The ever widening gap between the wealthy and everyone else... What can be done?

[Sematary]

I guess I'm a little befuddled on this issue. All you have to do is look at the news (middle class incomes down) (wealthy Americans are wealthier) (More people in poverty) etc... etc...
So what can be done about the disconnect?
I have NEVER subscribed to the trickle down economic theory of Reagan, etc... and I still don't. It's total bs. It is a
fallacy that has been proven wrong time and time again.

I also believe in the free market but it seems to me that the free market is failing in this arena.

So what, within reason, can be done to jump start the middle class income again? And what can the market do to change the great divide between rich and poor? Or is there nothing that can be done as we watch more and more of our nation become poverty stricken and more and more of our middle class disappear?

[The Free Hornet]

1 Eliminate the minimum wage (restore the lowest rungs of the prosperity ladder)
2 End all trade prohibitions (from medicines to prostitutes)
3 Disallow or curtail the government from loaning money (indebtness = poverty)
4 End the regulatory state (the smaller you are, the greater the relative effect)
5 End inflationary monetary policy, End the Fed (this is a 3% tax that benefits the bankers)


I also believe in the free market but it seems to me that the free market is failing in this arena.

What free market? Seriously. The free market is a concept that has been abandoned in favor of statism. So you blame... the free market?

[matt0611]

1 Eliminate the minimum wage (restore the lowest rungs of the prosperity ladder)
2 End all trade prohibitions (from medicines to prostitutes)
3 Disallow or curtail the government from loaning money (indebtness = poverty)
4 End the regulatory state (the smaller you are, the greater the relative effect)
5 End inflationary monetary policy, End the Fed (this is a 3% tax that benefits the bankers)



What free market? Seriously. The free market is a concept that has been abandoned in favor of statism. So you blame... the free market?

Yup, this, and lower taxes, decrease government spending, end the wars around the world, get the deficit under control (restores confidence), simplify tax code, get rid of a lot of unneeded regulations, etc

[CaptUSA]

See my signature. Believe in liberty and wealth will go to the deserving. The great thing about human nature is that nearly all people will strive to be deserving. Wealth will also flee the undeserving. So just because you're father's wealthy does not mean you'll keep it.

[Sematary]

All of those items you mention are great starts but the reality of the situation is that large corporations, their executives and the wealthy are retaining a larger and larger portion of the economic pie for themselves. Their employees are more and more frequently being required to work longer and harder without any additional pay increases. So to me, that would indicate that greed is the motivating factor in the increasingly deep divide between those who have and those who have not and those who have less. You can blame the government but that is the free market at work, not the government. The government is not forcing those employers to allow the real income of their employees to fall further and further behind.

[Exponent]

Roughly in line with everyone else: Big corporations can navigate the regulations, the lobbying, and all the other mess that the government creates. Small businesses have a harder time doing so. Very small businesses, the kind that are just one step up from ordinary employment to someone else (maybe only as a side-project even) barely even exist because they have a nearly impossible time navigating the mess.

Essentially, in our current market, it's either go big (if you even can), or go home (and remain, to varying degrees, a slave to your employer and/or government).

It does seem odd that nearly everyone seems to presume that we are dependent upon corporations or government agencies for jobs. "Gee, no one is hiring right now; there aren't any jobs available. Some corporation or gov agency needs to start hiring again or we're screwed!" No, each of us is capable of being productive and generating our own job (and maybe even a few jobs for our neighbors), if only we didn't have eight billion artificially imposed hurdles. That and if we trusted that we were capable of doing stuff on our own; our culture has been slowly losing that important element. We instead just expect to be given something to do.

[Sematary]

See my signature. Believe in liberty and wealth will go to the deserving. The great thing about human nature is that nearly all people will strive to be deserving. Wealth will also flee the undeserving. So just because you're father's wealthy does not mean you'll keep it.

There are millions upon millions of people in this country who work their tales off at thankless jobs on a daily basis. They are have seen their life savings eradicated by a stock market that is at the mercy of those who can afford to move millions of shares in an instant. They have gone without raises or with raises that don't keep up with inflation for decades now. How are they not deserving?
Do any of you who are spouting this stuff believe that greed at the highest levels plays any part in the overflowing levels of poverty or in the decimation of the middle class?
I am absolutely positive, as are most of you, that government and fed policy have had negative impacts on the middle class and the poor (especially where inflation is involved) but that isn't the only problem and it is not helpful to pretend that it is.

[erowe1]

Why should anything be done?

Is there some ideal size the gap between the wealthy and everyone else is supposed to be?

[Sematary]

It takes a special person to open and run a business. Something the majority of the human race cannot do. There are alot of risks inherent with creating a business and for the majority, the risks outweigh the benefits. You have to include the fear factor in what you just said. People are afraid of losing what they have worked so hard to achieve, even if what they achieved is no more than a middle income existence.
The solutions are never as simple as people make them out to be. Here is what I see as the answers to this thread:

1. Tell people to get off their asses and do something with their lives
2. Get the government out of the economy

My answers to those:

1. People aren't "given" jobs. They earn them by having the education/talent to be able to perform those jobs.

2. The government is not the only problem in the economy and I don't even think the overwhelming problem in the gap between the rich and everyone else

[HOLLYWOOD]

End Corporate Welfare of the Fascist State. End the crony designer club not Diners Club.

Last year... ALL incorporated businesses from the largest conglomerate to the smallest incorporated biz only contributed 8.9% of the US government's total revenue. Your concocted complexed tax crony code of political favoritism.

That's what needs to end... take the power of crony code away from the government at all levels and the troubles reduce or eliminate.

[erowe1]

2. The government is not the only problem in the economy and I don't even think the overwhelming problem in the gap between the rich and everyone else

The government is the only problem in the economy. And there is no overwhelming problem in a gap between the rich and everyone else.

[Sematary]

Something should be done because if this nation loses it's middle class then the economy truly is lost and the great recession will look like a blip in comparison to what will occur. The economy turns on the middle class. Their spending is the engine of our economy and if their ability to spend is destroyed then the economy will quickly follow suit.

[Sematary]

It must be nice to be able to disregard the efforts of an entire socio-economic group and or groups.

[erowe1]

Something should be done because if this nation loses it's middle class then the economy truly is lost and the great recession will look like a blip in comparison to what will occur.

Says who?

In the time that the rich have gotten richer, the poor have also gotten richer. So why should anyone care if the rich have gotten richer faster?

[Sematary]

All of those items you mention are great starts but the reality of the situation is that large corporations, their executives and the wealthy are retaining a larger and larger portion of the economic pie for themselves. Their employees are more and more frequently being required to work longer and harder without any additional pay increases. So to me, that would indicate that greed is the motivating factor in the increasingly deep divide between those who have and those who have not and those who have less. You can blame the government but that is the free market at work, not the government. The government is not forcing those employers to allow the real income of their employees to fall further and further behind.

[Sematary]

You're kidding, right? The poor have gotten richer? Not from where I sit. I'm not poor or rich but I guarantee, even with the full time job that I hold down and the two jobs my wife holds, that we have gotten nothing but less wealthy in the last decade or so.

[erowe1]

You're kidding, right? The poor have gotten richer? Not from where I sit. I'm not poor or rich but I guarantee, even with the full time job that I hold down and the two jobs my wife holds, that we have gotten nothing but less wealthy in the last decade or so.

http://reason.tv/video/show/living-large

If you went back in time and told someone 100 years ago what the "poor" of today live like, they would think that poverty had been eradicated.

[CaptUSA]

There are millions upon millions of people in this country who work their tales off at thankless jobs on a daily basis. They are have seen their life savings eradicated by a stock market that is at the mercy of those who can afford to move millions of shares in an instant. They have gone without raises or with raises that don't keep up with inflation for decades now. How are they not deserving?
Do any of you who are spouting this stuff believe that greed at the highest levels plays any part in the overflowing levels of poverty or in the decimation of the middle class?
I am absolutely positive, as are most of you, that government and fed policy have had negative impacts on the middle class and the poor (especially where inflation is involved) but that isn't the only problem and it is not helpful to pretend that it is.

I absolutely believe greed at the highest levels play a huge part in wealth distribution! We do not have a free market and haven't for awhile! If we did, wealth would go to the deserving. As it stands, the wealthy do everything in their power to retain that wealth - not by free exchange, but by use of the government. Take away that possiblity, and rely on the free market, and people will move through income brakcets based upon their efforts.

[CaptUSA]

Atheir executives and the wealthy are retaining a larger and larger portion of the economic pie for themselves.

I think we've found the problem in your logic. There's no "one" pie. The free market creates new pies. In the free market, the number of pies will continually increase.

[flightlesskiwi]

All of those items you mention are great starts but the reality of the situation is that large corporations, their executives and the wealthy are retaining a larger and larger portion of the economic pie for themselves. Their employees are more and more frequently being required to work longer and harder without any additional pay increases. So to me, that would indicate that greed is the motivating factor in the increasingly deep divide between those who have and those who have not and those who have less. You can blame the government but that is the free market at work, not the government. The government is not forcing those employers to allow the real income of their employees to fall further and further behind.

so the federal reserve (and thus the US government's monetary policy) and its systematic devaluation of the dollar has nothing to do with the employees dollars having less purchasing power?

this isn't the free market at work, this is central planning and crony corporatism in action.

[Exponent]

All of those items you mention are great starts but the reality of the situation is that large corporations, their executives and the wealthy are retaining a larger and larger portion of the economic pie for themselves. Their employees are more and more frequently being required to work longer and harder without any additional pay increases.
Employees would gladly leave their inconsiderate employers, if they felt confident enough to go out and be productive on their own. Greed is a huge problem, yes, but it would be dealt with effectively if our government and our economy didn't indirectly make people slaves to the job-makers. And you fix this by creating an environment where anyone and everyone can be a job-maker if they choose. You can't force people to not be greedy, because those that are greedy find clever ways to utilize their consolidated power to make the rules work for them rather than against them. The intention is honorable; the practical result rarely seems commendable.

