an immense disaster. This statistic does not convey any meaningful information about out current economic outlook and whether it can be improved upon.

This is a far more relevant graph for that (as are those posted by Ether_Snake):

We are producing more, but those gains in production are not being seen by the typical American. See Ether_Snake's graphs to figure out where they are going. See also:

http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2012/03/15/the-richest-get-richer/

I'm kind of interested in seeing the data for the "top 20%" in those graphs shown excluding the upward weight of the top 1%, unless it already does this

It doesn't. The share of income going to the top 20% is flat if you take out the top 1% from it:

 

[Dash27]

This reminded me of an article I saw the other day:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/millionaires-in-the-making.html

People who have wealth work for it, they dont have to have crazy high paying jobs either. One couple was a teacher and stay at home mom.

 

[Dead Man]

I don't get this argument. People in the USSR could make the same argument in support of Communism. All you are doing is pointing to the fact that economic growth is occurring. We expect wages to rise. It's a basic given for any economic system at all that doesn't use labor as a buffer stock. If a majority of people see their real incomes fall over a generation, that country is an immense disaster. This statistic does not convey any meaningful information about out current economic outlook and whether it can be improved upon.

This is a far more relevant graph for that (as are those posted by Ether_Snake):

We are producing more, but those gains in production are not being seen by the typical American. See Ether_Snake's graphs to figure out where they are going. See also:

http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2012/03/15/the-richest-get-richer/



It doesn't. The share of income going to the top 20% is flat if you take out the top 1% from it:

Thanks for the graphs, always helps a pleb like me understand trends better than reading the numbers.

 

[phosphor112]

What the hell are you talking about? They voted in a president who is decidedly anti-business, or certainly moreso than the alternative candidate. Or are you an illuminati conspiracy theorist that thinks no matter what happens the elections are always predetermined?

What the hell are you talking about? They voted in a president who is decidedly anti-corporatist, or certainly more so than the alternative candidate. Or are you a republican conspiracy theorist that thinks no matter, as long as there is a democrat in office God will destroy us?

 

[The Technomancer]

This reminded me of an article I saw the other day:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/millionaires-in-the-making.html

People who have wealth work for it, they dont have to have crazy high paying jobs either. One couple was a teacher and stay at home mom.

There are two issues at debate here. The first is the idea that simply allowing one small segment of the population to control such an enormous swathe of the wealth is, plain and simple, a bad thing. Weather or not they "earned it" through legal and correct mechanisms is irrelevant if they shouldn't be allowed that much power in the first place (because wealth is power). That's one argument. I'm not sure if I'm entirely on board with it, but I agree with the general sentiment.

The other argument, and I'm differentiating them because they're getting mixed up by all sides at times in this thread, is that the people at the bottom are not receiving enough wealth proportional to the gains seen by the upper segment of the population. The argument is almost never "people who are wealthy/successful didn't work hard to get there". Let me repeat that: almost no-one, certainly not me, is saying that a significant portion of financially successful people got there by being lazy and not working. What is being said is that although those people are hard-working, although those people are intelligent, there are enormous numbers of hard-working and intelligent Americans who do not achieve that success because of problems with the system. Because of all the ways the system is stacked to make it easier for some hard working people to achieve success and harder for other hard-working people to achieve success.

This is almost indisputably backed up by the statistics on social mobility: in a functioning meritocracy social mobility in both directions should be very high as hard working people from every class rise and lazy people from every class fall. The fact that its not shows how entrenched wealth and success have become. I'm dead serious when I say that I would love for someone to present an honest argument that our current social mobility statistics are reconcilable with the idea that everyone has equal opportunity.

 

[MajorPain]

It blows my mind how quick people are to point the finger at Republicans but the truth is that most politicians today are bought out by big corporations funding their campaigns and pockets.

The only difference between Republicans and Democrats today is where they stand on values and moral issues.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Don't quote the Peter G Peterson Foundation.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Peter_Peterson

Peter Peterson (Peter G. Peterson) is a controversial Wall Street billionaire and former Nixon appointee who uses his wealth to underwrite PR campaigns against Social Security and other social safety net programs, hyping concerns about the federal deficit (although not targeting for budget cuts substantial military spending or other spending that benefits corporations).

He's behind some of the stupid ads with kids about "our huge national debt is evil".

 

[empty vessel]

Don't quote the Peter G Peterson Foundation.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Peter_Peterson

He's behind some of the stupid ads with kids about "our huge national debt is evil".

True, but the data from the graph (assuming you are referencing the third graph) is from the CBO.

 

[Sanky Panky]

On the individual level, I think the individual brought up in the right environment, with a sense of direction/purpose, or one that has the right supprt, can certainly thrive in this country. The key factor of production in capitalism is human capital/entrepreneurship. Land owners/Investors provide the financing for new projects, but their share is only a fraction of the potential entrepreneurs can make.

With that said, nobody can deny the wealth disparity brought up by the industrial revolution and later, supply-side economics. The short-term push for greater profits, the financial innovations, and the Fed being the #1 advocate for stock market growth, was all in the backs of debt and tax cuts for the wealthy. Trillions of dollars have been created out of thin air, and the crisis we have now, is because central governments are running out of tools to keep the assets at that level.

The data doesn't lie. Profits took front seat, while wages remained stagnant. The worker has no power against the mega corporations born since the industrial revolution, and unions do a piss poor job, because the leadership itself is human (aka greedy).

There is no end in sight to this. The one person that seemed different (Obama) is just another corporate hack.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

It doesn't. The share of income going to the top 20% is flat if you take out the top 1% from it:

The thing that blows my mind from that chart is that it measures INCOME...

 

[Partial Gamification]

The one person that seemed different (Obama) is just another corporate hack.

I think Obama's progressive "failiings" are from the compromises he tried to broker with the opposition. People's expectations of him got the better of their ideals for hope and change. I think from a pragmatic point-of-view, it is understandable why he has done what he has done. Dr. Jill Stein is the Green Party candidate and has an actual anti-abusive corporatism platform. She is well-spoken; and, if the Green party gets like 5% of the vote, it qualifies for federal funding in national elections. I have no idea who I will vote for.

 

[googleplex]

I started a minimum wage job in high school, went to community college while working full time, lived at home, graduated, and worked my way up the chain to where I was able to pay off a new car and put down a huge down payment on a house. What was rigged?

I'll say it all day long, distribution of wealth played no part in my life. Opportunities aren't everywhere, but they are there. You can take them or complain about not being handed them.

Who the fuck paid for the school you went to?
Who the fuck paid for the roads your where able to walk/drive to school and work in the car you bought?
Your able to have your home and not have to worry about roaming bands of marauders killing your and taking your shit because of the police and military infrastructure paid for by others!
who the fuck paid for maintain the infrastructure that allows you to have things like gas and electricity?

None of us live in a vacuum. No one including YOU, got to where they are by them selves. No one can get rich on their own. So stop with the boot strap pulling garbage.

 

[phosphor112]

Who the fuck paid for the school you went to?
Who the fuck paid for the roads your where able to walk/drive to school and work in the car you bought?
Your able to have your home and not have to worry about roaming bands of marauders killing your and taking your shit because of the police and military infrastructure paid for by others!
who the fuck paid for maintain the infrastructure that allows you to have things like gas and electricity?

None of us live in a vacuum. No one including YOU, got to where they are by them selves. No one can get rich on their own. So stop with the boot strap pulling garbage.

Stfu...... that makes too much sense.