[Acala]

All of those items you mention are great starts but the reality of the situation is that large corporations, their executives and the wealthy are retaining a larger and larger portion of the economic pie for themselves. Their employees are more and more frequently being required to work longer and harder without any additional pay increases. So to me, that would indicate that greed is the motivating factor in the increasingly deep divide between those who have and those who have not and those who have less. You can blame the government but that is the free market at work, not the government. The government is not forcing those employers to allow the real income of their employees to fall further and further behind.

If you are hoping for a shiny future in which people no longer are "greedy" or the "greedy" are somehow identified and neutralized by some ruling class of "non-greedy" supermen, you are in for a lifetime of disappointment. Instead you need to understand how greed works to benefit everyone WHEN it is divorced from government power.

I also suggest that you not look at the current corporate/fascist economy and assume a free market would look the same.

[Sematary]

I get it. You refuse to acknowledge that there is an issue.

[HOLLYWOOD]

You're kidding, right? The poor have gotten richer? Not from where I sit. I'm not poor or rich but I guarantee, even with the full time job that I hold down and the two jobs my wife holds, that we have gotten nothing but less wealthy in the last decade or so.JT Smith did a piece on this just yesterday on what's wrong in this nation today... here's a clip


SOCIAL WELFARE REFORM?

True example. 25 yr old mother of 5, annual social welfare govt benefits between, cash assist, food stamps ,sect 8 housing, utility assist, free cell phone, free home phone, free school subsidences, Medicaid =$47k for the year and NO TAXES.. SHE filed her tax returned and received a refund check for ............................$10,127.000...You tell me our tax code is kool, and the wealthy are skating..if so this chick is roller blading right thru life on everyone else's back

[Sematary]

so the federal reserve (and thus the US government's monetary policy) and its systematic devaluation of the dollar has nothing to do with the employees dollars having less purchasing power?

this isn't the free market at work, this is central planning and crony corporatism in action.

Those items definitely have an impact. Apparently not at the expense of the wealthy, however, only those who are not wealthy

[erowe1]

I get it. You refuse to acknowledge that there is an issue.

If you want me to think there's an issue, you could take it upon yourself to prove it.

How do you measure the gap between the rich and everyone else? Don't answer with an anecdote. Show me the number you're using.

Using whatever that metric is, what size is that gap now?

What size should that gap be? And how did you determine this?

[Sematary]

JT Smith did a piece on this just yesterday on what's wrong in this nation today... here's a clip

You are correct. There is a problem there. But those aren't the people I'm talking about. I'm talking about working poor. People who get out of bed every day and go to a job and struggle to provide and just get poorer by the day. What you just highlighted here shouldn't even be allowed.

[flightlesskiwi]

I get it. You refuse to acknowledge that there is an issue.

i get it. you refuse to acknowledge the real issue.

[CaptUSA]

Their employees are more and more frequently being required to work longer and harder without any additional pay increases.

I often hear this type of thing from those who haven't learned about economics. Here's the thing, you have labor and you sell it to your employer. If you are unhappy with the price you are receiving and you think your labor is worth more, then find a new buyer.

You're employer does not set the price of your labor. He agrees to the price you set. If he values your labor more than the price he's paying for it, he will continue to buy it. If not, you need to find a new buyer or increase the quality of your labor. In fact, in a tough economy, good labor is worth more than ever!

Now, this is what you can do now. But to affect the situation on a real scale, you need to have a huge field of potential buyers - that's where the wealthy are playing you. They pull all the strings they can utilizing the government to ensure that you cannot find other buyers. They call it competition - they don't like it. They use government to reduce competition for goods, services, and yes, labor.

[Sematary]

Here is where I have an issue:
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#look-at-the-wealth-gap-grow-4

Why? Because a specific socio-economic group in America is taking advantage of the rest of the nation to grow their personal wealth. If my apoplexy over this is unconcerning to you, I can't help that.
The way I see it, the unions came into existence due to a variety of reasons, including a disproportionate amount of the moneys generated by a business being turned to the bank accounts of the wealthy. So, my guess is that eventually, either the unions will make a come back or the poor will revolt. So I guess you're right. Justice will be served in one form or another.

[The Free Hornet]

All of those items you mention are great starts but the reality of the situation is that large corporations, their executives and the wealthy are retaining a larger and larger portion of the economic pie for themselves. Their employees are more and more frequently being required to work longer and harder without any additional pay increases. So to me, that would indicate that greed is the motivating factor in the increasingly deep divide between those who have and those who have not and those who have less. You can blame the government but that is the free market at work, not the government. The government is not forcing those employers to allow the real income of their employees to fall further and further behind.

There is no free market at work here. You are using words without understanding their meaning. Also, the wealthy are getting wiped out too. Stock market wealth has dissipated as has real estate wealth. Incomes have fallen. Gold, commodities, and some hedge funds have done well but these are limited to fewer people. As the economic pie shrinks due to the lack of a free market, you can expect the same trends to hold. Further, I expect you to learn nothing and to blame the free market without understanding what it is. As a concept, the free market lacks a standing army with which to defend itself.

[Sematary]

I often hear this type of thing from those who haven't learned about economics. Here's the thing, you have labor and you sell it to your employer. If you are unhappy with the price you are receiving and you think your labor is worth more, then find a new buyer.

You're employer does not set the price of your labor. He agrees to the price you set. If he values your labor more than the price he's paying for it, he will continue to buy it. If not, you need to find a new buyer or increase the quality of your labor. In fact, in a tough economy, good labor is worth more than ever!

Now, this is what you can do now. But to affect the situation on a real scale, you need to have a huge field of potential buyers - that's where the wealthy are playing you. They pull all the strings they can utilizing the government to ensure that you cannot find other buyers. They call it competition - they don't like it. They use government to reduce competition for goods, services, and yes, labor.

I can see that. And again, that is a specific socio-economic group taking advantage of another. It would be nice if the government treated everyone equally. I'm willing to bet that doing away with the income tax and replacing it with a flat or consumption tax would go a long way to providing that equality.

[Sematary]

I think we all know how this is going to end anyway, thanks to government regulation and FED interference in the economy, and it probably won't be good for many.

[erowe1]

Here is where I have an issue:
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#look-at-the-wealth-gap-grow-4

Why? Because a specific socio-economic group in America is taking advantage of the rest of the nation to grow their personal wealth.

Taking advantage of the rest of the nation to grow your wealth is what you're supposed to do. For most of us, doing that is called "having a job." If some people aren't doing that, then they can't blame the ones who are.

Also, you still need to answer the other part of my question. Using any of these metrics (and I don't really care which), how large should the wealth gap be? And how did you determine that?

[CaptUSA]

I can see that. And again, that is a specific socio-economic group taking advantage of another. It would be nice if the government treated everyone equally. I'm willing to bet that doing away with the income tax and replacing it with a flat or consumption tax would go a long way to providing that equality.

Thank you. I think you are beginning to understand. The day I first realized the concept of owning my own labor was the day I stopped working for someone else. I work for me and sell my labor. And as such, the quality of my labor has increased and the amount of money businessmen are willing to pay for it skyrocketed. You can do this too.

[HOLLYWOOD]

You are correct. There is a problem there. But those aren't the people I'm talking about. I'm talking about working poor. People who get out of bed every day and go to a job and struggle to provide and just get poorer by the day. What you just highlighted here shouldn't even be allowed.Kind of a broad stroke you painted there...

Is it because they decide to goof off in school or not go to school or not go to college, etc? Or a shitty mandated schooling system by government? Or government theft? Or Federal Reserve Inflation? Or Government Induced Inflation? Or Regulations? Or Too Many and Stiffing Laws? Or government Fascisim? Or whatever... there's so many variables, but the source of problems always ground zero with Government Fraud, Waste, and Abuse

Everyone would be wealthier if not for corrupt government intervention and the associated layers of fraud.

But there's more votes at the lower incomes in this nation and the DWTS/American Idol populist love giving away the long term keys to prosperity for a short term welfare state of crumbs.

It's government that causes the poor to remain poor. It's government intervention and crony policies that have the nation poor right now.

Americans cannot think past next year and can't remember last year.

[Byrgen]

There are millions upon millions of people in this country who work their tales off at thankless jobs on a daily basis. They are have seen their life savings eradicated by a stock market that is at the mercy of those who can afford to move millions of shares in an instant. They have gone without raises or with raises that don't keep up with inflation for decades now. How are they not deserving?
Do any of you who are spouting this stuff believe that greed at the highest levels plays any part in the overflowing levels of poverty or in the decimation of the middle class?
I am absolutely positive, as are most of you, that government and fed policy have had negative impacts on the middle class and the poor (especially where inflation is involved) but that isn't the only problem and it is not helpful to pretend that it is.

Yes, that is the only problem. The fed causes wealth to "trickle up" over time, that's what it was designed to do. End it and the income gap will close, there will be less mega-corporations, and more small businesses and self-employed individuals imho.

[The Free Hornet]

The way I see it, the unions came into existence due to a variety of reasons, including a disproportionate amount of the moneys generated by a business being turned to the bank accounts of the wealthy. So, my guess is that eventually, either the unions will make a come back or the poor will revolt. So I guess you're right. Justice will be served in one form or another.

Unions serve at least four purposes.

1. Voluntary negotiations with employers (good)
2. Coerced negotiations with employers (bad)
3. Keeping incompetent workers from ruining their reputation (good)
4. Keeping competent workers from working, often at lower prices or taking their hours (bad)

The pro-labor laws and NLRB have enshrined the bad aspects (2 and 4) which displaces the use of the good aspects (1 and 3). Unions have been around a long time in the form of guilds. It is good to know that the blacksmith will make a good horseshoe but it is bad if the local magistrate disallows competition. Your words suggests you think in terms of groups - the wealthy, employers, employees, unions - rather than understanding the concepts which should govern everybody's interactions.

[Sematary]

I absolutely believe greed at the highest levels play a huge part in wealth distribution! We do not have a free market and haven't for awhile! If we did, wealth would go to the deserving. As it stands, the wealthy do everything in their power to retain that wealth - not by free exchange, but by use of the government. Take away that possiblity, and rely on the free market, and people will move through income brakcets based upon their efforts.

I would like to believe that is true but if history serves, the 19th century industrial period (a time when government interference in the free market was relatively minimal) was a time when the poor got f***ed by the wealthy. Perhaps my memory serves me wrong.

[The Midnight Ride]

It is our destructive economic policies that have caused the widening of wealth. Since 1971 (everyone here knows what happened), prices have outrisen wages by a 2:1 margin. There is your discrepancy. The rich can continue to attain a high standard of living while the middle and lower class has to be more calculated in their expenditures because they do not possess the purchasing power they once did.

[Sematary]

Kind of a broad stroke you painted there...

Is it because they decide to goof off in school or not go to school or not go to college, etc? Or a shitty mandated schooling system by government? Or government theft? Or Federal Reserve Inflation? Or Government Induced Inflation? Or Regulations? Or Too Many and Stiffing Laws? Or government Fascisim? Or whatever... there's so many variables, but the source of problems always ground zero with Government Fraud, Waste, and Abuse

Everyone would be wealthier if not for corrupt government intervention and the associated layers of fraud.

But there's more votes at the lower incomes in this nation and the DWTS/American Idol populist love giving away the long term keys to prosperity for a short term welfare state of crumbs.

It's government that causes the poor to remain poor. It's government intervention and crony policies that have the nation poor right now.

Americans cannot think past next year and can't remember last year.

Ya, Americans reap the "benefits" of a government education. /sarcasm

[erowe1]

I would like to believe that is true but if history serves, the 19th century industrial period (a time when government interference in the free market was relatively minimal) was a time when the poor got f***ed by the wealthy. Perhaps my memory serves me wrong.

Your memory definitely serves you wrong. That period had an enormous and rapid economic expansion that helped all groups. Did some get richer faster than others? Probably. But the real question is why anyone would think that's a bad thing.

[Acala]

Here is where I have an issue:
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#look-at-the-wealth-gap-grow-4

Why? Because a specific socio-economic group in America is taking advantage of the rest of the nation to grow their personal wealth. If my apoplexy over this is unconcerning to you, I can't help that.
The way I see it, the unions came into existence due to a variety of reasons, including a disproportionate amount of the moneys generated by a business being turned to the bank accounts of the wealthy. So, my guess is that eventually, either the unions will make a come back or the poor will revolt. So I guess you're right. Justice will be served in one form or another.

I have never been a big fan of unions. And I actively oppose them using government force. However, the very best defense I have ever heard for the rise of unionism was as a counter to the rise of corporatism. Of course the result was union bosses using government-granted powers for enriching themselves and their members at the expense of everyone else - just like the corporations had done. Lol. When prisoners riot and take over a prison the first thing they do is elect a "warden".

[Sematary]

Unions serve at least four purposes.

1. Voluntary negotiations with employers (good)
2. Coerced negotiations with employers (bad)
3. Keeping incompetent workers from ruining their reputation (good)
4. Keeping competent workers from working, often at lower prices or taking their hours (bad)

The pro-labor laws and NLRB have enshrined the bad aspects (2 and 4) which displaces the use of the good aspects (1 and 3). Unions have been around a long time in the form of guilds. It is good to know that the blacksmith will make a good horseshoe but it is bad if the local magistrate disallows competition. Your words suggests you think in terms of groups - the wealthy, employers, employees, unions - rather than understanding the concepts which should govern everybody's interactions.

The world is made up of groups and it is groups that interact on these scales. There are very few times where employees (for instance) negotiate their wages on an individual basis unless they are contract employees.

[erowe1]

I have never been a big fan of unions. And I actively oppose them using government force. However, the very best defense I have ever heard for the rise of unionism was as a counter to the rise of corporatism. Of course the result was union bosses using government-granted powers for enriching themselves and their members at the expense of everyone else - just like the corporations had done. Lol. When prisoners riot and take over a prison the first thing they do is elect a "warden".

Unionism isn't a counter to corporatism. The two things are conjoined twins. Where one goes, the other goes with it.

[mczerone]

I guess I'm a little befuddled on this issue. All you have to do is look at the news (middle class incomes down) (wealthy Americans are wealthier) (More people in poverty) etc... etc...
So what can be done about the disconnect?
I have NEVER subscribed to the trickle down economic theory of Reagan, etc... and I still don't. It's total bs. It is a
fallacy that has been proven wrong time and time again.

I also believe in the free market but it seems to me that the free market is failing in this arena.

So what, within reason, can be done to jump start the middle class income again? And what can the market do to change the great divide between rich and poor? Or is there nothing that can be done as we watch more and more of our nation become poverty stricken and more and more of our middle class disappear?

I wanted to contest this "trickle down" nonsense. Free market wealth redistribution IS NOT Reagan's trickle down redistribution.

The free market would redistribute wealth from everyone, rich and poor, to the producers, in exchange for what the purchasers find worthy. No one loses value ex ante. It allows the poorest in the world to benefit IMMEDIATELY from devising a useful service or product.

Trickle-down economics is just fascism, putting favored rich people as the first in line to govt money and forcing the poor to come to them for overpriced and low quatlity goods and services that they probably can't get from other providers or supply on their own. Of course this doesn't work, but it is in no way indicative of who the freed market would work.

[CaptUSA]

There are very few times where employees (for instance) negotiate their wages on an individual basis unless they are contract employees.WHAT?!

You're kidding, right?! You had better be negotiatiing the price you're selling for your labor! Unless, you have a union doing that for you.

Personally, I've always gotten a better deal negotiating for myself.

[Sematary]

Your memory definitely serves you wrong. That period had an enormous and rapid economic expansion that helped all groups. Did some get richer faster than others? Probably. But the real question is why anyone would think that's a bad thing.

Little history lesson for you.
I own an old mill house in New England.
The purpose of the mill house at it's inception was for employers to enslave employees. The mills, knowing that they held the throat of the local economy, "rented" the mill houses to their employees and families at a cost that effectively enslaved the employee because the charges made to the employee regularly outstripped their incomes. While relatively uncommon today, this practice still occurs. So I'm pretty sure my memory serves me correctly. Perhaps, in one sense, the employees displayed a higher income than if they had remained in agriculture or unemployed or working for the local blacksmith, but in a REAL sense, they were poorer than ever and the free market encouraged that behavior. I might also remind you that it was during that period that child labor was used to produce products because the owners of the industries could pay them less than adults and realize a higher profit.

[erowe1]

Little history lesson for you.
I own an old mill house in New England.
The purpose of the mill house at it's inception was for employers to enslave employees. The mills, knowing that they held the throat of the local economy, "rented" the mill houses to their employees and families at a cost that effectively enslaved the employee because the charges made to the employee regularly outstripped their incomes. While relatively uncommon today, this practice still occurs. So I'm pretty sure my memory serves me correctly. Perhaps, in one sense, the employees displayed a higher income than if they had remained in agriculture or unemployed or working for the local blacksmith, but in a REAL sense, they were poorer than ever and the free market encouraged that behavior. I might also remind you that it was during that period that child labor was used to produce products because the owners of the industries could pay them less than adults and realize a higher profit.

What does this have to do with industrialization in the 19th century?

Also, on what do you base your claim "in a REAL sense, they were poorer than ever"? It looks to me like you made it up.

[Sematary]

If you apply for a position, there is generally a wage range that is available to you based on experience, education, etc... There is no "negotiating" going on. And, in economic times such as these, with unemployment so high, the employers hold most of the cards. Why should they pay more or hire more people when they can simply ask more of the employees they have, knowing that their prospects for finding other employment are so bad?

[Sematary]

What does this have to do with industrialization in the 19th century?

It has to do with your statement that it helped all groups. It did not. It helped those who held the chains of industry and enslaved those who worked for them. And that was DURING a free market period. The fact is, the wealthy (with some exceptions) will ALWAYS take advantage of the rest of society for their own gain whether it is through the free market or through manipulation of the laws and regulations set forth by the government.
There IS a real problem in this country with the income and wealth gap. It is unhealthy for the economy as a whole but you are apparently not willing to acknowledge this basic fact.

[erowe1]

Why should they pay more or hire more people when they can simply ask more of the employees they have, knowing that their prospects for finding other employment are so bad?

They shouldn't. They should offer as little as they possibly can for the level of productivity they get in exchange for those wages. Meanwhile, the applicants should demand as much as they possibly can for the labor they're selling.

Whenever an employee gets hired, it is at a price that both parties agree on.

This process is called "negotiation."

[erowe1]

It has to do with your statement that it helped all groups. It did not.
Prove it.



There IS a real problem in this country with the income and wealth gap. It is unhealthy for the economy as a whole
Prove it.

[Sematary]

Prove it.

You did not disagree that bonded slavery existed in the 19th century or that children were used to maximize the profits of the industrialists. You didn't disagree because it's fact. Any person can easily check that out. So why not prove your statement. You can't because it certainly didn't.


Prove it.

Do you know what has led to virtually ALL revolutions - the French Revolution for instance? The gap between rich and poor. Even now, the revolutions occurring in the middle east are happening due to poverty. All the proof you need is in the history of the human race. Any time a society gets to a point where the haves have it all and everyone else is left in the dust, revolution occurs. The widening wealth gap is a concern because it WILL be the catalyst for revolution in this nation as well if left untended.

[erowe1]

You did not disagree that bonded slavery existed in the 19th century or that children were used to maximize the profits of the industrialists. You didn't disagree because it's fact. Any person can easily check that out. So why not prove your statement. You can't because it certainly didn't.
You never mentioned bonded slavery in the 19th century or anything else about the 19th century in the post I replied to. If you have something to say about the 19th century to back up your claim that the poor got poorer in it, please do.



Do you know what has led to virtually ALL revolutions - the French Revolution for instance? The gap between rich and poor. Even now, the revolutions occurring in the middle east are happening due to poverty. All the proof you need is in the history of the human race. Any time a society gets to a point where the haves have it all and everyone else is left in the dust, revolution occurs. The widening wealth gap is a concern because it WILL be the catalyst for revolution in this nation as well if left untended.
Which is it? Is it because of the gap between the rich and the poor? Or is it because of poverty? It can't be both.

Also, why do I keep getting the feeling that almost everything you say in all of your posts is something you just plain made up?

[CaptUSA]

If you apply for a position, there is generally a wage range that is available to you based on experience, education, etc... There is no "negotiating" going on. And, in economic times such as these, with unemployment so high, the employers hold most of the cards. Why should they pay more or hire more people when they can simply ask more of the employees they have, knowing that their prospects for finding other employment are so bad?

You cannot work anywhere these days without agreeing to the price you're being paid. If you don't negotiate the price, you're a fool. And yes, there is a general wage range that an employer is willing to pay - that's because of how much value that position provides to the employer. He's not going to pay you $50k a year if he's only getting $40K in value. However, in times of high unemployment, employers do NOT hold all the cards. If your labor is valued enough, employers will pay for it.

[Sematary]

You never mentioned bonded slavery in the 19th century or anything else about the 19th century in the post I replied to. If you have something to say about the 19th century to back up your claim that the poor got poorer in it, please do.


Which is it? Is it because of the gap between the rich and the poor? Or is it because of poverty? It can't be both.

Also, why do I keep getting the feeling that almost everything you say in all of your posts is something you just plain made up?

One is the cause of the other.
I don't have the energy for this discussion any longer. You aren't reading my posts thoroughly so I'm attempting to rebutt something you haven't even bothered reading. I obviously DID mention bonded slavery and you obviously didn't bother reading the post or you would have seen it.

Here are the basic facts.


1. There is a widening gap between the wealthy and everyone else.

2. This gap is unhealthy for the economy - all the proof you need is in the current state of the economy

3. As more people fall into poverty, the possibility of revolution increases. There is a tipping point and if nothing is done to correct the inequality in wealth distribution (no, not social distribution of wealth through government programs) then the inevitability of revolution will continue to increase until the tipping point is reached.

Feel free to discuss any or all of these points and point out the failing in the logic. Or perhaps you would like to disagree and show how impoverished citizens don't rebel?

Perhaps you'd like to show how wealth inequality on this scale is HEALTHY for the economy.

Or, just for fun, you could prove there isn't a growing divide between the wealthy and everyone else.

[Travlyr]

I guess I'm a little befuddled on this issue. All you have to do is look at the news (middle class incomes down) (wealthy Americans are wealthier) (More people in poverty) etc... etc...
So what can be done about the disconnect?
I have NEVER subscribed to the trickle down economic theory of Reagan, etc... and I still don't. It's total bs. It is a
fallacy that has been proven wrong time and time again.

I also believe in the free market but it seems to me that the free market is failing in this arena.

So what, within reason, can be done to jump start the middle class income again? And what can the market do to change the great divide between rich and poor? Or is there nothing that can be done as we watch more and more of our nation become poverty stricken and more and more of our middle class disappear?


Eliminate legal tender laws
Eliminate the income tax
Eliminate government schools
Allow the free-market to operate by ending licenses on individuals, business regulations, and let contract law settle disputes
Allow a lottery for individuals to homestead all the available federal lands
Legalize industrial hemp
Eliminate property taxes

[Sematary]

You cannot work anywhere these days without agreeing to the price you're being paid. If you don't negotiate the price, you're a fool. And yes, there is a general wage range that an employer is willing to pay - that's because of how much value that position provides to the employer. He's not going to pay you $50k a year if he's only getting $40K in value. However, in times of high unemployment, employers do NOT hold all the cards. If your labor is valued enough, employers will pay for it.

When was the last time you had to search for a job? There are THOUSANDS of applicants for each position and many people are being forced through circumstances of the economy to "settle" for jobs that pay far less than what they used to make. That is the reality of our current economic condition. If you have a truly unique or remarkable ability/education/talent, then yes, you can negotiate your position but that does not describe the majority of workers.

[Sematary]

Eliminate legal tender laws



I can get along with this but not sure how it would help the current situation. More importantly, it isn't going to happen in our lifetimes and I like to deal with reality.



Eliminate the income tax


The government must still operate to a degree within the constitution so what would you replace it with? And, again, not going to happen but it's a nice dream.



Eliminate government schools



Again, a nice dream but not going to happen and I'm not sure how that would impact the wealthy/poor gap



Allow the free-market to operate by ending licenses on individuals, business regulations, and let contract law settle disputes



How would this impact the wealth distribution gap we are currently seeing?



Allow a lottery for individuals to homestead all the available federal lands


Some federal lands have been procured for the enjoyment of future generations (state parks, etc...) And, if I'm not mistaken, homestead laws still exist in some areas of the nation.



Legalize industrial hemp


While I agree this should be done, how will it positively impact what this discussion is about?



Eliminate property taxes


What should towns and cities put place to replace the lost income necessary to run those governments?

[CaptUSA]

When was the last time you had to search for a job? There are THOUSANDS of applicants for each position and many people are being forced through circumstances of the economy to "settle" for jobs that pay far less than what they used to make. That is the reality of our current economic condition. If you have a truly unique or remarkable ability/education/talent, then yes, you can negotiate your position but that does not describe the majority of workers.
Sematary, I'm really sorry you feel this way. I was trying to give you the key to your own success. Do not allow someone else to dictate the price you will be paid for your labor - you OWN it.

I switched companies a couple of years ago and things were still in bad shape then. But I was able to demonstrate my value to my current employer and they jumped to hire me - then I negotiated what I think is a fair salary. I re-negotiate my salary every year based upon the new value I am providing. I'm fortunate, in that I have an employer that is working with me to increase my value - we both benefit from the deal.

I used to feel the way you do. I'll tell you my story if it helps. Less than 10 years ago, I took a job on a loading dock making $8/hr. Once I realized the key I'm giving you, I negotiated a $2/hr increase. Then they gave me a new position, and then another and another, then I started moving from company to company once my worth exceeded what my employers were willing to pay. In less than 10 years, I've more than quadrupled my salary with no education and no real special skills (except for a keen understanding of how to provide value to an employer). You can do this, but you need to learn economics.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

I guess I'm a little befuddled on this issue. All you have to do is look at the news (middle class incomes down) (wealthy Americans are wealthier) (More people in poverty) etc... etc...
So what can be done about the disconnect?
I have NEVER subscribed to the trickle down economic theory of Reagan, etc... and I still don't. It's total bs. It is a
fallacy that has been proven wrong time and time again.

I also believe in the free market but it seems to me that the free market is failing in this arena.

So what, within reason, can be done to jump start the middle class income again? And what can the market do to change the great divide between rich and poor? Or is there nothing that can be done as we watch more and more of our nation become poverty stricken and more and more of our middle class disappear?

Define "within reason"...

For example eliminating the Federal income tax is within reason for me and would help middle class people retain their wealth.

But overall to your general question--Why is there a need to change the "great divide" between the wealthy and the poor? Hasn't there always been super-rich and will this ever end? Even under systems that tried to stop it, like communism, there was still an elite super-rich class.

Reducing Government/taxes is the best answer to reducing this gap and of course I want this because it would improve my middle class lifestyle.

[Sematary]

Sematary, I'm really sorry you feel this way. I was trying to give you the key to your own success. Do not allow someone else to dictate the price you will be paid for your labor - you OWN it.

I switched companies a couple of years ago and things were still in bad shape then. But I was able to demonstrate my value to my current employer and they jumped to hire me - then I negotiated what I think is a fair salary. I re-negotiate my salary every year based upon the new value I am providing. I'm fortunate, in that I have an employer that is working with me to increase my value - we both benefit from the deal.

I used to feel the way you do. I'll tell you my story if it helps. Less than 10 years ago, I took a job on a loading dock making $8/hr. Once I realized the key I'm giving you, I negotiated a $2/hr increase. Then they gave me a new position, and then another and another, then I started moving from company to company once my worth exceeded what my employers were willing to pay. In less than 10 years, I've more than quadrupled my salary with no education and no real special skills (except for a keen understanding of how to provide value to an employer). You can do this, but you need to learn economics.

Well, you definitely have a lesson to teach.
Currently (as I approach my 50th birthday) I am in the final throes of completing a second Associates degree (this one in computer networking). I have high hopes that this increased education in a specific field will allow me to match up with the right employer and if not, strike out on my own as an independent contractor in the field.

This thread, of course, is not about me, but the about the impact of the widening wealth gap in America. I don't think there is any real debate that there is an unhealthy level of wealth gap in America and indeed, around the world.
I think most people would tell you that the golden age of the middle class (the 1950's) was the reason our economy boomed and the demise of the middle class will be it's downfall.

[Sematary]

Define "within reason"...

For example eliminating the Federal income tax is within reason for me and would help middle class people retain their wealth.

But overall to your general question--Why is there a need to change the "great divide" between the wealthy and the poor? Hasn't there always been super-rich and will this ever end? Even under systems that tried to stop it, like communism, there was still an elite super-rich class.

Reducing Government/taxes is the best answer to reducing this gap and of course I want this because it would improve my middle class lifestyle.

There has always been a gap and that's understandable but I think history is replete with examples where the gap became so cavernous that it ended in revolt and revolution. Perhaps what I'm attempting to define is that there is a "healthy" area where the wealthy are of course still wealthy but where the rest of the population is still enjoying a decent standard of living and not seeing it decrease on a near daily basis.

[mczerone]

It has to do with your statement that it helped all groups. It did not. It helped those who held the chains of industry and enslaved those who worked for them. And that was DURING a free market period. The fact is, the wealthy (with some exceptions) will ALWAYS take advantage of the rest of society for their own gain whether it is through the free market or through manipulation of the laws and regulations set forth by the government.
There IS a real problem in this country with the income and wealth gap. It is unhealthy for the economy as a whole but you are apparently not willing to acknowledge this basic fact.

So what do you choose, the free market or govt? I think we can prove that the free market will help everyone gain a more upwardly mobile position, ESPECIALLY the poor, while the govt, limited or otherwise, will always distort markets to favor the already rich.

Without Govt, there is no power in money. Money is just a pile of stuff like lamps or shoes without the regulatory and subsidy state.

In every freed market transaction, all parties benefit.

[Sematary]

So what do you choose, the free market or govt? I think we can prove that the free market will help everyone gain a more upwardly mobile position, ESPECIALLY the poor, while the govt, limited or otherwise, will always distort markets to favor the already rich.

Without Govt, there is no power in money. Money is just a pile of stuff like lamps or shoes without the regulatory and subsidy state.

In every freed market transaction, all parties benefit.

I think that a healthy society will see a free market intermingled with some regulation. For instance, I would hate to see what our ecology would be like today if the government had not taken steps in the 70's to stem pollution of all types.

[erowe1]

You aren't reading my posts thoroughly so I'm attempting to rebutt something you haven't even bothered reading.

I am. But you're not supporting anything you say with any evidence. You're just repeating standard socialist talking points and pretending they're self-evident.

[CaptUSA]

This thread, of course, is not about me, but the about the impact of the widening wealth gap in America.

This thread is about your misunderstanding of the reasons for this divide. In order to understand the macro aspect, it helps to comprehend the micro.
You think this divide is caused by greed, but we're explaining that 1. that's not a bad thing if the divide is between those who deserve it and those who do not. and 2. the way to make things fair is to get government out of the equation.

[Brian4Liberty]

If you went back in time and told someone 100 years ago what the "poor" of today live like, they would think that poverty had been eradicated.

Advances in technology are not necessarily a sign of wealth or happiness. And is having a government that provides free food, housing and medical care to the poor a good idea in the long run?

"there are now almost 46 million people in the United States on food stamps" (http://news.yahoo.com/usa-becomes-food-stamp-nation-sustainable-160645036.html)


I often hear this type of thing from those who haven't learned about economics. Here's the thing, you have labor and you sell it to your employer. If you are unhappy with the price you are receiving and you think your labor is worth more, then find a new buyer.

You're employer does not set the price of your labor. He agrees to the price you set. If he values your labor more than the price he's paying for it, he will continue to buy it. If not, you need to find a new buyer or increase the quality of your labor.

The most basic rule of economics is supply and demand, which at any particular instant in time, is nearly the only rule*. Growth and recession happen over time. Money supply is created or destroyed over time.

Supply and demand is always applicable to labor. Globalists like Alan Greenspan have confessed that a key parameter that they manipulated in the economy was increasing the supply of labor. Unlimited immigration. Outsourcing. It saved most employers some money. It saved the largest, crony, international employers the most money. But the result for the common working person has not been pretty. Each laborer has lost some of his value. He can not sell himself for as much as he used to.

(*There is another rule that applies to negotiations, which I will describe as bullion vs. numismatic value. Some workers are junk silver, some are rare coins. But even with rare workers, Alan Greenspan reached into the old banker bag of tricks, and found "a vast unknown store of rare coins, available to the labor pool now.") ;)


The way I see it, the unions came into existence due to a variety of reasons, including a disproportionate amount of the moneys generated by a business being turned to the bank accounts of the wealthy.

When there is more demand for workers than supply, there is no need for Unions. People can negotiate the best rate for their efforts.


If you apply for a position, there is generally a wage range that is available to you based on experience, education, etc... There is no "negotiating" going on. And, in economic times such as these, with unemployment so high, the employers hold most of the cards. Why should they pay more or hire more people when they can simply ask more of the employees they have, knowing that their prospects for finding other employment are so bad?

Bingo!

The main negotiating that takes place is not between the employer and employee, instead it's in a smoky backroom between corporatists and politicians. They decide how much the government will pitch in to make up for low wages. The results are free food, housing and medical care provided by the government...

[mczerone]

There has always been a gap and that's understandable but I think history is replete with examples where the gap became so cavernous that it ended in revolt and revolution. Perhaps what I'm attempting to define is that there is a "healthy" area where the wealthy are of course still wealthy but where the rest of the population is still enjoying a decent standard of living and not seeing it decrease on a near daily basis.

Revolt or revolution against whom or what? There was always a power structure of govt over those "free markets" you cite.

I'd say that there is room in the libertarian world for a voluntary uprising against a massively rich man who is being "unfair" in his dealings, but this could be either non-violent, or justifiably violent. But they would be acts of justice against specific bad-actors, not knee-jerk reactions against "the rich" or "the powerful" classes.

Have you taken these economic debates to mises.org? I'm sure you could find a satisfactory answer there, if you're truly looking for a debate.

[erowe1]

When was the last time you had to search for a job? There are THOUSANDS of applicants for each position and many people are being forced through circumstances of the economy to "settle" for jobs that pay far less than what they used to make. That is the reality of our current economic condition. If you have a truly unique or remarkable ability/education/talent, then yes, you can negotiate your position but that does not describe the majority of workers.

This is all because of the government.

If the government would stop interfering and just allow all applicants to negotiate their wages down to however low they need to, rather than forcing them to ask for a minimum wage, then everybody would have the negotiating power they need to be employed.

[erowe1]

Advances in technology are not necessarily a sign of wealth or happiness.

Who said anything about happiness?

The issue was wealth, and in terms of wealth, there can be no disputing that today's poor are wealthier than the poor 100 years ago were. Their wages also go a lot further than they used to.

[mczerone]

I think that a healthy society will see a free market intermingled with some regulation. For instance, I would hate to see what our ecology would be like today if the government had not taken steps in the 70's to stem pollution of all types.

I'd hate to see what our ecology would be like if govts hadn't made polluters immune from tort prosecutions from the start of the industrial revolution. The steps taken in the 70s were marginally good, but they (1) were put in place to correct govt actions, and (2) cannot be rational or efficient.

And who determines what regulations are truly needed? You as dictator? A 50% popular vote? Our "representatives"? All of these choice mechanisms are flawed and are not able to reflect what level of regulation is truly "best". The only thing that can do that is a free market in regulation. A monopoly regulator just can't replicate the rationality of the market, where people's valuations of services determine their form and quantity of supply.

[Sematary]

I'd hate to see what our ecology would be like if govts hadn't made polluters immune from tort prosecutions from the start of the industrial revolution. The steps taken in the 70s were marginally good, but they (1) were put in place to correct govt actions, and (2) cannot be rational or efficient.

And who determines what regulations are truly needed? You as dictator? A 50% popular vote? Our "representatives"? All of these choice mechanisms are flawed and are not able to reflect what level of regulation is truly "best". The only thing that can do that is a free market in regulation. A monopoly regulator just can't replicate the rationality of the market, where people's valuations of services determine their form and quantity of supply.

I can't say for sure how the ecology would be if tort prosecutions hadn't been stopped but since I was there in the 70's and know how bad the ecology was, I can say for certain that some government regulation was and is necessary

[ctb619]

The OP needs to read 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask by Tom Woods.

[Brian4Liberty]

Who said anything about happiness?

The issue was wealth, and in terms of wealth, there can be no disputing that today's poor are wealthier than the poor 100 years ago were. Their wages also go a lot further than they used to.

And there's a reason for that:



Advances in technology are not necessarily a sign of wealth or happiness. And is having a government that provides free food, housing and medical care to the poor a good idea in the long run?
...
The main negotiating that takes place is not between the employer and employee, instead it's in a smoky backroom between corporatists and politicians. They decide how much the government will pitch in to make up for low wages. The results are free food, housing and medical care provided by the government...

[erowe1]

And there's a reason for that:

That reason being what?

And why does it matter?

If the claim being debated is that a widening gap between rich and poor is always bad for the poor, then I'd say that the evidence that the poor are still getting richer, despite the rich also getting richer, disproves that claim.

[Travlyr]

Who said anything about happiness?

The issue was wealth, and in terms of wealth, there can be no disputing that today's poor are wealthier than the poor 100 years ago were. Their wages also go a lot further than they used to.

I don't know about 100 years ago, but I know that one hour's work at the minimum wage of $1.60/hr bought me 5 gallons of gasoline in 1970. Today the minimum wage would have to be $18.25/hr to compare.

[erowe1]

I don't know about 100 years ago, but I know that one hours work at the minimum wage of $1.60/hr bought me 5 gallons of gasoline in 1970. Today the minimum wage would have to be $18.25/hr to compare.

Measuring changes in wealth by looking at how many hours it takes to buy something is a good way to go about this.

I don't think gas is the best example, since it would have taken you fewer hours to buy 5 gallons in 1970, more hours to buy 5 gallons in 1978, fewer hours to buy 5 gallons in 2000, and so on with the number constantly fluctuating.

But with most products, it takes fewer hours today to earn enough to buy the same thing it took more hours to buy in the past. That's one good way to show that the poor and middle-class are getting richer.

ETA: Here's the book mentioned in that Drew Carey vid I posted earlier. Supposedly it talks about precisely this metric of hours worked/item purchased.
http://www.amazon.com/Myths-Rich-Poor-Better-Think/dp/0465047831/

[Brian4Liberty]

Bachmann, Perry, Romney, Huntsman, Boehner, and Paul Ryan have the answer: increase income taxes!

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/397492/september-20-2011/the-word---death-and-taxes

[Brian4Liberty]

That reason being what?


Government subsidizing people.

[erowe1]

Government subsidizing people.

I don't buy that.

[Brian4Liberty]

I don't buy that.

You don't "buy" the fact that government provides goods and services for free to poor people, giving them a much higher standard of living than they would otherwise have?

[Sjmfury]

Make Lobbyists illegal on Capitol Hill.

[erowe1]

You don't "buy" the fact that government provides goods and services for free to poor people, giving them a much higher standard of living than they would otherwise have?

I don't buy the claim that the overall effect of government intervention is one that makes the poor better off. They're better off in spite of that, not because of it.

[Sematary]

Measuring changes in wealth by looking at how many hours it takes to buy something is a good way to go about this.

I don't think gas is the best example, since it would have taken you fewer hours to buy 5 gallons in 1970, more hours to buy 5 gallons in 1978, fewer hours to buy 5 gallons in 2000, and so on with the number constantly fluctuating.

But with most products, it takes fewer hours today to earn enough to buy the same thing it took more hours to buy in the past. That's one good way to show that the poor and middle-class are getting richer.

ETA: Here's the book mentioned in that Drew Carey vid I posted earlier. Supposedly it talks about precisely this metric of hours worked/item purchased.
http://www.amazon.com/Myths-Rich-Poor-Better-Think/dp/0465047831/

So using this as the metric I tested a true staple. Eggs.
in 1990 eggs cost 1.00
in 2011 they cost nearly 2.00 and more (depending on where you are I suppose).

Using a calculator I found through google those eggs to be "the same price" today would have to be $1.67

Now, that may be true in some areas and not in others. I think it depends on where you live. But I doubt you will find a better price than that in many places and will probably pay much more than in many others so based on that single staple and knowing that other staple foods have followed a similar trend I think the best that we can say is that in 20 years we either haven't made any progress or have lost some ground - pretty much what most of the research states.
Yes, consumer products have gotten less expensive thanks to modern manufacturing techniques and the plethora of low payed laborers in foreign nations who produce most of what we consume now but the basics - the stuff we actually need to live, have not gotten less expensive (gas is a good example). This calculator http://www.measuringworth.com/ppowerus/ says that at our current purchasing power for gas to be the same price (in relation to income) as in 1970 we would be paying $2.02 per gallon. And I know for a fact that nobody in THIS country is paying THAT price. Inflation at its best, I guess, but further evidence of the erosion of the middle class' purchasing power.

[mczerone]

Make Lobbyists illegal on Capitol Hill.

Impossible. As long as there is a power center, there will be lobbyists trading favors. Economically there is an argument that govt is better when lobbyists get free reign. But as long as there is a central monopoly on power, the results will be corrupt and repressive.

[Sematary]

Make Lobbyists illegal on Capitol Hill.

I interned in my statehouse one year. Not all lobbyists are high payed corporate shills and there is nothing inherently immoral or wrong with lobbying. The problem is the money, not the lobbying. Take the money out of the equation and politicians will probably do what is right once more.

[erowe1]

So using this as the metric I tested a true staple. Eggs.
in 1990 eggs cost 1.00
in 2011 they cost nearly 2.00 and more (depending on where you are I suppose).

Using a calculator I found through google those eggs to be "the same price" today would have to be $1.67

Which metric are you using? The metric of hours worked? Or the same price calculator you found on google?

I'm guessing the average person can buy more eggs for an hour's work now than they could in 1990.

If you use Trav's approach of going by the minimum wage, then the number of eggs per hour has stayed constant over that time frame, since the price of eggs has doubled, and so has the minimum wage.

[Sematary]

Which metric are you using? The metric of hours worked? Or the same price calculator you found on google?

I'm guessing the average person can buy more eggs for an hour's work now than they could in 1990.

If you use Trav's approach of going by the minimum wage, then the number of eggs per hour has stayed constant over that time frame, since the price of eggs has doubled, and so has the minimum wage.

That would make sense, since the minimum wage forces prices of goods to increase. Needless to say, I am against the minimum wage. I think it is one of those government programs that has actually increased the gap between the wealthy and the poor. And I agree with you on government subsidies to the poor as well. While individuals may have benefited by these programs, the overall impact has been negative as far as the wealth gap.
Who knows how many people have not worked because they didn't have to?
Who knows how many children have been born because it provided a financial benefit to their mothers/fathers?
Who knows what impact that last has had on the overall job market over the decades?
So, I agree with you that these programs are detrimental, although I do believe that a "temporary" safety net is desirable at times. Something you may or may not agree with.

[erowe1]

That would make sense, since the minimum wage forces prices of goods to increase.
No it doesn't.

[Sematary]

No it doesn't.

Of course it does. If an employer is required to pay a higher wage, then they will pass that cost on to their consumers.

[Sematary]

Do you generally disagree for the simple purpose of disagreement?

[erowe1]

Of course it does. If an employer is required to pay a higher wage, then they will pass that cost on to their consumers.

No. Inflation is because of more currency in the economy for the same amount of goods.

If the price of one good, such as labor, is artificially driven up, then there will be some other prices that also go up along with it, because their prices are dependent on that price. But there will be other prices that will be forced to go down to make up for it. The overall effect will be a change in the relative prices of different things, but total prices staying at the same level.

That employer you describe who's forced to pay more for labor will have less money left over to pay for capital, which will lower the demand for that capital, and hence its market price. They will try to mitigate that by hiking up the prices of the products they sell, but the same thing will happen there as well, as those products' prices go up, they will make other prices go down.

[erowe1]

Do you generally disagree for the simple purpose of disagreement?

No, if I disagree, it's because I honestly disagree.

[nbhadja]

The problem is that many people here blindly worship the rich. Most of the super rich are rich today from corporatism, lobbying, and the use of government force. I don't give a damn about big corps like Coke or billionaires like Bill Gates. They are thieves.

It is so funny to see people here educated in the fact that we have a corporatist system which is not free market at all, yet those same people are brainwashed as hell and will fight to death against a tax increase over a big CFR corporate like Coke and claim they earned it fair and square....then they will call taxing the corps that benefit from lobbying as stealing....I am sorry but taking your money back from theives is not stealing.

We are headed to a state where the government programs are going bankrupt, inflation is gonna get much worse, and the poor will be struggling to even get food in a few years....yet so many people here will go up in arms at the idea of raising taxes on billionaires (most of which got their wealth from lobbying)....oh the horror they will have to downgrade from a 150 million dollar yatch to a 65 million dollar yatch........how will they survive!

Let's make the poor pay their fair share....increase taxes on them so they have to sleep on the streets and live off of processed snacks from the dollar store....this way the billionares will be able to keep their 500 cars instead of having to sell off half of them!

[erowe1]

Most of the super rich are rich today from corporatism, lobbying, and the use of government force.
What's your basis for this claim?

[Seraphim]

You're wrong.

You don't tax them. You PROSECUTE THEM. If they have in fact stolen through said mechanisms, they should be jailed (The executives and politicians involved).

Just like any recession, from there, the company can restructure/rebrand. Raising their taxes is just another stupid band aid that does nothing to solve the underlying issues and, in fact, perpetuates the silly nonsense we endure today.



The problem is that many people here blindly worship the rich. Most of the super rich are rich today from corporatism, lobbying, and the use of government force. I don't give a damn about big corps like Coke or billionaires like Bill Gates. They are thieves.

It is so funny to see people here educated in the fact that we have a corporatist system which is not free market at all, yet those same people are brainwashed as hell and will fight to death against a tax increase over a big CFR corporate like Coke and claim they earned it fair and square....then they will call taxing the corps that benefit from lobbying as stealing....I am sorry but taking your money back from theives is not stealing.

We are headed to a state where the government programs are going bankrupt, inflation is gonna get much worse, and the poor will be struggling to even get food in a few years....yet so many people here will go up in arms at the idea of raising taxes on billionaires (most of which got their wealth from lobbying)....oh the horror they will have to downgrade from a 150 million dollar yatch to a 65 million dollar yatch........how will they survive!

Let's make the poor pay their fair share....increase taxes on them so they have to sleep on the streets and live off of processed snacks from the dollar store!

[nbhadja]

What's your basis for this claim?

I take it you have never heard of the word "lobbying" (health care bill which is flat out corporatist....or how about the other big drug corporatist bills....same with Big Ag...or big anything) and the term "Federal Reserve" (18 trillion dollars in emergency "loans" in the past 3 years to billion dollar banks and billion dollar corporations ring a bell?).

We have a corporatism system- no one can deny that. To act like the super rich here are that way from no lobbying is simply delusional.

Americans should steal every last penny from these corporatist monsters. The big businesses and the government are in bed with each other, as a result both the big businesses and the government are the same thing.

[erowe1]

I take it you have never heard of the word "lobbying" (health care bill which is flat out corporatist....or how about the other big drug corporatist bills....same with Big Ag...or big anything) and the term "Federal Reserve" (18 trillion dollars in emergency "loans" in the past 3 years to billion dollar banks and billion dollar corporations ring a bell?).

We have a corporatism system- no one can deny that. To act like the super rich here are that way from no lobbying is simply delusional.

Americans should steal every last penny from these corporatist monsters. The big businesses and the government are in bed with each other, as a result both the big businesses and the government are the same thing.

Yeah, I've heard of lobbying and the Federal Reserve. Now back to my question, what's your basis for your claim that "Most of the super rich are rich today from corporatism, lobbying, and the use of government force."?

Do you have any actual evidence for it? Or is it just something that fits your anti-corporatism rhetoric?

[nbhadja]

You're wrong.

You don't tax them. You PROSECUTE THEM. If they have in fact stolen through said mechanisms, they should be jailed (The executives and politicians involved).

Just like any recession, from there, the company can restructure/rebrand. Raising their taxes is just another stupid band aid that does nothing to solve the underlying issues and, in fact, perpetuates the silly nonsense we endure today.

Ideally yes, but they own the courts and would be impossible to prosecute. The top judges are carefully selected to be corporate shills. Example: try prosecuting Monsanto when one of the heads of the FDA is a former Monsanto corporate attorney.

[erowe1]

Ideally yes, but they own the courts and would be impossible to prosecute. The top judges are carefully selected to be corporate shills. Example: try prosecuting Monsanto when one of the heads of the FDA is a former Monsanto corporate attorney.

Who is this "they" you're talking about? You mean "the rich"?

[nbhadja]

Yeah, I've heard of lobbying and the Federal Reserve. Now back to my question, what's your basis for your claim that "Most of the super rich are rich today from corporatism, lobbying, and the use of government force."?

Do you have any actual evidence for it? Or is it just something that fits your anti-corporatism rhetoric?

18 trillion in corporate welfare to billion dollar banks and corps in the past 3 years- there you go.

Sitting there and ignoring the example I gave you does not make it so.

Look up any billion dollar corporation and you will find that most of them have taken advantage of this corporatist system.

Look at McDonalds for example- they take advantage of the FDA big agriculture corporatist laws that are passed to aid these big corporations and put the small farms at a disadvantage.

It is time we stop giving the corporations welfare and stop writing laws in their favor. In a real free market, the number of big corporations and billionaires would rapidly plummet.

[nbhadja]

Who is this "they" you're talking about? You mean "the rich"?

Yes they refers to the mega corporations. I gave you an example of the FDA board consisting of a powerful former Monsanto employee among many more employees with big time links to the big drug and big farm companies.

[erowe1]

18 trillion in corporate welfare to billion dollar banks and corps in the past 3 years- there you go.

I'm having trouble seeing how you think little factoids like this settle the argument. How does this prove that most (which is the word you used) rich people got rich that way?

[erowe1]

Yes they refers to the mega corporations. I gave you an example of the FDA board consisting of a powerful former Monsanto employee among many more employees with big time links to the big drug and big farm companies.

Which one is it? Is it the rich? Or is it mega corporations?

And even if it's mega-corporations, do you really believe that? Do you really think that the profits all those mega-corporations make have more to do with corporate welfare than with the products they sell?

[nbhadja]

I'm having trouble seeing how you think little factoids like this settle the argument. How does this prove that most (which is the word you used) rich people got rich that way?

Read all of the bills. NAFTA, CAFTA, the health care bill, the federal reserve, look at the history of Microsoft etc.....don't be naive. These mega corps run the country and make the laws.

They will use the government to destroy their free market competition. It is one giant collusion.

If you support most big businesses, you support government. There are a few exceptions to this though.

[Acala]

It is time we stop giving the corporations welfare and stop writing laws in their favor. .

Agreed.


In a real free market, the number of big corporations and billionaires would rapidly plummet.

If you do away with the laws that CREATED corporations in the first place, almost certainly true as to the former. As to the later, I don't know and I don't care. The fact that there are billionaires in the world and that I am not one of them bothers me not in the least so long as they are not using government to rig the system against me and steal my wealth and liberty.

Envy is not a sound basis for an economic system.

[nbhadja]

Which one is it? Is it the rich? Or is it mega corporations?

And even if it's mega-corporations, do you really believe that? Do you really think that the profits all those mega-corporations make have more to do with corporate welfare than with the products they sell?

The super rich and the mega corps are both the same. It does not matter what you call them.

Who cares what they sell when they use government force to eliminate their competition leaving them as the only viable alternatives.

It's just like how they ban cheap alternative medicine like the ozone therapy and they create fake information thru the FDA to make people ignorant on the real cause of disease or how they ban importing medicine from overseas, or how they ban free energy which would bankrupt Big oil, big energy, or how they ban hemp which would bankrupt big cotton, big wool etc. The ENTIRE system is one big corporatist hell hole.

Any profit big oil makes is invalid as they suppress free energy.

[erowe1]

Read all of the bills. NAFTA, CAFTA, the health care bill, the federal reserve, look at the history of Microsoft etc.....don't be naive. These mega corps run the country and make the laws.

They will use the government to destroy their free market competition. It is one giant collusion.

If you support most big businesses, you support government. There are a few exceptions to this though.

So Microsoft's profits are due more to corporate welfare than to the products they sell?

And you think that if I look at their balance sheet it will show this?

[Cutlerzzz]

The difference between the rich and poor is irrelevant. This is not a zero sum game.

[erowe1]

The difference between the rich and poor is irrelevant. This is not a zero sum game.

+1

[Keith and stuff]

I also believe in the free market but it seems to me that the free market is failing in this arena.

So what, within reason, can be done to jump start the middle class income again? And what can the market do to change the great divide between rich and poor? Or is there nothing that can be done as we watch more and more of our nation become poverty stricken and more and more of our middle class disappear?

What Free Market? NH is the freest state. Poverty is down in NH. NH as near the lowest taxes in the US. Voters in NH have as much as or more control over a larger amount of their taxes in NH than anywhere else in the US.

The solution, increase freedom in other states to make the laws in other states more like the laws in NH.
The solution for NH is to change the laws to bring even more freedom.

[Keith and stuff]

You're kidding, right? The poor have gotten richer? Not from where I sit. I'm not poor or rich but I guarantee, even with the full time job that I hold down and the two jobs my wife holds, that we have gotten nothing but less wealthy in the last decade or so.

It's true, overall in the US, even if poverty is growing, the poor are getting richer in many, many ways. They have access to an ever expanding variety of foods, even seasonal foods year around. They have access to an even expanding amount of recorded video programing and the prices are falling. They have access to an ever expanding amount of audio record programing and the prices are falling. They have access to an ever expanding amount of written news and entertainment and the prices are falling. They have access to an ever expanding amount of videogame content and the prices are falling.

Even with all of the regulation working against everyone, the average poor person in the US still has the ability to live a more enjoyable, easier, better life than the average poor person in the US 200, 150, 100, 50 or 25 years ago had the ability to live.

As for the vast middle class in the US, yes, in the last 10 years or so, wealthy is likely going down for the average person. But that isn't directly related to your questions.

[Cutlerzzz]

The problem is that many people here blindly worship the rich.

I think the problem here is many blindly hate corporations because of corporatism, and get caught up in the "corporate America vs the common man" debate, which is largely full of left wing talking points that are not based in reality. Most corporations and most small business's are good. Most of the "Robber Barrons" deserve credit for vastly improving our quality of life.

Yes, corporatism is awful, but blame for the state for that. Everyone, including the rich, the poor, the middle class, whites, blacks, immigrants, foreign nations, and just about every one you can think of, try to use the state to rob someone else to enrich themselves. Corporations are no different.

[Cutlerzzz]

Anyways, people need to look at this chart and watch that Reason video.

http://radicalnotes.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/comp.png

[Seraphim]

YES exactly.

The general commoner is no better. Vote for a politician who promises you free goodies? YOU ARE NO BETTER THAN THE CORPORATE WELFARE RECIPIENTS!

Thank you, Cutlerzzz.


I think the problem here is many blindly hate corporations because of corporatism, and get caught up in the "corporate America vs the common man" debate, which is largely full of left wing talking points that are not based in reality. Most corporations and most small business's are good. Most of the "Robber Barrons" deserve credit for vastly improving our quality of life.

Yes, corporatism is awful, but blame for the state for that. Everyone, including the rich, the poor, the middle class, whites, blacks, immigrants, foreign nations, and just about every one you can think of, try to use the state to rob someone else to enrich themselves. Corporations are no different.

[redbluepill]

Says who?

In the time that the rich have gotten richer, the poor have also gotten richer. So why should anyone care if the rich have gotten richer faster?

References please?

[puppetmaster]

I am starting a new business and the licenses I have to get and the regulations are stifling . start with that

[erowe1]

References please?
http://www.amazon.com/Myths-Rich-Poor-Better-Think/dp/0465047831/

[Xenophage]

All of those items you mention are great starts but the reality of the situation is that large corporations, their executives and the wealthy are retaining a larger and larger portion of the economic pie for themselves. Their employees are more and more frequently being required to work longer and harder without any additional pay increases. So to me, that would indicate that greed is the motivating factor in the increasingly deep divide between those who have and those who have not and those who have less. You can blame the government but that is the free market at work, not the government. The government is not forcing those employers to allow the real income of their employees to fall further and further behind.

The free market operates under the assumption that everyone is out to achieve the greatest personal benefit at the lowest personal cost. This goes for buyers as well as sellers, and for employees as well as employers. There's a basic moral premise involved: people have the right to be selfish. If you disagree with that moral premise, you will have an extremely difficult time with the notion of a free market. If you don't think people have the right to be selfish - and I mean *totally* selfish, as long as they engage one another by persuasion and mutual agreement - you will have a moral contradiction with the free market. When I say "free market" I mean "laissez faire." You'll come to the conclusion that you probably believe in *some* government regulation, ownership of production, etc., in order to curtail people's natural tendencies to be selfish and greedy. Maybe you think some selfishness is okay, but only in moderation.

If so, you should recognize that the acceptance of such a moral principle necessitates the sanction of physical violence. If someone is being greedy, you will have to threaten to shoot them, beat them with clubs, burn them on a stake or throw them in jail in order to force them to act the way you want them to. That is the essence of government. Every law, no matter how seemingly trivial, from seatbelt laws to an obscure code regulating how many workers you can hire each month, is backed by the same threat of force as every other law: Pay a fine, or go to jail. Resist arrest and die.

You can make people more equal by beating down the top, but you cannot elevate society that way. Is your goal, in eliminating or controlling selfishness and greed, to improve the plight of the poor man, or simply to bring down the rich man? Equality, or progress? The two goals are mutually exclusive, which I'll demonstrate briefly, so you can't have it both ways.

When two people, motivated by greed, trade an item for money, the net result is more than a simple transfer of wealth. Neither party would consent to such a trade unless they believed that they were obtaining greater value in exchange for what they gave up. A person who buys a car values the car more than the money they paid for it, and the person who sells the car values the money more than they value the car. Since economic value is completely subjective, both parties have mutually *increased* their wealth. This is why people in capitalist countries are said to "make money." Both parties have become wealthier, by their own subjective standards of value.

The same is true of employers and employees. Neither party would consent to the employment arrangement unless each considered that it would get more out of the arrangement than it cost them. The employee values their money more than their time and energy, and the employer values the employee's time and energy more than they value the money. If the money is too low, the employee won't value it more than their time and energy, and if the money is too high, the employer won't value the time and energy more than the money. Simple equations. The bottom line is: By working somewhere, you are not only increasing your personal wealth, but you are also increasing the wealth of the company. In this way, your productive achievements are added to the net wealth of an entire society.

Observe then, that the wealthy person who trades with the poor person becomes richer, and so does the poor person! IN FACT: This is the *only* manner in which wealth has ever or will ever be created, and it is the *only* manner in which the poor can elevate their standards of living. Why? Because all material human values have to come from *productive achievement.* The food you eat, the clothes you wear, the bed you sleep in, the movies you watch, the video games you play are all the result of someone, somewhere exercising their rational mind in conjunction with an expenditure of time and energy to produce that item for the sole purpose of being SELFISH and GREEDY, so they could trade it with someone else and increase their personal wealth.

Rational minds, producing and achieving great things, do not operate nearly as well when they have a gun pointed at them. Rational minds do not sanction their own victimization. Rational minds do not sacrifice the values that keep them alive in the name of mystical, irrational morality that holds that someone's *need* holds a claim upon the lives and energy of the people around them.

Ultimately, in a capitalist society there will be individuals whose personal achievements are greater than the vast majority of the rest of the population, and if they are wise with their money their wealth will accumulate to untold levels. They'll leave the rest of society in their wake. But in that wake, the rest of society will have been dragged along. From the modest day laborer to the poorest of the poor, they will have seen their personal wealth grow leaps and bounds beyond where they might have been, and where they would have been if they had attempted to stamp out the producers with laws and regulations and guns and taxes.

But this is all contingent! I've painted a picture of something that doesn't exist, because there is no completely free market in the world, and the poor people are not the only people who can use government force! The rich can do it too, and perhaps more effectively, even when they're significantly outnumbered in a democracy. We see it today, when the fat cat Wallstreet bankers get their bailouts, when the large mega corporations attempt to monopolize markets by abusing patent laws and advocating costly regulatory measures that prevent smaller start-ups from getting ahead or even forming. This is one source of the income disparity you see today. Inflation that wipes out the middle class, regulations that destroy the small investor. The poor can't get jobs in this country, but the big corporations don't have any problem finding cheap labor. They simply go overseas or import their workers through special visa programs.

So there you have it: when you get the government involved in the marketplace you end up with corporatism or socialism. It's hard to argue that either is any worse than the other, or even that terribly different, and they're essentially based on the same fallacy: that might makes right.

We need to free ourselves from each other. We need to end coercion, not create it. We need to progress together, not stagnate equally.

We need liberty.

[HOLLYWOOD]

It's damn taxes that nickle and dime everyone to death. http://www.clearpictureonline.com/1960-US%20State%20Health.html

Raising taxes, especially income/payroll taxes are the real issue. Doing so would put any economy at risk. We need only examine how states with the highest income tax rates perform relative to their zero-income tax counterparts. Comparing the nine states with the highest tax rates on earned income to the nine states with no income tax shows how high tax rates weaken economic performance. There's 11 states where income taxes were adopted over the past 50 years are: Connecticut (1991), New Jersey (1976), Ohio (1971), Rhode Island (1971), Pennsylvania (1971), Maine (1969), Illinois (1969), Nebraska (1967), Michigan (1967), Indiana (1963) and West Virginia (1961). State taxes have risen across the board and MANY exponentially of the last 50 years. So where someone says we need to let the Bush Tax Cuts expire, don't realize how much at all levels taxes have increased elsewhere in government attack on the earners.

Each and every state that introduced an income tax saw its share of total U.S. output decline. Some of the states, like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio, have become fiscal basket cases. Even West Virginia, which was poor to begin with, got relatively poorer after adopting a state income tax. The states that have high income tax rates or have adopted a state income tax over the past 50 years haven't even gotten the money return they hoped for. They haven't avoided budget crises, nor have they provided better lives for the poor. The financial travails of California which was given Billions just to cover their debt from the stimulus bailout did nothing to help the situation, with the inception of prolonging an even greater collapse down the road.

Over the past decade, the nine states with the highest tax rates have experienced tax revenue growth of 74%—a full 22% less than the states with no income tax. Why on earth would you want to introduce a state income tax when it means less money for state coffers? What's true for those states with the highest tax rates is doubly true for the 11 states that have instituted state income taxes over the past 50 years. They too have lost huge sums of tax revenue. A final thought for those who want to punish the rich for their success: those states with the highest tax rates, and those states that have introduced state income taxes, have seen standards of living (personal income per capita) substantially under perform compared to their no-tax counterparts. Those state look for other methods to raise revenue, such as an increases in property taxes, sale taxes, excise taxes, etc.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/index.cfm

In 1960, only the first $4,800 of income was taxed — and at a rate of just 3%. Social Security tax rate is more than twice as high, 6.2 percent, and the first $106,800 of earned income is taxed. (The amount subject to taxation goes up every year, using a formula based on increases in average wages.)
Another reason the payroll tax burden today is heavier than it was in 1960 is that 50 years ago there was no Medicare — and thus no Medicare tax (that didn’t arrive until 1966.)


Workers in 1960 didn’t have to pay the 1.45 percent Medicare tax which workers pay today. And that Medicare tax applies to all earned income, not just to the first $106,800, as the Social Security tax does.

or how about the new 3.8% Medicare tax on real estate transactions on those set levels by team Obama of $250K/$125K ea joint or $200 individual

AMT tax? Inflation imposed this tax on 122 EARNERS that paid $0 in taxes on $200K, which now is affecting ~19 millions of taxpayers each year. Government never seems to adjust for inflation, let alone true inflation, which is their scheme to control the tax year to year.

It's the Ever Widening Gap Between the Taxpayers and Government... government at all levels have exceeded both the true inflation and worker wage rates over the past 50 years reduce the taxpayer's standard of living. Some references before Obama's prosperity debt of $4+ Trillion in 3 fiscal years. 1960-2008

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a361/mzcmdr/1960_State_Local_Gov_Costs.pnghttp://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a361/mzcmdr/1960_Federal_Gov_Costs_Today.png

[virgil47]

There are millions upon millions of people in this country who work their tales off at thankless jobs on a daily basis. They are have seen their life savings eradicated by a stock market that is at the mercy of those who can afford to move millions of shares in an instant. They have gone without raises or with raises that don't keep up with inflation for decades now. How are they not deserving?
Do any of you who are spouting this stuff believe that greed at the highest levels plays any part in the overflowing levels of poverty or in the decimation of the middle class?
I am absolutely positive, as are most of you, that government and fed policy have had negative impacts on the middle class and the poor (especially where inflation is involved) but that isn't the only problem and it is not helpful to pretend that it is.

Are you suggesting hard core socialism or even communism are the solutions to our difficulties? I certainly hope not as those systems simply do not work as well as the one we have.

[traviskicks]

I guess I'm a little befuddled on this issue. All you have to do is look at the news (middle class incomes down) (wealthy Americans are wealthier) (More people in poverty) etc... etc...
So what can be done about the disconnect?
I have NEVER subscribed to the trickle down economic theory of Reagan, etc... and I still don't. It's total bs. It is a
fallacy that has been proven wrong time and time again.

I also believe in the free market but it seems to me that the free market is failing in this arena.

So what, within reason, can be done to jump start the middle class income again? And what can the market do to change the great divide between rich and poor? Or is there nothing that can be done as we watch more and more of our nation become poverty stricken and more and more of our middle class disappear?

FYI:

http://www.neoperspectives.com/gapgraph.jpg

[Seraphim]

Our concern as a society is not what the gap between the rich and poor is.

The concern is opening the market place up so that the poor can escape poverty by the merit of their own minds and hands.

Collectivism sucks. Class warfare and "class'ism" are counter productive.

What matters is: "Can the poor escape poverty, if they so choose?". If the answer is yes; poverty is virtually irrelevant.

[Sematary]

The difference between the rich and the poor is completely relevant. In a healthy society everyone benefits economically. In societies where the wealthy benefit in a manner which far outweighs their value and leaves the rest of society in economic hardship, revolution ensues.

[Sematary]

Our concern as a society is not what the gap between the rich and poor is.

The concern is opening the market place up so that the poor can escape poverty by the merit of their own minds and hands.

Collectivism sucks. Class warfare and "class'ism" are counter productive.

What matters is: "Can the poor escape poverty, if they so choose?". If the answer is yes; poverty is virtually irrelevant.

So do you believe the conditions exist for the poverty stricken to escape from their predicament? I do not.

[Sematary]

FYI:

http://www.neoperspectives.com/gapgraph.jpg

So the top 1% of Americans controlling almost all of the wealth in the nation is good? I'm not buying that. I think the middle class controlling a larger proportion of the wealth is better.

[Seraphim]

I do not either (insufficient opportunity).

With that being said, overall, when looked at from a multi century perspective, the poor have more opportunity then ever (globally).

The USA is taking steps backwards. Has been for decades.


So do you believe the conditions exist for the poverty stricken to escape from their predicament? I do not.

[-C-]

Personally I think most people's definition of wealth is a monetarist one. The only way poverty will be defeated is if the productive capacity, measured in tons, per capita of the entire planet is raised, this requires a higher energy flux density than we're capable of now. I don't suppose free trade is going to do anything for anyone. The so-called "Invisible Hand' is no more merciful than that of Uncle Sam's. The Free Market and Government both rape and pillage the people of Sovereign Nation States. However, the Government, at least in the US, is "chartered" to look after the people's interest, I wont disagree that it fails at abiding by it's Charter. However I wont agree that the free market has not caused just as much war, death, and looting as collective Governments.

Its Monetary Imperialism folks, it isn't new.